YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

COMMENTARY

BOOK OF DANIEL.

BT
MOSES STUART,

LATELY PROP. OF SACKED LITEKATUKE IN THE THEOL. SEMINAKY
AT ANDOVEK.

BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BT CROCKER & BREWSTE^
1850.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1850, by
CROCKER & BREWSTER,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

ANDOVEK: JOHN D. FLAGG,
9TEREOTTPER AND PRINTER.

PREFACE.

While engaged in writing my Commentary on the Apocalypse,
I found myself ao often remitted to the book of Daniel, for the sake
of illustration, that I of necessity was obliged to study that book
with more than ordinary care and diligence. It was natural for
me, in the course of an often repeated study of the book, to contract
a fondness for it, or at least to take a deep interest in it. When I
had completed my apocalyptic labors, and acquitted myself of some
engagements which followed them, I began the study of Daniel
anew, and with a view to the writing of a Commentary on it. The
labor was severe ; for very much has been written upon the book,
a considerable portion of which has much more of chaflF than of
wheat in it. Just as I had completed the exegetical part of my
work, a typhoid fever took strong hold upon me, and brought me
near to the grave. For two years and six months it was utterly
beyond my power to write another paragraph. Toward the close
of January last, I began slowly to mend, and after a while I ven
tured to resume my labor. But for several weeks subsequent to
this, I could not venture beyond the effort of studying an hour in
a day. The opening Spring brought some further relief ; and thus
I have been able to complete my original design.
In this personal history the public, I am aware, can take but
little interest. But it has so often been published, in one way and

PREFACE.

another, that I was about to print a Commentary on the book in
question, that I have deemed it not inapposite to state the ground
of my delay.
As to the book of Daniel itself, I believe that no other of the
scriptural books, the Apocalypse excepted, has called forth such a
variety of discrepant opinions and interpretations. How can I
agree with all of them ? And yet the great mass of readers are
ready to say, each one for himself, that I ought to agree with him.
But why ? my friend. You take the liberty to differ from others ;
and why should you refuse the same liberty to me ? Besides, I
have to ask: On what grounds have you based your opinion?
Have you studied the book in its original languages ; sought for
light on every side, from history, and from antiquities ; and above
all, have you thoroughly and simply applied to it, irrespective of any
favorite and preconceived notions about it, the established principles
of historico-grammatical exegesis ? And do you even know, with
any certainty, what those principles are ? If not, how much is
your opinion worth, even in your own eyes, when you look candidly
at such a difficult matter as the interpretation of the book before
us ?
If here and there a self-complacent critic of my Commentary on
the Apocalypse, had asked himself such questions, before he sat
down to write his diatribe, the public would have been spared a
deal of a priori interpretation and spider-web theories. . Some had
written their book, on the same work of John, and mine disagreed
with it. Sine illae lacrymae. Some had read that profound work
of Bishop Newton on the Prophecies ; and because I did not agree
with him, I must be in the wrong. The most confident of my con
demning judges were, of course, those who could not read a word
of the original, and would not be able to form any idea what one
means, who talks about historico-grammatical interpretation., I
have no defence to make against any such assailants.
What happened then, may and probably will happen now. I
have not come to the conclusion, that Daniel has said, or knew, any

PREFACE.

thing about the Pope and his Cardinals. This will be enough to
pass sentence of condemnation. Bo manus. I can have no dis
pute with criticism like this. Of all the books in the Bible, except
perhaps the Apocalypse, Daniel has been least understood, and
most perverted and abused. I will bide my time, and wait with
patience to see, whether this will be conceded and myself justified
in the attempt to vindicate its true meaning.
For the rest, I have only a few things to say, as to the design
and manner of the Commentary. I have kept in my eye, every
where, the wants of a beginner in the study of Hebrew, and spe
cially of the Chaldee. For the Chaldee part, the book is, as I trust,
a complete Chrestomathy, i. e. it gives the solution of every diffi
culty respecting the forms and the syntax of words. The reader
may depend on its being a sufficient introduction to the grammati
cal study of the Chaldee language. The references everywhere
made in copious abundance to Prof. Hackett's translation of Wi
ner's Chaldee Grammar, will familiarize him, if he is faithful in
consulting that Grammar, with all the forms and peculiarities of the
Chaldee dialect. All the Chaldee words are of course comprised
in Gesenius' Hebrew Lexicon.
The few in our country, who are acquainted with the Chaldee,
will take no offence at a brief space being occupied with the solution
of grammatical questions. They can pass on and leave these,
without any hinderance. If they once have studied the language,
and let slip the memory of grammatical minutiae, they will thank
me for rendering it quite easy for them to recal what they had
lost. Most heartily do I commend it to all Hebrew students, to go on
and study the Chaldee. If they are well grounded" in Hebrew,
four or five weeks spent faithfully on the Chaldee, will enable them
to read this with as much facility as they do the Hebrew. The
study of the Chaldee in Daniel, will be sufficient to enable them to
read the Chaldee in Ezra with entire ease ; and from him they may
go into the Chaldee Targums without any difficulty. The conquest

VI PREFACE.
is easy, and ought to be achieved by every valiant soldier of the
Cross. Should the present volume prepare the way for a more extensive
Study of one of the sacred languages in our country, by young
candidates for the ministry, the writer of it will not have labored
in vain.
M. STUART.
Audoveb, May 24, 1850.

CONTENTS

OF SUBJECTS SPECIALLY DISCUSSED.

Commentary.

Excursus.

furnace

Chronological errors
Alleged error in respect to dates
The Chaldees ....
Nebuchadnezzar's golden image
The names of musical instruments
The demeanor of the three martyrs in the
Nebuchadnezzar's proclamation
The Watchers and the Holy Ones
Great Babylon built by Nebuchadnezzar
Various alleged incongruities in chap. iv.
Alleged incongruities in chap. v.
Alleged incongruities in chap. vi.
The four great empires in chap. vii. seq.
The fourth beast ....
The punishment of the fourth beast .
Time, and times, and the dividing of time
The 2300 evening-mornings
Various modes in which the four dynasties are described
The fasting of Daniel, and the nature of the seventy weeks
The seven weeks and sixty-two weeks of 9: 25
The winged-fowl of abominations in 9: 27
The various modes of interpreting 9: 24 — 27
Conspectus of the Hebrew in 9: 24 — 27, and five translations
The guardian angels of nations
The general resurrection as developed in 12: 2

Page. 19
32 34 74
82 88 96
103 114
119 141
170 173205213 223
238 249251
273 297
303 309
324 360

vu1 contents.
Critical History and Defence.
§ 1. Personal history of Daniel  573
§ 2. Nature and Design of the Book  381
§ 3. Style and aesthetical Character  392
§ 4. Language and Idiom  "95
§ 5. Unity of the Book or sameness of Authorship . • • 398
§ 6. Genuineness and Authenticity  400
§ 7. Objections against the Genuineness, etc  459
§ 8. Ancient Versions of the Book of Daniel . . • .489
§ 9. Apocryphal additions to Daniel ...... 493
§ 10. Leading Commentaries and critical Disquisitions . . 494

COMMENTARY.

[Chap. i. Early history of Daniel. Siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchad
nezzar, capture of Jehoiakim, and deportation of a part of the vessels of the
temple to Babylon ; vs. 1, 2. Daniel with some of his companions is se
lected by the king's overseer to be trained up in the Chaldee manner, for
the personal service of the king ; Babylonish names are given to the young
Hebrews, and they are supported from the king's table, vs. 3 — 7 ; Daniel
makes earnest request that he and his companions may have liberty to adopt
a simple vegetable diet, so that they may not defile themselves with the
royal viands ; he obtains liberty, and thrives remarkably well under his new
regimen; vs. 8 — 16. All four of the Hebrew children make unusual pro
gress in knowledge ; but Daniel is endowed by God with uncommon sagacity
and knowledge, and becomes able to interpret visions and dreams ; v. 17.
At the end of three years, Daniel and his companions are brought before the
king, and they are found to be far more intelligent and sagacious than any
of the Chaldean astrologers; vs. 18 — 20. The 21st verse contains an indi
cation of Daniel's long continuance at court, even until the restoration of
the Hebrews to Palestine, during the first year of Cyrus's reign. In other
words, Daniel, in person, was a witness to the beginning and end of the
Jewish exile.J
Chap. I. 1. In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, came
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon to Jerusalem, and besieged it.
Biiia nauia , lit. in the year of three. This is the usual method of ex
pressing time in this book ; see 1: 21. 2: 1. 7: 1 (Chald.). 8: 1. 9: 1. So
frequently elsewhere; e. g. 2 K. 12: 2. 13: 1. 15: L.al. The Hebrew
usually employs cardinal numbers (1 — 10) for ordinals, when years or
days are reckoned, Roed. Heb. Gramm. § 118, 4. e.g. the construct form
of the noun designating year, etc. (as in the case before us), is often em
ployed; comp. Gramm. § 118, 4. — wsbab , of the reign, the Gen. in
such a case being ordinarily marked by prefixing 1? , when it is preceded
by numerals ; Roed. Gramm. § 113. 2. c. — i-rtlrT; , first the name of
Jacob's oldest son, and (after the exile) employed also for the name of the
1

2 Chap. I. 2.
Jewish country ; as it is here. — S3 came. Hengstenberg (Aufhent.
Dan. p. 61) translates it zog, i. e. proceeded, or set out, viz. upon an expe
dition. But the sequel {and besieged if) shows, that the usual sense of
S3 (= gQiofiai) must here be attached to the word ; and so I have ren
dered it in the version above — The name issjnsias is probably com
posed of 1'Si = Mercury, who was worshipped by the Babylonians,
,jl Ji&. {chodan) = deus, and lb = prince, i. e. the name means
prince of the god Mho, or Mercury, i. e. belonging to him, and so of high
rank. — is*1 (either Imperf. Hiph. of the root Tns , or the Imperf. Kal
of lis , the Pattah of the final syllable being adopted because of the
final 1, Roed. Gr. § 22. 2. a and 5. Moreover, a shortened Imperf.
and a retracted accent are normal here, Gramm.* § 48. b., 2. b. The bs
(with Suff. it becomes •&$) lit. means against ; but here it qualifies the
preceding verb, and the construction resembles Isa. 7: 1, ft^bs onfen .
is is usually found after this verb in the sense of besieging ; Lex. "lis
No. 2. (the more probable stem.)
(2) And the Lord gave into his hand Jehoiakim king of Judah and a part of the
vessels of the house of God, and he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house
of his god, and the vessels he carried to the treasure house of his god.
i*na , into or in his hand, very frequently employed by the Hebrews
to designate the idea of putting in one's power or at his disposal. As to
the fact of the invasion itself, comp. 2 K. 24: 1. — Pxpa , a part of,
(nap is an abridged form of r.x^p = n«^p , from nap) . It is disputed
whether a is a. prefix-formative here or a preposition. I regard it as being
the latter, i. e. as derived from ¦a , the Daghesh which we should expect
in the p being omitted, because it would make the Sheva vocal under this
letter in case of its insertion ; Gr. § 20. 3. b. This usage of omitting
Daghesh in such cases, is not unfrequent. Comp. the same word, although
with a sense somewhat diverse, in Dan. 1: 15, 18. Here the form is the
same, and a is unquestionably a" preposition in both these cases. So in
Neh. 7: 70, comp. Ps. 135: 7. In 2 Chron. 36: 7, the same idea as here is
expressed simply by "tea , a part of the vessels, instead of "^3 FiXpa as
in our text. But the passage in 2 Chron., I cannot well doubt, describes
the second invasion of Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, at the close of Je-
hoiakim's reign, when this king was put in chains to be carried to Babylon,
and probably died in this condition, Jer. 22: 18, 19. 36: 30. Still the
occasion and the transaction are of the like nature with those which per-

* This abridged mode of citation always applies to my edition of Eoediger's He
brew Grammar.

Chap. I. 2. 3
tain to the first invasion. At the first invasion, Nebuchadnezzar, who
made Jehoiakim the Jewish king tributary to him, rifled the temple of
only apart of its treasures ; at the second, he took away another portion
of them, 2 Chron. 36: 7. At the third, he repeated the same thing on a
more extensive scale, 2 K. 24: 13. At the fourth and final invasion un
der Zedekiah, when the temple was destroyed, all its treasure's were car
ried away, together with king Zedekiah, his family, and his court, 2 K.
25: 6 — 20. A part of these treasures were brought back under Cyrus,
Ezra 1: 7 ; and the rest under Darius, Ezra G: 5.
DXia^ and he brought them — who ? where ? The vessels and Jehoia
kim, (for the verb of itself with its suffix might easily have this meaning),
or only the vessels ? The latter only, as the sequel shows ; for surely he
did not bring Jehoiakim and put him in the treasure-house of his god.
As the actual coming of Jehoiakim to Babylon is not here mentioned, it
is probable that he died on the way, after he was taken captive and bound
in fetters, 2 Chron. 36: 6 ; see and comp. Jer. 22: 18, 19. 36: 30. —
Land of Shinar is the old name for the province of Babylon ; see in Gen.
10: 10. 11: 2. Isa. 11: 11. Zech. 5: 11, the last two cases seem to be a
kind of poetic use. The origin of the name has not yet been developed.
— And the same vessels did he bring to the house of his god, is a literal
rendering of the last part of the verse. As to the version above, we may
render the second soari by deposited, (Sept. dnriptlaaro, safely conveyed
or carried), which will preserve the sense, and avoid a seeming tau
tology in case we here render it brought. In fact, N">3n often means intro
duced, elayegeiv (Sept.), and corresponds to Din*l , and he put or deposited
them, in 2 Chron. 36: 7. The writer first designates, generally, the depor
tation of a part of the vessels to Babylon, and then he names the particu
lar locality where they were there deposited. He had special reasons for
so doing, in reference to a part of his subsequent history ; see Dan. 5: 3,
4, 23. Besides, the clause in question leads us to see, that the vessels were
in safe keeping, and that Nebuchadnezzar's motive was probably to make
acceptable presents (dvad-i'^iara, as the Greeks called them in such cases),
to his god Belns — ¦ a thank-offering for the victories he had won, and at
the same time an evidence of his glorying that Belus was more powerful
than the God of the Hebrews. The famous temple of Belus, at Babylon,
is known to all. That the vessels were put into the treasure-house
shows, moreover, both the precaution taken for their safe-keeping and
the value attached to them. All the temples of antiquity had treasure-
houses, from which the priests were supported; see Num. 31: 48 — 54.
Josh. 6: 19. Comp. Mai. 3: 10. Neh. 13: 5, 12, 13.

4 Chap. I. 3.
As to the time of the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, neither Kings, Chron.,
or Jeremiah give any date ; but the facts recorded by Berosus show, that it
could not be later than the time named in v. 1, for it was not possible to
subdue all those countries in less than two years. That the frst year of Nebu
chadnezzar was the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 25: 1. 46: 2), does notcon-
tradiet this ; for the Jews of Palestine (not Daniel) reckoned Nebuchadnez
zar's first« year as beginning with his mission upon the western invasion,
and a small part of that year fell in with the closing part of Jehoiakim's third
year, while probably the greatest part of that first year corresponded to the
fourth year of Jehoiakim. For the full discussion of these disputed matters,
and justification of this statement, I must refer the reader to the Excursus
at the close of Chap. I.
(3) And the king commanded Ashpenaz, the chief of his eunuchs, to bring some
of the sons if Lrael, both of the royal seed and of the nobles,
The phrase b TCN'i mean6 to command; see in Esth. 1: 17. 4: 13. 9: 14.
1 Chron. 21: 17 ; mostly in the later Hebrew. Sometimes last has this
sense before a verb Imperf. with i conversive, and even before the Ace.
This meaning is the usual one in Arabic ; and very frequent in the Chal
dee, see Dan. 2: 12, 46. 3: 13, 19, 20. 4: 23. 6: 24. — Ashpenaz has been
the subject of many conjectural etymologies ; but none of them are satis
factory. — The chief of the eunuchs. In the later Hebrew, ai (originally
much or great) is equivalent to ~i'V , prince or praefect ; in Chaldee, this is
the usual sense of the word as a noun, e. g. in Rab-shakeh, Rab-saris,
Rab-mag, etc. In the N.Test. qa§§i, (our present Rabbi), seems specially
to designate a leader in teaching. As to "fbi'io (with Qamets under b ,
sometimes treated as mutable and sometimes as immutable), there is ev
ery probability that the translation here given {eunuchs) is the true one.
The oixovojioi of an oriental king had charge of his household, including
his Harem and all his house servants, the male part of which of course
were eunuchs. To such an one would belong the training up of servants
who were to be the personal waiters of the king. That young persons of
royal descent and of noble families should be chosen for such a service,
is altogether in accordance with the pride and haughtiness of the Baby
lonian king, and the customs of the East. The proud title, king of kings,
carries with it the implication that kings are servants of the great monarch.
That young lads should be chosen for such a service, was almost a matter
of course. They could easily become acquainted with the language and
the customs of the court, and were specially capable of great personal ac
tivity. In some passages (see Ges. Lex.) it is difficult to say, whether
the original idea O-no (from bib ^sa^& , castravit) is retained ; e. g.
Gen. 37: 36. 39: 1. At all events, the leading sense occasionally is

Chap. I. 4, 5
courtier or court-officer. Among oriental kings, their greatest confidants
have been of this class of persons. In the Turkish court, the Kislar Aga
is an officer of the like kind. Comp. n";3ii 31 in Esth. 1:8. — J^arib , to
bring, i. e. carry or convey, viz. from Jerusalem to Babylon. So C. B.
Mich, and Ros. ; but Lengerke understands the command as having re
spect to captives already arrived at Babylon. But if this were the case,
why not employ nnpb to take, rather than frfon to convey ? Yet in the
particular sense of bringing them into the place of their training, this view
of Leng. might be admitted.
Sons of Israel = Israelites, i. e. posterity of Jacob or Israel. This was
the first meaning ; the second was the ten tribes, who revolted with Jero
boam ; and after the exile, the name was again used in its primitive sense,
as it is here. The sequel designates the narrow limits of the choice to
be made by Ashpenaz. That ijm is employed to designate some of the
sons, is agreeable to common usage ; see Ges. Lex. fa . — Both of the
royal seed and of the nobles. Such a translation makes this clause an
epexegetical limitation of the preceding expression. C. B. Mich, makes
three classes, by interpreting the three classes as coordinate ; and so Ro-
senm. This is a possible, but not a probable, interpretation. — ns^arj "^ta ,
lit. seed of the kingdom or of the kingly power, i. e. of royal descent ; see
the same idiom (which belongs to the later Hebrew) in 2 K. 25: 25. Jer.
41: 1. Ezek. 17: 13. — D.i»PpB!i , a word of foreign origin, Pehlvi par-
dom, Sanscrit prathama — primores, magnates, nobles. The Greek nga-
tog seems to be, originally, of the same origin. The word receives the
form of the Heb. plural here; as transplanted words frequently do.
Good is the version of Josephus (Archaeol. X. 10. 1), rovg svyF.veazd-
xovg ; so Polychronius, rav svysvwv. Comp. in this the fulfilment of Isa.
39: 7. The whole transaction is strictly in accordance with oriental
customs. (4) Young lads, in whom was no blemish, and of goodly appearance, and skilled
in every kind of wisdom, and acquainted with knowledge, and discerning in science,
and who were able to stand in waiting at the palace of the king ; and to teach them
the writing and the language of the Chaldees.
The word d.i'ii"1 is, in our English version, translated children. Of
itself it does not determine the age ; and it may be rendered boys, youth,
or young lads, as above. The Persians began education, properly so
called, at the age of fourteen, (Plat. Alcib. I. § 37) ; and the young man's
age of action was seventeen, (Cyrop. I. 2). In all probability, the He
brew lads in question were some twelve to fifteen years of age, when
selected. The noun a^b* is in the Ace, and depends on the Inf. 603r& ;
"' 1*

6 Chap. I. 4.
which latter depends on last's] . This shows that the Soph Pasuq ( : )
does not always divide the verses according to the sense or grammatical
construction ; comp. 2 Sam. 17: 27—29, where is a notable example of a
similar nature. No blemish, etc. ; such a custom still pervades the East,
e. g. in the Turkish and Persian courts, as to the selection of personal
servants. Everything is required to be beautiful or magnificent, which
surrounds the person of the king, nw = ma = Greek fiwjiog, which
has the same sense. — ntt-ia lait!] , lit. goodly of appearance, Gramm.
§ 110, 2. — Boston, Part. Hiph., but divested of its causative sense, in
case we translate it skilled, intelligent ; but if we revert to the original
signification of the root {to look), we may see that it is used elliptically
in Hiphil = causing [the mind] to look or attend to, and as a consequence
skilled. — nasn , wisdom, is of widely extended meaning in Hebrew, im
porting (in its largest sense) a knowledge of all things, i. e. of what is
true respecting them, and here employed as nearly equivalent to our
English word learning. — ni"! is-p] , Part. Const, pi. Gramm. § 132, 1.5/
acquainted with knowledge is a repetition of the preceding idea in another
form, for the sake of intensity. So also is it with the clause, discerning
in science ; iJ'Oa importing properly the power of discriminating be
tween things, or of discerning their properties and relations. Construc
tion as before. This accumulation of different phrases nearly equivalent
in meaning, is after the common usage of the Hebrews, and plainly, as
has been remarked, is intended to designate intensity of expression, be
ing equivalent to the simple declaration, skilled in knowledge of every
kind. — n3 , lit. strength, force, here ability, power. — IJssb , standing was
the position of waiters in readiness to do their master's will. Hence the
secondary sense of the verb las, viz. serve, minister to, Ges. Lex. s. v.
I. a. Usually it is followed, in such cases, by "O&i before, joined with
the designation of the person served, as in v. 5. — bai.n , palace, i. e. a
large magnificent building ; which corresponds to the Arabic verb J^ClSC ,
to be great or lofty. The word is properly generic, and so may designate
a palace, or (as often) the temple of Jehovah. — B'lHbbsi , and to teach them,
which falls back, as to construction, upon the *rax*i of v. 3 ; for Ashpe
naz was charged with the education of the Jewish lads. — iSb , lit. writ
ing. The accent .( Tiphhd) separates it from the sequel, and shows that
the Punctators took it as not in the const, state before Difltas (implied),
but as standing by itself, and meaning books or literature. This is made
probable by I?b"i33 in v. 17, which cannot mean merely every kind of
alphabetic characters, but every kind of literature. Gesenius (in Lex.)
understands it as meaning the written characters of the Chaldee ; and
this, at first view, seems the most facile interpretation ; but v. 17 appears

Chap. I. 5. 7
plainly to modify it. — The tongue of the Ghaldees is differently interpreted.
Lengerke says it designates the proper language of the original barba
rian Chaldees from northern Mesopotamia ; and Maurer (Coram, in loc.)
appears inclined to this, and also llavernick (Comm.). Also Winer
(Chald. Gramm. p. 15, English version, ed. Hackett) seems disposed to
think favorably of it. But in Dan. 2: 4, the Chaldees address Nebu
chadnezzar in Aramaean (rfis'iN), and he replies in the same tongue.
It would seem, therefore, to be the court language of that period. Comp.
2 Kings 18: 26. Isa. 36: 11. Ezra 4: 7, where the same appellation oc
curs. That it should here be called the tongue of the Chaldees is natu
ral enough, since the court was principally made up of Chaldeans. That
the Chaldees, in their original and barbarous state, (provided we admit
that those northern barbarians had emigrated into Babylonia), had a
written language, is very improbable. Rabshakeh, the commander of
the Assyrian forces, addressed the Jewish courtiers in Hebrew, (Isa. 36:
11) ; and he is invited by them to speak in Aramaean. That the court
of Nebuchadnezzar spoke the same language, Dan. 2: 4 seq. shows. But
the young Jewish lads in question, probably were not acquainted with it
so early in life as when they went into exile. Hence it was necessary
that they should be taught it. That it was a written language, would
appear from 13b being connected with it, in our text. With Ros. in
loc, Ges. and Hitzig on Isa. 36: 11, and C. B. Michaelis (Comm. in
Hagiog.), I deem it most probable, that the same language, i. e. Ara
maean- Chaldee, is meant here, as in Dan. 2: 4.
(5) And the king assigned to them a daily allowance from the delicate viands of
the king and from the wine which he drank, and that they should be nurtured three
years, and after the close of them that they should stand in waiting before the king.
la1!] , Imperf. Piel of STO, Gramm. § 74. Note 9. — Bii -\tt , lit. the
thing of a day, i. e. quotidianum, something belonging to the day ; which
is made still more specific by iaiia , on each day, lit. during its day ; see
Luke 11: 3, to xa{f ^fiegav. The English expression, used in the ver
sion above, gives the exact idea of the whole phrase. So the Hebrews
say : riiba nib = each year ; BS>BS DS>B = cfnce as before or one time as
another, etc. — 53nBa is evidently a foreign word, the meaning of which
is probably given in the translation. The most facile etymology seems
to be the old Persian sb t>L (pad-bah) father's meat, i. e. king's food,
and so it designates figuratively delicate viands, costly bits, or choice
food. This agrees well with the other passages where the word is em
ployed, viz. in vs. 8, 13, 15, 16. 11: 26; and also with the Syriac
j^p^ls , as employed by Ephrem Syrus (I. 382 F. 423 A.), and by

8 Chap. 1 5.
Bar Hebraeus (p. 331), to designate dainties, luxurious food. So Gese-
nius, Winer (in Lex.), Van Bohlen (Symb. ad interp. SS. e ling. Pers.),
Rosenm., Maurer, and Lengerke (Comm.) ; but Lorsbach (Archiv. etc.
II. s. 312 f.) prefers the etymology from «yi»J {pot) idol and sb {bah)
food; to which Havernick and Fiirst (Concord. Heb.) give their hearty
assent. But the context (see v. 8, specially v. 10, where J>3N» is substi
tuted for JSria , with vs. 13, 15, 16) shows that the ordinary food of the
king is assigned to the young Hebrews, and not merely such food as is
presented to idols, on feast-days appropriate to the honoring of them.
Of course, the former sense is preferable.
Very different conclusions are drawn from this passage, in respect to the alleged
demeanor of Daniel. Lengerke (Comm.) and others argue, that it was only during
the Maccabaean times that such superstition about food existed among the Jews,
and therefore that the author of the book drew his views from that source, and must
have lived at that time ; while Havernick and others, urging the view of Lorsbach as
to etymology, strenuously vindicate the conduct of Daniel on the ground of avoiding
participation in idolatrous feasts. Both parties seem to have made too much of the
matter. Daniel needs no other vindication than the perusal of Lev. 11:4 seq. 20:
25, and the consideration, that oftentimes the king's choice food would not only con
sist of animals forbidden to the Jews, but also that not unfrequently what had been
presented before idols would be furnished for him. The same was the case with his
wine. Of course, as conscientious Jews, Daniel and his companions were bound to
avoid eating it indiscriminately, if it was in their power to shun it. Such demeanor
was peculiar to no age, as it respected sincere disciples of Moses. To represent such
abstinence as a grave argument for the composition of the book so late as the time of
the Maccabees (so Lengerke), is little short of trifling. Even if Daniel's conduct was
tinctured with superstition, was there no case of this nature before the time of the
Maccabees ?
The -a before 3303 means (as often elsewhere) some of, a portion of;
and so also before the following •p? . — linaja , lit. of his drinking, i. e.
what he drank. The noun is sing., although it appears to have a plur.
suffix ; for in nouns from roots fV? , the original third radical (i) often
returns before a suffix, when the noun is in the singular, and gives it the
appearance of a plural ; Gramm. § 91, 9, in Note. — eb^abl , lit. to
grow them, or to make them grow large ; hence to educate or nurture them.
— Three years, the Ace. of time, Gramm. §116, 2. For the plural d"TO with
a numeral, § 118, 2. — D!?^i?n ) from or after the termination of them, viz.
the years ; Dag. forte omitted in the p , § 20, 3. b. — siias^ , as before,
stand in waiting ; for the form of the vowels, see § 62. 3. This verb
also depends on yqy at the beginning of the verse ; so that we have here,
first an Ace. case, then an Inf., and lastly a verb in the Subj. ; all de
pendent on the same verb. Such changes in the construction of a sen-

Chap. I. 6—8. 9
tence, i. e. such a mixture of different constructions after the same verb,
are not uncommon in the Hebrew; comp. Isa. 32: 6.
(6) And there were among them some of the sons of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah.
These names, like all other proper names in Hebrew, are significant.
But I need not repeat here what the reader will find in his Lexicon.
What the writer designs to say is, that while there was a number of Jew
ish captives, those named were selected from them, as having something
in their appearance that was promising or prepossessing.
(7) And the chief of the eunuchs assigned names to them : to Daniel he assigned
Belteshazzar ; and to Hananiah, Shadrach ; and to Mishael, Meshach ; and to Aza
riah, Abed-nego.
These new names also are significant ; and the Lexicon sufficiently
develops their probable etymology. A custom, like this, of imposing
new names when persons entered upon a new condition or new relations
in life, is extensively developed in the 0. Test. : see Abram and Abra
ham, Gen. 17: 5; Joseph and Zaphnath-Paaneah, Gen. 41: 45 ; comp.
2 Sam. 12: 24, 25. 2 K 23: 34. 24: 17 (a case in which Nebuchadnez
zar was concerned). Esth. 2: 7. Ez. 5: 14 comp. with Hag. 1: 14. 2: 2,
21. So in N. Test. : Mark 3: 16, 17. These names, thus imposed anew,
generally designate something which is intended to honor the persons
who receive them, or to honor the god that is worshipped by him who
imposes them, or to commemorate some event that is interesting, etc.
Thus Belteshazzar =prince of Bel, i. e. a prince to whom Bel is regarded
as propitious, or to whom the giver of the name wishes Bel to be propi
tious, etc. — Of iJ5 no satisfactory explanation has yet been given. We
have no knowledge, from any other quarter, of such a divinity among the
Babylonians ; but we find i33 , i. e. the planet Mercury, in many names.
Gesenius supposes is.2 to stand for i33. C. B. Michaelis conjectures that
the word comes from Mi to shine, so that it means the splendid one. This
conjecture seems plausible.
(8) And Daniel anxiously sought that he might not defile himself with the deli
cate viands of the king and with the wine which he drank, and he made request of
the chief of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.
1'ab-bs . . . Dto's'i , lit. put it to his heart = the English took it to heart,
i. e. was anxious, solicitous, concerned ; Ges. Lex. UVO 2. h. For the
form of the' verb, see § 71. n. 7. — lies , conj. that ; see Lex. B. — For
the form of bxanri (Hithp.), see § 63, 3. — 'nnsia as above, in the sing.
— bxan1! , in Pause, § 29, 4. a. The probable ground of this request
may be found in the precepts recorded in Lev. 11: 4 seq. 20: 25.

10 Chap. I. 9, 10.
(9) And God made Daniel an object of kindness and compassion before the chief
of the eunuchs. (Lit. God gave Daniel to kindness, etc.)
¦ft.]] , § 65, 2.— The article before B^rVbst is designed to be emphatic,
the God, viz. of the Hebrews, or the only true God. — *ibtib etc. to kind
ness, etc., the literal form of expression we cannot successfully imitate in
the English language. In the later Hebrew, b stands not unfrequently
(see Lex.) before the Ace. ; and verbs of giving govern two Accusatives,
§ 136, 2. But here, this is not a probable solution of the construction.
— tyb , before or in the view of, referring to the person from whom the
kindness proceeded.
(10) And the chief of the eunuchs said to Daniel : I fear my master the king, who
hath appointed your food and your drink; for why should he see your countenances
sad, more than [the countenances] of the lads who are of your age, and you thus
make me forfeit my head to the king ?
lost*] , § 67, 1. — so; Part. § 49, 2. a, § 131, 2. a, § 132, 1. a. —
WIS , sing., different from Wit or WSt , which are in the plur. with suff.
— BSinbo , sing, again, as in v. 5, although the suff. appears to belong
to a plur. noun ; see in § 91, 9. — nai iisst , for why; see ivjst in Deut.
3: 24. Judg. 9: 17. and Lex. B. 3. ; also VrafeiB in Cant. 1: 7. Gesenius
O 7 T T V
and Lengerke render the two words as = ne, connecting the clause thus :
I fear . . . lest he should see, etc., and they compare the Syriac |i*^? ,
lest, that not, and the Syr., Chald., Ar., ] 2so ? sto , Lo , ne, lest, not.
The sense of the passage is well enough developed by this interpre
tation, but not the shape of the phraseology. Doubtless nab is em
ployed in questions that are tantamount to a negative or prohibition ;
but there is no need, in any case, of directly assuming the negative as the
meaning of rrab . Comp. moreover Neh. 6: 3. Ecc. 5: 5. 7: 16, 17.
Rosenm. and Maurer defend the meaning first given. • — B^S>/t, Part., sad,
tetricus, i. e. gloomy, sour, = ay.v&Qcond, Matt. 6: 16. The idea of scowl
ing, whether from anger or suffering, seems to be the true literal notion
affixed to the word. — Before bi^ri there is an implied repetition of
i3B {face), which breviloquence here omits ; see the like in the Chaldee
of 4: 13, 30. — db!?i55) , lit. according to your age, i. e. your contempo
raries, or those of the same age. bi& properly means orbis, a circle ;
and hence, both in Heb. and Arabic, age, ysvsd. The secondary meaning
of the word {exultation) would be inappropriate here. — bna*rj] , from asm,
and forming a regular Piel, §71,7; lit. and so ye will make guilty my head,
etc. The word ibsn may have either a literal or a tropical sense. In
the former case, the whole phrase means what the translation above ex
presses. Lengerke renders the verb by verwirket, i. e. forfeit. The idea

Chap. I. 11, 12. 11
is, that he would be exposed to decapitation, or to strangulation. The
tropical sense would be : Endanger my life ; for bstl may be used in
such a sense, 1 Sam. 29: 4 ; and so head is used with us.
(11) And Daniel said to Meltsar, whom the chief of the eunuchs had appointed
over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah ;
na^Hr] , probably a word from the old Persian, yuXja , praefectus
... '
wit, i. e. butler or steward, the derivation being from a foreign source
like that of many other names in this book. Most, probably all, of the
proper names were originally appellatives ; and hence their significance.
In the present case, the name of office seems to go over into, or to be
used as, a kind of proper name ; as is often the case with us. It might be
rendered chief butler or steward ; for the article prefixed to it seems to
indicate such a meaning, inasmuch as the article is not usually prefixed to
strictly proper names, § 108. 1. It would seem, from this verse, that the
care of the young Hebrews, in respect to nutriment, was assigned by Ashpe
naz, the head master of the king's household, appropriately to the steward ;
who in the present case was addressed by Daniel, because he sustained
this office. What was said by Daniel (last'*]) is related in the next verse ;
so that the division of the verses here by a Soph Pasuq is inappropriate,
because the next verse properly constitutes the Ace. after the verb just
named. (12) Make trial now of thy servants, for ten days ; and let them give us of the
vegetables that we may eat, and water that we may drink.
05 , Imper. Piel of rib3 , § 48, 5. § 74. n. 9. — st5 , now or 1 pray
thee, intensive, i. e. increasing the energy of the request. ¦ — Thy servants,
i. e. the speaker uses the third person plural, in describing himself and
his companions, instead of the first person, us. Such was the usual mode
of courteous address to superiors, among the Hebrews, inasmuch as they
avoided the use of Zand thou in addresses of this nature ; Ges. Lehrgeb.
p. 742. — Ten days, Ace. of time, § 116, 2. On the special import of ten,
see remarks on v. 20 below. — sian*] , § 65, 2, lit. and let them give,
§ 125, 3. c ; no definite subject to the verb being mentioned, it may be
rendered either in the passive = let there be given, or in the active = let
some give, § 134. 3. b. — '(O of, or some of see Lex. — BisHin , lit. things
sowed, i. e. vegetables in this case, such as pulse, lentiles, salads, etc. (not
bread-corn) ; with the article, § 107, n. 1. b. — i"&2St'5] , § 48, 3. ] that
conj., § 152. 1, e. — B]a omits the "a before it, § 151, 4, or else there is
a change of construction. It omits the article also, as unnecessary for the
sake of distinction. In the preceding case, the class of [eatable] vegeta-

12 Chap. I. 13—15.
bles is adverted to, by employing the article. Such occurrences as to
the use and omission of the article before nouns apparently in the same
predicament, are not unfrequent ; see Ps. 104: 18. 105: 18. 10/: 4.
4, 6. 117: 1. 118: 8, 9. 121: 6. 125: 4, etc.
(13) And let our countenance and the countenance of the young lads who eat the
delicate viands of the king be inspected before thee, and according to what thou shalt
see, deal with thy servants.
1SCM , Niph. Imperf. of nso ; plur., because both irsoa and the fol
lowing nsoa are the subjects of the verb. Plainly nsna is sing, in both
cases, § 91,' 9. The H before B^ast is a relative demonstrative = who,
§ 107 (at the beginning). — nst-m -ibsta] , not (with most translators), as
it shall seem good (Sept. y.a&wg iav dting), but according to that which
thou mayest see, i. e. according to our appearance. So Theodotion : xai
xa&a? iav tdtjg. The final vowel here in nst-in {Tsere, and not the nor
mal Seghol), is plainly after the analogy of the Aramaean, § 74. n. 17.—
t^t? = ms' as m v- 1^-
(14) And he hearkened to them in respect to this matter, and he made trial of
them ten days.
In isflb , the article is so specific that it approaches very near to the
demonstrative ; as in Di^ri . — The demonst. n»n renders still more in
tensive the specification. — ta^ , § 74, n. 19, Piel Imperf. of dbj with
suffix. (15) And after the close of ten days their countenance appeared fairer, and [they
were] fuller in flesh, than all the lads who ate the delicate viands of the king.
nspa as in v. 5. lit. the cutting off, and so it may mean part or portion
as in v. 2, or end, close, as in v. 5 and here. The fem. ending fi- has a
Qamets immutable ; § 79. n. 2. b. § 84. V. 13. Dagh. in p omitted as be
fore in v. 5. — nsni , sing, (and so also the subject of this verb, viz. the fol
lowing Brpstio , which the sing. 3ia plainly shows), lit. showed itself '= ap
peared, itoa ifcp'nasi , § 110, 2. The pronoun Bn they were (§ 119. 2),
is implied here after iba , and seems to be omitted because the preced
ing noun has it, and so it might easily be supplied. iSti-13 lit. fat; the
more comely mode of expression among us employs full, in such cases.
I have translated fuller, because the 'ft which follows, shows that the
adjective is to be understood in the comparative sense, § 117, 1. This in
fluence of *(q extends back also to ait: , and so we may translate fairer.
The Part. BibistH appropriately denotes continued action, and such a
Part, is of any tense demanded by the context ; § 131, 1.

Chap. I. 16, 17. 13
(1G) And Meltsar took away their delicious viands and the wine which they drank,
and gavo them vegetables.
Stilh, Part. = the Lat. Imperf. when joined (as here) with rrri , § 131,
2. c ; took away, removed, Lex. s. v. 2. d. — briinba , lit. the wine of their
drinking ; sing, as before. — "nil as stub above, n]h] being implied, de
noting continued or repeated action in the past, like the Greek and Latin
Imperfect. (17) And those four lads — to them God gave knowledge and intelligence in
every kind of learning and wisdom ; moreover, Daniel understood every kind of vision
and dreams.
Heb. lit. ,4s to those lads, the four of them, being in the case abs. here ;
§ 142, 2. BRS3"]St , § 118, 1. c, in apposition here with the preceding noun,
and epexegetical. See the like construction of the numeral in Ezek . 1
8, 10. 10: 10, 12. — ^abri , Inf. Hiph. nominascens, i. e. it is used here
as a noun in the Ace. § 128, 1. — IBS learning, see v. 4. As it has no
article, and is preceded by b'S , the whole phrase designates every kind of
learning. — -naan as in v. 4. bson], the Fay here stands before a clause
designating some contrast or distinction, which is also implied in our Eng
lish moreover, i. e. something more may be said of Daniel, who is here
distinguished from his fellows by some additional endowment. — "p3n
(Hiph.), although it has often a causative sense = teach, instruct, i. e.
make to know, here, like Kal, means scivit, intellexit ; see in Lex.
Nearly the exact sense is given in the version above. The meaning is,
that Daniel was able to discern or distinguish (the proper sense of pa)
the import of every kind of vision and of dreams ; but according to Heb.
usage, "]itn is applied only to a prophetic vision divinely sent, i. e. to
something seen in a kind of supernatural ecstasy ; comp. Dan. 8: 1, 2, 13.
9: 24. nia'^n , on the other hand, may of itself mean any kind of dream ;
but its connection here with liin shows it to be the intention of the writer
to include only such dreams as are of the like character with prophetic
visions. Jacob's dream, Gen. 28: 12 — 16; Joseph's dreams, Gen. 37:
5 — 11; Pharaoh's dream, Gen. 41:1 seq. ; the dream of the Midianitish
soldier, Judg. 7: 13 — 15 ; Nebuchadnezzar's in Dan. ii., iv. ; Daniel's in
Dan. vii., etc. ; seem to be all of the character here intended. The seem
ing visions of a disordered brain, or the fugitive and ordinary dreams
that proceed merely from a disturbed state of the physical system, can
not properly be supposed to come within the writer's design ; for this
would be merely to compare Daniel with the ovsiqoaxonog or ovsiqo-
cpavzog of the heathen, and therefore it would not exhibit anything of im
portance in which this young Hebrew exceeded his companions. Nor
2

14 Chap. I. 18.
can it be said that the Hebrews, who so often appeal to the fugitive, un
substantial, and trifling character of ordinary dreams, did not distinguish
between them and such ones as the context bids us to suppose in the
present case. , "jiTn is something seen by the mind iv ixavdoei, whether
in a sleeping or waking condition of the body ; while flibq is something
which the mind conceives, while the body is asleep ; and in cases like
that before us, something conceived of by virtue of impressions from a
superior power.
In reviewing the disclosures made by the narrative contained in vs. 12 — 17, it
seems plain, that the writer meant to exhibit the thriving state of the lads upon their
slender diet, as a special blessing of Providence upon their pious resolution ; for so, in
view of the Mosaic prescriptions, it would seem that it ought to be called. Yet it is
not certain that the writer intends their thrift to be regarded by his readers as strictly
miraculous. Certainly in a climate so excessively hot as that of Babylon, a vegetable
diet, for many months in the year, would be better adapted to occasion fairness of
countenance and fulness of flesh, than a luxurious diet of various highly seasoned
meats. That the God of heaven rewarded the pious resolution and the persevering
abstinence of the Jewish lads, lies upon the face of the narrative; and this is a truth
adapted to useful admonition, specially to the Jews who dwelt among the heathen,
and were under strong temptations to transgress the Mosaic laws. The uncommon
and extraordinary powers, which were conferred upon those young Hebrews, are
placed in such a light, as to show that their peculiar gifts were the consequence of
their pious resolution and firmness.
(18) And at the end of the days, when the king had commanded to present them,
then did the chief of the eunuchs present them before Nebuchadnezzar.
fiapai =rap yab, Dagh.forte being omitted in the p; see under v.2.
Gesenius (in Lex.) says that lab = b ]a , and moreover that it is equiva
lent to 'a in signification. For substance this is true ; for "a and b both
are used, separately, to mark the terminus a quo of time, and when combined
they would seem to have merely an augmented force. More minutely
examined, however, b = at a particular time, i.e. the time in which this
or that is done ; while la marks the terminus from which one begins to
count the doing. Strictly considered, the combination 'ftb unites the two
ideas of at and from. Lit. we might translate thus : at from the close,
i. e. at the time from which the close is reckoned. In v. 5 above, the
same word occurs without the b . It is easy, however, to see that the b
in the present case gives additional significancy to the expression. —
"ibst when, as often elsewhere, i. e. in which time, in relation to the pre
ceding designation of time. — last had commanded, see in v. 3 for this
sense, and for Pluperf. § 124, 2. — BS031;] , then brought he them, Gramm.
p. 99, 2d par. comp. § 152. B. 1. It is' in the Imperf. form with the
usual suff. B- ; on the other hand, the preceding Inf. (apparently of

Chap. I. 19, 20. 15
the like form) fakes the suff. b- , see Par. of Inf. p. 292. These suf
fixes refer not merely to Daniel and his three particular friends, but to
all the Jewish lads (see in v. 19) whom the king had originally com
manded to select ; see vs. 3 and 6, which show that there were others
besides these. The subsequent distinction that had been made, was the
work of Ashpenaz and his subordinate, and was not originally required
by the king.
(13) And the king communed with them, and there was not found, among them
all, the like to Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah ; and (hey stood in waiting
before the king.
Stsaa s&, there was not found, impers., § 134, 2. — bfeaa , -a , out of,
here = among, as rendered above. The B- plainly relates to the whole
company of Hebrew lads, as mentioned above. — 3 the like to, prep.,
see § 151, 3. f The king, by his own personal examination, fixed upon
the very individuals as his personal waiters, whom Providence had dis
tinguished by peculiar gifts which rendered them superior to the other
children. (20) And as to everything [which was] matter of intelligent wisdom, concerning
which the king made inquiry of them, he found them ten times superior to all the
sacred scribes [and] the enchanters who were in all his kingdom.
bb is not in the const, here, but in the case absolute ; for the const.
would demand a short vowel, bo (Kol). la^J , etc., is in apposition with bb
and exegetical of it. The Heb. omits, as very often, the itiist , which
would make the second clause a relative one, and idiomatically prefers
simple apposition. Lit. the second clause runs thus : matter of wisdom
of intelligence or of distinguishing. But nasn is put as const, before na^a ,
while the latter qualifies the former by taking the place of an adjective,
§ 104, 1. For the meaning of naan, see in v. 4; and hjia specifically
applies to the discerning and discretive powers of the mind, i. e. to those
powers which make distinctions between different things, and thus ar
rive at accuracy of knowledge. By separating these two words, and
putting and between them, (as nearly all the versions do), the intensity
of the description here is destroyed ; for the writer means to characterize
the highest degree of acute discernment in matters abstruse and difficult.
lost is properly the Ace. governed by nigs , but I have conformed the
translation more to our English idiom, by introducing a preposition be
fore it. — BStsa^i , with a Vav consec. before an after-clause or apodosis ;
Lex. 1. e. Gramm. p. 238. second N. B. a. The ] might be rendered so ;
but our idiom rather rejects such a construction, and omits any particular
sign of the apodosis. — Ten times, nilj = parts, portions, quasi handfuls.

16 Chap. I. 20.
This we express by the word times, hs lit. above = superior to. —
Sacred scribes, Bisra^nn , like to the jQaauareTg of the N. Test. It
seems evident that the word is from a-in stylus or pen, with the forma
tive B- , as in Bii-tB from SYiB , and the like. So pen-men would be a
literal translation. It designates, however, those who were busied with
books and writing, and skilled in them ; and designates priests or sacred
scribes, because literature was confined almost entirely to such. To de
rive it from a"in and B'nn , or to go to the Persian, as some have done
(see Lex.), seems to be far-fetched. The word occurs often in Gen. and
Ex. (see Lex.) ; and therefore a Persian origin is quite improbable. —
BiBirstn , the enchanters, asyndic, i. e. without any 1 (conjunction) before
it. Is it in apposition, therefore, with the preceding word ? This circum
stance looks rather like it; but a comparison of the usage of this writer
as to the omission of ] , as well as the nature of the case, rather leads us
to doubt in respect to apposition, comp. 5: 15, and also 2: 27, 45, where
some four or five different nouns are grouped together, without any con
junction between them. Still, apposition might be admitted there, if
Dan. 2: 2 did not decide against it, for there the two words plainly belong
to two different classes. See on 2: 2.
The number ten which is associated in this verse with nii^ times or
portions, is in unison with the custom of the Hebrews, who employed
this definite number in cases where an indefinite number not inconsid
erable was required.* In such a connection as in our text, ten is found
in Gen. 31: 7, 41. Num. 14: 22. Neh. 4: 12. Job. 19: 3. The reader,
who will take the pains to examine the examples throughout (and these
are not all), will learn that the number ten may be classed with three
and seven, as to the frequency with which it is employed by the sacred
writers, in a kind of symbolical rather than literal sense. At times there
may be difficulty in determining the question, whether ten is to be taken
simply in a numerical way, or whether it is only a symbol of a moderate
but not inconsiderable number. In the connection above, however, as
ten is not compared with any greater number, but by implication only
with a unit, it means an excess above that unit which is large. That
the ten days of trial mentioned in v. 12, has a tacit reference to the cus
tom of employing ten as already stated, there can hardly be room for
doubt.

* See, for example, Gen. 18: 32. 24: 10, 22. 32: 15. Ex. 26: 1. 27: 12. Lev. 26:
26. Num. 11: 32. 29: 23. Josh. 21: 5. Judg. 6: 27. 17: 10. 20: 10. Euth 4: 2. 1 Sam.
1: 3. 17: 17. 25: 5. 2 Sam. 18: 11. 19: 43. 1 Kings 7: 24, 27, 38. 11: 31. 14: 3. 2
Kings 5: 5. 2 Chron. 4: 7. Neh. 11: 1. Ecc. 7: 19. Isa. 5: 10. Dan. 7: 7. Amos 5: 3.
6: 9. Zech. 8: 23. Matt. 25: 1. Luke 15: 8. 19: 13. Bev. 12: 3. 13: 1. 17: 3, 7, 12, 16-

Chap. I. 21. 17
(21 ) And Daniel was until the first year of Cyrus the King.
And Daniel was — what ? A question answered differently by differ
ent critics. One class, taking iH]] as a verb absolute, translate lived or
remained. The difficulty with this interpretation is, that ri]n to be nearly
always differs from !"nn to live. The latter is opposed to nua to die ; the
former to y]St there is not; see in Acts 17: 28, Zcouev xal xtvov[is&a
xal idfie'v, where the first and last verbs plainly have a different im
port. In fact, I can find no passage where rm is employed directly in
the simple sense of living. It is indeed sometimes used absolutely, and
not as a mere copula ; in which case it means simply existed or came
into existence, Gen. 1: 3. 2: 5 ; or (with a little variation) was made or
formed= came into existence, as in Gen. 1: 6. Isa. 66: 2, and so ysyovi-
vat in Heb. 11: 3. In very many cases, with a little more variation, it
means accidit, it came to pass, happened, etc. = the xa\ iys'vsro of the
N. Test. ; see Lex. But neither of the meanings just given suit the case
before us. Other usual meanings of ii^ti are connected with it as a cop
ula, and serve to express that he or it was something, or was for some
person or thing, or was in some place or condition. There is an instance,
however, in Jer. 1: 3, where iri]] is employed exactly as in the present
case, and is followed by is {until) before a limitation of time, as here.
The case in Jeremiah is one which seems quite plain, and the analogy
between that case and the present seems to be so striking as to make
out a very strong probability, if not a certainty, of meaning in respect to
ifi]i . In Jer. 1: 1, 2, the statement is made, that the word of the Lord
came to Jeremiah in the 13th year of Josiah's reign. V. 3 plainly de
clares, that Jeremiah continued to receive the word of the Lord until
the 11th year of Zedekiah's reign and the captivity of the Jews. But
this declaration is made, as ih Dan. 1: 21, simply by if]]] prefixed to the
verse, after which follows merely a designation of time. Just so in our
text. Of course, if]]] has respect to some person or thing, or to both,
which is mentioned in the preceding verse. In Jer. 1: 3, the reference
is to the prophet and to the word of the Lord before mentioned, so that
the meaning is plain. And the like in Dan. 1: 21. The preceding con
text exhibits Daniel as possessed of rtiia riaan ten times more than that
of the sacred scribes and enchanters; and verse 17 attaches to his wis
dom the power of interpreting dreams and visious. V. 21, then, declares
that this Daniel, preeminent for wisdom and skill, was, or rather contin
ued to be, until the first year of Cyrus. Comp. the like force of iari in
Acts 17: 28. 1 Cor. 7: 7, 26. 2 Cor. 13: 5. The history of Daniel ex
hibits this. Shortly before Cyrus' reign, we find him in presence of
Belshazzar, interpreting the hand-writing on the wall. Under Darius
2*

18 Chap. I. 21.
the Mede, he was made head of the princes, " because an excellent spirit
was in him," Dan. 6: 3. It appears, indeed, that for a time he was neg
lected by the Babylonish king. Dan. 5: 11—13. But the urn] before us has
respect more to the qualities of Daniel, than to the constant tenure of his
court-offices. In this way the meaning seems to be plain, although the
idiom is not a usual one. The case in Jer. is surely plain ; is not the
present one equally so ? J. D. Michaelis, Hezel, and Bleek, explain
thus : " Daniel was in Babylon, and in such relations." The words in
italic are necessary, in their view, to explain the it]]] ¦ But as this idea
is virtually implied in the whole connection of the sentence, it is unne
cessary to supply it otherwise. I need only add, that the first year of Cy
rus is named, because then the Babylonish monarchy ceased, and of
course the relations of Daniel to it ; and then the Jews were freed from
exile, and Daniel survived so as to see the end as well as the beginning
of it. Hence the designation of it in our text, as a period specially to
be marked in respect to the condition and the hopes of Daniel. It is as
much as to say : ' Daniel, as conversant with matters that pertained to
wisdom and learning, lived to see the joyful day of Jewish freedom.
The earliest in exile, ' he still lived to see the end of it.' Those who as
sail the credit of the book of Daniel, have not failed to make out a diffi
culty here. First, they render ifi]] he lived, just as if it were in]] .
Next, they allege that the import of v. 21 is, that Daniel lived only until
the first year of Cyrus's reign. Lastly they assert, that 6: 29, which de
clares that " Daniel prospered in the reign of Cyrus," is a contradiction
of 1: 21. The first assertion, as we have seen, is not correct. The
second is palpably without ground. In the case of Jeremiah, to whom
the word of the Lord is said to have come, from the time of Josiah to
the captivity, we are certain, from the book itself, that he frequently
prophesied after this period. And so it might have been with Daniel, if
he lived (as he did, see 10: 1), after the first year of Cyrus's reign. A
terminus ad quern surely does not exclude all beyond it. If I say to a
friend : " Farewell until my return from a journey," I do not mean that
I wish him no prosperity after this. When the Messiah, in Ps. 110, is
bidden to sit at the right hand of God until his enemies are made his
footstool, the meaning is not that his seat shall then be vacated. As to
6: 29, Daniel may have prospered in Cyrus's reign, even in case he died
near the close of the first year; which, however, did not happen, 10: 1.
Nothing can be made out of these objections.

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.

19

Excursus I. — On the alleged discrepancy between Daniel 1: 1 and Jer.
25: 1, and some other passages.

The charge of historical incorrectness against the writer of the book of
Daniel, rests partly upon some dates of time, and partly upon some histori
cal occurrences. I shall first examine the allegation of error in respect to
the designation of time.
In Dan. 1: 1 it is said, that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up
against Jerusalem, besieged it, took Jehoiakim captive, and rifled the tem
ple of a part of its furniture, in the third year of Jehoiakim. In Jer. 25: 1
it is explicitly said, that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign was the
fourth year of Jehoiakim's. Moreover, in Jer. 46: 2 it is said that king
Nebuchadnezzar smote Carchemish on the Euphrates, then in possession of
« Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt, in the same fourth year of Jehoiakim. Tak
ing all these passages into view, it is alleged that the writer of the book of
Daniel could not have lived in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, when the true
date of the invasion of Palestine by that king must necessarily have been
well known ; but at a subsequent period, when the chronology of these
events was more obscure, and when he might be misled by erring tradition.
That period is placed, by most of the recent critics belonging to the so-
called liberal School, near to the close of the Maceabaean times, with the
history of which, as they aver, the book of Daniel concludes.
As this has been, of late, an almost uniform assertion among critics of
the new School, and has been placed in the front rank of objections against
the genuineness of the book of Daniel, it becomes necessary to give it an
< attentive examination. Lengerke says of it, in his recent Commentary on
this book, that " all attempts to remove this objection have to the present
hour been frustrated. . . . Not only is the date wrong, but the deportation
[of captives] under Jehoiakim remains at least unproved ;" p. 2 seq.
The documents which must guide our inquiries, are a fragment of Bero-
sus (preserved by Josephus), and several brief passages in the Hebrew
Scriptures. These are all the historical data on which we can place any re
liance. All subsequent testimony is either a mere repetition of these, or a
constructive exegesis of them, or if not, it is mere conjecture. In respect
to the original documents, we have evidently the same right of interpreta
tion as Abydenus, Megasthenes, Josephus, Eusebius, and others had. The
native Greek historians, whose works are now extant, make no mention at
all of Nebuchadnezzar ; consequently, Josephus's quotations from the ori
ental writers, and the historical notices comprised in the Hebrew Scrip
tures, are all on which we can place any dependance as legitimate sources
of testimony. These consist of the following particulars.

No. I. — The king of Egypt, Pharaoh-
Necho, after having slain Josiah, and de
posed his successor, Jehoahaz, made Elia-
kim (surnamed Jehoiakim)., the son of
Josiah, king over the Hebrews, and treat
ed him as a tributary vassal ; 2 Kings 23:

29 — 37. The sacred writer then proceeds
thus, in 2 Kings 24: 1 : "In his days came
up Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon ; and
Jehoiakim became his servant three years;
then lie turned and rebelled against him.
(2) And Jehovah sent against him bands

20

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.

of the Chaldees, and bands of Syria, and
hands of Moab, and bands of the sons of
Ammon ; yea, he sent them against Judah
to destroy him ; according to the word of
the Lord which he spoke by his servants
the prophets.
No. II. — -After relating events previ
ous to Jehoiakim's reign, as in the book
of Kings, the writer thus proceeds in 2
Chron. 36: 6 : " Against him came up
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he
bound him in fetters, to convey him to
Babylon. ( 7 ) And a part of the vessels
of the house of the Lord did Nebuchad
nezzar take to Babylon, and he put them
in his temple at Babylon.
No. III. — Jer. 25:1. "The message
which was to Jeremiah, concerning all
the people of Judah, in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Ju
dah ; the same was the first year of Ne
buchadnezzar, king of Babylon."
No. IV. — Jer. 46: 1, 2. "The word of
the Lord . . . against Egypt, against the
army of Pharaoh-Necho king of Egypt,
which was by the river Euphrates in Car
chemish, which Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon smote, in the fourth year of Je
hoiakim king of Judah.
No. V. — Dan. 1: 1, 2. "In the third
year of the reign of Jehoiakim, king of
Judah, came Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon, to Jerusalem, and besieged it.
And the Lord gave into his hand Jehoia
kim, king of Judah, and a part of the ves
sels of the house of God ; and he brought
them to the land of Shinar, to the house
of his God, and the vessels did be bring
into the treasure-house of his God."
No. VI. — Berosus, as quoted by Jo
sephus, Antiq. X. 11. 1, also Contra" Ap.

I. 19, "When his father Nabopolassar
had heard, that the Satrap, who had been
appointed over Egypt and the regions
around Coelo-Syria and Phemcia, had re
belled, not being able himself to endure
hardships, he committed to his son, Ne
buchadnezzar, then in the vigor of life,
certain portions of his forces, and sent
them against him. And Nebuchadnez
zar, falling in with the rebel, and putting
his forces in order, gained a victory over
him, and the country belonging to his
control he brought under his own domin
ion. Now it came to pass, that Nabopo
lassar fell sick at that period, and died,
having reigned twenty-one years. Not long
after, having learned the death of his fa
ther, he arranged his affairs in Egypt and
the other regions, and committed the cap
tives of the Jews, the Phenicians, the Syri
ans, and the nations in Egypt, to certain
of his friends, to conduct them to Baby
lon, with the most weighty part of his
forces, and the remainder of his booty.
He himself, accompanied by very few,
went to Babylon through the desert.
Then taking upon him the affairs which
had been managed by the Chaldees, and
the kingdom which had been preserved
for him by their leader, becoming master
of the whole (okoK,\ri[>ov) of his father's do
minion (lipOTf)i he assigned to the cap
tives who had arrived, .colonial dwelling-
places in the most suitable regions of Ba
bylon," etc. The passage goes on to
show how Nebuchadnezzar used a part of
the spoils .as avaSii/xara, i. c. votive offer
ings, in the temples of his gods, and the
rest, in building and adorning the city of
Babylon.

Preceding this passage, as quoted from Berosus (Cont. Apion. 1. 19), Jo
sephus gives a summary of the history of Nebuchadnezzar, as exhibited by
the Chaldean historian. In this summary he says, that Berosus has related,
"how Nabopolassar sent his son, Nebuchadnezzar, against Egypt and
against our land [Palestine], with a large force {una noWjg dwdpsaig),
who subdued them, burned the temple at Jerusalem, and, transplanting
the great mass of the people, carried them away to Babylon." In a part of
this summary, he seems to quote the words of Berosus, and represents him
as saying, that " the Babylonian conquered Egypt, Syria, Phenicia and
Arabia, and exceeded in achievements all of the Chaldean and Babylonian
kings, who had reigned before him."
We have now before us all the documents on which any reliance can be
safely placed. On these I would make a few remarks which may assist our
further inquiries, (a) From a survey of these documents it is plain, at first
sight, that no one of them is anything more than a mere summary sketch of
Jehoiakim's reign ; and so of Nebuchadnezzar's. The particulars of events,

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES. 21
and even the order of them, in some respects, are not specified at all.
Thus in No. I., two invasions of Nebuchadnezzar are made certain ; but no
particular time of either is specified. In number II. only one (probably
the final) invasion appears to be mentioned. In Berosus, there is a still
more rapid coup d' oeil of events, without any effort to narrate particulars,
much less to make out dates, (ft) We are, therefore, at liberty to supply
the omissions of one account, by that which another has furnished. An ar
gument against more than one invasion, in the time of Jehoiakim, drawn
from the fact that no more than one is mentioned in 2 Chronicles, would
amount to nothing ; for it need not be again proved, that the argumentum
a silentio is in such cases of no value. So an argument drawn from the
silence of Berosus as to more than one invasion of Palestine by Nebuchad
nezzar, would prove nothing against the united testimony of Kings, Jere
miah, and Daniel, that there was more than one. (c) It follows, that we
are at liberty to make out probabilities of time and order of succession in
respect to events, from circumstances that are narrated, where the writers
have omitted formally to make out these in their narrations. This, how
ever, should always be done with caution, and we should keep strictly
within the bounds of probability.
In respect to the main subject now before us I would remark, that there
are some points so well settled, and of such controlling influence, that no
thing can be safely admitted which is inconsistent with them, (l) It is
now a matter of nearly universal agreement, that Nabopolassar, the father
of Nebuchadnezzar, in union with the Median king Astyages, destroyed
the Assyrian empire, and began his independent reign in Babylon, in 625
B. C. (2) It seems to be certain, from the testimony of Berosus (No. VI.
above) and Syncellus, that he reigned twenty-one years. Of course his
death was near the close of 605 B. C, or at the beginning of 604. At this
period, then, Nebuchadnezzar by inheritance became sole king of Babylon.
(3) Previously to this period, Nebuchadnezzar had invaded and subdued
Carchemish, and overrun and brought under subjection to himself Syria,
Palestine, Moab, the country of the Ammonites, Phenicia, and lower
Egypt. This is clear from a comparison of No. I. and No. VI. with its se
quel above. When these achievements and conquests were completed,
Nebuchadnezzar received tidings of his father's death, hastened to Baby
lon, and left the captives and the booty to be forwarded by his subordinate
officers ; No. VI. above. These are facts which we must either admit, or
else renounce the credit of historical testimony which we are unable fairly
to impeach.
The question then, whether Nebuchadnezzar came into the regions of
hither Asia before 604 B. C, is settled. But — how long before? Long
enough, at any rate, to overrun and subdue all these countries. Less than
some two years for such achievements, no one who looks at the extent of
those countries, and knows the slowness with which armies formerly moved
in the East, will venture to fix upon. The book of Daniel (1: 1, 2) says,
that Nebuchadnezzar came up and besieged Jerusalem in the third year of
Jehoiakim, i. e. in 607. That this was near the close of that third year,
would seem probable from two circumstances ; first, the fast kept by Je
hoiakim and his people, on the ninth month of the fifth year of this king,
i. e. Dec. 605. This was no legal or ritual fast, (for none belonged to this

22 EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.
period), but one either commemorative of some great evil, e. g. the capture
of the city by Nebuchadnezzar, (comp. Zech. 8: 19, where four fasts of a
like kind are specified) ; or anticipative of some great and dangerous
struggle, e. g. Jehoiakim's rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar. Moreover,
as Nebuchadnezzar is called king, while on this expedition, both in Daniel,
Kings and Chronicles, and Jeremiah, and as we know (see Nos. III. IV.),
that Jehoiakim's fourth year corresponded with the. first year of Nebuchad
nezzar, as viewed by the Hebrews, it would seem to follow of course, allow
ing the historical verity of Daniel, that the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar
must have been late in 607. If so, then of course the greater part of his
first year, as counted by the Hebrews, corresponded to the fourth year of
Jehoiakim, as Nos. III. IV. declare. Later than the time which Daniel
designates, Nebuchadnezzar's expedition could not well have been, if we
admit the great extent of his conquests already made at, or a little before,
the beginning of 604. Cyrus -and Cyaxares were about ten years in sub
duing Asia Minor ; could Nebuchadnezzar have overrun all hither Asia
and Egypt in less than two f All those then, who, like Lengerke, Winer,
etc., make the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar and the eighth of Jehoia
kim, i. e. 602 or 601, to be the time when the king of Babylon first invaded
Palestine, are obliged to dishonor the credit of Berosus, who (No. VI.)
says', in so many words, that ' when Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father's
death, he left the spoil and the captive Jews, Syrians, Phenicians and
Egyptians, to be conducted to Babylon by his officers.' The same is also
asserted by Alexander Polyhistor, Euseb. Chron. Arm. I. p. 45. All agree
that this must have been in 604 ; and scarcely a doubt can remain, that it
was near the commencement of this year. Lengerke says, in respect to
what Berosus asserts, that " it may appear to be doubtful ;" p. 6. He refers
to Jer. 29: 10, comp. v. 2, for proof that the exile of Jechoniah was the
first deportation of Jews by Nebuchadnezzar. But I can find no proof of
such a nature there. The simple truth is, that events are everywhere re
lated, in respect to Jehoiakim's reign, without any dates of time, with the
exception of Dan. 1: 1, 2. But still, these events are plainly such as to
show the entire probability of what is declared by Daniel.
"But Nebuchadnezzar took Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim
(No. IV. above) ; how could he do this, and yet send Daniel and his com
peers into exile, in the third year of the same Jehoiakim ?"
One may well reply, that there is no impossibility, or even improbability,
in this. Where is the passage of history to show that Nebuchadnezzar did
not besiege and take Jerusalem, before he went against Carchemish?
Babylon, Carchemish, and Jerusalem, are at the extreme points of a trian
gle, the shortest side of which is indeed the distance from Babylon to Car
chemish. Why then did not Nebuchadnezzar go directly from Babylon to
Carchemish ? The probable answer seems to me not to be difficult. Je
hoiakim was placed on the throne by Pharaoh Necho, and consequently
was his hearty ally and tributary. Nebuchadnezzar, by marching first
against him, and then subduing all the countries under Egyptian sway,
through which he passed on his march to Carchemish, avoided the possi
bility of aid from Egypt being given to the city in question, or from the
allies of Egypt. Carchemish was the strongest place in all that region ;
and such a plan showed the expertness of Nebuchadnezzar as a warrior.

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES. 23
The whole course of events, in this case, certainly looks as if the assertion
in Dan. 1: 1, 2, were true.
" But how could Jeremiah, then, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (25: 1
seq.), threaten an invasion of the Chaldees, and seventy years of exile ?
The exile, according to this view, had already begun." But to this ques
tion one may reply, that Nebuchadnezzar's first work, viz. the subjection
of Jehoiakim and the making of him a tributary, had indeed already been
done ; but all of the work which Nebuchadnezzar was to perform, was not
yet completed. In his victorious march from Carchemish, where he had
been successful, through all the countries of hither Asia and Lower Egypt,
and of course through Palestine, he was still to collect more booty, and to
carry away such and so many captives as he thought would effectually pre
vent insurrection after his departure. It is not probable that he sent away
many captives to Babylon, immediately on his first capture of Jerusalem.
He could not then spare the troops necessary for such an escort as was re
quired to do this. In all probability, therefore, he contented himself with
sending away a sufficient number of hostages, belonging to the princes and
nobles, to secure the fidelity of Jehoiakim. The book of Daniel (1: 1 — 3)
merely avers, that in the third year of Jehoiakim, a part of the vessels of
the temple, and some of the king's seed and of the princes, were sent to
Babylon. Nothing could be more natural or probable than this, under
such circumstances. One has only to call to mind, that hostages, and those
of princely descent, were usually demanded by conquerors, where want of
fidelity in the subdued was suspected ; and also, that the booty of gold and
silver was one main object, in all such expeditions as that of Nebuchad
nezzar's. Hence, in Jer. 52: 27> — 30, no mention is made of those first
hostages as exiles ; first, because they were few in number, and secondly,
because their condition was different from that of ordinary exiles. When
we find Jeremiah, therefore, in 25: 1 — 11, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,
threatening subjugation and exile to the Jews, it cannot reasonably be
doubted that he did so, because Jehoiakim, the former ally of Egypt, and
who moreover had been set on his throne by the Egyptian king, was medi
tating revolt. Nebuchadnezzar's success at Carchemish was probably as
yet unknown in Judea. Jehoiakim, therefore, hoped for a different result,
and was ready to join his former master, in case of his success. To pre
vent this catastrophe, Jeremiah uttered the comminations of chap. 25:
1 — 11. And that Jehoiakim's intentions were known to Nebuchadnezzar,
seems quite probable from the treatment which, according to Berosus, the
Jews experienced at the close of Nebuchadnezzar's expedition, viz. the de
portation of Hebrew captives. Still, as this class of exiles is not particular
ized in Jer. 52: 27 — 30, they probably consisted mostly of such as might
come under the denomination of hostages, i. e. they belonged to the more
wealthy and influential families.
That all which has been said of the disposition of Jehoiakim to rebel, is
true, seems to be confirmed by the fact, that not long after this period, as
soon as Nebuchadnezzar had gone to Babylon and become stationary there,
i. e. probably about the end of 604, Jehoiakim did actually rebel, and
throw off his allegiance to Babylon. The king of Babylon, however, was
so intent on beautifying his capital and his temples, and thus expending
the immense wealth which he had collected in his predatory incursions

24 EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.
(Berosus in Jos. Cont. Ap. I. 19), that he did not immediately un^ertake
to chastise the Jewish king. But at the close of 600 B. C, or early in 599,
he again marched up to Jerusalem, and inflicted the penalty that was usual
in cases of revolt.
Lengerke and others assert, that Nebuchadnezzar did not invade JucJea
again, during the life of Jehoiakim, and that this king died and was buried
in peace, contrary to the threats of Jeremiah, 22: 19, and 36: 30, viz. that
he should be destroyed by violence, and his dead body be cast out un-
buried. The appeal for proof of this is to 2 Kings 24: 6, which states, that
" Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and that Jehoiakim his son reigned in his
stead." Lengerke (p. 7) avers, that the expression slept or rested with his
fathers means, always and only, that " the person in question descended in
quiet to the common grave of his fathers." Surely an entire mistake ! That
as© of itself merely designates the death of an individual, without deter
mining the fact whether it was peaceful or violent, is clear enough from
Hebrew usage. In almost every narration respecting the death of a king,
either in the book of Kings or Chronicles, it is said of him, that he slept
with Us fathers. But that this has no concern with indicating his peaceful
burial, is quite certain from the fact, that in nearly every case of this na
ture, the burial of the king is the subject of a separate mention, showing of
course that this is not involved or implied in the first expression. Nor does
aaiB {slept) even involve the idea of a peaceful death ; for it is said of
Ahab, who perished of wounds received in battle, that " he slept with his
fathers," 1 Kings 24: 40. In v. 36 is the equivalent expression : So the
king died ; and it is then added : " They buried him in Samaria." In the
same way aau: alone is used for death, and mostly for the designation of
violent death' in Isa. 14: 8, 17. 43: 17. Job 3: 13. 20: 11. 21: 26. Not a
word is said in 2 Kings 24: 6, of Jehoiakim's burial; and of course there is
nothing there to show that Jeremiah, in declaring that he should perish
unburied, had predicted what proved to be untrue. On the other hand ;
what are we to make of iliaxrf? , to destroy him (i. e. Jehoiakim, as Len
gerke himself (p. 6) concedes), in 2 Kings 24: 2 ? And what of 2 Chron.
36: 6, which says that the king of Babylon bound Jehoiakim in fetters to
carry him to Babylon, but makes no mention at all of his being actually
sent thither ? That Jeremiah has not given an account of the fulfilment
of his own prediction respecting Jehoiakim, is not strange, unless the prin
ciple is to be assumed, that prophets are obligated to write full and regular
history, as well as prediction. I might even argue in favor of the fulfilment
of the prediction, from the silence of the prophet. It was an event so well
known, one might say with probability, that a special record of it was not
needed on his part. Yet I think the books of Chronicles and of Kings, as
cited above, have impliedly recorded the event in question. Still more ex
press do I find, with Grotius, the recognition of it in Ezek. 19: 9. Here,
the preceding context describes the reign and fate of Jehoahaz or Shallum ;
comp. 2 Kings 23: 31—33. Then the prophet comes, in his parable, to the
successor of Shallum, viz. Jehoiakim (in case he means the immediate suc
cessor), and he says of him, that " the nations set against him . . . and he
was taken in their pit, and they put him in ward in chains, and brought
him to the king of Babylon : they brought him into holds, that his voice
should no more be heard upon the mountains of Israel." To interpret all

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES. 25
this of Jechoniah, as Rosenmiiller, Lengerke, and others have done, seems
to me very incongruous. The prophet says of this lion, that " he went up
and down among the lions . . . learned to catch prey, and devoured men;
and he knew their desolate places, and laid waste their cities, and the land
was desolate, and the fulness thereof, by reason of his roaring." All this
now, of a boy eight years old, according to 2 Chron. 36: 9, and according
to 2 Kings 24: 8, only eighteen ; and of a child, moreover, who, as both
records aver, reigned only about three months ! A most extravagant para
ble would Ezekiel seem to have written, if all this is to be predicated of
such a child, whether aged eight or eighteen, and of only a three months'
reign. There is- indeed a difficulty, arising from the extreme brevity of the
sacred writers, in finding out the particulars in the history of the closing
part of Jehoiakim's reign. But certain it is, that nothing against the sup
position that he died a violent death, and was left unburied, can be made
out from what is recorded. Would Jeremiah have left his predictions
standing as they do in his prophecy, if they had not been fulfilled ? Len
gerke intimates, that the peaceful accession of Jehoiachin to his father's
throne, shows that Nebuchadnezzar was not in Palestine, at the time of
Jehoiakim's death. But if Nebuchadnezzar had already chastised Jehoia
kim on account of his rebellion, and put him into fetters, in which he died
through hard usage or violence, may he not have ceded to Jehoiachin the
throne of Judea, in consequence of renewed and solemn stipulations to
become his vassal ? And specially as he was so young, that little was to
be feared from him ? I see nothing of the impossible, or even of the im
probable, in all this. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar was very suspicious
of Jehoiachin, is clear from the circumstance, that after only three months,
he returned with his army, and carried off that king and many of his sub
jects, into exile at Babylon. The phrase n:^ri nardnl] , in 2 Chron. 36:
10, indicates something, more, in my apprehension, than has been usually
noticed by commentators. In all probability, this return or turning of the year
means the Spring of the year, when kings were wont to go out on military
expeditions. But still the word year here plainly stands related to some
other period of time, from which it is reckoned. And what can this ber ex
cept the antecedent period when Jehoiakim was deposed and slain ? If
this were done in the autumn, and Jehoiachin made king either by Nebu
chadnezzar himself, or by the people rebelling against Babylon after, his
departure, he might reign during the three winter months, and in the
spring of the year be attacked and carried into exile by Nebuchadnezzar.
No doubt this conqueror had large standing garrisons, in all the conquered
countries, ready to act at short warning. Hence the shortness of the time,
between the first and second invasion at this period, according to the state
ment made above.
That I have reasoned correctly in regard to the mere summary or gene
ric accounts of Jehoiakim's reign, both in the sacred records and in Berosus,
I must believe no one will deny who takes due pains minutely to examine
them. It follows of course, unless the credibility of these historians can be
reasonably impeached, that the omission of particulars by any one of them,
is no argument against the verity of another who does state some particulars.
This is notably illustrated by Jer. 52: 28, 29. In v. 28 it is stated, that Nebu-
3

26 EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.
chadnezzar carried away captive in his seventh year, 3023 persons. In 2 K.
24: 12, it is stated, that Jehoiachin and his court gave themselves up to Nebu
chadnezzar in the eighth year of his reign, who carried him away to Baby
lon, with 10,000 captives and all the craftsmen and smiths, v. 14. In Jer.,
then, the statement refers to what was done one year (i. e. in 599) be
fore that took place which is related in the book of Kings. Both the time
and the number of exiles mentioned in the two passages, are discrepant ;
and consequently we may regard this circumstance as heightening the
probability of two invasions, as stated above, which took place within a
small period of time. Again, in Jer. 52: 29 it is stated, that Nebuchadnez
zar, in his eighteenth year, carried away captive 832 persons. In 2 K. 25:
3 — 10, it is declared that Nebuchadnezzar, in his nineteenth year, took Jeru
salem, burned the temple, and carried away captive all except the poor of
the land (v. 12). How many were the captives, is not stated ; but there
must have been a great many thousands. The same thing is repeated in Jer.
52: 12 — 16. Here then (in 52: 29) is a statement of deportation, in a dif
ferent year and in very different numbers from what is stated or implied in
the book of Kings. Jer. 52: 29 seems evidently to relate to captives sent
away one year before the siege was completed ; for it lasted some twenty
months. Then, again, there is a third deportation mentioned in Jer. 52: 30,
in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar ; of which we have no other
account. Who will venture now to say, that the books of Jer. and of Kings
are at variance, or rather, that they are contradictory, in regard to the de
portation of exiles ? Both may be regarded as true, without doing the least
violence to probability.
"But both Daniel and Jeremiah call Nebuchadnezzar king, some two or
more years before he was king. How can such a mistake be accounted for ?"
Easily, I would say ; or rather, I would deny that there is any real error
in the Jewish historians or prophets, with regard to this matter. Of the fa
ther of Nebuchadnezzar, viz. Nabopolassar, the Hebrew Scriptures know
nothing. Nebuchadnezzar was generalissimo of the Chaldean invadinc
army. Before he left the country of Palestine, in order to return to Baby
lon, his father had died, and he had become actual and sole king. The
books of Daniel and Jeremiah, written some years afterwards, and also the
books of Kings and Chronicles, call him by the name which he had long
and universally borne. In the narrations of Jeremiah and Daniel, and also
of the other books named, the Writers all give him the title of king, which
was so familiar to them all. The same thing is every day practised, even
at the present time. We speak of Alexander the Great, of the emperor Au
gustus, of the emperor Napoleon, etc., as having done or said this and that, even
when we are relating, in a popular way, the things which took place before
the sovereignty of these men actually existed. The object of the sacred
historians is mainly to designate the leading individual who achieved this
or that, not to show in particular how and when he entered on his highest
office. The Hebrews, who knew Nebuchadnezzar as the leader of the Chal
dean army and also as king, before he had actually ended the expedition
against them in which he was first engaged, would very naturally of course
speak of him as a king, when he first invaded Judea. We may easily con
cede, that he is anticipatively so called ; for the usage is too common to be
either a matter of offence or of stumbling. It cannot fairly be put to the
ccount of error or mistake.

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES. 27
I do not feel, therefore, that we need to resort, as many writers have
done, to the expedient of showing that Nebuchadnezzar was constituted by
his father a joint partner with him of the throne of Babylon, before he set
out on the celebrated expedition against hither Asia, which established an
extensive Babylonish empire. Yet this partnership is, after all, far from
being improbable. Nabopolassar was so enfeebled as to be unable to lead
the invading army. Berosus says of him : ovtrirjoag to! vloi NatluvxoSvoao-
yw, ut'Ti in tv ijliida, /j£qi Tint tijg Svru/jtuig, ^suf/uipn' iji uviiif, x. j. X.
Jos. eont. Ap. 1. 19. But Svviiustug does not here mean regal power, (as has
been maintained), but military force. This seems plain from a preceding
declaration, in which Berosus states that " Nabopolassar sent his son (Nebu
chadnezzar) 67ii ti,v iifiniyav y>iv — (against Palestine) . . . unit noXX^g
Swii/xKug, i. e. with a large military force." But there is another passage in
Berosus, which seems more probably to favor the idea of copartnership in
the throne, at the time of Nebuchadnezzar's expedition. After the war is
finished, Nebuchadnezzar returns, and is formally installed by the Magi as
sole and supreme king. Berosus says of him: " Kvf/ittnue i$ oXuxXi'joov tijs
?raryix/"£ uq^ijs, i. e. becoming supreme over the whole of his father's domain."
Is there not a natural implication here, that before this he was in part a
xiiqtog ? So Hitzig concedes, (Begriff der Kritik, p. 186), and states ex
pressly that Nebuchadnezzar's father made him co-regent, before the battle
at Carchemish. Knobel (Prophetism. II. p. 226) also states this as probable.
The like do many others ; but I deem it unnecessary to make this a point
of any moment. The various sacred writers can be harmonized with each
other, and with probable facta, independently of this circumstance, But
still, it would be an additional reason for the Hebrew usage, in regard to the
appellative king as applied to Nebuchadnezzar previously to his father's
death, that he was co-regent with his father, from the time that he entered
on his first Palestine expedition. The contrary of this cannot be shown.
That Berosus, a Babylonian, should count dominion as belonging to Nabo
polassar until his death, seems to be a matter of course, for such dominion
was matter of fact. That Nebuchadnezzar, the appointed heir, then ob
tained his father's domain or dominion (uo^ijs), was also a matter of course ;
but that he then obtained it «| oXoxb'jitov, would seem to imply what has
been stated above. Be all this however as it may, it seems that all the He
brew writers, iu Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, and Daniel, are uniform in
regard to the appellative in question. Whatever may have been the state
of actual facts, it is a sufficient vindication of the Hebrew historians and
prophets, that they have followed the usage of their country in regard to
this matter. If they had been writing the particular history of Nebuchad
nezzar's life and reign, the matter might then be viewed in a different light,
in case a co-regency never, actually took place.
But we are met, in regard to our views of the time of Nebuchadnezzar's
first invasion, by the allegation of Lengerke, Winer, and others, that in that
expedition Nebuchadnezzar did not overrun Judea, nor send away any
captives from that country. To confirm this, they appeal to Josephus, Ant.
X. 6. 1, who, after describing the capture of Carchemish, says, that " Nebu
chadnezzar then passed over the Euphrates, and took all Syria even to Pe-
lusium, nagiS Tijg 'lovdalag, i. e. excepting Judea." One is led to wonder, at
first view, how Josephus could make this exception ; and this wonder is much

28 EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.
increased by comparing the declaration in question with what he says in
Cont. Ap. I. 19. Beyond any reasonable doubt, the two passages are at
variance. In the latter passage, he quotes Berosus as saying, that Nebu
chadnezzar's father " sent him with an army against Egypt, and against
T)|» ,'i/ttTiQnr yyv, i. e. against Judea." And in the sequel he quotes Bero
sus as also saying, that, at the close of this expedition, Nebuchadnezzar
' sent to Babylon rove aixtmXmovg 'i.wdaian; the captives of the Jews, as well
as of the Syrians, Phenicians, and Egyptians.' Yet Berosus and the He
brew Scriptures were, beyond all reasonable question, the only authorities
which Josephus had, or at least which he employed, in respect to the his
tory of Nebuchadnezzar. But the source of Josephus's mistake in Antiq. X.
6. i, is in all probability to be found in a passage from Berosus in Cont. Ap.
I. 19, where, in making a summary in a single sentence of the achieve
ments of Nebuchadnezzar, the Chaldee historian says : " The Babylonian
[king] conquered Egypt, Syria, Phenicia, Arabia, and in his achievments
far exceeded all the kings who had before reigned over the Chaldeans and
Babylonians." In this mere summary sentence, Berosus omits Judea, i. e.
the small country of the two tribes, (for this was Judea, at that period) ; as
'he also omits Moab, the country of the Ammonites, etc. — omits them evi
dently because of their comparative smallness. Josephus has unwittingly
overlooked this, and so he has excepted Judea, in Antiq. X. 6. 1, because
Berosus has not mentioned it in the passage just quoted. It does not, indeed,
much commend his careful accuracy to us, when we find him so doing, be
cause Berosus, as quoted by him, both before and after the sentence in
question, has explicitly averred that Nebuchadnezzar came up, in that
very first expedition, to attack Judea, and that he carried away captives
from that country. But negligences of this kind are somewhat fre
quent, in this otherwise very valuable historian. E. g. in respect to this
same portion of history, Josephus states (Antiq. X. 7. 1), that, when
Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiachin captive, he carried away with him 10832
¦ethers into exile. Now this statement is palpably made out from combining
together 2 K. 24: 14 and Jer. 52: 29 ; Josephus having added together the
numbers in both passages, without noticing that one deportation is in the
seventh, and the other in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. This discrep
ancy he does not even notice, much less pretend to reconcile. And so he
has not unfrequently done elsewhere. He needs to be closely watched in
such matters. Haste, and carelessness of such a kind, may not unfrequently
be charged upon him. I cannot think, however, that he meant to make any
wrong statements.
It is impossible for me, after having carefully examined all that Berosus
or Josephus has to say on these matters, to attach any historical value to the
nttQt* Tijg InvSaiag, which has been quoted above and examined. All
things being duly compared and considered, I cannot but think that the evi
dence of a Babylonian invasion, commencing in the latter part of the third
year of Jehoiakim, repeated in 599 at the close of his reign ; renewed
against Jehoiachin in 598 ; and then, lastly, at the close of Zedekiah's
reign ; are facts as well made out, and as probable, as most facts of such a
nature Jn ancient history. Had there been no gain to be made out of this
matter, by warmly enlisted partizans, I do not believe that it would have
ever been seriously controverted.

EXC. I. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES. 29
I do not see, then, why Lengerke should be so liberal of his exclamation
points, when speaking of the intimation of Hengstenberg and Havernick,
that the book of Daniel, by assigning the invasion of Palestine to the third
year of Jehoiakim, has shown an unusually minute and accurate acquaint
ance with the history of the Hebrews. Is it not certain, that Nebuchadnez
zar's father began his reign as independent king, in 625 B. C. ? Is it not
well established that he died near the end of 605 or at the beginning of
604 ? Is it not sufficiently established by historical testimony, that Nebu
chadnezzar had reduced Carchemish and overrun all Syria, Phenicia, Moab,
northern Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt, before the death of his father ? Was
' it possible to accomplish all this in less than some two years ? If not, then
Dan. 1:1,2, seems plainly to be in the right, which assigns Nebuchadnezzar's
first invasion of Palestine to the third year of Jehoiakim. It could hot
have been later. Exclamation-points, it would be well for Lengerke,
and sometimes for his opponents too, to remember, are not arguments,
either ratiocinative or historical. The book of Daniel must, as it would seem,
be in the right as to the main point in question. Nor does it contradict at all
the other books.
The appeal made to Jer. 35: 11, in order to show that Nebuchadnezzar
had not yet invaded Palestine, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, is not valid,
because there is no note of time in chap, xxxv, and because, as Nebuchad
nezzar probably passed through Judea several times during his first inva
sion, there are no data in this chapter to decide which of his transitions
occasioned the flight of the Rechabites to Jerusalem. The fact that Jehoia
kim was the known ally and vassal of Pharaoh Necho, would of itself show,
that the attitude of Nebuchadnezzar toward Palestine must have been one
of hostility. The probability seems to be, (comparing this chapter with the
following one), that the Rechabites fled from Nebuchadnezzar when he was
on his return from Carchemish ; for then he was accompanied by troops
from the conquered nations mentioned in Jer. 35: 11.
I would merely observe, at the close of this difficult and perhaps too long
protracted investigation, that no one who has experience in these matters
will think of arguing against the actual occurrence of certain particular
events, merely because they are not stated in this book of Scripture or in
that, since nearly all of the Jewish history in later times is given to us in pro
fessed and acknowledged summaries only. One writer sometimes sees fit to
insert some special particular, which the rest have passed by. E. g. Jer. 51:
59 seq. mentions a journey of Zedekiah, with some of his courtiers, to Baby
lon, in the fourth year of his reign. In 2 Chron. 33: 11 seq., we have an
account of Manasseh as having been carried to Babylon, and of his peni
tence, and his return to Jerusalem. Nowhere else is either of these events
even alluded to, so far as I can find. Yet after the recent investigations
respecting the books of Chronicles by Movers, Keil, and others, I think no
sober critic will be disposed to call in question the position, that neither of
these accounts is improbable, and that neither can, on any grounds worthy
of credit, be fairly controverted. And I would again suggest, that when
leading events as to time and place are certain, an assumption of particular
circumstances and events attending them, which is built upon the common
course of things and supported by probability, is surely neither uncritical
nor unsafe. When we suppose, for example, that Daniel and his associates
3*

30 Chap. II. 1.
were sent to Babylon as hostages, at the time when Jehoiakim first became
a vassal to Nebuchadnezzar, and combine this supposition with the declara
tion in Dan. 1: 1 seq., we suppose what seems to be altogether probable,
although we cannot establish this particular by any direct testimony, but
merely by implication.
It may not be useless to add, that as the Jews evidently called Nebuchad
nezzar king, from the time that he invaded Palestine, so by a comparison
of Dan. 1: 1 seq. Jer. 25: 1. 2 K. 25: 27, we make out forty-five years
(inclusively) as the period of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, according to the He
brew method of reckoning. At the same time, Berosus and others make out
only forty-three years. Still, there is no real disagreement in the case.
The Jews began to reckon two years earlier than Berosus, who counts only
upon the sole reign of Nebuchadnezzar after the death of his father.

CHAPTER H.
[Nebuchadnezzar is filled with anguish by reason of a dream, the particulars of
which escaped from his memory after he had awaked. The astrologers and their
associates are summoned to disclose both the dream and its interpretation; they are
threatened with severe punishment in case of failure, and splendid rewards are pro
mised in case of success ; > s. 1 — 6. They request the king to disclose the dream, in
order that they may interpret it ; but he declines to make any disclosure, and ac
cuses them of prevarication, and repeat^ his threats, vs. 7 — 9. On their part, they
accuse him of making a demand unreasonable and without any precedent, and avow
that none but the gods can accomplish such a task; vs. 10, 11. The king in a fury
decrees the destruction of all the Magi; vs. 12, 13. Daniel and his associates, as
being among this class, are sought for by the executioner, that they might be slain.
Daniel repairs to the king and intercedes for delay, during which he and his com
panions betake themselves to prayer; vs. 13 — 18. The secret of the dream is re
vealed to Daniel in a night- vision, who praises God for his mercy ; vs. 1 9 — 23.
Daniel is at his own request brought to the king, and discloses the dream; vs. 24 — 35.
Then follows the interpretation of the same ; vs. 36 — 45. The king falls prostrate
bofore Daniel and does him homage. He acknowledges the superiority of the true
God, and promotes Daniel to the office of governor of Babylon, and chief governor
of the Magi. His companions, at his request, are also promoted to office; vs. 46
—49.] ( 1 ) And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar
dreamed dreams, and his mind was agitated, and his sleep failed him.
nw^a , a later Hebrew word for the earlier nabaa , reign, dominion, not
kingdom in such a connection as the present. For the omission of
Daghesh lene in the a, see § 21, 2. e  nia'bn, in the plural, while in
vs. 3, 4, 5, the singular is employed. As the king, in this case, does not
require an explanation of more than one dream, the plural form before

Chap. II. 1. 31
us would seem to indicate that the same dream was often repeated ; a
circumstance which would naturally give rise to the anxiety which he
felt, and which was adapted to make a deep impression on his mind. —
irvn, At* spirit or mind, i. e. the interior man. — ESBnni § 63, 3. n. 1.
b. — rtnin? Niph. of i-pri. The very existence of this Conj. in such a
verb, shows that some peculiarity of meaning is attached to it. In ge
neral, it seems to be virtually a passive of Hiphil, and so means was
made to be, was caused, brought about, or happened. From this branches
off a peculiar meaning, here and in Dan. 8: 27, a kind of was was, i. e.
something which has completed its existing state and has ceased to be,
—fuimus Troes. Ges. confectus est, deficit, rightly as to the real mean
ing; and so I have translated libs nnifi? , failed him. The idea is, that
his sleep, which was once sound and refreshing, was now past or gone in
respect to him. The seeming repetition of his, in the suff. of libs , is not
incongruous in Hebrew, but rather common, bs is = bK , in a multi
tude of cases ; and so we may translate literally : for him, or (as above)
in respect to him. The construction is not unlike to ?]b-^b , Gen. 12: 1,
and other idioms of this nature. In vulgar English we say : He is gone
for it; which is like to the shape of the phrase before us; but the 1i-
being masc, it appears in this case to indicate the person of the king, and
not the sleep. Schultens, Rosenm., Hav., and some others, however,
refer libs to iriJO after this tenor : His sleep was against him, contra ip-
sum, i. e. oppressive or burdensome to him, a meaning not unusual to
bs , Lex. A. 1. y., comp. 4. a. But, to say the least, this is not a natural
mode of expressing such an idea, although it may be a possible one.
Surely, after saying that the very soul of the king was agitated by his
dream, it would not seem to be making much progress, to add, that " his
sleep was troublesome to him." Much more expressive and natu
ral is the idea, that he was sleepless, which is the idea given by the first
interpretation. Berth, and Winer: His sleep went away from him; and
so Theodotion : iyiv&io an avrov ; well enough as to the general mean
ing, but libs cannot mean from him, as if it were libsa . The (Chaldee)
example in Dan. 6: 19, inibs rm inauj, which most translate his sleep
fled from him, although evidently of the same general meaning as the
phrase before us, will not justify the rendering by an aitov in the case
before us. The examples of a Dative {pleonastic form) after a verb of
motion, are indeed by no means uncommon, e. g. Gen. 27: 43, t]b rna ,
flee, lit. flee for thyself; Isa. 31: 8, ib &a, he lias fled, Gen. 12: 1. Cant.
2: 11. Prov. 13: 13. But these all differ from the present case, because
the suffix pronoun relates to the subject of the verb. To translate Dan.
6: 19, by his sleep fled from him, gives indeed the general idea in 6ur

32 ~ EXC. H. ALLEGED ERROR IN DATES.
language, but not the shape of the expression in the Hebrew. That the
case before us is simply one, where the person is strongly marked to
whom the assertion relates, cannot well be doubted. It is clear that
libs does not refer to iroa) .

' Exc. II. A second charge of chronological error against the book of Dan
iel is, that it makes an evident mistake in respect to the period when Nebu
chadnezzar's dream took place, and Daniel interpreted it. The dream was
in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, Dan. 2: 1. Previously to
this, Daniel and his fellows had been subjected to a three years' discipline,
as preparatory to waiting upon the king, Dan. 1: 5. That period had
passed, before Daniel was presented to the king, Dan. 1: 18. How, it is
asked, could Nebuchadnezzar, as king, appoint to Daniel three years of disci
pline, and yet bring in the same Daniel, in the second year of his actual reign,
to interpret his dream, when it is evident, from the author's own showing,
that this Daniel had already completed his three years' course of discipline,
and taken his place among the Magi before he was called to interpret the
dream ? Dan. 1: 20. 2: 2, 13.
If the result of the preceding investigation be admitted, then is the so
lution of this seemingly difficult problem rendered quite easy. Nebuchad
nezzar is called king, in Dan. 1:1, after the usual manner of the Hebrews
(comp. 2 Kings 24: 1. 2 Chron. 36: 6), and in the way of anticipation. In
fact he became sole king, before that expedition had ended. But when a
Jewish writer in Babylon (Daniel) comes to the transactions of his actual reign
as reckoned of course in Babylon, (for of course the date of his reign there
would be from the period when he became sole king), the writer dates the
events that happened under that reign, in accordance with the Babylonish
reckoning. So it seems to be in Dan. 2: 1. According to the result of the
preceding examination, Daniel was sent to Babylon in the latter part of
607 or the beginning of 606. Nebuchadnezzar became actual king, by the
death of his father, near the end of 605 or at the beginning of 604. Ne
buchadnezzar's second year of actual and sole reign would then be in 60S.
If we suppose the latter part of this year to be the time when the dream
occurred, then we have a period of nearly four years between Daniel's exile
and his call to interpret the king's dream. Any part of 603 saves the ac
curacy of the book of Daniel, in respect to this matter. In fact it lies on
the very face of this statement in the book of Daniel, that it is scrupulously
conformed to historical truth ; for how could the writer, after having an
nounced Daniel's deportation as belonging to the third year of Jehoiakim,
and his discipline as having been completed in three years, then declare
that Daniel was called upon as one of the Magi, to interpret dreams in the
second year of Nebuchadnezzar ? If Nebuchadnezzar was actual king in
the third year of Jehoiakim he was so when Daniel was carried away to
Babylon ; and plain enough is it, that Daniel's course of discipline was not
complete until the fourth, or at least the end of the third, year of Nebu
chadnezzar. The error would, in such a case, be so palpable, that no wri
ter of any intelligence or consistency could fail to notice and correct it.
We are constrained to believe, then, that Nebuchadnezzar is named king

Chai\ II. 2. 33
merely in the way of anticipation, in Dan. 1: 1 (and so in 2 Kings xxiv.,
2 Chron. xxxvi., Jer. xxv.) ; and that the date of his sole and actual reign
is referred to in Dan. 2: 1, as the Babylonians reckoned it. Thus under
stood, all is consistent and probable. We need not resort as Rosenmiiller
and others have done, to a long series of dreams on the part of Nebuchad
nezzar, in which the same thing was repeated ; nor to the improbable
subterfuge, that, although he dreamed in the second year of his reign, he
did not concern himself to find out an interpreter of his nocturnal visions,
until some considerable time afterwards. Both of these representations
seem to me to be contrary to the plain and evident tenor of the whole nar
ration. The agitation was immediate, and the stronger because it was im
mediate. Procrastination of the matter might, and probably would, have
liberated him from his fears, and blunted the edge of his curiosity.
That Jeremiah reckons in the Palestine Jewish way, i. e. anticipatively,
is certain from Jer. 25: 1. 46: 2. That he did not this by mistake, but only
in compliance with the usage of the Jews in Palestine, seems altogether
probable. On the other hand, the state of facts as to Nebuchadnezzar's
conquests, as exhibited above, shows that his invasion of Judea must have
begun as early as Dan. 1: 1 asserts. In truth, facts and events vouch for
the writer's minute historical accuracy in this matter, in case it be conceded,
that Nebuchadnezzar is called king, in Dan. 1: 1, in the way of anticipa
tion, and in accordance with the common Hebrew usage.
(2) And the king commanded to summon the sacred scribes, and the enchanters,
the sorcerers, and the astrologers, that they might show to the king his dreams ; and
they came, and stood before the king.
irsil, commanded; see 1: 3. — Nipb , to summon = arcessivit ; for
b, see Lex. B. 3. It may take the Dat. with b, or it may omit it ; for
the usage continually varies. In the present instance, however, the na
ture of the sense would seem rather to demand the Ace. after the verb ;
in which case the following nouns may be, in . accordance with the later
Hebrew idiom, which often puts b before the Ace, after the manner of
the Aramaean ; Lex. 3. 4. c. ad fin. Yet if we translate thus, to make
proclamation to the sacred scribes, etc., the Dative is preferable. For the
first two nouns, see 1: 20. The root spax seems to mean incantavit, i. e.
by chanting some formulas of imaginary potency, to influence in a mys
terious but potent manner. The like to this has prevailed in most of
the heathen forms of religion. — tjisisaa , participial noun (Piel), which
probably designates a species of enchanters, \tfio sing magic songs in a
low and peculiar tone. In Syriac, the verb (in Ethp.) means to suppli
cate ; in Heb., to mutter or speak tcith a low voice. The literal sense
would seem to be nearly designated by that of the Latin incantator, i. e.
one who cantillates supplications, execrations, and the like, in order to
prevent or remove evil, or to obtain some disclosure of interest to the
party concerned. But still, the Latin word is probably too generic to
be strictly accurate. It is unquestionably near akin to Di^|Nj_which, if

34 Chap. H. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees.
we may trust to the shade of meaning disclosed in nBffiK , quiver or cover
for arrows, probably meant originally to cover, conceal, and the like.
Hence bisisx may mean merely those who practised hidden or concealed
arts. What these were in particular, no text informs us ; but a com
parison of the practices of the Greek and Latin soothsayers will easily
show how many and various these might have been. diBffSB , a kindred
participial word which seems to designate the suppresed cantillation or
low muttering of the formulas of conjurers, may of course imply a par
ticular species of the Chaldean Magi. — Qifliaa, astrologers here, but
originally this was the name of the people inhabiting Babylonia. So far
back as the time of Abraham, the Mesopotamian region was called the
land of the Chaldees, Gen. 11: 28, 31. 15: 7. Comp. Ezek. 1: 3. 11: 24.

Exc. HI. On the Chaldees.
Some Greek writers frequently apply the word Chaldees {XaXSuioi) to
a fierce people, in the mountainous country bordering on Armenia. Xeno-
phon met with such on his retreat, and he has often made mention of them ;
e. g. Anab. IV. 3. 4. V. 5. 17. VII. 8: 25. Comp. Hab. 1: 6 seq. Job 1: 17.
Strabo notices tribes of the same name, in the country of Pontus, XII. c.
3. p. 26, 27, 36, Tom. III. edit. Lip. From the Armenian [Assyrian]
Chaldees many writers have of late supposed the Babylonian Chaldees to
have come; which Isa. 23: 13, as interpreted by them, seems to favor:
" See ! the country of the Chaldeans, this people was not ; Assyria assigned
it [the country] to the dwellers of the desert; they [the Chaldees] erect
their watch-towers, they set in commotion the palaces of it [Tyre], they
make it a heap of ruins." As Assyria anciently extended her dominion
over all middle Asia, and of course over the Armenian Chaldees, the latter
might, under their permission, have emigrated to the plains, and being a
courageous and warlike people, they might have obtained preeminence
wherever they settled, over the feeble inhabitants of the plains. But if
the Nomades of Chaldean Armenia were indeed the predominant portion of
the Babylonish people, so that the country was early named from them,
those Nomades must at least have emigrated at an early period of the As
syrian dynasty, i. e. during the one which preceded the invasion of Ar-
baces, and (according to Ctesias) ended with Sardanapalus, B. C. 747.
The deductions from Isa, 23: 13, by Gesenius, Hitzig, Knobel and others,
viz. that the Chaldean power and even name in southern Mesopotamia and
Babylon are of recent origin, must depend mainly on the correctness of
their exegesis of the text in question. But this is far from being made out.
On the other hand, substantially with Hupfeld (Exercitt.), and Leo (Allgem.
Geschichte, s. 106), we may with much more probability translate thus:
" Behold ! the country of the Chaldeans — this people was not [a people] ;
Assyria — it has assigned it to the beasts of the desert; they erected their
towers, they watched her palaces ; [but] it has made her a heap of ruins."
In this way we have one main agent, viz. the Chaldean people. The

Chap. II. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees. 35
" heap of ruins" is Nineveh, and the " desert" made by invasion, is the
Assyrian domain. The prophet is threatening Tyre, and bids her look to
what the Chaldeans, their invaders, have already achieved in Assyria. It
were easy to vindicate the interpretation just given, but Hupfeld (Exercitt.
Herod.) has sufficiently done it, and it would be out of place here. The
reason why I have now introduced the subject is, because this text is the
main dependence of many recent critics for establishing a favorite posi
tion of theirs, to which I have already adverted, viz. that the Chaldean
power, and even name, in southern Mesopotamia and Babylon, is compara
tively recent, and that Chaldea was unknown to the biblical writers before
the time of Jehoiakim, at least as a national and independent country.
Facts, strong and (as it seems to me) irresistible, make against this.
Schleyer, in his Wiirdigung der Einwiirfe, s. 48 seq., 138 seq., has made
objections to it which cannot well be met. Shinar was the older name of
Babylonia, Gen. 11:2. This had a king (Amraphel) in the days of Abra
ham, Gen. 14: 1, 9. That Babylon justly claims a very high antiquity,
cannot be denied. Ctesias, Herodotus, Berosus, the Jewish SS., all agree
in this. The latter make Nimrod its founder, who was a grandson of Noah
(B. C. 2218), Gen. 10: 8. Its walls, towers, palaces, bridges, dykes, and
architecture of every kind, most of which was on a gigantic scale that ri
valled or exceeded that of Egypt, prove incontestably an advanced state of
knowledge in Babylon at a very early period, and indicate a metropolis of the
highest grandeur. Other facts of much importance are in accordance with
this. Simplicius (Comm. ad Aristot. de Coelo, p. 123) tells us, that Ca-
listhenes, who accompanied Alexander the Great to Babylon, found astro
nomical observations there which reached back to 1903 years before that
period, and which he sent to Aristotle ; and also that the Magi claimed to
be in possession of much older ones still. Ptolemy, in his famous Canon,
plainly allows their astronomical observations to be correct as far back as
Nabonassar (about 747 B. C), and there begins his era from which he
dates events. Larcher, and above all Ideler (on the Astronomy of the
Chaldees), have shown that the period of 1903 years is neither impossible
nor improbable ; as Gesenius himself appears to concede, Comm. in Es.
in. p. 350. But be this as it may, Diodorus Sic. (II. 29) says expressly,
that the Chaldean priests (whom, like Daniel, he calls Chaldeans), are of
the most ancient Babylonians, XaXSaloi lolvvr t&v ttoxniorannv orrig Ba-
BvXuivlaiv. All this seems to show, that the Chaldees (both nation and
priests) are of the highest antiquity, and that an emigration from the
northern mountains, if it ever took place so as to give a name to the coun
try, must have been at a very remote period. Whenever it was, priests
and people appear to have come to Babylonia together. There they amal
gamated with the population ; and the Magi, (the priests of the fire-wor
shippers, such as are described by Zoroaster in the Zend-Avesta), probably
enn-a^ed in the studies, and united in some of the pursuits, of the native
priests in Babylon ; the conquerors thus assimilating to the conquered, their
superiors in knowledge, like the Goths and Vandals assimilating to the
Romans. Hence the mixture of Parsism and gross polytheism in the reli
gion of Babylon ; for plainly the latter contains both elements. In this
way, moreover, can we account for that mixture of the Zend and Pehlvi
languages with the Semitic, in the composition of many names and offices
in Babylon, in the time of Daniel. Mag (aa Jer. 39: 3) is the same as

36 Chap. II. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees.
the Sanscrit maha, Pers. mogh, Zend meh, and is equivalent to the He
brew a'l ; and the Taiari in Daniel are the same as the DiJa and Di2n . But
although many, or perhaps even most, of the proper names of men and of
civil offices among the Chaldeans are best explained from the Zend, or the
old Persian, yet the names of their gods and of their religious offices are
mostly of a Semitic origin ; e. g. Belus = bra or bra ; Mylitta = rnbia
(genetrix) ; diSBin from U'irl , Dan. 1: 20. 2: 2, and also in Gen. 41: 8.
Ex. 7: 11, 22. 8:' 3, 14, 15. 9: *'ll ; S)1SX , Dan. 1: 20. 2: 2 (Chald.), 10, 27.
4: 4. 5: 7, 11, 15, = Syr. \J.LL] ', W?=« , Dan- 2: 2> als0 Ex" 7: n- 22:
17. Deut. 18: 10. Mai. 3: 5; and so the generic Chaldee word Qi3n (=
Magus), Dan. 2: 12, 21. 4: 3. 5: 7, 8, is notoriously the same as the He
brew Dan . But many of the names of kings, and of the higher civil offi
cers, seem to be compounds of Semitic with the Parsi, Pehlvi, or Zend;
such as Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, etc. (see Lex.) The internal evi
dence, therefore, of a mixture of inhabitants in Chaldea, from some quarter
or other, appears to be inscribed in high relief upon the language of the
Chaldeans, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. The religion of the Babylo
nians, (as exhibited best of all by Miinter in his Essay on this subject, and
by Gesenius in his Excursus at the end of his Comm. on Isaiah), affords
striking evidence of Parsism and polytheism commingled by the union of
different nations who retained some of their respective rites, and by the
natural progress of the attractive sensual parts of those rites, as the me
tropolis progressed in riches and luxury and debauchery.
This general view of the subject seems necessary in order to place the
reader of the book of Daniel in a position, in which he may rightly esti
mate the various phenomena of the book. There is a mixture throughout
of the Assyro-Median and Semitic, both in the names of men and offices,
and also in the rites, customs, and opinions of the inhabitants. That the
_<4ss!/ro-Chaldean at the time when Daniel lived, was the common spoken
language of the court and king, seems to be plainly negatived by Dan. 2: 4
seq. The Magi address the king nialit i. e. in the Aramaean, which is
substantially the same that we now name East Aramaean or Chaldee. In
this language, more than half of the book of Daniel is composed. Doubt
less the Jews who lived in that quarter when Daniel wrote the book, could
read and understand it ; and indeed to the younger part of them, at that
period, it must have been vernacular, or nearly so. It is even quite proba
ble, that the history contained in the book of Daniel would thus be more
easily read by the younger portion of the Hebrew community in that region,
than if it had been in the Hebrew ; and this, perhaps, might have been the
inducement to write it in Aramaean.
But to return to the Di^tuarj of our text; I have only to add, that this
name, employed to designate a literary order of men (equivalent to Diaan ,
Chald. "|iai3n , and Magi), passed into very common use among the Greeks
and Romans. So Strabo XV. Tom. III. p. 326. ed. Lips. Diod. Sic. 2. 29
seq. Cic. Div. 1. 1, 2. Ammian. Mare. 23. 6. Arrian Alex. 3. 16. In still
later times, fortune-tellers and magicians from the East were called Chal
deans, by European nations. The progress of meaning in regard to the
appellation is obvious. First, the Chaldees are conquerors, and offices, or
whatever else is eminent, are called Chaldean par excellence. Then, as
Chaldea abounded in astrologers and soothsayers, it was natural for Greeks

Chap. II. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees. 37
and Romans to call these classes of men by the name of Chaldeans. Last
of all, among the western nations, soothsayers and magicians were called
by the same name, without any special regard to the country from which
they sprung. One meets, not unfrequently in the classics, with the appel
lation employed in this manner.
Several questions, of some importance in regard to the genuineness of
the book of Daniel, have been recently made, first in regard to the number
of classes specified in the verse before us, and then in respect to the em
ployment of Qi^^a , as designating only one portion of the Magi.
To begin with the latter; Gesenius (Comm. in Es. II. s. 355) seems to
call in question the limited meaning of the word, and Bleck (on Dan. in
Schleiermacher, etc., Zeitschrift, s. 225) even doubts whether there was
any such thing as different classes. Both doubt against the evidence of
usage widely extended. Daniel plainly uses the word to denote a class of
the Magi, in 2: 2, 10. 4: 4 (Engl. Vers. 4: 7). 5: 7, 11. And when Ge
senius and Hitzig suggest, that in Dan. 2: 4, 10, the name Chaldeans is
generically employed, Lengerke himself, (sufficiently inclined to all which
can make against the genuineness of the book), avers very justly that this
is only in the way of breviloquence, where one class that is preeminent is
named instead of recapitulating or particularizing all, (Comm. s. 50). De
cisive, as to the usage of such a method of expression by the writer, is Dan.
3: 24, where only the *i"ia^r; (state-counsellors) are addressed, while v. 27
shows that they are only one class of the State-officers then and there as
sembled, to witness the spectacle which is described. Such methods of
breviloquence are quite common ; and besides all this, we have heathen
usage of the same kind as that under discussion ; e. g. Herod. 1. 181, oi
+Xul&iiiot., f'uvitg Ugitg tovxov xov xtsov [i.e. Bi)Xov~\, comp I. 183, where
XmXStuoi occurs three times in the same sense ; Diod. Sic. II. 24, tuiv iiuiwv,
ovg BitfivXwinoi xaXoiitn XaXdaiovc, and again in c. 29, XaXdaioi jolnr j&r
€LQ/titiOTtxid3V BufiuXwviwv . . . n afiitnXr^iuv 'd^ovci. tu^tv rote xar Al'yvniov
liyfuat ; and so Hesychius, XaXdmoi, yivog Mtiyotv. Ctesias (edit. Biihr,
p. 68) seems, indeed, to use Chaldeans and Magi as synonymes ; and so,
as we have seen above, later usage among Greeks and Romans often em
ployed the words. But even in Ctesias, the context shows that by Chaldeans
is there meant the higher order of the Magi. So in Dan. 2: 4, 10.
Thus much for the limited use of the name Chaldeans, which is sufficiently
clear and certain. As to the number of the classes, with respect to which
Lengerke (s. 49 f.) thinks he detects the error of a later writer who was
not intimately acquainted with Chaldean matters, the question seems not to
be one of any great difficulty. He admits, as do nearly all others, that there
were divisions or classes among the Magi. This was notoriously the case as
to the priests in Egypt, Ex. 7: 11. Herod. II. 36. 58. Jablonsky, Panth.
Egypt. Prol. c. 3. The division of priests in India, from the remotest period,
is well known. The Medes and Persians admitted the like divisions among
their Magi. The author of Daniel, in 2: 2. 4: 4. (Eng. 4: 7). 5: 7, 12, ap
pears to name five classes of Magi, (if indeed the niEEaa of 2: 2 be not
merely another name for the ¦p'l'lS of the other passages) ; on account of
which Lengerke accuses him of mistake ; and he declares (p. 47), that ' all
other ancient writers everywhere acknowledge only three classes,' and con
cludes from this that the writer of the book was some person of a later age
4

38 Chap. II. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees.
and of a remote country, where tradition gave an indistinct and uncertain
report. His authorities as to the ' united report of all antiquity,' are Jerome
(Contra Jovin. I. p. 55), and Porphyry (de Abstiu. 4. 16). These are
somewhat late writers as to the matter of testifying, ' for all antiquity,' to a
particular usage in Babylon about a thousand years before their time. But
in fact, neither of these give their own testimony. They both appeal to Eu-
bulus. If Eubulus the philosopher is meant, he lived about 200 B. C. If
either the comedian or the orator of the same name be meant, (which seems
not probable"), they lived about 376 B. C. In his history of Mithra, Eubu
lus asserts, that 'the Magi were divided into three classes.' When ? In
his time, or at an earlier period ? Among the Persians, or among the Baby
lonians of Nebuchadnezzar's time ? Unquestionably he refers to the Per
sians, inasmuch as the history of Mithra concerns them. But even admitting
the correctness of the testimony at the time when it was given, it proves
nothing in respect to the custom or usage at Babylonia, in the seventh cen
tury B. C. Magi indeed there were at Babylonia ; for among the military
chieftains of Nebuchadnezzar, at the siege of Jerusalem in Zedekiah's time,
was Nergal Sharezer 3a a'l , chief Magian. The priesthood, so far from
excluding men from civil or military office in those times, was a leading
recommendation of them to appointments of this nature, because it implied
an unusual degree of knowledge. Thus Ctesias represents Belesys, the
leader of the Chaldeans when Nineveh was destroyed, as " the most distin
guished of the priests, ovg BufivXdtvioi xaXovai XttXdalovg," Diod. Sic.II. 24.
So a Magian was elevated to the throne of Persia, after the death of Cam-
byses ; Ctes. Persica, c. 13 seq. So, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar's
father, while the former was carrying on the war in Judea, the affairs of
government, before the return of the prince to Babylon, were administered.
by priests [t/io XuXduimv~], and the supremacy was vested in the archimagus,
who gave it up, in due time, to Nebuchadnezzar, according to Berosus in
Joseph. Antiq. X. 11. 1. In fact the oriental and Egyptian kings, as well
as some of the Caesars, paid the homage to the priesthood of becoming
members of their body, if they were not already so when they became kings.
It may, I readily concede, have been the usual fact, that the leading divi
sions of the Persian Magi were three in number.* But this would be of little
avail in showing that such was the custom of the Babylonians, among whom,
although the priesthood retained, as it would seem, the honorary name of
Magi, yet their religion differed in the most striking manner, in many re-
* But this is not established by the Zend-Avesta, as cited by Heeren, (Ideenl.
s. 480, ed. 3d) ; for in Kleuker's ediiion, II. 261 , only two classes are spoken of, viz.
Herbeds and Alobeds. But in Yesht Sades, (LXXXIII. ad fin. II. p. 194), the Avesta
speaks of the three orders of the Athorne = priests ; again (ib. p. 276), the same thing
is mentioned ; once more (p. 156), " the threefold, like the Athorne." But in another
passage four orders of priests seem to be designated. So in Zend Avesta, III. p. 225,
wefind.ffer6erf(=candidate for the priesthood), Mobed( priest), DesturMobed (teacher-
priest), and Destur Desturan (= archbishop), a provincial superior. Probably the case
is the same in the Zend-Avesta as in Daniel ; i. e. sometimes the leading class only
is noted, as in 2: 4, 10 ; then again we have four classes, in 2: 2 ; in 5: 7 are three
classes, (one >i new one) ; four classes in 4: 4 ; three in 5: 7 ; and four in 5: 1 1. To
insist, now, that any one of these passages exhibits the full and exclusive designation
of all the classes of the Magi, would be entirely nugatory.

Chap. II. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees. 39
spects, from that of the Parsis. In the rites of the latter, there was no temple,
no altar, no sacrifice of human victims, no consumption by fire even of any
victims, no images of gods, no prostitution-worship of Mylitta, in a word
none of the impurity, cruelty, ridiculous prodigality of expenditure, and
abominable rites of the Babylonians. All matters of religion had been
changed, by the commingling of the (Assyro-) Chaldean conquerors with
the grosser and more sensual heathen of Babylouia, if indeed we concede
such an intermixture. How then can testimony about the Magi in a coun
try where pure Parsism prevailed, be applicable to the case of the Babylo
nian priests and literati, as described by Daniel ? But if we must resort, in
the present case, to the testimony of Greek writers, the position of Len
gerke is far enough from being confirmed. Diodorus Sic, in speaking
niol rtoK iv BnfivXiavi xaXov/iivtuv XtxXduiar, represents them as
practising astrology, soothsaying, magic, incantations, augury from the flight
of birds, and the interpretation of dreams and remarkable occurrences,
II. 29 ; all of which plainly betokens different classes.* Strabo, most of all
among the Greeks to be relied on in such matters, says (XVI. 1. §6),
" There are, among the Chaldean astronomers, yirij -nltlat many kinds or
classes, some are called Orcheni, and some Borsippeni, besides many others
{iiXXoi tiXuuvq), who affirm different things in respect to their doctrines,
according to their respective sects." Here then is abundance of room for
the four or five classes of Daniel ; and it is indeed quite probable that the
subdivisions must have amounted to many more, although it was not to his
purpose to name any more than the leading ones. At all events, the testi
mony of Daniel stands high above any fair exception, in regard to the classi
fication of the Magi. Certainly he has named no improbable class. Nearly
all of the classes named, indeed, appertain to the priesthood of the heathen,
as elsewhere exhibited in the Scriptures ; and if there be a class sui generis
in Daniel, there can be no good reason to charge him with error ; for how
can we reasonably suppose, that there was not some one class or more of
the priesthood that was peculiar to Babylon ?
* Certainly this assertion seems very probable, if we turn our attention, for a mo
ment, to the divisions of the priesthood among the Greeks, in relation to such mat
ters. With them every god and goddess had a separate order of priests; and even
the same orders differed from each other in different places. Ac,ain, each of these
orders had a high-priest ; in some places two; the Delphian* five. Then there were
assistants of the sacred order, viz. the Parasiti or those who provided materials for
the celebration of religious rites, and then the Kipvuec or criers, who also acted the
part of cooks and butchers. Besides tlie-ie classes, there were the vsunApni, who kept
dean and adorned the temples ; then the vaoijiv ianec who guarded those temples ;
and lastly the irpo-oXoi or general waiters ; Potter's Gr Antiq I. p 222 seq. Be
yond these general divisions, were subordinate ones almost without end ; e g. as to
diviners, jiavrcic, xpno/io%6}oi, fteojiui'-eic, of three kinds; interpreters of dreams,
bvF.ipOKpirai, iiveip'tvua-m, oveipo-oXoi; divination by sacrifices employed at least six
classes; by birds, at least as many more; by lots, at least three; by ominous words and
things, many classes ; by magic and incantation, at least nineteen ; Potter ib pp.327seq.
We must add to all this, that the priesthood among the Romans was arranged in quite
a similar way. I do not aver that the Chaldeans made all of these subdivisions, which
are almost endless; but I may well say, that the offices which Diodorus ascribes to
their Magi, involves, from the very nature of the case, something not unlike to this.

40 Chap. II. 2. Exc. III. on the chaldees.
The suggestion of Gesenius (Comm. II. p. 355), that the writer in all
probability merely brought together the various designations of such classes
of persons as are mentioned elsewhere in the Heb. Scriptures ; and the as
sertion of Lengerke (p. 47), that 'he undoubtedly did thus ;' seem to have
no other basis than an inclination to throw discredit upon the book, and in
dustriously to collect and reckon up everything which may help to show,
that the writer was lacking as to accurate knowledge. Something more than
this, however, seems necessary in order to discredit the book in question.
Equally nugatory seems to be the assertion of Bleek, (Schleierm. etc.
Zeits. =. 225), that 'it is altogether wonderful, that Nebuchadnezzar should
summon all classes of the Magi to interpret his dream, instead of summon
ing the appropriate class, viz. the IriiQoaxonoi.' It is enough to say in re
ply, that as Nebuchadnezzar had forgotten all the particulars of his dream,
and these were required to be disclosed as well as the interpretation to be
given ; and moreover, since he kilew, as the Magi assert (Dan. 2: 10), that
' no king or ruler was wont to make such a demand ;' the very difficulty
and extraordinary nature of the case would naturally induce him to sum
mon all classes of his "aian , so that what one class could not accomplish,
another perhaps might be able to do. Nothing was more common among the
Greeks and Romans, than, where one method of divination failed, to resort
to another. Probability, therefore, and consistency are Stamped upon the
very face of the narrative, in regard to this matter.
One other objection against the probability of the narration in Dan. ii.,
has been strongly urged, viz. ' the improbability that a foreigner should be
admitted among the Magi ; and above all, that a most rigid Jew could at all
be promoted to supremacy over the whole order, as it is related of Daniel
(2: 48), that he became baa laiarrba br ¦piao-a'i ; of if he was promoted,
that such a man as Daniel could accept the office, and discharge its duties.'
That the Magi had a supreme head, is plain from Jer. 39: 3, where Ner-
gal Sharezer, a military chieftain of Nebuchadnezzar, is named M a"i , i. e.
arch-Magian. So Sozomen (Hist. Eec. II. 13) speaks of uiyag agxluayog.
Berosus, as cited by Athenaeus (Deipnos. XIV. 44), in speaking of the Sa-
kea (i. e. Saturnalian feast) of the Babylonians, mentions the overseer as
being arrayed in kinglike robes, and as called Zoiy nv-nq (=p&), which
means praefect. Diodorus Sic. says of the priest Belesys, who led the Baby
lonians in revolt against Sardanapalus, that he was iw» itqiuiv (niarjuoiuxog.
Every large town, province, and kingdom, had an aQz'titayoq, Zend. Av. III.
p. 226.
That a foreigner, by special favor of the king, could be introduced
among the Magi, seems quite probable from the usage of the Persians, who,
although they excluded foreigners in general from that order, did this, as
Philostratus (in Protagora) asserts, i\v pi) o fitnaiXii'g f<pij, i. e. only in cases
where the king did not demand his admission. The Magi, and all others,
were at the disposal of the absolute monarch, either in Persia or in Babylon.
So Brissonius, de Regno Pers. II. § 67, 68. So, likewise, Moses is said to
have been " learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," being the adopted
¦child of Pharaoh's daughter, Acts 7: 22. Lengerke however says : " We
know nothing of his being admitted into the order of the priests." But we
do at least know, that the Egyptian kings and princes, as a matter of honor
and respect, were admitted to this order ; nor is there any probability of
Moses' being thus instructed, unless he had been admitted into that order.

Exc. in. on the chaldees. Chap. II. 3. 41
That Daniel was a Jew, would, so far as we know, be no more objection
to his promotion, in the eyes of Nebuchadnezzar, than if he had been a for
eigner of any other country. This king does not seem to have used the
Jews more roughly, than he did all his conquered subjects. That Daniel, as
one of the Magi, was made a civil ruler, i. e. Satrap of Babylonia (Dan. 2:48),
as well as Chief Magian, is perfectly in accordance with oriental usage in
general, and with that of Babylon in particular, Jer. 39: 3.
' But it must awaken great doubt,' it is said, ' when Daniel is described
as holding the office of chief overseer, over priests who worshipped Bel and
Mylitta.' (Leng. p. 50). It might, I am ready to concede, if the acceptance
of such an office obliged him to the personal performance of heathen rites.
But it should be remembered, that priests were only a portion of the Magi.
I do not say that Daniel's office was a sinecure; but I may say, that there
was little or no probability, that as chief Magian he was subjected to per
form the details of priestly rites. He decided cases of appeal ; prescribed
general rules of order ; participated in the studies of the Literati ; and,
(which seems to have been the king's special object in promoting him), re
ceived the honors and emoluments attached to his high station. Was it not
quite possible for an intelligent man, so situated, to avoid participating in the
details of heathen worship '? The whole book of Daniel shows him to be both
conscientious and fearless. His station must have subjected him, indeed, to
severe trials ; but it also afforded him great opportunity to aid his exiled
countrymen, and to mitigate the severity of their captive state. Reasonably
may we suppose, that this was his motive for accepting the office.
Lengerke represents the author of the book of Daniel, (who in his view
belonged to the period of the Maccabees), as ' evidently introducing Daniel
among the Magi, that he might, by his interpretation of dreams, elevate the
God of Israel above the vanities which the heathen worshipped,' (p. 51).
That the narration has such a purpose in view, I would readily concede ;
but that the whole matter is a mere figment of a sagacious writer in the
second century B. C, in order to accomplish such an end, is an assertion
which needs some proof. The ultima ratio, in all such cases, of this writer,
and of others who sympathize in feeling with him, is plain enough. It is
simply the denial of all supernatural interposition and occurrences. Against
such views, the present volume would not be an appropriate place for argu
ment. The N. Test, has given its clear and decided testimony in favor of
the truthfulness of this book. A consistent man who renounces the book
of Daniel as a record of true history, must also renounce the N. Testament.
My own belief is, that the God who made the world, governs it ; and that he
can interpose, and has interposed, in respect to the regular and established
order of things, where special purposes were or are to be accomplished
that cannot well be brought about in another way.
(3) Then said the king unto them : I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is
troubled to get knowledge of the dream.
The form tssn (= BSBhei ) is made by assimilating the n ; nr- for ds"
because the tone is retracted. Not simple agitation, but perturbation, is
designated by the verb. — FiSHb refers to both a knowledge of what the
dream was, and of the interpretation of it.
4*

42 Chap. II. 3, 4.
(4) Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Aramaean : 0 king, five forever!
Tell the dream to thy servants, and we will then show the interpretation thereof.
lirnil, in earlier Hebrew usage, stands mostly absolute, corresponding
to our verb speak; while lax {said) is followed usually by the words
spoken, making an Ace. of object. But in Kings, Ezek., and Daniel, it is
often used in the same manner as lax . So here ; but in such a way,
however, that one may well suppose a -raNb to be supplied after ma'ix .
— di'tob , which is the name of oni, class of Magi mentioned in v. 2, is
here employed, in the way of breviloquence, as a designation for the
whole, or it is used par excellence. Doubtless this class took the lead,
among the Magi ; for they were (of course as it would seem) the speakers
on the present occasion. — saba , stat. emphat. of t]ba , which Segholate
form in Chaldee is rare except in the biblical Chaldee, where it conforms
to the Heb.Segbolates ; the usual Chaldee Segholate form would be as ^ba ,
in most cases ; Gramm. § 34. No. IV.* p. 94. — In -fabs the learner will
notice the Chaldee idiom, which often employs (t ) instead of the Heb. (i) ;
so in the Part. Pres. of verbs, and in many other cases ; which shows (as
it seems to me), that the sound of Qamets was like our a in all; § 33.
Par. III. — iin , Imper. of son or n;n , Gramm. p. 72. — xabn , stat.
emph. of Dbn , which, in biblical Chaldee, thus conforms to the Heb.
Segholates. — T^yxsb , the Hebrew note on the margin of the Bible
says, that the (i) is here superfluous. As to sound it is so ; but, although
often omitted, it is often retained in writing the biblical Chaldee, appa
rently as an index pluralitatis of the noun. Here the root in the Sing.
takes the genuine Chald. Seghol. form, viz. las , Gr. p. 91. IV. b. —
snuie , stat. ; emph. of ittjs , another genuine Chald. Segholate, Gr. ib. —
xjru , Fut. Pael of ton , Gr. p. 73.
Xenophon (Cyrop. VII. 5. 31) describes the inhabitants of Babylon,
when it was taken by Cyrus, as speaking ^vgi.ari, (comp. Isa. 36: 11),
by which the same language seems to be meant that is indicated by
ma^x in our text. — The salutation Live forever ! is truly oriental in its
style. See the same salutation addressed to David, 1 K. 1: 31. So Ae-
lian (Hist. Var. I. 32) represents a Persian as addressing Artaxerxes
with paoilev . . . 8i alavog (taodevoig ! So Q. Curtius (VI. 5) repre
sents Alexander the Great as being addressed by Artabagus : " Tu qui-
dem, Rex, perpetua felicitate floreas !" This harmonizes well with
" king of kings," " lord of the world," " light of life," and other court-like
names, by which the oriental sovereigns were, and still are, commonly
* The Grammar referred to throughout the Chaldee part of the book of Daniel, is
that of Winek, translated by Professor Hackett of Newton Theol. Seminary, and pub
lished at Andover in 1845.

Chap. II. 4, 5. 43
addressed.^ In the sober language of common life it would run thus :
May your life be very long ! — The ancient versions seem to have read
PH13B , (with suff.), i. e. the interpretation of it, viz. the dream ; and
some Codd. read rnii:B , written more Hebraico, the like of which is fre
quent in biblical Chaldee.
The Chaldeans seem to have taken it as a thing of course, that the
dream would be first told, as was usual, before they could be expected to
interpret it ; and some interpreters maintain, that Nebuchadnezzar told
the Magi that it had escaped him, merely to put their skill to the test.
But the context seems to afford no room for such a supposition. And
when it is asked : Whether a forgotten dream could trouble the king ?
one may reply : Certainly the mind could be greatly agitated by seeing
the dream, and this general impression might remain afterwards, although
the particulars of the dream had escaped recollection. Experience of
this nature is not unfrequent. In fact it is easy to suppose cases, where
the agitation would be even increased by the very fact, that particulars
were no longer remembered, and the relief that might be hoped for
could not therefore be so readily sought in the way of obtaining an ex
planation. (5) The king answered and said to the Chaldeans : The word is gone f om me, if
ye do not make known to me the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall be
cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.
The words SiSS and lax are participles, which the Chaldee employs
for verbs far more frequently than the Hebrew ; Gr. § 47. § 11. 4. —
Xi'TOab is pointed for the regular marginal reading itrtbab , which is the
regular emphat. pi. (abbreviated from xjx'niua) of the sing, ¦¦'nia , a. for
ma gentilis, Gr. § 30. b. The biblical Chaldee, instead of the regular form
as given in the margin, retains the (f) of the gentile ending, and reads
SO'jtoa ; see 2: 10. 5: 7, also the like endings in 3: 2, 8. Ezra 4: 9 (nine
times), 12. This peculiar biblical form is simply a Syriasm, e. g.
U&a {Kal-do-ye) ; see Gr. p. 96, No. VIII. p. 91, Par. VIII. —
Stnba , stat. emph. of !iba (= xba ), Gr. p. 96. 2. A. It may mean word,
or thing, matter. In the latter sense many have taken it, and referred it
to the dream of the king, in the sense of forgetting ; a possible, but not
a probable sense. — &W1K , part. fem. from the masc. form ijs , Gr. § 12.
1. c ; used only here and in v. 8. Most of the older interpreters, and
many of the modern ones, refer nr^ba to the dream, and make nfnts
equivalent to xbix (from bvA), gone, escaped. More recent interpreters,
(Ges., De Wette, Hav., Leng.), compare with it the altogether similar
phraseology in Est. 7: 8. Dan. 9: 23. Isa. 45: 23. Dan. 2: 13. 3: 29. 4:

44 Chap. II. 6.
3. Ezra 6: 11. So Luke 2: 1, itfXfo doyua. The meaning is : 'The
matter is decided.' The I and r sometimes are exchanged, (comp. 8a-
xqvov, lacryma), see Ges. Lex. i. The Rabbinic phrase quoted by Ge-
senius, viz. masab »it«, means: he has gone off \from other Rabbles] to
his own opinion. Buxtorf (Lex. Chald.) refers only to Dan. 2: 5. 8 for
authority as to the meaning of SMtx ; which is little more than assuming
the sense of the word, without either illustrating or proving it In case
of such a word as the present, which is almost an anal Isyouevov, the
example given by Gesenius seems to be sufficiently decisive. — in , if,
seems at first view, to be quite a departure from the Heb. meaning {ecce)
of this particle. But the lexicon will show, that in the later Hebrew, an,
num, interrog., and si, if, are not unfrequent meanings of it. — Nb , not,
affords another example of the Hholem in Hebrew (fsb) becoming Qa-
mets in Chaldee. — iMlS-iinB , Fut. Aphel of S^i with suff. ; for in the
biblical Chaldee, «, the usual formative prefix of the Chaldee in Aphel,
is commonly written H , and this formative is often retained in the Fut. ;
Gr. § 12. 5, p. 49, and see in Lex. — For suff. see p. 58. Rem. 1 
pntBSI , with masc. suff. relating to xabn, see § 8. 3, in parad. of Suff. —
inarntn "pain , lit. ye shall be made pieces, frusta, fragments ; like the
Greek fiekn noieiv, 2 Mace. 1: 16. The n before nouns in Chaldee is
never an article, (the Chaldee has no article), so that it is always to be
considered as a radical letter when not a formative. The verb is Fut.
Ithpael, pass, of Pael, Gr. p. 53. 1. — liaina , plur. of nia with suff.,
being irreg. in the same way as the Hebrew. — ibia , fem. instead of
mbi? , the n of the fem. forms in rv>- , ni — n'l — being usually omitted,
Gr.§ 31. 1.— - iwirw , Fut. of nib, in Ithpeal, Gr. p. 68. Par.— Such
a punishment as is here threatened, viz. the cutting of the body in pieces,
the chopping off of the limbs, and the like, was, and still is, common in all
the barbarous countries of hither Asia, in Egypt, and in ancient Greece
and Rome. Lengerke has accumulated references to it. As to the threat,
Tour houses shall be made a dunghill, it is unnecessary to urge its literal
ly exact sense. It is a strong expression employed to indicate, that their
houses would be utterly destroyed, or converted into ruinous heaps
which were employed as receptacles for all manner of filth.
(6) But if ye will show me the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall re
ceive from me gifts and presents and much honor ; therefore show me the dream
and the interpretation thereof.
1'innn (teha-hlvVon) = "linn , Apb. of Nin , the n formative in Aph.
being retained in the Fut. (Gr. p. 49. 5), and the quiescent 1 of the suffix-
formative being omitted in the writing. The 1 in the verb is radical and
movable, {-von). — larva , fem. plur. of sing. fem. awtia . — naia? , prob.

Chap. II. 7, 8. 45
of Persian origin, nuvaza meaning donation in that language. The deri
vation from the Greek rofitc^a is improbable ; for this means coined
money, while we meet with no notice of such in Babylon. The derivation
from taia , by prefixing 3 formative and omitting the second 1, is
rather forbidding, as so little that is really analogous can be found. Mau-
rer (Comm.) derives the word from xaj = ra: , to gush forth, and
naT = aiT, to flow, the combination meaning copious or large donations.
For the form -i;?i , see § 34. No. II. The word may mean splendor,
honor, or (which entitles to honor) elevated office. Honor, in the sense
which may comprehend the lattei', seems to be here meant — Nisb, see
§ 28. b. 10, for the form. — " ba^n , Fut. Pael. — v:7£"a = the He
brew i;ea , i. e. the suff. pronoun is joined with the plural form of the
word, which throws out i (the index pluralitatis) when it takes the
suff. •>— , which in pause (as here) is -- . The mode of expression is of
the intensive kind, meaning that all which is promised in the case is with
in the king's purview or in his possession, and therefore is ready to be
bestowed. For the form of it, comp. Dan. 2: 15. 5: 19. 7: 8, 10. Ezra 7: 14.
— inb , lit. on account of this = therefore. — ijir.n , Aph. Imper. plur.,'
the n=S; the i (vo) = 1"; and1: is a verbal suffix ; comp. Aph.
p. 73. Gramm.
(7) They answered again and said : Let the king tell the dream to his servants,
and we will show the interpretation thereof.
i:r , 3 plur. Peal, Gr. p. 72. — r.is;:n , adverbial fem. form, out of
¦j-3Ti . — "|iT?x , Part plur. instead of the praeterite verb, § 47. 1. —
iaxi , Fut., see for vowels, § 21. a. — iniiarb , for suff. to the plur.
noun, see Gr. p. 35. Par. 2. — ninn? , Fut. Aph. with n retained, p. 49. 5.
 The demand made by the Magi seems to be one to which an answer
in the way of compliance was of course expected, and which they had a
right to expect according to common usage.
(S) The king answered and said : Of a certainty I know, that ye are seeking to
gain time, because ye sec that the word has gone from me.
Four participles as verbs, viz. rer ; las , r-i; , paat (plur.), § 47. 1.
The latter I have rendered seeking to gain, lit. buying, purchasing, which
however can here have only the meaning that the version represents,
and which is quite of a different tenor from either Cicero's emere tempus
(cont. Verr. 1. 3), or the expression of Paul: xatgbv tSayopd'QsG&ui,
Eph. 5: 16. To buy time, in our text, means to procure more time, i. e.
longer delay. — xa^s , stat. emphat. of ",nr , which comes from the root lis
and has a formative ;- , comp. § 28. c. 20. — For "paat liras used as a
verb, see § 47. 1. b. — The threat of the king, with the consciousness that

46 Chap. II. 9.
they were unable to satisfy his demand on the spot, made the Magi de
sirous of obtaining a respite, during which they might perhaps hit upon
some expedient to extricate themselves from their very unpleasant dilem
ma. — ifl bap-ba , lit. all because that = altogether for the reason that,
an intensive of the simple il bap , because that. Such accumulated forms
of particles are frequent in Chaldee. — limTri , Peal of Xtn . For the
rest, see v. 5. In other words, ' You wish delay, because I demand, on
penalty of death, that you should give the requisite information.
(9) But if ye will not make known to me the dream, one thing is your purpose,
both a false and deceitful word have ye agreed to titter before mc. until the time shall
have changed ; therefore tell me the dream, and then I shall know that you can show
me the interpretation thereof.
¦jri i*t , apparently = quod si, for I'n = iicx in Hebrew, which often
stands for the conjunctive that. But this will make no sense here, unless
we refer it back to sax S"P of v. 8, and regard it as coordinate with the
t -: -t ' o
clause ifil sair i'n of the same verse. The discourse will then proceed
thus : ' I know that ye are seeking to gain time — [I know] that if ye do
not make known the dream, ye have agreed upon one purpose, viz. to
deceive me by ' false and deceitful words.' If we might render il by but,
or by moreover, it would apparently relieve the difficulty of the construc
tion, yet not really. 11 , however, will bear neither of these renderings.
Rosenm. says of it, " redundat, ut apud Latinos quod in quodsi. So Leng.,
quodsi. In his German version he gives it no meaning, but merely trans
lates in ; and so De Wette. This is cutting the knot, but not untying it.
But the connection proposed above, preserves the usual meaning of ifl.
That the clause is asyndic, when so constructed, is no objection, in a book
where this is a striking trait in the syntax. — i:|iri.int! , see in v. 5. —
nin fem. of in, written in the Hebrew manner (as usual in biblical
Chaldee) for ton, the fem. being used in relation to M . And so
with ion , used here as a copula = it is, § 40. 1. 4. in = the Heb. ir,x ,
and is formed by an aphaeresis of the x  rvi usually means decree,
placitum ; here, however, as in Syriac, = voluntas, purpose. To render it
decree, statute, would make no tolerable sense. — lsi nbal , an epexe-
getical clause more fully developing what immediately precedes ; so that
we may render 1 by namely, even ; nba is fem. — na-ta = xa-ra, (see
¦Tin above as to h for x), fem. of a-ts , the 1 being here used instead of
the Hebrew i in ata, see Ges. Lex. under t  nrinb , (n for x),
fem. of the Part, passive, used as an adjective, like naia . — iiFiaain , the
vowels belonging to the Jthpael form or Qeri in the margin, viz.ilMBTntrj,
in which the formative n not only exchanges place with t radical (in )-q1)
but becomes a 1 , p. 29. b. But there is no need of the proposed emen-

Chap. n. 10, 11. 47
dation in the Qeri, for the Kethibh makes a good sense, inasmuch as it
is in Aphel, and should be read accordingly, l^naatn. The two vowels
under the a in the text, indicate of course, that they belong to an
other form of the word. — "^i?, points out the person to whom the lying
words are specifically directed ; the form is that of plur. regimen or suf
fix, § 38. 2. b. — xsnifli , Ithpael of xab , the n formative taking the place
of the sibilant, p. 29. b. — max , Imper. of las with Fut. ( _ ) ; for re
taining the a in an open syllable (instead of a), see p. 42. 6. a. Here
the word is used in the sense of our verb tell. — Siaxi = Slix 1st pers.
Fut. Peal, from ri? , the 5 epenthetic being put instead of i- , p. 30. 2,
comp. the like forms in 2: 30. 4: 14. The Fut. usually takes this epen
thetic letter (a). — lasinnn , with suff. here which has a epenthetic be
fore it ; see the form in v. 6. For its potential meaning, see p. 115. 3.
c. The ijs- at the end of the verb, is, in some copies, read ijs- , because
of the Silluq.
(10) The Chaldeans answered before the king and said: There is no man on
earth, who is able to show the matter of the king; because that no great and power
ful king has required a thing like to this ot any sacred scribe, enchanter, or Chaldean.
For xi'nba see v. 5. — inix = the Heb. ttji , there is, a form sui gene
ris, which, as in Hebrew, often marks its subject by making a suffix of
it. — XPibai emph. of niBSP , an unfrequent form in Chaldee ; Gr. p. 98.
C. Rem. 1. — bar, Hophal of bai, which Conj. is constantly employed
in biblical Chaldee instead of Iltaphal, p. 50. 6. — ninnb , Inf. Aph. with
n pref. instead of X , § 49. 5, and ending n- for X- , as is common in
biblical Chaldee. — ba comes to mean no, none, here by virtue of the xb
before the verb that follows. For the epithets aifeiai ai, comp. Isa. 36:
4, and Ezek. 26: 7 — king of kings. — nfea , in the present case, means
matter, thing ; matter of the king means ' matter which concerns the king,'
or ' matter which the king requires.' — naia , like this (n- for X- ), § 9.
1. c. p. 36. — bxb Peal with final Tsere, § 10. 2. For the rest, see v.
2. Here one of the orders of the Magi, mentioned in v. 2, is omitted,
viz. oietaaa , showing that the usage of naming a part for the whole is
continually varying. The Chaldee construction admits of b after the
verb and before the person asked.
(11) And the thing which the king requires is difficult: for there is none other
who can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.
il of i. e. which is of= "nax . It is a sign of the Gen. of the noun
that follows, and allows the preceding word to have the meaning of the
const, state, while it retains the abs. or emph. form; § 56. 1. — niipi,

48 Chap. H. 12, 13.
fem. of lip; , gravis, weighty — in the sense of difficult to manage. — ¦
linx , with 1- formative, I have translated other, alius, in conformity with
general usage. Still, it might be doubted, whether it is not a noun =
minx of the Hebrew, signifying the future. But as the fem. suffix in
nsini does not relate to pnx , but to xnba , the word must mean another.
The Magi did not mean to deny their power to disclose the future, in
case the dream should be made known to them. — In nsini , Fut. Pael
of Xin , the suff. ft- is augmented by the epenthetic a- ; p. 58. Rem. 1.
— inb , if not, except, is different from the inb in vs. 6, 9, where it comes
from b and -,ri ; here it seems to be a compound of -ft nb — if not. —
¦pnbx, in the mouth of the Chaldeans, must mean a plurality of gods;
for in such they believed, inasmuch as they worshipped the sun, moon,
and all the planets, besides subordinate deities almost without number.
— Whose dwelling is not in flesh, I understand as designating the dii
majores, and indicating their immortal nature, in opposition to the frail
and decaying nature of flesh. The apparent sameness and perpetuity of
the heavenly bodies seems to have inspired the idea here expressed ; for
it is not probable, that the Magi had correct philosophical notions of pure
spirit, such as are now common with us. For liniia il , whose dwell
ing, see §41. 1. — ininix with a suff. belonging to the plur. form of
nouns ; which is usual with inix , see Lex. The iT of the root is of
course dropped, when the suffix is attached. The suff. pron. repeats
here the subject of the verb ; a very common idiom in Chaldee ; § 61.
In English, the Chaldee form would run thus: Whose dwelling — with
flesh it is not.
(12) Because of this, the king was angry and greatly enraged ; and he gave com
mandment to destroy all the wise men of Babylon.
For isi ba, see on v. 1 0. — niai'nb: , Inf. Aph. (nT for xT) of lax, §
21. — bab , Ace., which is often marked by b , § 56. 2. — baa may mean
the city or province of Babylon ; but the former is most likely here.
Strabo testifies that the Magi lived in various provincial towns ; and
those at a distance were not the immediate object of the kind's indigna
tion, on this occasion.
(13) And a decree went forth, that the wise men should be slain; and they sought
Daniel and his companions to slay [them].
ppBa , 3 fem. Peal, with Syriac form instead of the proper Chaldee
PpBa . — "ibapna , Part, of Ithpael, interficiendi [sunt], — inliani PI.
of ian with suff., p. 35. 2. — nbaprnb, n pref. and suff. for x, Inf. of
Ithpael ; which often has a sense like the Middle Voice in Greek ; § 10.

Chap. II. 14. 49
5. The Ace. pronoun (112-, them) is omitted, and must be mentally
supplied; the Chaldee shape of the word, however, may be imitated in
a translation thus : For the being killed, in which case the suffix pronoun
is unnecessary.
(14) Then did Daniel prudently and wisely answer Arioch, the chief of the exe
cutioners of the king, who went forth to slay the wise men of Babylon.
airn (n for x), Aph. of ain, p. 69. Par. — x-js =Heb. nas, coun
sel, prudence ; a for the Heb. as , see Lex. a . — oral , sagacity. Both
nouns are in the Ace. adverbial, qualifying the preceding verb. One
might say, that a is implied before them both; but there is no need of
this ; § 37. 3. b. — The Chaldee construction, Tplxb . . . airn , may
be exactly imitated in English, viz. replied to Arioch. — XTia^ , pi.
emph. of naa , see form in § 28. b. 6. These executioners always con
stituted a part of the body-guard of the oriental kings, as they still do ;
and sentence pronounced by the king was often executed on the spot by
them, in presence of the monarch, when the criminal was before him.
Arioch was chief-executioner ; and as such, he went forth to carry into
execution the sentence of the king against the whole class of the Magi.
For the same office in the Egyptian court, see Gen. 37: 36. 89: 1. 40:
3, 4, al. ; for the same among the Babylonians, see Jer. 39: 9, al. It is
not said, on the present occasion, that Nebuchadnezzar's decree against
the Magi was made and executed on the spot. Indeed it could not be,
for they were not all present. They were probably dismissed by him
with contempt and indignation ; and these feelings gave birth to the de
cree that speedily followed. Had those before the king been imme
diately killed, the writer would hardly have refrained from noting it.
It deserves consideration, moreover, that Daniel and his companions,
although belonging to the order of the Magi (v. 13), probably were not
present with them, when they had this interview with the king. The
Hebrews in question were very young; and diffidence, as well as an
abhorrence of all idolatrous magic, might have united their influence to
keep them back; or their engagements might have detained them.
They might, moreover, not wish to excite the jealousy of the native and
older magicians, by thrusting themselves into the company of court-
counsellors on a special occasion. Lengerke (p. 62) puts their absence
to the account of the writer's sagacity of plan, who will not expose them
to the disgrace of a failure to disclose and interpret the king's dream.
But my impression is, that the writer is quite free from such a calcu
lating sagacity as this. Whether Daniel is a real or an imaginary
character, the writer of his life does not appear in the least to fear his
5

50 Chap. II. 15, 16.
being brought into difficulties or dangers, nor does he dexterously shun
either. (15) He answered and said to Arioch, the king's officer: Why this urgent decree
from the king 1 Then Arioch explained the matter to Daniel.
xaba-ii, Gen. §56. 1. — nsamna, Part. Aph. with n formative re
tained, p. 49. 5, fem. in reference to xrjl. It may mean severe, cruel;
but it is hardly probable thalf Daniel would speak so as designedly to
communicate this idea, before Arioch the king's confidant, whose favor
he wished to conciliate. Hasty, moreover, is a shade of meaning which
is of the reproachful cast. I have therefore given what I deem to be
the right sense, in the version. — I^X, then, prop, the pi. form of xix,
which comes from xix , to pass on or by, preteriit. Particles are often
formed in such a way. — Slin , Aph. of Si? , § 20. 2. c. It is plain from
this verse, that Daniel, by communing with Arioch, could come to be
cognizant of all that had passed in presence of the king, without having
been personally present.
(16) Then Daniel went and requested of the king, that he would give him time to
show the interpretation to the king.
bs, Praet. Peal from bbr = the Pleb. xa, § 19. 1. 1. — -jpiji for -jKP,
because the Maqqeph shortens the final syllable. The full form of the
Fut. is usual in biblical Chaldee ; p. 59. bott. — xibB is Ace. placed be
fore the verb njirsnb (Inf. Aph. with form, n) ; and this Inf. stands con
nected with iat , in the way of explanation. The reason for requesting
this appears in the sequel. Whether Arioch went with Daniel to the
king or not, does not appear from the text. Others in attendance on the
king could introduce him, (which was necessary according to oriental ¦
custom), and it seems probable that Daniel relied on the favorable im
pression before made upon Nebuchadnezzar (1: 18 — 20), for a kind re
ception. Lengerke (p. 65) thinks it possible that the lapse of some little
time had abated the king's violent anger ; and, as Daniel was a favorite,
he was inclined, on his account, to suspend the execution of the decree
against the Magi. But inasmuch as the book, (according to him), is so
full of contradictions, it becomes the duty of the interpreter, as he sug
gests, to assume that there is one here ; for first, the suspension, as he
thinks, would be very unlike Nebuchadnezzar ; and secondly, the author
of the book needed such a plan to bring about an opportunity to display
the superiority of Daniel, and that of the God whom he worshipped.
This, however, seems to be reversing the common laws of generous crit
icism upon authors, which prescribes, that where they can be reasonably

Chap. II. 17, 18. 51
conciliated, they should be. Besides, what is more mutable than the
angry passions of oriental despots? Did not Nebuchadnezzar know,
after a few moments of reflection, that he bad demanded of the Magi
what all the world would regard as unreasonable? And what, more
over, was to become of the stability of his throne, if a universal massa
cre of the Magi were attempted ? No king could stand before them, in
such an exigency. — It has also been regarded by some critics as very
strange, that Daniel makes no mention here of showing the dream itself,
but only of its interpretation. Does not the latter, however, necessarily
involve the former? And why should simple breviloquence in a writer
be put to the account of mistake, or of patching together two different
authors who varied in their accounts (Bertholdt s. 62. f. 194., f), or of
negligent brevity ? (Leng. p. 66). Was not the interpretation the main
object and end of the whole? And as such, may it not easily and obvi
ously, by a usage very common, stand as the representative of the whole ?
(17) Then went Daniel to his house, and made known the matter to Hananiah,
Mishael, and Azariah, his companions.
The position of the Dat., or Ace , or both, before the verb, the reader
must already have remarked, is uncommonly frequent in this Chaldee
portion of Daniel ; much more so than in Hebrew. Here the verb
comes last of all.
(18) That they might ask for compassion before the God of heaven, in regard to
this secret matter, in order that they might not destroy Daniel and his companions
with the rest of the wise men of Babylon.
Iiarri , like the corresponding Heb. word, used only in the plural, in
the sense which it here bears. — xraab , Inf. Peal with b , lit. for [their]
seeking. As the Heb. Inf. with b often stands for a verb of definite mood
and tense, so here the Inf. appears to designate the same idea that the
3 pi. would express, the suff. pronoun 3 plur. being implied after it, as
designating the subject of the verb. — God of heaven resembles the Heb.
God of hosts ; while this latter expression occurs not in the biblical
Chaldee. God of heaven means either the God who dwells or reigns in
heaven, (comp. Our Father who art in heaven), or the God who is ex
alted over all, = v\piazog. God of hosts = almighty, or more exactly,
d navzoxpdzmp. — xn, stat. emph. of fi . — nai this or that, refers to
what the preceding context relates of the forgotten dream. — "laim ,
Fut. Aph. with n retained, p. 49. 5. — ixo retains the ( t ) in the const.
state here ; as some other nouns of this form occasionally do ; § 34. No.
H. a.

2 Chap. II. 19, 20.
(19) Then to Daniel, in a vision of the night, was the secret revealed ; then Dan
iel blessed the God of heaven.
Xitn , stat. emph. of ltn , which is of like form with some Heb. Seghol.
derivates of verbs rib . The il which follows before the Gen., renders
the const, form unnecessary. — x;bib , makes one and the same abs. and
emph. form ; which is not unfrequent in other cases; § 32. 1. The old
abs. form was probably ib/b ; and the Hebrew nearly always employs nbib
for bib .  ¦ iba , in v. 30 iba , Part, pass., with a comp. Sheva instead of a
simple one ; which is peculiar to this participle in verbs xb ; p. 74. 5.
— Revelation by visions of the night is no new thing. It is frequently
spoken of in the O. Test, and in the New. — ?pa, Part, in Peal, § 12, 1.
c, used as a verb, comp. v. 8 with four participles used in like way, and
so passim. — Ptbxb is Ace. § 56. 2.
(20) Daniel answered and said: Let the name of God be blessed forever and
ever, for the wisdom and power which is his.
n:r ', Part. Peal used for the verb. One use of the root xas , as of the
Heb. nar , is to designate the commencing of any discourse or address,
whether strictly in the way of answering or not. The German anheben \_ y \
corresponds to this ; our nearest word is address ; and where this will
not suit well, we may translate began discourse, commenced speaking, in
case we decline the old translation, answered. — Xinb, Inf. with b ap
parently, but used repeatedly in this chapter and elsewhere for the 3
pers. sing., and so with (varying form) for 3 plur., ("|inb v. 43). For
sing., see also Dan. 2: 28, 41, 45. 3: 18. 5: 29. 4: 22. 6: 3. Ezra 7: 23,
26, al; for 3 plur., Dan. 6: 2, 3, 27. Ezra 6: 10. 7: 25; in the fem.
Dan. 5: 17. Now as this prefixing of b happens never to the second and
third persons of the verb Xin, but only to the third sing, and plur., Beer
(Inscriptt. pap. vet. Semit. p. 18 seq.), and after him Maurer and others,
regard the b in this case as a peculiarity of the Hebrew-Aramaean at
the time when the book before us was written, and they compare it with
the J added to the Fut. in Arabic = ut, and also with the a which is the
common formative prefix of the 3 pers. of the same tense in Syriac, and
often in a portion of the Chaldee Targums. Maurer (Comm. in loc.) has
given the whole passage from Beer. Winer seems to favor this view,
Gramm. p. 75. Rem. 2) ; and I know of no better solution of the matter.
That the examples above referred to are not in the Inf., is plain enough,
both from their meaning and their form. But whatever may be said of
the forms, the meaning at least is plain. — In Praia there is an antici
pate pronoun-suffix, related to the noun that follows ; lit. the name of
him — of God. This idiom is very common in Chaldee, and sometimes

Chap. II. 21, 22. 53
occurs in Hebrew ; § 40. 3. a. — Tpaa , pass. Part, of Pael. — xnaan
and xrviiaa in stat. emph. — xin nb-'i =ib—iirx , § 41. 1. Lit. wisdom
and power — it is (xin § 40. 1) to him, i. e. are his. The pronoun sing.
(xin) refers to the next preceding noun. Wisdom here has special
reference to God's knowledge of xn ; power refers to a might or ability
to overcome difficulties, however great they may apparently be. The
idiom, so frequent in the O. and N. Test., exhibited by the phrase name
of God, seems to have arisen from the consciousness of men that they
could not fully and directly comprehend what God in himself is, and so
his name (nini), designed to comprehend all that is known and unknown
of him, is often put, in an expressive way, for all which it imports ; see
Cred. in Joel. p. 220. There seems to be a degree of designed intensity
in this mode of expression.
(21 ) And he it is who changeth times and seasons, who removcfh kings and set-
teth them up, who giveth wisdom to the wise and knowledge to the intelligent.
xmi , and he it is, § 40. 1. — xa/rna , Part. Aph. with n formative re
tained, p. 49. 5. Every Part., if no subject is expressly designated, im
plies a relative pronoun {= 6, og,) of itself for a subject. We might
translate simply thus : and he changeth, etc. ; but the version given is
more exactly adapted to the form of the original. — Times and seasons
(both plur. emph.) differ not essentially. Of the two lis is the more
generic, answering to yporo.,', lat to xaigog. The change here referred
to, seems to be that from a season of great danger, to that of the hope
and prosperity which were now apparently before the speaker. The
removal of kings and the setting of them up I should refer, in the
way of anticipation, to the mighty changes in monarchies which the
dream already disclosed to Daniel indicated. Wisdom to the wise and
knowledge to the intelligent refers specially to what had been imparted to
the speaker, so as to give him a knowledge of the great secret in ques
tion. Daniel ascribes all his peculiar knowledge, on this occasion, to
God as its author. — XSiaa , emph. with formative a instead of Dagh.
forte in the 1 , from the root sii , p. 30. 2. The last phrase literally
means : et scientiani cognoscentibus intelligentiam, i. e. intelligent know
ledge, in any who possess it, is of his gift. — naia is fem., and not masc.
emph. (22) He revealeth deep and secret things ; he knoweth what is in the darkness,
and light dwelleth with him.
xba and rii (Part, for verb) mark, more strongly than the verbs
themselves, what belongs to customary and continued action or state. —
5*

54 Chap. II. 23, 24.
xnpias , emph. pi. of pin? , an adjective of the Part. Peil form. — XPitnDa ,
emph.pl. fem. of Part. pass, in Pael. — xnna in Kethibh should be
pointed Xlina ; the vowels now attached to it are appropriate to the Qeri,
-Xlina . The reading of the Kethibh is equally good, and needs no
change, as both forms are legitimate. — Xib , verb with final (-). The
sentence, carried on before by two participles, now goes forward by a
verb. This usage is also very frequent in Hebrew. — This verse is a
repetition, in another form, of the leading idea of the preceding one.
" He who gives wisdom to the wise,'' reveals secrets, and discloses what
is dark ; which he can easily do, because he dwells in light. This last
clause exhibits a sentiment often repeated in both the O. and N. Test.
(23) Thee, 0 God of my fathers, do I thank and praise ; for wisdom and ability
hast thou given me, and now thou hast made known to me that which we sought for
from thee, for the matter of the king hast thou made us to know.
Tjb , Ace. § 56. 2. — In nbx , the Chaldee usage of putting {-) for (i)
is very plain ; for the Heb. is nibx . — ^nnax , suff. plur. irreg. of ax ,
§35. — xlina, Part. Aph. of Xii, with n retained. It sometimes
means to praise, laud ; but when joined with another verb (as here)
which expresses the idea of praising, it is equivalent to the Lat. gratias
agere. — xaisa , Peal 1st plur. of xra . The speaker uses this person,
because he and his associates had in common (vs. 17, 18) sought for the
disclosure that had been made. — il,like ibx, that which. The next
il is causal in its sense, because that, since. — Made us to know, like the
phrase above where we sought is the mode of expression. The modesty
and humility of Daniel seems evident in all this. To his associates as
well as himself he ascribes the successful supplications that had been
made ; and when he becomes the honored instrument of disclosure, he
takes no special credit to himself for this, but considers it as equally per
taining to them.
(24) Because now of this, Daniel went to Arioch, whom the king had appointed
to destroy the wise men of Babylon, he went and spake thus to him : Destroy not
the wise men of Babylon ; bring me into the presence of the king, and I will show
the interpretation to the king.
For the composite conjunction at the beginning, see under v. 8. The
intensity given by ba to the conjunction clause, I have aimed to express
by now. — bs, see v. 16. — iaa, Paelof xaa. — laianb, Ace. const., § 56.
2. — bix = bs , resumes by an equivalent word what had been inter
preted by the preceding exegetical clause. — The second laianb is also
in the Ace, governed by the verb that follows. — iabsn , Imper. Aph. of
bbs, Qamets under n because of the Gutt. which follows, § 19. 1. 1. b.

Chap. II. 25,26. 55
— xibB alone is here again named, as in v. 16 above ; and for the same
reason as there, viz. that of breviloquence, the disclosure of the dream
itself is not named.
(25) Then did Arioch in haste bring Daniel before the king, and thus spake he to
him : I have found a man, of the sons of the captivity of Judah, who will make'known
the interpretation to the king.
nbnanna , Inf. noun of the form Ithpeal, here used adverbially, or as
a noun with an adverbial sense, like nain in Hebrew. — bsan for bsn\
Aph. of bbs , the a being inserted to compensate for the long vowel
which is dropped ; § 19. 1. 1 ad finem. — il is here merely the sign of
words quoted, as 13 often is in Hebrew, and ozi in Greek ; so in 5: 7.
6: 6, 14. It is translated sufficiently, by any sign which marks words as
quoted. — ¦ nnabn , Aphel of nab , the ending (- - ) being occasioned
by the final Guttural ; p. 53, verbs 3 Gutt. Without a Gutt. ending, these
vowels would be (--:)• — xnlba , fem. emph. of niba , captivity, exile;
abstract for concrete. — ¦ lini il , of Judah, is added to distinguish these
exiles from others at Babylon, brought from foreign countries, or possibly
to distinguish Daniel from the native Magi. Lengerke (p. 72) thinks the
writer has here been guilty of a vozepov tiqozsqov, inasmuch as he makes
Arioch introduce Daniel to the king, before he mentions who he is. Is it
then certain, that such a special confidant of the king, as Arioch plainly
was, might not venture to take Daniel with him, and tell the king whence
he was, when standing with him in the royal presence ? Lengerke has
even cited a long passage from the Greek commentator, Polychronius,
which descants on this "inversion of order;" whereas it is plain enough,
that the whole thing might have depended on the familiarity of Arioch
with the king, and also on the well known favorable regard of the king
for Daniel. How much one may sometimes see, when he is on the watch
for the halting of a writer whom he strongly suspects !
(26) The king answered and said to Daniel, whose name was Belteshazzar : Art
thou able to make known to me the dream which I have seen, and the interpretation
thereof? nab il , whose name, the il showing the relative sense of the n-
that follows, like ibx in Hebrew ; § 41. 1. — laxb-jba , ba = Belus ;
tsha, a sign of the Gen. in the Zend ; is = prince ; and so prince of Be
lus, which means either noble or exalted prince, or else prince whom Belus
favors or protects. The first syllable is closed, and yet the vowel is long
and without the tone ; the laws of the Hebrew, in this respect, apply but
partially to the Chaldee. The reason why this epithet is here added to
the usual name of Daniel seems to be, to remind the reader that the king

56 Chap. II. 27, 28.
himself had imposed this name (1: 7), and that the favor of the king, on
this occasion, might in part be owing to his acquaintance and familiarity
with Daniel. — tprnxn , n interrog., the suff. Tf1- has the form of a suff.
to the plural, and here indicates the subject of inix ; see Lex. —
bna Part. pres. = potens. — ijnisiinb , Inf. Aph. of Sli , the Inf. with
suff. assuming the termination nil-, while the suff. is i?-; p. 56. e 
nitn , Peal, 1st Sing, of Xin , p. 72. Par. Nebuchadnezzar speaks
of the dream which he saw, because the main object presented to his vision
in it was the gigantic image or statue.
(27) Daniel answered before the king and said : The secret which the king asks
for, no wise men, enchanters, sacred scribes, astrologers, are able to show to the king.
Four participles in this verse, all having the sense of verbs — for even
libai is pi. part, of bai ; the pi. verb would read ibai . — For the first
three nouns which are denominatives here, see on v. 2 above. — VHh Par"
ticip. noun, probably from ita to cut, divide ; for the astrologers divided
the heavens into different sections, each having, as they viewed the mat
ter, an appropriate significancy. Gesenius (Comm. Es. s. 353) has given
a figure exhibiting this division, as before exhibited by Briicker, Hist.
Philos. I. p.139. This illustration of the word can hardly fail to be satis
factory. ¦ — niinnb , Aph. Inf. with n for x , as frequently before. In
this declaration, Daniel shows a sympathy with the Magi, on account of
the violence done to them by the king's making a demand on them of that
which was beyond their power. He endeavors to convince the king of
the unreasonable nature of the demand, by showing him the impossibility
on their part of complying with it. At the same time, an excellent oppor
tunity is afforded him to vindicate the superior claims of the God of Is
rael ; which he manfully and nobly uses to the best advantage. He
must surely have possessed great firmness and presence of mind. Len
gerke intimates more than once, that the whole of this narration is made
up, by preconceived design, in order to impress the moral truths which it
inculcates ; for he plainly discards all ideas of the supernatural, at any
time, or on any occasion. My views of Revelation lead me to a very
different conclusion.
(28) But there is a God in heaven, who revealeth secrets, and he hath made known
to the king Nebuchadnezzar, what shall take place in the latter days. Thy dream,
even the visions of thine head upon thy couch, was this.
xiab , pi. emph. of liab , destitute of a sing, form, and like the Heb.
niab . The idea of Xiaba seems here plainly to be, who dwells in
heaven, in distinction from the visible and idol gods which Nebuchadnez
zar worshipped. — jii , here used in a generic sense, i. e. secrets of any

CHAr.II. 29, 30. 57
kind, or of all kinds — a more expanded idea than that of xtl above,
which there means the concealed dream of the king. — na fully expressed
would mean what is, and il that which. I have compressed them in the
translation. — x^nb , see under v. 20. — x^aii minxa , not a generic
expression for any subsequent or future time, as De Wette and Haver
nick assume, but latter portion of days = the Messainic period, and not
to be explained by nai iinx in v. 29. The like to this, in Gen. 49: 1.
Num. 24: 14. Deut. 4: 30 ; the same as our text, in Isa. 2: 2. Mic. 4: 1.
prob. Jer. 48: 47 ; comp. in ia^dzov zoir r^ngoiv in Heb. 1: 1, et al. in
N. Test. Lengerke says, that only the commencing part of this last age
of the world is meant. If merely the distinctive mark between the pre
ceding age and the hitter were the object, in view, this would be correct;
but the things predicted, in connection with this minx , cannot all be
developed at its commencement. The x^nb il shows the conviction of
the speaker, that the God who foretells will surely accomplish what he
foretells. — iltn pi. const, of itn , visions of thine head means conceptions
or notions which are formed in the brain, the seat of thinking. Here
the phrase is merely exegetical, and designed to show that the dream
was occasioned by the operations of the mind. The sing, xin nai shows
of course that lyabn is treated as the real subject of the sentence. Comp.
for the phraseology, Dan. 4: 2, 7, 10. 7: 1.
(29) Thou, 0 king, — thy thoughts upon thy bed came up, [as to] what will be
hereafter; and he who revealcth secrets hath made known to thee what shall be.
Trails'] , pi. with suff., p. 35, 2d Par. These thoughts appear to refer to
the meditations of Nebuchadnezzar before sleep came on him. If he had
been dwelling in his mind, as is probable, on the subject of the future
condition of his conquests, fame, and kingdom, it was a good preparation
to make the dream impressive. The form Ipbp I do not regard, with Ge-
senius (in Lex.), as a Part. pass, or Peil (see Gramm. p. 51), but as a
verb 3 pi. Peal, from the root pbp or pbp, (which also has pbp ), like
alp and aip , p. 48, comp. § 12. 1. Came up, alluding to ascension to
the brain. — xinb twice here, see v. 20. — xba , Part, used here as a
noun in the construct state, the Qamets being immutable, see p. 91. Par.
VII. a. — il na again as in v. 28.
(30) And I — not by wisdom which is in me above all the living, is this secret re
vealed to me, but that the interpretation may be made known to the king, and that
thou mightest know the thoughts of thine heart.
ijxi and I, Nom. abs., as often in Heb. and Chaldee. — la , here used
as when marking the compar. degree, = above, more than. — xiin (hay-
yay-ya), emph. pi. of inn , living creatures or living men; more proba-

58 Chap. II. 31, 32.
bly the latter here. — iba, for the pointing, see on v. 19.— il niai bs ,
because that, lit. on account of the matter that, niai is of the const, form,
and the whole clause that follows is virtually a Gen. after it. — "(isiini ,
lit. that might make known, etc. The 3 plur. is often employed, as here,
with an indefinite subject, (and so in Hebrew), and thus it comes to be
equivalent to the passive voice; comp. § 49. 3. b. See the like in Dan.
3: 4, 21. 4: 13, 22, 23. 5: 21. 7: 9, 12,13, 26, al.— The thoughts of thine
heart here means the same as the visions of the head in v. 28. The He
brews, like us, could refer both to the head and heart as local sources
whence thoughts come. — sian , p. 30. 2.
(31) Thou, 0 king, wast looking, and behold ! a great image; this image was lofty,
and the splendor of it excessive ; it stood before thee, and the appearance of it was
terrible. nnax, i.e. (as the Kethibh should read) nnax, for which the Qeri has
substituted the more usual form nax . The former is the Hebraizing
Chaldee, and no valid objections can be made against it. — niin turn the
Part, with the verb Xin {to be), here appropriately designating the con
tinuance of the action, § 47. 1. a. The Part, is specially adapted to such a
purpose; as one may see in Dan. 5: 19. 7: 2, 2, 4, 6 — 9, 11, 13, 21. 8:
5, al. — ibx seems to be the same as lix , the b and 1 being exchanged ;
which is not unfrequent. Possibly the latter comes from an inversion of
1X1 , of the root nxi to see. Or perhaps ibx is simply an adverbial form
from the demonst. pronoun nbx , those, these, and so means there = see
there ; just as nsn ecce, comes from a demonstrative pronoun, in Hebrew.
The later derivation seems to me more probable, on the ground of anal
ogy. Coupled with the preceding, it reminds us of the eldov xal Idov of
John in the Apocalypse. — in corresponds, as in later Heb., to our in-
ctef. article a, an ; so us in the N. Test. — ai I have translated lofty,
because the word indicates extensiveness in any direction. In Heb. it is
said of a long way, 1 K. 19: 7, and of long continued attention, Isa. 21: 7 ;
and it is not probable that the simple idea of magnitude, marked before
by xiab , would be repeated again so soon. The sense I have given to ai
is evidently appropriate. So Leng., hoch. — lit {ziv) from nnt to shine,
the first n of the root conforming to the vowel which precedes, the second
n is dropped, and the original 1 of the root (verb lb ) resumed. —
bxp , Part, of dip, see Par. p. 68. — nil, n- suff., 11 {rev), for 1X1,
from nxi to see. The whole verse forms a simple but very graphic de
scription. (32) This was the image — its head was of pure gold ; its breast and arms of sil
ver ; its belly and thighs of brass.
ani-ii, the Gen. of material. Strictly considered, however, the

Chap. II. 33, 34. 59
noun bxi is mentally supplied before this ; and the like in respect to the
following Genitives. — aa good, applied to gold, of course means pure.
— iniin, pi. with suff., from ynn, plural because the breast is biform.
— inisiil , in the same way as the preceding, the pi. being employed
because the Chaldee has no dual. — inisa , pi. of iisa . — npa-n , suff.
pi. fem. of naii . As to the suff. wr instead of ini — as before, see
Gramm. p. 36, top. The plur. fem. often takes suffixes which belong
to the sing., because the form is too well marked to be mistaken. So
in the Syriac.
(33) The legs wero of iron, the feet partly of iron and partly of clay.
inipb, suff. pi. of •p-a (= Heb. pib) leg.— hnibai, suff. pi. of bai or
bai. — linaa, so the Kethibh should be pointed; but the vowels in the
text are designed for the Qeri, which reads inaa fem. plur. because bai
(the antecedent) is feminine. Yet many nouns (and perhaps this one) are
of the common gender. ia is the const, of la , part or portion. It is
quite plain, that the different materials, which constituted the different
parts of the gigantic image, are designed to symbolize different dynasties ;
and that the last, the extreme lower part of which i3 a mixture of iron
and clay, (besides the divisions of the toes in the feet), is designed to
symbolize a very heterogeneous and mixed domination.
(34) Thou didst continue looking, until a stone was cut out without hands, and
it smote the image on its feet of iron and clay, and crushed them.
il IS , lit. until that, i. e. until the time when. This shows that the
cutting out of the stone, and its action upon the image, were subsequent to
the complete formation of all parts of the image. It is of importance to
note this circumstance, as it has an important bearing on the explanation
of this compound symbol  nitann , Hebraizing form of 3 fem. Ithpeal.
A common form here would be nitann , (p. 49. 2) ; but the double
Seghol-ending is very common in verbs which end in 1 , and so here we
have nit — for nit — , p. 53. 3d Gutt. 3. — xb-ii , lit. which was not =
without. So in Syriac, jlj (d"lo), without. — liiia , Hebraizing dual form
of 1i , with a prefix prep. The proper Chaldee has no dual. Only a
few forms of this kind find a place in the biblical Chaldee ; § 31. 2. —
nna , 3 fem. Peal of xna , p. 72. — XBpn emph. form of ^pn in v. 33. —
pain , 3 fem. Aph. of ppl , the reg. and proper Chaldee form would be
npix (p. 63), but the n prefix is Hebraistic (p. 49. 5), and the Segholate
form npl - shows the tendency to Hebraize in the terminations of these
fem. forms ; comp. p. 49. 3. 4. — Without hands plainly means, without
human power or aid, the hand being the common symbol of power ;

60 Chap. II. 35.
comp. Dan. 8: 25. Job 34: 20, for the like expressions. — P»in is a very
strong expression ; for it designates, more appropriately, the crushing of
grain in a mill. That the force of expression is fully transferred here,
is evident from the next verse, which represents the crushing to be so
complete, that the wind takes away that which has been crushed, as it
does the chaff of a threshing floor. The blow of the stone, although it
directly fell upon the feet of iron and clay, was so vehement, that the
whole image, by violent concussion and consequent fall was reduced to
powder. Whatever the four kingdoms in reality were, which in this
case are symbolized, one thing is clear, viz. that the stone, when it makes
its appearance and falls upon them, utterly annihilates them all. So
much, at all events, lies on the very face of the symbol in question.
(35) Then were crushed at once iron, clay, brass, silver, and gold, and they be
came like chaff of the summer threshing floor, and the wind took them away, and no
place was found for them ; and the stone which smote the image, became a great
mountain, and filled all the earth.
¦pixa , the first vowel being a contracted one, from the original 1?1X3 ,
lit. in the then, i. q. then. — Ipl , root ppl , with long vowel under 1 as a
compensation for Dagh. f. omitted in p; § 19. 1. b. — nina, adv. com
pounded of a and nin = Xin , which is either fem. or emph. of in . In
the four nouns that follow, the emph. form of all shows an implied arti
cle, (so in v. 24), since in v. 33 they take the simple absolute form. The
asyndic construction here is also remarkable ; but, as has already been
noted, it is frequent in this book. Here it is in good taste, also, for
all the parts named are closely connected in one whole. — iin, 3 pi. Peal
of nin , here (as often) meaning became. — lis , chaff, need not be de
rived from lis to blind, nor from IBS dust, (whence lis , Ges.), because
chaff blinds one when blown in his eyes, or dust produces the same effect.
This is too fanciful. It seems to be plainly allied to lis skin, i. e. of
men, while IIS (distinguished merely by the mode of pointing) is the
cuticle of grain ; both words being from IIS nudus fuit. ¦ — illx , const.
pi. of lis? , which is probably from lia , excidit, to fall out, as grain from
the sheaf. — aip_ — the Pleb. yip , summer, irreg. Segholate, § 29. 5. b.
— xb . . . ba , no, none. — nanbn , Ithpeal, with b radical transposed, § 10.
5. b. — nin, 3 fem. Peal of xin, the usual form would be nin, p. 72,
Peal. But sometimes the fem. here imitates the fem. in the other con
jugations (which is nT) ; see naa , Dan. 4: 19.* — nab = Heb. us , and
b Xin means to become, in Chaldee, in the same way as in the Hebrew.
— nxba, contracted for nxba (see p. 53. 3d Gutt. 3), x being here a
* This remark is omitted in Gramm. p. 74. 1.

Chai\ II. 36, 37, 38. 61
Gutt. in the root, and not a mere Quiescent. — xsix , emph. of six =
Heb. ]"is . This word exhibits the transmutation of the Heb. s into the
Chald. s ; an occurrence not very unfrequent.
The reader must not suppose, that all the four monarchies are symbolized here as
coexisting and contemporaneous, when the final blow is given. The explanation in the
sequel shows plainly, that they are successive, But inasmuch as one dynasty went
over into another, in regular succession, the last became the tout ensemble and repre
sentative of the whole; and when it was sniitten, in a certain sense all perished to
gether. One thing should be specially noted here, viz. that an end of all is made,
when the fifth kingdom begins to be setup. So the text: " They were crushed at
once or altogether, the iron, clay," etc. Their utler destruction is most graphically de
scribed, by the subsequent image of chaff blown away by the wind. No place, there
fore, is found for them.
(36) This is the dream ; and the interpretation thereof will we now declare before
the king.
laxa, §21. Daniel again includes his companions with himself; for
this seems to be the meaning of the 1st plur. here. The pluralis majes-
taticus he surely would not apply to himself on such an occasion ; and it
would therefore seem that he speaks communicative, comp. vs. 17, 18, 23,
above. (37) Thou, 0 king, art king of kings, on whom the God of heaven hath bestowed
dominion, strength, and power and glory.
nnas, see v. 31. — ~b . . . 11, lit. to whom of the 2d pers., which we
cannot so express in English, but the sense of which I have given above.
The il of course belongs to the Tjb , and gives to it a relative sense, al
though separated far from it. — nbx , Nom. before the verb for the sake
of emphasis. — The four nouns that follow are all of the emph. form, and
from their specific meaning here, would claim an article in the Hebrew ;
§32. 1. — nspn, with 6, comes from ~ph, a Hebraizing Segholate.
The two first nouns are asyndic, but the last two have each a ( 1 ). The
writer probably designed to couple them as one compound — splendid
power. The firmness of Daniel is conspicuous here. He does not
merely ascribe splendor and power to the king, (which he might well
do), but solemnly reminds him, that all this is due to the God of heaven,
who is not only King of kings, but'King of him who is every day saluted
with this high title.
(38) And wherever dwell the sons of men, the beast of the field, or the fowl of the
air, into thy hand hath he given [them], and made thee ruler over them all; thou
art that head of gold.
il-baai = ibxa in its local seDse, wherever. The ba is an intensive
6

62 Chap. II. 38.
here, as in 11 bap-bf, v. 8 above. Our English word wherever ex
presses the idea with sufficient exactness. — Wil ' -^ea* •Part• °^ ""^ >
but the vowels belong to the Qeri, 11171 , with a movable Yodh. The
Kethibh would be appropriately pointed -p-XI , and thus written, it is
simply a Hebraizing form (like aipxp) ; and inasmuch as it stands here
so written, and also in 4: 32. 6: 26, it appears that the Masorites have
been too solicitous to conform the text to the proper Chaldee. I prefer
the Kethibh, as being Hebraeo-Chaldaic. — Sons of men, common in He
brew for men, mankind, but more frequent still in Chaldee and Syriac.
— niin , const, of niin (he-va), from trn to live, final X here being put
for i of the root (§ 20. 1), the Vav is resumed where the fem. formative
n- is added. — xia,emph. form of ia, field; but the probable root
(11a inanis fuit) seems to indicate either desert, or (like igijuog) an un
cultivated place, i. e. destitute of houses, hedges, etc. — Fowl of the air,
generic like niin . That '|i««3 often designates the air, there can be no
more doubt, than that the corresponding Heb. word does. — In tjlia ani ,
the a before the noun conveys the appropriate sense, into. The hand
grasps and wields. To put anything into it, is to commit it to the dis
posal of the person to whom the hand belongs. — labbni , Aph. with
suff, hath mflde thee to rule. The root of this word points out the mean
ing of Sultan, i. e. inbffl with 1- formative. — In linbaa , ba is a noun
(root bba) with a suff. ; hence the Dagh. forte in b , lit. over the totality
of them. — Xin = the verb art, § 40. 1. Still it carries a kind of de
monstrative force with it, like that of the Greek ovzog, and is equivalent
to thou art the very or that same. — nbxl emph. of bxi for bxi . The
description given in this verse of the extensive dominion of Nebuchad
nezzar, is of course not to be literally urged ; for in a court-compliment
or address, (which must be such as not to give offence), who can exact
literal exegesis? Is Paul to be taxed with uttering a fulsome com
pliment, when he addresses Festus with his usual title xgdziazs ? Acts
26: 25. That this method of describing extensive dominion was
common in the Semitic dialects, is evident from Gen. 1: 26. Ps. 8:
6—8, comp. Heb. 2: 7, 8, and Jer. 27: 6. 28: 14. The reader would
err, as I apprehend the matter, if he should attempt to prove from this
golden head, that the Babylonish empire under Nebuchadnezzar was
actually larger and more powerful than any of the three that followed.
Nebuchadnezzar is placed at the head, because the symbolic vision begins
with him ; and the natural mode of describing the image was to begin
with its most striking part — the head. The assumption, that the whole
is a mere artifice of the writer, by which he makes Daniel flatter the
king, by giving him such a preference (for in this light some view it)

Chap. II. 39, 40. 63
over others, seems to be but ill-matched with the bold and faithful and
fearless character of the man as elsewhere represented. Diversity of parts
and of metals, in the present case, is requisite in order to designate va
riety of dynasties. No comparison of their respective extent or impor
tance is to be made out of this ; for, plainly, the writer has himself made
the comparison in the sequel by express language — inferior to thee —
rule over all the earth — mighty as iron which crusheth everything.
(39) And after thee shall arise another dominion, inferior to thine; and another
third dominion of brass, which shall rule over all the earth.
-inai , suff. form of the prep., from ina . — laba = maba , § 31. 1. —
iinx, adj. for niinx, ib. — XSIX, the points belong to the Qeri, SIX.
The Masorites rejected the emph. form, because they regarded the word
as adverbial; but the word may be fem., and the objection then virtually
censes. The Kethibh should be read xr^s . — T\yc , the 1" of compari
son. The silver portion of the image, to which this second dominion
corresponds, is not here named ; but in respect to the third dominion,
brass is specified as the corresponding symbol, which of course shows
that the writer couples, in his own mind, the second dominion with the
silver, see in v. 32. — nxnibn , fem. of ifiibn , formed like the stat. emph.
in Dec. VIII. p. 91. In this case, it distinguishes the iinx here from
the same word above, and is in apposition with the latter iinx . - — Reign
over all the earth, an expression not to be taken in a literal geographical
sense, but as a popular phrase, indicating wide and uncontrolled domina
tion ; comp. Gen. 41: 54. Jer. 34: 1. 50: 23. Ezek. 22: 4. 2 Chron. 36:
23, where Cyrus, in his proclamation, says : " All the kingdoms of the
earth hath the Lord God of heaven given unto me." So Luke 2: 1.
To this third dynasty is ascribed a wider domain than to the preceding
one. The second is described as inferior to the first, 12a xsix ; while
the third is represented as a domain of the widest extent. What dynasty
is represented by the respective portions of the compound Colossus, will
be a subject of inquiry in the sequel.
(40) And a fourth dominion shall be strong as iron ; altogether as iron crushes
and grinds to pieces everything — e^ en as iron which dashes in pieces — all these will
it crush and dash in pieces.
laba apoc. of niaba, § 31. 1. — xisiai, the vowels belong to the
Qeri nxsiai , which is the usual normal form of the fem. in nouns with
the ending i- , e. g. isiai . Instead of the normal form, (which changes
the last i into X when accession is made), the biblical Chaldee retains
the Yodh final, and makes it movable. Our text, therefore, should be writ
ten X^Siai ; see. p. 96, under No. VIII. — nsipn is an epithet primarily
applicable to physical hardness, compactness, strength, like that of iron, as

64 Chap. II. 41, 42.
the text intimates. It does not designate, in respect to the fourth dynasty,
its potency by reason of numbers, but its resistless energy in destroying. —
il bap-ba is not causal here, but simply just as, altogether as, quite like,
etc. ; see on v. 8 above, for the form of expression. — pina , Aph. Part.
with n retained ; the idea of crushing as grain is crushed in a mill,
which is the appropriate meaning of this word, is very graphic 
bbn, Part., comminuit to reduce to small pieces, or contudit to bruise to
pieces, answer well to the Cbaldee word. Our vulgar smash comes very
exactly to it. It serves to increase the intensity of the description. The
corresponding word is sria and sir , both of which (from rri) are
nearly synonymous with bbn . Even as iron that dashes in pieces, re
sumes or repeats the comparison already intimated, for the sake of im
pressing on the mind of the reader the iron-like power of the dynasty.
— 'pbx-ba , according to the accents, belongs to sria . But this mars the
sense and the grammar. To what can '|ibx relate, if such a construction
be adopted ? As the apodosis must begin, therefore, with ba , we might
expect another a {as) =so before it. But this is often left unexpressed ;
which is frequent also in Hebrew. The subject of Sini pin is laba .
pin is Aph. 3 fem. Fut. of ppl , and Sin is Fut. Peal of SSI , n be
cause the 1 excludes the Dagh. forte. In English, the three verbs are
well represented by crush, smash, and dash to pieces.
(41) And since thou sawest the feet and the toes, a part of them the clay of the pot
ter and a part of them iron, the dominion shall be divided, and there shajl be of the
firmness of iron in it, inasmuch as thou sawest iron mingled with the whitish clay.
"^ = ""?$ i quod, since that, because that, nnim , n paragogic, 2 sing.
Peal. — linaa twice, the vowels being for the Qeri -,naa , see on v. 33 ;
linaa (so the Kethibh) being masc, the Punctators have changed it to the
fem. form, so as to agree with the usual gender of the antecedents. But
may not bai have been of the common gender ? If so, the change is un
necessary. — xnasa , emphatic/em. Part, of asa , used here as an abstract
noun, that ivhich is stable, firm, i. e. stability, firmness. — xaia , argilla,
white clay, such as potters use, and so (with 5)bn) it is named above
clay of the potter. The idea must be, that the clay in the image was
hardened by fire, otherwise the feet and legs could hardly be imagined to
support the body of the Colossus. But still it was, even in that condi
tion, far inferior to the iron in point of hardness and firmness.
(42) And since the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, in part
the dominion shall be strong, and in part it shall be brittle.
Iinsa as above. — nsp ia , see on 1: 2 above. — niian fem. (n for the
Heb. b), brittle, friable, i. e. that which can be easily broken or separated.
There is a clear intimation, in these last two verses, that the fourth dy-

Chap. II. 43. 65
nasty is of quite a different complexion from the other three. The
brittle and the strong are commingled in it. But not merely this. In
describing the second dynasty above, which includes the breast and arms,
nothing is said or made of the fingers attached to the hands, because no
special significancy is designed to be given to them. But here the toes
are twice mentioned separately from the feet, (vs. 41, 42). Why ? Let
the reader turn to chap, vii, where is another vision of these four monarch
ies much more full and explicit than the present one, and he will there
find ten horns of the fourth beast (vs. 7, 20), distinguished in the same
way, which are explained by the angel-interpreter (7: 24) as meaning ten
kings, — ten who are to precede the little horn (vs. 8, 20, 24), which, be
yond all reasonable doubt, symbolizes Anthiochus Epiphanes. The ten toes,
in the passage before us, partly of iron and partly of clay, appear, there
fore to designate, in a special manner, the ten kings who precede the king
symbolized by the little horn, whose reign and character correspond well
with the symbol of the iron and the clay. But the ten kings, although enig
matically intimated, are not here brought to special view, nor is anything
here said of the little horn. Diverse in the mode of representation, but
not in substantial meaning, is Dan. 8: 8 — 12. But we shall find some fur
ther characteristics of this dynasty in the next verse ; to which we now
come. (43) Since thou sawest iron mingled with the whitish clay, they shall intermingle
with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave together this with that, see ! even as
iron cannot mingle with clay.
Since thou sawest, etc. It does not seem to have been duly noticed by
interpreters here, that v. 43 is coordinate with vs. 41, 42, which com
mence with the same expression. That the 1 of connection is omitted,
is quite usual in this book, as already remarked. The ground of such an
arrangement may be easily explained. Vs. 41, 42 explain the mixture of
the iron and clay, as symbolizing an empire which is both weak and
strong, i. e. has some weak points and some strong ones. Evidently the
mixture of iron and clay in the feet and toes, indicates that the colossal
image has but a frail support. Accordingly when the stone from the
mountain strikes the feet, the whole image falls and is crushed to powder.
But here (v. 43) the mixture of the iron and clay is represented as sym
bolizing another remarkable characteristic of the dynasty in question, viz.
the intermixture of the party-chiefs of the fourth dynasty by marriage,
in order to promote their respective designs, and also the failure of these
arrangements to accomplish the end proposed. This circumstance is so
peculiar from its nature, that one at first wonders that such a matter should
6«

66 Chap. II. 43.
be introduced, in order to characterize a dynasty. It implies, of course,
that there were several chiefs who negotiated intermarriages ; for the
marriage of a single reigning prince with some one, or any one, is such
an ordinary circumstance, that there would be nothing distinctive or char
acteristic in a symbol of it. It also implies, that while the object of such
alliances was union, or at least a design to bring about a peaceable state
of things, that object was in a peculiar manner defeated. But the solu
tion of such an enigmatical symbol it would be difficult to make out, )iad
not the writer himself suggested it in another almost historically graphic
prediction respecting the fourth dominion in chap. xi. 6, 7, and 17.
Chap. vii. and viii, which bring before us the fourth dynasty, and particu
larly one of the most formidable among the chiefs of it, omit indeed all
reference to the peculiarity now in question. But chap, xi, as just refer
red to above, gives us an ample view of what is meant. That both this
and the passage before us belong to the same events, and to the same
dynasty, no one, I think, can reasonably call in question for a moment.
The nature of the case is so entirely sui generis, that the coincidence of
symbol and events in both chapters is conclusive. But the historical
facts connected with the illustration of this, must be reserved for a fuller
account of this matter in remarks on ch. xi. 6, 7, 17.
1??° i Part. pass, of Pael, is here substituted instead of the linaa in
the preceding verses. It is probably adopted here, because it is needed
in the next clause to designate intermingling by marriages. — "jiaisna ,
Part, of Ithpael ; the implied subject here is the divided kings. — ",inb for
lini , see on v. 20 above. — By or with the seed of men ; this last phrase,
seed of men, in 1 Sam. 1: 11, means simply a male. But this would not
make the requisite sense here. The word sit also means family, offspring,
descendants ; which fits well here, viz. they shall intermingle by or in the
way of family alliances, nibax serves merely to show, that the literal
sense of Sit is not to be thought of. — iipai , Part. Peal ; for the com
mentary, see Dan. 11:6, 7, 17. The design of junction or union, in a
political point of view, is wholly frustrated; ^pai xb — nai-cs nai, one
with the other, or lit. this with that, which is the only way in which the
Chaldee can express the idea contained in the first version. — xn , ecce,
see now, calling the special attention of the reader to the fact, that 'disap
pointed alliances by marriage are also symbolized by the mixture of the
iron and clay, as well as a mixed condition of weakness and strength,
which had already been described. Altogether of the like nature is the
symbol of the beast (Apoc. 17: 3, 9, 10), which has seven heads (v. 3).
These indicate, first, « seven mountains," [of Rome] ; then, " seven kings,"
(vs. 9, 10). In other words, a significant symbol may be used for more

Chap. II. 44. 67
than one purpose ; but when it is so, the writer always takes care, for the
sake of perspicuity, and in order to aid the reader, to declare that he em
ploys it in this way. So in the case before us.
(44) And in the days of those kings, the God of heaven shall set up a kingdom,
which shall never be destroyed, and a dominion that shall not be left to another peo
ple. It shall crush and bring to an end all those kingdoms : but itself shall stand
for ever.
Those kings must of course mean the kings that belong to the fourth
dynasty, although they have not thus far been expressly named, but
only by implication. It is not to be limited, as I apprehend the matter,
merely to the kings who contract alliances, but is designed to comprise
the kings at large who reign during the dynasty. — The phrase limai'ia
is a general one, and not of specific limitation like the xaig i]pegaig ixei-
vaig of the N. Test. From the nature and order of all the preceding
cases, this fifth kingdom is to be successive, not coetaneous. This inde
structible and immutable kingdom is to be built on the ruins of all the
others ; and so it is described as crushing and making an end of them.
The explanation agrees with the account of the symbol, vs. 34, 35.
There the stone cut out of the mountain smites the feet of iron and clay,
and the whole image falls and is dashed to pieces. The symbol is per
fectly congruous. All the four empires are symbolized by one and the
same image connected together. When the feet therefore that support
this image are crushed, then falls the whole -Colossus, as a matter of
course. But as a matter of historical fact, the empires represented by the
image are successive, and must be so considered ; and indeed they are so
represented by Daniel in his interpretation of the symbol. In the present
verse, the writer has merely followed out the symbol, in his explanations ;
and' what he says, if strictly urged without any reference to the nature of
the symbol, would imply the contemporaneous existence of all the four
monarchies, when the fifth commences its course. Yet as this would
altogether disagree with the actual nature of the case, and with the au
thor's own representation of the matter in other passages, we cannot for
a moment hesitate to say, that when the fourth dynasty is crushed, which
virtually comprised all the others, then the whole are represented as be
ing crushed. It is not necessary, moreover, to suppose this crushing to
take place, after the time when the fifth kingdom had actually begun. If
it took place as being necessary to prepare for the coming or ushering in
of the fifth kingdom, then it may well be said that this kingdom occasioned
the crushing. It is enough, that before the fifth dynasty becomes actu
ally established, the other preceding dynasties are no more. This last
circumstance seems very plainly to oppose the idea that the Soman domi-

68 Chap. II. 45, 46.
nation constitutes the fourth dynasty ; for this had not reached its acme
when Christianity was established. — bannn, Ithpael. — panbn, Fut.
Ithpael of pab, n transposed, p. 40. 5. 6 ; for Hireq in a , see p. 49. 2.
— SjOryi , Fut.Aph. of r,ia, p. 67, top. — xniaba , p. 92. Par. A. c.
(45) Inasmuch as thou sawest, that from the mountain a stone was cut out with
out hands, and crushed the iron, brass, clay, silver, and gold, the great God hath
made known to the king what shall be hereafter ; the dream moreover is certain,
and the interpretation thereof faithful.
il bap-ba here = 11 in vs. 41, 43 ; only more intensive in form. —
nitann , 3d' Fem. Ithpeal, p. 53. 3d Gutt. 3. — lai xb il , see on. v. 34.
— Iron, brass, etc., again asyndic ; see on v. 35. — Xinb , as in v. 20. —
aisi is a predicate of xabn , and therefore needs not to be in the stat.
emph. — 'aina , Part. pass. Aph. from lax , with n prefix retained,
p. 49. 5. The object of Daniel's assertion in this case is plainly to as
sure the king that all which he had said was from such a source, (viz.
from that " God in heaven who revealeth secrets," v. 28), that it might
be confidently relied on. There is doubtless an implied reflection upon
the divination and soothsaying of the Magi ; but not in such a way that
the king, or they, could justly take any exception to it. That Daniel
stakes his future credit and condition upon the certainty of what he had
disclosed, lies upon the very face of the matter. The sequel shows, that
the consciousness of Nebuchadnezzar, awakened by the disclosure of
Daniel, testified to him that the Plebrew seer had correctly related the
dream ; and therefore he might well conclude, as he seems for the time
to have done, that all which was predicted would take place.
Inasmuch as this dream of Nebuchadnezzar contains only the germ of what is more
fully unfolded in chap, vii, viii, xi, I shall defer the discussion respecting the different
empires, to which it alludes by bringing to view the different substances and different
parts of the colossal image, until the reader has further opportunity to become more
acquainted with the nature and object of the present book.
(46) Then king Nebuchadnezzar fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and
oblation and sweet odors he commanded to bestow abundantly upon him.
inisax , pi. suff. of qax , which however is not used in the sing., =
Pleb. biBx where the 3 is asssimilated. — Comp. ngoaxvvsw, e. g. in
Matt. 2:11. To fall on one's face means to prostrate one's self to the earth,
until the face comes in contact with the ground, — comp. nsix mnbil , Gen.
18: 2. This of itself would not determine the question, however, whether
Nebuchadnezzar meant to pay divine or civil honors to Daniel ; for such
prostration was common before kings, princes, of indeed before any one
intended to be specially honored, as well as before God, when in the atti-

Chap. II. 47. 69
tude of adoration. Abraham paid such an honor to the children of Heth,
who had given him a burying place for Sarah, Gen. 23: 7. Moreover,
the word lap (§ 12. 1. 1), worshipped, or paid homage, is not decisive of
religious worship. Neither would the sweet odors presented to Daniel,
indicate with certainty the design of the king ; for these are as common
in the East as prostration, and are in themselves merely a token of special
honor. But the nnaa is relied on, by Leng., as evidence of religious
homage, for he speaks of it as distinct from ym , the latter meaning
present or gift by one man to another, while the former, as he avers, de
signates oblations made to God. A glance at nnaa in Ges. Lex. dissipates
all this ; for the word is often employed for common, and especially for
liberal, gifts of men to each other, and also for tribute paid to the govern
ment, (which bears the soft and courteous name of nnaa) . From the
state of Nebuchadnezzar's mind, who was overwhelmed with astonish
ment, we may reasonably conclude, that at least he meant, by his pros
tration, oblations, and odors, to acknowledge Daniel as the accredited
interpreter of the God who had thus revealed secret things, and through
him to present his homage and oblations to the God of the Jews, who
could perform such wonders. Still, reasoning of this kind presupposes
some illumination of mind on religious matters, and how much of this Neb-
uchadnezar possessed, it would be difficult to say. That any abiding
conviction of the immeasurable superiority of the God of the Jews above
the Babylonish divinities, was now fastened on the king's mind, is clearly
negatived by the following chapters. But he was a man of vehement pas
sions and strong impulses, and at such a moment as the one before us, it
is no wonder that he went all lengths in testifying his astonishment and
solemn awe. Daniel seems, if we consult the next verse, to have been
rather the medium of worship (such as it was), than the direct object of it.
— na&ab , Inf. Pael of "pa , lit. means to pour out, or (like the Greek ane'v-
dsiv) to make a libation, etc. In this sense it would apply only to linhi? ,
sweet (liquid) odorous substances, and then we must assume a zeugma in
respect to the preceding noun. To avoid the necessity of this, I have
given to the verb a secondary or tropical sense, and rendered it abun
dantly bestow ; which, at least, accords well with the nature of the occa
sion. (47) The king answered Daniel and said : It is true that your God is the very
God of gods, and Lord of kings, and the Bevealer of secret things, inasmuch as thou
hast been able to reveal this secret.
abp i» , lit. of a truth, i. e. it belongs to truth, or is a part of it = truly,
verily. I have rendered the phrase simply true, in order to conform the
expression to our usual idiom. — lianbx , sing, with 2 plur. pron. suff.,

70 Chap. II. 48.
where your relates to Daniel and his companions. Xin = avzog iou,
= the very, the self-same.— Xia , Part, noun, Dec. III. b. p. 91, X being
radical not emph. — nba , another Part, noun, or it may be taken in a
verbal sense. — nba7 , 2d pers. sing., for Daniel was the only one who
revealed the mystery which the king had in view. The suffix above {your)
points to the God of both Daniel and his friends, to whom these Plebrews
held a common relation ; but the interpretation of the dream was given
only by Daniel. Lengerke insinuates, that all which is here ascribed to
Nebuchadnezzar, is the result of design in the author of the book, who
wrote it in the Maccabaean times, intending by it to make a show of
the manner in which the heathen were constrained to acknowledge the
superiority of the God of Israel; and he compares the narration of what
was now said, to that which is ascribed to Antiochus Epiphanes on his death
bed, as related in 2 Mace. ix. It must be acknowledged, however, that
nothing could be more natural than for such a person as Nebuchadnezzar
to demean himself in the manner here described, in circumstances such
as his. But to controvert such matters with Lengerke, would force me
to quit the appropriate business of commentary, and go to arguing the
question : Whether anything of a miraculous nature is possible ? I
deem it to be out of place to pursue such a discussion here. I have pro
fessed my belief in the supernatural, whenever and wherever an important
object was to be accomplished by it, which could not well be accomplished
in other ways. Credible testimony then becomes the main question, for
those who admit such a position ; and for myself, I feel disposed to re
gard the book before us as containing such testimony. Our Saviour calls
Daniel a. prophet, Matt. 24: 15.
(48) Then the king promoted Daniel, and gave him large and numerous presents,
and made him ruler over all the province of Babylon, and chief overseer over all the
wise men of Babylon.
131 Pael of xai , lit. made great, i. e. great in office or station = pro
moted. — laiai , intens. form of ai , with the fem. plur. ending.
— naila , const, form, province ; which here probably means the sa
trapy of Babylonia. — "paap ai , principal lap = overseer or praefect.
What the particular duties of this office were, we do not know. That
Daniel so managed them as to keep clear of divination by sorcery or
astrology, and of the performance of heathen rites, would seem to be im
plied by the account of his demeanor which is given in the book of Daniel.
That every overseer of the kind here named should have deputies under
him, {vnagioi, oixovonoi), was the common custom of the East ; which
accounts for the circumstance mentioned in the next verse.

Chap. III. introduction. 71
(49) And Daniel made request of the king, and he appointed over the business
of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abedncgo. And Daniel was in
the gate of the king.
xniias, prop, service of any kind, but here the business of the king,
whether it concerned government or revenue. — Sina , in the gate. This
was of course at the entrance into the palace, and hence it seems indi
rectly to designate the palace itself, e. g. as threshold designates the whole
building. Thus: " Lift up your heads, 0 ye gates!" seems to mean:
' Be thou loftily erected, O temple,' viz. as a fit dwelling place of God,
Ps. 24: 7. When it is said that Daniel was at the door or gate of the
king, I understand the idea expressed to be, that he was the leading
courtier, or was he who introduced to the king those who visited the
palace. To this place, as head of all the Magi, Daniel was probably
now entitled by virtue of his office, as well as by the favor of the king.

CHAPTER III.
[This chapter might be entitled : The martyrdom of Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-
nego. Nebuchadnezzar makes a colossal image, and erects it near to Babylon He
summons all his leading civil officers to the dedication of the new idol. When they
had assembled, proclamation is made, that all --hall fall down and worship it, when
ever the music shall give the signal. All who refuse to do this are to be cast into a
fiery furnace, vs. 1 — 6. The mass assembled at the dedication obey the king's com
mand. But some of the Chaldeans (Magi), perceiving that the three friends of Dan
iel failed to do so, give information to the king, vs. 7 — 12. Nebuchadnezzar, in a
rage, sends for the disobedient Hebrews, and inquires of them whether the informa
tion is true; threatening, at the same time, severe punishment in case of continued
disobedience. The offenders do not deny the charge of transgressing the king's com
mandment, and moreover they openly declare their intention not to obey him in this
matter, vs. 13 — 18. The enraged king instantly commands them to be thrown into
the fiery furnace, which is heated to an unusual degree. The men who were the im
mediate instruments of executing this command, are destroyed by the vehement
heat of the furnace, while the three Hebrews, being bound and cast into it with all
their garments upon them, are not so much as scorched by the flames, vs. 19 — 23.
Speedily the king, who seems to have been present to see the execution of his sen
tence, perceives that the three men are loosed from their bands, and that a fourth
personage, who wore a supernatural aspect, was walking calmly and conversing with
them, in the midst of the furnace, vs. 24, 25. Overawed by this spectacle, the king
comes near the furnace, and commands the three Hebrews to come out from it. All
the king's officers around him perceive, that the fire had made no injurious impres
sion upon the accused. Nebuchadnezzar, filled with awe and consternation, declares
his gratitude to the God of the Hebrews for having delivered them: proclaims a de
cree that none shall speak ill of him, and elevates to a still higher rank in the pro
vince of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, vs. 26 — 30.]

72 Chap. III. iNTRODUCTORt remarks.
Objections almost without number have been made against this chapter.
' An image so huge and expensive,' it is alleged, ' is utterly an improbable
thing. The proportions of it, 60 cubits (= 90 feet) high and only six
cubits broad, are ridiculous, and make it impossible that it should^ keep an
upright position. Daniel too — where was he ? Not a word of him on thia
occasion. Who can believe that he was permitted to be absent ? Besides,
we have no credible account of any prophets, or miracles among the Jewa
in their Babylonish exile. How comes it, too, that a heated furnace was
already in waiting, before it was known whether it would be needed or
not ? There is, on the whole face of these matters, » manifest effort in the
writer to represent everything as wonderful ; the furnace is heated seven
times more than usual ; the men who cast the victims into it are destroyed,
while not even the smell of fire comes upon the victims themselves (v. 27).
Besides all this, the monstrous height and more monstrous proportions of
the image, are preposterous, and its expense almost beyond Conception.
The assembling, moreover, of all the superior officers, from the most distant
provinces, at the dedication of the idol, — this and all the other circum
stances show, that we have romance rather than history before us. The
Arabian Nights Entertainment presents us with many a striking parallel to
this chapter — parallels that in themselves are equally credible.'
This is a specimen of what has of late often been alleged against the his
torical verity of Dan. III. Bertholdt is taken to task by Lengerke (p. 105),
for even allowing that the story related in this chapter has any basis in
fact, or any germ of truth in it. Bertholdt, who could go far enough on
an exigency into the " neuere Kritik," was somehow a little cautious on
this occasion ; for he supposes that Nebuchadnezzar did actually set up a
large statue, and summon his officers to the dedication of it. He also con
cedes, that Daniel's companions, true to their Hebrew feelings, refused the
homage demanded, and were consequently condemned to a severe punish
ment ; from which Daniel probably procured a reprieve. " Abzuweisen '
ist" (to be- rejected), says Lengerke of all this. Differently, however, does
he speak of Hitzig. The latter (in Heid. Jahrb. 1832. h. 2. s. 125) says:
" Hengstenberg passes over the essence of the wonder [deliverance from
the furnace] in silence. This is quite intelligible ; for here he must yield
the ground, and betake himself to an a priori faith. Forsooth ! A miracle
which changes the very nature of an element, must truly be a great one.
It is indeed the greatest of any in the Old Testament; but not on this ac
count the most credible." Treffend 1 (striking), says Lengerke of all this;
and in a somewhat different sense we also might say : Treffend ! He then
cites a long passage from Redepenning (Stud, and Krit. 1833, s. 856), the
amount of which is, that ' the miracles of the O. Test, are more colossal than
those of the New, because they are addressed to the inferior senses, and
are adapted to take hold of the imagination.' Finally, Lengerke asserts
(p. Ill), that the narration before us ' will find credit only among those, who
believe in the veracity of a certain Benjamin [of Tudela], who asserts, that
the oven into which the three Jews were cast, is still to be seen standing at
Babylon.' So much for liberal criticism ; and so much, I might add, for decorum
and real liberality of feeling, in those who glory in being called their de
fenders.

Chap. III. 1. 73
I shall not now examine seriatim the various allegations above recited, inasmuch
as it would mako the introduction to chap. III. too long ; but specially because I
deem it more satisfactory to the reader, and more feasible to the writer, to pay the
requisite attention to objections, after we have duly considered the explanation of
those assertions in the history, on which the allegations in question are founded. A
safer and better judgment can then be formed of these matters.
(1) Nebuchadnezzar the king made an image of gold, sixty cubits in height and
six cubits in breadth; he set it up in the plain of Dura, in the province of Babylon.
laba , properly = axla, shadow, thence image, likeness. Like the Heb.
bap, Ezek. 8: 3, 5. Deut. 4: 16. 2 Chron. 33: 7, it is also used for statue,
to which was attributed a likeness. In the case before us, no god is
named whose likeness the statue bore ; and so we are at liberty to con
jecture what is most probable, among a people of such religious views
as the Babylonians cherished. That Belus was the principal god, is ad
mitted on all hands. Gesenius (Lex. ba>a) thinks that Belus is a symbol
of the planet Jupiter. That at a later period this was so among several
oriental nations, there is little room to doubt. But to my mind, Miinter
(Relig. der Bab. s. 16 f.) has given satisfactory proof, that the sun was
the leading divinity of the East. Baal seems to be rather an appella
tive which might be applied to any leading god = Dominus ; the article
would of course make it significant of the chief god. That Miinter is in
the right, in these views, I should argue from the fact, that all of middle
and hither Asia were worshippers of the heavenly bodies. Well might
all be such, who had sprung from the regions where Zoroaster's religion
once bore universal sway. The soul and centre of this was Ormtjsd ;
and the home and symbol of Ormusd was the sun. When, in process of
time, Parsism, i. e. the religion of Zoroaster, was modified by foreign
intercourse, and by views growing more and more heathenish, then
statues or visible symbols of the gods worshipped began to be made, (for
Parsism had none) ; and as long as the worship of the heavenly bodies
was the leading principle of any modification of Parsism, (and such it
was over all hither Asia down to quite a late period), so long the sun
would be regarded at least as Primus inter pares. But is it certain,
what shape a abs of the sun, (for such probably was Nebuehadnezzar's
image), would take among the Babylonians? That the statues of Belus
at Babylon, mentioned by Ctesias and Herodotus, were of the human
form, seems altogether probable, perhaps certain. But it is easy to see,
there might be two forms of an image made to represent the sun ; one of
the human form, symbolizing the divinity who was supposed to dwell in
the sun ; another after the form of the natural sun itself; for this would
equally well remind the worshipper of the god whom he worshipped.
7

74 Exc. IV. on Chap. IH. 1.
If the latter may be supposed, in the case before us, then a pillar-form,
i. e. an obelisk-body, with a head or top formed in the sun's likeness, not
only may, but must, naturally be supposed. For a moment we will rest
the matter here.
¦psmj = 60, from nt» or na: = the Heb. iota , six. — nine , suff. form
of ins .

Excursus IV.
This enormous height of ninety feet or sixty cubits, and breadth of only
nine feet, is that which has called forth, as we have seen above, the sar
casms and the sneers of so many recent critics. Yet a sober inquirer may
be permitted to ask : If the statue exhibited a similitude of the human form,
why did not the writer name the part of the body from which the breadth
was taken ? Was it head, neck, breast, shoulders, loins, or what ? for
surely the difference is not a little in the breadth of these parts. If it was
of pyramidal shape, then we might expect the measure of breadth to be es
timated of course from the base near to the earth. The form of the nar
ration looks very much like this. Where, in all the accounts we have of
the large size of the human form, is an account of its breadth given, with
out any reference to the part that was measured for it ? The Egyptian
obelisks are from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet in height. Might not
one of ninety feet, if the base were sunk deep in the earth, stand erect
without any difficulty, (just as well as the trunk of a lofty tree), if it were
of the breadth here named ? The huge disproportion (ninety feet high
and only nine feet broad), which is so often spoken of with a contemptuous
sneer, vanishes entirely when we suppose the form to have resembled an
obelisk. Is it not a conceded fact, moreover, that between the ancient
Egyptian and Babylonian religion, priesthood, objects of worship, and ar
chitecture, there were striking resemblances V Jablonski has shown, (Pant.
Aegypt. p. LXXX. seq.), that the obelisks of Egypt were idol-pillars. The
Chronicon Alex. (p. 89) says : " The Assyrians [i. e. those who lived be
yond the Euphrates] first erected columnam Marti, and worshipped him
among the gods." The Amyclaean Apollo, in Lacedemonia, was a pillar,
to which were appended head and feet, (Miinter Rel. der Bab. s. 59).
Among the ruins of Rome have been dug out two images, formed by a pil
lar-basis, surmounted by a bust of the head and breast, (Bottari Sculture,
etc. tab. 22 and 82). If difficulty be made, on the ground of erecting such a
huge obelisk of gilded wood, what is to be said of the obelisks in Egypt
which are of one stone, and are from fifty to one hundred and fifty feet
high ? And what of the brass Colossus at Rhodes, which, according to
Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXXIV. 18), was seventy cubits high ? And as to the
alleged grotesqueness of the proportions or symmetry, who that is familiar
with the monstrous and the gigantic which is everywhere apparent in the
Babylonish structures — walls, temples, towers, dykes, and hanging gardens
— will be disposed to make anything of this ? Geseuius himself very justly
says, (Art. Babylon, in Ersch and Grub. Encyc. Th. VII. p. 24), when

Exc. IV. on Chap. m. 1. 75
speaking of the ruins of the tower of Belus : (1 They arc imposing merely
on the ground of their colossal greatness, not on the score of beauty. All
the ornaments are rude and barbarous." In fact, the huge, the grotesque,
the gigantesque, belongs to nearly all the Babylonish works of art, which
have gained celebrity. Why was not Nebuchadnezzar's Dbs in good keep
ing with all this ?
t " But the astounding, the incalculable, the incredible expense of such an
image of gold ! It surpasses all faith, except an a priori one, like that of
Hengstenberg !"
But what if the image in question were first carved from wood, or rather,
constructed with wood, and then a strong gilding or thin gold plate were
put upon it — ¦ could it not then be called golden ? Was not this usually so ?
In Ex. 37: 25, the altar of incense is said to have been made of acacia-
tyood; yet in Ex. 39: 38 this is called the altar of gold (anjn nata) ; and
so in Ex. 40: 5, 26. Num. 4: 11. In like manner, Ex. 38: 1 tells us, that
the altar of burnt-offerings was made of acacia ; and yet in Ex. 39: 39 it is
called r.'^naii nata , the altar of brass. In both cases, the appellations
gold, brass, are of course to be understood as applied to the plating which
consisted of those metals. Clearly it was so with the idol-statues ; see Isa.
40: 19 seq., where the whole process is minutely described. So again in
Isa. 46: 6 seq., where (in v. 7) the carrying of the idol on the shoulder is
mentioned, which excludes the idea of a solid casting. Comp. also Isa. 44:
9 — 17. Again, the like is graphically described in Jer. 10: 3 seq.,specially
in vs. 4, 9. To make out the whole shape of a large idol, wood was neces
sary ; for this the carver could easily fashion. But to cast a statue of thirty,
forty, or more cubits in height, from molten metals, surpassed all the know
ledge and power of antiquity. If indeed the whole statue was metal of any
kind, it must have been hollow, and only a metalline surface (so to speak)
was constructed. The probable cost of Nebuchadnezzar's image, made in
either of the ways above described, (and these are the only feasible ones),
need excite neither the astonishment nor the sarcastic smile of critics, pro
vided they are more solicitous to inquire carefully after facts, than prone
to ridicule what they do not readily understand.
I But on almost any ground, there is not much occasion for the contemptu
ous rejection of our narrative. Of all the cities of the ancient world, Ba
bylon, the great medium and metropolis of communication between the
commercial agents of the East and West, was the richest, most luxurious,
and most magnificent. See the common views in regard to this capital, as
developed in Rev. xviii. If we are astounded, moreover, at the expense of
such an image as that of Nebuchadnezzar, what shall we say of the ac
counts of Herod, and Ctesias ? The latter says (in Diod. Sic. II. 9), that
the statue of Belus was forty feet high, and weighed 1000 Babylonian
talents. Larcher estimates the 800 talents, which Herodotus (I. 183) says
the statue weighed, at 56,160,000 Francs {= 811,240,000), which makes
each talent to be worth about 14,000 dollars ;* and reckoning with this the
* This estimate seems to be made on the ground that the talents in question were
Babylonian; which is not improbable, although Herodotus does not expressly say
this. But in III. 89 he specifies the Babylonish talent, as differing from the Attic or
Euboean talent. The latter weighed sixty minae, and the former seventy ; see Be-

76 Exc. IV. on Chap. ILL 1.
other statues that Ctesias mentions, and the apparatus of tables, bowls, censers,
etc., we have the sum of 5500 talents of gold = about 77,800,000 dollars.
If the account of such expenditure be deemed in part fictitious, (it is at
least of a somewhat suspicious character), then let us calculate what
merely the single pyramid of Cheops at Ghiza cost, and see whether it will
not far exceed this sum. Take into account, moreover, the walls of Baby
lon, said to be 250—300 or more feet high, and sixty miles in compass.
Add to these the tower of Belus, the palaces, the hanging gardens, the
dykes, the artificial lakes and canals, etc. ; and then a glance at the statue
of Nebuchadnezzar makes it dwindle down to quite a pigmy by the side of
all these stupendous structures. If we disclaim the allowance of any credit
to such accounts, how shall we dispose of the testimony of Herodotus and
Ctesias, who both visited Babylon, and report from personal observation?
Nothing can be more true or timely than the remark of the sober and judi
cious Heeren, (Ideen, etc. I. 2. s. 170) : " The circle of our own experi
ence cannot, as a matter of course, furnish us with the measure of that,
which, in other countries, in a different climate, and in different circum
stances, is possible. Do not the Egyptian pyramids, the Chinese wall, and
the rock-temple at Elephante, mock as it were at our criticism, which arro
gates to itself the power of defining the limits to which the united power of
whole nations can go ?" In accordance with the spirit of this, the most re
cent classical critics of name seem to be united in the opinion, that the
more Herodotus and some other ancient historians are studied and under
stood, the higher will their credit stand. It is not seemly, then, for us to
assume a lofty air of skepticism, in respect to such an obelisk-statue as that
of Nebuchadnezzar. The like is still before our eyes, and is beyond de
nial. Look at Cleopatra's Needle ; at Pompey's pillar ; at the obelisk
standing in Heliopolis, near Cairo, sixty feet in height, more than 2000
years old, of one solid mass of stone, cut out of the quarry at Syene, i. e.
at the cataracts of the Nile, and floated down some 600 or 700 miles to its
present locality, and there erected. Will Prof. Lengerke sarcastically sug
gest here, too, that we have another " story of a certain Benjamin ?" This
last obelisk, moreover, is only six feet and a half square at the base ; and
yet it stands, and has more than 2000 years stood, firm. The image of
Nebuchadnezzar was nine feet at the base, and was one third higher than
the one at Heliopolis. Are not the proportions then of the height and base
of the Babylonian, altogether homogeneous with the Egyptian obelisks?
These range from four and a half to twelve feet wide at the base, and from
fifty to one hundred and fifty in height. There they are, too, at this very
moment, palpable, visible, and of one solid mass — not a dream or phan
tasy of some wonder-loving Jew in the time of the Maccabees, as Lengerke
would fain persuade us, in respect to the passage under examination. If
the image erected by Nebuchadnezzar was so large as to exceed all credi-

loe's Herod. II. p. 229. But all this amount of gcJd in Belus's statue, (if indeed it
were really all of gold), is only one item in the list which Ctesias gives. He states
that the statue of Rhea weighed 1000 talents ; that of Mylitta, i. e. Venus, 800; a
table for the idols, 500 ; two drinking cups, 300 ; two censers, 60 ; one bowl for Ju
piter, 1200 ; for the other two statues also one each, 1200 together; amount of the
whole, 5,500 talents = 77,800,000 dollars.

Exc. IV. on Chap. III. 1. • 77
bility, what must be said of one which Asseman mentions, in his Biblioth.
Orient. II. ? The passage runs thus : "In the year 866, the idol of the sun
in Heliopolis, a city of Phenicia, was struck with lightning, and together
with the temple was reduced to ashes. It is said that it was 150 cubits high,
and 75 broad."
In truth, if the account before us is so monstrously incredible as some
critics of a recent class assert ; if the incongruities are so staring, and in
such high relief; then what kind of a witling was he, who wrote the book
of Daniel at so late a period ? Did he hope to make the impression that
the book was true, or that it was false ? Doubtless the former. How then
could he write such incongruities and monstrosities, that would wither away
at the scornful rebuke of even common sense, not to speak of searching
criticism? In short, in whatever light we look at the matter before us,
we cannot well do otherwise, in respect to the difficulties alleged against it,
than say to the latest advocate of liberal criticism on the book of Daniel, to
whom I have just now referred, — Non in rebus, sed in teipso. A deeper
acquaintance with antiquity, and more of generous candor, would help very
much to cure the malady of such skepticism.
To take leave (for it is time) of this protracted discussion, I would merely
remark, that as the great plain of Mesopotamia abounds not in any quar
ries of stone, it is scarcely probable that the mass of Nebuchadnezzar's im
age was of this material. All the ruins of Babylon, with very few excep
tions, are of sun-baked and of burnt bricks. It is barely possible, that such
an obelisk of stone might have been floated down the Euphrates, from the
Armenian mountains. But in respect to making fast a wooden structure,
so slender, and of such a height, no imaginable serious difficulty could ex
ist, any more than our ship-wrights now experience, in making firm masts
that are higher, and have all the pressure of the sails to bear, when urged
by vehement winds. A single tree of fir, or cedar, or cypress, could easily
have been found in . the Armenian mountains, which might be set very
deeply and fastened in the ground, and running up through the centre of
the obelisk, keep it secure in its position. Had the idol been of stone, it
would not probably have been either gilt or plated. All Egyptian analogy
is against this. But if it were of wood, and was surmounted by either an
image of the natural sun, or a supposed resemblance of Belus wrought as a
bust, and if the whole was then gilded or plated with gold, the appearance
would be striking, and at least in harmony with the pride and superstition
of Nebuchadnezzar.
As to the time when the erection of this image took place, nothing defi
nite is stated in the text, and we are cast upon conjecture. In all proba
bility, the last time that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judea (B. C. 588), de
stroyed the government, " rifled all the vessels of the house of God, great
and small, and the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of
the king and of' his princes," might have afforded him the occasion and the
means of erecting the idol in question, as the monument of his victories,
and as a token of gratitude to Belus. Tyrant as he was, he was strongly
tinctured with heathen superstition. Subsequent to the first siege and cap
ture of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar, after rifling the temple in part of its
furniture, " brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god," Dan. 1:
2. When, at the last invasion, he had obtained possession of the treasures
7*

78 Chap. III. 2.
of the temple, king, and nobles, might he not have easily erected his new
idol ? And is not this a probable occurrence at the period in question ?
The return from the first invasion was too early for the transactions before
us. As to wealth, it should be remembered, that the father of Nebuchad
nezzar had helped to rifle and destroy Nineveh ; and that Nebuchadnezzar
himself had overrun and rifled most of hither Asia and Egypt, before he
went to Babylon to assume the crown. Lengerke should look well to his own
position, when he treats with a sneer the opinion, that the matter before us
bears the impression of history, and not of romance. A romance, one would
be apt to think, would have given a different view of a merely imaginary
idol, and taken care to make it more analogous to those in the temple of
Belus, as described by Herodotus and Ctesias.
Some have supposed the statue of Belus, mentioned by these authors, was
the same which is brought to view in the text before us. But that was placed
in the temple of Belus ; this, on the plain of Dura, (some circular intervale,
as the word XIW imports), near to Babylon. Another Dura there was,
on the Tigris ; and still another on the Euphrates, near the mouth of the
Chaboras ; see Lex. Neither of the two latter could be the one in question.
The word ns>pa , const, does not mean merely a valley, in our limited
sense, but a plain, extended fiats. So in Gen. 11:2, where the same country
is meant as that afterwards occupied by Babylon. Province of Babylon shows
that the writer means to say, that the statue was not erected within the city.

(2) And Nebuchadnezzar the king sent to assemble the Satraps, deputy governors'
[or praefects], overseers, chief judges, treasurers, the learned in law, counsellors, and
all officers of provinces, to come to the dedication of the image which king Nebu
chadnezzar had set up.
After nbtti sent, some word is of course implied which indicates messen
gers, i. e. agents employed to give publicity to the summons of the king.
— tasaa , Peal Inf. — x;iQilfflnx , emph. form, satraps ; this and most
of the names of civil officers that follow, appear to be wholly or partly
derived from the northern Zend or Parsee language. The most probable
etymology of the words is inserted in the Lex., and it would be needless
to repeat it here. One thing, in respect to these names in general, must
be obvious, viz. that in European governments, and in ours, there are no
officers which exactly correspond ; so that an exact verbal translation in
this case would be as impossible as it is literally to translate tribunus,
consul, and the like. I have employed Satrap, because the word is now
somewhat common among us, in treating of oriental history. The basis
of this appellation is plainly discernible in the four letters (Spitti) of the
word above. It designates the governor of a whole region, province, or
country ; and frequently the office amounted to a Vice-regency over the
whole of a tributary nation. It may well be compared with the modern
office of Pasha under the Turkish government. Officers of this class of
course stood next to the king in dignity ; and so they are here naturally

Chap. III. 2. 79
named first. — XiJSS doubtless designates here the civil officers next in
rank to the Satraps. I have rendered it deputy-governors, intending to
designate by this term those officers in different portions of country with
in a Satrapy, who acted in lieu of the chief governor or Satrap, pro re
nata, and whose business it was to see that all went on in an orderly
manner. Havernick (p. 99) supposes it to designate an overseer of the
State-council or Magi, because in Dan. 2: 48 it is applied in such a sense
to Daniel. But I take the generic idea of the word 150 to be that of prae
fect, vicarius [sc. principis] ; and so it is often applied to the Jewish nobles
and overseers, in the time of Ezra. Ezr. 9: 2. Neh. 2: 16. 4: 8, 13. 5: 7.
7: 5. 12: 40. There is scarcely room for doubt, that the word designates
the order of civil officers in the provinces next to that of Satraps. —
Knjns , emph. pi. of nns = nne with Dagh. f. implied in the n . The
etymology is somewhat uncertain ; see Lex. It designates an overseer or
praefect of a small province, and is of nearly the same meaning, to all
appearance, as the preceding word. Still, however, it probably designated
a class of officers, who might not indeed be unlike to the XJ3SD as to rank,
but whose duties at least were specifically different. — Of XJitailX there
can be little or no doubt. This word is apparently Semitic ; for lix.
means magnificence, and its signifies to cut, cut off, decide, decree. So we
have, somewhat plainly, the supreme Judges of the king's court. — xiiais ,
put for and = Xiian , (1 for t), compounded, as it would seem, of a Se
mitic root and a Persian termination, see Lex. That it means treasurers,
there is no good room for doubt. Comp. ijj in Lex. . — X*iani , emph. pi.
from iani , compounded also of the Semitic ni , law, statute, and the
Persian formative termination -bar. The meaning is plain, viz. juris-
consulti, men learned in law. — XinSFi , emph. pi., of Semitic origin again,
like the Arabic Xajo Mufti, counsellor, one who responds to questions
in law, or respecting right ; comp. the illustration in the Lex. — i.?»bttj ,
pi. const., embraces all officers not specifically named, to whom any con
siderable power or sway was committed, i. e. public civil functionaries or
magistrates ; but in this connection it plainly does not comprise those of
the lowest or of the lower classes, inasmuch as these would add no impor
tant honor to the dedication-feast ; and their presence, moreover, in the
provinces was necessary for the preservation of peace and good order,
while the superior officers were absent. — xnab , Inf. of xnx , with the
initial quiescent x dropped in the writing. — To the dedication of the
image ; for by this ceremony of consecration or dedication, the image be
came a public and authenticated object of national worship. No new god

80 Chap. III. 3, 4.
is mentioned as introduced by Nebuchadnezzar on this occasion ; nor is
this probable. The new image, however, which may probably be re
garded as a votive offering on the part of the king, was more imposing
and conspicuous in appearance than any that had been made before.
Pride, exultation, superstition, and love of display, all combined to pro
duce this new colossal structure. — E>i|5n = nipx Aph. of Wp, with a
Hebraizing form as to the consonants ; for vowels, see § 10. 4. 2.
In respect to the great assemblage of officers, on this occasion, comp. a
similar transaction in Est. 1: 3 seq., (probably a general consultation by
Xerxes, previous to his invasion of Greece). The objection made to both
these accounts, viz. that such a desertion of their posts by so many offi
cers, would occasion disorder and revolt in the provinces, can have but
little weight. All the governments of the East were military; and
everywhere the soldiers remained under their active officers, to quell any
disturbance. Such a warrior as Nebuchadnezzar knew well how to
manage matters of this kind. The efficient part of the military regime
probably remained at their posts. One object of such an extensive assem
blage doubtless was display ; but the principal one seems to have been, a
determination to make the worship of the new idol imposing and uni
versal. (3) Then were assembled the satraps, deputy-governors, overseers, chief judges,
treasurers, the learned in law, counsellors, and all officers of provinces, for the dedi
cation of the image which Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up ; and they stood
before the image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up.
Iiaxia = -paija , § 22. 1 ad fin. — bajsb , lit. at the before, used as a
preposition, and translated before.
(4) And a herald proclaimed aloud : To you, ye people, nations, and tongues, is
it commanded ;
xtiia , emph., the Norn. abs. tiia = ti'ia , § 28. b. 6. — xi|? , Part.,
denoting continued or repeated action. — buna , in pause, lit. with strength
or might ; which, when applied to the voice, of course means with loud
ness, i. e. a herald loudly proclaimed. — TTPX , lit. do they command, for
lax in Chald. often means command ; see on 1: 3. An indef. or imper
sonal verb is expressed by the 3d sing, or plur., § 49. 3. a. b ; and more
generally requires to be translated by the passive voice ; see ib. —
!*;aa? > emph. pi. ; the Hebrew, instead of duss sometimes has mass ;
the Aramaean does not write the first a by a Dagh. f, as is usual in most
derivates of 2$ , but presents the form in full ; for the usual formation
of nouns which double the middle radical, see § 28. b.

Chap. III. 5. 81
(5) At the time when ye shall hear the sound of the cornet, pipe, harp, sambuk,
psaltery, bagpipe, and all kinds of music, ye shall fall down and worship the golden
image, which Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up.
b;? = Heb. bip . — XJip , emph. of 1"ip , a Hebraizing Segholate,
lit. horn, and so cornet (from cornu) well translates it. We might com
pare, for illustration, our French horn. — xnipiiuia (from pill; to whistle)
designates a shrill piping instrument like a fife. The Greeks have trans
ferred the word to their language, e. g. avgiy^, avgiy, avgiyua, ovgiyyiov,
and hence the verbs avgit^co and avgiaaca, the noun denoting the reed-pipe
or Pan-flute. That it was a shrill, loud instrument, is clear, since pilB
is employed to denote the giving of the signal sound for the assemblage
of distant troops, Isa. 5: 26. Fife comes the nearest to it, perhaps, of any
instrument in use among us. — D'mip , the vowels here, and in vs. 7, 10
below, belong to the Qeri orthography, viz. Oinp . The Kethibh how
ever is preferable, which would read b'inip , seemingly the Greek xl&agig,
harp or guitar ; for the word seems to be, of itself, rather generic than
specific, and to designate stringed instruments beaten with the fingers.
The allegation, that the word is a Greek one, in Daniel, appears to have
little solid foundation. Strabo seems to have settled this question (x. 3) :
xi&agav '^4aiciziv gdacsaiv, beating the Asiatic harp ; and Lengerke him
self confesses the probability, that both the Greek and Chald. word
comes from the Persian Sitareh, which means a six-stringed instrument.
— xaas , in vs. 10, 15, written xaaia {Sin for Samekh), was a triangular
instrument, furnished with strings, and beaten with the fingers or a plec
trum. Athenaeus (Deip. iv. 23) says : 2vga>v svgijpd cprjaiv shat, i. e.
one says it is a Syrian invention. The variations of the Greek orthography
show that it was probably a foreign word, about the manner of spelling
which there was no fixed rule, e. g. aau^i'xi], aapfivxi], ^au^ixij, t,ap^vxn,
iafifivxn, and (abridged) adpua. Not having any instrument among us that
specifically resembles it, I have felt obliged merely to transfer the word, as
we do shekel, epha, bath, and many others of the Hebrew. It resembles
the khanoon of Cairo, as described by Mr. Lane in his well known work,
Modern Egypt, II. p. 71. — liltlJGS, psaltery or dulcimer, which trans
lation, however, explains nothing, inasmuch as it merely designates an
instrument, the music of which was accompanied by the voice of the
player ; and of these there were many kinds. In Egypt they have an
instrument evidently of the same name, y/JaJuZ, santir, (Mr. Lane,
p. 77, writes it sunteer), which is a species of the dulcimer, is stringed,
and is beaten with two small sticks. This also resembles the khanoon.

82 Chap. in. 5.
Those who advocate the late authorship of the book of Daniel, say with
great confidence, that the writer must have lived where he became ac
quainted with Greek, since this word is plainly the Greek tpaXrr,Qiov, the I
being exchanged for n in the Chaldee — an exchange which was very com
mon ; see in Lex. under b and i . But although there can be little room
to doubt, that both the Greek and Chaldee words are substantially the same,
yet it is not quite so obvious from what language the original name was de
rived. In the Chaldee injbB , {= the Egyptian Santir), one does not see
why the 3 should have been inserted instead of the b which would correctly
represent the Greek form; for b is as congruous as 3 after the b; while in
the Greek form, it is easy to see how the Chaldee 3 might be changed to X,
because thus the word would bear a seeming relation to the verb ipdXXia.
In other words, the Greeks had an evident motive to make the change in
question : the Chaldee writer had none. I should not hesitate then to say,
that the evidence preponderates in favor of an origin not Greek, were it not
that the first syllable "3DQ looks like an attempt to translate the Greek tfi in
yiaXTij(it.ov, and such a syllable seems to be one which is not of the usual
Semitic formation. But as the P in Egyptian words is a masc. preformative,
(as in nj>1B), the Arabians in Egypt have dropped it, and now sound the
word santir, while the Chaldeans retained it. We may account for the
Chaldee form, without any reference to the Greek language, by supposing
the name to have come from Egypt. But be all this as it may, Greek instru
ments of music, with their names, might easily have wandered to Babylon,
the great metropolis of all the commerce between the East and the West.
Havernick suggests for the word "jiinSbB the etymology of bB , extremity
(of the hand), and irt to strike, beat ; which name thus explained may seem
at first view to fit the instrument in question well enough, for it might be
stricken with the hand. To this suggestion Lengerke has replied by an ar
gument very common in his book, viz. a conspicuous [ ! ] . There can be
no doubt, however, that bB means the extremity of the hand (Dan. 5: 5, 24) ;
but 1P3 means something more than to strike, for it is applied to striking off
leaves from a tree (Dan. 4: 11), to setting loose captives (Ps. 105: 20), to
loosening the hand by putting it into action, etc., (Job 6: 9). To beat a
stringed instrument seems to be quite another kind of action. There is inge
nuity enough, however, in this etymology, to deserve something more than
an exclamation point in the way of answer. From the Egyptian name santir,
now in use among the Arabs in Cairo, we may well argue the probability
that the instrument was Egyptian in its origin and name. If so, the end
ing y— is plural, and not an imitation, in the sing., of the Greek ending -iov,
as Lengerke and others have supposed. That the other nouns are of the sing.,
is no conclusive argument for the sing, here ; for if, among the Chaldeans,
the name, from some particular cause (as in many other cases), assumed a
plural form (as it surely might do), that would of course be here employed.
So in Hebrew we have Diaia , but the plur. is not necessary nor usual in
Arabic. nisbaiio, in v. 15 is written niSiBalb, and in v. 10 fiittne . If the
word be of Greek origin, the latter orthography (which the Syriac also
exhibits, and which agrees with oiycov, reed, tube), would be sufficiently

Chap. HI. 5. 83
descriptive ; for the instrument was a tube. If however the Greek avu-
qimvia {harmony) is the etymon of the Chaldee name, this would be still
more exactly descriptive ; for the instrument, (still used in Egypt, and
called summarah or zummarah, Lane, ut sup. II. p. 81), is a double one,
giving two symphonious sounds. Mr. Lane has given us a drawing of it,
n. p. 82. It is very common in the concert songs of the boatmen on the
Nile. Polybius (Frag, xxvi, xxxi, Tom. IV. Schweigh.) describes An-
tiochus Epiphanes as "going to feasts with horn and symphony (avutfco-
vlag) ;" and tells us that the same instrument gave the signal for that king,
when he entered upon a contest in the games. The Hebrew interpreters
translate the word into their language by "2's.v , and explain it as mean
ing a double flute (as in Lane, sup.) or shalm. If it is derived from a
Semitic root, the ending n^- may be of a fem. adjective nature, and
thus may be as it were merely formative. In Asia Minor, the same in
strument, as seems probable, is called Sambonga; in Italy, Zambogna.
That it was a wind-instrument, there can be no good room to doubt ; but
whether bag-pipe is the best translation of the word, may perhaps be
doubted. Fall down and worship, both combined, show the thorough homage or
worship demanded for the new idol. Prostration is both a preparatory
act for worship, and one which accompanies worship itself.
Mr. Lane, however, tells us that one species of the zumarah " is a rude
kind of bag-pipe, ... its bag being a small goat's skin." p. 83. I have,
therefore kept the word bag^pipe in the translation. — The assumption that
the word x^S^O is the genuine form, and the derivation of it from 1Eb ,
contignavit, (so C. B. Michaelis), will hardly bear. To plank or timber over
anything, corresponds not at all to the form of the instrument. If the orthog
raphy Xi3Bib be adopted, olcpov seems to be the natural etymon. On the
whole, the probability of a Greek origin here seems to be somewhat strong.
But the reasoning from it, by Bleek, Lengerke, and others, that the writer
borrowed the name from the Greek circle in which he lived, seems to mani
fest an eagerness to make much of a very small circumstance. How comes
it, one may fairly ask, that the writer, among the names of all his civil and
military officers, has not one of Greek origin ? How comes it, that in the
present case, only one of all the instruments named has, on the whole, a
probable Greek origin ? How did a writer in Palestine, so late as 140 or
150 B. C., become so familiar with all these names in our context, (Assyro-
Medo-Persico-Semitic names too), which, as a mere Hebrew of such a late
period, he would be little likely to know 'i Then as to the intercourse of the
East and the West — had not Sennacherib overrun a large portion of Asia
Minor and Egypt, more than a century before Daniel lived ? Does not Be
rosus relate that he even built Tarsus in Cilicia ? Did not Nebuchadnezzar
himself overrun most of those regions, before he took the crown ? And as
to commercial intercourse — Babylon was, long before Nebuchadnezzar's
time, the metropolis of the world. That a musical instrument, with its name,

84 Chap. III. 6, 7.
should have been transferred from Grecian countries to Babylon, in this
state of affairs, before Daniel came upon the stage, is a thing so probable
and so very feasible, that nothing can be made out on any such ground as
this, against the ordinary date of the book of Daniel. The whole thing is in
significant, as an argument. It cannot amount to a grain of sand, in the
balance by which the time of writing the book is to be adjusted ; for nothing
can be more probable, than that such a luxurious and pleasure-loving city
as Babylon, should seek on all sides for every means of increasing gratifica
tion to the eye and ear. Foreign musical instruments would be sought after
with the same, or with the like, avidity which is manifested in all great cities
of the present day, in respect to objects of the same nature.
(6) And whosoever shall not fall down and worship, at that very moment shall be
cast into the midst of the furnace of burning fire.
bQi, Fut. (r) of bS3, §18. ad fin. — xtiSB , emph. of nsti, which
has tti (not the normal 1U with Dagh. f. after it) because of the Gutt,
§ 29. 6 c. Literally ftsvi , from xsia , to look, means look, wink, twinkling
of an eye, (not hour in the English sense). So I have translated it mo
ment, (ad sensum). The na {in it) is the usual anticipative pronoun,
which strengthens the definiteness of the whole expression = in that
very moment ; § 43. 6. b. This special idiom is much more frequent still
in the Syriac. — xaini , Ithpeal, p. 72. — xiab, const, of is {gov), for
in the const, state the 1 becomes quiescent, and the word is written xis
or is ; comp. nia , const, nia in Heb. — l?nx , root )if\ to smoke ; for
1WX with X as a form, prefix, see § 28. c. 16. Comp. in verbs ss, pii
for p'pil, Gramm. p. 63. — xni^pi, fem. Part, of ipi , the second syl
lable being written with a superfluous (i), probably to denote, in the un
pointed text, that it was to be pronounced with Hhireq (short) instead of
Seghol. The masc. Part, is ipi . In vs. 23 and 26, the word is writ
ten xrnp; . That burning was not an unusual punishment in the East,
is sufficiently known. As to the Persians, see Brissonius De Reg. Pers. II.
cap. 216. So the Hebrews, 2 Sam. 12: 31, comp. Matt. 5: 22. Jer. 29: 22
mentions a certain " Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon
roasted in the fire.'' This then was a favorite method of punishment with
Nebuchadnezzar; and Chardin (who was in Persia, 1671 — 77) relates,
that in a time of scarcity, two furnaces of fire were kept burning a whole
month, in order to consume such as exacted more than the lawful price
for food ; Voyages, VI, p.l 18. At all events, it agrees well with the charac
ter of Nebuchadnezzar, to threaten such a punishment; comp. 2: 5.
3: 29.
(7) Because of this, at the very time when all the nations heard the sound of the
cornet, pipe, harp, sambuk, psaltery, and all kinds of music— all these nations, peo-

Chap. III. 8—12. 85
pie, and tongues, falling down, worshipped the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar
the king had set up.
The Participles "pb&J and lilSb (instead of verbs) are well adapted to
denote the continuance and repetition of religious prostration. The
n;3Q«!ib is omitted in this list of the music ; like to what we have seen
before, in respect to some of the classes of the Magi. Omissions of such
a nature are a characteristic of the writer's style. For Xiat na , see
§ 43. 6. J.
(8) On account of this, at the very same time, men who were Chaldeans drew
near, and made accusation against the Jews.
Wip, 3 plur. Peal, see in § 12. 2. 1. — inas, pi. irreg. of las, with
form as if from xias . — limsip ibax , lit. devoured the pieces of them,
a figurative expression indicating calumny, slander, malignant accusation,
etc. ; the noun pi., with pi. suff., is from fip . For the pron. suff. antici
pate, § 43. 6. b. — il a mere sign of the Gen., § 56. 1. The form of
expression here is not widely different from the figurative sense of ro-
dere, mordere, dente carpere, etc., in Latin. The Arabians express the
same idea by the phrase, eating the flesh of a brother, etc. The principal
cause of the accusation was probably a malignant jealousy towards the
young and aspiring Hebrews, who were already invested with desirable
offices. Possibly superstition, or (last and least of all) loyalty, might
have been the moving cause of their conduct.
(9) They addressed Nebuchadnezzar the king, and said : 0 king, live forcvc-r !
i3S , Peal, p. 72. The sentence is continued by a participle, liiax ,
used in the same manner as a verb. This mixed construction is frequent
in Heb. and Chaldee.
(10) Thou, 0 king, didst establish a decree, that every man, who should hear the
sound of the cornet, pipe, harp, sambuk, psaltery, bag-pipe, and all kinds of music,
should fall down and worship the golden image ;
Here the vowels in nipB'sb belong to the marginal Qeri, niiiBaib ; see
on v. 5.
(11) And whosoever would not fall down and worship, he should be cast into the
midst of the furnace of burning fire.
The repetition of the decree in v. 6 is, as usual, very close and exact ;
and we often find the like in Homer, and other ancient writers. Only
the circumstance, xnsiu na is omitted.
' T t -
(12) There are men, Jews, whom thou hast appointed over the business of the
province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego — those men pay no regard
8

86 Chap. III. 13, 14.
to thee, 0 king ; thy gods they do not serve, and the golden image which thou hast
set up, they do not worship.
For {- ) in "pins , see on v. 8. — linni . . . il , whom, n. is like the He
brew lax followed by a pronoun, which gives to it a relative sense.
nj = nx of the Heb., and is a mere sign of the Ace. For the seq., see
on 2: 48. — bsa . . . into xb pay no respect or regard, lit. do not place or
fix the mind. — inbs is noted in the Qeri as having a superfluous Todh.
But bs with a suff. often assumes, as here, the plur. form, and the Ke
thibh is the preferable reading. — Tprjbxb , Ace. pi. with suff., for b see
§ 56. 2. Here again the Qeri repudiates the plural, and marks (i) as
superfluous. But wrongly. The malignant courtiers doubtless mean to
accuse the Hebrews of impiety toward the Babylonian gods in general,
as well as towards the new idol. The first syllable (~xb) is a contract
form of xb , as usual.
(13) Then Nebuchadnezzar, in a furious rage, commanded to bring Shadrach, Me
shach, and Abednego ; then those men were brought before the king.
xan is like nouns in § 28. a. 2. Winer has neglected to mark it in its
proper place, viz. § 29. 6. Both nouns lit. thus : in rage and fury, i. e.
in a furious rage. — n;ninb , Aph. Inf. of xnx , with n for x prefix forma
tive. — 7|i*mJb , b before the Ace. again. — ^nin , a form sui generis,
which seems to be a passive of the Aph. inin from xnx , and to corre
spond with the Heb. Hophal in meaning. See Lex. ; and see also a fem.
form of the verb which is of the same nature, in 6: 18. It would he
difficult to find analogies for the pointing of these forms. If it is correct,
they must belong to dialect in a narrow sense.
(14) Nebuchadnezzar addressed them and said: Is it of design, Shadrach, Me
shach, and Abednego, that ye do not serve my gods, nor worship the golden image
that I have set up 1
lax , Part. — In Xisn , the n is interrogative. If the noun comes from
the verb X12 , insidiari, it would seem to intimate wily design; which
meaning is not improbable. See other conjectures in Leng. in loc. —
liainix, i.e. inix {is) with pi. form, and suff. constituting its subject;
both are united with the participle that follows ; § 47. 1. b. The king,
seemingly with more than usual moderation, first inquires into the truth of
the accusation. He probably suspected the accusers of envious motives,
and was desirous of sparing these Hebrews on whom he had bestowed
special favors. In naipn , the final syllable would regularly have a
Tseri (-), but in a closed syllable, this is occasionally shortened into (-),
see p. 48, under a.

Chap. III. 15. 87
(15) Now if ye are ready, that, at the time when ye shall hear the sound of the
cornet, pipe, harp, sambuk, psallcry, and bag-pipe, and all kinds of music, ye will fall
down and worship the image which I have made — but if ye will not worship, in that
very moment ye shall be cast into the midst of a furnace of burning fire ; and who is
that god which will deliver you out of my hand ?
The like amnnaig we have in Ex. 32: 32 ; but Zech. 6: 15. Jer. 12:
16, 17. 1 Sam. 12: 14, 15, referred to by Leng., are of another tenor.
In Homer (II. I. 135 seq.) is a case of the same nature. Comp. also
Thucyd. III. 3. IV.13. A plain case of the same nature is in Lukel3: 9.
libsn ... il liiirs , the first is a plur. adj. from lip;- . The il that fol
lows, belongs to the subsequent "^bBn 2 plur. Fut., in the office of the
conjunctive that. It would be an equally correct version, as to the sense, to
transfer "iiiri; and put it immediately before the verb, and then render
it adverbially thus : If ye will readily fall down, etc. But I have en
deavored to imitate, with some good degree of exactness here, the form
of expression in the original. — After the words which I have made,
there is a atanncrtg, the king suppressing the declaration of at: , it is wed,
or something equivalent to this. So all the ancient versions ; and so Ju
nius, De Wette, and most others. Havernick : " If ye will hear . . . then
shall ye fall down," etc. Inadmissible, because iin? is not appropriate to
such a conditional sentence, nor is such a sentence appropriate to the
feelings of the king. But the threat, at the end of the next clause, comes
out in full ; and the antithesis to the preceding clause is made plain by
the xb in at the beginning of the second clause. It is natural to suppose,
that the king discerned a refusal in the looks of the accused, which, as it
kindled his rage, led him to suppress the aa be was about to utter, and
hasten to the threat  Who is that god, etc., is designed to give efficiency
to the threat, by suggesting the impossibility of preventing its execution.
Had the king reflected on the power of that God who had revealed secrets
to Daniel, he might have hesitated to utter a challenge so audacious.
"Furious rage" however rarely reflects, but is ever prone to threaten.
Altogether like to this was Sennacherib's boasting and challenging ; see
Isa. 37: 10 seq. 2 K. 18: 30—35. 19: 10. This whole matter, with the
words uttered, is very graphic, and presents us with some characteristics
of oriental despots altogether genuine. In liapaii'ii we have a kind of
pluriliteral form, or at least an unusual conjugation, § 14. Coming from
arr , it is formed like a Poel, or rather a Pdel, where the Dagh. f. would
be normally written in the T, but here it goes into a Quiescent with a
compensative long vowel (i— ) ; hence aip'^ = atna instead of a-vo .
The penult syllable (?a) is shortened because it loses the accent, which
rests on the ultimate. — 111 , in pause for 111 .

88 Chap. III. 16.
(16) Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered king Nebuchadnezzar, and
said : We are not under any necessity to answer thee a word in respect to this matter.
Iirran , Part, of man , n for the regular n because of the Gutt. ; lit. we
are not necessitated. — Timannb , Aph. Inf. of am (p. 69), with the end
ing ni-, because of the suff., p. 56. e. The matter about which they de
clined to give any answer, was Nebuchadnezzar's threat in the preceding
declaration. There is a difference of opinion among critics, whether
nil should be joined with asr-E , or be separated from it, as the distinctive
accent upon it indicates that it should be. Grammar allows either method
of construction. Out of deference to the accents, I have followed the
latter method; which may be done, for BSPB = iai , and to answer thee
a word or by a word, makes good sense. In case the first method of
construction should be preferred, then one may regard .131 as placed be
fore its noun, in order to indicate that it is emphatic.
Lengerke, as usual, turns this account of the demeanor of the three He
brews, into an argument for the lateness of the book. It savors, as he thinks,
only of the superstition of the Maccabaean age, when the Jews thought it a
glory to suffer martyrdom rather than sacrifice to idols at the bidding of An-
tiochus Epiphanes. " We find," says he (p. 132), " a like speech in 2 Mace.
7: 2, although somewhat less pert (kecke)." Vain, he asserts, is the de
fence of the young Jews by Hengstenberg and Havernick. On the other
hand, Lengerke accuses these martyrs of an uncivil silence, on this occasion,
and of "precipitating themselves inconsiderately (leichtsinnig) into danger."
Was it so, then, that a pious Jew could hold himself at liberty to equivocate
on such an occasion, and renounce his obedience to the two commands which
stand at the head of the Decalogue ? Is he therefore a simpleton and a fanatic,
who would cast himself on divine Providence in such a case, and leave the
consequences to God, while he persevered in the plain path of duty ?
If so, what shall we say of the worthies named in Heb. xi. ? What of those
" who were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, ¦
who refused to worship the beast and his image ?" Rev. 20: 4. The writer
of the Apocalypse counts such peculiarly " blessed and holy, inasmuch as
they have part in the first resurrection," Rev. 20: 6. Are not the very He
brews now in question placed among such worthies inHeb.l 1 : 34 ? But enough.
All men have united in praising the constancy, the fidelity, and the fearless
ness of martyrs in a good cause. Those now before us need no defence
from the interpreter. Lengerke has very probably disclosed here his own
feelings, and thus virtually told us what he would do on such an occasion.
Without calling in question what he would do, we may well be content with
the course which the noble Hebrews pursued. Lengerke would have us
believe, that such superstition or fanaticism belonged only to the Maccabaean
times. What then are we to think of the martyrdom which so many prophets
underwent, and which is attributed to the ancient Jews, both in the Old
Test, and the New ? And is it in any measure to be credited, that the Mac
cabaean times were the only ones, which produced men who were ready to
expose themselves to death, rather than deny or dishonor the living God?

Chap. HI. 17,18. 89
(17) If our God whom we serve is able to deliver us, from the furnace of burning
fire and from thy hand, 0 king, he may deliver.
¦n is here rendered by the ancient Versions/or ; by most moderns, ec-
ee, lo ! No doubt the word has sometimes such a meaning. But here it
seems plainly to be the antithesis of xb in, if not, in v. 18. The mean
ing, after all, is one which does not necessarily imply doubt or uncertainty.
The sense which I take to be conveyed, might be expressed thus : " If it
so be that there is a God able, etc." The amount of the matter then is,
that instead of directly and positively asserting that God will deliver
them, they modestly suggest to the angry tyrant, that this may be so,
and that deliverance is possible, both from the furnace and from the power
of the king himself. If we suppose, on the other hand, the announce
ment to be positive, i. e. in the shape of an absolute prediction, and regard
the three Hebrews as divinely assured of escape at this time, much is
taken from their constancy and courage. Assurance absolute of safety
dispenses with courage in its higher sense. They might have hoped for
such an issue ; they probably did ; but it seems not to be improbable, that
they were not positively assured of it. Hence the alternative in the next
verse, apparently founded on the possibility, or perhaps probability, that
they might not escape. This places their courage and constancy in a
true light. In the face of danger really apprehended, they remain quiet
and firm. On the grounds alleged, we may render aitnai , at the close
of the verse by the Subj., as the form of the Imperf. permits us to do,
§ 44. 3. c. I have followed the accents in beginning the after clause with
1*inx"a , and not (as Lengerke does) with Tjli'laii . On this ground, the
first niatna has no complement expressed, and it may well be translated
as absolute, viz. to accomplish deliverance.
(18) And if not, be it known to thee, 0 king, that we shall not serve thy gods, nor
worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Xinb = xini , see on 2: 20. — S>i1i , Part. Peil, § 47. 1. — Tynbxb , pi.
with suff. p. 35. No. 2. — X3liix , i. e. inix with 1st pi. suff. which consti
tutes its subject, joined with the Part. Iinba , and used for the Fut., § 47.
1. b. The b before the noun here, and also before abab , marks the Ace,
§ 56. 2. Firmly and plainly, without the least equivocation or apology,
the young Hebrews here express their steadfast determination. But the
uncontrolled despot of a great empire, as might be expected, could not
endure any show even of reluctance to obey his commands, as the sequel
will fully declare.
(19) Then Nebuchadnezzar was filled with indignation, and the form of his coun-
8*

90 Chap. III. 19.
tenance was changed in respect to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, and he gave
command to heat the furnace seven times more than it was wont to be heated.
Dbs , usually image, axia, as above, but here plainly it designates the
appearance or form, look, of the countenance. — iniBSX , suff. plur. of
t]3X, fades.— isniax, the Kethibh is 3 plur. Ithpaal from XiB , with ta
and n exchanged, p. 40. 5. b, and (-) under the first letter, § 12. 1. 5,
i. e. the first syllable has the Syriac punctuation, comp. § 25. 2. If we
retain the pi. reading, (with the Kethibh, which written plene would
be lisnux), then the plur. verb agrees with the noun immediately before
it, (as often in Hebrew, see Heb. Gramm. § 145. 1) ; the Qeri here,
isirox , substitutes the verb sing., so that it may accord with dbs , i. e. the
Masorites have conformed the text to what they deemed to be grammati
cal analogy. I prefer the Kethibh, deeming it to be more probably the
original reading. What is meant in this clause clearly is, that the color
of Nebuchadnezzar's face and the aspect of it were changed. Passion
made him pale, or else highly flushed, (the text does not decide which),
and the expression of his visage was ferocious. — bs> , either (as in the
version above) in respect to, or on account of, viz. because of, what Sha
drach, Meshach, and Abednego, had said and done. — lax1) ills , both
participles have their complement in xiab etc. It was usual, and still is
so, in the East, oftentimes to execute judgment in a capital case upon the
spot, and under the king's eye. Hence the command to make immediate
preparation for the death that had been threatened. — Xtab , contract form
of xtxab , Inf. Peal of XTX , first X omitted because it is quiescent in the
contracted form. — nsaffi in , lit. one seven, or seven-fold, § 59. 5. a. I
have translated the phrase by seven times, because our idiom requires us
to express the idea in this manner. — il bs , beyond that which, or above
what. — ntn , Part. Peil of Xtn , lit. (the whole phrase) beyond what
had been seen in respect to the heating of it. The idea is expressed in the
version above, in accordance with the idiom that we usually employ. —
pntab , suff. Inf. in Peal, of Xjx , contracted as above. When the suff. is
appended, the final x of the root becomes movable, and is converted in
to (i), in order to make the pronunciation more facile. — The command,
given in such a style, is altogether in accordance with the passionate
character of Nebuchadnezzar. Refined cruelty in putting the condemned
to death, is an ordinary expression of savage vengeance. In reality,
however, as to the present case, if the augmented fire could have exer
cised its usual power, the sufferings of the victims would have merely
been shortened by the king's command. Boiling rage, however, does not
stop to calculate. As to seven, it has the usual force of intensity here, for
plainly the mere literal meaning is not to be urged.

Chap. III. 20-22. 91
(20) And he commanded the most powerful men of his army to bind Shadrach,
Meshach, and Abednego, in order to cast them into the furnace of burning fire.
bin iiias , lit mighty of strength, i. e. the strongest, § 58. 2. — nbina ,
bin in a derived and secondary sense, force, army, with a suff. and a pref.
prep. The soldiers of his body-guard, who doubtless were men of the
character here described, are those to whom this command is directed. —
nnsab , Inf. of Aph., with b pref. — xaiab, Inf. Peal of xal , b denot
ing the design or object in view, as zov before the Inf. in Greek often
does. (21) Then those men were bound in their wide nether garments, their tunics, and
their mantles, and their clothing, and were cast into the midst of the furnace of burn
ing fire.
iniss , Part. Peil used as a verb pass., § 13. 2. — linibaibn , designates
wide and long pantaloons, such as are still worn in the East, covering the
lower limbs and the hips ; see Lex. — linnaiBB , the vowels belong to
the Qeri, which takes BDB as the ground form, and makes the pi. linnijaB ,
(like the Syriac). The Kethibh, however, is well enough, and should be
read "pnnBiBB , pi. with suff. This means, the under garinent of the upper
part of the person, = a tunic, or shirt of full dimensions, but differing in
form from ours, and made of various material, according to the condition
of the wearer. — As to linnbaia , there can be no doubt. It means the
outer garment, the broad mantle, girded around the body ; see Lex.
The last noun, 1inna>ab , comprehends all the articles of clothing not
before mentioned, and is in apposition with the preceding nouns. —
liai , Part. Peil of xal , § 13. 2. The object of mentioning these articles
of clothing, is to indicate the haste with which the execution was
urged on, not leaving time for the usual disrobing of the condemned.
(22) On this account, because the command of the king was urgent and the furnace
was exceedingly hot, those men who led up Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego —
them did the flame of the fire destroy.
nasna, fem. Part. Aph., which conjugation here means ursit, propera-
vit. Urgent is our appropriate word — nix , Part. Peil, pointed under
the X in the Syriac manner (with -), and employed for ntx . — 'ip&n ,
Aph. of pb3 , lit. caused to ascend, which I have rendered led up. It de
signates here the leading of the men up to the opening in the top of the fur
nace, whence the flame and smoke issued. Into this they were to be pre
cipitated. It seems that there could have been but little room, on the top
of the furnace, for the executioners to stand outside of the prisoners ;
otherwise they could easily have kept back and avoided the flames. Thus
the unwonted augmentation and fury of the fire occasioned the death of all

92 Chap. IH. 23, 24.
who came near. This circumstance Lengerke, as usual, attributes to the
romancing of the author of the book ; for, as he regards the matter, by
mentioning 'this, the writer designs to augment the wonder of the reader
when he finds the Hebrews to be unharmed. On a like ground of course
we must, if consistent, suppose that John relates the raising of Lazarus
from the dead ; and so of all the other miraculous phenomena related in
the N. Test or the Old. As I cannot harmonize with such views, so I
can find, at least thus far in the narration before us, no special evidence
of any such preconcerted design, as is usually apparent in romance writ
ing. I have imitated the original in the arrangement of the last part of
the verse, viz. those men . . . them, etc. This is often the manner of ex
pression in Chaldee and Hebrew, where the design is to make any object
peculiarly prominent. Comp. § 40. 3. c, where the like usage is noted.
(23) And those three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, fell bound into the
midst of the furnace of burning fire.
I'-innbn , lit. the threeness of them, §59.1.5. — pnaaa , bound, Part. pass.
of Pael. Probably both the hands and feet were bound ; for this was
usual, in order to prevent either resistance or escape. This may account
for it, that the executioners were obliged to approach so near the furnace,
(in order to throw the prisoners into it), that they themselves became the
victims of its fierceness. That the prisoners escaped death, was of course
by miraculoeis interposition ; for the matter cannot by any ingenuity be
explained away. We have seen above what Lengerke and Hitzig
think of the whole narrative, but specially of that part of it which declares
that the fire had no power over the bodies of the young Hebrews. To
all who. reject entirely the idea of any miraculous or supernatural in
terposition, such views will of course appear plausible. For myself, I
cannot see any satisfactory reason, even in philosophy, for embracing
such views ; and as to the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments,
it is beyond any fair question that they abound in such narrations. With
that enlightened disciple of the primitive age of Christianity, whether he
be Paul or Apollos, who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews, I believe, that
"the violence of the fire was quenched," Heb. 11: 34. Nothing -there
fore urges me to make any effort, in order to avoid the plain and simple
meaning of the narration before us.
(24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonished, and rose up in haste ; he an
swered and said to his State-councillors : Did we not cast three men bound into the
midst of the fire t They answered and said : Certainly, 0 king !
nbnanna , Inf. Ithpeal, with pref. a , used as a noun ; lit. (as a verb)
in hastening himself. — iniiainb , pi. with suff. That lain comes from

Chap. III. 25. 93
13,1 , to had, guide, etc., (a meaning which the Heb. also has in Kal),
can scarcely be doubted, because the etymology gives a meaning so ap
propriate here. The persons addressed, on this occasion, were evidently
those who attended the person of the king, i. e. the royal council. Gese-
nius thinks the word to be compounded of the Chaldee piai and the Heb.
article n . But there is no other known case of the like nature in Chal
dee. Is it not more probable, that the n here is a formative prefix (= x),
and thus distinguishes T,iai here from the usual meaning attached to it
elsewhere without such formative ? The Dagh. f. does not necessarily
stand in the way ; for we have IS , isx , garden, as Maurer remarks ;
although, since the root here is of the form s's, the two cases are not
quite parallel ; comp. the Dagh. compensative in the first radical, in the
Fut. of verbs srs. Kindred words in Chaldee seem to be laia orator,
xiaia , dux. Von Bohlen's derivation from the Persian (Symb. p. 26),
seems too remote. I prefer to take the n here, as usual in this book,
to be a Hebraizing equivalent for X; and that x prosthetic and formative
is sometimes admitted by the Chaldee, see fully confirmed in Gramm.
p. 30. e ; although the present case is not exactly like to those there pro
duced. A word was probably needed of a form sui generis, to distinguish
the king's privy council from all others whom he might consult ; and this
seems to be such a word. — xjiai , the pi. Peal, from xai . — 'pi's , plur.
Part. Peal ; for this form of plurals (seemingly Dual) in verbs xb , see
p. 91, Par. VII. a. In such forms the (i) of the plur. ending is omit
ted in writing, because of the (i) in the end of the root ; so one must read
yin, not yin ; comp. Oils = Diiis in Hebrew. — xaisi , an established or
settled thing [is it], the fem. adj. being employed as indicating neuter
gender or abstract quality. We might translate : certainty.
(25) He answered and said : Lo ! I see four men unbound, walking in the midst
of the fire, and there is no harm to them ; and as to the appearance of the fourth —
he is like to a son of the gods.
T;itt5 , pi. Part. pass. Peal, of Xitti ; for pi. form see v. 24 on yw . —
liabna , Part. Aph. — TO Will. , lit. and the appearance of him, of the fourth,
11 {rev) for ixi , root nxi . The suff. here specificates, and is pleonastic
in our idiom, § 40. 3. a. — In xi^iai , (-a-ya), the vowels belong to the
Qeri nxsiai ; the form of the Kethibh is a Hebraizing one, the fem.
form being of the masc. gender, §36.2. — 'pnbx-iab , to a son of the gods,
in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar must mean, either a descendant of the
gods, or a being of a superior i. e. godlike nature. In other words,
Nebuchadnezzar recognizes in the fourth the appearance of a supernatu
ral being. Simply this, and nothing more, as I apprehend, can be drawn
from the expression ; which, in the mouth of an idolatrous polytheist,

94 Chap. III. 26, 27.
must convey merely his views of beings endowed with a superior nature.
How far the expression before us will lead us to decide on the acquaint
ance of the writer with the sacred mythology of the Babylonians, it might
be difficult to determine. Thus much is clear, viz., that all middle and
hither Asia believed in gods superior and inferior ; that a writer, living
anywhere in that region, could hardly fail to be acquainted with this fact ;
and that the expression before us might easily arise from such knowledge.
At all events it cannot well be denied, that. Nebuchadnezzar here speaks
altogether in accordance with what we know of the Babylonish my
thology. (26) Then Nebuchadnezzar drew near to the door of the furnace of burning fire;
he answered and said : Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of God most
high, go forth and come out ! Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego went forth
from the midst of the fire.
3>inb , the door must have been, of course, a side-aperture, by which
the furnace was fed, and into which the king could look without danger.
— iniias? , pi. suff., for the use of which see § 40. 3. a. — Xibs , where
the Masorites, jealous for the purer Chaldee of the book, have given us
a Qeri nxbs> . But the other form is too common here to suppose it not
to have been original. — >ip*i& , Imper. of pB3 . — inx Imper. of xnx .
This word is not repeated in the sequel, but VpSS only is employed. It
was very natural for Nebuchadnezzar, in his wonder and excitement, to
employ two imperatives nearly synonymous ; for this gives intensity to
his command = come out forthwith ! In giving the account of their going
out, one verb of course suffices.
(27) Then were assembled the satraps, the deputy-governors, the overseers, and
the privy-councillors of the king; they looked at those men on whose bodies the fire
had no power, and not a hair of their heads was singed, and their wide nether gar
ments were not changed, nor had the scent of fire come upon them.
1i\a33na!i , 1 then, as often in Hebrew. The Part, is in Ithpael, but the
Dagh. f. in 3 is omitted, as often when the Sheva would be movable. —
For the names of officers here, see vs. 2, 24, above. — litn asyndic,
whiqh, as we everywhere see, is a common characteristic of this book. —
linairaa , sing, with suff. from dtas , {-) under the 5 in the suff. form,
where we might expect (-), indicating that the word belongs to the E
class of Segholates. — Tjinnn, Ithpael, n because the Dagh. is excluded
from the 1 . isio , Peal 3 plur. of xjia . — nis , Peal 3 fem. of Xi? .
Mark the gradation here : the body is not burned ; the hair is not singed ;
the lower garments of light stuff are not changed in their appearance;
and to crown all, not even the scent of fire has come upon them. Even

Chap. III. 28, 29. 95
Lengerke, while he regards the whole account as romance, is constrained
to acknowledge, that " there is a climactic gradation in the language which
is almost poetic in its expressions," (p. 141).
(28) Nebuchadnezzar answered and said: Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Me
shach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted
in him, and transgressed the commandment of the king, and gave up their bodies,
that they might not serve nor worship any god except their God.
Tinnbx , with suff. intensive and anticipative, § 40. 3. a. — naxba , n-
suff. — aiia , see on v. 15. — wninn , 3 plur. Ithpeal, with (T) under"
the second radical n , p. 49. 2. — inibs , i. e. bs with a plur. suff., as is
usual, § 38. 2. b. — Tsui, 3 pi. Pael, lit. changed, but this, when predi
cated of a subject and not of the lawgiver or sovereign, must of course
mean transgress. So in Ezra 6: 11. — liniairs, , as it ought to be pointed,
in accordance with the Kethibh and all the ancient Versions, all of them
giving the plural here. As usual, in this book, the Kethibh is the better
reading. The pointing in the printed copy belongs to the Sing. Iinaiiis ,
which here is inappropriate. — Giving up their bodies is breviloquence ;
giving themselves up to expected destruction is what the king means to inti
mate. Nebuchadnezzar, astounded by the miraculous preservation of the
condemned, and awed by the appearance of " a son of the gods," yields
to the impulse of the moment, and testifies his homage to the God of Is
rael. He was doubtless like the Herod, who " heard John the Baptist
gladly ;" and like the Jews, who glorified God when Christ performed
surprising miracles, and sung hosannas when he was riding meekly in
triumph, but immediately afterwards, with a change of circumstances,
changed their minds, and joined the procession to the crucifixion. Con
victions wrought by the display of miraculous power, seem better adapted
to arrest the attention and check the daring course of the transgressor, than
to work a permanent change in his mind. So Paul seems to have viewed
the subject, 1 Cor. 14: 22 seq. On a ground like to this, perhaps, we may
account for it, that since the primitive age miracles have ceased to be a
constituent part of the so-named means of grace.
(29) By me then is a decree established, that every people, nation, and tongue,
who shall utter any blasphemy against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed
nego, shall be cut in pieces, and his house be made a dunghill ; because there is no
other god who can deliver in such a manner.
DiiU , Part. Peil of bib . — nbta is only an orthographic variation of the
regular ib>tl3 ; which the Qeri, as usual, supplies. It means error, and (ap
plied to language) falsehood. Falsehood uttered against God is blas
phemy ; and I have translated accordingly. — ia?ni , Fut. Ithpeal ;

96 Chap. III. 30.
for the whole phrase, see Comm. on 2: 5. — nnin , lit. his house, indi
vidualizes, and is equivalent to the house of each, viz. of each blasphemer.
— bai , Fut. of assimilation, from bai , § 20. 4. — nbanb , Aph. Inf. of
bsj , Par. p. 60.
(30) Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province
of Babylon.
nbsn lit. signifies made prosperous or happy. But as it here stands
connected with in or over the province of Babylon, it must of course mean,
that the king placed them in office again over this province, comp. 2: 49 ;
possibly, or rather (from the nature of the verb) probably, it means here,
that they were advanced to a higlfer grade of office than before.
After perusing the account of Nebuchadnezzar's demeanor, which is
contained in ch. ii, the reader cannot be much surprised at his conduct,
which is related in ch. iii. He was a despot, and a man of violent passions
and strong impulses. Like most men of this temperament, he went from
one extreme to the opposite. Allowing what is here related to have been
matter of fact, and a thing which took place under the king's own eyes,
we surely cannot be surprised that he was overawed and brought to a
kind and gentle state of mind.
[Here ends the narration, and here should end the chapter ; as in all our Versions
it does. To avoid mistake, I would notify the reader, that for Dan. 3:31 — 33, he must
look in the English Bible for 4: 1 — 3 ; and for all the references to our version through
ch. iv, he must go forward of the reference as made here, and pass over three verses
in order to find the corresponding English translation. My references are, for con
sistency's sake, to the Heb. arrangement of chapter and verse; although the division
of chapters in this ease is palpably wrong.]

Chap. III. 31—33. — IV. 34.
[This purports to be a proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar to his subjects,
after his recovery from a derangement of mind which he had suffered, and
his restoration to his former dignity. This proclamation, therefore, must
have been made near the close of his life and reign ;^and it closes the ac
count of this king, which is contained in the book of Daniel. But the reader
must not for a moment suppose, that because this book has related some oc
currences at the beginning, near the middle, and at the close, of his reign,
it has therefore undertaken to present the whole history of Nebuchadnezzar's
reign. It touches those points, and those only, with which some extraordi
nary development that has a bearing upon religion is connected. It is not
Nebuchadnezzar as head of a great empire, nor yet simply as the conqueror
of Judea, who is presented, but Nebuchadnezzar as rebuked, punished, dis
ciplined, and instructed, by an all-wise and overruling Providence.
The fact that such a proclamation as is before us was made, is a singular
testimony to the susceptible and variable temper of mind possessed by Nebu-

Introduction to Chap. IV. 97
chadnezzar. As this last document reaches a period so near to the close of
his life, and inasmuch as in his own person he had been made to feel the ter
rible effects of haughtiness and ambition, may we not hope, that what he
expresses in 4: 34 (37) continued to be his prevailing sentiment until his
death ? Many recent critics are fond of comparing him with Antiochus
Epiphanes, and zealously maintain, that the author of the ' romance be
fore us [book of Daniel], intended throughout to present in Nebuchadnezzar
a likeness of the Syrian tyrant.' On this assumption, indeed, much of their
criticism on the book is founded. But if all this be so, what an egregious fail
ure in making out a characteristic similitude .' Nebuchadnezzar was a man
of impulses, of strong passions, and of a haughty spirit. But he exhibited
when the storm of passion had blown over, many generous impulses ; as we
see in his treatment of Daniel and his companions. Antiochus was indeed
possessed of a character nearly allied to the bad part of Nebuchadnezzar's,
although on a much lower and more bestial scale ; to this he superadded his
own vulgar and swinish habits ; and all this apparently with scarce a single
virtue to redeem him from the lowest infamy. He was the unrelenting and
insatiable persecutor of the Jews and of Judaism ; while, excepting the con
quest of Judea, to which Nebuchadnezzar had been provoked by the treach
ery of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, and excepting the usual military executions
always attendant upon the subjugation of revoltcrs (Jer. 39: 5 — 7), there is
no evidence of his having treated the Hebrew exiles with any more than
the ordinary severity of bondage, in all cases of the like nature. The pro
motion of Daniel and his companions to important offices in the satrapy of
the metropolis, shows that the ki/ig had no particular bitterness of feeling
toward the Jewish nation as such. The declarations which he made, (in
cluding the proclamation before us), respecting the God of the Hebrews,
shows that his mind was capable of estimating the weight of evidence, and
that his conscience was in that state of susceptibility, that he could be deeply
affected by the majesty of holiness and truth. In all these respects, how
different was Antiochus Epiphanes, that nias (Dan. 11: 21), i. e. despicable
wretch, who crept into power by flattery and by falsehood, and who, when
living, was commonly surnamed iniptivng {mad-man) by his subjects, instead
of inKfiivng {magnificent, illustrious), a title by which he named himself !
/ ' If the writer of the book of Daniel did indeed mean to hit off Ephiphanes
in the sketch that he has given us of Nebuchadnezzar, he was one of the
most unskilful of all the likeness-painters, with whom it has been my lot to
form an acquaintance. But I shall have occasion elsewhere to touch upon
this subject, and in order to avoid repetition, I shall close here this train of
thought, and pass to the contents of the Proclamation.
The salutatory part of this communication is addressed to the whole empire, which,
in the usual style of the oriental monarchs, is described as embracing the whole earth,
3: 31. (4: 1). The king states, that the wonderful dealings of God with him, and the
greatness of his power and dominion thereby manifested, have led him to make the
declaration that follows, to his subjects, vs. 32. 33. (4: 2, 3). Nebuchadnezzar then re
lates, that he had a dream which terrified him, and that all the Magi being summoned
to interpret it, they were unable. At last Daniel came in, whom he recognized as en
dowed with a superior knowledge, and to whom he appealed for an interpretation ;
4: 1 — 6 (4:4—9). He gives an^account of the dream to Daniel, vs. 7 — 15. (10 — 19).
9

98 Chap. in. 31—33.
Daniel, recovering from the deep impression which his foreboding thoughts made up
on him, interprets the dream, vs.16— 24 (vs. 20—27). Having thus related the dream,
and its interpretation, the king proceeds, in the usual style of historical narrative, to
tell the story of his madness. A voice from heaven announced the beginning of it,
and it forthwith followed. After wandering for some time in this state among the
beasts of the field, and taking his sustenance with them, he at length recovered his
reason, and also his kingly authority and splendor. In testimony of his humility and
of his gratitude, he publishes this to all his subjects ; apparently with the design, that
they also should recognize the hand of the God of Israel in all these events, vs. 26—34.
(vs. 29 — 37). Under the guidance of an overruling Providence, there can scarcely be
room for doubt in a believing mind, that all this was designed to arrest the attention
of the Babylonians to the religion of the Jews, and particularly to render them kind
and respectful toward the Hebrew exiles now sojourning with them.

Chap. III. 31.
(31) Nebuchadnezzar the king to all people, nations, and tongues, who dwell in all
the earth : May your peace be multiplied !
Iiixi , Part. Peal of 1*11 , p. 68. Par. The Qeri gives the more usual
Chaldee form, "piil ; but the difference is merely orthographic. — liaabiu ,
the suff. state of nbizi = Heb. Dib'a . — xsipi , Fut. Peal, here used opta-
tively, § 44. 3. a.
(32) The signs and wonders which God most high has wrought in me, it -seemed
good in my view to declare.
x*nx , pi. emph. of nx = Heb. nix . — xinar-i , pi. emph. of nan .
In Hebrew, we have dineiasi ninx ; in the N. Test, anp.ua xal zs'gazd ;
both in the same way. Signs designates not the ordinary tokens or sym
bols of common events, but always, when employed as here, something
extraordinary or of a miraculous nature. Wonders is another name for
the same events, but this name is intended to designate that effect on the
mind which signs produce. Both words together mean : ' miraculous
events which call forth wonder.' — isas = apudme. The speaker refers
to the changes that had taken place in regard to his own person. — Xibs ,
see on v. 26 above. — iaip , prep, with plur. form and suff., = ivdimov
ngoaanov fiov, i. e. in my view. — niinnb , Inf. Aph. of xin , ni- for
Xi- , as usual in this book. That the passionate and afterward insane
king had now come to sober reflection, seems plain from the tenor of his
thoughts and views.
(33) His signs — how great ! His wonders — how mighty ! His kingdom is an
everlasting kingdom, and his dominion is unto generation and generation.
Iiaiai, adj. of reduplicate intensive form = very great. — In ill "^ 6:?>
the DS here marks the idea, of with in respect to time, and so it is equiva-

Chap. IV. 1—3. 99
lent to our word during. See the like usage, in Dan. 7: 2. Ps. 72: 15.
Neh. 5: 18. Ezra 1: 11. So in the Latin : " Cumque sole et luna, sem\
per Aratus erit," Ovid, Ars Am. I. 15. 16. In ascribing an eternal king- —
dom to God, Nebuchadnezzar evidently means to contrast it with the
mutable and perishing nature of a dominion like his own.

Chap. IV.
(1)1 Nebuchadnezzar was at ease in my own house, and flourishing in my palace.
nbia, participle Peil, Par. p. 72, or participial adj. from hbis, desig
nating the idea of freedom from all that could disturb or annoy. — niin,
1st pers. sing. Peal, from xin . — 1551 , applied to trees, designates their
fulness of sap and vigor of growth ; tropically applied to persons, it means
prosperous, flourishing, fortunate (as we say). It is a Pilel form of '|31 ,
used here as an adjective ; comp. § 28. C. 11. This statement of his con
dition is designed to be contrasted with that of his subsequent afflictions ;
thus rendering his chastisement more conspicuous.
(2) I saw a dream, and it terrified me ; and thoughts upon my couch and visions
of my head agitated me.
I saw a dream, in 2: 1 dreamed dreams. The difference is in the man
ner of representation, not in point of fact. To see, in dreams or prophetic
ecstasy, means a mental, not an ocular, seeing. I saw a dream = a dream
was presented to my mind, i. e. to the intellectual or spiritual eye. —
¦^niii, for is- suff., see p. 58. Rem. 1. — "|iihin, of the Pilpel form,
from iin, § 28. b. 11. — Thoughts upon my couch designates the reflec
tions of his mind upon the dream after he had awaked. These, together
with the dream itself {visions of my head) troubled him. In 2: 28. 7: 1,
13X1 15m , as here, only designates the thoughts that arise in a dream.
— isbnai , Pael Fut. with suff., p. 58. Rem. 1. It is a stronger word than
bni , which is confined to terror or fear ; while bna expresses the agi
tation of the whole man.
(3) And by me a decree was made, to bring before me all the wise men of Baby
lon, that they might make known to me the interpretation of the dream.
Dita , Part. Peil of biia . — nbssnb , Aph. Inf. of bbs , with 3 epenthetic
instead of Dagh. f. ; p. 30-2 ; see also in Lex. — bab , b before the Ace, as
oftentimes, everywhere. — il , that, in order that ; Lex. B. 2. — i3;riini ,
Aph. Fut. of Sil ; with n pref. retained, p. 49. 5, and suff. ij|- , p. 58
Rem. 1.

100 Chap. III. 4—6.
(4) Then came in the sacred scribes, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astro
logers, and I told the dream before them ; but the interpretation thereof they did not
make known to me.
Iibbs, Part. pi. the points belong to the Qeri ^bs . Better to adopt
the Kethibh, omitting Dagh. f, and read ybbs , which is the usual form
in this book. The present confusion in the word has arisen from mixing
two modes of orthography together. — The Chaldeans ; see on 2: 4 ; and
for other accompanying words, on 2: 2. — lax , Part, for verb, § 47. 1. b,
here in the sense of told, related. — "psiina , Part. Aph. of I'll ; with n re
tained. (5) And at last came Daniel before me, whose name is Belteshazzar, according to
the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and I told the
dream before him.
1ninx Gesenius (Lex.) regards as a mere adj. form, in the sing. ; but
others consider it as an abridged plur. used abstractly, and with an adver-
biahense. Adjectives of such a form are rare ; while the contracted plur.
)- (so Qeri which writes Iinx ) for y- is not unfrequent ; comp.
Iinx , inx ; 1i|X , 1?X , and the like. — bs , Peal of bb_3> . — According to
the name of my god, see on the name in 1: 7. After giving the Hebrew
name of Daniel, the king, in order to specificate, adds the name by
which Daniel was ordinarily known to his subjects. — In whom is the spirit
of the holy gods, comp. the words of Nebuchadnezzar in 2: 47. 3: 29.
The speaker uses his accustomed dialect. He was a polytheist ; and as
such, he might consistently speak of holy gods, even where he ought to
have said: of God most holy. But of such a God the mass of his subjects
knew little or nothing ; and so he adopts the usual manner of parlance
in respect to the matter. — niax , 1 pers. sing. Peal.
(6) Belteshazzar, chief overseer of the sacred scribes, (for I know that the spirit of
the holy gods is in thee, and that no secret is too difficult for thee), as to the visions
of my dream which I have seen, even the interpretation of the same, fell me.
N?T^"!n. ai , applied to Daniel here, shows the same usage, in this book,
which is exhibited in 2: 4, where the Chaldeans are made the represen
tatives of all the classes of the Magi ; i. e. a leading or influential class is
named as the representative of the whole. In 2: 48, Daniel 13 said to
De ^3.a h'?',?n-ba bs 1iMB-ai , chief overseer over all the wise men of Baby
lon ; where iai5>n is equivalent, in its generic meaning, to KJBB1H in our
text. — b3X , Part, of bsx , which literally means to force, impel, do violence
to. The meaning here is, that no secret thing constrains Daniel to re
linquish its explanation, or makes such explanation troublesome to him
or difficult. — Tell me the visions of my dream, etc., seems, at first view, to

Chap. III. 7, 8. 101
require of Daniel to do again what he had before done, viz. to tell both the
dream and its interpretation. But this it can hardly mean in this connec
tion, for the king himself proceeds forthwith to relate the particulars of
the dream. We seem constrained, therefore, to translate thus : "As to the
visions of my dream . . . even the interpretation of the same, tell [me"].
The 1 before niUJB is explicative ; as e. g. in v. 10, ffiilpl , even a holy one,
and often so elsewhere. — lax , in pause, Imper.
(7) In respect then to the visions of my head upon my couch : I looked, and be
hold ! there was a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was very great.
ilini , Nom., or rather Ace. absolute, in which 1 connects, but is also
a transition-particle that may well be represented by our word then.
The visions of my head are the same here as the visions of my dream in
the verse above, only that the diction is derived from another source, viz.
from the head as the source of thought and intelligence. — niin nin ,
Part, joined with the verb of existence, denoting continued action, § 47.
1. a. — ibx, prob. for nx, by exchange of b and 1, which is not un
common ; see Lex. — ibix , tree, generic in Chaldee, while in Hebrew
libx means oak. In the midst of the earth is a phrase in accordance with
the language of Nebuchadnezzar's address to the nations in all the earth,
3: 31. Not improbably the metropolis of Babylon was regarded as the
middle point of the earth ; like the Oracle at Delphos, and like Jerusa
lem in Palestine. As the dream took place in the palace at Babylon, the
tree most probably appeared to be near there, xisa , const, of is with a ,
and it may be written is or xis , without any variation of meaning. —
nail , with suff., its height, xisia , more intense than ai , and so I have
translated it very great ; for the form, § 28. b. 10.
(8) And the tree became great and waxed mighty, so that its height reached to tho
heavens, and the sight of it to the end of all the earth.
nai and t)pPi are both verbs intrans. I have given them as literal a
translation as our idiom will allow. The reader must not make adjectives
of them; see in § 12. 2. 1. — For xt:ai (Fut.), see on v. 17. — nrmnr,
aspectus ejus, its aspect, means that its visibility reached to the ends of
the earth, or (in other words) it was visible, etc. The hyperbole, in this
case, is altogether in keeping with the style of the country. Oriental
usage employs it, beyond all example in the western languages. See
striking instances of it, in Gen. 11: 4. Deut. 1: 28. 9: 1. Ps. 57: 10, 11.
107: 26. Job 20: 6. Comp. Matt. 11: 23. Even Herodotus (II. 138) has
devdgsa ovgavofiijxea. It was the custom at the Assyrian, Babylonian,
and Persian courts, to speak of the empire as universal ; just as is now
done in China, when " the lord of the world" is addressed. In the more
9*

102 Chap. III. 9, 10.
chastened style of the west, Nebuchadnezzar would have said, that the tree
was very high, and could be seen at a great distance.
(9) Its foliage was goodly, and its fruit abundant, and there was food for all upon
it; under it the beast of the field sought shade; and among its branches did the
birds of the air find lodging ; and by it was all flesh supplied with food.
n^Bs , suff. state of i&s , its foliage. — na3X , for nax from nx ; the
Dagh. f. omitted is compensated by 3 epenth., p. 30. e. 2. — "p'tH , from
lit, see form on p. 83. No. 5. c. 4. — xbab, emph. form, which of
course develops the Dagh. implied in the b . — ininhP] , prep, ninn with
pi. suff. ; p. 106. 2. 2. — bban, Aph. fem. Fut., caused, i. e. procured
shade ; Fut. for the designation of what is habitual, (as in Hebrew).
Winer has omitted to notice this, in his Grammar. — niin , const, form.
— iniBSS , pi. of ?]3S with suff. — liiii. , the vowels belong to the Qe
ri lili , 3 pi. fem. of Peal. There is no need of the designed cor
rection, for iiBS is of the common gender. Read therefore yri"JV — ¦
iiss is derived by Ges. (in Lex.) from IBS , like the forms in § 28. b. 7.
Lengerke prefers the ground-form IBs or IBS , and so makes Dagh. to be
merely euphonic in the B . I prefer the former etymology. — ¦pirn , It-
taphal (p. 69) of ill , were provided with food. For the use of three Fu
tures here, see on v. 18. — Xiiaa , flesh is predicated collectively of ani
mals (as here), as well as of men. In this case, the animals symbo
lize men, and so the verb is put in the masc. plural. The oriental dress,
in respect to hyperbole, is quite manifest here. But the description is
poetically and tastefully made out.
(10)1 beheld, in the visions of my head upon my couch, and lo ! a Watcher, even
a holy one, came down from heaven.
The repetition, in the first clause, of what had been already said in v. 7,
probably indicates that the sequel was in a second and continuous dream,
which took place soon after having been waked by the first. — ii? , a
much contested word, which has given rise to a multitude of whimsies.
Whoever wishes to see them, may consult Havernick in loc. I prefer a
resort to a more direct method of investigation. I will merely state the
result here. That the appellation here is a mere exchange of names,
seems plain from 3: 25, where a son of the gods designates the same
personage that is called naxba his angel in v. 28. So Polychronius
(Comm. in loc. in edit. Maii), a writer of the fourth century, when com
menting on the Greek version of Theodotion : " Rig is a Heb. word,
and signifies watchfulness, angel." Still further confirmation of the view
given above is it, that in Dan. 8: 13, Gabriel is expressly named u5iip,
just as lis is here said to be taiip . — nnj , Part. act. ; for vowels,
see § 12. 1. c.

Remarks on III. 10. 103
First of all, it is plain that this expression, in the mouth of a polytheistic
speaker, is to be explained, if possible, in accordance with his theosophy.
In regard to this, one thing is certain, viz. that the worship of the sun, moon,
planets, and stars, was originally spread over all middle and hither Asia.
Rhode, in his learned and fundamental investigation of Parsism, (Die heilige
Sage des Zendvolks), has shown beyond fair controversy, at least as it seems
to me, that the religion of Zoroaster preceded the empires of Assyria, Baby
lon, and Persia ; and that the worship just mentioned, pervaded, at an early
period, the whole extent of the empire of Jemshid, i. e. the whole extent of
the ancient Aria. Subsequently to this, each empire that followed, and
each country of any considerable eminence and extent, engrafted more or
less of idolatrous rites upon the original nature-worship of Zoroaster. So it
clearly was in Babylon, at the time of Nebuchadnezzar. But still, we find
here the Magi, an order of priests appropriate to the religion of Zoroaster.
We may therefore reasonably expect to find other relics of the more ancient
religion. The Bun-Dehesh, a commentary on the Zend-Avesta, contains an extract
from it which shows clearly the name and object of the watchers, in the
ancient system of Zoroaster. It runs thus : " Ormuzd has set four watchers
m the four quarters of the heavens, to keep their eye upon the host of stars.
They are bound to keep watch over the hosts of celestial stars. One stands
here, as the watcher of his circle ; the other, there. He has placed them at
such and such posts, as watchers over such and such a circle of the heavenly
regions ; and this by his own power and might. . . . Tashter guards the east,
Satevis watches the west, Venant the south, and Haftorang the north."
Rhode, p. 267. Zend-Avesta, Bun-Dehesh, II. pp. 60, 61. Now as it is cer
tain, that the Babylonians retained the worship of " the host of heaven," it
seems very rational to suppose, that Nebuchadnezzar here alludes to those
secondary deities, who were commissioned by superior ones to watch and to
oversee. The names of these, as given above, are the names respectively of
four of the planets ; each of which was under the guardianship of one of the
Amshaspands or archangels of the Zoroastrian system. They ranked next
to the sun and moon, and were undoubted objects of Babylonian worship.
It would seem that Nebuchadnezzar adds the epithet lailp , in order to dis
tinguish the good class of watchers from the bad ones ; for Ahriman, the evil
genius had his Archdevs and his Devs, who corresponded in rank with the
Amshaspands and Izeds of the Zend-Avesta, and who watched to do evil
as anxiously as the others did in order to do good. Nebuchadnezzar means
then, by using lis , to designate one of the gods, i. e. a superior or spiritual
being, and one who is employed as a watcher and messenger of the highest
deities, which he calls the holy gods, whom, as supreme, he had just before
mentioned. That the word lis in itself is of a generic meaning, seems quite
probable from the explanatory UJilpl , which is in apposition and exegetical ;
and still further, from the fact that the Syriac Liturgies not unfrequently
employ it to designate archangels, sometimes Gabriel, and at other times
the evil angels ; i. e. it designates rank or station, not character. So the
book of Enoch employs it for good angels, (e. g. in ch. xx. it is said of the
seven archangels, that " they watch") ; and for evil ones, Enoch 1: 5. 10:11,
13, 18, et al. saepe ; see in Ges. Thes. p. 1006. The suggestion that lis =
Heb. lis , nuncius, seems not to be entitled to much weight.

104 Chap. IV. 11, 12.
Lengerke has brought out a conclusion similar to the one just stated, but
from somewhat different premises. He fixes upon a passage in Yesht Far-
vardin (Zend. Av. II. Carde 23. p. 257), which says, in respect tothe Am
shaspands : " O that they might watch over souls from on high !" This falls
in with what is said above ; but being merely a part of the Zend-ritual of
prayers, it would not be so likely to be known to the Babylonians of Nebu
chadnezzar's time, as the more general principles of the system to which I
have made an appeal. It may serve, however, as a confirmation of them.
Nor is the opinion, which I have ventured to give, anything new ; although
the reasons for it, in part, may not heretofore have been produced. Jerome
(Comm. in loc.) says : " Theodotion has retained the word ciq (= lis),
which signifies angels, because they always watch, and are in readiness for
the divine commands." This would be sufficient ground among Hebrews,
with their views of angelology, for employing such a word to designate an
gels ; but still we find no example of it in actual Heb. usage. Nebuchad-
nezzar had reasons different from those of the Hebrews, for naming his
secondary gods watchers, as we have seen above.

(11) He cried aloud and spake thus : Cut down the tree and lop off its branches ;
strip off its foliage, and scatter abroad its fruit ; let the beasts fly from beneath it, and
the birds from its branches.
bina , with strength, which, when applied to the voice, means of course
aloud. — lis, Imper.Peal of lis . This is applied to felling, or cutting down
the tree. — issp , Pael Imper. of psD, ; for (-) in the second syllable,
see § 12. 1. b. The word means (as we express it) clip off, lop off . —
iinx , Aph. of ins , (iinx instead of the normal iinx , because of the
final l), decussit, strike off, or strip off, appropriate to removing the foliage.
— iiia= Heb. in, Pael (1 for 1 because of the Resh), scatter, dis
perse. Applied to the fruit, it means that it is no more to be appro
priated for food, as before. The commands, in all these cases, are ad
dressed to the implied attendant retinue of the watcher  isn , Fut. Peal
of 113. The beasts and birds are to flee, lest the fall of the tree should
crush them. The ruinous state of the tree after felling, is clearly indi
cated ; but the sequel shows that its utter destruction is not intended.
The imagery employed designates, in a lively manner, the wealth, splen
dor, and extensive influence or power of Nebuchadnezzar, who was very
conspicuous as the head of a great empire and had dependants almost
without number. Of all these appendages he was to be deprived.
(12) But its root-trunk leave in the earth, and with a chain of iron and brass
among the tender herbage of the field ; and with the dew of heaven shall it be bathed,
and with the beasts shall be its portion among the herbage of the earth.
inTOiD , of its roots, with pi. suff. from lBiio. The root-trunk means,
the trunk that is left after the tree is felled, which is attached to the roots

Chap. IV. 13. 105
that bury themselves in the earth. This contains a germ, which will again
sprout up; comp. nasa in Isa. 6: 13, and sis in Isa. 11: 1, which pre
sent the same idea. — The chain of iron and brass, to be put round the
trunk, seems designed to preserve it from being opened or cracked by
the heat of the sun, so as to admit moisture which would rot it. There
could be no need of chaining the trunk to the earth in order to secure it,
for the roots made it fast there. I do not understand this, moreover, as
symbolizing the chaining of Nebuchadnezzar as a madman, but merely
as a token of the care with which the germ of the tree would be preserved,
notwithstanding the destruction of all besides. See the interpretation in
vs. 20 — 23. — xxnia , emph. of xnl ; some editions Hebraize here,
writing nxni . — xia , emph. of la . — ba , see Lex. under Heb. bba.
— saasi , Fut. Ithpael, with the n in nx transposed and changed to E,
§ 10. 5. b. A copious bedewing, or (as we say) bathing with dew, is natu
rally meant here ; for what would plunging into the dew mean ? — xniin],
emph. of Xlin . — Its portion shall be among the herbage, etc. ; here the
writer forsakes his symbol, viz. the root-trunk, and speaks appropriately
only of that which the symbol represents, viz. the person of Nebuchad
nezzar, who, during his madness, was to feed upon the herbage of the field.
— npbn , with suff., from the rather unusual ground-form pbn , § 28. a. 2.
The difference between aias and xxni is, that the latter means fresh,
green, growing herbage, while the former designates the generic idea.
(13) His heart shall be changed from [that of] men, and the heart of a beast shall
be given to him, and seven times shall pass over him.
In other words, he shall lose his human sympathies, and acquire those
of the brutes. But there is diversity among critics, in the explanation
of the first clause of the verse. Gesenius, Rosenm., Winer, De Wette,
and others, take la in X1U3X *(a , in a privative sense, (which is frequent
in Hebrew), and give the meaning thus : His heart shall be changed from
that which is human, i. e. from being the heart of a man. Lengerke con
tends, that the only grammatical sense of which the phrase is properly
susceptible, is this, viz, his heart shall be changed while he is far from men,
i. e. when he is driven into exile among the beasts. But although he is
very confident in this peculiar view of the passage, it seems to have
something of the vazsgov ngorsgov in it ; for the king's change of heart
was the occasion of his fleeing from the abodes of man, not an event that
followed after he had gone away. Besides, from the usage of this book,
the verb X3i!i, associated with la , has appropriately the meaning diver-
sus fuit ab, aliudesse, mutari. comp. Dan. 7: 3, 7, 19, 23, 24. We might
therefore well translate thus : Cor ejus diversumfiet ab humano. In the

106 Chap. IV. 13.
version above, I have expressed the first clause thus: His heart shallbe
changed from [that of] men ; and I can have no doubt, that the Chaldee
phrase is elliptical, or rather brachylogical, in which (as oftentimes in the
Hebrew) a repetition of the preceding noun is implied, although not ex
pressed. I have substituted the pronoun for it. The second clause makes
the sense thus given altogether clear. In xiaisx , the vowels belong to
the Qeri Xiajx , but the Kethibh shows a not improbable Hebraizing form,
and is to be read XU13X , as also in v. 14. Yet since vs. 22, 30, support the
Qeri here, it is perhaps orthographically preferable — "jistai , Fut. Pael of
X3ia , 3 plur. without a subject, and therefore to be translated passively,
§49. 3. b. — ainini , Fut. Ithpeal of srn ; for the end-syllable SPii- see
p. 49. 2. — 11313 , pi. of lis , which shows itself (by the Dagh.) to be a
derivate of lis , to compute, number, etc. Etymologically, then, it would
seem to mean a computed or defined time or season. C. B. Michaelis,
Ges., Rosenm., Winer, Leng., and nearly all the critics agree, that year
is the probable meaning ; for in 7: 25, (and so isia , a kindred form in
12: 7), and in Apoc. 12: 14, this meaning is quite certain ; comp. here
vs. 20, 22, 29, where lis is connected with t|bn , to pass on or over. But
Havernick comments thus on Winer, who in his Heb.Lex. says : " Tem-
pus prop, definitum, hinc annus [sic!], deinde generatim [?] tempus."
The comments are contained in the exclamation and interrogation points,
which Hav. has inserted. After all, he is obliged to concede that some
definable season or time is meant ; only he says, that ' this must be some
astrological period.' But as Nebuchadnezzar is not the original speaker
here, but only relates the words of the watcher; moreover, since IIS is
elsewhere employed in this book plainly for the common year ; and
since there is nothing in the context here that points us to an astrological
period, or enables us to determine what it is ; I do not well see how we
are to avoid the conclusion of C. B. Michaelis and so many other He
braists. — ''nibs , over him or upon him, the prep, bs conveying the
adjunct notion of something which is burdensome or troublesome. That
the number seven, in this case, is to be literally and not figuratively un
derstood, seems the more probable, because the nature of the case easily
admits of a literal construction. Whatever difficulties our present lack of
historical knowledge may throw in the way of explaining the matter, it
cannot alter the plain and obvious exegesis of our text. (These difficul
ties will be canvassed, at the close of the present chapter). The attempt,
made by many of the ancient Fathers, to lessen the period of seven years,
by adopting the Persian mode of counting years by their half-yearly
feasts, and so making six months equal to an *(is , stands directly op
posed to 7: 25 and 12: 7. The phrase t=insn isi'i, in Est. 1: 13, casts

Chap. IV. 14. 107
no light on the expression before us, since it applies to political times
and State-occurrences, (just as we employ the word times for a like pur
pose), and not to defined periods of time proper ; so that we have no
parallel for the sense here defended by Havernick.
(14) By a decision of the Watchers is the decree, and a command of the holy Ones
is the thing required, in order that the living may know that the most High is ruler
. over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he pleases, and sctteth up
over it the humblest of men.
Here again is much controversy. I shall not detail it, but simply
state the grounds of my own exegesis. That nits (const, st.) means de
cision, there can be no room to doubt, inasmuch as the root is lis , lit.
secare, metaph. decernere. The word "piis , in this case means the Coun
cil of the watchers, as viewed by the king, i. e. this king relates the decree
of Heaven in language accordant with his own views of theology. The
Amshaspands were the associates and councillors of Ormuzd, who in
deed was only primus inter pares, in an emphatic sense. To them the
actual government of the world was committed. They are the overseers,
the watchers. The messenger, although only one of them (v. 10), em
ploys the united authority of all in the present case, in order to strengthen
his declaration. ¦ — DSnB , decree, see Ezra 4: 17. This is one undoubted
sense of the word ; and one, moreover, which is altogether appropriate
here. — laxa , command, from the well known sense of lax, to com
mand, in the Chald. dialect. — VBiig , the same here as in v. 10, ltfiipl lis ,
only that the pi. is here used, in conformity with the preceding liiis .
The holy Ones are the Watchers, whose united council have determined
on the humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar. — xnbxri , emph. of xbxiu , requi
sition, demand, referring, as I apprehend, to the preceding command
given in v. 11, to cut down the tree, etc. The declaration here is, that the
whole sentence of humiliation, which had been proclaimed by the lis ,
i. e. a single watcher (v. 10), is a matter decreed and fixed upon in the
council of heaven. — il niai IS , lit. until the circumstance or matter that,
stronger and more periphrastic than ii is in v. •>% but in substance the
same = until that, until. In manner it resembles the il bap"ba , which
we have already so often met with. — "|isi3.i , Fut. of sii , § 6. e. 2. —
Xi^n , pi. emph. of in , the living, means men in general, or all men.
It is expressed generically here, although a special application to Nebu
chadnezzar is intended ; for so Daniel applies it in the sequel. — aibo ,
adj. form, endowedwith dominion, i. e. ruler. — sjibs , Qeri nxbs , emph.
of ibs, see on 3: 26. — X'jijx., as in v. 13. — n|:ni, suff. Fut. Peal of
fni , for suff., p. 58. Rem. 1, the nj being fem. and = m (see Par. on

108 Chap. IV. 15, 16.
p. 34), and referring to niaba. The change of vowels here (- for - )
seems to depend on the Gutt. n. — For Ditusxbsta, as indicating the
lowest of men, see § 58. 2. — mbs, the vowels belong to the Qeri abs,
which gives a sing, form and suffix, contrary to usage in regard to this
preposition, which with a suff. has a plur. form, § 38. 2. b. It should be
written nibs which isa contraction of xnibs, see Par. 2, p. 35. In this
last clause also the sentiment is generic, not being applied individually,
but intended to show that God can elevate to dominion the lowest of men;
as well as the highest, so that full and entire power and dominion belong
to him, and not to perishing men.
(15) This is the dream which I king Nebuchadnezzar saw ; and do thou, Belte
shazzar, declare the interpretation, because that all the wise men of my kingdom ore
not able to make known to me the interpretation ; but thou art able, for the spirit of
the holy gods is in thee.
nn?x the Kethibh should be read, which the Qeri has changed to the
more usual nsx, without any necessity; comp. 2 pers. sing. masc. in the
Praet. of Pael and Aphel, Par. p. 44, which have a like ending in this
person. — lax , with Qamets in pause. — 'pbai , Part. pi. — ijnisil'nb ,
Inf. with suff. p. 56. e. The spirit of the holy gods, etc., shows that Nebu
chadnezzar retains his customary diction in speaking of superior beings.
(lfi) Then Daniel, whose name is Belteshazzar, was stricken with astonishment,
for a moment, and his thoughts agitated him ; the king answered and said : Let not
the dream and the interpretation agitate thee! Belteshazzar answered and said :
Let the dream be to those who hate thee, and the interpretation of it to thine enemies.
The repetition of the name of Belteshazzar, which is here made by the
king, accords with his description of Daniel in v. 5. above  caiwiix,
Ithpoalof aaia, § 14. 1. 1, corresponding with the Hithpoal of the Heb.
from verbs s's . For the exchange of ta and n , see § 10. 5. b. For the first
syllable with Seghol, see § 12. 1. 5, comp. § 25. 2. It is Syriasm. —
nsta, prop, an intensive form, § 28. b. 6, the Dagh. f. being omitted in the S,
of course the preceding vowel is prolonged. The emph. form is nnso.
As xsiu means to look, so this derivate means a look, a glance of the eye,
the twinkling of an eye ; and accordingly. I have rendered it moment.
Our English version here {hour) mistakes the true sense of the word,
and thus states what seems to be very improbable  xin = our Eng
lish indef. article a ; and often so in Chald. and in the later Hebrew. —
inb'isi {rd-yo-no-ha) , pi. suff. of -,iisi . The root nsi has for its lead
ing sense, to desire, will, wish, purpose ; but a secondary sense appears
plainly to be that of thinking, reflection, cogitation. Evidently desire or will
would be inappropriate in our text. — nsbnai , Fut. Pael with suff.
For suff., see p. 58. Rem. 1. _ xiirs, with 'vowels for the Qeri nittiB,

Chap. IV. 17, 18. 109
i. e. the Qeri adopts the suffix form which occurs in the sequel of the
verse; while the Kethibh retains the absolute emph. form, which is
equally well. — ixia , contract for ixia , a participial from xia , mean
ing my lord. A marginal reading bids us write iia , and the vowels in
the text belong to this latter form. But the emendation, although feasi
ble, is unadvisable, since the dropping of the X obscures the etymology.
— Tpxjtob , pi. Part. pres. with pi. suff., from X3\zJ ; for suff., p. 35. Par. 2*
— ipisb , pi. of IS with suff.
The astonishment of Daniel, (not for an hour, which would have ren
dered Nebuchadnezzar very impatient, but for a moment), was evidently
the result of his consciousness, as soon as the dream was fully related, of
"the interpretation which must be given to it. His complaisance, kind
feeling, and fidelity to the truth, are equally conspicuous in his answer.
Comity led him to say, (what at the moment he undoubtedly felt) : Let
the dream be to those that hate thee, etc. ! Sympathy for the king who had
bestowed so much honor and kindness upon him, was a very natural and
commendable feeling. What he means to say, may be thus expressed :
? I would that what this dream indicates, might fall rather upon your ene
mies than on yourself!' The king on his part is kind and condescend
ing. He encourages his pale and trembling minister to go on with the
interpretation assigned to him, be it what it may. He summoned reso
lution to give such a command, even after he saw the agitation of Daniel,
when the narration of the dream had been completed. Doubtless the for
mer experience of Nebuchadnezzar, as to the prophetic power of Daniel,
must have inspired him with respect for the man ; and hence his lenient
treatment of him.
(17) As to the tree which thou sawest, which became great, and waxed mighty,
so that its height reached to the heavens, and the sight of it to all the earth ;
I have made the English construction of the sentence to accord with
the Chaldee. < Xjbix is absolute, and iai nai il is mere specification of
particulars belonging to it, i. e. exegetical apposition, which is continued
through the remainder of the verse, and also through v. 1 8. — xaai ; Ve-
nit, advenit, came to, reached. It has a Fut. form, which indicates that the
1 at the beginning of the clause is conditional, viz. that, so that, § 44. 4.
— nniTn , see on v. 8.
(18) And its foliage was goodly, its fruit abundant, and food for all was upon it;
under it dwelt the beast of the field, and among its boughs the birds of the air found
lodging ;
# In the copy of the Gramm. which is before me, the tp— suff. is without iU
vowel ( ) J which should be supplied. 10

110 Chap. IV. 19—22.
See v. 9 above. — inn , in the Fut. and Ijanai Fut. fem. pi. (ilBS be
ing of the common gender) seem to be used like the Hebrew Future, to
designate action habitual, i. e. they are real Imperfects.
(19)Thou art he,0 king, who hast become great and waxed mighty, and thy greatness
hath increased and reached to the heavens, and thy dominion to the end of the earth.
The apodosis of the sentence, which begins with v. 1 7 and comprises
v. 18, begins with this verse. — mai , Qeri nai , a possible but not
usual orthography. The true form is the Kethibh, which should be writ
ten niai. — nspn, 2 pers. of f;pn. — nai, 3 fem. of xai. — nan,
3 fem. Peal, for naa, i. e. Peal 3d fem. is pointed so as to correspond
with the ending of the same person in all the derived conjugations ; see'
in Par. p. 72. The Oriental court-style is sufficiently evident in this
verse, as often elsewhere. Faithfulness to the truth in Daniel did not
require him to break through all the usual forms of courtesy, as to the
manner of communicating it.
( 20 ) And that the king saw a Watcher, even a Holy One, descending from heaven,
who said: Cut down the tree and destroy it ; yet leave the root- trunk in the earth,
and with a chain of iron and brass, among the tender herbage of the field ; and with
the dew of heaven shall it be bathed, and with the beast of the field shall be his por
tion, until seven times shall pass over him.
See on vs. 12, 13 above. — nns, Part. § 12. 1. c. — iniban, Pael
Imper. with suff. p. 34. Par. 2. The last clause forsakes the symbol, and
introduces the person signified by it; see on v. 12.
(21 ) This is the interpretation, 0 king ; and it is a decree of the most High, which
comes upon my lord the king.
Comp. in v. 14, for the language. — naa, see in v. 19. — ixia, as
in v. 16. — In Daniel's mouth the decree is no longer called a decree of
the watchers, but of the most high God. Each party represents the mat
ter, in a manner which accords with his own theology.
(22) Thou shalt be driven from men, and with the beast of the field shall be thy
dwelling, and herbage shall they give thee for food as the oxen, and with the dew of
heaven shall they bathe thee; and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou shalt
know that the most High is ruler over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whom
soever he may please.
^b , Ace. — Vl*™ without any Nom., and therefore to be rendered
passively, as in the version. Lit. They shall drive thee away, § 49. 3. b. —
Xinb , see on 2: 20. — rpia , deriv. of ill , with suff. — iiiina , i. e.
like [the herbage] of the oxen ; see v. 13, where is a like ellipsis af
ter 1» . — liasai , Pael Fut. ; ynasa , pi. Part, both without a subject,

Chap. IV. 23, 24. Ill
and therefore they might be rendered passively as in the first part of the
verse. But in these last cases, our idiom does not forbid a literal ver
sion with an indefinite Nominative. — nS3ni , see on v. 14.
t ¦ : • '
(23) And that they commanded to let alone the root-trunk of the tree, thy king
dom is established for thee, from the time when thou shalt know that the Heavens
bear rule.
xaip , adj. fem. of ojp . — ii , like list* , is often used in respect to a
point of time=when. — inifettJ , written defective in the final syllable, in —
for "jti — . Heavens do rule expresses the dominion of the Godhead,
and is a phrase nowhere used in the O. Test., except in this book ; but
in the N. Test., and among the Rabbins, it is very common. So in the
heathen writers. It seems to be employed partly in accommodation to
the Chaldee diction, e. g. the watchers, the holy Ones, etc. It must be re
garded as bracbylogy here, and as being equivalent to the heavenly Powers.
In the mouth of Daniel, we cannot regard it as designed to signify what
it might do in the mouth of a Parsi, who would employ it in a kind of
literal way.
(24) Wherefore, 0 king, let my counsel seem good to thee, and so break off thy sin
by righteousness, and thine iniquities by compassion to the afflicted, if perhaps there
may be a prolongation of thy prosperity.
laba , suff. st. of T]ba counsel. — Tpbs , which the Qeri wrongly
changes to l^bs . It is stronger than b simply would be here, i. e. it
.conveys the idea of a stronger impression upon the king's mind than lb
would designate. — TC^n > sing- with suff. of ian , a derivate of xan to
sin. — T|n*iS pi- suff. emph., for the more normal Tjrnis ; in the for
mer, 1 with a Dagh.f. after it stands in lieu of the 1 in the latter; but this
diversity is merely orthographic. The sing, is XilS , fem. (sometimes
written x;is ) ; the pi. abs. would be i;is , lit. perversities. — ina Inf.
nominascens of 13n . — l^s, in pause, pi. Part. Peil of nss , p. 91.
Par. VII. — in , if, if perhaps ; comp. si dga in Acts 8: 22. —
— I^nibia the suff. state of nibiu , lit. tranquillity, safety, and so prosperity,
as translated above. Many critics render npisa by alms or kindness ;
which sense indeed the word has among the Talmudists and the Rabbins,
. and also in the Samaritan. Ges. (in Lex.) so translates it, in the present
case. In Heb. it sometimes means liberality, kindness ; but in the in
stance before us, it stands as the opposite of T^an , which does not mean
avarice or rapine, but is more generic. I have given it, therefore, an
appropriate meaning in the version above.
The sum of what Daniel says in this verse, is, that although the sen
tence of chastisement has gone forth, still a speedy and thorough repent-

112 Chap. IV. 25.
ance and change of conduct may perhaps avert it. With the. Hebrews
in general he might well believe in this. The threatening of Jonah to
the Ninevites was averted, Jonah 3: 10. Hezekiah's predicted death was
averted by prayer, 2 K. 20: 1 — 5. See a full declaration of such a prin
ciple in the divine government, in Jer. 18: 7, 8 ; and the like elsewhere,
in a variety of ways. Daniel, with his deep sympathy for the king,
opens before him a probable way of escape from the threatenings, of which
he had been the medium of communication. It seems to me more than
probable, that by T^niis he means to designate the capricious and tyran
nical behaviour of Nebuchadnezzar on some occasions, when he fell into
a rage ; perhaps also to remind him of the heavy band that pressed on all
the captives whom he had led into exile. Daniel however does not name
the Jews in particular ; for he might apprehend that the king would deem
him selfish or partial, if he should openly plead their cause. Still, that
•|i3S afflicted, oppressed, had reference in his own mind to the case of his
unhappy countrymen, seems quite probable. It was a deed both of be
nevolence and of patriotism, to attempt to soften the king's mind in re
spect to all who were hardly dealt by.
(25) The whole came upon Nebuchadnezzar the king.
xb'a , emph. = Heb. ban , the whole.
Vs. 25 — 30 narrate in the third person ; seemingly as if the writer
himself had broken in upon the course of the king's proclamation by his
own narrative. Lengerke and others accuse the writer here of forget-.
ting himself; and, after a period of alleged absence of mind, they de
scribe him as coming to his recollection again in v. 31, and then employ
ing, as at the outset, the first person. Lengerke has a very long note to
enforce this view, adorned with his usual ( ! ? ). Havern. and Hengstenb.,
in different ways, had sedulously endeavored to clear the passage in ques
tion from the alleged difficulty ; and against them his remarks are di
rected. A simple solution, indeed, they do not seem to have fallen upon.
It lies, as I apprehend the matter, in two things, viz. (1) In the frequency
with which the Orientals are wont to change persons, where the same
individual is spoken of; e. g. from the first person to the third, Prov. 8:
17 (Kethibh), " /love them who love her" [me] ; Judg. 16: 18 (Kethibh),
" Delilah . . . said : Come hither now, for he [Samson] has told his whole
heart to her" [to me] ; 1 K. 1: 33, » The king said to them : Take with
you the servants of your master" [i. e. of me] ; Est. 8: 8, " And the king
said . . . Write ye ... in the name of the king" [i. e. in my name]. So
also in Isa. 44: 24 seq. 42: 24; comp. Job 12: 4. 13: 27, 28. The like
exchange between the 2d and 3d persons is still more frequent. But,

Chap. IV. 26, 27. 113
(2) The tenor of narration looks as if the king, in his proclamation, did
not intend to present himself as retaining the same rank and standing,
during his mania, that he assumes everywhere else. He narrates occur
rences which befel him, as he would those which respected a third per
son. So Maurer; and so, (for the reason first given above), Rosenmijl-
ler. In short, this whole matter, which Lengerke molds into a shape
that will favor the late composition of the book, may well be concluded in
the words of Maurer : " Citra necessitatem, Lengerke non regem, sed
scriptorem sui oblitum, hie loqui existimat." We cannot, indeed, compare
this case with that of Moses in the Pentateuch, or of Cesar in his Com
mentaries, (who employ the third person), because each of them employs
this person constantly. It is the change, in this case, from the first person
to the third, in the same discourse, which creates embarrassment. But
as this change or use of the third person is strictly limited to the history
of the king's actual madness, it would seem to be the effect of design, and
not of mere forgetfulness.
(26) At the end of twelve months, he was walking upon the royal palace of Baby
lon. nspb , in some Codd. nspb , rightly, if we may judge from this lat
ter form in 1: 2, 15. 2: 42 ; for the (-) is immutable. The form in the
Kethibh must, if correct, come from nsp . — itos iin , twelve, see Par.
masc. on p. 102. — xniaba bain bs , lit. upon the palace of the kingdom.
The meaning is given in the version above. So it is said of David,
2 Sam. 11: 2, that " he arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof
of the house of the king." Both expressions are easily explained. The
roofs of the houses in the East are flat, and during the warm weather
they are the favorite resort of the inhabitants, during the night-season.
But Bertholdt and Lengerke find here again the marks of composition
by a foreigner ; for no one, writing at Babylon, as they aver, would think
of saying what everybody knew, viz. that the king's palace was in Babylon.
Of course the usual (!) is appended to a recital of Hengstenberg's de
fence of the phrase. But I may beg leave to ask : Had Nebuchadnezzar
only one palace ? Had he not, like all oriental kings of that time, palaces
in different places of his dominions ? And if so, is there anything sus
picious in the fact, Jhat the writer of this book, or rather, that Nebuchad
nezzar in his proclamation, should name specifically to the people of his
empire the exact place where his misfortune came upon him ?
(27) The king spake and said : Is not this the same great Babylon, which I have
built for a habitation of royalty, by my mighty power, and for the honor of my glory ?
nss , Part., to commence a discourse or address ; spake is the nearest
10*

114 Chap. IV. 27.
word we have in English for such a case. The king is speaking within
himself, so that we cannot translate by addressed. — Xin = avzn, the
same, the very, § 43. 6. b. — xnai , emph. fem. of ai . — n- . . . il , which.
— nni?a , first pers. sing, with suff. n- , from xja . — The normal form
would seem to be nnija, see Peal, p. 72 ; but in this case the analogy
of the 2d pers. sing, is followed, a case which Winer fails to notice —
«ba = niaba, § 31. 1. — qpna, in some Codd. spina (the usual form),
in others E)pna ; all of which are conformable to the Chaldee idiom. If
the Kethibh is correct, the (- ) is immutable, and so it remains in the
const, state. This word, joined with i3bn (lit. might of my strength),
conveys the idea given in the version. — ip^b, (Codd. al. ip/'b, with
Qamets immutable), in its literal meaning, designates what is precious ;
honor is a secondary and derivate meaning, but not an unfrequent one.
— iiin , my glory, I understand as pertaining to the splendor of his own
condition, and of all things about him. In other words, the magnitude
and splendor of the Babylonish structures would redound to the honor
of Nebuchadnezzar who erected them.
That the language here ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar is in good keeping
with the spirit of Oriental despots like him, there can be no question ;
comp. Isa. 10: 13. 14: 13, 14. 36: 18 — 20. It has indeed been suggested,
tbat ' the writer of the book here betrays a want of knowledge as to facts,
inasmuch as Babylon was built long before the time of Nebuchadnezzar.'
It was so, in truth, if we mean by built merely the founding of a city ; for its
first origin goes back to the mighty hunter, Nimrod, Gen. 10: 9, 10. Cte
sias, (in Diod. Sic. II. 7 seq.), has given us a very protracted account of its
magnificent structures, and ascribes them, with only one exception, (the
hanging gardens, ib. § 10), to the famous and fabled Assyrian Semiramis.
Whoever or whatever she was, the probability that she did all which Cte
sias ascribes to her, nay even the possibility, is out of all question ; as every
intelligent reader may easily see for himself by reading the narration in Dio
dorus. That Babylon, however, was a large city before the time of Nebu
chadnezzar, there can be no doubt. But as Babylonia had become an inde
pendent province or kingdom only a few years before the reign of Nebuchad
nezzar, beyond a question the city of Babylon itself, before this last period,
was much inferior both in size and splendor to what it became under the
fostering care of its mightiest king. When Nebuchadnezzar returned from
his predatory expedition into Asia Minor and Egypt, richly laden with
spoils, Berosus says, that " he built the temple of Belus, and adorned other
structures with great profusion ; moreover, that whiqh was from ancient
times a city, he made another city by his munificence, building it anew ;"
Berosus, as quoted by Josephus, Antiq. X. 11. 1. With this account we
may easily reconcile what Herodotus says of this city. The judgmentof E.O.
Muller (Handb. der Arehaeol. etc. s. 265) seems worthy of confidence here,
for he was no ordinary critic : " We decidedly prefer the history of Berosus,
drawn from the archives [of the temple of Belus], respecting the origin of these
structures, to the fables in Ctesias and Diodorus, which rest in part on the popu-

Chap. IV. 28, 29. 115
lar appellation {Semiramis-works) for all the great works of the East." When
our text applies the verb n33 to what was done by Nebuchadnezzar, this word
is to be taken in a sense that is by no means unfrequent, viz. that of restor
ing, renewing, quasi rebuilding ; see Ges. Lex. nsa , No. 2. It is even ex
tended to the mere fortifying of a city, 1 K. 15: 17. It was not a mere
empty boast, then, on the part of Nebuchadnezzar that he had made Baby
lon great and splendid. But the haughty spirit with which he uttered his
self-gratulations, was the signal for the divine displeasure to light upon him.
As to Babylon itself, the Heb. Scriptures frequently mention it in such a
way, as to show that the statement of Nebuchadnezzar, in regard to its
magnificence, is not overstrained; comp. Isa. 13: 19. 14:4. 47: 5, 7 ; to
which add Rev. 16: 19. 14: 8. Pausanias calls it "the greatest city on
which the sun looks down ;" and Strabo (Lib. XVI.) says, that " one might
apply to it the verse : The great city is a great desert," probably in refer
ence to its vast extent (not its desolation), in which one might lose himself.
The mighty power which Nebuchadnezzar ascribes to himself in building
the city, doubtless refers to the vast numbers of men at his disposal, who
must have been employed in the accomplishment of his work.
(28) While the word was yet in the mouth of the king, a voice came down from
heaven : To thee is it said, 0 King Nebuchadnezzar, the kingdom departeth from thee.
b&3 , fell, came down ; so of the word of the Lord in Isa. 9: 7. The
design of employing this verb is to indicate the source from which the
message came, i. e. from above or from heaven. So Mohammed employs
the like verb, when speaking of his pretended revelations in the Koran.
— Iiiax , lit. they say, but as no subject of the Part is indicated, I have
rendered it passively, as in general it should be rendered in such cases,
§ 49. 3. b. — nis , 3 fem. of nis . — 1]3a , la , when it takes a suffix, in
serts a Dagh. f. before it, § 38. 2. note. Lengerke suggests, that before
piax (Part. pi. indef. and so passive) the usual laxb should be supplied
by the mind of the reader. This is erroneous as to the Chaldee gram
mar and usage, for this word is no Chaldee Inf. (which is laxa). If the
full construction were expressed, it would be so by another participle ;
comp. in v. 27. But this is quite unnecessary. Doubtless Nebuchad
nezzar means to refer the voice to the Watcher (v. 10), whom he had
before seen to descend from heaven.
(29) And from men shalt thou be driven out, and with the beast of the field shall
be thy dwelling; herbage shall be given thee to eat, like the oxen ; and seven times
shall pass over thee, until thou shalt know that the Most High is ruler over the king
dom of men, and that he giveth it to whomsoever he pleaseth.
T'lia , lit. they shall drive out or expel, and so the Part, governs the
Ace. ^b . In rendering the Part, (impersonal) passively, I have been
obliged to forsake the Heb. mode of constructing the clause. For the
rest of the verse, see on vs. 12 — 14.

116 Chap. IV. 30, 31.
(30) At that very moment, the declaration respecting Nebuchadnezzar was accom
plished, and from among men was he driven out, and herbage did he eat like the
oxen, and by the dew of heaven was he bathed, until his hair grew like [that of] the
eagles, and his nails like [those of] birds.
Comp. v. 22. In the three cases where a is here employed before
nouns, it is plain that the preceding noun is to be mentally supplied, i. e.
repeated, after it, or (as twice in the version) a pronoun which is the
representative of it, is to be inserted. — nisto designates the rough coat
of hair which an exposed human body naturally forms, in order to de
fend itself against the elements. In the implied phrase, the hair of the
eagles, isio will not bear the same sense, strictly speaking, but the mean
ing is, like to the natural covering given to the eagles. The comparison
touches only the point of a natural growth of covering for the body.
The roughness of the covering may seem, perhaps, to be an adsignifica-
tion here, inasmuch as it is compared to feathers. — inilBa , pi. with
suff., his nails, viz. of the fingers and toes, which, being neglected, grew
to an extraordinary length, like the claws of birds. Neither of these cir
cumstances indicates anything very unusual, in the case of such a ma
niac. Not unfrequent have been cases, where madmen have shunned
all human society, and betaken themselves to the haunts and to the food
of wild beasts. The wild men that have been caught, at one time and
another, show what our bodily nature is capable of bearing, and how it
may be supported. In a climate so excessively warm as that of Baby
lonia, there was no great danger to life from mere exposure to the air.
And as to nutriment, there can be no question but wild fruits and herbage
would supply it. To the many objections made against this whole ac
count, some reply will be made at the close of the chapter.
(31 ) And at the end of the days, I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes to heaven,
and my understanding returned to me, and I blessed the most High, and Him who
liveth forever I praised and glorified ; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
and his kingdom to generation and generation :
End of the days, viz. of the times named by the decree of the Watch
ers. — Lifting up the eyes to heaven designates the gesture and posture of
prayer. — My understanding returned to me ; not to be regarded, how
ever, as subsequent in point of time to the prayer, for how could he pray
without any understanding ? It is merely a sequency in the narration
explaining and expanding the preceding clause ; and such a sequency
cannot be avoided in a narration, which can communicate only one thing
at a time. — I blessed the most High, recounts part of the address to Hea
ven ; xibsb Ace. governed by naia , which is in Pael, a because of the
following 1 . — inb , the Ace. governed by nnsiu ; the latter is in Pael,

Chap. IV. 32, 33. 117
as also niin . — abs labia , lit. dominion of eternity. — 11 bS , lit. with
generation ; but as BS marks with in the sense of contemporaneous, (see
on 3: 33), I have given the meaning of the phrase in a manner that
accords with our English idiom.
(32) And all the inhabitants of the earth are counted as nothing; and he docth
according to his own pleasure in the army of the heavens, and [among] the inhabi
tants of the earth; and there is none that can stay his hand, or say to him: What
doest thou ?
iixi, see on 2:38. — nba = xba , which stands in the margin, and
means as nothing, lit. as not. — yj^vn , reckoned, counted, in Heb. and
Chaldee usage often equivalent to are. — nissa , Inf. Peal, of xas , with
a suff. after the manner of a noun, § 16. 2. c. — las Part., which is spe
cially adapted to express continued or repeated action. — Army of the
heavens, in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar, was probably meant to com
prise both the heavenly bodies and the spiritual beings supposed to pre
side over and govern them. The star-worship of the East generally
retained this feature of Parsism. — Stay his hand, lit. smite his hand, i. e.
by a blow to avert the direction of the hand, and prevent its hitting the
mark intended. This expression, borrowed from literal action in the
first place, passed over afterwards into the figurative sense given in the
translation. — The whole verse stands connected with what was uttered
in Nebuchadnezzar's prayer (as given above), and is a description of
the power and irresistible dominion of the Most High, which is here
continued, but which has its commencement in v. 31.
Lengerke, in order to show that the proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar
is only a figment of some late author, and not a matter of fact, asserts
that the verse before us is evidently copied from Isa. 40: 17. 24: 19. I
can only say, that if the reader can find anything more than a similarity
of ideas as to two or three particulars, he must be more sharp-sighted
than I can claim to be. That either of the passages is a copy of the
other, or a designed imitation of it, does not seem to my mind at all pro
bable ; for the minuter characteristic shades of expression are clearly
diverse. What can be more easy and natural, than that the same clear
conviction and deep impression of certain great and plain truths, should
be uttered by different persons, m language that discloses some general
points of similarity ?
(33 ) At the same time, my understanding returned to me ; and, for the honor of
my royal dignity, my glory and my splendor returned to me, and me did my privy-
councillors and my nobles seek, and over my kingdom was I placed, and much power
was added to me.
X3at na, §43. 6. J. — ami, simple Fut. Peal, and yet necessarily

118 Chap. IV. 33.
translated as a simple Preterite. Of this I find no notice, either in the
Chaldee Grammar of Winer, or in any of the commentators. In § 44.
3, seq. Winer assigns five different shades of meaning to the Fut., but
the one before us belongs to neither of these. Yet this same Future
form is repeated again, in this same verse, and often" elsewhere, as has
before been noticed. We cannot rank it here under a like category
with the Heb. Fut, which is used to designate things habituallg done, or
often repeated; for the return of Nebuchadnezzar's understanding cannot
well be placed on this footing, unless indeed it be maintained that, in
his case a gradual restoration of intellect and honor took place. This
is very possible in itself, but the connection here makes against it. It
is more probable, that at the end of the days Nebuchadnezzar was com
pletely restored to his reason and his office. The secret of such a usage
of the Fut., in this case, lies perhaps in X3ar na ; for in Heb., after par
ticles of time, the Fut. designates the past, comp. Roed. Heb. Gramm.
§ 125. 4. a, comp. c ib. Our text seems, in regard to this, to Hebraize.
— ibs, to me, bs in Chald. very often is the same as bx, see Lex. — In
arranging and translating the next clause, there is much division of opin
ion among critics. C. B. Michaelis, Lengerke, Maurer, thus : To the
honor of my kingdom, of my glory, and of my splendor it [my reason] re
turned to me. Havernick divides the clause at the end of the word glory,
and then throws the sequel into another clause, thus : And my splendor
returned to me. This last method is against the accents, which connect
together iini iiin;. Leng. asserts (p. 200), that the accents favor his
method of arrangement ; in which he doubtless refers to the Pashta on
1111 ; but this is a mere attendant upon the Zdqueph Qdton that follows
( "&?. )> an(i wiH not at all prove that my glory and my splendor are to be
regarded as Genitives in apposition with miaba . In fact the contrary
of this is true ; for when a clause with four words terminates with a
Zaqeph Qaton (-), the accents are arranged just as here in ibs . . .
iiin , see Nordheim. Heb. Gramm. p. 388. d. I have therefore trans
lated as above, in the same way as Rosenmuller. To make mine under
standing an implied Nom. to the second ami ; not only exhibits a useless
repetition of this verb (for the same thing has already been twice said,
vs. 31, 33), but mars the sense, at least in part. Nebuchadnezzar means
simply to say, that first of all his reason returned, and then returned
with it all his former regal splendor. The second ami has for its Nom.
the proximate preceding noun ; a construction common to most languages,
and especially to the Semitic. — ibi , and me, Ace, differing from ibs
which twice precedes ; placed first in the clause for the sake of peculiar
emphasis. — 'psai, Fut. Pael of xsa, a because the Daghesh is excluded

Excursus on Chap. IV. 119
from the S. There is no need of the marginal lisai, which substitutes
Peal for Pael. As for the accent on the ultimate here, see p. 25 in the
Note. — nspnn , Hoph. of ipn , instead of the Chald. Ithpael, § 12. 6, p.
50; the final ns — , instead of the normal na — , is common in Guttural
verbs ; p. 53. n. 3 (at bottom) gives an analogy, and so on p. 49. 2 (ad fin.).
Gutturals and Liquids not unfrequently take Pattah final, in the 3d fem.,
and in the first person ; although the Grammar has not distinctly recog
nized this. — iai for niai , I have translated power, because one mean
ing of nai is, potens fuit. Amplitude would be more literal; but it fails
to designate the respect in which there was an augmentation. — nsoin,
Hoph. again of C|Qi , p. 50. 6. Here the third pers. sing, has its regular
ending in Pattah. The reading D instead of the regular 6 , is only for
the sake of distinctness. The difficulties which recent criticism has found
in the declarations or assertions of this verse, will be noticed in the sequel.
(34) Now I Nebuchadnezzar highly praise and exalt and glorify the king of the
heavens, all of whose doings are truth, and whose ways are justice; and those who
walk haughtily, he is able to humble.
The three Part, are in Pael, Polel (§ 14. 2), and again in Pael, all in
tensive, and so translated. — Tjbab , Ace. — iniiasa , plur. with suff. —
aiffip , truth, i. e. without deceit or falsehood ; and so "pi , justice, i. e.
just, or in accordance with justice ; both phrases are like God is love, i. e.
abstract for concrete. — nnnix , pi. fem. form, having a suffix ; ways
means proceedings, doings, actions, which use of the word is very com
mon in Heb. and Chaldee. — bai, Part., for form see § 12. 1.. 1. c.
[Excursus. — Objections to a chapter like the preceding, we might
naturally expect, from the fashionable criticism of the day. A considerable
host of them have been mustered into the service, by many agents. I shall
notice only such as seem to deserve serious consideration.
(l) It is alleged, that 'the publication of such a decree by Nebuchad
nezzar, a. decree which holds him up to the contempt of his subjects and to
disgrace, is an utter improbability.' Lengerke (p. 151) is so confident of
this, that he expresses disapprobation of Bertholdt, Bleek, and Kirms, for
conceding that Abydenus, who relates a story of Nebuchadnezzar's mad
ness, had any even fleeting rumors of this kind to build upon. The whole,
he thinks, is nothing more nor less than pure fiction.
What particular inducement there was for Abydenus to invent such a
fiction de novo, he does not tell us. It is easy to see, that tradition, when
it reached Abydenus, (who not improbably lived in the second century
B. C), might have added some circumstances to the story, in order to make
it the more wonderful, and that Abydenus himself, (no very skilful or criti
cal writer), may have helped to adorn it. But the simple categorical asser
tion that he had no basis to build upon, in writing his account of Nebu
chadnezzar's madness — may pass for what it is worth, with all candid
judges.

120 Excursus on Chap. IV.
In the mean time, conceding for the present that Nebuchadnezzar was
seized with mania, and recovered from it, how is it to be made certain, that
he was not, on his recovery, in a state of mind that would lead him to pub
lish the whole matter to his subjects, in order that they also might be led to
praise " the king of heaven" as well as he ? If anything could humble a
haughty tyrant, like him, what he had suffered was well adapted to do so.
And if all that had come upon him, had come in accordance with the pre
dictions of Daniel, the impression made on a highly susceptible mind, like
his, must needs be very strong. The first thing to which all strong emotions
of penitence lead, is ample confession of sin. Who can show us that Ne
buchadnezzar did not now become truly penitent ? But be that as it may,
he may well be supposed to have felt deep regret for his pride and haughti
ness, and a strong sense of humiliation. In this state, I know of no way
in which a man of powerful emotions, like him, can be shown to be incapa
ble of acknowledging his offences and deploring his folly. Taking the
statement of his whole demeanor together, the writer of the book may he
well acquitted of any incongruity in his account of these matters. He pre
sents Nebuchadnezzar as so humbled, and so affected by the discipline that
he had received, as to seek the opportunity of publishing to the world his
bitter experience, and his acknowledgments of gratitude for restoration.
A state of mind like this leaves no room for selfish and honor-saving devices,
which, as many critics allege, must have prevented his making such a pro
clamation as is contained in chapter iv. But do not these critics draw con
clusions rather from what they themselves would do or be likely to do in
such circumstances, or from what Nebuchadnezzar would have done in the
height of his prosperity and his haughtiness, than from what Nebuchadnez
zar as a disciplined, sobered, humbled, and penitent man would do ? In a
word, if Nebuchadnezzar was humbled, (and it would seem that he had
suffered enough to humble him), he was, judging from all the characteristics
of him that we can collect, and especially from the ardor and intensity of
his emotions, very likely to do such a thing as the one in question. No
thing is more common than for such men to go from one extreme to the
other. I crave the liberty of making one more remark. The reader of the
book before us, who acknowledges an overruling and a merciful Providence,
will not fail to see, that such a proclamation as that of Nebuchadnezzar,
coming from the renowned hero and conqueror who had advanced his
country to the highest pinnacle of dominion and fame, would have a very
important influence on the minds of the Babylonians, and lead them to treat
the Hebrew exiles among them with more than usual respect and lenity.
The writer of the book of Daniel may have had higher ends and nobler
objects in view, than some of the critics have attributed to him.
Thus much as to the fact of publishing such an Exposi. The next step,
on the part of objectors is, to deny the historical probability of the circum
stances stated. ' His madness,' they say, ' for so long a period, although
possible, is utterly improbable, because no writer mentions anything of it,
except the author of Daniel. Who can believe that so extraordinary a
thing, and one which must have put at peril all the great interests of the
kingdom, would have been passed by, in giving the history of this king ?
The whole affair, therefore, wears the air of fiction and not of fact.'

Excursus on Chap. IV. 121
Taking these assertions as founded in truth, in regard to the absence else
where of any account of Nebuchadnezzar's mania, and comparing this with
our modern method of writing history and biography, there seems to be at
least an appearance of something formidable in it, with respect to the credit
of the book before us. But he who is familiar with the fragments of early
oriental history that remain, will be slow to set up such a standard of
judging. The argumentum a silentio is one of the most treacherous of all
that encumber the logic of history. For example ; it is very easy for us to
ask : How, in writing Solomon's life, could his excessive polygamy and sen
suality, his idolatry, and finally his danger arising from the aggressions of
numerous and powerful enemies, near the close of his life, be passed over ?
And yet the writer of the Chronicles has not even mentioned one of these
circumstances. In a life of David, how could his adultery and murder be
passed by ? Yet the same author has not even adverted to them. And if
we go to the N. Test., it is easy to raise like questions there. How could
such miracles as that at the pool of Bethesda, or the raising of Lazarus
from the dead, be passed over in silence by three of the Evangelists ? And
because they are so, is that enough to convict John of writing mere ro
mance ?
Who, moreover, are they that have undertaken to write the history of
Nebuchadnezzar's later life ? The scriptural histories give us only the for
mer part of his long reign, and cease with that. The prophets Jeremiah
and Ezekiel ceased to write, and in fact were dead, before the close of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and of course have left us nothing concerning it.
The Grecian writers, even Herodotus himself who speaks so much of Baby
lon, say nothing of Nebuchadnezzar ; and indeed, how little dependence
can be placed on any history of the remote East by the Grecian writers of
a late age, seems now to be generally understood and acknowledged. Jo
sephus ( Antiqq.) and Eusebius (Chron.), who have industriously brought
together all they could find respecting Nebuchadnezzar, have mentioned
only six writings which recognize him. (l) The Phenician Annals ; which
merely mention his attack on Phenicia. (2) The Phenician History of
Philostrates, which merely mentions his besieging Tyre. (3) Megasthenes
(flor. c. 280 B. C), who in his History of India, mentions the overrunning
of Libya and Iberia by Nebuchadnezzar, (which is probably an error).
(4) Diodes, in his Persian History, makes a merely casual mention of him,
(Jos. Antiq. X. 11. Cont. Ap. I. 21.). We are reduced then to too histori
ans, Berosus and Abydenus, who both drew from Chaldee annals or tradi
tion. Of these we have, indeed, only a few remnants ; but we seem to have
all which they wrote respecting Nebuchadnezzar. In Berosus, the whole
account does not amount to two pages 12mo; and about half of this is oc
cupied with an account of the structures which Nebuchadnezzar reared at
Babylon ; see Richter's Berosus, p. 65 seq. In such a mere table of con
tents, or skeleton-sketch, of a reign of more than forty years, and of the
conquest of all hither Asia, how could it be expected that a writer would
give a detail of private personal infirmities ? Suppose, for example, some
three centuries hence, a writer should undertake to give the history of
George the third, and of his doings in England during a long and most
eventful reign. If confined to a page and a half, would he be likely to tell
the story of this king's mania, and the particulars of the interim Regency ?
11

122 Excursus on Chap. IV.
And if he omitted these, would it be any proof that there was neither mania
nor regency ? Besides, Berosus not improbably had other feelings toward
the Babylonish heroes, than such as would lead him to dwell on particulars
like the one in question. How comes it, that Manetho, and the Greek wri
ters who have followed him, while they celebrate the victory of Pharaoh
Necho over the Syrians, in the time of Josiah, say not a word of his defeat
at Carchemish ? It is plain, that Manetho did not wish to wither the lau
rels of his conqueror ; and so he has refrained from the latter part of the
story. And do the Persian histories recognize the defeats of Xerxes by
the Grecians, and that of Darius by Alexander in Asia ? Such things are
too common among ancient historians, to excite any surprise on the part of
him who is conversant with them.
As to Abydenus, what we have' of him is still less than the remains of Be
rosus. And yet, as we shall soon see, there is something in what little he
does say, that deserves our particular examination. In Euseb. Praep.
Evang. IX. 41, is a quotation from him, the amount of which is, that just
before his death, Nebuchadnezzar, ascending his palace, was seized with a
divine afflatus, uttered certain gloomy predictions concerning Babylon, in
respect to the future, and then suddenly disappeared.* The last part of
this passage has a singular air, and seems to be a kind of popular version
of the story of Nebuchadnezzar's madness, as told in his proclamation. But
along with this, there is seemingly an evident attempt to cover the disgrace
of that mania, by converting it into a furor propheticus. Daniel has pre
dicted (7: 5) the rise and progress of the Medo-Persian dominion, and its all-
devouring nature ; and Nebuchadnezzar himself, in his dream of the colos
sal image, had a view of the same, 2: 39. By mixing this with what is said
of his madness, and giving to Nebuchadnezzar himself a prophetic afflatus,
(which not unnaturally connected itsejf with his foreboding dreams), the
whole paragraph of Abydenus seems to be made up. I should not suspect
him of having seen the book of Daniel ; but that the traditions from which
he drew, had been formed among the populace, and partly modified by
that book, or at least by popular rumor according in some good measure
with it, among the Hebrews in exile, one can hardly see good reason to
* The passage is so singular, that I deem it expedient to present a translation of
it to the reader, that he may judge for himself. Abydenus first quotes Mcgasthenes
as an authority, in regard to Nebuchadnezzar's conquest of Lybia and Iberia. He
then proceeds to relate the further tradition of the Chaldeans respecting him : " After
these things [the conquests above named], as it is said by the Chaldeans, having as
cended his palace, he was seized by some god, and speaking aloud he said: '1 Ne
buchadnezzar, 0 Babylonians, foretel your future calamity, which neither Belus my
ancestor, nor queen Belis, can persuade the Destinies to avert. A Persian mule will
come, employing your own divinities as his auxiliaries ; and he will impose servitude
[upon you]. His coadjutor will be the Mede, who is the boast of the Assyrians.
Would that, before he places my citizens in such a condition, some Charybdis oi'galf
might swallow him up with utter destruction ! Or that, turned in a different direc
tion, he might roam in the desert, (where are neither cities, nor footsteps of man, but
wild beasts find pasturage, and the birds wander), being there hemmed in by rocks
and ravines ! May it be my lot to attain to a better end, before such things come
into his mind !' Having uttered this prediction, he forthwith disappeared."

Excursus on Chap. IV. 123
doubt. How came tradition to assign such a prediction, concerning the
Persian mule, to Nebuchadnezzar? In his life time, the Persians were not
known as anything more than a mere clan of a province. There must have
been something to originate such a unique prediction, in the minds of the
Chaldees. I can think of nothing more likely to do so, than a cursory and
hasty reading of the book of Daniel among them, or at least a Hebrew tra
dition such as has been before named. Nebuchadnezzar was the main
subject, for he was the object of the national boasting and glory ; the
things, which are described in Dan. iv. as about to come on him, he is made to
shift from himself, and to desire that they may be put upon the Persian mule.
Finally he vanishes from the sight of men, in a manner like to that in which
he disappears, when struck with madness. Abydenus may be quite honest
in relating all this, (and I see not why we should doubt of it), and yet the
popular rumor which he copied, may have been, and evidently was, a con
fused and heterogeneous mixture. It was difficult to reconcile the account
of Daniel with the glorification of the renowned hero. Hence such an
amalgamation of rumors, as would save the credit of Nebuchadnezzar; for
a divine afflatus and a sudden disappearance were considered by most hea
then, as marked tokens of the good pleasure of the godhead. The least that
we can now make of all this is, that in Abydenus' time there was still,
among the Chaldees, a tradition about something extraordinary and pecu
liar in the closing part of Nebuchadnezzar's life. At all events, the account
in Daniel is by far the most rational, sober, and credible. Indeed the other
is little short of a mere monstrosity ; and no one will for a moment deem it
credible, in the shape in which it is presented to us by Abydenus. There
are, however, with all the incongruities, some striking coincidences between
Abydenus and J)aniel. Both represent the extraordinary event, whatever
it was, as occurring after the close of Nebuchadnezzar's conquests, and near
the close of life. Both present the thing as happening, while Nebuchad
nezzar was on the top of his palace. According to the Greek text as
amended by Scaliger, (and now confirmed by the Armenian Version of
Eusebius' Chronicon), Nebuchadnezzar is said to be seized &em ciijoi <5/J, by
some divinity ; which, in the mouth of Chaldees, can scarcely mean anything
else than some foreign god. What then can be the import of this, unless
there is mingled with it some of the elements contained in Dan. iv, ? Dis
figured these elements are, by the inaccuracy of traditionary report, and by
the spirit of hero-worship which pervaded the Babylonians. But after all,
the impression is inevitably made by Abydenus, that according to Chaldee
tradition, Nebuchadnezzar ended his life in some unusual or extraordinary
manner. But what says Berosus in respect to this ? He says (in his third book,
cont. Apion. I. 20), that " Nebuchadnezzar, after beginning the aforemen
tioned wall, ipueamv tig xijv aqgonaxlav, falling into a sickness, departed this
life, after reigning forty-three years." ' But is there anything uncommon
in this '?' is the question which we are called upon at once to answer. ' Do not
men usually sicken before they die ? Why should we consider this as any
thing special ?' For the very reason, I answer, that sickness is so common
before death as not to need being mentioned; and therefore the particular
mention of it is adapted to awaken a suspicion, that something special is
meant by a specification of this nature. Of Neriglossar and Nabonned,

124 Excursus on Chap. IV.
both successors of Nebuchadnezzar, who, according to Berosus, both died a
natural death, nothing is said in respect to their falling sick.
' But does not Berosus say the same thing (in regard to sickness), of Ne
buchadnezzar's father Nabopolassar ?' ' And as nothing special is to be
made out of the latter case, why should we attempt to make out anything
special in the case of Nebuchadnezzar himself?'
This statement, however, as it seems to my mind, is- not altogether cor
rect. There is a special reason why the sickness of Nabopolassar is men
tioned. Berosus first states, that the king had intelligence that his Satrap
in Western Asia had revolted, and ov dvvapsvog auog exi xaxona&tiv, being
unable himself any longer to undergo hardships, he sent his son to subdue
the revolters. While Nebuchadnezzar was engaged in this mission, " it
happened to Nabopolassar his father, who was sick at this time {xaxa xovxov
xiv xhlqov uqq(i)o-t)]Ouvxi), to die at Babylon." Now the obvious reason
of mentioning his infirm state here, is to show why he sent his son
with his army, instead of heading it himself. His death is afterwards
connected with this sickness, in order to show, that he continued infirm
during the expedition led by his son, until the time of his death. Of course,
the mere ordinary idea of a sickness which precedes death, is not the one
which the writer aims to communicate ; and if something special in this
case is denoted, by the mention of the sickness, we may well suppose that
something special in the second case is meant. But what is it? It is that
Nebuchadnezzar had begun a wall of some kind, the completion of which
was interrupted by his falling sick, iunsviav fig uQgmoxiav. Lengerke makes
light of this mode of expression, and thinks that Hengstenberg mistakes the
nature of the Greek idiom, when he attributes more to it, than to the simple
aQQuio-xrjCtuvxi employed to describe the condition of Nabopolassar. Most
clearly Hengstenberg is substantially in the right; for at least it carries
with it the accessory idea of being suddenly invaded by sickness, which the
other (the latter) does not. What this sickness was, Berosus does not say ;
nor could we expect him to do so. But independently of this, his mode of
expression conveys at least the idea of a sudden and unexpected sickness.
Our text affords an ample explanation of the matter.
' But the two cases are not alike ; nay they are directly opposed to each
other. Daniel says that Nebuchadnezzar was stricken with mania ; and
that he recovered both his health and station ; Berosus, that he died of his
sickness ; and even Abydenus, that he suddenly disappeared in his ecstasy.
Here then is contradiction, not confirmation.'
So Lengerke, p. 146 seq. But as to Abydenus, this part of his account
is too plainly fabulous to support an objection. The single clause of Bero
sus, in which he tells the story, seems indeed to connect the sickness with
the death of Nebuchadnezzar. But no limitation of time is made, in re
spect, to the duration of the sickness. No particulars whatever are given.
In the absence of everything of this nature, we cannot well make out from
Berosus a contradiction of Daniel. Do the books of the Chronicles contra-
diet those of the kings, because they omit any account of the failings and
sins of David and Solomon ? A spirit of liberal criticism will hardly ven
ture upon such a position. If now, as seems quite probable, Nebuchad
nezzar died very soon after his restoration, then there were no special
political achievements of his to be recorded by the Chaldee historian. At

Excursus on Chap. IV. 125
all events there appears to be no contradiction between him and Daniel,
when the nature of the case is fully considered. The one gives a mere
general statement, in the briefest manner practicable ; the other goes into
particulars. ' But seven years of madness ! And during all this time no revolution of
government, and no other king placed on the throne ! How is all this to
be rendered probable ?'
As to the length of time, commentators seem to have been somewhat per
plexed by it. Calvin thinks that seven is here an indefinite number, em
ployed to denote a considerable period. So Hengstenberg (Authentie, s.
113) ; who also intimates, that it is not necessary to consider times as denot
ing years. Havernick has gone further, and maintains that these times
were astrological periods. But the idiom of the book (see 7: 25. 12: 7),
seems to forbid this. I do not think that we can fairly shun the conclusion
that years are meant. But then a seven years' madness is no uncommon
occurrence, and therefore presents no difficulty. But we are called upon
to show how the kingdom was managed, without another king. And this
question we may answer by saying, that it was probably managed just as it
was after the death of Nabopolassar, during the expedition of Nebuchad
nezzar to western Asia, i. e. by the Magi, and in particular by the head of
this order, who seems to have been officially a kind of viceroy, in case of an
exigency. So Berosus expressly represents the matter, when he speaks of
Nebuchadnezzar's return to his capital. On this occasion he says, that
" he took upon himself the affairs which had been managed by the Chal
dees [Magi], and the royal authority which had been preserved for him by
their chief," (Jos. Antiq. X. 11. 1). So when the Medes and Babylonians
combine to destroy Nineveh, the chief priest of the Magi, Belesis, is pre
sented as the leader and prince of the Chaldeans ; Diod. Sic. II. More
over as Hengstenberg remarks, the nobles may have had many reasons for
continuing a regency in this way, as it put great power into their hands
without subjecting them to danger from the exercise of it. That Nebu
chadnezzar was a thorough disciplinarian, and well understood order and
subordination, the extent of his conquests and the durability of his power
would seem to show. His affairs, therefore, might have gone on as usual,
with but little trouble. The case before us, then, in respect to the inter
regnum, presents no very serious difficulty.
' But if Nebuchadnezzar ran wild at large, with the beasts, how could his
nobles seek after him, and where would they go to find him ? How, more
over, should they know when to go ; or when his reason returned ; or indeed
that it did at all return ?'
Questions, as it seems to me, of much less significancy and difficulty, than
have been attached to them by many of the recent critics on the book of
Daniel. Some of them, too, depend for what little importance they have,
on a wrongly assumed exegesis of the text. When it is said that " Nebu
chadnezzar's nobles sought for him" (lisai), this phrase is not to be under
stood in the sense of looking for something which is lost ; like our phrase
to hunt up or hunt out ; for when Arioch and his guard sought after (isa)
Daniel to kill him (2: 13), he had neither absconded nor concealed himself.
To seek after is, in the style of the book before us, to make inquiry for or of.
11*

126 Excursus on Chap. IV.
This the nobles of Babylon did, so soon as they heard of the king's resto
ration. As to wandering away from the abodes of men, and lodging and feeding
with the wild beasts, all the questions that are raised as to the probability or
possibility of this amount to little or nothing. A fierce madman of this dis
position would easily elude the most thorough vigilance, and make his
escape ; comp. Mark 5: 1 — 5. Hengstenberg, indeed, represents Nebu
chadnezzar as chained the whole time (see v. 20), and attended by a
watch-guard, to see where he might go, and to secure him from injury.
But our text conveys to my own mind quite a different impression. The
chain of v. 20 seems to be applied to keeping in security the root-trunk of
the tree, and so to preserve it that a germ would in due time shoot up.
That Nebuchadnezzar roamed at large, seems to lie on the face of the rep
resentation in chap. iv. That his haunts were known, and that some kind
of watch-guard was placed over him whose business it was to look to any
exigency that might occur, seems highly probable when we consider the
rank and popularity of Nebuchadnezzar. When he became rational, he
would of course return to his home and his friends. He needed not to be
hunted out. It often happens, that persons fall into a mania which lasts
many years, and on coming out of it suddenly, their consciousness is con
nected with the state in which they were immediately before their malady,
and the intervening period is entirely lost. In case of the king's return, it
would at once be known, not only where he was, but also what was his then
present condition.
As to the various fantastic representations that have been made of the
description of Nebuchadnezzar during his madness, transmuting him into
some compound of an animal with claws and feathers, and the like, it is un
necessary to canvass them. Origen, not knowing, as it would seem, what to
do with the representation, makes it {more suo) an allegorical representa
tion of the fall of Satan ; and Jerome (Comm. on 4: 7) uses the argumentum
¦ad hominem against heathen objectors, and asks, whether the story is not as
probable, as their reports about Chimaeras, Hydras, Centaurs, and the like.
It would be unreasonable to ask assent to such views as these ; but we may
boldly say, that due allowance being made for oriental costume in the de
scription of Nebuchadnezzar's person and demeanor, there is nothing in
either beyond the common bounds of probability. To draw from the ex
pression " his hair became like that of eagles," the conclusion that he be
came feathered, would be following up the literal meaning beyond all reason.
The covered hirsute condition of his body is the point of comparison, and
the object is not to assert that he became a feathered animal. Besides, the
word which we translate eagles {yyiii) is more generic in the original, and
comprises the various species of the vulture. The bald eagle, however,
(for which the word also stands), seems to be the particular object pointed at
in the comparison. If so, no further defence of the language is needed.
Madmen have so often acted over scenes like those here described, that won
der at such a condition would seem to betoken ignorance of facts.
Finally it is urged, that the whole chapter has a mere paraenetic or horta
tory tendency ; and that in order to impress the moral ideas designed to be
communicated in this way, the whole romance is introduced ; not for the

Excursus on Chap. IV. 127
purposes of fraud, as even Lengerke seems willing to concede, but for a
purpose like that which produces so many moral romances at the present
day. The object is, as critics of this class affirm, to present the character
and the doom of Antiochus Epiphanes, and to encourage the Jews to per
severe in their opposition to that tyrant.
But of such romances, written in such a way among the Hebrews, we
have no certain examples. We have parables and fables ; but they are
always explained by the context. Such as we have, moreover, are very
short, and of a very different tenor from the present narration. As to Antio
chus — what is there in his life to correspond with the chapter before us ?
If he deserved the name of madman, it was by his vile conduct, and not be
cause his intellect was really supposed to be deranged. Besides, Nebuchad
nezzar did not persecute the Jews for their religion ; Antiochus did, even
to the last extremity. Nebuchadnezzar repented after his madness, and
proclaimed his penitence to the world ; Antiochus did neither. Both indeed
were heathen kings, and both were zealots for idolatry ; but so were hun
dreds of other kings, and there is no speciality in this. But if this be ex
cepted, then what is left in ch. iv. to remind any one of Antiochus, either
as to his life or his death ?
That the whole book of Daniel has a moral and religious substratum, which
is ever kept in view, I would fully and most readily acknowledge. It would
not be what we should expect from such a man as Daniel, if this were not
the case. But as to a prototype in the present case of Antiochus, it needs a
magnifying-glass of peculiar power to discover it.

Chap. V. Contents.
[The reader of this book would make a great mistake, if he should regaid it as de
signed to give anything like a regular history of the Babylonish kings, or of the Jew
ish nation, during the Babylonish exile. Only such occurrences are noted as have a
high religious interest, and in combination with this, occasionally, a high national in
terest for the Jews. Such is the narrative before us. The Babylonish king, heated
with wine, shows contempt to the sacred utensils of the Jewish temple, or at least a
haughty exultation in his possession of them. He is admonished, in the midst of his
excess, of his impending and awful doom ; and speedily it comes upon him. An im
portant lesson to blasphemous kings is taught by this, and cheering encouragement
is given to those who were bowed down under the yoke of slavery, and were insulted
and treated with scorn in respect to their most sacred feelings. The sum of the narra
tion is as follows :
Belshazzar makes a great feast, and invites to it a multitude of his princes and po
tentates. In the midst of it. he commands the vessels of the Jerusalem-temple to be
brought from the temple of Belus, that he and his companions might quaff wine from
them. While doing this, they break out into praises of their idol-gods, vs. 1 — 4.
Then came forth the appearance of a man's hand, and inscribed mysterious charac
ters on the wall over against the king. Greatly terrified, he summoned all the Magi
to decipher them ; but they could not, vs. 5 — 9. Then came in the queen-mother,
who reminded him of Daniel, as having formerly performed the office of interpreter,
vs. 10 — 12. The king sends for him, relates to him what he had already done, to-

228 Chap. V. 1.
gether with his disappointment, and appeals to him for a disclosure of the mysterious
characters, vs. 13—16. Daniel relates the demeanor and punishment of Nebuchad
nezzar ; sets before the king the true nature of his offence ; and then reads and ex
plains the writing on the wall, which predicts the speedy destruction of Belshazzar,
and the dissolution of his kingdom, vs. 17—28. Daniel is promoted; and the same
night Belshazzar is slain by the invading Medo-Persian army, vs. 30, 31.]

(1 ) Belshazzar the king made a great feast for his thousand nobles, and before the
thousand he drank wine.
The name here written isxtaba , in 7: 7 is written laiiixba ; and
in 1: 7 al. we have still another equivalent form, viz. iSXttJaba.
They are all one name, with merely a different orthography. The last
has the Zend sign of the Gen. in full, xuia {tsha), which in the others is
softened down by omitting the B . Meaning : Belus prince. — anb , feast,
an unusual Segholate form ; omitted by Winer, § 28. 1, where it should be
inserted. Usually the final vowel is not (-), unless preceded by Hho-
lem, as in bap. The word properly means food, bread, and so a meal,
for which this is of course provided. — A thousand nobles is but a mode
rate number for such an empire as that of Babylon. It is probable that
at the feast of Ahasuerus (Xerxes), Est. 1: 3 — 5, more were present;
see in v. 3, " all his princes and servants ;" and this feast was kept 180
days, v. 4. Ctesias says, that the king of Persia furnished provisions
daily for 25,000 men ; see Pleeren, Ideen, etc. I. s. 493, 3d edit. Quin-
tus Curtius says that 10,000 men were present at a festival of Alexander
the Great ; and Statius says of Domitian, that he ordered, on a certain
occasion, his guests to " sit down at a thousand tables. — bapbi , and be
fore ; but in what sense ? The meaning does not seem to be simply, that
he drank wine in their presence, while they looked on ; for this would be
jejune. The probable meaning would seem to imply, that the king's seat
was a separate one, at the head of the table, so that all his guests were
before him, and could have a full view of him. The assertion of the text
then would seem to be, that he sat down to the feast with them, although
separated in some way from them and opposite to them. When it is said,
that " he drank wine before the thousand," the predominant element at
such a feast is named as the representative of the whole. Accordingly, in
v. 10, the place where the guests assembled is named xinuia nia, ban-
queting-house. The Babylonians were famous above all men for intemper
ance, specially in drinking. The feast in question some have thought to
be the Sacae (Saturnalia) of the Babylonians; others, that of a corona
tion day ; others, a birth-day festival. Either of the two latter is more

Chap. V. 2, 3. 229
probable than the former. But whatever feast it was, it seems to have
been attended with religious rites and services, comp. vs. 4, 23. To
drink deep appears in fact to have been a part of their polluted and de
grading services. The sequel is not to be wondered at.
(2) Belshazzar, while tasting the wine, gave command to bring in the vessels of
gold and silver, which Nebuchadnezzar his father had carried away from the temple
in Jerusalem, that out of them the king, his nobles, his wives, and his concubines,
might drink.
osaa , in tasting, which however does not mean merely sipping' in
order to determine the flavor, or as a prelude to drinking more freely,
but drinking with relish, and therefore plentifully. — ninin , Inf. Aph. of
xnx , § 24. 2. Aph. — i?xab , Ace. with b , plur. const, of ixa = njxa ,
from njx. — p^n, Aph. — iniax, § 35. — nbiarna, also written with
final Db — , see Lex. — liniai1] , Fut. Peal of xnia , here connected with if,
and employed in like manner as the Heb. Fut. with this particle often is.
— lins , lit. in them . So the Greeks : niveiv iv nozTjgt'oig ; Lat. in auro
bibitur, in ossibus capitum bibere, to drink in skulls ; French, boire dans une
tasse, etc. Our idiom demands out of instead of in. To render a in
this case by = by means of, might bring the Chald. idiom and ours to
gether ; but I doubt whether the particle has that meaning in the origi
nal here. — nnbjia , pi. of bjo with suff., which latter is in the Sing.,
p. 36, top. The form of this noun is omitted in Winer. It should have
been inserted in § 28. 1, after No. 3. — nrpnb, plur. with sing. suff. at
tached in the same way. The circumstance here mentioned, viz. that the
kind's wives and concubines were admitted to the feast, shows how differ
ent the manners of the Babylonians were from those of the Persians,
Greeks, and other nations of the East. Vashti, the Persian queen, would
not appear at the feast-table, even when commanded by the king, Est. i. ;
and among the Greeks, none but women of a degraded character sat down
at a feast with men. Herodotus tells us, I. 109, that ' it was a detestable
religious law among the Babylonians, that every woman should once pros
titute herself, in the temple of Mylitta, to the first comer.' Curtius says,
that ' women were not only present at the feasts, but as the guests be
came warmed with wine, they divested themselves gradually of their
clothing.' " Nor was this," adds he, " merely a disgraceful affair of pros
titutes, but it was deemed an act of comity by matrons and virgins."
What sort of a banquet Belshazzar was engaged in, seems to be sufficiently
evident from such testimonies. Hence the aggravation of the insult to
the God of heaven.
(3) Then they brought the vessels of gold which had been carried away from the

130 Chap. V. 4-6.
temple of the house of God, which is in Jerusalem, and out of them drank the king
and his nobles, his wives and his concubines.
linin , Aph. of xnx . — ipssn , for Hhireq under B, see§ 12.1. J. —
lifflDXl, Peal of xmj with an x prosthetic — a peculiar idiomatic form,
see Lex.
(4) They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold and silver, of brass, iron, wood,
and stone.
KSX , emph. = Heb. y$ , see Lex. S , S . The word wood doubtless
designates the frame-work of the image, which was first carved and then
gilded. Probably the brass and iron gods were cast images, plated with
gold or silver. The stone was an unfrequent material for images in Bab
ylon ; but some marble images are found among its ruins at the present
time. (5) At that very moment, there came forth fingers of a man's hand, and they wrote
over against the chandelier, on the plaster of the palace-wall of the king ; and the
king saw the extremity of the hand which wrote.
na , § 43. 6. b. — lpB3 , so the Kethibh would read ; but the vowels
here belong to the Qeri npss = xpS3 3 pi. fem. The Kethibh assumes
the masc. gender of sasx ; which is not improbable, although not else
where so employed. — "ana , Part. fem. plur., following the usual con
struction. — The writing being over against (bapb) the chandelier, would
be very conspicuous. To deduce from xiis , plaster, the conclusion that
the feast-hall must have been in the court of the palace, and not in the
building, seems to be going quite too far. The outside of buildings in the
East is alleged to have been plastered, and not the inside. But I see
nothing here to render it probable that the guests were in the outer court.
— Xii bb } the extremity of the hand, i. e. the fingers, was all that was
visible. — N^na , Part. fem. used for the verb. The accents bid us render
the last clause thus : The king looked, an extremity of the hand (there was)
which wrote. I prefer the translation given above.
(6) Then the king changed his color and his thoughts agitated him, and the joints
of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against the other.
Lit. the first clause : Then as to the king — his splendors changed for him.
In inisia , the suff. in is sing. masc. (p. 34, 2nd Par.), while lit has a
suffix of the same form which is plur. (p. 35, Par. 2), and which of course
indicates that the noun itself is plural. On this account it seems necessary
to render the suff. to the verb intransitive (13m), as being in the Dative —
changed for him, or in the Ace. in respect to him, § 57. 2. b, comp. Heb.Gram. §

Chap. V. 6. 131
116. 3. If not, then we must interpret 13B as transitive, and translate thus,
changed him, which will hardly make any good sense, unless we interpret it
as meaning changed his appearance. Perhaps the true solution is to be found
in the assonance of the two words as to their ending ; for in making out this,
an irregularity (here and at times elsewhere) as to normal construction
is occasioned. That the suff. in- after the verb ista is to be rendered by
an oblique case, seems to be confirmed by v. 9 below, where that which is
here a simple verbal suffix, is exchanged for the separate pronoun with a
preposition, viz. inibs ; and another example of this latter construction
may be seen also in 7: 28, and the like in 10: 8. Lengerke takes the suff,
to the verb as virtually a reflexive pronoun, and renders : veranderte sich,
changed itself; in which case he also changes iniif to the sing, number.
But as the verb is plural, and the Nom. to it is plural, how comes the
verbal suff. to be singular ? Besides, inasmuch as the verb is in its very
nature intransitive in Peal, examples are wanting to justify the position,
that such verbs may take and properly govern a reflexive pronoun-object.
With Rosenm., Gesenius, Winer, and Maurer, therefore, I prefer the
other construction. Analogy in the other examples quoted, seems indeed
fairly to decide the matter. — nsibnai , Fut. Peal pi. with suff. and par-
ag. 3 , p. 58. Rem. 1. — nsin , sing, of yin with suff. = Heb. dual Qisbn ,
b and 1 (as often) being exchanged. The Chald. and Syr. use the sing.
here, instead of the dual ; see Lex. The joints of his loins probably
means his hip-joints or the joints in the lower part of the spine. The
meaning seems to be, that he was unable to keep his standing, by reason
of these natural supports being rendered tremulous. Let the reader com
pare Ezek. 21: 7. Ps. 69: 24 (23). Deut. 33: 11. Isa. 13: 8, and specially
21: 3. Nah. 2: 10, and he will see how commonly violent emotions,
especially of fear and of suffering, were ascribed to the loins by the He
brews. — liinoa , Part. Ithpaal of Xio , exchange of «j and n, § 10. 5. b ;
( - ) under n because the 1 excludes the Dagh. forte, p. 32, 3d line. —
nnaaix , fem. pi. (with suff.) of naiaix . Ges. has given no account of
the formation or etymology of the word in his Lex. I take it to be a de-
rivate of ?|13 , to fall on one's knees, by a transposition of letters, and
also by the addition of a prosthetic X. — xib xi , § 43. 5. a. — 1^p3,
Part. pi. fem. Supposing the fact to have been as here related, in respect
to the mysterious hand and its conspicuous hieroglyphs, none can wonder
at the terror of the king, who was in a state where excited feeling was of
course to be expected. A fear of some dreadful evil, if not a conscious
ness of great guilt, must have pervaded his very soul. Even if the
account be a romance, as many recent critics affirm, it must at least be
conceded that the writer has put a skilful hand to the completion of his
picture.

132 Chap. V. 7—9.
(7) The king cried aloud to bring in the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the astrolo
gers. He answered and said to the wise men of Babylon : Any man who will read
this writing, and will show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed in purple,
and a collar of gold [be put] on his neck, and he shall rule as the third in the king
dom. nbsnb , Aph. Inf. of bbs . The Dagh. f. in Aph. of these verbs (see
p. 63) is excluded by the S, and would naturally go into a long vowel (-)
under the preceding n . But as this letter precedes a Guttural with Qa-
mets, its proper vowel must be exchanged for (- ) ; see Roed. Heb.
Gramm. p. 66. Note 2. b. ¦ — The b that follows marks the Ace. —
il , that, but here (as ozi often in Greek) a mere sign of quotation,
and needs not to be translated. — Nana , not fem., but masc. and emph.
form of ana. i?|ini, Fut. Aph. of xin, with suff., p 68. Rem. 1 
X31S1X , emph., and in the Ace. after uiabi , § 50. 2. b. — xawan , so
the Kethibh should be pointed ; to the Qeri, xai?an , belong the vowels
in the text. While this word may mean any kind of metal ornament at
tached to one's person, it has here a specific meaning, as the context
shows, viz. collet or collar. — inbni, a form sui generis; in v. 16 is
an emph. from xnbn ; which seems to come from nbn . The Chald. has
a regular form, inibn , third; and inbn seems to be a word that has
been shortened from it, probably in order to make a kind of proper name
for the officer thirdia rank. The Grand Vizier (as we say in reference to
Turkey) was the second officer, i. e. was prime minister of the king who
was first ; the inbn stands next to Vizier.
(8) Then entered all the wise men of the king, and they were not able to read the
writing, and make known the interpietation thereof to the king.
ibbs the Kethibh should read ; the vowels now appended belong to
the Qeri , ^bs . The Kethibh is preferable. — rbna , Part, again, the
verse having no proper definite verb in it. — xipa , Inf. Peal of Xip.
— From the circumstance here related of their inability to read the in
scription, it seems c lear, hat the characters were neither the usual de
motic nor the hieratic. That the Babylonians used both, seems to be
rendered nearly certain, by Grotef'end, whose Essay on the subject is
printed by Heeren, at the end of Vol. II. of his Ideen. But the Magi must
of course have been able to read both characters ; as was the case with the
priests of Egypt. Much speculation there has been on the form of the
characters in question, and many things have been said, which it would
serve but little purpose to relate. Enough that the characters were such
as frustrated all the efforts of the Magi to read them.
I
(9) Then Belshazzar the king was greatly agitated, and his color was changed
upon him, and his nobles were perplexed.

Chap. V. 10, 11. 133
bnana , Part, in Ithpael, a because Dagh. f. is omitted in the n . —
As to iniM etc., see on v. 6 above. Here inibs upon~him, seems to
indicate the diffusion of the color over him, i. e. over the surface of the
skin. — T;3\a , Part. pi. see in Par. VII. p. 92. — ycan^a , Part. Ith-
paal of ttiaia , with the usual exchange of n and la .
(10) The queen — because of the affairs of the king and his nobles, she had come
to the banqueting-house — the queen answered and said : 0 king, live forever ! Let
not thy thoughts. disturb thee, nor thy color be changed !
t
But who is the queen ? Not Belshazzar's wife ; for his wives and
concubines were already at the table ; see vs. 2, 23. It seems, then,
to be his mother or grandmother, who had once enjoyed the title of
queen, which by courtesy (as usual) was continued after her husband's
death. Either of these, but specially the latter, would well know all
that is said in the sequel of Nebuchadnezzar and what befel him. —
iba, pi. const., seems to mean affairs here. We might render it words,
and refer it to the command of the king to bring in the Magi, of which
the queen had heard, were it not that it stands related to the nobles as
well as to the king. — nibs , for so reads the Qeri, is probably the right
reading here, and is 3 sing. fem. Peal of bbs . But nbbs (the Kethibh)
is no bad or improbable reading ; for the Part, may have such a fem. form,
so common in the verb. The Part, construction is about as frequent as
that with the verb. — njs , 3 fem. Peal. — niaxi , 3 fem. Peal, p. 53.
3 Gutt. Note 3. — "Ty\, plur. with suff., ^i- retaining (i) as the index
of the plural. — isnirh , Fut. Ithpaal of X3ffi , n and is exchanging places
as usual. In this case there is neither suff. nor separate pronoun, but the
verb is reflexive, and equivalent to Let (them) not change themselves. —
The repetition of the xnaba in the first clause, by the second clause, is a
mere resumption of the sentence after a parenthetic clause had been thrown

(11) There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods, and in
the days of thy father, intelligence, discretion, and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods-,
was found in him ; and king Nebuchadnezzar, thy father, appointed him the chief of
the sacred scribes, the Chaldees, the astrologers, [even] thy father, 0 king !
Spirit of the holy gods is the same language which Nebuchadnezzar
employs in speaking of Daniel, 4: 8, 9, 18, (Eng. Version). — liinj (ifor
ni- § 31. 1), form in § 28. a. 4. Light intellectually or tropically under
stood, is the meaning, i. e. intelligence. — tonbato , (1- for ni-). Here
are two sufformatives, first the syllable 1~ , and then the ni or 1 ; see
§ 30. — nnanian , Ithpael 3 fem. of naia ; for ending, p. 53, 3 Gutt.,
Note 3. — King Nebuchadnezzar thy father, Leng. with Rosenm. takes
12

134 Chap. V. 12, 13.
as Nom. abs. ; with Maurer, I prefer the arrangement in the version,
which makes it the subject of the verb that follows. Then at the close ;
the repetition, thy father, 0 king, has an intensive, emphatic meaning, as
much as to say : ' Even a man of such sagacity and distinction as thy
father, made this appointment.'
(12) Inasmuch as an excellent spirit, and the knowledge, and discretion of one
who interpreteth dreams, and explaineth dark sayings, and solveth knotty points,
was found in this same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar, let Daniel now
be called, and let him give the interpretation.
The construction is somewhat difficult, and interpreters are not agreed
respecting it. C. B. Michaelis supplies till before the nouns that fol
low, e. g. spirit of knowledge, etc. I prefer to carry forward isnbaia ,
and mentally to repeat it before the two latter clauses thus : " [the dis
cretion, i. e. power to distinguish nicely] belonging to the explanation of
dark sayings, [discretion] of one who solves knotty points, etc. — niinx
is the const, form of the noun ; I have rendered it as if it were a parti-
ciple, like liasa and Xliaa, because this better suits our idiom. — p^nx,
fem. pi., formed from lin by X prosthetic, enigmas, or dark sayings. —
The word liiap is rendered joints in v. 6 ; which is its literal sense.
Here it means knots or joints in a tropical sense, i. e. matters that are
hard or difficult to be solved. — bx'3ia na , in this same Daniel, § 43.
6. b. — ¦'¦ijarji , Fut. Ithpeal of xip ; here it means called in the sense of
summoned. — ninni Fut. Aph. of xin , with n praeform. retained, p. 49. 5.
The tone in which this last clause is spoken, betokens that the speaker
herself is conscious of an elevated rank and a kind of authority, or at
least a right to give advice ; a tone which only such a woman as stood in
the relation of a mother (not of a wife) could assume in the East, before
a king.
(13) Then Daniel was brought before the king. The king answered and said to
Daniel : Art thou the same Daniel that belongeth to the captives of Judea, whom the
king, my father, brought away from Judea ?
bsn == bsm , the Hophal of the biblical Chaldee, which is always em
ployed in. the Chald. of the O. Test., in the room of Ittaphal, the pass, of
Aphel, § 12. 6, root bbs. — The same Daniel, § 43. 6. b. — xniba is ab
stract, captivity ; but here it is plainly a case of the abstract'for the
concrete, and so I have translated it captives. — lini is the Chald. name
of the Jewish country. — In inin il, the il may relate to Daniel, or to
the captives at large. I prefer the latter sense, as being the fuller, and
in this case the more probable ; inin 3 pers. sing. Aph. of xnx .  iax is

Chap. V. 14—16. 135
anomalous as to accent ; since there is no apparent reason for placing
the tone on the penult, and if placed there, we should of course expect a
( - ) and not a ( - ) in the tone-syllable. What guided the Punctators
in this case, it would be difficult to say. This suffix is nowhere else ap
pended to ax , either in Chaldee or in Hebrew. Maurer thinks that the
word should be read "OX {dbh), after the Syriac manner of pronouncing
it. It may be that the Punctators, having no other exemplar to guide
them, designed to follow that analogy as to the stress of the voice.
(14) And I have heard respecting thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and
that intelligence, and discretion, and much wisdom is found in thee.
tpb? , with the usual Qeri "bs , which is needless  inns , in some
Codd. Ilins ; but Qamets before n in such a case is not very frequent.
The Pattah is long here, if the form has a Dagh. implicitum. But this
is hardly probable. For the rest, see v. 1 1.
(15) Then were brought before me the wise men, the enchanters, that they might
read this writing, and to show me the interpretation thereof; and they were not able
to show the interpretation of the thing.
ibsn , Hoph. 3 plur. (instead of Ittaphal), from bbs , § 12. 6. — ",iipi . . .
il , that . . . they might read, just as in Heb., nax followed by the Fut.
designates the same shade of meaning ; Ges. Lex. liax . B. 2. Instead
of such a construction, we have an Inf. with b in the next clause, viz.
ijnsiinb, 13- suff.; nisiin (written plene), Aph. Inf., for ending, p. 56.
e. For change of construction, comp. 1:5. — xnba , matter, thing, mean
ing the whole of the extraordinary transaction that had taken place.
The place of the noun here, (being twice put before the Inf. which gov
erns it), deserves to be noted. It is frequent in the Chaldee ; see v. 16.
2: 16, 18. 4: 15, al.
(16) And I have heard concerning thee, that thorn cans"t skilfully interpret, and
, solve knotty points ; now if thou canst read the writing, and show me the interpreta
tion thereof, thou shalt be clothed in purple, and a collar of gold shall [be put] on
thy neck, and thou shalt rule as the third in the kingdom.
bain, (so the Kethibh should be read) agrees with the form in 2: 10,
and shows that it is the Hebraizing Hophal. The Qeri has put in its
place the regular Fut. Peal form, viz. bian , without any necessity ; root
bai . — liBBab liliaa , lit. to interpret interpretations, a Chald. and Heb.
idiom, which means to practise making interpretations, or to interpret
skilfully. Our idiom excludes a literal version ; see the whole clause in
v. 12. — Read bain as before ; the case is the same. For the rest, see
on v. 7 above.

136 Chap. V. 17—19.
(17) Then answered Daniel before the king and said: May thy gifts be for thy
self, and bestow thy rich presents on another ! The writing, however, I will read for
the king, and I will show him the interpretation.
r,n3na, plur. const, form, with suff.; which (in the fem. pi.) is always
appended to the const, form, p. 88. 4. d. — i;inb , see on 2: 20. — ^niatas ,
see on 2: 6. — priX, adj. with a sufformative -,-, not unfrequent in this
class of words, — an , Imper. of ani . — Daniel must not be regarded as
saying this contemptuously. Plainly it is merely designed to express his
willingness to interpret without any fee or reward ; and it is as much as
to say : ' At the king's disposal may all the blessings remain, that he
would bestow upon me ! If he insists on giving, I would rather he should
do this to some other person than to myself.' — n?Slinx , Aph. Fut.
with suff., for which see p. 58. Rem. 1.
(18) As to thee, 0 king, the most high God gave to Nebuchadnezzar, thy father,
dominion, and greatness, and honor, and glory.
The Nom. independent, (such are the two first words), is no unusual
construction ; it is even much more frequent in Chaldee than in Heb.
prose. — Xibs , so it should be read, is the emphatic form, from the abs.
form ibs . — See and compare 2: 37, for the verse in general.
(19) And because of the greatness which he gave to him, all nations, people, and
tongues trembled and feared before him, whomsoever he would he killed, and whom
soever he would he kept alive ; whomsoever he would he exalted, and whomsoever
he would he humbled.
ani has for its Nom. xnbx implied, as in the preceding verse it is ex
pressed. — lisxt has another orthography given to it by the Qeri, but
needs it not, for sn may be thus declined in the Part. ; see in Par. p. 68.
The verb of existence, joined with it, strongly marks what is continued
or customary. — il whoever, whomsoever = iiiix , is in the Ace, and is
directly the object of bijp . The so frequent repetition of the helping
verb here with the respective participles, is rather unusual. The whole
array of the diction is adapted strongly to mark what was continued and
customary. — xna , for Xina or iina , Aphel Part. apoc. of Xin ; some
Codd. read xna , which is well enough, (comp. the Hebrew nina), for
Pattah will answer well before the n . But xna is not a bad reading, inas
much as the closed syllable na (in the full form) becomes an open one
in the apoc. form, and may therefore take Qamets. — Qiia is Part. Apb.
of Dli ; for ( - ) under the a , see § 22. 1. — bsttia , Aph. Part. ; for the
final Hhireq, see § 12. 1. 1. The arbitrary and despotic power of an Ori
ental sovereign is very briefly and graphically expressed in the two par
allel czlfpi contained in the latter part of this verse. Some critics have

Chap. V. 20, 21. 137
rendered xna as if it were a Part, of xna to strike, beat : but this breaks
up the antithesis between this word and bap , and disturbs the easy and
obvious course of thought.
(20) And when his heart was lifted up, and his spirit was emboldened to behave
with insolence, he was thrust down from the throne of his kingdom, and honor did
they take from him.
ai might be taken as 3d Praet., for in part this verb is i's ; but more
probably it is the Part. Peil here ; comp. Dito in 3: 29. 6: 27. The par
ticle iia , when, is naturally joined with a participle ; see in 3: 7. — nspn ,
3 fem., for its Nom. nil is comm. gender; lit. grew strong or firm, fir-
mavit, but figuratively, in relation to the mind, was or became emboldened.
— nijnb , Inf. Aph. of lit , to be proud, to act haughtily or insolently, the
n in both cases is for X of the regular Chaldee. — nnsn , a plain case of
the Hophal, in the place of Ittaphal. — X&ia , in Heb. X&a (forma Dagh.),
and the double s in Hebrew is in Aramaean usually exchanged for rs,
which softens the hissing ; see Ges. Lex. 1 . The word originally means
a covered or protected place, in reference to the tapestry hung around
the regal seat or throne. — nipil , honor, means his honorable office or
royal dignity. — l^isn , 3 plur. Aph. of X1S , without any subject, and so
it might be rendered passively, § 49. 3. b.
(21 ) And from men was he thrust out, and his heart was like the beasts, and with
the wild asses was his dwelling ; with herbage like the oxen was he fed, and by the
dew of heaven was his body bathed, until he acknowledged that God most high is
ruler over the kingdom of men, and whomsoever he pleaseth he setteth up over it.
For this verse in general, comp. 4: 29. — ilia , as it is now pointed,
can be made only in Pael, 3 pers. -Perf. But then, who is the subject of
the verb ? If the reply is : God, then the context gives no support to
this. If Nebuchadnezzar be the subject, and the meaning be: he made
his own heart like the beasts, the history in chap. iv. seems to make
against this, for according to that, the malady fell on him as a divine
judgment. The present punctuation seems to me as designed for the 3
plur. impers., i. e. lilte ; for the 1 now standing apparently as a- conjunc
tion before the next word, seems originally to have belonged here, and
has been transferred to the next word by the mere oversight of tran
scribers. It is on this basis, that the version given above rests ; see § 49.
3. b. But a more simple and easy way, perhaps, is to point ilia thus :
11125 , in which case it is a Part. Peil, § 23. p. 74. 5. Verbs of compari
son may take after them BS , as here, or a might be employed. Which
ever of these particles is employed, the mental repetition of aab after it,
is of course to be supposed. — With the wild asses shall be his abode, is a
12»

138 Chap. V. 22—24.
circumstance added by the speaker, and not found in 4: 29. It is added
for the sake of stronger impression. — nsiasai , Pael, 3 plur. impers. of
DSB , and so, passive in its meaning, § 49. 3. b. — Sli does not mean
merely mental perception of the truth in question, but also what we call
acknowledgment, i. e. acting in conformity with what cognition demands.
— aipni , Aph. Fut. of dip , with n retained (p. 49. 5) ; and as to the
Qamets under it, see § 22. 1. — nibs suff. fem. sing., but not inserted in
Par. of suffixes, p. 35. See p. 36, end of 2d paragraph, and comp. in
Dan. 7: 19.
(22) And thou, his son Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, notwithstanding
thou hast known all this.
.nia, suff. state of 13. — nbaian, Aph. 2 pers. — nsii , where the
ending (n-) is full ; see § 12. 2. This verse plainly exhibits the charge
against the impious king, and contains the reason for his speedy excision.
The next verse enlarges and confirms the charge.
(23) But against the Lord of the heavens hast thou lifted up thyself, and the ves
sels of his house have been brought before thee, and thou, and thy nobles, wives, and
concubines, have drunk wine out of them ; and the gods of silver, gold, brass, iron,
wood, and stone, which neither hear, nor see, nor know, hast thou praised ; but the
God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, thou hast not glorified.
naaiinn, Ithpolel of on, § 14. 1. 2; for n-, § 12. 2. — xjsxabl,
Ace. according to the Chald. construction, after liryjri , 3 pi. Aph. of xnx .
But as this verb has no subject, I have, as usual, translated it passively.
For the sequel of the verse, see v. 3 above. -— yi\lO , Part. pi. for verb,
Par. VII. a. p. 91  ,,nbxb , Ace. after nnaia , which is in Pael. This
is an unusual removal of the verb to a great distance from its object, but
it is occasioned by the copious explanatory matter thrown in. I have
given the words the like order in English, inasmuch as it does not ob
scure the sentence. With peculiar emphasis are the participles, *|ijfi ,
etc., employed, i. e. they exhibit what is customary and continued. — In
whose hand, i. e. in whose power, at whose disposal, is thy, breath, i. e. thy
life. — And whose are all thy ways, lit. and all thy ways are his, i. e. at
his disposal. The first version is easier in English, and equally per
spicuous. Ways are courses of conduct, design, purposes, and the like.
All these belong entirely to the control of the God of heaven. The king
can achieve nothing, nor accomplish any of his purposes, unless the God
head give permission. This is surely plain and faithful admonition ; and
probably the king's conscience was smitten by it.
(24) Then from him was sent the extreme part of a hand, and this inscription
was written.

Chap. V. 25—28. 139
For the use of two participles Peil here for the passive verb, see p.
51. — inialp, pi. form of the particle with suff., lit. from before him,
which has the force of denoting a special and immediate interference on
the part of the God of heaven.
(25) And this is the inscription which was written : MenS, mene~, tekil, O-pharsln.
I have repeated the original words as nearly as our alphabet will per
mit ; and so we have them in our common English Version. The ex
planation of these words immediately follows.
(26) This is the interpretation of the language. Menl, God hath numbered thy
reign, and brought it to completion.
nnba , word, and here language. — X3a , Part. Peil or passive, lit. num
bered, numeratum, computatum. The word X3a is not repeated in this
case, as in the verse above, because it is followed by the verb nsa . God
hath numbered means, that God has fixed the number of his days, i. e.
the days of his reign, beyond which they cannot be extended. So the
next clause declares : And brought it [thy reign] to completion. — nabtan ,
Aph. with fem. suff.
(27) Tekil, thou are weighed in the balance, and art found lacking.
bpn , Part. Peil of bpn , § 12. 1. 1. c. exhibits this form, which is some
what unusual when the verb is regular. — xnbipn , as to form, may be
2d sing. Peal, for (i-), see § 12. 1. 1 ; for xn , § 12. 1. 2 ; but as the sense
is passive here it is more probably the pass. Part. ; see p. 51. — nnanian ,
as the vowels and diacritical points are, has a, furtive Pattah under the n ;
if it were a proper vowel, the final n would omit the Dagh. lene. The
second Pattah, therefore, is a mere euphonic contrivance, in order to ease
the pronunciation. — "nan , lacking, deficient. The meaning of the figu
rative language is easily made out from the usual rejection of that which
is deficient in weight.
(28) Peres, thy dominion is broken, and is given to the Medes and Persians.
DiQ , Part. Peil here ; see bpn in v. 27. In v. 25, the word takes the
form of a noun plural, i. e. divisions, breaches ; here the Part, divided or
broken, fraclum, is employed. Both DIB and iaia in Heb. mean fran-
gere. Broken is the better meaning here, for divided between the Medes
and Persians, would convey the idea that each of these was a separate
and independent power ; which was not the fact when Babylon was
captured. They were combined under one head. — n&ilB , Part. fem.
Peil, § 14 2. — nainil , Part. Peil also, in the same way ; both for

140 Chap. V. 29, 80.
verbs of the passive voice. — Lit. To the Mede and Persian, singular
and generic, as often everywhere. I have accordingly translated by the
plural. The coincidence of DiB with DIB is evident. Assonance reigns
throughout the whole ; as is often the case in short sententious sayings.
It is this which gives an unusual form to bpn and DIB , so that they may
sound like X3a . Nothing can be argued, as it seems to me, from the use
of DiB in order to indicate the breaking in pieces of the Babylonish do
minion, to show that the Persians were then the principal power. There
is no verb that would chime with ila , and give the meaning here re
quired. But for DiB , it was easy to find one that corresponded well.
This seems to be all that is mysterious in the case ; and this mystery is
easily understood.
(29) Then Belshazzar commanded, and they clothed Daniel with purple, and a
collar of gold [was put] on his neek, and proclamation was made respecting him,
that he should be third ruler in the kingdom.
lia'iabn , Aph., the subject of the verb, if we make it a personal verb,
must of course be those attendants to whom the king gave command. I
have translated in accordance with this view. We may, however, take
the verb as 3 plur. impers., and then render it passively : Daniel was
clothed, etc. — itiani, Aph., for vowels, see § 12. 1. 1. I have rendered
this passively, for otherwise it might seem, that the same persons who
decorated Daniel with his insignia, were the ones who made proclamation;
which, although quite possible, is not very probable. In a great court,
every department has its appropriate officers and servants. — Xinb , see
2. 20. For the rest, see on v. 16.
(30) In that very night, was Belshazzar king of the Chaldees slain.
biup, Part. Peil used as a passive verb, § 13. 2. According to the
account here given, the occurrences related in the preceding part of the
chapter must have taken place sometime during the first part of the
night ; for the assault upon the city was probably made not far from
midnight, when the Babylonians were in the deepest part of their revelry,
and the king and his nobles had not yet withdrawn from the banquet.
It would be an important object, as viewed by the invader, to come
upon them when thus assembled ; for by a single assault all the leaders
of the city might be taken off at once, and all resistance prevented.
That the first verse of the following chapter should be attached to the
present chapter, seems plain, both from the 1 with which it commences,
and from the nature of the information which it contains. Daniel had
interpreted the inscription on the wall as meaning two things, viz. first

Remarks on Chap. V. 141
that the king's days were at an end ; and secondly, that his kingdom
should be given over to foreign nations. The fulfilment of the first of
these predictions is related in 5: 30 ; that of the second, in 6: 1. In the
remarks which follow, I shall regard these two verses, therefore, as com
prising a part of one and the same narration.

Remarks on Chap. V.
[The objections raised against the narrative in chap. v. are somewhat
numerous. Some of them, in particular, are urged with great zeal, even
by critics to whom is generally attributed a good degree of acquaintance
with the historical records of antiquity. Whether this knowledge is accom
panied by a candid and discriminating judgment, in respect to those re
cords, so far as they concern the matters before us, is a question which may
be answered to better advantage, after the subject has been canvassed.
First of all, I shall briefly advert to some of the minor objections against
the probability of some of the narrations in chap. v. ; and then pass on to
examine those, where appeal is made for confirmation to the earliest histo
rians of Babylon and Persia. Lengerke has industriously collected every
thing which is worth notice ; and it is for this particular reason, that I
bring him so often into view, rather than previous writers.
(1) ' Why does not Daniel appear before the king, with the Magi who
are summoned, and of whom he was chief? It is very strange, nay, alto
gether improbable, that he should be absent on such an occasion ;' Leng.
p. 238.
That Daniel had been the chief of the Magi (2: 48), is true. But it
seems also to be a fact, that both the astrologers and physicians of an ori
ental king were usually removed from office by his successor ; the first,
because they had not foretold his death, the second because they had not
prevented it; see Bahr ad Ctes. p. 16. Chardin, in Harmar's Observations
on Scripture, Part. IL It is not decisive, therefore, that Daniel was then
chief Magian, because we find him, in the third year of Belshazzar (8: l),
employed in " the business of the king," 8: 27 ; for this may have been a
subordinate business, and most probably was. Conspirator against the
regular and legitimate monarch as Belshazzar was, (according to Berosus
and Abydenus), it is not likely that one who had stood so high as Daniel
did under Nebuchadnezzar, would be retained in an important office, and
near the person of the usurper. His able services to the State the king
might indeed require, in another and lower capacity, at least for a while.
But even if we concede that Daniel was high in office, in the third year of
Belshazzar's reign, that reign lasted seventeen years, and the king might
well be supposed, long before the end of it, to have dismissed from impor
tant and active service near his person, a man who was at least on the
verge of four-score years when he began to reign. That a Jew, and one
so very aged, should not be summoned by the Babylonish king (5: 7 seq.),
in an exigency of fearful import, is far enough from presenting anything
strange.

142 Remarks on Chap. V.
(2) ' But how can we imagine Belshazzar to have been so entirely igno
rant of Daniel, and of his peculiar sagacity, as the narration in 5: 10 seq.
supposes ?'
The force of this objection I do not perceive. Was not the usurper, (al
though he might be a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar ; perhaps in a female
line, as vs. 11, 13, 18, 22, seem plainly to intimate), a person who did not
belong to the regular line of heirs apparent, i. e. who was not in the regu
lar line of succession ? And is there anything specially remarkable in the
narration, which seems to represent Belshazzar as unacquainted with the
merits and claims of Daniel, after some half a century had passed away
since Daniel's first achievements and promotion ? Lengerke affirms, that
' the account in ch. V. contradicts itself; for v. 11, he says, shows the king
to be ignorant of Daniel, and v. 13, that he recollected him.' But v. 13 seq.
merely repeats what Belshazzar had just heard from the queen, and affords
no semblance of a contradiction. How can it be regarded as improbable,
that an ambitious and reckless adventurer and usurper, like Belshazzar,
should have neither known nor cared anything about Daniel individually
and personally, although he had once been in his service ? 8: 27. Or if he
had heard something of his story, who can give us any assurance that he be
lieved it, or treasured it up in his mind ?
(3) ' But the hand and the writing ! Here is miracle upon miracle, and
altogether without an object. There is no historical basis whatever, on which
such an account can rest. The whole must be pure fiction;' Leng. p. 239
seq. So far does the objector go, moreover, in this case, that he even taxes
Bertholdt with incongruity, because he admits that some sleight-of-hand
trick, as to the writing, had been played off by some of the nobles upon
the king, and that the story is founded on this. For rejecting such a con
ceit, I should not indeed be disposed to find fault with Lengerke ; for the
idea of such an imposition goes altogether beyond the bounds of probability.
The king's friends could have no motive for such an exhibition ; and if
some of the nobles then present were his enemies, and wished for his fall,
how could they think of putting him on the alert, in order that he might
guard against an attack ? Or why should the writing be in mystical charac
ters ? Lengerke, therefore, regards the whole story as a mere fiction. In his
view, anything miraculous is out of question for that very reason. It must
be either mere pretence or a matter of superstition, or some ingenious
imposition, and the like. Of course the whole narrative here is got up, as
he intimates, merely to exalt Daniel, and to show the doom of the tyrant,
i. e. Antiochus Epiphanes. But if a writer, at or near the time when this
last named tyrant was raging against the Jews, invented such a fiction, he
did this either before his death, or after it. If before, how could he tell
whether the death of Antiochus would verify his representation ? If after,
what was the use of predicting what had already come to pass ? Still more ;
Antiochus died a natural death from disease, not by the hand of conspira
tors or enemies ; what resemblance was there, then, between the two cases?
And lastly, the dynasty of Antiochus went over immediately to his son and
successor, and not into the hands of the Medes and Persians.
(4) ' But a man like Belshazzar would never have received such an omi
nous prediction from the mouth of Daniel, and have rewarded him for

Remarks on Chap. V. 143
it. The whole thing is a palpable forgery, got up merely to magnify
Daniel.' But if what is stated about the writing was matter of faqt, is there any
thing incredible in the assertion, that the king was stricken with awful
terror ? It would be little short of miraculous, if he were not. As to the
reward, the king had publicly and solemnly pledged it, 5: 7 ; how could he
retreat from his pledge ? The writer evidently supposes the whole to have
been matter of fact ; and on this ground there is nothing incongruous or
improbable, in his account of Belshazzar's conduct. In order to make out
incongruity, then, we must assume a position directly opposite to that which
the writer has assumed.
(5) ' But how could the writing be explained, Daniel be promoted and
proclaimed as third in the government, and the city be taken besides, all in
one night ? Improbable altogether, if not impossible.'
Yet, on such an occasion, when the Magi beyond reasonable doubt were
assembled to keep the feast, and in the vicinity of the palace, (for so every
one must readily imagine, since they were so often to be consulted), what
difficulty is there in supposing, that within some eight or ten hours all this
happened ? The time is amply sufficient for the whole that was transacted
or took place. Officers ready for every kind of duty, and in great num
bers, must have been present at the court, on such an occasion as the great
feast. (6) ' But the shocking profanation of Belshazzar ! All antiquity fails to
supply us with any such example.'
Has Lengerke, then, never read the history of what Cambyses did to the
gods in Egypt, and Darius and Xerxes to those in Babylon ? Besides, as
Belshazzar was haughty and impious, it was very natural, when heated with
wine, that he should send for the splendid temple-vessels, as evidences of his
magnificence, and in order to place the God of the Jews in a light inferior to
that of his own. While his conduct was indeed impiety toward the God of
Israel, it was probably deemed by himself and his nobles to be an act of
commendable devotion, or at least to be a testimony of gratitude to the
Babylonish gods, who had made the Chaldeans to be a victorious nation.
(7) 'Daniel contradicts himself. In v. 17, he declines all reward and
honor ; in v. 27, he willingly receives both.'
I read both passages with different feelings. In the first, Daniel modestly
and humbly disclaims any title to reward, on the ground of any service
which he may render to the king ; in v. 29, the king's command to honor
him is obeyed by his servants, as we might well expect. Whether Daniel
received his promised rewards willingly or unwdlingly, is not said ; nor is
anything said in the context, which implies any desire on his part to re
ceive them.
Thus much for the lighter weapons by which the narration before us has
been assailed. Let us now come to those which appear to be of a somewhat
more formidable description. Lengerke avows, at the outset of his attack,
that the narration in ch. V. has indeed some historical basis as to certain
facts, but that " the whole story is disfigured and falsified by the author,
who was neither an eye-witness of the occurrences, nor accurately acquaint
ed with the history of them," p. 204. The falsification consists of several
particulars ; viz., 1. The last king of Babylon was not a son of Nebuchad-

144 Remarks on Chap. V.
nezzar. (2) His name was not Belshazzar. (3) He was not slain when
Babylon was taken by Cyrus. (4) There was never any such person as
Darius the Mede, who was concerned with the taking of Babylon, or who
reigned as king over that region. These allegations I shall now examine
in the order stated.
If it be a fact, that ' the last king of Babylon was not a son of Nebuchad
nezzar,' then, indeed, there is a discrepancy between real history and the
narration before us ; for vs. 11, 13, 18, 22, plainly assert this, and even
with emphasis. But it is unnecessary, in order to vindicate the assertion of
our text, to show that he was an immediate descendant of Nebuchadnezzar,
in the first degree. The Semitic use of the word in question goes far be
yond the first degree of descent, and extends the appellation son to the
designation of grandson, and even of the most remote posterity. Examples
of this there are in abundance. In Ezra 5: 1. 6: 14, the prophet Zechariah
is called the son of Iddo ; in Zech. 1: 1, 7, the same person is called the son
of Barachiah the son of Iddo. So Isaiah threatens Hezekiah (39: 7), that
the sons whom he shall beget shall be conducted as exiles to Babylon ; in
which case, however, four generations intervened before this happened.
In Matt. 1: 8, three kings are omitted between Joram and Uzziah (see
2 Chron. xxii. seq.) ; yet Uzziah (Ozias) is called by the evangelist the son
of Joram, (the language is : " Joram begat Ozias"). So in Matt. 1:1, "Je
sus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." And so we speak, every
day, e. g. " The sons of Adam ; the sons of Abraham ; the sons of Israel ;
the sons of the Pilgrims," and the like. So Ges. Lex. " ")5i ,filius, nepos,pos-
teri." If then Belshazzar was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar, it is enough
fully to vindicate the language. Nor is it of importance to its vindication,
whether he was a son in the male or female line of descent. The appella
tion could be applied in either case with entire propriety, according to He
brew usage.
To disprove the sonship now in question, an appeal is made to Berosus
(in Joseph, cont. Apion. I. 20), who says of the last king, whom he calls Na-
bonnidos, that the conspirators who had destroyed the young king Laboro-
soarchod, " invested Nabonnidos with the sovereignty, tivl zGsv (x (iapvXaivog,
ovxi ex xrjg aixijg imavaxdo-Eiag, i. e. a certain personage who was a Babylo
nian, and of the same faction." This passage shows that Nabonnidos did not be
long to the regular line of the heirs apparent; for the king that had just been
destroyed was a mere child {rtalg), and had no progeny ; but at the same
time, it does not inform us what was the real rank or previous condition of
the new usurper. Something peculiar must have recommended him to the
choice of his fellow-conspirators. In case now that he was a descendant of
Nebuchadnezzar in a, female line, he had no legal right to the throne, which
could be claimed only by sons and their progeny. But his origin of course
would procure for him a place of distinction, and if he was ambitious, (which
seems highly probable from his course of conduct), such a distinction would
be likely to gain for him a precedence. At all events, what Berosus says,
extends only to a denial of regal right, but not to a denial that Nabonnidos
was in any way related to Nebuchadnezzar.
But the main reliance is placed on the testimony of Abydenus, (pre
served in Euseb. Praep. Evangel. IX. 40, 41, and also in Euseb. Chron.
Armen. I. c. 10). Abydenus appeals to and quotes Megasthenes as his

Excursus on Chap. V. 145
authority, who says, that " Labassoracus (Laborosoarchod) being de
stroyed by violence, they made Nabonnidochus §aaiXia, nftoaijxovxa ol
oidiv, i. e. king, having no claim to this rank," or they bestowed on him " a
kingly office not belonging at all to him." I can find now in this assertion,
no more than I find in that of Berosus, viz. a denial of right to the throne
according to the usual law of descent. So much I would readily concede ;
but this surely does not amount to a contradiction of the statement, that Bel
shazzar was a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar.
Is there then any evidence that he was such a descendant, besides the
declarations of our text ? There is. Herodotus, after describing the famous
queen Nitocris, says : " Cyrus conducted his army against the son of this
woman, whose name was Labynetus,( the same with that of his father), and
who ruled over the Assyrians" [Babylonians] ; I. 188. In another pas
sage (I. 77), Herodotus says, that " Labynetus ruled over the Babylonians,"
when Croesus sent to them for aid against Cyrus. In I. 74, the same au
thor represents Labynetus of Babylon as one of the party, who helped to
conciliate Cyaxares I. of Media and the Lydians. Here Nebuchadnezzar
is undoubtedly meant ; as Prideaux, Wesseling, Beloe, and Bahr, all agree.
This last passage explains the first quotation, where " Labynetus is said to
have the same name with his father" [Nebuchadnezzar] ; and it shows in
all probability, as Bahr remarks (Comm. in Herod. I. 188), that the name
is a title of honor or office, rather than a proper name. The same remark
may well be made of various other names which were common in Persia,
Media, and Babylon. Different names of the kings of these countries, as
we shall soon see, is one of the weakest of all arguments to prove a differ
ence of persons.
Herodotus was born about CO years after Babylon was taken by Cyrus.
He travelled thither in the height of his strength, and had an opportunity
to know respecting a matter so recent as this. The testimony of Berosus
and Abydenus, (or rather of Megasthenes), is later than his, by a century
and a half or two centuries. Berosus was probably a native of Babylon ;
but Megasthenes was a Greek, and of far inferior authority, compared with
Herodotus, in such circumstances.*
I am aware that Hoffman, (Weissag. and Erfiill. I. s. 296), and Haver
nick (Neue krit. Untersuch. s. 72 seq.), in accordance with the suggestions
of some earlier writers, suppose the Belshazzar of ch. V. to have been Evil
* Bekosus was a Chaldean priest of Belus, at Babylon, in the time of Alexan
der the Great and his successors, who wrote the History of the Chaldeans, from which
the extracts in Josephus, Eusebius, and other writers, are taken. The rest of his
works have perished. Bichter's edition of his Remains (1825) has put on a good
footing the credit of the Chaldee writer, his history of the fabulous ages alone ex
cepted. It is said that he drew from the records in the temple of Belus. Abydenus
wrote a history of Assyria ; but his age has not been ascertained. It is certain that
he lived after Megasthenes, whose age we know to have been that of Seleucus Ni-
cator, i. e. 312 — 280 B. C. ; for Abydenus often appeals to Megasthenes, as in the
passage above quoted. But both he and Megasthenes are of secondary authority,
for both are Greeks, who wrote long after the events in question. The authority of
Berosus, as to Chaldean affairs, is deservedly in higher repute. See Kichter, Beros.
p. 35, seq. 13

146 Excursus on Chap. V.
Merodach, the immediate successor and son of Nebuchadnezzar, and that a
considerable interval of time took place between the death of Belshazzar
and the occupation of the throne by Darius the Mede. But of this I cannot
feel persuaded. Such is the connection of 5: 29 with 6: 1, and of both these
with the fulfilment of the prophetic inscription on the wall, that they cannot
be separated without violence. If dissevered, in accordance with the views
of those critics, how can it be accounted for that 6: 1 begins with a 1 con
junctive, iai;iil ? Or how, that no time is either named or alluded to,
when Darius took the kingdom ? We should confidently expect a designa
tion of time, if the writer did not suppose it to be designated by what he had
already said. If such an exegesis, therefore, be not impossible, it seems on
every ground of philology to be improbable. See Vitringa, Observatt. Sae.
V. 19, where he has fully refuted Stanley (in Eschyl. Pers. p. 776), who
has broached the same opinion that I have stated above. Whatever diffi
culties may result from the natural exegesis of the text, it is better to meet
them fairly, than to get rid of them by a forced interpretation.
At all events, (and I make the remark both for present and future use),
the testimony of the Hebrews respecting matters of such a nature as that
before us, is entitled to much higher regard than that of the Greeks. The
Hebrews were at and near Babylon, in their exile ; they were there when
the city was taken ; large numbers of them continued to live there until
Babylon was in ruins. Even if the book of Daniel was written in Macca
baean times, its being of a Jewish source would, caeteris paribus, give it
higher authority than one from a Grecian source. The Greeks in general
knew little indeed of Middle Asia, until after the conquests of Alexander
the Great.
2. ' The name Belshazzar is a mistaken one. The name of the last king
was Nabonned. The writer has given us a mere figment instead of a real
name.' The internal evidence, however, seems to be against this ; for the com
position of the name is of the true Chaldee stamp ; see on 5: 1. But to
argue from any one name of an oriental prince, that he has no other names,
ought to be the last thing that any one well informed in these matters should
undertake. Let us examine a few cases. The father of Nebuchadnezzar
is usually called Nabopolassar; but Josephus has Nabolassar ; and in Chron.
Euseb. Arm. the Latin has Nabopalsarus. Nebuchadnezzar is also Nebuchad
rezzar, and in Ptolemy (Can.), Nabocolassar. Belshazzar is called by
Berosus, Nabonnidos ; by Herodotus, Labynetus ; by Abydenus, Nabanni-
dochus ; by Ptolemy, Nabonadios ; by Syncellus (in exxXrjo-. axoix- p. 393 ed.
Dind.), Nabonadios, Astyages, Darius of Ahasuerus, and Artaxerxes ; (in
p. 431) Nabonnedus, Darius, Astyages of Ahasuerus; (p. 436) Neriglesa-
ros, the Baltasar (Belshazzar) of Daniel. The younger son of Cyrus, Ta-
nyoxarces or Tanaoxanes, is called Smerdis by Herodotus ; by Justin (after
Trogus), Merdis; by Aeschylus, Mardos; by Ctesias, Sphendadates ; in
Scripture, Artashashta (Heb.). It would be easy to extend this list much
further, but I deem it superfluous. I would merely add, that Belshazzar
bears marks of being a mere appellation or title of honor. And the same
may be said of Darius, in 6: 1. The Lex. will show, that the corresponding
Persian noun, from which this Heb. or Chaldee-formed name comes, means
king ; see Ges. Lex. s. v. U51111 . In this way we perceive, that there is no

Excursus on Chap. V. 147
difficulty in harmonizing the Cyaxares of Xenophon with the Darius of
Daniel. The latter is distinguished by the appellation Xiia , the Mede, both
words signifying the Median king, 6: 1; and also by iaill\!iriX"'i3 in 9: 1, i. e.
the son of Ahasuerus. Of course these adjunct names answer the purpose
of making the common appellative Darius (king) specific.
3. ' Belshazzar was not slain at the capture of Babylon, as Daniel asserts,
but escaped and was treated with great lenity by the conqueror.'
Here Herodotus deserts us, not having said a word about the king or his
fate, at the capture of the city. Ctesias also deserts us, since, in his Persica,
he says nothing even of the invasion and subjugation of Babylon by Cyrus ;
which is passing strange. But Berosus represents Nabonnedos, ' after a
defeat before the walls of Babylon, as flying to Borsippus, and there giving
himself up to Cyrus, who treated him humanely, and sent him to Carmania,
where he spent the remainder of his life ;' Richter, Beros. p. 69. Jos. cont.
Ap. I. 19, 20. Euseb. Praep. Evang. IX. 40. In Euseb. Chron. Arm. I. 10
and Praep. Ev. IX. 41, we have also the narration of Abydenus, who says :
" Cyrus, after taking Babylon, sent him [Nabonned] to be governor of Car
mania, KaQfiaring r\ytpovlav dmghxcu. In narrating the fact that the las
king was spared, there is an agreement, then, between these two writers
but in regard to the condition of the king, banished from his capital, they
disagree, although one does not contradict the other. ' Berosus says nothing
of the new office of Nabonned, which Abydenus expressly mentions. That
Abydenus often borrows from Berosus, is, I believe, generally conceded.
We are therefore at a loss, whether it comes only from one witness, or is
derived from two independent sources.
On the other hand, we have Xenophon, in his circumstantial history of
the capture of Babylon, in full agreement with Daniel ; and besides this,
there are various passages in the O. Test, prophets, which accord entirely
with the same view. One might indeed almost argue a priori for the proba
bility of the scriptural account, when he had once made himself acquainted
with the thirst of vengeance that was in the minds of Gobryas and Gadatas,
who led on the storming-party of Cyrus ; Cyrop. VII. 5. 24, 30 seq. The
probability that Cyrus (according to Abydenus) would make such an ene
my as Belshazzar the satrap or subordinate king of Carmania, a powerful
province and not far distant, seems quite small, to say the least. But pass
ing by all this, we have to adjust the balance between Berosus and Abydenus
on the one side, and Xenophon and Daniel and the Heb. prophets on the
other. The histories of the first two are merely skeletons ; but Xenophon
is full and circumstantial ; Daniel is brief but unequivocally direct ; and the
Prophets seem to agree fully with his view. In respect to these last wit
nesses, I must refer the reader to Isa. 21: 2 — 9. Isa. 14: 9 — 21, specially
vs. 18 — 20. Comp. Jer. 50: 29 — 35. 51:57. I am fully aware, that poetical
descriptions of this nature are not to be urged to the letter ; but the posi
tion that the king and nobles of Babylon will fall, in the attack of the storming-
party who capture the city, seems to me deeply imbedded in the language
of the prophets. If the Literalists insist on the lateness of these compositions,
so much the worse for their cause ; for how could late writers take such a
position, i. e. assume the death of the king to be true, in case notorious facts
contradicted it ?
This is all the testimony we have respecting the matter before us, which

148 Excursus on Chap. V.
is worth canvassing. All that is later, is merely a repetition of what had
already been said. In regard to the point before us, then, we are left in a
predicament, like to that in which we find ourselves with respect to many
others that are concerned with early Oriental history. Herodotus and Cte
sias, on whom we principally depend for a knowledge of these matters, with
the exception of some scriptural notices, leave us here entirely destitute of
aid ; and even if they afforded any information, in all probability it might
be, as most of their other history of these times (specially that of Cyrus)
undoubtedly is, of such a nature as to present us with real contradictions
and irreconcilable and inexplicable difficulties. Xenophon and the Bible,
which last includes Isaiah and Jeremiah and Daniel, are witnesses of a differ
ent character. Whatever may be said of Xenophon's writing romance, it is
at least plain and clear, that he is free from the superstition and credulity
of. many heathen writers, and that in all his works, no attempt can be met
with to confound the mythic, the fabulous, and the absurd, with the plain
and sober history of facts.
The reasonable decision of the question, then, which respects the death of
Belshazzar when Babylon was taken by assault, lies within a narrow com
pass : Which of these classes of witnesses is entitled to the most credit ?
Berosus and Abydenus, the latter of whom is clearly an inferior and secon
dary witness, or Xenophon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel ? The great por
tion of critics have said and still say, that the latter must have the prefer
ence ; and with them I heartily concur. The allegations made against the
ccredit of Xenophon, as to his Cyropedia, in order to avoid this conclusion,
I slrall touch upon, at the close of this discussion. In the mean time, in a
matter of this kind, where the great mass of critics, (the liberal ones in
cluded), have adopted the conclusion to which, after much investigation, I
have felt compelled to come, it is matter both of surprise and regret to see
the confident air and hear the sarcastic tone of Lengerke, who adopts the
conclusion, that both Daniel and Xenophon have either falsified the whole
matter, or wrote in utter ignorance of the true state of things. Quite differ-
'ent is the course which Gesenius, Winer, Knobel, and other Liberalits,
liave pursued.
4. ' No such person as Darius the Mede cooperated in the taking of Baby
lon, nor did any such person reign there, after the deposition of Belshazzar.'
Here Lengerke is most confident of all. The appeal is made to Herodo
tus and Ctesias, both of whom conclude the Median empire with Astyages,
the grandfather of Cyrus, according to Xenophon (Cyrop. I. 3) and Herodo
tus (I. 107, 108), but according to Ctesias (Persica § 2) not at all related
to him. The account of Herodotus is, that Cyrus with the Persians threw
off the yoke of the Medes, attacked and deposed Astyages his father-in-
law, and kept him prisoner until his death, when Cyrus succeeded him
in his authority ; Herod. 1. 127— 130. Ctesias represents the matter dif
ferently in some respects : ' Cyrus was not related to Astyages ; he gave
him his personal liberty ; married his daughter ; and finally, that Astyages,
being sent for by Cyrus and his wife, was left to perish in a desert by the
servant by whom the invitation was sent ! (Ctes. Pers. § 2. § 5) ; and
with him ended the Median empire. Berosus says nothing of any other king
except Cyrus, when he mentions the capture of Babylon (Jos. c. Apion.
I. 20. Richter,p. 69) ; and Abydenus fails us here also, as reported in Eu-

Excursus on Chap. V. 149
seb. Chron. Armen. 1. 10. 3, unless we understand the Darius mentioned in
the same passage of Eusebius as meaning the same person as Darius the
Mede — "a Dario autem rege eadem provincia pulsus est" [viz. Nabonedo-
chus]. This clause is wanting in the extract from Abydenus, in Euseb.
Praep. IX. 41, and appears to be merely the opinion of Eusebius, or per
haps it was added by the Armenian translator. But however this may be, I
am disposed to believe (with Leng. p. 217), that the Darius here named
was Darius Hystaspis ; although I perceive that Gesenius (in Thes. Heb.
s. v. ttjini) applies the name to the Darius of Daniel.
We have then the declarations of Herodotus and Ctesias that Cyrus made
war upon Astyages, took him captive, and then reigned over Media ; and
our other witnesses, Berosus and Abydenus are wholly silent as to the ter
mination of the Median empire. The appeal to later writers, such as Dio-
nysius Hal., Justin, Strabo, Diodorus Sic, and the History of Bel, which
Lengerke makes, is out of place, because it is the mere echo of the earlier
writers just named. What have we then to oppose to this ? We have the
whole Cyropedia throughout; for from the outset (I. 5. 2), the formal his
tory is begun of Astyages' death and of Cyaxares as his son and successor ;
and the history of this last personage is not dropped, until we come almost
to the very close of the Cyropedia. Cyaxares is presented as giving his
daughter in marriage to Cyrus, and making his kingdom her dowry. Of
these particulars the Scriptures say nothing, inasmuch as it was not their
object, and they make no attempt to give the history of Persia. But that
Cyrus was the successor of Darius the Mede, is plainly developed in 5: 30.
6: 1. 9: 1. 11: 1, comp. 10: 1. 1: 21. That Astyages cannot be meant by the
Darius in question, seems evident from the fact, that he died long before the
taking of Babylon.
Hero then we have to adjust our balance as before. That the testimony
is apparently contradictory, no one can hesitate to say. Is it in reality so ?
This question deserves a moment's consideration.
The first thing, then, to be inquired after is : Whether either Herodo
tus or Ctesias designed, or even pretended, to give a complete history
of Media, Persia, or Babylon ? It is easy to answer this question. The
works of both are compilations of historical anecdotes and interesting stories ;
they are really that and nothing more. To use the words of Gesenius, a
critic in such matters of very high rank : " Passing by men of moderate tal
ents, Herodotus is wont merely to mention one and another in a long series
of kings, who has rendered himself more eminent. His history of Babylon,
as well as other matters, shows this ; in which he mentions merely the queen
Nitocris, and her son Labynetus [Belshazzar], passing in silence all other
kings, not excepting even Nebuchadnezzar himself;" Thes. Heb. s. v.
12)1111 . Nothing is plainer to the critical reader, than the correctness of
this judgment. K it is not equally applicable to Ctesias, it is in a great
measure so ; witness his total omission in the life of Cyrus, of his conquest
of Babylon, which was the most signal act of his whole life. The argu-
mentum ex silentio, rarely of much value, would, in respect to these histori
ans, be little short of an absurdity. That they have omitted Cyaxares or
Darius the Mede, is most probably owing to his insignificance either as a
king or as a general. In all his long wars in Asia Minor, Cyrus, his ally,
was the actual commander in chief — the real Executive of the army. In the
13*

150 Excursus on Chap. V.
attack upon Babylon, Cyaxares was not even present ; for he preferred the
enervating pleasures of his palace, to an active and military life. Cyrus
did all in taking the city ; he made all the arrangements after the capture ;
but the supremacy was still theoretically retained by Darius, and conceded
to him by Cyrus. In the very last book of the Cyropedia, we have the
account of Cyrus' visit to Cyaxares, after the splendid conquest of Babylon ;
on which occasion the Median king gave him his daughter to wife, and his
kingdom for her dowry. Lengerke, in order to show that Cyaxares is a
mere phantom, alleges that all the arrangements were made by Cyrus, at
Babylon, " in a kingly manner." True enough ; but it so happens, that
these, with the exception of such as pertained to military occupation and
safety, were made after Cyrus had received his dowry, and not before." I
know of no ancient composition that affords an analogy which will warrant
the supposition, that the Cyropedia is a book of pure romance, like many of
our modern novels. Fabulous legends of gods, and demigods, and heroes, are
indeed abundant, but the whole scope, character, and design of these, are en
tirely different from those of a regular didactic romance. Nor can it well be
shown, that the plan of a romance, in which the model of a wise and brave
prince should be exhibited, demanded at all the introduction of such a
character as that of Cyaxares. Something indeed might be gained on the
score of contrast between him and Cyrus ; but if this was the main object
of the writer, he has failed to give much efficacy to his production, since
Cyaxares is of too mixed a character to make the contrast very striking.
If it was true, that Cyrus was at that time king of the Medes, and this by
succeeding Astyages directly, would it not have made the picture of the
former more striking and magnificent, had Xenophon presented him in
that light, and still as exercising great moderation and humanity ?
On the whole, the direct evidence of the Scriptures and of Xenophon to
the reality of a Median king between Astyages and Cyrus, seems to me
very decidedly to outweigh the accounts given by Herodotus and Ctesias in
respect to the time and manner in which Cyrus became king of Media and
Persia. Herodotus himself states, that there were three other different ac
counts of Cyrus' life and actions besides that which he gives, and that
he merely adopts the one which seemed to him the more probable ; I. 95.
At any rate the story of Ctesias, which not improbably is one of those three,
is very different from his ; Xenophon differs widely from both ; and Aeschy
lus, in his Persae, appears to follow another account differing from all these.
As the narration of Xenophon presents us with no mythical legends, and
no absurdities or impossibilities, it has, in this respect, greatly the advantage
over those of his rivals, specially over that of Herodotus.
I venture another remark here, respecting a circumstance which I have
not seen fully illustrated. If well founded, it serves to confirm the conclu
sion to which we have arrived. It is this, viz., that the biblical writers seem
to accord well with that view of the subject before us, to which we have
given the preference. In Daniel throughout we have the phraseology,
Medes and Persians, showing, by this order of the words, that the Medea
take the lead ; Dan. 5: 28. 6: 9 (8). 8: 20. In Est. 10: 2 is the same order,
because ancient Chronicles are there referred to, in which the Medes have
the precedence. So great indeed was the preeminence of the Medes, in
earlier times, that the prophets who foretold the destruction of Babylon,

Excursus on Chap. V. 151
sometimes make use of only the name of the Medes, in order to designate
the invaders, Isa. IS: 17. Jer. 51: 11. In Jer. 25: 25, " the kings of Elam
(Persia), and the kings of the Medes" are mentioned as about to be in
vaded by Nebuchadnezzar ; the expression here being merely descriptive
of the two countries with their rulers, and in the order of their local prox
imity. In like way is Elam (Persia) mentioned alone in Jer. 49: 34, where
threatening against her is uttered ; and so " province of the Medes" means
the country of Media, in Ezra 6: 2 and 2 K. 17: 6. In Isa. 21: 2, the prophet
calls upon both Persia and Media to march forth to the destruction of Baby
lon. Beyond a doubt he regarded them as associated for the purpose of
attack. But this is the only passage, in the older writings, where Persia
(Elam) is put before Media. We cannot lay much stress on the position
of the words in this case, however, because in a poetical composition such as
Isa. xxi, assonance with the ibs which precedes, seems to be the obvious rea
son for placing Dbij) immediately after it. On the contrary, when Ahasue
rus (Xerxes) is on the throne of Persia, we have (and very naturally) the
order of names thus : " Persia and Media;" see Est. 1: 1, 14, 18, 19. The
like to this indeed is to be found in the book of Daniel itself; for we have
Darius the Mede 6: 1 (5: 31). 9: 1. 11: 1; while Cyrus, his successor, is not
called king of the Medes, but Cyrus king of Persia. Throughout the Scrip
tures, then, usage as to names is conformed to the state of facts. This, on
the whole, seems to be one of those accidental circumstances, which casts
strong light on the truthfulness of the narration before us. If, at the taking
of Babylon, the Medes were not the leading and paramount power, how
comes it that Isa. 13: 17 and Jer. 51: 11, speak of them only? But all is
plain and obvious, when the accounts of Daniel and Xenophon are admitted.
That such an admission has been general, even Lengerke himself concedes,
p. 21 9. Thus, in ancient times, Josephus, Jerome, Polychronius (in his Comm.);
in modern, Venema, Vitringa, Grotius, C. B. Michaelis, Bertholdt, Jahn,
Heeren, Hengstenberg, Havernick, and the leading men among the Libe-
ralists themselves, viz. Rosenmueller, Gesenius, Winer (often and most
pointedly in his Bib. Lex.), and Knobel. Few, indeed, have ventured upon
the experiment of denying the conclusion which has been stated above.
But Lengerke is more in earnest than most of his compeers, to destroy the
credit of the book of Daniel. Delenda est Carthago seems to be the motto
on his standard ; and what cannot be accomplished in one way, must needs
be accomplished in another.
So much has recently been said and written on the romantic character of
XenOphon's Cyropedia, and on the superior credit due to Herodotus, Cte
sias, and Berosus, that it seems to be necessary here to subjoin a few con
siderations which may help to cast a stronger light on the results of the pre
ceding discussion.
That the Cyropedia is a mere and simple historical narrative in all its parts
and specifications, no intelligent critical reader can for a moment believe.
That Xenophon had a, politico-didactic object in view, when he wrote the book
in question, cannot be reasonably denied. To this end, very much, nay even
most, of what he says is directed. He meant to teach rulers how to be good,
wise, and brave. But how came he, at a period when Greece was still filled
with the most bitter reminiscences of Persia and oriental invasions, to choose
the hero of his work from that feared and hated country ? This can be

152 Excursus on Chap. V.
reasonably accounted for on no other ground, than that Cyrus was an emi
nent character, and indeed a very different man from him whose portrait
is sketched by Herodotus and Ctesias. Xenophon had his account, doubt
less, from Cyrus the younger, with whom he was united, or from others in
his army ; and he has given us the Persian story respecting the first Cyrus.
Herodotus, (who appears never to have been in Persia, see Blum, Herod, and,
Ctes. p. 63 seq.), has given us the Median story; and Ctesias took his ac
count, as he tells us, from the (iaaiXiiXal diq>&SQOu . . . xaxa xiva vopov aw-
iszaypsvai (Diod. Sic. II. 32), i. e. the regal histories composed in a kind of
measure, or, in other words, the Book of Kings poetically written ; like the
Shah Nameh of Firdusi in the modern Persian, which is professedly taken
from the public records; see Blum, Herod, und Ctesias. s. 120 seq., and
Malcolm's Sketches of Persia, chap. XII. Whether this King-book of Cte
sias was Persian or Median, might be doubted. But be that as it may,
Xenophon, with his nice discernment and taste, cannot be supposed to have
chosen a hero whose character was in bad odor among the Greeks ; and
such must have been the case, provided the Greeks generally gave cre
dence to the accounts of Herodotus and Ctesias. The very fact of his
making such a selection, shows that different views were current among
his countrymen ; and at all events we know that the credit of Ctesias was
very low among them.
That Xenophon, in pursuit of his special object, has thrown around the
main figures of his picture a great variety of drapery, which is merely acci
dental, or rather, which is the production merely of his own inventive and
luxuriant imagination, there cannot be a shadow of doubt. The book is
filled with conversations, harangues, communications by letter or mandate,
and the like. Indeed these make a large part of it, and constitute by far
the most interesting and instructive portions of the work. Who would
think, for a moment, of giving historical reality to all these ? Some apo
thegms, witty or wise sayings, striking repartees, and the like, tradition
may in fact have preserved ; for this is usual in respect to distinguished
men after their death. All that calls for remark in respect to matter of
this sort is, that Xenophon has maintained a wonderful consistency and
appropriateness in all these, with respect to the persons to whom they be
long. Such narratives, moreover, as that of Abradatas, Panthea, and
Araspes (Lib. VI.), have unquestionably received much of their costume
from the Grecian artist. Such incidents, also, as those in respect to Go-
bryas and Gadatas, have been moulded by his skilful hand. But how all
this can prove or even render it probable, that the substantial part of 'such •
narrations is not matter of fact, I am not able to see. One single question
would seem to place these and the like matters on their proper basis ; and this
is : Have not Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, nay all ancient historians, in
troduced speeches and conversations everywhere, and in like manner ?
Have they not adorned, more or less according to their ability, the accounts
they give of interesting occurrences ? And are all these writers nothing
more than romancers, whose historical credit has no good foundation ?
This question, considered in all its bearings, would seem to settle the gene
ral account of this matter, on a basis that cannot well be shaken.
In modern times, we regard it as a capital defect in a romance, profess
ing to be historical, if it departs widely from the truth, and indeed even if

Excursus on Chap. V. 153
it does not keep somewhat closely to historical verity. We allow all possible
scope for the writer to indulge his descriptive powers, in the development
of character, as to minor circumstances. But we do not not allow him to
represent to us the peaceful end of a man, at his own home, who died on
the battle field in consequence of aggressions upon his neighbors. In an
cient times, a plan of romance which is throughout a mere offspring of fic
tion, is not to be found. If Xenophon wrote such a book, he anticipated
the natural course of things, by more than a thousand years. " The ancient
Greek historians," says a recent and very sagacious critic (Blum), " even
where they choose, like Xenophon in his Cyropedia, to indulge their in
ventive fancy, attach themselves, if possible, to some historical narration ;"
(Herod, und Ctes. s. 176). This writer adverts to a signal instance of this
in Xenophon himself. In Cyrop. Lib. III., the author introduces a notable
story of Tigranes, the prince of Armenia, a character unknown to all other
Greek writers ; of course one at the mention of whose name some recent
critics exclaim : Romance ! Yet Moses of Chorene (I. 23), says " that this
same Tigranes excelled all the kings of Armenia in bravery and in intelli
gence ;" to which he adds a copious recitation of his virtues and his deeds.
Must we not conclude, then, that Xenophon, on his march through Arme
nia at the head of the Ten Thousand, collected the facts respecting Tigranes
from old songs, ballads, and tales ; the very sources from which Moses of
Chorene drew his information ? And may we not — or rather, must we
not — reasonably conclude, that Xenophon obtained his views of Cyrus in
like manner among the Persians ?
That this author has held the reins of his historical Muse loosely, and
purposely omitted some of the usual accompaniments of history, at least of
such history as he writes in his Anabasis and Hellenics, is plain to every
observing reader. For example ; time and place receive comparatively
very little attention from him. It must be remembered, however, that when
he wrote, there was, as yet, no fixed era. So again, in the closing part of
his work (VIII. 6), a single paragraph is all that Xenophon bestows on
Cyrus' conquest of Egypt and all the neighboring countries. His work
was done, when he had seated his hero on the throne of all hither and
middle Asia, which he had acquired by the display of his skill, his bravery,
and his power.
But to draw the conclusion from all this, that Cyaxares, who mingles
with the whole work from beginning to end, is a mere figment of Xeno-
phon's imagination, seems very strange, and, if I may say it, very uncriti
cal. What purposes of fiction which the writer had in view, does Cyaxares
answer to ? He serves no good purpose, either of contrast or of example ;
or if subservient to either purpose it is only in a slight degree to that of
contrast. He is an insignificant character at the most. Would Xenophon's
genius have created such a fancy-actor as this is ? In fact, if he is really any
thing, he is a kind of mar-plot of the work — a puppet gaudily dressed, but
saying nothing, and doing nothing, to the main purpose of the writer. The
advocates of pure romance here seem to be nonplus'd by the principles of
aesthetics. Xenophon was one of the last men to offend in this particular ;
and Cyaxares must either have been better or worse, if he was a creation
of Xenophon's fancy. Cui bono ? is a question, which the advocates of en
tire fiction in Xenophon have never yet answered, in respect to Cyaxares.

154 Excursus on Chap. V.
I have a deep and abiding impression from the reading of Xenophon,
that the character in question was forced upon him by historical fact, pre
served in songs, records, and traditions ; and that otherwise such a charac
ter would never have made its appearance in the Cyropedia. At the
very outset of his work (I. 1. 6) he states, after drawing some general out-
lines of his hero, that he had made inquiry respecting his birth, disposition,
education, and art of governing. He then adds : " Whatever I have learned,
or think I know, concerning him, I shall endeavor to relate." In VIII. 5.
28, he refutes those Xoyonoiol, who assert that Cyaxares gave his sister to
Cyrus as a wife, strenuously maintaining that it was his daughter. Such
passages show, that, as to historical occurrences, he meant to keep within
the bounds of a narrator, and not to roam at large with a mere romancer.
Add to all this, the entire freedom of the whole work from all that is my
thic, and extravagant, and incredible ; a circumstance which speaks loudly
as to its historical character. Could a pure work of romance, or one com
posed from fables, have well assumed such a character ?
This last suggestion obliges me, for a moment, to allude to the character
istics of those, who are appealed to as proper historians of the reign of
Cyrus, and whose account is received by critics like Lengerke, as alto
gether worthy of more credit than that of Xenophon. A candid man, well
versed in matters of antiquity, cannot possibly read the narration of Hero
dotus, without an instinctive conviction of its mythic nature. The whole
tenor of the story about his birth and marvellous escape from death ; of
Harpagus, and the shepherd, and the Thyestean feast prepared for the for
mer by Astyages ; and after all this, the conducting of the army against
Cyrus committed to this same Harpagus ; are (to speak with Vitringa, in
Es. I. p. 543) not only paradoxa, but nagaSoioxaxa omnia. So the whole
view which Herodotus takes of the Persian poverty and destitution of all
that belongs to wealth and luxury and civilization, before they subdued
Croesus and the Lydians, is entirely inconsistent with his other represen
tation, viz., that they were already masters of Media when they engaged
in this expedition, in which country was great affluence and splendor.
Last of all, the final attack of Cyrus on the Scythian Massagetae, the man
ner in which it was conducted, and particularly the violent death of Cyrus,
and the barbarous manner in which his corpse was treated by the Scythian
queen Tomyris, are not only in themselves altogether improbable, but they
are contradicted by the fact, that Cyrus' remains were deposited in his well
known tomb at Pasargadae, and found there by Aristobulus, an officer of
Alexander the Great, deputized to examine into the alleged robbery of
that tomb. Thither Alexander himself repaired and ordered everything
to be restored as far as possible. This story is told by Strabo (XIV.), by
Arrian (Exped. Alex. VI. 29), and by Q. Curtius in his Life of Alexan
der ; and in all, it is circumstantially related, and is utterly at variance
with the account of Herodotus as to the death of Cyrus. An explicit state
ment is made, that a guard and lamps and sacrifices had been regularly
established there ever since the time of Cambyses, the son and successor
of Cyrus. This circumstance, moreover, teaches us how to dispose of the
narration of Diodorus Siculus (II. 44), that Cyrus was taken prisoner in a
battle against the Amazons, and by their queen condemned to crucifixion,
by which he actually perished. Ctesias assigns to him a still different

Excursus on Chap. V. 155
death. Cyrus gives battle to the Derbici ; is wounded by an Indian, (the
Indians were allies of the Derbici) ; and he dies the third day afterwards,
Persica, § 8. Ctesias adds, that his body was sent to Persia and buried
there by Cambyses his son, ib. § 9. Lucian (de Longaevis) makes him live
more than a hundred years. Of all these accounts, only that of Ctesias is re
concilable with the place of his tomb, and with the fact that not only his relics
were found there by Alexander, but also a definite inscription upon the
monument which related to him. We have then to choose between him
and Xenophon. I see not how we can hesitate to give the preference to
the latter. If we are met again with the salutation of romance, why is it
any more to Xenophon's purpose, we may reply, to let him die in peace,
than to represent him as falling gloriously on the field of battle, in defence
of his country — the place of all others, where heroes of the Grecian stamp
wished to die ? Nelson died just where, if not when, he wished of all
things to die, i. e. in the arms of victory ; and victory, according to Ctesias,
was connected with the wound and death of Cyrus, for the Derbici met
with a signal defeat.
Plutarch, Aristotle, Lucian, Arrian, Strabo, and others among the an
cients, accuse Ctesias loudly of narrating fabulous and incredible stories.
Partially Herodotus also has a share in their censure. Bahr has examined
the subject at length in the Preface to his Ctesias. It would be out of place
to pursue it here. But I may add the deliberate judgment of the best edi
tor both of Herodotus and Ctesias who has yet appeared. He is speaking
of the difference between the narrations of Ctesias and Herodotus, re
specting the death of Cyrus ; and he says : " That I may begin with the
narration of Herodotus, I will speak openly what I think. It is not want
ing in tragical ornament; and in this way Herodotus has adorned other
things respecting Cyrus, beautifully imagined according to the lofty con
ceptions of the Greeks ;" (Biihr in Ctes. p. 11.) In this judgment, he says,
Osiander accords ; and he then appeals to the tomb of Cyrus at Pasargadae
as contradicting Herodotus' account of Cyrus' death.
Let not the reader suppose, that it is my design to discredit either Hero
dotus or Ctesias, where they give facts within their knowledge, or which
are derived from authentic sources. But when Herodotus relates the my
thic and the marvellous, (which is not very unfrequent), he nearly always
tells us his sources, (as he does in the case of Cyrus), and contents himself
with the office of merely reporting what is told him. This is honest and
upright ; nor should I scruple to assign to him a character corresponding
to these qualities. Ctesias, however, has less scruples, and often tells sto
ries which he expects will surprise the reader, excite his wonder, and serve
to entertain him. The monstrosity of many of his statements respecting
the Assyrian Semiramis, and concerning many things that he saw in India,
no one can fail to notice who reads him critically.
No Grecian fable of the origin of Minerva or of Venus surpasses his ge
netic account of Semiramis, as related in Diod. Sic. U. 4. When Ninus
dies, Semiramis, as he tells us, erected a monument to his memory nine
stadia in height [== 1£ mile] ; which, he asserts, was still standing, (viz.
when he wrote), so long after the destruction of Nineveh. This same Se
miramis, moreover, builds Babylon, with sixty miles of wall around it 300
feet high, in one year. When she makes war on India, inasmuch as Meso-

156 Excursus on Chap. V.
potamia had no elephants, she makes 300,000 mock-elephants out of the stuffed
skins of so many black oxen ; she collects 3,000,000 footmen, 500,000 horse
men, and 100,000 chariots of war. To finish her story, she flies away at
last in the shape of a dove, and never reappears. — All this without any
caution to the reader ! And then, the gross errors in topography ! Asca-
lon (in Palestine) has a large lake near it, into which the mother of Semi
ramis casts and drowns herself, Diod. II. 4. Nineveh is often and always
placed on the Euphrates, § 7 seq. These are only mere specimens. What
ever now Ctesias, or his supporters, may" say of his drawing his accounts
from the dicpxHgai {laaiXixai, we cannot well suppose, that a man born and
brought up at no great distance from Ascalon could be a very accurate
observer, who could believe that there was a great lake near that town ;
and what can be said to apologize for the gross ignorance of geography
manifested in placing Nineveh on the Euphrates ? Bahr labors somewhat to
soften this matter ; but this is done by appealing to other writers who as
sert the like, but who were themselves in all probability led by Ctesias,
Ctes. p. 391. Not so Wesseling ; " Ctesias," says he, " places this city on
the Euphrates, turpi errore ;" Notae in Diod. II. 7. Yet a direct design to
mislead cannot justly be attributed, I apprehend, to Ctesias. He may be
trusted, where there is probable evidence of his acquaintance with the sub
ject-matter, and no inherent improbability ; but his love of the marvellous,
his apparent desire to produce astonishment and wonder in his readers, and
his evident lack of geographical knowledge, render it necessary to read
him with caution, and not unfrequently with distrust. Blum (ut sup. p.
120 seq.) has shown, at last, the probable ground of Ctesias' fabulous as
pect, viz. that the Si(p&igai fiaaiXixai from which he drew, were, like the
Shah-Nameh, poetical ballads in commemoration of kings. The Persians
and other Orientals had their poets laureate ; and Ctesias has given us some
of the fruits of their poetic imaginations, in respect to their ancient kings
and heroes.
It is but just and proper, that all these things should be taken into the
estimation, when we make "a comparison between Herodotus and Ctesias on
the one hand, and the Bible and Xenophon on the other. Xenophon is
perfectly sober. He had good opportunity to study the Persians and their
affairs. He brought to this study a mind of the first order. The Hebrews,
of all the western Asiatic nations, had most occasion to know, and must
have best known, Babylon at the time of its fall, and those concerned with
bringing about its fall. There is therefore a strong presumption, that
they have given us a narration in regard to those subjects which is worthy
of credit.
An accidental passage, in Aeschylus, which I have not yet adduced, serves
strongly to confirm the account as given by Xenophon and the book of
Daniel. In his Persae, the ghost of Darius is introduced, and among other
things he gives an account of the gradual conquest of hither and middle
Asia by the Medo-Persian arms. The passage runs thus :
Mrjdog yap ijv 6 ng&xog iiytuw axgaxov,
AXXoq 8 ixslvov nviig x68' 'iqyov jjvwe,
ipgivtg yap aixov 9vpor aaxoaxpocfow.
TpjToy 8" uri aixov Kvpog, tiSalpav urrig. x. x. X.

Excursus on Chap. V. 157
That is : "A Mede [Astyages] was the first leader of the army ; the second,
his son [Cyaxares], carried on the work ; for understanding guided his
purpose. The third, after him, was Cyrus, a fortunate man," etc. ; Pers.
765 seq. Lengerke dispenses with this passage, by asking how the eulogy
of Cyaxares, in the third line, would fit the Cyaxares of Xenophon ; and
by remarking, that Aeschylus was probably in the same plight with those
oriental writers, who, since the establishment of the dynasty of the Kayani-
dae, know of only two (generic) royal names, Kaicobad and Kaikawus.
But is this a satisfactory answer, in respect to such a man as Aeschylus ?
Born within some three or four years after the death of Cyrus (B. C. 525),
in an elevated station of society and probably of royal descent, he mingled
in the fiercest contests of the Greeks against the Persian invaders, and
fought in person at the battles of Marathon and Plataea, as also in the sea-
fights of Artemisium and Salamis. Of the latter he has given a picture, in
immortal verse, in his Persae. Could a man like him, not inferior in talent
to any Greek poet that ever wielded the pen, and personally connected
with all the great battles of his country with the Persians, be ignorant of
what had passed in their country the very generation before he was born ?
It is allowed by all competent judges, that he has in his Persae, the only
Greek play that makes a foreign ground its basis, given a truly oriental
picture, which shows his intimate acquaintance with oriental matters.
Yet this same Aeschylus has given the succession of kings as Xenophon
gives it, and in entire accordance with what the book of Daniel declares.
Well did Bertholdt (Comm. on Dan.), and Gesenius in his Thesaurus (art.
^.1^",'3)i appeal to this evidence as conclusive against the silence of He
rodotus and Ctesias, in respect to a Median successor of Astyages.
As to Berosus, there is nothing to decide the question. It is true, that
he names Cyrus merely as the conqueror of Babylon. But this he was de
facto ; and Darius never seems to have been an agent in the matter, in
any such way as to draw him into special notice. Besides, he was far ad
vanced in years, and held even nominal dominion but for a short period ;
and this he committed to the active management of Cyrus. Nothing of
any importance, then, against our position, can be brought from this quarter.
' But Xenophon,' says Lengerke, ' is not to be credited in his Cyropedia,
because in his Anabasis, which is all sober history, he contradicts the idea,
that Cyrus took in a peaceful manner the dominion of the Medes; for he
says (Anab. III. 4. 8), that when the Persian king took the dominion of the
Medes, he attacked the city of Larissa [belonging to Media], but could not
take it. Again, in Anab. III. 4. 11, it is said of Mespila [another Median city],
that ' a Median queen fled thither when the Medes lost their dominion by
reason of the Persians.' But since Media, like Persia, was made up of many
different tribes and clans, who all had their chiefs, what is there improbable
in the supposition, that when the government passed to Cyrus, some of
these chiefs, having very strongly fortified cities, set up for themselves,
and refused allegiance to the new king Cyrus ? That some queen of Cy
axares, disliking his dowry to Cyrus, should have fled to one of these cities,
would be no strange occurrence.
If any results of chronology can be depended on, it would be difficult to
suppose that Astyages was an important actor, during the period of Cyrus'
active services, which continued for some thirty years. Astyages died about
14

158 Excursus on Chap. V.
560. Cyrus took Babylon about 538—539 B. C, i. e. twenty-two years
after the death of Astyages. The probability of an intermediate king is_
therefore very great. Lengerke says, that ' to make room for this shadowy
king, Xenophon has cut off twenty-two years from Cyrus' reign, which was
twenty-nine according to Herodotus, and thirty according to Ctesias.' But
this difficulty is easily solved. The two latter reckon from the time when
Cyrus took the chief command of the Persian forces, at the beginning of
the war in Asia Minor, while Xenophon counts only upon his universal
empire, after the death of Cyaxares.
Some stress has been laid on the testimony of Suidas (s. v. Saprixog), of
the Scholiast to Aristoph. Eccles., and of Harpocration, that the coin "|i311X
(mentioned in Ezra and Nehemiah) is older than Darius Hystaspis. If so,
it not improbably belongs to the age of the Darius mentioned in Dan. 6: 1.
But as this Persian name means king; and as Herodotus (IV. 166) denies
that the Persians had any coined money before the time of Darius Hystas
pis, some doubt may be felt in regard to reliance upon this argument.
Finally, (for this Note already too much protracted must come to a close),
I do not pretend to assert that there are no difficulties in the matter before
us. It would argue a very incompetent view of the whole subject, if any
one should assert this. But I am persuaded that our difficulties are no
greater here, than they are in respect to many a question pertaining to
Assyrian, Median, Babylonian, and Persian history. For the first three,
we are dependent on Herodotus and Ctesias ; for of other authors we have
only mere fragments, mainly preserved in Josephus, Diodorus Siculus, and
the Chronicon of Eusebius. Nothing can be more diverse, than some of
the most important narratives in Herodotus and Ctesias. All attempts to
reconcile them are beyond question fruitless; e.g. Herodotus represents
the Assyrian empire as lasting 520 years ; Ctesias, as continuing 1305 ; the
former makes the Median empire to have six kings and to continue 150
years, the latter gives to it nine kings and more than 282 years. And so
of many other matters. It is manifest, therefore, that the writers must have
drawn from very different sources, and that these were used with little, or
at least without any effectual, critical discrimination.
But one of the most important things to be kept in view is, that silence
or an omission in respect to this fact or that, is a most slippery and feeble
foundation to build upon. All accounts of those ancient times are mere
historical anecdotes, selected mostly with a view to effect upon the mind of
the reader. In a modified sense, this remark applies to the O. Test, history.
It is a series of historical narrations respecting interesting events or per
sons, but it is not a full and minute history, and it makes no pretensions to
being a complete historical record. I cannot argue, therefore, from the
silence of the book of Chronicles about certain facts related in the book of
Kings, that these facts are not true. In like manner, I cannot argue from
the silence of the Bible, or of Xenophon, about a battle before the walls of
Babylon between Cyrus and the last Babylonian king, that there was no
battle. Berosus and Herodotus both assert that such a battle was fought;
but Abydenus (Chron. Euseb. I. 10) says not a word of it, in his account
of the capture of Babylon. If Herodotus and Berosus contradict Daniel
and Xenophon, as Lengerke declares, then do they contradict Abydenus
also. And what shall be said of Ctesias, who does not even advert to the

Excursus on Chap. V. 159
conquest of Babylon at all ? It is indeed no contradiction of one author,
when another has omitted to record what he has recorded. The Bible has
nothing to do with the life of Cyrus, excepting in his relation to the Jews ;
much less does it give the whole history of Babylon. The omission of Cy
rus' battle, as mentioned above, was of course to be expected, and is no in
congruity. As to Xenophon, wo might well suppose, that the Cyropedia
would have described the contest in question, because it makes for the
glory of the hero. But this historian has given a mere sketch of the march
of Cyrus from Sardis to Babylon (VII. 4), and he mentions only, that
on that march he overthrew the Phrygians, the Cappadocians, and the
Arabians. As these were in league with Babylon, or at any rate cooperat
ing with it, it may be that the battle in question is included in this brief
notice. All the conquests of Cyrus, moreover, subsequent to that of Baby
lon, are merely touched upon by Xenophon, in a single paragraph, (VIII.
6). We can no more give the reason, perhaps, why such an omission ex
ists in Xenophon, than we can why Ctesias omitted all mention of Cyrus'
conquest of Babylon. Everywhere in Herodotus and Ctesias, such omis
sions abound. But to represent Berosus and Herodotus who mention the
battle in question, as contradicting Xenophon and Daniel who mention it
not, (as Lengerke does), seems to be hardly consistent with either criti
cal candor or proper discrimination. To appeal to Isa. 43: 14, 17, as
testifying to the battle in question (p. 217), when it is a mere general and
poetic picture of subjugation, and also to Isa. 42: 13 as confirming this, only
adds new proof that this writer is animated by the spirit of Deletida est
Carthago. In fine, one must be cautious, as to great confidence in any particular
statement of Herodotus or Ctesias, in respect to very remote times and
oriental countries. That Herodotus acknowledges three different accounts
of Cyrus, besides his own, and that with him it is a mere choice between
traditions, is replete with instruction. That Ctesias drew from heroic and
regal songs, i. e. old ballads, is not to be forgotten. Hence it comes to pass,
as one of the most acute critics on the sources of the histories in question
has said, " that should any one attempt to force an agreement between
Herodotus and Ctesias, forthwith the result of all his laborious efforts is
found impinging against other stories respecting the same object, which
make no less claim to tell the truth than those on which he has relied ;
Blum, Herod, and Ctes. s. 230. So Wesseling has often acknowledged the
impossibility of reconciling Ctesias and Herodotus in his Notes on Diod.
Sic. II. Bahr, by far the most able of all the editors of the works of both
those ancient historians, has said, again and again, that all efforts to recon
cile them seem to be nothing more in amount than oleum et operam per-
dere ; a judgment, in my view, unquestionably just.
Shall we then, where such authors are contradicted by Xenophon and
the Scriptures, credit them, or either of them, in preference to consistent,
sober, consentaneous authorities ? This is at last the simple question. Len
gerke decides for the former ; my reason and judgment give preference to
the latter.

160 Chap. VI. Introduction.

CHAPTER VI.
[Darius, being possessed of the whole empire of hither Asia, sets over it 120 Sa
traps to regulate its affairs. These were superintended by three Praefccts; and of
these Daniel was chief. The king, because of his qualities and services, was desirous
to make him a leading officer over the whole realm, i. e. Satrap of the Satraps or
chief Satrap ; vs. 1 — 3. Daniel's under officers of both grades were envious toward
him, and desirous of degrading and ruining him, but they could find nothing in his
official conduct on which they could lay hold for this purpose. They therefore de
vised a scheme to entrap him, on the ground of his religious duties, vs. 4, 5. They
persuaded Darius to make a decree, that no request should be made of God or man,
for thirty days, except of the king alone; vs. 6 — 9. Daniel, with full knowledge of
this, worshipped, as usual, in his chamber, where he could be seen by others through
the window of his apartment; v. 10. His accusers who were on the watch, inform
the king, and urge the execution of the statute that had been made, the penalty of
which was to be cast into a den of lions ; vs. 10 — 13 The king is greatly distressed
by the information respecting Daniel, and seeks for some expedient to justify him in
his release, but he finds none. The accusers return, and urge the execution of the
penalty; to which the king feels himself obliged to assent; 14 — 16. The den of
the lions is closed upon Daniel and sealed ; and the king goes mourning to his
abode; vs. 17, 18. The king after a night of agitation, goes early in the morning to
the den; calls aloud to Daniel; and is answered by him with an account of his safe
ty ; vs. 19 — 22. The king orders Daniel to be taken from the den, and his accusers
and their families to be thrown into it; vs. 23, 24. Darius issues a proclamation,
that the God of Daniel should be feared and reverenced, because of the wonders
which he had done ; vs. 26, 27. Daniel remains in favor with the king, and after
wards with Cyrus; v. 28.]
( I ) And Darius the Mede took the kingdom, when he was about sixty-two years
of age That this belongs to the preceding narration, seems to me quite clear;
and in this light most of the commentators have regarded it. It serves
to complete the historic view of the fulfilment of the third clause con
tained in the writing on the wall, viz. "Thy kingdom shall be taken
from thee, and given to the Mede and the Persian." — 133 , 3 = the Lat.
circiter, about. The idiom, son of so many years, is too familiar to need
remark. — bap, took, received; from whom? The implication seems
very clear, that he took the government of which the Babylonish king
had been deprived ; or, in other words, that he took that kingdom which
Belshazzar had left. — "|inin , fem. form of *,iisi , which is a contracted
dual for iiin , and being of a fem. form, it agrees with the masc. noun
jisis , § 36. 2. This is the only dual form in Chaldee.

Chap. VI. 2—5. 161
(2) It seemed good to Darius, and he appointed one hundred and twenty satraps
over the kingdom, who should be over all the empire.
Dip , before = 1553 or iJEib , in the sight of, in the view of, comp. in 4:
24, where bs follows the same verb, in a like sense. — xisEiicnxb , Ace.
with b, § 56. 2. — "jSiib , see on 2: 20. The last clause here serves to
explain and expand the meaning of the preceding one, so that the reader
may know that the arrangement in question is extended to the whole of
the empire, to that newly acquired as well as to the rest.
(3) And over them three directors, of whom Daniel was one, in order that those
satraps might render an account to them, so that the king might suffer no loss.
xbs , emph. form = Heb. bs , over. — linsa , "(7a with Dagh. f. before
a suffix, § 38. note, lit. of them. The whole phrase, in its literal form, runs
thus : In the above of them or from them, i.e. in the superiority of them =
over them. The idiom is Chaldaic purely. So in Targ. Onk., Gen. 22:
9, x*sx "ja bis , lit. above from the wood = above the wood ; Deut. 28:
43, ?,3a bis , above from thee = above thee. — T?1& is plain enough as
to its necessary meaning here ; but its etymology is uncertain ; see in Lex.
— "(insra . . . 11 , of whom, § 41. 1. — T^ni , Part, in Peal, joined with
the following verb of existence, and denoting continued or customary
action, § 47. 1. — xaso , emph. of dsb , ratio, account. — ptj has a pas
sive sense, because the verb is intrans. ; the form is that of an act. Part.
in Peal, §12.1. c. The loss referred to here, seems to be that of revenue.
(4) Then the same Daniel was made chief over the directors and the satraps, be
cause an excellent spirit was in him ; and the king intended to set him over the
whole empire.
nsina , Part. Ithpaal, final Pattah before a Guttural. — xiini pre
eminent, or that which exceeds or goes beyond others. — nm3s , Peal form,
§ 12. 2. 1. a. — nniapnb, Inf. Aph. with suffi, p. 56. e.
(5) Then the directors and satraps sought to find some pretence against Daniel,
in regard to the government; but no pretence nor corrupt dealing were they able to
find, because thaTt he was faithful, and fault or corrupt dealing was not found against
him, ¦psa, Part. pi. of XS3, for form, p. 91. Dec. VII. a. — bxiJib, lit. in
respect to Daniel ; I have translated above ad sensum, in conformity
with our idiom. — 13a , lit. on the side of, on the part of = in regard to.
The word nninuil I have rendered as a noun, for the fem. of adjectives
or participles easily goes over into a noun. — "jaina , Part. pass. Aph.
of lax, see p. 66, ^ax in note. — ibffi apoc. form of nibia, § 31. 1. —
inibs , lit. upon him, i. e. resting on him as a burden ; in this way bs
comes to mean against, as I have rendered it above.
14*

162 Chap. VI. 6-8.
(6) Then said those men : We shall not find any pretence against this Daniel, un
less we find [it] against him with respect to the law of his God.
il is here the mere sign of words quoted. A double comma would
sufficiently translate it. — nBtuna , 1st plur. Aph. Fut. with n retained,
p. 49. 5. — xjnaujn, Aph. Praet. 1st. plur. The noun nbs, or rather
the pronoun in its place, is here omitted. The translation above supplies
the latter. — nia has special reference to a law or statute in regard to
matters of religion. The word seems to be Persian in its origin ; see Lex.
This is high testimony in favor of Daniel's integrity and piety. It would
seem, that even his rivals apprehended that he would remain firm and
unwavering in his religious duties.
(7) Then those directors and satraps rushed tumultuously to the king, and spake
thus to him : O king Darius, live forever !
lisain , the Heb. form of Aph. p. 50, near the top ; it means to as
semble andmove along with tumult, like a mob. — For the rest of the verse,
see on 2: 4. Lengerke thinks ' the writer has here forgotten himself,
and wonders how all these satraps could be there in Babylon, when they
were bound to be in their respective provinces, for the sake of discharg
ing their duties ! But inasmuch as they had just been appointed, and had
not yet fully prepared to go to their respective stations, may it not be
easily supposed, that during the delay necessary for preparation, all hap
pened which is here related ? However, his principal objection is, that
satraps were not yet in fact appointed. Of this, more anon.
(8) All the directors of the kingdom, the deputy-governors, satraps, state-council
lors, and overseers, have given counsel to establish a decree, of the king and confirm
a prohibition, that whoever shall make request of any god or man for thirty days,
except of thee, 0 king, he shall be cast into the den of lions.
lusini , Ithpaal 3 pi. Perf., from usi = Heb. ^s; , see Lex. under let
ters a and a ; ; instead of i with Dagh. f. after it, because of the Gut
tural that follows. Reciprocal action, i. e. mutual counsel, is denoted by
Ithpaal here — like Niphal in Hebrew, § 10. 7. — For the officers' names,
see on 3: 2, 24. — rraip , Inf. Pael of Dip . — Dip , lit. something con
firmed or established ; for the form, see § 28. a. 1. 2. — n&pn , Inf. Pael.
— i^?: > prohibition from 1GX to bind, constrain ; the form is like tP|?
above. — isa = Viisa , § 29. 6. a. The two following nouns have the
same form with the first two in this verse, as noted above. — "pnbn , 30,
from nbn , with pi. form added which makes it into so many tens, p. 101.
— K»ini , Fut. Ithpeal. — xniiix , pi. of niix fem. form, with ft- appa
rently paragogic, so that the word = iix ; in declining, however, this let
ter is treated as if it were of the root, and a substitute (as usual elsewhere)
for a final 1 ; comp. p. .92. Par. A. b.

Chap. VI. 9—11. 163
(9) Now, 0 king, do thou establish a prohibition, and inscribe a writing which can
not be changed, according to the law of the Medes and Persians which cannot be
repealed. Dipn , 2 sing. Fut. used as the Imper. of entreaty. — nijianb xb , the
verb is Inf. Aph. of X3IU with praeform. retained ; the verb of existence
being understood after xb , the phrase lit. means : it is not for change, or
for being changed ; see § 46. 3. note, and comp. Heb. Gramm. § 129. 3.
— xisn , lit. pass away. As to the immutability of laws written and
sealed with the,. king's signet, comp. Esth. 1: 19. 8: 8. Observe that here
the order of the two nations is : Medes and Persians ; which agrees with
the fact asserted, viz. that the king now on the throne was a Median.
But in Est. 1: 3, 14, 18, 19, when a Persian is on the throne, the order
is : Persians and Medes. The use to be made of this fact, has already
been pointed out in the remarks at the close of the preceding chapter.
(10) Because of this, king Darius wrote down a writing even a prohibition.
I have taken Xi&xi here as merely exegetical ; and nothing is more
common than to connect an exegetical clause or word to that which pre
cedes, by placing 1 before it.
(11) Now Daniel, when he knew that the writing was completed, went to his house,
and bis windows were open in his upper chamber, toward Jerusalem, and, three
times each day did he kneel upon his knees, and make supplication, and utter praise
before God, entirely as he had done before this.
Writing was completed, lit. the writing was written. But our idiom hardly
admits such a form of expression, at least it would not be allowed as good
usage. — 1113 , pi. of 13 , as if from a root s's , treated as fem. here, by the
Part, which follows in the fem. plur. — nibs with suff. ; comp. § 29. 2. 6.10,
but here the noun has the fem. ending as in § 31. — 'p?a,.1 , we might trans
late the 1 here by even, etiam, and it would then serve to render emphatic
the number of times that Daniel went to perform his devotions. But the
probable sense of it is merely as translated above. — In his upper chamber, an
apartment probably built on the top of the house, with a roof of its own,
and designed for retirement; comp. 2 Sam. 19: 1. (18: 33 Eng.) 1 K. 17:
19. It was the usual place for prayer : see Acts 1: 13. 10: 9. — To
ward Jerusalem, because that was the place where the special presence
of God was supposed to be, by every Hebrew ; comp. for the like, Ps. 5:
8 (7). 28: 2. See the ground of this practice adverted to, in Ps. 20: 3 (2).
So Solomon, in his prayer, 2 Chron. 6: 34, and repeatedly in 1 K. 8: 33,
35, 38, 44, 48. In like manner the Mohammedans turn their face to
ward Mecca, in their devotions ; and the worshippers of Ormusd, as
presented in Ezek. 8: 16, looked to the rising sun, the symbol of Ormusd.

164 Chap. VI. 12—15.
In like manner, the ancient Christians used to pray with their faces to
ward the east ; Orig. Hom. V. in Num. Bertholdt accuses the writer of
mistake here, on the ground, (as he avers), that the Jews had as yet no
such custom, and because the temple was now in ruins. The first objec
tion is clearly erroneous, as the quotations above show ; and the second,
of no importance. Was not the ground where the temple stood still sa
cred in their eyes ? And did they not expect, according to the prediction
of Jeremiah, that they should return, and rebuild the temple ? — The
three times of prayer are adverted to in Acts 2: 15. 10: 9. Dan. 9: 21,
i. e. at 9 o'clock, A. M., at 12 M., and at 3 P. M. — qia, Part. Peal
with pronoun xin, § 47. 1. b., strongly expresses habit or continued ac
tion. — "|ni'3ia , pi. suff. of Tfia • — xbsa , Part. Pael. — xiia , Part.
Aph. of xi-; , § 20. 2. c. — las xin , § 47, a. — nsi has the const.
state here before it, lit. a priori tempore hujus (rei).
(12) Then those men came tumnltuously, and found Daniel praying and making
supplication before his God.
liuain , Aph. like the Heb. Hiphil, p. 50 near the top. The b that fol
lows, marks the Ace. — 1.?nna , Ithpaal Part., like the Greek Mid. voice,
making supplication for himself.
( 13 ) Then they drew near, and spake before the king respecting the royal prohibition :
Didst thou not write a prohibition, that every one who shall make request of any god
or man, during thirty days, except of thee, 0 king, shall be cast into the den of lions ?
The king answered and said : The thing is established, according to the law of the
Medes and Persians which cannot be repealed.
laip, § 12. 1. 1. For the sequel, see v. 8 above. — xnba may be ren
dered word, viz. what they had just said, or thing, viz. the whole affair as
represented. I have preferred the latter.
( 14) Then they answered and said before the king : Daniel, who is of the sons of
captive Jews, pays no regard to thee, 0 king, nor to the prohibition which thou hast
written, for three times iu a day does he make his request.
The first 11 here is a mere sign of words to be quoted. — dsb . . . tfbs Dffl xb,
see on 3: 12. — bsi , nor to, the 1 following a negative clause, and stand
ing before another in the like predicament, should be translated nor. —
r?a! ; P^- 0I" 1°', > aud used just as we use the word time with a numeral,
denoting repetition. — Dto , Praet. Peal, is followed in construction by
the Part, xsa , instead of a verb which our own idiom demands. Often
so in Chaldee.
( 15) Then the king, when he heard the report, was much grieved on account of it,

Chap. VI. 16—18. 165
and he set his heart upon Daniel to rescue him, and to the going down of the sun he
was contriving to deliver him.
ba diu, to set one's heart or mind on anything, i. e. to revolve in one's
mind what can be done with it. Both the Syriac and Arabic em
ploy ba in the like sense. — nniajiti , root atia , Peel (instead of Pael
with Dagh. f.), p. 52, note under No. 1. For the Inf. ending, p. 56. e. —
ibsa , occasus, const, pi. of bsa , root bbs . — linffia , Ithpaal of liai with
tranfer of ci . — nniban , Inf. Aph. of bss , with suff. form as above.
Beyond the setting of the sun, the execution of the penalty could not be
delayed. In Persia, this usually follows the sentence without delay.
(16) Then those men came tumultuously to the king, and said to the king: Know,
O king, that to the Medes and Persians there is a law, that every prohibition and de
cree which the king shall establish, is unchangeable.
Si Imper. of sii . — fprj"1. from Dip , Aph. Fut. with n retained, and
final vowel Tsere instead of the usual long Hhireq ; t hese vowels being
often interchanged in Chaldee. — nijirnb , see in v. 9. Inf. Aph., lit. is
not for changing.
(17) Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast [him] into the
lion's den. The king answered and said to Daniel : Thy God whom thou servest
continually, he will deliver thee.
lirun Aph. of xnx , see in § 24. 2. Aph. — iai , 3 pi. Peal, omits
the suff. pronoun ; which omission is frequent in Chaldee, in the like cases.
— nb_B, Part, with final Pattah, because of the final Guttural. — q^TUCi
p. 58. Rem. 1.
(18) And a stone was brought, and placed on the mouth of the den, and the king
sealed it with his signet and with the signet of his nobles, that the design respecting
Daniel might not be changed.
ninin , a pass. fem. form of inin Aph. of xnx . See a plur. of the
same kind in 3: 13, and the remarks there. Both forms are anomalous,
and evidently stand for the Hophal of the Hebrews in regard to meaning.
If the forms are legitimate, they were probably made thus anomalous,
(like many words in all languages), by vulgar usage. One is at a loss to
know whence such vowel-points come, as analogies are wanting. — naiB
most probably a Part. pass, in the room of the usual fem. naiio , as de
clined on p. 51. These two forms are sometimes connected in Hebrew,
e. g. 2 Sam. 23: 32, text naiia , Qeri naliu. There is, at any rate, no
other form of the verb Dlia to which it is so near a resemblance ; and thus
taken, it gives the requisite meaning. — xaa , lit. pit ; and such was
doubtless the den of the lions. The mouth of this pit seems to have been

166 Chap. VI. 19, 20.
covered, and a door or passage way inserted, through which the lions
were fed. This door was now closed and sealed, so that neither Daniel's
friends might interfere, (for it was the intention of the nobles to exclude
them, when they put their seal on the door), nor his enemies be permit
ted to annoy him, in case the lions did not destroy him, (which seems to
have been the king's design in putting his own seal upon it). The sen
tence of law was thus strictly executed, and an arrangement so made,
that there should be no interference with it, by the different parties who
were actuated by different motives. — nanni , Perf. Peal of Dtin with
suff. fem., which relates to lax a fem. noun. — nnpts , his signet, i. e. ?
ring on which was fastened an engraving of the king's name. It wouk
seem that wax, or some impressible substance, was placed on the edge of
the stone door and of the covering around it, so that if it were opened,
the seal would be broken, and of course this would be proof of unlawful
interference. As before suggested, the nobles doubtless designed that the
king should not interfere, when they put their seals upon the stone door.
See the like process in Matt. 27: 66. — las = nias , purpose, design,
which is more significant than the rendering of Ges., De Wette, and
others, viz., matter, affair. — X3t!in has an intransitive or passive sense,
and so I have rendered it in the version above.
(19) Then went the king to his palace, and spent the night in fasting, and his con
cubines were not brought before him, and his sleep fled from him.
na Praet. of nia. — r.ia, a noun from xia, like nsp, nsa, etc.,
here used in an adverbial way, or we may regard it as the Ace. of man
ner. — l^ni , plur. fem. of nitil , from xni , the corresponding Arabic
verb meaning feminam subegit. — bssn , one did not bring, the verb hav
ing no subject expressed; of course it is equivalent to the passive voice,
and so I have translated it ; it is the Aph. of bbs , for the 3 see § 6. 2.
— ni3 Peal of 113, fled, comp. Esth. 6: 1. — "'nibs , bs =bx here, as
often elsewhere ; lit. his sleep fled for him, like ?jb— [b in Gen. 12: 1, go
for thyself. This construction is not unfrequent after verbs of motion ;
comp. the like expression in 2: 1, and the remarks upon it. All this is
related to show the sincere concern and regret of the king for what had
taken place.
(20) Then the king arose at early dawn, when it was light, and went in haste to
the lion's den.
X191S1U , a reduplicate form, § 28. b.l 1. The Syr. has the simple ]ls^>,
and employs it in the same sense, viz. that of early dawn. — xnJ3 seems
to be equivalent to the preceding word, but is in fact exegetical of it ;

Chap. VI. 21—24. 167
just as we say : " Very early, a3 soon as it was light." — In haste, so
the Inf. noun nbnanna (Inf. of Ithpaal) means.
(21 ) And when he drew near to the den, he cried out to Daniel with a loud voice ;
the king answered and said to Daniel : Daniel, thou servant of the living God,
has thy God, whom thou servest continually, been able to deliver thee from the lions 1
naipas, Inf. with suff. in the same way as a noun, § 16. 2. c. In
such cases 3 means when; lit. it would run thus : in accordance with the
drawing near of him, — pst, § 12.1.1, also ib. 2. 1. Thecrying oirf,here
designated, was doubtless a shout of some kind, to see whether Daniel
was alive and would respond. In like way we may suppose Daniel to
have responded. Then follows the address to him, on the part of the king.
— X'n , living, in the mouth of a Persian or Median king, is not strange ;
for idolatry was proscribed by the Parsis, and they had neither temples
nor images. Ormusd, in their view, was the author of all desirable life.
But here Darius seems to conform to the usual Heb. method of naming
their God. — bain, interrogative n, and the verb. bai = bai ; §12.2.1.
(22) Then Daniel spake with the king : 0 king, live forever !
bba , Pael, entered into conversation, spoke colloquially ; for Hhireq,
see 12. 1. 1. — lax is omitted before X3ba , and is unnecessary.
(23) My God hath sent his angel, and stopped the mouth of the lions, and they
have done me no harm, because that before him innocence was found in me, and also
before thee, O king, have I done no harm.
naxba , his angel. Angelic interposition is very common in the re
mainder of this book. Comp. John 5: 4. Acts 12: 11. Heb. 1: 14, and
the Apoc. throughout. — BQ , § 29. 5. a. — i?lban Pael with suff. —
1st = mat, § 29. 6. a. § 31. 1. — ib, lit. for me, Dat. commodi. Our
idiom requires a different mode of expression, viz. in me. — t|X is put be
fore a clause where the sense is climactic, or at least where a special stress
is laid upon it. Offence against the king was, in this case, the main thing to
be disclaimed, in order to accomplish his exculpation. He was not ac
cused on any other ground.
(24) Then the king was very glad within himself, and he commanded to raise up
Daniel from the den ; and Daniel was raised up from the den, and no injury was
found on him, because ho trusted in his God.
inibs might be applied to Daniel, and then we must translate : on his
account; but in v. 15 above we have inibs lrxa , where the pronoun
refers to the same subject as the verb. In the version above, I have fol
lowed the analogy of the last phrase, in the present case ; and so Ges.,

168 Chap. VI. 25—27.
Maurer, Lengerke, al. — ngosnb , Aph. Inf. reg. as to 3 , § 18. Note. —
ptsn , a purely Hophal form from the same stem as the preceding verb,
p. 50. 6. — lain , Aph. of lax , p. 66, in note.
(25) And the king commanded, and they brought those men, who were the ac
cusers of Daniel, and cast [them] into the den of lions, them, their children, and their
wives ; and they had not come to the bottom of the den, until the lions had the mas
tery of them, and crushed all their bones.
linin , Aph. of xnx . For the next clause see 3: 8. — bxisi ii , in
the Gen. ; for suff. pronoun anticipative before this Gen., see § 40. 3. a.
— iai has its Ace. pronoun implied ; the ^isx that follows belongs to the
next clause. The version above exhibits this. — labia § 12. 1. 1. —
ipin , Aph. of ppi , for Hhireq under the second radical, p. 49. 5 ; or it
may be a Hebraizing form, see p. 62, last par. The representation de
signed to be made is, that when the accusers were cast into the den, the
voracious lions seized them ere they struck the bottom of the pit, and
crushed them into pieces. As to the frequency of the like punishment in
all barbarous countries, there can be no manner of doubt.
(26) Then Darius the king wrote to all people, nations, and tongues, who dwelt in
all the earth : May your peace be multiplied !
"pixi , Par. of ill , the vowels are adapted to the form )ilil in the
margin. Appropriately vocalized it would stand thus : "pixi . — The preg
nant meaning of the word peace, in the Semitic languages, is well known
to all who understand them. Neither slgrjvn nor salus, nor our word
peace, fully reaches a translation.
(27) By me is a decree established, that in every principality of my kingdom
[men] shall tremble and fear before the God of Daniel ; for he is the living God, and
endureth forever, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed, and his dominion [shall
be] unto the end.
For the first clause, see 3: 29. — ¦jobtu probably denotes the satrapies
into which the empire was divided, see v. 2 above — 'jinb , see 2: 20. —
¦psxt from sit, vowels as above in 'pixi. The continued action ex
pressed by these participles with the verb of existence, is very apparent
here. — Dip 'ja , the same as yo or a , but the fashion of the Chaldee is
to multiply such particles. We may translate : Fear before his God, or
Be afraid of his God. The pronoun suff. after nbx is superfluous
with us, but gives a specific hue to the Chaldee representation ; § 40. 3. a.
— XW, he is, §40. 1. nip, enduring, is a participial adjective, § 28.
b. 6. I have translated it as a verb, in order to conform to our idiom. —
ill nniaba , lit. his kingdom is what (or that which) shall not be destroyed.

Chap. VI. 28, 29. 169
Exact conformity to this, in our idiom, would be incongruous. — Unto the
end seems, at first view, to be the same as 'pp in 12: 13 ; and so it is un
derstood by Lengerke, and Ges. (in Lex.) seems to regard it in the same
light. Havernick says it is equivalent to obisb ; C. B. Mich., that it
means the end of the world. But a due consideration of the person who
speaks, will, as it seems to me, give the phrase a different turn. The
Hebrew ideas of the end of the world, or of the end of the ante-Messianic
period, the Median king probably did not entertain; and end of life, '(an
idea that might be expressed both by Hebrews and Persians by the use
of such a word), is inappropriate here. The Parsis expected the world
would end in 12,000 years. But even these years did not make an end
to the reign of Ormusd, and so it is not probable that Darius assigned
such limits, in the present case. Having just said (of the God of Daniel),
that he endures forever, it is obvious that he means to make his dominion
as enduring as God himself is ; so that we come to the necessary conclu
sion, that xsib is is but another, although less accurate, form of ex
pressing the idea contained in the preceding pabsb above. Obviously
the same idea is expressed by xsio is , on the supposition that the
speaker did not suppose a real end would ever actually come. But if he
did believe this, even then the expression designates at least an undefined
period, to which no one can set limits.
(28) It is he, that rescues, and delivers, and does signs and wonders in heaven
and on earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions.
aTHtia , Part. Aph. of ara . — baa , Part. Aph. from bss , retaining
the Pleb. form of Hiphil, p. 50, near the top. — Signs, as usual, means
remarkable or miraculous exhibitions. — pnan , pi. of nan , means
those things which excite wonder in the beholders. — In heaven and
on earth = everywhere, or in all places. — bx*3ib , Ace. after aiTiii . In
this last word, the first syllable is written defectively, the last fully.
The reverse is usually the case, e. g. aTHU .
(29) And this same Daniel was promoted during the reign of Darius, and during
the reign of Cyrus the Persian.
nbsn , lit. was prosperous, Aph. with an intrans. sense, § 10. 4. 2. The
idea connected with this is, promotion to a place of honor and profit.

Thus ends the historical part of the book of Daniel. It is easy to see
that the object of the writer has not been, to give a regular and complete
history, either of the Babylonish kings, of their successor, or of Daniel
himself. Those, and only those, events are noticed, which make for the
15

170 Excursus on Chap. VI.
purpose of the writer ; and this is, to exhibit a God working wonders
among those who held the Hebrews in bondage, in order to fill them with
respect for this people, and to prepare the way for their final liberation.
Most plainly, moreover, is it a part of the design of the writer, to commend a
steadfast adherence to the principles and practice of piety and virtue amidst
the trials and temptations to which this people was subjected. The religious "
and ethical design of the narrations presented in the book before us, lies
upon the very face of it, and no one should hesitate to avow this. But
to prove that all this was calculated and designed merely for the times of
the Maccabees, is quite another matter, and seems to me to have very
little probability in its favor.
[As everywhere, in the book of Daniel, critics of the New School have
here been on the watch for the supposed haltings of the writer. In the
present case, indeed, we find a full proportion of them alleged. I shall
briefly touch only upon those which seem to be worthy of any grave notice.
(l) ' The very outset of the story in ch. vi. contains a palpable mis
statement, or at least an error which betrays the author's ignorance of
Medo-Persian history. He represents Darius as having appointed 120 sa
traps over his kingdom ; which far exceeds all bounds of truth, and even of
probability.' But why so ? The answer is, that ' Cyrus appointed only six, (Cyrop.
VIII. 6. 1, comp. VIII. 5. 19), when the empire was still larger than in the
time of Darius ; and that even under Darius Hystaspis, when Thrace and
hither India had been conquered, there were only twenty,' Herod. HI.
89 seq. — What then were these satraps ? The name is Zend (see Lex.
Di2&1liz3nx), and the origin, therefore, either Median or Persian. The of
fice was at first that of a mere superintendent of tribute or revenue ; to
which a general inspection of the king's affairs and interests was appended.
The military of each province was under its own appropriate officers. In
the sequel, however, the satraps won to themselves both offices. It is per
fectly clear, from Herod. III. 89, that mere geographical limits were not
regarded in the arrangement of the Satrapies, but only the convenience of
the revenue and of the government-affairs. Of course, officers of this cast
must always have existed, under every form of the despotic governments of
theEast,whether the name in question is of earlier or later origin. At all events
we find the name in the time of Cyrus, and therefore it is quite probable
that it existed under that of Darius. The extent of jurisdiction was a mat
ter that lay entirely with the sovereign to prescribe ; and the number of sa
traps, therefore, depended on his will. How then can it be shown, that
Darius could not have appointed 120 satraps, because Cyrus "had 6, and
Darius Hystaspis 20 ? Certain we are, that the successor of this last king
" reigned over 1 27 provinces," Est. 1: 1. That each of these had governors
or satraps, needs not to be proved. Every one acquainted with ancientMedo-
Persian history knows, that to the satraps belonged inxaQxoi, i. e. sub-
satraps ; and it would be of course at the pleasure of a writer, whether he
would include or exclude these, when he employed the word satraps. It is
impossible, then, to convict the author of the book before us of incorrectness,

Excursus on Chap. VI. 171
when he states the fact that Darius appointed 120 satraps; for if Xerxes
had 127, he may have appointed 120.
Besides this, it would seem very probable, that the six satraps of Cyrus,
and the twenty of Darius Hyst., were of the same grade as the three VaiO
mentioned in 6: 3. The extensive conquests of Cyrus, after he became
sole monarch, would naturally demand an increase of these ; and so six
were appointed. Darius Hyst. made extensive conquests in Thrace and in
India, which may naturally have given rise to an increase of that number.
As a satrapy depends not on national limits, nor on that of tribes, but only
on the conveniences of government, so it is impossible to convince our au
thor of either ignorance or falsification. On the contrary, the minuteness
of statement respecting the three general officers, and the leading member
or head of this little corps, and the care of the revenue which was committed
to them, indicates a familiarity of the writer with the matters in question.
Such an objection, therefore, owes its existence, as it would seem, more to
the zeal than to the enlarged and accurate views of those who oppose the
genuineness of the book before us.
(2) ' But the decree of Darius, that no request, for thirty days, should be
made of God or man, except of himself — this decree which could proceed
only from the inmate of a madhouse — is a thing utterly incredible.' Leng.
p. 271 seq.
He might indeed' well deserve a madhouse, rather than a palace, who could
make such a decree. But as to the improbability of the matter, it is not quite
so easy to make that out. Parsism taught its votaries to reverence the king
as the symbol or personification of Ormusd. When Themistocles fled from
Athens to Persia, and wished to be presented to the king, the courtier Arta-
banus said to him : " It is our custom ... to honor the king, and worship the
image of God who preserves all things," Plutarch, in Themistoc. c. 27.
Xenophon (Agesil.) blames the Persians, because " they thought themselves
worthy of enjoying the honors of the gods." Isocrates (Panegyr., in Brisson.
De Reg. Pers.) censures them, " because they worship a mortal man, and
call him a divinity {daluovu), and had rather treat the gods with neglect
than their fellow men." Arrian (VI. 29) and Q. Curtius (Vit. Alex.)
both give an account of sacrifices and divine honors paid to Cyrus, at his
tomb in Pasargadae. Q. Curtius (VIII. 5) says : Persas reges suos inter deos
colere. Alexander, in imitation of the Persian kings, required divine honors
to be paid him, on his entrance into Babylon. De Sacy (Mem. de l'lnst. II.
p. 184, 188) observes, that the Persian kings call themselves " the celestial
germ of the race of the gods." On the ruins of Persepolis, kings are evi
dently presented as objects of adoration. Grotefend has found on one in
scription : Stirps mundi rectoris. In fact, the matter is beyond all doubt.
Parsism did not indeed require men to regard the king as a god in his own
proper nature, but to pay him supreme homage as the representative of Or
musd. Such being the state of the case, it is easy to see that the account of
Darius' behavior, when he was importuned by his courtiers and nobles, wears
no special marks of improbability. That the Cyaxares of Xenophon was a
weak, vain, and ambitious man, is abundantly evident, if the picture which
the Greek historian has drawn of him be acknowledged as a likeness. The
plan of Daniel's enemies was dexterously formed. Daniel, the courtiers had
good reason to believe, would not swerve from his religion. Darius could be

172 Excursus on Chap. VI.
easily persuaded, as they believed, to admit not merely the ordinary homage
that was paid to him as monarch, but an extraordinary one, which exalted
him above all other kings. Doubtless the whole thing was managed by the
utterance of many and flattering professions of reverence and honor toward
the king. Ashe was addicted to an excessive use of wine, it is not improb
able that the affair was transacted near the close of a banquet. " Worthy
of a madhouse" it surely was ; but as to its wearing the stamp of utter im
probability, or even of any, I am at a loss to discover where or what that
stamp is. Many a decree from drunken despots, has been more outrageous
than this, and even equally absurd. Has not Lengerke read the history of a
Nero, a Caligula, a Genghis Khan, or Aga Mohammed Khan ? The inten
tion of the king was, to gratify his own vanity. He did not dream of the
consequences ; as is evident from the whole of his subsequent demeanor.
Lengerke has summoned up eight objections against the verity of ch. vi.
The first is, that there was never any such king as Darius the Mede. The
second, that the country was not, at that period, divided into satrapies.
(These have already been considered above). The third is the one just
canvassed. The fourth is, that ' the phrases living God, and unto the end
(X3"& IS ), in v. 27, savor of Jewish conceptions, and not of Persian or Me
dian ones ; and of course Darius cannot be supposed to have employed them
in his proclamation.' But if we consider the intercourse he had with Daniel,
and the state of mind in which he was, after witnessing his preservation,
there would seem to be little in this objection. Besides, that aParsi should
speak of the living God and his endless rule, would be nothing strange.
(5) ' Daniel must have been a sheer fanatic, to suppose he could be safe in the
lion's den.' And so, in Lengerke's view, are all men who believe in miracles.
'(6) ' The description of the lion's den, shows that it came not from an eye
witness.' But how, or why, we are not informed ; and since we are not able of
ourselves to discover the incongruity alleged, we must wait for its development.
(7) ' The decree, at the close of the chapter, bears the stamp of most incredi
ble intolerance.' But how ? It calls on the subjects of the king to do reve
rence to the God of Daniel ; but it does not bid them to forsake their own
religion, nor compel them to become Jews, nor even annex a penalty for
disobedience to the mandate. Where is the persecution or the intolerance ?
And even if we should find both in the decree, how is it to be proved, that
a man so freakish and ever-changing as Darius, could not, or did not, com
mit such a deed ? His indignation against the accusers of Daniel was very
strong; and, abating the usual barbarity of the East in destroying whole
families for an offence of the head, was just. In that state of mind, it is
easy to see, that he might have taken the part of Daniel very strongly.
(8) ' The lions could not live in a pit, where there was no air ; and a
second miracle was needed to keep them alive, as well as Daniel.' So !
And was then the covering over the pit so compact that no air was admitted,
and no light ? This would at least be a singular way of managing the royal
menagerie — unknown, I apprehend, to all the later managers of like estab
lishments. To complete the whole, Lengerke avers, that " any miracle here, in a
general view of the subject, would not be less destitute of all good purpose,
nor less against the divine economy, than the signs and wonders of ch. iii — v."
So we also may believe ; but then we may likewise believe, that the won-

Introduction to Chap. "VTI. 173
ders related there, and in ch. vi, had a highly important end in view, and
were neither destitute of special design, nor against the divine economy.
If there be any force in the objection, it rests entirely, upon assuming the
position, that miracles are impossible and absurd. But such an assumption
can hardly be called a legitimate argument.
I merely add, in view of such objections as these, that one must needs
feel himself hard pressed, in order to resort to them. It is a confession
which imports, that he who makes it is conscious of weakness in his cause.
One thing, however, such objections do show, which is, a determination at
all adventures to destroy the credit of the book. Simple candor, and con
sciousness of a good cause, are not apt to lead men to employ argumentation
so captious.]

CHAPTER VII. Introduction.
[In the remarks made upon the symbol of the colossal statue seen in the
dream of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. ii.), no particular discussion was entered
upon respecting the four great empires. Mere hints were thrown out, and
it was assumed, that in all probability the Babylonish and the Medo-Persian
empires were symbolized by the head and breast of the image ; that the
abdomen and loins represented the dominion of Alexander the Great ; and
finally that the legs and feet were symbols of that intermingled and con
fused empire, which sprung up under the Grecian chiefs who finally suc
ceeded him. To this conclusion I have been forced to come, after an atten
tive consideration of the various schemes of interpretation that have been
proposed and urged. As this must have an important influence on my views
respecting the prophecies that follow, I feel bound to lay before the reader,
the reasons which have led me to adopt such a conclusion. This I shall do
as briefly as the nature of such a controverted case admits. And in order to
do it briefly, I feel compelled to depend on reasons drawn almost wholly
from the book itself. A priori reasoning, in this case, the basis of which is
an assumption of what we ought to expect from the pen of Daniel ; or rea
soning borrowed merely from the Christian fathers, who assumed as a part
of their basis, that the Romish Antichrist was before the mind of the prophet ;
we cannot assume without examination, if we would keep our exegetical
conscience quiet. There is no expositor of an author, so legitimate and
authoritative as himself. And it is by an appeal to Daniel himself, that I
hope and I shall endeavor to explain Daniel. If this may be done, it is not
worth while to occupy our time with either relating or refuting the almost
numberless schemes of interpretation which have been applied to the book
before us. Long ago was it said, (and with sound common sense), that The
best way to refute error, is to teach the truth. If a subject can be made plain,
and withal be so presented as to convince and satisfy the mind, it becomes
unnecessary to dwell upon all the discrepant views that have been taken
of it, or to describe the causes which operated to produce them, or to refute
one by one in detail the errors that have been committed. It would occupy
a volume by itself to do this, on the present occasion.
15*

174 Introduction to Chap. VH.
In order to throw upon the subject now before us the light which the
book of Daniel itself affords, it becomes necessary to compare with each other
the various representations which, are made of the same things or persons.
What is obscure to us in one passage, may thus perhaps be fully illustrated
by another ; what in one case is expressed only in a generic way, may be
found sufficiently specific in another to remove all uncertainty. It is in this
way, that we proceed, or at least should proceed, with difficult passages in
any book whatever, either sacred or profane ; and in like manner, and for
a like purpose, do we compare the different Evangelists with each other.
Before I engage in this process of comparison, I would premise a few
general remarks, to which I would hope a general assent will not be denied.
(1) The book of Daniel is not to be regarded either in the light of a gene
ral syllabus of civil history, nor even in that of a particular history of the
four empires named. The Assyrian empire is not touched upon at all in it,
nor that of India, or China, or Tartary ; not to speak of European and
African kingdoms in general. And with regard to Babylon, Persia, Greece
(in the personal conquests of Alexander), and the mixed dominion which is
fourth in order, nothing more than mere out-line sketches are given, which
may suffice to identify the empires in view. To this there is but one excep
tion, which is the Syrian part of the fourth dominion. The sketch of this is
more particular ; but that which occupies more room here than all the rest,
is the description of Antiochus' Epiphanes and his deeds. Such being the
state of facts, the reason or ground of such a course in the writer of the book,
becomes quite apparent. It is the people of God, the Hebrew nation, which
is everywhere the highest and ultimate object of the writer. Those dynas
ties only which have, or will have, a special concern with the Hebrews, are
touched upon ; and these are brought successively into view, down to the
time when deliverance from disasters, little short of those occasioned by the
Babylonish exile, shall have been completed. Subsequent and temporary
invasions of Palestine, which wrought no essential and permanent change
in the state or affairs of the Jews, are not in any degree noticed, The
writer's plan or design evidently does not, in any degree, resemble a regu
lar chronological history, or annals that both preserve the order of time and
record all particular events which are worthy of notice. Daniel gives mere
outlines, rapid, striking, brief, generic. It is evident that his design is mainly
a religious one. The people of God ; the foreign sway to which they are,
and are to be, subjected ; the period in which a second Nebuchadnezzar
shall lay waste Jerusalem and profane the sanctuary ; the leading trials
through which the Hebrews must pass before the Messianic period conir
mences — these are the topics concerned with the prophetic part of the book
of Daniel. Above all, the second great catastrophe to the Jewish nation,,
under Antiochus Epiphanes, which in some respects was more grievous.
than that of the Babylonish exile, is that which is most particularly and
graphically set forth ; and with this the writer concludes his development of
Jewish history, excepting that the introduction of the subsequent Messianic
period is here and there set forth, and placed in a very striking light. In a
word, ch. vii — xii. might be justly characterized by giving them the title :
Sketches op the leading events preparatory to the Messia
nic period. The nucleus lies in Nebuchadnezzar's dream (ch. ii.) ; the
development in ch. vii — xii. Great errors in the exegesis of this book may

Introduction to Chap. VII. 175
be committed, by either ascribing too much to its design, (which is the com
mon error), or else too little.
(2) The reader must not look here for the common traits of regular an
nals, which are found in a book merely historical. Here (in vii. — xi.) all
is prophetical. It has the costume of prophecy, and is replete with figura
tive language and with symbol. It gives leading characteristics of an em
pire by a single sentence, without minute specification ; sets up no chrono
logical boundaries to the respective kingdoms ; presents simply changes and
transitions of empire without any detail of the means by which they are
brought about ; and introduces those empires, and only those, which are
concerned with the Jewish people. As a whole, these productions are
merely generic and prophetic pictures of the mutable and perishable em
pires that have concern with the Hebrews, until the Messianic period, so
as materially to affect them for good or for ill. The Persian dominion
affects them mostly for good, (see Ezra and Nehemiah) ; that of Alexander1
indeed scarcely touches them, but it prepares the way for an empire (the
Syrian), which most of all persecuted and injured them. The prophetic
part of Daniel, I readily concede, is not regular Hebrew poetry as to its
form ; but it is poetic in its spirit and imagery, like Ezekiel, and Zechariah,
and the Apocalypse, and demands the application of poetical exegesis in
order to interpret it. A part of the 11th chapter is the only exception to
be made to these remarks ; where the representation is so historically
graphic, that Porphyry and others, specially many of the recent critics, have
even brought against it the charge of being written post eventum. The
particularity of the description here fully shows, how prominent in the wri
ter's mind were the cruelty and persecutions of the njas , i. e. Antiochus
Epiphanes. (3) The reader, who wishes to discover with certainty the real empires
that are the subject of prediction in the book before us, should carefully
investigate the particular period, when they will individually and severally
have all passed away. The Messiah's empire, as is clearly and repeatedly
asserted, is to be built on their ruins. It succeeds them all, in order of time
and of events. So chap. ii. vii. xii. plainly represent the matter. And if
so, this will be one decisive test, as to the empires brought into view by the
prophet. That they are Asiatic empires, although some of them are swayed
by men of Grecian origin, seems to lie upon the face of the bonk, and ac
cords with the nature of the case. In the time of Daniel, Rome was a
petty State of Italy, and was scarcely known, still less feared, in Palestine
or in Babylon. It is not the manner of the Hebrew prophets, to concern
themselves with the history of nations or empires sustaining no relation to
the Hebrews. It is true, indeed, that some sixty years before the birth of
Christ, Palestine was overrun by Pompey ; and in the sequel it was made
an allied province. But it was not until after the Christian era had begun,
that it was deprived of its kings, and subjected to a Romish governor. Nor
did the Romans undertake to crush it, until about A. D. 67. The book of
Daniel " prepares the way of the Lord." The coming of the Messiah is its
main design ; and the state and circumstances of the Jews, until that pe
riod, are passed in brief and rapid review.
With the considerations in view that have now been suggested, we may
next proceed with the development of the four great empires.

176

Introduction to Chap. VII.

VII. 4, " The first was like a lion, and
it had the wings of an eagle ; I looked
attentively until its wings were plucked,
and it was lifted up from the earth, and
stood upon its feet as a man, and the heart
of a man was given to it."

The First is thus described :
I. 37, " Thou, 0 king, art king of kings,
to whom the God of heaven hath given
dominion, strength, and power and glory ;
(38) And wherever dwell the sons of men,
the beast of the field, or the fowl of the
air, into thy hand hath he given [them],
and made thee ruler over all ; thou art that
head of gold."
That the four empires in chap. vii. are the same as in chap, ii., has
scarcely been denied by any. The last clause in 2: 38 makes it certain
that Babylon with its head is the metropolis of the first empire. The past,
i. e. the time of Hebrew subjection to the Assyrian empire, is entirely
omitted. Prophecy occupies itself with the present and the future. Daniel
therefore begins with Babylon. It is not so much the person of Nebuchad-
•nezzar, as his dynasty — his empire — with which 2: 37, 38, are concerned.
The head of gold refers to the colossal image described in 2: 31, 32. The
splendor of the Babylonish monarchy is plainly indicated by the gold ; for
Babylon exceeded all other ancient cities in its wealth and splendor. It is
put at the head of the four monarchies principally because it begins the
prophetic series, and not in order to denote its superiority over them as to
extent or power. In 7: 4, the imagery is quite diverse, and the lion, the
leader or chief among the beasts, is the symbol. Great power and ma
jesty are doubtless indicated by this, as well as destructive conquests by
means of which they are obtained. The wings of an eagle indicate velocity
and strength ; which were peculiarly characteristic of Nebuchadnezzar's
movements and conquests. The plucking of the wings, the assumption of
the upright position of a man, and the acquiring of the heart of a man, are
all indications of the humbling of the Babylonish pride and power, and of
reducing her rulers to moderation and reason in their measures. The lan
guage employed to indicate this, seems plainly borrowed from the humbling
process through which the haughty Nebuchadnezzar passed, during his
mania, until he was restored to reason and humanity. In other words, the
empire is portrayed in colors borrowed from the individual who mainly
established it.
This is all .we have in the prophetic part of Daniel concerning the first
empire. Chap. viii. xi. entirely omit this empire, while they enlarge much
upon the third and fourth. About this first empire, however, there is no
controversy, or none worth notice.
The second Empire. Different is the case in respect to this. Some
regard it as the Median empire ; some as the Medo-Persian, and others as
that of Nebuchadnezzar's successors in Babylon. If the reader will have
patience, he may, as I think, be satisfied in respect to this matter. In
chap. ii. vii. the description is quite brief.
II. 39, " And after thee shall arise an- VII. 5, " And behold another beast,
other kingdom inferior to thee." like to a bear, and it stood up on one side,
and three ribs were between its teeth, and
to it they said thus : Arise, devour much
flesh."

Chap. ii. gives no other clue to the meaning than that of mere succession.

Introduction to Chap. VII. 177
At first view, it seems as if it were intended to designate the Babylonish
successors to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar ; for the language is : after
thee. But then comes the expression : another kingdom (not king), by
which of course must be meant a different empire from the Babylonish;
and the whole taken together shows, that Nebuchadnezzar is only consid
ered and spoken of as the representative of the Babylonish empire. Hence
inferior to thee, must mean, inferior to thee as to dominion. If now we fix
upon mere extent of territory as the point of comparison, whether we take
into view the Median or Medo-Persian empire, it would be difficult to make
out the correctness of the description. We must conclude, therefore, that
the inferiority in question has respect to energy and executive efficiency, in
bearing down all opposition and crushing all who resist. And in regard to
this, we can easily credit the assertion of the text. Nebuchadnezzar over
ran all hither Asia and Egypt between 607 and 604 B. C, while Cyrus
and Cyaxares were more than ten years in subduing Croesus and his allies.
Cyrus was indeed a brave and skilful warrior ; but resistless impetuosity
and energy, like those of the Babylonian conqueror, could not well be
ascribed to him. As to his successors, it is true that Darius Hystaspis en
larged the boundaries of the empire in Thrace and India ; but he lost
ground in Greece and Scythia ; and Xerxes was wholly defeated by only
a part of the little States of Greece. Thenceforth the Persian empire was
on the decline. The inferiority in question seems then to have a special
relation to energy and efficiency.
As to the symbol in 7: 5, the bear is a fierce and rabid animal, and may
well symbolize rapacity for dominion and conquest, such as characterized
Cyrus and his next three followers. The devouring of much flesh refers to
the great destruction of life occasioned by frequent invasions and conquests.
The three ribs in the mouth seem to be indicative of a rapacity to devour ;
and the particular ground of the number three here, (unless indeed it be
used in a tropical way), seems to be the three divisions of the empire made
by Darius the Mede, after the conquest of Babylon, 6: 3 (2). These the
bear has within his grasp, and they are of course at his disposal. The call
to devour more, seems to allude to the subsequent extensive conquests of
Cyrus. — As to the position of the bear, kneeling with one foot and stand
ing up with the other, it graphically denotes that the beast is on the alert,
ready to observe and speedily to spring upon its prey. What illustrates
and confirms this heretofore dark passage is, that on the ruins ¦ of Persian
monuments a symbolic animal is found sculptured in this very position ;
thus showing that it was in all probability one of the symbols on the insignia
of the Median and Persian dominion ; see Miinter, Relig. der Bab. p. 112.
and Tab. iii. ; . also Fundgruben des Orients, III. Tab. 2, fig. 3, and specially
Layard's Ruins of Nineveh. Indeed, a little consideration of this matter
will serve to show, that there is much significancy in the symbol. The po
sition of the animal indicates watchfulness and a degree of repose com
bined. By it the Persian monarch could signify, that while his enemies
were not deemed important or powerful enough to call forth all his ener
gies and keep him in a state of excitement, yet they might be assured that
he was not unobservant of them, or unprepared for them.
But thus far we have obtained nothing which determines with any cer-

178

Introduction to Chap. VLT.

tainty, whether the Median or the Medo-Persian dynasty is intended.
remains, therefore, to compare other passages in chap. viii. xi.

It

VIII. 3, " Behold ! a ram standing be
fore the river, and it had two horns ; and
the horns were high, but the one was
higher than the other, and the higher one
sprang up after [the other]. (4) I saw the
ram pushing westward, and northward,
and southward, and none of the beasts
could stand before him. nor could any one
deliver out of his hand ; and he did as he
pleased, and waxed great. ( 5 ) And while
I was considering, behold, a he-goat came
from the west, on the face of all the earth,
and he touched not the ground ; and the
he-goat had a notable horn between his
eyes. ( 6 ) And he came to the ram which
had the two horns, which I had seen stand
ing before the river, and ran to him in his
strong indignation. (7) And I saw him
approaching near the ram, and he became
enraged at him, and he smote the ram,
and brake his two horns ; nor was there
strength in the ram to stand before him,
but he cast him down to the earth, and
trod upon him ; nor was there any to de
liver the ram out of his hands."

[Explanation by the angel interpreter.]
VIII. 20, " The ram which thou sawest,
having two horns, is the kings of Media
and Persia. (21) And the he-goat is the
king of Greece; and the great horn be
tween his eyes is the first king."

[Further development in chapter xi.]
XI. 2, "And now will I show thee the
truth : Behold, there are yet three kings c ;'
Persia who will stand up ; and the fourtfc
will acquire great riches, and when he be
comes powerful by his wealth, he will stir
up all the dominion of Greece, (3) And
a mighty king shall stand up, and he shall
rule an extensive dominion, and do ac
cording to his pleasure. (4) And when
he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be
broken in pieces, and it shall be separated
to the four winds of heaven."

It is not within my present design to descend to minuteness in the ex
planation of words and phrases ; for this belongs to the commentary. I
shall confine myself to general and obvious remarks. (1) The composite
nature of the dominion of the ram is evident, for it lies upon the very face
of the symbol. Two horns are given him ; and the one of these which was
highest, grew up last; i. e. the Persian domination, which became alto
gether predominant under Cyrus, followed that of the Medes, which had
then lasted some 200 or more years, Persia being at that time only a pro
vince. The rapid march of Alexander, and his resistless impetuosity and
fierceness, are most graphically and undeniably set forth in 8: 4 — 7. (2) If
any doubt could remain, it is removed entirely by vs. 20, 21. (3) More
firmly still is it established, that the Persian or Medo-Persian dominion next
precedes Alexander's empire, by 1 1: 2—4. In this last case, a historical no
tice, connected with the rise of Alexander's invasion, is inserted. Xerxes,
the fourth from Cyrus, (the prophecy is dated in the third year of Cyrus'
reign, 10: 1, and the three kings, therefore, yet to rise up, must be Cam
byses, Smerdis, and Darius), rouses up all Greece i by his invasion. The
spirit thus excited never slept, but afterwards broke out in the invasion of
the Persian dominion by Alexander. In 11: 2 the kings are naturally
named kings of Persia, because the writer designed, in the case before him,
to name only the predominating part of the kings of the second empire, and
because the later horn is the higher one. But in 8: 20, the same kings,
whose dynasty is overthrown by the king of Greece, are named kings of
Media and Persia. All this is plain, when we follow Xenophon and the
Bible. The troops who took Babylon were Medes and Persians. They
were led by Cyrus, while Cyaxares or Darius the Mede retained the nomi-

Introduction to Chap. VII.

179

nai and theoretical sovereignty of the new empire. In the person of Cyrus
both governments and both nations found their king. Hence the expres
sion : laws of the Persians and Medes, in the book of Esther, during the
reign of the fourth king, mentioned in Dan. 11:2. From the nature of the
case, it is evident, that Media and Persia may be combined, and spoken of
as one kingdom ; as they clearly are in 8: 20. 5: 28. 6: 9, 13, 16, (Eno\ 8,
12, 15). And this, as appears from the books of Daniel and Esther, was
the common usage at court. For particular purposes, however, it is equally
plain, that Darius the Mede (6: 1, Eng. 5: 31), and -Cyrus the Persian (6:
29, Eng. 28), might be spoken of, when reference was had to the sources
whence they respectively sprung. Moreover, since the later horn was
higher than the other (Dan. 8: 3), the king of Persia was also a common
appellation among the Hebrews who returned from exile. So in 2 Chron.
86: 22, 23. Ezra 1: 1, 2, 8. 3: 7. 4: 3, 5 al. ; and so, Darius, king of Persia,
Ezra 4: 5, and Artaxerxes, 4: 7. In Ezra 5: 13, Cyrus, king of Babylon.
It would seem, then, from a comparison of all these passages, that no rea
sonable doubt can remain, that the second dominion, (the silver breast and
arms of the colossal statue in chap, ii.), is the Medo-Persian. The insignifi
cancy of Darius the Mede ; the fact that he in person took no active part
in the conquest of Babylon, and reigned there only some two years, all
conspired to throw Cyrus into prominent notice, and to make him the
principal subject of remark, whenever the change of dominion is spoken of.
Still more certain will this become, provided it can be shown, that Alexan
der's dominion is the third in the series of the four monarchies ; for the
third of course succeeds the second ; and if the third destroyed the second,
and Alexander is the representative of the third, and it was he who de
stroyed not the Median, but the Medo-Persian empire, then our conclusion
seems inevitable. Our next inquiry then will be directed to the
Third dominion. This is exhibited in chap. ii. vii. as follows :
VII. 6, '-And after this I looked stead
fastly, and behold another [beast] like to
a panther, and it had four wings of a bird
on its back, and there were four heads to
the beast, and dominion was given to it."
In 2: 39, the wide extent of dominion is the only thing which is designated.
Nothing more is to be deduced from the brass, than that it differs as to ma
terial from the symbols of the two preceding kingdoms, in order to show
that it is symbolic of a kingdom diverse from them. As to 7: 6, a panther
stands next to the lion in agility and strength, has even more swiftness, and
is not less fierce or blood-thirsty. If the wings on the lion (7: 4) indicate
velocity of movement, as they plainly appear to do, then two pair of win^s
on the panther indicate an intense degree of velocity. This and nothing
more seems to be the import of double pairs of wings. How characteristic
this is of Alexander the Great, during his conquests, needs not to be shown.
The four heads, however, present a symbol of more difficulty. We cannot
resort to Apoc. 17: 3, 9, 10, for explanation; for there the seven heads are
symbols of Roma septicollis, and also of its first seven emperors. Alexan
der had no proper successors (Dan. 11: 4), and he was himself, strictly

II. 39, " And another kingdom of brass
[shall arise], which shall rule over all the
earth."

180 Introduction to Chap VII.
speaking, the beginning and end of his empire ; so that the four heads of
the panther cannot denote four successive kings' of the third dynasty. Many
refer these heads to the four monarchies which eventually sprang up among
the successors of Alexander. But if the third dynasty ceased with Alex
ander, such an application would be quite incongruous. The third beast
must symbolize the third empire, and not the fourth. The sequel moreover
will show, that the dynasty of Alexander is plainly separated from that of his
generals. If we resort once more to the Apocalypse, (which is intimately
connected by its style and symbolic imagery with the books of Daniel), we
shall there find a case of a like nature, which cannot be applied to any
succession of kings. In Rev. 12: 3, the great dragon (who is the devil, v.
9), is said to have seven heads, and seven crowns, with ten horns. Plain
it must be, in this case, that the heads and crowns and horns, (the numbers
seven and ten being taken in their tropical sense), denote great power and
dominion. Accordingly Jesus himself calls Satan the prince of this world
(John 12: 31. 14: 30) ; and so does Paul speak in Eph. 6: 11, 12; he also
names Satan the god of this world, in 2 Cor. 4: 4. The four heads, there
fore, must be regarded as designating dominion in the four quarters of the
world ; just as, when the third dynasty is broken, it is said to be " scattered
to the four winds of heaven," 11:4. I speak of the four quarters of the
world, on the assumption that the number four, applied to heads in our
text, is intended to have a special significancy. But I doubt, in reality,
whether anything more than mere intensity of meaning was designed by
the writer. As four wings are indications of great rapidity, so four heads
seem to be the corresponding indications of great or extensive power. But
it may mean somewhat more ; and if so, it must indicate, so far as I can
see, dominion in all quarters ; for among the Hebrews, the four cardinal
points are all that have a name, and they embrace all the rest. What ob
jection can well be made to this view, when 2: 38 represents Nebuchad
nezzar, or the first dynasty, by the symbol of the head of the colossal image ?
As in the Apocalypse seven is a predominating number, so in Daniel four
Seems to be employed in a like manner. Thus there are four dynasties ;
a fourth king of Persia invades Greece, 11: 2; the panther has four wings,
and the like. Each book, as to the use of numbers in a tropical way, con
forms to its own particular custom.
But we have not done with this matter. We have yet to compare chap.
viii. xi., in order to complete our view. In both these cases, the dynasty
of Babylon is omitted, and the writer begins with the Medo-Persian ; see
8: 3 — 7. 11:2. Of course the dynasty which is third here next follows the
Medo-Persian ; and this next following one is that of Alexander. This is
thus represented :
VIII. 5, "Lo! a he-goat came from | XI. 3, "And there shall stand up a
the West, on the face of all the earth, and mighty king, and he shall bear rule over

he touched not the ground ; and the he
goat had a notable horn between his eyes.
(6) And he came to the ram which had
the two horns, which I had seen standing
before the river, and ran to him in his
strong indignation. (7) And I saw him

a great dominion, and he will do accord
ing to his pleasure. (4) And when he
shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken
in pieces, and it shall be divided toward
the four winds of heaven ; but not to his
posterity, nor according to the dominion

Introduction to Chap. VII.

181

approaching near the ram, and he became of his rule, but his kingdom shall be
enraged against him, and he smote the plucked up, and given to others besides
ram, and broke his two horns, and there these."
was no strength in the ram to stand be
fore him ; but he cast him down to the
earth and trode upon him, nor was there
any one to deliver the ram out of his hand.
(8) And the he-goat waxed exceedingly
great; and when he became strong, the
great horn was broken in pieces, and there
came up to view four horns in its room,
toward the four winds of heaven."
The coming from the West, the rapidity of the movement, and the nota
ble horn, are all characteristic of Alexander. Moreover we are not left
here to any doubt. The angel-interpreter leads the way :
VIII. 20, "The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media
and Persia. (21) And the he-goat is the king of Greece: and the great horn be
tween his eyes is the first king. (22) Now as to that which was broken, and four
stood up in its room — four kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation, but not in
his power."
In 8: 8 above, the third empire is represented as broken to pieces when
at the height of its power. Such was notoriously the case with Alexander's
dominion. His death caused the empire to fall in pieces. In vain was his
son nominated as successor. The aspiring chiefs of the conquering army
sought for kingly power, rather than to be provincial governors or satraps.
But it is in 8: 22, 23, and in 11: 4, that we learn the relation of the suc
ceeding kingdom to this. In 8: 22, the third dynasty is represented as
broken to pieces; and in 11: 4, as scattered to the four winds of heaven.
Chap. 8: 8 says of the new kings that arise, that they are toward the four winds
of heaven ; and in 8: 22, they are declared to be of Grecian origin. In 8:
22, these kings are said not to possess his (Alexander's) power; and 11: 4
asserts, ' that his kingdom shall not be given to his posterity, and that the
fourth dominion shall not be like the other.' Again, it confirms all this by
a reassertion : " His kingdom shall be plucked up, and given to others be
sides these," viz. to others different from his posterity. How language can
more strongly declare, that Alexander's dominion differs from that which
follows, and that it ends with his destruction, I do not see. The fact that
Antiochus Epiphanes springs from the dynasty that next follows (7: 8. 8:
8 — 12, 22 — 25. 11: 4, 21 seq.); that this dynasty is so complex that no
specific beast is named which can symbolize it (7: 7, 19) ; and that it arises
out of the ruins of Alexander's dynasty (8: 8, 9, 22) ; seem to settle the
question where the fourth dynasty is to be sought for. We shall see how
all this is confirmed by a view of the
Fourth dynasty. The materials for comparison are somewhat copi
ous ; but the matter is too important to omit anything that may cast light
upon it.

II. 40, " And a fourth dominion shall
be strong as iron, altogether as iron that
crushes and grinds to pieces everything
— even as iron that dashes to pieces, all
these will it crush and dash to pieces.

VII. 7, "Behold! a fourth beast, terri
ble and mighty and very powerful, it had
large teeth of iron,it devoured and crushed,
and trampled the remnant under foot;
and it differed from all the other beasts

16

182

Introduction to Chap. VH.

that were before it, and it had ten horns.
(8) I considered attentively those horns,
and lo ! another little horn rose up among
them, and three of the former horns did it
root out from before it; and behold! there
were eves like the eyes of a man in that
horn, and a mouth speaking great things.
(9) I continued looking, until the tribu
nals were set, and the Ancient of Days
was seated. ..(11) I continued looking,
on account of the voice of the great words
which the horn uttered, I looked until the
beast was slain, and its body destroyed,
and it was given to the flaming fire."

(41 ) And since thou sawest the feet and
toes, a part of them the clay of the potter,
and a part of them iron, the dominion
shall be divided, and there shall be of the
firmness of iron in it, inasmuch as thou
sawest iron mingled with the whitish clay.
(42) And since the toes of the feet were
partly of iron and partly of clay, in part
the dominion shall be strong, and in part
it shall be brittle. (43 ) Since thou sawest
the iron mingled with the whitish clay,
they shall intermingle the seed of men,
but they shall not cleave together, this
with that, see ! even as iron cannot min
gle with clay."
In connection with the passage from 7: 7 — 11, is an account of the per
plexity of spirit into which Daniel was thrown, by the vision there related,
and of his application to the angel-interpreter in order that he might ex
plain to him the vision of the fourth beast ; for this seems specially to have
troubled his mind, and filled him with apprehension. Then follows the
angel's answer :
VII. 23, " Thus, he said, shall be the fourth beast ; a fourth kingdom shall arise
in the land, which shall differ from all other kingdoms, and shall consume the whole
land, and beat it, and crush it in pieces. (24) And as to the ten horns of that do
minion, ten kings shall arise, and another shall arise after them, and he shall be dif
ferent from the former, and three kings shall he humble. (25) And words against
the most High shall he titter, and he shall destroy the saints of the most High, and he
shall think to change times and law ; and they shall be given into his hand, for a
time and times and a division of time. (26) And the tribunal shall be seated, and
his power shall be taken away, even to lay waste and destroy [it] unto the end."
To this, as in chap, ii., succeeds the fifth or Messianic kingdom. Omitting
this for the present, let us now recapitulate the main points in these re
presentations of the fourth dynasty. In 2: 40— 42, we have three leading ideas;
(1) The oppressive and crushing power of the dynasty. (2) An incongruous
mixture of the various sovereignties which constitute, collectively consider
ed, the fourth dynasty. That on which it stands (the feet and toes, v. 41), in
other words, its basis, consists of materials that will not combine. (3) The vain
attempts by intermarriage-alliances, to cement any permanent union. The spe
cial significancy of this is not developed, until we come to the eleventh chapter.
In 7: 7 — 11, the symbol of the fourth dynasty is changed. A beast terrible
and powerful is the image. But this beast has no name like the three pre
ceding ones. The reason is obvious. This dynasty has not one monarch,
but many. These were so far from harmonizing together, that, like iron
and clay, they could not possibly be combined in a symmetrical whole. Of
course, only some monster beast, of which the natural world furnished no ex
ample, must be supposed in this case — a beast possessing parts or quali
ties at variance with each other. Ten horns are given to it, and these, are
symbols of ten kings. (The monuments in Middle Asia now present an
abundance of the like monsters, quite significant in their way, but having no
prototypes in nature). After these springs up a little horn, which roots
out three of the others. Sagacity of management and blasphemous inso
lence are ascribed to it. After being tolerated for a while, divine justice
and indignation destroy it. In the explanation (7: 23 — 26), the same

Introduction to Chap. VII. 183
ideas are for substance repeated, and some particulars are added, in order
to enlarge and illustrate. It speaks also in still stronger language of the
destructive power of this monster. The ten horns, the subsequent appear
ance of the eleventh, and the subjugation of three out of the ten, are nearly
the same in both passages ; while the boasting and blasphemous character
of the new king is portrayed in a stronger light in vs. 23 — 26. He not
merely speaks great things, but he utters them against the most High.
Here too comes in a further elucidation of his destructive power, when we
are told against whom it is to be exercised, viz. he will destroy the saints
of the most High. In connection with this, also, another addition is made
to the original picture : " He shall think to change times and law ; and
they shall be given into his hand, for a time, and times, and a division of
time," i. e. for three years and a half. All this, it must be admitted, is a
striking and faithful portrait of Antiochus Epiphanes, too striking to ad
mit of any doubt. Finally, as in 7: 7 — 11, it is declared that he shall be
destroyed by divine justice and indignation. The tribunal before which
the tyrant is summoned, condemns him to utter excision ; and the sentence
is carried into execution.
With this ends the sketch of the fourth dynasty, in this vision. The
Messianic reign then follows. With regard to this, both the vision in chap.
ii. and the one in chap. vii. agree ; and with both these agrees the expla
nation by the angel ; 7: 23 — 26.
We must not fail to mark here the gradation of the prophetic develop
ment. In 2: 40 — 42, the fourth dynasty is rapidly and gcnerically sketched
by mere general outlines, which are, however, of a diagnostic nature. The
turbulence of this fourth dominion, the irreconcilable feuds of its leading
chiefs, and a declaration of their vain efforts to bring about peaceahle
alliances by intermarriages, are the distinctive marks of it. But there is a
specialty in what is said of the iron, which " grinds and crushes in pieces"
all which it assails. Surely the writer does not mean, that this fourth do
minion, comparatively considered, so far exceeds in its destructive power
all which had preceded it, that the ravages in general committed by them
may be passed over in silence, when brought into comparison with those of
the fourth dynasty. Facts speak against such an assumption. Of the
ravages and slaughter perpetrated by Nebuchadnezzar, we have indeed no
minute historical account. But they must have been very great, consider
ing the extent of country which he overran. Those committed by Cyrus
and his successors, no doubt, far exceeded his, as they were more often
repeated and of longer duration. As to Alexander, we know well the de
vastation and ruin, that attended his long continued, rapid, and victorious
aggressions. But of all these, neither chap. ii. nor vii. make any special
mention. Why ? Because they do not respect the people of God, on whom
the prophet ever has his eye. What they suffered under the Babylonish
domain, had in great part already passed. They appear to have lived at
Babylon, without any special molestation or persecution, other than what
naturally befel all exiles. Under the Persian monarchy, with some little
annoyance by Cambyses or Smerdis, they were the subjects of remarkable
favor throughout. Alexander, on his march to the East, paid them a visit ;
but he did them no harm. At first, and for sometime, they experienced
no very hostile treatment from the chiefs of the fourth dynasty, i. e. from

184

Introduction to Chap. VII.

those two chiefs, which, being almost perpetually at variance with each
other, lived on the north and south of Palestine. But this country was un
fortunately the arena of contest between them, and the Jews experienced
of course a great variety of trials, in their efforts to keep a neutral position.
As these efforts were not always successful, the aggrieved party would
make incursions upon Judea. Finally that reckless tyrant, Antiochus
'Emqiavrjg, (whom his subjects very significantly named, Bmpavijg, i. e. the
mad-man), invaded them with the spirit of rankling vengeance and of
blasphemy, and he maltreated and destroyed them not only beyond all for
mer example, but even beyond any example, until the final destruction of
the Hebrew Commonwealth. Here then is the plain and palpable reason,
why the fourth dynasty (which includes Antiochus) is described as being
powerfully destructive, in a manner not asserted of any of the preceding
dynasties. This view makes it quite obvious, that the description of the
destructive power of the fourth dynasty is not to be regarded as absolute,
nor as designed to be compared with the other dynasties, but only as having
a relation to the people of God, and to the country where they dwelt. The
Roman power did not, until long after the time of Antiochus, attain to an
amplitude of dominion that could be compared with that of either of the
four dynasties. Much less did it occasion the Jews any very serious trou
ble, until the time of Vespasian, some thirty years after the Messianic reign
had begun its development.
The representation now made in general of the subject before us, I can
not help regarding as fundamentally authorized by the whole tenor of the
book of Daniel. General history it clearly is not ; the particular history of
either of the dynasties it as clearly is not, with the single exception, that
the fourth dynasty, one half of whose chiefs lived in the neighborhood of
Palestine, and which alone gave the Jews (after the time when the book of
Daniel has been usually supposed to be written) comparatively all their
trouble, is in part brought upon the scene, and identified by quite a series
of historical particulars, in chap, xi., such as appear nowhere else on the
pages of prophetic writing. It is scarcely possible to mistake the little
horn of 7: 8, 24. The context is so entirely decisive with regard to the
Syrian tyrant and blasphemer, that there seems to be no room for critical
doubt. But we have not completed our view. Daniel resumes the subject again
in chap, viii., and chap. xi. We must follow his steps, and see what addi
tional evidence can be brought to light.

VIII. 8, "And the he-goat [Alexan
der] waxed exceedingly great; and when
he was strong the great horn was broken,
and there came up the appearance of four
horns in its place, toward the four winds
of heaven. (9) And from one of them
came forth a little horn, and it waxed very
large toward thesouth, and toward the east,
and toward the goodly land. (10) And it
waxed great even to the host of heaven,
and it cast down to the earth some of the
host and some of the stars, and trod upon
them. ( 1 1 ) And even to the Prince of the
host did it magnify itself, and from him

[Explanation by the angel-interpreter].
VIII. 20, " And the ram which thou saw
est with two horns, are the kings of Me
dia and Persia. (21 ) And the he-goat is
the king of Grecia, and the great horn be
tween his eyes is its chief king. (22) And
as to its being broken, and four standing
up in the place of it — there shall stand
up four kingdoms from the nation, but
not in his strength. (23) And in the lat
ter part of their reign, when transgressors
are come to the full, a king of cruel aspect
shall stand up, and one who understands
dark things. (24) And his power shall

Introduction to Chap. VTI.

185

did it take away the daily sacrifice, and
the dwelling of his sanctuary was cast
down. (12) And a host was set over the
daily sacrifice by impiety, and it cast
down truth upon the earth, and did [its
will] and prospered."

be strong, yet not by his own strength ;
and he shall destroy wonderfully, and
prosper, and do [his will] ; and he shall
destroy the mighty, even the holy people.
(25) And on account of his cunning he
will make deceit to prosper in his hand,
and in his heart will he wax great, and in
a time of quiet he will destroy many, and
against the Prince of princes will he stand
up; but — he shall be broken without a
[human] hand."
Such is the additional description of the fourth dynasty, in chap. viii.
Several particulars here added, deserve a special notice. In 8: 8 — 12, we
have, (l) The scattered condition of the fourth dynasty ; " toward the four
winds of heaven is it separated." (2) The little horn that rises up after
wards, becomes very great in the south (Egypt), in the east (on and be
yond the Euphrates), and in the goodly land (of Palestine). (3) It mag
nified itself in an impious manner, invaded the temple-services, and the
priests ministering there, and some of this host of God it cast down, even
the stars (comp. Rev. 1: 20. 2: 28), and trode upon them. It assailed the
Prince of the host himself, and took away the daily offering made to him,
and profaned his sanctuary. (4) It offered up impious sacrifices in the
room of the lawful ones, and set over them a heathen priesthood. (5) It
opposed and rendered inefficient the truth of God's word, and for sometime
had undisputed control and prospered. Some of these particulars are in
deed adverted to in chap. 7: 23 — 25 ; but they are more expanded here,
and new ones are added. These are all graphically characteristic of Anti
ochus. In 8: 20 — 25, (the words of the angel-interpreter), the time in which
Antiochus shall make his appearance is designated, viz. the latter part of
the dominion of the% horns, that sprang up after the great horn (Alexander)
was broken, v. 23. The cunning and sagacity of Antiochus, in perpetrat
ing the work of destruction, are more fully developed than before, and
specially his massacre of the quiet and unoffending. Finally, the divine
judgment which destroys him is rendered more conspicuous and prominent.
At the close, Daniel is told to seal up his account of the vision, because it
has respect to a future that comes not until after many days, v. 26. The
time of this vision was the third year of Belshazzar, v. 1 ; and thus it was
near to the period, when the Persian dominion (that of the ram) would
commence. In the third year of Cyrus, the fourth and last vision respecting the em
pires was disclosed, 10: 1. The first part of it takes a brief and rapid sur
vey of the two empires which precede the fourth, viz. the Persian and
Alexandro-Grecian. It runs thus :
XI. 2, "Behold three kings of Persia are yet to stand up; and the fourth shall
obtain riches greater than all, and when he waxes strong by his riches, he will rouse
up all the dominion of Greece. (3) And a mighty king shall stand up, and he shall
rule with wide dominion, and do according to his pleasure. (4) And when he stand-
eth up, his kingdom shall be broken, and it shall be divided to the four winds of hea
ven, but not to his posterity nor according to the dominion with which he ruled, but
his kingdom shall be plucked up, and given to others besides these.
16*

186 Introduction to Chap. VII.
/ Here is a special limitation, in regard to Persia, of a time when it shall
make war with Greece, viz. in the time of the fourth king after Cyrus.
From this the prophet passes, (without stopping to describe the issue of the
Persian invasion, except that it will rouse up all Greece), to the third do
minion under Alexander, which in fact took its rise from the union of
Greece under him, in order to avenge the Persian aggression. He makes
no special note of time, i. e. as to the distance of it from the fourth king of
Persia, but indicates it merely by the sequency of the events under the
" mighty king." Finally, the ruin of this king's dominion ; its being scat
tered to the four winds ; the rejection of his posterity from all regal claims ;
the absolute plucking up of Alexander's government, and the giving of it
to other persons than his children ; and the comparative inferiority of the
subsequent dynasty ; are all set forth in terms as strong as language can
well employ.
Thus far respecting the second and third dynasty in chap. xi. The rest
of a long chapter is occupied entirely with a historic sketch, as it were, of
those chiefs of the fourth dynasty, who came in particular contact with
Palestine, for good or for evil, but mostly it notices such events as charac
terize the reign of particular princes, who most concerned themselves with
the country of the Hebrews for selfish or sinister purposes. The historic
sketch begins with Ptolemy Lagus, " the king of the south," v. 5. It pro
ceeds with sketching a succession of events under the kings of the south
and the north (Egypt and Syria). In vs. 13 — 19 Antiochus the Great of
Syria is introduced; in v. 20, Seleucus Philopater his son ; in vs. 21 — 45,
the history of Antiochus Epiphanes is sketched at a length, which, as has
already been said, has no parallel in the prophetic compositions of the
Scriptures. Indeed this history is so minute and circumstantial, that,
as has been noticed, ancient and modern doubters of the genuineness of
the book have accused it strongly of being written post eventum. This mat
ter seems to have suggested a hint to many recent interpreters, which they
have expanded into numerous objections against the older date commonly
asssigned to the book of Daniel, and arguments for its being composed in the
later time of the Maccabees, or at least near the period of Antiochus' death.
I shall not extract the whole of this ample account of Antiochus, as it is
unnecessary for my present purpose. I shall merely bring into comparison
those parts of it which serve to identify the individual here described,
about whom no one can doubt, with the one who is made the object of spe
cial reference and notice, in chapters vii. and viii.
We have already seen (p. 182 above), that in chap. ii. there is merely a
generic description of the fourth dynasty. But into this, as has already
been remarked, a singular circumstance is introduced, viz. " they shall in
termingle with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another,
even as iron mixes not with clay." In chap. xi. we are explicitly taught
what the meaning of this is. In v. 6, the marriage of Antiochus Theos
with Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus king of Egypt, is de
scribed ; a marriage of mere policy and kingly chicanery, which, as there
declared, turned out badly for those concerned in the matter. So in v. 17,
we have an account of Antiochus the Great, and of his giving his daughter
Cleopatra, to Ptolemy Epiphanes the young king of Egypt ; which was
done entirely for crafty purposes, in order that Antiochus, who was annoyed

Introduction to Chap. VH. 187
by the Romans, might break up the alliance between Rome and Egypt, by
winning the king of the latter country to his side. These circumstances not
only confirm the passage in 2: 43, but identify the dynasty in 11: 5 — 45, as
being the same with that described in t: 40 — 43.
In 1 1 : 21 comes in the nt33 , (nothing could more graphically characterize
him than this appellative), not as having any right to the kingdom of Syria,
but as obtaining it by his wily flatteries ; and in the like manner is he pre
sented to us, in 8: 23, 25. In 11: 22, not only many others, but even the
prince of the covenant (the high priest) is destroyed. With this must be
compared 7: 7, specially 7: 25 ; then 8: 10, 11, 24, 25. In 11: 30—33, is an
account of Antiochus as polluting the sanctuary at Jerusalem, and taking
away the daily sacrifices ; and this is to be compared with 7: 8, 25, and 8: 11,
12, 24, 25. In 11: 36, the impious and blasphemous conduct of Antiochus
is described, and also the successful prosecution of his profane designs for a
time ; and this is to be compared with 7: 8, 11, 25, and 8: 11, 12, 24, 25.
In 11: 45, the fearful doom of Antiochus is presented to our view ; and with
this must be compared 7: 11, 26. 8: 25. I am not able to see how a shadow
of doubt can remain, as to the identity of the same personage in these pas
sages. That personage, moreover, is clearly Antiochus Epiphanes.
I have refrained hitherto from introducing Dan. 9: 25 — 27, into the com
parison of similar passages respecting Antiochus Epiphanes, because that
portion of Scripture is very brief and compressed, and withal a very difficult
one, as the almost endless variety of criticisms upon it shows. But since my
own mind is now fully satisfied respecting the general meaning of the pas
sage, I deem it expedient here to introduce it, and I ask the reader to com
pare it carefully with the passages referred to in the preceding paragraph.
A literal translation runs thus :
Dan. ix. 25, " Mark well and understand ; from the going forth of a .command to
rebuild Jerusalem, unto an Anointed one, a Prince, shall be 7 weeks ; and 62 weeks
shall it be rebuilt, with broad spaces and narrow limits, and in troublous times.
(V. 26) And after 62 weeks, an Anointed One shall be cut off, and there shall be
none for it [the people], and the city and sanctuary shall the people of a prince that
will come destroy ; but his end shall be with an overwhelming flood, and unto the
end shall be war, a decreed measure of desolations. (V. 27) And he shall firmly
covenant with many for one week ; and during half of the week shall he cause the
sacrifice and oblation to cease ; and a waster shall be over a winged-fowl of abomi
nations ; but unto destruction, even that which is decreed, shall there be an outpour
ing upon him who is to be destroyed."
Here now are all the leading particulars of Antiochus' doings. Here is
his assault on Jerusalem and the temple ; his profanation of the sanctuary ;
his causing the oblation and sacrifices to cease for three and a half years ;
and finally his fearful end near the close of this period. Compare now
this passage with ch. 7: 8, 20, 25, 26. 8: 9—12, 23 — 25. 11: 21, 30 — 32, 36,
41 — 45. 12: 7. Nothing seems to be more plain, than that the same per
sonage is described in all. Specially does the particular notation of the
three and a half years during which Antiochus will cause the temple-service
to cease, and of the speedy and terrible death of the tyrant that will ensue,
definitively mark sameness of personage and description in all the passages
to which I have just referred. If the reader will carefully note these facts,
it will aid him much in deciding the question, whether the Roman power is

188 Introduction to Chap. VII.
at all concerned with any of these prophecies, excepting the mere casual
allusion to it in 11: 30, which speaks of "the ships of Chittim" as coming
to Egypt, and arresting the progress of Antiochus in that country ; and
also the implied interference of the Romans with Antiochus Magnus, as stated
in 11: 28. But of this, more in the sequel.
Having given such a detailed and comparative view of the different pro
phecies of Daniel respecting the fourth dynasty, it remains only to make a
few remarks of a more general bearing, which may help us to make out a
satisfactory general conclusion.
(l) It is evident from even a cursory reading of these predictions, that
the dynasties follow each other in succession, and occupy in the main the
same countries. One grows up when another becomes extinguished, or
(in other words) by destroying the former. Thus the Medo-Persian suc
ceeds the Babylonian ; and Alexander's dominion overthrows the Medo-
Persian, and stands up in its place. And in like manner, it is by the de
struction of Alexander's dominion, that the fourth dynasty comes into being.
In the last case, the separation between Alexander's dynasty and that which
follows, is as strongly marked as the separation of any of the three former
from each other ; see 7: 7, 23. 8: 8, 22, and particularly 11: 4, which seems
fairly to admit of no other explanation.
(2) To interpret the fourth beast (7: 7, 23), and the legs and feet of the
colossal image (2: 40 seq.), as symbolic of the Roman empire, seems to be
an exegetical impossibility. That the fourth beast was diverse from the
three others, is explicitly said in 7: 7, 23. The fact that jthe fourth beast
was a monster without a name, i. e. had no parallel in the animal world, in
dicates the mixed and incongruous condition of the fourth dynasty. The
symbol of it in 2: 40 seq. in the mixture of the iron and the clay, is an indica
tion of the same nature. Then it is explicitly declared in 8: 8, that the four
notable horns, which came up in the room of the great horn (Alexander),
symbolize the four kingdoms " towards the four winds of heaven," which
kingdoms sprang up as a succession of the third dynasty. In 8: 22 it is ex
plicitly stated, that these four horns denote four kingdoms, which stand up
out of the nation or people who governed the preceding dynasty, i. e. from
the Grecian nation. These four horns, denoting the partition of the fourth
dynasty, are quite different in their signification from the ten horns in 7: 7,
20, 24. In the latter case, a succession of kings is denoted in that branch
of the fourth dynasty, which " devours the whole land [of Judea], and
treads down, and breaks in pieces." In what sense, now, can the Roman
dominion be said to succeed that of Alexander ? Manyj'years after his death,
Rome was neither known nor feared in the East ; and certainly it had no
concern with breaking in pieces the Hebrew people. And if the difficulty
in respect to immediate succession could be disposed of, in what sense can it
be said, that the Roman dominion sprung from the nation that ruled the
third dynasty, 8: 22 ?
But besides this, the Roman empire, until some time after the fifth king
dom was introduced, never covered even any portion of the ground in
cluded in the domain of the three preceding dynasties. It lies on the face
of the whole representation, that the successive monarchies occupy in the
main the same countries, as I have already had occasion to state. But if
the Roman empire be the fourth, this point must be given up ; for Rome,

Introduction to Chap. VII. 189
at the height of her growth, never stretched beyond the Euphrates, so as to
have anything more than a merely temporary and military occupation of
some provinces ; and from these they were soon driven by the Parthians.
Much less was Rome concerned with crushing the Jews, at the early period
in question.
The immediate succession of the fourth empire which arose out of the ruins
of Alexander's ; the four great divisions of the fourth dynasty ; the ten
kings that sprang up in one of the four divisions ; and the different countries
occupied by the Romans ; are unequivocal and unanswerable arguments
against applying the fourth dynasty to Rome.
But there is another proof, if possible still more decisive. This is, that all
the prophecies of Daniel agree in asserting, that Antiochus Epiphanes, the
nt33, sprang from the bosom of the fourth dynasty. Thus in 7: 7, 8, from
among the ten horns of the fourth dynasty springs up the little horn, which
plucks up three of the others. This is reasserted in 7: 24. Again, in 8: 8, 9,
out of one of the four horns of the fourth dynasty, springs up the little horn,
which waxes great, and assails the temple and people of God. In 11: 21,
Antiochus is represented as the successor of Seleucus Philopator, and of
course as belonging to the Syrian part of the fourth dynasty. These facts
seem too plain to admit of any doubt. But if Antiochus springs from a por
tion of the fourth dynasty, (which is plain), then how could the fourth dy
nasty be Roman ? Antiochus was no Roman.
(3) Although the things already stated seem to decide the question
against Rome, beyond all reasonable doubt, yet there is another circum
stance, which is, if possible, still more decisive. This is, that the commence
ment of the fifth or Messianic kingdom takes place only when those four
dynasties are broken up and subverted. This is explicit in 2: 44, 45 ; in 7:
11 — 14, 26, 27 ; and it seems to be implied in 12: 1 — 3. " All those king
doms" (2: 44) are to be consumed, and broken in pieces," when the new
kingdom shall arise. " Their dominion is taken away" (7: 11, 12), before the
Son of Man enters upon his dominion, (7: 13, 14) ; and the same is said in
vs. 26, 27. This is a circumstance too decisive to admit of any appeal. Un
less then the Roman dynasty was destroyed before the coming of Christ,
the fourth dynasty was not Roman.
I can see no good reason here, to appeal to Antichrist, and to the Pope,
as being symbolized by the fourth beast. All the other beasts are symbols
of civil powers, of actual monarchical governments. It is out of question,
then, for us, with propriety to regard the fourth beast as a representative or
symbol of a mere religious apostasy from Christianity, and then make, as we
must, Antiochus to spring out of that. The diversity of the fourth beast,
(spoken of in 7: 7, 19, 24), is not of such a nature, but it consists in its pe
culiar character, in its destructive influence upon the Jewish nation, in its
unusual cruelties, and in its blasphemies. And since the little horn which
waxed great, the blasphemer, the profaner of the temple and the altar, the
persecutor of the holy people, must be destroyed before the Son of Man
commences his reign, it would seem to be clear, that neither Antichrist nor
the Pope is represented by the little horn. At all events, neither of those
last named springs from the succession of the ten Syrian kings ; and yet
Antiochus must and did proceed from them.
Let me not be understood as denying that the N. Test, writers have, in a

190 Introduction to Chap. VLT.
variety of cases, applied the language of Daniel (for substance) to the de
scription of persons, or things, or events, which belong to the Christian era.
When our Saviour (Matt. 24: 15. Mark 13: 14) describes the invading Ro
man power, by the use of language borrowed from Daniel's description of the
desolations occasioned by the abomination of desolation, (probably Dan. 9: 26,
27, possibly 11: 31. 12:11), it is plain that he compares the consequences of the
Roman invasion, with those which followed the invasion of Judea by Antiochus.
' ' I can hardly refrain from expressing my surprise, however, to find that
Hengstenberg and Havernick, who make the Roman power to be the fourth
dynasty, should appeal with such entire confidence to Matt. 21: 15. Mark 13:
14 (essentially one and the same), as proof that the destructive Roman
power was plainly predicted by Daniel. They argue the point with great
earnestness ; but so far as I can see, upon very insufficient and unsatisfac
tory grounds. Hengstenberg himself confesses (Authent. 265), that " ex
cepting Dan. 9: 25 — 27, no other part of the book does even apparently
relate to the destruction of the Jewish State by the Romans." But to for
tify his position, that Dan. 9: 25 — 27 applies to the Romans, he appeals to
Josephus, who (Antiq. X. 11. 7) says: "Daniel also wrote respecting the
government of the Romans, and that desolations should be made by them."
Josephus does indeed say this ; but he says it after fully detailing the pro
phecies of Daniel in ch. viii, specially that concerning " the little horn,"
which he alleges was fulfilled in Antiochus. Now that he believed Daniel
to have predicted, in his book, the invasion of Judea by the Romans, is
quite a possible thing ; perhaps a probable one ; but to my own mind, his
single short sentence respecting the Romans wears the aspect of some
thing complimentary to them, and apologetic for them. " What they had
done was a notable thing ; and as they had only fulfilled what had
long before been predicted, they could not therefore be blamed." Be
this however as it may, it depends merely on the exegesis of Jose
phus. Nor do we know that the Jews in general were of the same
opinion. But whether they were or not, does not settle the question be*
fore us% Hengstenberg, Havernick, and some others, insist that the Sa
viour's words in Matt. 24: 15, viz. " spoken of by Daniel the prophet," (in
Mark 13: 14 this clause is now rejected by recent criticism, and marked as
probably spurious by Hahn), necessarily imply an express and direct pre
diction, on the part of Daniel, of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Ro
mans. I cannot feel the force of this appeal ; at least I am by no means
persuaded that it is convincing. Many are the appeals in the N. Test, to
passages in i the Old, with an inXinQm&ri attached to them (which makes
them look like appeal to prophecy), that are not by any means to be placed
on the list of direct and proper predictions. For example ; the flight of Jo
seph with Mary and the infant Jesus to Egypt, and their return from that
country, is said (Matt. 2: 15) to have taken place, that " what was spoken
of the Lord by the mouth of his prophet might be fulfilled." What then did
the prophet say, which is fulfilled ? He merely made a declaration — a
simple categorical declaration — of a historical/hrf, as follows: "When Is
rael was a child I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt," Hos. 11: 1.
Here is no prediction, but merely a simple averment of certain facts in for
mer times. What is the fulfilment then ? It is, that what happened in an
cient times, in respect to a nation who were reckoned as the children of

Introduction to Chap. VLT. 191
God, had now been repeated in a higher and more significant sense. The
Son of God, in the most eminent sense, was called from exile in Egypt
back to the promised land. This is a nXriQuo-ig par excellence. The like to
this occurs again, after a single intervening verse. The Evangelist (Matt. 2:
16) relates the slaughter of the infants by Herod at Bethlehem. He then
subjoins a remark, viz. " Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet
Jeremiah, saying : In Rama a voice was heard, lamentation and weeping
and great sorrow ; Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be
comforted, because they are not." This is quoted from Jer. 31: 15, where
the prophet employs the expression as descriptive of the mourning of Rachel
over her children (Benjamites) slain, and going from Rama into exile. It
is simply a poetic description of a mournful fact, sketched out indeed with
vivid coloring. What now happened at Bethlehem (Rachel's burying-place)
to fulfil this ? The slaughter of the infants, Rachel's later progeny. What
took place of old, then, is here substantially renewed by repetition. But
there is no trace of a prediction proper, in Jer. 31: 15.
It were easy to go on in this way, and to show that at least one half of such
nXr\qaaug in the N. Test, are of the same character. An appeal then to Matt.
24: 15 and Mark 13: 14, in order to show that the passage of Daniel refer
red to is proper prediction, is very far from being satisfactory. Christ does
not even say that there is a. fulfilment of Daniel's words. His declaration is :
" When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the
prophet, standing in the holy place, (in Mark — standing where it ought not),
then let those flee, etc." But there is another remarkable circumstance.
After the clause standing in the holy place, the Saviour adds, in a parenthetic
clause, (o avayivojaxoiv votlxw) ; which parenthetic addition, moreover, both
' evangelists exhibit. Now what is the meaning of this unexpected suggestion
or innuendo ? It amounts simply to this : ' Let the reader of Daniel well
consider the essential meaning of the prophet.' But in case of a plain and
direct prediction of Daniel, such a caution would hardly have been added.
At all events it is very unusual in such cases. To what then does the caution
amount ? To this, viz. ' Consider well, that when a foreign, heathen, and
hostile army has surrounded the holy ground, the sacred city, it is time to flee,
for destruction is near. Daniel has described such an occurrence ; there
fore take warning by it.' Luke has given us, indeed, the exact gist of the
passage, in his account of the same matter in 21: 20. His words are these :
" When ye shall see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then flee, etc." Here
we have the nXygmaig of the passage in Daniel, viz. the presence of a hostile
heathen power (a desolating abomination) on holy ground. The Saviour
would say : ' When this takes place, consider that what Daniel has described
as happening in ancient times is about to happen now. Take warning
and deliver yourselves.' Thus much, but plainly nothing more when all
the passages are compared, can be made out from the texts to which appeal
is made, as containing predictions of the Roman invasion.
That I am well grounded in this position, appears from a cursory glance at
Dan. 9: 25 — 27. There, a prince and his people are spoken of, who shall come
and lay waste the sanctuary ; this they will do for one week = seven years
(the Roman war lasted but little more than three) ; then in the midst of
that week, the destroyer will cause the daily sacrifice and the oblation to
cease, i. e. during the latter half of the seven years this will be done ; and

192 Introduction to Chap. VTI.
soon after, the destroyer shall himself be destroyed with consummate de
creed destruction. Now in what part of the Roman invasion did all this
happen ? When did they suspend the temple services ? And where shall
we find the three and a half years of suspension ? And above all, where,
after the suspension, are we to find the restoration of the temple-services ?
for this is implied in Daniel. The Roman suspension remains from that day
to this. Last, but not least, the desolator in this case is given over to a
decreed destruction, to take place soon after the three and a half years
were ended. Was this true, now, of either Vespasian or Titus ? Not at all.
Both died a natural death, and in peaceful circumstances, Vespasian A. D. 79
and Titus in 82. Both were greatly beloved and honored as princes. What
resemblance did either of them bear to the abhorred tyrant in Dan. 9: 26, 27?
The answer then to that exegesis which makes the Roman power to be the
fourth dynasty in Daniel, is, that history contradicts such an application of
his predictions. That fourth power is of Greek origin ; its sphere of action
is oriental ground ; its acts are consummated in Epiphanes, (so far as pro
phecy has any concern with it) ; and the leading tyrant of that dynasty is
the enemy and blasphemer of God, and is cut down in thte midst of his
career by divine vengeance, shortly after the temple desolations were com
pleted. Which of all these things now is applicable either to Vespasian or to
Titus ? And above all, what are we to do with the suspension of temple-
services for three and a half years, and for this period only ?
But enough. It is impossible to carry through the views of Hengstenberg
and Havernick, in relation to Dan. 9: 25 — 27, and make them comport either
with history or with the design of the prophet. Events that precede the
Messianic kingdom are the objects of Daniel's vision. Through and through
he tells us, that the new and perpetual kingdom, i. e. the fifth dynasty, is built '
upon the complete destruction of the other four dynasties. Was the Roman
power destroyed then, when the Messiah's kingdom began ? This simple
question brings the whole matter to a conclusion.
I see no way of making out a prophecy of Roman invasion in Daniel, un
less we force a double sense upon the passage in question ; a thing which
neither Hengstenberg nor Havernick admitted to be done, when their
books were written. And indeed it cannot be done without great violence.
A double sense I must deem inadmissible, moreover, for reasons already
often given to the public. To what the German critics call an apotelesmatic
accomplishment of predictions in the O.Test., I should not strenuously object,
provided it be kept within due limits. The epithet means a final or con
cluding, or complete accomplishment, in distinction from a prior literal or
obvious accomplishment. If the matter be plainly stated, as it lies in my
own mind, it might stand thus : ' A prophecy may contain a generic prin
ciple of God's government, or of development in regard to occurrences ;
and then there may be a primary and obvious accomplishment of the pre
diction, and afterwards a development of the same generic principle in other
events. To such an apotelesmatic accomplishment I should make no ob
jection ; I would even freely admit it.
The matter as to Dan. 9: 25—27 and Matt. 24: 15, would then stand thus :
' For the sins of the ancient Jews, Daniel foretold chastisement by a foreign
heathen enemy, which happened ; for the sins of the Jews of our Saviour's
time, Jerusalem must be again surrounded by hostile heathen armies. The

Introduction to Chap. VII. 193
like to what Daniel foretells and what took place, was again presented in the
time of Christ's ministry, and was going on to completion.' To such an apo
telesmatic view, I see no reasonable objection. Daniel predicts peculiar
punishment for special sins ; when those special sins again occur, the pun
ishment may be aguin expected.
When Paul describes the Man of Sin (1 Thess. 2: 3, 4), we cannot well
doubt that he had in his mind that son of perdition in former days, who is de
scribed in Dan. 7: 25 and 11: 36. In other words, the like of what hap
pened in Antiochus' time, is again to happen under the new dispensation.
Of the same tenor with these and other like cases, are such passages as we
have produced above, viz. Matt. 2: 15, compared with Hos. 11: 1 ; Matt. 2:
17, 18, compared with Jer. 31: 15. It requires, indeed, a good degree of fa
miliarity with the usage of the N. Test, writers, in regard to passages of the
O. Test, which they quote or refer to, in order to be well satisfied respect
ing the wide extent in which they make the application of such passages to
the Christian era. But I feel no hesitation in s.iying, that, in my apprehen
sion, no passage in the N. Test, can be pointed out, which makes it neces
sary to regard any portion of the predictions in Daniel that respect only the
four great dynasties, as a^direct prediction of events or persons under the
fifth monarchy. The fifth monarchy has an abundance of prediction which
respects only that monarchy. The reason for this opinion is obvious, and it
seems to me to be conclusive. All which pertains to the four monarchies
has passed away, when the fifth monarchy commences. I say commences, for
the interpretation which makes the fifth monarchy begin only with the Mil
lennium, or the end of the world, is evidently at variance with all the decla
rations of the Saviour, that his kingdom was at hand, and that it had indeed
already begun. For this kingdom fully to come, if interpreted in the most
ample sense that the phrase admits, would place the whole matter in quite
another attitude than that which here belongs to it.
Finally, I do not see any possible way of harmonizing the development
of the Roman empire, with the description of the fourth dynasty in 2:41,42.
Clearly the iron and the clay, as symbols, both belong to the same dynasty.
The prophet says : 'A The kingdom shall be divided," and that " it shall be part
ly strong and partly broken." Of all the great empires that are within our
cognizance, we know of none to which this is so little applicable as to the
Roman. Parties under this dominion, I readily concede, were formed from
time to time, and civil broils and wars ensued for a while. But they were
of short continuance. Rome had a firm, steady, compact, powerful, solid
growth, amid all the partial troubles that she experienced within herself.
Civil and party hostility subsided, when foreign enemies called on the Ro-
maus to show their love of country and their pride of conquest. " Partly
strong and partly broken I" No; never until the conquest by Goths and
Vandals, and the subsequent division of the empire, was Rome broken.
A more compact, undivided, powerful dynasty never arose on earth. Such
characteristics then as divided and broken, are utterly at variance with the
whole history of Rome, until near the fifth century after the birth of Christ.
I must confess myself unable to see, how any one, who is familiar with his
tory, could ever think of applying Dan. 2: 41, 42, to the empire of Rome.
The contrary of what these verses declare, is true of that dominion in a most
remarkable degree. 17

194 Chap. VII. 1.
[After the introductory remarks already made, the contents of ch. vii. may be
sketched in a few words. The prophetic vision of Daniel was by night, and in a dream,
v, 1. After great commotion of ihe sea by stormy winds, four great beasts come up
from it, strong and ravenous, yet diverse in kind, vs. 2, 3. The first is a lion, furnished
with wings, to which, after severe castigation, a more gentle and humane spirit is given,
v. 4. The second is a bear, whose position, and grasp of prey, as well as the language
addressed to it, indicate a watchful rapacity for conquest, v. 5 The third is a panther,
with four wings and four heads, bearing extensive sway, v. 6. The fourth is a mon
ster without a name, strong and terrible, with teeth of iron and ten horns ; out of
which comes up a little horn, which roots out three of the others, and becomes inso
lent and blasphemous, vs. 7, 8. When the destruction occasioned by it reaches its
height, the Ancient of Days prepares his tribunal, and ascends it surrounded by flam
ing fire and myriads of ministering servants. The trial proceeds, the charges are
made, and the beast is condemned to excision ; which sentence is executed, vs. 9 — 1 1.
The like had been already done to the other three beasts, v. 12. The Son of Man
now makes his appearance before the Ancient of Days, and dominion universal and
permanent is given to him, vs. 13, 14. Daniel, overpowered by the vision, is troubled
in his mind, v. 15. He approaches an angel-interpreter, and seeks to know more
particularly the meaning of the vision. He is told, in a few words, the sum of its
meaning : There are and will be four dynasties ; lo be followed by a fifth which be
longs to the saints, and is to be perpetual, vs. 16 — 18. But his curiosity is not satis
fied, in regard to the fourth beast, the characteristics of which he recapitulates, vs. 19,
— 22. The interpreter informs him, that the fourth kingdom will be diverse from the
other three, and very destructive; that the ten horns signify ten kings ; that another
(the little horn) shall arise, who will humble three of the ten, utter boasting and blas
phemy, and undertake to change times and abrogate the law; that these latter trans
actions of the little horn are limited to three and a half years, vs. 23 — 25 ; and finally
that the destroyer shall himself be condemned and destroyed, v. 26. After this, "the
people of the most high God" shall receive a dominion that shall never end, v. 27.
Here ends the vision ; but Daniel was filled with agitation and concern respecting the
things predicted, although be kept [he whole matter to himself, y. 28.]

CHAPTER VII.
(1) In the first year of Belteshazzar king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream, and
[there were] visions of his head, upon his couch ; then he wrote down the dream, and
related the sum of the matters.
This chapter begins the second and peculiarly prophetic part of the book
of Daniel, in which the writer forsakes the chronology of the preceding
historical part that he had brought down to the Median dominion, and
goes back some seventeen years to the first year of Belshazzar. The date
of the time, when a prophecy was received, is commonly affixed by the
Hebrew prophets to the oracle itself. It is not unusual for prophets to
receive a special command, to commit to writing their disclosures; comp.
Isa. 30: 8. 8: 1, 16. Hab. 2: 2. Apoc. 1: 19. 21: 5. 14: 13. Daniel does

Chap. VII. 2. 195
not inform us, whether he in this case received a special command to write
down his vision, nor of the time when he did write it; but the importance
of the subject-matter of the vision, and the trouble that it gave to his mind,
would be very likely to lead him to a speedy record of what he had seen.
— ntnnin, lit. saw a dream ; but nin, in Heb. and Chaldee both, is
employed to designate the mental perception of any kind of prophetic
communication, whether by symbol or by message. Thus in Isa. 2: 1, we
have nai nin , i. e. saw a message or communication. " To see a dream,"
is to have a mental perception of one, to be impressed with what is
seemingly presented to vision. — And the visions of his head, i. e. of his
brain, which was regarded as the organ of the mind, head being taken for
that which it contains ; as often with us. Accordingly we might trans
late dsi by mind. One might also employ the word brain ; but in such
a connection, our idiom would give to this word the meaning of something
which is merely imaginary. Daniel means more than this. On his couch
seems to be added as an accompaniment to the word dream, in order to
indicate, that it was not a waking prophetic ecstasy, but a vision seen
when he was sleeping on his bed ; comp. 4: 2, 10. — sn3 , wrote out,
wrote down, see Lex. on the Heb. ans , — tUiO , sum, summary, amount ;
see Lex. Heb. under taso , and comp. Ps. 119: 160, where the Heb. irxi
means sum, substance ; so Ps. 137: 6. — ybv, pi. of nia fem., 31. 3. —
"rax , related, communicated, whether by speaking or writing. The writer
means to say, that he communicates the substance of the visions, omitting
particulars not specially important.
(2) Daniel answered and said : I looked steadfastly during my vision in the night,
and behold ! the four winds of the heavens burst forth upon the great ocean.
min nin , Part, with helping verb (§ 47. La), denoting continued action.
— X"b~b oj> , lit. with night, but nv is employed for the purpose of desig
nating something contemporaneous ; e. g. Dan. 3: 33. Ps. 72: 5. So
Ovid : Cum sole et luna semper Aratus erit, Ars Amor. I. 15, 16. —
">n"ii, const, pi. in its primitive sense, wind. — in^M, Aph. Part. pi. fem.
of nia , agreeing with Tinn which is here treated as fem. — xh^ , b show
ing the direction in which the winds burst forth. — Great ocean, the
world-sea of the ancients ; not an abstract noun, of course, but still it is
here used in a generic way. I take it to be here the symbol of the heathen
world, the mass of the world's people ; and in the same way is the phrase
many waters employed in Rev. 17: 1, 15. The imagery is allied to the
tropical use of overflowing rivers and mighty waves, for the designation
of invading armies which overrun a country without control. The image
is so frequent, that it needs no further illustration or confirmation.

196 Chap. VII. 8, 4.
(3) And four huge beasts came up out of the sea, differing one from another.
ysv , Part. Peal, pi. fem. (from !OV!), like "jjjbip . As all these beasts
are of the ferocious and powerful kind, it is evident that they are intended
to be symbols of powerful and warlike dynasties. The differences be
tween them is designed to indicate rather the successive changes of em
pire, than any discrepancies in regard to their respective power or cruelty.
Similar imagery the reader may find in Ps. 68: 31 (30), "beast of the
reeds ;" Ezek. 29: 3, " dragon in the midst of the river" [Nile] ; 32: 2,
"young lion of the nations;" Ts. 74: 13, "thou brakest the heads of the
dragons in the waters ; Isa. 27: 1, "leviathan, the crooked serpent . . .
the dragon that is in the sea." On all the ancient monuments of the East
are found formae monstrosae, the symbols of dominion and of conquerors.
The whole picture is in perfect keeping with ancient Mesopotamian sym
bols. In Apoc. 13: 1, one monster-beast is represented as possessing the
united qualities of all the four beasts here ; and well ; for there the mighty
Roman power is symbolized, which united the characteristics of former
empires, in respect to everything which inspires dread and forces sub
mission. That the sea is here represented as the element from which the
monsters come, is nothing strange ; comp. Isa. 27: 1. Apoc. 13: 1. The
sea is the natural element of the largest monsters ; the sea with its tem
pestuous waves has an overwhelming and destructive power ; and there
fore the representation here is congruous and well chosen.
(4) The first was like to a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle ; I looked stead
fastly until its wings were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and was
raised up on its feet like a man, and the heart of a man was given to it.
n^s =*l"!N, but having (it seems to be for the sake of euphony) a
paragogic n- formative at the end. It is generic, and includes of course
both sexes. Two pronouns in the verse may seem to relate to it, which
are of the fem. gender ; and probably also the suffix in n^as , (p. 36, par. 2)
is fem. On account of this, some translate n*nx lioness, and endeavor to
vindicate this by remarking, that the lioness is fiercer and more ravenous
than the lion. Still I have translated the Heb. word by lion, because it
seems clear to me, that all these pronouns, as well as xni«"ip , refer to
.*vpn implied, and because our own usage rarely, if ever, makes the lioness
an object of comparison. It seems plain here, as in respect to the golden
head of the colossal image (2: 37, 38), that the lion is not designed to repre
sent the strength or extent of the first kingdom as comparatively greater
than that of the others ; for surely Alexander's empire exceeded that of
Babylon in both these respects. It is mainly a. precedence of rank, then,
which is symbolized. As in respect to the image, one naturally begins

Chap. VH. 4. 197
with the head in order to reckon up in order its various elements and
parts, so we should begin with Babylon in reckoning up the empires
symbolized by the four beasts. The lion is indeed called the king of beasts ;
but the mountain-bear is very fierce and strong, and the panther even
more fierce and ravenous than the lion. Babylon is the oldest of the
kingdoms here designated ; and the lion, which is commonly regarded as
the superior of other beasts in respect to dignity of nature (if I may so
speak), is a fit emblem of the splendid and more ancient kingdom of
Babylon. Further than this, I think the differences between the beasts
are not to be carried. To assume that the differences in extent or power
are symbolized by the differences between the beasts, and that the later
empire in each case is to be considered as the weaker, or the inferior
with regard to extent or power, would lead us to conclusions which un
questionably disagree with facts. Still, all the beasts which are named
in ch. vii. are characterized by strength and rapacity. In Hebrew, no
thing can be more frequent than the use of the particular symbol now in
question, to designate destructive power. Lion of God makes an acces
sion to the idea of lion, as it forms a kind of superlative ; e. g. Isa. 29: 2.
2 Sam. 23: 20. This is the name which Mohammed gave his heroic uncle,
Hamza. — "psa , masc. here, plur. where the Heb. would employ the
dual. The Chaldee has no dual, excepting a few cases that are retained
in the biblical Chaldee. — Wings of an eagle, is an additional image of
swiftness and strength ; comp. Jer. 4: 13. 48: 40. 49: 22. Lam. 4: 19.
Ezek. 17: 3, 7. Ob. v. 4. Hab. 1: 8 ; not the image simply of haughti
ness or of the spirit of domination, as some have explained it. — nb ,
pron./em. as has already been noted. — :iui"ra , Peil Part. 3 pi. for pass.
verb, § 13. 2. — niQa, plur. masc, with a suffix fem. relating to niin,
for both ni- and ni- are sometimes used as fem. sing, forms of the suf
fix instead of n-, see p. 36, 2nd par. — nbiaa, Part. pass. fem. ; used
for the passive verb, § 13. 2. It was raised up from the earth as a man,
does not mean that the whole beast was lifted up into the air, but that it
stood up on its hinder legs, taking the upright position of a man. The
purpose of this is explained more fully, by the clause that follows. —
— "|iij"i, a Hebraizing dual form, found only in biblical Chaldee. —
waipn, Hebraizing Hophal of Dip = Ittaphal, § 12. 6. — The heart of a
man was given to it, i. e. (in connection with the preceding verse) not only
did it take the outward position of a man, but also partake of his internal
mind and feelings. I understand the design here to be, to characterize
the greater moderation and humanity which the Babylonish dominion
exhibited after Nebuchadnezzar's malady and restoration, or, to use the
language of the prophet, after its wings were plucked. The language seems
17*

198 Chap. VII. 5.
plainly to be borrowed from the case of Nebuchadnezzar, who, driven
from men by his madness, associated with the beasts of the field, and ate
grass like the oxen, 4: 29. As he imitated the beasts in this, it is not at
all improbable that he may also have imitated them in his position and
movements. From this state he rose, by the restoration of his reason
(4: 33), i. e. the heart of a man was given him.* As the Babylonish empire
is designated or represented by him (2: 38), so here, the humbling of
the Babylonish dynasty, and the rendering of it more humane and less
assuming, is set forth by a likeness taken from Nebuchadnezzar and his
condition. The particular object of this seems after all to be, the distinc
tive designation or specification of the first dynasty. To suppose, as Ber
tholdt does, that the last two clauses of v. 4 serve merely to show, that
dynasties of men and not of beasts are in reality meant, is, to say the
least, quite needless. What reader ever supposed, that Daniel is here de
scribing the literal dominion of beasts ?
(5) And behold ! another second beast, like to a bear, and it was lifted up on one
side, and three ribs were in its mouth between its teeth, and thus said they to it:
Arise, devour much flesh !
n3;?n , second, marks the order, while iins merely designates the idea
of difference, distinctness. — n^Bl , Part. fem. of swi . — in laajb , as
rendered above, is in the Ace, governed by the Hiphil-formed verb
naipn. Many (26) Codices and editions read laia (with Sin) ; and
many critics prefer this reading, because the Targumic word ieo , ap
pears to be the same word with merely a different orthography, and
lap means side. However, the form loto has no appropriate root.
But what is lifting or raising up one side ? Not stood aside, stetit seorsim,
i. e. stood aloof from harming the Hebrews, as the ancient Rabbins,
Jerome, Grotius, al., supposed; nor, (as some others suppose), stood
aside in the sense of retiring from a part of the former wide domain of
Babylon, for the Medo-Persian kings did not relinquish any of that do
main ; nor, (as C. B. Mich, and Rosenm.), stood by the side, viz. of the
lion, i. e. Media and Persia were on the boundaries or sides of Babylon;
much less does it mean, as Bertholdt and Havernick assert : stood on its
hinder feet, viz. in the attitude of attack, for side is not hinder feet, and as
yet the bear is not roused up entirely, but is subsequently called upon to
arise. It is in itself, indeed, a somewhat difficult phrase ; but the diffi
culty seems to have arisen from the fact, that until lately, we have been
ignorant of a like symbol sculptured on the ancient monuments of Persia.
* Since this was written, I have met with Hoffman's Weissagung und Eifiillung,
and find this able writer has presented a similar view of Daniel's imagery.

Chap. VII. 5. 199
Miinter (Rel. der Bab. s. 112) has given us a description (with an en
graving) of an animal of the symbolic kind, in a group near the star of
Belus, which, kneeling or lying on the right foot, has its left one erect.
A sense of security combined with watchfulness, seems to be the indica
tion. Probably this symbol now on the monuments of Persia and Baby
lon, was a part of what belonged to the insignia of the royal and national
standards ; (see p. 177 above). Its significance, when viewed in such a
light, is certainly striking. — naipn , as some editions have it, (to which
many versions have conformed), is the pass, or Hophal ; but it may be
read as in Hiphil (rvaipn), and applied actively, (which is grammatical
in respect to this Conj.), to the beast as raising up one side, viz. by put
ting one of its fore legs into an erect posture — ysby , from sbs = the
Heb. sbs (comp. in Lex. 3 and s) ; ribs, not tusks (Berth.) ; not three
classes of teeth, viz. side, cheek, and incisor teeth (Hav.) ; for how can
these be said to be between the teeth ? But three ribs constitute a large
portion of prey or ravin already in the animal's power, or (in words
borrowed from the nature of the symbol) a large mouthful. It seems to
me quite incongruous, to consider these ribs as teeth, in as much as they
are between the teeth ; or to regard them (with Jerome, Ephrem Syrus,
and Rosenm.) as indicative of Media, Persia, and Babylon. The Medo-
Persian empire is itself the bear. What it grasps, or devours, must be
something else. It may be, that Babylonia, Assyria, and Lydia, are
symbolized by the ribs ; or, with some modification of the design of the
symbol, the three ribs may indicate the great divisions of the empire, 6: 2.
But if the latter be true, then the symbol does not relate to devouring,
but to the complete grasp of power. — nisaj 'pa, between its teeth clearly
indicates, of course, that the ysbs in his mouth is prey, and not the teeth
themselves ; the fem. suff. has relation to niin . The word as Chaldee
I do not find in Ges. Lex. ; but it follows the analogy of the Heb. yd ,
§ 29. 2. a. — 'pT?!< , lit- they said, Part. 3 plur. ; it might be rendered
passively, § 49. 3. b. — i^aip, Imper. fem. in relation to nyft again ; see
Hoffman ut sup. I. s. 283. — Fat much flesh, exhibits the imagery car
ried consistently through. Flesh is the appropriate food of bears. Of
course, when a dynasty set up and supported by conquest and rapine is
characterized in this way, the meaning is : Rise up, and make extensive
conquests, i. e. seize upon much prey. Such was the case with Cyrus,
according to Xenophon, Cyrop. VIII. 7. He extended his dominion to Sy
ria, and Egypt, even unto Ethiopia, and reigned over the countries from
the Mediterranean Sea to India, and from the Euxine to the Red Sea.
Afterwards Darius Hystaspis extended the boundaries of empire still fur
ther, even into Thrace and India. But how any one could satisfy him-

200 Chap. VII. 6.
self that dominion thus characterized designates that of Media under Da
rius the Mede, as Lengerke appears to have done, I do not see. That
king was more conspicuous for intemperance and debauchery, than for
ambition and love of conquest ; and to gratify his disgraceful appetites,
he retired from all personal participation in the conquest of Babylon,
and ever afterwards staid at his palace and houses of pleasure. Nothing
more, worthy of note, was undertaken until after his death ; which hap
pened in about two years subsequent to the capture of Babylon. Len
gerke indeed holds the account of such a prince as Darius the Mede,
both in Xenophon and the Bible, to be a mere fiction. But even if this
were conceded to him, why should we suspect the writer of representing
the dynasty in question as doing things, which are wholly incongruous
with the inefficiency and the slothful timidity of Darius the Mede?
If the book before us be a fiction, it does not show any want of talent, or
any lack of knowledge as to Oriental history or customs. At least it seems
to me, that just and generous criticism will not venture to affirm that it
does. As to the idea conveyed by the phrase, the devouring of flesh,
comp. Mic. 3: 2, 3. Rev. 17: 6. As to the rapacity of the bear, it is a
well known characteristic. Aristotle calls it augxocpayav and £(6ov ndfi-
qiayov, (Hist. Nat. VIII. 5). Not unfrequently it attacks men, as well
as the larger animals. The overruling hand of Providence, moreover, is
not lost sight of by the writer in the whole matter respecting this dynasty.
— It was said or they said, means, that God or Heaven gave command
or permission to devour much prey, i. e. the concerns and conquests of this
dynasty were under the government of a superintending Providence.
(6) After this I looked attentively, and lo ! another [beast] like to a panther, and
it had four wings of a bird upon its back, and four heads belonged to the beast, and
dominion was given to it.
1B33 , like a panther, which seems to be the true sense, rather than
leopard as in our Eng. version. This beast is swifter than the lion or bear,
and equally powerful. — Four wings of a bird is quite intelligible. If,
in v. 4, the wings of an eagle assigned to the lion indicate power and ve
locity, the two pairs of wings given to the panther must indicate great ve
locity. As the writer does not here repeat the word eagle in connection
with wings, but merely says wings of a bird, the natural conclusion is,
that he means to represent the first beast as the stronger of the two,
but not so swift. Facts correspond. Nebuchadnezzar had a mighty force,
a great sway ; Alexander, with a handful of troops subdued the oriental
world : Nebuchadnezzar founded an empire which lasted almost a cen
tury ; Alexander one which ended with his life. The point of comparative

Chap. VII. 6. 201
strength, therefore, is not here taken into view, but that of rapid movement.
In this Nebuchadnezzar excelled much, but Alexander outstripped all
other conquerors in the East or West. Hence two pairs of wings to sym
bolize his movements. But how are we to find any adequate meaning of
the imagery, if we apply these wings (with Lengerke and some others)
to the Medo-Persian dynasty ? Neither Cyrus, nor Darius, nor Xerxes,
were remarkable for rapidity of conquest, beyond other conquerors.
Cyrus was as long in subduing Asia Minor, as Alexander was in subdu
ing all the East. — niaa, plur. with fem. suff., in reference to niin . —
Four heads, not indicative here of four kings, as Leng. supposes. To
establish this, he appeals to Dan. 11: 2 and Rev. 13: 1. But the first
passage makes no mention of heads ; and the last mentions seven heads,
which symbolize seven kings (Rev. 17: 10), but they also symbolize
seven hills (Rev. 17: 9). This symbol, then, is not limited to signifying
kings. This is still more clearly decided in Rev. 12: 3, where seven heads
are ascribed to the dragon. The four heads, then, may be regarded as
the symbol of dominion in the four different quarters of the world, i. e. of
universal dominion ; for Satan's seven heads are clearly emblems of his
great power. The ram (Medo-Persia) in 8: 4 is described as pushing
his attacks northward, southward, and westward, but not eastward ;
while in the case before us, the four heads indicate all four directions, if I
am right in my views of the meaning of the symbol. Well does 2: 39
(" he shall rule over all the earth") correspond with the passage before us ;
and also with 8: 21 — 23, and 11: 3, 4. Leng. plainly intimates, that the
writer of the book of Daniel supposed, that there were only four kings of
the Persian dynasty (11: 2), and that he has confounded Darius Codo-
maaus with Darius Hystaspis, and so ranged Alexander next after him.
He adds, that " the ignorance of the Maccabaean period respecting the
history of the East, makes the whole matter a thing that ought not to
strike us with any surprise," (s. 308). Yet I must be permitted to
say, it would be somewhat surprising to me, that such a man as wrote the
book of Daniel, and belonged to a nation that had been, from Cyrus down
to Alexander, under the Persian domain, should have thought and said
that Persia had only four kings, when it actually had thirteen. The
knowledge of empires displayed in the book of Daniel, forbids such a
supposition. Could events like those which took place in respect to the
Jewish people under the Persian domain, be so little known, or so entirely
forgotten, after alapseof time so small? And although Lengerke assures us
that there is nichts auffdllig in all this, my own convictions are quite to the
contrary. Finally, the superintendence of a higher power is again intimated:
And dominion was given to it. " The powers that be are ordained of God."

202 Chap. VII. 7, 8.
So even the mischievous beast, in Apoc. 13: 3, is said to have " power
given to it."
(7) After this, I looked attentively during the visions of the night, and behold!
a fourth beast, terrible, strong, even exceedingly powerful, and it had great teeth of
iron ; it devoured, and crushed, and trode the remnant under its feet, and it differed
from all the other beasts which were before it ; and it had ten horns.
isrrax , adj. (root )rm, which in Arabic means to be strong, robust),
formed by x praefix, and i the adj. ending for fem. ni . The second
clause, nnini XBipn , is merely an intensive of the preceding word 
¦pStti , Hebraizing dual, lit. two roios of teeth ; found only in biblical Chal
dee, § 31. 2. — Great iron teeth, means a very destructive power.
Hence, in the sequel, devour, crush. — npia , Aph. fem. Part, of ppi .
— npsi, Part. fem. Peal — njscjri, fem. Part. Aph., for the beast is
here regarded as fem. — niaip, with fem. suff. p. 36, par. second 
yi~p, dual form of yyg. j Hebraizing like yi'2 above. The writer gives
to this fourth beast no particular name. Plainly it was a peculiar mon
ster. The reason why he omits a name, seems to be, that in the world
of nature no similitude could be found, for in no case of really existing
beasts, are four of them united in one, so as to constitute an appropriate
symbol for the four kingdoms of Alexander's successors. He classes these
under the dynasty, comprehensively considered, which grew up out of
the predominance or victories of the Greeks in the East. But when
enough is introduced to designate the general nature of the dynasty, both
here and in ch. viii. and xi, he goes over into a notice of only such kings
as were in the neighborhood of Palestine, and had more or less to do
with annoying it. As Antiochus Epiphanes was incomparably the most
annoying and mischievous of them all, so a peculiar share of the prophecy
respecting the fourth dynasty, is allotted to him in each of the chapters
named. It is evident from a comparison of historical facts as well as from
the nature of the case, that a dynasty is spoken of by Daniel as more or
less dreadful and destructive, according to the measure in which Pales
tine was actually affected by it in this way. See the fuller discussion of
this subject in the introduction to this chapter, p. 183 seq. above. A right
view of this matter is of the highest importance to the proper interpreta
tion of the book.
(8) I considered attentively the horns, and behold ! another little horn came up
between them, and three of the former horns were rooted out from before it, and lo!
there were eyes like the eyes of a man in that horn, and a mouth speaking great
things. The introduction which the writer here makes to his account of the

Chap. VII. 8. 203
little horn, shows, by its specialty of manner and its solemnity, that he is
going to bring forward something which is peculiarly worthy of the read
er's attention — at least, something in which he himself felt the deepest
interest. It is similar to that which is prefixed to the accounts respec
tively of each of the four beasts. That horns are the well known symbols
of power, specially of power as directed against opposing forces, is too
familiar to need proof; the reader may compare Deut. 33: 17. 1 Sam. 2:
10. 1 K. 22: 11. Ps. 18: 3 (2). 112: 9. 132: 17. 148: 14. The likeisof-
ten found in the Apoc, and in the book of Enoch. — mist , fem. adj.
for Tip is here treated as feminine. This is to be understood as the
symbol of Antiochus Epiphanes, on his first accession to the throne, when
the parties against him were numerous and strong, being the friends of
the kings whom he had deposed. The progress of the little horn's growth
is not here specified ; but in 8: 9—11 there is a special allusion to the
gradual increase of the same little horn, until it becomes a great one. In
11: 21, the origin of Antiochus' dominion is described in conformity with
the niisi of the verse before us. And when this same horn is said in 7:
20 to " look more stout than its fellows," this is no contradiction of the
preceding passage. Antiochus began his reign with feeble means of sup
porting himself, but by flattery, craft, and dexterous management, he rose
to formidable power, which he wielded so as to annoy the Jews beyond
all former example. The seer keeps his eye upon him, during the whole
course through which he passes; and it is in the latter part of his course,
that he ' becomes more stout than his fellows. — "p??p = npbo in v. 20,
fem. 3 pers. sing, in Peal, with a final (-) instead of the normal {-), be
ing pointed like the 3 fem. in verbs ii'b . In general, the Chaldee vowel-
points vary, according to the Rabbinic usage, far more than the Hebrew,
and the varieties of pronunciation are numerous and some of them per
plexing. In "pn^ia the vowels are adapted to the corrected reading inijia
i. e. to a. fem. suffix. But this is needless. The masc. "jimsia is equally
good; for the gender of the horns is shifted in vs. 19, 20. 8: 9, al., i. e.
the gender of those whom the horns symbolize, is applied to the horns
themselves ; which is often done in the Apocalypse. — Tipivx (for
so the Kethibh should be read) = snpsnx the normal form, the
Pattah under the p being prolonged, (as it is sometimes, particu
larly when in an open syllable), as in npbp above. The sylla
ble -nst (for nx) Syraizes, § 25. 1. The grammarians and critics have
mostly overlooked these forms. Besides this, nx (for the normal nx)
is a liberty not unfrequent in the later Hebrew, specially when x is the
first letter ; for then it naturally inclines to take a Seghol in a closed syl
lable. The form of the verb in the Kethibh is masc, for JWip is treated

204 Chap. VII. 8.
as masc, in accordance with what has just been said. The corrected read
ing changes the form so as to accommodate the fem. gender, viz. n'ipsn* .
I have translated the word by rooted out {evellit, eradicavil) ; which how
ever means, in our language, somewhat more than is here intended, un
less we limit the idea to the kingly power or office. In v. 20, three horns
are said to fall before the little horn ; and in v. 24, the same occurrence
is thus described by the angel-interpreter : " three kings shall be humbled."
I understand the passages, when thus compared, as designating the dethro-
nization of three kings, but not of their actual destruction as individuals.
As kings, three of them are described by different modes of expression,
viz., it is said that they are rooted out, fall, and that they are humbled.
The least which these expressions are susceptible of meaning, is, that An
tiochus will dethrone three kings, and humble them in respect to their
claims of right to regal power. — sfcsy calls particular attention to a no
table circumstance : Eyes like to the eyes of a man were in this horn.
¦jisis, for form, see p. 94. No. IV. c. That eyes symbolize sagacity, dex
terity, watchfulness, is plain. The eye speaks the meaning of the soul.
One reason why this is said here, seems to be, in order to make the reader
aware that the horn symbolizes a human being ; for eyes belong not to
the proper horn. Says Jerome : [He speaks thus] " that we may not,
according to the notion of some, think it to be a devil, or a demon, but
one of those men in whom the whole of Satan is to dwell bodily." Ex
actly what Jerome meant by the last clause here, it might be difficult to
determine. However, that the watchfulness and sagacity of the little horn
are here indicated, and that the word horn is entirely exempted from be
ing understood in a literal sense, seems clear; comp. 1 1: 21 — 25. 8: 23 — 25.
Coming to the throne under circumstances such as existed at that time in
Syria, it was wonderful that Antiochus should succeed so well as he did;
and it fully justifies what is said'in the passages to which I have refer
red, respecting his cunning and his dexterity. Appian says of him:
" He ruled Syria and the nations around her iyxgazwg," De Reb. Syr.
c. 45. — iai est , a mouth speaking, etc., of course betokens that a man
is designated by the symbol ; for since he had ascribed to the horn the
eyes of a man, he now proceeds (in accordance with this) to assign to it
also a mouth. — Speaking great things, i. e. uttering words of boasting,
' haughtiness, and contumacy. This was a striking characteristic of Antio
chus, when he had arrived at the height of his power ; comp. v. 1 1, 20, 25.
23—25. 11: 36, and seel Mace. 1: 24. Comparing the whole of these pas
sages, it would seem that the writer means particularly to characterize
the impious boastings and reproaches of Antiochus against God, his tem
ple, the holy city, and the Jewish people.

Chap. VII. 8. Excursus on the fourth beast. 205
Next (vs. 9 — 11) follows the condemnation and excision of the blas
phemer and persecutor of the Jews. Then, inasmuch as all the four
beasts are now destroyed (v. 12), the kingdom of the Messiah supervenes
— a kingdom that is to have no end.
Excursus on the fourth Beast. To facilitate our future progress,
it may be well to satisfy ourselves of the position, which, as interpreters,
we ought to take ; for much is dependent on it. Having already discussed
this subject at large, in the introduction to this chapter, I shall give here
only brief and summary views of points already illustrated, touching occa
sionally on other points necessary to complete a view of the whole subject.
To me it seems a philological impossibility, provided we first make a
thorough comparison of the third and fourth dynasties, (as presented in
chaps, ii. vii. viii. xi., and fully spread before the eye of the reader in the
preceding pages), to maintain that the third dynasty is not that of Alexan
der, or that the fourth is not that of his successors, the Grecian chiefs.
But for the sake of obtaining still further satisfaction, let us for a moment
reverse the method of considering the subject, and begin with the fourth
dynasty. What are the discriminating features, the true and satisfactory
diagnostics of this dynasty ? I shall mention only such as I deem to be
decisive and satisfactory.
(1) The ten horns belong to the fourth beast (7: 7, 19, 20, 24), and the
little horn springs up among them (7: 8, 20, 24). The ten horns are ten
kings (7: 24), and the little horn is the eleventh (7: 24). Now it is quite
plain, from a comparison of 7: 7, 8, 23 — 25, with 8: 8 — 12, 22 — 25, and 11:
21 — 45, that the same individual is characterized in all these passages.
His gradual growth, his cunning, his destructive aggressions, his persecu
tions, his pride, his boasting, his blasphemies, his profanation of sacred
things, and his sudden and violent death, are all depicted in colors so
nearly alike, and in outlines so exactly alike, (excepting that in some of
the cases, e. g. in chap, xi., the sketch is much more amply filled out), that
I cannot perceive any reasonable ground of doubt that they respect the
same personage. But if this be a correct position, then is the fourth dy
nasty plainly designated beyond a reasonable question. " The little horn"
did not spring from a Roman, but from the Syrian dynasty. It came up
amidst ten horns, and rooted out three of them (7: 8, 20, 24) ; and if the
little horn be Antiochus Epiphanes, then is it certain that the ten hornsT
i. e. the ten kings (7: 24), are Syrian and not Roman.
It is no objection to this argument, that the imagery employed in chap.
viii. varies from that of chap. vii. What is a bear in 7: 5, is a ram in
8: 3 seq. What is a panther with four wings and heads in 7: 6, is a '¦'¦he-
goat that touched not the ground," with a notable horn, in 8: 5 seq. In
chap, vii., the destruction of the beasts is not described severally, but col
lectively, (7: 11, 12) ; while in chap, viii., the destruction of each preceding
dynasty is severally related (vs. 7, 8), before a new one is announced.
The diversity of the fourth beast from all the others, is specifically declared
by direct assertion in 7: 7, 19, 23, while in chap. viii. it is described by
symbolic imagery, viz. " the great horn [Alexander] is broken, and in its
room came up four notable ones, toward the four winds of heaven," (8: 8).
18

206 Chap. VII. 8. Excursus on the fourth beast.
Now these four horns have no direct concern with the ten horns of 7: 7, 20,
24. The latter are kings (7, 24) ; the former are kingdoms (8: 8, 22) ; not
kingdoms in the sense that they make what the writer, for his particular
purpose, regards as separate dynasties, but minor kingdoms under one com
prehensive view, viz. that of Grecian sway, or sway by Alexander's succes
sors. So 8: 8, 22, and 11:4, clearly show. The last or fourth is the di
vided kingdom ; for it has no symbol among beasts that can be named (7:
7) ; it consists of iron and clay (2: 40 — 43) ; it is divided to the four winds
of heaven (8: 8. 11: 4). Of course there is no incongruity between the
four horns in 8: 8, 22, and the ten horns in 7: 7, 20, 24. The former merely
symbolize the four great divisions of Alexander's empire (8: 21, 22. 11: 4) ;
the latter signify ten kings (7: 24), which will precede "the little horn"
(ib.), and among which this horn springs up (7: 8). The ten horns, more
over, all belong to one of the four great divisions ; for out of one of these
four, the little horn springs up (8: 9), which shoots forth in the midst of
the ten (7: 8). Here then is no incongruity. It is merely a diversity in
the mode of representation, grateful to the reader, and meeting the reason
able demand of aesthetics in regard to variety, in the modes of description.
On the other hand, the parallels in the descriptions of the fourth beast, and
above all in those of the little horn, ii. vii. viii. xi., are so striking, that iden
tity of person or object in all of them seems to be a thing so evident, that
fair denial is out of question.
Hengstenberg, who strenuously contends for the Roman dynasty as the
fourth, acknowledges that the resemblances between the little horn in chap.
vii., and the descriptions in 8: 9 seq. 11: 21 seq. are such as to constitute
the most weighty argument in favor of identity of person in all, (Authentie
des Daniel, s. 213). How then is this argument to be answered ? In his
view very easily, viz. ' Antiochus is the prototype, Antichrist the antitype ;
what had a partial fulfilment in the former, will have a complete one in
the latter.' In other words, a imiroia is here to be supposed, i. e. a double
sense must be given to the words. And why ? " Because Typik ia
grounded in the very essence of the O. Test," (s. 213). I deny not at all
the typical nature of much that was Mosaic and Levitical, as to rites and
ordinances. I fully assent to all which the writer of the Epistle to the He
brews has said on this subject. But all the types relate to Christ, his offices,
his sufferings, his atonement, and in a word to his whole work of redemp
tion. Where are the types of Satan, and of his coadjutors, the Antichrists
of the Christian period, to be found in the Jewish ritual ? Hengstenberg
appeals to 2 Thess. 2: 3, and avers that this is built upon Daniel. I accede ;
but. only so far as to recognize a similarity of description in a case where
there is similarity of character and of action. What does one need more
to satisfy himself of such a usage among the N. Test, writers, than to turn
to Matt. 2: 15, 18, 23, and compare these passages with the original He
brew? The nXruioiaig of the N. Test, is far enough from being always a
fulfilment of what is strictly prediction. From its very nature, a vnuvota
must always be merely a matter of guessing ; for what language does not
of itself speak, can only be guessed at. But how can we accede to a prin
ciple of interpretation so hazardous as this, and specially so indefinite and
in fact undefinable ?
(2) The four dynasties, whatever they are, perish before the Messianic

Chap. VII. 8. Excursus on the fourth beast. 207
kingdom is introduced. Thus is it represented in 2: 44, 45. 7: 11, 12, 22,
26, 27. 8: 20 — 25. 11: 45. This is of itself so plain, and so conclusive,
that it would alone be sufficient to decide that the fourth kingdom cannot
be Roman.
(3) It lies upon the face of all the prophecies in this book, that the Mes
sianic kingdom is their ultimatum. What will befall the Hebrews before
this is introduced, is evidently the object which the prophet has in view to
declare. But here, however, let it be remembered, that it is not at all his
object, to give a minute civil history of all the Jewish affairs, but only to
touch summarily on the most distressing of their trials. Under Antiochus
they were to suffer even worse things, in some respects, than they had done
under Nebuchadnezzar. Thus much disclosed, he passes over the interim,
and touches upon the introduction of the new kingdom. Summarily does
he describe even this, but he strongly asserts its perpetuity. To suppose
Daniel to supply the place which John has filled in the Apocalypse, and to
go beyond the simple generic views that I have suggested, would be to ap
propriate to an O. Test, writer all the views and feelings and knowledge
of a Christian writer. The same spirit Daniel doubtless had. But he did
not move in the same circle of action, nor did he address the same classes
of readers.
(4) The difficulties that lie in the way of acknowledging the fourth dy
nasty to be Roman, not only appear great, but to me they seem insuperable.
Applied to the Roman dynasty, what mean the four kingdoms in 8: 22, 8.
What mean the ten horns in 7: 7, 20, 24 ? And the ten toes in 2: 42 ?
And more than all, what means it, that Antiochus comes from the midst of
the ten horns ? Havernick confesses (Comm. s. 570), that " as yet the Ro
man history gives us no diagnostics by which we can ascertain the ten
horns." What then is to be done ? " We must wait," says he, " with a
believing confidence, that we shall yet see a time, when faith will be turned
into vision, and thus will take the veil from our eyes, and make plain the
seetets of the Lord." Secrets they are truly, and must remain so, on the
ground which he takes. All hope of any intelligible meaning is out of
question. But for myself, I must always doubt the soundness of a position,
which forces us to conclusions like this, in regard to any matter of predic
tion. But the advocates of that exegesis which assigns the Roman dynasty to
the fourth beast turn the tables upon us, and object to the application of
this symbol to the dynasty of Alexander's successors, on the ground that in
this way no satisfactory account can be given, either of the ten kings, or of
the three who were rooted out by the little horn, 7: 7, 8, 20, 24. Candor
requires us to say, that this may be reasonably demanded of those who re
ject the application of what is said concerning the fourth dynasty to Rome,
because they explain the prediction as applicable to a dynasty which ex
isted and came to an end before the birth of Christ. Now as such a dy
nasty belongs twthe history of the past, some probable application of the
prophecy to it should be pointed out by those who decline the interpreta
tion of Hengstenberg, if they expect to make good their position. This,
as I apprehend the matter, is what may be done.
I must, first of all, ask the particular attention of the reader to what has
already been intimated and explained, viz. that Daniel does not undertake

208

Chap. VII. 8. Excursus on the fourth beast.

to write universal history, nor even the particular history of the empires
which he actually brings into view, but only describes such occurrences or
personages as come in contact and conflict with the Jews, mostly to their
harm and danger. The rapid outline in 7: 4 — 8 is proof of this ; and like
to this are the passages in chap. ii. viii., and also xi., with the exception of
the Syrian kingdom, (the king of the north), and particularly that of Anti
ochus Epiphanes, 11: 21 seq. The ten kings belong to the fourth beast, as
all the passages in chap. vii. show, and the little horn comes from the midst
of the ten, vs. 8, 20, 24. But in 8: 8, 9, the little horn is expressly said to
come out of one of the four great divisions of Alexander's kingdom. This
then shows, that the generality of the dynasty as a whole is dismissed by
the writer after merely touching upon it, and that he turns his attention
only to that part of it which is annoying and terrible to the Jews. That
the little horn means Antiochus may, after all that has been said, be taken
for granted ; and as he was a Syrian, so were the ten kings Syrians, whom
he succeeded, inasmuch as he came from the midst of them. We have then
simply to inquire, whether there were ten kings who actually preceded
him in this dynasty. This inquiry seems not to be difficult.

1. Seleucus I. Nicator.
2. Antiochus I. Soler.
3. Antiochus IT. Theos.
4. Seleucus II. Callinicus.
5. Seleucus III. Ceraunus.
6. Antiochus III. the Great.

7. Seleucus IV. Philopator.
8. Heliodorus.
9. Ptolemy IV. Philometor.
10. Demetrius I.
11. Antiochus Epiphanes.

All of these are unquestionable, excepting 8, 9, and 10. ' These,' says
Hengstenberg (s. 208), 'were mere pretenders to the throne, and nothing
more ; whereas the text requires that they should be actual kings, and be
dethroned.' I doubt whether his demand is not somewhat too strenuous
here ; at least a comparison with Rev. 17: 12 would not favor a construc
tion so rigid. But be it so ; we will not decline to answer even the rigid
demand which he makes. Appian testifies (De Reb. Syr. c. 45), that Se
leucus Philopator, when king, was destroyed by the conspiracy of Heliodo
rus. In the same passage he says, that Eumenes and Attalus, kings of
Pergamus, in conjunction with Antiochus, and at his solicitation, deposed
Heliodorus, ig xt)v uoxhr fiuxSouwov, who had seized by violence upon the
government. The simple history is this : Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Anti
ochus the Great, and brother of king Seleucus Philopator (who was de->
stroyed by Heliodorus), had, for some years, been sent as a hostage by his
father to Rome, and on his return, (being recalled by Seleucus his brother,
who sent his own son Demetrius to supply his place), while at Athens, he
heard of all that Heliodorus had done, and then visiting Attalus and Eu
menes, on his way home, he persuaded them to assist him. Such was their
interposition, that all other claims to the throne were silenced, and the par
ties awed into submission, without any bloodshed in the way of contest. In
respect to Heliodorus, he was doubtless punished as a rebel. But still he had
occupied the throne ; he was " rooted out" from it by Antiochus, or (to use
the language of 7: 20) " he fell before him."
The second of the three kings, " who were humbled" (7: 24), appears to
be Ptolemy IV. king of Egypt. His mother, named Cleopatra, being guar-

Chap. VII. 8. Excursus on the fourth beast. 209
dian of this young child who was heir to the throne of Egypt, on the death
of Seleucus Philopator, claimed the throne of Syria in behalf of her son.
She was the sister of Philopator, as also of Antiochus Epiphanes, all three
being children of Antiochus the Great. She claimed Palestine and Phe-
nicia as the dower pledged to her by her father, when she was married to
Ptolemy Epiphanes the king of Egypt. When her brother Seleucus was
assassinated by Heliodorus, she, as already intimated, ambitious of her son's
promotion, laid claim to the throne of Syria for him. We have no history
of what was done to carry through her designs ; for, unhappily, all the par
ticular histories of that period which are now extant, are only a few frag
ments. But that she succeeded in forming a party in favor of her young
son, Ptolemy IV. Philometor, seems to be a matter of fact ; and also, that
he had an actual investiture of the kingly office over Syria. Thus in 1
Mace. 11: 13, it is said of the prince in question : "And Ptolemy entered
into Antioch, and put two crowns upon his head, that of Asia and of Egypt."
The Asia named here undoubtedly means the Syrian empire, inasmuch as
Ptolemy was now in its capital (Antioch). In Polybius' Reliquiae, XL. 12,
this same prince is named " Ptolemy, b xrjgSvqlag [xai Alyvmov] ^aaiXeig,
i. e. king of Syria" [and Egypt], the latter words included in brackets be
ing of somewhat doubtful authority. There is no good ground of doubt,
however, that the Ptolemy in question is the one here named. It would
seem, then, since it is certain that Antiochus got the better of all his an
tagonists, that Ptolemy was " humbled as to his claim upon the throne of
Syria. But who is the third king, that Antiochus rooted out ? I cannot hesitate
to say, that, so far as I can see, reference is made to Demetrius I. Soter, as
he was afterwards named. He was the son of Seleucus Philopator, and of
course the nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes. By right, i. e. by the estab
lished custom of regal succession in the monarchies of the East in general,
the inheritance of the throne belonged to Demetrius, as soon as his father
was dead. He was its rightful occupant. But Antiochus did not recall
him from Rome, whither he had gone as a hostage, in order to redeem An
tiochus himself from that condition. The Roman Senate could have no
inducement to send him back. They kept him as a security of Antiochus'
good behaviour ; for in case the latter gave umbrage to the Roman power,
they could set up Demetrius and urge his lawful claims against Antiochus ;
which would be very likely to defeat and overthrow him. Tims, by the
collusion of Antiochus on the one hand, and the crafty policy of the Ro
mans on the other, Demetrius was obliged to forego his rights as a prince,
until after the death of Antiochus and his son. In this way did Antiochus
defeat the claims of three kings, and " humble them," 7: 24. The two for
mer of them he actually dethroned, the latter he excluded from the right
ful occupation of the throne, at least so long as he and his son lived. He
did indeed not actually dethrone Demetrius, but he kept him out of his
throne. All this agrees well with 7: 8, 20, 24, and is sufficient to answer
the demands of interpretation. He who has a right to a throne, and is kept
from it either by the craft or violence of another, is humbled as to his pre
tensions, and fallen as to his purpose. All three were rooted out (7: 8),
as to their kingly office, and Antiochus remained the sole and triumphant
king of Syria. That all this should be done by craft, and flattery, and dex-
16*

210 Chap. VII. 8. Excursus on the fourth beast.
terous management, without any open war or contention, is indeed some
what strange ; but by no means impossible. See how graphically Anti
ochus is characterized in 8: 23, 24, but specially in 11: 21, 23, 24, 25, 27,
30, 32. " He shall come in peaceably, and obtain the kingdom by flatter
ies," says Daniel, II: 21. One can hardly wonder that Porphyry was
so struck with this and other like passages, as to affirm that it must have
been written post evenlum. But when Porphyry, and others since his time,
suggest that Ptolemy VI. and Ptolemy VII. kings of Egypt, and Artaxias
king of Armenia, are the three kings that were humbled, it seems to be a
mistake. It is true that Antiochus gained victories over them in contest ;
but this was after some years, when he had become established in power.
I understand 7: 8, 20, 24, as relating to what Antiochus did, in order to
secure the throne to himself; for this is the natural implication of the pas
sage. What now can be done with these ten kings, and the three kings humbled
by Antiochus, if the whole be referred to the Roman dynasty, no one can
tell us. Hengstenberg and Havernick give up the attempt, and resolve
the whole into a prediction of an Antichrist yet future, and of ten future
Roman kings or kingdoms, three of which are to be humbled by Antichrist ;
and they bid us to wait with patience, in expectation that dies indicabit, i. e.
future events will make plain what is now dark and unintelligible. But I
cannot think that a prophetic revelation is constructed of such material. A
prophecy addressed to any class of men, must needs have at least some re
spect to the information of those for whom it is uttered, and to whom it is
addressed. But for what valuable purpose a prediction altogether unin
telligible can be uttered or written, it would be difficult to form any satis
factory conception.
Finally, whatever may be the difference of opinion about the fourth beast,
and the dynasty symbolized by it, all must concede, that the facts respecting
the ten kings and the three kings, as related above, are at least very singular
and striking. Could there be such a coincidence between them and Daniel's
prediction, unless they in reality are connected together ? We may in
deed concede the possibility of it ; but can any one well defend the proba
bility of it ? After all that can be said on this subject, the simple but con
spicuous truth, that the Messiah's kingdom follows the ruin of the four
dynasties, renders the application of the symbol of the fourth beast to the
Roman dynasty altogether improbable, nay exegetically impossible.
Let those who are deeply versed in the prophecies of the O. Test, ask
the question : Do any 0. Test, predictions, in any other case whatever,
describe the apostasies and the heresies that will spring up in the bosom of
the Christian church ? Unless the prediction in Dan. vii. is of this nature,
no example, so far as I know, can be found. It is not impossible, I con
cede, that Dan. vii. may be unique in its kind ; but unless some very good
reason for a prophecy of such a character can be given, and some import
tant object to be accomplished by it pointed out, I must regard it as alto
gether improbable.
On the ground that the views above given are reasonable and well sup
ported by the laws of interpretation, our future progress in the exposition of
the book before us, will be greatly facilitated. As these views appear to
me just and well grounded, I must of course avail myself of them, and I

Chap. VII. 9. 211
shall often recur to them as matters no longer in need of a new defence, or
to be regarded as mere conjectures.
In reviewing this whole subject, it seems plain to my mind, that Jerome,
and others of later times, who refer the little, horn in chap. vii. to Antichrist,
were led to do so by the language of the N. Test., which in several in
stances is borrowed from Daniel, and applied to objects belonging to the
period of the Christian dispensation. That like events, and like charac
ters of this period, should be described in language borrowed as it were
from ancient prototypes, is very natural, and is indeed what is often done
in all parts of the New Testament. But it requires great care not to con
found prediction with mere cases of resemblance ; and it is a work not yet
fully done, to separate the one from the other, and satisfy the intelligent
inquirer where the metes and bounds actually are between the two things.
This is a work, moreover, which, if well done, would dispense with any
further necessity of resort to vnavoia, in order to elicit the true meaning
of the Old Testament. Those (and they are not a few) who find the Pope
in the little horn, go still further than Jerome, who, although the Roman
bishop in his day began sensibly to elevate himself, appears never to have
thought of such an application.
(9) I continued looking, until thrones were placed, and the Ancient of Days was
seated, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool,
flames of Are were his throne, his wheels a burning flame.
I continued looking implies, of course, some interval of time, during
which the scenes of the vision are shifted. — TWiB , is irreg. plur. form
of Xpia , the final X going into 1 movable ; the form in the text is suff. ;
for a fem plur., see § 31. 3. The root xoa means to cover, and the
noun therefore designates a seat covered or decked with cloth, or other
material, and so a seat for a king or chief judge, etc. The "i here is a
mere euphonic substitute for the Dagh. f. in the original form x&3 , see
Lex. But why the plural? Plainly it attaches itself to the idea of a
heavenly court or consessus, where the supreme Lord and Judge is con
templated as being attended by his subordinate ministers. As to attend
ants, in such a case, of the highest rank, comp. Rev. 1:4. 8: 2. Isa. 6: 2.
1 Tim. 5: 21. In regard to the enthronization of them, see Rev. 4: 4.
The most distinguished ministers of the Supreme Tribunal are seated, as
well as the Supreme Judge. In the N. Test., Christians are represented
as sharing in the like solemnities, 1 Cor. 6: 2. Matt. 19: 28. Luke 22:
30. Rev. 3: 21. Not improbably such expressions as " Let us make
man in our image ;" " Let us go down and see ;" " Who will go for us ?"
take their plural form from such views of the heavenly Consessus. The
sum of the matter is, that the prophet presents the Supreme Lord and
Judge to our view by imagery borrowed from earthly sovereigns, i. e. as
having all the insignia of preeminence and supremacy around him. —

212 Chap. Vtt. 9.
•pan , either Part. pass, for verb, p. 51. 2, or more probably it may be
3 pi. Perf. Peal used impersonally, § 49. 3. b, which comes to the same
sense. It refers to the action of depositing and putting in place a seat
(throne), which is contemplated as being brought in and adjusted by ap
propriate attendants on the divine Majesty. — The Ancient of Days is
an expression of a superlative cast, § 58. 2, meaning He who is most an
cient as to days, the Gen. noun designating the kind of quality belonging
to the adjective which precedes. The expression is equivalent to the
French L' Eternel, Eng. the Eternal. — ani , Part, pass., was seated, or
Peal Praet. (§ 12. 2. 1) = sat. God is not specifically named here, but
there can be no doubt that he is meant. The suppression of his proper
name seems to be an indication of reverence toward the ovop-a dcpavnzov,
which was so customary among the Jews ; see the like suppression in
Gen. 32: 29. Job 24: 23 {his eyes for God). Isa. 17. 13. Ecc. 9: 9. Apoc.
1: 4, but an exact likeness of the case before us is in Rev. 4: 2. The
attitude of sitting is appropriate to the dignity of the Judge, Isa. 6: 1.
Ps. 9: 5 (4), 8 (7). 122: 5. The Latins say : Judices sedent, in order to
designate the act of deciding on the part of the judges ; and in like man
ner the Greeks. — Whiter than snow, in accordance with the usual cus
tom of the Orientals, white garments being indicative of high station ;
e. g. in Heb., Qi'iin , the clothed in white, means nobles. In case of a
judge, the white garment is an indication both of dignity and purity.
Comp. in the Apoc. 3: 5. 4: 4. 6: 11. 7: 9. 19: 8. — ijn is an adj., § 28.
b. 7. — The hair of his head was like pure wool, i. e. very white. As the
Ancient of Days is here described, the idea of locks entirely white would
not be inapposite; but in Rev. 1: 14 we find the same description of the
risen Saviour, where this view of the matter would be inapposite. On
the whole, therefore, I must incline to that view, which attributes the
whiteness to exceeding splendor, like the white heat of a metal in the fire.
The sequel shows that the divine Majesty is surrounded by fire. — The
thrones were flames, i. e. they were exceedingly radiant and splendid. —
intesba , pi. of i sis , his wheels, implies that the throne on which the An
cient of Days is seated, is placed upon wheels, all which indicates rapid
movement and universal presence, so to speak. See the image at full
length, in Ezek. 1: 15 seq. 10: 13 seq. For the imagery of fire as ac
companying the presence of the Deity, see Ex. 19: 18. 20: 18. 3: 2.
Deut, 4: 24. 9: 3. Ps. 18: 9 (8). 50: 3. Ezek. 1: 4, 13, 27. Pleb. 12:
29. Rev. 4: 5. Fire may be the symbol of splendor, or it may indicate
a destroying power, or it may designate both. In the present case I
should incline to the last view ; for the excision of the beast follows.

Chap. VII. 10, 11. 213
(10) A stream of fire issued forth and went out from his presence ; thousand thou
sands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him ;
the tribunal was seated, and the books were opened.
DiB^x , a Hebraizing form, instead of the normal y&X ; see the like
in Ezra 4: 13, disss . — ia"i = nia*i , sing, in form, although indicating
ten thousand, = myriad. — "ji:fi , fem. plur. of the same. — "jflasipi , stood,
were standing, denoting continued action, like the Heb. Imperf. — xsnj
is abstract for concrete, i. e. tribunal or judgment for judges. — ani is
repeated here, in order to resume the sentence, begun with a design to
indicate the process of trial. — Books were opened, i. e. the archives of
heaven, where all of men's actions are recorded ; comp. Rev. 20: 12.
Dan. 12: 1. The scene here presented to view is very magnificent.
The resplendence of the objects, the numbers present, and the solemnity
that rests on the whole, are circumstances well adapted to strike the
mind with force.
(11) I continued looking, then, because of the sound of the great words which the
horn spake. — I continued looking, until the beast was slain, and its body destroyed,
and it was committed to the flaming fire.
The repetition of ni'in nin is here rather embarrassing to the clear
run of the sentence. But I regard this repetition as a mere resumption
of the sentence begun, and momentarily suspended for the introduction
of other matter. The meaning seems to be, that he continued looking,
until he saw the consequences of the haughty words which the beast had
spoken. — nbiap and naini , fem. Parts., having xniirj for their subject
respectively, p. 51. 2. The destruction of the beast, or little horn (An
tiochus), seems to be regarded as an effectual breaking down of the
fourth dynasty in the sense which is here attached to it, viz. that of an
annoying power. Certain it is, that Daniel does not pursue the history
of the Syrian kings beyond Antiochus. But the son of that king, and
also other subsequent kings of Syria, annoyed the Jews not unfrequently,
and at times very seriously. It is plain, therefore, that Daniel's ultima
tum in his predictions, so far as the four great dynasties are concerned,
is the capture and desolation of Jerusalem and of the temple — an event
like to that which preceded the Babylonish exile. As such an event
took place under Antiochus, the prophet's design is completed when he
has described it. The minutiae of subsequent history are out of his cir
cle of vision, and aside from his design.
An inquiry may here arise, whether the writer merely expresses in
strong language the temporal destruction of the fourth beast, or whether
he designs more than this, by saying that it was committed to the flaming

214 Chap. VII. 12.
fire. The likeness is very exact between the assertion here, and that .in
Rev. 19: 20. 20: 10, in respect to the beast, the false prophet, and Satan.
Both again are closely allied with Isa. 66: 24. Lengerke contends strenu
ously, that the Hebrews indicated future punishment in Sheol by such pas
sages. It would seem that they attached a certain degree of sensitiveness
to a dead body, and supposed that the perpetual burning of it was adapted
to torment it in a high degree. The book of Enoch, (probably written
near the commencement of the Christian era), often repeats such views ;
e. g. 10: 16, 17. 21: 3—6. 89: 33— '37. 99: 5, 7. 103: 5. 105: 21 seq., etc.
Like Isa. 66: 24, the N. Test, seems to hold fast the imagery both of the
fire and of the worm which devours dead bodies ; see Matt. 5: 22. 18: 9.
Mark 9: 43 — 48. See also Sirach 7:- 17, and comp. Judith, 16: 17. The
original image of fire, in such cases, or of fire and brimstone (as in some
others), seems to have its basis in the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Sheol was placed by the Hebrews in the world beneath, see Isa. xiv. ; as
was Tartarus by the Greeks. The smoke, flames, and sulphuric odor of
volcanic eruptions, not improbably furnished the occasion among the
Greeks of the particular imagery in question. No images more dreadful
could be found or imagined. Lengerke even strenuously urges, that the
Jews regarded future penalties as eternal ; which seems, in fact, to be much
strengthened by the views of the book of Enoch in relation to the subject,
and by those of Josephus and Philo. It is an acknowledged point, that
the Greeks regarded a part of Tartarus as the perpetual prison of a portion
of peculiar offenders. The idea of a purgatory they also had, which seems
to have passed from the Roman to the Christian priesthood at Rome, during
the fifth and sixth centuries. Daniel speaks of the beast as committed to
the flame after its death ; which looks as if he meant to designate a punish
ment which ensued upon the death of the body. The honorable burning
(instead of burying) of the body, it would not be compatible with his design
here to mention.
(12) And as to the rest of the beasts their power was taken away; but continu
ance in life was assigned to them, for a season and time.
As to the rest of the beasts, a clause in the Nom. absolute ; as often
elsewhere, e. g. 1: 17. 2: 29, 30, 32. 3: 22. 5: 18, etc — C B. Michaelis
and Rosenmiiller interpret this of other beasts in general, existing at the
time when the fourth beast was destroyed. The sense is well enough ;
but the philology may be called in question. The writer brings four
beasts into view. Of the last one only he has just related the destruc
tion. When he now says the rest, what can be meant except the other
three ? The solution of the difficulty which this parenthetic verse occa
sions, must be looked for in another way. If the reader will cast his
eye upon the preceding context, he will see that nothing is there said of
the destruction either of the first, second, or third beast. Having now
given in strong colors a sketch of the destruction of the fourth beast, this
seems naturally to suggest, that something should be said in regard to
the disappearance of the others. ' Others,' he goes on then to say,

Chap. VII. 13. 215
' shared the like destiny, but not so speedily as did the little horn. They
continued during the period allotted by Heaven to each.' — yisti ,
Aph. 3 plur. of X^S , impers. for pass. § 49. 3. 2. — linjobttS , the do
minion of them, having a pron. pi. masc. for the suffix ; and this re
lates plainly to kings, i. e. kingdoms symbolized by the beasts ; in other
words, the pronoun accords with what the beasts symbolize. — na'nx , lit.
prolongation, and "p^na designates the periods in which the three empires
flourished. The prolongation in this case seems evidently in the way of
contrast to the speedy destruction of the little horn, which comes, as the
writer views the matter, to be the principal representative of the fourth
dynasty. The reign of Antiochus was, in fact, only about 11 years. The
prolongation was for a season and time. — ]^t seems to come near to the
meaning of our word season, i. e. opportune time ; while yis is a defined
or appointed period. That the phrase is not intended to be minutely
detinue here, must be evident from the nature of the case. The three dif
ferent dynasties were of very unequal duration, and of course a definite
limitation of time, and the same limitation, could not be assigned to all
alike. The meaning plainly is : ' For a period such as Heaven decreed.
ISome remained tor one time, and some for another time. All was di
rected by the power and will of God.' The power or dominion of the
beasts is here explicitly shown, by v. 12, to have been destroyed, at the
time wheu the lourth beast was condemned and destroyed. How all this
can consist with the Roman history, it would be difficult to show. But
the endless variations ol opinion concerning the passage, indicate that the
application of the whole to Antichrist or to the Pope, has. been the occa
sion of the difficulty about it. Daniel's lour dynasties are not exactly dynas
ties of civil history, but dynasties of prophecy. The minute circumstances
that attended them, when beginning or ending, are not detailed, with the
exception of Antiochus EpipLaiies in ch. xi.
Having thus disposed ot the tour dynasties, the writer next gives us a
view of tne glorious kingdom, which is the ultimate object of his pro
phetic contemplation. i
(13) 1 continued lo look during the visions of the night, and behold! with the
clouds of heaven one like a Sou of Man came, and he approached the Ancient of Days,
and Uiey brought him near before him.
x;^ "'J'n? > repeated from v. 2 above. The plural is used in refer
ence to a series or succession of visions  as , lit. with, it designates the
idea of accompanying, i.e. the Son of Man came accompanied or surrounded
by clouds. The idea doubtless is that of being enthroned on a moving
cloud, and advancing with it; so in Rev. 1: 7. 14: 14. So Jehovah, in

216 Chap. VII. 13.
Isa. 19: 1. Ps. 104: 3. Nah. 1: 3. The Sibylline Oracles have para
phrased this passage not unaptly :
7]t;ei kv vs/fieXy u<j>-&tTov aip-HiTo; avrac
kv doZy XpitrrSc otiv a/xvy.ov&L uyyeXrf/jiai
teal Ka&iCei K. T. /I.
On this account the Rabbins name the Messiah i«9 = nubivagus, or iba; 13
son of the cloud. Son of Man means a human being, i. e. a being in hu
man form, apparently a man. In Ezekiel, it is the usual appellation of
the prophet himself. The phrase is used in this way, however, only in
poetic and prophetic language. The symbols of all the four dynasties
that precede, are ravenous beasts ; as they might appropriately be. But
here is a new kingdom, and one of an entirely different character. It is
fitly symbolized, therefore, by an intelligent rational being. The symbol
here is not of a people or nation, as some of the ancients interpreted it,
who applied it to Jews in the time of the Maccabees. Nor is it the holy
part of the Jewish nation, as Paulus, Jahn, Wegscheider, and Baumgar-
ten Crusius have interpreted it. Rev. 12: 5 will not support this view,
for there the man-child does not mean Christians, but the Messiah. Por
phyry applied it to Judas Maccabaeus ; upon which Jerome asks, how
Judas came with the clouds, and whether his kingdom was perpetual.
The sequel plainly points to the king Messiah. Here is no succession
and no change of dynasty. So, moreover, the leading Rabbies, Jarchi,
Saadias, Jos. Jachiades. Even the book of Enoch calls him Son of Man.
Lengerke himself admits, that a superhuman nature is here assigned to
him, because elsewhere God only comes in the clouds ; also because an
gels conduct him to the throne of God, and because a universal and per
petual kingdom is assigned to him. Various reasons have been given,
why the writer employs such an appellation to designate the new king.
The matter, however, seems after all to be quite simple. Prophecy had
declared that the Messiah would be a son of David, Isa. 11: 1. Mic 5: 1,
et al. The new kingdom is on earth ; Christ is to appear, and act as the
head of it; and to do this, he must assume a human form. Such a form
angels were wont to assume, when they conversed with men. If we sup
pose, moreover, that Daniel in vision had a still more definite idea of the
person and work of the Messiah, the name Son of Man might be employed
by him in reference to a nature which was adapted to suffer and die ;
comp. Heb. 2: 14 — 18. 4: 15, 16. At all events, this is the locus classicus
to explain the appellation Son of Man, which is given to Christ in the
N. Test., and which he very often applies to himself, but which his disci
ples rarely indeed employed to designate him, as we find only one exam-

Chap. VII. 14,15. 217
pie, Acts 7: 56. It designates very significantly the frail and suffering
condition of Jesus in his state of humiliation ; while Son of God has ref
erence to his higher and more exalted nature. Both appellations desig
nate one and the same person ; but one has reference to one aspect of that
person, and the other to another. It is easy to see, moreover, that while
Son of Man, in the Gospels, designates Christ in his state of humiliation
it is quite remote from designating anything which is degrading. A ref.
erence of it to the passage before us, will always cast appropriate light
upon it. — In in/Dipn , they brought him near, we have again the 3d
plur. without any subject expressed, in the room of the pass, voice. The
idea still is, that he was conducted to the throne by the attendant angels
or ministering spirits.
( 14) And to him was given dominion, and honor, and a kingdom, that all people,
nations, and tongues should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one which shall not be destroyed.
yabiD is the ruling power which any one possesses, the right to rule ;
laba is the domain over which one rules. — ipi refers here rather to the
honor, iiptj, which belongs to a king, than the mere splendor of his con
dition. — The everlasting kingdom is in contrast with other perishable
dynasties, see in vs. 11, 12. Comp. also 2: 44. 4: 34. 7: 27, and the lan
guage of Gabriel to Mary, Luke 1: 32, 33. — msj, Fut. Peal, with the
rough enunciation — bannn , Ithpaal, fem. The i*i , which is the subject,
is fem. here, and = one which, or that which.
(15) As for me Daniel, my spirit was sorely troubled within me, and the visions
of the night terrified me.
niianx , 3 fem. Ithpeal, inn being of the common gender. The nx (in
stead of the normal nx ) in the first syllable, is Syriasm, § 25. 2. The
word may mean was sick; but the meaning given to it above seems here
to be the more probable. — inil , my spirit, is a periphrasis for I, but
it is somewhat more intensive, § 43. 1. — The two following words I
have translated as in the Nom. abs. ; which indeed best suits our idiom.
But in the Hebrew, they are in apposition with irni, and are designed
not so much to be explicative of this word, as to designate the same per
sonage intensively. — iisa = xiaa , lit. in the midst, an intensive form
of a in, somewhat like our within instead of in. — nji;, with n- para-
gogic, like njab, n;ix , etc., lit. sheath = body. That is, the body is to
the soul, what the sheath is to the sword. Pliny (Hist. Nat. VII. 52) calls
it the sheath (vagina) of the soul ; and so spake a philosopher to Alexan
der the Great, who looked with contempt upon his corporeal deformity,
(d'Herbelot, Bib. Orient, p. 642). Job 27: 8 seems to allude to the
19

218 Chap. VII. 16, 17.
same figurative expression : " When God shall draw out {extraxerit) his
soul," viz. as one draws out a sword from its sheath. Elsewhere the
body is the dwelling of the soul ; the temple of God's Spirit, etc. The Na-
siraeans call it robe or shirt ; the Rabbies, a garment. One idea only lies
at the basis of all these figurative expressions, viz. something that covers
or conceals the soul which dwells within. n?i3 occurs nowhere else
in the Scriptures ; but with all the analogies adduced above to help us,
it does not seem difficult to explain the word satisfactorily. It appears to
be the object of the writer, to express the idea of internal troubles, while
his bodily soundness was unimpaired. — It should be noted, moreover,
that all this is presented as happening to him in vision, or while the
vision continued ; as the next verse clearly shows. The trouble that he
had, seems to have arisen in part from the mournful aspect which some of
the visions wore, betokening sorrow to his people and kindred, and in
part from being as yet unable distinctly to understand the entire meaning
of the visions. This last circumstance is fully confirmed by the inquiries
that follow.
(16) I drew near to one of those who were standing by, that I might ask of him
the certainty respecting all this ; and he told me, that he would explain to me the
meaning of the things.
Xiaxp , Part. plur. emph. It means those who were standing in the at
titude of ministering servants before the throne of the Ancient of Days ;
see in v. 10. — nsa , of or from him, implies asking him importunately.
— luisi , that the interpretation, etc. If the verb in the Future (now at
the end of the clause (stood immediately connected with the 1 , there
would be no difficulty in rendering the 1 that, or so that; for nothing is more
common than such a meaning of 1 at the beginning of an apodosis. But
it is equally true, in Hebrew and in Chaldee, that when nouns intervene
(as here) between the 1 and the verb Fut., the same meaning be
longs to the whole clause as if the verb stood at the beginning. Winer
has given but an imperfect account of such an idiom, in § 44. 4. — Njba ,
matters, things, viz. those which he had seen in his vision. — iSSSiini,
Aph. Fut. p. 58, Rem.l. The suff. here may be translated as in the Ace,
make me know, or it may be regarded as virtually a Dat. with to or for
to mark the relation in English, § 50. 2. a.
(17) As to those great beasts, which are four — four kings shall arise from the
earth. ¦p|X , fem. plur. = lisx , (omitted by Winer, p. 34), used here
merely instead of the copula verb, (which usage Winer has also omit
ted, § 40. 1). — nsaix , masc. with fem. form, as the preceding saix is

Chap. VII. 18—20. 219
fem. with the masc. form, § 36. 2. paba , kings, concrete for abstract,
i. e. kings for kingdoms, as the sequel shows, see v. 23. The angel-
interpreter speaks summarily in regard to these, and merely places them
in a general point of view. The fourth kingdom, (which is afterwards re
sumed), is the special object he has in view, as to detail ; and to this the
subsequent inquiries of Daniel direct his attention. When it is said :
shall arise, the Babylonish monarchy (one of the four) cannot be sup
posed to be yet future, inasmuch as the vision was in the first year of
the last king's reign, 7:1. But — a potiori nomen fit; three of the
kingdoms were yet future, and so they are spoken of en masse, and
in the same way.
(18) And the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and they shall
possess the kingdom for ever, yea forever and ever.
i^i^ipl = ayiot, those consecrated to God, the pious. Jehovah says of
the Hebrews, that they must be uiiflp iia , Ex. 19: 5, 6. So those also
must be, who will belong to the fifth or Messianic kingdom. This king
dom plainly supervenes, after the end of the four monarchies. These
belonged not to the saints. The pluralis excellentiae here, "psiibs , is
found in no other case in Chaldee ; for in this dialect, such a plural is
rare, § 55. 2.
(19) Then I asked for certainty in respect to the fourth beast, which differed from
all of them, was very terrible, his teeth were of iron, and his claws of brass ; it de
voured, crushed, and the remainder it trode down with its feet ;
nias , 1st pers. sing. Peal = niaa , but not specially noted by Wi
ner. — xasib in the Ace, or it may be made in the Dat., and so we
might translate : wished for certainty. — Tinba would be the proper
pointing of the Kethibh, which is masc, agreeing with kings implied ;
the present pointing belongs to the reading inba , as indicated in the
margin. For the rest of the verse, see above in v. 7. One circumstance
is here added, viz. its claws were of brass. This gives intensity to the
image. It is evident, at once, that Daniel's principal solicitude has re
spect to the fourth beast. This he describes minutely, as he had first
seen and described it, in order that he might place it distinctly before the
interpreter's mind.
(20) And concerning the ten horns which were on his head, and another one that
came up, and three fell before it, and the same horn had eyes, and a mouth speaking
great things, and the look of it was stouter than that of its fellows.
This verse is the second clause of a sentence begun in v. 19, and be
fore it, by implication, we must supply nasib nias . For the ten horns,

220 Chap. VII. 21, 22.
see v. 7. For the llp^nx (so Kethibh) there, we have lbS3 here, which
the Qeri has changed into the fem. nbs:, without any necessity, for kings
are the implied subject ; see in v. 7 on lip?nx . The next clause runs
literally thus : And as to that horn, eyes were to it. For this and the
next clause, see v. 8 above. — Win , suff. form of MH , like a Heb. Se
gholate, lit. the look or appearance of it. — 31 great literally, but when
applied to a look, it may mean what is expressed by our word stout, i. e.
haughty, swaggering. But the clause may also mean nothing more, than
that the appearance of the horn which sprang up, was greater as to mag
nitude than the appearance of the others, — nnian , fem. pi. with suff.
fem. sing, relating to the horn ; for suff. see p. 36 top. How the little
horn could appear greater than the others, is easily explained. While
the seer was looking at it, it became larger and larger, until it came to
exceed the rest. We should not apply this to the mere extent of Antio
chus' sway, but to the gradual strengthening of his own personal influence,
by overcoming the parties in favor of other claimants of the crown, and
specially does it apply to his becoming altogether more formidable to the
Jews, than any other of the Syrian princes.
(21) I continued looking, and that horn made war with the saints, and prevailed
against them.
What is here expressed in Daniel's relation of his vision to the angel,
is omitted in his statement of it above ; see v. 8 above, which compares
with v. 20 here, but after the 8th verse, the matter of v. 21 is omitted.
Daniel's agitation, in regard to what will be done by the little horn, and
his desire of an explanation respecting it, lead him to be more minute
concerning it, in his relation to the angel. — X135> , Part. fem. ; in Chald.
las usually means to make, do, practise ; while in Hebrew this is the
less usual meaning — to serve being the common one. — aip , § 28. a. 2.
— nbai, Part. fem. Both the participles here plainly designate con
tinued action. — *hb I have translated against them, because the Eng.
idiom demands this. We might render literally thus : It was superior
to them, or it prevailed in respect to them. The writer of the Apoca
lypse has employed the same language in describing the contest of the
beast with the two witnesses, Rev. 11: 7 ; with the saints, Rev. 13: 7 ;
and with the Messiah, Rev. 19: 19. But to argue from this, that the
Apocalyptist has the same personage in view as Daniel, because he ap
plies Daniel's language to his own purposes of description, would betray
very little acquaintance with the usages of the N. Test, writers.
(22) Until the Ancient of Days came, and the tribunal was seated for the saints of
the Most High, and the appointed time came, and the saints possessed the kingdom.
Comparing this with vs. 9 seq. above, it will be seen that the substance

Chap. VII. 23, 24. 221
of vs. 9 — 14 is here presented in a single verse. The reason of this is
plain. Daniel already understood the Messianic part of the vision. His
inquiries respected the fourth beast, and specially the little horn. He
therefore enlarges on that part of the description, and compresses all be
sides. — "iai X3il, see v. 9, abstract for concrete, judgment forjudge. —
"jijl'ib? , plur. see v. 18. — IJpnn , instead of the normal 'Opnn in Aphel ;
it is simply a Heb. Hiphil form, p. 50, top. In vs. 9 — 14 above, the
leader or head of the new and final kingdom is made altogether con
spicuous; but here the same dominion is characterized, by describing the
character of those who belong to it — the saints of the Most High.
(23) He replied thus : As to the fourth beast, there shall be a fourth kingdom in
the earth, which shall differ from all the other kingdoms, and it shall devour all the
earth, and tread upon it, and crush it.
Comp. v. 7 above, where the same summary account of the fourth dy
nasty is given. — xrvoba , emph. plur. fem. of laba . — bsxn'] , § 21. a,
it shall devour = it shall destroy. — n|i!i^in , Fut. Peal of ttiw , with
augmented suff., p. 58. Rem. 1. — nspin, Aph. Fut. of ppi. , with suff.
as before. Both of the suffixes here are written, in some Codices, a| — ;
which merely shows how unsettled a part of the Chaldee vocalization is.
— Tread upon it, uhl, means trampling upon anything so as to crush it.
But here the crushing is designated more graphically by a stronger verb,
nspin , which means to crush into minute pieces. The whole is vivid
imagery of the great ravages made by the fourth beast. But as this was
a compound beast (8: 8), consisting of four kingdoms, it was doubtless a
matter of desire to Daniel, to know which of these must be expected to
perform the work of destruction. The sequel tells us the particulars of
the matter in question. — AU the earth of course has reference here to
" the glory of all lands," i. e. to Palestine ; for the history of the whole
world is not intended to be given, but only of that part of it which had to
do with the people of God. The devastations committed in Palestine by
Antiochus, are well described in the first book of the Maccabees, and
tolerably in Josephus. It is clear, that the Jews were treated with se
verity and even reckless cruelty, such as Antiochus scarcely indulged
with respect to any other nation. That the phrase in question — all the
earth — often designates some particular country, and not literally the
whole world, needs not any proof for the critical reader.
(24) And as to the ten horns — out of that kingdom ten kings shall arise ; and
another shall arise after them, and he shall differ from those who preceded, and
three kings shall he humble.
nsa from the same, the demonstrative meaning being designated by the
19*

222 Chap. VII. 25.
position of the pronoun before the noun, § 43. 6. b. — Ten kings shall
arise, not ten kingdoms, although horn might designate kingdom, as it
does in 8: 8. But here the sequel shows that kings must be meant. —
Another shall arise after them, comp. v. 8 above. There, instead of
•jhiirix after them, we have "|ini_3ia among them. The basis of the idea is
the same in both. The writer means, that the little horn was from the
same source as the others which preceded it. It sprang up among them,
and came after them in succession. Antiochus Epiphanes was a son of
Antiochus the Great, and a brother of Seleucus IV. Philopator, who was
assassinated by Heliodorus. — He was different from those who preceded
him, which was most fully true, specially as it respected his treatment
of the Jews, (which doubtless is what this phrase alludes to), as well as
actually in point of personal character. — And three kings shall he humble,
viz. Heliodorus, Ptolemy IV. Philometor, and Demetrius the lawful heir
to the throne ; see on v. 8 above. Here the angel-interpreter mollifies
the stronger verbs that had been used by Daniel, in v. 8 llpynx , in
v. 20 ibS3 ; which shows that the rooting out and the falling have respect to
the regal office, not to the life of the kings, bsupni , Hebraizing Aph.
with prefix n retained, p. 49. 5 ; also p. 50 top, for the final Hhireq.
To humble means to disappoint of their aspiring lofty claims to kingly
authority. Heliodorus was doubtless treated as a rebel ; but the life of
the others was not molested. Such an interpretation has good authority
for its voucher, viz. that of the angel-interpreter in using the verb bsiani.
The passage being understood as he explains it, the death of three kings
is not at all necessary to the fulfilment of the prophetic vision.
(25) And words shall he utter against the Most High, and the saints of the Most
High shall he vex, and he shall think to change times and law, and they shall be
given into his hand for a time, times, and the dividing of time.
ixb , lit. to the side, i. e. against, like the Latin adversus. — x;bs (so
the Kethibh), the exalted One, of course means the Most High. —
ntjiipb , Ace after xbai , the last being Pael Fut., and meaning consume
away, vex, harass. — 13pi , think, hope, expect. — n^Jtonb , Inf. Aph.
— -p3aT , appointed times, such as feasts, etc., in reference to the laws
of Moses which set apart many of these. — ni means law in general ;
but here, as the reference is made to religious matters, it must mean the
religious laws of Moses. In 6: 6, the word is plainly employed in such a
sense. — yns pi. because the dual is wanting in the Chaldee. The na
ture of the case shows that two times is the probable sense here. The
singular noun most naturally means a year, which is a defined period
of time. So in 4: 13, seven times = seven years. The half of this

Chap. VII. 25, 26. 223
period is designated by the phrase time, times and dividing of time,
which last expression means half year. The like in Hebrew, in Dan. 12 :
7 and in 9: 27, we find half of a week or heptade [viz. of years]. See
also the same in the Apoc. 12: 14, comp. 13: 5. 11: 2, 3. 12: 6. A com
parison of all these passages seems to settle the matter conclusively, that
the prophetic year consists of 360 days =12 months at 30 days each.
It is of importance to note this ; for accuracy of calculation must depend
on it.

Is this expression of time poetical merely and figurative, consisting of
round numbers (as they say), and comprising just half of the mystical num
ber seven, which is so often employed in a kind of tropical way ? Historical
facts seem to speak for the literal interpretation, in the book before us.
Yet, considering the nature of the case and of the number usually con
cerned with such reckonings, (i. e. the number seven), we surely need not
be solicitous about a day, a week, or even a month, more or less. The con
venience of the reckoning, when it is near enough to exactness for all the
purposes of prophecy, is very obvious, and will account for adopting it.
In exhibiting the historical facts, we will begin with an era which is cer
tain, viz. the time when Judas Mace, expurgated the temple, and began the
service of God anew. This was on the 25th of Dec. 148 ann. Sel. = 165 B. C,
see 1 Mace. 4: 52. Counting back three and a half years, we come to June
in 145 A. S. = 168 B. C. Livy has described the retreat of Antiochus
from Egypt, in the early spring (primo vere, Liv. xlv. 11.) of that year.
While on that retreat, Antiochus detached Apollonius, one of his military
chieftains, to lay waste Jerusalem, (comp. 2 Mace. 5: 11, which makes the
time clear), for he had heard that the Jews exulted at bis misfortune, in
being obliged by the Romans to retreat from Egypt, and he was deter
mined to wreak his vengeance on them. He did so effectually, as 1 Mace.
1: 29 seq. fully shows ; and vs. 29, 20, of the same chapter, compared to
gether, show that the year was 145 A. S. as above stated. From June, when
Jerusalem was probably taken, to December, is six months ; and from De
cember in 168 to December, 165, is three years. In the same way, as to
time, does Josephus reckon, Proem, ad Bell. Jud. § 7. But to avoid per
plexity, it should be noted that a different mode of reckoning, viz. three years,
is sometimes employed. E. g. in 1 Mace. 4: 54, and 2 Mace. 10: 5, such a
method appears to be implied ; and so in Jos. Ant. Jud. XII. 7. 6. An
examination of the context in these cases shows, however, that this period
designates only the time that intervened between the profanation of the
temple by heathen sacrifices, 1 Mace. 1: 54, and the consecration of it by Ju
das Maccabaeus, 1 Mace. 4: 54. Some six months after capture of the city, du
ring which all manner of cruelties and excesses were committed, appear to
have elapsed before Antiochus began his swinish offerings in the temple. The
consecration of the temple by Judas introduced regular Hebrew worship there;
and the death of Antiochus happening shortly afterward, the period of his
oppression was of course at its end. Thus did events correspond very exactly
with the time designated in our text. We cannot indeed specify the exact day,
because history has not done this ; but it is enough, that we come so near to
the time designated, as to remove all serious difficulty respecting it

224 Chap. VH. 26—28.
Other passages corresponding, as to time, with the verse before us, may
be found in Dan. 9: 27. 12: 7, and, with some modifications, the periods
marked in 12: 11, 12, harmonize with these. The discussion respecting
them, however, may be deferred until we come in course to consider them.

(26) And the tribunal shall be seated, and his power shall be taken away, to abol
ish and to destroy it for ever.
The tribunal, etc. comp. v. 9. His dominion, viz. that of the fourth
beast, or rather of that other king mentioned in v. 24. — "l^sni , Fut.
Aph. with n retained, from xi? , 3 pi. without any subject, and so used
in a passive sense, § 49. 3. b. The two verbs that follow are in Inf. Aphel,
and I have so translated them ; but as such an Infinitive often stands in
a parallel construction with clauses having definite verbs, we might here
translate : it shall be abolished and destroyed, etc. Winer has failed to
illustrate this idiom ; but see in my Roed. Heb. Gram. § 129. 3. Note 2.
— XBiD IS , in perpetuum, as Jerome well translates it ; or, if one in
sists on retaining the shade of idea, we may translate : to the end, i. e.
of all things, the final end. It may have another shade of meaning, viz.
utterly, finally.
(27) And the kingdom, and dominion, and power of the kingdoms under the whole
heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High ; their kingdom
shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.
xniai hardly means greatness, i. e. extent, in this passage. It is
rather the equivalent of Svvapig. The meaning of the whole clause is,
that the dominion and power of all kingdoms shall be united and concen
trated in the new or Messianic kingdom. — nairn ,'Part. pass. fem. p. 51.
— D»b, to the people, etc. In vs. 13, 14 above, the Head of this new
kingdom is presented as taking the dominion. Here the subjects of that
kingdom en masse are described as possessing it. The N. Test, often
presents Christians as reigning with Christ. — nniaba , not his, as refer
ring to the Most High, but its (or as we must express it their) referring
to the people possessing the dominion. So nb it (Ace or Dat.) has
reference to the people who possess the supremacy, and so I have trans
lated it them. — "iWBnffii , Ithpaal, § 10. 5. b.
(28) Here is the end of the matter. As for me Daniel, my thoughts greatly dis
quieted me, and my color was changed upon me, but I kept the matter in my own
mind. n3~i5> unto here, i. e. at this point, was the termination both of the
vision and the explanation. The death of the fourth beast, or of the other
king, and the subsequent new kingdom, was the end or completion of all
that was disclosed. Some refer n3_lS merely to the end of the angel's
disclosure ; with less probability. — 111? , lit. my splendors, describes

Chap. VHI. Introduction. 225
vividly the shining appearance of the skin in full health and strength.
Paleness supervened in this case, and this is what the writer means to
say. — •isr.'ji , Fut. Ithpaal of XJtp, § 10. 5. b. — ibs, over me or up
on me, i. e. over the surface of the whole body. The last clause in the
verse may denote either that Daniel revolved the whole matter carefully
in his own mind, or that he kept it to himself, without communicating it
to others ; which, on the whole, I deem the more probable meaning.
Light he could not well expect from others ; and by keeping the thing to
himself, he would avoid many importunate if not impertinent questions.

CHAPTER VIII. Introduction.
[In the third year of Belshazzar's reign, Daniel saw another vision, subsequent to
that related in ch. vii. In this vision he was transferred to Shushan on the river TJlai,
in the province of Elam, (the capital of the future Persian empire), vs. 1,2. Here he
saw a ram, with two elevated horns, the one being higher however than the other,
but more recent as to its origin. In various directions did the ram push, and nothing
conld staud before him, vs. 3, 4. Upon this, a he-goat made his appearance, bounding
over the earth without seeming to touch it ; and this goat had a notable horn between
his eyes, v. 5. He came to the ram with fury, smote him, broke his horns, and trode
him down, while there was none to rescue, vs. 6, 7. The he-goat now became very
great, and at the height of his power, his great horn was broken in pieces, and there
came np four other notable horns in its room, v. 8. Prom one of these sprang up a
little horn, which waxed great toward the south, and east, and the goodly land of the
Hebrews, v. 9. It waxed so great that it assailed the host of heaven [the sacred offieia-
tors in the temple], and some of these it cast down and trode npon, v. 10. Even the
prince of that host [the God of the temple] was deprived by him of his daily sacrifice,
and laws and ordinances were prostrated, and success attended the undertakings of
the tyrannical oppressor, i. 12. While contemplating this scene of desolation, the
prophet hears one of the holy angels asking another, how long this state of things is
to continue, v. 13. The answer is 2300 days, at the close of which the sanctuary will
be vindicated, v. 14. Daniel makes for himself still further inquiry respecting the
meaning of the vision; an angel, on the river's bank, requires Gabriel (the angel-
interpreter, to make the requisite explanation, vs.l 5,1 6. This angel approaches Daniel,
who swoons, and is lifted up and revived by his kind interpreter, vs. 17,18. Gabriel in
forms him, that he shall make particular disclosures respecting what is to happen at the
last part of the season of affliction, v. 19. He says, that the ram symbolizes the kings of
Media and Persia ; the he-goat, the king of Grecia ; the great horn is its first king, and
the breaking of it is the rain of his empire ; out of this ruin shall arise four dynasties,
with inferior power, vs.20 — 22. In after-times shall arise from one of them a king.crnel,
cunning, a fearful destroyer, specially of the holy people, vs. 23, 24. By his craft and sa
gacity, he will destroy many without waging war ; on account of his success, he will
become haughty and set himself against the Prince of princes ; by whom he shall be
dashed in pieces, ^ . 25. Daniel is assured, that the vision is true, and he is directed to
seal it up, because it pertains to a distant future, v. 26. Daniel again swoons, and is af
terwards sick for some days. He after,this returns to his ordinary official business, v.27.]

226 Introduction to Chap. VIII.
It is plain, at first view, that the Babylonish monarchy is here omitted.
Twice (ch. ii. vii.) had it already been described, and it was now near its
close, and nothing specially worthy of particular note, in respect to the
Jews, was to take place before that close. To Daniel, therefore, a further
disclosure is made, in regard to those empires whiph would be particu
larly concerned, in future, either with favoring his countrymen or with
annoying them. These were mainly the second and fourth dynasties, (so
named in reference to ch. vii.) The third seems to be here introduced
mainly because it stands between the Medo-Persian dominion and that
of the fourth beast.
As might naturally be expected, Daniel, as he approaches nearer to
the events predicted, becomes more specific in his statements respecting
them. For example, in ch. vii. no account is given of the manner in which
the second or Medo-Persian empire is overthrown ; but here, in vs. 5 — 7,
we have a graphic account of its fall. In ch. vii, no account is given of the
manner in which the third beast perishes and the fourth beast arises ; but
in v. 8 here we have one specifically given. In ch. vii, the little horn is mere
ly said to arise among the other ten horns of the fourth beast ; here it is
stated, that it arose out of one of the four dominions of the last empire. In
ch. vii, the blasphemous, boasting, persecuting character of the little horn is
merely glanced at, (vs. 8, 24, 25) ; but here we have a full detail, as it
were, of cruelties and abominations, vs. 9 — 12, 23—25. In ch. vii, we
have a designation of the time, during which the desolations of Jerusalem
and the temple shall take place beyond all former example (v. 25) ;
while in ch. viii, we have a different designation of time, in respect to
matters which are of wider extent. Finally, the whole circle of beasts in
ch. vii, are different from those introduced in ch. viii. The beasts here
are not chosen so much with reference to their rabid and destructive
nature, as with reference to their active and rapid movements.
If any reader should be tempted to think it strange, that the same
subjects should be repeated, even with additional specifications, (as is
particularly the case with the fourth dynasty in this book, in chaps, ii.
vii. viii. xi., and above all with the description of the little horn or Anti
ochus Epiphanes), he needs only to turn to Isaiah, and ask how often
the Assyrian invasion is there depicted; or to the prophets in general
and ask : How many are the prophecies respecting the destruction of
Babylon, Egypt, Moab, Tyre, Philistia, etc. The answer to these ques
tions will remove any difficulty which the book before us seems to pre
sent, in regard to repetition.
In fact, how can we be competent to decide, how often peculiar circum
stances among the Hebrews demanded a renewal of the same subject?

Chap. VIII. 1, 2. 227
But in the present case, the later predictions are seldom, if ever, mere
repetitions of the preceding ones. New circumstances are developed ;
or the subject is placed in a new attitude ; or it is connected with some
promise or threatening. In a word, there is always something in the
later prediction, to adapt it to the time when it was uttered.
In the case before us, the time drew near when the Medo-Persian
dynasty would commence. Before that period, the Jews were to change
their outward circumstances in no important respect. The writer, there
fore, now begins with the dynasty which would make a change. And
in order to obtain an appropriate place of vision, he is transferred in his
ecstasy to the capital of the Medo-Persian empire, and from its tower
or citadel he looks out over the ground of empires yet future. And in
asmuch as, from the nature of the case, the later vision is more specific
than the earlier ones, it affords us very important aid in the explanation
of what might otherwise be dubious from its brevity or generality, in the
preceding oracles.
( 1 ) In the third year of the reign of Belshazzar the king, a vision appeared to mo,
to me Daniel, after that which appeared to me in the beginning.
The reader will note, that the Hebrew language is now employed, and
so through the remainder of the book. The Grammar to which refer
ence is made, is the one quoted under chap. i. v. 1. — nxi?, Niph. re
flexive, shewed itself, i. e. appeared. — i;x in the Dat. because the pro
noun is repeated ; see in Roed. Heb. Gramm. § 119. 3. — nxisn, n with
Dagh. f. has the form of the article, but it is here a pronoun, which or
that which, § 107. 1. — nbnna, lit. in the beginning, which however is
equivalent in usage to our word formerly, al first. The reference plainly
is to the vision in the first year of Belshazzar, recorded in chap. vii.
This is a sufficient answer to Bertholdt's affirmation, that different per
sons were the authors of chap. vii. and viii. The necessary inference
here is, that the same individual was the seer in both cases.
(2) And I saw in vision, and it was so, that while I saw, I was in Shushan the
citadel, which is in the province of Elam, yea I saw in vision when I was by the
river Ulai.
I saw in vision designates the prophetic ecstasy in which he was. The
place of the vision is designated in two different ways. First, it is said
to be in Shushan the citadel or palace, which was a portion of the city of
Shushan, and doubtless was the germ from which the city sprang. The
fortified part of the city, i. e. the citadel, would be of course the most
probable place of the king's abode. In the book of Esther, the word
niia denotes both citadel and city ; in 3: 15, it has both meanings in the

228 Chap. VIII. 2.
same verse. There can be no reasonable doubt, that this city was the
leading capital of the new Medo-Persian dynasty. It lay on the river
Choaspes, about some 250 miles east of Babylon. — Elam the province
(so the Hebrew runs) shows, that Elam, at the time of writing, either
did not mean the whole of Persia, (as however it often does), or else
that Persia itself was then only a province of the Median, or of the Ba
bylonian, empire. No satisfactory evidence seems to have been pro
duced, that Babylon, at this period, held dominion over any part of the
Median territory. Still, from the proximity of Elam to Babylonia, and
from the fact that the Median kings had frequent difficulties with the
Babylonish ones, it may, at that period, have been made a tributary pro
vince of Babylon. Our accounts of the minor political changes, in an
cient times, in different countries beyond the Tigris, are so very imper
fect, that no reliance can be placed on any argumentum a silentio made
out from a lack in these sources, against the position just mentioned.
But be this as it may, it is certain that in Daniel's time Persia was not
independent, until near the close of his life, and that if it was not under
the supervision of Babylon, it was at least a province of Media. — I was
by the river Ulai, gives the specific locality, for purposes apparent in the
sequel. The whole clause is parallel to the preceding one, and differs
only in marking the locality with more minuteness. Both Pliny (Hist.
Nat. VI. 31), and Arrian (Exp. Alex. VII. 7), make mention of the
river Eulaeus at Susa or Shushan ; but Herodotus and Strabo appear
to call the same river Choaspes. The confusion of names among the
Greek and Latin writers, with respect to the East, is not unfrequently
great and quite perplexing. For example ; Ctesias puts Nineveh on
the Euphrates ; Pliny, on the west of the Tigris ; the Syriac Version
puts Euphrates for Tigris, in Dan. 10: 4 ; and Lucian places Seleucia
on the Euphrates, (Dea Syr. § 18). Enough for our purpose, that Ulai
was at least one of the names by which the river that flows around Shu
shan was known. — But why such a locality ? Because the prophet's
present vision begins with the Medo-Persian empire, and Shushan was
to be its capital. And why on the river's bank ? Not because the Jews
were wont to build prayer-houses in such places, Acts 16: 13 ; nor be
cause Ezekiel had visions on the Chaboras, 1: 1, 3. 3: 15, 23 al., (Leng.) ;
nor because of the solitude of the place (Maur.) ; but simply, as I un
derstand it, because the castle (niia) stood on the banks of the river.
The mention of the river, however, would still be in a measure superflu
ous, were not this mention a preparation for what is said in v. 16.
As to all the difficulties that have been raised, by asserting that Shu
shan did not belong to Babylon, in Daniel's time, and that he could not

Chap. VIII. 3, 4. 229
be there on the king's business (v. 27), and the like, it would be easy to
reply, that the first cannot be proved, and that the second presents no
real difficulty. The Babylonian king might surely have some business
with the province of Elam, although it did not belong to his domain ;
and he might have sent Daniel to do it. But we have a readier answer,
viz. that Daniel is on the Ulai merely in vision, not physically. So
Pharaoh was on the banks of the Nile, Gen. 41: 1 ; Ezekiel (at the river
Chebar) was in Jerusalem, 8: 3, and in the land of Israel, 40: 2. So
John (while at Patmos) was taken to the wilderness, Rev. 17: 3, comp.
21: 10. This settles all difficulties at once, and comparing vs. 2: 27, one
can see no room to doubt the correctness of this view.
(3) And I lifted up my eyes, and looked, and lo ! a ram standing before the river,
and he had two horns, and the two horns were high, but one was higher than the
other, and the higher one sprang tip last.
xiax , Kal. Imperf. of xim . — baixn , with art. referring to the same
word in v. 2. — Disip , a dual which must come from yp instead of the
usual "jip . — nijffln , lit. the second, which of course here means the other.
• — nbs , Part. Pres. fem. denoting continued action, so that, during the
vision, the prophet saw the last horn in an increasing state ; comp. 7: 20.
In 8: 20, the interpreter declares that the ram symbolizes the kings of
the Medes and Persians. The imagery, then, which is here employed^
corresponds very exactly with historical facts. The two horns are Me
dia and Persia. The first of these, Media, was an independent kingdom
long before Persia was anything but a province. But ever after Cyrus
came to the throne, Persia was the leading kingdom. So the higher
horn came up last.
(4) I saw the ram thrusting westward, and northward, and southward, and none
of the beasts stood before it, nor did any deliver out of his hand, and he did accord
ing to his pleasure, and became haughty.
nJ3a , to thrust at, to strike with violence, in vulgar language to butt, in
Latin arietare. This characterizes the impetuous assaults of Cyrus and
Darius on foreign countries. — Westward, viz. Babylonia, Mesopotamia,
Syria, Asia Minor ; northward, Colchis, Iberia, Armenia, the Caspian
regions ; southward, Palestine, Egypt, Lybia, Ethiopia, etc. Eastward
is not mentioned, for the Persians made no considerable conquests there
until Darius' time, and then not of a permanent nature. After the Part.
nasa the noun beast is implied, as the next clause shows. — niin is a
symbol of kingdoms. — liasi xb , could not stand up, i. e. could not main
tain an erect and firm position, or (in other words) they were prostrated.
20

230 Chap. VIII. 5, 6.
— ilja , lit. from his hand, i. e. from his power ; constructio ad sensum.
— biljni, Hiph. but without any Ace. after it, i. e. Hiph. absolute. In
such a case, this verb means : behaved haughtily, acted proudly, see Lam.
1: 9. Zeph. 2: 8. Flushed with success, we know from all quarters that
the Persian kings assumed a haughty position. So Croesus, (in Herod.
I. 89) : IJigaai . . . vfigiazai: and so Aeschylus (Pers. v. 795), vne'g-
xopnoi ayav.
(5) And I was considering, and lo ! a he-goat came from the west, on the face of
all the earth, and he touched not the face of the ground ; and as to the goat, a con
spicuous horn was between his eyes.
¦paa iniin denotes very prominently the continued action of a reflect
ing mind. — lifis , lit. the leaper, i. e. hircus. — bi-isn , from is , which
designates the genus capra. The addition of this word to lisx , seems
to indicate that this latter word of itself was not definite enough for the
purpose of the writer. — Came over or upon all the earth, and touched
not its surface, conveys a very vivid impression of the rapidity and irre
sistible force of Alexander's army in its marches and battles. So in 1
Mace 1: 3: 8irp\&sv ea>g uxgcov tijg yijg. The first expression in our
text denotes the extent of the conquests ; the last, the rapidity with which
they were achieved. In 7: 6, the panther has four wings ; which con
veys the like idea. Virgil (VII. 806 seq.) presents an expanded but
beautiful image of Camilla, as skimming over the fields, and then over
the ocean without tinging her feet ; but it lacks the energy of the clause
before us. — tvfin "(ip, lit. cornu adspectus, a horn of visibility or conspi-
cuity (sit venia !). The meaning seems to be, that from its magnitude it
was particularly conspicuous. Theodotion, very exactly : xe'gag xreags-
rov. The pointing of De Wette, n«n (from \ ~>.), and the rendering by
sharp-pointed horn, is ingenious, but unnecessary, and indeed less signifi
cant than the form above. The word horn is employed as the emblem
of power. Rev. 5: 6. 13: 1. Zech. 1: 18, 19, al. ; of kingdoms as Dan. 8:
8, 3 ; and also of kings, 7: 20, 24. In the text before us, the one nota
ble horn symbolizes the one or sole dominion of Alexander in a very
expressive way. — Between his eyes evidently is intended to designate
its peculiar annoying power, in thrusting at those who opposed it, the
position rendering it formidable.
(6) And he came to the ram which had two horns, which I had seen standing be
fore the river, and ran to him in his strong indignation.
Disipn bsa , lit. master or possessor of two horns, see bsa in Lex. The
Koran and the Orientals generally give to Alexander, the title two-

Chap. VIII. 7, 8. 231
horned, in order to indicate his power and vehemence. — He ran to him,
indicates the velocity of his movements. — In the indignation of his
power (lit.) means with strong or veliement impetuosity or ardor, inb is
the Gen. of quality.
(7) And I saw him as he approached near the ram, and he became enraged at
him, and he smote the ram, and brake in pieces his two horns ; and there was no
strength in the ram to stand before him, for he cast him down to the earth and trode
upon him, and there was none to afford deliverance to the ram out of his hand.
Sija , Hiph. Part, of S33 , lit. an approacher, or (like a Greek partici
ple with its adsignifications) as or when approaching. — lalenn , Hith-
palpel of lia , is intransitive, and so it is followed by bx to indicate the
direction of the rage. — T£i , Imperf. Apoc. of ns: , in Hiph., the Kal
form not being in use. — nrix , with n- local, § 88. 2. a. — bixb , b p.
190. c ; it may be in the Ace. governed by the Part, before it, or we
may make it Dat. by translating as above.
(8) And the he-goat waxed exceedingly great, and when he became powerful, the
great horn was broken, and there sprang up the appearance of four in its room, to
ward the four winds of heaven.
Alexander, at the very height of his power, died suddenly at Baby-
Ion, B. C. 323. — Sprang up the appearance of four, i. e. of four horns, the
symbol of four kingdoms. But this construction is somewhat doubtful,
for niin may here mean, as before, aspectabile, i. e. something prominent
and visible. If so, then ni3ip should be mentally supplied before it, as
v. 5 teaches us. So Leng., four large horns. I still have doubts, whether
niin here is not to be taken adverbially, as marking the distinctness of
the appearance = visibly, palpably ; or possibly it may mark simply the
appearance in the sense of apparently, seemingly. But of this last mean
ing, I cannot find parallels elsewhere ; yet it is so evidently within the
compass of the word, that they are not much needed. As to historical
facts, the Grecian empire was at first nominally left to Alexander's son,
but in reality never came to him. The military chieftains of the differ
ent countries subdued by Alexander, fought continually with each other ;
and it was some twenty years after the death of Alexander, before the
famous division into four monarchies came to be fully made and estab
lished. But of these subordinate events, it is not to the writer's purpose
to take any particular notice. Chap. 11: 4 shows, quite plainly, that a
complete end of Alexander's dominion, as such, was made by his death.
Porphyry names the four kingdoms, in a generic way, Macedonia, Syria,
Asia, Egypt. But these names must not be strictly taken. They are
so named by him, merely on the principle that a poliori nomen fit.

232 Chap. VIII. 9, 10.
(9) And from one of them sprang up a little horn, and it waxed great abundantly
toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the goodly land.
arm of them, masc, while horns, niJip, is fem. But the concord here
is ad sensum, kings being symbolized by the horns. The same of xsi the
masc. verb, § 143. 2. — niissa , lit. of smallness, the fem. adj. being used
as an abstiact noun, § 105. 3. b. This meaning is made clear by niisi
in 7: 8. The meaning more than small, i. e. large, made by taking the a
in a comparative sense, seems to have no good foundation here. Indeed
the next clause refutes this ; for, from a state of smallness, the horn
waxed exceedingly great. — ini is used adverbially. — The south means
Egypt, into which Antiochus Epiphanes made four military incursions,
for the most part successfully. — Toward the East, viz. Persia or Ely-
mais, whither Antiochus made a predatory excursion, but at last met with
a repulse there, when robbing a temple ; and soon after this he died ;
comp. 11: 41 — 44. • — ia2n, lit. the glory, the ornament =iasn pis in 11:
41, i. e. the land of glory, or the glorious land, an honorary name of Pales
tine. In the mind of a Hebrew, this appellation was fraught with mean
ing ; let the reader compare Ezek. 20: 6, 15. Jer. 3: 19. The frequent
incursions of Antiochus into Palestine, are of course well known to all
who have any knowledge of ancient history.
(10) And it magnified itself even to the host of heaven, and it cast down to the
earth some of the host and of the stars, and trampled upon them.
is , to, unto, usque ad, stronger than bx . The elevation is, in this way,
made even more than superlative. But what is host of heaven ? Every
thing depends on a right view of this word, as to the exegesis here. I
have examined all the cases in which the sacred writings employ X33 ,
both sing, and plural. They are easily reduced to order. I rank first the
generic idea, in the verbal stem, of going forth in a company or band.
Hence the usual meaning of the noun xas , host, army, and so warfare,
trop. hard service, trouble. The great mass of examples is of this nature.
But there are off-shoots from this stem. The generic idea of band or
company, simply, may be found in Ps. 68: 12 (11). This is applied often
to the multitude of stars, i. e. host of heaven ; see Lex. In a few cases,
also, where the sing, is employed, to the angels, e. g. 1 K. 22: 19. 2 Chron.
18: 18. Isa. 24: 21 ; but with the plur., e. g. Jehovah of hosts, God of hosts,
etc., in an overwhelming mass of examples ; see Fiirst, Cone. Heb. It
is remarkable, that all of these, except/owr, omit the article ; which shows
that the word nixaa acquired something of the quality of a proper name.
These last expressions also, for the most part, refer to the angelic hosts ;
some of them may apply to both stars and angels, in a generic sense. The

Chap. VDH. 11. 233
Sept. gives a great variety of versions ; but the leading ones are arga-
ria, noleuog, nagdra&s (a fine generic word), 8vvapig, pd^rj, lu-
tovgyla. This last, which means service of any kyid that is performed
catervatim, i. e. in bands or companies, throws light on Num. 4: 23. 8: 24,
25, where, beyond a doubt, the temple-service, as performed by the chosen
band of the priests, is designated. In connection with the temple, such a
meaning of the word in question seems unavoidable. In Dan. 8: 11 it
stands connected with the sanctuary (idipa -jisa) ; and in v. 13, again
with the sanctuary (dip). I can therefore assign to it here no other mean -
ing than that given in Num. 4: 23. 8: 24, 25, because its connection is
the same. In my apprehension, the whole context, and the comparison of
this passage with others of like tenor in ch. vii. xi., oblige us to assign this
and no other meaning. Host of heaven cannot mean stars here, in a lite
ral sense ; nor angels in a literal sense ; for this would make the pas
sage absurd. It cannot mean army, host, in the military sense ; for the
host in question here is merely one connected with the sanctuary ; comp.
also Rev. 12: 4. Nor does it probably mean people of God, saints, coips
d 'elites i. e. the Jewish nation (Leng.) ; for in such a sense we find it no
where else employed. That the word stars should be employed to desig
nate distinguished leaders, teachers, etc., is easy and natural. But the col
lective nature of the idea comprised in xas here forbids such an applica
tion to a mere individual. There remains, then", only the meaning in Num.
4: 23 etc., as above stated.
The application is easy. Other nations and kings were wont, in their
wars, to respect temples and their priests ; but Antiochus made war on
both at Jerusalem. He first took away all the apparatus employed in the
ordinary service of the temple ; then finally he erected an altar there to
his patron-god, and sacrificed swine upon it. The priests he killed, or drove
into exile. Sojt is said in the sequel : And it [the horn] cast down to
the earth some of the host. — "a as before in a partitive sense, some,
some of, a part of, see Lex. — Biaai3n"|ai appears designed (by pre
fixing iai) not to be merely exegetical of the preceding word, but by itself
to designate the like idea more intensively. Some of the stars, the constel
lations (the art. is prefixed), are of course the leaders among the priest
hood, i. e. persons who from their influence deserve such a name pre
eminently or peculiarly. — Andtrode them underfoot, a strong expression,
(none too strong), to designate the cruel and contemptuous treatment
that the priesthood met with from Antiochus.
(11) Even to the Prince of the host did he magnify himself, and from him did he
take away the daily sacrifice, and the dwelling-place of his sanctuary was cast down.
ThePrince of the hostia doubtless God himself, as the sequel clearly shows;
20*

234 Chap. VHI. 12.
comp. 7:20,21,25. 8:25. 11:28,30—36.— tJiin, the vowels be
longing to the Qeri dim . But I prefer the Kethibh, tPin , and have
so translated. The meaning is more efficient than the simple passive.
As to the masc. form of the two verbs here, it is necessary only to remark,
that the concord is ad sensum, for the horn designates a king. — The
dwelling place of his sanctuary means his sacred dwelling place, i. e. the
temple. The whole temple was not indeed demolished by Antiochus ;
but the sanctuary was rifled, and shockingly profaned. In respect to the
word liann , it is plainly a breviloquent expression. The full form would
require nbis before it, which liann would then qualify. A breviloquent
method of expression is prevalent in Daniel, and is somewhat character
istic : see 8: 12, 13. 11: 31. 12: 11. For the actual doings of Antiochus,
see 1 Mace. 1: 22. 3: 45—51.
(12) And a host was placed over the daily sacrifice by wickedness, and it cast down
faithfulness to the ground, and it-accomplished [its desire] , 'and was prosperous.
The subject, or Nom. of the verb was placed, is xaa , a host. For the
occasional/em. gender of this word, see Isa. 40: 2. Put or place is a very
common meaning of ")n3 , as also the kindred signification to appoint, con
stitute ; see Lex. — bs over, in £ hostile sense, implying that the daily
sacrifice was subjected to oppressive and impious supervision. — Sffisa by
wickedness or rebelUon,the abstract for the concrete = by the wicked one, or
by the rebel. Hence, in the N. Test., 2 Thess. 2: 3, dnooraai'a (an ex
act version of SU3&), also 6 dv&gconos vijg dpugtiag; and in v. 8 (ib.), o
¦uvouog ; expressions having their basis, as I apprehend, in the verse be
fore us, and applied by Paul to some personage of a character similar to
:that of Antiochus. No defence of'this exegesis is needed, in regard to the
principle on which it rests ; for nothing is more frequent than a usage of
this kind in the Bible, e. g. God is love. The article is indeed omitted in
S'isa ; but this circumstance is of little or no force, as it regards an ab
stract noun. The instances of the omission of the article in abstract nouns,
are nearly three to one of its insertion, according to the result which I
have before me, of a somewhat extensive register of examples of each kind.
There is more of the arbitrary or ad libitum scriptoris here, than in almost
any other usage of the Heb. language. Nothing for or against the mean
ing above given to SBB , can be made out then from this source. But
when the article is omitted (as in fact it is) before xasi at the beginning
of the verse, we may well deem it probable and even certain, that in this
case the writer does not mean to use xas in the same sense in which it is
used in vs. 10, 11 ; for if he did, we might then well expect xasn , i. e.
the host already named, for so he writes the word repeated in v. 10. The

Chap. VIII. 13. 235
simple meaning seems to be, that Antiochus would not only maltreat the
lawful priesthood of the temple, and rob God of the daily offering, but also
that he would put a priestly corps, i. e. a xas of his own in the temple, or,
in other words, a band or host who should offer a lian in accordance with
the demands of wickedness, i. e. of an impious person. The similar use of
xas , in vs. 10, 11, and 12, in such a construction, is very obvious. Hence
too the sequel. This new host, appointed by the blasphemous king to
offer swine's flesh on the altar of the temple, would cast down to the earth
faithfulness, i. e. (abstract for concrete) the faithful servants of God, or (as
it may mean) true religion. It is plain that nax and saiB stand in con
trast. The heathen servitors of the temple, while performing their own
lian , would of course interrupt and cause to cease the daily offerings re
quired by true religion, nax . - — nntos is breviloquence. The noun to be
supplied, and which sometimes is expressed, is nss or 'p'xi . — nnibsni ,
and it was prosperous or successful. There is no need of another sub
ject (jip) for the three fem. verbs ; for xas at the beginning of the verse
is treated as being fem., and it comports well with the meaning of the
passage to continue the same subject through the verse. It is in substance
the same, however, if any one prefers "|1)3 for the Nom. to these verbs,
for this designates Antiochus.
(13) And I heard a holy one speaking ; and one holy one said to a certain one
who was speaking : Until when is the vision — the daily sacrifice, and the wicked one
to bo destroyed, the giving up of both sanctuary and host to be trampled upon 1
The prophet represents the sight of what is done at Jerusalem, as
making its guardian angel strongly desirous of knowing when such abomi
nations shall cease. Some angel, (in the train of the angel-interpreter,
as it would seem), puts the question to him. — nsailixi , a for a , § 10. 2.
Note 2. a. — isiabs designates individuality, but it is that of a person
whose name is not known ; like our English phrase, a certain per
son. The apparent article before the Part, is here a rel. pronoun, as
oftentimes elsewhere  hna-is , lit. until when, i. e. unto what time,
how long ? — T^nn , the vision, viz. that seen by the prophet, in a gene
ral sense. The inquiry is, to what limits of time this vision extends. 
liann and Slten refer to the same words in v. 12, and are here co
ordinate with liinn and epexegetical of it, being designed to render
prominent the most interesting objects of the vision. — The meaning of
nail) has been much controverted. Gesenius has given it an active sense,
viz. waster, destroyer. I must doubt the propriety of this. In all other
cases besides some three in the book of Daniel, it is clearly of a passive
tenor ; and the stem is intrans., and therefore kindred to a 'passive verb

236 Chap. VEIL 13.
in its meaning. In 11: 31 the like usage occurs as here, viz. of a noun
with the article, and the Part, or participial adjective without it, name
ly ttailia ysipisn . This is no strange phenomenon ; see Heb. Gram.
§ 109. 2. b. The form naiiia in 9: 27 and 11: 31, I take to be active;
but Bail; means desolandus, vastandus, like ibi: in Ps. 22: 32, and na
(Part.) in Gen. 20:3. The sentiment then, expressed here and in 9: 27.
12: 11, by taaii;, is one of condemnation, equivalent to which ought to be
laid waste or destroyed, or which deserves excision or desolation, vastandus.
The article would hardly be appropriate to the communication of this
meaning, and so it is omitted. If one chooses, he may supply 1BN; he-
fore Daib, (Ewald's Gram. p. 538, 1st edit.), which it is common every
where and often to omit. In such a case, the article would be manifestly
out of place, as the Part, would be a predicate. But without resorting to
this construction, it is not difficult to produce other cases where the Part.
is associated with a definite noun, and yet has not the article ; e. g. in
Deut. 28: 31, 32, are five cases of participles anarthrous, joined with
definite nouns (made definite by having suff. pronouns), and used in a fu
ture sense like Qato , vastandus. That passive participles have very com
monly the meaning of the Latin participials in -dus, (like stiia , metuen-
dus), is a well established and familiar principle, § 131. 1. But the ac
tive participles of intransitive verbs may have the same meaning, inas- .
much as these verbs rarely have but one participial form, and the nature
of the signification does not permit that to be active transitive.
The last clause of the verse, 1S1 nn , is plainly in the same predica
ment as the preceding clause, viz. the daily sacrifice, the wicked one to be
destroyed, i. e. it is coordinate with this clause, and also epexegetical of
•pinn . In other words, both of these clauses present in particular the
prominent subject-matter of the vision, or the objects of special interest
which it discloses. The first of the two clauses brings to view the lian
and the SCB of v. 12 ; the second, the xas and lUlpa of vs. 10,11. —
nn is the well known Inf. of yrA , and is here an Inf. nominascens, retaining
the Ace. after it ; for I take the sequel to be the double Ace after a verb
which implies the making of one kingdom into another, § 136. 2. e. g. So
far as nn is considered a noun, it (with its associates) is the subject of a
sentence, which would run literally thus : ' How long will be the giving up
sanctuary and host as a trampling ?' For the double Ace here, see
Ewald's Gram. 1st edit. p. 587. 1. 3. a. Only one difficulty remains;
which is, that neither iBi'p nor xas has the article ; which we should
naturally expect in a case like this, viz. one of repeated mention. Un
doubtedly they might have it ; but that it must of necessity be added, can
hardly be made out with much probability. Or rather, as the case when

Chap. VIII. 14. 237
more closely examined appears, the article may well be omitted. As to
ttilp , it should be observed that the abstract word is here employed, which
more commonly omits the article, while in v. 11 we have iuilpa 'paa .
That tiil'p is used in preference to the phrase in v. 1 1/ seems to be a matter
of design, rather than of accident ; for Clpa paa plainly designates the
temple-building or material temple, while uii'p designates all that is holy or
sacred, in a more comprehensive sense, not excluding but including the
temple and its appurtenances, with all that is purified and consecrated to
God ; it is therefore abstract and generic. This enlarged sense is of course
intensive and more significant. As to X32 , had the writer employed the
article here, it would of course have made the word an echo of the xas
nearest to it, i. e. of xas in v. 12. But this temple-host was the one
which was placed there by S125Q , i. e. Antiochus. The writer therefore
omits the article, and throws the reader back, by means of the preceding
context (uii'p), upon vs. 10, 11, viz. lih xaan-ja nsix bsni, as making
clear the meaning which he attaches to xas here. As to the first word
*-> T T
then (ttii'p), the article would narrow its designed meaning ; and as to the
second (xas), it would be likely to mislead the reader. This may ac
count for the seeming violation here of ordinary usage, in respect to the
article. But beyond all this, as Ewald, Gesenius, and others have re
marked, the later Hebrew is more various and inconstant with respect to
the article, than the earlier. In Heb. poetry, also, the omission of the
article in cases where prose employs it, has long been remarked by critics.
And although the book before us does not exhibit rhythm, nor the usual
Hebrew poetic parallelisms, it is still instinct with poetic thought and dic
tion. — Shall be made a Daia , i. e. lit. an object on which one treads or
tramples; expressive of contemptuous and abusive treatment. Sentiment:
' How long will be the trampling of Antiochus upon all the objects which
are sacred, and upon those who perform the holy offices of the temple ?'
- (14) And he said to me : Until two thousand and three hundred evening-mornings,
and then shall that which is holy be vindicated.
Interpreters are divided about the meaning ip'a ais . Some main
tain that it designates merely the sacrifice respectively of evening and morn
ing, (evening is put first, because the Hebrew day began with evening,
Gen. i.). This would make only 1150 days of time, there being two sacri
fices each day. But this construction seems inadmissible, ip'a ais have
no copula or conjunction between them ; it would seem, therefore, to be
a popular mode of compound expression, like to that of the Greek vvy&ri-
iisgov (2 Cor. 11: 25), in order to designate the whole of the day. Com
pare Gen. i., where the evening and morning constitute respectively day

238 Chap. VIII. 14.
the first, day the second, etc. ; for it seems plain that the phraseology be
fore us is derived from this source. In other words, ipa ais , as here
employed, may be admitted to contain an allusion to the morning and ev
ening sacrifices, and thus, the phrase virtually becomes a kind of substi
tute for lian, which is generic and includes both the morning and
evening sacrifice. To the question then : How long shall the lian be
taken away ? (see in v. 11), the answer is in effect: During 2300 repe
titions of the lian , i. e. 2300 evening-morning offerings. The time thus
designated is, as usual, in the sing, number; while the larger numerals
are in the plural. — And then shall that which is holy be vindicated, plSJi
shall have justice done, i. e. the rights of the sanctuary shall be effectually
restored, its claims shall be vindicated. This was done when Judas Mac-
cabaeus, after the three and a half years in which all temple-rites had
been suspended, and heathen sacrifices had been offered there, made a
thorough expurgation of everything pertaining to the temple, and re
stored its entire services. This was on the 25th of Dec. 165 B. C, just
three years from the time when swine's flesh was first offered there by An
tiochus. We have then the terminus ad quern of the 2300 days ; and it is
not difficult, therefore, to find the terminus a quo. These days, at 30 in
a month (which is clearly the prophetic mode of reckoning), make 6 years,
4 months, and twenty days. Dec. 25 of 171 makes six years, and the four
months and twenty days will bring the time to the latter half of July in
the same year, i. e. 171 B. C. During this year, Menelaus, the high-
priest appointed by Antiochus on the ground of a proffered bribe, rifled
the temple of many of its treasures in order to pay that bribe, and in this
transaction he was assisted by his brother Lysimachus. The regular and
lawful high-priest, Onias III, who had been removed, severely reproved
this sacrilege committed by his brethren ; and afterward, through fear of
them, fled for refuge to Daphne, an asylum near Antioch in Syria.
Thence he was allured by the false promises of Menelaus, and perfidi
ously murdered by the king's lieutenant, Andronicus. See tjhe, whole
story in 2 Mace 4: 27 seq. The Jews at Jerusalem, incensed by the vio
lent death of their lawful high-priest, and by the sacrilegious robberies of
Menelaus and Lysimachus, became tumultuous, and a severe contest took
place between them and the adherents of those who committed the rob
bery, in which the patriotic Jews at last gained the victory, and Lysima
chus was slain at the treasury. This was the first contest that took place,
between the friends of Antiochus and the adherents to the Hebrew laws
and usages. The whole of it was occasioned by the baseness of Antiochus,
in accepting bribes for bestowing the office of high priest on those who
had no just claim to it. The payment of the bribes occasioned the rob-

Chap. VIII. 15. 239
bing of the temple and the sacrilege committed there ; and this was the
commencement of that long series of oppression, persecution, and blood
shed, which took place in the sequel under Antiochus.
We have, indeed, no data in ancient history by which the very day,
or even month, connected with the transactions above related can be ex
actly ascertained. But the year is certain ; and as the time seems to be
definite in our text, the fair presumption is, that the outbreak of the
populace, and the battle that followed, constitutes the terminus a quo of
the 2300 days. See Froelich, Annales Reg. Syr. p. 46 ; and also Ush
er's Chronol. The first of these two solid and excellent writers, has
taken the most pains to enucleate the Syrian history, and is the most to
be relied upon. Both depend mainly on 2 Mace 4: 39 — 42 as their
source ; where the time is not specifically noted. But Froelich seems
most thoroughly and accurately to have developed the course of events.
As to the difference between the time here, viz. 2300 days, and the
three and a half years in 7: 25, if the reader narrowly inspects the latter,
he will perceive, that the time there specified has relation to the period
during which Antiochus entirely prohibited the Jewish religion in every
shape. This period, as is well known, corresponds with historical facts.
In the passage before us, a more extensive series of events is comprised,
as vs. 10 — 12 indicate. They begin with assaults on the priesthood,
(which we have seen to be matter of fact, as stated above), and end with
the desecration and prostration of all that is sacred and holy. It is un
necessary to show that each of the things described belongs to each and
every part of the 2300 days. Enough that the events are successive,
and spread over the time specified in our text. The trampling down or
degradation of the priesthood and the sanctuary commenced the whole
series of oppression and persecution ; and this with most aggravated acts
of sacrilege and blasphemy, was also the consummation of the tyrant's
outrages. (15) And it came to pass, that while I was beholding, I Daniel, the vision, that I
sought for the meaning ; and lo ! there was one standing before me like the appear
ance of a man.
Above (v. 13) an angel asks a question of another. Here by subjoin
ing I Daniel, the contrast is made more striking between the present and
the former inquirer. — inixia , Inf. of nxi with suff. prononn. — I Dan
iel is virtually the repetition of that pronoun, in another form which
makes the expression more intensive. — I sought the meaning or a mean
ing as the Heb. runs. The n- here appended to the verb, denotes an
effort or inclination to seek, § 126. 1. a. Our idiom would employ the
meaning in such a relation as that in which the noun n:na stands. —

240 Chap. VIII. 16, 17.
ii»b , before me, i. e. within his view ; for that the angel was as yet at
some distance from Daniel appears from v. 17. This angel is the
laian iJiabs of v. 13, and the Gabriel of v. 16. — Like the appearance
of a man is designedly so expressed, in order to indicate that the angel
assumed a human form only for the time being, or in appearance only, and
not in reality. This is common throughout the Bible, when angels make
their appearance; e. g. Gen. 18: 2, 16. Josh. 5: 13. Judg. 13: 10, 11.
Luke 24: 4, etc. — iaa , used rarely out of the poetic and prophetic books,
but very common in Aramaean. The stem of this word denotes being
strong, powerful ; and probably in the passage before us, the idea of a
strong and powerful man, in accordance with the etymology of the word,
is intended to be retained.
(16) And I heard the voice of a man between the Ulai, and he cried aloud and said :
Gabriel, explain to this person the vision.
The voice of a man here means a voice like that of a man, i. e. the angel
spake more humano. Who this angel was, is not said ; and the conjec
tures that he was the Messiah (Theod.), or Michael (the Rabbins), are
useless and inapposite. Between the Ulai can mean, as the word yz
naturally indicates, only between the two sides or banks of the Ulai. —
Xipil denotes the loudness or distinctness with which the words were
spoken. — tbnb , § 34. Note 1. — nxian is the equivalent of y\m . Len
gerke says, that the name Gabriel, or rather the idea of seven presence-
angels, is borrowed from Parsism. But " the angel of his presence" is
no late idea among the Hebrews ; the Pent, often discloses it. Out of
the book of Daniel, it is not usual in the 0. Test, to give proper names
to angels. But Gabriel occurs also in Dan. 9: 21, and in Luke 1: 19,
26 ; and so in the book of Enoch, 9: 1. 20: 1. The angel must have
been high in station, in order that he should give commands, as here, to
Gabriel. (17) And he came near to where I stood, and when he came I was terrified, and I
fell upon my face; and he said to me: Son of man, mark well that the vision is for
the time of the end.
Almost everywhere in the Scriptures, the vision of God or of angels
is represented as producing agitation, consternation, or even swooning ;
Gen. 15: 12, comp. Job 4: 13 seq. Gen. 16: 13. 32: 30. Deut. 18: 16.
Judg. 6: 22. 13: 22. Isa. 6: 5. Luke 1: 12, 29. 2: 9. Acts 9: 3, 8, etc.—
insa? , Niph. of nsa , the n with Dagh. forte comprising n of the stem
and n of the formative suffix, § 20. La. — The time of the end presents
more difficulty than one might at first suspect. End of what ? Of An
tiochus ? Or of a troublous state of things ? Or end of the world ? Not

Chap. VIII. 18, 19. 241
merely of Antiochus ; for his importance, as exhibited in the book of
Daniel, arises principally from his power to annoy the people of God.
Not the end of the world ; for in chap. viii. no Messianic period is devel
oped at the close of its predictions, and yet the Messianic reign is itself
the end or last time of the world. V. 19 gives us perhaps some light;
osjn niinxa , in the latter time of the indignation, i. e. in the latter time
of afflictions permitted to be brought upon Israel, because of the divine
indignation against their sins. The vision itself in fact reaches only to
the end of those special afflictions, that are to come on the people of the
Jews before the Messianic period, and which are made the subject of
prophecy because of their importance. The warning to mark well or
consider the vision, because it discloses these afflictions, connects itself
of course with a supposed importance attached to the knowledge of the
final special troubles of the Jews before the coming of the Messiah. The
Rabbins call those troubles nnaa iban .
(18) And while he was speaking with me, I was in a deep sleep upon my face, on
the earth, and he touched me, and made me to stand up in my place.
inaiis I have expressed by circumlocution, for we cannot imitate the
Niph. Conj. here. 311 means to snore, and then to be in a deep sleep or
stupor. Daniel, however, does not mean to assert that he was literally
asleep in the common way, but that he was in so deep a swoon as to lose
all sensation and perception of outward objects, and to be stretched out
helpless upon the ground. But the power of the angel's touch revived
him, and enabled him to stand up.
( 19 ) And he said : Behold ! I will make thee to know what shall take place in the
latter period of the indignation; for at an appointed time is the end.
i3?n , Dagh. f. omitted in the first i , § 20. 3. Remarks. — ^Siiia , Part.
Hiph. of Sii , here, as often elsewhere, used like the Latin Fut. in —
rus. — The latter period of the indignation implies, that the whole period
is to continue for sometime, for niinx denotes only the latter part of it.
The meaning of &S1 here must be made out from the context. Vs. 10
— 14 show that God will give up his people, city, and even sanctuary,
for a time, to a wicked oppressor and invader — designated by sirs in v.
12. The coming or happening of special evil is everywhere, in the
Jewish Scriptures, spoken of as the effect of divine displeasure, and not
unnaturally, therefore, is often named the wrath of God, in the O. Test.
and in the New ; e. g. Isa. 10: 5, 25. 26: 20. 30: 27. Matt. 3: 7. Rom.
1: 18. 2: 5. Eph. 2: 3. 5: 6. Col. 3: 6. Rev. 11: 18. From this familiar
idiom it comes, that the writer has put the article before DSi , i. e. he
21

242 Chap. VIII. 20, 21.
takes it for granted, that the reader will refer the or that indignation to
the same which has already been described in the context. It plainly
means here the season of indignation on the part of God, who gives up
his people to punishment, because they have sinned against him. Above,
in v. 14, a set time (— isia) is named, (viz. 2300 days), when deliver
ance from the scourge will be granted. That, which is to take place
near the close of the indignation-period, (niinxa), is the most prominent
thing in the prophetic vision, and that which Daniel and the Jewish
people were most interested to know. That y.p is the subject of the
clause, and that the verb of existence is implied after it, seems to be
clear, because, if we translate theclause thus, for an appointed time of
an end, and ask the question : What is for an appointed time ? the con
text gives us no answer. I take |'p to be equivalent to our phrase final
issue, and usually involving the idea of such an issue in the way of judg
ment or punishment. In like manner is it employed in Dan. 9: 26,
where it appears to be twice applied to the death of Antiochus Epi
phanes. The like also in 8: 17, i. e. in our immediate context. That
the angel calls the special attention of Daniel to this topic, (both in vs.
17 and 19), and mentions only this, shows, beyond any good reason for
doubt, that the times and punishment of Antiochus — the man of sin
Siae, the niai — constitute the burden of the vision just related. That
other matters respecting the Medo-Persian dynasty, that of Alexander,
and of his successors, are touched upon, seems to be mainly because they
stand historically connected with the dynasty of Antiochus.
(20) The ram which thou sawest having two horns, is the kings of Media and
Persia. Ei^ipn in pause, see for the form v. 3. above. — Is the kings, etc., the
verb is, as usual, being implied. I have employed the verb singular, be
cause b*x is its more immediate subject. Here also, as in cases almost
without number, the verb is plainly conveys the same sense as repre
sents, symbolizes, means, etc. — The kings of Media and Persia, i. e. the
continued dynasty of Medo-Persian kings; and this of course is as much
as to say, the Medo-Persian empire, for kings are the representatives of
empire, or efficient agents in establishing and preserving it.
(21) And the he-goat is a king of Greece; and as to the large horn between its
eyes — this is the first king.
Xin masc, because lip , although regularly fem., designates in this
place a king. It should be noted, also, that here is only one horn, which
represents Alexander as sole king of the empire here in question. When
this is broken, another empire of a different kind arises out of its ruins ;

Chap. VIII. 22. 243
comp. 11: 4, where this view of the matter is fully expressed. First Icing
does not necessarily imply that there were other kings of the same stamp
or condition after him, any more than first born necessarily implies that
there are other children of the same parents. In Mace. 1: 1 it is said of
Alexander: ' E^aalXsvns n got ego g em rijv 'ElXdSa.
(22) And as to the [horn] that was broken, and there stood up four in the room
thereof — four kingdoms from the nation shall arise, but not with his power.
niapsn, fem. Part. Niph. agreeing with "|lp implied, and so of the
same number and gender. — On the other band, nsiasn is 3 plur. fem.
Imperf., and agrees with QiJip implied. — In the room of it, i. e. in the room
of the great horn, which has now become broken. • — • ni*oba, plur. of
niaba , see § 86. 2. — ii5a , without the article, lit. from a nation. Had
the article been employed in Hebrew, it must refer either to a previous
mention of ii&, (which does not exist here), or else to the Gentiles {rot,
s&vrf) collectively, in distinction from the Jews. This last meaning is
not that which the writer intends to convey. He means a [heathen] na
tion, but not the whole mass of the heathen. Still, in English we cannot
follow exactly in his steps ; for a nation would with us be too indefinite,
and would seem to indicate that the writer was uncertain from what quar
ter the four kingdoms would spring up. I have therefore rendered iaa
from the nation ; and the meaning is,, from the heathen nation once ruled by
the great horn. — njiasi, Imperf. 3 pi. fem., with fem. suffix formative,
and (i) praefix as if masc. Two cases of the same kind we find else
where, viz. njarp in Gen. 30: 38, and nsiisi in 1 Sam. 6: 12, both having
fem. subjects ; see Ges. Lehrgeb. § 81. 2. In Syr., Chald., and Arab.,
the 3d fem. plur. is formed in the same way. Is our text then an over
sight of transcribers, who unconsciously followed some of the kindred lan
guages with which they were familiar ? Or is it merely Chaldaizing He
brew, which the original writer may have employed ? With certainty we
cannot decide ; but I should, on the whole, rather incline to the latter sup
position. — But not in his strength, i. e. not with the power or might of the
great horn ; for none of the four kingdoms were equal in power to that of
Alexander. The suffix i- is masc., but still there is concord ad sensum,
for horn symbolizes a king. If the reader has any doubt whether the
breaking of the great horn here, and the standing up of four others in its
room, indicates a transition from a third dynasty to a fourth, a comparison
of this verse with 11:4 may help to solve that doubt. In fact, I know not
how language could more plainly and definitely express the idea of a
transition from one dynasty to another, than the language of Dan. 11: 4

244 Chap. VIII. 23.
has done. That in both passages the same succession is under considera
tion, there can be no doubt.
(23) And in the latter part of their reign, when transgressors shall have come to
the full, there shall stand up a king of stern aspect and skilled in fraudulent devices.
niinxa cannot be properly rendered (with Havernick) toward the end.
It must mean during the latter part or portion. — In aniaba , the suf
fix must be referred to the kingdoms that rise up after the great horn is
broken. Does the writer mean to convey the idea, that all four of the dy
nasties which followed that of Alexander, are to be brought into account
here, or only the leading portion of them, viz. Syria and Egypt ? If we
may bring ch. xi. to bear upon this question, the answer will of course be:
The two dynasties just named ; for of them almost exclusively does the
author speak in the eleventh chapter. Besides, these were the firmest
and most lasting of all. In particular, with respect to Syria, the era of
Seleucus Nicator (its first king in the Grecian line) begins with B. C. 312,
and Antiochus commenced his reign in 175 B. C. The decline of the
Syrian empire was hastened by his defeat and death ; and although it had
& nominal existence, down to the time when Pompey overran that region,
yet it was in the hands of incompetent persons or foreigners, so that it
was but little accounted of. It was then a matter of historical fact, that
the dominion of Antiochus Epiphanes, commenced during the latter part
of the Syrian dynasty, whether we have respect to time or to the declin
ing state of the government, in computing such a period. Lengerke as
serts, without any qualification, that the writer supposed Antiochus to be
the last of the Syrian kings, or that with him the Syrian dominion would
fall, and the times of the Messiah immediately succeed. I cannot regard
niinx as being so narrowly restricted. The Qiain niinx so often em
ployed to designate the latter period of the world in which the Messiah
would make his appearance, is surely not confined to narrow limits.
Enough, that in the declining part of the Syrian empire, the tyrant and
persecutor, described in the sequel, came to the throne. The blow had
already been struck by the Romans, in their defeat of Antiochus the
Great, which inflicted a wound on the Syrian dominion that was never
to be cured. Antiochus Epiphanes, by his wiles and stratagems, sustained
himself for a while. But before his death, the virtual dissolution of his
empire seemed to be at hand. I do not feel, therefore, any necessity of
interpreting the passage, in respect to niinx , as Lengerke would have
us. — As to the immediate coming of the Messiah, after the defeat and
death of Antiochus, is it not strange, if the author of the book of Daniel

Chap. VIII. 23. 245
wrote after that period, (which Lengerke maintains), that he should have
suggested such a sentiment, when his own observation would itself have
contradicted it ? In reality, however, the developments of this nature, in
the book of Daniel, stand on common ground with those of Isaiah and
other prophets, as we shall see more fully in the sequel. If what is said
in relation to this subject by the book of Daniel, will serve as an argu
ment to show that the book was not written by that prophet, then what
Isaiah and other prophets have said in the like way will serve to show
that their works are not genuine. What proves too much, does not go
current among logicians as sound argument.
In regard to DiSBBn anna , when the transgressors shall have come to
the full, i. e. completed the full measure of their iniquity, I understand
this as having respect to apostatizing Jews, who, in the time of Antio
chus Epiphanes, forsook their laws and usages, and after obtaining the
approbation of Antiochus, introduced heathen rites and usages among the
Hebrews, and even built a heathen gymnasium for their games in Jeru
salem. See a full account in 1 Mace 1: 11 seq., where the writer
doubtless with his eye upon tnsiasn here, calls them nagdvopot.
The same occurrence is in view in v. 19 above, where the time of
the indignation is spoken of. God gave up the Jews to chastisement
by the hands of the ' stern-visaged and wily king.' It would seem
that the inclination to apostatize already existed among many of the
Jews, before Antiochus intermeddled with their concerns. His rising
up (lasi) does not here so much designate his mere accession to the
throne, as his becoming the active enemy and oppressor of the Jews.
This he began to be, as soon as the pious Jews began to oppose the
heathenish innovations which his partisans introduced among them. —
Di3B IS might mean of an impudent look,hui here his sternness and cruelty
are more probably intended to be characterized, as in Deut. 28: 50, and
so I have translated it stern of aspect ; comp. 7: 19, 23, 25. 11: 33. That
Antiochus, with all his extravagance and follies, had much craftiness and
subtlety, and often brought about his designs by means of flattery and
cunning — nilin ^laa — appears abundantly from 11: 21 — 23, 25, 32.
The same character is given him in Polyb. Reliq. XXXI, 5. Appian, de
Reb. Syr. XLV. See also 1 Mace. 1: 30 seq. 2 Mace. 5: 24—26. To
the Roman ambassadors he professed great regard and friendship for the
Romans, while he acted in a manner directly the contrary. Eumenes
and Attalus, kings of Pergamos, he won over to his cause by flattery and
fair promises, so that they aided in dethroning Heliodorus, and in oppos
ing the claims of the Egyptian Ptolemy to the throne of Syria. The
same Ptolemy, his nephew, he inveigled and deceived by pretences of
21.*

246 Chap. VIII. 24, 25.
interposing in the affairs of Egypt for his benefit, while his real object
was plunder ; see Dan. 1 1: 25. Finally, he took possession of Jerusalem
by stratagem and fraud, (iXahjoev avroig loyovg eigtjvixovg iv 86lq>,
1 Mace 1: 30, comp. 2 Mace 5: 24—26) ; so that the most conspicuous
parts of his character, cruelty and fraud, are developed in our text.
(24) And his strength will wax mighty, and yet not by his own strength ; and won
derfully will he destroy, and prosper in his undertaking, yea, he will destroy many,
even the people of the saints.
Yet not by his own strength, [but by the might which God gives him],
is the antithesis which Havernick finds here ; and so Theodoret, Ephrem
Syrus, and some others. This sense, when the expression is taken in a
modified way, is not in itself objectionable ; but it seems more probable
that the speaker means to say, that Antiochus will not be potent on the
ground of real and proper strength of dominion, but on the ground of the
artifice and cunning so conspicuously exhibited in the preceding verse, and
in the other passages there alluded to. In what respects the accomplish
ment of his designs by power was manifested, the sequel informs us 
nixba: , Part. plur. used adverbially, § 98. 2. c. — mnffii is here em
ployed absolutely, i. e. without any following Ace case. — niusi Prism >
two verbs in one idea, either of which may be rendered adverbially ; see
| 139. 3, and 4. Note 1. We might, therefore, here translate : And he
shall execute [his designs] prosperously. I prefer, however, the transla
tion exhibited above ; which is equally correct, and renders the supple
ment of a noun unnecessary. A literal translation our idiom will not
well bear. I take nius to be oftentimes a constructio praegnans in this
book, the full form of which is given in 11: 36, isxia nasi, he shall do
according to his pleasure. — Diaixs , more usually means mighty or great ;
here it refers to greatness of numbers, and means many. If the mighty
were meant, the article would of course be inserted. — D^BJlp nsi is
epexegetical, particularizing the pious Jews. The Jewish nation, as con
secrated to God, are called i»l'p and DH!iip , not unfrequently in the
sacred books. It is not particularly to the speaker's purpose here, to de
scribe the slaughter which Antiochus perpetrated among the heathen
nations abroad. Of course the people of the saints must here mean the
pious Jews, because the speaker has already spoken of the DiSiUB among
them, v. 23.
(25) And because of his cunning, he will render deceit prosperous in his band, and
in his own heart will he magnify himself, and unexpectedly will he destroy many ;
moreover against the Prince of princes will he stand up, and without hand [of man]
shall he be utterly destroyed.
None of the ancient translations appear to have understood this verse,

Chap. VIH. 25. 247
»
at least the first clause of it, and they have therefore rendered it in a va
riety of ways. The difficulty seems to have been with ibair , which is
commonly used in a good sense, e. g. wisdom, discretion, etc. ; but it is
also capable of a different meaning, viz. cunning, sagacity, in doing evil
as well as good ; like Luke 1 6: 8, " The children of this world are wiser
{qsgovipcoxegoi) in their generation than the children of light," i. e. more
sagacious, dexterous. In fact bsiu is dexterity or sagacity simply ; and
thus being generic, it may be used in a sense either good or bad. In
respect to historical facts which illustrate this, they have already been
adverted to in the preceding verse. — bi13i , magnify, and as no other
object is here supplied, the verb itself supplies one, viz. magnify himself.
How characteristic this is of Antiochus, all who have read his history
must know. — nibiaa , lit. in peace ; but the Hebrew employs this ex
pression to designate the idea of suddenly, unexpectedly, i. e. in a way which
such as were in quietude were not aware of. In the same manner is the
word employed in 11: 21, 24; and so nibffla in Job 15:21. In Syriac
and Chaldee is the same usage. Still the idea of peaceful pretences
seems to be included. A full exegesis of this is found in the narration in
1 Mace 1: 30 seq. : "He [the military tribute-collector of Antiochus]
spoke to them [of Jerusalem] peaceful words . . . and he fell upon the
city suddenly, and smote it with great slaughter, and destroyed much peo
ple of Israel." — And against the Prince of princes shall he stand up, is
designed to render the narration climactic. Not only does the impious
tyrant destroy the people of God, but sets himself in array against God
himself. So in vs. 10, 11, above. — ii osxa, lit. without hand, which
plainly means, without the interposition of human power. — 13^1 , lit.
shall be broken in pieces. The language is adapted to the symbol, viz. the
little horn. The meaning is, totally destroyed. Facts correspond. Ac
cording to history, Antiochus, after marching into Persia, and robbing the
temple at Elymais, was driven away by popular tumult ; and on his re
turn back towards Syria, he was met with the news of the total defeat of
his army in Judea, and of the restoration of the temple services there.
Polybius (XXXI. 11) says of him, that "he fell mad {dutuovqoag) and
died ;" 1 Mace 6: 8 relates, that he fell sick of grief for his losses ; Ap-
pian (De Reb. Syr. LXVI) says simply : (p&lvoiv heXevznae. Various
shades are given to the picture by the different writers ; e. g. in 1 Mace.
6: 8 seq., which narrates his penitent confessions. But these have a
strong ting« of Jewish coloring. So much is undoubtedly true, viz. that
he perished suddenly by a violent sickness, during which he probably fell
into a state of mania. He died, therefore, without violence by the hand of
man, and so as to make a deep impression of perishing by a peculiar visi
tation of God.

248 Chap. VIII. 26. «
(26) And as to the vision of the morning and the evening, which was declared, it is
truth ; do thou then seal up the vision, since it appertaineth to many days.
The vision respecting the evening and the morning, (for this is the mean
ing of the expression), is exhibited in v. 14 above. As it there follows
all the symbols which the prophet had seen, so the same order is here
observed. The symbols are first explained or applied, and then the
speaker touches upon the period of 2300 evening-mornings, i. e. days,
which had been fixed as the limits of Antiochus' persecution and op
pression, the cleansing of the sanctuary (v. 14) being constituted the
terminus ad quern of that tyrant's domination in Judea. By declaring
with emphasis, that the vision respecting time is true (nax truth), the
speaker means to call attention to the determined and unalterable pur
pose of God, that the SUJB — nia? — &VB is — in question should not go
beyond his defined limits. — Seal up the vision presupposes that Daniel is
to commit it to writing". To seal up would be to guard it against change
or interpolation, and so to preserve its integrity. The idea of safe keeping
by sealing up, is plain in Deut. 32: 34. Jer. 32: 14. Of course, access to
a writing is prevented by sealing it, as in Isa. 29:11; consequently all in
termeddling with it is prevented. A case parallel with our text is Isa. 8:
16, where the prophet seals his prediction in the presence of witnesses,
and casts himself on the future for its certain fulfilment. The sealing
would render it secure against any change, either through his own in
terference, or that of others, and so put to a fair test his claim to the
office of a prophet. But in that case the fulfilment was near at hand ;
whereas, in the present case, one reason given for the sealing is, that it is
for many days, i. e. a long time. From the third year of Belshazzar (v. 1)
to the death of Antiochus, 388 years intervened. The idea of preservation,
then, (which is the predominant one here conveyed by the word sealing),
has a leading place. The forbidding of access is secondary, and belongs
merely to that of securing against alterations. The same may be said of
Dan. 12: 4, 9. On the contrary, the writer of the Apocalypse is required
" not to seal up his prophecy, because the time (of its inceptive fulfilment)
is near" (Rev. 22: 10), and therefore little danger of alteration could be
apprehended. I do not see, how Hengstenberg (Auth. d. Daniel, s. 215 seq.)
and Havernick (Comm.) deduce from this passage the sentiment, that
the sealing up of the vision means, that it was to be unintelligible until
the fulfilment of it. What purpose then could the vision subserve, if nei
ther Daniel, nor any of his readers could understand it ? And when the
supposed events came, which were to constitute a fulfilment, if no one
could understand the vision, with what were the events to be compared,
in order to determine that there was a fulfilment ? A fulfilment of what ?

Chap. VIII. 27. 249
' Of something that no one understood,' must of course be the answer,
on the ground taken by the writers in question. — Besides ; Daniel is here
required to do something himself, viz. to seal up. Did Daniel himself,
then, make his own vision unintelligible? This would be a singular pro
cess in making out a new revelation. — For the meaning of Dial biaib ,
comp. the same phrase in Ezek. 12: 27.
(27) And I Daniel fainted, and was sick some days ; then I rose up, and did the
business of the king, and was astonished by reason of the vision, and understood
it not. As to iniin3_", see under 2: 1. The translation gives substantially the
sense here, but the form of the original the English language cannot imi
tate. — niai , without any limitation or qualification, corresponds well to
some days. It is employed only in cases where the expression is designed
to be indefinite. — Did the business of the king, i. e. returned to his ordi
nary employment. The astonishment which the prophet felt, is not a new
circumstance, when disclosures are made of a terrific nature, as here ;
comp. 4: 19. 7: 15, 28. 10: 8, 9, 15. — I understood not, (the same in 12:
8), should not be interpreted, as some have done, as meaning to say, that
the words or symbols of the vision were in themselves unintelligible,
specially after the angel had been commanded to explain the vision to
Daniel, vs. 16, 19. But the explanation, like the symbols and the words,
is generic and not specific. Events are merely sketched ; and with the
exception of the terminus ad quern, time, place, and persons, are not
particularized. Daniel was astonished at the destiny which hung over his
people. He did not understand how " the little horn" could achieve so
great things. Jerome has hit the point here with great skill. His para
phrase of 'paa 'px runs thus : " Reges audierat, et eorum nomina nescie-
bat ; futura cognoverat, et quo tempore futura essent, dubius fluctuabat."
" If," says Jerome moreover, " if no one could interpret the vision, how
came it that the angel interpreted it ?" The difficulty in Daniel's mind
seems plainly to have been, that his astonishment and his intense interest
in the things disclosed, urged him on, very naturally, to further and mi
nute inquiries and particulars ; but these were not revealed by the vision,
and were not designed to be.
In several particulars the prophetic vision in this chapter differs from
those in chap. ii. and vii. First of all, no notice is taken of the Babylonish
monarchy, such as we find in 2: 37, 38 and 7: 4. Then, secondly, there is
a somewhat extended view of the second or Medo-Persian dynasty and its
fall, vs. 3 — 7. Very brief and summary is the account of this dynasty in
2: 39 and 7: 5 ; and its fall in consequence of being invaded by the head of
the third dynasty, is not at all noticed, as it is in 8: 5 — 7. So likewise, in the

250 Chap. IX. Introduction.
third place, with respect to the third dynasty. It is summarily touched upon
in 2:39 and 7: 6 ; but a somewhat dilated account is given in 8: 5 — 8. Fourth
ly, the manner in which the fourth dynasty arises, is given neither in 2: 40,
nor in 7: 7 seq. But in 8: 8, the manner of its rise is given. Fifthly, while
the fourth dynasty is characterized in 2: 40 — 43, merely in a general way,
no particular notice is taken of Antiochus Epiphanes. But in 7: 7, 8, 19 —
21, 23 — 26, this tyrant and persecutor is particularly described, and his end
foretold. In 8:*8 — 14, 22 — 25, there is still greater particularity in the de
scription of Antiochus, and a new limitation of the whole period, during which
he will carry on his persecutions and vexations. In fact, with the excep
tion of the Medo-Persian dynasty and the rise of Alexander's, it is evi
dent, that almost the exclusive subject of the prophecy before us is Anti
ochus. It appears, then, that this third vision differs from the others in the am
plitude of its descriptions of the Syrian tyrant, and in making him alto
gether the prominent figure in the picture.
Lastly, it is a striking circumstance, that the visions in chap. ii. vii. both
close with an extended view of the Messianic kingdom, which follows the
downfall of all the others, while in chap. viii. it is wholly omitted. This is
the more worthy of note, because the circumstantial history of Antiochus,
in chap, xi., is also followed by a development of a Messianic character.
Such a departure from analogy, in the vision before us, would seem to have
been occasioned by some circumstances of which we are ignorant. The
character of Antiochus as exhibited in chap. ii. vii. xi. (and probably in
ix.), is remarkably congruous ; so much so, indeed, as to leave no good
room for doubt, that the same individual is meant in all. If any one is dis
posed to object against the interpretation which admits the repetition of
predictions respecting Antiochus, and ask : ' Of what use could so many
repetitions of the same thing be ?' The answer is easy. Of what use is
the repetition of predictions, in Isaiah, respecting Assyria, Babylon, Tyre,
and the like? Of what use is the frequent repetition of Messianic predic
tions ? And the same questions may be put respecting the representations
of other prophets. The general answer I should give would be, that differ
ent exigencies of the times demanded new and repeated developments.
The same things are never simply repeated. The subject is placed in new
attitudes, and new light is cast upon it. Events of deep interest to the
civil and social, or to the religious community, will sometimes bear repeti
tion to serious advantage. We must confide something, moreover, to the
judgment of the prophets in regard to the importance of this, in cases
where we have, and can now have, no knowledge of minute circumstances.

CHAPTER IX.
[Some fifteen years after the preceding vision, subsequent to the dethronement of
Belshazzar and the fall of the Babylonish dynasty, and during the first year of the
reign of Darius the Mede, into whose bands the fallen Babylonish empire came,
Daniel, in hope that the time of the exile of his countrymen was near its end, betook

Chap. IX. Inxhoduction. 251
himself after long continued prayer and fasting, to the diligent perusal of the pro
phecies of Jeremiah respecting the continuance of the captivity. There, in 25: 1 1 , 1 2,
and specially in 29: 10, he found seventy years definitely named as the period, during
which the exile should continue, and at the end of which a return to their native
land would be allowed to the Hebrews ; Dan. 9; 1 — 3. Most fervently did he pour
forth his supplications for the fulfilment of these predictions. But even this he ven
tured not to do, until he had first made most ample and humble and hearty confes
sion of his own sins, and of the sins of the kings, the princes, and the people of the
Jews who had disobeyed the prophets, and transgressed the laws of Moses, and re
belled against the Lord; vs. 4 — 15. The sequel, vs. 16 — 19, exhibits in a most
striking manner, the fervency with which he wrestled with God in prayer, for his
people, the holy city, and the temple.
Such prayers as this holy man uttered, are always beard before the throne of God.
Forthwith Gabriel, one of the presence-angels, is sent to communicate with Daniel,
and to make further disclosures to him respecting the Jewish nation. With such
haste did the angel come, that before Daniel had done speaking, he drew near and
addressed him, and told him the object of his mission ; vs. 20 — 22. Even at the
beginning of Daniel's supplication a message went forth, and the angel declares that
he had come to communicate it, because Daniel is greatly beloved. He exhorts the
prophet, therefore, to give attention to his message, and to consider well the import
of i he prophetic vision ; v. 23.
Seventy weeks [of years] are distinguished or abscinded from the general course of
time, as a peculiar period which must be passed through, before the new and glori
ous dispensation of the Messiah will introduce the expiation of sin, and reconciliation
for iniquity ; bring in everlasting righteousness, and confirm what the prophets have
foretold ; and consecrate a Holy of Holies belonging to the new and better dispen
sation ; v. 24. These seventy weeks are divided into three different periods, each dis
tinctly marked by specific events at the commencement or close, or else by what
takes place during their continuance. Seven weeks [of years] begin with a mandate
to restore and build up Jerusalem, and end with the appearance of an Anointed
One who is a Prince. Duringthree score and two weeks [of years], the city of Je
rusalem shall be rebuilt and prosper, although in troublous times ; v. 25. After this
period, an Anointed One shall be cut off; in consequence of which the Jewish nation
shall be destitute of a lawful and proper officer of this class. Moreover the people
of a. [foreign] prince shall come, and lay waste the city and the sanctuary ; but he
shall come to his end with overwhelming destruction. The invasion of the city and
sanctuary will occasion resistance on the part of the Jews, and war will ensue ; but
unto the end of that war the desolations which it will occasion, are limited by
Heaven's decree, and cannot exceed the appointed measure; v. 26. The invading
foreign prince will form close alliances with many Jews, for one week [of years] ;
during half of that week he will cause sacrifice and oblation at Jerusalem to cease,
an idol worthy of destruction shall be erected over an abominable bird [Jupiter's
eagle], and unto consummation, even that which is decreed shall then be poured
upon him who is doomed to destruction.]

• The first thing that strikes the attentive reader of this chapter as an ob
ject of inquiry is, how the predictive or prophetic part of it compares with the
other prophecies of Daniel. Those who find in it simply'and only a Messi-

252 Chap. IX. Introduction.
anic prediction, give it an interpretation which makes it entirely discrepant
from all the other prophecies of this book. In all other cases where the
fifth or Messianic kingdom is foretold, there are preceding dynasties and
events also predicted. Only one vision (that in chap, viii.) is destitute
of a Messianic part ; and only one (in chap, ii.) is destitute of a more or
less specific description of the Syrian tyrant and persecutor. As this last
oppression of the people of God, whose influences and whose relentless fury
threatened far worse consequences to the Jews and to their religion, than
did the Babylonish exile, is made so conspicuous in all the proper visions
of Daniel himself, it would be at least singular, if the prophecy in Dan. ix.
should pass him by in entire silence. Indeed the very outset of this vision
(v. 24) seems explicitly to declare, that its design is to describe events
which will happen before the introduction of that peaceful kingdom, which
is to reconcile man to God, propitiate their sins, fulfil the most important
part of all prophecy, and consecrate a perpetual holy of holies. That
seventy weeks are appointed or limited to pass away before this will take
place, seems to be the necessary implication of v. 24. These weeks are
then distributed into three different periods, and have a relation to things
somewhat diverse and distinct from each other. How can we suppose, now,
that what will take place during these respective periods, is passed by in
silence ? Yet the exegesis which makes the whole paragraph exclusively
Messianic, makes a part of these periods to precede and a part to follow the
commencement of the Messianic kingdom. This seems to be evidently
against the tenor of the prediction before us, and certainly against the
tenor of the book in general. A mixture of sorrow and joy, of trouble
and deliverance, is everywhere else to be found ; why should they be ex
cluded here ? To me it seems very clear that they are not, but that the
prediction before us follows the analogy of the others, in regard to the mat
ter in question.
The circumstance, that in the present case the Messianic part of the pro
phecy precedes, makes no important difference as to the nature of the case.
The usual order in the prophets is, that the Messianic part of a prophecy
comes at the close. But this is not always the case. Isa. ii. is a notable
example of a contrary usage. So in the present case. The angel an
nounces, that the expected era of spiritual deliverance will surely come ;
or, in other words, that what Daniel had already predicted more than once,
would not fail of accomplishment. But these ' glad tidings of great joy' are
mingled with information that fills the prophet with deep solicitude.
One very important inquiry, which has not always been made, presents
itself at the outset. What was the object of Daniel's fasting and prayer?
Was it to obtain information, whether the seventy years predicted by Jere
miah were now at an end ? There is nothing to prove this. He tells us
(v. 2), that he understood by the writings of Jeremiah, that seventy years,
and only so many, were to be accomplished or completed, in order to fill
out the measure of Babylonish exile. He was in no doubt, then, concern
ing this point. He surely could be in none as to the terminus a quo of the
exile ; for he was himself one of its first victims. Now as Babylon was
taken by the Medo-Persian army in 538 B. C., the first year of Darius the
king would be either the latter part of that year, or the former part of 537,
or it might comprise both ; and of course this would be the sixty-ninth

Chap. IX. Introduction. 253
year of the exile. Probably the vision was near the close of this year ; for
Daniel appears to believe that deliverance is near at hand, and therefore
prays the more earnestly for it. Vs. 16 — 19 fully develop his wishes and
designs. The angel is not sent then to solve his doubts as to what Jere
miah meant, or to show when the seventy weeks would end. He comes to com
fort and enlighten the solicitous worshipper of God, and to inform him what
further troubles await the Hebrew nation, before their great and final de
liverer will come. Wieseler (Die 70 Wochen, s. 13), lays it down as cer
tain, that ' every explanation of vs. 24 — 27 is erroneous, which does not
assign to them a disclosure of deliverance from the then present misery of
the Jewish nation.' But whoever will carefully peruse vs. 16 — 19 must
see, that Daniel has more solicitude about the worship of God and the
desolations of Zion and the sanctuary, than in respect to the mere outward
civil and social condition of the captive Jews. The probability surely is,
that under such men as Daniel and his compeers, who bore an active part
in the government of Babylonia, they had been treated with more than or
dinary lenity. At any rate, no persecuting fury had increased the mise
ries of their condition, and their bondage seems to have been quite tolera
ble in respect to their outward condition. It is the honor of God and the
promotion of true piety and religion, for which Daniel is most anxious ;
and v. 24 contains an assurance, that in due time these will be amply pro
vided for. The remark of Wieseler is too broad and indefinite, unless, like
him, we limit v. 24 to a mere promise of return from exile and renewal of
religious rites, services, and privileges, after seventy weeks of days, i. e.
literal weeks, from the time of Daniel's vision. For many reasons I cannot
accede to this view. The leading ones are, first, that on such" a ground v.
24 would be entirely at variance with vs. 25 — 27 in the mode of reckoning
time, since the triplex division of time in the latter evidently appears to
amount to the seventy weeks of v. 24. Secondly, the language of v. 24 is
too general and too significant to be applied to the mere literal return from
exile. Well has Hoffman (Weissag. und Erfiillung, s. 298) said : ' One
can interpret the contents [of this verse] only in an arbitrary way, who
applies it merely to the liberty of returning which Cyrus gave to the Jews,
which liberty was so sparingly used, and so little satisfied anticipations.'
Unquestionably there is a sense, an elevated one too, in which the angel's
communication allayed the burdensome part of Daniel's solicitude about
the honor of God and the interests of religion. But I find no specific lim
itation of the end of Jeremiah's seventy years. None surely was needed
for Daniel. The terminus a quo was fully within his knowledge ; the ter
minus ad quern of course could not be a matter of doubt to him.
This leads me to say, that the mode of interpreting the seventy years of Jere
miah adopted by some, who tell us that " the angel was sent to inform him,
i that so many literal years were not meant, but only a period of seventy mystic
year-weeks," agrees very ill with the tenor of the book throughout. How
any one can be brought to believe, that the seventy weeks of Daniel are
merely a new exegesis of Jeremiah's seventy years, and not the designation of a
new period comprising new events, I am not able to see. Not a word about
the Babylonish exile is contained in vs. 24 — 27. How could this be, if the
new designation of the seventy weeks comprised in part that exile, and merely
extended the period beyond the limits which Daniel had attached to it ?
22

254 Chap. IX. Introduction.
It would seem that the angel must, in such a case, have been as uncertain
about the distance of the terminus ad quern, as those interpreters suppose
Daniel to have been.
That Daniel should feel solicitude about the posture of affairs, at the
time of the vision now under consideration, was quite natural. The time
for the exile to come to an end was very near. The Babylonish monar
chy, which held the Hebrews in bondage, had been destroyed. A new
dynasty had arisen, viz. that of Darius the Mede. Although not disposed
to persecute and oppress the Jews, he appeared at least to be indifferent
to their sufferings and wrongs. No movement was made to relieve them.
They were doubtless, in view of Jeremiah's prophecy, expecting relief.
What could be more natural, than for Daniel to ask with earnest importu
nity that this relief might come, for the honor of God and of religion ?
This was a strong plea ; and in the mouth of such a man we might expect
it would be regarded (as it was) with great favor.
The predictions in vs. 24 — 27 cannot be considered, in any sense, as an
exegesis of Jeremiah. Nor is the communication made entirely a new dis
closure. That the Messianic kingdom was to commence, after the four
great empires had ceased, was not new. Chap. ii. vii. fully exhibit this.
That Antiochus would oppress and persecute, was not new. That he would
cause the sacrifices and oblation to cease for three and a half years, was
not new, for 7: 25 discloses this. That his course of oppression in respect
to the Jews, should continue about one week (of years), was not new ; for
8: 14 substantially discloses this. That the tyrant should at last suddenly
and fearfully perish was not new ; for 8: 25 fully reveals this. But that
the peculiarly oppressive trials and troubles of the Jews, before the coming
of the Messiah, should be ended after a period of seventy weeks of years from
the beginning or end of the Babylonish exile, was a fact not before revealed.
That the existence and prosperity of the new Jewish Commonwealth, and
the rebuilding of its metropolis, should be all along attended with " troublous
times," and yet go forward — was a fact not before disclosed. That the
Lord's anointed — the lawful high priest — should be cut off by violence,
and have no proper successor, was a new fact. All this was deeply inter
esting to Daniel and to the Jews. Forewarned, forearmed. Return from
the exile was speedy and certain ; but the hopes of continued peace and
prosperity immediately after this must not be indulged. The Lord had
many trials other than the present in store for his people, before the great
Deliverer would come. But it is not all of them, that the prophet is now
commissioned to disclose and to dwell upon. Only such times as might be
compared with past events, the laying waste of the temple and holy city,
the destruction of large numbers of the people, cessation of religious
rites and civil privileges, the profanation of the sanctuary by heathen
rites, — such events, and such only, are prophetically disclosed. The com
munication of the angel to Daniel, apparently amounts to the following
declarations : ' Thy people have suffered one exile and all its mournful
consequences. Other like events, differing indeed as to manner and time,
but even more trying, more dangerous to the good, and more disgraceful
and fatal to the wicked, are still before the Jews. A portion of the seventy
weeks will bring them through this fiery ordeal ; and after this, until the

Chap. IX. Introduction. 255
great Deliverer shall come, they shall only experience the ordinary trials
of a nation in circumstances like to theirs.'
It is on some such ground, I apprehend, that we are to account for the
fact, that all the prophecies of Daniel, developing what is to precede the
Messianic kingdom, end with the life and actions of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Other subsequent enemies did indeed maltreat the Jews ; but none of
them attained to that consummation of wickedness and cruelty which were
exhibited by him. They are not, therefore, made conspicuous in prophecy.
Should any one feel disposed to object, here, that there is somewhat
of the arbitrary in these suggestions, I would appeal at once to the books
of other prophets, yea to the whole body of Hebrew prophecy, and ask :
Whether they have not respect to particular events of interest and impor
tance, or, in other words, whether they are merely a regular series of his
toric annals? If not, then events, such as I have just mentioned, are the
appropriate subjects of prophecy. What more can be said of the book of
Daniel, or what more need we say, in order to vindicate the view just
taken ?
To those who know the course which a portion of recent criticism has
taken, in order to show that the book of Daniel was written after the death
of Antiochus Epiphanes, no apology need be made for these remarks. It is
a common allegation among critics of the so-called liberal class, that the
book of Daniel was written post eventum ; and that the writer was not con
fident enough in his own prophetic powers, to venture anything beyond
what history already gave him, excepting that, in common with all the
Jews, he was full of ardent expectations in regard to the Messianic king
dom. Hence, as they conclude, he stops short with Antiochus, and ex
presses his confident belief, that immediately after his death the Messianic
kingdom would be established.
On the full discussion of this topic I shall not now enter, but, leaving it
for another occasion, merely remark at present, that the writer must have
been a man of great peculiarities, to declare himself so confidently about
the Messianic reign as immediately following the death of Antiochus, if he
himself lived at that very period, and saw no certain tokens that such a
reign had commenced, or was indeed about to commence. He appeals to
no such tokens ; he gives no hint respecting them. What moreover was
to become of the credit of his book, in case of a failure ? Then as to all
his prophecies ending with Antiochus, (the Messianic kingdom only ex
cepted), I would hope that the remarks already made above, suggest some
other more satisfactory reason for the prophet's course, than that of his
ignorance of the future. Revelation of events is made for special purposes,
and to answer specific ends. It is not annals ; it consists not of year-books
and historical registers. The most hazardous period of the Jewish nation,
down to its ruin by Titus, was that of Antiochus. It was the most trying
to the good, and seemingly the most auspicious to the bad. It was the
only period in which the sanctuary of God was daily polluted, for some
years, by heathen rites and sacrifices. Should not such a .period be desig
nated, and the people of God forewarned ? Daniel and the angel-inter
preter seem to have so thought and decided. Might not prediction re
specting the outward condition of the Jews before the coming of the Mes
siah, stop with events belonging to such a period, and omit the ordinary

256 Chap. IX. 1, 2.
events that followed ? So have other prophets done, in respect to other
countries than that of Judea ; and so, respecting the Hebrews ; why should
Daniel only be excepted from ordinary usage ?

(1 ) In the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes,
who was made king over the kingdom of the Chaldees.
In respect to Darius, see under 6: 1. — ttjiilirnx has been the subject
of much speculation and remark ; see Lengerke Comm. s. 219 f. 231 f.
The cuneiform inscriptions of Persia, lately deciphered, seem to have
put the matter nearly at rest. The name is found in them, written
Khshhershe or Khshvershe, the root of which seems to be the Persian
sL&wy& {shersha), lion. The word therefore is a mere appellative, and
might be common to many distinguished persons. Probably Astyages,
the Median king, is here designated. — 7]ban, was made king ; Schleyer
(Wiirdigung der Einwiirfe, etc., s. 185 seq.) alleges, that this word favors
the idea which he defends, viz. that Darius was merely viceroy of Baby
lon. He further seeks to confirm this by 6: 1, xniaba ba]5, received the
kingdom ; which shows, as he alleges, the dependence of Darius on a
superior. So also we may say ; but who is that superior ? Had it been
merely another and higher king, would he not have been named ? But
there is One who sets kings upon their thrones, and casts them down, at
his pleasure, whom Daniel doubtless regarded, in this case, as the dis
penser of office and of kingdoms. Even Lengerke concedes this, in the
present case. If any one insists on it, however, I should not object to
the exposition, which supposes Daniel to have the doings of Cyrus in
view, who was the real conqueror of Babylon, and who, as Xenophon
relates, took great care to provide for the regal claims of Darius.
(2) In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by the Scriptures the num
ber of years ; that the word of the Lord was to Jeremiah the prophet, to complete
seventy years in respect to the desolations of Jerusalem.
The first year, etc., corresponds to 538 — 7 B. C. — tJiiB&a is said, by
Lengerke and others, necessarily to mean a corpus Scriplurarum, i. e. a
public collection of the sacred books as already made and completed ; and
of course completed before the book of Daniel was written. But would a
pseudo-Daniel thus betray himself, by a statement that savored of so late a
period, as that after the canon was closed ? Others represent the word as
meaning a private collection of sacred books ; others, as designating a cor
pus propheticum. None of these conjectures are necessary ; and none of
them are well-grounded. In Jer. 25: 13, the prophet names his written
prophecy respecting the seventy years, nin l£&n . A second prediction,

Chap. IX. 3. 257
sent to the exiles in Babylon, respecting the seventy years, he also names
iBtsn, 29: 1. Two Sephers, I suppose, may be called QilB&n; and this is
just what Daniel has called them, in view of their contents respecting the
seventy years. To draw an argument from such a passage, and spread
it out over more than a page, as Lengerke has done, in order to show
that the book of Daniel was written after the canon was closed, is some
thing quite aside from either good logic or fair criticism. I take the a
in DiiBBa to designate, as often elsewhere, instrumentality. By perusing
these prophecies of Jeremiah, Daniel attained to a definite knowledge
respecting the period of the exile. A perusal for the first time, on the
part of Daniel at this period, it is not necessary to suppose ; but only an
attentive reperusal. It is unnecessary to make DUBBa object after the
verb inbia ; and of course unnecessary to translate this last word by
sought understanding in the writings, etc., as Lengerke does, and then
take the following words as being mere explanatory apposition. The
more simple method of exegesis, seems to be that which I have adopted
above. — 1J1 nin H2ix I regard as coordinate with 131 lEba , and designed
to explain it: 'I understood the number ... [I understood] that the
word of Jehovah came to Jeremiah the prophet to complete seventy
years, etc' This last clause shows the amount of the number. — Seventy
years is object to the verb mxbab . The form of this verb is like those
of rib ; as is often the case with verbs xb, § 74. Notes, VI. c. — niainb
for or in respect to the desolations. These need not be limited to the
final destruction only of Jerusalem, under Zedekiah, in 588 B. C, but to
all the spoiling, plunder, and carrying into exile, which had taken place
since the city was first captured by Nebuchadnezzar. Nothing can be
plainer, than that Daniel himself reckons in this way ; otherwise he
could not make out a completion, or very nearly a completion, of the
seventy years in question.
(3) And I set my face toward the Lord God, to seek prayer and supplications,
with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.
Because Daniel saw, as yet, no approaching signs of liberty for his
people to return from their exile to Judea, he betook himself to earnest
supplication, that God would speed this event. — Iset my face to or toward
the Lord God, viz. toward Jerusalem where God was supposed pecu
liarly to dwell ; see 6: 10, where the same posture in prayer is more
explicitly stated. This was probably the common posture of the Jews
when abroad, and not improbably of those at home. — Din'bxn, the God,
i. e. the only living and true God. — tijsab , to seek earnestly or carefully
must signify here not to look after, to seek up, (which would make no
tolerable sense), but to betake one's self to, to engage in. — nbsn means
22«

258 Chap. IX. 4, 5.
prayer in its generic sense ; biJWnn signifies supplication for mercy or
favor. This was done with the usual accompaniments during such spe
cial seasons of devotional exercises, viz. with fasting, while the person
was clothed with sackcloth, and his head besprinkled with ashes ; Job 2:
12. All these were the outward signs of internal humiliation and peni
tence. (4) And I poured out supplication to Jehovah my God, and made confession, and
said: Ah! Lord, the great and dreadful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy to
those that love him and keep his commandments !
The frequent repetition here of the prolonged form (with n - appended),
seems to depend on the Vav prefixed (§ 126. 1. e), which often admits it
in cases where the meaning is neither hortative, nor expressive of will
or determination (§ 126. 1. c). Here is simply narration. — niinxa,
Hithp. of nii , § 68. 2. e. g. — In niaxl , 1st pers. Imperf., the x of the
stem is dropped, § 67. 2. — X|X (read ari-na), compounded of nx ah,
alas, and xs = Ibeseech thee. It is a common exclamation of a suppli
ant deeply affected. — i3ix = tnrn , and pointed 1- in distinction from
the common plur. with suff. i3ix . — bxn, emphatic. — Great and dread
ful, great in the displays of his power, and dreadful in punishing impeni
tent offenders, e. g. such as the Jewish nation had been. While this
thought naturally occurs first to Daniel's mind, because of the then exist
ing state of the Hebrews, yet, as he is pleading for mercy, he does not
forget another conspicuous part of the divine character, who keepeth the
covenant and the mercy. The word mercy I take to be here exegetical
of covenant, for it points out what particular part of the divine nil a
{ordinance) the speaker means, viz. that part which contains promises
of kindness or mercy to the penitent and obedient. — The commencing
address of the prayer is in the Vocative and second person, and so is bxn ,
but laili is in the third person, as are also the suffixes which follow ; see
§ 134. 3. Note 3, as to change of persons.
(5) We have sinned, we have done perversely, we have acted impiously, and have
rebelled, and have turned back from thy commandments and thine ordinances.
liDi, Inf. abs. used for the definite verb 131&, stem 11D. For this use
of the Inf. abs., see § 128. 4. b. More literally the Inf. here might be
translated : there has been a turning back. The climactic construction of
the sentence is palpable. To turn back from obedience to the divine
statutes, in the frame of mind which belongs to rebels, is the consumma
tion of wickedness , and so Daniel rightly considers it. The variety of
verbs employed here, indicates the design of the speaker to confess all
sin of every kind in its full extent.

Chap. IX. 6—9. 259
(6) And we have not hearkened to thy servants, the prophets, who spake in thy
name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.
Prophets, speaking in the name, i. e. by the authority, of God are
often and familiarly called his servants, as here. — The preposition bx is
omitted before the second and third of the nouns which it virtually gov
erns, § 151. 4. This is a frequent usage. The we of the first clause
(comprised in I33>ain ) is explained both by the second and third clauses.
The second particularizes various distinguished classes of the people ;
the third comprises all the remainder, fixn , with the article here,
means of course our land, viz. Palestine.
(7) To thee, 0 Lord, belongeth righteousness, but to ns shame of face, as at the
present time, to each man of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all
Israel, who are near and who are afar off, in all the countries whither thou hast
driven them, on account of their offences which they have committed against thee.
di3Bn niaa means such a sense of shame as makes the countenance to
blush. — ntn ai'ia designates the then present lime. The whole phrase,
Lengerke says, is borrowed from Ezra 9: 7. But suppose I should insist
on reversing the order ? There are many reasons for so doing ; but to
suspect borrowing or lending, in a case so simple and obvious as this,
looks like grasping at trifles to accomplish some favorite end. — UJixb ,
being generic, might be translated to the men. Here, the b prefix is
thrice repeated ; which is done for the sake of emphasis. — Who are near
etc., participles with the article used as a relative pronoun, § 109. 2. a. —
DA!) . . . HEX , where, whither. This whole clause is added so as to com-
prise all the Jews afar off and near, as well as those in Babylonia. —
131 cbsaa, lit. on account of the perfidy which they have perfidiously com
mitted in respect to thee. I have virtually retained the sense, in the trans
lation above, but have conformed the mode of expression to our usual
English idiom.
(8) O Lord, to us belongeth shame of face — to our kings, to our princes, and to
our fathers, because we have, sinned against thee.
A virtual repetition of vs. 5, 6. But here the prefix b , for the sake
of emphasis, stands before the words designating each of the classes ;
which differs from the usage in v. 6. For isix because, see § 152. II. c.
(9) To the Lord our God belongeth compassion and pardon ; for we have sinned
against him.
The article stands before ninb&ni Qianin as abstracts, § 107. 3.
Note 1. c. The plur. form of these nouns denotes intensity in the mani
festation, or the continued and extended exercise of these qualities or

260 Chap. IX. 10—13.
attributes; p. 201, Rem. at the bottom. The article before the nouns
may also be accounted for, if one prefers this solution, on the ground
of designating the things signified as belonging to God in a peculiar
manner, i. e. on the ground of emphasis.
(10) And we have not hearkened to the voice of Jehovah our God, to walk
according to his laws, which he has placed before us by his servants the prophets.
To walk, according to the usual idiom of the Hebrew means, to demean
one's self or to act thus and so. — Laws has here its generic meaning, viz.
instructions of every kind. — Placed before us, here includes the idea of
being reduced to writing, so that the laws may be possessed and read.
(11) And all Israel have transgressed thy law, and turned back so as not to
hearken to thy voice; and thon hast poured upon us the curse, even the oath, which
is written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against
him. In respect to lidl , see on v. 5. — For the curse and the oath, see Lev.
26: 14—43. Deut.' 28: 15—19. 29: 19.-1^1, 2 pers. Imperf. of
tjns, with Vav continuative. § 486. 2. — ib,suff. of the 3d pers., although
the preceding address is in the 2d pers. ; see on v. 4.
(12) And he has established his words which he spake concerning us, and con
cerning our judges who judged us, that he would bring great evil upon us, so that
there hath not happened under the whole heaven, the like to what hath taken place
in Jerusalem. Qp.ii , Hiph. with retracted accent, § 71. 3, and Note 7. — The BBisi of
the Hebrews designates every kind of magistrate. — nntoSi , Niph., been
done, happened, took place. The meaning is : ' been brought about by
thy providence.'
(13) According to what is written in the law of Moses, all this evil has come upon
us ; and yet we have not besought Jehovah our God to turn [us] from our iniquities,
and to make [us] wise by thy truth.
nx before the Nom. case, (see § 116, Note at the bottom of the page),
unusual, but not without precedent. The 1 in xbl = and yet, for this
particle often connects clauses which in some respects are contrasted,
§ 152. B. b. — nbn lit. means, to address any one smoothly, gently, or
persuasively, and so to supplicate in the way of softening displeasure. —
To turn us, etc., means here not so much the pardon of sin, as grace to
repent and reform. To make us loise by thy truth, i. e. wise in the moral
sense, wise to avoid evil and to do good. In both cases us is omitted in
the original, but is readily supplied by the reader. — ^naxa, suff. in the

Chap. IX. 14—16. 261
second person, referring to ni'rn in the third ; see the reverse of this in
v. 4 above ; § 134. 3. Note 3.
(14) And so Jehovah hath watched over the evil, and brought it upon us; for
righteous is Jehovah our God in respect to all his doings which he hath done, for we
have not hearkened to his voice.
ipfijii , the 1 consecutive, in such cases as this, connects with itself the
usual sense of the conjunction ; and frequently this conjunction has the
meaning and yet, and so, therefore. — Watched over the evil, i. e. kept it
watchfully in store, that he might employ it in punishing, when we had
deserved it. In all this God is p^yxjust; for to punish ill-desert is
justice. — Which he hath done is purely a Hebrew mode of expression,
and the like is very common in Hebrew. In our own language it is here
a superfluity after the word doings. — The last clause might be rendered :
and we did not hearken, etc. I have translated 1 , however, as marking a
kind of causal clause, see § 152. B. c.
(15) And now, O Lord our God, who hast brought thy people from the land of
Egypt by a mighty hand, and hast made for thyself a name, as at the present time,
we have sinned, we have done wickedly.
Here commences the supplication of the speaker ; at least, this address
is preparatory to it. The argument stands thus : ' O God, who .in times
past hast wrought wonderful deliverances for thy people, and thereby
acquired a glorious name — repeat thy wondrous doings, and add to the
glory which thou hast already acquired ! As thou didst bring us out of
exile in Egypt, so also'bring us out of exile in Babylon.' — A name, as at
the present time, i. e. such a name, glory, honor, as is attributed to thee
even now. — We have sinned etc., the deep sensation of penitence forces
from the speaker the repetition of confession.
(16) 0 Lord, according to all thy kindness let thine anger and thine indignation
be turned away now from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain, for, on account of
our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people have become a
reproach to all around us.
SpKpis is here used in the sense of favor, kindness, benignity, as it
often is when the plur. is employed (as here), which designates repeated
acts of benignity, and is intensive. — X3 , a sign of the optative, § 125. 3. b.
— *]SHj5 in , lit. mountain of thy holiness = thy holy mountain, § 104. 1.
— Daniel confesses the sins of the fathers which occasioned their exile,
and the sins of the generation then living which continued that exile.
The central point of his solicitude is Jerusalem and the holy mountain,
i. e. the honor of God and religion. — Reproach to those around us, the

262 Chap. IX. 17—21.
preposition in the last word takes the form of a const, plur. noun, § 99. 1.
§ 101. 1.
(17) And now, 0 our God, hearken to the prayer of thy servant and to his sup
plications, and let thy face shine upon thy sanctuary which is desolate, for the Lord's
sake. Of thy servant, i. e. of the speaker, who mentions himself in the usual
humble manner of the Hebrews, when one addressed a superior. — ixn ,
cause to shine, i. e. to be bright, cheerful, to appear pleased, the reverse
of frowning or looking dark. — Bairn , Part, intrans. and passive, (as
usual with this form), the n being a relative demonstrative, § 109. 2. a.
— h3lX isab, third person instead of the second; and so oftentimes, when
God is spoken of.
(18) Incline thine ear, 0 my God, and hear ; open thine eyes and see our desola
tions and the city on which thy name is called; for not on account of our righteous
nesses do we lay our supplications before thee, but on account of thy great mercy.
nn^B , (so the Kethibh should be pointed), is better than the marginal
npjs , because it is an intensive form, § 48. 5. — nibs . . . nax , upon
which, § 121. 1. — Qib/Ba , lit. let fall, corresponding well with our word
lay, which means to put down or place before, stem bS3 . — Daniel has
no hope, when he looks to the just deserts of his people, but only in the
mercy of God.
(19) 0 Lord hear; O Lord forgive; 0 Lord listen and do, delay not for thine
own sake, O my God, for thy name is called upon thy city and upon thy people.
ntos , do, viz. that which I request. The like often in this book, as to
nto . — inxn bx , opt., see p. 268. par. 3. — For thine own sake is ex
plained by what follows. As common parlance made use of the phrases
city of God, and people of God, so the honor of God is urged by Daniel
as a reason why God should- regard the Hebrew nation with special
kindness. (20) And while I was speaking, and interceding, and confessing my sin and the
sin of my people Israel, and laying my supplication before Jehovah my God, in be
half of the holy mountain of my God; (21) even while I was speaking in prayer,
then the man Gabriel, whom I had before seen in the vision, having been hastened
in a swift course, approached me about the time of the evening oblation.
©ixn , the man, viz. the one whom I had before seen in vision, as the
sequel declares. The reference is to what has been related in 8: 15. —
nbnna , lit. in the beginning ; but often the phrase means simply before,
aforetime. I have here translated it simply by before. The reference is
to 8: 15. — t)Sia t)Sa is rendered by, Michaelis, Dathe, Doderlein, Ges.,

Chap. IX. 22, 23. 263
Rosenm., al., wearied by swift flight ; a strange idea to be associated with
Gabriel, i. e. powerful man of God. We read of angels " swift to do the
will " of God, but not of their being wearied by their swiftness. It is
incongruous. Both words are evidently of the same root, and of kin
dred meaning, i. e. both come from ns; . qsa = qsia , Part. Hoph.,
means hastened, caused to make haste. S]2>ia is the noun with a prep., and
means swift course, or haste. We might well translate : being hastened
swiftly. Our English translators derived the word qsa from t)W to fly,
and have rendered the phrase accordingly. But t)Sj means simply to
hasten, in its primary sense, and indicates nothing of the manner in
which swiftness is effected. How long Daniel was making supplication,
and of course how long Gabriel was in actually coming to him, we know
not. Daniel's recorded prayer is, in all probability, only a specimen or
summary of what he uttered on the occasion which called it forth. — SSb ,
Part, with a praeterite meaning, § 131. 1. and 2. c.
(22) And he made explanation, and talked with me, and said ; 0 Daniel, I have
come forth to teach thee understanding.
The first tail is a summary of what the angel did, on this occasion. —
He talked with me indicates a continued colloquy. — iiax'l prefaces a
quotation of words spoken. — nra meaning of anything, understanding,
intelligence. Of what ? Of the prophecies in Jer., say Lengerke and
others. But then nsian would be almost of necessity employed in such
a case. We should therefore give to njia a more generic sense, and
then the phrase = to impart to thee understanding, viz. respecting thy
people. This confines the sequel neither to the predictions of Jeremiah,
nor to the vision in ch. viii. These limits would be too narrow for
vs. 24—27.
(23) At the beginning of thy supplications, a word went forth, and I am come to
tell thee, for thou art greatly beloved ; mark well then the word, and understand the
vision. nilian , plur. of intensity, lit. loves = Lat. deliciae. — iai xsi , a word,
sentence, or communication went forth. From whom ? The text does
not say explicitly from what quarter it proceeded. But the implication
scarcely admits of a doubt. The word or communication must have
come from some one superior to the angel ; for his errand is to convey
and declare it : lam come li&nb , to declare [it]. Some supply ?|b {to
the*) after the verb in the Inf. To this there is no urgent objection ;
but even in case this view of the ellipsis is admitted, it is necessary to
supply it (viz. the word) after lianb , for this verb surely falls back upon

264 Chap. IX. 24.
iai , and must have a direct object  The last two clauses of the verse
make all this plain : Mark well then, or consider well, the word (iaia),
where the article points of course to the preceding iai  Vision has
not exactly the same sense as iai message, but means both the appear
ance of Gabriel and the developments which he makes. In other words ;
the prophecy itself and the manner in which it is communicated, are re
quired to be objects of special attention on the part of Daniel, for they
are deserving of his most serious consideration. I do not see any way
of fairly avoiding the interpretation, which regards the angel as having
received from God the communication that follows, and as specially de
puted to make this communication to Daniel. This is a plain and sim
ple view of the matter ; and this turn of the sentiment is altogether
apposite tp the exigencies of the case before us. The first iai in v. 23,
not having the article, can point to no previous or well known communi
cation, antecedent to the period then passing. A (not the) communica
tion, therefore, must be its meaning. What this communication is, re
mains yet to be explained. The second lain , having the article, of
course points to the preceding one. But this second one has a clear re
lation to the communication which follows. The exegesis which makes
both of these refer to nihi iai in v. 2, is clearly ungrammatical. Were
this the case, both must have the article. We cannot admit, with Len
gerke, that the angel only undertakes a new and mystical interpretation
of Jeremiah's predictions concerning the seventy weeks.
(24) Seventy weeks are decided respecting thy people and thy holy city, to re
strain transgression, and to seal up sin, and to expiate iniquity; and to bring in ever
lasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophecy, and to anoint a holy of holies.
fcisaia, from Siaia, and of an irregular masc. plur.form, retaining (t)
under the first radical, (normally it would read Qisaizj). The masc. plur.
occurs only in the paragraph before us, and in Dan. 10: 2, 3. The fem.
form nisao also retains the ( T ) of the first radical. Why ? none of the
lexicons or grammars tell us. Fuerst (Concord.) says : " retento Qamets
sibili," in respect to the plural forms ; by which I suppose him to mean,
that sibilant letters have a propensity to a Qamets vowel-sound. If this
be his assertion, it needs illustration and confirmation. It is disputed
whether the masc. singular occurs ; but as the Masoretic text of Gen.
29: 27, 28 stands (nxi satu xba), there is a clear instance of a masc.
form in a const, state, from Sia'd , showing that the Qamets in the sing.
is mutable. Wieseler however, (Die 70 Wochen, s. 14), says that " the
Masorites have certainly erred," and that we should read nxi sao , i. e.
these seven (years), lit. this heptade (of years). As the form of the nu-

Chap. IX. 24. 265
meral is sing, and fem. (§ 96. 1), it may be united with nx* ; and Di3ltf
seems to be fairly implied, as any one may see by comparing Gen. 29:
18, 20, 27 together. If this criticism be just, (it seems to me plainly to
be so), then we have no instance of a masc. form of the word in ques
tion, out of the book of Daniel. This however will prove nothing against
the existence of one, since it is altogether a feasible form. The simple
truth is, that both Qisaia and m'saiu are participial forms, meaning be-
sevened, (sit venia !), i. e. computed by sevens. Lit. then we might trans
late thus : Heptades seventy are decided upon, etc. This leaves the
question entirely open, whether the meaning is heptades of days, or of
ordinary years, or of sabbatical years ; and this question must be decided
of course by the context. The Jews had three kinds of Heptades in re
spect to time ; first, that of days, seven of which make a week ; secondly,
that of years, seven of which make a sabbatical year, Lev. 25: 1 — 7 ;
thirdly, that of the seven periods of years before the jubilee-year, for this
last comprises seven times seven years = forty-nine years, after which
comes the jubilee-year, Lev. 25: 8. Which of these three is meant in
the present case ? for the clause before us may be interpreted in either
way. Not the first, for this would make but about a year and a half for
the fulfilment of all that is predicted in the sequel, and would fill the
passage with contradictions. Wieseler, indeed, in his work quoted above,
has labored to show, that the first mentioned seventy weeks are merely
literal and common weeks ; for he holds that the sequel in v. 24 refers
merely to the return from the Babylonish exile, and a restoration to all
the rites and privileges of worship as prescribed by Moses, with an ac
companying reformation of moral demeanor. But the subsequent weeks
he cOunts as year-weeks, i. e. periods of seven yea*rs each. Ingenious
and acute as this writer surely is, I cannot accord with this view of the
case ; for, (1) It makes a violent disruption in the meaning of Biyais , to
translate it weeks of days in v. 24, and then weeks of years in the follow
ing verses of the same paragraph. (2) Nothing seems plainer, than that
the tripartite, 7, 62, 1, are designed to make up the number seventy
stated in v. 24 ; and of .course, the seventy at the outset must have the
same relation to Diyaa , that the subsequent numbers (the component
parts of it) have ; and Wieseler himself concedes, that in vs. 25 — 27
Dijpia means week-years, i. e. heptades of years. (3) The application
of the magnificent promises, in v. 24, merely to a partial return from
exile, and to the broken and troubled state (oinsn piaa , v. 25) of the
Jews for a long period (62 weeks), is something that savors too much of
deducere aliquid ex aliquo, to commend itself to the simple interpreter.
There is too much of what the Germans name a hinein-exegesiren, to
23

266 Chap. IX. 24.
meet with cordial reception. Hoffman (Weiss, und Erfiill. s. 298) rightly
says respecting it: "The universality with which the consummation
of all the hopes of Israel is here spoken of, renders it impossible for any
one to interpret it, except in an arbitrary toay, as merely applying to the
scanty return from the Babylonish exile by permission of Cyrus — a
return which hardly satisfied the anticipations respecting it." — We may
therefore abide by uniform consistency through the whole paragraph, in
the use of QiSBiU • Then, of course, we must regard the meaning as =
7x70 = 490 years.
So long a time, or thus much ground, is comprised in the prediction ;
not because this, (reckoned in any feasible way), reaches down to the
Messianic period, but because so much of the time intervening, before
the Messiah would appear, is for the most part ' troublous time,' and
resembles in this respect, that of the seventy years' Babylonish exile.
The speaker means to say : ' The Messiah will surely come, and Jerusa
lem will be restored in a high and spiritual sense ; but before all this
takes place, there must be, not seventy years of literal exile again, but
seventy times seven years of trouble and of trial. How soon after this
is over, the king of the new and last dominion will make his appearance,
the speaker does not say, nor does the context inform us. Enough that
the days of peculiar trial and trouble like those of the Babylonian exile,
will pass away within the period named ; for that period t^nn; , i. e. is
definitely limited or decided-
As to the masc. form Qisaia being employed here, in all probability
the speaker meant to attract special attention to the word so important
in the sequel, and therefore he has put it first, as well as given to it a
peculiar form. He may also have been influenced in his choice of the
form, by the Qisaia which follows ; or it may have been the prevailing
dialect of the day. That he designs to designate heptades of years by it,
would seem quite probable, if we merely compare 10: 2, 3, where cnai
is added after it in order to explain it, and to tell the reader that he
does not mean a siaia of the same length or of the same kind as before.
No explanation is needed, however, in the present case, except what the
context gives. Daniel's meditation had been upon the seventy simple
years predicted by Jeremiah. The angel tells him, that a new-seventy,
i. e. seventy week-years or seven times seventy years, await his people,
before their final deliverer will come. The reader almost spontaneously
adopts this view of the meaning, who is familiar with the week-years of
the Hebrews. "As to the third way in which the Hebrews used the
word siatu , it designated the jubilee-year = forty-nine years or seven
times seven. If no w we choose this last period as the meaning of cisiatti ,

Chap. IX. 24. 267
then we should have 49 X 70 = 3430 years — a period incredible, on
every ground, in respect to the events which follow. In other words,
the first and last of the heptades lead to inconsistency or absurdity ;
neither of them, therefore, is meant by the text. ' In medio tutissimus,'
one may safely say, in the present case. Nor is Daniel alone in such a
mode of expression. Gellius (Noct. Att. III. 10) makes M. Varro say,
that he had written septuaginta hebdomadas librorum. The like in Aristotle,
Pol. VII. 16 ; and in Censorinus. De Die natali, c. 16.
Tjnn: is found only here, in the Hebrew Scriptures, but is more com
mon in Chaldee and Rabbinic. The literal meaning is to cut, but it does
not necessarily involve the adjunct idea to cut off. The Vulgate, how
ever, has rendered it abbreviatae sunt, probably in reference to the idea
that lunar months are here to be counted for the years, rather than
solar ones. Wieseler (s. 95 seq.) defends the translation abbreviated or
abridged, and represents the angel as designing to say, that the period
of seventy years' exile, as foretold by Jeremiah, is, through divine mercy,
and in answer to the prayer of Daniel, abridged. As he makes the ex
ile to begin with 599 B. C, (led, as he says, by Matt. 1:12, who seems
to assign its beginning to the deportation of Jechoniah), so, at the time
when Daniel fasted and prayed, only sixty-three years of it had passed
away, and seven years were therefore to be abridged. But I cannot
admit the probability of such an explanation. The idea of abbreviation
would have assumed quite another form. Nor is it easy to see, how
Daniel, in case he began the exile with the year 599 B. C. when Je
hoiakim was carried into exile, could have supposed that seventy years
had already come very near to the close, when seven years were yet
lacking ; for the three first verses of our chapter evidently present him
as supposing this. The conclusion is inevitable, if chap. 1: 1 be com
pared, that Daniel dates the exile in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign,
or at least the attack of Nebuchadnezzar upon Jerusalem ; and such be
ing the case, there is no room for abridging the seventy years. They
are already on the point of expiring, when Daniel betakes himself to
prayer and fasting. We must admit, then, the figurative sense of rpm ,
viz. decided, defined, determined, decreed; for so the Latin decido
means in its figurative sense, while lit. it means cut off; and so the Heb.
in and fin , and the Greek ri'pvco. I would not aver, that simply de
creed or determined would adequately translate the word, for it evidently
means a definitive separation of the weeks in question from the mass of
time, in order, that what is included in this separated and thus defined
part, may present the extent of the ground which the predictions that
follow are to occupy. In other words : ' Seventy weeks are definitely

268 Chap. IX. 24.
selected and decided upon,' as a period in which various things are to
happen, before the final consummation of the hopes of the Jewish nation,
viz. the appearance of the Messiah. As to the sing, number of the verb,
I see no need of so much difficulty as has been made. The seventy
weeks are a definite period here generically presented ; and as such they
are one. The sing, number of the verb, therefore, is a mere case of con-
structio ad sensum. We need not resort (with Hitzig) to the passive
form impersonal, as retaining the Ace, nor suppose (with Hengstenberg)
ns to be implied. Comp. the like in Gen. 46: 22, as to a plur. subject
and sing, verb, although in other respects the case will not afford an ex
act parallel with the present one.
Jjisip iis-bsi ?;HS bs , upon thy people and upon thy holy city. Here
I have rendered bs upon, (in the version above, respecting), in order to
approach nearer to the true idea of the Hebrew ; for bs often designates
the idea of on or upon in the sense of what is burdensome, or it is used
in what the lexicons style a hostile sense ; Ges. Lex. bs , 4. a. Plainly
it is so here. The seventy weeks comprise the special burden, the trials,
the troubles, through which Israel must pass, before the Great Deliverer
will make his appearance, or, in the language of the remainder of the verse,
before sin will be thoroughly subdued and expiated, and righteousness intro
duced in the full measure often predicted. — Thy people . . . thy holy city,
Wieseler (p. 16) says, 'indicate two things; (1) That the blessings promised
pertain only to the Jews. (2) That they should share in them merely on Dan
iels account, and not on their own.' I can find neither of these intimations
in those expressions. Daniel was a native of Jerusalem, and probably of
royal origin (1: 3) ; and so we have thy city. Thy people means simply the
people to which he belonged, and thy city is merely the city of his birth
where his affections centered. There is doubtless, however, an empha
sis beyond this in the word thy. Daniel had just been most earnestly
and anxiously pleading in behalf of the city and people to which he be
longed ; and thy, applied to both of them, conveys the idea of a people
and city for which he was most anxiously concerned, and for which he
had just made such fervent intercession. The sequel of the verse does
not indeed ' preach the gospel to the Gentiles ;' but neither does it con
fine the promised good to any one nation. It simply assures Daniel that
his people are to participate in it. The idea that ' the Jews are to be
blessed merely on Daniel's account,' I am unable to find in the passage.
S'isn xbab , to restrain transgression ; which version, however, takes
for granted that the Kethibh, xba is a Piel form of xba . Most of the
ancient versions, and the mass of recent critics, have preferred to derive
the verb from nba ; and they aver, that here is merely an exchange of

Chap. LX. 24 269
form in the rib verb, for a form of xb , which, as all concede, is a frequent
occurrence ; § 74. Note VI. and Note 22. c. ib. Hence they translate
thus : to consummate transgression or to fiU up the measure of rebellion ;
meaning, that during the seventy weeks, rebellion will reach its acme,
and will not go beyond. Expressions similar to this there are, here and
there in the Scriptures; e. g. in Gen. 15: 16, "The iniquity of the
Amorites is not yet full," (abr xb). In the like way 1 Thess. 2: 16,
dvanXngaaui tag dpagriag ; and so in Dan. 8: 23, a'-'itsn arna . But
objections not easily met, may be made against this view. (1) It comes
not within the common usages of grammar, or of the book before us, to
make such an exchange of nba for xba here. The verb nba elsewhere
retains its n throughout, e. g. Dan. 9: 27. 11: 36, and in Dan. 12: 7 we
have the Inf. Piel .—ba . This is of course the true Inf. of the Piel of
nba ; and where Gesenius and others find a nba Inf. form, (for which
they say xba is substituted), I know not. It is an Unding in grammar
or in the Heb. usus hquendi. (2) The whole sentiment which is thus
assigned to the passage, has an erroneous basis. They understand the
speaker as now describing what will take place during the seventy
weeks, i. e. rebellion will then be consummated, ete ; whereas it seems
to lie on the very face of the remainder of this verse, that blessings which
are to follow the seventy weeks are foretold. I would not deny, that
there may be a point of view, from which one may regard a consumma
tion of iniquity as desirable, all things considered, (for then comes of
course the hope of better times) ; but nowhere in the Bible, as I believe,
can it be found, that the perfecting of rebellion is represented as a bless
ing, either present or in promise. If this view is correct, it is decisive
of the whole question, and lays entirely aside the word nba , unless it be
taken in another and very different sense, viz. that of completing in the
sense of bringing to an end, destroying. But to change the text for the
sake of this meaning, when xba comes virtually to the same point, and
indicates an effectual check or restraint upon sin, is both unnecessary and
uncritical. However, against retaining xba as a regular form from xba
it is objected, that the word has no Piel. All that this can properly
mean is, that Piel is not elsewhere found. But how many verbs are
there in the Hebrew, in the same predicament, i. e. where only one ex
ample of this conjugation, or of that, can be found ? xba has a transitive
as well as intransitive sense (Num. 11: 28. Ecc. 8: 8, al.) ; and it
may have a Piel of intensity or of habitual action ; which is the very
meaning appropriate to the passage before us. Then what objection can
be made to the idea of restraining, or rather of 'habitually and powerfully
restraining s^s? This last word is the most intense designation of
23*

270 Chap. IX. 24.
wickedness, as it combines the idea of apostasy and rebellion. Both of
these the prophet had confessed, in his prayer (vs. 5 — 11), to be charge
able upon Israel. These had taken the lead in bringing down divine
judgments upon the nation. Hence the Siasn {the transgression) as it is
named in our text ; viz. the apostasy and rebellion already described.
When the Great Deliverer shall come, he will effectually restrain such
transgressions as bring down divine judgments upon the nation and send
it into exile. The allegation of Lengerke and some others, that xba ,
which means to shut up, enclose, as well as to restrain, should have the
first of these meanings assigned to it here, because to shut up transgres
sion means to hide it or conceal it, and so to forgive it, has no foundation
in the usus loquendi of the word. When a Hebrew spoke of covering
sin in such a sense, he employed nsa or 1B3 . The text of the Kethibh
may stand therefore untouched ; and the meaning of it as it is, seems
to be altogether apposite to the purpose of the speaker.
nixan annbi , and to seal up sins, where the vowel-points of the verb
belong to the marginal Qeri, nnnbi , Hiph. Inf. of nan . The text should
be pointed and read Bnnbl , as in the sequel. The imagery of the lan
guage is evidently progressive. First we have the restraining, lit. shut
ting up ; then this work is completed by putting a seal upon it ; comp.
Matt. 27: 66. Where we use bars and bolts only, in many cases the an
cients also employed seals, in order to make sure the object thus enclosed
and guarded. See Lex. The literal meaning would be plain ; the
prisoner is first shut up, then the seal is put upon his prison door. Thus
Job 9: 7, God seals up the stars, i. e. prevents them from shining ;
Job 37: 7, he seals up the hand of all men, i. e. hinders them from any
development of activity. So here; to seal up sins, is to render them
inert, inefficient, powerless. They are not only restrained, but rendered
unable to break out, and bring men into danger of punishment. The
other reading in the Qeri, viz. onnbi arose, in all probability, from a
comparison with 8: 23, where we have QiSiSBn anna , when transgress
ors have come to the full [measure of their sin]. But this meaning does
not fit in 9: 24. It is what follows the 70 weeks, which is predicted ;
and after their expiration, there is no time for the consummating of wick
edness ; the time has come to seal it up, as God does the stars and the
hand of all men, i. e. to render it inefficient, incapable of acting at liberty.
With Wieseler, then, we may justly prefer the text as it stands, to any of
the changes proposed. The objection of Ewald, that in such a case we
must suppose a repetition of the same word too speedily, amounts to but
little ; for in the next three verses, fin and taui are thrice repeated. Be
sides, the second case of ann differs in the shade of its meaning from the
first case.

Chap. IX. 24. 271
¦)is isabi , lit to cover sin ; but this would not answer well here, inas
much as sin is already shut up and sealed upon. It must then have one
of the two tropical meanings which the word bears, viz. either that of
forgiving sin, or that of expiating it. Either meaning would suit the
' tenor of the passage, the amount of which is, that sin is either to be put
under entire restraint, as in the case of obstinate offenders ; or to be
forgiven or atoned for, as in the case of the penitent. In one way or
another the power of sin to do mischief, or to occasion condemnation, is
to be crippled. How well the idea of atonement accords with the epistle
to the Hebrews, as the prominent feature in the development of the Mes
sianic period, none need to be informed. Why not admit it here, where
the angel is dwelling upon the distinguished blessings which will follow
the 70 weeks of troublous times ? Its appropriateness can hardly be
doubted. c-abs pis xianbi, to introduce everlasting righteousness, i. e. the
dixawavrq &eov of Paul, in his epistles to the Romans and Galatians.
It is everlasting, because the Messiah's kingdom is so, Dan. 1: 44. 7: 14,
27. It is introduced, because it is of God's giving, and is procured by
the Messiah. The people are to be transgressors no more, so as to need
punishment and exile. The first three cti'xoi disclose the negative por
tion of what is to be effected. Sin is to be checked, and removed.
Now comes the positive part ; righteousness, viz. that of the heart and
life which God bestows, (not pis in the sense of prosperity), that
righteousness which is the opposite of a sinful state, is to be the charac
teristic of the new kingdom.
X"a;-. ""n c'r.nb- , lit. to seal vision and prophet, where seal has
the sense of confirming, authenticating. A seal was put at the end of a
writing, to show that it was completed and was authentic. Prophecy is
open so long as it remains unfulfilled. When it is fulfilled, it is completed,
which is one of the tropical'meanings of the verb crn . The old dispen
sation was one of " types and shadows of good things to come," and in
its very nature prophetic. F/nder it many predictions concerning the Mes
sianic period were uttered ; when that comes, these are sealed, completed,
authenticated. Of course the good which those prophecies foretold is
here in the speaker's mind. — xia: , prophet, has reference to the person
who foretels, and -(ifn is his prophetic vision. Both are included here,
because not only the vision is completed or fulfilled, but the character
and claims of the prophet are authenticated. If this view be correct,
then c'nnb , in this last case, has plainly a different shade of meaning
from that in which it is first employed. Surely no one critically conver
sant with the Scriptures needs to be told, that cases of this nature are by

272 Chap. IX. 24.
no means of unfrequent occurrence. The idea of sealing up vision and
prophet by the death of Christ, or by his coming and repealing the old
dispensation, is quite foreign from the passage before us. Besides, were
there no visions and no prophets under the new dispensation ? So Peter
did not view the matter, Acts 2: 17: 21. To maintain, as Wieseler does
(s. 17), that the vision to be sealed or confirmed is only that of Jere
miah (25: 11), is palpably aside from the scope of the passage, which is
of an extent much wider. Besides, this view of the matter would involve
a vGrsgov ngorsgov. All here related is to follow the 70 weeks ; but the
return from the captivity did not follow them. It occurred while they
were in transitu, and during the early part of them. Wieseler escapes
from this, only by making the 70 weeks, in the verse before us, to mean
merely 70 weeks of days, which passed away before the proclamation of
Cyrus in Ezra i. ; a new exegesis, I admit, but hardly a true one.
nurip ujip nuJabl , and to anoint a Holy of Holies. Is it the Jewish
sanctuary which is to be rebuilt and anointed, i. e. consecrated to the
service of God again ? Or is it a new sanctuary, such as becomes the
new spiritual dispensation ? Not the former ; for then the article could
not fail before niiuip. . Never is it omitted in any case, where holy of holies
means the most holy place in the temple. The insertion of the article
here would have misled the reader, and naturally obliged him to inter
pret the passage as designating the sanctuary of the temple at Jerusalem
when rebuilt. In the present case, a sanctuary, i. e. such an one as is
appropriate to the new state of things, is designated. Of such an one the
writer of the epistle to the Hebrews speaks : " Christ, the high-priest of
good things to come, when he presented himself through a greater and
more perfect tabernacle . . . not with the blood of bulls and goats, but by
his own blood, once for all entered eig rd dyia, into the sanctuary, pro
curing eternal redemption." Heb. 9: 11, 12. {Td dyia, and id dyia
tcqv dymv are N. Test, names for DHUl^n lSip). This is the sanctu
ary belonging to that temple, under whose altar the Apocalyptist saw the
supplicating souls of the martyrs, Rev. 6: 9, comp. also 8: 3. 9: 13. 14:
18. Rev. 11: 19 speaks of "the temple of God ... in heaven, where
was seen, in his temple, the ark of his testament or covenant." And
although in the New Jerusalem there will be no temple (Rev. 21: 22),
yet before the final consummation of all things, the spiritual temple in
heaven, the archetype of the earthly one (Heb. 8: 5), is always spoken of
by the Hebrew sacred writers, in the New Test, and in the Old, as having
an existence. It is that into which Christ as high priest enters, and
presents his own propitiatory blood, Heb. 9: 1 1 — 14. To anoint the Sanc
tuary there, of course means to prepare it for this new offering ; just as

Chap. IX. 25. 273
the tabernacle and all its furniture was anointed, it order to prepare it
for sacrifices and oblations, Ex. 40: 9. Indeed the phrase Bnsi|j dip
might be regarded as meaning temple instead of sanctuary merely ; for in
Num. 18: 10 it is so employed, with the article before the second noun,
and in Ezek. 45: 3 without the article. Yet I feel no need of resorting to
this, as Hoffman does, (Die siebenzig Jahre, s. 65). The expression is
more vivid, if we take the thing as presented in Heb. 9:11 — 14. If Paul
"knew nothing else among the Corinthians but Jesus Christ and him cru
cified," and " gloried in nothing save the cross of Christ," then the pre
sentation of atoning blood in the eternal sanctuary, is the cause and con
summation of all the blessings promised under the new dispensation.
To anoint that sanctuary stands connected with this service in the temple
above. Not that we are to suppose a material literal sense should be given
to any of these descriptions, but that they are significant as symbolical or
figurative. As God is a spirit, his sanctuary, and the heaven which he
has prepared, are spiritual. Very significant surely must the language
of our text have been, to a Hebrew under the ancient dispensation.
Wieseler (s. 18) applies the passage under discussion to the altar men
tioned in Ezra 3: 2, and remarks, (which is true), that the altar is some
times designated ftiioijj Oip, as in Ex. 29: 37. 30: 29. I have no
objections to altar as the meaning; but that any altar built by Jeshua
or Zerubbabel corresponded to the one mentioned here, (if the passage in
deed is to be so interpreted), I cannot admit. Well has Hoffman said,
(I repeat it), that ' an interpretation which assigns to v. 24 only a descrip
tion of the literal return from Babylon and its immediate consequences, is
arbitrary.' In fact, such an exegesis would at once show, that the lan
guage of the speaker on the present occasion is extravagant and bombastic.
The interpretation which assigns to holy of holies a concrete sense,
and makes it apply to Christ himself, (C. B. Michaelis, Hav.), or which
makes it mean the church (Hengst.) is inadmissible. The phrase never
designates persons. Besides, to apply it to the Messiah, would represent
him as performing his whole work, before he is consecrated to it;
whereas the offering which he presents in the eternal sanctuary is the
consummation of his mediatorial work.
(25) Mark well and understand; from the going forth of a command to rebuild
Jerusalem unto an anointed one, a prince, shall be seven weeks ; and sixty and two
weeks shall it be rebuilt, with broad spaces and narrow limits, and in troublous
times. The preceding verse in a generic way announces seventy weeks, which
must pass away before a new and'glorious period is ushered in,the charac
teristics of which are, the restraining and forgiving of sin, and the intro-

274 Chap. IX. 25.
duction of holiness and righteousness under a new dispensation. This
is indeed the consummation, to which the whole passage in vs. 24 — 27
has relation. But vs. 25 — 27 are designed to answer the question that
would naturally arise in the mind of Daniel : ' What then is to take
place during this long interval of waiting for the accomplishment of our
highest hope?' The angel informs him that the so-named seventy weeks
may be subdivided into three portions, viz. into seven, sixty-two, and one.
Each of these portions has peculiarities of its own, which mark and dis
tinguish it. The period of seven weeks has a definitive beginning and
end, by which it is distinguished, viz. " from the going forth of a com
mand to rebuild Jerusalem unto an anointed one, a prince," thus ma
king the terminus a quo and ad quern. The second has no expressed
terminus a quo, but from the nature of the case it has apparently an
implied one, viz. the end of the first period, or the appearance of an
"anointed one, a prince." This takes for granted, that the periods
named here are successive, and not parallel or contemporaneous. Such,
it seems to me, is the first and spontaneous impression of every unbiassed
reader ; for how else can the period of seventy weeks be made out ? The
end of the second period is of course the end of the sixty-two weeks, i. e.
sixty-two weeks from the appearance of the anointed one, the prince.
But the end seems also to be marked by another circumstance, viz. the
cutting off of an anointed one. So v. 26: "After (iinx) sixty-two
weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off." Naturally this does not mean
some indefinite time afterwards, but a time in near proximity with the
end of the second period. The third period (one week) of course begins
with the same excision of an anointed one, and continues seven years,
during which a foreign prince shall come, and lay waste the city and
sanctuary of Jerusalem, and cause the offerings to cease for three and a
half years, after which utter destruction shall come upon him, vs. 26, 27.
Thus much for the definite beginning and end of the respective peri
ods, considered as successive. We have further to say, respecting them,
that each has its own appropriate occurrences. The first period (seven
weeks) has indeed no specific and express description of events, which
are to take place, attached to it. But the command to restore and rebuild
seems to imply that the work was to be entered upon and advanced. The
second period is characterized by the continued rebuilding, but in a stinted
or scanty measure, because of " troublous times." Nothing of this kind
is said of the first period. The third period is characterized by the
occurrence of events, which have been stated in the preceding paragraph.
Thus each is distinguished from the other, not merely by limitation of
time, but by the events which were to take place respectively in each.

Chap. IX. 25. 275
After taking this brief survey of the three component parts of the
seventy weeks, and having seen how they are separated and distinguished
from each other, let us now return to the seventy weeks, i. e. the generic
period, and inquire where we are to begin in counting them.
Daniel regards the period assigned by Jeremiah as very near its close,
9: 2. He prays earnestly for the restoration of his people. The angel
appears, and tells him, not that the seventy years are near their end
(which Daniel already well knew), but that in the councils of Heaven
another and larger period is assigned, viz. seven times seventy years, for
still further trials of his people, before the great consummation of their
highest hopes will be realized. When then does this new period of 490
years commence? The most obvious answer a priori would seem to be:
From the time when Daniel is addressed. But the events assigned to
the second and third portions of the general period forbid this answer.
Daniel saw this vision in B. C. 538. If 7 times 70 years = 490 be sub
tracted from this, it would bring the terminus ad quern of the whole
seventy weeks (counting them successively and continuously), down to
B. C. 48, a year in which nothing special took place to distinguish it from
the time that followed after it, or went before it. All correspondence of
prediction with event, must in such a case, be given up, of course, if
such a terminus a quo be adopted.
Let us go back then to B. C. 606, the time from which Daniel plainly
dates "the desolations of Jerusalem" (v. 2), and assume this as the
terminus a quo ; in this case the seventy weeks would end, (counted as
before), with B. C. 116; a period, again, which offers nothing in history
to distinguish it, and therefore it cannot be the subject of the following
prophecy. On either of the preceding grounds, then, we find ourselves
at a complete stand.
If we go on now, for the sake of trial, and endeavor to ascertain the
terminus a quo of the first part of the seventy weeks, viz. the 7 weeks
= 49 years, and begin the count from B. C. 606, i. e. the commence
ment of the desolations, then we must end the first period with B. C.
557, a period when there was as yet no command to rebuild. Nor was
there any anointed one and prince to mark the end of the seven weeks
at that time. To make another trial, let us suppose the seven weeks to
be counted from the exile of Jehoiachim, 599 B. C, then we must end
them with B. C. 550, another period of the like description as that of
B. C. 557. If we begin these weeks with the captivity of Zedekiah and
the actual and final destruction of Jerusalem B. C. 588, then we obtain
539 B. C. as the end of the period. At this time no command had been
given to rebuild Jerusalem, and Darius the Mede was, or was about to

276 Chap. IX 25.
be, possessed of the Babylonish throne, who surely cannot be reckoned
a 1iJ3 nuzja on any tolerable ground. At all events, any of these modes
of counting would be utterly at variance with the first clause in the verse
before us ; for the command to rebuild precedes the forty-nine years, and
the anointed prince marks the close, while, in case Darius be made the
terminus ad quern, no such command had been given seven weeks (i. e.
forty-nine years) before he was king. i
The same difficulty lies in the way, if we substitute Cyrus instead of
Darius. According to Is. 45: 1, we might apply nnaa to him, for Jeho
vah speaks of him as his anointed one; and a 1133, i. e. preeminent
civil ruler, he certainly was. But history represents Cyrus as himself
issuing a decree to rebuild (2 Chron. 36: 23. Ezra 1: 1 seq.); and
Cyrus could not have been at the beginning and at the end of the forty-
nine years, either at one and the same time or at any time, for he reigned
only seven years after his appearance in sacred history. If we take,
now, the terminus a quo of the forty-nine years which commence with
the command to rebuild, and count from the proclamation of Cyrus,
(which in itself would agree well with the command in question), then
who is the anointed one and prince at the end of those forty-nine years ?
Xerxes was then on the throne, whose expedition into Greece does not
favor his right to the magnificent title in question ; and whose intended
treatment of the Jews, at the instigation of Haman, as related in the
book of Esther, favors it still less. Where then shall we look for the
command to rebuild, and for an anointed one, a prince, forty-nine years
afterwards ? We have had no success thus far, and history down to the
time of Cyrus, as it now lies before us, presents U3 with no data from
which we can make out a period of forty-nine years so defined by events
at the beginning and the end of them, as the first clause in v. 25 seems
plainly to import or demand.
If we go lower down than Cyrus, we find under Darius Hystaspis
the decree of Cyrus for rebuilding the temple renewed, in B. C. 519,
(Ezra vi.) ; but forty-nine years after this would bring us again into
the reign of Xerxes (B. C. 470), who, as has already been remarked,
was no 1133 nnaa . If we descend still lower, down to Artaxerxes Lon-
gimanus (B. C. 445), who gave unto Nehemiah full liberty to rebuild
(Neh. ii.), then the seventy weeks would reach forty-five years beyond
the birth of Christ, which of course renders null this calculation. Be
sides, we can find no appropriate anointed one and prince, forty-nine
years after the decree of Artaxerxes. We must abandon the hope then
of satisfying ourselves in this way, as to the limits of the first period,
i. e. the seven weeks. Nor is this all of the difficulty. The seven

Chap. IX. 25. 277
weeks, (and these only), are destitute of any express intimation of what
was accomplished or happened, during their continuance. What then,
it is natural to inquire, can be the object in view in designating them?
Not events, as it would seem, during the forty-nine years, but events
mentioned as the terminus a quo and ad quern of those years. Of course
these must have their importance. But here again we are met with
difficulties. The command to rebuild Jerusalem — when ? By whom ?
After what destruction of it ? for this command imports of course an
antecedent destruction. Was this by Nebuchadnezzar ? Or was it the
more partial destruction by Antiochus Epiphanes ? These are all the
considerable destructions of which history gives us any account, before
the final wasting by Titus. But this last is out of question ; for the whole
period of seventy weeks, (of which seven are a part), precedes the Mes
sianic period. As to the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar, we have al
ready put that to the test. There remains, as history now stands, only
that by Antiochus. If Judas Maccabaeus gave command to rebuild
what had been destroyed, when his victories were consummated, (as he
probably did), then who is the 1i33 nnaa that makes his appearance
forty-nine years after this ? Judas reinstated the temple worship B. C.
165, so that forty-nine years would bring us to.B. C. 116. There was
indeed on the throne of Judea, at that time, the most eminent prince
that ever sat upon it after the return from the Babylonish exile, viz.
John Hyrcanus, in whose praise Josephus is uncommonly lavish. How
ever, ho did not commence his reign then, but in B. C. 135, i. e. nine
teen years earlier. Nor is there anything in the occurrences of
B. C. 116, which distinguishes that year from any other of the thirty
years of his reign. A terminus ad quern, therefore, of the seven weeks
seems to be looked for here in vain. If we admit that the seven weeks
must precede the sixty-two weeks, (and any other order seems to be un
natural, and apparently against the tenor of the whole passage), then we
cannot go down to a period so late as that of Judas Maccabaeus and
Antiochus, for the commencement of the seven weeks, or the issuing of
the command to rebuild.
What can we do then, or where shall we go, to find the appropriate
limits of the forty-nine years? Perplexed by questions like these,
Vitringa, Hengstenberg, and many others, have adopted a peculiar
course, in order to find an issue from these straits. First they have
united the seven weeks into one mass with the sixty-two weeks, thus
making in effect but two subdivisions of the seventy weeks, viz. one of
sixty-nine, and the other of one. This is built on the assumption, that
the command to rebuild, spoken of in v. 25, is that which was given by
24

278 Chap. IX. 25.
Artaxerxes in the twentieth year of his reign, as recorded in Neh. ii.
They then count sixty-nine weeks (62+7) forward, i. e. 483 years.
But as the twentieth year of Artaxerxes is usually reckoned at B. C.
445, their reckoning makes thirty-eight years too much on this ground.
To avoid this, they reckon some thirty years of it to the private life of
Jesus, and make his public ministry (not his birth) the terminus ad quern.
Still there remain some eight or nine years too much. This excess is
disposed of, by adding some eight or nine years more to the reign of
Artaxerxes than chronology usually reckons, (which would make his
decree so much earlier), and thus making the. time to adjust itself to the
events. In the usual chronology, (vouched for by Ctesias and Ptolemy
in his Canon), Artaxerxes is represented as reigning forty or forty-
one years, and Xerxes as twenty or twenty-one. Hengstenberg insists
upon fifty-one for Artaxerxes, and eleven for Xerxes. In this way the
twentieth year of Artaxerxes falls back some ten years, just about
enough to save the excess above mentioned, made by carrying forward
the sixty-nine weeks = 483 years. The terminus a quo, then, of the
sixty-nine weeks, is the decree of Artaxerxes to rebuild, Neh. ii. ; the
terminus ad quern is the 1133 nnaa in the emphatic sense, i. e. the Lord's
Anointed, the King of Israel, when he enters upon his public office.
Certainly this is ingenious ; and the result is rather striking, at first
view. But further examination throws in our way insuperable obsta
cles; at which, however, I can but merely hint. (1) The main assump
tion, that Artaxerxes was the first who issued a decree to rebuild Jerusa
lem, (the terminus a quo), contradicts fact and Scripture both. Fact
— inasmuch as Haggai, (in the second year of Darius = B. C. 520),
more than seventy years before the twentieth of Artaxerxes, speaks of
the people as " dwelling at Jerusalem in ceiled houses," while the house
of the Lord lies waste, Hagg. 1: 2 — 4; Scripture — inasmuch as God
says expressly of Cyrus, that he shall rebuild the city, Isa. 45: 1, 13 and
44: 28, comp. 2 Chron. 36: 23. Ezra 1: 1 — 3. In these two last cases,
indeed, the temple only is specified ; which, being the central and union-
point of the whole enterprise of the returning immigrants, is very natural.
But the implication of city-building at the same time, is unavoidable and
plain. The history of the restored Israelites in Ezra shows beyond a
question, that so early as the reign of Darius Hystaspis, (about 519
B. C), there was a very considerable population in Jerusalem — not, I
trust, without houses to live in. (2) There is no authority, and no good
reason for amalgamating the seven weeks and the sixty-two weeks.
The writer has separated them, or at any rate the Masorites have se
parated them, by putting an Athnahh on nsasi . I say not that this is de-

Chap. IX. 25. 279
cisive authority ; but I may say, that departure from the accents is gene
rally undesirable, and mostly hazardous. A really good reason for it
must be one which is of an imperious nature. (3) The nature of the case
separates the two periods in question. In making the simple sum of
sixty-nine, (for simple it is, as made out by Hengstenberg), who would
ever think of dividing this period into two parts, one of which has no
special significance, and has nothing assigned to it which can be a reason
for its being reckoned by itself? According to this method of interpreta
tion, the terminus a quo and ad quern of the first period both belong to
the period of sixty-nine weeks, and not to that of the seven weeks.
But where else, in all the Scriptures, is there such a method of making
out a simple number by dividing it into arbitrary parts, and adding these
together? (4) V. 26 disproves the assertion, that the speaker meant to
reckon in the manner of Hengstenberg. What says he concerning the
close of the great period in question ? " After sixty-two weeks an anointed
one shall be cut off," etc. But why does he not say : " After sixty-nine
weeks ?" If all is to be thrown int6 one period, this would be inevitable,
in case he meant to be rightly understood. That he does not say sixty-
nine, shows that he reckons the second period of sixty-two weeks as one
in and by itself. Besides, if Hengstenberg reckons rightly as to the sixty-
nine weeks, even they do not reach, by his own concession, to the cutting
off of the Messiah. This was three and a half years after the close of that
period. (5)1 add, in order to complete the view of objections to his in
terpretation, that having reached the middle of the third period, (viz. the
one week = seven years), the other remaining three and a half years
are wholly unmanageable. With him, " the people of a prince that will
come," and who will destroy the city and sanctuary, are the Romans un
der Titus. Did these invaders then come against the Jews, within three
and a half years after the death of Christ? No ; they did not come
within a third of a century. Moreover, the tyrant or desolator who comes,
is himself to be wasted, (be a oaiu, v. 27). The implication is, that this
will take place at the end of the latter half of the seven years. But
Titus did not die within that period, nor until A. D. 81. If Vespasian
be selected as the prince in question, the difference will be only about
three years. Neither of them died a violent death. The "outpouring
of what is decreed upon the son of perdition" (v. 27), may be looked for
in vain, after the death of Christ, and within the limits assigned by the
angel. We must add to all this, that the first period has of itself neither a defi
nite beginning nor end, according to Hengtenberg's interpretation. The
third is also destitute (as to its latter half) of a terminus ad quern. He

280 Chap. IX. 25.
also assigns to the first period, what belongs to the second, viz. the slow
and interrupted rebuilding of the city, (which can be done only by offer
ing violence to the grammatical structure of the language), and conse
quently he leaves the second long period of 62 weeks, without cognizing
anything that is accomplished during that period which would definitely
mark it. Finally, to ground all this theory of interpretation, as the advo
cates of it do, on a disputed point of chronology, (the ten years to be
added to Artaxerxes and taken from Xerxes), and one in respect to which,
after the remarks by Hoffman (Die 70 Jahre, s. 90 seq.), we may ven
ture to say the probability is strongly against them, can hardly meet the
just demands of criticism in a case of such a nature, or satisfy the inquirer
who has no favorite scheme to defend.
After all this, then, we are compelled again to ask, with still more em
phasis : " When do the 7 weeks (and of course the 70) begin ? And
when do they end ?
Wieseler has dropped the 7 weeks, by virtue of his views con
cerning T^nn? , which he makes to mean abbreviated, abridged. First
the original 70 years of Jeremiah are abridged 7 years, in the execu
tion of the threatening. Then, to correspond with this, the seven weeks
of years are abridged or omitted from the new period of 70 year-weeks.
Why ? is a question that is hardly answered. The mere exegete might
feel himself greatly relieved, if he could dispose of this difficulty so easily.
But for myself, I am more inclined to confess my ignorance than to get
rid of the matter in this way. Hoffman (Weissag. und Erfull. s. 301
seq.), in his latest view of this subject, says, that the seven weeks can
be applied to no period preceding the vision of Daniel, and to none du
ring the 62 weeks, or during the one week. He thinks that the seven
weeks, in which Jerusalem is to be splendidly rebuilt, and the 1133 nnaa
to make his appearance, must come after both these periods. But when ?
How ? He does not answer these questions, but cautiously abstains from
giving any express opinion. I consider this, in both Wieseler and him
self, as only a kind of ingenious way of confessing that they do not un
derstand the matter. And if they do not, it is somewhat discouraging ;
for writers of more acuteness in philology do not often make their ap
pearance ; and these respective discussions of theirs, moreover, are the
latest, and therefore are carried on under peculiar advantages.
Only one case more occurs, which calls for examination, viz. such an
one as Hoffman supposes : Can we reverse the order of the periods, and
find the 7 weeks in the period immediately preceding the advent of
Christ? They would then close by the appearance of a Messiah*
a Prince ; and so far all is well as to the end of the period. But where

Chap. IX. 25. 281
is the terminus a quo? The 49th year before Christ, or any year
proximate to it, is distinguished by no command to rebuild Jerusalem ;
nor indeed was there occasion for any, since the city had not of late
been laid waste.
I do not see, then, but that we must suspend our investigations here,
as connected with history ; because we seem to have exhausted all the
probable materials which history presents. We must betake ourselves
at last, then, to simple philology. Can anything, and if anything,
then how much can be gathered from it ? Possibly a strict and tho
rough investigation of the words may throw some light on these dark
sentences. At the beginning of v. 25, biatoni Sini denotes that something special
ly worthy of attention, is about to be said. I have rendered sini by mark
well, lit. it may be translated : and thou must know ; but the Kal Imperf.
here is used in a kind of Imper. sense, § 125. 3. c. biaiani might well
be rendered : Pay particular attention. It also means to understand, as
connected with such an act of the mind. The sense of both verbs might
be thus expressed : Be thou well assured, or know thou for certainty. Why
is such an intimation here given ? Plainly because there is a transition
from a preceding generic to a specific statement ; and not merely this,
but the general declaration of Messianic blessings that had just been made,
is now to be followed by the prediction of troublous times which are to
precede those blessings. The change is so great, the things about to be
said are of a tenor so different from those which had been said, that the
speaker, in order to guard against surprise, or to fortify against doubt,
calls the earnest and particular attention of Daniel to what he is going
to disclose.
iai xsa ^a , as to the form of expression, reminds us of iai xs; in
v. 23. But in vain do critics seek to identify the first with the second,
as to meaning. The iai in v. 23, plainly refers to the communica
tion in vs. 24 — 27. That in the verse before us as plainly means a
command or message to rebuild Jerusalem. The fact that the iai now
before us has no article, shows conclusively, that it does not renew the
mention of iai in v. 23 ; for in v. 23 itself, when iai is there repeated,
it has the article (laia), because this last refers to the previous iai .
So it would have the article here, in case a like reference were here in
tended. For the same reason, iai in v. 25 cannot refer to the mhi iai
of v. 2 ; whither so many critics refer it. That it has no article, is a
proof that it has no antecedent to which it refers. It is a new message ;
and of course the article would give a wrong direction to the mind of the
reader. The allegation made by several critics, that the negligence of
24*

282 . Chap. IX. 25.
the later Hebrew in respect to the article stands in the way here of any
argument drawn from the presence or absence of it, may be credited by
those who have some favorite views to be supported by such a position,
or by those who are not conversant with the later Hebrew writings.
Those who are in neither of these predicaments, will be slow to believe
such allegations until they are proved, and especially in a case so plain
as the present.
But from whom is the command or message to proceed ? No one is
designated in the context. From a superior a command (for plainly 131
is of such a nature here) must proceed. Is it some king ? If so, we
should be at a loss to say what king is meant. He is not the li» nnaa
for certainty ; because the latter comes into view only at the close of the
seven weeks. In such a case, then, we naturally turn to God as the au
thor of the command ; and in this we are amply confirmed by Isa. 44: 26,
28, loin baini njan Dibtaiiib laxb , saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be
built up, and to the temple, Thou shalt be founded. — In simply desig
nating the going forth of a command, the speaker has left unexplained
what the nature of that command is. The sequel is designed to explain
its object. It is to rebuild Jerusalem. The iai or command then is, that
something should be done. By whom ? Of course by those who have an
interest in Jerusalem, i. e. by the Jews ; certainly by the Jews, provided
the rebuilding is to precede the Christian era.
ni3abl ananb, to rebuild, or to restore and to build, which amounts
here to the same thing. The verb aiui , followed by another verb either
with or without a 1 before it, may everywhere be found marking sim
ply the idea of repetition, again. Commonly a definite mood and tense
is employed ; but I can see no reason why Infinitives (as in the present
case) may not be employed in the same manner. The obvious idea, at
all events, is that of rebuilding. Whether, however, we so translate, or ren
der the phrase to restore and build up, the idea is for substance the same.
To attach to anan an intensive idea, viz. that of completely restoring, be
longs neither to the verb, the Conj. in which it is, or the nature of the
case. To rebuild a city, does not of course mean to build it as largely
or as well as it was before built. These are accidental circumstances, not
essential ones. The implication in either way of translating is, that, pre
vious to the command in question, Jerusalem has been laid waste.
Whether utterly or partially, is not necessarily implied. This is left un
determined. 1135 nnaa is , to an anointed one, a prince ; not to an anointed prince,
for then nnaa must take its place behind ii» , according to the laws of
the language. In its present position, moreover, standing after is , it

Chap. IX. 25. _ 283
cannot be a predicate, for this it could be only in case IS were omitted,
and then the assertion might be : Anointed [is] a prince. We must
therefore put the word in apposition with liJJ . But what Messiah is it ?
If it be the expected and predicted Messiah, the great Deliverer, then, of
course, nnaa being an appellative must have the article. Hengstenberg
says, the article is omitted because the word is used as a proper name
here. But if it be a proper name, then of course 1133 would be an appel
lative, and must have the article ; just as in the case of Tjban 111 .
Besides, although so common as a proper name with us, and also in the
N. Test., where is the proof from the O. Test, that it was anciently em
ployed in this way ? The word is used to designate the high priest, Lev. 4:
8, 5, 16 ; often for a lawfully anointed king, 1 Sam. 2: 10. 12: 3, 5. 16:
6, al. saepe ; it is used to designate Cyrus as a specially chosen and con
secrated instrument of liberating the Jews, Isa. 45: 1; and sometimes (in
the plural) to designate patriarchs or nobles, Ps. 105: 15. 1 Chron. 16: 22.
Only once in all the 1 leb. Scriptures is it applied to the Lord Jesus Christ,
viz. in Ps. 2: 2, if we except the present case. This surely does not look
like a proper name in ancient times ; and most plainly it was not com
monly so employed. The license then which is alleged, respecting the
omission of the article, cannot be explained or vindicated on this ground.
If the Messiah had been meant in the case before us, the article would
seem lo be natural, and one might almost say, absolutely indispensable.
— Can it 1110:111, then, a heathen prince ? It might, because it is applied to
Cyrus in Isa. 15:1. Yet evidently it is so applied there, only because he was
a chosen instrument of the Lord, to accomplish his designs in respect to
the Hebrews. The probability, in the present case, is strong against the
idea of a heathen king, since there is nothing in the context which would
explain the application of nnaa to such an one, while such an explana
tion is palpable in the case of Cyrus. Naturally it would of itself be un
derstood as implying some lawful priest or prince of the Jews anointed to
priestly or to regal office, or to both.
11.13 means one who is prominent, preeminent, conspicuous. Hence it
becomes an appellative for prince. The office implied is a civil one This
I suppose to be the reason why it is added to the preceding word.
nnaa might of itself mean either king or priest. To remove all doubt,
1133 is added to the preceding word, and put in apposition as explanatory,
— an idiom by no means uncommon. Of course the article should not be
employed, since it is omitted in the principal or leading word. The true
idea then seems to be : an anointed one who is a prince or civil rider.
That some distinguished personage is meant, can hardly be questioned.
Who it is, or when he was to appear, arc questions, as we have seen,
which cannot easily be solved by any history known to us.

284 Chap. IX. 25.
As to nsauj bisaia , enough has already been said. The Athnahh
on the last word seems to be rightly placed there. If the following sixty-
two weeks are to be combined in one period with these seven, then v. 26
could not say : After those sixty-two weeks, ete, but must say : After those
sixty-nine weeks etc. Besides, there is no example in the Scriptures, as
has already been remarked, of such a way of announcing or making up
numbers. Moreover, the aiian that follows must have a 1 before it, in
case the building of the city is to be referred back to the seven weeks,
as some maintain, or even in case they are to be included in the sum of
the building-period as announced in the second clause. It seems quite
clear, moreover, that the seven weeks, which commence with a command
to rebuild and end with a distinguished and lawful king, imply of course
a prosperous rebuilding, which is consummated by the coming of a dis
tinguished lawful sovereign. In contrast with this, the building of the city
during the sixty-two weeks is to be scanty, and the declaration is made that
it will be carried on in troublous times. Whether the seven weeks are to
be arranged before or after the sixty-two, alters not the nature of the
present case. A contrast between the two periods is, as it seems to me,
plainly designed to be made. The seven weeks are fausti temporis, the
sixty-two are infausti temporis. The seven weeks are to be followed by
the reign of a 1133 nnaa ; the sixty-two weeks are to be followed by the
cutting off of a rniaa , and by the wasting of the temple and city during the
week that follows. Presented in this light, the contrast between the
seven and the sixty-two weeks becomes quite striking and palpable.
What then do we gather, at last, from our philological inquiries ? We
gather at least some things, with a good degree of conviction ; (1) That
the periods of seven and sixty-two are not only diverse and separate
from each other, but are actually in contrast with each other, in regard to
events respectively belonging to them. (2) That the period of seven
weeks will follow some waste and desolate state of Jerusalem, which
Heaven will, at the beginning of those weeks, give commandment to re
pair ; and this reparation will be followed by the reign of a lawful and
distinguished sovereign, i. e. this period will end in prosperity, under an
anointed one, a prince. (3) The terminus a quo of this period is speci
fied not by the designation of time but event, and this event (a command
to rebuild) is different from anything that happened before the return
from exile, and different from anything predicted by Jeremiah respecting
the end of the exile. Consequently the seven-weeks period does not com
mence, at the same time with the desolations of Jerusalem by Nebuchad
nezzar. (4) Of course, I do not see how the conclusion can be well
avoided, that the seven weeks are to be regarded as a part of the seventy

Chap. IX. 25. 285
weeks which precede the Messianic times. I cannot accede therefore to
the remark, that seven is here merely a mystical number, as often in the
Apocalypse, and that it may, when thus understood, be regarded as desig
nating a completion or fulness of time, unlimited by specific bounds ;
moreover, that we are of course at liberty to place it wherever and
whenever events will correspond, without being restrained by the num
ber of years. Why should this be the case with only one of the three
periods before us ? The other two are clearly specific and definite ; and
so are the numbers of this book in general. What authorizes us, then,
to make the present case an exception to all the rest ?
" But we can find nothing in history that accords with the period of
seven weeks ; certainly not in the history of the Jews before the Chris
tian era."
This may be true. Hoffman (s. 301) thinks so much to be clear, viz.
that ' the seven weeks come after the sixty-two weeks ; and that the
terminus a quo of the seven is not the same with that of the sixty-two,
and that it cannot be found in any period antecedent to the time of
Daniel's vision,' (s. 299). It is the history of the times, as he thinks,
which forces us to such a conclusion. Unless such an appeal to history
can be made with muchlforce and propriety, it must certainly be natural
to regard the three periods both as successive and continuous. But if now
we appeal to actual history, as it lies before us, this seems to favor the
view of Hoffman ; for the proclamation of Cyrus, as we have seen, if
taken as the beginning of the seven weeks, leads to no 1133 nnaa at the
end, except either to Darius the Persian king, in the last part of his reign,
or to Xerxes in the beginning of his. Neither of these corresponds to such
an appellation. Messiah Prince cannot be Ezra, for he went up to Jeru
salem some seventy-nine years after Cyrus' proclamation, instead of forty-
nine years ; it cannot be Nehemiah, for he went up ninety-one years after
the same. Before Cyrus' time, no command or liberty to rebuild was given.
Must we not then consider ourselves as forced, with Hoffman, to the con
clusion that the seven weeks must come after the other periods ? But if
so, then we must ask : How ? When ? These are questions, however, that
we seem not to have the means of answering satisfactorily. The most
promising period disclosed by history, seems to be that between the time
when Judas began to repair the desolations made by Antiochus Epi
phanes, and the reign of that powerful and popular king, John Hyrcanus,
the nephew of Judas. The forty-nine years, if begun with the repairs by
Judas, would fall about the middle of Hyrcanus' reign ; and under him, the
Jews were an independent and respected nation. He too was both high-
priest and king, a 1133 nnaa . But, as has been already said, the year

286 Chap. IX. 25.
B. C. 116, (the middle of his reign), has nothing particular in itself to
distinguish it; and this seems to make the application of the seven weeks
to this period somewhat doubtful, or wholly so. Still perhaps it is not
absolutely decisive against it, because there is nothing in the prediction,
which obliges us to commence the reign of the Anointed one and Prince
with the very last year of the seven weeks. Would it not be suffi
cient, if such a prince were already on the throne when they end?
If I have not given satisfaction to the reader, as to the resolution of the
difficulty in question, (and doubtless I have not), I have at least shown
him why I have not done it. I do not despair, after all, of a solution, at
Some future period, on the part of some one, who has better vantage ground
than we now have. But I confess myself unable to answer all the ques
tions that may be here raised. This, however, only proves my want of
adequate knowledge, and not that the subject is necessarily inexplicable.
But of this matter something more will be said in the sequel.
And sixty and two weeks nnsasi aiian , shall it be rebuilt. The subject
is the city. The idiomatic aiian with the verb that follows, is the same as
in nisabi anrnb of the first clause. The terminus a quo of the sixty-two
weeks, (since it is not specifically named), has been supposed by some
to be the same with that of the seventy years of Jeremiah. The angel
tells Daniel, that, instead of seventy years simply, 70 weeks of years are
determined on or decided (Tjnn? ) . As nothing definite is expressly said
of the time when this last period of seventy weeks commences, it might
seem to be, as some have maintained, the same time as that with which
the seventy years of Jeremiah began. The Ace of time here (sixty-two
weeks) is the usual Ace of when or how long, § 116. 2. It does not
strictly imply, perhaps, that during all this period the city was in the
regular process of building. It may be sufficient, that during the period
named the building in question took place. Naturally, however, it must
be understood as designating a protracted season of building up. But if
we begin to reckon with B. C. 606, (according to the assumption above),
there must be a considerable period (seventy years) during which the
city was still in a state of entire desolation, viz., down to the time of Cyrus,
B. C. 536. From the time of Cyrus, however, down to Antiochus Epi
phanes, it was in a state of gradual although sometimes interrupted, ad
vance. It was built in troublous times. Can we then, in view of all this,
and after the preceding discussions, go back to B. C. 606 for the begin
ning of the second period, i. e. the sixty-two weeks ?
yiini ain-| , with broad spaces and narrow limits. I take these much-
contested words as the Ace. adverbial, designating the manner in which
the city will be built in the times of trouble, aini with breadth, i. e. with

Chap. IX. 25. 287
wide spaces, LXX. eig nXdrog. Street the word often means, because
street is a wide space. Also it designates larger openings in cities, like
our technical word place, and the Latin forum. To reverse the order of
the words, and to make 3ini the Nom. to the verbs would be a degra
dation of the sense. Besides, where in the Scriptures do we find the
expression build applied to streets ? It seems quite probable, if not alto
gether certain, that aini and 'pin are opposites, and make a contrast ;
yet one which is very descriptive. The first shows that large spaces are
left within the city, which are not built upon. Then, on the other hand,
pin designates that which is limited, narrowed, clipped, narrowly de
fined. Such were the houses to be ; at least, if this does not pertain to
the form of the houses themselves, (as probably it does not), it at least
applies to the narrow and defined limits within which they are built. In a
city full of inhabitants, small spaces are left and ample expansion is given
to the mass of buildings. But here, because of the "troublous times," the
reverse takes place. When the angel wishes to tell Zechariah that Jeru
salem shall yet be overflowing with inhabitants, he says : " Because of
the abounding of man and beast, Jerusalem shall be inhabited niliB with
[sub-urban] villages. The opposite to such an idea is implied by pin.
To translate this word ditch, water-sluice, conduit, or else judgment, de
cision, makes no tolerable sense, and indeed such a version is incapable
of philological defence. To render pini it is decided (Ilav., Hengst.,
Wies.) presents two difficulties ; first it makes a divulsion from the preced
ing word, with which the accents connect it ; and secondly such an idea
would demand Xin pin or xin nsiin instead of pini . It is evident,
on the whole, that the word is one part of an antithetic couplet, of which
aim is the other. Of the translation : it is decided, Hoffman justly says :
" It is opposed to all sound advance of expression or description." It
certainly is an unlooked-for declaration, in case we interpret it in the
manner now in question, i. e. such as to break the thread of the description.
A signal good, or a signal evil, might readily be spoken of as decreed; but
to affirm this of a mere subordinate circumstance in the building of the
city, and interrupt the discourse in order to affirm it, seems at least not
to be very probable.
Dinsn pisai, lit. and in straitness of the times, in our English version,
even in troublous times. The 1 prefix, however, need not be rendered
intensive by translating it even. The idea is somewhat more generic
than this last version would make it, inasmuch as the latter clause
means, that the times in general of the rebuilding will be times of hard
ship and suffering. That they were so, is fully evident from the records
of Nehemiah and Ezra, and from the history of the Maccabees ; not to

288 Chap. IX. 26.
speak of Josephus, who depends almost wholly on these records. That
the city made progress slowly, and with not a few interruptions, from the
proclamation of Cyrus until the reign of Antiochus, is sufficiently appa
rent from the history of the Jews during that interval of time. The lan
guage of prophecy rarely dwells on minute particulars of history. It is
enough, in the present case, that we can make a generic application of it.
(26) And after sixty and two weeks, an anointed One shall be cut off, and there
shall be none for it [the people], and the city and the sanctuary shall the people of a
prince that will come destroy; but his end shall be with an overwhelming flood, and
unto the end shall be war, a decreed measure of desolations.
Two things are made very plain by the first part of this verse, viz.
first, that the period of sixty-two weeks stands by itself, separated, in the
view of the writer, from the preceding period of seven weeks. Other
wise it would be unavoidable that he should either say : After sixty-nine
weeks, or else : After seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. This circum
stance seems to be too decisive to allow us to amalgamate, as many have
done, the first and second periods into one, as to the terminus a quo and
ad quern. Secondly, the destruction of the city and temple by the people
of a prince that would come, i. e. invade the holy land, shows that the
issue of " troublous times" is into those far more troublous, and which are
the consummation' of all that is threatened against the Jews. In 8: 23
we have the like representation ; (1) It is niinxa, in the latter part of
the fourth dominion, (== the latter part of the sixty-two weeks), and
DiStSBn nnna , when transgressors have come to the full, i. e. filled up the
measure of their sins, that the destroyer and revenger comes in. (2)
There, as here, the destroyer, when he has finished his work of desola
tion in the holy land, comes to a fearful and sudden end. In 8: 25, this
is expressed by laisi i; osxa , here by S)Btsa . The contrast between
this aud the end of the seven weeks, can hardly fail to strike the mind of
an impartial interpreter. The seven weeks end in an anointed one who
is also a Prince, i. e. a legitimate high priest and king, uniting in himself
a double office, and reigning over a city rebuilt or repaired by the com
mand of heaven, and made prosperous ; the sixty-two weeks end in the
destruction of a city and sanctuary, which had been but scantily built, and
in seasons of pressure and calamity. A seven years of wasting and per
secution is their immediate sequel. Whoever looks on the representa
tion in this light, must of necessity concede, that the periods of seven and
sixty-two are set in real contrast to each other, as has been intimated,
and are by no means to be amalgamated, or either of them virtually re
moved out of sight. Both periods are equally real, at least they are so

Chap. IX. 26. 289
in the view of the writer ; and we cannot properly dispose of either with
out making it significant.
nnaa niai , an anointed one shall be cut off. Not the Messiah or the
anointed one, for there is no article here, as there must be if such were
the meaning. As we have seen, nnaa was not a, proper name in ancient
times ; and as an appellative, it should of course take the article. But
this being omitted, we are admonished to look in another direction for
the meaning of the word nnaa . Priest or king we have seen that it
may mean, (see on v. 25, 1135 nnaa ), because both of these, when duly
appointed, were anointed with oil in the name of the Lord. An anointed
one, therefore, is the appellation of all who are thus consecrated to high
office. Nor can the term be applied to any mere king solely because he
is king ; and specially is it inapplicable to any heathen king, unless in
deed, like Cyrus, such an one be chosen on the part of heaven for spe
cific and important purposes. But as the Scriptures apply it to an anointed
priest or king under the Jewish dispensation, so we may here apply it to
either, just as the context demands. It is not the same personage as the
1133 nnaa of v. 25, for if it were, the article would be demanded. Be
sides the omission of this, it is quite evident that the condition and cir
cumstances of the two, are very diverse ; the ii33 nnaa apparently reigns
in prosperity, while the rniaa of our text is to be cut off and destroyed.
Not that the word niai always and necessarily designates a violent death,
or the death of a criminal, as some allege ; for sometimes the word
means to fail or lack ; e. g. Josh. 9: 23, las niai xb , a servant shall
never fail or be lacking. But in the passage before us it seems most
probable, that the usual sense of the word is retained. We shall see, in
the historical illustration, that such is the case. The nnaa I must there-
fore regard as the Lord's anointed high-priest, Onias III., conspicuous
for his piety and his steadfastness, who was displaced from office by An
tiochus, and his heathenish brother put in possession of his place. Soon
after Onias was obliged to flee to Daphnae, near Antioch, for a refuge
from the malice of his Jewish enemies ; thence he was drawn by false
promises, and murdered by the governor of Antioch, vicegerent of Anti
ochus. His son, instead of succeeding his father Onias, was obliged to.
fly to foreign lands, and finally built up Leontopolis in Egypt. But
during the rest of Antiochus' reign, no lawful high priest had possession
of the appropriate office. The people were forced to accept of heathen
ish Jews as their high priests ; so that what is said in the sequel, although
dark at first, and not a little embarrassed with the glosses put upon it
both in ancient and in modern times, becomes intelligible when rightly
interpreted. 25

290 Chap. IX. 26.
ib lixi , our Eng. version renders but not for himself, evidently build
ing on the assumption, that the Messiah here means Jesus Christ, and so
expressing the idea that he died for the sins of the people, and not upon
his own account, i. e. not because of anything which he had done. So also
Vitringa, Havernick, Rosenmiiller. But the Heb. idiom forbids this in
terpretation. Were the idea conveyed by the passage that which our
version gives, it must run thus : ib xbi . The word yx is by no means
a simple particle, expressing merely negation like xb , but a verb mean
ing is not. Like all verbs it demands a subject, expressed or implied.
When expressed, it takes the subject, if a pronoun, as a suffix, and adapts
its form accordingly ; if other words are subjects, they are put in the
Gen. after the negative verb, which then assumes, as in our text, the con
struct form. "px then must have a subject. Its very form (const.) is
designed to show that one is implied, What then is it ? Whence are
we to supply it ? From the context, all must concede. If this be ad
mitted, then those interpretations, which take "px in the same sense as if
it were xb , of course will not abide the test. So C. B. Michaelis : And
not to be will be his lot; Sept. in Cod. Chis., xal ovx earai. But this in
Hebrew would be 1331N . Others again translate thus : And nothing will
belong to him. But "px does not mean nothing, but it means is not, i. e.
something either expressed or implied is not. Others again thus : And
no one remained to him, (Sack, Hitzig) ; which has to meet the same
difficulty, for "px is not no one, but simply is not. Rosch (Stud, und
Krit. 1834) gives the phrase this turn : And no one was present for him.
In this way he applies it to designate the death of Seleucus IV. Philo
pator, at a time when neither his son Demetrius, nor his brother Anti
ochus, was near him. But "px does not mean is not present, but is not.
Besides, if it did, it does not follow that the one not present is limited to
son or brother, but one extends to any or all that belong in any way to
the nnaa . Beyond all this, a mere heathen king, like Seleucus, would
not be called by such a name as Messiah. — More improbable still is the
turn given by the Vulgate, Jahn, and Scholl : Non erit ejus populus, sc.
qui eum negatarus est. But whence comes people in this case ? And if
we might supply ias , yx cannot well mean, that the Jewish nation
should be cut off; it merely denies their existence. — Hengstenberg,
who has finely illustrated ]ix (Christol. II. s. 474 — 478), and shown the
necessity of an implied subject, has not succeeded equally well in making
out that subject. He says, the denial in "px must refer to what belonged
to the nnaa ; and this he thinks appropriately to be Herrschaft, i. e. do
minion. Of course he regards the nnaa here as the suffering Saviour.
But how was his dominion lost, by his being cut off? Temporal domin-

Chap. IX. 26. 291
ion he never sought or claimed ; but spiritual he acquired by the very
act of enduring readily his sufferings, Phil. 2: 8, 9.
Passing by, then, all these various methods of interpretation, let us
still further urge the question : What is to be supplied as a subject for the
verb, from the context ? I know of no other answer that can be made
to this, on a ground strictly grammatical, but that nnaa must be regarded
as the proper word. Altogether of a tenor like to the passage before us,
is Ex. 22: 2, in333a iaa3i ib ^ix ox aboi aba, i. e. he shall surely replace
it ; if he has not, then he shall be sold on account of his theft." Here cbi ,
or its kindred noun nibia , is plainly to be supplied after -px . The same
as to nnaa , in the case before us. It is forced upon us by the grammar
of the language. But if this be admitted, (and I see no way to avoid it),
then of course we must give to ib a different meaning from that com
monly given, and refer it to the ds of v. 24. For to say that an anointed
one shall be cut off, and then to say that there is no anointed one to him
after such an event, would be unmeaning if not frivolous. To say, that
when Onias the anointed high priest shall be cut off, there will be no
authorized and proper nnaa to the people of the Jews, is pregnant with
meaning, and accords with historical fact. If any one takes exception
to the distance of the antecedent from ib , it would be easy to point him
to similar and even stronger cases of such a nature; e. g. Isa. 8: 21, na;
and the same in Ps. 68: 11, 15. So imiDi in Ps. 87: 1, and not a few
other cases of a like nature. I concede that we are not to refer a pro
noun very far either backwards or forwards, except when necessity calls.
But here seems to be such a necessity ; for no consistent grammatical
sense can be made out in any other way, and this makes one quite appo
site and facile. Steudel (Pfingst-programm. 1833, s. 36 seq.) was the
first, so far as I know, who advanced the position that ib refers to ?]BS in
v. 24. Hoffman (in his Die 70 Jahre, s. 72) pronounces against it, but
after all he virtually adopts it, in his later work, Weissag. und Erfull. s,
303. Nothing can be plainer, than that the difficulties of the passage
are greatly diminished by this interpretation. I must add, in order to
prevent misunderstanding, that I regard nnaa as more indicative of the
high priest's official dignity and circle of duty, than merely of his person.
When he is cut off, the people fail of having one lawfully to fill his
place. But that the passage cannot well apply to Jesus the Messiah,
seems plain from the fact, that his death introduced him to an eternal
high priesthood, instead of cutting him off from such an office.
And the city and the sanctuary will the people of the prince who is to
come destroy. — nintai does not necessarily mean a total destruction, but
such a wasting as mars the object concerned, and renders it compara-

292 Chap. IX. 26.
tively useless or worthless. The article before city and sanctuary, points
to these words in v. 24. 1\13 cs omits the article before the second
noun, because this T>33 is different from that in v. 25, and the article
would give a wrong sense ; or at least the insertion of it would make it
dubious to the reader, inasmuch as it would naturally refer him to the
1133 in v. 25. The 1133 here is merely a heathen prince acting in a civil
capacity, in distinction from a nnaa who belongs to the people of God. —
xan is not a verb but a participle. The article makes it distinctive, lit.
of the comer, or of him who cometh or will come ; or the word may be
understood of coming in a hostile sense, i. e. invading, as in Dan. 1: 2.
Jer, 36: 29. It seems to point to a well known personage, who is to be
the leader of the destroyers, viz. of the as before mentioned. In 8: 25
the same personage is fully and plainly described, and in a way much
like to that in vs. 26, 27, of the present passage, xan , then, virtually
appeals to the knowledge of the reader, who has perused the prophecy
in chap. viii.
ispi , and his end; whose ? The obvious grammatical answer is, the
end of the xan 1133 . One need but compare 8: 25, respecting Anti
ochus : He shall be broken in pieces without [human] hand, and to join
with this 11: 45, And he shall come to his end (l'2p IS), and none shall
help him (ib ill's "pxi), in order to see how exactly all three of the pas
sages agree. In all, the end in question follows the injuries done to the
holy city and temple. Manifestly the same personage is concerned.
We cannot, therefore, refer I2p to city and sanctuary (Hav.), for the
suff. should then be plural ; nor to mntzji , i. e. the action of destroying
which ends in an overwhelming, (Hengst.). Indeed such an application
would probably never have been thought of, had not that interpretation
needed its aid, which makes Titus the Roman chief to be the 1133 in
this case, who is to destroy city and sanctuary tjoisa . But such a con
struction is incompatible with grammar, and equally so with the parallel
passages to which reference has been made above.
qaiaa, lit. with an inundation or overwhelming flood. But the literal
sense is here out of question ; and the figurative one of course is, that of
being swept away by a resistless torrent of evils or calamities. The
simple image of merely a vast or numerous army of men cannot be vin
dicated as an appropriate significancy of this word, which in its tropical
meaning must indicate overwhelming evil. One needs but to compare
8: 25 and 11: 45, in order to see how entirely in accordance with each
other these three passages are, respecting the sudden death of the tyrant
and persecutor. The article in t]Bi»a may be explained in two ways ;
first as standing before a noun used here in an abstract sense, § 107. 3.

Chap. IX. 26. 293
Note 1. c ; or secondly, on the ground of a destruction already predicted,
and regarded as known or understood, comp. 7: 26 and 8: 25. In brief
thus : ' The city and sanctuary shall be marred by the subjects of a
prince whose coming you know, and of whose fearful end you are also
cognizant.' 131 nanba yp.. ^) > ond unto the end shall be war, a decreed measure of
desolation. A much contested passage, about which a great variety of
opinions exist. Hoffman (Weissag. etc. s. 305) thinks, that nanba ps
here means the end of a war, viz. of a War that will arise against Anti
ochus in consequence of his persecution and oppression. But against
this lies the objection, that the idea of another war, different from that
which is implied in the preceding context that speaks of the marring of
the city and sanctuary, can hardly be supposed to be distinctly in the
mind of the reader here. In fact, if the idea was designed to be so spe
cific as that which the context would naturally suggest, the article would
be necessary before nanba . The fact that this word has no article,
shows that it is not intended merely to reproduce the idea that lies con
cealed in the preceding clause, viz. that of a state of mutual hostility and
contest. War in its more general sense, viz. a continued state of contest
and desolation, following on after the marring of city and sanctuary, is
plainly the idea conveyed by the text. Had the author written nanban ,
the reader would spontaneously refer it to what is implied in the preced
ing clause. To prevent this, as well as to give the idea a more generic
shape, the article is omitted. — As to Vp , is it in the const, state before
nanba (as the conjunctive accent [ ] would seem to imply), or is there
a pause here that would naturally require a lesser distinctive accent ?
The translation above is founded on the latter assumption ; which, of
late, is the more general one. The train of accents which ends in Za-
keph Qaton (as here), has a great variety of changes, dependent on the
fact whether the clause consists of two, three, or four words, and more
dependent on this than on the sense or real connection of the words ; as
any one may see in Nordheimer's Pleb. Gramm. II. p. 337. In fact, it
is palpably before him in the present case ; for yp_ has a Munahh, while
the particle before it (is) has a distinctive accent (named a prince), viz.
a Pashta. Will it be pretended that yp has a nearer relation to nanba ,
than 'is has to yg ? I grant that the consecution of accents shows that
the Accentuators probably regarded yp as being in the const, state.
But an end of a war is too loose an expression, in this connection, to ad
mit of any good defence. If, however, we translate unto the end or an
end shall be war, and thus separate yp from a const, state, then why has
it not the article ? We should perhaps expect pan , the end, viz. one
25*

294 Chap. IX. 26.
which the reader had already been taught to anticipate, see 8: 17. But
if the writer had inserted the article here, he would have cast the mind
of the reader back upon the precedihg isp as the antecedent. The fact
that he has omitted both article and pronoun suff. in yp , makes it plain that
he means another yp , viz. one of time, and not merely of calamity or
catastrophe. There is another ground, also, of the omission in this case,
one founded in the peculiar usage of the author, which I have not seen
noticed. This is, that he elsewhere speaks of the same period in the
same same way, viz. by omitting the article. So in 8: 19, where it is
said : An end (yp) will be at an appointed time (isiab). Observe that
the writer does not say ISiab , at the appointed time, which would pre
suppose a knowledge of this period on the part of the reader, but AN
appointed time, viz. a time which Heaven has fixed. Nor does he say
ypn in 8: 19, because he does not take it for granted that the reader
has a limitation of the period in his mind. So in 8: 17, where yp-nsb
has plainly the generic idea of a period which has its limits, i. e. which
is fixed by an overruling Providence. Exactly so in 11: 35, yp ns is,
where it is again said, that this end will be ISiab . Here observe the
article in the latter word, in reference to 8: 19. Again in 12: 4, yp ns IS ,
as much as to say : a period of consummation. The same in 12: 9,
Now in some of these cases, (indeed in all excepting the first mention of
yp), we might expect to find the article ; but plainly it is the writer's
design to communicate, by this phraseology, only the generic idea of a
period of consummation. For this the article would be inappropriate,
in any of the cases here presented. The sum of all is, that the idea
here intended to be communicated is this, viz. that unto an appointed
time or limited period, (limited by heaven), there wiU be war, viz. be
tween the tyrant and the Jews. The next clause makes this general
idea more specific, viz. that the desolations which this will occasion have
their fixed boundaries beyond which they cannot pass.
niaaia nsin? , a decreed limit of desolations. The part, nitin; is of
the fem. and usual const, form, Niph. of yin . It is here used substan
tively, the fem. making as usual the abstract noun. In this way it
parallelizes in some measure with yp , which means limit in respect to
time, while nsin3 designates an abridged or strictly limited measure as to
quantity or degree. In other words, the evils of the contest have an
appointed end and a decreed or limited measure. The ideas stand so
closely connected together here, that a 1 between the clauses would in
jure the strength of the expression, niaaia is itself a fem. part, noun,
taken in the abstract sense. The sense is not a desolating decree, for

Chap. IX. 27. 295
niaaia has a passive sense, but a determined measure of desolations to be
suffered ; or, to render literally, a determined thing is desolations.
The next verse is neither more nor less than the more explicit unfold
ing of the character and doings of the desolator, i. e. of the xan 1133 and
of his yp . He will form a close alliance with many Jews ; he will make
sacrifice and oblation to cease ; he will plant the ensigns of heathen
abominations in the temple, and render it desolate in respect to its ap
propriate rites employed in the worship of the true God ; and unto his
extinction shall an overwhelming flood be poured upon him who deserves
to be destroyed. In other words, the waster shall himself be a aaiii; ,
i. e. something wasted or a waste.
(27) And he shall firmly covenant with many, for one week ; and during half of
the week, shall he cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease ; and a waster shall be
over a winged-fowl of abominations ; but unto destruction, even that which is decreed,
shall there be an outpouring upon him who is to be destroyed.
niia liasni , he shall firmly covenant, or lit. he shall make firm or strong
a covenant. The phrase can fairly mean nothing but this. The Nom. to
the verb is the xan 1135 or desolating invader. The context supplies no
other ; and the sense fairly admits of no other. The explanation is found
in 1 Mace 1: 11 seq., "In those days there went forth from Israel trans
gressors [viol na.gdvop.oi, QiSBJBn 8: 23], and persuaded many [Jews],
saying : Let us go and make a covenant with the Gentiles round about us ...
And their speech was pleasing in their eyes, and certain persons from the
people went unto the king, and he gave them power to carry into execu
tion the ordinances of the Gentiles, etc." The sequel shows how the Gen
tile customs were introduced by them into Jerusalem. In 1 Mace 1:41 seq.
is a full account of the abominations practised by Antiochus in Jerusalem.
Further explanation is unnecessary  Biaib has the article, because it
designates a whole class here ; just as we have, in 8: 23, DistaBn in the
same way, and to designate the same class. The additional idea here
communicated is, that many took such a course. The b in this case, re
sembles the usual construction of niia nia , which puts b after it and
before the persons with whom the covenant is made, when they are the
inferior party ; e. g. 2 K. 11: 4. 2 Sam. 5: 3. 2 Chron. 2J: 7. Isa. 55: 3.
61: 8. Jer. 32: 40, al. When equals make a covenant as with or -nx with
is employed. In the present case, Antiochus dictated the firm league
between himself and the Jewish apostates ; so we have Diaib . The He
brew, by the way, here exhibits a nicety of meaning and construction
which our language cannot reach.
inx Siaia one week, i. e. seven years, is the Ace of time, during which

296 Chap. IX. 27.
this matter is to continue. Antiochus began to meddle with the affairs of
the Jews, in B. C. 171, and during that year deposed Onias, and cove
nanted with his heathenized and apostate brother, Jesus or Jason, to make
him high priest, with the condition that he should introduce heathen
usages into Jerusalem. In the latter end of B.C.I 65, or at the commence
ment of B. C. 164, Antiochus died. The persecution and oppression
went on, in some form or other, during all that period of seven years,
i. e. from 171 to 164. Hengst., Hav., and some others, make S131U the
Nom. to liasn , viz. one week shall confirm a covenant, etc. But why seven
years ? They admit that the ministry of Christ lasted only some three
or three and a half years ; what then constitutes the limits of the seven?
Besides, the violence done to the language in this case is forbidding.
Not to time, but to events that occurred during it, is the strengthening or
nullifying of a covenant to be attributed. Comp. 8: 14, for a period
nearly the same as the seven years, and designed to be somewhat more
specific. siatan isni, and during half of the week, Ace of time how long, again.
isn does not mean, as many have interpreted it, a precise point of time,
just where half of the length of the whole would reach, but one half
or one division of the whole duration. So is it clearly to be taken in 1 2: 7 ;
and so here, because it can never be made to mean the same as isna or
isnb , which would designate merely the half-way point of time. Then
again, the siaian , with its article, points to the preceding week or seven
years, and shows us, that as this marks length of time, so the half or di
vision of it must also mark the same. Lastly, facts correspond. Antio
chus, as is well known, suspended all the temple rites for three and a half
years, during three of which he offered up his abominable heathen sacri
fices (aatii yipian ) to Jupiter Olympius in the temple. Surely it is the
same personage who lays waste city and sanctuary (v. 26), that suspends
the temple offerings in the present case. Ch. 8: 11 settles this question.
To suppose, with Hengst. and Hav., that the death of the Messiah
(v. 26) suspends the temple-rites, and that this is done merely in theory
and by way of anticipation, and does not take place as a fact during the
half of the seven years in question, is quite contrary to the tenor of the
book before us. If then it be fact (the desolations of city and sanc
tuary surely are facts), that the sacrifices and oblations did not cease
until more than thirty years after the death of Christ, how can all this be
assigned here to the limits of three and a half years ? Besides, the per
son who makes the covenant with many, is the same who causes the sacri
fice and oblation to cease ; and this covenant continues through the
whole seven years. Of course Antiochus, or whoever makes it, does not

Chap. IX. 27. 297
quit the stage of action before the whole seven years are passed. It is
during the latter half of the seven, then, beyond all reasonable question,
that the sacrifice and oblations are suspended ; and at the end of this, (as
the remainder of v. 27 shows), the person who suspends them is cut off.
Now this disagrees entirely with the Messianic chronology. According
to the usual computation, our Saviour's ministry lasted but three and a
half years, and this of course comes in the first part of the seven years,
i.e. his death followed the first half of these. According to our text, the
death of him, who made the covenant with many for seven years and
suspended the temple-rites during the last half, took place after this sus
pension had continued three and a half years. It is impossible to recon-
:ile the theory of Hengstenberg and Havernick here, with the plain and
obvious meaning of the writer.
He will make sacrifice and oblation to cease evidently means, in its con
nection, remove them by violence, forcibly suspend them. He who destroys
city and sanctuary (v. 26) ; he who treads down the sanctuary and its
sacred retinue (8: 13), is the person of whom this is said, and who actually
did what is here described.
Nor is this all. He will carry his impiety to the daring length of in
troducing the symbols of the god whom he worships, into the holy temple ;
so that while they are worshipped by their appropriate rites, the sanctu
ary becomes desolate in regard to true worshippers and all their offerings.
None will repair thither, because of the shocking abominations of idol-
offerings and idol-images. So, or something like to this, does the follow
ing difficult clause seem to testify : oaiua Qisipia t)33 bsi , and over the
winged-fowl of abominations shall be a waster. I need not repeat the
almost numberless conjectures about the meaning of this passage. t|33
seems to me to mean neither summit, roof, nor pinnacle of the temple.
The word is often used for borders of a garment, a country, of the earth,
etc. But to designate height upward, instead of extension or breadth, re
quires a very different word from t)33 . The border of a thing or object
is not the height or summit of it. To compare it with nzegvywv tov tegov
(Matt. 4: 5), seems not to be much to the purpose, until we better un
derstand the meaning of this phrase, which as yet remains somewhat
uncertain. The summit of the temple was, we are told, filled with sharp
pyramidical prominences to prevent the birds from lighting upon it. This
would be no place, then, for ansipiu, i. e. idol-statues. Gesenius thinks,
that the statue of Jupiter Olympius, (possibly of Antiochus), was placed
conspicuously on the temple roof. The sense in itself is not an uninvit
ing one ; but we have to make two changes in order to bring it about.
First we must read is'S ^33 bs , on the roof [are] idols ; and secondly, we

298 Chap. IX;, 27.
must convert summit or extremity, into roof 'or covering. Figuratively
this last would answer tolerably well for wing, tj33 . But besides all this,
we are here met with still another difficulty, viz. that oataa which fol
lows is in the singular. Cases of a plural with a part, or adj. singular
there are, but only when the plural form designates a single agent or ob
ject, e. g. nip aisix . When persons are designated in the plural, and
each individual is emphatically meant, the predicate may be in the sing.,
as in Prov. 3: 18. 27: 16. 28: 1. Gen. 27: 29. Ex. 31: 14. But neither
of these cases is homogeneous with the one now before us. Disipta is
not a pluralis majestaticus, nor, so far as we can discover, is individuality
designed particularly to be included in it, or expressed by it. We can
not accept, therefore, of such a solution of the difficulty ; certainly not if
we can find a better one.
The proposal of Hengstenberg, Havernick, Lengerke, and others to
apply nisipia to the temple, which had been polluted by the Jews, is
without parallel and contrary to all Heb. usage elsewhere. The prophets
speak indeed of hypocritical offerings and incense as an abomination
(nasin), Isa. 1: 13 ; they intimate that the doings of the dissembling and
heathenish-minded Jews made Jehovah loathe his dwelling-place ; but
all this is far enough from vindicating such an appellation of the temple
itself in Daniel, as Dixipia. Daniel calls it lai'p, 8: 13,14 ; iiaipa I'laa, 8:
11. In 9: 26, also, he names it laipn, and in 9: 16 we have thy city, thy
sanctuary and thy people. In most of these cases, also, he is speaking of
the temple in the same circumstances as in our text. Comp. also Dan.
12: 7. Such an exegesis, then, makes against all usage elsewhere, and
against the whole current of Hebrew feeling. The holy city, the sanctu
ary, is the indelible and eternal name stamped upon these objects. Down
to the present hour, even the very Moslems call the city El Qods, i. e.
UJi'pn. niaipia then is a noun which qualifies or limits S.33. It means
always idolatrous rites or abominations, or else idol-images or statues.
Abominations, in the general sense of wicked deeds, it never designates.
Another word (nasin) is employed in such a sense. To suppose p» to
mean summit, pinnacle, and then translate over the pinnacle of idols or of
idolatrous abominations is the destroyer, and finally to apply this so as to
designate the treading down and crushing the sacred edifice and its
appurtenances, is even more strange than to use nisipia as a designation
of the temple. Where in all the Bible is such an image employed as
being over the pinnacle of a thing, in order to designate the violence done
to it by a conqueror, or to mark his sovereign control ? To tread down,
to trample upon, is indeed imagery everywhere employed ; but to be over
a pinnacle, or a summit, is an expression revolting both to good taste and

Chap. IX. 27. 299
to Heb. usage. To me, at least, it seems passing strange, to apply such
expressions to the domineering sway of Antiochus in Jerusalem, or (with
Hengst. and Hav.) to Titus and his final destruction of the temple.
But if the meaning summit and roof be denied to t|33 , only three other
meanings remain, viz., that of wing, of bird or winged-fowl, and of border or
extreme limit. To give to 5)33 the meaning of army-wings, cannot well
be conceded. Rosenmiiller, indeed, gives the clause this turn : " Exer-
citui detestando vastator dux praeerit." He supposes that t)33 , like the
Latin ala, may mean the wing of an army. But if an army is to be
spoken of collectively, in this way, we should expect wings (oi|33), not
wing (sing.) to designate it. Isa. 8: 8 and 18: 1, to which Rosenm. ap
peals, will hardly bear him out ; for in both cases a different meaning
of the word is more probable. In fact, the word t)33 does not seem to
be employed in such a sense. Ezekiel employs niB3X (plur. only) in the
tropical sense of army-wings ; see Lex. sub v. Besides, how flat it would
be, after saying that the people, i. e. the army, of a prince who will in
vade Judea, have marred city and sanctuary, and after describing all the
devastations which they had committed under his guidance and direction,
to add that he had supremacy over them, or (in other words) was their
leader. Not so Daniel. The discourse advances. First, the invader mars
city and temple Next, he prohibits sacrifices and oblations to Jehovah,
on the part of the Jews. Then he sets up the statue and other insignia
of his own chosen god, Jupiter Olympius, in the temple, where sacrifices
abominable to the Jews were offered in conformity with the usages of the
heathen. Lastly, comes the fearful end of him who has desolated the city
and temple ; for in his turn he becomes a oaia, i. e. something to be deso
lated or destroyed. Here all is climactic, and the tenor of the discourse,
viewed in this light, becomes comparatively easy and probable.
If now we assume the second meaning, winged-fowl, how shall such a
meaning be rendered probable ? The fact is well known, that Antiochus
devoted the temple at Jerusalem to the worship of Jupiter Olympius,
and there offered the appropriate sacrifices. It is said of him, in 1 Mace
1: 45 seq., that " he forbade burnt offerings and sacrifices and libations
in the sanctuary, and [commanded] to profane the sabbaths and the feast-
days, to defile holy places and persons, to build altars and sacred en
closures {teuivn) and idol-apparatus, and to sacrifice swinish and unclean
beasts . . . And whosoever would not obey the king's command, must be
put to death." The word slScolsia (v. 47) I have translated idol-appara
tus, because it plainly does not mean idol-temple here, for such Antiochus
had no need to build, when he had converted the temple of Jehovah into a
place of worship to his god. The Syriac version reads el8aXa here,

300 Chap. IX. 27.
which makes the sense required. But eiScolsia may be regarded as a
mere neut. pi. adjective, and be rendered as above. Altars and sacred
enclosures and sacrifices necessarily demanded idol representations of the
god, to whom the offerings were made. So was it in all the Greek and
Roman world. I do not see any reason to doubt, that Antiochus set up
the statue of his god. " They built or set up [ISeXvyua egnpoiosag by the al
tar," says 1 Mace. 1: 54, i. e. naBJ yipian . I understand this of a statue
of Jupiter Olympius erected in the temple ; and this statue, as is well
known, usually stood over an eagle at its feet with wide-spread wings.
Hence oisipia 5)33 bs , over a wing of abominations, or rather over an
abominable winged-fowl, is a desolator. That f|33 may mean the possessor
of a wing, i. e. a winged fowl, as well as wing, is only in conformity with
abundant analogies in Hebrew. Such a meaning it has in Gen. 7: 14.
Qisipia qualifies t|33 , § 104. 1, and shows that the winged bird was a part
of the heathen symbols. The plural seems here to be chosen in order
that a connection with Daiaa may be avoided by the reader. The horror
and disgust which such a spectacle would occasion to a pious Jew, can
more easily be conceived of than expressed. But the wide-spread
eagle-wings is not all. This is at the foot of an image that stands over
it (C)3a bs), which image is here characterized by the appellation Daiaa .
Most critics have referred Daiiia to the person of the desolator, the "prince
who will come," i. e. most of those who refer vs. 26, 27, to Antiochus.
But in such a case, how could the article be dispensed with ? It would
not only be renewed mention of the person, but a case which would re
quire special pains not to be misunderstood, and so demand specification.
But as no article is prefixed to Daiaa , we may in this connection refer this
word to the statue of the heathen god, which is very significantly named
a desolator, from the effect which its erection in the temple produced
upon the Jewish religious rites and those who performed them. In 11:
31, the yipta {idol) has the same participle applied to it, and for the same
reason. The temple was utterly forsaken by all but apostates to heathen
ism. Everything that pertained to the true God was trodden down and
destroyed. In this case Daiaa should not have (as it has not) the article ;
for it is neither renewed mention of a thing, nor is it something of which
the reader could be supposed to have formed an antecedent idea in his own
mind. The single statue of Jupiter is spoken of in the sing, number ;
and thus the whole form of expression falls within the regular laws of
grammar. The erection of such an image with its winged symbolical bird,
is a consummation of impiet}*-, which goes quite beyond the inhibition of
the Jewish sacrifices and oblations. Iniquity is now come to the full,
and therefore must be punished.

Chap. IX. 27. 301
Hoffman (Die 70 Jahre) has proposed such an interpretation as that
now suggested. In his Weissag. und Erfull. (s. 308), he seems to give
the preference to another and different explanation, which Steudel (ut
sup. s. 47) has suggested. The verb cgs means to cover. Of course D33
may, as he thinks, retain this idea. He then refers it to a covering built
on the Jewish altar by Antiochus, after the manner of the heathen ;
which was profane and abominable in the eyes of a Hebrew, who was
commanded to construct his altar only with earth, Ex. 20: 24. On the
profanely covered altar of Antiochus, heathen abominations were offered.
Hence a covering of abominations. But how he disposes of Daiaa , in
this case, he does not expressly tell us. He must refer it to B33 . But
this is hard. Over the covering of abominations is — what ? Daiaa can
hardly designate the sacrifices offered there. Is Antiochus, then, desig
nated by it, as presiding over the heathen altar ? If so, the article must
be prefixed. An altar-covering, moreover, could hardly be regarded
here, as answering to the climactic nature of the discourse. I deem his
former opinion, therefore, to be much better grounded.
One other view of the case I will venture to suggest — a possible one
if not probable — that I have nowhere met with. This would assume, in
the present case, the frequent meaning of t|33 , viz. border, extremity,
and then translate thus : On the border of idols or idol-places, will be the
destroyer. The ground of this exegesis may be found in the history of
Antiochus. After the ravages committed by him in Jerusalem, he went
into the East (see Dan.ll: 44) to avenge himself there for offences; and
in Persia he entered forcibly the great temple at Elymais, and robbed it
of its treasures. The people of that region, exasperated by his sacrilege,
rose en masse and forced him to retreat. On that retreat he was overtaken
with the news of the destruction of his army in Palestine, and the victo
rious entrance of Judas into Jerusalem. Through fatigue, or exasperation
and disappointment, or a combination of both, he fell into a raging fever,
and died after a very short space in that condition. If now we may sup
pose our text to look to this, there is a regular progress in the narration :
after all his outrages in Palestine, he goes to the border or extremity
of the idol countries, robs an idol-temple there, and- then the destruction,
predicted in the next clause, hastens on. It is an augmentation of his
woes, that he perishes in a distant land. The destroyer (daiaa), to use
the language applied to this very expedition in Dan. 11: 44, " went forth
with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away with many," and,
in so doing, he himself becomes a oaia , i. e. is utterly destroyed. — If it
be objected to this view of the subject, that it is too specific, let any one
read Dan. xi. and he will no more insist on such an objection. It can-
26

302 Chap. IX. 27.
not be denied, moreover, that the prediction is thus regularly climactic,
and that it is full of meaning. The only serious doubts would arise from
another quarter. Would his eastern journey or expedition be described
in language so obscure, and so alien from the usual methods of describing
such events ? And then, in case Antiochus is designated by caiaa , how
could the article be dispensed with in such a renewed mention of him ?
These two considerations occasion doubt and hesitation. There is some
what less of difficulty in the solution given above ; at least there is less of
grammatical difficulty. But the general sense of the passage is plainly
more striking, on the ground last assumed.
nb3 isi , but unto destruction. Wieseler (Die 70 Wochen, s. 42 seq.)
strenuously defends the position, that nbs is a verb here, employed in its
usual sense. He translates thus : And until it [the half-week] is completed,
etq. His arguments are unsatisfactory, is must mean either while or
enuring, or else unto, even to. Thus understood, it would make the death
of the tyrant, which the next clause predicts, to happen during the half-
week, or to be taking place until that was completed ; so that Antiochus
must, at all events, on such a ground, have died either before the end of
the three and a half years, or just at that point. But neither of these
positions is true. There can be no question as to the right to take nba as
a noun, for such a usage is frequent. As little question can there be, as to
its energetic meaning. The verb means to consummate, to finish, to com
plete, etc. ; and of course the noun designates consummation, a full end of,
a finishing off with; — a mode of expression stronger than that of mere
excision, etc. Such was to be the end of the tyrant. The 1 in 1S1 is
best rendered by but. The sentiment of the verse stands arranged thus :
' He will make a firm league with many apostate Jews ; for three and a
half years will he remove the sacrifices and oblations of the temple ; he
will even erect a statue of Jupiter there, accompanied by its usual eagle
with expanded wings at its feet — but a dreadful reverse will overtake
him ; the overwhelming indignation of Heaven, that which is irreversi
bly decreed, will make an utter and final end of him.' Thus all is smooth
and easy.
T^nn nsinsi , even that which is decreed, it shall be poured out, or even de
creed [destruction] shall be poured out. The accents follow the sense of
the first rendering, and divide accordingly, putting a Zdkeph Qdton on
nx'in3 . Of course, if we follow them, the verb is impersonal, or at least
a kind of constructio praegnans which implies nbs for its Nora., or else
wrath, indignation, or curse, is implied. The verb i(r3 is not used in the
literal sense, but only in the tropical one ; and it is always joined with
some subject like those just named, which makes the verb easy to be un-

Chap. IX. 27. 303
derstood, if it be employed in an elliptical way. It is a kind of terminus
technicus for the expression of such ideas ; and being intransitive, it
readily goes over into a passive sense. If we follow the accents, then,
there is no serious difficulty in the construction. But if we depart from
them, and take nsins as a participial noun, and as the Nom. to Tjnn ,
then all is easy and obvious. This member of the clause is an advance
upon nbs is. It designates a total end which is definitely decreed by
Heaven, and this decree is beyond control and irreversible. The very
same sentiment is developed in nxiroi nbs in Isa. 10: 23. 28: 22. The
accession of energy and definiteness to the threat, from the addition of
nsir|3l, must be obvious to every one familiar with the Hebrew. The
imagery of pouring out originates here in SjaiEa ispl of v. 26, and is there
fore both natural and forcible.
Da'va bs, upon him who is to be made desolate. Quite different from
Daiaa {the destroyer, waster) is the participial intrans. form, oaid. It has
always a passive sense, and therefore means delendus, vastandus, one who
is or ought to be destroyed. The first is the o av&gconog Tijg apagziag,
and the second is the 6 vlog n)g dncoleiag, of Paul in 2 Thess. 2: 3,
who seems to have had his mind on the passage before us. In the ex
pression is substantially couched the favorite nagavopaaia of the He
brews ; the desolator, waster shall be Daiia {ivasted).
Thus ends the second great national trial of the Jews. The tyrant
who brought it upon them, falls in the midst of his contests and of his
vengeance, and with his fall, the august drama closes, as in ch. vii. viii. xi.

It would be little to my present purpose, to give a minute history of all the
interpretations that have been put upon the passage respecting the seventy
weeks, and of the efforts made to sustain them. Most of them depend on
some a priori conception of what Daniel ought to say, rather than on a
philologico-historical deduction from what he has said. For my present
purpose, I need to notice only two classes of interpretation ; (1) The exclu
sively Messianic. (2) The exclusively Anti-Messianic. Of these, in their
order, I shall speak very briefly.
(l) The exclusively Messianic. An anointed one, a prince (v. 25),
is converted into the Messiah, the Prince, i. e. Christ the King of kings.
The cutting oft' of an Anointed One (in v. 26) is the violent death of Jesus,
the Messiah ; ib yxi designates his vicarious suffering for sinners. The
time when he entered on his public ministry, is the terminus ad quern of
the sixty-two weeks and the seven weeks ; and these two distinct periods
are combined into one, which is made to commence, not with Cyrus' proc
lamation, nor yet with that of Darius, but with that of Artaxerxes in the
twentieth year of his reign. Nor is this all that is assumed. Not only is
the period of the birth of Christ arbitrarily set aside from the calculation,
but in order to adjust the sixty-nine weeks to the period of his entrance on
his public ministry, the reign of Artaxerxes is made ten years longer than

304 Chap. IX. 27.
the most authentic histories make it, i. e. fifty-one years instead of forty-one,
and so much is then taken from the reign of his father Xerxes. With all
these assumptions, the sixty-nine weeks (62 + 7) or 483 years are at last
adjusted to the period, when Jesus was baptized and entered on his official
work. In this way two portions of the seventy weeks are summarily dis
posed of.
I need not here repeat the objections to most of these positions, which
have already been made in the preceding pages. Most of these objections,
to say the least, are founded in philology and in history, as well as in the
analogy of the book in general. Enough of them, at all events, will abide
the test, and are entirely unanswerable. But if not, what follows in re
spect to the one remaining week, is decisive of the whole matter.
According to v. 26, an anointed one is to be cut off at the close of the
sixty-two weeks, and of course at the beginning of the one week, i. e. seven
years. The interpreters in question, however, make his excision three and
a half years later. But it is quite plain, that it is during the remainder of
the week, i. e. during the next and latter three and a half years, that our
text makes the principal desolations of the city and sanctuary to take place,
and the invader perishes at the close of this period. The exclusively Mes
sianic interpreters, however, make Titus the desolator, and the Roman army
the people whom he leads on to waste the city and the sanctuary. But if
Christ was crucified in A. D. 34, and Titus invested Jerusalem in A. D.
70, we have thirty-six intervening years instead of three and a half before
his work of ruin ; — a matter which, in such a book of accurate dates as the
one before us, is inadmissible beyond all question. Besides, how, where, did
Titus die? Under any special tokens of divine vengeance, such as 9: 27
predicts and threatens to the waster ? We know not where to find these
tokens. But further, when did he die ? In A. D. 81. Instead of perishing
then at the close of the noted last week, his death took place some forty-
seven years afterwards.
In a word, history is at utter and irreconcilable variance with the
scheme of interpretation in question. It is indeed wonderful that it ever
could have been advocated by sensible men. According to this scheme,
Jesus Christ and the Roman power are almost the only agents developed
in the prophecy ; whereas it lies upon the very face of v. 24, that the seven
ty weeks precede the coming of the true Messiah. The blessings there
promised, are not bestowed until after those weeks are completed.
(2) The exclusively anti-messianic interpretation. Wieseler
(in his Die siebzig Wochen) has concentrated all that has been said, and I
may add, all that can well be said, in favor of this. He possesses distin
guished critical skill, and withal a discriminating knowledge of the Hebrew.
All turns, however, on v. 24. Vs. 25—27 must undoubtedly be conceded
to him, for reasons like to those already assigned above, in defence of the
interpretation which I have given. I can not doubt, for a moment, that
these verses refer to Antiochus. But for the reasons stated (in Comm. on
v. 24), I can by no means concede to him the position, that the good there
designated has respect only to the return from the Babylonish exile. Com
parison of actual history with the splendid prospects and promises held out
in v. 24, will show beyond all reasonable doubt, that the fulfilment of those
predictions must be sought elsewhere than in the return from exile.

Chap. IX. 27. 305
My leading reasons for choosing tho medium iter, in this case, arise from
no design to " split the difference" between the two conflicting views just
stated. Long before I could obtain a sight of Wieseler and Hoffman on
the seventy weeks and years, I had come, from the simple study of the text,
substantially to the same conclusion that I have now developed. But some
particulars of the prophecy continued still to be dark. On these, the two
writers just named have cast some new light. All seems capable of reason
able illustration, and even of a good degree of certainty, with the exception
of the beginning and end of the seven weeks, and the particular period
which they designate, and perhaps the clause respecting Dixipia E|JB . The
last seems, however, in some good measure, to be illustrated by historical
facts respecting the worship of Jupiter Olympius at Jernsalem, and the
statue with the usual symbol of the " winged-fowl." The seven weeks, I
regret to say, remain for future efforts ; which however need not be de
spaired of. In the meantime, I must try to console myself for my own
ignorance, with a Non omnia possumus omnes.
All the close of this protracted examination of 9: 24 — -27, it may be
useful to recapitulate summarily, and to compare the whole with the other
predictions of Daniel.
The Babylonish exile was to continue seventy years ; Jer. 25: 11. 29:
10. Dan. 9: 2. Near the close of these, Daniel betook himself to earnest
prayer, that the fulfilment of the prediction that the Jews should return from
their exile, might speedily be developed, Dan. 9: 2, 3. Gabriel is commis
sioned to make a new announcement to him, of what would take place after
the exile and before the coming of the great deliverer. This he does, by
still preserving the number seventy, but converting this into so many weeks
of years, (lit. seventy besevened), instead of simple years which belonged to
the prophecy of Jeremiah. The great question here is, or rather should
be, (for in time past little or no attention has been paid to it) : Does the
period of seventy weeks cover the whole ground, from the time of Daniel's
vision to the coming of Christ? The greatest possible effort has been often
made, to bring about a union of the end of the seventy weeks with the
period of Christ's birth, or of his public ministry. Of course the terminus
a quo has been the principal point of controversy ; in as much as there has
generally been at least a tacit concession, that the terminus ad quern must
be one of the points just mentioned. But history baffles all attempts to
accomplish the object in question. From Daniel's vision down to the birth of
Christ, is some 538 years; and seventy weeks make but 490, i. e. forty-
eight years less. Attempts to find the proclamation to rebuild in Jer.
xxix ; in Cyrus' edict, in that of Darius, or that of Artaxerxes ; are all frus
trated by history again ; and this matter must be, after all, given up as
impracticable by these means. But then, (if we may be permitted to ask
the question), what need of all this trouble? Is it any part of the angel's
design to place the seventy weeks in such an attitude ? To me it seems plain,
that it is not. In all the prophetic pages of the 0. Test., or of the New,
where does any prophecy assume the attitude of a book of Annals ? The
nearest approach is in Dan. xi. ; but even here, there are merely touches
on the fourth dynasty, until we come to the nia.3, the Daiaa, Antiochus.
We have then only one prophetic history of one king, in all the Scriptures
which is annatistic ; and the Syrian tyrant is that king. For the rest ; great
26*

306 Chap. IX. 27.
events, and those only are described. When these cease, prophecy lays
aside her pen, and keeps silence. The reason is obvious, viz. that only
such events are adapted to instruct by making deep impressions. The
ordinary course of events does not attract the prophetic eye ; and so no
sketch of them is drawn.
This consideration liberates us at once from all necessity of forcing the
terminus ad quern of the seventy weeks into a union with the year of Christ's
birth, or of his public ministry. All that the angel designs to commu
nicate is, that as there had been seventy years of exile in regard to the
Jews, seven times that number must pass away, before they would cease to
be troubled in like manner, and before the Messiah would come. Sixty-
two of these are " troublous times," but the following one week (= seven
years) is to renew all the horrors of the Babylonish invasion, and even more,
on the score of impiety and persecution. With these last seven years,
times so hazardous to the nation and to religion are to cease, until the
coming of Christ. So much, but no more, seems to be plainly within the
design and scope of the angel's communication. And of course, we have,
. on this ground, no special interest to seek for a union of the terminus ad
quern of the seventy weeks with the year of Christ's birth or of his entering
on public office. We can leave it wherever it falls or terminates, as com
prising all that was specially interesting for prophecy to disclose.
Inasmuch now as the period of sixty-two weeks has no terminus a quo
expressly assigned to it, it would seem to be not inapposite, that it should be
regarded as already virtually designated by the beginning of the seventy
years in Jeremiah. So some have understood the matter. Then all that
follows they consider as supported and illustrated by historical facts. An
tiochus began to vex the Jews, in B. C. 171, (i. e. sixty-two weeks =
434 years after B. C. 606 when Jeremiah's seventy years begin) ; and in
that year an anointed one, a lawful high-priest, Onias III., was cut off, and
the people had no other legitimate officer of this rank until after the death
of the tyrant. During the week (seven years) that followed, Antiochus
laid waste the city and sanctuary ; for three and a half years he took away
sacrifice and oblation ; he erected his altar and his idol-statue in the
temple of God ; and at the close of this period, and of course at the close
of the seven years, he perished by a miserable death in a foreign land,
whither he had gone to commit sacrilege again. How is it possible, they
ask, (and with no small appearance of right), that all these periods should
so exactly meet the facts of history, and at so many points, unless the exe
gesis that we have given is well grounded ? To say the least, they add,
facts make our exegesis altogether probable.
No one can refuse to acknowledge that the accordance of dates and
events, in this case, is striking, and seemingly decisive at first view. But it
must be remembered, that the sixty-two weeks are not the only period to
be jprovided for. What is to be done with the seven weeks = forty-nine
years, which constitute the first division of the seventy weeks ? — No room
is here left for them ; or if any, they must be put after the sixty-two weeks,
which seems to be at least an unnatural mode of exegesis. Then again as
to the sixty-two weeks, the statement in Daniel (v. 25) is, that the city is
to be in a course of rebuilding, during that period, and of rebuilding in a
stinted and imperfect manner, by reason of troublous times. Yet, accord-

Chap. IX. 27. 307
ing to the scheme of interpretation which we are now examining, the first
seventy years of the sixty-two weeks are those of the exile, when Jerusa
lem lay all the time in ruins. These two circumstances seem then, after
all, to decide against the scheme in question. Could it be shown, or even
made probable, that the seven weeks either follow the sixty-two weeks, or
are coordinate and contemporaneous with a part of the latter, then all
would be easy of explanation, and the whole paragraph might be enucle
ated, and placed in a clear and satisfactory light.
Desirable as it seems to be to bring this about, I cannot on the whole per
suade my hermeneutical conscience to be reconciled to the plan. I see no
satisfactory way of removing the impression which the text makes, of three
distinct and successive periods, viz. of seven, sixty-two, and one weeks. The
writer seems plainly to mean, not only that these are to be reckoned so as
to make up the sum of seventy, but that each of the two latter periods be
gin, when the preceding one ends. How else can seventy weeks be made
out ?
That there were events and persons corresponding to what the angel
declares, I cannot well doubt. So many things strikingly correspond with
facts known, that they seem to be a pledge for the certainty of the rest.
At all events, my ignorance of facts, or inability to see how our text
accords with those that we do know, cannot with propriety be regard
ed as decisive evidence against the correctness and truthfulness of the
predictions. As history now lies before us, I am unable to find the indicia
of the first period of seven weeks. Where I can easily make out a termin
us a quo, I fail in my endeavors to find the terminus ad quern and so vice
versa. And this is equally true, if I amalgamate, as many do, the periods
of seven and sixty-two weeks. The beginning and end of the sixty-nine
weeks thus made, i. e. 483 years, is no more discoverable in our histo
ries, than the beginning and end of the seven years. At least the face of
history is to be changed and remodelled, in respect to time, in order to
make out any agreement between it and the sixty-nine weeks. Moreover
the very amalgamation in question is, as has already been shown, against
the tenor of the text, and against actual facts.
I have exposed myself, perhaps, to an accusation not very unfrequent,
viz., that of pulling down without building up. But if I have endeavored
to pull down, only where the foundations were tottering, and the building
ready to fall by a slight touch, this is nothing that deserves reprobation.
It is a first step toward a new and more stable edifice. If I am unable to
erect it, others may succeed. May all prosperity (so do I devoutly wish)
attend their efforts ! But I will not pretend to know, what I feel conscious
of not knowing to my satisfaction. I much prefer the confession of igno
rance to a pretension of knowledge, specially when the means of acqui
ring that knowledge are not within our power.
A few words more, on the subject of applying vs. 25 — 27 to Antiochus
Epiphanes, instead of the Romans, either heathen or Christian, and I have
done. Does the tenor of the book of Daniel, as to its prophecies, tend to support
and confirm the exegesis which I have given ? The answer to this question
must be in the affirmative. Antiochus does not indeed appear in a special
manner, in chap. ii. But he is virtually there, in the crushing power of

308 Chap. IX. 27.
the fourth dynasty. His fall is involved in that of the dynasty, 2: 44. In
7: 7—11, 19— 26, Antiochus specifically appears, in all his cruelty and
blasphemy. In 8: 9 — 12, 23—25, he is still more graphically described,
and as possessing the same characteristics. Chap. 11: 21 — 45 is even a
kind of historical narration of him, which is particular beyond any example
in all the Scriptures. His doings and his end are of the same character here
as before. If language has any definite meaning, the identification of the
same tyrant in all these prophecies and visions, is altogether certain. How
comes it now, that all these prophecies should be uniform as to this trait,
and the present one (in chap, ix.) be discrepant from all the rest? If the
exclusively Messianic interpreters are in the right, then Antiochus is not
at all the subject of the prediction in 9: 25 — 27. But if analogy has any
force, it is quite plain that we might expect to find him there. That he is
to be found there, we have seen, if any credit is to be given in this matter
to historical facts and dates. It is utterly improbable that such a concur
rence could exist between prediction and events and persons, unless there
had been some actually designed and foreseen coincidence, i. e. unless the
one were prediction and the other fulfilment, or unless, indeed, the book
were written, as some have uncritically maintained, post eventum.
If one now will pa.tiently go through with a comparison of the express
ions and events in the prophecy before us, he will be forced to feel that
there is a similarity very striking, which scarcely leaves any room for
doubt. Compare the cutting off of the high priest in 9: 26 and 11: 22;
the marring of the city and sanctuary in 9: 26, and in 11: 31, also in
8: 24 ; the final end of Antiochus in 9: 26 and 8: 25 ; the covenanting
with many in 9: 27, and 11: 23, 30; and the removing of sacrifice and
oblation in 9: 27, and in 8: 12. 11:31. 12: 11. Even the nx^nsi nbs-IS
of 9: 27, has its parallel in 11: 35, 45. The 2300 days of 8: lV'shoulcfalso
be compared with the one week of 9: 27, with due allowance for the dif
ferences in the things presented ; the 1290 and 1335 days of 12: 11, 12, in
respect to the abolishing of sacrifice and oblation, are to be compared (with
the like allowance) with the half-week {= three and a half years) of 9: 27,
with which must also be joined 12: 7.
When all this is done, compare the development of the Messianic king
dom in chap. ii. vii. xii, with 9: 24. In this last case, the Messianic king
dom is indeed mentioned first ; but still, it is arranged and spoken of as
the last in order. It comes not until after the end of the seventy weeks ;
the other events in vs. 25 — 27 occur during that period, i. e. before it ends.
Every where the monarchies predicted or brought to view fall, before the
new and perpetual kingdom arises. How then can any of them be the
dynasty of the Romans ? Is there not throughout the whole book, a har
mony so complete, that it amounts to nearly all but the repetition of the
same things in the same words ? In any case, where investigation should
be made without any favorite theory to support, and without the aid of any
a priori assumptions, would there or could there be any doubt, as to what
conclusions we should adopt ?
For the gratification of the reader's curiosity, and also for the sake of
supplying him with the means of comparing different attempts to translate
vs. 24 — 27, I shall here subjoin these verses in various translations, so that
they may be compared with the original text and with each other. Per-

Chap. IX. 27.

309

haps, moreover, he who examines them will learn to estimate, in some good
measure, the difficulty that attends the pasage in question, and cease to
wonder at the diversity of translation and explanation that exists.

I. The Hebrew.
i trBS-bs -nn: airaa D-'saa (24)
ennbi Si-en x.s:b Tjiaip i^s-bsi
cabs pis x^anb" y'.s isabi rixan
iDi-ai^ lai'p nbjabi xna:i "]n i'nnbi
ai'anb i'ai x^a-a baani sini (25)
Disaa iijj ni'aa— is nbaiii risabi
a van a^'ai Dnaa Di'sa/ai nsa'a
:Dinsn piaai yiini ami nrrasi
r • rr r v - ' t '¦ J ¦ :::¦:
nisi Qijai ai-a'-a sprain nnxi (26)
ds r-na? -ipni i^sni "i "X- n-aa
nanba yp nsi rasa iapi xan i->33
nna 1133m (27) :n:aa:a nmns
iniaaisia-an ism inx sia/a aiaib
Daiaa cpsipia rjs bri n'roai na*
: aaia-bs Tjnn nsinjn nbs-isi

H. Translation.
(24) Seventy weeks are decided
respecting thy people and thy holy
; city, to restrain transgression, and to
seal up sin, and to expiate iniquity ;
and to bring in everlasting righteous-
| ness, and to seal vision and prophecy,
and to anoint a holy of holies. (25)
Mark well and understand ; from the
I going forth of a command to rebuild
I Jerusalem unto an anointed one, a
I prince, shall be seven weeks ; and sixty
! and two weeks shall it be rebuilt, with
broad spaces and narrow limits, and
in troublous times. (26) And after
sixty and two weeks, an anointed one
j shall be cut off, and there shall be
none for it [the people], and the
city and the sanctuary shall the peo
ple of a prince that will come de
stroy ; but his end shall be with an
overwhelming flood, and unto the
end shall be war, a decreed measure
of desolations. (27) And he shall
firmly covenant with many, for one
week ; and during half of the week,
shall he cause the sacrifice and obla- .
tion to cease ; and a waster shall be
over a winged fowl of abominations ;
but unto destruction, even that which
is decreed, shall there be an outpour
ing upon him who is to be destroyed.

HL Version of the Septuagint.
(24) 'Efidouqxovta efidopddeg ix-
gl&naav em rov Xaov aov, xai em
ttjv noXiv 2,'ioir GvvzeXeo&qvui rijv
dpagziav, xui rug dSixiag anaviaui,
xai dnaleiyui rug dSixiag, xal
diuvorj&rjvui to ogupa, xai 8o9ijvui
8ixaioavvnv aioiviov, xai awreXea-
{rrjvui ru ogdpara xal ngoqq-
rnv, xai evcpguvai aywv dyicov. (25)
Kul yvaay, xal Biavoq&rjan, xai ev-

IV. Theodotion, {the usual text of our
Sept. Bible).
(24) 'Ef}8op.7JxovTa sfSSopddeg cv-
veTp.rj&rjauv ini rov Xaov aov, xai
ini rnv noXiv rrtv ayiuv, ewg tov
naXatw&ijvui to nuguniapa, xai
tov avvzelea&rjvai dpagziav, xal
rov Gtpgayiaai dpagriag, xal rov
dnaXeixpai dvopiag, xal. rov il-iXd-
aaa&ai aSixiag, xai rov dyayeiv 81-
xa.ioavvnv aicoviov, xal rov acpguyi-

310

Chap. IX. 27.

fgav&qan, xal evgfjaeig ngodzdy-
uaza anoxgiifijrai, xai oixoSoptnang
IsgovaaXqpnoXiv Kvgim. (26) Kul
peru snzd, xai eftSoprjxoviu, xai
Qrjxovra 8vo dnooiatrijatzai xgfa-
pa, xai ovx tazai, xai [SuGi).tta t&-
Vo3v cpO'tgii znv noXiv, xai ro ayiov
pszd rod XQiazov • xai: ?;J« rj avv-
riXtia aiizoii utz' ogyijg, xai. tag
xaigov avvztXtiag, dno noXiuov no-
Xspqfrqatzai. (27) Kai 8vvaartv-
au q Sia&qxq tig noXXovg, xal nd-
Xiv imazixpti, xai avoixo8ofiq{rqat-
rat, tig nXdzog, xut pqxog, xal xazd
opvziXtinv xaigwv • xiu ptrd snzd
xut epSouqxofza xuigovg, xal fp1
irmv, ta>g xaigov GvvztXtiug noXt-
pov xai dcpaigtirqaezai. q igqpcoaig
iv ro} xanojruaai rijv diu&fjxqv tnl
noXXug iftSopdSug, xal iv zd> rt'Xti.
rqg sd8opd8og, dglrqatzai q flvai'a,
xai q anovSq, xal mi. ro itgov ()8i-
Xvypa rwv igqpmGKov tarat tag
avvztXtiag, xal avvriXtta So&qat-
rai tnl rqv igqpaaiv.

GUt ogaatv, xai ngocptjrrjv, xai rov
igiaai ayiov ayicov. (25) Kaiyvw-
aq, xal avvqatig, and i£68ov Xoyav
roil dnoxgittijvat, xai rov olxoSopq-
<}qiai 'ltgovaaXqfi, tag Xgiarov
qyovpivov, stl8opd8tg snzd, xai sp1-
bnpudeg ih'/xovia 8vo • xut imazgi-
\pti, xai olxo8opij{rij(jtrai. nXaztia,
xai ntgizti%og, xiu ixxtvaOqaovzai
ol xuigoi. (26) Kal ptzd 7ag jrj-
8upu8ag rag ig~qxovza 8vo iioXo-
{rgtv&qaezai xgia/Aa, xai xgipu ovx
sariv tv livrq) • xai rijv noXiv, xal
rov ayiov 8iaq){rtgri avv to) riynvps-
i'(ff rep tg'/ppirq), xai ixximqaovzai
lag iv xaraxXvGfjq), xai i'oig TtXovg
noXt/ oj GvvzEzjiqpt'vov dqinviapoig ¦
[Kal SvvauoiGti Siuftqxnv noXXdig
sfiSofiug pt'a ¦ xai qpiav rqg i^8opa-
Sog xavanavasi (rvfiiapa, xal {rv-
Gic.v, xui. anovSqv, xai ini nregvytov
za%u dtpaviGpov, xai tcog avvztXti
ag, xai anovSqg ruiEti dcpanapq>.~\
(27) Kcu Svvapojati 8ia{rqxqv noX-
Xoig idSniiag uia, xai, iv rq) qpi'asi
rijg epdopdSog dgirqatzai ftvaia,
xai anovSq, xai ini rovzoig, ini to
itgov fiSiXvyiia rijg igqpcooecog xal
tcog avvztXtiag xaigov GvvriXeia 8o-
Oqatrai ini rqv igqpwaiv.

V. Vulgate Version.
(24) Septuaginta hebdomades ab-
breviatae sunt super populum tuum,
et super urbem sanctam tuam, ut
consummetur praevaricatio, et finem
aceipiat peccatum, et deleatur iniqui-
tas, et adducatur justitia sempiterna,
et impleatur visio et prophetia, et un-
gatur Sanctus sanctorum. (25) Sci-
to ergo et animadverte, ab exitu ser-
monis ut iterum aedificetur Jerusa
lem, usque ad Christum ducem, heb
domades septem, et hebdomades sex-
aginta duae erunt ; et rursum aedifi-
cabitur platea et muri in angustia
temporum. (26) Et post hebdoma
des sexaginta duas occidetur Chris-
tus ; et non erit ejus populus qui
eum negatugus est. Et civitatem et

VI. Syriac Version translated.
(24) Seventy years shall rest upon
thy people, and on thy holy city, to
make an end of iniquity and to com
plete sin, to remit transgression, and
to bring in righteousness which is
eternal, and to complete prophetic
vision, and to the Messiah the Holy
of holies. (25) And know thou and
understand, that from the going forth
of the command to return and to re
build Jerusalem, unto the coming of
Messiah the king, there shall be seven
weeks and sixty-two weeks ; one
shall return and rebuild Jerusalem,
her streets and her broad places, unto
the end of time. (26) And after
sixty-two weeks, the Messiah shall be
slain, and there shall be nothing to

Chap. IX. 27.

311

sanctuarinm dissipabit populus cum
duce venturo ; et finis ejus vastitas.
et post liiu'iu belli statuta desolatio.
(27) Confirmabit autem pactum mul
tis hebdomada una; et in dimidio
hebdomadis deficiet hostia et sacrifi-
cium ; et erit in templo abominatio
desolationis ; ct usque ad consumma-
tionem et finem perseverabit desola
tio.

it. And the city of the sanctuary
shall be hud waste, with a king who
shall come ; and its destruction shall
be with a flood ; and unto the end of
the war which is a decree of destruc
tion. (27) And he shall make firm
his covenant with many, for one
week, and a dividing of the week ;
and he will cause sacrifice and obla
tion to cease ; and over the wing of
abomination [shall be] a destroyer;
unto the consummation of the decree
it shall rest upon the destroyer.

VII. Rosenmilller's Version.
(24) Septuaginta hebdomades des-
tinatae sunt tuo populo, tuaeque sa-
crae urbi, ad consummandum pecca-
tum, ad obsignanda delicta, ad expi-
andam culpam, et ad inducendam
aeternam justitiam, et ad obsignan-
dam visionem et vaticinationem, atque
ad unguendttm Sanctorum Sanctissi-
mum. (25) Scies igitur et intelliges,
ab edito mandato de reditu, et de in-
stauranda Hierosolyma usque ad unc-
tum principein, fore hebdomades sep-
tem et sexaginta duas, quibus redibi-
tur, et vici munimentaque instaura-
buntur,idqueindifficultatetemporum. Post duas autem et sexaginta heb-
domadas perimetur Unctus, nee am
plius erit, urbemque et Sanctum per-
det populus duiis venturi, eritque
finis ejus subito, et usque ad finem
belli decretae sunt desolationes. Con
firmabit autem foedus multis per unam
hebdomadam, et dimidia hebdomada
sacrificium fertumque toilet, alaeque
detestandae praeerit vastator; atque
usque ad consuiumationem eamque
praecisam super devastatorem effun-
detur.

VIII. De Wette's Version.
(24) ©icbenjig ©tebenbe ftnb
bejn'mmt iiber bein SBolf unb fiber
beute beilige ©tabt, big ber $re»e!(
aoUbracht, unb bie ©Hubert befte«
gelt, unb bie ©diutb gefithnet, itnb
eroige ©ered)tigfeft berbeigefiibrr,
unb ©cficht unb -prophet befiegelt,
unb bag Sllferbeiligfte gcfalbct
rotrb. (25) ilBifle alfo unb mcrfe :
»om ?luggange beg -ffiorte^ [bag
ju Uremia gefchab] bafj Jerusalem
TOtcber bcrgeftellt unb erbanet mer*
ben foil, bid anf eincn gefalbtett
$itrfien, ftnb ftebcu ©iebenbe ;
unb binnen jwei unb fedijig ©ie*
benben ruirb eg roiebcr bergcftellt
«nb crbflitt mcrben mit ©trafjen
unb ®raben, ciber im £rncfe ber
3eitcn. (26) Llnb nad) ben jroet
unb fedbjig Sicbenben »irb ein
©efalbtcr roeggerafft, unb Reiner
ill norbanben, ber ibm angebbrt,
unb bie >stabf unb bag freiligtlmm
tnirb cemntften bad Splfeineg
ftitrften, roedher foinmt, unb beffen
@nbe [roie] in ftuttb, unb big jnm
@nbc $rieg, 53efriilu§ wn SSer*
rciiltiingen. (27) Unb er befefh'gt
ben 93nnb SSicleu ein ©iebenb
fang, unb nxthrenb ber ftalfte beg
©iebenbo mirb er ©difadifosfcr
unb ©pcigppferein|Men,itnb iiber
ber 3inue beg ©rciuelg rcirb ber
SSemmficr fet)n, nub jroar big bag
SRerfilgnnq unb SBefchluf? fid) er*
giefjet i'tber ben SSevroiifter.

312 Chap. IX. 27.
For convenience' sake No. I. H are here inserted. No. TH. IV. speak
for themselves. As to No. III., the author of this version plainly was per
plexed about the meaning of the Hebrew, and has given some strange turns
to the sentiment, even in vs. 24 — 26. But in v. 27 we are entirely lost.
We can scarcely trace any certain resemblances. The clause in v. 26, " After
seven and seventy years," is a guess that the time, here aimed at in the
Heb. text, is the era of the Selucidae. This began 312 B. C, and the sum
of the numbers named in the version is 139, which tallies with the time
when Antiochus Epiphanes began his reign. What follows doubtless re
lates to him, but it is such a confused medley, that nothing can be made out
of it. No wonder the ancient churches were discontented with such a version.
I say such a version, because there are, in many parts of it elsewhere,
characteristics of a similar nature. No. IV. is certainly a great improve
ment upon the Septuagint ; but even this shows that the author of the version
was at times quite uncertain in his own mind, about the meaning of the He
brew. I need not point out particulars, as the reader can easily find them,
and judge for himself. The part included in brackets is as it stands in the
Romish edition of Theodotion, but it is omittted in Bos' edition of the Sep
tuagint. It is palpably another version of v. 27, which was copied on the
margin, and through carelessness was foisted into the text, by the copyist
who wrote the Ms. used in the Romish edition. Both versions show in
what perplexity the authors of them were. No. V. shows the deep ac
quaintance of Jerome with the Hebrew, and has come nearer to accuracy
than any of ancient versions. Of the Targums of Daniel, we know nothing ;
not even whether any ever existed.
No. VI. deserves some special notice. The author of this plainly had a
better knowledge of the Hebrew than any of his predecessors in translat
ing, (fl. prob. Cent. II.) ; and in some points he has hit nearer the mark
than even Jerome. The Latin translation of this Syriac Version is a mi
serable affair, and no dependence can be placed upon it. I have made a
new and literal version, because it would be useless, or nearly so, to print
it in Syriac. But this version deserves much more attention than it has
yet received. Many a good hint may be got from it, to cast light on the
difficult words or phrases in the Hebrew. The author was well grounded
in the knowledge of that language.
As to No. VII. VIH., the object in presenting them lies upon the face of
the thing. Two such scholars as Kosenmueller and De Wette may well
excite the curiosity of the interpreter, to know how they understood the He
brew text, in the passage before us. Most readers, I trust, will be glad of
such a conspectus as that which is here submitted to their examination.
[It has already been said, that a great variety of interpretations have been proposed,
of Dan. 9: 24 — 27. The reader who is curious to know how much and what has been
said, and what endless perplexity has attended all attempts to explain without the
aid of a distinctive philology, is remitted for information to the following works, as
exhibiting the ablest efforts of this nature. Some few of them, however, have been
distinguished by philological effort.
Among the older writers, Vitringa stands preeminent, as usual, in his very learned
discussion of the subject in Observatt. Sac. VI. 1 — 5. He is exclusively Messianic, and
is the store-house from which Hengstenberg and Havernick have drawn, in their dis-

Chap. X. Introduction. 313
cussions of the matter in question. Among the more respectable attempts to explain
this matter may be reckoned J. D. Michaelis Vcrsuch iiber die 70 Wochen Daniels,
1771. 8. Eiclihorn, Bibliothck, 13.111. s. 761 seq, has suggested many good hints,
while he adopts u tortuous method of reckoning the respective classes of weeks.
Bleek, Theol. Zeitschrifc von Schleiennacher, De Wctte,etc, 1819, Heft. 3, s. 17 1 seq.
Berthholdt. Comm. zum Buche Daniel. II. Theil. Hengstenberg, Die 70 Wochen
Daniels, in his Christol. Theil. II. s. 401 seq. 1831. Havernick, Comm. Uber Daniel,
in loc. 1832. Sclmll, Comm. exeget. de 70 hebdom. Danielis, 1829. Hilzig, Recen
sion in Theol. Stud, ct Krit. 1832. s. 143 seq. Rtlsch, Die 70 Wochen des Daniel,
ib. Jahr 1835. Lengerke, Comm. Uber Dan. in loc. As distinguished greatly from all
the preceding efforts, remain to be noted, J. C JC Hoffman, Die 70 Jahre des Jeremias,
1836; and his later and highly important work, Weissagung und Erfiillung, 1841,
Th. I. s. 296 seq., which is filled indeed with mere hints, but they are exceedingly sig
nificant, and are the result of much thought and profound study. The recent exclu
sively Anti-messianie interpreter is Wieseler, Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen,
1839, a book pregnant with thought and interesting matter, and giving evidence of
great acuteness in philology ; but exhibiting some inconclusive reasoning, and a
strong leaning to preconceived theory. Substantial progress in philology has been
made by these two last named writers. It would be easy to subjoin scores of other
writers ; but they would add little or nothing to the apparatus of the reader who has
access to those named above.]

[The preceding vision was seen in the first year of Darius the Mede, 9: 1. The
one now before us is dated in the third year of Ihe reign of Cyrus, which would make
it some seventy-two years from the time that Daniel was carried to Babylon by
Nebuchadnezzar, 1 : 1 — 3, and about four years later than the preceding vision. The
vision is prefaced by a narration of Daniel's special fasting and prayer, for Ihe space
of three weeks, vs. 1—3. The occasion of this is not directly and explicitly stated.
But we may gather hints from the book of Ezra, which will give some probable illus
tration Soon after the building of the temple was commenced, " the adversaries of
Judah and Benjamin'' began their opposition to it by active measures. During all
the remainder of Cyrus' reign, and even down to that of Darius, i. e. from B. C. 536
down to 519, (Ezra 4: 4, 5. 6: 1 — 15), opposition was continued. If Daniel was un
certain in his mind, whether the DiSaia DisatS of 9: 24 meant seventy weeks of
days or seventy weeks of years, (and considering the ellipsis in this case of Di30 ,
we may easily suppose him to have been in doubt for a time), then must he have felt
greatly perplexed with such a state of things as existed in the third year of Cyrus'
rei<*n. Nothing of consequence had yet taken place, excepting the bare return of a
company of exiles to Palestine. The temple-building was at u stand. The city-
building must have been in a very embarrassed and perplexing state. If Daniel had
hitherto indulged the hope that only seventy weeks of days were appointed for the re
storation of the city and sanctuary, he must now be greatly in doubt what to think.
The time of seventy weeks of days had more than passed, yea double that time, and
yet there were no indications of successful progress at Jerusalem. The close of v. 1
indicates the deliverance which the mind of the prophet experienced, by the new reve
lation which he was about to record. It also contains an indication, tacit but yet intel
ligible, that he had not before satisfactorily understood the communication made to
him in 9: 24 — 27. In 10: 12 is an intimation, moreover, of the fear which had op-
27

314 Chap. X. 1.
pressed Daniel, when he considered the then-present state of the holy city and temple.
The events which are disclosed in the prophecy that follows, show that one could not
reasonably suppose them all to happen in the course of seventy weeks of days; the
time therefore of 9: 24, must be weeks of years.
Daniel had fasted and prayed, from the first day of the first [Heb.] month until the
close of the twenty-first, 10: 3. Three days after this, viz. on the twenty-fourth, he
was on the banks of the Tigris, and there saw his last and very instructive vision. 10:
4. An angel appears in splendid costume, and addresses him in a voice like that of a
great multitude, vs. 5, 6. To Daniel alone was this heavenly messenger visible;
but his attendants were stricken with great fear and fled, probably because of some
audible and preternatural sound, v. 7. Daniel remained alone, and he grew pale
with terror, and sunk down in great weakness, v. 8. In a kind of trance, while on the
ground, he heard the angel speaking to him, who came near and partially lifted him
up, vs. 9, 10. The angel then addressed to him words of great kindness, and bade
him attend carefully to what he was about to communicate, by which he was some
what revived, even so as to stand erect, although wiih trembling, v. 11. He assures
Daniel, that his prayers had been heard, and his solicitude to understand more fully
what had been addressed to him on a former occasion, was favorably regarded, v. 12.
The angel discloses a reason why there had been some delay, in bringing his mes
sage. The angel of the Persian kingdom had withstood him for twenty-one days,
until Michael came to his aid, when he was left alone to exercise his good influence
over the Persian dynasty. [His object seems to have been, to give a turn to ihe Persian
affairs which would be favorable to the Hebrews], v. 13. The next verse (14) discloses
the special object of the angel's mission ; which was, to instruct Daniel what would
befal his people at a future period, for the vision had respect to a prolonged period.
When this was mentioned, Daniel cast down his eyes to the earth, and remained si
lent, v. 15. In this plight, an angel under the appearance of a man touched his lips,
and enabled him to speak ; which he did by stating, that the terror caused by the
vision had deprived him of the use of his bodily powers, vs. 16, 17. An angel in
human form then touched him again, and his strength was somewhat restored, v. 18.
He bade Daniel not to fear, for he was greatly beloved, and peace would be given
him ; after which Daniel requested him to proceed, inasmuch as he was fully revived,
v. 19. The angel begins his communication by asking the seer, whether he knew for
what purpose he had come ? Taking his answer for granted, (as indeed he might, if
we compare v. 14), the angel goes on to say, that he shall return [to Persia] in order
to contend with the prince of Persia ; that when he departs, the prince of Grecia will
come, [when he abandons the Persian court, the king of Greece, Alexander, will come
against ihe country], v. 20. What is written in the book of truth respecting the fu
ture, will now be disclosed. Only the angel Michael assists him against his antago
nists ; — but this same Michael is the special guardian of the Hebrews.]

CHAPTER X.
( 1 ) In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia, a message was revealed to Daniel,
whose name was called Belteshazzar; the message was truth, and the warfare great.
And he understood the message, for understanding was given to him in the pro
phetic vision.

Chap. X. 1. 315
In 1: 21 it is said, that Daniel was, i. e. continued, remained, until the
first year of Cyrus ; which some have maintained to be a contradiction
to the verse before us, which asserts that Daniel was living and active
some two years after the period named in 1: 21. But (as above ex
plained in Comm. on 1:21) I understand the object of this last-mentioned
passage to be, to show that as Daniel saw the beginning of the exile, so
he also lived to see the end of it; which end came about in the first year
of Cyrus' reign. As the object of that passage seems not to be to state
the full extent of Daniel's life, so the passage before us is no contradic
tion, nor even a discrepancy, in respect to 1: 21. The third year of Cy
rus was B. C. 534. — King of Persia means king of the united Medo-
Persian empire ; for the sacred writers reckon the dominion of Cyrus
from the commencement of his reign as son-in-law and heir of Darius
the Mede. — i:rt , a communication or message ; for the word is generic
in a sense like to that of these English words ; comp. Isa. 2: 1. — rft:,3 has
reference to a supernatural revelation. — Whose name was called Belte
shazzar, see 1: 7. The object of this is to specify, that he is the same
Daniel to whom the preceding portion of the book relates. — H«X5 is
predicate — the message was truth — and is put first for the sake of em
phasis ; comp. Rev. 22: 6. 21: 5. 19: 9, as to the assertion. — xas , lit. war
fare, tropically (as here), trouble, hardship, severe trial with suffering.
A reference is by implication here made to the contents of the message
about to be imparted. These disclose trials very severe, and much (bi~3)
suffering to the Hebrew nation. — And he understood the message ; comp.
8: 27, which asserts that he did not at that time fully comprehend what
had then been said to him. Comp. also 10: 12, which appears to refer to
9: 24 — 27, and to imply the like sentiment. The present message is so
much in detail and so particular, that the prophet ceased to doubt. —
Understanding [of the message] was given to him by the vision, viz. the
vision to which the preceding nbsa refers. Hence the aiticle before !"iK"ra ¦
What he means to say is, that the manner of the vision which follows
was such, that he attained to a satisfactory understanding of it — such an
understanding as he had not had in respect to either of the three preced
ing visions ; see 7: 15, 28. 8: 27. 10: 12. Lengerke takes 'pa and rira as
Imperatives; and so the accent might seem to decide, Sira having a
penult accent, § 71. 6. But I apprehend this to be only an accidental
case of accentuation. The verb has a penult accent, because of the im
mediate sequency of a monosyllabic word which takes an accent, § 29.
3. b. C. B. Michaelis and Lengerke, (who make the word Imper. on the
ground of the accentuation), have both failed to recognize this. Len
gerke says, also, that ^a must be in Hiph., and that n praefix-formative
is dropped by aphaeresis. But this cannot well be. The usual Imper.

316 Chap. X. 2, 3.
Hiph. is "art , and the apocopate (made by aphaeresis) would be }2l , not
"pa . That Kal has two forms in the Praeter, "(a and "pa , seems clear,
§ 72. 1. e. g. The sense of the passage (as I understand it) I have
given in the version above. Lengerke says, that such a meaning is in
compatible with 12: 8. But I understand what is there said ("pas xbi),
to relate only to what is said of the resurrection and its sequel in 12:
1 — 4. The reader will observe, that the third person is employed by the
writer in this verse, after which he goes over into the first. This is the
usual method ; see Isa. 1: 1 seq. 2: 1 seq. Jer. 1: 1 seq. Ezek. 1: 3, 4. Hos.
1: 1, 2, (comp. 3: 1), and so in the other prophets, comp. §134. 3. N. 3.
(2) In those days I Daniel was mourning three weeks of days.
Those days belong to the time mentioned in the preceding verse, viz.
during the third year of Cyrus. The probable occasion of Daniel's
mourning has already been stated in the introduction to this chapter. —
Three qi»i Disaia , lit. three days besevened, i. e. twenty-one days. The
word Dioi is here added, so as to avoid being misunderstood ; for Disaia
in 9: 24 means year-weeks, i. e. years is implied after it, as being the ordi
nary measure of time. But to show that the case is different here,
Diai is employed, and put in the Ace. as designating time, § 116. 2, and
for the adverbial use, see § 116. 3. Three weeks' fasting, in the abso
lute and highest sense of the word, cannot be supposed without a mirac
ulous interposition. Does the next verse so represent the fast, as to make
such an interposition necessary ?
(3) Pleasant bread I ate not, and neither flesh nor wine came into my mouth, nor
did I anoint myself, until the completion of three weeks of days.
niian onb , lit. bread of delights, i. e. choice bread, such as was fur
nished for the tables of the wealthy and the. honorable. The implication
of course is, that Daniel sustained himself with coarse bread, such as was
eaten by the lower class of people. But as to flesh and wine, which were
not necessary to his sustenance, but to be regarded merely in the light
of a comfort or luxury, he did not at all partake of them. Nor did he re
sort, as usual, to the place of bathing and anointing. The T(ib here is Inf.
abs., rendering intense the expression, viz. / did not at all anoint myself.
This verb is never used for ceremonial anointing to office, but for anoint
ing the body after bathing. Among the upper classes, oils highly per
fumed were employed for this purpose. The fasting of Daniel was ex
tended to abstinence from every convenience and luxury, and no more
than a bare support of coarse bread was admitted. With this, however,
he could easily sustain himself, so that nothing wonderful as to the length
of the fast need be supposed. Why it was three weeks rather than some
other period, we are not told. But the last week of this period, v. 4 (it

Chap. X. 4—6. 317
being in the first month), would include the passover with its seven day3
of fasting. The light in which the number three was regarded by the He
brews, may have had its influence in regard to the period, which was
three times as long as the passover-fast. At all events, the length of the
fast betokens deep humiliation.
(4) And on the twenty-fourth day of the first month, I was near by the great river,
that is, the Hiddekel [the Tigris].
His presence on the banks of the river named, is to be regarded here
as actual or physical, and not merely in vision. There is nothing in the
circumstances of the case, or in the manner of the language, which re
quires us to give any other than a literal interpretation. It deserves
remark, that the angel does not appear to him, until the third day after
his fasting was ended. In the sequel, the reason of his delay is stated.
For laVnb, see § 113. 2. d. The first month is reckoned in the Hebrew
manner. (5) And I lifted up my eyes, and behold a man clothed in linen garments, and his
loins girt about with fine gold of Uphaz.
itix UTS , a man, lit. one man ; for ins in the sense of our indefinite
article a, see Lex. irjx , 4. The expression shows, that the angel assumed
a human form, in addressing the prophet. — Difla , linen or cotton vest
ments. Here it means the long white mantle which covered the whole
person, and wa3 girt around the waist, in order to adjust and render
firm its position. — TSlst , here and Jer. 10: 9, probably the same as liaix ,
for which see Lex. The t and "i are sometimes exchanged ; see Lex. in v.
— Fine gold of Uphaz, i. e. having his girdle adorned with the most
precious gold.
(6) And his body was like the topaz, and his face like the appearance of lightning,
and his eyes like flaming lamps, and his arms and his feet were like the appearance
of polished brass ; and as to his voice, his words were like the shout of a multitude.
In a word, he appeared in dazzling splendor and magnificence through
out, lona'nna , first, the name of a place [now Guadalquiver] in Spain ;
then, the name of a yellowish gem found there, which the Greeks called
XgvaoXi&og, and recent chemists name topaz. The resplendence is the
main point of the comparison here. The yellowish hue is in conformity
with the color of the oriental skin. — His visage like the lightning, and
his eyes like flaming lamps, is exceedingly vivid description, and conveys
the mingled idea of the splendid and the terrible; comp. Rev. 1: 13  15
which closely resembles the present passage. The splendor of the
arms and feet seems to be the result of the ornaments attached to them,
which were exceedingly lustrous ; for such was the appearance of polished
27*

318 Chap. X. 7—9.
brass among the ancients. — "ps , lit. eye, but also look, appearance.
nuj™ is here used as masc. ; so in Ezek. 1:7. — Like the shout of a
great multitude, a vivid and strong conception. John, in Apoc. 1: 15,
" His voice was like the sound of many waters," i. e. like the roaring of
the ocean-waves. It is difficult to decide which is the most vivid and
powerful expression. Comp. also Rev. 14: 2, where "loud thunder'' is
added. In all respects, as to majesty, splendor, and power, the angel ap
pears preeminent. How deep the impression made by his majestic
appearance and costume was, the sequel serves to show.
(7) And I Daniel alone saw the vision ; and the men who were with me saw not
the vision, but great terror fell upon them, and in secreting themselves they fled away.
If the men who accompanied Daniel saw not the vision, perhaps it was
not visible to the natural physical eye, but only to the mental eye of the
prophet. But something must have been either seen or heard, in order
to excite so much terror. It may be, therefore, that the sound of the
voice was audible by Daniel's attendants. — rr^"iri is placed before its
verb, for the sake of emphasis. — xanna in secreting themselves, i. e.
either they fled clandestinely, so as to evade their master's notice, or
(more probably) the idea of the last two words is : They fled away in
secreting themselves, i. e. in finding, or in order to find a hiding place,
they fled away. The verb is in Niph. Inf., the fi prefix going over into
ri because the following guttural excludes the Dagh. forte.
(8) And I was left alone, and then I saw that great vision, and there was no
strength left in me, and my glowing ruddiness was changed upon me to a marred
state, and I retained no strength.
I'nab, lit. in my loneliness; iiSHSi, and then I saw, § 152. 1. B. 1. —
fibjiif} in the sense of grand, sublime, majestic. — il.iiTi , lit. and my splen
dor, means the natural bright and glowing color of the skin of a healthy
person. — ibs , upon me, or rather perhaps over me, i. e. throughout
my person, for not the cheek only grew pale, but the whole body. The
sequel shows that the surface of his person became marred in its appear
ance, for niriiaa indicates such a marring as sickness or death brings upon
the natural color of the skin. — I retained no strength indicates, that he
fell down to the earth as lifeless ; see v. 9.
(9) And I heard the voice of his words ; and when I heard the voice of his words,
then was I in a deep sleep upon my face, and my face was on the ground.
This also shows, that the communication with the prophet was more
in a mental, than in a physical way. Otherwise a deep sleep would have
prevented his hearing the voice. Comp. 8. 17. Ezek. 1: 28. 3: 23. Zech.
4: 1. Rev. 1, 17.

Chap. X. 10—12. 319
(10) And lo I a hand touched mo, and it raised nio upon my knees and Ihe palms
of my hands.
The touch of the hand seems to have partially restored sensation, so that
he could perceive it. — "^Sisril , from S>i3 to nod or vacillate, so that the
true and exact meaning here seems to be : Placed me in a vacillating state
upon my hands and knees. The vacillation doubtless proceeded from ter
ror and the loss of strength. — nieai , lit. Da means curve, hollow ;
hence applied to the palms of the hands, and the soles of the feet.
There is no necessity of finding here the hand of another angel, different
from the one so splendidly clad, as described in vs. 5, 6. Indeed, since
the one who touched Daniel, and raised him partly up, declares in v. 11,
that he has been sent to make communications to the seer, it must be
one and the same personage.
(II) And he said to me : Daniel, a man greatly beloved, mark well the words
which I shall speak to thee, and stand upright ; for now am I sent to thee. And while
he was uttering these words, I stood up, trembling.
niian, see in 9: 23. The Imper. form "]atn here and elsewhere in this
book, makes against the position, that "pa in v. 1 is Imper. — 13V1 , it is
peculiar, that in Kul this is the only form (Part.) to which the meaning
speak is attached. — ^pl^S , Ges. renders locus, place ; well enough as to
the general sense of the passage, but not sufficiently specific. I under
stand the word here as indicating either what is equivalent to our English
word stand, or station, or else the means or instrument of standing, viz.
the feet. Such a tropical use is by no means impossible or improbable.
The reason which the angel gives for the command is, that he is about to
solve the doubts or difficulties of Daniel, on account of which he had
been fasting and praying. In obedience to his requisition Daniel stood
up (inias) ; which seems to explain the preceding command. Standfast
in thy place is the meaning which Lengerke gives to the command ;
which, to say the least, is doubtful as to fast or firm. What I deem to be
the shade of the idea, I have given in the version above. — "iisia , Hiph.
intrans. trembling. See the like meanings in Hiph. § 52. 2. Bemarks.
(12) And he said unto mo: Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day when thou
didst apply thy mind to understand, and to humble thyself before God, thy words
wero heard, and I am come on account of thy words.
There is an intimation in y^'lrb , that a leading part of Daniel's so
licitude had arisen, from his doubts as to the exact meaning of some
things in the previous communications made to him. ^ab , in its pre
dominant sense, this noun means mind. ¦ — nissnrib , Hithp. reflex, to
humble thyself. — Thy words mean, the words uttered in his prayers be
fore God.

320 Chap. X. 13, 14.
(13) And the prince of the kingdom of Persia stood against me, twenty-one days ;
and lo ! Michael, one of the chief princes, came to my aid, and I was left there near
the kings of Persia.
That lis here designates an angel of some sort, and not a king of Per
sia, seems to be clear from v. 21. oa/iiu bxaia, Michael your prince, i. e.
your guardian angel. Whether the angel in question was good or bad,
has been disputed. That the heathen nations, as such, should have
guardian angels assigned them who were good, seems hardly to com
port with the Hebrew views of their character and desert. Yet that
good angels might receive commission to watch over their concerns in
some general way, is sufficiently in accordance with the dispensations of
Him, " who maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and send-
eth rain on the just and on the unjust." The only serious difficulty is,
that of contest between the guardian-angel of the Jews and that of Per
sia. Such, it would seem, must have taken place ; for when the com
municating angel says, that " he was left near the kings of Persia," the
implication of course is, that the victory was accorded to him, for the
Persian "TO had withdrawn. — In the phrase kings of Persia, the plural
number appears to be used in order to designate collectively the supreme
dynasty of that country. When Lengerke asserts, that the idea of
guardian-angels was borrowed from Parsism and Zoroaster, one cannot
but feel prompted to ask : Whether the Hebrews, specially the pious,
would be likely to borrow from such a source ? And then, secondly,
Whether Josh. 5: 13. Ex. 23: 20, where the same idea is plain, were in
his view written after the times of Zoroaster ? i.i33b , lit. before me ; but
the particle has sometimes an adversative sense, and then may be trans
lated against. It would seem that the narrator was one of the guardian-
angels of the Jews, who had been striving to procure favorable measures
for them on the part of the Persian government. There is a plain inti
mation, in the phrase Michael one of the chief princes, of different orders
of angels. This idea, however, is not often brought to view in the O.
Test. ; but in the New it is somewhat familiar, Eph. 3: 10. 1 Thess. 4:
16. Jude v. 9. Rev. 1: 4. 8: 2. 12: 7. The very name lia tacitly con
veys the same idea.
(14) And I have come to make thee know what shall happen to thy people in
later times ; for the vision is yet for some time.
. Mianb has reference to the same word in v. 12  mpi from mp
U ¦ -!- t1 : • TPT
with the vowel points of its equivalent N'ipi , see § 74. Note 22. b. Here
it is followed by a b ; but usually it subjoins the simple Ace. of person.
— Diajn ni'iriKa is not necessarily restricted to the latter or final portion

Chap. X. 15—17. 321
of time before the end of the world, but it may mean the 'latter part of
any period particularly in the mind of the speaker, specially when this
can be understood by those who are addressed. Here it evidently means,
the latter part of the period which precedes the coming of the Messiah;
for so the sequel of the vision shows it to mean. Indeed, the speaker
himself explains his own declaration, by saying that the vision is Di»ib_
lit. for days, i. e. for a considerably long and undefined period.
(15) And while he was speaking with me after the tenor of these words, I placed
my face on the ground„and was silent.
Di'ia'ia shows that Daniel does not repeat verbatim, but only for sub
stance, the words of the angel. — !"iS"iS , with ii- , local, which shows that
the word is in the adverbial Ace. — inabxp, Niph., differs slightly from
Kal, in that it is reflexive = I kept myself silent.
(16) And lo ! one like the sons of men touched my lips ; and I opened my mouth,
and spake, and said to him who stood before me : My lord, by the vision my comeli
ness upon me is changed, and I retain no strength.
mala implies before it some one who is the object of comparison ;
but since no Nom. or subject is expressed, the indefinite Nom. isntk , one,
a man, i. e. in appearance a man, is to be supplied. One in human
form is the plain meaning of the whole phrase. — Touched my lips, i. e.
in order that he might speak, for he had just said, that previous to this
he remained dumb. The effect was immediate. The power of speech
was restored; and his first words apologize for his continued silence,
which he thought might seem to betoken a want of respect or comity. —
i'Y'S I feel constrained to interpret differently from most critics. It is
neither terrors (Leng. Maurer), nor pains, distresses (Ges. al.). Ety
mology forbids the first, and the nature of the passage the second mean
ing. Terror is very different from dolores. The verb lis means, among
other things, to form, fashion, etc. ; and from this comes lis idol, and
also form, Ps. 49: 15. I take "nis , therefore, in a sense like that which
i"iin bears, in v. 8 above. It is an easy transition from form to comeli
ness ; just as the Latin forma designates both ideas, "nytn marks the
shining appearance of the skin in a healthy person, in v. 8 ; and i"iis
here marks the simple idea of comeliness or fair appearance. As to the
plur. form of the noun, see § 106. 2. a., where many parallels will be
found. For ibs , see under v. 8 above.
(17) And how shall the servant of this my lord speak with this my lord ? And as
for me — at present no strength remaineth in me, nor is there any breath left in me.
The servant of my lord = I. This is the usual mode of address among

322 Chap. X. 18—20.
the Hebrews, in all cases where an inferior addresses an acknowledged
superior. — rpri = •jpx , the usual Heb. form. The first form Chalda-
izes. — Vaii, Hoph. lit. be made able, become able, which is equivalent to
our simple can or be able. — Pit is a demonstrative and intensive = this
here, i. e. how can I address such a personage as now stands before me ?
¦—•13X1 , Nom. abs. — npsa , lit. from this very time, viz. from the time
when the angel appeared, and addressed himself to Daniel, he had been
in a kind of swoon, and incapable of employing his bodily organs to any
effectual purpose. I have given the idea in our usual idiom, in the ver
sion. (18) And one having the appearance of a man again touched me, and he strength
ened me.
t]W , lit. and he added, shows that the same personage repeated the
touch, who had first given it, as related in v. 16. In the first case, the
power of speech was restored ; in the second, the strength of the whole
frame. For the idiom of the verbs Sipi noil , see § 139. 3. SJi from SM .
(19) And he said: Pear not, O man greatly beloved ; it will be well for thee; be
of good courage ! And while he was speaking with me, I felt myself strengthened,
and said : Let my lord speak, for thou hast strengthened me.
ftb DibiB is often employed as a mere form of greeting, like salus tibi !
The phrase might here be regarded as optative, but is more energetic
when rendered as the Indicative. — irjrn pm , take good courage, or be
very strong! The repetition marks intensity of expression. The Hiph.
inp-rnnn has a shade of the reflexive in it, which I have endeavored
to express in the translation.
(20) And he said : Dost thou know why I have come to thee 1 And now I must
return, in order to contend with the prince of Persia ; and I shall depart, and lo ! the
prince of Greece will come ;
The question asked in the first part of the verse, seems rather de
signed to call attention, than to make inquiry. In v. 14 is a declaration
of the purpose of the angel in coming. What follows shows, that the
prince of Persia (guardian-angel), although he had departed when Mi
chael came to the aid of the speaker, would return and resume his former
course, or had already returned. The guardian of the Jews, therefore,
goes back to Persia, in order to prevent the effects of his influence. —
ttaii, when coupled as here with xa, means to depart, while xa in such
a position means to come, accedere, intg%ea&ai. But from what place
does the narrator expect to depart ? And does the prince of Grecia de
sign to come, arrive, at the same place ? Questions somewhat difficult to

Chap. X. 21. 323
answer. From the last clause of v. 21, we may conclude, that prince of
Persia and of Greece means guardian or superintending angel. To this
conclusion the tenor of the discourse would also lead. Guided by this,
we may reasonably conclude that the angel means to say, that sometime
after his return to Persia to contend there for the interests of the He
brews, he will again leave that country, that the prince of Greece may
seek and obtain a preeminence there for Grecian rule. Against the in
clination of the Persian court to treat the Jews with neglect, he has first
to strive, and when Grecian power usurps the place of the Persian, he
has the like difficulty to overcome. Hence he speaks, in the next verse,
of Michael's aiding him rifex-bs against these, viz. against the princes of
Persia and Greece. I do not see how the text will well bear any other
construction. That going and coming are used here in a military sense,
i. e. indicate mutual strife between the two parties, is assumed by Hav.
and Leng. ; but this is not strictly the case. Going away (Star) denotes
the departure from, and relinquishment of, the Persian court, giving place
to Grecian rule. The coming of Grecian rule, as connected with what
is related in the following verse, indicates that there would be a hostile
bearing toward the Jews, so that the guardian angel of the Hebrews
must needs be strengthened by Michael nbx_bs , i. e. against both coun
tries or sovereignties. To such a view as is here given, Hoffman gives
his assent, (Weissag. etc. s. 312).
(21) (But I will tell thee what is written in the book of truth), and there is no
one who putteth forth his strength with me against those, except Michael your prince.
The first clause I have put in parenthesis, because it is plainly thrown
in so as to interrupt the regular train of thought. When the speaker
had intimated, that the princes of Persia and Greece would be hostile to
the Jews, and thus excited an alarm in the feelings of the hearer, he em
ployed means to quiet this by telling him, that whatever of suffering or
of deliverance awaits the Jews, it amounts only to so much as heaven had
wisely decreed, and cannot pass these bounds  aw^ is a later Heb.
word, taken from the Chaldee, instead of the more ancient aire . —
Book of truth is the book of God's decrees, the book which contains what
will truly come to pass ; comp. the like in Deut. 32: 34. Mai. 3: 16. Ps.
139: 16. Rev. 5: 1. This is different from the book of life, which is so
frequently mentioned; for this is so named by allusion to the register of
the names of the living in a city or town; but the book of truth is the
book which records what is or will be true, i. e. verified. — "ins •pxi , and
there is no one, connects with xa at the close of v. 20. The angel means
to say, that in the successive aggressions upon the Jews by the Persian

324 Chap. X. 21.
and Grecian dynasties, he has no one to aid him but the guardian Mi
chael. The intimation seems to be, that without more helpers not a little
of suffering and trial must be expected, and thus to prepare Daniel for
the disclosures of the sequel. — Pifnna , to put forth or show one's strength.
— fibs"bs , against those, viz. those princes of Persia and Grecia. —
D3"iia , your prince, can mean nothing more nor less here, than your lead
ing guardian-angel.

[It is common for interpreters to assume here, that the apgel Gabriel
was the one who appeared to Daniel, and made communications on the oc
casion before us. Analogy from a comparison of Dan. 8: 16. 9: 21, where
he is named, might naturally lead to such an opinion ; which might also be
strengthened by Luke 1:19. The apocryphal books, both of the 0. Test.
and of the New, frequently name this angel, and also many others ; special
ly does the book of Enoch abound in the names of angels. But still, the
opinion about Gabriel in the present caso must be conjectural ; for there
is no name assigned to the angel-communicator, in chap. x. xi.
The question : How much of the representation of chap. x. is costume,
and what is historical reality ? is more difficult than one might at first sup
pose. If the princes of Persia and Grecia be good angels, how, it is asked,
' can contention arise between them and the guardians of the Jews ? Each
would bow in submission to the divine will, and so, when that was known,
there could be no differences of opinion.' But angels are not omniscient;
and a good being, with limited faculties, who is set to watch over a particu
lar king or country, may very naturally contract some partiality for the
object of his attention, and may not always see clearly what his duty is.
In a case of this kind, it is easy to see, that something like an opposition
to another good being may arise, who is commissioned to interfere with the
object of guardianship. Somewhat in this light, I think, we must regard
the narration in the present chapter, provided we consider it as based on
simple historical facts.
' But may not the whole be in the way of allegorical representation, i. e.
so as to represent the activity of the enemies of the Jews, and the stumb
ling-blocks which they threw in the way of those who had returned from
exile ; and also the opposition of the Grecian kings of Syria and Egypt,
after the death of Alexander? In such, a case, guardian-angels of the
holy land would represent the kind care which heaven bestowed upon the
Hebrews; and the opposing princes of Persia and Grecia would indicate
the counsel unfriendly to tho Jews, which those dynastios were inclined to
follow.' That it is possible to regard the whole representation in this light, salva
fide et salva ecclesia, I would not deny ; but the angelology of tho Scriptures
prevents me from admitting this. I feel the difficulty presented by an
account of contest between good angels ; and specially the difficulty of sup
posing that these good beings would excite the Persian and Grecian chiefs
against the Hebrew nation. But is it the design of the writer to commu
nicate any thing more, than the general idea of the angel-guardianship of

Chap. XL Introduction. 325
nations, and of that zeal for their respective interests, which springs from
a feeling that is natural to such a relation ? K he designs more than this,
we are at least left in the dark, as to the manner in which his views can
be reconciled with the character of angels, as beings perfectly holy and
obedient to the will of God, and also beings of superior, although not of
perfect, knowledge. The Apocalypse is through and through of the same
tenor, in regard to angels and their offices, as the present book, j

CHAPTER XL
[This chapter should not have been separated from the preceding one ; for it is a
mere continuance of the address to Daniel, which was begun in the close of that chap
ter. V. 1 informs him, that the angel-narrator, now engaged in behalf of the He
brews, had for some time before, at the Medo-Persian court, been engaged in like
manner with Darius the Mede. He then goes on to sketch some of the events of the
Persian dynasty, the invasion of Greece by Xerxes ; the spirit of hostility which will
be roused up by this ; the rise and fall of Alexander the Great ; and the subsequent
division of his broken empire into four dynasties, vs. 2 — 4. After this, the dynasties
of Egvpt and Syria are selected, doubtless because they are the only ones with which
the Jews were to be concerned. The mutual alliances, attacks, and defences, of the
kings of these countries, are next detailed with almost historical minuteness, vs. 5
— 20. We come next upon Antiochus Epiphanes, whose history (as we may almost
name it) occupies the rest of the chapter. It is a prophetic representation so ample
and particular, as to be without a parallel in all the Scriptures. Something in the
aspect of the times, or in the feelings and views of the Jewish people, was probably the
immediate occasion of this. The expectation of no more trial and suffering may have
been too confident among the Hebrews, and have needed a check. Or we may sup
pose another ground : Forewarned, forearmed. But whatever was the cause of the
peculiar form of the prediction before ui, there can be but one view as to its actual
character. As has already been said, Porphyry in ancient times, and not a few crit
ics in recent times, have strenously asserted that it was written post eventum, and is
therefore nothing more than real history. The assertion is grounded mainly on its
historical minuteness; bat partly (by the new school of criticism) on the alleged im
possibility of a miricle. A real prediction, so minute and circumstantial, must of
course be the result of a miraculous interposition; and the a priori assumption is,
that a miracle is impossible. Therefore the author of the book of Daniel must have
written post eventum.
But the assumption in this case is too great, reasonably to claim assent on the part
of the sober-minded ; and the critical history of the book of Daniel, as also the inter
nal evidence of the book itself, throw obstacles in the way of supposing a very late
composition that seem to be insuperable. But this is not the place to pursue the il
lustration and confirmation of these suggestions. The matter, however, must neces
sarily be investigated, in a critical introduction to the book.]
28

326 Chap. XI. 1, 2.
(1) Moreover, during the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood to strengthen and
confirm him.
Lit. ' And as to me, in the first year of Darius the Mede. my standing
was to strengthen etc' the ijsy at the beginning of the verse shows how
closely the present chapter stands connected with chap. x. I have ren
dered i"ias stood, for we cannot possibly imitate the Heb. Infin. with a
suffix, in our language, but are compelled to choose a definite verb.
Forms like the present are by no means unfrequent in Heb. : e. g. ini'iii ,
Is. 11: 3, the exact literal version of which would be the to delight of him,
which we cannot tolerate, but must simply say, he delights ; so Job 9:
27, i"ias DX, if the to say of me, the same as if I say. Hence i3N . . .
I'las I. . . stood. But i"ias is followed by b before the object to be ac
complished by his standing, in which case the idiom makes it to mean
the offering of aid or assistance. In the same way is b Dip employed in
Ps. 94: 16. — ib, him .... whom? Darius or Michael? The reader
most naturally refers the aid to Darius ; and so some of the commenta
tors. But this will hardly bear the test of examination. The angel had
just declared, that Michael was to him a ptnna , when he went to Per
sia; and now he says, that on a former occasion, under the reign of
Darius, he then in like manner helped Michael. Mutual aid, then, as
it would seem, had been given respectively when needed. Havernick
thinks such an idea to be incongruous. But if angels are beings of limi
ted powers and capacities, I do not see what incongruity there is in these
declarations as above explained.
(2) And now I will tell thee what is true. Behold ! three kings of Persia shall
yet stand up, and the fourth shall be abundantly rich above all ; and when he shall
grow strong by his riches, he will rouse up all — even the kingdom of Greece.
The hint given in the parenthesis of 10: 21 ("written in the book of
of truth"), is here repeated as a preface to the prediction which he is
about to utter, nax (apoe. of roas , § 19. 2. b. Note 1), truth, may omit
the article by virtue of its being abstract and of a somewhat generic na
ture ; for it is equivalent here to the phrase, that which is true. Plainly
the meaning is not all truth, which would demand the article ; nor truth
in opposition simply to falsehood, which also would take the article ; but
merely the positive idea that what he communicates is true, i. e. belongs
to truth. — lis , yet, so qualifies the clause as to make it mean, that three
kings more besides (nis, yet) the one then in power (Cyrus), should
rise up, before a fourth would invade the country of Greece, and thus
sow the seeds of destruction to the Persian dynasty. But how shall we
count the three ? Very diversely have they been reckoned. E. g. Cy-

Chap. XI. 2. 327
rus, Cambyses, Pseudo-smerdis, (so Polychronius) ; Cyrus, Cambyses,
Darius Hystaspis, (C. B.Mich.) ; Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, (Hitzig). I
cannot see room for doubt. It is certain that the fourth is Xerxes who
invaded Greece ; and the lis makes it certain, that Cyrus is excluded.
Of course' we have the intermediate kings ; and these are Cambyses,
Pseudo-smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis. Lengerke and Maurer main
tain that isiann means the fourth including the then reigning king (Cy
rus), so that the last of three yet to come, would be the fourth here
adverted to. I see no good reason for this, in the appeal which they
make to the article. Lengerke says, that if the fourth after Cyrus be
meant, the article must be omitted ; which Maurer approves. I regard
the case in quite a different light. After saying that three kings would
arise, whose history he wholly passes by, he comes to another in dis
tinction from them, a part of whose history he gives. The distinction in
tended, and the emphasis demanded, would either of them call the article
to its aid. It is even not uncommon in respect to ordinals, to append the
article to them when the noun connected with them omits it; e. g.
usia'n nii, Gen. 1:31. Whenever the ordinal is to be specially distin
guished from other preceding things, it follows of course that the article
is congruous. The natural and obvious meaning of isia-in , in the present
case, is the one that next follows after the three. So Jerome, Theodo
ret, Bertholdt, Rosenm tiller, Havernick, and others. Besides, this accu
rately agrees with historical facts. If Pseudo-smerdis is to be left out,
because he was a usurper, and had a short reign — what was Darius
but a usurper ? The article therefore seems to me quite in place, and
we need seek no strained exposition, since history so well supports the
most obvious exegesis.
He shall be abundantly rich. The fame of Xerxes' wealth is well known.
Darius his father, a great statesman and conqueror, mostly acquired it
for him. See in Herod. III. 96. VII. 27—29. Justin II. 10. Diod. Sic.
XI. 3. Plin. Hist. Nat. XXHI. 10. Ael. XIII. 3. — baa above all, a
comparative after biia . — In ir.^tna there is an indication of time by
means of the a , when he is strengthened. Lengerke refers the word to
Xerxes' state of mind, when he encourages or props up himself. To me
the obvious meaning seems to be, ' when he increases or makes strong
his power, by riches which can call great armies into the field ;' for
" money is the sinews of war." — i"vasa simply by his riches. — "iisi,
Imperf. Pliph. of iw , he will rouse up, excite, provoke, viz. by attacking
and injuring, as Xerxes did. — ban , the whole, rd ndv, equivalent to the
whole world, i. e. all the countries around him; and so, in this sense of
universality, the article is demanded, as in Greek. — Such hyperbole is

328 Chap. XI. 3, 4.
common in describing extensive dominion ; comp. Dan. 2: 38, 89. 4: 1,
22. 6: 25. 8: 5. — "jii niaba nx is in apposition with ban, and specifies
the leading country against which the forces of Xerxes would be directed.
Because only four kings of Persia are here adverted to, Lengerke con
cludes that the writer knew of no more, and therefore regarded Xerxes
as the end of the Persian series or dynasty, inasmuch as he has placed
him in contiguity with Alexander the Great ; see v. 3. This would ill
agree, however, with the minute and extensive knowledge of history dis
played in the remainder of the chapter. Besides, who does not at once
see, that the plan of the book of Daniel comprises only great and marked
events or characters ; and that nothing like a book of annals is either de
signed or attempted. Quite to the purpose is the remark of Jerome here :
" Non curae fuit prophetali spiritui historiae ordinem sequi, sed prae-
clara quaeque perstringere." Comm. in loc.
(3) And a mighty king will rise up, and he shall rule with extensive sway, and do
according to his pleasure.
The sequel shows that Alexander the Great is here meant. To him
I'laa applies with peculiar force. — a'l biaaa , Ace. of manner here =>
extensively, or it may be translated an extensive dominion, making the
noun the Ace. of object. . It is singular that Curtius X. 5. § 35, should
use the same phraseology respecting Alexander, as the angel does in the
present case : " By the aid of his good fortune, he seemed to the nations
agere quidquid placebat."
(4) And when he is risen up, his kingdom shall be broken in pieces, and it shall be
divided according to the four winds of heaven ; but not to his posterity, and not ac
cording to the dominion wiih which he ruled, for his kingdom shall be plucked up,
and shall be for others besides those.
ilasai , if referred to the las in the preceding verse, must be regarded
as simply expressing the general idea : when he shall have risen up.
Rosenm. and Hav. connect with the word the idea of attaining to the height
of his power; which might answer well enough out of such a connection. But
as the word is now connected, it would seem to be urging more significance
upon it than properly belongs to it. — ^5^:n , lit. shall be shivered, (our
English word being merely a repetition of the Hebrew one.) The same
word is used in 8: 8, where it is applied to the great horn, and well fits
the nature of the expression there. It was natural to retain it here. But
how to save the dynasty from ending with Alexander, after what is said
in this verse, I do not well see. Lengerke and others who make the em
pire of the four dynasties that follow, a part of the same dynasty with that
of Alexander, are obliged to do actual violence to the language. —

Chap. XI. 4. 329
Sfiall be divided toward or according to the four winds of heaven has refe
rence to the four great divisions, into which, some years after tho death
of Alexander the Great, his empire was mainly divided. The Hebrews
name only four of the cardinal points ; but here the mere direction of
these points is not the main thing aimed at. The number four has a
special signifieancy ; and the general idea of being situated in different
parts of the great empire, constitutes the remainder of what is designated
by the four winds of heaven, vnni , Niph. apoc. of nsn , with Tseri
under the praeformative (instead of short Hhireq) because of the follow
ing Guttural. — But not to his posterity, i. e. the kingdom shall not be
for his offspring. Alexander had two sons ; one named Hercules, by
Barsine the daughter of Darius, who was assassinated soon after his fa
ther's death by Polysperchon ; the other, by Roxana, who was named
Alexander, and with his guardian Philip Aridaeus was shortly cut off in
the same manner. The universal empire was soon seized upon by the
leading spirits of Alexander's army, and after many and bloody contests,
finally was partitioned among four of the leaders. This is merely ad
verted to in our text ; for in itself it little concerned the Jews, and there
is no intention of communicating the history of foreign nations which
does not concern them.
And not according to the dominion with which he ruled, i. e. These
four kingdoms shall none of them be so powerful in itself as his empire was.
Alexander's dominion embraced the whole, theirs only a part. — blaa Ro-
senmuller takes for a participial, like Dan , because, as he alleges, the Za-
qeph over it has no power to prolong the last vowel, in biaa ; a singular
reason, since cases of prolongation by this accent are sufficiently frequent,
see v. 27 below, n'bxn ; also Ezek. 18: 12, and the like in Amos 3: 8.
Lev. 6: 18, al saepe. The noun and verb of the same root are here
employed in the usual manner of the Hebrews, § 135. 1. Note 1. —
is , for, is to be referred back to the clause, but not to his posterity. It
stands before the ground or reason why the empire was not given to his
offspring. — fflnsn , it shall be plucked up, eradicated. The very nature of
the image employed shows the utter destruction of the great empire.
I see not how stronger language could well be selected. — The tP'iriN ,
others, are such as belong not to his posterity. So the sequel: ribts "laba,
lit. of the separation from these, (as we must express it), "iaba being a
compound of la , b , and IS , and means besides, separate from, or than,
according to the nature of the passage. All is plain in view of the his
toric facts related above. Rosenm. and Leng. give a different turn to
nix ^aba , but without good reason, see Maurer in loc.
To these simple outlines the speaker limits himself, in giving an ac-
28*

330 Chap. XI. 5, 6.
count of the fourth dynasty in general. He proceeds, in the sequel, to
notice only those divisions of the great kingdom, which concerned the
welfare of the Jews, and were in their neighborhood. The king of the
south is the king of Egypt, and the north means Syria.
(5) And the king of the south shall wax strong, but one of his princes shall be
come more powerful than he, and shall become a king, an extensive domain shall his
kingdom be.
The king here noticed is Ptolemy Lagi or Soter, the first Grecian
king of Egypt, and one of Alexander's generals. He gave the Jews
much trouble for a time, but afterwards treated them with more mild
ness ; Jos. Ant. VII. 1. — linto ycft, but one of his princes ; 1 I trans
late but, because contrast is here intended. That ¦)» may signify one as
well as some o/(plur.), see Lex. ^a 1. a. Ezek. 6: 25. Gen. 28:11, comp.
v. 18. Ps. 137: 3. But to whom does T'nia refer by its suffix ? Rosenm. re
fers it back to Alexander (v. 4), and he applies lia to Ptolemy thus : "Et is
quidem unus ex ducibus ejus" (i. e. Alexander), so that the affirmation has
respect merely to the rank or condition of Ptolemy. More correctly, as I
apprehend, do Leng., Maurer, Ges., and others refer the suffix to Ptolemy,
and regard SeleucusNicator as the person designated. He was first a satrap
and commander under Ptolemy ; then he declared himself independent,
proclaimed himself a king, subdued for himself all the country east of the
Euphrates, and formed the powerful Syrian dynasty which goes under
his name. From him comes the era of the Seleucidae, B. C. 312. He
was by far the most powerful of all Alexander's followers. Hence
libs p;ini , he shall be strong above or beyond him, i. e. beyond Ptolemy
Lagi. — biaal , and shall rule, a verb, not a participial as Rosenm. main
tains. The extent of his dominion is indicated by a'l biaaa . See Ar-
rian Exped. Alex. VII. 22. Appian de Reb. Syr. c. LV.
(6) And at the end of some years, shall they form alliances, and the daughter of.
the king of the South shall come to the king of the North, in order to make concilia
tion ; but she shall not retain the power of aid, nor shall he stand, nor his aid, but
she shall be given up, and they who sent her, and he who begat her, and he who re
ceived her, in those times.
Di3ia , used in this way without limitation, means some time. >nanni re
fers not toPtolemy Lagi and Seleucus Nicator, but to the kings of the North
and South after some years ; for Antiochus Soter, who followed Nicator,
is passed by, without any mention. The southern king here adverted to
seems plainly to be Ptolemy Philadelphus (not Lagi). Philadelphus
gave his daughter Berenice in marriage to Antiochus Theos of Syria, in
hope of putting an end to the contests between the two countries. —

Chap. XI. 6. 331
bs Xian indicates more than mere journeying. The meaning is, that she
shall go to the king of the North as his wife, implying an entrance into
his palace. — Di"iUJia , lit. recta, i. e. to make straight things that were
crooked or perverse; but here it stands for conciliation, peace, inasmuch
as before this marriage the two kingdoms were at war. — In si^in nis ,
she shall not retain the power of an auxiliary, I take the article to belong to
the first word in reality, § 109. 1. niB has here a peculiar sense, being
applied to the ability of an ally or helper, i. e. helping power (silt),
and being made definite in this case by this latter word, it becomes a
proper subject to be qualified by the article. Lengerke supposes the ar
ticle to refer to the marriage of Berenice with Antiochus, thus making
virtually a repeated mention of this occurrence in the word si*it . I deem
the other view of the subject to be more correct ; see the like in § 109.
Arm, being the leading member of the body employed in the accomplish
ment of any work, is naturally enough employed in the tropical sense of
aid, help, or (abstract being put for concrete) in the sense of aider, helper.
— lasi xbi, the sense of the passage demands that we should refer it to
the king of the South, the father of the helper or aid. — ishn , nor his
helper, ^ , after a negative in the preceding connected clause, is equiva
lent to xbl , i. e. = nor. Here the helper is of course Berenice. —
But she shall be given up, refers to the violent death of Berenice, who,
after the death of her father Ptolemy Philadelphus, was rejected by
Antiochus, who then resumed his former wife Laodice. The latter, jeal
ous of Berenice, caused her and her child to be put to death. — nixiaal ,
and those who sent her or caused her to go, viz. to the Syrian king;
see xan in the first part of the verse. I take this not to mean mere
way-conductors, i. e. servants, but the court of Egypt making the alliance.
The plural is preserved by all the ancient Versions ; but many Codices
(some thirty) read nxiaa , i. e. the sing, number, referring to him who
introduced her to Antiochus, i. e. her husband. But there is no need of
this change in the text. The plural will designate the court of Ptolemy,
who were doubtless concerned with the negotiation of the marriage.
Moreover, in case we adopt the singular here, and then refer the word to
Ptolemy, then there will be a kind of tautology, inasmuch as the next
word describes Ptolemy as the father of Berenice.
mbini , and him who begat her. This is the only construction the text
as now pointed will bear. When a Part, is employed in the sense of a
verb, (and it is so here), then the prefixing of the article is the regular con
struction, even when a suffix-pronoun is appended, Ewald Krit. Gramm. s.
582. In reality the so called article, in such a case, is a relative demonstra
tive, § 109. 2. a. On the contrary, the reading proposed by Dathe, Ber-

332 Chap. XI. 7.
tholdt, Dereser, Rosenmiiller, and De Wette, viz. n^bin (suff. state of
lb; child, with the article), is contrary to the usus loquendi ; for nouns
having a suffix pronoun omit the article, § 108. 2. The sense of the
word thus pointed would indeed be good ; for the child of Berenice was
murdered with its mother. This would well agree with '(PiV\ , which
here signifies to give over or give up to death. The difficulty with the
text as it is, seems to be principally this, viz. that neither Ptolemy nor
his court were given up to a violent death. But breviloquence in ani
mated discourse, not unfrequently leads the writer to the omission of
verbs which must be mentally supplied ; as in all cases of Zeugma. Be
sides, the difficulty is just the same as it respects nixpaa , (whether one
reads it as plur. or sing.), so that no relief is gained from this by reading
robin in the case before us. The text must therefore be regarded as
breviloquence, and the appropriate verb must be supplied by the reader,
in respect to the nouns which follow xin . — n^Triai , Part. Hiph. with
suff., the Yodh between the second and third radical letter omitted, i. e.
written defective ; lit. him who took hold on her, i. e. Antiochus Theos.
In order to marry Berenice he rejected his former wife Laodice ; and
doubtless, in order to propitiate the king of Egypt, he put on the appear
ance of eagerness for the new connection. Hence the strong word here
employed, not meaning simply to take or receive, but to take with a grasp,
and so (at least to appearance) with eagerness. However, soon after
the death of Ptolemy Philadelphus (in some two years), Antiochus re
sumed his former wife Laodice; but she, jealous of his constancy,
administered poison to him, by which he died. Soon after this event,
in order to secure the crown to her own son, Laodice, procured the death
of Berenice and her infant child. Inasmuch then as Philadelphus him
self died in some two years after the alliance formed with Antiochus, it
follows that all the parties here concerned speedily perished, with the
exception of the nixpaa , in regard to whom, we do not know whether
such was the case or not, because we have no particular history of their
times. But after the test of history, to which we have put the rest of
the text, we may trust the writer for this, and believe that he has de
scribed things as they were. The whole affair was marked with insidious
and treacherous designs, and also with perfidy and blood. — Dinsa ,
during those limes, the article (in the prefix a) here referring to the end
of some years (0131a ypb) at the beginning of the verse, and of course
being equivalent to the pronominal those.
( 7 ) And one of the shoots of her roots shall rise up in his place, and he shall come
to his army, and enter into the fortified places of the king of the north, and he shall
do [his pleasure] in them, and bring [them] into his grasp.

Chap. XI. 8. S38
-sra. here ~ has a partitive sense = one of: see under -—r -- in
v. 5. As —4: is singular, it would make the best sense to regard it as
generic here, meaning p.\*lcri'y. progeny. — Of ~"-™r {sho-rii-sle-ha),
the same expression in Isa. 11: 1 : lit. the roots or .«, urce of her. i. e. of
the daughter of the king of the South (v. 0). means her father or her
parents. The -s: or prrshc.1. is Ptolemy Euergetes. the brother of
Berenice, and son and successor of Philadelphus. To avenge the death
of Berenice, he marched with a large army against the king of the North,
slew Laodice. and swept over the whole country even to the Tigris.
everywhere exacting contributions at his pleasure. — ¦ ¦— a may be taken
in a generic sense = jbrtincatio ;>. (I have translated it as a noun of
multitude), since a" in the sequel indicates a plur. number, either in
respect to strongholds, or possibly in respect to the Syrians. Indeed,
considering the extent of Ptolemy's conquests, it would seem necessary
to give *~ such a generic sense, ai any rate. — rrr is here, as else
where in this book, a cx-r.structio pnaegni ,s. "s- being understood after
it. — ara may be applied, as before noted, to the strongholds generically
considered, or to the Syrians belonging to the north country. I incline
to the former, on the ground that the following -"-r is? better suited to
the taking fist possess!?:) of them than of the people. This whole inva
sion by the Egyptian king was conducted with great skill and power,
and had not Euergetes been summoned back to Egypt by tumults there,
it seems quite probable he would have made a complete conquest of
Syria, and brought the Syrian dynasty to a close.
1 5 And moreover lheii irods. with their mo'.ter. images, with their eost'.v vessels.
silTier and jrold, will he carry into captivity 10 E;yp; : ard then will he stand alcof.
for so:r.e time, from ihe kirc of the iSorth.
T'i^ir gods triiA t&eir molten images is an expression in accordance
with the views ot :he conquerors. Idolaters generally suppose, that the
god whom they worship dwells in his image or statue. When the
guardian-gods of any country were carried away, it was supposed that
no one would protect them against aggressors. On such a ground the
Philistines seem to have carried away the ark of the covenant. 1 Sam.
5: 1 seq. The Romans carried the gods of conquered countries in tri
umphal procession at Rome. There can be no doubt, that Ptolemy
Euergetes did the like, in his victorious Syrian war. — ar-:r: . parti
cipial from --a: . means innczs made by ftis:on and easting. The sufE
a.~— must relate to the Syrian nation or people. — "~~ "'" — . lit.
tritk their !Y«d!s of' desire, which of course indicates those that were
made of the precious metals, and such as were adorned with jewels, or

334 Chap. XI. 9, 10.
were of curious workmanship ; and the like. — Silver and gold may be
an explanatory clause, put in apposition with vessels of desire, designed
to show the materials out of which the vessels were made. This seems to
be the most obvious construction. But these words may indicate the
precious metals over and above the statues and the vessels. One would
hardly expect, however, the omission of l before Doa, if this were the
design of the writer. On this account, I must prefer the preceding in
terpretation. — xai iaiaa into exile shall he carry. But iaia generally
applies only to persons, not to things. Instances, however, may be
found, of its being applied to things; e. g. Ps. 78: 61, and so to beasts,
Amos 4: 10. Ex. 12: 29. Here, however, as the gods are also carried
away, ia\2J may be employed without doing any violence to propriety. —
¦ja -iasi seems plainly to mean stand off or aloof, abstain from, and the
like ; although Berth. Ges., Winer, De Wette, and others, render the
phrase stand before, that is withstand, the king of the North. But the
idiom does not seem to admit of this. Jerome (in loc.) says, that Ptolemy
"brought back with him from Syria, 40,000 talents of silver, costly ves
sels, and 2,500 statues of the gods, among which latter were those which
had been carried away by Cambyses from Egypt to Persia.'' The idol
atrous Egyptians were so elated at this, that they gave to Ptolemy the
surname of svsgysrng, the beneficent.
(9) And he shall come to the kingdom of the king of the South, but he shall re
turn to his own land.
xai , viz. the king of Syria, Seleucus Callinicus, who is the immediate
antecedent. — aiai, 1 but, for here is contrast, § 152. B. b. Callinicus,
after some two years from the withdrawal of Ptolemy from Syria, re
claimed some of the provinces in Asia Minor, and attacked the Egyptian
domain by sea and land, on both of which he was utterly defeated.
Under Ptolemy Euergetes much favor was shown to the Jews ; and
it seems to be on this account, that so much is here said of him ; for after
this, Egypt comes into view only as connected with or opposed to the
Syrian kings.
(10) And his sons shall make war, and they shall collect a multitude of large
armies ; and he shall move onward, and overwhelm, and pass through; and ho shall
return, and shall carry on the war even to his strong hold.
I3a>i, (the i after 5 being omitted), and his sons,i. e. the sons of Se
leucus Callinicus (for he is the immediate antecedent), whose names
were Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus Magnus. The former of these
two began the war against Egypt, in Asia Minor where Egypt had

Chap. XI. 11, 12. 335
tributary or allied provinces. He perished in the contest there. Anti
ochus Magnus then led on his army toward Egypt; and hence x*a xa*
in the singular. The Inf. being after the definite verb here denotes
the continued advance of the army under Antiochus, § 128. 3. b. — re
borrows its imagery from the overwhelming of a mighty and irresistible
stream ; as also'does -z: . — a -" , he shall return here means, that he
shall come a second time to renew the contest. After the first attack, in
which Antiochus had much success, and advanced even to Pelusium,
the Egyptians, then under Ptolemy Philopator the son of Euergetes,
persuaded him to a truce of four months. During this he prepared for
renewing the contest, which he did with much energy, and was for
awhile victorious. — "" jr— , (so it should be pointed, if we follow the
Kethibh), and not (as the Qeri) n~sri in the singular. The subjects of
the verb (plur.) seem to be Antiochus and Ptolemy Philopator. But
the Qeri seems here to be preferable, and this points to Antiochus, who,
by constantly pushing onwards, penetrated even to the fortification of
Baphia on the border of Egypt ; which our text designates by ri;sa ,
(ri- suff. for ¦-), his fortress, viz. the fortress of the Egytian king ; for
the nature of the case shows, that the king of the North is attacking the
domain of the king of the South, and of course the reference of his to the
Egyptian king in this case becomes plain. "When the verb n-s is fol
lowed by a or -is before an object, the verb implies after it a noun
designating war, attack, etc, and so the expression here is breviloquent,
or a constructio praegnans.
( 11 ) And the king of the South will become exceedingly embittered, and he will
go forth and fight with him, the king of the north, and he will raise up a large mul
titude, and that multitude shall be given into Lis hand.
Philopator was aroused from his sloth and voluptuous habits by the
attack upon Raphia, so near the proper borders of Egypt, and under the
sway of its king. He assembled a large army, 70,000 foot, 5,000 cavalry,
and seventy-three elephants, Polyb. c 86. Ptolemy himself took the
command of these forces, or (to use the literal language of our text),
they were put into his hand., meaning that they were under his control ;
for it is plain that the same multitude which he raised up, is the one
committed to his direction.
(12) And the multitude shall be lifted up, and his mind become elated, and he
will ea5t down myriads : but he shall not become powerful.
Favorable occurrences, as Polybius relates, excited hope and ardor
in the Egyptian army, and of course in their leader. The Kethibh must
be read a--.i , and thus make the construction asyndic. For this reason

336 Chap. XI. 13, 14

I prefer, in this case, the Keri (o'n'i), because it gives the bond of con
nection. The destroying of myriads was the consequence of a severe
battle, in which a great victory was won over Antiochus. — n'sj xbi , but
he will not be powerful. Ptolemy, content with repelling the invasion,
made a treaty with Antiochus, and failed to take advantage of his vic
tories. He then hastened back to the enjoyment of his usual sloth and
debauchery. This occasions the prophet to say, that he would not become
powerful. (13) And the king of the North shall return, and he will raise up a multitude
greater than the first one ; and at the end of some time, [after] several years, he shall
come with a great army and with much wealth.
At the end of times, Dinsn , with the article. I take this, however, not
as qualifying Dins , but the whole phrase, § 109. 1 ; and in accordance
with this, the word SiJttj , which is in apposition with Difisn and exegeti
cal of it (§ 111), has no article. DiJia is a common phrase to designate
the idea of some years, i. e. some moderate and not exactly defined period.
And the like as to Dins = some time. But the word end is specific, and
admits qualification by the article ; which however must be placed before
the noun that follows in the Genitive, (§ 109. 1). As to facts, Antiochus
Magnus waited some thirteen or fourteen years, before he again invaded
Egypt. Philopator was then dead (f203 B. C), and his son, Ptolemy
Epiphanes, (four years of age) reigned in his stead. Antiochus had then
just returned from his splendid conquests and triumphs in Persia, Bac-
tria, and Asia Minor, and was at the very height of his power and wealth.
His army must have been very large, and the plunder which he had
collected in so many countries must have made him very rich. Hence
a"n ttiwia , with much wealth. The mention of this in connection with
his march of invasion, xia xiai, would seem to indicate, that his troops,
returning from their conquests, had marched in the direction of Egypt,
before returning to Syria and depositing their wealth there. — bina with
force, but this, like our English word force, is often applied to the power
of an army.
(14) And in those times, many will stand up against the king of the South, even
the most violent of thy people will lift themselves up, so as to establish prophetic
vision, but they shall fall.
On the return of Antiochus from his victories in Egypt, a portion of
the Jews welcomed him with his army, provided for them, and assisted
in reducing the Egyptian garrison in Jerusalem, Jos. Antiq. XII. 3. 3.
By calling the party who thus allied themselves to Antiochus, ¦'Sp'iB isa
SjHS , the speaker has shown his strong disapprobation of their conduct.

' Chap. XI. 15. 337
iSfiiB is the const, of a. forma dagessanda, •p'lB = ri^B , the Qamets
being of course immutable. The meaning is violent, disruptive, which
may be spoken in a literal or in a tropical sense. The latter sense,
(which belongs to this passage), would probably have relation to their
breaking either the sacred covenant of the Jews, or more probably the
treaty with the Egyptian king ; for Egyptian dominion the Jews had
acknowledged for more than a century. In thus rising up, they do but
establish the prophetic vision, TiTtn , viz. the prophecies respecting the
troubles of the Jews under the fourth dynasty: see 7: 19 — 25. 8: 9 seq.
9: 26, 27. — ibttJail, for the form with Qamets, see § 29. 4. b, but they
shall fall, i. e. they shall perish, or at least be disappointed in their hopes
and expectations.
(15) And the king of the North shall come, and he shall cast up a mound, and
take a strongly fortified city ; and the forces of the South shall not stand, even his
choicest troops — there shall be no power to stand.
The Egyptian king sent Scopas, one of his ablest warriors, to reclaim
the cities of Palestine and Coelesyria. Antiochus met him in contest,
near the sources of the Jordan, and drove him back, until he took refuge
in Sidon, a fortified place. Antiochus there besieged the remnant of the
Egyptian troops, and of course cast up (Tpiai), or (lit.) poured out, a
mound by which he might storm the city. The verb here employed
refers to the method of raising artificial mounds, by bringing in and
pouring down the earth necessary to construct them. Scopas was final
ly reduced by famine, and gave up the city and his army, with liberty
for the latter to depart without their arms and other possessions. —
niisaa lis , a city of fortifications, which was taken by Antiochus. The
latter noun is a pluralis intensivus, having the meaning given to it in the
version, § 106. Note 2, with Remark. — m's'it , plur. fem., but plainly
designating the idea of forces, like Dibin , and so the masc. verb llasi is
joined with it. — liinaa DSi , the word OS is not confined to designating
a nation or tribe, but is applied to any large collection of citizens, ser
vants, soldiers, etc. ; lit. then, the company of his choice ones, i. e. his
Corps d'Eliles or chosen troops, the best of his army. Such doubtless
were those soldiers who had accompanied Scopas. They had no power
to stand, i. e. to maintain their post against the aggressions of Antiochus;
But not improbably the chosen men refers to the army sent by Ptolemy
to relieve Scopas during the siege, which of course were picked men, and
were led by three of the best Egyptian officers. But they were defeated,
and were unable to save Scopas from capture. The phrase DSi
'.iinaa is in the Nom. absolute, as to his chosen bands, etc.
29

338 Chap. XI. 16, 17. '
(16) And he who cometh shall do to him according to his pleasure, and none will
stand before him, and he will take his position in the goodly land, and it shall be
entirely in his hand.
xan , he who cometh refers to the leading agent in the preceding verse,
viz." to Antiochus. — iasii , apoc. form of the verb without a Vav con
secutive (which would be las*]), and yet with the like narrative sense as
the common Imperfect, although a jussive sense properly and usually
belongs to the apoc. form, § 48. 2, and 4. a. We have the like in this
chapter, in v. 10. a'jjii , in v. 17 Di*i , and in v. 18 arr ; in all of which
cases, although the form of the verb is apoc, yet the meaning is such as
the normal form gives. — 1-bx to him, i. e. to the person whom he invades,
viz. the King of the South. — "re"? , stands firmly, i. e. keeps his place.
— "issii shall occupy a standing, i. e. shall establish his position, fixa
iasn , lit. in the land of beauty. So in 8: 9 above ; and so in Ezek. 20;
6, 15, where the reason of the appellation is given, viz. that it excels all
other lands, comp. Jer. 3: 10. The article stands before "as , as often
before abstract nouns. — ""^a nbai seems to demand the meaning: And
he shall utterly destroy with his hand or by his power. But this would
disagree with historic facts. Antiochus was gratified with the submis
sion and aid of the disiis 15a (v. 14), and treated the Jews with kind
ness. We must give to nba , then, the other sense that it bears, viz. that
of completion, and render the word (for so we lawfully may) as a noun ,
lit. completion shall be in his hand, i. e. in his power. The complete pos
session or sovereignty of the country must, in such a connection, be the
idea meant to be conveyed, for destruction is not the idea here conveyed
by nba . This word, moreover, might be rendered adverbially : " And
entirely shall [it] be in his hand."
(17) And he shall set his face to enter upon the strength of all his kingdom, and
pacification with him shall he make, and the daughter of women shall he give to
him, that he may destroy it; but it shall not stand, neither shall it take place for
him. rp'n , power, strength, apparently abstract for concrete, i. e. strength for
the strong places and populous parts of Egypt As war is not described
in this verse, the translation with the might of all his kingdom, i. e. with
the hosts of Syria, will not fit the passage. What Antiochus is aiming
at, is to have a predominance in Egypt, so that he may resist the Ro
man aggressions, "ir'aba, then, refers to the kingdom of Ptolemy.—
Di"yaii has occasioned much perplexity among interpreters. To apply
this appellation to the apostate Jews, the a 1317s i:a of v. 14, seems a
mere contradiction. The really upright Jews, on the other hand, were
not the persons to break covenant, and join with Antiochus. I cannot

Chap. XI. 18. 339
hesitate, therefore, with Maurer, to regard the word in the same light as
I do Di-raia in v. 6, and to translate it pacification or conciliation, i. e.
a treaty of peace and concord. The objection of Lengerke, that the
word is not used as a noun, does not seem to be very solid. Are not He
brew adjectives, in numerous cases, employed as nouns, just as in Greek
and Latin '! Having the same root then as aiiiaia , and being used in
a connection altogether of the same nature, I see no serious difficulty in
the interpretation now given. It is certain, that a general appellation
of the Jews as Di-ra? , is no where else to be found ; and we have seen,
indeed, that the Jews are really out of question in this case. The sense
given, then, is the only tolerable one that remains.
The daughter of women is idiomatic, (like son of man for man), and de
signates, in this case, Cleopatra the daughter of Antiochus, whom he gave
to the Egyptian king as a wife, with a promised dowry of Coelesyria
and Palestine, and in this way made ci-ai , conciliation. — nr-rranb,
not to destroy her, but to destroy the i~";ia , i. e. Ptolemy's dominion.
Not so much the country as the domination over it, is designated by
Maba here, and so the a - suffixed to the verb, refers to thisr'aba.
The whole plan was to bring Ptolemy within the power of the Syrian
king, and put him at the disposal of the latter. But in all this, as the
sequel asserts, Antiochus was entirely frustrated, lasr xb , fem., i. e.
it, viz. his counsel, purpose, shall not be executed or established.
(18) And he shall turn his face toward the isles, and seize many; but a chieftain
shall cause his reproach to cease : besides that he will turn back his reproaches upon
himself. Soon after the events in Egypt, related in the preceding verse, Antio
chus engaged in new undertakings. Already had he won from the Boman
grasp several islands and coast-towns, along the shores of Asia Minor.
After wintering at Ephesus, he set out to pass over to the European side
of the Greeks. In Lycia, at Magnesia, he was met by the Boman gene
ral Lucius Scipio, after a series of preceding losses and defeats on the
part of Antiochus, and the final battle was fought, in which, of some
75,000 men in the Syrian army, at least 55,000 were left dead on the
field, and the rest scattered to the winds ; all of which was achieved by
about 30,000 Romans. Antiochus was then forced to give up all claims
to any domain beyond the Taurus, and to pay the Romans 15,000 talents
of Attic silver. Thus ruined both as to his forces and his treasury, he
soon came to an unhappy end, as v. 19 indicates. — yzp , a chieftain,
anarthrous because it is not designed to specificate a particular individual.
— inai.n may be either active or passive, i. e. it may indicate the reproach
which one utters, or which is uttered against him, § 112. 2. The first is

340 Chap. IX. 19, 20.
the meaning here. When the Romans sent ambassadors to request Antio
chus to desist from his incursions, he treated them with haughtiness and
reproach, Polyb. XVIII. 34. The Roman chieftain not only put a stop to
this, but most effectually turned back the reproaches on Antiochus him
self, whose defeat and disgrace were almost without a parallel. —
ib . . . nia'an , stilled for him, brought to silence in respect to him. —
inba , besides, or besides that, Tax being implied after the particle, as it
often is ; see Lex. — Turn back on himself, i. e. Scipio not only reduced
the haughty and reproachful king to silence, but he brought him into dis
grace and contempt. Appian (de Reb. Syr. c. 37) says, that men were
wont to say of him : r/v paaiXeiig Jlvrioypg 6 ptyag, i. e. Antiochus the
Great was a king, ib , in this last case, is Dativus incommodi.
( 1 9 ) And he shall turn his face toward the strong holds of his country, and he shall
stumble, and fall, and shall no more be found.
After a pledge to pay such an enormous sum to the Romans, Antio
chus found no way to provide for it except by military exactions of trib
ute and presents from his subjects. He robbed even the temples, in
order to furnish the stipulated sum. He made an excursion for this pur
pose into the East, and undertook, by the aid of his soldiers, to plunder
by night the temple at Elymais in Persia. But the inhabitants rose en
masse, and destroyed both him and his soldiers. — i^sob refers to the
garrisoned places east of the Taurus, which Antiochus fortified partly
for defence and partly for the sake of giving power and energy to the
military exaction of tribute. His sudden and violent death is predicted by
the last clause : He shall stumble and fall, and shall no more be found.
(20) And there shall stand up, in his place, one who will make an exactor of tribute
to pass through the glory of the kingdom ; and after some time, he shall be destroyed,
but not by anger, nor yet by war.
Seleucus Philopator, the eldest son of Antiochus, succeeded him. The
tribute stipulated by his father was 1000 talents each year, for twelve
years. In order to pay this, the most rigid system of exacting money be
came necessary. Hence the exactor that passes through the glory of the
kingdom, i. e. Palestine ; for here is the same idea as in iaiin yyt. of v. 16.
Bertholdt makes "nn to mean the same as the Greek np-q, tribute,
honorary gift. But as there is no other example of this nature in the
Scriptures, and as another explanation is easy and obvious, there is no
need of such an interpretation. Palestine was regarded and spoken of by
the Hebrews as the most glorious of all countries. — Diinx D^a-a , af
ter some time, for a . before words of time, occasionally, indicates the close
of that time, Lex. a . A. 3. — DiQxa ¦&>• ,but not in anger, for the dual

Chap. XI. 21. 341
form is used in this tropical sense, because the nostrils are affected by
anger. What the speaker means, is that Seleucus would not be cut off
in a quarrel, where the passions were heated ; and not in war, i. e. not
in battle. He seems to have been poisoned by one of his courtiers, He
liodorus, who endeavored to usurp his place, but was speedily ejected
from it
(21) And there shall stand up in his place a despicable person, on whom they have
not put the splendor of dominion, and he shall come quietly, and lay hold upon the
kingdom by flattery.
The nja: is Antiochus Epiphanes, the brother of Philopator, and son
of Antiochus the Great, one of the most extraordinary characters ex
hibited on the pages of history. He was both avaricious and prodigal,
excessive in his indulgences and prone to violent passions, a compound of
the veriest folly and weakness in some respects, and of great cunning
and dexterity in some others, specially in regard to flattery. At one pe
riod of his reign, there was a prospect of his becoming quite powerful.
But reverses came upon him, and he died at last nearly as his father had
done before him, and on the like occasion. Indeed his extravagances
and follies and cruelty were so great, that his contemporaries gave him
the nickname of iniuavi;g (madman), instead of the title which he as
sumed, viz. imqavi;g (illustrious). This will explain the ground of the
characteristic in the text, n-a: . despicable. — ¦rrv . 3 plur. impers. =
pass, voice, so that we may translate thus : ihe splendor or dignity of do
minion icas not put upon him, viz. was not voluntarily given to him by
the Syrians. The regal dignity descended regularly, on the death of Se
leucus Philopator, to his son Demetrius Soter ; but Antiochus. then on
his return from Rome, (where he had been as a hostage given by Antio
chus Magnus, to secure the fulfilment of the treaty he had made with the
Romans), seized upon the kingdom in spite of Demetrius ; who had been
sent to Rome in the room of Antiochus. He was at Athens on his re
turn from Rome, when the news reached him of the death of Seleucus
Philopator. On his way thence to Antioch, he visited Eumenes and At
talus, kings of Pergamus, and by his cunning and flattery led them to
espouse his cause. Overawed by them the Syrians yielded peaceably to
the claims of Antiochus, although they did not voluntarily place him on
the throne. To this last circumstance '.£• "r: alludes. In like manner
nostra xa' , he shall come peaceably, alludes to his coming without the
tumult and alarm of war. Lengerke, and even Gesenius, translates n"ia
by inopinato i. e. suddenly, unexpectedly ; hut this seems rather an im
probable meaning here. It was doubtless known publicly, that Demetrius,
the lawful heir of the throne, had gone to Rome, as a hostage in the room
29*

342 Chap. XI. 22.
of Antiochus, and that the latter was on his return. Unexpectedly, then,
could hardly apply to his return. That there was no civil war and no
contests worth recording, on the occasion of his accession to the throne,
seems to be matter of fact. That part of the Syrians, who were opposed
to the usurper Heliodorus, would of course favor the claims of Antiochus.
They and the forces of Eumenes and Attalus, ready for action, would
naturally overawe the faction of the usurper ; and thus Antiochus
seated himself on the throne without any war, i. e. rijbttia . — Lay hold
upon the kingdom by flatteries, in which, as it would appear from history,
and from various declarations of this book, he exceeded most men. His
antagonists, and all the different partizans for Heliodorus, Demetrius,
and Ptolemy of Egypt, were, as it would seem, conciliated and won over
by such means.
(22) And overwhelming forces shall be overwhelmed before him, and be broken in
pieces, even a covenanted prince.
When Antiochus seated himself on the throne of Syria, Ptolemy Phi-
lometor, a minor, was on the throne of Egypt. The latter was the son of
Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus the Great, and sister of Antiochus Epi
phanes. The guardians of the young Philometor- demanded of Antio
chus Epiphanes, that he should give up Coelesyria and Palestine to
Egypt, inasmuch as Antiochus the Great had agreed, that these should be
a part of the dowry that would be given by him to his daughter Cleopa
tra, who was married to Ptolemy Epiphanes. Antiochus Epiphanes re
fused to make the required concession, and even denied that there was
any promise or obligation to make it. The Romans interfered between
the parties, for the purpose of conciliation, but in vain. The matter came
at last to active contest. In B. C. 171, Antiochus met the forces of the
Egyptian king, between Pelusium and the Casian mountain, and routed
them. In B. C. 170, the contest was again renewed, but with the like
results. Hence the declaration of the text : Overwhelming forces shall be
overwhelmed before him. — fiaian , lit. of overwhelming, employed to qualify
the preceding noun, § 104. 1; the article stands, as often, before the noun
as abstract, § 107. Note 1. c. — 'Haiail , lit. shall be shivered, being a word
that is sometimes employed to designate total or utter destruction, and
sometimes an entire frustration or overthrow of purposes or designs.
The imagery is borrowed from the dashing in pieces of an earthen ves
sel of pottery. — And even a covenanted Prince [shall be broken in pieces] ;
for laiai is unquestionably implied in this case. — ni*ia "ma , not the
high-priest, Onias, the prince of the Jewish covenant, as Rosenm. main
tains, for then niian would of course be employed, nina is designed for
a mere adjqptive of quality or condition here, and so the article is omit-

Chap. XI. 23, 24. 343
ted, as it more generally is in such cases. The design of the speaker is,
to render the description of overwhelming battle more intensive by add
ing the circumstance, that it was with a prince who had a covenant or
treaty of amity with the conquering king. — :;• implies accession, ad
vance, in description. For the like modes of expression, see Gen. 14: 13.
Neh. 6: 18. Obad. v. 7. If Rosenm. be in the right, the order of time
would be inverted, and a varagov ngorsgov must consequently be admit
ted in the course of the narration ; which is improbable.
(33) And from the time of connecting himself with him [or of joining himself to
him], he will practise deceit, and he will go up, and prevail with a small company.
Usually -,a drops the "j and is united with the following word, when
the latter has no article : but occasionally it is retained in some other cases,
e. g. in Ps. 18: 4, 49. 2 Sam. 22:14, Joel 1: 12. and so here. — r-vannn,
an Inf. nominascens of Hithp., constructed after the manner of Aramaean
Infinitives, i.e. with ni — added to the ground form. After the battle
near Pelusium, Antiochus made a league with Ptolemy, under pretence
of guarantying to him his kingly rights and claims ; his real object how
ever was, to get possession of all Egypt To do this peaceably, he took
with him only a small army, rightly suspecting that but little resistance
would be made to a force insignificant with regard to strength. He took
possession of Memphis, the old capital : thence he went with his fleet to
Naucratis, (at one of the mouths of the Nile), and afterward encamped, in
hostile attitude, before Alexandria. Here, as we shall see. his progress
was arrested. — ~br is often employed to designate a march to a country
with hostile designs. — i-» . not merely nation, but any body of people,
as soltiiers. servants, etc.
(24) Quietly shall he come upon the richest provinces, and he shall do what nei
ther his fathers, nor his fathers' fathers did. plunder and spoil, and wealth shall he
distribute to them, and against fortified places will he form devices, even unto a lim
ited time.
"bra is transferred to the preceding verse by Leng.. and Rosenm.
translates it a friendly land. There is no need of either expedient. The
word means a state of tranquillity. Joined with what follows, it seems
to show, that Antiochus contrived to come upon the richest provinces,
before their fears had disturbed them, or caused anv excitement anions
them. Perhaps the idea is simply ¦ with peaceable pretensions. ~:*~,
being of the singular, must be understood generically, = each province.
— Do what neither his fathers, etc.. hare done, i. e. take possession of a
whole country with a few soldiers and by crafty policy. — anb, to them,
to whom ? To the rich provinces, says Lengerke ; which is at least

344 Chap. XI. 25.
highly improbable. It was not his object to make the rich more rich.
Others take onb as the Dot. posses., indicating to whom the wealth, etc,
belonged ; in whieh case it should either have iiax before it, or else
stand before the nouns. Maurer : " Ad milites Antiochi referendum esse,
sole clarius ;" in which light it appears to me. iia of the preceding versa
is the true antecedent. — Form devices against fortified places ; it was
the richest places, those where plunder was to be had, that Antiochus
had thus far got within his grasp. The strongly fortified ones still held
out for Ptolemy. Against these Antiochus now formed designs. —
ns— is , designates a limited time ; for the speaker throughout keeps in
sight the decrees of Heaven, beyond which men cannot go.
(25) And he shall rouse up his force and his courage against the king of the South,
with a great army ; and the king of the South shall be roused up to contest with an
army great and very powerful, but he shall not stand, for they shall form devices
against him.
There is some difficulty here, as to the order of relation. Lehgerke
supposes vs. 23, 24, to mention what took place in 169 B. C, and that
v. 25 seq. is a resumption of what is said in v. 22, and an account of what
took place in 171, 170 B. C. In a war which was so often renewed, and
interrupted by pacificatory truces or leagues, and which continued for
several years, at least parts' of years, in succession, it is hardly to be
supposed that the speaker means minutely to arrange in order the chro
nology of events. The effort to get quiet possession of Egypt by employing
only a few soldiers, and thus not exciting any military alarm, as pre
sented in v. 23, is no contradiction to the great army mentioned in the
verse before us. The two passages are an account of what took place at
different times and under different circumstances. As the histories of
Antiochus are confessedly imperfect, instead of an effort to obtain from
them the exact order of events, (which is vain), I prefer following the
statement of the text ; and I regard v. 22 as a kind of summary introduc
tion to what follows. The preceding verse informs us, that Antiochus was
meditating designs against the fortified places of Egypt, i. e. to make a
military seizure of the whole kingdom. The present one shows that he
had determined to execute those designs. — ina , his force, i. e. his military
force ; or does it mean rousing up his own energy ? I incline to the latter,
because his army is mentioned at the end of the clause. It saves repetition.
iaab , his heart, i. e. courage to engage in the contest. — With a great
army, which of course is entirely a different case from the one above,
where he goes only iia asaa — n-isni , Hithp. of n^)S , to enter into contest,
or to rouse up, here in the latter sense, because of nanbsb . The article
in the latter word points to the warfare already indicated by the first

Chap. XI. 26—28. 345
clause. — He shall not stand, i. e. the king of the South, who is the agent
that next precedes. They shall form devices against him, where they
of course means an opposing party, or else, (which is the more probable),
the Syrians in connection with some of his own courtiers who were cor
rupted by bribes. The 3d plur. verb might therefore be rendered pas
sively : Devices shall be formed, etc The next verse seems plainly to
confirm this view of the matter.
(26) And those who eat of his own choice food shall crush him, and his army
shall rush impetuously on, and many shall fall down wounded.
Probably those who eat of his choice food means Lennaeus and Eulaeus,
the guardians and state-ministers of the young Ptolemy. — ?n?-aa" is to
be taken in a modified sense. His treacherous guardians did not literally
destroy him, but they ruined his purposes or designs as to opposing An
tiochus. — His army, i. e. that of Ptolemy, who is the nearest agent
named. — r-a^ji , rush on like a flood, i. e. madly, or impetuously, to
danger or ruin. So in Jer. 8: 6, in respect to the horse which rushes
impetuously and inconsiderately into the battle, not to victory as the
context shows, but to destruction. So in the present case. The sequel
of the verse shows the consequence of their impetuous rushing. — c-bbn
of itself means nothing more than wounded, but in connection with -bEJ
it designates mortally wounded.
(2T) As to those two kings, their intention is to do mischief; at one table do they
utter falsehood. But it will not succeed, for the end is still at the appointed time.
Dni:a" , Ut and the two of them = they two ; after which follows the
explanatory D"ban , being put in apposition. Both are in the Nom. abs.,
and so are they translated above. — s~a , derivate of ss~ , a kind of Inf.
noun, (like the Aramaean Inf.), see § 84. H. 14. We might translate
for the doing of evil. Final Qamets because of the pause-accent — At
one table designates the dissembled amity and intimacy of the parties,
who did and said all that they could in order to mislead each other. —
H will not succeed, nbsn xbi, fem. impersonal = there shall not be
success, namely, to the falsehood which they utter. Qamets in pause.
The reason of failure follows. The end, viz. of the contest in which they
are engaged, is not to be brought about by their wishes, devices, or de
ceit, but Providence has a "is'a for it, i. e. an appointed or determined
time, which all their craftiness cannot change. As a recognized time it
takes the article. Here, as throughout, the hand of an overruling power
is distinctly recognized.
(23) And he shall return to his land with great wealth; and his mind shall be

346 Chap. XI. 29, 30.
against the holy covenant, and he shall accomplish [his purpose], and shall return
to his land.
As to the spoils or wealth which Antiochus carried back to Syria, see
I Mace 1: 19 seq., tXafie rd axvXa rijg Aiyinrov. — m'p ni'ia bs, lit.
against the covenant of holiness. We might, perhaps, expect la'ipn , just
as we have iaan lnx in v. 16. But first, abstract nouns are continually
varying in respect to the insertion or omission of the article ; and secondly,
laVpn would naturally designate the holy place, which is not the design
of the speaker. Holiness is a quality here, which maizes an adjective for
ni'ia, § 104. 1. The holy covenant here stands for the people who have
entered into that covenant, i. e. the Hebrews. For an account of the
hostile visit of Antiochus to Jerusalem, see 1 Mace 1: 20 seq.
(29) At the appointed time shall he again invade the South ; but the latter time
shall not be like the former.
The isia here is probably the same which is mentioned in v. 27 ;
hence the article. When the time to bring the controversy between the
two kings to an end shall come, he will invade, etc. — a to J merely de
notes repetition here of the action designated by the verb that follows ;
see Lex. — iai ninn xbl , lit. but it shall not be, as at the first so at the
last. In the version above, I have abbreviated the mode of expression,
in conformity with our idiom. The two fem. nouns, or rather adjectives,
MSiinx and nTOX1! , are therefore the Ace of time. We have no need,
then, with Lengerke, to account for the omission of a before them. The
meaning is, that Antiochus shall no more be successful, as in former
times. (30) And there shall come against him the ships of Chittim, and he shall be dis
heartened, and he shall return, and rage against the holy covenant, and accomplish
[his purpose] ; and again shall he have an understanding with those who forsake
the holy covenant.
D113 , ships ; Dire , properly Ohittaei, i. e. inhabitants of Citium, the
capital of Cyprus. Hence the word sometimes stands for the island
itself, and sometimes (like Diix) for the sea-coast countries, or the West
generally. Josephus (Antiq. 1. 6. 1) says: "All the islands, and most
of the maritime coasts, are named XsSlp (Dins) by the Hebrews.'' In
respect to this last contest of Antiochus with Egypt, the two brothers
there, Ptolemy Philometor and Euergetes, both suspecting and fearing
Antiochus, agreed on a joint-sovereignty, and a union against him.
They sent for help to Rome ; and when the consul Aemilius Paulus had
finally conquered Macedonia then under Perseus, the Romans dispatched
the Macedonian fleet to Alexandria, with three ambassadors to Anti-

Chap. XI. 31. 347
ochus, in order to enjoin peace. Caius Popilius, who was the head of
the embassy, with his colleagues, met Antiochus near Alexandria, and
tendered to him, before salutation, the decree of the Roman Senate,
which enjoined upon him to desist and return. Antiochus took and read
it, and replied, that he would consult with his friends what he should do.
Popilius then drew a circle around him in the sand, with his staff, and
told him that he must give a final answer, before he left that circle.
Antiochus astonished and intimidated, assented to the Romish decree,
and bound himself to obedience. Popilius, who, although familiar with
Antiochus while he was at Rome as a hostage, had before refused to give
him his hand, now courteously saluted him, as did also his colleagues.
No wonder that he went back enraged, as our text declares. For some
reason he owed the Jews a peculiar grudge ; he, therefore, on his way
home, sent a detachment to pillage Jerusalem under Apollonius. The
excesses which they committed, are related in 1 Mace. 1: 30 seq. —
virip ni"ia as in v. 28. — nias has an implied complement in the meaning
of ,the preceding DSt , i. e. he carried out or executed the promptings of
his anger, or isis'i may be supplied, (as in the version), which comes to
the same thing. — aiai. , before "la^i , seems to mean again. A return to
Syria would here be inapposite. To have an understanding, etc., again,
implies a former transaction of a similar nature ; and this is mentioned
in v. 28. — mia iais designates apostates from Judaism, see vs. 32, 33,
also 9: 27, and 1 Mace. 1: 11 seq. A considerable party from the first,
had labored to introduce heathenism. In v. 32 they are called isna'ia
niia very significantly, i. e. apostates from the covenant.
(31) And forces from him shall stand up, and they shall profane the sanctuary,
the strong place, and they shall remove the perpetual offering, and set up the abomi
nation that maketh desolate.
>i3Ma ,from him, refers to the detachment mentioned above, under Apol
lonius. liasi designates the taking of a position ready for active effort,
in opposition to sitting which is the attitude of quiet and remission.
1 Mace. i. gives a full account of all the shocking deeds of Antiochus.
— tisan , the stronghold, should be compared with niaa high-places, so
often designated as the locality of temples. There was a fort and a gar
rison attached to the temple-grounds ; and this Antiochus took possession
of. Hence the strong-hold. It is doubtless mentioned, because of the
peculiar annoyance which this enabled the tyrant to give to the temple-
service and the worshippers. So 1 Mace. 1: 37, "And they shed inno
cent blood round about the sanctuary, and they defiled the sanctuary."
— Remove the perpetual offering; comp. 8: 11, 13. 9: 27. 12: 11; and

348 Chap. XI. 32.
for the facts, see 1 Mace. 1: 45 seq. — Daiaa 'pjBiBri, I take in substan
tially the same sense as in the controverted Dailia bijMjBttJ tg3 bs in 9:
27. But in this last passage, the plural designates idol-abominations,
and serves merely as an adjective to tffa , while oatoa , the desolator,
probably designates the image of Jupiter Olympius, which stood over
the eagle with out-spread wings at its feet In the passage before us,
yapian means, as I apprehend, the abomination or abominable idol, i. e.
the image of Jupiter, which, being placed near the altar on which sacri
fices to that heathen divinity were offered, made the sanctuary desolate,
as to all true worshippers and legal sacrifices and rites. None but apos
tate Jews would frequent such a place. See the graphic history of this,
in 1 Mace. 1: 37 seq. The article is here appropriately employed, in
asmuch as 8: 13 and 9: 27 had already made the reader familiar with
the abomination now adverted to. What is ascribed to 'ppusn here is,
in 9: 27, ascribed to the bird of abominations in connection with the image
standing over it. The article might be employed before Dailia , because
it is a renewed mention of the word ; but if the speaker meant not so
much to point out here an individual image to which this name was
appropriately and peculiarly given, as to designate the kind of quality it
possessed, or agency which belonged to it, i. e. the causing of desolations,
the article might well be omitted. To translate by the abomination of
the desolator, i. e. of Antiochus, is out of question ; for the construct state
does not admit the article before it. The law in respect to the participles
having the article prefixed, is not equally stringent. If however nax be
supplied, (and in cases almost without number it is merely implied and
not expressed), then Daiiia without the article would be the normal con
struction, inasmuch as the word is then a predicate of a relative clause.
(32) And the violators of covenant shall he render impious by flatteries ; but the
people who know their God shall wax strong and do prosperously.
niia isnaia , transgressors or violators of covenant ; what covenant ?
If simply the holy covenant were intended here, should we not have
tai'p niia , as above in vs. 28, 30 ? Or, at all events, as it would seem,
niian , that is, with the article appended. But as we have neither of
these, we may presume that the speaker meant to be understood in a
generic way, without nicely defining the whole class as such ; which last
would also demand the article between the two words. I take the mean
ing to be covenant-violators, where the word covenant designates a quality
or rather characteristic of the isnaia . We say familiarly, covenanf-
breakers ; and so the Hebrews. As these, however, are here placed in
contrast with "PfJ'bx psii in the sequel, it must include the violators of

Chap. XI. 33, 34. 349
the holy covenant. But the expression would seem not to be limited
merely to the holy covenant, but, inasmuch as the apostate Jews who
joined with Antiochus, not only broke the covenant of the Hebrews,
but also the covenant with Egypt, which had been in existence more
than a century, it designates this characteristic also. Hence the omission
of the article in order to give latitude to the expression. Comp. lijj
niia , in v. 22 above. — Antiochus flattered, as usual, the Jewish party
who favored him, and thus prepared them for all the impieties of the
heathen, t)i?ni. — "nn'bx with sing, suff., because it relates toDS. I
have translated it by the plural, because its antecedent is a noun of mul
titude. By those who know God is meant Mattathias and his party, as
described in 1 Mace. ii. ; who resisted the decrees of Antiochus with
success, for awhile, and were joined by many of the pious Jews. — TOsi
denotes the success which attended their first efforts, the verb, as usual
in this book, being a constructio praegnans. — ^ptni designates the acces
sions that were made, and the strength thus acquired by the party of
the pious.
(33) And the wise of the people will give instruction to many, but they shall fall
by sword, and by flame, by exile, and by plunder, for some time.
The wise of the people here means those who are intelligent in matters
of religion. Wisdom, in the scriptural idiom, often means the true know
ledge of God. — Diaib , with the article, the many, has reference to the
strength of the party (which implies considerable numbers) who are
said to know God, in v. 32 ; or it may mean the mass of the people, the
ol noXXoi. Mattathias and his sons used great efforts to enlighten those,
who attached themselves to the cause which they espoused. Persecution
of course followed, on the part of Antiochus, in all the various ways here
mentioned. — aina without the article, and so of the following nouns.
In such cases, usage is divided between admitting and rejecting it 
Diai , as before, a moderate undefined period of time.
(34) And when they shall fall, they will be aided by a little help, and many will
join themselves to them with flattering pretences.
When persecution was going on with severity, a spirit of opposition
to it was of course awakened among the people, and many were moved
to join the party of Judas Maccabaeus and his brethren. But among
these were not a few who acted hypocritically, desirous of saving their
credit as zealous Jews, but ready to desert when danger pressed hard
upon them. Mattathias punished severely the apostate Jews (1 Mace
2: 44), as did also Judas (1 Mace 3: 5 — 8) ; and of course many through
30

350 Chap. XI. 35—37.
fear would dissemble before them, who still would not abide by them in
the hour of trial.
(35) And some of the wise shall fall, to make trial of them, to purify, and to
cleanse, unto the time of the end ; for it will yet be at the appointed time.
•ja partitive, as often before = some of. In the three verbs in the
Inf., there is a gradation of meaning, qiis is properly applied to the
smelting of silver ore ; lia to purifying it from the dross ; and ^abb
(Hiph. for labnb) to whitening the metal and freeing it from all specks.
The tropical meaning is obvious. — Dna , who ? the wise, or the Dial ? It
seems to me that the nature of the case decides for the latter. Here is
a large accession to the party of the pious. Some of them are hypocrites.
Persecution puts them to the test. Such among them as are true-hearted,
are purified and shine brighter ; such as are not, become known by their
shrinking from trials. — lia Inf. Piel. — Time of the end means the end
of Antiochus' reign or life. The end, however, is not to come immedi
ately after the success of the pious party, alluded to in vs. 33, 34 ; but
still, it will come at a time appointed (isia) by an overruling Provi
dence. The pious may be assured, that the evils in question will not
go beyond this set time.
(36) And the king shall do according to his will, and he will exalt and magnify
himself above every god ; and against the God of gods will he speak wonderfully ;
and he will prosper until the indignation is completed, for that which is decreed will
surely be done.
The king is of course Antiochus, pointed out in the preceding con
text. The next verse shows that he had no regard to his country's
gods; and his whole course of life, his plundering the temple at Jerusa
lem, and finally in Elymais, show the reckless and impious character of
the tyrant. — The God of gods is the supreme God, i. e. Jehovah. How
striking the traits of Antiochus as to haughtiness and blasphemy were,
may be seen by comparing 7: 8, 11, 25. 8: 25. — nixbsi , participial plur.
fem. used adverbially, § 98. 2. c. Wonder or surprise, arising from the
singularity or strangeness of any thing, are expressed by this Hebrew
word. — nniasa , Niph. Praet., thus indicating the certainty of the event
decreed, § 124. 4. — The accomplishment of indignation means the in
dignation of God against the apostatizing and heathenish Jews.
(37) To the gods of his fathers will he have no respect, nor to the delight of
women ; to no god will he have any respect, but he will magnify himself above
all. ¦pai , when it means attend to or pay regard to anything, may take

Chap. XI. 37. 351
bx or bs after it, which, specially in the later Hebrew, are often coin
cident in meaning. See Lex. under Kal of 'pa . The intimation here
given, of disregarding the gods of his fathers, shows that the previous
Grecian kings of Syria had adopted the gods of the Syrian nation ;
while Antiochus, who had lived some years at Rome, had learned to
despise the Syrian gods, and to prefer the Jupiter Olympius and Xenios
of the Romans and Greeks. The establishment at Jerusalem of the
worship of the first, and at Samaria of the second, shows that Antiochus
was ambitious at times of imitating the Greeks and Romans. That he
did not regard the Syrian gods, seems to be implied in 1 Mace 1: 41
seq., where it is said, that " Antiochus wrote to all his kingdom, that
they should be one people ; and that each one should forsake its cus
toms," in order to accomplish this. The passage has a special respect to
religion. — Di'as nian , in this connection, where the objects of religious
veneration or contempt are spoken of, very clearly seems to mean the
famous goddess of the Syrians, Astarte or Ashtoreth. Both names come
from the old Persian s.ljCgu (start) the fem. form of the word star or
estai-= our English star, and are only different modes of pronouncing the
same word. This female deity, under different names, was worshipped in
Africa, Syria, Phenicia, Cyprus, Greece, Rome, Babylonia, Persia, and
some other countries. The Mylitta (= Heb. nibia , generatrix) of the East
was the Venus of the West, the Neith of Egypt, the Astarte of the Syri
ans, the Anais or Anaitis of the Armenians ; all uniting in the worship
of the power who represented maternal productiveness. In different coun
tries, some of the rites were different ; but there seems to have been an
extensive agreement, in the shocking practice of obliging every virgin
to sacrifice her chastity, as the most acceptable offering to such a god
dess. Herodotus speaks with disgust of this, as practised at Babylon,
1. 199. In Syriac the name is written .-v; A wv , i. e. Minos . By
turning to Jer. 7: 18. 44: 17, 18, 19, 25, the reader may see with
what eagerness the Heb. women engaged in the worship of this queen
of heaven, as the goddess is there called. The King of heaven was
Baal = the sun. Syria seems to have first brought forward this di
vinity ; at least, if we may pay any deference to the account given by
Ctesias. We may well suppose, therefore, that the worship of it was
zealously kept up there. Antiochus, it seems, paid little or no regard
to this idol, viz. Astarte. Near the close of his life, he made an effort
to plunder the temple of this same goddess (Anaitis) in Elymais, but
w-as repelled by a rising of the people en masse, and forced to fly in
disgrace, soon after which he died. In 1 Mace 6: 1 — 4 is an account of

352 Chap. XI. 38, 39.
this expedition; and in 2 Mace. 1: 13 — 16 is another account, in which
the goddess in question is called Navaia, (an appellative formed, as it
seems to me, from Anaitis by vulgar pronunciation.) All these facts
seem to make clear this much contested phrase, Duas Man . The de
scription is progressive ; Antiochus not only despised the common gods
of the Syrians, but even that divinity which most of all was worshipped
by them, specially by females.
The third clause : To no God will he have any respect, is designed
to go beyond either of the preceding declarations, which only show
that Antiochus paid no regard to any of the national Syrian gods.
The third clause asserts that the same was true in respect to all other
gods. That he set up the worship of Jupiter Olympius at Jerusalem,
and of Jupiter Xenios at Samaria, and began to build a most mag
nificent temple to Jupiter Olympius at Athens, and promised to build
one to Jupiter Capitolinus in Antioch (Liv. XLI. 20), only shows his
foolish ambition to imitate the Romans, and perhaps to surpass them
in their own way. It still remained true, as the last clause declares,
that he magnified himself above every [god.]
(38) But to the god of strong holds upon his pedestal, will he render honor, even
to the god whom his fathers knew not will he render honor, with gold, and silver, and
precious stones, and costly things.
Ditsa , not a proper name, (Theodotion Vulg. Luther), but a noun
of quality which serves as an adjective to the preceding noun. The
god of strong holds is the god who has power over them ; and as it is
plain, from a comparison of the preceding verse, that Antiochus over
looked his country's gods, and consequently that the deity now in question
must be some foreign war-god unknown to the Syrians, it is altogether
probable that Jupiter Capitolinus is meant ; for to him did he under
take to build a temple at Antioch, adorned with every species of
expensive ornaments. — iai anta, all four nouns that follow are anar
throus, although the names of substances more usually have the article,
§ 107, 3. Rem. 1. b. But in such cases practice varies. For the sake
of show, the Syrian tyrant most lavishly squandered his money in the
building and adornment of temples.
(39) And he shall do (his will) in respect to fenced strong-holds with a strange
god ; whoever shall acknowledge he will greatly honor, and he will make them to
rule over many, and land will he distribute as a reward.
A difficult verse, which has occasioned many discrepant interpre
tations. Lengerke makes the fenced strong-holds to mean temples, and
the sentiment to be, that the tyrant will do for temples and their foreign

Chap. XI. 39. 853
gods the same thing that v. 38 says he will do in respect to the god of
strong-holds, i. e. he will bestow many liberal presents upon them ; a
very improbable thing, except in a case where his vanity was concerned,
as in the case of building a temple for Jupiter at Athens. Then this
critic is obliged to supply na (so) before niUS , which here seems to be
a forced construction. Continually in this book, as we have already
seen, atfd specially in chap, xi., wo have ntos in tho sense of effecting or
accomplishing one's wishes or designs; and this, in cases where no
noun follows the verb. Occasionally 1331 follows ; and this discloses
the true filling up or complement of the brachylogical nias . I take the
word in the same sense here. An ellipsis of so (na) cannot be ren
dered probable by like examples. Maurer interprets thus :" And so
shall he do to fortified holds with a strange god, i. e. he will enforce
upon them the worship of Jupiter Capitolinus." The so is here to be
supplied by the reader ; but it is too important a word to be omitted.
I understand the declaration to be, that, since Antiochus exalts pecu
liarly the god of strong-holds, he does this because of his success in
attacking such places. The strange god here mentioned means a god
which differs from that of Antiochus, or at least from the Syrian gods ;
in other words, he will conquer the fortified strong-holds of foreigners
who worship a god different from his. Then follows 1131 iiax (as the
Qeri reads), i. e. whoever acknowledges him, his sway, or perhaps his
war-god, shall recieve much honor. 1131 is used absolutely in 2 Sam.
3: .'!6. Ps. 142: 5. We might render, in accordance with the Hebrew,
makes acknowledgment. That he often liberally rewarded those who
attached themselves to his cause, there is no doubt. That he bestowed
the government of provinces or cities on leading men of this character,
there can be no good ground to doubt. Diaia with the article, as
twice before, meaning oi nXsiovsg, or the mass of people within any
particular limits. That an apportionment of land is mentioned in the
next clause, is explained by his directions to Lysias, one of his generals,
to root out Israel, and divide their lands among his friends, 1 Mace 3:
32 — 36. That his adherents wore to be thus rewarded, seems to have
resulted from the poverty of his treasury at the time of making this
arrangement; which is related in 1 Mace 3: 29.
The clause with a strange god is not mainly designed for the de
scription of a foreign strong-hold, but, while it imports this, DS is em
ployed to show that the strange god is included with the strong-holds, in
regard to being within the grasp of Antiochus. Both fortified place
and strange god are subject to his pleasure; see Lex. ns, 1. <?., which
explains the word by communio sortis. — T^naa , as a reward, or in the
30*

354 Chap. XI. 40.
way of reward; for the meaning of the noun, comp. Mie 3: 11. Deut.
23: 19. For a before a word indicating price, reward, see Lex. B. 9.
Our mode of expressing the idea, I have given in the version above.
(40) And at the time of the end, the King of the South shall make war with
him, and the King of the North shall rush forth like a storm against him, with
-chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships, and he shall march into coun
tries, and shall overwhelm and pass onward.
All history, says Lengerke, is silent respecting this last war of Antio
chus, nor was he able to command the money and the forces to carry it
on, specially in the face of the Romans who had forbidden him to in
termeddle- with Egypt. To the like purpose Maurer; and most of the
earlier commentators assign vs. 40 — 43 to the category of recapitu
lation. They suppose a general summary of the whole of Antiochus'
reign to be here introduced, before the conclusion of his history. This
is not impossible, inasmuch as v. 29 seq. seems to repeat what had
been said in v. 24. But I must regard it as very improbable. The
repetition at so much length here of events so minutely related as the
preceding, is at least inopportune, and not often the manner of the
author. Lengerke asserts the entire improbability of another and
fourth invasion of Egypt and Palestine, on the ground that Antiochus
was too weak and too poor to collect forces enough to carry on such a
war with success. But 1 Mace 1: 27 seq. shows us, that after An^
tiochus had heard of the notable defeat by Judas of his general, Seron,
" he was enraged, and gathered together all the forces of his Kingdom
nageufiaXqv laxvgdv acpoSga, an exceedingly great encampment." These
he paid profusely, while in an attitude of preparation for active service,
and thus exhausted his treasury, 1 Mace 1: 28, 29. To Lysias, his
general, he left one half of his troops (1 Mace 1: 34), which
amounted to 47,000 (v. 39), with orders to subdue and partition out
Palestine, (vs. 35, 36). Weak, then, Antiochus was not, at that time.
It is indeed true, that neither Appian, nor Polybius, nor Justin, nor
Livy, nor Josephus, have given us any particulars about this latest
war of Antiochus ; but who that has read their Syrian histories, does
not know that mere summaries, scraps, and fragments, are all that re
main of these writers in respect to Antiochus ? Josephus depends on
1 Mace ; and this is .mainly confined to the exploits of Judas and his
brethren. Rosenmueller very appositely remarks : " Caremus omnino
integra aliqua et continua de rebus Antiochi narratione, quae a suae
aetatis scriptore aliquo fide digno Uteris sit mandat." The argumentum
a silentio, specially in respect to ancient history, is far from being cogent

Chap. XI. 41. 355
and satisfactory. On the other hand, the accuracy of the statements in
the book of Daniel, respecting the domain of Alexander's successors,
is on all hands admitted in other cases. Here it has narrated the
events of an expedition in vs. 40 — 43, with its usual minuteness, and
apparently in regular order. Why should this testimony be rejected ?
Nor does it stand alone. Jerome refers to Porphyry, who wrote against
' the book of Daniel, as saying with respect to vs. 40 — 43, that they
relate to the last war of Antiochus, near the close of his life. Jerome's
words run thus : " These things Porphyry refers to Antiochus, because
(quod) he fought, in the eleventh year of his reign, against Ptolemy
Philometor, his sister's son, who having intelligence that Antiochus
was coming, collected many thousands of troops. But Antiochus, like a
mighty tempest, with chariots, and horsemen, and a numerous fleet,
entered many countries, and laid waste every thing as he passed along ;
and he came to Judea, and fortified a tower there from the ruins of
the city walls, and then proceeded to Egypt." Let it be remembered,
that Jerome does not say a word to contradict this statement, although it
made for his favorite object to do so if he could, inasmuch as he might
then refer the passage to his favorite Antichrist. I do not see why the
testimony of the book before us, the full confirmation of it by Por
phyry, and the apparently consenting attitude of Jerome, do not place
the matter before us fairly out of the reach of destructive criticism.
The time of the end is here, as repeatedly before, the time in which
the reign of the tyrant was to come to its end. It need not be limited
to a few days, or even months, but cannot reasonably be extended to a
period far back from the death of Antiochus. — nsonn , lit. thrust at,
borrowed from the action of horned beasts in their contests. Tropically,
to attack, make war upon. — isntail , Hithp. of isia , with transposed io.
It is a very expressive word, isia meaning tempest, storm, niijxai ,
read u-bho-°niy-yoth, for there is no article here, (both the preced
ing nouns are anarthrous), but a is a prep, and conforms its punct
uation to the Hateph Qamets that follows, § 28, 2. § 9, also p. 35
note 2. The ships belonged to the Syrian fleet. — a xa , march into,
invade. — nixixa , i. e. divers countries under Egyptian sway, in Coele-
syria and Palestine. Shall overwhelm and pass onward, an image
borrowed from the overflowing of a mighty stream, which sweeps away
every thing opposed to it.
(41) And he shall march into the goodly land, and many shall fall, but these
shall be delivered from his hand, Edom, and Moab, and the chief part of the sons
Of Ammon.
iaan pii$,seeon8: 9. 11: 16. — niai plur. fem. taken substantively, =

356 Chap. XI. 41.
multitudes. The masc. verb that follows is simply constructio ad sensum,
inasmuch as multitudes of men are meant. — ibiaai does not here so much
import excision as defeat, subjugation. It would seem, therefore, that this
last invasion of Palestine, by Antiochus, was not of so severe and bloody
a character as his former ones. The reason is obvious. The country
was mainly subdued, and held in slavish subjection under his oppressive
military government, and he had a large party of heathenish Jews in his
favor from mercenary and other considerations. The few that still
resisted were overborne and prostrated. In the great battle with
Gorgias (1 Mace iv. B. C. 165), Judas had but 3000 men, and these but
ill equipped, 1 Mace 4: 6. The last invasion of Antiochus, therefore,
is merely touched here, but not dwelt upon, because its effects could not
well be compared with those of former invasions. Edom, and Moah,
and the chief part of the sons of Ammon, dwelt in the south, and
south-east of Palestine, and out of the range of Antiochus' direct
march to Egypt But why are they noted here ? The implication
seems to be, that they then belonged to the domain of Egypt, and would
naturally have been overrun and subjugated by Antiochus, had they
been within the line of his march. The nisix , some countries, of the
preceding verse, designates those countries subject to Egypt, through
which the Syrian invader passed on his march into that country. There
seems to be another implication, also, in what is here said, viz. that
Antiochus, in his former victorious expeditions, had taken possession
of those countries, through which, on the present occasion, he did not
march. We can hardly see any motive for particularizing the countries
in question, unless these circumstances were as they are here supposed
to be. The countries of themselves were of little significance in the
time of Antiochus. But if the speaker, on this occasion, is describing
an invasion by Antiochus later than the others and different from them,
and has added this apparently minute circumstance which we are now
considering, in order to specificate and make a distinction, then all is
not only plain but also significant. Evidence of the attention of critics
to these circumstances, I have not indeed been able to find ; but to my
own mind they appear to be important to the explanation of the text.
How else can we account for such a mention of the petty nations in
question ? And indeed, as Moab was no more a nation at the actual
time of Antiochus, how could a writer of the book of Daniel, living
(as the Liberalists will have it) after the death of Antiochus, have
thought of inserting Moab here ? If he did, it was from a set purpose
to mislead his readers respecting the time in which he lived. This
however does not accord with the views respecting him, which even

Chap. XI. 42—44. 357
Lengerke professes to entertain, Einl. z. Comm. s. LXXXV. seq. The
sketch before us exhibits one of those minute touches, which seem to
point to the hand that must have drawn it. — nuzixi does not mean the
better part in the sense of larger portion (Rosenm.), but the chief part
in the sense of the leading or predominant part.
(42) And he shall thrust forth his hand against several countries, and the land of
Egypt shall not escape.
nisix , some or several countries ; like Diai , some time. These, from
the order in which they are mentioned, are different from those in v. 40,
and probably are those countries lying on the eastern border of Egypt,
through which Antiochus would pass in his line of march. — Diisa, as
a country, takes the fem. verb sing, after it. That the invasion of Egypt
was an actual and a successful one for a time, seems to be indicated by
the next verse.
(43) And he shall rule over the treasures of gold and silver, and over all the costly
things of Egypt, and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall wait on his footsteps.
The treasures of Egypt were doubtless what he was in quest of, for he
was now straitened in respect to money; comp. 1 Mace 3: 29. — antn
iai with the article, as is the more common usage before the names of
substances, § 107. 3. Remarks, b. — The Libyans on the northwest, and
the Ethiopians on the South of Egypt were attached to the Ptolemaean
dynasty ; comp. Ezek. 30: 5. The possession of Egypt gave Antiochus
dominion over those countries. — Tisxaa , lit. [shall be] in his steps, i. e.
shall follow on after him as their leader.
(44) And with tidings from the East and from the North shall they disturb him,
and he shall march forth in great wrath to destroy and to lay waste many.
While Antiochus was in the attitude of inflicting a final blow upon
Judea, tidings reached him, that the Parthians in the East, and the Ar
menians in the North, had rebelled and refused to pay tribute ; Tacit.
V. 8. Appian. e 45. 1 Mace 3: 37. Armenia he soon subdued, and
marching thence to Elymais, in order to replenish his treasury by rob
bing temples, he there met with a signal repulse, that was soon followed
by his death. — As to nisaia , fem. plur., it seems to be associated with
a verb plur. masculine. Lengerke here accuses the writer of negligence.
Does he not know, that the Hebrew is susceptible of another translation
than that which he gives it ? What difficulty in making the noun the
Ace of instrumentality, and translating thus : With [evil] tidings shall
they terrify or agitate him, the verb being the third pers. plur. with the

358 Chap. XII. 1.
indef. Nom. ? I apprehend the true pointing however, to be inbnai ,
i. e. it is a verb singular = one shall terrify him = he shall be terrified.
(45) And he shall plant his lofty regal tent between the sea and the holy and beau
tiful mountain, and he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.
¦jisx , like the Arab, padan, means lofty palace ; suff. form iilQX .
What the text means is, that the tent of Antiochus was a splendid struc
ture, like that of a palace, made lofty as the rallying point of the whole
army. — Difii , lit. seas, but the plural of nouns designating great and
extensive masses, is often employed in preference to the singular, § 106.
2. a. The Mediterranean sea I take to be meant here. — The usual
construction, b . . . 'ja is here employed, as marking the intermediate
ground between two objects ; see Lex. b. A. 2. — Beautiful holy moun
tain is so named, because that mountain is meant on which the holy tem
ple was built, uiip as taking the place of an adjective, does not well
admit the [article, [since of itself it merely marks here an abstract quality.
Omission of the article before pure abstracts, is the predominant, but not
exclusive, usage in Hebrew.
The fearful end of Antiochus is again predicted, as in 7: 26. 8: 25. 9:
27. But why is the mention of Antiochus' encampment between the
Mediterranean and Jerusalem here brought again to view, after the
speaker had already followed him to the East ? For the purpose of im
pression, I should say, rather than from any necessity of the case. ' Look
at the contrast,' (the speaker would seem to say) ; ' now, Antiochus en
camps in his lofty tent like a palace, meditating the overthrow of the holy
city and temple ; next, we see him in disgrace — and even in the agonies
of death, stricken by an invisible and an irresistible hand.' The interest
with which a Hebrew would survey this picture, may be imagined, but
cannot well be described.

CHAPTER XII.
[Nothing can be plainer, than that the beginning of this chapter belongs to the
prophecy which precedes. It is not only a continuation of the address of the same
speaker, but evidently a sequel of the same subject. The division, if made at all,
should have been made at the end of 12: 3.]
(1) And at the same time, Michael, the great prince who protects the sons of thy
people, shall stand up, and there shall be a time of distress which never was since tho
existence of any nation until that period ; and at that time thy people shall be de
livered, every one whose name is found written in the book [of the living].
xmn nsa^ cannot well be made to mean either at some future time, or
at some [indefinite] time. Xinn means that, that same ; and when the

Chap. XLL 1. 3*9
question is asked : The same as what ? the answer of course must be :
The same which the preceding context has already indicated. Haver-
niek's labored arguments to show that a Messianic period, i. e. either
before the first or second period of Christ's yet future coming, is meant,
have failed to make any convincing impression upon my mind, because I
cannot abandon the plain meaning of the words, and accept of a conjec
tural interpretation in the room of it. Nor. when he refers to Theodoret,
Calov, Cocceius, L'Empereur, Geier, and Roos. as being of the same
opinion, does this satisfy me. These interpreters applied the preceding
chapter, at least the latter portion of it, to Antichrist instead of Antiochus.
and therefore, consistently with their views, they interpreted the passage
before us in a corresponding manner. Not finding it exegetieally possible
for me to take the same course, I cannot follow them in relation to
x-~ rra . The appeal to Matt. 24: 21. 22. by Havernick, gives as little
satisfaction as the preceding view, notwithstandins he calls it entscheidend
(decisive). It remains yet to be shown, that this passage does not apply
merely to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Hoffman (Wiir-
dig. etc. s. 313) finds fault with the exegesis which Havernick and
others of the like opinion suggest ; but he has substituted another in its
room, which seems, at least to me, to be no better. He refers X"" rra
first to the period of Antiochus' death ; and then immediately proceeds
to say. that what follows refers to a period at the close of the history of
nations, i. e. to a time of trouble and distress which shall come at a dis
tant period upon all nations, while the Jews shall be defended and de
livered by their guardian angeL Are the Jews then to be a separate
people to the end of time ? And this too, after Paul has decided that un
der the gospel - there is neither Jew nor Greek." that " there is one and
the same God of the Jew and of the_ Gentile" and also that "they who
are of the faith, [whether Jews or Gentiles], are the children of Abra
ham,'7 and Israelites in the true and highest sense. The idea is inconsistent
with that of a truly Messianic period. Besides, if we closely connect (as
we must) v. 1 with its first clause, how can the phrase at that time fail to
designate the time when the events there described will take place?
But how are they to take place near the time when Antiochus died, and
yet take place near the end of the world ? There is an utter inconsistency
in this. With Maurer, then, and Rosenmuller, I follow the simple
grammatical interpretation; and that can have but one meaning, i.e.
that time means the same period mentioned in the preceding context,
and this is the time at or near the close of the reign of Antiochus. —
Michael your great prince ; this angel has already been brought to view
in 10: 21. The epithet great seems to import one of the rank of dg%-

360 Chap. XII. 2.
dyytXog, i. e. an angel of superior rank or dignity. — bs las; , stand over,
designates an attitude of defending that over which one stands ; or, which
is equivalent, a guardianship over any person or thing. Hence the
whole phrase amounts simply to Michael, your guardian archangel. The
meaning is, that when all the distresses come upon the nation that will
take place near the period of Antiochus' death, (for Xinn nsa is not a
strictly definite or limited period, although it cannot extend farther back
than the context allows), then will Michael interpose and deliver the
Jewish people, at least all of them who shall not have been destroyed
by previous oppression and persecution. — nninj means somewhat more
than simply was. It appears like the passive of a Hiphil = was caused
to be, i. e. took place, happened. — niina , since the being of, Inf. nominasc
in the const, state. < — The repetition of the words at that time before the
last clause, gives definitiveness to the expression, making it more spe
cific. — Not all of the Jews are to escape, for many will fall martyrs to
the cause. That the expression here is strong, and even hyperbolic, is clear.
Yet how many hundreds are like it, in the Scriptures and in all oriental
writings ! — But all who are found to be recorded in the book [of the liv
ing], will be saved by the interposition of Michael. — l|ba , in the book,
i. e. in the well known book of life, or rather of the living. The metaphor
is taken from city registers, where the names of all the citizens were en
rolled ; aDd as soon as any man died, his name was erased. The book
of the living, therefore, is God's book, in which those who are to outlive
the Antiochian persecutions stand recorded as survivors. Who will
escape, none knows but he in whose book the destinies of all are re-
corded. That there is an ellipsis of Diin in the text, is plain from the
nature of the case, and from a comparison with the passages in Ex. 32:
32. Isa. 4: 3. Ps. 56: 8 (9). 69: 28 (29). In a little different sense is
the phrase used in Ezek. 13: 9. Phil. 4: 3. Rev. 3: 5. 13: 8. 17: 8. 21:
27. 22: 19. but still in one altogether analogous. Sentiment : Be not
overwhelmed with sorrow, at the prospect of times such as those of Anti
ochus ; when they come, your guardian angel will protect and save all,
whom the counsels of Heaven have determined shall escape.
(2) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth, shall awake, some to
everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Our English translation, and that which I have given, runs thus : And
many of them who sleep in the dust. But this seems contrary to the ac
cents, for these join 1.V! iJiaia with the verb ^sipi ; and the sense thus
given compares well with the N. Test, iytigsa&ai ix vexguv, 1 Cor. 15:
12, 20. Comp. John 5: 29. But this is not important as to the general

Chap. XII. 2. 361
meaning of the clause. — As to Dial , I cannot regard it as designed to
contrast with few, i. e. with some, or a few, who do not rise, but as an
expression equivalent to our word multitudes. Ezekiel, in respect to the
valley of dry bones, says of them when raised up : ixa ixa bilJ bin .
There is no intimation in the context of a party not to be raised up.
Dial, cannot mean the good only, for all of them are to be restored to life
in the way of reward, and in order to be made happy ; nor can it mean
the evil only, for they are raised up to suffer the retribution due to them,
shame and everlasting contempt ; which plainly is not affirmed of all.
In Rom. 5: 15, 17, ot noXXoi is used by Paul in the like manner ; i. e. as
equivalent to multitudes, the mass. Leng. stoutly denies the application
of these last passages to the present case. But he first assumes an a pri
ori ground, by asserting that a general resurrection cannot be meant.
He says, that " the whole spirit of the book, so hostile to all other religions,
makes'against the admission of a general resurrection." The Jews only,
he further says, are represented by the book before us, as capable of such
a blessing. Yet, under another head of objections, he says, that " the
author of our book expected all nations to be converted to Judaism."
Where then are those to be found, who are not Jews at the time of the
resurrection ? But dismissing this, who are they that come forth to the
resurrection of damnation ? If the Jews are all to be saved, and the
heathen are not to be raised up at all, who are those that are to be raised
up to condemnation ? These questions force us upon another and a dif
ferent exegesis. — obis iinb , frequent in the N. Test. ; but nowhere else
in the Old. It shows progress in the clearness with which a future state of
happiness was discerned, in the time of Daniel. — nisinb , plur. of intensity,
sing, nsin . — TiX"rt , const, form of Tixil , aversion, contempt. This also
is united with obis; and with this clause is to be compared John 5: 29.
Matt. 25: 46.
It should be noted, that the softened word sleep is here employed for
death ; an image which could hardly become current, excepting among
those who believe in a future state, and in the resurrection of the body.
The great and difficult question about this passage is : Does it relate
to a period immediately succeeding the death of Antiochus, or to a
subsequent and undefined period? The difficulty which some critics
have had, about conceding a belief in a resurrection to the ancient
Hebrews, seems now to be in the main removed. It is conceded, even
by most of the so-called liberal critics, that Is. 26: 18, 19, to which some
add Ezek. 37: 1 — 14, (and to which I should be disposed to subjoin
Ps. 16: 11. 17: 15), recognize the doctrine in question. Daniel stands not
alone, in this respect. The allegation that this was only a later doctrine
31

362 Chap. XII. 2.
of the Hebrews, borrowed from the system of Zoroaster, even Lengerke
confesses has been refuted by Havernick, in his Comm. s. 509 — 519.
On the question now before us, in respect to the application of vs. 2, 3,
in the present chapter, I would, with diffidence, make some suggestions,
which are the result of my own reflections.
It seems to me, that analogy of the prophecy before us with other
prophecies in the book of Daniel, may help to satisfy the mind of an
inquirer. In chap. ii. we have the four monarchies, which are followed
by a fifth that is Messianic, 2: 44, 45. Immediately following the same
four monarchies, and after the death of Antiochus, the Messianic king
dom is predicted again, 7: 26, 27. In chap, viii., the last three king
doms out of the four are again described, and the death of Antiochus
is represented as before ; while, in this particular case, the vision goes
not beyond the death of the same Antiochus, (the little horn, 8: 9, 25).
In the present case, the analogy of the prophecies in chaps, ii. vii. is
followed with the exception, that inasmuch as the vision took place in
the third year of Cyrus, and of course after the Babylonish empire was
destroyed, the latter empire is omitted. The death of Antiochus, and
the troubles of the Jews at and near that period (II: 45. 12: 1), pre
cede, as in chaps, ii. vii., the prophecy respecting the Messianic king
dom. Verses 2 and 3 I regard? therefore, as having reference to the
Messianic period and its ultimate results. No notation of time, how
ever, is here made, at the beginning of the second verse. The pro
phetic vision looks forward to the distant future, but it is undefined as to
any particular time. Just the same is the case in chap. 7: 27 ; for there
is simple prediction of events, without any definite limitation as to the
time when they will take place. In 2: 44, however, there is an indefi
nite notation of time, in passing to a description of the Messianic king
dom. The words are, "psx X^aba ii "liniaiia , in the days of those kings,
(viz. of the four kingdoms before mentioned), shall the God of heaven
set up a kingdom, etc. I have said indefinite notation of time, because,
although strictly considered a would mean in, i. e. within or during, yet
as merely the word days is here joined with it, there are of course no
definite limits drawn, and the writer is not confined to particular years.
It is evident, moreover, that if the strict meaning of •jiniaiia be urged,
it would bring the prophecy connected with it to mean, that the Mes
sianic kingdom should commence during the time of the four monarchies,
or at all events during the fourth monarchy. This would be contrary
to the whole tenor of the prophecies in chap. ii. vii. and viii. ; for
these all represent the dynasties as successive and not contemporaneous.
Matter of fact shows that such was the case. The fifth kingdom, there
fore, i. e. the Messianic one, is in like manner successive. But the in-

Chap. XII. 2. 363
tervals of time are no where distinctively marked, in respect to the
succession. I am aware that Lengerke and some others have strenu
ously maintained, that the writer of the book of Daniel expected the
Messianic kingdom immediately to succeed the death of Antiochus.
But how they can insist on this, when they date the rise of the book
after the death of that tyrant, I am unable to see. Did the writer shut
his eyes against all the signs of the times ? for they surely indicated
nothing of this sort. And could he rationally expect that others would
give credit to such a representation, in spite of those signs ? Both of
these suppositions are incredible. If an earlier writer, say in or near
the time which is usually regarded as the period of Daniel, could pre
dict all that is related in chap, xi., one may well suppose that he might
know whether the Messianic kingdom was to follow in quick and im
mediate succession, or not.
The result seems to be, that the phrase, in the days of those kings,
like iv ixsivaig raig que'gaig, is a general expression of a somewhat in
definite period of time, which however is not to be greatly extended.
In most cases, it occupies some considerable time for one empire to fall
and another to rise. The phrase in question must therefore be under
stood according to the reason and nature of such cases.
In the text now before us, we are embarrassed by no designation of
time. Verse 1, indeed, has a limitation. But I understand v. 2, as
making the transition, after the death of Antiochus and the vindication
of the Jewish cause by Michael, to the new Messianic kingdom. In
stead of repeating the description of the power and greatness of that
kingdom, as in chaps, ii. vii., the speaker here utters what more re
sembles the view taken in 9: 24. He refers us to the consequences
that would ultimately follow under a new dispensation ; and to such of
those consequences as are intimately connected with his preceding theme.
Chap. 1 1: 33 shows the ravages of the tyrant among the faithful Jews.
It is natural to ask : Is there no adequate future reward for the noble
martyrs in question ? And equally natural to ask : Is there no ade
quate future retribution for the tyrant ? The gospel, i. e. the principles
of the Messianic kingdom, " brings life and immortality to light." In due
time all the faithful martyrs will be rewarded, and their persecutors ade
quately punished. Thus much the new dispensation makes certain.
And it is because of the immediate connection of this subject with the
preceding account of the tyrant's cruelties, that this great truth is here
placed before that which is announced in the third verse. In common
cases, the sentiment of v. 2 would naturally succeed the matter brought
to view in v. 3. It was more directly to the speaker's purpose in the pre
sent case, to reverse this order.

364 Chap. XIL 2.
What objection now of any serious importance can be raised against
this view of vs. 2, 3 ? That the prophecy in xi. xii., viewed in the light
of analogy, may in all probability be interpreted in the manner now
proposed, is clear. Such a method is characteristic of the prophecies of
Daniel. That all attempts to accommodate vs. 2, 3, to mere moral or
political changes or revolutions, which occurred after the renewed dedi
cation of the temple by Judas Maccabaeus, or after the introduction of
Christianity, have proved to be failures, scarcely needs to be said. They
are so evidently against the plain deductions of philology, and they do
such violence to the language, that no one can easily satisfy himself with
them, unless he has some preconceived plan or theory to maintain. The
only difficulty that seems to press upon us, is that resulting from the
want of words appropriate to the designation of time. On this point one
can make the appeal only to thorough and practised readers of the other
prophetic parts of the 0. Test., who must often have met with the like
difficulty. It is easy to point to examples. Isa. ii. iv. is a comminatory
prophecy against the Jews then living, i. e. the Jews of Isaiah's time.
In 4: 2 — 6 is (as I cannot well doubt) a Messianic passage, following
immediately a description of the evils to be suffered by the rebellious
Jews then living, and joined to that description even by a Xinn Dra , vs.
1, 2. But if any refuse to regard Isa. iv. as Messianic, how can they
dispose of chap. viii. ix. ? Surely the threatenings, and the execution
of them, uttered in chap, viii., have respect to the Jews of Isaiah's time.
Yet in making the transition from this period to the Messianic sequel in
chap. 9: 1 — 7, not a word is said as to the interim of more than seven
centuries which actually elapsed. Here all are constrained to acknowl
edge a prediction truly Messianic ; and yet the case is the same, as in
the passage under consideration.
Let us now advance another step in the examination of Isaiah, and
we shall see the same arrangement of prophecy, still preserving the same
characteristic. Chap. x. is a splendid description of the progress, the
desolating power, and the overthrow of the Assyrian king. Chap. xi. is
a continuation of the same prophecy, (as the xxjl at the beginning clearly
indicates), and this contains one of the most signal of all the Messianic
predictions. Yet an unpractised or uninformed reader would never sus
pect, that the Messianic day was to be seven centuries after the fall of
the Assyrian invader, since the prediction of it stands in direct contact
with that respecting the fall of the same Assyrian. In chap. xix. the
smiting and fall of Egypt is predicted, vs. 1 — 22 ; while vs. 23 — 25 seem
plainly to recognize a Messianic reign, which is to be universal. This,
be it also noted, is introduced with a Xinn Diia , which is apparently
stronger and more specific than the "i^X liniaiia of Dan. 2: 44. In

Chap. XH. 3. 365
chap. xxvi. xxvii., the same thing is virtually repeated, for I take Isa.
27: 13 to refer to a Messianic period. In Isa. xxxi. is reproof of the
Israelites, who sought foreign aid, and a prediction, that when they be
come penitent, the Messianic king shall arise to execute justice, and the
Spirit also be poured out, chap, xxxii. Here the time is not specified ;
but the latter prediction is in continuity with the former one respecting
Jewish disobedience. For the rest of Isaiah, chap. xl. — lxvi., whether we
assign it to the prophet whose name it bears, or to a later writer, makes
no difference with the point before us. The continual intermingling and
junction of the returnjrom the Babylonish exile, and that from the exile
of sin, shows that the writer has not taken the least pains to throw into
his composition any distinctive notes of time. He has left this unre-
vealed ; and so much so, that one is strongly moved, in view of his whole
composition, to repeat the declaration of the Saviour : " The times and
seasons hath the Father put in his own power," Acts 1: 7.
The like result would follow a scrutiny of the other prophets. But
I deem this to be superfluous, after all that has been said above. I may
safely assume, for the present, that the want of any notation of time, in
a transition to the later Messianic period, is no bar at all against regard
ing vs. 2, 3, as being connected with that period. These verses open
the prospect of the future and final destiny of men, both the righteous
and the wicked, and show us the final result of the Messianic period. —
As to the question, whether Dial should be referred only to the pious Jews,
there is no need of a moment's delay. No such Jews surely will be
raised up to everlasting contempt. I do not see any good reason, why
Dial should be limited merely to Hebrews, excepting that the martyrs
of the preceding chapter belong to that nation. Undoubtedly the general
truth before us, respecting a future restoration, is introduced because
it comes in appropriately as connected with the subject in hand. And
inasmuch as a general resurrection is here taught, it can be no other than
that which will take place, at the end of the gospel dispensation.
(3) And the wise shall shine as the splendor of the firmament, and those who turn
many to righteousness, as the stars forever and ever.
That Dibaiaa designates such men as are described in II: 33, 35,
seems undeniable. But I would not limit the meaning merely to the
Jewish leaders and martyrs, nor to the pious Jews in general of Anti
ochus' time, but, while it includes those and shows what their reward
will be, the leading object seems to be to say, that the influence and suc
cess of such men at a future period, shall be greatly augmented. The
truth is here distinctly taught, that all such will have a glorious reward,
31*

366 Chap. Xn. 4.
in the resurrection of the just. — ini , as a noun, is confined to the later
Hebrew, but is frequent in the Rabbinic and Arabic. The splendor of
the firmament designates the shining appearance of the welkin, with all
its suns and stars. So the last clause of the verse has explained it. —
The article is inserted before Diaaia , because it comprises a whole class.
Such then is the nature and character of the Messianic period ; these
are truths which it will reveal and inculcate. The sequel of all the
adversity of the Hebrews and of their trials, will be marked by their
elevated happiness, and by retributive justice to their persecutors ; which
is a state of things that every pious Hebrew must anxiously have desired.
If after all any one is not satisfied with this view of vs. 2, 3, there is
another view, not more analogical, but perhaps more simple, which he
can take. This is, that vs. 2, 3, merely declare the doctrine of a general
resurrection and retribution, in and by which retribution, the martyrs and
the faithful will meet with ample reward, and persecutors and faithless
men will meet with condign punishment. In this simple view no serious
difficulties are to be met with, on the supposition that the clause nsai
Xinn extends its influence only over v. 1 ; and the examples above
given show that we may assume this position in full conformity with
usage elsewhere. This position being taken, all serious difficulty is re
moved indeed with respect to both of the last proposed interpretations.
The first of them can appeal to analogy in its defence ; the second may
lay claim to being unembarrassed by any lack of Messianic traits in vs.
2, 3. The positions assumed are religious truths, appropriate indeed to
every age, but specially revealed here for the consolation of the oppressed
and the persecuted. The appropriateness of the sentiments to the place
which they occupy, none can reasonably deny.
[The strong resemblance between what follows and Eev. 22: 6 — 21, must be ap
parent to every attentive reader. The object of the closing part of Daniel is, to ren
der secure the record of the preceding prophecy ; to reassure the mind of the prophet
in respect to the limited continuance of the severest trials predicted ; and finally to
cheer him with the certain prospect of his own final and personal reward.]
(4) Moreover do thou, Daniel, close up these sayings, and seal the book, until the
time of the end. Many shall make diligent search, and knowledge shall be increased.
The same direction in respect to closing up is given in 8: 26, with
regard to the prediction which there precedes. See the remarks on the
passage. Each is a plain case. Close it up and seal it, that no additions
or subtractions may be made, nor anything changed or tampered with.
The truth and credit of prophecy will then be established, when it is
seen that facts strictly accord with it. In 8: 26, however, a specific
reason is given for closing up the prophecy, which is, that it is for a long

Chap. Xn. 4. 367
time, i. e. has respect to a distant period, and so is not a matter of imme
diate concern in respect to any duty to be presently performed. Just
the reverse of this is the case in Rev. 22: 10, " Seal not up the words of
the prophecy of this book, for ihe time is near," i. e. it is wanted for
immediate use, inasmuch as the fulfilment of what is predicted speedily
commences. What those can do with this direction and the reason for
it, who pertinaciously adhere to the system of interpretation, which refers
the Apoc. mainly to the papacy, when this papacy scarcely began its
rise in half a thousand years from the time when the book was written,
— is a question that no one has yet been able satisfactorily to answer.
Enough for the case in hand, that the time of the end was more than three
and a half centuries after the period named in 10: 1. — Diiain , with the
article, must refer to the narration and predictions in x. xi. ; and strictly
speaking only to those, for the command has respect to sealing up what
had been revealed during the interview described in chap. x. — is&rj ,
with the article for the same reason as before ; the book, viz. that in which
the words just adverted to are recorded. — The time of the end is the
same as the iap in 9: 26, also in 11: 35, 45, viz. the end of Antiochus'
reign and life, for he is the principal character in the preceding picture.
The prophecy mainly concentres in him, and has respect to him ; there
fore, when he makes his appearance, the time for perusing it, and medi
tating upon it, will come. — So we are taught by what follows : Many
laa'uii , shall make diligent search, i. e. this is the tropical meaning of the
word ; the literal one is : shall run to and fro in search of something. It
does not mean to run through, percurrere, a book, i. e. to glance over its
pages, but to make diligent search after its contents. Much less does it
mean, (as it is often interpreted), to run hither and thither in respect to
localities, i. e. to travel about, as the means of increasing knowledge.
The speaker designs to say, that the book, when the time of the end
draws nigh, shall be sedulously studied and investigated, and that the
knowledge of duty, and of what God designs to do, will be greatly in
creased by such an investigation. — nsin , the knowledge, viz. of the
prophecy in question. To put Dhp and Dhn into the form of a prediction,
and to give them a mere tropical sense, i. e. make them to signify, that
the prediction must be kept secret and no disclosure of it made, nor un
derstanding of it acquired, until the events take place which it predicts,
(as Hengstenberg and Havernick do), seems to be a forced and unnatural
process. How is knowledge to be increased, if the prophecy means
nothing intelligible, until after it becomes history ? If this be indeed so,
then Daniel, or at any rate the angel who communicated with him, must
have differed widely from Paul, who says : " I had rather speak five

368 Chap. XII. 5—7.
words in an intelligible manner, so that I may instruct others, than ten
thousand words in an unintelligible language."
(5) And I Daniel looked, and behold ! two others were standing, the one on this
side on the bank of the river, and the other on that side on the bank of the river.
Two others — other than who ? The answer must be : Other than the
angel mentioned in 10: 5 seq., 10, 16, 18, who made communications to
him. These two additional angels now appeared, to render more im
pressive the closing scene. — nsril . . . r\ir\, lit. here and here, which is
the Hebrew method of expressing here and there, or on this side and on
that side. To make Gabriel one of these other angels, who had all along
been the speaker, as Lengerke does, seems foreign to the simple meaning
of the text.
(6) And [one] said to the man clothed in fine linen, who stood over the waters of
the river : Until how long shall be the end of these wonderful matters ?
Evidently these new actors in the scene are introduced, partly in order
to give more explicitness to the designation of time in the prophecy.
Daniel, as we have seen (10: 8, 9, 15 — 17), was greatly affected with
the appearance of the heavenly messenger. Out of compassion to his
weakness, an angel here appears, and asks the question which Daniel
doubtless was desirous should be put. One of the two other angels,
therefore, is represented as addressing the question to him who had made
the communication, 10: 11, 19, comp. also 10: 5 seq. — We express the
idea of ina is by the simple how long ? I have translated a little dif
ferently, in order to imitate the Hebrew. — The end of the wonderful mat
ters is the death of Antiochus, in whom centres the wonderful disclosures
of the preceding vision. So the article before nixbs indicates. We
shall see that such is the design of the question, by the answers that
follow. — That the man clothed in fine linen was over the waters of the
river, i. e. stood on the banks that rose over the river, is plain from 10:
4, 5, 6 seq. i
(7) And I heard the man clothed in white linen, who was over the waters of the
river, and he lifted up his right hand and his left to heaven, and he sware by him who
liveth forever, that [it shall be] at a time, and times, and a half, even when the crush
ing of the power of the holy people shall be completed all these things shall be
accomplished. The latter half of the verse parallelizes with the first half, but ex
presses the time of completion by referring to events, rather than to por
tions of time. The lifting up of both hands toward heaven indicates
unusual solemnity ; for commonly only one was lifted up, Gen. 14: 22.

Chap. Xn. 8, 9. 369
Ex. 6: 8. Deut. 32: 40. Ezek. 20: 5. — saiai, he bound himself by an
oath. — obis ina , lit. by the lives of eternity, or by the living one of eternity,
the adjective in being adopted in the latter case as the ground form.
The sense is the same in both cases. God may be described by a noun
abstract, as well as concrete ; just as we say, the Divinity. The plur. of
the noun is intensive, if we adopt the first mode of expression. — As to
the set time (isia), times, and a half, we have merely to compare the
Chaldee lis sbsm "pawl JJS , in 7: 25, with the notes there. The events
and limitation of time, are the same there as here. The three and a half
years in which Antiochus made the sanctuary desolate, is what is aimed
at in this case. Times, thus used, means years. — iai VB3 nibaai , lit.
and when there shall be a completion of breaking in pieces ; not with Ges.,
Win., De Wette, Leng., when the dispersion shall be completed of a part
of the people, etc. Ii , in this case, is not part, portion, but power, as
often elsewhere. The idea is, that when the power of the Jewish nation
is as it were crushed or broken in pieces (^33), then the death of Anti
ochus shall take place, and the fulfilment of the last and leading part of
the preceding prophecy shall be accomplished. — trip again without the
article, being used in the sense of an adjective, i. e. as designating an
abstract qualification. — nbx , these things has a verb plur. fem., for this
is the more usual construction with the names of things that are of a
neuter gender.
(8) And I heard, but I understood not ; and I said : My lord, what is the latter
end of these things ?
Still benumbed as it were in the use of his senses, Daniel heard indeed
the voice of the angel, but did not fully comprehend his meaning, either
as to the exact measure of the time, or as to the nature of the events
which would make up the crisis or consummation of the whole. Conse
quently, on somewhat recovering himself he asks for more special infor
mation. By minx cannot be meant, as some have maintained, a time
subsequent to the three and a half years ; it must be the latter part of
those years.
(9) And he said : Go, Daniel, for these things are closed up and sealed, until the
time of the end.
Tib in the sense of depart, viz. from life = die, cannot be meant here,
for what has the closing and sealing up of the prophecy to do with Dan
iel's death ? But if we understand it in the sense of go away, (which the
phrase often has), the connection shows it to be a request or command to
desist from making further inquiries. The reason given is, that the reve
lation is already completed, it is closed up and sealed, until the time when
men shall be interested to make diligent inquiry for its meaning.

370 Chap. XH. 10—12.

(10) Many will purify themselves, and become clean, and make trial of themselves ;
but the wicked will do wickedly, and r. one of the wicked will understand, but the wise
shall understand.
This is a mere summary of the events comprised in the prediction, by
which the angel means to say, that Daniel should acquiesce in these
general views, without seeking further minute explanations. — l^iiani ,
Hithp. of lia . — iBiSii , Hithp. with assimilated n , § 53. 2. b. It is
unusual for n to assimilate with a , as here ; comp. § 53. 2. a. — None
of the wicked will understand, viz. the words of the prediction, so as to be
restrained by it from doing wickedly. They will go on in spite of its
threats and predictions, despising the idea of consulting it or of listening
to it. — On the other hand, the wise, near the time of the end, will make
diligent inquiry (^istsiui ), both for the sake of instruction and consolation,
and they will attain to a right understanding of the predictions.
(11) And from the time of removing the continual sacrifice, and of setting up the
abomination that shall be made desolate, will be a thousand, two hundred, and nine
ty days. iDin Inf. Hoph. as a noun in the Gen. — nnb , also Inf. of "pa in the
Gen. after nsa implied. The b is put before it to indicate its Genitive
condition, § 113. See the very same verbs and nouns in 11: 31, and
comp. 8: 11 — 13. In 11:31, ysipta is described as Daiiia , causing desola
tion; here as oato, i. e. that which is to be destroyed, or ought to be destroyed,
which is more apposite to the present tenor of the discourse. The 1290 days
are more specific than the phrase, time, times, and a half, in v. 7 and also in
7: 25. The latter {time, etc.) is as it were a round number, three and a half
first equalling the one half of the sacred number seven, and the fractional
part equalling the half of one year. In such a case, minute exactness of
course is not to be expected. But the thirty additional days here (over
1260 days = forty-two months = three and a half years), are doubtless
designed as an exact account of time during which the detestable abomi
nation continued in the temple. The terminus a quo is the time when
Antiochus first removed the daily sacrifice, which was probably near the
end of May or at the beginning of June in B. C. 1 68. Judas Macca
baeus removed this 'ppia , and purified the temple, Dec. 25 of B. C. 165,
making the time in question, i. e. three and a half years, as nearly as
history will enable us to compute it. There can hardly be room for doubt
that the statement in our text is minutely exact. The work of Judas, then,
is the terminus ad quern of the period in question.
(12) Blessed is he who waiteth, and attaineth to one thousand three hundred and
thirty-five days.
I must refer the reader to the historical facts stated in the Notes on 7:

Chap. XII. 12. 371
25 above, for information in regard to the course of events near the end
of Antiochus' reign. It appears from 11: 40 — 44 above, that Antiochus
made another and final invasion of Egypt, near the close of his life, af
ter which he marched against Palestine. Mattathias and his sons, in the
mean time, had been organizing the party of the pious, and Antiochus
was exceedingly indignant at the efforts which they had made and the
success with which they were attended. In 1 Mace 2: 26 — 37, we have
an account of the situation of Antiochus, while in the " glorious land."
His treasury was empty. He had already robbed the temple of all which it
contained that was of any value, and he was necessitated to look to an
other quarter. He left half of his army, therefore, with Lysias, one of
his favorite officers, and passed over the Euphrates in order to rifle the
countries of the East. First he went through and subdued Armenia
{rag indveo x^Qag, v. 37), and then turned off to rob the temple in Ely
mais, where he met with disgrace, and finally with death. Not long after
the departure of Antiochus, Lysias began the contest in Palestine in seri
ous earnest ; but Judas uniformly triumphed in all his encounters ; and
so decisive was one of them over Lysias, that Judas proceeded to purify
the temple, and to restore its worship, 1 Mace 4: 36 seq. All this must
have occupied some months ; and the consecration of the temple took
place the 25th of Dee 165 B. C. Of course Antiochus had had sufficient
time for his conquest in Armenia and for his advance to Elymais, before
the winter had far advanced. It was in early spring that he undertook
the robbery of the temple in Elymais ; after which, on his retreat, the
news met him of total defeat in Palestine, and helped to increase the
malady under which he was then laboring. In 1 Mace 6: 1 seq. is an
account of the close of the life of Antiochus, and of his failure at Elymais.
If now we count onward, from the consecration of the temple by Judas,
to the time when Antiochus deceased, we shall perceive, at once, that
the period of 1335 days is in all probability the period of Antiochus'
death. From the time that the daily burnt offering was removed by
Apollonius, at the command of Antiochus, to the time of reconsecration,
were 1290 days. From the same terminus a quo to the death of Antio
chus, were 1335 days, i. e. forty-five days more than is included in the
preceding period. History has not anywhere recorded the precise day
of Antiochus' death ; so that we cannot compare the passage before us
with that. But we are certain as to the order of events, and as to the
season of the year, as well as the year itself, in which the death of this
king took place. Of the general accuracy there can be no doubt ; and
such are the chronological designations of this book, that we may safely
rely, in this case, on its minute accuracy.
Blessed is he that waiteth, more exactly : 0 beatitudines expectantis !

372 Chap. XII. 13.
— nanan , Dagh. omitted after the article, § 20. 3. b. The lexicon gives us
only expecto as the meaning of nan , i. e. to wait with hope or expecta
tion. This may be the shade of meaning here ; but if so, it will imply a
knowledge, on the part of those who wait, of the predictions before us,
and a looking for their accomplishment. This is not a bad sense. But
still, I apprehend the meaning of the speaker here to be : ' Blessed are
those who continue in life, and attain to the happy period of Israel's libe
ration !' No one, in view of the horrid cruelties and impieties of Antiochus,
can wonder that those are congratulated, who had been subject to his do
minion and are now delivered from it. On the ground assumed above,
all is congruous and well adapted to complete the symmetry of the whole
prophecy. (13) But as for thee, go onward to the end [of life] ; and thou shalt have rest,
and stand up for thy lot at the end of time.
I take ^b to be used here, in a somewhat different shade of meaning
from that which the word has in v. 9. Here it is equivalent to our : De
part in peace. In other words, it is a courteous method of dismissing an
auditor, when all is told which was designed to be communicated. Other
wise expressed it would be : You now have leave to retire. The tone of
voice, in such a case, would decide whether one was dismissed in anger
or in peace. Here the latter is quite certain. — Vpb , to the end, i. e. the
end of Daniel's life, and hence the article, which in such a case is equiva
lent (as in Greek) to the pronoun-adjective thy. — rnan , rest in a peace
ful grave. — la?ni , the opposite of resting, viz. standing up. The mean
ing seems plainly to be : Thou shalt obtain a resurrection, rise up (== Dip,
as las often does in the later Hebrew), lasn has also the ad-
signification of stand up firmly, being placed in a permanent condi
tion. V. 3 above entitles us to make all these conclusions in respect to
the meaning here. — For the illustration of the bia, comp. Acts 26: 18,
xXijgov; Col. 1: 12, rijv pegiSa rov xXijgov; Rev. 20: 6, pigog iv rq
dvaardau. The allusion is to the lot or inheritance given to the Hebrew
tribes, who took possession of Palestine. Daniel's part is in the heavenly
Canaan. — r»jnfpb , lit. at the end of the days. The word days means
undefined or unlimited time, and the whole expression exactly meets our
English phrase, at the end of time. The article stands before the noun
as comprising a totality, at the 4nd of time. A comparison of this with v. 3
shows at least that there is here no new or strange doctrine. Daniel is to
have a place, among those " who have been wise and turned many to right
eousness." An assurance full of comfort to him, who was now very far
advanced in life ; and full of comfort to all who walk in his steps, and are
animated by his spirit.

CRITICAL HISTORY AND DEFENCE

THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

§ 1. Personal History of Daniel.
The only authentic source whence we can draw this, is the book
which bears his name. His character and the peculiar incidents of his
life have indeed given occasion to'many apocryphal narrations respect
ing him ; but these mostly belong to a later period, and are unworthy of
critical confidence.
According to the statement in Dan. 1: 1 — 3, Nebuchadnezzar the king
of Babylon besieged and took the city of Jerusalem, in the third year of
Jehoiakim king of Judah, i. e. B. C. 607. With many of the vessels of
the temple which he sent to Babylon, there were also, as the sequel of the
narration shows us, a company of young Hebrews of royal or princely
origin brought to the capital of the conqueror. Among these, Daniel
and his three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, were the most
comely and conspicuous. These, therefore, were given in charge by Neb
uchadnezzar to his master-courtier, Ashpenaz, to be supported at the ex
pense of the king, and instructed in the language and sciences of the
Chaldees, in order that they might be fitted in due time, to become the
personal waiters and attendants of the monarch.
The age of Daniel, when he was carried into exile, is no where stated
in his writings ; but he and his friends are called oiibi , (v. 4). This
word, in Hebrew, characterizes the period from the age of childhood up
to that of manhood, and might be translated boys, lads, or youth. Ignatius
(Ep. ad Magn.) says, that Daniel was twelve years of age when he went
into exile ; Chrysostom (Opp. VI. p. 423) says that he was eighteen ;
Epiphanius says : tn vrpzwg <nv ; Jerome (adv. Jovin. III.) calls him
admodum puer. Of course, these are but mere guesses, or at best but
floating traditions. Still they cannot be far from the truth. The nature
32

374 § 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OP DANIEL.
of the case, and the usual custom of Oriental monarchs to prepare for
themselves the most active and sprightly waiters from the highest classes
of society, are sufficient vouchers for the probability, that Daniel was not
more than some twelve or fourteen years of age, when he was brought
to the court of Nebuchadnezzar.
That Daniel was of regal descent, is by no means improbable. Ac
cording to Dan. 1: 3, the captives whom Nebuchadnezzar had sent away
were either of regal or of princely extraction. The history of that period,
in Kings and Chronicles, seems to warrant the supposition, that the
Jewish lads in question were hostages, who were drawn from the upper
classes of society at Jerusalem, in order to secure the quiet and submis
sion of the Jewish king and his nobles, in their tributary condition.
Daniel's first developments of character showed that he was possessed
of sincere and ardent love for the law of God as contained in the sacred
books of his country, and also of great firmness and integrity. Nor did
the early buddings of his youth disappoint the expectations which they
raised ; for they ripened into precious and abundant fruit in his maturer
age. Daniel declined to feed on the luxurious viands of the Babylonish
monarch ; and in order to shun such food as the law of Moses had pro
hibited, he sought and obtained leave of his guardian, for him and his
companions to live on a vegetable diet. With signal success they pur
sued this mode of living, until the time came for them to be called into
the service of the king ; Dan. 1: 5 — 18. To attribute, as some do, the
conduct of Daniel on this occasion of abstinence to excessive supersti
tion, seems neither candid nor equitable. The laws of Moses were
simply obeyed, and nothing more. The least that can be said of these
laws is, that certain kinds of food are absolutely prohibited by them, in
all cases where abstinence is feasible, and life and health are not endan
gered by it.
It appears from 1: 17, that Daniel and his friends became acquainted
with all the knowledge and science and wisdom of the Chaldees ; while
Daniel himself was distinguished from the others by the power of un
derstanding and interpreting dreams and visions. In relating this fact,
however, the prophet is careful to declare, that God, and he only, had
bestowed these gifts upon him and upon his companions.
When called before Nebuchadnezzar, at the end of their three years'
course of education, he and his companions were found by that monarch
to be far more skilled in all science and wisdom, than the Babylonian
astrologers and sacred scribes; 1: 20.
Not long after this, Nebuchadnezzar had a dream, which occasioned
him great agitation of mind and disquietude. But the particulars of that

§ 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OF DANIEL. 375
dream had eluded his memory. In this state, he summoned all the
Babylonish Magi and soothsayers before him, and demanded of them,
on pain of death, to disclose to him both the dream itself and its interpre
tation. This they felt to be impossible ; and they therefore sought for
delay, in order that in some way the king might be either pacified or
deluded. The king refused to grant the delay sought for, and ordered
the whole mass of this order of men to be destroyed. In this state
of things, Daniel interposed, having first sought by earnest supplication
of himself and his friends that God would reveal to them the matter in
question, and having obtained a favorable answer to his prayer. The
Jewish prophet repaired to Nebuchadnezzar's audience-chamber, and
there disclosed all the particulars of the dream, and gave the significant
and ominous interpretation thereof. Nebuchadnezzar, stricken with awe
and astonishment, commanded oblations to be made to him, made him
ruler or satrap over the province of Babylon, and placed him at the
head of the Magi and all the learned men of his capital ; ch. ii.
In this exalted station, Daniel did not forget or neglect his friends,
with whom he had so long and so intimately been associated. He re
quested the king to bestow some office upon them ; who, in compliance
with his wishes, made them overseers of his affairs in the province of
Babylon. It lies on the face of Daniel's narration, that he had little or nothing of
the spirit of jealousy and self-exaltation. Most heartily did he rejoice
in the honor done to his companions. They, as well as he, were found
by the king to be far more skilled " in all matters of wisdom and under
standing," than the Magi and astrologers, (1: 20). They made common
cause with him, as to the decree that the Magi should be cut off; and
their supplications, as well as his, went up before the throne of mercy,
that the secret of the king's dream might be revealed. And although
Daniel was the chosen instrument of disclosure, they participated with
him in the honors and emoluments that ensued.
Nor is this all. Daniel has perpetuated the memory of his friends, as
taking a place among the noblest martyrs for truth that stand recorded
on the pages of sacred history. The third chapter of his work is wholly.
devoted to an account of their martyrdom, and its results. They refused
to do homage before the gigantic idol of Nebuchadnezzar ; and by his
command were cast into a furnace of fire, heated far beyond the cus
tomary degree. There they were accompanied and protected by an
angel of God, who assumed a radiant and dazzling appearance. When
Nebuchadnezzar saw him, he was terrified, and commanded the objects
of his vengeance to quit the furnace. Once more, as in the case when

376 § 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OF DANIEL.
his first dream was interpreted, this passionate and haughty monarch
was constrained to give glory to the God of the Hebrews. He even
issued a proclamation, forbidding his subjects to speak any word of re
proach against that God; chap. iii. Thus has Daniel consigned to
perpetual remembrance, admiration, and heart-felt applause, his three
pious and distinguished companions.
We have no designation of the time when these events happened. In
all probability, however, it was not until some time after Nebuchadnezzar
had finished his conquests, and amassed an almost boundless store of
wealth. Usher names 580 B. C. as a probable period, i. e. eight years
after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
It is a singular circumstance, that Daniel is not at all mentioned, in
connection with the affair on the plain of Dura, but only his companions.
But to make this a serious objection against the truthful narrative of the
book, as Lengerke has done, is hardly just or generous. Was not Daniel
prime minister of the king ? And could not a man, " who was ruler
over the whole province of Babylon," be so busied with some special
duties of his office, as to be unable to attend the dedication of the image ?
And might he not, for some good reason which respected the affairs of
the State, have been excused by the king himself from attendance on
that occasion ? These suppositions are neither unnatural nor improbable ;
and if they are well grounded, they account satisfactorily for the absence
of Daniel.
Sometime after this, (Usher supposes some ten years, i. e. B. C. 570),
Nebuchadnezzar had another dream, which gave him deep anxiety. He
applied in vain to the magicians and astrologers to interpret it. His
application first to them, was not improbably a measure dictated by
policy, so as to save Daniel from the envy that would be excited by a
primary application to him. It would seem that the king had already seen
enough of their impotence, to convince him that they could do nothing
in such an exigency. The issue of this application was like that in the
case of the former dream ; although the king had not now forgotten his
dream, but related it. Daniel was at last introduced. The king told
him what he had seen, in the visions of the night The prophet was
deeply affected with it, and out of kind feeling and gratitude to the king
was reluctant to give the explanation. But the king insisted on it. He
therefore told him plainly, that the dream foreboded the loss of his throne
and of his reason, for seven years. This came upon him. At the end
of this period his reason returned, and he was again welcomed by his nobles
and his people to the throne so long vacant. On this occasion he issued
a proclamation narrating all these facts, and extolling and honoring the

§ 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OP DANIEL. 377
Most High, who had thus abased and chastised him, and also had mercy
upon him. Dan. iv. is occupied with this proclamation.
It seems to be quite probable, that Daniel retained his place during
the interregnum, and as chief of the Magi, he was of course the tempo
rary viceroy of the king. He too would be most likely to keep the
throne in abeyance for Nebuchadnezzar, because he was confident of his
being ultimately restored to his reason and his place. In other hands,
the government would, in all probability, have gone over to some son of
Nebuchadnezzar, or some fortunate aspirant to the vacant throne.
Not improbably the death of Nebuchadnezzar occurred soon after this.
He reigned forty-one years ; or, inasmuch as the Jews reckoned from
the time of the first invasion of Palestine by him, he reigned, according
to their reckoning, forty-three years. If Usher is in the right, the end
of the seven years' mania, would be in theTorty-first of his reign.
Our next account of Daniel has reference to some thirty years after
the period just named. In B. C. 538, Belshazzar is on the throne ; and
he was now at the close of the seventeen years of his reign. Inflated with
pride and vain glory, he made a great feast to a thousand of his lords,
and under the intoxicating influence of excessive banqueting, he sent for
the vessels of the house of the Lord, which were deposited in the temple
of Belus. These were brought, and subjected to the promiscuous use of
the revellers, who, in honor of their idol-gods, drank from them, and
chanted the impious praises of their deities, mixed (no doubt) with many
reproaches to the God of Israel. In the midst of this Bacchanalian tu
mult, heathenish impiety, and contempt, a hand like that of a man, guided
by some invisible being, appeared to the king and his companions, writing
upon the wall some mystical letters which none could read. The Magi
and astrologers were summoned ; but all in vain. Finally, the king's
mother addressed the terrified assemblage, and told them what had been
done by Daniel in the way of interpretation, during the days of king
Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel is forthwith sent for, and large promises of
reward are made to him, in case he should read and explain the writing
upon the wall. He did so ; and the explanation was, that the death of
the king, and the extinction of his dynasty, was near at hand. In that
very night, Cyrus made himself master of the city, and the king was
slain ; chap. v.
It would seem that Daniel, under this last monarch, had retired to
private life ; for the king seems to have, at that period, no particular
knowledge of him. Nothing is more common in the East, than the
entire change of the civil ministry after the death of a king. The new
king is usually jealous of the old ministers on account of their acquired
*32

378 § 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OP DANIEL.
influence, and prefers for his confidants those whom he has well known
and with whom he is familiar. It is quite probable, therefore, that Dan
iel withdrew from the high public station which he had occupied, after
the death of Nebuchadnezzar. But still, that he might have been em
ployed in minor affairs, and in the provinces, seems to be made probable
by 8: 2, 27. We find him in Elam, as there stated, when his second
vision occurred ; and here he did the king's business, v. 27. Belshazzar,
however, in accordance with his promise, bestowed costly decorations
upon him, and made him third ruler in the kingdom. But this honor
lasted only for an hour. The death of Belshazzar, and the destruction
of his dynasty, followed immediately after the elevation of the prophet.
Darius the Mede, who had long been leagued with Cyrus in the sub
jugation of Asia Minor, now assumed the throne of Babylon. Under
him Daniel held a most conspicuous place, being the first of three presi
dents or viceroys of the kingdom ; 6: 1, 2. But the splendid acquisitions
and talents and honors of Daniel greatly disturbed his colleagues in
office, and they, moved by envy, sought to destroy him. By appeals to
the pride and ambition of Darius, they obtained a decree from him, that
no one should, during thirty days, ask either God or man for anything,
except the king himself. Daniel, who was a man of prayer, disobeyed
this decree. As usual, he repaired to his sanctum in the upper story of
his house, and there, as he was wont, prayed three times every day.
He was watched, and reported to the king. The latter was greatly dis
tressed at the intelligence, because of his attachment to Daniel ; but he
was obliged to yield to the demand of his nobles, that the penalty of the
decree should be inflicted. Daniel was cast into a den of lions. But
there he was kept in safety, by an angel commissioned for this purpose.
The king, on discovering this, ordered him to be taken out of the den,
and also that the men who had maligned him, with their wives and
children, should be cast into the same den. There they were instantly
torn in pieces.
We have no further authentic particulars of the life of Daniel. We
know merely, from the dates of his prophetic visions, that the first of
these occurred in the first year of the reign of Belshazzar, about 555
B. C. The second was in the third year of Belshazzar's reign, i. e.
during 553 B. C. In both these cases he was deeply affected in body
and mind, the matter of the visions being portentous of much coming
evil. His third vision was in B. C. 538, in the first year of Darius the
Mede. In this case, an attentive perusal of the prophecies of Jeremiah
had brought him to see, that the seventy years of exile which had been
predicted, were near their close. With fasting and prayer, he besought

§ 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OF DANIEL. 379
the Lord most earnestly to forgive his offending people, and to accom
plish his promises in respect to their return from exile. On this occa
sion, the angel Gabriel was sent to make some new and portentous
communications to him. They respected the laying waste of Jerusalem
the profanation of the temple, and the persecution of the godly. The
famous period of seventy weeks is a part of what Gabriel declared on
this occasion ; which was probably understood by Daniel, but has hard
ly been explained or agreed upon in any after age. This is undoubtedly
among the most difficult passages in all the Bible.
Down so late as 534 B. C, i. e. in the third year of Cyrus' reign, we
meet with the most peculiar of all Daniel's prophetic visions, including
chaps, x  xii. The larger part of chap. xi. seems more like a history
of what had past, than a prediction of the future. So Porphyry un
derstood it ; and he grounded his main objection to the prophetic nature
of the book, on this view of the chapter in question. In this particular he
has had not a few followers, within a recent period. There is truly
nothing like it, in all the Bible. Even our Saviour's prediction
respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, will not compare with it in
respect to minute historical detail. The terrible catastrophe that
followed the quarrel of Antiochus Epiphanes with the Jews, seems to
have been the principal burden of all Daniel's prophetic annunciations ;
and in this last vision, he has advanced far beyond any example of
minuteness in his earlier disclosures.
The vision closes, appropriately, with kind and comforting assurances
to Daniel, in a personal respect. He needed them. His bosom had
beat so high and so long with patriotic feeling, that now, when liberation
from the Babylonish exile was at hand, it was very trying to look for
ward and see the future miseries and vexations of his people. Never
did that people raise up a truer patriot, or possess a warmer and more
faithful and constant friend.
At the time of this last vision, Daniel must have been some 84 years
of age. There is nothing uncommon, however, in this ; for not a few
persons of temperate and abstemious habits attain such an age, with
little or no diminution of mental vigor. But as we find not his name
among those Jews who returned to Palestine, it is probable that his age,
and perhaps his offices, prevented him from undertaking such a journey.
It is singular enough that the existence of such a man at Baby
lon, during the exile, should have recently been doubted, and even denied.
Besides Moses, there is hardly any one of the Hebrew prophets that
has obtained so much celebrity. There are none whose wisdom, and
dexterity, and elevation, and influence, have been more celebrated

380 § 1. PERSONAL HISTORY OF DANIEL.
among the Jews. It would be as reasonable to deny that David or
Solomon were real personages, as that Daniel was. That he was such a
man as the book that bears his name represents him to have been,
may indeed be denied by skeptical criticism ; but that a distinguished
man, of such a name, lived and flourished at Babylon, during the exile,
cannot be denied with any more probability than the existence of Neb
uchadnezzar can be denied. None of the Greek historians mention
such a king as Nebuchadnezzar at Babylon. Are we then to conclude
that there was none ? We might as well do so, yea do so with even a
better face, than we can deny the existence and offices of Daniel.
That Daniel has ever been placed by the Jews among the foremost
rank of their prophets, is quite clear. Josephus, near the close of his
Antiq. Jud. Lib. x., after giving a summary of all the historical parts of
Daniel, concludes by saying that " the merits of this man must excite
the wonder of all who hear of them. Everything succeeded to admira
tion with him, as one of the greatest prophets. Not only during his life
time, was honor and glory bestowed on him by kings, and by the multi
tude, but after his death he is held in perpetual remembrance. For his
writings, which he left behind him, are now read by us, and through
them we believe that Daniel held converse with God, for he not only
predicted things to come, like other prophets, but definitely limited the
period when they should take place." Such was the view which this
most distinguished historian and learned priest of the Jews, took of the
person and work of Daniel ; a view common to all his countrymen at
that period, and to nearly all ever since that time. The author of 1
Mace (2 : 59,60) has expressly referred to Daniel and his companions,
and ranked them with other Jewish worthies of the highest note. The
apocryphal books of Susannah and of Bel and the Dragon, make Dan
iel the hero of their romantic tales ; and the former speaks of him as
deciding the case of the adulterous judges, when he was yet a youth.
Finally, Ezekiel, the contemporary of Daniel, and like him in exile,
speaks of him (about B. C. 584) as a shining example of uprightness
and of wisdom, ranking him with Noah and Job, 14: 13, 18, 20.
In another passage (28 : 3) he refers to Daniel as a preeminent exam-
plar of wisdom. The Saviour himself calls Daniel a prophet, and
quotes his words as such; Matt: 24: 15. Mark 13: 14. Paul (Heb.
11 : 33, 34) alludes to him ; and John has taken him as a kind of
model, throughout the Apocalypse.
The question, then, whether there was such a man as Daniel, con
spicuous above most men, and beloved and honored of God, seems to
be sufficiently vouched for by all these testimonies.

§ 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 381
The attentive reader of the Scriptures will perceive, that the part
which Daniel had to act, was not only conspicuous, but singular and
very difficult. What other Hebrew prophet was ever called to such a
course of action, at a heathen court, yea a court which then governed,
as it were, the world? Jonah, indeed, had a short mission to the Nine
vites ; but briefly and grudgingly was it performed. Daniel, although
a mere lad when brought to Babylon, preserved an incorruptible integ
rity of character as a true disciple of Moses, and ever lived uninflu
enced by the luxury and splendor and honors of the Babylonish eourt.
That he was a man of a most fearless spirit, is evident from the whole
tenor of his life. That he did the duties of his station in the most able
and faithful manner, is evident from the length of time in which he was
prime minister of State. That he cherished the warmest emotions of
patriotism toward his own country and people, is inscribed in high relief
upon his whole book ; but above all, upon his intercessions in their
behalf, as developed in chap. ix.
Of Daniel's characteristics as a writer, and of the object, style, and
qualities of his work, we shall have occasion to speak in the sequel.
§ 2. Nature and Design of the Book.
* It is difficult to make a greater mistake in regard to these, than to
suppose that he designed to write a continuous and regular history,
either of himself, of the Jews, or of the kings of Babylon. So much
of his early history is developed, as serves to cast light on the manner
in which he became qualified to act the important part which fell to his
lot. When this is accomplished, he is brought to view only on some
great occasions, where his interposition seems to make a signal display
of divine power and goodness. E. g. he interprets Nebuchadnezzar's first
and second mysterious dreams. He explains to the impious Belshazzar
the ominous hand-writing on the wall. He is elevated to the post of
viceroy under Darius the Mede, and had a marvellous escape from the
den of lions, into which he had been cast by the malignant artifices of
envious courtiers. It appears probable from 6 : 28 and 10 : 1, that he
retained a high post of honor, at least for some three years of the reign
of Cyrus. These are all the incidents recorded of a life of some
seventy years, in connection with the Babylonish court. To speak of a
regular biography, then, as undertaken by Daniel, would indicate a very
singular notion of what belongs to his book.
As to the Jews, not one word is said concerning them, either as to
the good or evil that befel them, during their state of exile. What was

382 § 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK.
their condition, and what their demeanor, the writer of the book of
Daniel has not undertaken at all to inform us.
In regard to the native kings of Babylon, the names of only two of
them occur, viz. of Nebuchadnezzar and of Belshazzar. Nebuchad
nezzar reigned more than forty years, and made many conquests. But
it is only on the occasion of his two dreams, and the consecration of his
colossal idol, that he is brought to view, after Daniel becomes a member
of his court. Belshazzar appears only on the last day of his life ; and
his Medo-Persian successors are brought to view in such a way, that we
have only a single glance at them. Darius' sad mistake in yielding to
the artifices of his courtiers to destroy Daniel, is graphically placed
before us ; but nothing further is disclosed respecting him. That Cy
rus succeeded him in the throne of Babylon, is all that is said concern
ing him, excepting that he was the friend of Daniel.
The rest of the book is made up of four prophetic visions, seen be
tween B. C. 555 and 534, i. e. in the later part of Daniel's life. These
are sui generis both in respect to form and matter, to a certain extent ;
although in several respects they strongly resemble other visions of
other prophets during the exile, e. g. those of Ezekiel and Zachariah.
The main object of them is, to show the future condition and destiny of
i the Jewish people, after the exile and before the period when their great
j Deliverer should come.
Some critics have assumed, that Daniel undertook to write his own
history and that of Babylon ; or at least, that he ought to have done so ;
and then they take him to task for having performed his work so imper
fectly and unskilfully. Others, perceiving how slender is the founda
tion on which all this is built, proclaim (adunco naso) that the whole
book has a mere paraenetic or hortatory object in view ; and that this
design is reached just as well by romance or allegory as by facts. They
compare the narratives in Daniel with the parables in the Evangelists,
and aver, that in both cases the end is reached equally as well by ro
mance as by facts. In this way, all investigation as to actual events
or occurrences is superseded, or rendered a matter of indifference, and
it comes out that we have before us, in the book of Daniel, a mere
fiction or allegory, a part of which has pretended facts for its basis, and
the other part is underlaid by supposed prophetic revelations and vis
ions. When the question is asked : What book in the Old Test, or the New
stands on such a basis ? it becomes difficult to give a satifactory answer.
Strauss, indeed, and those who sympathize with him, have no difficulty
in answering the question ; for they take the same position as the ob-

§ 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 383
jectors before us, with regard to the Gospels themselves, viz. that they
are but a tissue of allegories and romance. But men of more sober
minds can find but little satisfaction, in the assumption of positions
such as these.
When it is said (as it sometimes has been), that the design of the
author of the book of Daniel is wholly paraenetic, the assertion plainly
goes too far. The prophetic parts of this book have surely but a slight
tinge of this cast. But still, if I might be permitted to define the word
paraenetic, I should not wish to deny that the book at large has this
characteristic, even in a high degree. I understand this word to designate
something that is edifying, and this in the way of warning and exhor
tation or excitement. Most surely the occurrences related by Daniel
are deeply interesting in their nature, and highly adapted to make a
deep impression on all minds, of the power and goodness and holiness
of the Supreme Being. Could Daniel, or any other prophet, preach
more impressive sermons to Nebuchadnezzar and his court, than the
explanation of the monarch's dreams, and the defeat of his murderous
purposes on the plains of Dura ? Was there ever a more impressive
scene, than that in Belshazzar's palace, on the night of his death?
Could a thousand books or addresses have made an impression so deep
and awful, on the riotous and idolatrous courtiers of the king, as the
mysterious hand writing on the wall, and the interpretation of the
same ? Or was there any means of securing to Daniel his place in the
court of Darius, and afterwards in that of Cyrus, so stringent and
effectual, as the deliverance of the Heb. prophet from the den of lions ?
All this undoubtedly is paraenetic, and is so in a high degree. Indeed
the mind cannot well conceive of occasions that would command a more
thrilling interest, than those related by Daniel. Nothing trifling, nothing
indifferent, nothing mediocre, is connected with them. They far exceed,
in point of real interest, the renowned tales of oriental fiction so long
current and popular in the West as well as the East. The reason is,
that the events with which they are concerned are of the highest mag
nitude and importance; and while there is enough in them of the
marvellous to gratify this craving of the human mind, there is still
nothing of the monstrous, the absurd, the puerile, and the impossible.
I speak of course as a believer in the possibility of miracles ; but even
those who deny this, cannot deny the thrilling interest of the narrations,
nor their adaptedness to excite a deep religious feeling. What could be
devised better to show the heathenish court and city, that their " idol
gods were a lie, and that those who make them are like unto them ? "
The prophetic parts of the book are designed more for believing

384 § 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK.
Jews, than for the heathen. Yet even here there is matter which
might well instruct the heathen, and specially those of that period.
The succession of the four dynasties was a thing that could be nothing
more than guessed at, without the aid of inspiration. The character
and demeanor of the Syrian dynasty were matters in the dark, and also,
as yet, in the distant future. Supposing Daniel to have written all the
predictions in his book respecting this dynasty, how is it possible to
deny that he had a foresight altogether supernatural ? Josephus (An-
tiqq. x. ad. fin.) argues, from this book of Daniel, the certainty of an
omniscient and omnipotent overruling Providence. The argument is
sound and conclusive ; unless indeed we assume, with many recent
critics, that a miracle is an utter impossibility.
But let us view the book before us in another light. The Jews were
in exile, in different parts of Babylonia ; many of them near the metro
polis. All captives in war were universally considered, at that time, as
the slaves of the conquerors. In this state, they must naturally have
been exposed to many injuries, insults, and severities. Slavery is but
a bitter draught, even when the potion is sweetened. But a slavish
subjection of the people of God to a highly superstitious and idolatrous
nation, must, in the usual course of things, have exposed them to many
indignities and cruelties. Was it nothing, then, to this degraded and
suffering people, that one of their own nation was the highest officer at
court, the king excepted ? Was it nothing, that Daniel and his three
friends managed all the concerns of Babylonia ? Could they not, in
many ways, and without exciting the suspicion or displeasure of the
king, modify and allay the severities to which the exiles were exposed,
and lighten the yoke that was on their neck ? And if the God of
heaven meant to preserve his people, in the midst of their chastisement
and humiliation, and finally to restore them to their country, was it
not worthy of him to interpose as he did, and order matters in such a
way that the Jews would be kept quiet until the appointed time, and
would be protected from special insult and injury ? One can scarcely
believe that the miracles wrought under Moses in the wilderness, were
more important to the existence and welfare of the Jews, than those
which were wrought in Babylon.
Nor is this all. Babylon was to change masters. What then would
the new sovereigns do, in regard to the Jews ? Would they oppress
them, as other slaves were usually oppressed ? Or would they treat
them kindly, and give them their liberty? When Darius came to
the throne of Babylon, this was a deeply interesting question. The
time of deliverance, as predicted by Jeremiah, was near at hand.

§ 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 385
Much was to be done. Darius, therefore, and after him Cyrus, were to
be won over to the cause of the exiles. Daniel's standing and relation
to these kings doubtless accomplished this important work. No sooner
had Cyrus become seated on his new throne, than he set the whole
Jewish nation free. All the sacred vessels of the temple were given up
to the returning exiles, and all persons were called upon to encourage
them, and contribute to their holy and patriotic undertaking.
If now the events related in the book of Daniel have evidently such
important ends in view, and are well adapted to accomplish them, who
will deny the importance of recording them for the instruction of all
future ages ? Facts like these, which exhibit the pbwer and glory of
God, and show his tender care for his people even when erring from
his ways, are, I readily concede, paraenetic even in the highest degree.
But they are far indeed from detracting from the value of the book,
or from being unworthy of the sacred records.
It has been made an objection against the book before us, that it is a
mixture of history and prediction, and thus exhibits itself as alien from
the Hebrew prophetic writing in general. But this objection has little
ground to support it. Is not Isaiah in part historical ? See chap, xxxvi
— xxxix. Is not almost one half of Jeremiah historical ? Are not parts
of Haggai and Zechariah historical ? How is it any objection to Daniel,
then, that it contains historical narrations, when all that is related has a
most evident and intimate connection with the welfare of the people,
and is adapted to impress deeply on their minds, what God had done
in their behalf?
In respect to the prophetic parts of the book, there is no portion of them
which does not point the Jews to the great Deliverer, who was yet to ap
pear among them. In regard to Messianic views, no prophet introduces
them so often ; although some, e. g. Isaiah, have dwelt longer on the de
tail. In regard to the times of distress and danger that were yet to come,
we may apply the common apothegm : ' Forewarned, forearmed.' Daniel
and others might, of themselves, have hoped that liberation from the Baby
lonish exile would secure the lasting and uniform prosperity of the Jews.
But his visions warn him and them not to rely on false hopes. Still fur
ther chastisement would be needed, and still more would be inflicted.
Rejoice indeed they might ; but they were warned to rejoice with trem
bling.
' One other characteristic of the book deserves special notice. A por
tion — a large one — of its prophetic parts relates to a period between the
return from exile and the coming of the Messiah. No other prophecy
has occupied this ground. With the exception of the Messianic period
33

386 § 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK.
itself, all other prophetic books close, as to any future, either with the ex
ile itself, or with return from it. Has Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel gone be
yond this, excepting in what is Messianic, much as they have said about the
exile and the return from it ? And is there no special propriety in Daniel's
occupying the highly important ground in question ? Ezra and Nehemiah
and the book of Esther have indeed related some important occurrences,
within the first century after the return from Babylon. But even the
latest of the Hebrew prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, leave
more than four centuries unoccupied by prediction, and equally so by
history. The great misfortunes and sufferings of the Jews, even such as
in some respects surpassed those of the Babylonish captivity, were yet to
come, and the Jews, as a nation, had as yet no warning of them. Is no
important object accomplished, then, when Daniel fills up this gap ? At
least it will be acknowledged, that the Jews had, and must have, a deep in
terest in such predictions as disclosed to them other times of trial and of
danger. It cannot be charged upon the prophecies of Daniel, therefore,
that they are insignificant or unimportant.
' But why (the Messianic period excepted) do his predictions stop
short with the death of Antiochus Epiphanes ? The Jews had many
troubles after his time ; why not predict and specify them in like manner ?'
To these questions one might reply, by asking why all the other prophets
have, with the exception of the Messianic prophecies, a terminus ad quern
short of Daniel's ? Why did they not go beyond the exile, and the return
from it ? But, passing this, I would „ remark, that, as has already been
stated, neither Daniel, nor any other prophet, undertakes to write annals
of the Jewish nation. Ordinary events and occurrences are omitted in
prophecy. Daniel stops with those occurrences which were not inferior,
in point of interest, to the Babylonish captivity itself. There was even
more danger to the religion of the Jews under Antiochus' reign than un
der Nebuchadnezzar's. Let us see moreover, for a moment, whether
there is not a natural turn (so to speak) given to the mind of the
prophet. When the seventy years were near to a close, Daniel prays
most earnestly for the promised deliverance. Gabriel then appears to tell
him, that although one period of seventy had now come near its close,
yet another period of seven times seventy awaited his people, one of
deep and thrilling interest. The city and temple would indeed be re
built ; but this would be accomplished in troublous times ; and at last
another crisis in their affairs would come, not unlike that through which
.they had just passed. Jeremiah had occupied his book with the crisis
which had just passed ; Daniel might very naturally occupy his with the
one that was yet to come.

§ 2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 387
' But why not go beyond this ?' I answer again by asking : Why did
not Jeremiah go beyond the end of the exile ? There must be some
stopping place, unless prophecy necessarily becomes a book of con
tinuous annals. Enough for Daniel, that he looked forward to the second
exile as it were, and predicted it. The Jews had indeed many troubles
after that period ; but they bore no comparison with those of the reign of
Antiochus. They were temporary. They always had their own kings
and priests. Even the conquest of Pompey (B. C. 63) did not seriously
interrupt the independence and prosperity of the Jews. He left the tem
ple untouched, with all its sacred untensils. It is no objection then to the
book before us, that its predictions close with a second horrible catastro
phe. And surely it is no unimportant object to be accomplished by it, to
disclose a sad catastrophe which no other prophet had foretold.
Even those interpreters (who are quite numerous), that look upon the
book of Daniel as having named a specific period of seventy weeks of
years which reaches down to the Messiah, are obliged to confess its si
lence respecting events after the reign of Antiochus, and even until the
Messianic period. But for the 490 years which these weeks contain,
there has been found by those interpreters no apposite- terminus a quo ;
as we have already seen in the Comm. on 9: 24 — 27. That they end
with the reign and death of Antiochus, I cannot doubt ; although I am
unable to make the commencement of them clear. But as I shall not
here renew the discussion of this topic, I merely remark, that any a priori
prescription of the metes and bounds of prophecy must be inapposite
and irrelevant. Everything is not predicted, nor designed to be predicted.
We must leave the matter of judging where to stop, and what to include,
to the prophet himself. Enough in the present case, that analogy drawn
from other prophets justifies Daniel in stopping with a signal catastrophe.
A class of objectors to the contents of the book of Daniel, different
from those whom I have noticed, make the allegation, that ' the book has
no important moral object in view. It never preaches, never denounces,
never threatens, and never promises. It is therefore unlike any other of
the prophecies.'
But if we should suppose the alleged histories in the book to be ro
mance, or allegory, even then there would be little force in this objection.
Does not our Saviour teach, yea preach, and threaten, and promise, and
exhort, in his parables ? Daniel was not by regular office a prophet ;
i. e. he was not sent to the Jewish people in the capacity of a public
teacher. He does not address them at all, in a direct manner, like Isa
iah; Jeremiah, and others. But are not his narrations full of most
important instruction ? Are they not comminatory to idolaters, and en-

388 §2. nature""and design of the book.
cou raging and soul-stirring to the pious? Are any more lofty ideas of
God, and his superintending and remunerating providence, anywhere dis
closed ? Are not the events then future, which are disclosed in the pre
dictions of Daniel, of thrilling interest and importance ? And with all this
before us, are we entitled to make such an objection as that in question ?
On another extreme are those who assert that ' the object of the book
is that of a narrow-minded and superstitious Hebrew. According to him,
there is no God but Jehovah ; and no people but the Jews. Every
thing is purely national and selfish ; or else it savors of superstition and
closely adheres to the Jewish ritual.'
To the accusation, that Daniel makes Jehovah supreme and all in all,
and the Jewish people his then only chosen people, I plead guilty in his
behalf. But if there be culpable guilt or superstition in this, then all the
Heb. prophets lie under the same condemnation — yea, all the 0. Testa
ment. But on such points, accusation is eulogy. God be thanked, that
there are many millions who have thought with Daniel, and who still.
think and believe with him, as to Jehovah and his chosen people ! In
regard to superstition and selfishness, I am unable to find either of them
in the pages of Daniel. A more pious, devoted, noble minded man never
lived. How could he have been so long in the Babylonish court, without
a liberality and courteousness of mind and manners of which there are
but few examples ?
Lengerke and others, who assign the book to the period of Antiochus'
persecutions, represent ' the main object of it to be, to encourage the Jew
ish people who were suffering under them, and to hold up to them, in the
example of Nebuchadnezzar, the probable fate of their tyrannical op
pressor. Everything throughout the book, it is alleged, is written with
such a purpose in mind, and to this both the historical part and the pre
dictions have a constant reference. It was, moreover, this apropos char
acter and quality of the book which procured for it, at so late a period, a
place in the Jewish canon.'
I do not feel disposed in any measure to call in question the fact, that
the book of Daniel was highly adapted to admonish, to comfort, and to
quicken the righteous sufferers, under the cruel persecutions of Epipha
nes ; nor that it is a book adapted peculiarly to seasons of distress and
trouble, at all times and in all countries. But that the book was written
for the purpose of making Nebuchadnezzar an allegorical personage,
whose real antitype was Antiochus, I must be permitted to call in ques
tion. Some features of mutual resemblance indeed there are, as there
always must be between men who are tyrants and oppressors and plun
derers. But beyond the facts, that both of these kings overran and

§2. NATURE AND DESIGN OP THE BOOK. 389
subdued Palestine, and took possession of its capital city ; that both of
them rifled the temple of many of its treasures, and destroyed many of
the Jews in war — beyond these facts, there is little in common between
Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus. Nebuchadnezzar was no persecutor for
the sake of religion. With the exception of the three Jewish worthies
who were cast into the furnace of fire, (and this because they publicly re
fused to obey the king's orders to prostrate themselves before his idol,
and thus, as he viewed the matter, showed him disrespect), we read of no
persecution for the sake of religion in Nebuchadnezzar's time. We are
told indeed by Jeremiah (29: 22), that the king of Babylon roasted Zede
kiah and Ahab in the fire. But it appears from the context, that these
were false prophets and preachers of sedition among the Hebrew captives.
In all probability it was for reasons of State, that they were sentenced to
death. But in all the accounts we have of Nebuchadnezzar's demeanor
in respect to the Jews in exile, we have nothing to excite suspicion that
he was a bigoted persecutor, or even a persecutor at all. In accordance
with the war-usages of the times, Nebuchadnezzar, when provoked by the
frequent rebellion of* the Jews, made havoc among their leaders, after
they had been conquered in battle. But none of the prophets, during the
exile, have told us of anything which he did to the Jews, which resembled
the furious and bloody and long-continued persecutions of Antiochus.
Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the temple, because he knew it would be a
rallying point for the Jewish nation. But Antiochus, the DaiBa , made it
desolate and polluted it by his abominations, his statue of Jupiter with his
eagle, and his offerings of swine's flesh on the altar. He also sought to
destroy every copy of the Jewish sacred books, and punished with death
those who concealed them from him. He bribed apostate Jews to prac
tise the heathen rites, and deluged with blood the holy city for several
years. We have no account that Nebuchadnezzar did anything like to
this. We do not read of his prohibiting the Jews to retain their Scrip
tures, or of his obliging them to desist from their worship and rites. It is
impossible to suppose, with any probability, that Nebuchadnezzar had
any bitter and bigoted resentment against the Jews as such. If so, how
could he have constituted a Jew his prime minister, and his three intimate
friends satraps in Babylonia ? It lies on the face of the whole narration,
that the state of the Jews at that period must have been rendered quite
tolerable, in a civil and social respect, under such a viceroy and such
governors. The advice which Jeremiah gives them (ch. xxix), shows
that the exiles were far from being in a very degraded state, or destitute
of many important privileges.
Compare now with all this, the doings of Antiochus as related in
33*

390 § 2 NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK.
" 1 Mace i. seq. In common, both the king of Babylon and the king of
Syria were conquerors, and masters of Judea for a time. But the
demeanor of Nebuchadnezzar toward the vanquished, and that of Anti
ochus, was as discrepant as we can well imagine.
• Why then should a writer, in the time of Antiochus, go auont invent
ing a fictitious exemplar of that tyrant, and yet make it so widely
diverse, that one can scarcely find any analogy between the two cases,
excepting that of original conquest and pillage? A very unskilful
writer of fiction he must have been, not to make the prototype more
like the antitype. Even as to temper and character, the two kings were
very unlike. Nebuchadnezzar was indeed haughty, and passionate, and
during hi3 passion he was cruel. But he had his seasons of deep
relenting, and could be made to feel the force of an appeal to that God
who alone is supreme. It seems even probable from Dan. iv., that he died
at last a penitent and a believer. But Antiochus had all his bad quali
ties, without any of his good ones. He was relentless, bigoted to the last
degree, cruel beyond any precedent where his anger had been excited,
and irascible to an extreme. Well was he nicknamed iniuavqg. Be
sides all this, he was avaricious, debauched beyond all measure, mean,
contemptible, (ntaa as Daniel very appropriately calls him), and withal
very arrogant and ambitious. It would be difficult to find his parallel,
even in a Tiberius, a Caligula, or a Nero.
To me it would appear a matter of wonder, that a writer having such
an object in view as that of making out a prototype for Antiochus,
should have succeeded so ill, since he has manifested, in many parts of
his book, ideas and emotions that are truly sublime find striking. That
a man of even mediocre talent, should not better succeed, must be a
matter of surprise to all, in case we make the main object of the book
to be what Lengerke asserts it to be.
But this is not all. Lengerke and his liberal friends declare unhesi
tatingly their disbelief of all miracles. Of course, they deny that pre
diction, in a truly prophetic sense, is any where to be found in the
Bible. Of course Daniel could really predict nothing. But as his
book contains many things, which if written during the exile, must be
considered as real predictions, it follows of course, as they conclude,
that the book could have been written only after the events described
had taken place.
But here is some substantial disagreement with the positions that we
have just been examining. Daniel, they say, was written in the time
of the Maccabees, to encourage and comfort the Jews under persecu
tion. Of course, if this were the object, it must have been written

§2. NATURE AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK. 391
when the persecution was going on, i. e. during the life of Antiochus.
But how then did the writer come to know so much about the death of
Antiochus ? How did he know that this would happen at the end of
the last week of the 70 weeks ? To fill this gap, Bleek alleges, that
chaps, x — xii. were written after his death, so that it is prophecy post
eventum. But unluckily for this subterfuge, Dan. 7 : 24: — 26 predicts
his death after a definite period, viz. after the last half of the final week
of years. It is also again predicted in Dan. 8 : 23 — 25, where it is
explicitly stated, that Antiochus shall be crushed, not in war, nor by
human power, but by the mighty hand of the Prince of princes,.
without human aid. Dan. 9 : 26, 27, repeats the same declarations.
Here then the time and manner of Antiochus' death are both explicitly
declared. How now could a writer under his reign, foresee all this,
without the spirit of prophecy ? And of what use is it to tell us, that
chap, x — xii. at least were written post eventum ? If we concede it, it
does not in the least remove our difficulty with the theory in question.
At all events, then, those who reject prophecy as an impossibility,
must maintain that the whole book of Daniel (comp. 2 : 40 — 43) was
written after the death of Antiochus. But here again we have a
varegov ngortgov. If such were the case, then what need of the paree-
netics addressed to the persecuted ? Antiochus was dead ; Judas was
triumphant ; Judea was free ; her temple was cleansed and reconse
crated, and all its holy rites and privileges renewed. Did the Jews
need the exhortation and consolation addressed to the persecuted, when
it .was with them a time of feasting, and of keeping their national
thanksgiving ? Rather, we should suppose, did the times call for some
thing like Ex. xv., or Ps. lxviii., or Is. xiv.
And then, (I cannot help asking the question) : How were the Jews
of that period, led on by such men as Mattathias, and Judas, and Simon,
to be convinced that a book just written, and never before heard of, was
the work of a man who lived more than four centuries before, and
deserved a place in their sacred canon, now rendered doubly dear by
persecution, and by the efforts to destroy it ? Believe all this who may,
I must regard it as a stretch of credulity far beyond that belief which
others cherish, who are accused of an a priori faith, and are treated
with so much scorn on account of it.
That the book of Daniel may profit the people of God at all times
and in all places, I have fully conceded. But that it was written in An-
tiochian times, and for such a specific purpose as is alleged, and was
foisted at that time into the Jewish canon, are assertions which require
better evidence to establish them than has yet been adduced.

392 STYLE AND AESTHETICAL CHARACTER.
Enough has been said, to show the moral, religious, and, I may add,
political or civil designs and objects of the book before us. It does not,
like most of the prophets, contain preaching or hortatory addresses.
But both its narratives and its predictions are full of interesting and
important instruction. In one particular it differs from most of the
other prophetic books. It contains predictions that relate to a series of
successive empires, in middle and hither Asia. The like is not else
where to be met with. But it is not of these empires because they are
such, or rather, it is not of them historically regarded as empires, that it
treats. It is of them only as standing in relation to or in connection
with the Jews, that it speaks. When it was written, the first of the four
great empires had attained its height of power. The prophet follows
on to sketch very briefly the fall of all the four great dynasties, until he
comes to the last, on which he dwells more than on all the others,
merely because the Jews were more affected by it than by all the rest.
It lies upon the very face of his predictions, that such is the nature of
his design. Having brought his people to what we may call their
second exile, (for multitudes did in reality become exiles and fled to
the caves and deserts), he breaks off here, with the exception of dis
closing a future great Deliverer and Saviour, whose kingdom is to be
universal. It was not to his purpose, to pursue the detail of historic
facts any further.
That he has left behind him a book of the deepest interest, to all who
admit the miracles of the Bible, none I think will question. We should
lose an important link in the golden chain of revelation, if this were
struck out. My belief is, that all the efforts of unbelieving and sneer
ing criticism will not be able to remove it from its place.
' § 3. Style and aesthetical character of the book.
No one can pass from the reading of such books as Isaiah, Nahum,
Habakkuk, and some other of the Minor Prophets, to the study of Dan
iel, without perceiving a great change. The characteristic, and (when
well understood) delightful poetic parallelism which pervades them, is
here unfrequent and but faintly marked. The like may be said of most
of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the first eight chapters of Zechariah, Jonah, Hag-
gai, and Malachi. The prophetic parts of all these books are often pro
saic in their form, even when animated by a poetic spirit. Above all,
Daniel approaches nearest to Ezekiel and Zechariah in manner and
style, although not in matter. Like these prophets, he deals everywhere
with symbols and visions. They were, the one his contemporary, and

§3. STYLE AND AESTHETICAL CHARACTER. 393
the other but little after him ; and all three formed their style and their
modes of thinking and expression in a foreign land, where symbol, and
imagery, and vision, and dreams, were greatly relished and admired.
The ruins of the oriental cities recently brought to the light of day, as
well as those which have ever remained exposed to view, are replete
with symbolic forms and images which once gave play and delight to the
fancy. Nothing is more certain, than that the exiled prophets were strong
ly influenced in their style, by the training which their condition necessari
ly gave them. Hence the great dissimilitude between them and (for ex
ample) such a writer as Isaiah. Our aesthetical judgment is strongly
biassed in favor of such writers as Isaiah, and Nahum, and Habakkuk ;
perhaps justly. But this cannot prove, that the Jews in exile would not
have a higher relish for the manner of Ezekiel and Zechariah. It may
indeed be taken for granted that such was the case ; for otherwise, we
can hardly suppose these prophets would have so far departed from the
ancient models. That they possessed talents competent to writing in
another style, cannot well be doubted by any one who has studied their
works. In the narratives of Daniel, there is a copiousness and exuberance of
diction, approaching that of Ezekiel. There is also a strong tinge of the
dramatic, in the change of scenes, and of persons and their respective ad
dresses. It cannot be denied, that the impression on the reader is strong
and vivid. The writer never tires us, nor suffers his narrative to halt
and delay. If the story, in some cases, might be more simply and brief
ly told, it is quite doubtful whether it would not lose in interest, what it
might gain in normal rhetoric.
In the narratives are frequent bursts of feeling which give much ad
ditional interest to the pious mind. For example, in 2: 19 — 23. In
the interpretation of dreams and visions, there are many passages that
attain to the true sublime ; e. g. 2: 27—45. 4: 19—27. 5: 17—28. In
fearless and unshaken fidelity and boldness, these last two passages are
no where surpassed; while at the same time all becoming respect and
courteousness are duly observed. In the prophetic portions, there are
passages which reach the height of sublimity ; e. g. 7: 9 — 12. 8: 23 — 25.
10: 5 — 9. 11: 40 — 45 with 12: 1 — 3. Not unfrequently, do many pas
sages here approach near to the manner of the older prophets, and bor
der upon the higher poetry. The spirit of poetry, indeed, mingles itself
more or less with nearly all parts of the work. The whole tone is sol
emn, grave, elevated, and adapted to produce serious, lively, and deep
impressions. That the manner and style are oriental, may be readily
acknowledged ; for how could the book well be supposed to be genuine,

394 §3. STYLE AND AESTHETICAL CHARACTER.
if they were not so ? That none of the visions will aesthetically compare
with Is. vi. or Ps. xviii., we may easily concede ; but then where are the
compositions that will compare with those theophanies ? But the read
er of Ezekiel, or Zechariah, or Malachi, or Haggai, or Jonah, will con
cede to Daniel a place in aesthetics decidedly above theirs. The book
contains in itself no good reason, why the Masorites should have ejected it
from its place among the prophets, and none that render it unworthy of
a place in the Canon.
That the book is not of the same stamp as the older prophets, may be
readily conceded; but this only puts it on the same ground with
Ezekiel and some four or five of the Minor Prophets. That it was
adapted to the taste of the later Jews, is abundantly evident from the
numerous writings that have attempted to imitate it, near the beginning
of the Christian era. Besides, of all books in the Old Test., John in
his Apocalypse has most closely followed this. As the standard of
taste, in various respects, is not absolute and unlimited, it would be
difficult to decide with much positiveness, that Daniel is not en
titled to most respectful consideration, in regard to manner as well
as matter ; at any rate, to decide that he was not so considered among
his own people, and in ancient times. Cicero and Tacitus are exceed
ingly unlike ; but a scholar may admit both to a high place in his re
gard. Daniel and Isaiah are very unlike ; but I know of no offence
against the laws of taste, when one relishes them both. God, in his
wisdom, has introduced all kinds of style into his word; so that all
varieties of taste may be gratified. When God speaks to men, he
speaks more humano. We should love and prize the Bible the more
for this. It bears internal marks in abundance, of having been com
posed by different persons, in different ages and countries. This to us
is an evidence, that it is what it claims to be.
In regard to the idiom of the book, I shall have something to say in
the following section. Its style and aesthetical character are little, if
any, affected by this. It is the matter of the book, its narratives and
course of thought, that create an interest in the mind of the reader. The
mass of religious readers are, as I apprehend, more interested in it than
in almost any other prophetic composition. There are indeed many
things in the prophetic part, which they do not well understand. And
this is true of nearly all the prophets. But still, these are fraught with
such a spirit of piety and reverence for God, that they are not without
interest even to them. The more intelligent reader, who is familiar
with oriental manners and customs and objects, cannot fail to read all
parts of the book with much interest. The God who guides the affairs

§ 4. LANGUAGE AND IDIOM. 395
of nations and rules over all, is every where supreme, and every where
prominent. His providential care and guardianship over his true
worshippers and chosen people, stand in high relief upon its pages, and
cannot fail to interest and instruct the pious and docile reader.

§ 4. Language and Idiom of the Book.
The language is nearly half Chaldee, and the other half Hebrew.
Chap. ii. 4, and on to the end of chap, vii., is the Hebrew- Chaldee. I
give it this name, because of the many conformities to the Hebrew in
orthography, and also in the use of particular conjugations (e. g. Hiphil
instead of Aphel), which it exhibits. The use of n- final, instead of
the later Chaldee X- every where abounds. Still, we are not secure in
the position, that the Chaldee of the time of Daniel was not different,
in the respects mentioned, from that in the Targums of Onkelos and
Jonathan. It is by comparison with these last named writings, that we
come to the conclusion that Daniel is Hebrew- Chaldee. But it may be,
that in the time of Daniel, the Chaldee of the Babylonish court was
much nearer to that in his book, than the Chaldee of the Targums.
Indeed, this is not at all improbable.
At all events, we have convincing evidence that Daniel wrote such
Chaldee as was current among the Hebrews of that period. The book
of Ezra, which contains several chapters of Chaldee, exhibits the same
language in all characteristic respects, as the Chaldee part of Daniel.
It is a striking testimony in favor of the position, that these two books
were nearly coetaneous. Later Hebrew writers of the Chaldee must
have approached nearer to the idiom of the Targums. If the original
Hebrew of the son of Sirach, or of Tobit, were extant, we could better
judge what the state of the Chaldaizing Hebrew of their day was, and
thus obtain niany illustrations of the Chaldee at that period, i. e. about
180 B. C. We can hardly believe that such men as Daniel and Ezra
were half learned in the Chaldee of their time ; and therefore when we
speak of their books as containing Chaldaic-Hebrew, we say this merely
by referring to the Chaldee of the Targums as a standard.
As to the Hebrew part of Daniel, it has been charged with deep
declension from the early and pure Hebrew. Nay, it is even insisted on,
that it is a farrago of Aramaean and Talmudico-Rabbinic ; KnobeL
Heb. Prophet. § 40. 4. Lengerke makes similar charges. With all
becoming deference to these critics, I venture to deny this charge. The
production of some 8 or 10 words, which are of the character in ques
tion, has but little weight in such a matter. Where is the book in the

396 § 4. LANGUAGE AND IDIOM OF THE BOOK.
Bible, of any considerable length, which could not be proved to be
Aramaic or Rabbinic, if some few words approaching or conforming to
these idioms constitute a proof? It does not follow, most surely, that
such words as are ana!£ Xsyopeva, axe of course late Hebrew. What
Hebrew writer has not some such words ?
The truth is, that all the usual laws of the Hebrew, both as to syntax
and to forms, reign throughout the Hebrew of this book The Hebrew
itself approaches nearer the golden age than that of Ezra, or of Ezekiel ;
I might almost say, than that of Jeremiah. But if the book be genuine,
then should the Hebrew belong to the silver age ; like that of nearly
all the later Hebrew writers. Coheleth was, not long since, put down to
a very late age, on the ground of the like charge. But since Hirtzfeld
pubUshed his commentary on this book, I believe little has been said
against the book of Coheleth on this ground. At least, there can but
little be justly said.
That the book of Daniel contains Hebrew words used in the sense
of a later age, can surely not aid the objector to its genuineness. On the
contrary, that fact helps to establish its genuineness. Daniel, when a
child, was brought to Babylon and instructed in the language and
learning of the Chaldees by the court-teachers. That he wrote and
spoke both Hebrew and Chaldee with ease, and equally well, is proved
from the manner of his diction throughout With the exception, that
the reader finds himself passing into a Chaldee element, or rather, that
he meets the author in Chaldee costume, all is the same. The very
same person is actor and speaker through and through. J£ he addresses
us in his Chaldee costume to-day, tomorrow he comes in a Hebrew
dress, but with the same face and manners as before. This is all the
difference that is perceivable, between the two parts of the book. There
is not a composition in all the Bible, that bears stronger marks of unity
and identity of authorship. The peculiarities of the writer are so many
and so striking, that it is impossible to overlook them or lose sight of
them. We know nothing more of passing from Hebrew to Chaldee,
and then from Chaldee to Hebrew, than that we are reading different
dialects indeed, but not different compositions. Never was there an
author who is more completely himself, and semper idem throughout.
It is the matter, not the manner or style, of Daniel, which makes it a
difficult book for readers. The sentences are not particularly involved
or intricate. Ellipsis is not so frequqnt as in some other Hebrew
books. But the symbols are sometimes of such a nature that they do
not interpret themselves, and need the interposition of the angeldnterpre-
ter who holds intercourse with the prophet. To make a proper applica-

§ 4. LANGUAGE AND IDIOM. 397
tion of his predictions to events in history, an extended knowledge of
history is needed. But this does not result from any fault in the dic
tion, or from want of skill in the language It results from the nature
of prediction, when it is clothed in symbols and trope.
It has been objected to the genuineness of the book, that it contains
two different languages. Why not reject the book of Ezra then, if
such a ground be tenable ? With as little, or perhaps less, apparent
reason, this latter book passes more than once from Hebrew to Chaldee.
I do not undertake to give a specific reason whv Daniel wrote in two
languages. But this is plain, viz.. that he is equally :u home in both.
Another thing also is plain, viz., that when his book was written, the
great mass of the Jews in Babylon must have been more familiar with
Chaldee than with Hebrew. Still the Hebrew as a irritten language
was. if I may so speak, a living one. All learned or well instructed
persons could read it with ease Recent experience among Missiona
ries to the Arabians in Palestine, shows that it is mere pastime for
them to learn the Hebrew. So it must have been with the second
generation of the Hebrews in exile.
That Daniel had reasons for the exchange of languages, which
satisfied his own mind, it is needless to suggest, since he has done it
But if his work be supposititious, as so manv recent critics allege, and if
it belongs to the age of the Maccabees, what inducement could the
romancer have to write in two languages? If it be said, (as it has
been"!, that this might help to palm off his book on the public as a more
ancient one. the reply is. that there are prophets contemporaneous and
subsequent, who had lived in Babylonia, but whose books are not bilin-
guaL It would have been no matter of supieion. then, if all of Daniel
had been composed in Hebrew. But that a Jew of the Jlaccab-M'im
period could write such Chaldee. or such Hebrew, as Daniel has writ
ten, is much against all probability. Would that Jerome had given us
Sirach and Tobit in the originals ! It would then be more easv to
decide. But that the Chaldee remained so exactly of the same type
as that in Ezra, down to the period of the Maccabees, is against prob
ability. The present Chaldee of the book is an evident pledge for its
more advanced age- All the later Chaldee that we know of, is discrep
ant in many important respects from that in Daniel and Ezra. Whence
then can the probability be made out that a writer of the Maccabaean
period, should be able, or be induced, to write in the older Chaldee ?
Knobel objects to the Chaldee part of Daniel, that it contains Pe $'<m
words. His inference would be, that the Persian, in Daniel's time, could
not have influenced the Chaldee. and therefore the book must have been

398 § 5. UNITY OR SAMENESS OF AUTHORSHIP.
written at a later period. But of these so called Persian words, he has
produced only three, viz. tia , nana and Djns . The Persian origin of
the two first is altogether doubtful (see Ges. Lex.) ; and as to the third,
Fuerst (Heb. Concord.) decides strongly against the Persian origin, as
he also does against that of the other two ; and seemingly with good rea
son. On what a slight and sandy foundation, then, does Knobel take
his station, when he assails the genuineness of the book on such a ground ! ,
Even if the words were Persian, or rather Parsi, how could it be shown
that the Chaldeans who came from the country of the Parsis, did not
incorporate some of the words of their vernacular with the language
which they spoke in the time of Daniel ?
Finally, the resemblance of Daniel to Ezekiel is so striking as to the
use of many words peculiar to the later Hebrew, that Lengerke maintains
a designed imitation of the latter, by the late writer of the former. Yet
what there is of argument in this, to prove the lateness of the book of
Daniel, I cannot see. Lengerke first assumes that the book of Daniel is
supposititious, and then accounts for its resemblance to Ezekiel with
regard to diction, by asserting that it is an imitation. But what hinders
us from reversing the process, and reasoning thus : Daniel was first
written, and Ezekiel copied after him ? If Lengerke reasons correctly,
then we may go a step farther, and make another syllogism thus : The
Ascensio Isaiae has many things in common with the scriptural Isaiah;
therefore the author of the latter must have copied from the former. It
may be convenient, for certain purposes, to argue in such a way, where
a point is to be carried at all adventures, and one commences with a —
delenda est Carthago. But it makes not much in favor of a cause, to
employ such argumentation in its behalf. After all, moreover, the re
semblances between Ezekiel and Daniel by no means prove copying in
either. They show contemporaneousness in the writers, beyond fair
doubt ; but not the dependence of either upon the other.
1 § 5. Unity of the book or sameness of Authorship.
Bertholdt was the first, I believe, to divide the book of Daniel into
nine parts, and assign to it so many different authors. This was such
an extravagance in criticism, that it has had but few if any advocates or
imitators. Eichhorn contented himself with two authors, one for the
history, and another for the prophecies. The conclusion of both these
writers is, that the book is a mish-mush, made up by some later writer in
the way of compiling fragments from different compositions. But this
ground has long since been abandoned, even by the so called liberal

§ 5. UNITY OR SAMENESS OF AUTHORSHIP. 399
critics. Bleek, who is one of them, first gave this criticism a death-blow ;
and it is not probable that it will ever attain to a resurrection ; (Theol.
Zeitschr. No. 3. s. 242. ff.). It is needless, therefore, to discuss this matter
at any length. I shall merely advert to some of the arguments by which
the unity and sameness of the book are established.
* (1) There is an evident plan in the arrangement of the book. The
historical part is orderly and chronologically arranged. The different
kings brought to view succeed each other in the order of time, as well as
of the occurrences under their reign. In the prophetical part, the same
arrangement is regularly observed. The book as a whole has an appro
priate introduction in chap, i., and an appropriate ending in chap. xii.
(2) There is, as has already been said above, a resemblance of char
acter through and through, so exact as can scarcely be found in any
other book in all the Bible. Even in passing from Hebrew to Chaldee,
and vice versa, the difference in style and character cannot be at all dis
cerned. The difference is simply linguistic, and nothing more. It
seems to me impossible for any one at all skilled in discerning the char
acteristics of writing, to read the book through attentively in the original,
without an overwhelming conviction that the whole proceeded from one
pen and one mind.
' (3) The several portions of the book, both in history and prophecy,
stand related to each, and are similar, in a variety of respects.
E. g. 2: 47 and 3: 29.* — 4: 1—3 and 4: 37. 6: 29.-3: 30 and 6:
28, and generally chaps, iii. and vi. — Comp. the latter part of ii. with
corresponding parts of vii. viii. So 8: 26 seq. with 12: 4, 9. — 9:3 with
10: 2, 3. — 8: 16 with 9: 21. — 8: 18 with 10: 9. — Compare, moreover,
2: 49 with 3: 12. — 5: 1, 2 with 5: 23.-5: 11 with 2: 48.-5: 18 seq.
with 4: 22 seq. — 6: 1—3 with 6: 28, — 8: 1 seq. with 7: 1 seq. — 9: 21
with 8: 15 seq. — 10: 12 with 9: 23.
Besides these affinities, there are others still more decisive, because
they have respect to peculiarities of phraseology which belong only to
this book.
Compare the comminations in 2: 5. 3: 29. — Compare also the idio
matic phrases, lusi iltn in 2: 28. 4: 2, 7, 10. 7: 1, 7. — bina Nip, 3: 4.
5: 7. 4: 14— M mt, 5: 6, 9. 7: 28, comp. 10: 8. — yi isip bax, 3: 8.
6: 24. — nsbnai inb'psi, 4: 16. 5: 6, 10. 7: 28. — KJJisbi nibs K'aas,
3: 4, 7. 4: 1. 5: 19. 6: 25. — Also the designation of time by a peculiar
use of Diai , 8: 27. 10: 3. — isiab , 8: 19. 11: 27, 35. — The peculiar
* The references are conformed to the division of chapter and verse in our Eng
lish Bible, for the sake of more easy comparison. The Hebrew can be easily found,
in cases where it differs in its notation.

400 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Dili, 8: 18. 10: 9. — Data ytpw , 9: 27. 11: 31. 12: 11. — "OS for Pales
tine, 8: 9. 11: 16, 41. Compare also the various cases in which Daniel
is mentioned and commended, 2: 26. 4: 8, 18. 10: 1. 5: 11. 9: 23. 10:
11, 19. The repetition of more or less of passages in nearly the same
words, may be seen in 3: 7, 10, 15. 4: 10 seq. and 20 seq. al.
These are by no means all the resemblances and affinities of different
parts of the book. Nothing can be more palpable, than that these dif
ferent parts, both historical and prophetic, come from the same source,
and that in the whole there is a unity and completeness of design. There
is not a structure on the whole area of sacred ground, in which the parts
are more homogeneous, better fitted to each other, or more firmly dove
tailed together, than the one before us. That Bertholdt should imagine
the book to comprise nine or even seven authors, would be unaccountable
in any ordinary case — but still it is nothing very strange for him.
§ 6. Genuineness and Authenticity of the Book.
I join these two categories together, because it is difficult to treat of
them separately, without making many repetitions. If the book be
genuine, i. e. if it be the production of Daniel the prophet, then is it of
course authentic, and has a fair claim to a place in the Canon.
The objections made to the genuineness of the book are numerous, and
are urged with great confidence and earnestness, by nearly the whole
corps of neological critics. They have even shaken the faith of some,
who receive most of the other sacred books as authentic. Indeed it has
of late been confidently and somewhat frequently declared, that fuit Ilium
will soon be written on this supposed monument of ancient times ; and
that ere long it will come to a state of desuetude as complete as that of
the devoted Trojan city, while its pretended remains will attract far less
of the curiosity of scholars. Or, (to use another of the decent comparisons
that have lately been made), it will take its place, with general acqui
escence, along with Amadis de Gaul and Jack the Giant-killer.
We shall inquire, by and by, whether there is any good reason for
such sweeping condemnation and excision as this. But I deem it pre
ferable first to bring under notice, the reasons which may be urged in
favor of the genuineness of the book. It is incumbent on those who
admit the valid claims of the book to a place in the canon, to produce
the grounds or reasons of their belief. The affirmative of a controverted
claim, specially where the claim has long been made, naturally demands
our first attention, when we are about to examine its validity.
It is not my design to enter into and dwell upon all the minutiae of

§ 6 GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 401
this subject. It is enough, when points are established, which must
settle, or ought to settle, the controversy. In what I do say, my design
moreover is to be as brief as perspicuity and the nature of the case will
allow. Several writers divide the proofs of the genuineness of Daniel, into
those which are external, i. e. arise from the testimony of others ; and
those which are internal, i. e. arise from a view of the contents. I do
not deem it of any importance to confine ourselves within these technical
limits of order ; for I regard it as more convincing and satisfactory, to
produce the arguments in some natural consecution, and so that their
relation to each other may be easily apprehended.
, As an argument, then, in favor of the genuineness of the book, I would
mention, (1) The testimony of the writer himself to this fact. In 7: 28.
8: 2, 15, 27. 9: 2. 10: 1. 12: 5, the writer speaks of himself as I Daniel,
i. e. the same Daniel whose history is given in chap. i. I do not indeed
regard this as conclusive evidence ; for the forger of a book may insert
the name of another person as the author, and be constant in maintaining
that he is so. But when we find the name of Thucydides, or of any
Greek or Roman classic author, apparently inserted by himself as the
writer of this book or of that, we regard it at least as prima facie evidence
of the fact, and credible until something shall be produced which contra
dicts it. This must be either what the book itself contains, which will
show that it belongs to another age or country ; or else it must be con
tradicted by other credible witnesses, who lived at the alleged author's
time, or soon after ; or finally it must bear evident marks of designed
fraud, or at least of designed fiction. Nothing of testimony against the
genuineness of the book, by competent and cognizant witnesses of ancient
times, has been or can be produced. From the time in which it made
its appearance down to the last quarter of the eighteenth century, among
Jews and Christians, the book held an uniform and undisputed rank as
a genuine book. No one, except men like Porphyry, who rejected all
the sacred books of the Old and the New Test, rose up to call it in ques
tion. That it bears evident marks of fraud or of fiction, would seem to be
sufficiently contradicted by the simple fact of universal reception for at least
2000 years. Evident — to whom ? Not to men who for more than this long
period were its serious and enlightened readers — men too of all classes and
conditions, hostile to each other on many speculative points of religion, but
all agreed in conceding to the book before us the place that it occupies.
It is vain to say, that the Talmudists who assigned it a place among
the Kethubim, meant to degrade it thereby, whatever other reasons they
might have had for this proceeding. The Talmud itself says of Daniel :
34*

402 §6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
" If all the wise men of the Gentiles were put in one scale, and Daniel
in the other, he would outweigh them all ; see in Carpzov. Introd., p. 228,
230. Josephus, as we have seen above (p. 380), ranks Daniel above all
the prophets. Jerome says, that " none of the prophets have spoken so
plainly respecting Christ ;" Pref. in Dan. Augustine says, that " no one
in the 0. Test, has written so expressly concerning the rewards of the
kingdom of heaven." Even Lengerke does not venture to impute fraud
to it, but charges it with romantic fiction. He and others charge it,
moreover, with inconsistencies, with parachronisms, with lack of histori
cal knowledge, and with various whimsies and excesses which render it
suspicious. But what if these last charges, when examined, turn out to be
more subjective than objective ? If so, (and of this, after having traversed
the ground, I cannot doubt), then there can be no valid objection to ad
mitting the author's testimony to his own authorship.
Why do we admit the testimony of Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Mala-
chi, and indeed of all the prophets, to their own authorship, and reject
that of Daniel ? Why do we give credence to like testimony of Thu-
cydides, and other Greek and also Roman writers ? Prima facie then,
the repeated declarations of Daniel respecting his authorship, are evi
dence in favor of it — evidence of importance, unless it can be rebutted.
The fact that he so often exchanges the first person for the third, or
vice versa, is no evidence against this, for such is the custom of all the
prophets. It is the frequency with which he introduces himself, that
Lengerke charges with being a suspicious circumstance. ' None but a
supposititious writer,' he says, ' would be so anxious to reassert so often
his claims and the credibility of his book.' And yet if we look into Je
remiah, Ezekiel, and several other prophets, we find the authors of the
book brought to our notice at every new revelation. — What could be
more natural ? Why should Daniel only be required to depart from this
common usage ?
(2) The sacred writers of the 0. Test, and the New, and also the Sa
viour himself, have testified to the personage and to the book of Daniel,
in such a way as fully to establish the claims made by that book in be
half of Daniel as a true prophet.
We begin with Ezekiel, a contemporary of Daniel, and like him living
in exile. When threatening the Jews, still remaining in Palestine just
before the final captivity, with thorough excision because of their sins, he
says, as the messenger of God authorized to repeat his message to them :
" Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it [Jerusalem],
they should deliver but their own souls [lives] by their righteousness ;"
14: 14. This is twice more repeated in vs. 18, 20. Again in speak-

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 403
ing of the prince of Tyre (28: 3), he says, in the way of chastising his
insolence and self conceit : " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel ; there
is no secret that they can hide from thee !" The cutting irony of this is
quite plain. Equally plain is the high elevation given to the wisdom of
Daniel. It is as much as saying to the prince : ' Thou comparest thyself
with one of the wisest of men, and thinkcst thyself his equal.' The man
ner in which this is said, shows that the prophet appeals to the common
sentiment, respecting Daniel, of the Jews of his time whom he addressed.
And the like may be said of the preceding testimony. Daniel is classed,
as a preeminent example of a just and holy life, with Noah and Job.
What can render any testimony more impressive, in respect to the char
acter of Daniel ?
In vain are we told, that there are other Daniels in the sacred volume ;
for they are at least nothing to our purpose. One of them was a son of
David, 1 Chron. 3: I, of whom nothing but his name is known. The
other was a son of Ithamar, one of the leaders of a company, who went up
to Jerusalem with Ezra, some seventy years after Daniel's death, and
more than that after the death of Ezekiel, Ezra 8: 2. Comp. Neh. 10: 6.
Of course he is out of question. Besides these we know of no Daniel
but the one before us. It is no objection of any weight, in the question as
to his person, that he was young when Ezekiel wrote the passages cited.
The first passages were written about B. C. 594, and the second pas
sage about 588. When the first were written, Daniel must have been
some twenty-live or twenty-seven years of age, if we allow that he was
some twelve to fourteen when he was carried into exile ; (ibi he is called
in Dan. 1: 4). When the second was written, he was some thirty-one to
thirty-three years old. He was indeed very young to acquire such a repu
tation for holiness and wisdom. But the solution of the problem is made
by the history of him in ch. i. ii. of his book. The testimony of Ezekiel
is in strict conformity with all that history, and is indeed a notable com
ment on it and voucher for it. Considering the publicity and conspicuous
nature of his station as prime minister of the Babylonish court, even when
he could have been but some eighteen or nineteen years of age, there can
be no doubt that his fame had spread far and wide, at the time when
Ezekiel bore testimony concerning him.
In vain are we told by Block and others, that the Daniel of Ezekiel
must have been a more ancient and probably a mythical person. Eze
kiel classes him with scriptural personages, real ones, not with mythical
abstractions. He would not have been intelligible to his renders, if he did
not Such then being the case, wo cannot avoid the conclusion, that when
Ezekiel wrote, the condition and character of Daniel was altogether such
as his book asserts or describes it to be. It is indeed a signal testimony,

404 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
and such an one as is scarcely given elsewhere in any part of the Scrip
tures, by one prophet in respect to another.
Thus much then for Daniel's person and character. And thus much^
be it remembered, from the pen of a distinguished prophet of God, con
temporary with Daniel, and a companion in exile. Let us now see what
is the testimony of the N. Test, in relation to the same personage.
First of all, then, we appeal to the testimony of Christ himself, in
Matt. 24: 15, "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desola
tion, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso
readeth let him understand), then let them that are in Judea flee, etc."
The same is repeated in Mark 13: 14 ; excepting that some critical edi
tions now omit one clause there, viz. " spoken of by Daniel the prophet".
But this omission alters not the nature of the case. The Saviour quotes
written words from Daniel, and refers the reader (o dvayivmaxmv) to them
for reflection upon them. In these passages then, or rather in the Sa
viour's discourse, he bears explicit testimony to two things ; first, that
Daniel was a prophet ; and secondly, that his words, when attentively
perused and understood, give warning to his disciples to escape by flight
from the then impending fate of Jerusalem. Now as we must concede
that Jesus spoke the words of truth and soberness, yea that he spake
them as never man did speak, what can we make of such testimony, ex
cept that he believed, as well as the disciples whom he addressed, that
Daniel was a true prophet, and his book worthy of all honor and credit ?
To suppose the Saviour of the world to make such an appeal to a book
that was the comparatively recent work of an impostor — or at least a
forger of romances — although the book had been lucky enough to gain
a place in the sacred canon, is to suppose Christ himself to be either ig
norant of the state of facts, or else willing to foster the false regard which
was paid to the book by the Jews. My views of that sacred, that divine
teacher, will not permit me to believe either. Of course I must, on his
authority, regard the book as sacred.*
* I have assumed in my remarks the position, that the parenthentic 6 ivayivu-
okuv voeirai are the words of Christ, and not a suggestion of the evangelist. I know
not where to find warnings of this nature, inserted by the evangelists themselves, on
their own authority, in the discourses of Christ. But with the Saviour such warnings
are frequent. E. g. " He that hath ears to hear, let him bear," and the like. In the
case before us, Jesus cites the words of Daniel, and warns his hearers to give to them
deliberate consideration, voeiru, revolve them in mind. The labored attempt of Wiese
ler (Ausleg. u. Krit. d. Apoc. Lit. s. 173 ff.) to show that the parenthesis belongs, in
both Matthew and Mark, to these evangelists themselves, has entirely failed to con
vince me. The design of such an effort is, to remove the impression that Christ has
himself referred to Daniel as conclusive authority. The burden of such an allegation
some recent critics would rather lay upon the apostles, whom they regard as un
doubtedly liable to mistaken apprehensions.

/ § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 405
That at that period the book was in the Jewish canon, no one worthy
of any regard will deny. That it was what it now is, through and through,
is quite certain. Josephus follows y.aru noSu the narrative part, in An
tiq. X. He also refers to the contents of the prophecies. And so, as
we shall soon see, do the writers of the N. Test. But what we have
already seen, viz. that Christ himself has expressly sanctioned this book,
and named the author as Daniel the prophet, settles the great question
with every believing mind, both as to its genuineness and its authenticity.
Still, this is not all the testimony of Christ. Pie calls himself very often
the Son of Man ; an appellation which would seem, at first view, to de
tract from his dignity, and place him on a level with men at large, or at
most on a level with those prophets (e. g. Ezekiel) who are often ad
dressed in this way. But John 5: 27 solves the mystery. There Christ
represents himself to be the appointed judge of the world and the giver
of life both spiritual and natural, because he is the Son of Man. The allu
sion is so palpable to Dan. 7: 13, 14, that none can well mistake it.
There we find ascribed to the Son of Man supremacy and power, like
that which is asserted in the Gospels. It is because he is the Son of Man
in the sense of the book of Daniel, that he claims the prerogatives in
question. Again, if we compare Dan. 7: 13, 14, and 26, 27 with Matt. 10:
23. 16: 27, 28. 19: 28. 24: 30. 26: 64, the conclusion seems inevitable
that Christ has applied the words of Daniel to the description of his own
dominion and reign — so carefully applied them as to follow, as often as
practicable, the very diction of the prophet. Once more ; in John 5: 28,
29, Christ has employed the words of Dan. 12: 2, which contains the
most peculiar statement that exists in the O. Test, respecting the doc
trine of a general resurrection.
Thus much for the testimony of him who was the Truth and the Light
of the world Let us now see what some of his leading apostles and dis
ciples have said.
(o) In Heb. 11: 33, 34, "stopped the mouths of lions ; quenched the
violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword," seem very plainly to re
fer to the history in Dan. vi. iii. and ii. Daniel's escape in the den of li
ons ; the deliverance of his three companions from the power of the fiery
furnace ; and the liberation of him and them, from the impending decree
of Nebuchadnezzar to destroy all the wise men ; must have been dis
tinctly before the mind of the writer. (J) Paul's second epistle to the
Thessalonians (ch. ii. iii.) seems to contain an evident reference to Dan
iel's description of Antiochus Epiphanes ; comp. 2 Thess. 2: 4 with
Dan. 1 1: 36. Also 2 Thess. 2: 8 with Dan. 11: 45. 8: 25. I cannot think
however, as Hengstenberg does, that Daniel and Paul both refer to the same

406 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
individual. I regard the apostle as describing such a character as he
brings to view, under the new dispensation, in the same way as Daniel
has described a similar one under the ancient dispensation. The in
stance before us, however, is not produced as one of a character alto
gether decisive, but only as one which shows the estimate which Paul
put upon the book of Daniel, by employing language taken from him
in respect to a very grave matter. More decisive seems to be 1 Cor.
6: 2, !l Know ye not that the saints shall judge the world ;" when com
pared with Daniel 7: 27, " And the kingdom and dominion, and the
greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to
the people of the saints of the most High.'' The manner of the
apostle's inquiry implies, that his readers are already in possession of
the knowledge in question. Where else could they obtain it so directly
and easily as in the passage of Daniel just cited ?
(c) In Acts 7: 56, it is related of Stephen that he said: "I see the
heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of
God." How exactly this tallies with Daniel 7: 13, every reader may
easily see. That Stephen had his mind on that passage in Daniel, and
has employed its peculiar language, cannot well be doubted. No where
else does any disciple ever speak of the Saviour as the Son of Man.
It is hardly to be supposed that Stephen would, in this case, have
departed from universal usage, unless his mind had been distinctly on
the passage in Daniel, which he has quoted as to its most distinctive
particular. {d) Finally, if we take up the Apocalypse, and read it through
with care, we shall find that the general arrangement of this work,
and a multitude of passages in it, are altogether after the manner of
Daniel. It begins with a historical part, chap, i — iii., and the rest is
prophecy. The kind of imagery employed, the symbols chosen for
representation, the intervention of angel-assistants and angel-interpre
ters, and even the designation of times, are all after the model of Daniel
throughout, although far from a plagiarist's imitation. It is no small
testimony to the estimation in which Daniel was held, that John has
thus preferred in general his manner of communication to all others.
To cite instances, in a case so palpable and so generally if not univer
sally acknowledged, would be useless on the present occasion. The two
books stand side by side, the one describing the approaching end of the
^rate-Messianic dispensation, the other describing the sequel and the
end of the Messianic one.
In review of the facts presented under our present category, let me
ask : What prophet in all the Old Test, is more expressly, or (taking

§ 6. GENUINENESS AXP AUTHF.NTICITT. 407
the New Test, all in all) more amply recognized and authenticated,
than Daniel? Isaiah is indeed very frequently quoted; but, if the
Apocalypse be taken into the account, he does not so often appear in
the New Test, as Daniel does. No other prophet, at all events, can
make claim to so much reference as Daniel. But how, now, and why
is this? If we are to believe the mass of recent critics, the book of
Daniel is a supposititious work — a romance forged during the persecu
tion of Antiochus Epiphanes — how then came Christ to appeal to, and to
treat, Daniel as a true prophet? And how came those disciples, to whom
he had promised that •• the Holy Ghost should teach them all things.
and bring all things to their remembrance" (John 14: 26), to regard
and treat one who was an impostor, or at all events a forger and a roman
cer, as a prophet of God, whose work was worthy of all confidence and
reverence ?
The answer to these and the like questions is, that 'a miracle is an
impossibilitv ; that if Daniel was written before the time of Antiochus,
a miraculous inspiration must be conceded, and therefore it could not
have been written so early as the book pretends ; and lastly, that the
disciples of Christ often conformed to Jewish notions and prejudices.
and were not conversant with critical matters, and moreover that even
Jesus himself sometimes assumed the Jewish views without contradic
tion, because he did not wish to excite their prejudices by opposition to
them.' But let those think and say all this who may and will, it is per-
feeilv evident that when these positions are assumed, all confidence in
the unvarying truth and authority of the New Test, is gone, and can
never more be defended. Even this, however, would be of small ac
count in the eves of such men as Strauss, and Lengerke. and Knobel,
and many others. But the sincere lover of gosj el-truth can never be
led to regard the Saviour of the world, or his holy apostles, as deceived
in regard to the book of Daniel, or as giving currency by their authority
to forsjerv and imposture. Nothing can be plainer, than that the prin
ciple assumed in regard to miracles, in order to show that the book of
Daniel is a late and supposititious book, would show with equal force,
that all the miracles of the Saviour and of his Apostles are mere fig
ments of the imagination, and that the books which describe them are
the mere productions of fiction and of superstition. Well may the
sober believer sav: Quod probai nimiunu probat nihil.
(3) Various other works of antiquity besides the sacred volume, bear
testimony more or less directly to the ancient and venerated character
of the book of Daniel.
(a) Josephus (Antiqq. xi. 8. 4. seq.) relates, that Alexander the

408 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Great, when besieging Tyre, sent to the Jews for aid ; which was de
clined on the ground of the fealty of the Jews to Darius the Persian
king. The Grecian conqueror was highly exasperated, and as soon as
Tyre was taken, marched his army against Jesusalem. The Jews were
in the utmost consternation, and betook themselves to prayers and
offerings in the temple. Josephus states (loc. cit), that the high priest
Jaddua was warned, in a dream, to go out with the priests in their
sacred robes, and the leading civilians in white garments, and meet and
propitiate the conqueror. This they did, when Alexander drew near to
the city ; and he was appeased, and did reverence to the high priest,
and repaired to the temple, and offered sacrifices there. When ques
tioned by Parmenio, one of his generals, how he, who made all other
kings and princes do homage to him, could himself do this to the Jewish
high-priest, his reply was, that it was not to the man that he did rever
ence, but to the God whom the man adored. He then added, as Jose
phus tells the story, that he, while at Dios in Macedonia, had seen in
a dream this very man (the high-priest), who told him to go forward
in his Persian expedition, for he would be victorious. In the temple,
the same historian tells us, the passages in Daniel (8: 3 — 7. 11: 2, 3)
were shown to Alexander, i. e. interpreted to him, which predicted his
success. In the sequel, Alexander gave full liberty to the Jews to
follow their own religion, and freed them from taxes during the Sab
batical year. All this happened in 332 B. C.
This account by Josephus has, of course, been attacked and called
in question as fabulous. But as to the main historical facts, they are
vouched for by other writers. That Alexander was personally in
Judea, Pliny testifies; Hist. Nat. xii. 26. That Palestine voluntarily
surrendered to him, is testified in Arrian's history of Alexander, ii. 25.
That he was met by the high-priest and his brethren dressed in tur
bans, is testified by Justin (xi. 10), who says: "Obvios cum infulis
multos orientis reges habuit." Hecataeus Abderita, a historian con
temporary with Alexander, testifies that there were Jews in Alexander's
army ; (cited in Josephus cont. Apion. ii. 4). And finally the Talmu
dists often, specially in Tract. Taanith, eulogize the liberality of Alex
ander. What now if we allow, (as I should be disposed to do), that tradi
tion had added something to the report of Alexander's invasion, which
will not bear critical scanning ? Does this prove that the narration has
no basis in matter of fact? Surely not. What would become of
most of the Greek and Roman histories, on such a ground ? We may,
if we please, reject the dreams as being special and divine monitions. In-

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 409
deed, that of Alexander seems to bear evident marks of cunning forgery
on his part. That of the high-priest might very naturally have taken
place, in his agitated state of mind. It seems to have been conformed,
however, to the dictates of prudential policy ; and whether he really had
such a dream, or not, it was an easy and ready expedient to induce the
Jews to follow his peace-making counsel. For the rest, that Alexander
was pacified and flattered by the honors paid him, there can be no room
to doubt. That such passages in Daniel as those above referred to were
shown him, in order to secure his favor and protection, is perfectly nat
ural. Hitzig himself declares, that " if indeed the book existed at that
time, it was undoubtedly shown to him ;" Heid. Jahrb. 1832, s. 135.
But why the if? I know of no historical testimony against its exist
ence at that period. All the objections to its antiquity are founded on
the a priori assumption, that prophecy and miracle are impossible. No
one can doubt that Josephus fully believed in its existence at the close
of the Babylonish exile. No man in the Jewish nation had a better
opportunity than he, to know the history of his own people. He was of
high descent — a priest himself, and the son of an eminent priest on the
paternal side, and of the royal Hasmonaean race on the maternal, being
of the fourth generation from the Maccabaean family. If we can suppose
any person among the Jews to be cognizant of their history, he was the
most probable man. That he has honestly chronicled the story respect
ing Alexander, there can be no good reason for doubting. That he has
told it with some of the appendages, which tradition and a love of the
marvellous had affixed to it, forms no serious objection to the credible
and probable facts contained in if. Nor can I see, how an a priori as
sumption about the book of Daniel can be made to discredit it ; unless
we assume the position, that whatever may contradict a favorite theory
of our own philosophy, must be regarded as false. After all, the ques
tion of prediction, i. e. of miracles, is one that depends on credible testi
mony, not on a priori assumption.
Taking the ground, then, that the narration of Josephus is substantial
ly true, it follows that the book of Daniel, as it now exists, was current
among the Jews as a sacred book, at least some 168 — 170 years before
the time when, according to the critics of the skeptical school, the book
could be written. If so, then prediction must be conceded.
(5) The first book of Maccabees (2: 59, 60), written in all probability
not long after the death of Simon the brother of Judas Maccabaeus, and
during the reign of his son John Hyrcanus (i. e. about 125 — 130 B. G),
represents the father of the Maccabees, the venerable priest Mattathias,
on his death bed, as warning his friends and encouraging them by ap-
35

410 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
peal to the example ' of the three worthies who were saved from the
furnace of Nebuchadnezzar, and of Daniel who was rescued from the den
of lions,' (Dan. iii. vi.) If he did actually make such an appeal, then the
position of the doubting critics has no good foundation. It is necessary
to the success of their cause, that the book should have been written, at
least completed, after the death of Antiochus. Otherwise, according to
their views, neither the time nor the manner of that death could have
been designated ; for both of these are specially declared, and are prom
inent on the face of the record.
How now is this conclusion, which the advocates of its antiquity
make, avoided? Bleek tells us (p. 183), that the historian of a later
period may have put these words into the mouth of Mattathias, although
he did not himself employ them. We cannot disprove this ; but we may
well say, that unless the book is destitute of support in other quarters,
the assertion of Bleek is not entitled to much credit. At all events, let
the book have originated when it might, it was, in the time of Hyrcanus
when 1 Mace was written, regarded as sacred. In what way a book
not written by a prophet, (for 1 Mace repeatedly declares that prophets
were then no more), could obtain a place in the Canon, and be regard
ed as a prophetic work, during the period between the death of Antiochus
and the writing of the Maccabaean history, is for those to explain and
show, who assert the late origin of that book. No tolerable solution of
this very difficult problem has yet been offered.
(c) The Sept. Version of the Pentateuch is the oldest part of the
Greek translation. It is a controverted question, when this version was
made. But after all, I see not how the testimony of Aristobulus and of
Hecataeus Abderita can be set aside, viz. that at least this part of the
Sept. was completed during the reign of Ptolemy Lagus, or at all events
of his son Ptolemy Philadelphus, i. e. some 315 — 295 B. G Havernick
(Einleit. ins A. Test. I. § 70) has discussed this subject in an able, and
(on the whole) satisfactory manner. Now in the Sept. (Deut 32: 8) is
a passage, which seems plainly to owe its origin to Daniel 10: 13, 20, 21.
11: 1. The original Hebrew in Deuteronomy runs thus: "When the
most High divided to the nations their inheritance ... he set the bounds
of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." This
last clause the Sept. have rendered : xard ugi&pbv dyyiXav tisov. Again,
in Isa. 30: 4, the prophet in speaking of the king of Egypt, says : " His
princes were at Zoan, and his ambassadors came to Hanes." The Sept.
translates thus : tiaiv iv Tdvsi dgpiyol dyytXoi novqgoi. The version
of Isaiah was doubtless somewhat later than that of the Pentateuch, but
not so much so as to interfere with the present argument. Here, in both

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 411
of these passages, there seems to be a distinct recognition of the doctrine,
that nations have their presiding angels ; a doctrine taught nowhere else
in the O. Test, save in the passages of Daniel above referred to. I am
aware of the allegation, that the Seventy may have drawn this doctrine
in respect to presiding national angels, from the Parsis and the religion
of Zoroaster. But I am also aware, that no such doctrine can be shown
to have existed among the Parsis ; as Hengstenberg and Havernick
have indeed sufficiently shown. Nor is this a very probable source from
which the Jews would deduce their religious notions. Much more easy
and natural is it to suppose, that the Seventy drew from the book
of Daniel. It will hardly be contended, that their version in general
originated so late as the time of the Maccabees. At all events we know
that the composition of Jesus Sirach was antecedent to the reign of Anti
ochus ; and here (17: 17) we find it written : 'Exdarq) t&vsi xaztaz-qatv
[#£06'] q'yovpsvov ; which looks very much like being drawn from Daniel.
The possibility of some other origin we may readily acknowledge ; but
the probability of such an one cannot well be made out.
If any one of the instances of resemblance now produced did in fact
take its rise from Daniel, then is the theory of a Maccabaean or post-
Antiochian origin of the book out of question. It must have existed
earlier ; and if so, then is the edifice of the objectors undermined. They
may as well concede the book to the true Daniel, as to any one between
his time and the death of Epiphanes. It cannot be said, that the facts
in question do not seriously embarrass the antagonists of the book.
{d) The Septuagint version of Daniel, however, bears evident marks
of coming from the hand of some one who lived during the Maccabaean
period. It contains several explanatory clauses, which appear to have
been occasioned by events then recent, the accurate knowledge of which
enabled the translator to make his historical commentary. E. g. in 11: 30,
where the Heb. has : " The ships of Chittim shall come against him, and
he shall be disheartened," the Sept. runs thus : ijiovai Pcopaioi, xal
i^maovaiv avrov, i. e. the Romans shall come, and expel him. This evi
dently refers to the interference of the Roman embassy with Antiochus,
when he was ready to seize upon the capital of Egypt ; for he was
stopped by them in his career, and to his great chagrin was obliged to
quit the country. Again, in Dan. 9: 26, the Hebrew runs thus: "After
sixty-two weeks an anointed one shall be cut off," while the Sept. translates
thus : xai pttd snrd xai tfiSounxovza xai e^qxovra Svo, dnoara&rjasrai
igiapa, i. e. after seven and seventy and sixty-two [years], anointing
shall cease. The sum of these numbers = 139 ; and this, no doubt,
mean3 the 139th year of the era of the Selucidae, which began 312 B. C.

412 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
This would bring the period for the anointing to fail or cease, down to
173 B. G ; and it was at this period, or within a few months of it, that
the high priest Onias III. was ejected from his office by Antiochus, and
soon after murdered by his lieutenant in Syria. It is to this event,
doubtless, that the version refers, when it says : unoara&qanrai %giapa.
Now all this shows a minute and accurate knowledge of those times,
which renders it probable that the writer lived at that period. At all
events, if the comparison be made of the loose and erroneous manner of
stating facts in 2 Mace (a later and an Alexandrian composition), one
must feel that the translator was unusually and accurately cognizant of
the history of those times. But if his version was then made, how could
it be, in case the original had just then made its appearance, that such
alterations would be introduced, and such comments inserted ? We may
well suppose the author of the Hebrew Daniel to be then living, if we
hearken to Lengerke and others of like views. Would or could a trans
lator take such liberties with a recent composition ? I do not say that it
is impossible ; yet I may venture to say that such a thing seems to be
quite improbable. But if we suppose Daniel to have been "written in
the sixth century B. G, then there was time for a book, so obscure in
some of its passages, to have been subjected to traditional explications,
and to efforts for the purpose of rendering it more intelligible.
Beyond all this, it should be observed, that the whole Sept. version of
Daniel is a paraphrastic one, departing so often and so widely from the
original, that even in the early ages of Christianity, with all their reve
rence for the Sept. in general, this book was thrown aside, and the version
of Theodotion, more literal and exact, was taken in the room of it. Even
at that period, the Sept. version had attached to it several apocryphal
appendages, e. g. the Hymn of the three Martyrs in the furnace, the
story of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon. At least so the matter
stands, in the Sept. of the Chisian Codex as published at Rome. All
this argues an age for the book of Daniel back of the Maccabaean period.
Such stories and legends are usually attached to books of a more ancient
period, and not to recent productions. That so many of them came into
the Sept. version, would help to confirm the position, that the book of
Daniel is older than recent liberal criticism allows it to be.
Finally the writer of the 1 Mace, has quoted the Sept. version, beyond
all reasonable doubt. It must then have enjoyed full credit in his time.
But could a book written after the death of Epiphanes have already
been translated, and this translation have become a source of citation and
appeal, unless the original book was written earlier than the death of
that tyrant ? Such a view of the matter is at least quite an improbable
one.

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 413
(e) The Sibylline Oracles bear testimony to the antiquity of the book.
That portion of them to which I refer, is Lib. III. vs. 319 seq. Bleek
himself has shown, that this book in all probability originated from an
Alexandrine Jew, in the time of the Maccabees. But it exhibits an
evident effort to imitate the book of Daniel, even transferring some of
its imagery to itself. E. g. (in loc. cit.), we find Antiochus described as
gi£av iav ys SiSovg — ix Ssxa Sn xsgdzmv naga 8q qjvrov aXXo cpvrsvGSi
— ixal tots Sij nagaqivopsvov xigag dg^si, comp. Dan. 7: 7, 8. 8: 9, 10.
11:21. This is so plain, that Bleek acknowledges the agreement between
the two, but says that we must account for this, by the supposition that
both had for their source one common and older tradition. But where
are we to stop, in assumptions of such a nature ? It would be easy, on
such ground, deducere aliquid ex aliquo. If the matter be as stated
above, it follows that the book of Daniel is older than the time of the
Maccabees ; for in their time it already had currency as a prophetic wri
ting, inasmuch as the design of the Sibyllist is to show the fulfilment of
prophecy by Antiochus.
(f) The book of Baruch was evidently written during the period of
the Jewish persecutions by the Syrian tyrant, and written like the Mace,
for the sake of consoling the Hebrews under their distresses. It assumes
the attitude of assurance that the tyrant will fall, and that the Jews will
regain their liberty and privileges. It seems to have drawn these views
from the book of Daniel ; and if this be admitted, it follows that at that
time the book of Daniel was received and regarded as a prophetic writing.
(g) To come down somewhat lower ; it lies upon the whole face of
Josephus' narration of matters comprised in the book before us (in An
tiq. X.), that he had not only regarded Daniel as a prophet, but the
greatest of all the prophets. That the Jews of his day universally cher
ished the same sentiment, no one acquainted with their history will
attempt to deny. But how comes it, now, that such productions as the
Sibylline Oracles, the book of Enoch, and the like, never gained any
such credit among the Jews as did the book of Daniel. If the Hebrews
of that period were so credulous and easily deceived about books, as the
newer criticism now in fashion represents them to have been, then how
comes it that all the other productions of a like nature, i. e. designed to
resemble it, were rejected as apocryphal and unworthy of a place in the
sacred Canon ?
(4) The reception of Daniel into the Jewish Canon bears strong testi
mony to its genuineness and authenticity.
(a) I need not here go into any detail of argument, to show that the
Heb. Scriptures were the same, in the time of Christ and the apostles,
35*

414 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
that they now are. This is conceded even by those who attack the gen
uineness of the book before us. Nor is there any necessity here of
showing at length, that the N. Test, writers in common with the Jews,
attributed a divine origin and authority to the 0. Test. Paul says
(2 Tim. 3: 16), that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness.'' Peter (2 Pet. 1: 21) declares, that "prophecy came not
in old time by the will of man, but that holy men of God spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost" It were easy to quote abundance of
passages of the like tenor, not only from the N. Test, but from the Son
of Sirach, Wisdom, 1 Mace, and other apocryphal books, written before
the N. Test., as well as from Josephus, Philo, and other later Jewish
writers. There was but one voice in all antiquity, among both Jews and
Christians, in relation to this matter.
This of itself shows, that a wide difference was made at that period,
between sacred and other books. But by what criterion were the two
classes distinguished and separated ? The only answer that can be given
is, by that of inspiration, i. e. of inspiration supposed and believed to
exist, in the writers of the respective books. But what was the evidence
of this ? What led the ancients to give credit to this alleged inspiration ?
The answer must be, that they gave credit in any particular case, because
they deemed the author to be & prophet, either by virtue of a regular
prophetic office, or by being endowed with some of the highest qualities
which belonged to a regular prophet. The Jews, beyond all doubt,
as the Talmud shows us (Bava Bathra, fol. 13. 2), attributed Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, to Joshua and Samuel. The properly
prophetic books testified for themselves ; and the rest were distributed
among David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Ezra, and Nehemiah. There are,
indeed, some strange conceits mixed up with the Talmudic tradition.
But they do not affect the point in question. On all hands it is and must
be conceded, that however and whenever the book of Daniel came into
the canon, it must have gained admittance as the supposed work of a
real personage and a true prophet.
When then did the order of prophets cease ? We have testimony in
4: 46 of the first book of the Maccabees, (written some 125 — 130 B. C.
and very near the time when neological critics suppose the book of
Daniel to have been written), that Judas Maccabaeus and his compan
ions, when they reconsecrated the temple, after the defeat of the Syrian
army and just before the death of Antiochus, pulled down the altar and
removed the stones thereof to a place appropriate for keeping them,
"until a prophet should come who would give directions concerning

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 415
them," i. e. should order the manner in which they were to be disposed
of. This transaction, according to the decision of liberal criticism, pre
ceded only some months the composition of the book of Daniel. At that
period, then, there was no prophet in Israel to settle such a question ;
much less to write a canonical book. Again, in 1 Mace 9: 27, the same
writer says : " There was great affliction in Israel, such as never occurred
from the time when a prophet was no more seen ;" which, from the very
nature of the reference, implies a long period antecedent. Once more,
in 14: 41, the same author says, that Simon was appointed governor and
perpetual high priest, " until there should arise a prophet worthy of
credit," {niarov). Of course there was no such prophet at that period.
Josephus says in the most express terms : " We have only twenty-two
books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited.
. . . From the time of Artaxerxes until our present period, all occur
rences have been written down ; but they are not regarded as entitled to
the like credit with those which precede them, because there was no infalli
ble {dxgifti]) succession of prophets ;'' Cont. Ap. I. 8. All Jewish writ
ings so far as we know, both earlier and later, consider the period of
Malachi as the close or end of the succession of the prophets.
Adopting then the position, that the Jews never admitted any book to
their sacred Canon, which they did not believe to be inspired, and to have
originated from a prophet or a prophetical man in respect to gifts, our
first inquiry has been, whether any such men were extant at the Macca
baean period. We have the direct testimony of a writer, at the very close
of that period, (and a writer he is, moreover, of distinguished candor and
fidelity, and by general consent worthy of credit), — we have his testi
mony, not only that there were no prophets, at that time, but that
for a long time there had been none. The passage 1 Mace 9: 27
(already quoted above) cannot mean less than this. Besides all this,
the manner in which Jesus Sirach speaks of the ancient prophets, in 46:
15. 48: 22, shows that he considered the mardi o'gdaemg as belonging to
the days of yore. Nor is there a syllable of history to contradict this.
Certainly the Jews had national pride enough, to maintain the existence
of prophets and the continuance of inspiration among them long after the
death of Malachi, if there existed any fair or even tolerable ground for
pretensions of this sort. The loss of the prophetic order was considered
by them as a severe chastisement, and also as a great degradation.
There cannot be, then, . even the remotest probability, that the Jews
would have given up such a claim, if it had been possible to support it.
(5) The next question that occurs then is : How came the book of
Daniel to be inserted in the canon, if it were composed, as the Neologists

416 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
assert, during the Maccabaean period, or rather, during that part of it
which followed the death of Epiphanes ? Who was the man to introduce
a book unknown and unheard of before, and to procure a place for it in
the sacred canon ? Not any prophet ; for such an one there was not.
How then were the priests and elders and magistracy among the Jews
persuaded to admit it ? The forger of the book must have been a con
summate manager as well as skilful writer, to persuade the Sanhedrim to
such a measure ; or else they must have been deplorably ignorant of their
national usages in regard to Scripture, or so superstitious as to lay hold
greedily of every book which made claims to sanctity. F, rom what we
know, and so far as we know, of the men of that period, there was no
such dexterous forger in existence among the Jews ; and even if there
were, there was little likelihood of his success. The men of that day were
far enough from being ignorant, stupid, or indifferent. There was among
them a avvayayi] ygapuarmv, whose business it was to attend to holy
things ; so 1 Mace. 7:12. To the same purpose testifies Sirach (38: 24),
who lived and wrote before Antiochus' reign, i. e. about 180 B. C.
He speaks of the aocpia ygappartag as being attained only by leisurely
study, implying that there was such an order of men who were devoted
to the study of sacred things. Again, in 39: 1, he speaks of the ygappa-
tsvg as " seeking after the wisdom of all the ancients {ndvriav dg%amv),
and diligently employing himself with the study of the prophecies" {iv
ngocpsreiaig). Beyond this, we are brought by 1 Mace to an intimate
acquaintance with Mattathias, the noble priest at Modin, who indignantly
refused to obey the mandate of Epiphanes to sacrifice to idols ; and also
with his talented, heroic, and excellent sons, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon,
who regained the freedom of their country. All these chose to die,
rather than yield up anything belonging to their religion. Is it reason
able, now, to suppose that such men could have been entrapped and de
ceived, by a forger of a book at that period, claiming indeed to be much
older, but never having before been heard of? And with all the rigorous
attachment of such men to their ancient Scriptures and customs, so rigo
rous that it exposes them now to the accusation of superstition and severity,
on the part of the Neologists, — with all their zeal and jealousy for the hon
or of their religion and their holy books, could they have been persuaded by
a writer of their own time to add to their sacred canon ? How obvious
the questions they would ask, viz. If this book be as old as the time of
Daniel, where has it been for these nearly four hundred years ? How
comes it to pass, that a book of such high import, as this seems to be,
and so honorable to our nation, should have lain in utter neglect and for-
getfulness during all that period? And to these questions, what possible

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 417
answer that would be satisfactory, could be given by the forger of the
book ? I cannot even imagine what could have been his reply — I mean
what reply could be such as would have given them satisfaction about the
age and authenticity of the book. They all knew, of course, that until
the forger presented this book, it was, and had for time immemorial been,
unknown. If now we unite all these considerations in one general view, it seems
impossible that any one well acquainted with Jewish antiquity, can seri
ously maintain the probability of such a book being forged and forced into
the Jewish canon, at that period. I should as soon have expected that
Judas and his brethren would yield to the demands of Antiochus, in rela
tion to sacrificing to idols, as that they would have altered the canon,
when confessedly no prophet was extant, and for a long time there had
been none. What says Josephus, himself a priest of a distinguished order,
and a descendant of the Maccabees ? In Cont. Ap. I. 8 he says : " Al
though so many ages have passed away, [viz. since the Scriptures were
written], no one has dared to add to them, nor to take anything from them,
nor to make alterations. In all Jews it is implanted, even from their birth,
to regard them as being the instructions of God ; and to abide stead
fastly by them ; and if it be necessary, to die gladly for them." Such
are the genuine words of a genuine Jew, one of the most learned and en
lightened of all Jews, as to the affairs and customs of his nation. Indeed,
one cannot well conceive of a greater improbability, than that the book
of Daniel was added to the sacred canon in the time of the Maccabees.
In truth, the representations of the Neologists are very inconsistent with
themselves and contradictory, in regard to this period. As often as con
venience dictates, the book of Daniel is assailed, on the ground that it
exhibits rigorous fastings and praying and obstinate adherence to Jewish
rites and opinions, which are characteristic only of such a period as that
of the Mace, and therefore the book could not have been written by the
enlightened ancient Daniel. Yet this very Maccabaean age of severe
and superstitious adherence to the rites and usages and opinions of the
fathers and elders, is the very one, according to our opponents, which not
merely forges a new book, under a distinguished prophet's name, but
gives credit without any hesitation to the antiquity and authority of a
book pretending to be sacred, that had been unknown and unnoticed,
from the time when the alleged author lived, down to their own time, i. e.
about four centuries. Was there ever such a strange mixture of charac
ter as this, in the same age and among the same people ? They are all
rigor and severity and superstitious adherence to patristical tradition, on
the one hand ; and on the other, they are ready to welcome with open

418 §6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
arms the imposture of a forger, who would fain put off his romantic and
fantastic fictions, for the work of an ancient and holy prophet ! In my
humble opinion, it requires more real credulity to believe all this, than to
believe that the book is ancient and genuine. How can we believe that
such an age as that of the Maccabees, which produced so many noble pa
triots, such excellent statesmen, such enlightened and zealous priests, and
withal such works as the Wisdom of Sirach and the first book of the Mac
cabees, not to name other productions of the time — how can we believe
that an age, so zealous for the word of God and the honor of religion as
to hold fast and adhere to even the minutest traditional opinions and
usages, should commit a sacrilege on one of the holiest parts of the sacred
domain, viz. on that of the most highly revered Scriptures ? If it is not
impossible, it is utterly improbable.
We are often told by the advocates of the Maccabaean period, that
' the age was too uncritical and undistinguishing, and indeed too ignorant,
to detect the imposture in regard to the book of Daniel ;' and we are
now and then assured, by some of the bolder spirits among these advo
cates, that ' any book written in Hebrew, and on a religious subject, was
of course added to the canon, if the writer desired it. In this way, the
book of Daniel gained admittance into the sacred enclosure.' — But such
a view of the subject is encompassed with difficulties. First of all,
how came the writer of the book before us to hit upon the plan of writing
one half of it in the Chaldee language ? Other prophets of the exile pe
riod, viz. Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, all wrote in Hebrew.
Only Ezra exhibits any Chaldee in his composition ; and here the occa
sion of so doing was the transcription of Chaldee documents. But Ezra
is history, not prophecy. What advantage, then, in regard to the recep
tion of the book of Daniel, could a writer of a late period anticipate, from
writing in Chaldee ? None. Moreover, the Chaldee of the Maccabaean
period was very different from that in the books of Daniel and Ezra.
Whence then did he get his skill in the old Hebrew-Chaldee ? There
was no model of a mixture of languages among the prophetic books of the
0. Test. Why then should he choose such a method of writing ? I see
no good answer that can be made to this question. On the other hand ;
if the true Daniel wrote the book, all difficulty is easily solved. Daniel
was equally at home in both languages, as his work fully testifies. He
introduces Chaldee very naturally, when he comes to represent Nebuchad
nezzar and his courtiers in mutual conference. He then continues it
until the Chaldee history is completed, and even onward in ch. vi. vii.
And why ? Because he well knew, that those whom he addressed, would
understand the Chaldee quite as well, or even better than they would the

§6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 419
Hebrew. A forger in the Maccabaean times had no inducement to mix
languages. It was contrary to prophetic usage ; and therefore it would
subject his book to suspicion.
In the next place, it is not true that other books of that period, writ
ten on religious subjects, were received into the Canon. The work of the
Son of Sirach was written in Hebrew, as the preface of the translator tes
tifies. This work, moreover, is not without strong claims on the pious
mind. Some parts of it seem to be not unworthy of an inspired pen,
and would do no disgrace to the sacred Canon. Nor is this all. The
writer himself makes high claims to consideration. In 24: 33, 34 he says ;
" Further, I beam forth instruction as the morning light, and disclose
those things even to distant ages. I moreover pour forth instruction as
prophecy {ngoqttrsiav), and leave it for future ages." Again in 33. 19,
he represents himself as the last of the wise men, and compares himself
with Solomon ; ec%aTog qygvnrqaa are his words. In 30: 17, 18 he says :
" Consider that I have not labored for myself alone . . . Hear ye rulers
of the people, and give ear ye leaders of the congregation" {ixxXqaiag).
At the close, he assays to make strong impressions on the reader of his
high claims : " In this book I have written the instruction of wisdom and
knowledge . . . Blessed is he who is conversant with these things, and he
who lays them up in his heart shall be wise ; for if he do these things, he
will be powerful in all respects, for the light of the Lord is on his foot
steps," 50: 27 — 29. We must consider now, not only these high claims,
but that the book was written more prophetico, i. e. in Hebrew and in
parallelisms. Moreover, it was written in Palestine. In respect now to
poetic parallelisms, they are almost entirely wanting in the book of Daniel,
although there are some approaches to them. Why then was not the
claim of Sirach admitted ? Plainly because the canon was already closed.
No other satisfactory reason can be given. The spirit and tenor of the
book are certainly not unworthy of a very high place. But Sirach came
too late. The Canon was completed and sealed as such. And all this, too,
before the Maccabaean period or the reign of Antiochus began. The
lowest point assignable to the composition of the book is 180 B. G ;
and it remains to this day a disputed question, whether it was not writ
ten a century earlier.
Here then is a fair specimen of the manner in which the Jews
thought and acted, during the Maccabaean period. So little impression
did the work of Jesus Sirach make in Palestine, where it was written,
that his grandson, when he came to translate it into Greek, was obliged
to go to Egypt in order to find a good copy of it, worthy of study.
See Prol. ad Lib.

420 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Nor is this all. There is the book of Tobit, in all probability earlier
than that of Sirach, which was written also in Hebrew, and abounds in
such fictions as the Maccabaean period is accused of fostering and
approving. Did the Jews ever receive it into their Canon ? This is
not even pretended by any party.
The first book of the Maccabees, also, was written soon after the
close of the limited Maccabaean period, (limited to the sons of Matta
thias), the writer of it having evidently been himself conversant with
a good part of that period. This too was written in Hebrew, as Jerome
(Prol. Gal.) expressly testifies. Nothing could be more acceptable or
interesting to the Jews of that time, than such a book. It is a very
sober and veracious book for the most part, written with all becoming
gravity and earnestness. Yet this never had any place in the Jewish
Canon. I say nothing of several other books, whose claims and age are doubt
ful. Enough that the asserted principle of easy reception into the
Canon, and of inability in the Maccabaean age to distinguish the respect
ive claims of books, are most glaringly contradicted by facts such
as these. That age did distinguish. It set aside Sirach, Tobit,
1 Mace, and doubtless many other books, and never thought of adding
them to the Canon. Neither the Hebrew, nor the parallelisms, nor the
pious matter, nor the lofty claims of Sirach, made any impression on
the Jewish Sanhedrim of a just claim to a place in the Canon.
Enough has now been said respecting the character and design of the
age of the Maccabees, in regard to religious things and religious books,
to show the utter improbability of a book being foisted into the Canon
at that period. But we have not done with the subject Proof direct
and positive of a defined and completed Canon, before the Maccabaean
period, can be produced — proof that candor and impartiality can
hardly reject
The grandson of Jesus Sirach, who translated his work into Greek,
says that his grandfather " gave himself very much to the reading of
the Law, the Prophets, and the Other Books of his country." By this
study, he was excited to write his own work. This triplex division is
mentioned, in the preface to the Greek Version, not less than three times.
(1) The Law, the Prophets, and the other {rmv dXXcov) books following
them of the like tenor" {xar avrovg). (2) "The Law, the Prophets,
and the other Books of his country," {rav dXXarv nargicav fiiftXiav).
(3) " The Law, the Prophecies, and the rest of the Books " {rd Xomd
rmv (SifiXiwv). Nothing can be plainer, than that the translator here
employs language in describing the sacred books which had been long

§ 6. genuineness and authenticity. 421
and familiarly current. He expects his readers of course to appre
hend readily and definitely, what books- are meant. And what are
they ? Certainly not all other books ; for then the article before the
other or the rest {zdiv aXXtav, ra Xomd), must of necessity have been
omitted. But now in every case, the article is inserted. This then
makes a definite, well-known collection of sacred books which J. Sirach
studied. And this collection was so defined, beyond any reasonable
doubt, before the time of Sirach ; for in his own work, we have evi
dence of this. In 45: 5, he speaks of the vouog £mrjg as given by
Moses. In 44 : 3, 5, speaking of ancient celebrated men, he says :
" They gave counsel with intelligence, and delivered messages in proph
ecies {iv ngocpqrsiaig) . . . They sought out musical songs, disclosing
maxims in writing " {psXij povaixmv . . . snq iv ygacpjj). Here then are
plain traces of the triplex division of the Hebrew Scriptures ; even
more specific than the declarations of Sirach's grandson in his preface.
Here the classification as to matter is essentially made. We have the
Law, the Prophets, and virtually the Psalms and Proverbs, i. e. the lead
ing and principal books in the Hagiography. That piXn povaixmv
means Psalms, and inrj maxims, (a frequent later classical use of this
word), there can be no good room to doubt. Jesus Sirach and his
grandson, then, are united in proclaiming the existence of a definite
third division of the Hebrew Scriptures at that period. If so, then as
Sirach preceded the Maccabees, the Canon was not open in the time of
the latter to any new comer, but already definitely completed.
Let us follow this matter down to a later period. Our next witness
is Christ himself. In Luke 24 : 44, we have his words thus : " All
things must be fulfilled, which are written in the Law of Moses, and the
Prophets, and the- Psalms, concerning me." V. 27 of the same chapter
is substantially of the like tenor. Here, then, is the same thing, viz. tri
plex division, that we have already found in Sirach ; excepting that the
Kethubhim is designated only by its leading and principal book, viz. the
Psalms. We come next to Philo Judaeus (flor. circa 40 A. D.), who, in de
scribing the Essenes, says of them, that " they receive the Law, and the
Oracles uttered by the Prophets, and the Hymns and ihe other [books],
by which knowledge and piety are augmented and perfected ; " De Vita
contemplat. ii. p. 475, edit. Mangey. Here then is Sirach's view repro
duced ; for here are his piXn povaixmv and inn. And so also the WaXpoi
of Luke, plainly correspond to the vpvovg of Philo.
Josephus is more graphic still. In Cont. Ap. i. 8, he says : " We
have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed against
36

422 genuineness and authenticity.
each other, [like those of the heathen], but only two and twenty books,
containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine.
Of these five belong to Moses, containing laws and history. . . From
the death of Moses, moreover, until the reign of Artaxerxes, king of
the Persians after Xerxes, the Prophets who followed have described the
things, which were done during the age of each one respectively, in thir
teen books. The remaining four contain Hymns to God, and rules of
life for men.'' He then goes on to say, that other books have been
written to describe occurrences subsequent to the time of Artaxerxes,
but that " they are not regarded as entitled to the like credit with those
which precede them, because there was no certain succession of the
Prophets'' He declares, in the sequel, that " No addition to, or sub-
straction from, them has ever been made, during the lapse of so long a
period." Now here is, as we might expect, the identical division of
Sirach, the New Testament, and Philo. All the difference is, that
Josephus has been more specific in describing the third division, by
averring that it consists of Hymns to God and rules of life for men.
That the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles are plainly
included in this last division, cannot with any show of reason be denied.
It appears indeed on the very face of the record. To make out the
twenty-two books of Josephus, we have the Pent. = 5 ; the thirteen are
Josh., Judg. with Ruth, 1 and 2 Sam., 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chron.,
Ezra with Neh., Esth., Job., Is., Jer. with Lam., Ezek., Daniel, and
twelve minor Prophets, = .13. Four books are still left ; and these
of course must be Psalms, Prov., Ece, and Canticles. That the books
of Solomon were counted in this manner by the Jews, Origen explicitly
states, (in Euseb. Hist. Ece IV. 25). In no other way can the number
twenty-two be made out. The description of the contents of the last
four, puts it beyond a doubt, moreover, that the Psalms, Prov., Ece, and
Canticles, belonged to this division. Of course, therefore, the book of
Daniel was included by Josephus in the division of the Prophets. And
Josephus' description, moreover, is in perfect accordance with all that
is said of the same third division in Sirach, the New Testament, and
Philo Alexandrinus.
{d) This brings us to say something in regard to the Masoretic and
Talmudic divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures, which place Daniel among
the Kethubhim or third division. The place thus assigned to the book
of Daniel, (and now occupied by it in our common Hebrew Bibles),
has been a matter of much speculation and discussion, and has been
regarded by most of the neological critics, as decisive of the late com
position of the book. This circumstance stands in the very front of

§ 6. genuineness and authenticity. 423
their arguments adduced against the antiquity of the book ; and it may
be as well, or better discussed here, than in any other place.
The course of argument, fairly drawn out and yet compressed, stands
thus : (1) ' A miracle is an impossibility ; and of course, real prediction
of minute future events is impossible, for this would be a miracle. (2)
The book of Daniel contains such a minute account of the Syrian and
Egyptian (Macedonian) kings, that it is history, and not prophecy. It
could have been written only post eventum. (3) The Canon, of
course, could not have been closed until after the death of Antiochus,
since Daniel is comprised in it. (4) This last position is confirmed by
the fact, that Daniel stands near the close of Kethubhim, separated from
all his prophetical brethren, who are honored with a place among the
Prophets. No good account can be given of this, except the lateness
of its composition. We must therefore conclude, that the division of
the Prophets had been closed, while that of the Kethubhim was kept
open for later books.'
Such is the course of argument by which Daniel is to be degraded
from his rank, and his work held up as a supposititious book of fiction
and of mere pretension to an oracular character. I shall not follow
this view of the subject seriatim, nor attempt a separate refutation at
length of each assertion. I shall first make a few remarks on some of
the positions, and then proceed to inquire when and how Daniel came
into its present position among the sacred books.
On the first argument I have nothing more to say, than that it sets
itself immediately in direct array against the often repeated declarations
of the Saviour himself, that the .Old Test, prophets had predicted his
coming, his work, and his sufferings ; and also against Paul, and Peter,
and John, who all testify to the same things, and to the divine inspiration
of the Old Test., as well as the prophetical powers of those who wrote
it. Secondly, that the book of Daniel contains prophecies of events so
minute and circumstantial, that it has the appearance of history, yea
is (as it were) veritable history, I doubt not. I fully accede to this.
But that it was written post eventum, is another matter ; a matter to be
decided by testimony, not by fore-gone a priori conclusions. The when
is as much a matter-of-fact inquiry, as the when of the iEneid, or the
Iliad, or of Livy's History. Had there been one scrap of positive evi
dence to prove the lateness of the composition of Daniel, its opponents
would not have failed to adduce it. But not finding a syllable of this
nature in all antiquity, the only resort must be to the a priori argument.
But this unhappily goes too far. If followed out, it would inevitably
convict the Saviour of the world of being an impostor or an ignoramus ;

424 § 6. genuineness and authenticity.
and prove that all his apostles must be ranked under the same category.
Such men as Lengerke and Knobel and Hitzig may not start at this,
probably would not ; but God be thanked, there are many thousands
and millions throughout Christendom, who shrink back with shuddering
from such fearful conclusions.
Thirdly, as the Canon actually contained Daniel, it remains to in
quire, as a matter of fact, when and how it came into its present place.
The assertion of neologists, that the Canon was kept open until after
the death of Antiochus, has already been sufficiently examined. Scarce
ly any thing belonging to the criticism of antiquity, can be made clearer
or more certain, than that before the time of Sirach the Canon was
definite and complete. This alone, if regarded as true, completely
overturns the neological edifice. A post eventum Daniel could, of
course, have been written only after the death of Antiochus. If the
Canon was complete so early as the time of Sirach, then Daniel must
be prophecy ; as entirely so, and as much so, as if we assign it to the
true Daniel.
The last refuge of our opponents, then, is the position of Daniel in
the Hagiography, viz. its being dissociated from the other prophets.
Plow came the book there, we are asked, unless the division of the
prophets was closed, and the third division yet left open ? What else
could induce the Rabbies to assign such a place to it ? To these ques
tions many different answers have been attempted. I shall notice only
some of the leading ones.
It has been matter of surprise to me, that Hengstenberg (Auth.
des Daniel, s. 27 seq.) assumes as %the basis of his solution of the
question, the opinion of Maimonides and other Rabbies, viz. that the
triplex division of the Old Test, was occasioned by the different grades
of inspiration in their authors. Rabbinic speculation and phantasy has
made three degrees of inspiration, as it would seem, viz. (1) That of
Moses, who talked face to face with Jehovah. That was peculiar and
special, for no other prophet ever did the same. (2) That of the pro
phets proper, who were rapt into such an ecstasy, that their bodily powers
were affected and suspended, and their minds guided entirely and solely
by divine influence. Such men as these wrote the prophets or second
division of the Scriptures. (3) Such as were quickened and illumin
ated and guided indeed, but who still retained and used their bodily
and mental powers. These wrote the Kethubhim. I do not understand
Hengstenberg as intending to vouch for the soundness of this assumed
distinction in the grades of inspiration, but as maintaining that the
Talmudists, or the older Rabbies, who assigned to Daniel its present
place, were guided by such a rule.

§ 6. genuineness and authenticity. 425
•
Perhaps this may be so. They seem to have held, that a prophet
could not write a sacred book abroad, and yet enjoy the same degree of
aid as one in Palestine. In the Talmud. Bab. Megill. fol. 10. c. 2,
they assert that " the men of the great Synagogue wrote out (wna)
Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther." This, if we are to believe Rabbi Sol.
Jarchi (Comm. in Bava Bathra), they did "because prophecy is not
given for any one to write in a foreign land." It is unnecessary to
examine seriously and minutely refute all this. It is enough to ask a
few questions, (a) If Daniel was at all admitted to the Canon, (which
no one denies), it must have been on the ground that it was believed to
be a true book, and worthy of credit. None will deny this. Yet
Daniel claims what the Rabbies call the middle grade of inspiration,
like that of Is. in 6: 5, 6 ; of Ezekiel in 1: 28. 2: 1, 2. 3: 24 ; comp.
Dan. 7: 28. 8: 18, 27. 10: 7—10. Why then was he not put among
the prophets ? (b) The Talmudic ground is self-contradictory, as it
respects the Kethubhim. Who are the Moses and David, who appear
in the Psalms, and the Solomon in the Proverbs ? Is not their high
inspiration admitted on all hands ? Jeremiah, moreover, as a prophet,
is ranked with the other prophets ; how then came his Lamentations
into the Hagiography ? Besides, the Talmud says, that Moses wrote
the book of Job; how then came it to be put into the third division?
And as to 4ny power on the part of the Talmudists, to distinguish the
gradations of inspiration, how shall this be illustrated or authenticated ?
How could Ps. ii. xxii. xlv. ex., not to name many others, be supposed to
exhibit less of inspiration than the works of Haggai, or Malachi, or
Obadiah, or Jonah? Christ and his apostles make no gradations of
authenticity for the Old Test. Paul says, that " all Scripture is given
by inspiration of God." The whole matter, then, of the Rabbinical
distinction, is a figment ; and a very inconsistent one besides. I do not
say that it is impossible to suppose the Talmudists to have been in
fluenced by it ; for what conceit is there, which they have not broached,
and brought their authority to support ? I only say, that there is not
the least solidity or consistency in the ground here assumed for putting
Daniel among the Kethubhim.
Havernick retreats from this untenable ground, but assumes another,
which I deem to be equally unsafe and unsolid. He avers (Einleit. §
11), that ' the classification is grounded on the distinction between xias
and nth or nxi.' The first of these, he says, ' was officially a prophet;
the second might have the gift and power of prediction, but was not
properly a prophet. The second class of scriptural books belong to
the official prophets ; the third to the seers. Daniel was put in the
36*

426 § 6. genuineness and authenticity.
third division because he was only a seer. He never claims to hold
the proper office of prophet among the Hebrews ; nor was he sent to
address the Jews.' He avers, moreover, that ' the Hebrew Scriptures
throughout keep up the distinction in question ;' although he allows that
the Septuagint and the New Test, have usually rendered both classes
of words by ngocpqrng. How easily might he have avoided such an,
ungrounded statement, had he consulted his Hebrew Concordance !
Indeed, 1 Sam. 9: 9 of itself shows, that all the difference between
xia: and nxi is, that the latter is the old name, and the other the new
one just come into vogue in the time of Samuel. EtymologicaUy the
words are different ; both designate the same person. No assignable
distinction of any importance can be made out between nxi and nin .
That these latter words are often applied to the same prophet, who is
elsewhere styled xiai , sufficiently denotes identity of meaning in both
words. E. g. the collective body of those more usually styled prophets,
are called seers, in 2 Kings 17: 13. 2 Chron. 33: 18. Is. 29: 10. 30:
10. Mie 3: 7. Then Samuel is xiai in 1 Sam. 3: 20. 2 Chron. 35:
18, and nxi in 1 Sam. 9: 11, 18, 19. * 1 Chron. 9: 22. 26: 28. 29: 29.
Gad is a prophet in 1 Sam. 22: 5. 2 Sam. 24: 11, and a seer in 1
Chron. 29: 29. Iddo is prophet in 2 Chron. 13: 22, and seer in 9: 29.
Jehu isprophet in 1 Kings 16: 7, 12, and seer in 2 Chron. 19: 2. The
prophet Amos is also called trth seer in Amos 7: 12. That Xiaa , which
in the time of Samuel began to thrust out nxi , was afterwards much
more frequently employed than the other appellations, is readily admit
ted. But that any important distinction was made between the two
classes of words, is palpably a mistake. Of course, the whole superstruc
ture erected upon this distinction falls with the distinction itself. What
ever may have been the reason or ground of the Talmudic arrangement,
it was plainly not the one in question.
Omitting to canvass other less probable theories, and also mere phanta
sies, in relation to the matter before us, I shall resort to a shorter method
of settling the controversy ; and this is, to show that the book of Daniel,
from the time of the earliest testimony concerning it, was not placed
among the Kethubhim, but occupied its proper place among
the prophets, down to the time of Jerome and the compiling of the Tal
mud. After all that has been exhibited above, the proof is short and easy.
We have seen that the triplex division of Law, Prophets, and Other Books
is at least older than Sirach, and that he describes the third division (in
44: 5), as consisting of piXrj povatxav and tnq iv ygaif^, i. e. poetry
to be. sung, and written maxims. He does not define more minutely;
but this method of expression does. of itself exclude Daniel from said di-

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 427
vision. The next testimony, in Luke 24: 44, designates the third division
by the word Psalms, making out the title, as was frequently the custom,
from the leading book. But Daniel has nothing to do with Psalms.
Then comes Philo, (in Vit. Contempl. II. p. 475), who says of the Kethu
bhim, that " they are hymns, and other writings designed to increase know
ledge and piety ;" which last clause is descriptive of Proverbs and Eccle-
siastes. That he includes Daniel in this last class, there is not a shadow
of proof. Certain it is, that Josephus, his contemporary in part, and who
wrote a few years after him, (in Cont. Ap. I. 8), beyond all question ex
cludes Daniel from the Kethubhim. He assigns, as we have seen, five
books to Moses, thirteen to the Prophets, and four to the third division,
which, like all his predecessors, he describes as consisting of " hymns to
God and rules of life for men." His second division can by no possibility
be made out by the Jewish mode of reckoning, without the aid of Daniel.
Of course, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, in his time,
made out the Hagiography.
But how stood the matter afterwards ? The first catalogue, seriatim and
with the names of the books, we find in Melito bishop of Sardis, fl. A. D.
170. It is copied entire into Euseb. Hist. Ece IV. 26. He disregards
the order of succession in our Heb. Bibles, and follows in the main that
of the Septuagint. He places Daniel after Jeremiah and before Ezekiel,
i. e. between them. Origen, that great lover and master of the critical
study of the Scriptures, (as preserved in Euseb. Hist. Ece IV. 25), as
signs to Daniel the same place. The Council of Laodicea, (between A. D.
360 — 364), in their canon (59) put Daniel among the Prophets, and next
after Ezekiel, as in our English Bibles. Cyril of Jerusalem, (fl. A. D.
350), in his Catechesis IV, says expressly that Daniel belongs to the pro
phetical books, and he ranks him next after Ezekiel. Gregory Nazian-
zen, (fl. A. D. 370), in his Carmen. XXXIII. (Opp. II.) , ranks Daniel
in the same way. Athanasius (fl. 326), in his festal Epistle (Opp. I.
p. 961), in his list of sacred books, ranks Daniel next after Ezekiel.
The Synopsis Scrip. Sac, by an anonymous writer who was his contem
porary, (in Athanas. Opp. II. p. 126), gives to Daniel the same place.
The same does Epiphanius (fl. A. D. 368), in his De Mens, et Ponder.
23. II. p. 180. The Council of Hippo, (the magnus Apollo of the Ro
mish canon), in A. D. 393, in their list of the holy books, placed Daniel
between Jeremiah and Ezek., just as Melito and Origen had done. The
Council of Carthage, held in A.D. 397, (Mansi, III. p. 891), follow the same
order. Hilary of Poictiers (fl. A. D. 254) also arranges Daniel in the
same order. Rufinus (fl. 390 A. D.), the distinguished friend and also op
ponent of Jerome, puts Daniel next after Ezekiel, and before the twelve

428 §6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Minor Prophets ; Expos, in Symb. Apost., ad calcem Opp. Cyp. p. 26,
edit. Oxon.
Thus every regular catalogue of scriptural books in all antiquity, puts
Daniel among the Prophets, and nearly one half of them put him before
Ezekiel. In this way we come to see, that the division asserted by Jose
phus, and by his predecessors, Sirach and the N. Test, and Philo, is
fully and abundantly vindicated.
There is an additional witness, as yet only alluded to, whom we must
now bring upon the stand. This is the Septuagint. It is all but certain,
that this version was completed as early at least as 130 B. G In this,
the whole Talmudical arrangement is utterly disregarded, and Daniel
appears between Ezekiel and the Minor Prophets ; see Bos' edition.
One thing more should be remarked, before we advert to Jerome and
the Rabbies. This is, that in all the catalogues of scriptural books through
out all antiquity, which have how been brought to view, the arrangement
in regard to the books of the Kethubhim, which Josephus discloses, is
substantially preserved. In all those catalogues, the Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, are brought into successive and immediate
continuity ; nor are they in a single instance separated, as they are in
the Masoretico-Talmudic arrangement. There can be no good reason to
doubt, that before the Talmudists meddled .with the Kethubhim, no sepa
ration of the four books in question was known or thought of. Even Je
rome, with all his deference to the Talmud, holds fast to this continuity ;
and in some other respects he has varied from the Talmud, as we shall
see in the sequel.
We are now prepared for the testimony of Jerome. He makes (in
Prol. Gal.) twenty-two books, five belonging to the Law, eight to the
Prophets, and nine to the Hagiography. But still he puts Ruth into one
book with Judges, and Lam. into one with Jeremiah ; whereas the Tal
mud separates both of these, and throws them into the Kethubhim ;
and of course it makes twenty-four books. Jerome closes the third di
vision in the following order : " Daniel, Chron., Ezra, Esther." In this
arrangement of Daniel he stands unsupported by a single witness in all
antiquity, excepting the Talmud. Jerome spent twenty years among the
Rabbies of Palestine ; and although the Talmud was not written until
some time after his death, yet the elements of it were then concocting,
and from the Masorites of Tiberias he learned to arrange the Kethubhim
in the main, in the manner stated. It was natural for him to follow in
such a matter his masters in Hebrew ; although he has not after all made,
as they did, twenty-four books, nor thrown either Ruth or Lam. into the
third class.

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 429
But the Jewish doctors themselves — are they agreed ? By no means ;
the Talmud puts Isaiah after Jeremiah and Ezekiel, while the Masorites
place Isaiah at the head of the Prophets proper ; and besides this, there
are some other discrepancies in arranging some of the smaller books.
The reason given by the Talmudists for their preposterous arrangement,
presents a good specimen of their skill in critique. ' Isaiah,' say they,
' is full of consolation, Jeremiah of woe, and Ezek. of woe first and con
solation afterwards. It was meet that woe should be joined with woe,
and consolation with consolation.' Such was a sufficient reason, in the
view of their phantasy, for committing a real vartgov ngorsgov in the
arrangement of these books.
How much deference now is due, to such Jewish authorities as these of
the fifth and sixth century ? Much less, truly, than has been paid to it. In
dependent of this, however, there is not one scrap of evidence in all anti
quity to prove, that Daniel was disconnected from the other prophets ; but
all of it goes in a solid phalanx to establish the position, that he held a place
immediately before or after Ezekiel. The whole affair of ejecting him from
his proper heritage, was got up and carried through about the. time of Je
rome, i. e. near A. D. 400, and therefore about the time when Talmudism
was concocting.
But why did the Rabbies do this ? To this question we can give only
a conjectural answer. The theories of Hengstenberg and Havernick, de
signed to account for this transaction, have already been examined. I
have not said, and would not say, that the Talmudists never entertained
such views. My aim has beento show how insufficient and unsatisfactory
and inconsistent they are. Bertholdt, as others had done before, suggests
that the ground of Talmudic arrangement was the dispute between the
Rabbies and the Christians, in which the latter continually appealed to
Daniel for proof that the Messiah had already come. They designed, he
supposes, to abridge the credit of Daniel, by dissevering him from the
prophets. But although this seems rather plausible, yet it will not bear
the test of rigid scrutiny ; for surely the Kethubhim were not regarded
by the Rabbies as uninspired books. It is even quite, doubtful, whether
they could have supposed that such books as the Psalms, Proverbs, and
Job, were less inspired than the Law and the Prophets. In fact, the Tal
mud (Bab. Megill. fol. 10. e 2.) says that " Moses wrote the book of Job."
David and Solomon are exceedingly elevated by the Talmudists. Still,
Job, Psalms, and Proverbs, are comprised in their Kethubhim. So is Lam.,
while Jer. is in the second division. The degree of inspiration, then, as a
principle of division, seems fairly to be out of question. Jarchi, perhaps,
has hit on one reason which might have influenced them in the separation

430 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
of Daniel from his fellow-prophets. This Rabbi says (Comm. on Bava
Bathra), that " prophecy is not given for any one to write it in a foreign
country." But even here they are inconsistent. Did not Ezekiel write
in Babylonia ? Did not Jeremiah write a part of his book in Egypt ?
See chap. xlvi. seq.
All attempts then, to solve this question respecting the principle of
division with any certainty, appear to be ineffectual. We must leave it,
as we are obliged to leave a multitude of other Rabbinic conceits and
inventions, as neither accounted for nor supported.
But Neology has found, as stated above, a new reason for Daniel's
place, at least one surely unknown to the Rabbins. It assures us, that
' the first and second divisions were closed before Daniel was written,
and that the third division was kept open purposely in order to add the
later books.'
Lateness of composition, then, is here assumed as the principle which
guided the combination of books in the Kethubhim. But will this hold ?
Was Moses a late writer ? for the 90th Psalm they have always attrib
uted to him. Were David and Solomon late writers ? And the book of
Job — was this a late production, in the view of Jewish Rabbies, who
attributed it to Moses ? No ; such an account of the matter is unsatis
factory and inconsistent with plain facts. Besides this, we have seen,
that the Canon was ^closed before the Maccabaean age; and that there
was no opening for . Daniel at that period, not any more than there was
for Sirach, Tobit, and the first of Maccabees.
Besides ; what shall we say to the latest edition of neology, which, -in
the person of Hitzig, one of its chief exponents, declares that Jonah and
Obadiah were both written by the same person, and written in Egypt
during the Maccabaean age? (Hitz., Jona Orakel ub. Moab, s. 36 ff.)
But how is this ? If Daniel was put into the Kethubhim, because it was
written so late as that time, why was not the author of Jonah and Oba
diah assigned to the same location for the same reason ? Is neology
consistent, then, with itself?
I trust that enough has now been said, to show beyond all reasonable
doubt or contradiction, that Daniel was never put among the Kethubhim,
until near the close of the fourth century ; and then only by the Rabbies,
from whom Jerome received his account of the number and order of the
sacred books, as he himself declares. From him and his teachers has
been derived that classification of the Hebrew Scriptures, which has
been prevalent since that period, and which appears in most if not all of
our printed Hebrew Bibles. That this is against the testimony of the
Sept., Sirach, N. Test, Philo, Josephus, Melito, Origen, the Council of

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 431
Laodicea, Cyrill of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Synop.
Scrip. Sac, Epiphanius, the Council of Hippo, and that of Carthage,
Hilary, and Rufinus, has been shown above.* I do not know of a single
error, in regard to ancient critical matters, which has been so long and
generally admitted as the one in question, nor scarcely any one of the
like nature, which has been so little examined. It would seem, that
confidence in Talmudic doctors, as to the point before us, has been as
complete and as general as they could desire ; and it has been even
more implicit than that of Jerome.
Such being the actual state of the case, we may know what answer to
give to neological assertions respecting Daniel's place in the Canon.
The main external argument against the genuineness of the book, is
derived by the liberal critics from the location of Daniel among the books
of the Hagiography. The simple answer is, that facts contradict the
assumption that Daniel was ever ranked in this way, before the close of
the fourth century of the Christian era. Within the last half of that
century, we have a cloud of witnesses that such an arrangement was
unknown in the churches; for the Council of Laodicea, Cyrill of Jerusa
lem, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, the author of the Synopsis Scrip.
Sac, Epiphanius, the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage, Hilary, and
Rufinus, all testified during this period, and every one of these, as well
as Melito and Origen, puts Daniel immediately before or after Ezekiel.
It was only those that had opportunity to pry into the Kabbala of Rab-
binism, who had any cognizance of Daniel as being separated from his
fellow-prophets ; and Jerome was the only man among them all, who
was conversant with Rabbinical lore, and all that he does is, to tell us
how the Rabbies of his day classified the sacred books. The fact we do
not deny. But we assert, because we think we have fully proved, that
such a classification of Daniel as the one in question, was a recent conceit,
produced in the concoction of Talmudism.
In confirmation of the opinion that the Canon (Kethubhim) was open
to addition, in the time of the Maccabees, our opponents appeal to the
so-called Maccabaean Psalms, and ask : ' How came these into the Canon ?
The answer is simple and easy, viz. that this is only proving the amount
of an unknown quantity by reference to another equally unknown. The
Maccabaean Psalms ! We have often enough heard this decantated, and
have sought in vain for a single proof, external or internal, of origin in
the Maccabaean age, but have never been able to find any. Even De
Wette, whose proclivity to critical suspicions is everywhere prominently
* See all the passages relating to this subject, at full length, in the appendix to
my little work on the Canon of the Old Testament.

432 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
developed, pronounces the matter in question to be doubtful (zweifelhaft),
Einl. ins Alt. Test § 271, edit. 3. Rosenmiiller, who once held the
opinion in question, has given it up in his last edition of the Psalms. How
any one can examine the Comm. Crit de Psal. Maccab. (4to 1827) of
Hassler, and yet persevere in this opinion, I am unable to see. One
specimen of argumentation will suffice. Of all the Psalms (xliv. lxxiv.
Ixxvi. Ixxix. Ixxxiii. cxix.) said to be Maccabaean, it will be acknowledged
that the seventy-ninth has much the strongest claims to be so con
sidered. Yet in 1 Mace 7: 17, the second verse of this very Psalm is
quoted, and applied as a prediction of the slaughter of the sixty priests
described in the context.
Some other books have here and there been assigned to a Maccabaean
period. But no serious impression has been made by such an assignment,
and the arguments employed in its favor are too unimportant to need
notice. We have now seen on what a sandy foundation the structure of oppo
sition to the book of Daniel is built, so far as it respects the place which
it holds in the Canon. We have seen that all antiquity, down to about
A. D. 400, assigned the book to the division of the Prophets, and not to
the Hagiography. We have also seen, that the Canon was closed before
the period of Antiochus. Our general position under our fourth head,
then, that the canonicity of the book goes to establish its genuineness, is
illustrated, and (as we believe) amply confirmed.
But we have not yet done with this matter concerning the antiquity
of a definite Canon. There is another argument, which, although I do
not remember to have seen it anywhere adduced, seems to me to be of
great if not absolutely conclusive weight. It is this. The well known
sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees were in existence long before the
Christian era. The Jewish tradition ascribes the name and origin of the
Sadducees to one pins , i. e. Zadok, who flourished in the time of Ptolemy
Euergetes, about 240 B. C. The probability is, that they were still
more ancient ; but be that as it may, this is enough for our purpose.
The matter in dispute, which brought out or raised up the two sects just
named, was the simple but very important question : Whether the Scrip
tures were the sufficient and only rule of faith and practice ? The Phari
sees maintained the authority of tradition, and agreed with what the
doctors of the Mishna afterwards taught. The Sadducees were strict
and rigid Scripturists ; just as the Karaites (oixip) among the Jews of
modern times are. That the accusations brought against the Sadducees,
of rejecting all the books of the 0. Test, except the Pent., are utterly
groundless, has often been shown of late. Winer has done a good ser-

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 433
vice in regard to this matter, in his Bibl. Real-Worterbuch, art. Sadducaer.
Free and skeptical notions about some things, the Sadducees of our
Saviour's time entertained, as we know by the N. Test. ; but of the
assertion that they ever rejected any portion of the Jewish Scriptures,
there is not any proof at all. Nay, there is, as Winer has shown,
abundant evidence of the contrary.
It is quite probable, that the sects in question date back to the time
of tho Persian domination in Palestine, or very near to it. At all events,
we find them fully developed, and in the most heated contest, in the days
of John Hyrcanus, the nephew of Judas Maccabaeus, and son of Simon
his brother. This man was, as we have seen, the most distinguished of
all his illustrious house, being prince, high priest, and (as Josephus
thinks) favored with some divine communications. He began life as a
most zealous Pharisee. In the sequel he took offence at the reproaches
of one Eleazer, a turbulent man of the same sect, and because the Phari
sees would not mete out adequate punishment to the offender, Hyrcanus
\vent over to the Sadducees, and had no more connection with his former
associates. Josephus has told the whole of this story, in Antiq. XIII.
10. 3, 5 — 7. The whole narration of the matter makes an impression
on the reader, that the sects had then been formed for a long time, and
were most inveterately divided and hostile. The Pharisees did all they
could to put down John Hyrcanus, after he quitted them. In Antiq.
XIII. 10. 6 and XVIII. 1. 4, Josephus states very explicitly, that the
great point in dispute between the two parties, was the sufficiency of the
Scriptures alone, the one defending this position, and the other appealing
to tradition as well and as much as to Scripture.
This state of matters and of opinions, then, necessarily implies several
important things; (1) That the Scriptures were already a definite, well
known, and authoritative collection or code. The Pharisees conceded
this as fully as the Sadducees. But they clung also to traditional oral
laws or majrims, as designed to be a supplement to the Scriptures. Yet
they never undertook to intermingle and combine the two. Indeed it
was not until more than 200 years after the birth of Christ, that the tra
ditional laws of the Pharisees were embodied in writing, i. e. when the
Mishna was composed. Of course the matter of the Mishna could never
intermingle with the genuine Scriptures. If these, moreover, had not
been definite, there could have been no quarrel about extraneous addi
tions. (2) The quarrel having first arisen on the very point of the
exclusive authority of the Scriptures, neither party could ever add any
thing to the Scriptural books, and cause it to be acknowledged by the
other. The thing was impossible. Nor did either party ever attempt,
37

434 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
so far as we know, to add to the number of the sacred books. Every at
tempt must evidently have been futile. The case is just such an one, in
its main aspect, as the question between the Jews and the Romanists, in
regard to the Apocrypha. The latter acknowledge and defend it as a
deutero-canon, as they eulogistically call it ; while the Jews have ever
looked on the Apocrypha with disdain and contempt, in respect to any
claims set up for it as a part of their sacred volume. They never have
acknowledged it, and probably never will acknowledge it. Yet even
the Romanists do not pretend, that the apocryphal books were attached
by the Jews to their Scriptures. And so it was with the Pharisees and
and Sadducees. Neither party ever tried to enlarge the sacred volume
itself. Right glad we may naturally suppose, might a thorough Phari
saical devotee have been, to give his traditional law all the authority
of Scripture, and to attach, it may be, some book like the Mishna to
his Bible. But he well knew the effort would be vain. The scrip
tural books must therefore continue to remain by themselves, and have
no new associates.
All this now has its basis in historical facts. The opposing sects did
exist. The question that raised up the sects, was, whether any addition
could be made to scriptural authority. Moreover, the sects arose, most
plainly, some considerable time before the reign of John Hyrcanus ;
and very probably near the close of the Persian, or at the beginning
of the Macedonian, domination in Palestine. After the sects arose, such
was the nature of the quarrel, that all addition lo, or diminishing from,
the Scriptures then extant was morally impossible. It follows, then, as
an inevitable consequence of all this, that the Jewish Canon was com
pleted before the Maccabaean period. Of course, the book of Daniel
belonged to it before that period, for it could not have been added after
it ; and if so, then is its place in the Canon strong testimony in favor
of its antiquity and authority. Our opponents do not even pretend,
that between the time of the real Daniel and that of the supposititious
one at the Maccabaean period, there was any occasion for writing the
book, or any person who could write it. If indeed any such person did
write it in that intervening period, then he must plainly have been a
prophet in the true sense of that word ; but the possibility of this Neology
denies. (e) In confirmation of what has been said above, to show that the
book of Daniel was written and belonged to the Canon, before the Macca
baean period, and not at that time, may be adduced several striking dis
crepancies as to some important doctrines, between the books of the
Maccabaean age and the book of Daniel. (1) It is acknowledged, on

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 435
all hadns, that the Christology of the book of Daniel is peculiar for its
amplitude and its speciality. Indeed, Lengerke himself appeals to it
as a proof, that the book could not have been written at an early
period ; and this because none of the earlier prophets exhibit a Chrisf-
ology so fully developed. But he has ignored the Christology of the
Maccabaean age, and has not led us at all to see whether Messianic
expectations are developed in that age, in a manner kindred to that of
Daniel. Whether this proceeds from haste or design in Lengerke, is
not my present task to inquire. Thus much I have learned by studying
the pages of this author, (who is the Coryphaeus of Daniel's oppo
nents), viz. that he needs looking after, and that it is better to trust to
one's own researches, than to his representations.
How then does this whole matter stand? It stands thus: Daniel
exhibits more Messianic matter in proportion to the length of his book,
than any other writer of the Old Test. One may truly say, that the
Messianic development constitutes the very kernel or essence of the
whole book. The first dream of Nebuchadnezzar brings out, on the
part of the interpreter, a striking development of the fifth or Messianic
universal and perpetual empire, 2: 44, 45. The first vision of Daniel
does this more amply still ; see 7: 13, 14, 27. In 7: 13 the human
nature and person of the Messiah is specifically developed, and he is
called by the very name (Son of Man) which he so often bestowed on
himself. The characteristics of his dominion and empire are the same
here, as in the preceding case. His coming and atonement are again
declared in 9: 24. In 12: 1 — 3 we have the events that will ensue after
his coming, viz. the resurrection of the dead, and the retributions of
eternity. What prophet in the Old Test, has so plainly revealed these
several particulars ?
But how was this matter in the time of the Maccabees? In the book
of Tobit, we find two passages which seem to be built on some vague and
floating Messianic ideas. They are in 13: 7 — 18. 14: 4 — 7, and ex
hibit a probable reference to the prophets, who had predicted the return
of the Jews from all foreign countries, the building up and adorning of
Jerusalem, and the submission of the nations to the Jewish dominion.
But all these are plainly understood in their literal sense. No spiritual
Messianic kingdom is even hinted at. In 1 Mace 2: 57 and Sir. 47:
11, are two passages which pertain to the splendor and perpetuity of
David's throne, i. e. they refer to Ps. 89: 36 literally interpreted. In
Sir. 32: 19, there is a passage which asserts the future general pros
perity of the Jewish nation. In 1 Mace 14: 41, aprophet yet to come
is adverted to ; but plainly it is a prophet of the ordinary stamp, for

436 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
the word is ngocpqrqv, i. e. it is without the article, whereas, if the Mes
siah had been meant, the insertion of the article was plainly neces
sary. These are all that look like Messianic predictions in the whole of the
Apocrypha. What a striking contrast between Sirach, Tobit, and 1
Mace on the one hand, and the prophecies of Daniel on the other ! In
the Apocrypha, what little it contains of this nature is mere generaliza
tion, and altogether of a temporal and civil aspect. Not a single pas
sage has respect to a spiritual kingdom, and a spiritual redemption.
All is purely national, merely Jewish, limited to one people, or extended
to others only in proportion as they submit to the Jews. In Daniel, on
the other hand, the kingdom is universal ; the views of a future period
are most extensive and cosmopolitan. He tells us of " making recon-
cilation for iniquity, of bringing in everlasting righteousness, and of
confirming vision and prophecy," 9: 24. He discloses to us a personal
Messiah ; also a resurrection, and a general judgment ; but the Apoc
rypha has nothing of all these. Only 2 Mace, (a late production, and
far from being authentic), in 7: 9 seq. speaks of a resurrection ; but
even here, it speaks only of the just. Nor has this any connection with
the Messiah. This is all that the Apocrypha yields, in regard to these
momentous topics. How barren, how poor, how frigid, in comparison
with the soul-stirring declarations of Daniel !
It is a fair question now to ask : How came all this ? The writer of
Daniel, in the midst of the Maccabaean time and partaking of the
common views of his contemporaries, as we should naturally suppose —
this writer makes a more ample Christological development than any
other prophet of the Old Test, while all his contemporaries are either
profoundly silent on these great topics, or, if they are not silent, they
say nothing of the same tenor and significancy as the words of Daniel !
And all this too, from a forger of a book — a singular person, one
would think, to cherish and develop such views ! No ; the thing is not
credible. It is wholly opposed to the state of opinion in the Maccabaean
age. It is on the very face of the whole Apocrypha, that nothing but
obscure and floating and general conceptions were entertained at that time,
about a Messiah, or a Messianic kingdom. The Daniel before us stands
much more nearly connected with Is., and Micah, and Jer., and Joel,
and other ancient prophets, than with the writers of the Maccabaean
period. It is on that account that he merits, and has obtained, a place
in the ancient Canon ; and the fact that he did, pleads strongly for the
genuineness and authenticity of his book.
Besides these striking discrepancies between the spirit and tenor of

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 437
Daniel's book and the productions of the Maccabaean period, there are
several other circumstances which serve to show how incongruous it is
to attribute Daniel to that late age. For example ; would a Maccabaean
Jew ever have thought of giving to Daniel and his companions names
compounded with those of idol-gods, as in Daniel 1: 7 ? Would he
have thought of placing Daniel at the head of the heathen Magi ? 2:
48. At least, would he not have thrown some qualifying or mitigating
circumstance into the account, which would show how Daniel escaped
participating in the rites of the heathen priests ? And further, at the
Maccabaean period, would a writer have thought of making Daniel the
subject of such sympathy for an idolatrous king, and a tyrant and an
oppressor of his own people, as is exhibited in Daniel 4: 19?
But leaving circumstances of this nature, which might easily be
multiplied, let us take into view the aesthetical character of the book.
What composition of the Maccabaean age can compare with it in this
respect ? What is there in all the Apocrypha, that approaches the lofty,
animated, independent spirit and tone of Daniel ? What apocryphal
narrations approach the vivid and deeply exciting narratives found in
his book ? Some of the apocryphal histories are pleasantly written ;
and some of them seriously and pretty accurately, e. g. 1 Mace ; but
they are tameness itself compared with those of Daniel. Well has
Fenelon said: " Read Daniel, denouncing to Belshazzar the vengeance
of God all prepared to burst upon him, and then search the most sub
lime originals of antiquity, and find if you can any thing which will
bear comparison with these passages." What well informed reader
capable of appreciating style, will not applaud this sentiment ? Painters
have chosen the narration respecting Belshazzar, as presenting an ad
mirable subject for the highest efforts of their skill and powers. As
men of taste they have chosen well.*
I freely grant, that the evidence on which I have been insisting, under
this last head, is more of a negative than positive character. In other
words, it suggests as a reason why we ought not to attribute the book
of Daniel to the Maccabaean age, that there were in that age no other
productions of the like character and contents. I know that this will
not prove conclusively, that Daniel was not written then ; for it is within
the bounds of possibility, that such a man might rise up, distinguished in

* Who among us does not remember, with unfeigned regret, the half finished
picture of our greatest historical painter, who was arrested by sudden and unex
pected death, in the midst of his favorite, his last, and his greatest undertaking,
the Feast of Belshazmr ? 37*

438 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
so remarkable a manner from all his contemporaries. But is it pro
bable ? If a book should now come to light in England, and bear upon
its title page the assertion, that it was written in the time of Henry the
eighth, and that book should have all the qualities of Addison's style,
or of Goldsmith's, would any one believe the title-page ? Not one, is
the ready answer. Then why (mutatis mutandis) should the book of
Daniel be assigned to the Maccabaean age, which is as discrepant from
it in respect to style and manner of thinking, as Addison or Goldsmith
is from the writers under Henry the eighth ? If the existence of such
a Maccabaean writer is possible, it is to the last degree improbable.
(5) The accurate knowledge, which the writer of the book of Daniel
displays, of ancient history, manners and customs, and oriental-Baby
lonish peculiarities, shows that he must have lived at or near the time
and place, when and where the book leads us to suppose that he
lived. A great variety of particulars might be adduced to illustrate and
confirm this proposition ; but I aim only to introduce the leading and
more striking ones.
(a) In drawing the character of Nebuchadnezzar, and giving some
brighter spots to it, Daniel agrees with hints of the like nature in Jer.
42: 12. 39: 11. If a writer in the Maccabaean age had undertaken, as
is asserted, to symbolize Antiochus Epiphanes by drawing the character
of Nebuchadnezzar, it would be difficult to conceive how he would have
been persuaded to throw into the picture these mellower tints.
(b) In drawing the portrait of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon,
Daniel agrees very strikingly with Xenophon. In this latter writer, he
appears as a debauched, pleasure-loving, cruel, and impious monarch.
Cyrop. iv. v. represents him as killing the son of Gobryas, one of his
nobles, because he had anticipated him, while hunting, in striking down
the game. When the father remonstrated, he replied, that he was
sorry only that he had not killed him also. In Lib. v. 2, he is styled
haughty and abusive. One of his concubines spoke in praise of Ga-
dates, a courtier, as a handsome man. The king invited him to a
banquet, and there caused him to be seized and unmanned. It is all in
keeping with this, when he appears in Daniel v. In his intoxication
and pride, he orders the sacred vessels of the Jerusalem-temple to be
profaned ; and Daniel is so disgusted with his behaviour, that he does
not, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (chap, iv.), disclose any strong
sympathy for him, but denounces unqualified destruction. Xenophon
calls this king, avoawg.
(c) Cyaxares {Darius the Mede in Dan.) is drawn by Xenophon as

§6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 439
devoted to wine and women (Cyrop. IV.). In Dan. 6: 19 it is mentioned
of Darius as an extraordinary thing, that after he saw the supposed ruin
of Daniel, he neither approached his table or his harem. Xenophon
speaks of him as indolent, averse to business, of small understanding, vain,
without self-restraint, and easily thrown into tears ; and then moreover
as subject to violent outbursts of passion (iv. v.). In Daniel he appears
as wholly governed by his courtiers ; they flatter his vanity and obtain
the decree intended to destroy Daniel. Daniel's supposed impending fate
throws him into lamentation, and he betakes himself to fasting and vigils ;
and when he learns the safety of his Hebrew servant, he sentences his
accusers, with all their wives and children, to be thrown into the lions'
den, 6: 18—24.
Now as there was no history of these times and kings among the He
brews, and none among the Greeks that gave any minute particulars, in
what way did a late writer of the book of Daniel obtain his knowledge?
{d) When in Dan. 1: 21 it is stated, that Daniel continued until the
first year of Cyrus, without any specification when this was, the writer
seems plainly to suppose his readers to be familiar with this period. It
is true, that from the book of Ezra a knowledge of that time, the period
of Jewish liberation, might be gained ; but the familiar manner of the
reference to it, indicates that the writer feels himself to be addressing
those, who were cognizant of matters pertaining to the period.
(c) In ch. i. and ii. we are told that king Nebuchadnezzar besieged
Jerusalem, took it, and sent Daniel and his companions to Babylon.
There they were taken under the care and instruction of learned men
among the Chaldees, and trained up for the personal service of the king.
The period of training was three years. At the close of this, they were
examined and approved by the king ; and soon after this occurred Nebu
chadnezzar's first dream, which Daniel was summoned to interpret.
This dream is said to be in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign.
Here then is an apparent parachronism. How could Daniel have been
taken and sent into exile by king Nebuchadnezzar, educated three years,
and then be called to interpret a dream in the second year of Nebuchad
nezzar's reign ? The solution of this difficulty I have already exhibited
in an Exc. at the end of the commentary on ch. i. I need not repeat the
process here. It amounts simply to this, viz. that Nebuchadnezzar is
called Icing in Dan. 1: 1, by way of anticipation ; a usage followed by
Kin^s, Chron., and Jeremiah. Before he quitted Judea he became ac
tual king by the death of his father ; and the Jews, in speaking of him as
commanding the invading army, always called him king. But in Dan. 2: 1,
Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in the Chaldee mode of reference to his

440 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
actual reign. This leaves some four years for Daniel's discipline and
service. But to those who were not familiar with the Jewish mode of
speaking in respect to Nebuchadnezzar, it would naturally and inevitably
appear like a parachronism, or even a downright contradiction of dates.
Yet the writer has not a word of explanation to make. He evidently feels
as if all were plain to his readers ; (as doubtless it was). But a writer of
the Maccabaean age would plainly have seen and avoided the difficulty.
{f) In Dan. 5: 30, it is stated that Belshazzar was slain ; but not a word
is said descriptive of the manner in which this was brought about, nor even
that the city of Babylon was taken. The next verse simply mentions that
Darius the Mede took the kingdom. All this brevity seems to imply, that
the writer supposed those whom he was addressing to be cognizant of the
whole matter. Had he lived in the Maccabaean age, would he have writ
ten thus respecting events so interesting and important ? — In like man
ner Dan. 10: 1 seq. tells us, that in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel
mourned and fasted three weeks. But not a word is said to explain the
occasion of this peculiar and extraordinary humiliation. If we turn now
to Ezra 4: 1 — 5, we shall find an account of a combination among the
enemies of the Jews to hinder the building of the city walls, which was
successful, and which took place in the third year of Cyrus' reign, i. e. the
same year with Daniel's mourning. There can scarcely be a doubt that
this was the occasion of that mourning ; for certainly it was no ritual, le
gal, or ordinary fast. The manner now in which ch. x. is written, plainly
imports that the writer feels no need of giving explanations. He takes it
for granted that his readers will at once perceive the whole extent of the
matter. But how, in the Maccabaean age, could a writer suppose this
knowledge within the grasp of his readers ?
{g) In Dan. ii. the dream is interpreted as indicating the destruction of
the Babylonish empire by the Medo-Persians. Abydenus, in his singular
account of Nebuchadnezzar's last hours (given on p. 122 above), repre
sents this king as rapt into a kind of prophetic ecstasy, and in this state
as declaring his fearful anticipations of the Medo-Persian conquest. How
came such a coincidence ?
Qi) In 4: 27 Nebuchadnezzar is introduced as saying : " Is not this
great Babylon which I have built ?" Recent critics allege this to be a
mistake. ' Ctesias,' they tell us, ' attributes the building of Babylon to
Semiramis (Bahr Ctes. p. 397 seq.), and Herodotus (I. 181 seq.) ascribes
it to Semiramis and Nitocris.' — My answer is, that Ctesias follows the
Assyrian tradition, and Herodotus the Persian. But Berosus and Aby
denus give us the Babylonian account ; which is, that Nebuchadnezzar
added much to the old town, built a magnificent royal palace, surrounded

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 441
the city with new walls, and adorned it with a vast number of buildings.
Well and truly might he say that he had built it, meaning (as he plainly
did) its magnificent structures. It was not any falsehood in his declaration,
which was visited with speedy chastisement, but the pride and vain-glory
of his boasting gave offence to Heaven. But how came a writer of the
Maccabaean period to know of all this matter ? No Greek writer has told
anything about Nebuchadpezzar or his doings. To Berosus and Abyde
nus, a writer of the Maccabaean age could hardly have had access. He
rodotus and Ctesias told another and different story. Whence then did
he get his knowledge of the part which Nebuchadnezzar had acted, in the
building of the city ? And yet the account of it in Daniel accords entirely
with both Berosus and Abydenus. Even the account of Nebuchadnezzar's
madness is virtually adverted to in these writers ; see above, p. 122 seq.
(«') In Dan. 5: 10 — 12 is introduced a personage styled the queen,
not because she was Belshazzar's wife, for the latter was already in the
banqueting-room (5: 3, 23), but probably because she was a queen-
mother. Not improbably this was the Nitocris of Herodotus ; and Be
rosus, Diod. Sic. (II. 10), and Alex. Polyhist. (in Chron. Armen.), all
say that Nitocris was a wife of Nebuchadnezzar. If so, she might have
had much to do with ornamenting the city both before and after Nebu
chadnezzar's death ; and this will account for the great deference paid to
her by Belshazzar, as related in 5: 10 — 12. It is one of those accidental
circumstances, which speaks much for the accordance of Daniel with the
narrations of history. It is, moreover, a circumstance, about which a
writer of the Maccabaean age cannot well be supposed to have known
anything. And since we are now examining ch. v., it may be proper to note an
other circumstance. We have seen, that at Babylon the wives and concu
bines of the king were without any scruple present at the feast But in
Esth. i. we have an account of the positive refusal of queen Vashti, to
enter the guest-chamber of Ahasuerus. In other words, this was, and is,
against the general custom of the East. How came a writer of the Mac
cabaean period, to know this distinction between the customs of Babylon
and of Persia ? The author of the Sept. Version, a contemporary of this
period, knows so little of such a matter that he even leaves out the pas
sage respecting the presence of women at the feast Why ? Plainly
because he thought this matter would be deemed incredible by his readers.
In Xen. Cyrop. (V. 2. 28) is an account of a feast of Belshazzar, where
his concubines are represented as being present. Not only so, but we
have elsewhere, in Greek and Roman writers, abundant testimony to
usages of this kind, in their accounts of the Babylonish excesses. But

442 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
how comes it about, that the forger of the book of Daniel whose familiar
ity with those writings is not credible, should know so much more of
Babylonish customs than the Sept. translator ?
(j) Of the manner in which Babylon was taken, and Belshazzar slain,
Daniel has not given us any minute particulars. But he has told us that
the Medes and Persians acquired the dominion of Babylon (5: 28), and
that Darius the Mede succeeded Belshazzar. The manner in which he
announces the slaying of Belshazzar (5: 30), shows that the event was
altogether sudden and unexpected. Now Herodotus (in I. 190), and
Xenophon (Cyrop. VII.), have told us, that Cyrus diverted the waters of
the Euphrates, and marched in its channel into the heart of Babylon,
and took the city in a single night. They tell us that the Babylonians
were in the midst of feast-rioting that night, and were unprepared to meet
the enemy who were not expected in the city. How entirely all this
harmonizes with Daniel, is quite plain. Gesenius himself acknowledges"
that this is sehr auffallend, i. e. very striking. He has even acknowledged,
in a moment of more than usual candor and concession, that Isa. 44: 27
has a definite reference to the stratagem of Cyrus in taking the city. In
connection with a prediction concerning Cyrus, Jehovah is here repre
sented as " saying to the deep, Be dry ; yea, I will dry up thy rivers''
So in Jer. 50: 38, "A drought is upon her waters, and they shall be dried
up ;'' and again 51: 36, " I will dry up her sea [river], and make her
springs dry." If the book of Daniel is to be cast out as a late production,
and as spurious, because it seems to predict the sudden capture of Baby
lon in one night, by the Medes and Persians, what is to be done with
these passages of Isa. and Jer. ? Even the Neologists, although they
maintain a later composition in respect to those parts of the prophets
which have just been cited, still do not venture to place that composition
post eventum. If not, then there is prediction ; and this too of a strange
event, and one so minute and specific, that guessing is out of question.
If then Isa. and Jer. predicted, why might not a Daniel also predict f
Another circumstance there is also, in which all three of these prophets
are agreed. According to Dan. vi., Babylon was feasting and carousing,
on the night of its capture. In Isa. 21: 5 we have the like : " Prepare
the table . . . Eat, drink ; arise ye princes, and anoint the shield," i. e.
rise up from your feast-table, and make ready for assault. So Jer. 51:
39, " 1 will prepare their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they
may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord."
If now a writer of the Maccabaean period had undertaken to write the
story of the capture of Babylon, is there any probability that he would
have hit upon all these circumstances, so peculiar and so concordant ?

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 443
Conversant with the native Greek historians we cannot well suppose him
to have been ; for Greek literature was regarded as reproachful by the
Jews of that period, and even down to the time of Josephus, who speaks
strongly on this subject.
{k) Daniel 5: 30 relates the violent death of Belshazzar, when the city
was taken. In this particular he is vouched for by Xenophon, Cyrop.
VH. 5. 24, 30. So do Isa. 21: 2—9. 14: 18—20. Jer. 50: 29—35. 51: 57,
declare the same thing. But here Berosus and Abydenus dissent, both
of them representing the Babylonish king as surrendering, and as being
treated humanely by Cyrus. How comes it, if the forger of the book of
Daniel wrote about B. G 160, that he did not consult those authors on
Babylonish affairs ? Or if, (as was surely the fact in regard to most Jew
ish writers at that period), he had no familiarity with Greek authors,
then where did he obtain his views about the death of Belshazzar ? For
a full discussion of this matter, see p. 1 47 seq. above. There can scarcely
be a doubt, that the account of Daniel and Xenophon is the true one.
Xenophon relates, that the party which assailed the palace, who were
led on by Gobryas and Gadatas, fell upon the guards who were carous
ing ngog qxiig noXv, i. e. at broad daylight ; * Cyrop. VH. 5. 27. In
other words, the Persians did not accomplish their onset upon the palace,
until the night was far spent, and daylight was dawning. How now are
matters presented in the book of Daniel ? First, there is the feast, (of
course in the evening) ; then the quaffing of wine ; then the hand-writing
on the wall ; then the assembling of all the Magi to interpret it ; then the
introduction of Daniel, whose interpretation was followed by his being
clothed with the insignia of nobility, and being proclaimed the third ruler
in the kingdom. All this must of course have taken up most of the night.
Here then one writer confirms and illustrates the other. A Pseudo-Daniel
would not have risked such a statement as the true one has made ; for at
first view, the matter seems incredible, and it is charged upon the book
as such. But Xenophon has freed it from all difficulties.
Dan. vi. also declares, that Belshazzar was a son, i. e. a descendant of
Nebuchadnezzar. An appeal is made to Berosus and Megasthenes, to
show that this was not true. Yet they do not so testify, but only that
Belshazzar was not of the regular line of heirs of the throne. He
might still have been a younger son^of Nebuchadnezzar, or a son of
* Singular, that in a critical edition and commentary on Xenophon, now before me,
this is rendered before a good fire. Pirst, the Greek words do not allow this. Secondly,
the Babylonian.- need and have no fires for warmth. Thirdly. Cyrus would not have
drained the Euphrates and marched his army in its channel, at a time when fires
were needed for warmth.

444 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. Now Herodotus agrees with Daniel,
I. 188, 1. 74. So does Xenophon. And as the other authors have not
in reality contradicted this, what reason is there for refusing to believe ?
See the discussion of this topic at large, p. 144 seq.
It certainly deserves to be noted, that in part the book of Daniel is
on the side of the Greek writers, and against Berosus and Abydenus,
where the representations of the latter may be justly regarded as de
signed to save the honor and credit of the Babylonians ; in part also is
Daniel on the side of the latter, and against the Greek writers, i. e. in
cases where there is no reason to suppose the native historians to be
partial. The media via appears in this case to be hit upon, by the
simple pursuit of historical truth in the narratives of the book before us.
Again, in Dan. 5: 31, we have an assurance, that Darius the Mede
assumed the throne of Babylon. Here Herodotus and Ctesias are
silent ; but here Xenophon fully confirms the account given by Daniel.
Herodotus himself states (I. 95), that there were two other modes of
telling the story of Cyrus, besides that which he follows ; and that of
Xenophon and Daniel is probably one of these. This is confirmed by
Is. 13 : 17, where the Mede is declared to be the leading nation in
destroying Babylon, and the same is also said in Jer. 53 : 11, 28. In
Is. 21 : 2, both Media and Persia are mentioned. The silence of
Herodotus and Ctesias can not disprove a matter of this kind. See a
full discussion of the topic, p. 148 seq.
Dan. 6 : 1 states, that Darius set over his kingdom 120 satraps.
Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII. 6, 1 seq.) relates, that satraps were set over all
the conquered nations, when Cyrus was in Babylon. He speaks of the
appointments as made by Cyrus ; and doubtless they were, since he was
the only acting governor of Babylon, and vice-gerent of the king. No
less true is it, that to Darius also, as supreme, may the appointment be
attributed. How came the alleged late writer of Daniel to know this ?
Xenophon mentions no express number. The book of Esther (1 : 1)
mentions 127 satraps. Why did not our late writer copy that number,
in order to remove suspicion as to so great a number of those high
officers ? And how is it that 120 in Daniel is objected to as an incredi
ble number, when the empire was actually as large at the time of their
appointment, as it was in the time of Xerxes, as exhibited in Esth. 1:1?
The Septuagint translator of Daniel, who belonged to the Maccabaean
age, did not venture to write 120, as it seems, but 127, (so in Cod.
Chis.), thus according with Esth. 1: 1, and leaning upon that passage.
He seems evidently to have felt that the story of so many satrapies
must be supported by the book of Esther, in order to be believed. He

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 445
even, in his ignorance of history, translates 5: 31 thus : " And Arta
xerxes, the Mede, took the kingdom," probably meaning the Persian
Artaxerxes Longimanus !
(I) It is worthy of remark, that the order of the two nations, Medes
and Persians, is to be found in strict accordance with the idiom of the
times. Thus in 6: 8, 12, 15, we have the Medes and Persians ; but after
Cyrus comes to the throne, the order is invariably Persians and Medes.
So in the book of Esther, the law of the Persians and Medes shows the
same change of usus loquendi. Would a Pseudo-Daniel have been
likely to note such a small circumstance ?
It is also noted (Dan. 5: 31), that when Darius took the kingdom, he
was threescore and two years old. From his history, his reign, and his
descent from Ahasuerus (9: I), this seems altogether probable. But no
other author states his age. The fact that it is done in Daniel, betokens
a familiarity of the writer with the minutiae of his history. So does
the mention, that in the first year of his reign, Daniel took into most
serious consideration the prophecy of Jeremiah, respecting the 70
years' exile of the Hebrews.
Thus far, then, all is well. All seems to be in conformity with true
history, so far as we can ascertain it. It is not upon one or two particu
lars, that we would lay stress. We acknowledge that these might have
been traditionally known, and accurately reported. It is on the tout en
semble of the historical matters contained in the book, that stress is to be
laid. And certainly it would be very singular, if all these circumstances
should be true and consistent, and yet the book be written in the Mac
cabaean period.
How is it with the best historical books of that period ? The first
book of the Maccabees is, in the main, a trustworthy and veracious
book. But how easy it is, to detect errors in it, both in respect to
geography and history ! In 7: 7 it is related that the Romans took
Antiochus the Great prisoner alive. But this never happened. They
gained a great victory over him, and took away many of his provinces ;
but he himself escaped their grasp. In 7: 8 it is said, that they took
from him the land of India, Media, and Lydia. But neither India nor
Media ever belonged to him. The efforts to show that Mysia was
Originally written instead of Media, are of course but mere guesses ;
and if true, India still remains. More likely is it, that the author him
self put Media for Mysia, and if so, then this does not mend the matter.
In 7: 9, 10, it is related, that ' the Greeks resolved to send an army to
Rome and destroy it ; but that the Romans learning this, sent forth an
army, who slew many, carried away numerous captives of their women
38

446 §6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
and children, laid hold of their strong places, and took possession of
their lands, and reduced the people of Syria to servitude unto this day.'
Now nothing of all this ever happened. There was indeed a fracas
between the Aetolians and the Romans at that period ; but it was soon
made up, without any ravages of war, or any servitude. Further, the
author in 7: 15 represents the Roman Senate as consisting of 320
members, continually administering the government. He goes on to
state (v. 16), that they choose a ruler annually, and that all obey this
one. Every tyro in Roman history knows how unfounded all this
is. And what shall we say of the very first sentence in the fcook,
which tells us, that Alexander the son of Philip smote Darius king of
the Persians and Medes, and then reigned in his stead over Greece ?
In 1: 6, he states that the same Alexander, about to die, made a parti
tion of his empire among his chiefs — a thing that took place some
considerable time afterwards, partly by mutual agreement and partly by
force. In 6: 1 he makes Elymais a town instead of a province.
Such are some of the specimens of this writer's errors in geography
and history. That he was a grave, enlightened, and veracious writer,
in the main, is conceded by all. But if in things so plain, and transac
tions so recent, he commits so many errors as have been specified, what
would he have done, if the scene had been shifted from near countries
to the remote places where the book of Daniel finds its circle of
action ?
As to the second book of the Maccabees, it is so notorious for errors
and mistakes, that very little credit has been attached to it, on the part
of intelligent critics. It is not once to be named, in comparison with
the book of Daniel. It must have been written, when a knowledge of
historical events was confused, and at a very low ebb. The book of
Tobit, which originated in or near the Maccabaean period, exhibits not
only a romantic and as it were fairy tale, but contains historical and
geographical difficulties incapable of solution ; also physical phenomena
are brought to view, which are incredible. It is needless to specificate'
them here. De Wette's Einleit. presents them, § 309.
We have dwelt hitherto, under our 5th head, mainly on things of a
historical nature, i. e. events and occurrences. Let us now examine a
number of things that are of a miscellaneous nature, which it would be
somewhat difficult if not useless to classify throughout, but most of
which are connected with manners, customs, demeanor, etc.
(m) Daniel makes no mention in his book of prostration before the
king, in addressing him. 0 King, live forever ! was the usual greeting.
Arrian (iv.) testifies, that the story in the East was, that Cyrus was the

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 447
first before whom prostration was practised. It is easy to see how this
came about. With the Persians, the king was regarded as the represen
tative of Ormusd, and therefore entitled to adoration. Nebuchadnez
zar was high enough in claims to submission and honor ; but not a word
of exacting adoration from those who addressed him. How could a
Pseudo-Daniel know of this nice distinction, when all the oriental sove
reigns of whom he had any knowledge had, at least for four centuries,
exacted prostration from all who approached them ?
(n) In mere prose (Dan. 1: 2), Babylon is called by the old name Shi
nar (Gen. 11: 2, 14: 1) ; and as an old name, it is poetically used once
by Isaiah (11: 11), and once by Zechariah (5: 11). Now Shinar was
tho vernacular name of what foreigners call Babylonia ; and it was
easy and natural for Daniel to call it so. But how or why came a
Pseudo-Daniel to such a use of the word ? Babylon he would naturally
and almost with certainty call it.
(o) Dan. 1: 5 tells us, that the Hebrew lads were to be fed from the
king's table. Such a custom, even in respect to royal prisoners, Jer.
52: 33, 34, discloses. Among the Persians this was notorious, and ex
tended to the whole corps d'elites of the soldiery. Ctesias tells us, that
the king of Persia daily fed 15,000 men. How came the late writer of
Daniel to be acquainted with a minute circumstance of the nature of that
before us ?
{p) Daniel and his companions receive Chaldee names, some of which
are compounded of the names of their false gods. In 2 Kings 24: 17,
Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have changed the name of king Matta-
niah into Zedeldah. How did the late forger of the book come by the
notion of assigning to his Hebrew heroes the names of idol-gods ? The
rigorous attachment to all that was Jewish, and the hearty hatred of
heathenism by all the pious in the time of the Maccabees, makes it diffi
cult to account for his course.
{q) In Dan. 2: 1, the Babylonish mode of reckoning time is introduced,
viz. the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Where else, unless in Ezek.
1: 1, is this employed? How came the late interpolator of the sacred
books to betake himself to this mode of reckoning ; and especially since
it apparently contradicts 1: 1, 5, 18 ? See the solution of the difficulty,
in Exc. I. p. 19 seq.
(r) In Dan. 2: 5, 3: 29, one part of the threatened punishment is, that
the houses of the transgressors should be turned into a dung-hill, or
rather a morass-heap. Here an intimate acquaintance with the Baby
lonish mode of building is developed. The houses were mostly con
structed of sun-baked bricks, or with those slightly burned ; and when once

448 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
demolished, the rain and dew would soon dissolve the whole mass, and
make them sink down, in that wet land near the river, into a miry place
of clay, whenever the weather was wet.
(s) In Dan. 3: 1, the plain of Dura is mentioned; a name found no
where else, yet mentioned here as a place familiar to the original readers
of the book, inasmuch as no explanation is added. Whence did the
Pseudo-Daniel derive this name ?
{t) In Dan. 2: 5 and 3: 6, we find the punishment of hewing to pieces
and burning in ovens mentioned. Testimony to such modes of punish
ment may be found in Ezek. 16: 40. 23: 25 and Jer. 29: 22. But such
a mode of punishment could not exist among the Persians, who were
fire-worshippers ; and accordingly in chap. vi. we find casting into a den
of lions as substituted for it.
(w) In Dan. iii. we find not only a huge idol (in keeping with the
Babylonish taste), but also a great variety of musical instruments em
ployed at the dedication of it. Quintus Curtius has told us, that when
Alexander the Great entered Babylon, ' there were in the procession
singing Magi . . . and artists playing on stringed instruments of a pecu
liar kind, accustomed to chant the praises of the king.' "(v. 3.)
{v) According to Herod. I. 195, the Babylonish costume consisted of
three parts, first the wide and long pantaloons for the lower part of the
person ; secondly, a woollen shirt ; and thirdly, a large mantle with a
girdle around it. On the cylinder rolls found at Babylon, Miinter (Re-
lig. d. Bab. s. 96) discovered the same costume. In Dan. 3: 21, the
same three leading and principal articles of dress are particularized.
Other parts of clothing are merely referred to, but not specificated ; but
these garments being large and, loose, and made of delicate material, are
mentioned in order to show how powerless the furnace was, since they
were not even singed. How did a Pseudo-Daniel obtain such particulars
as these ?
{w) Dan. 6: 1 6 shows, that the regal token of honor bestowed, was a
collet or golden chain put around the neck. Brissonius, in his work on
the Persian dominion, has shown the same custom among the Persian
kings, who, not improbably, borrowed it from the Babylonians.
{x) In Dan. 6: 8, " the laws of the Medes which change not" are men
tioned. In Esth. 1: 19 and 8: 8, we have repeated mention of this same
peculiar custom. The reason of this probably was, that the king was
regarded as the impersonation of Ormusd, and therefore as infallible.
{y) In Dan. 7: 9, we have a description of the divine throne as placed
upon movable wheels. The same we find in Ezekiel i. and x. ; which
renders it quite probable, that the Babylonian throne was constructed in

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 449
this way, so that the monarch might move in processions, with all the
insignia of royalty about him.
(z) It deserves special remark, that Daniel has given individual classifi
cations of priests and civilians, such as are nowhere'else given in Scripture,
and the knowledge of which must have been acquired from intimate ac
quaintance with the state of things in Babylon. In Dan. 2: 2, 10, 27, the
various classes of diviners and literati are named. In Dan. 3: 2, 3, the differ
ent classes of magistrates, civilians, and rulers, are specifically named. On
this whole subject, I must refer the reader to Exc. HI. on the Chaldees, p.
34 seq. above. Whence a Maccabaean writer could have derived such
knowledge, it would be difficult to say. It is one of those circumstances
which could not well be feigned. Several of the names occur nowhere
else in the Heb. Bible, and some of them are evidently derivates of the
Parsi or Median language ; e. g. "paiO in 6: 3, a name unknown in the
Semitic. On the other hand, several of them are exclusively Chaldean ;
e. g. Dan. 3: 3, XJiiaiix , Xinsn , of which no profane writer has given
the least hint. How came the Pseudo-Daniel to a knowledge of such
officers ?
Finally, the passages in 3: 10, 20, in respect to the Watchers, is
most decisive proof of an intimate acquaintance of the writer with the
Parsi or Zoroastrian system of religion. If the reader will turn to the
Remarks on p. 103, he will see how well grounded this statement is.
According to that system, the planets were inhabited by Amshaspands,
and were guardians and watchers placed over the universe by Ormusd,
and running to and fro to discharge the duty of their office. The watch
ers were included among the Dii Minores of the Parsis, and Nebuchad
nezzar speaks of them as celestial beings, announcing to him the decrees
of heaven. This view, beyond all doubt, belonged to and constituted a
part of the Chaldaic religion ; and if not indigenous, it came into Baby
lonia with the northern Chaldee invaders and their- Magi. How came
the Pseudo-Daniel by knowledge such as this imports ?
It were easy to add many more minute circumstances to show the
historical agreement of the book of Daniel with the history of those
times, and specially its accordance with the manners, customs, civil and
hieratical officers and arrangements, etc., of the Babylonish capital. But
I deem it superfluous. All the great oriental antiquarians — such men
as Heeren, Miinter, Schlosser, Herder and others — concede an intimate
knowledge of oriental objects and matters to the writer of Daniel. Hee
ren and Miinter and Herder do this very heartily and fully ; and even
Schlosser, cold and skeptical as he was in respect to revelation and
everything miraculous, does not hesitate to speak thus : " Truly we find
38*

450 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
in the Aramaean part of the book [2: 4 — vii.], matter of great importance
for ancient history. In Daniel, we believe that the only remains of the
modes of thinking and the customs of the Babylonish period, together
with the remains of their ancient language, are preserved ; while the
Greeks have given us only a Grecian view, or at most, (like that of
Berosus), only a Babylonish view transformed by the Greek one. The
whole way and manner of interpreting signs and dreams, the organization
of the priestly caste, and the fashion of living among the later Babylonish
monarchs, and also some hints respecting the Medo-Persian period, one
finds in these remains," (Welt-Geschichte). A noble concession for a
cold skeptical historian ; yet, as all acknowledge, he was a man of dis
tinguished talent and of extensive research. An expert in oriental
history, manners, customs, arts, governments, geography, and the like,
cannot but be struck with the apparent ease of the writer of Daniel in
the midst of such matters, and the entire unconcern he shows about being
detected as lacking in exact knowledge. Truly it is something, to write
such, a book in such a way — something, moreover, that transcends the
ability of a forger in the Maccabaean day. There were no sources
whence he could derive all the knowledge displayed in this work. It
requires at least a greater stretch of the credulous to believe in such a
Pseudo-Daniel, than it does to believe in the real one.
1 (6) The prophet Daniel had contemporaries, who were companions in
office, and who, if not personally acquainted with him, at least were
living in a condition which was like his own, some peculiarities of a
court-life excepted. Ezekiel was probably older than he ; Zechariah and
Haggai younger. Malachi, also, was a century younger ; but he does
not seem to have been born or to have lived abroad ; and therefore he
cannot be brought fairly into the comparison. But Ezekiel and Zecha-
< riah remain ; and it becomes a matter of much importance to inquire
whether the book of Daniel bears any striking resemblance to the pro
ductions of the two last-named prophets. It is in this way, that we
undertake to judge of the claims of an author to any particular age.
We compare him with other like men of that age, and see whether he
has the stamp of the period in question impressed upon him. If so, it is
strong circumstantial testimony in favor of the claims which are made
for the age and genuineness of his production.
It is proper to remark, here, that the book of Haggai, also a prophet
of the exile-period, is a very short one, and has only one specific object
in view. This is to urge on the lagging work of temple-building. Of
course the book is paraenetic or hortatory. One or two short sentences
only are predictive, viz. 2: 6 — 9, 21 — 23. We may therefore lay this

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 451
book out of our present account, and apply ourselves to a summary com
parison of the others with the book of Daniel.
It was characteristic of the Chaldees, to use symbolical representations
beyond any other nation with which we are acquainted. But it was
common also for the Medes and Persians to make an abundant use
of the hke imagery or pictorial representations. All the monuments of
Middle Asia, on the great Mesopotamian plain, those heretofore discovered,
and those recently disinterred, are filled with symbols of various kinds,
and specially of beasts that are of gigantic and grotesque forms. In no
part of the world has the taste for the huge and the grotesque been car
ried so far. In no part, has the attachment to symbol developed itself
in so many and such singular ways.
It is striking to note, how much a familiar view of those persons and
things which surrounded Ezekiel, Zechariah, and Daniel, impressed
itself on their minds in the way of shaping their taste, and gave a color
ing to their style. In Ezekiel, the king of Babylon is a huge eagle, who
crops off the top branches of the cedars in Lebanon, and carries them to
Babylon ; and the king of Egypt is symbolized in the same way, mutatis
mutandis, chap. xvii. In chap. xix. Judah is presented under the image
of a lioness. In chap, xxxii., the king of Egypt is likened to a crocodile
of the Nile In xxxi., the Assyrian, who had been prostrated, is sym
bolized as the loftiest of the trees in Lebanon in the day of his exaltation.
All the fowls of the air built their nests in its boughs ; under its branches
did the beasts find repose ; and under its shadow all the great nations of
the earth dwelt, 31: 6, comp. Dan. 4: 12, 21. Even Schlosser (Welt-
Geschichte, s. 240) fully admits the oriental costume of Ezekiel : " In
his compositions, a Cbaldaeo-Babylonian tone is so predominant, that he
speaks out the character of his age in a striking manner. This symboli
cal style, that thunder-chariot, those terrible horses of thunder which
draw it, that sapphire-throne, that covering arch decked with the colors
of the rainbow, belong to the Babylonish .court in a Babylonish temple ;
and symbolism is as much more predominant in Ezekiel, than in Isaiah,
as the poetry of the latter transcends that of the former." This is a
striking picture ; but not more striking than true.
How stands the matter, in respect to Zechariah ? I include in the
work of Zechariah, the returned exile, only the first eight chapters of the
book that bears his name. I do so, because I deem the arguments for
the composition of the last six chapters by an older prophet, (probably of
the same name), to be on the whole unanswerable. Even our common
authorized English version has taken such a ground, dating the first
eight chapters 520 — 518 B. G, and the last six 587 B. G It is indeed

452 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
possible, on such a ground, that the same man may have written both
parts of the book ; but the discrepancy of style and matter is too great
to admit of any considerable probability.
How is it, then, with the prophet Zechariah who came out of exile ?
Ezra 5: 1. That renowned antiquarian, bishop Miinter, has given his
opinion thus : " The prophet Zechariah has shown, in his visions, a color
ing altogether foreign to the Jews, and which could take its origin only
in Chaldea. He speaks of a stone with seven eyes (3: 9) ; of a golden
lamp with seven branch-lights, symbols of the seven eyes of Jehovah
which look through the whole earth (4: 2, 10) ; of four chariots, spirits
of heaven, which come from the four quarters of the world, and take
their station before the Most High," (Relig. d. Bab. s. 89). But this is
far from all. In chap. iy we have four horses of different colors, emblems
of the angelic watch-guard placed over Judea. An angel appears with
a measuring line to mete out Jerusalem, chap. ii. Joshua the high priest,
in filthy garments, with Satan at his right hand, next appears in vision ;
and the significance of the vision is explained by an angel interpreter,
chap. iii. The two olive-trees that supply the lamp mentioned above
with oil, are described in chap. iv. In chap, v., a flying roll of thirty
feet in length and half as much in breadth, is seen moving through the
air, written with the doom of the wicked on both sides, and on it is the
personification of wickedness, thrust into an ephah, and covered with a
sheet of lead ; and all are borne to the land of Shinar (comp. Dan. 1: 2),
by two women with the wings of a stork. Then comes the vision of
the chariots, as stated by Miinter in the passage above quoted.
Who now that has read these books and compared them with that of
T)aniel, can fail to discern the likeness of style, manner, and imagery ?
When I say this, I would limit my remark to the general features of
style, and the general circle of thought and representation. Where else,
in all the Hebrew Scriptures, is there anything that compares with these
prophets, either in the frequency of symbols, or in the kinds of them ?
Compare the Theophany in Isa. vi. with that in Ezek. i. and Dan. vii.
The difference is very striking. Then compare the monsters in Dan.
vii. viii. with those in Ezek., and the frequency with which these occur.
The like are now found on the Babylonish cylinders and tapestry. Even
the strange beast in Dan. 7: 5, of which it is said riaipn in loiob , (a
phrase that has nonplussed all commentators until recently, and which
has been very diversely and wildly explained), has now been presented
to our view among the ruins of Persepolis and elsewhere, in the very
attitude described by the prophet, and is one of the symbols of the Per
sian dynasty, as Daniel describes it in 7: 5. (See the Comm. above on
this passage.)

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 453
How comes it, now, that these three writers of the exile-period, should
resemble each other so strikingly in general taste and manner and circle
of imagery, and in the frequency of it ? How comes it that all of them
are so manifestly out of the Palestine circle of action or description ?
One feels himself abroad, the moment he begins to read them. They
are indeed animated by the same spirit ; but they are far from wearing
the same costume. May not one almost take it for granted, that the im
ages of things seen in a dream or trance-vision are copies in the main of
those seen in a waking state, and only formed into new combinations, or
placed in new positions ? It would seem, now, that all these contempora
ries of the exile-period had seen the originals of their symbols on the
Babylonish walls and houses and temples. The grotesque, the gigantic,
everywhere met their eyes. Even their descriptions partake of the usual
hyperbole of the remoter East ' All men, all the beasts of the field, and
the fowls of the air, are subject to king Nebuchadnezzar,' Dan. 2: 38. So
' the tree in the midst of the earth, whose height reached to heaven, and
was seen to the ends of the earth — this tree nourished all flesh, and af
forded shelter for all birds and beasts and men,' Dan. 4: 7 seq. Just such
a tree is presented to view as an image of the Assyrian king, in Ezek. 31:
3 — 8. So much are the two passages alike, that the writer of Daniel
has been accused, by Lengerke, of copying from EzekieL If either is a
copy of the other, then why are we not at hberty to guess that Ezekiel
copied from Daniel ? But a close and minute attention to the diction
and style of each, shows manifestly that neither is copied from the other.
Both merely drew from a source of imagery familiar to both. Other
examples, moreover, of hyperbole are frequent in both writers, and are
found on all sides. They are even more frequent in Ezekiel, than in
any other of the Hebrew writers. Partaking of this same character are
such passages in Daniel, as speak of the furnace of Nebuchadnezzar as
being heated seven times hotter than was customary (3: 19) ; and border
ing almost on the grotesque is the description of Nebuchadnezzar's mania :
' He eats grass hke the ox ; the hair of his body becomes like eagles'
feathers ; and his nails like the claws of birds,' 4: 33.
Like Ezekiel, Daniel sees visions on the margin of great rivers. Eze
kiel was on the Chebar (Chaboras), 1: 1, 3. 3: 15, 23. 10: 15, 20, 22.
43: 3. Daniel was, in like manner, on the borders of a great sea (river)
7: 2 ; and again on the banks of the Ulai, 8: 2, 16 ; and lastly on the great
Hiddekel (the Tigris), 10: 4. In a country abounding in such large rivers,
it would seem that Daniel and Ezekiel lived ; and hence the easy and
natural reference to them. But we find nothing of the like kind in the
Palestine prophets.

454 §6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Thus it appears, that the writers of Ezekiel, Daniel, and Zechariah,
were of like taste, like age, and like country. Their taste, either formed
in Mesopotamia as in the case of Daniel, or conformed to it by long resi
dence there as in the case of Ezekiel and perhaps of Zechariah, has
developed itself in a similar style and circle of imagery in all of them.
Individually distinct indeed they are ; fully enough to show their inde
pendence on each other. Yet there is a general Mesopotamian, Chaldean
hue diffused over all their works ; and they stand out quite distinctly, as
to manner, from all the Palestine writers. No one familiar with the origi
nal Scriptures, and who is well versed in critical matters, can help the
distinct feeling, that Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah, are writers sui gene
ris in comparison with the Palestine authors, and yet altogether of a
kindred spirit among themselves. Where, in all the Hebrew prophets,
' is there anything like Ezek. i. x. xl — xlviii, Dan. vii — xii, and Zech.
i — vi?
How came it, now, that a pseudo-Daniel should lean on Ezekiel and
Zechariah, when there were other late prophets whom he might have
imitated without suspicion, i. e. Jeremiah, Haggai, and Malachi ? How
could a native of Palestine, in the Maccabaean period, even if he travel
led to Babylon (then in a ruinous condition), acquire such an intimate
knowledge of Babylonish manners and customs and objects ; since these
had long been done away under the Persian and Grecian dynasties ?
And even if he could in any way have become acquainted with these
things, how could it have had influence enough to give to his style a cos
tume so Babylonish ?
(7) There are traits in the book of Daniel, which are connected with
his life at court, and his management of state affairs, which are altogether
peculiar to him and congruous with his place and character, but which
belong to no other Hebrew writer.
If the word had not been so much abused, I should characterize what
I aim at, by calling it cosmopolitism. ¦ With all the deep and unaffected
reverence which Daniel cherishes for the God of the Hebrews and the
laws of Moses ; with all his ardent and dauntless piety and exemplary
humility ; there is a freedom in his book from Jewish rigorism, which
is very remarkable. Where is the passage which exalts and cries up the
Jews, at the expense and degradation of the heathen ? And yet, where
is there one word or action, that shows approbation of heathenism, or in
difference to it ? Jehovah God is God alone ; all idols are nothing
and vanity. His name, his servants, the vessels even of his tenfple, can
not be profaned and abused, without a signal and awful retribution ;
ch. v. Yet Daniel forms no conspiracies to deliver the Jews from their

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 455
conqueror's hand. He never sacrifices his allegiance or fidelity to Nebu
chadnezzar. He keeps his place as prime minister nearly forty years, in
spite of all the native nobles and Magi of the realm. Indeed, he never, as
it would seem, gave offence to them, or had a quarrel with them. And
how could he be head Magian all this time, and yet escape the infectious
influence of Parsism, and keep himself clear from its polytheistic rites ?
That he did, cannot be doubted, if his book is to be believed. Truly he
must have been a magnanimous, a discreet, a liberal, and a wary courtier
to accomplish all this ! And such is his bearing in his whole history.
Look at him, when a mere youth, before Nebuchadnezzar and his court,
interpreting the dreams of the haughty and powerful monarch. See him
before Belshazzar and his thousand lords, announcing the judgments of
Heaven, when that awful invisible hand inscribed the doom of that tyrant
and his capital on the wall before his eyes ! Is this an ordinary man ?
In truth I know not where to look for examples of such a kind. A most
sagacious, independent, enlightened and fearless man he must have been,
to have filled such a place, so long, and with so much approbation.
We should also take into view the nature and general course of his
prophetic annunciations. What are they ? Not denunciation against Tyre,
or Sidon, or Syria, or Philistia, or Moab, or Egypt. No, they are views
of dynasties ; of powers that influence the destiny of the world ; of the
four great empires which all history celebrates. Who does not see the
statesman here, whose elevated thoughts and conceptions dwell on the
mighty changes among the mass of nations ? The. circle in which he
moves, and the thoughts which are inspired by his position, are all
plainly stamped upon the productions of his pen.
There are some other traits of the book of Daniel, which seem to re
sult from the literary character and habits (if I may so speak) of the
writer. How comes it, that everywhere so much attention is paid to chro
nology? A careful designation of dates accompanies all his prophecies,
and for the most part his historical narrations. This is frequent in Eze
kiel, and found more than once in Zechariah ; but it is not so uniform as
in Daniel. Every one who knows the history of the Magi, knows that
astronomy and the observation of times and periods were their leading
occupation. A familiarity with such reckonings seems to have formed
the taste of Daniel respecting them. We might even venture to suggest
it as probable, that those occult sciences had an influence on the intro
duction of so many new and peculiar periods in his book. Take for ex
ample, " the time, times, and half a time ;" the mysterious seventy weeks ;
and then the seven weeks, the sixty-two weeks, and the one week. It is
indeed no new thing, that definite periods should appear in his prophecy ;

456 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
for other prophets furnish us with examples of the like kind. What
is new, however, or at least peculiar, is the frequency of this definite-
ness, and the peculiar costume with which some of the designations are
invested. Where else is the like to be found ? And how came the
Pseudo-Daniel to hit upon such a method of conveying his ideas ? On
the other hand, how could the real Daniel, the real aa ai , avoid a
familiar acquaintance with all the mathematical and astronomical
sciences of the order to which he belonged ? Was there not something
in this training, which had, it may be, an insensible influence on his
manner of designating and reckoning time ?
At any rate, there is the man, distinct from all other prophets in
several respects, inferior to none in power, influence, integrity, holiness,
and piety ; and withal he is a statesman and civilian of a rank above
any of the others. There is the man, in a full length portrait, whom
Ezekiel classes with Noah and Job; whom the Saviour calls a prophet;
whom the angel Gabriel thrice pronounced to be one greatly beloved of
God (9: 23. 10: 11, 19) ; and who, though a captive and a Jewish
foreigner, regulated the concerns of Babylon for almost half a century.
Did any conception of such a man ever enter the brain of a forger —
a Pseudo-Daniel — during the Maccabaean period ? At least we are
certain, that nothing among the known writers of that period makes any
approach to such a picture as this.
Lastly, we should look at the characteristics of his Messianic periods.
In other prophets, we find as it were a great struggle to throw off their
Jewish feelings and partialities. The brightest part of their pictures is
the coming glory of the descendants of Abraham. The Gentiles are
represented as coming to them laden with contributions ; they acknowl
edge the prior right and the loftier position of the Jews ; and the full
glory of the Millennial day itself is described in language that often
has a strong Jewish coloring. Even Isaiah partakes of this deep
Hebrew feeling. When (in chap, lxvi.) he opens to our view " the new
heavens and the new earth," he tells us of offerings brought by all
nations to the holy mountain at Jerusalem, and that " priests and Le-
vites" will be selected from the Jews to present them. Nor is this all.
" At every new moon, and on every Sabbath," all flesh shall repair to
Jerusalem, in order to worship in the temple there. And the like of
this might be produced from many a passage in the Hebrew Palestine
prophets ; e. g. Jer. 31: 31 — 40, et al. saepe. But not so in Daniel.
Educated abroad, and unused to the regular Jewish ritual, its hold upon
his mind seems to be less tenacious. Hence, the fifth glorious kingdom,
as described by him, is universal, without any distinction of nation, and

§ 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY. 457
without any reference to Jewish rites. It is strictly cosmopolitan.
" There is one God of the Jews and of the Gentiles." The Son of
Man, who comes with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of days,
receives a dominion and glory and kingdom of such a nature, that " all
people, nations, and languages serve him — a kingdom that will not
pass away nor be destroyed." Daniel vii.
TV hence now did the Pseudo-Daniel obtain such views ? Above all,
how could his Messianic development be so ample — so clearly the very
kernel of the whole book — if this work came from his hand ? His
contemporaries exhibit no such views. The very little that they have
said at all, is so worldly, so merely temporal and civil and social, that it
seems quite plain, that all spiritual and elevated views in respect to
this great subject were nearly extinct at that period. Did, I might
even say, could any man in such an age as that of Sirach, and of the
author of Tobit, and of the first book of the Maccabees, attain to views
like those in Daniel? Even Lengerke confesses, that the Messianic
idea is more developed here, than elsewhere in the Old Test, and in a
more spiritual manner. If so, did the Maccabaean period produce any
man adequate to make such a development ? I will not say that the
thing was impossible ; but it is risking very little to say, that it is al
together improbable.
Let us now cast our view back, over the whole ground of the defence
made for the book before us. What one thing is wanting to establish
its genuineness, that we should deem important in proving the genuine
ness of any book so ancient ? There is, first, the apparent testimony
of the writer himself to his own authorship, which we are not entitled
to distrust a priori, but must have some valid reason for rejecting it.
There is, next, the testimony of a contemporary prophet (Ezek.) to his
person and his worth. There is, then, the express testimony of our
Saviour, that Daniel was a prophet ; and that of Paul, and John, who
in various ways acknowledge him as such, while John has built the
Apocalypse, as it were, on the basis of Daniel. There is most decisive
testimony of Josephus to the Jewish views, as well as his own, of the
preeminence of Daniel as a prophet. There is, moreover, the perpetu
al and uninterrupted testimony of the Jews of all ages to the character
and worth of the book, with which is united that of the whole Christian
church, from the beginning down nearly to the 19th century. Not a
voice was ever raised against the book, except by some Porphyry who
scoffed at all revelation. There is moreover, most grave and weighty
testimony, and this in constant succession, from the time of Sirach down
to the present hour, that the book of Daniel was a part of the Jewish
39

458 § 6. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY.
Canon, and that this Canon was closed long before a Pseudo-Daniel is
alleged to have written his work. The book is so written, moreover, viz.
in two different languages, that we cannot well attribute it to a writer of
the Maccabaean period. Add to all this, that the whole internal evi
dence is in its favor. Its references to historical facts, to manners,
customs, natural and artificial objects, and the like, are all in keeping
with the time when it professes to have been written. The character
of the author in all respects is congruous with his alleged condition,
qualities, and station. It bears the indelible marks of origin in a foreign
land, and in that land where it claims to have been written. It is,
down to the present hour, the best store-house of Babylonish antiquities
which is extant. Why then reject its claims ? Most philologers, even
neological ones, would blush to disown a heathen book, which had half
of these claims. Why should this book, then, be the object of such
unrelenting persecution ? Why subjected to so much contumely ?
There is, as it seems to me, but one honest answer to this ; which is,
that if the book be admitted to be genuine, then to deny prophecy, or
even explain it away, is quite impossible. Porphyry saw this ; and so
do the skeptics of the present day. They can manage in their way to
get round other prophetical books, because they have less distinctness
in the narration of particulars. But here, there is no evading the
history of Antiochus Epiphanes. Hence the conclusion is, that it must
have been written post eventum. Miracles are first pronounced by an
a priori process, to be impossible ; and then it is averred, that Daniel
could not have been written during the exile, because, if written then,
we must admit the miracle of prediction. Of course, then, the
Gospels, and the whole of the New Test which admits the facts related
in them, must be spurious productions ; or if not spurious, they are at
all events, and at best, but romantic fictions invented for the purpose of
making men wonder, and of inducing them to listen to the precepts
which they inculcate. All this, now, surely stands or falls together.
Neology cannot stop with the overthrow of Daniel. The ground as
sumed here, sinks the whole Bible down to the level of the fabulous
and the incredible. As Neology has not a single scrap of external evi
dence that will bear the test of examination, in support of the ground
which it takes, so all degradation of Daniel depends on the a priori
assumption of a principle, which equally degrades every book of the
Old Test, and of the New.

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 459

§ 7. Objections against the Genuineness of the Book.
A large proportion of these have already been canvassed, in the
course of the Commentary and in the preceding critical discussions. It
is not my design to repeat these discussions at length, in any case where
they were designed to be thorough. I shall therefore merely advert to
such objections as have been canvassed, and remit the reader to the
preceding pages, in which they have been respectively examined. It
may perhaps strike the minds of some readers, that it would have been
preferable to embody the objections into one mass, for the sake of a
more convenient survey of them. But experience has taught me, in
the reading and in the writing of Commentary, that discussions of dif
ficulties engaged in upon the spot, at the very time and place where
they occur, occasion a much higher interest in the reader, than will
be felt when postponed to a distant time and place. It is on this account,
that I have, in my Commentary, adopted the practice of discussing
when the text called for discussion. I have, in consequence of this,
but a moderate list of objections that now remain to be canvassed.
Lengerke's Commentary on Daniel (1835, Koenigs.) has been gene
rally acknowledged, I believe, as the most complete exposition and
defence of the neological views respecting this book, which have yet
appeared. There is not much in it, indeed, which is strictly original ;
but the author is a most zealous, industrious, and pains-taking exponent
and defender of the so-called liberal criticism. It is on this ground, that
I have already so often referred to him ; and on the same ground, that
I follow him as my guide into all the recesses of skeptical criticism.
Lengerke, strenuous as he is in collecting all that can be said
against the book of Daniel, admits (in his Introduction) that Josephus
and all the Jews, the Talmudists and Masorites included, have acknow
ledged the genuineness and divine authority of the book, (s. iv. seq).
He also concedes, that with Christ and his apostles this book was " in
the highest credit ; " and that " this view of the matter was not changed
among the mass of Jews and Christians during the early ages of the
Christian era." Yet he suggests, that in Theodoret's time there were
some Jews, who doubted its place among the prophets. The passages
of Theodoret, which he cites in confirmation of this, (viz. on pages 1056
— 57 and 1058 — 9, ed. Schulz), exhibit the writer as taxing the Jews
with something SvGGtfisg and dSixor, in removing Daniel from his
proper place among the prophets. If Lengerke had studied out the
order of the older Jewish Canon, as exhibited in the pages above, he would

460 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
not have mistaken the object of Theodoret. This father lived, when the
practice among the Jews of assigning Daniel to the Kethubhim was ta
king its rise. It was a novelty and was revolting to his feelings ; and so
he taxes them with great impropriety of conduct. This helps much,
when rightly understood, to confirm the views taken above (p. 424 seq.),
in respect to the original canonical place of Daniel.
Now and then a solitary doubt has appeared, in times comparatively
recent, whether Daniel wrote in propria persona the whole of his book.
The two different languages, and the two great divisions, viz. historic and
prophetic, seem to have given rise to such doubts. Some have attribu
ted one part to Daniel's own hand, and some to another's, e. g. Hobbes, I.
Newton, Beausobre, Spinoza ; whilst Edward Wells thinks the whole
was reduced to writing, after the death of Daniel. J. D. Michaelis, (in
his Anmerk. f. Ungelehrte. Th. 10), doubts the genuineness of chap, iii
— vi. ; and Eichhorn in his Einleit (ed. 3 and 4) makes the work a
mere copy of floating traditions. The first objector that handled the
matter very seriously, was Corrodi, in his Freimuthige Versuche. The
first works, however, that made any deep impression, were the Com
mentary of Bertholdt, and the Essay of Bleek on Daniel, (Theol. Zeit-
schrift von Schleiermacher etc.). Since that, Gesenius, De Wette, Ro
senmueller, Hoffmann, Hitzig, Redepenning, Ewald, Knobel, and others,
have followed in the track of Bleek. Lengerke has given to the world,
in his Commentary, the substance of all which these and other writers
have said, and for the purpose of consultation, therefore, his work is val-
1 uable to the student Any one who wishes to examine the question of
genuineness, will at least find all that has been, and I might almost ven
ture to say, all that can be said against it, in the pages of Lengerke.
After a recently repeated and minute survey of all the objections
against the genuineness of the book of Daniel that have been urged, I
have been not a little surprised at the confident and triumphant air with
which the objections are brought forward. The book is ejected from the
creditable Scriptures with even a scornful air, and its claims to consider
ation are heard adunco naso. Nay, if some of the leaders in the new
critical school are to be regarded, the story of Jack the Giant-killer or of
Gulliver's Travels is altogether as veracious and as worthy of credit, as
that of Daniel. What says Knobel, in his Hebrew Prophets ? In § 40
he says: "In short, to an unprejudiced man no doubt can arise, that our
narrations [viz. those of Daniel] are not strictly historical accounts," (s.
329). Again, speaking of the graphic specifications of Daniel's prophe
cies, he says : " The special exactness of these prophecies proves, in a
striking manner, that they took their rise after the times respecting which

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 461
they speak. This is an incontrovertible argument against the genuine
ness of the book," (s. 402). In like manner De Wette : " It is clear
that Daniel was not the author of this book, from the fabulous contents
of it, which are full of improbabilities, dazzling miracles, and historical
inaccuracies, the like of which can be found in no other prophetical book
of the O. Test.," (Einleit. § 255). In a note appended to this passage,
he refers, in the way of example, to Dan. vi. (which gives an account of
the lions' den), of which he says: "The representation is ridiculous,"
(lacherliche). Further proof than this, from two men usually so calm
and sober, and who are so well informed, as Knobel and De Wette, is not
needed in order to show with what Turkish justice the cause of Daniel
has been heard and decided, by the neological court of late erected. But
as we, in this land of liberty, are not yet under Turkish supervision or
domain, we are quite inclined to take the liberty of appealing to the
high court of critical justice, which decides after examination, and de
cides in accordance with facts and arguments. Daniel is indeed no ridi
culous man, in our eyes; and audi alteram partem is yet current in our
free land.
' *¦ Meantime the book in question has not been without its advocates and
defenders. Staudlin, Beckhaus, Jahn, Sack, Hengstenberg, and Haver
nick, with others of less note, have entered the lists, with various armour,
and somewhat diverse skill in employing it. Hengstenberg's Authen
tic des Daniel is the most extensive discussion of the subject, and also
the most able ; with the exception, perhaps of Havernick's Neue Unter-
suchungen, appended at present to his Commentary. In his general
Einleitung, also, this last writer has presented a striking summary of the
case of Daniel, as to the attacks make upon it and the defence set up for
it. These two last named writers exhibit almost every thing, that has
been advanced on both sides. I have not always followed either of them,
however, in my defence of the book ; and sometimes I have felt obliged
to differ from and to oppose them both. But this abates little or nothing
from the respect that I feel for them, nor from my gratitude for their
very able and faithful services.* In several cases I have pursued invest
igations beyond the limits of theirs ; and in some, I have assayed to make
my way in tracks on which they did not enter. Each man who writes on
a subject of so much moment as the one before us, ought to add some
thing to the stock already on hand.
* A short time before the writing of this paragraph, I learned from the public Jour
nals, that Havernick has gone to his rest, in the very meridian of life and usefulness.
Biblical criticism has experienced a great loss by his premature decease ; for he was
fast advancing on the high road to the very summit of the sacred Parnassus.
39*

462 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
Opponents to the genuineness of the book of Daniel have, as yet, been
able to find only two grounds of an external nature, on which they rest
their cause.
(1) ' The book of Daniel is placed among the latest books of the Ke
thubhim ; which shows, say they, that it must have been added to the
Canon after the closing of the Law and the Prophets. Moreover, this
Canon could not have been completed, until after the time of the Mac
cabees. Had the book been written in the exile-period, it would no
doubt have been ranked with the other prophets.'
To this I have only to say, that the last assertion is not without good
ground ; but it in reality touches only a very small part of the case.
As a matter of fact, it stands beyond any reasonable critical doubt, that
the book of Daniel was connected with the other prophets, and that it oc
cupied, in the ancient Canon, a place immediately before or after Ezekiel,
down to a period near to the fifth century. The Talmudists of that day
were the first to put it among the Kethubhim ; and Jerome, at the same
period, who spent many years in studying with them, gives us an ac
count of the manner in which they divided the scriptural books, arrang
ing Daniel among the Hagiography. Theodoret, as we have seen
above (p. 459), tasks the Rabbies severely for this proceeding; and Je
rome and the Rabbies of his day are the only men in all early antiquity,
who have given to the Jewish Scriptures such an arrangement.
In § 6 {d) above, I have amply discussed this subject ; and it would
be superfluous here to do anything more, than I have already done by
merely stating the results of .my previous investigation. The answer to
the allegation in question is, that the fact alleged, on which it is entirely
grounded, is not only incapable of proof, but the direct contrary has an
overwhelming mass of evidence in its favor. Such being the case, Daniel's
original place in the Canon, (a fact clearly established), is one of the
most cogent arguments in favor of its genuineness and antiquity ; see
§ 6 ut supra.
(2) The only remaining external ground relied on is, that the ' Son of
Sirach, in his Eulogy of the Fathers, (chaps, xliv — 1.), has omitted to
mention Daniel among these Fathers ; which shows that the book of
Daniel did not then exist'
At most, however, this is only an argumentum ex silentio — nearly
always a very weak and slippery one in matters of criticism. If there
be any weight in it, on this occasion, it must result either from the fact,
that the author's catalogue of worthies was designed to be complete, or
at least from the fact, that he meant to include all canonical writers.
But neither of these positions is true. Nearly one half of those whom

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 463
he eulogizes, were not writers at all of any part of the Scriptures. On
the other hand, he omits many of great name, while he inserts others
who were clearly their inferiors. E. g. he inserts Phinehas, Caleb,
Nathan, Zorobabel, and Joshua the high priest, while he omits many
prophets, priests, and kings, of equal or greater celebrity. A glaring
example is presented in the eulogy of Nehemiah, while Ezra (with his
book also) is wholly omitted. Can there be any question as to the su
periority of the latter over the former ? But, what is more than all, he
omits the whole corps of the Minor Prophets. The passage in 49: 10, which
in the common Vatican text makes mention of them, is shown by
Bretschneider (in loc.) to be clearly spurious, it having been copied
verbatim from 46: 12, with merely the substitution of rav SmStxa ngo-
cpqzmv for aiitwv. Some partial friend of Sirach has plainly endeavored
thus to fill up what was seemingly a gap in the Alvqaig. This last
circumstance shows most clearly, that the plan of Sirach was not all-com
prehensive. He made a selection ; and in this he did not confine himself
to writers, or kings, or priests, or prophets. He has some, and only
some, of all these classes. It would be difficult perhaps to say by what
principle he was guided ; but the general tenor of his selection justifies
the position, that distinguished, active, influential, and pious men among
the Jews, mostly before the exile, who had been signal benefactors, or
deliverers, or moral and religious teachers, were the objects of his
choice. But Daniel spent his life and wrote his book abroad, and never
was either a hero or a prophet under the theocracy. Indeed, he never
directly addressed the Jews at all. The plan of Sirach, therefore, so far
as we can ascertain it, would hardly comprise him. Yet even when we
assume this principle of selection, we find enough of the arbitrary in
Sirach's eulogy, to show that he did not rigidly adhere even to this, or
to any particular rule in selecting. How came he to omit Ezra, who
did act in Palestine and who was a canonical writer, and yet insert
Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, and Nehemiah ? And can the circumstance,
that Daniel is omitted in such a eulogy, where the selection manifests so
little discrimination, and is confined within such narrow bounds — can
this be -alleged as a decisive reason against the existence of Daniel's
book when Sirach wrote ? K so, then it is equal evidence against the
book of Ezra, and specially against the book of Esther. How came this
last book, with the famous queen whose name it bears, and the renowned
Mordecai, the great deliverer of the Jewish nation from universal mas
sacre, to be passed over in silence ? Why did Sirach omit Job ? Eze
kiel had held him up before the world as worthy of being associated with
Noah and Daniel. Conspicuous also among the sacred writings, was

464 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
the book of Job. Why should he be omitted ? It is not even pretended,
that Sirach had not a knowledge of these books and persons ; and if he
had that knowledge, on what ground, we ask again, were they omitted ?
And does the silence of Sirach, in this case, prove that these books and
these personages did not exist ? On the other hand, is it not plain, that
the same principle led to the omission in this case, which governed in
the omission of Daniel, viz. that the author intended to include only
those who had been active in Palestine ? At any rate, the whole argu
ment is worthless, when such facts as these lie before us. Does any one
regard it as a satisfactory proof, that no Nebuchadnezzar ever lived and
reigned, and that he did not overrun Asia Minor and besiege Tyre, be
cause none of the Greek historians, not even Herodotus, ever mention
his name? (see p. 121 supra). Where, moreover, should we begin and
where end, with this argumentum a silentio ? What could be done with
the Gospels, (where they differ from each other in their order, or where
one or more of them keep entire silence as to certain facts), on such a
ground as this ? For my own part, I always feel suspicious either of a
cause, or of the convictions of those who plead it, when they resort to
such flimsy argumentation as this. Men do not commonly undertake to
buttress a building with spalt and decaying timber, when they can obtain
pillars of granite or of marble. De Wette, who at first welcomed this
notable argument which Bleek has urged very strenuously, seems to
have become rather shy of it in later times. He says with his usual
naivete : " To be sure, this circumstance may be taken into consideration."
I have endeavored to follow his advice ; but I find a result quite different
from that which he would seem to approve.
We have done with external grounds. And if the internal are not
stronger than these, the opinion of Christ and his apostles respecting
Daniel may still be regarded as quite safe and unshaken.
Let us now proceed to the internal grounds alleged by the oppo
nents of the book against its genuineness. For convenience' sake, I
shall follow Lengerke as to the order of arrangement.
(3) Lengerke ranks at the head of these internal grounds, ' the testi
mony which he says is given by the Greek words in Daniel, inasmuch
as they show the influence of the Greek on the real author of the book',
i. e. the Pseudo-Daniel, who must have lived in the times of Greek
domination.' Most cases of this nature are taken from the name of musical instru
ments, in chap. 3: 5. I do not deem it important to repeat the discussion
of this topic here, as the reader will find it in the Commentary on this
passage, p. 81 seq. Whatever else Lengerke has of this nature, is also

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 465
examined in the various passages where the words occur. The whole
thing is so fanciful, and has so little foundation in true philology, that to
particularize any further, would be a mere waste of time. At most, not
more than three or four words are traceable to the Greek, and even
these are of a doubtful origin.
(4) ' The diction of Daniel is of the very latest kind, such as we find
in Ezra, Neh., Esth., and Chronicles, also in Ezekiel. It approaches
very nearly to the Rabbinic of the later ages.' Thus Lengerke and
Bertholdt. Bleek, however, is candid enough to give up this entirely. He says
very justly : " We have in general too few remains of the different cen
turies after the exile, to draw an" conclusion as to the gradual deprecia
tion of the language, and to determine with any certainty to what par
ticular period any writer belongs," (Zeitschr., etc. s. 213). As to Rab-
binism, no one has yet ventured to appeal to examples ; and until the
charge is sustained by some proof, we may rest content with the plea of
not guilty. In respect to the other books named, I should deem it of no
importance, to show that the Hebrew of Daniel was in general discrepant
from that which they exhibit. So near were the writers to his time, that
we may well suppose the idioms in general to be alike. All of them
belong to a period closing with the exile, or occurring within a short
time after it ; and all of them are in some measure affected by the Chal
dee dialect, which their authors spoke or wrote. Yet Daniel, in the
judgment of Gesenius (Geschich. Heb. Sprach. s. 35), has decidedly a
purer diction than Ezekiel ; in which opinion, so 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.
I should go still further, and say, it is more normal Hebrew than some
portions of even Jeremiah, of Ezra, of Coheleth, and of Chronicles. As
to the dnai Xsyoptva of the book, I feel no reluctance to admit them.
But if there be any argument in adducing these, it will apply in an equal
measure, to all the later books, and to not a few of the others. It proves
nothing more, in general, than that the writer, having occasion to express
ideas peculiarly his own, has used corresponding words not elsewhere
found because the ideas are not. Besides, the argument is one of those
which prove altogether too much ; and therefore establish nothing. The
examples which Lengerke produces are many of them mistaken and
hasty ones ; and the others are only of such a character as may be found
in Ezekiel, in Jeremiah, in Zechariah, or in Coheleth.
(5) ' The expression aiis&n , in Dan. 9: 2, shows that a definite well
known collection of the Law and the Prophets had "already been made,

466 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
which could not have been before Nehemiah's time. Moreover, the
book of Daniel has copied many things from Nehemiah, which shows
that it must have been later.'
As to the first, the Comm. on 9: 2 will supply the answer. It will not
be denied, that each of Jeremiah's, predictions in 25: 11 seq. 29: 10 seq.
is called iB&n ; of course, both of them, (for both relate to the seventy
years), are rightly called DiiB&n . And these are plainly all the closed
canon, that Daniel 9: 2 is concerned with. As to the assertion that
Daniel has copied Nehemiah, I have only to guess that this matter may
be regarded in the light of a varegov ngorsgov, and accordingly say, that
Nehemiah copied Daniel ; which, by the way, is much the more probable
of the two, if there is any copying in the case. But of this, I see no
satisfactory proof. Men in like circumstances, with like feelings, views,
and wishes, and living at the same period, may easily be supposed to
utter some things in relation to a matter of deep interest to both, that
have a near resemblance. This is all that can be found in the case
before us ; and of this any critical reader of the originals may satisfy
himself by minutely comparing Neh. ix. with Dan. ix., for these arc the
two passages mainly relied on. Both are fast-day confessions ; both
were poured forth from hearts deeply affected with the sins and the
punishment of the Hebrews. After all, however, the general tenor of
them is so different, that no one would suspect any copying in the case,
unless put on the alert to find it by a famine of good arguments to suit
his purpose.
(6) " The useless prodigality of miracles, which are improbable in
themselves, and rest upon erroneous testimony, is a strong objection to
the genuineness of the book." So Lengerke ; and Knobel and others
assert directly and fully, that the narration of such things demonstrates
that the book is utterly unworthy of credit. De Wette, as we have
seen above (p. 461), says that the story of the lions' den is ridiculous.
Of course, chap, iii, iv, v, vi, are all attacked with vehemence, and
every kind of sneer and contumely and scorn is called into requisition,
in order to show that they are utterly unworthy of credit. A few
specimens may suffice. As to chap, ii., Lengerke says, that ' Nebu
chadnezzar would never have permitted Daniel to speak of the over
throw of his dynasty ; that he never would or could have demanded
that a dream forgotten by himself, should be recalled by others ; that
the whole affair of dreaming and interpreting is only a mere- imitation
of Gen. xii, (Pharaoh's dream and Joseph's interpretation) ; that Dan
iel makes out a Median dynasty, which never existed ; that he makes
the Messianic kingdom immediately to follow that of Alexander's sue-

§7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 467
cessors, and finally, that it was of no use to Nebuchadnezzar to know
who would succeed him, and therefore the whole matter was unimpor
tant, and unworthy of any miracle to carry it through.'
Chap. iii. comes in for its full share. ' The idol is monstrous and
incredible ; and Daniel — where was he, so that no mention is made of
him, when he of all men was most expected to be present ? The Baby
lonians were no persecutors for the sake of religion, and yet this book
represents them as such ; during the exile no miracles were performed
or heard of; Nebuchadnezzar was favorable to the Jews, and would
heat no furnaces seven times hotter than usual to destroy them, (I say
them, for of course he did not expect his own heathen subjects to diso
bey him) ; every where there is an effort to introduce the wonderful
and to magnify it ; and finally, Plitzig is quoted as having strikingly
(treffend) said : " As to the miraculous escape [in the furnace], Heng
stenberg must here fall back on his a priori faith. Forsooth a miracle
which changes the very nature of an element, is a great one ! It is
the greatest in the Old Testament ; but not, therefore, the most proba
ble." In conclusion Lengerke remarks, that " the story considered as a
matter of fact, contradicts the regular and sublime movements of the
Godhead as developed in history, and his manner of dealing with his
people." (s. 105 seq).
Chap. iv. has also its full share of difficulties. ' Nebuchadnezzar's
madness is the strangest and most incredible of all things, and no histo
rian takes notice of it ; we can never suppose, with any probability,
that he would have published his own shame and degradation to the
world ; and what became of his kingdom during seven years of mania ?
How comes it that he " built great Babylon," when other historians
ascribe this to Semiramis. and Nitocris ? And who can believe in his re
storation to the throne, and in his thanksgiving to the God of the Jews?
Chap. v. is said to ' exhibit many a contradiction and improbability ;
Daniel appears as a stranger to the son of Nebuchadnezzar ; and this
so-called son was not even of the royal progeny ; if the writing on the wall
was hieroglyphical, then the Magi could interpret it ; if it was demotic,
all could read it ; if it was neither, Daniel could interpret it no more
than the Magi; such a tyrant as Belshazzar would neither have
suffered Daniel to threaten him with judgments, nor have rewarded
him ; the profanation of the sacred vessels of the, temple was a thing
unheard of in all ancient heathendom. Daniel contradicts himself, for one
moment he refuses a bribe, and the next he receives it ; and finally, it is
altogether improbable, that, during one and the same night, the feast
could be celebrated, the writing interpreted, the city taken, and Daniel
proclaimed the third officer in the kingdom, (s. 238 ff).

468 §7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
Against chap. vi. it is alleged, that there was no Darius the Mede ;
that the division of the realm into three great Satrapies is unsupposable ;
that the silly statute, forbidding all to ask any thing of God or man for
thirty days, is altogether incredible ; that there are internal indicia in
this statute of its being a Jewish composition ; that Daniel could never
have been fanatic enough to believe in his escape from punishment ;
that the lions could not have lived without being smothered, in such a
den as the book describes, and that the whole story is manufactured out
of the account of the pit into which Joseph's brethren cast him (Gen.
37: 24) ; that the edict of Darius, commanding all his subjects to worship
the God of Daniel, is the most atrocious and incredible intolerance ; and
finally, that the preservation of Daniel in such a den, was, like all the
other wonders of this book, not only a useless affair, but against the
divine economy.'
Thus Lengerke ; with whom Knobel fully sympathizes, and De
Wette, as we have seen, calls the whole story ridiculous. As a stand
ing accusation, scattered here and there throughout the fvhole com
mentary of Leng. on these chapters, it is declared, that the writer every
where seeks to paint every thing in the most glaring colors, and is
excessively prone to make every thing into a stupendous miracle, so
often as he can find an occasion.
I need not here repeat an investigation of any of these charges. In
my Commentary and Excursus on the chapters in question, I have said
all that I deem necessary or expedient. It would seem that the mind
of any one must be full of bitterness, as well as unbelief, to treat the
lofty scenes of this book in such a manner. I should deem it a difficult
task, to find specimens of the moral sublime superior to those exhibited
in the conduct of Daniel. A deeper vein of ardent piety and humility,
more lofty and inflexible integrity, and less of the fear of man where
the honor of God and the claims of duty demand action or speaking, I
think could be found only in him " who knew no sin, and in whose
mouth guile was not found." How different are impressions which dif
ferent persons may receive, in reading the very same book I There is
some evidence, however, that in this case I am in the right, because our
Saviour, and his apostles, and the prophet Ezekiel of old, have given
plain and incontrovertible evidence of the same impressions in respect to
Daniel that I have expressed.
One thing is clear; which is, that if the principles assumed and
urged by Lengerke and his friends are correct, then are the Gospels as
much more incredible than the book of Daniel, as the number of mira
cles related in them is greater than those in the prophet's book. This

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 469
is a consequence inevitable and utterly undeniable. Unbelief as to
miracles is the simple basis of all this seemingly imposing structure
of the Neologists ; and this, maintained with consistency, brings us just
where Strauss has invited us to go, or puts us under the same category
with Bruno Bauer.
(7) Parachronisms, or errors in chronology, are alleged against the
book ; e. g. in 1: 1, (the third year of Jehoiakim) ; 1: 5 and 2: 1 ; 1:21
and 10: I ; also historical contradictions respecting the Magi in ch. ii. ;
and respecting the lions' den in ch. vi. It is alleged, moreover, that there
was no Shushan in the time of Belshazzar, as stated in 8: 2 ; that there
were no Satrapies in the time of the Babylonish dynasty, nor even
among the Medes and Persians when Babylon was taken ; that Nebu
chadnezzar was not the father of Belshazzar ; that there was no king of
this latter name ; that such king, whatever was his name, was not slain
at the capture of the city ; that Darius the Mede (as king of Babylon)
never had any existence ; and that in 11:2, the writer shows himself
wholly ignorant of the history of the Persian kings, making only four.
All these allegations have been discussed, in my remarks on the pas
sages respectively concerned, and to them I refer the reader for what I
have deemed proper to say in respect to the objections just mentioned.
(8) A great multitude of improbable and suspicious assertions or decla
rations are put to the account of Daniel. The rigorous ascetics of the
young Jews in ch. i. ; the foolish demand of Nebuchadnezzar in ch. ii. ;
the description of the image in ch. iii. ; the absence of Daniel at the con
secration of the idol (ibid.) ; the religious persecution of Nebuchadnezzar,
and " the despicable obstinacy and fanaticism of the Jewish officials" (ibid.);
the seven years' madness of Nebuchadnezzar ; his publishing this to the
world ; his praying, before his madness left him ; the definite marks of not
beincr authentic contained in his edict itself ; that Daniel did not appear
with the Magi before Belshazzar ; the kindness of this king to Daniel ;
that the latter was made third ruler the same night in which the feast
was held ; the profanation of the holy vessels (ch. v.) ; the foolish decree
of Darius ; the fanaticism of Daniel ; the incredible intolerance of the king,
and marks of Jeicish composition in his edict (ch. vi.) ; all these are al
leged against the book of Daniel. But nearly every one of these has
already been produced by Lengerke under preceding heads, and there
fore need not have been again repeated. But he seems to feel, that his
cause depends somewhat on the number as well as the quality of the testi
monies which he reckons up ; and if the same witness is twice brought
upon the stand, it helps to increase the number of testimonies, if not their
weight 40

470 §7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
I have only to subjoin, that all these topics have already been discussed,
as our text has presented occasion ; and therefore I shall not follow him
in repeating over again the same arguments.
(9) ' The dogmatic views of the book differ widely from those that be
long to the exile-period, and agree with those in the times of the Macca
bees, (a) The Christology in Daniel is far more perfected than in Eze
kiel. In ch. vii., the Messiah appears as a super-human being ; even a
divine nature is attributed to him, (which occurs nowhere else except in
those Sibylline Oracles which were written at the Maccabaean period);
and in general, the Messianic views in Daniel find numerous parallels in
the apocryphal books, but nowhere else.'
That the Messianic development is more clear and full in Daniel than
in Ezekiel, I am as fully persuaded as Lengerke is. But what of that ?
Is it any strange thing, that the last great prophet, employed to predict
the state of the Jewish nation after their return from exile, and when
they come under the domain of some of the great dynasties which he fore
saw — is it strange that he, who has developed the fifth or universal
Messianic empire with a true catholic and cosmopolitan spirit, rejecting
even the usual Jewish costume in his picture — that he should have gone
on in advance of Ezekiel ? So far is this from being strange, that I
should say, it is altogether congruous with what we should expect of him
situated as he was, and with that peculiar measure of special prophetic
foresight, which his other predictions develop. How is Lengerke to show,
that progress is impossible or improbable?
As to the assertion that a divine nature is nowhere else in the O.Test.
Scriptures attributed to the Messiah — that is a matter which belongs to
Lengerke's subjective views of exegesis. It is quite possible, as we find
by frequent experience, for men " to have eyes and see not." But if a
man, shutting his eyes at mid-day with a clear sky, should deny that it is
light, we should not feel bound to disprove his assertion. Still we may
advert to some of the passages which make against the declaration of
Lengerke. Ps. 2: 7 calls him the Son of God, which, as Hengstenberg and
others insist, must be understood in a literal sense. This I do not believe ;
for if he is a literal Son, then could he be neither self-existent nor inde
pendent, and therefore could not be truly God. The word Son has
an official sense. But in Ps. 45: 7, 8, he is called God, and God's throne
is assigned to him. Ps. ex., compared with our Saviour's commentary in
Matt. 22: 41 — 46, plainly shows his higher nature. Isa. 9: 5 calls him
the mighty God. Isa. 11: 2 — 4 ascribes to him supreme power of chas
tising the wicked. Micah 5: 2 makes his " goings forth to be everlasting."
Ps. lxxii. attributes to him an eternal reign. Mai. 3: 1 represents him as

§7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 471
Jehovah coming to his temple. Isa. 6 :1 — 4, if we may trust the apostle
John as an expositor (John 12: 41), shows that Christ is Jehovah of hosts.
By implication, many other passages might be brought to bear on the
same point. But I forbear. Lengerke has a way in which he disposes
of each, and which makes them give very different testimony from that
which I must believe they were intended to give.
In respect to the remaining declaration of Lengerke, viz. that the
Christology of Daniel, so advanced and completed as it is, can find its
like only in the apocryphal books, it is the most unfortunate of all. We
have already seen, (pp. 435 seq.), that a spiritual and personal Messiah
and moral and spiritual kingdom are not once adverted to in all the apoc
ryphal books. In all there are not half a dozen passages, which even
advert to the subject of a future deliverance ; none to a specific Deliverer.
A general indistinct belief of future prosperity, in respect to Jerusalem
and the Jewish commonwealth, with the perpetuity of the Davidic race
of kings, is all that we can gather from the tout ensemble of the Apocrypha.
Where then is the advanced view of the Messianic reign, with which
Daniel is said to harmonize ? So far from this, all the spirit and soul of
the earlier prophets is entirely evaporated, and we have in their room
only the tame surmisings of a narrow Jewish spirit, disclosing only the
expectation of worldly civil preeminence and prosperity. And while
Lengerke himself alleges, that Daniel above all Heb. prophets has de
veloped a personal Messiah, divine and human, he cannot find a trace of
such a Messiah in any or all the apocryphal books put together. Yet
he asserts that Daniel is a late book, because his Messianic views are the
same as those in the Apocrypha. In this only is he in the right, viz.
that the Sibylline Oracles of the Maccabaean period contain like views.
But, as we have seen (p. 413 above), these compositions contain the most
indubitable marks of borrowing from Daniel ; and so they prove the
higher age and credit of that book.
{b) ' The views of the resurrection and general judgment that follow
the Messianic development,' Lengerke says, ' are too definite and specific
to belong to an earlier period.'
If this proves anything to the purpose, it must be by virtue of assum
ing, that the Daniel of the exile could have had no views in advance of his
brother-prophets who had preceded him. But how is this to be shown ?
When it is admitted that his Messianic views are much more specific,
and more catholic in spirit, than those found elsewhere, how is it unrea
sonable to suppose, that his views on the subjects just named may be in
advance of his predecessors' views ? For other considerations, I refer
the reader to the Comm. on Dan. 12: 1 — 3.

472 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
(c) ' But the angelology of the book is altogether in the form in which
the Jews received it from the later Parsism. Here is first found a dis
tinction between the higher and lower angels ; also the doctrine of guar
dian angels ; and moreover the names of individual angels.'
Lengerke has not ventured on the assertion (often made by some),
that the whole angelology of the 0. Test, comes from the Parsis. As
nearly every book of the Heb. Scriptures is full of the mention of an
gels, it would be difficult to render this plausible. But the distinctions,
he says, are from the Parsis. And is this really so ? Who are the Sera
phim, the presence-angels, in Isa. vi. ? Gesenius acknowledges these to
be angel-chieftains, Comm. on v. 2. Ex. 32: 34 speaks of a special guar
dian angel, comp. 33: 2. Deut. 33: 2 speaks of ten thousand holy ones in
the retinue of Jehovah. In Josh. 5: 14, a captain of the Lord's host
appears to Joshua. Apparently the same leader reappears in Judg. 2: 1.
In Job i. ii., the angels assemble on special occasions, before the throne of
God, to render an account of their respective watch-stations. In Job 33:
23, an angel interpreter appears as the monitor of men. In 1 Kings 22:
19 — 23, an angel of chastisement appears before the Lord. In Ps. 68: 17,
the chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels.
What is more than all, Ezekiel and Zechariah introduce angel-interpreters,
in the same way as Daniel, being his contemporaries. Does this prove
the late origin of their works also ? As to the names of good angels, I
grant that these are peculiar to Daniel ; but in Job and in Zechariah
we have a Satan among the evil angels. If it be said that this is no
proper name, but only an appellative, cannot the same be said of Gabriel
and Michael ? Both are of appellative significance. But what is still
more against Lengerke is, that no one has yet shown that the Babylo
nians or Persians entertained the idea of national guardian angels. In
the Zend-Avesta one may seek in vain for it He will find merely, that
Bahman, the first of the Amshaspands, is a subordinate to Ormusd,
in watching over the good in general ; but of national angels there is
not a word.
Indeed, if any one will carefully go through the Zend-Avesta, he will
find the whole system of Zoroaster as to Amshaspands and Izeds, as well
as to Devs and Archdevs, to differ so widely from the Pleb. angelology,
that derivation of the latter from the former is out of fair question. And
finally, the idea that the rigid Jews would borrow from Heathenism and
Dualism, and introduce this into their own Scriptures, is one that a sober
man, well acquainted with their history, cannot readily admit — cannot
at all admit.
(10) 'The dogmatic ascetic views of Daniel savor strongly of Pharisaism.

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 473
Excessive representations about the efficacy of prayer are manifest, in
2: 18. 6: II. 9: 3. 10: 2. Revelations even are made to him in conse
quence of prayer, chap. ix. Then we have ascetic abstinence from pro
fane food, 1: 12 ; a three weeks' fasting, 10: 2 ; prayer three times a day,
6: 11 ; and seeking and curiously prying into (griibeln, grubbing into)
former prophecies.'
Subjective, I trow, rather than objective, are most of these objections.
Lengerke, it would seem, deems all special faith in prayer as Pharisaism ;
all belief in an answer to prayer, as superstitious credulity ; all strict
conscientious obedience to the plain and express laws of Moses concern
ing unclean food, even on the part of a Jew, as foolish ascetic severity ;
and searching with eagerness into prophecies, which were of the highest
possible interest to a Jewish patriot mourning over the exile of his nation,
is an incredible and unprecedented affair. Unfortunate prophet ! H he
complies with heathen customs, even so far as to belong to the order of
the Magi, then forsooth, he is no Jew, much less a Daniel; and if he
adheres with unshaken constancy and fidelity to the laws of his country-
and his God, he is a bigot and a Pharisee. It is difficult, amidst all this,
to see what course Daniel could have steered, in order to satisfy Neology.
For the rest, I have said all that I wish to say, in commenting on the
passages to which appeal is made.
(11) ' Certain representations in the book lead us down to the latest,
i. e. the Maccabaean period, as the time of its composition. The author
unwarily speaks of the prophets as far distant from him,' 9: 6, 10, 24.
But in these passages there is not a word about the antiquity of the
prophets, excepting merely that such are alluded to as addressed the
Jews previous to the exile. On the contrary, if the words be rigidly
construed, they imply that Daniel was himself a hearer of the prophets
alluded to : " We have not hearkened to thy servants, the prophets, who
spake in thy name." In reality I suppose this to be a mere xoivaai^ in
speaking ; but at all events, there is not the remotest ground for any
supposition such as Lengerke makes.
(12) ' The writer of the book, although studious of concealment,
betrays at times the Maccabaean period. Thus in 9: 19 he says : " Ac
complish and delay not" Here the writer shows that he partook of the
expectation of the Maccabaean period, viz. that the Messiah was imme
diately to come. The writer reckons time, moreover, according to
Sabbath-years, 9: 24; and so did the Maccabees. The temple is also
supposed to be extant, 9: 24.
But what is it, in 9: 19, that is not to be delayed ? Simply compas
sion on the desolated and ruined holy city ; see v. 18. There is not a
40*

474 §7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
word here of the Messiah. Then where does the writer get an account
of the Maccabaean reckoning by Sabbath-years ? He does not tell us ;
and I have sought in vain for it. And even if it be found, how can it
be proved that this mode of reckoning first commenced so late as that
period ? Of the extant temple, moreover, in 9: 24, 1 find no traces. I
find only, that when the Messiah has come, he will, as the great high
priest, anoint a Holy of Holies to he consecrated to his service. Paul
was of the same opinion, Heb. 7: 20, 26. 8: 1, 6. 9: 11 — 14. And when
Leng. says : " Dan. 9: 8 shows that the book does not stand on a historical
basis ;" the reply is, that this passage merely represents Daniel as con
fessing, that the kings, princes, and fathers of the Jews had sinned, and
ought to be penitent for it. Is there, then, no historical basis for this ?
(13) ' The writer lets drop his mask, when he makes such frequent
assertions that his words are true ;' e. g. 2: 45. 8: 26. 10: 1. 11: 2.
But are not such assurances frequent in Isa., Jer., Ezekiel, and other
prophets, and especially in the Apocalypse ? And how often does the
Saviour preface his discourses with durjv, duijv, and declare to the Jews
and to his apostles, that his words are true. It is needless to accumulate
references here, to what is in the memory of every intelligent and careful
reader. In Apoc. 1: 7. 19: 9. 21: 5. 22: 6, will be found passages suffi
cient for the purpose of comparison.
Lengerke further asserts, that ' the writer has betrayed himself, by
remarking that his oracles must be sealed and secret, until the time of
fulfilment,' 8: 26. 12: 4. — But I do not see how sealing and secreting
would be to his purpose, in gaining credit for his book. If this is to be
entirely secreted, then his object in publishing it must be defeated. Or
did he expect, on his mere pretension to have discovered an ancient
writing, to satisfy the Jewish Sanhedrim of its genuineness by having it
sealed up ? No ; Leng. has mistaken the design of sealing in both cases,
which is not for concealment, but for safe preservation. Prophecies thus
carefully kept could not be tampered with.
(14) ' The writer's repeated eulogies on himself can never be supposed
to have come from the real ancient Daniel.'
But why ? ' Because regard to modesty forbids us to suppose this of
such a man,' is the answer. Very well ; then if the case is so plain and
striking, how came the shrewd, cunning, sharp-sighted forger in question,
(as neologists now and then allow him to be), not to know better than to
put such suspicious things into his book, which would so obviously betray
him ? He could not, if objectors are in the right, have had but a small
portion of the shrewdness and cunning that are often attributed to him.
But bating all this, how much real foundation is there for the allegation,

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 475
that he is taxable with excessive eulogy ? In 1: 19, 20, Daniel includes
his three friends as well as himself, when he says they were found greatly
superior to the magicians and astrologers, in matters of wisdom and
understanding. This was assuming no very extravagant position. They
were pretenders in recondite matters, and nothing more. But the wis
dom of these Hebrews, whatever it is, is all attributed (v. 17) to the
special gift of God, and not to their own talents. When before Nebu
chadnezzar, and about to disclose the king's dream, Daniel says expressly,
that this power comes not from any superior wisdom in him, but only
because God has willed that this secret shall be revealed, 2: 29, 30. In
5: 11, 12, 13, what is said of his wisdom, is said by the queen-mother of
Belshazzar, and not by him, and it is said to induce the king to send for
Daniel and seek his counsel. It is related plainly to the honor of God,
and not of himself. What is said in 6: 4, relates merely to his official
conduct, in respect to which his envious fellow-courtiers could find no
ground of inculpation before the king. In 9: 23 and 10: 11, the assur
ance that he is greatly beloved comes from the angel, in order to comfort
and strengthen him when he was sinking. And what is there of vanity
and extravagance in all this ? If we desire to see Daniel in his real
attitude of mind with respect to himself, we must look at him in chap.
ix. and x. Throughout his book there is unequivocal evidence of deco
rum and deep humility. He never claims either praise or reward. And
why should he not be permitted to relate kind words addressed to him,
as well as Moses be permitted to say, that he was meek above all other
men ? Num. 12: 3. Why not, as well as Paul to say, that he was "a
wise master-builder ?" 1 Cor. 3: 10. Paul, like Daniel, attributes all to
the grace of God. What forbids his magnifying that grace even when
extended to himself? In 2 Cor. 3: 5, he speaks of his sufficiency; but
he attributes it all to God. He tells us that he was caught up into the
third heaven (2 Cor. 12: 2), and heard unspeakable words; yet he is
careful to say, that he glories not in himself, but in an enraptured Paul.
John tells us of " a disciple, whom Jesus loved, and who leaned on his
bosom" (John 13: 23), evidently meaning himself. He tells us again
(21: 21) of the same beloved disciple, who leaned on his Master's bosom.
Was John assuming and vain ? Finally, is there no difference between
a man who is conscious of divine illumination, and one who is not?
May not the former speak truly, yea modestly of the fact, and yet, when
he does this to exalt the grace of God, be acquitted of vanity and of
self-<rratulation ? I trust this may be so. I will not bring into compari
son the claims which Jesus makes for himself, for he spake as never man
spake, and was what never man was. Truth obliged him to speak as

476 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
he did. But is not the testimony concerning Daniel true ? So thought
Ezekiel, who ranks him with Noah and Job. So thought Christ and
his apostles, who place him among the prophets. So thought John, who
has made his work the basis-model of his own Apocalypse. So thought
the Jewish doctors who put him into one scale, and all the wise men of
the world into the other, and made him outweigh them all. So thought
Josephus, who places him at the very head of all the prophets. So
thought the Christian Fathers, one and all. And so all the church of
God have thought, until Neology came forth to correct a mistaken world,
and chastise it for its credulity.
(15) ' In Daniel is one and the same uniform tone throughout. In
every paragraph the same things happen over and over to Daniel and
his friends. The Magi are at their wits end and stupid, that Daniel
may have the chance of surpassing them. So is it in chap. ii. iv. v.
The three friends of Daniel, moreover, are thrown into the furnace,
that an angel may interpose in their behalf. So is it with Daniel in
the lions' den, vi. Daniel fasts (ix. x.), that an angel may intervene.
Daniel every where gets new honors for himself, 2: 48, 49. 3: 30. 5:
29. 6: 29. Chapters ii — vi. all conclude with praises of the Jewish
God, wrung from heathen despots. All the book, from chap. vii. to the
end, has but one exitus and one object, viz. the death of Antiochus and
the commencement of the Messianic reign. The heathen kings all
issue edicts commanding that Jehovah be universally worshipped. And
all this is said over and over, in nearly the same words and expressions.'
So Lengerke, p. lxxiv. seq.
I feel the difficuly of the task, when undertaking to answer declama
tion instead of argument. Supposing the facts related in Daniel to be
true, how could Daniel do otherwise than he has done ? The Magi
were impostors, when they claimed the power of predicting and in
terpreting dreams. The simple story of their failure and disgrace is
told. Is there any thing to be inculpated here ? God preserves his
faithful servants in the midst of dangers ; is there any thing in this
which is incredible to any one who does not, like Lengerke, deny the
possibility of miracles ? As to angelic interposition, if the mention of
this be evidence of a forged book, then is all the rest of the Old Test.,
and the whole of the New, to be regarded as forged. That all the
narrations conclude with ascribing glory to God, is an evidence of the
genuineness of the book, instead of the contrary. The true Daniel
was just such a man as would do this. That heathen despots are com
pelled to praise the God of Israel, was a matter of serious moment to
the poor exiled Jews, who were at their mercy. Was there no impor-

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 477
tapt end to be answered in softening and humbling the hearts of kings,
in whose power the lives and fortunes of the Hebrew nation were ?
Lengerke can see nothing in all this, except Daniel's exalting himself,
and the Jews, and their national God (Jehovah), at the expense of
the poor heathen. The divinities of the Chaldees seem to him to be
as good, and to have as valid claims, as the God of the Jews. But
Daniel was of a different mind ; and so, as I hope, will most of his
readers be. As to sameness in the writer of the book — the echoing
and reechoing of the same thing in nearly the same language — nothing
can be farther from the truth, than such a charge. Read chap, ii  vi.,
and then say, whether any two of these narrations are alike. A greater
diversity of circumstances can no where be found, in events which have
one common culminating point, viz. a display of the supremacy, glory,
and mercy of Jehovah. Go into the prophecies of this book. Every
one is different from all its associates. Chap. ii. exhibits symbols en
tirely different from all the others. Chap. vii. has monsters altogether
sui generis. Chap. viii. has another set of symbols, entirely differing
from these. Chap. xi. drops symbol altogether, and becomes (as one
might almost say) simple narrative, or takes the form of mere historical
prose. The passage in 9: 24 — 27 is toto coelo different from all other parts
of the book. While the same hand is every where plainly cognoscible in
the coloring of the style, yet the variety in description is as great as
we can well conceive it could be, where the same great events are
described in all. " A tame dull sameness," in such a book as this ?
We might as well accuse Isaiah of sameness, when he prophesies so
often concering Assyria and Babylon ; or Jeremiah, or Ezekiel, when
they say so much, and speak so often, respecting the ruin of the Jewish
State and capital. No ; there is scarcely a book in the Old Test, that
is more free from sameness, or from lameness. A veritable witling — a
great bungler — he must have been who wrote this book, if Lengerke's
accusations are true. But this unsparing critic should have taken better
care, and not been off his guard so as to attribute to the Pseudo-
Daniel so much shrewdness and tact as he has. After all, however, no
book is read with more eagerness than Daniel, when a reader is intelli
gent enough to understand him ; and one simple and considerate peru
sal of it, with a candid and serious mind, will scatter to the four winds
such objections as those which we have now been canvassing.
(16) 'An independent prophet, like the pretended Daniel, could
never have busied himself in groping after the meaning of almost con
temporary prophecy, [that of Jer. respecting the 70 years] ; nor did
any one before the time of Ezra think of interpreting the prophets.'

478 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
We have had this same thing once before to deal with, (p. 473) ;
but the number of times that a testimony is repeated, seems to add
corresponding increase to its weight and value, in the view of Len
gerke. The idea that Ezra was the first man, who ever thought of
interpreting the prophets, is novel. We have usually supposed, that so
many as thought it a duty to read them, endeavored at least to interpret
them, i. e. they gave some particular sense to the words of prophecy.
And as to Ezra's new employment or discovery, I do not know where
to find any account of it. I find in Neh. 8: 1 — 3, that Ezra brought
the law of Moses before the people, and read and expounded it; but
not a word is said about the prophets. If any more need be said on
the objection before us, it has already been said, (ut supra). Does it
not sound strangely in our ears, to hear Daniel taxed with singular
conduct, with superstition, because he read Jeremiah's predictions con
cerning the Babylonish exile with the highest interest and keenest
scrutiny ? Unfortunate man ! we are tempted to exclaim again ; if he
does not read the prophets, he is no Jew ; if he does read them with
anxious scrutiny, then he is a bigot and an enthusiast.
( 17) ' If the book is authentic, it must have been written by a
Daniel contemporary with Ezek., and the same that Ezek. mentions in
14: 14: — 20. 28: 3. But as the writer has so often quoted Ezekiel, the
supposition of identity with the ancient Daniel is directly contra
dictory.' But this contradiction I can not see. How can it prove that the
Daniel of Ezekiel's time could not write the book that bears his name,
because this book quotes Ezekiel ? What hindered his quoting a con
temporaneous writer, if he had occasion to do so ? I do not and can
not see the point of Lengerke's argument. However, as we have had
the subject of quoting Ezekiel upon the tapis before (p- 453), it is un
necessary to discuss it again. If either has quoted, (which I see no
evidence of), then it seems more probable that Ezekiel is the borrower.
This would not be strange, after what he has said of Daniel. The
reader will hardly fail to notice how industriously arguments are multi
plied, even by the repetition of idem per idem. Lengerke seems to
adopt the maxim : " Non refert vim, sed multum."
(18) 'Most convincing of all that the book is not genuine, is the
character of its predictions in regard to definiteness. The prophets of
the Old Test., when they speak of the future, give only hints and
generic descriptions. Whenever they do individualize, it is in a mere
poetical way ; and those few predictions which are special, are either
not fulfilled at all, or are so only in part. Of such an indistinct and

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 479
general nature are all the other Messianic predictions. They usually
describe nothing more than a flourishing political condition. Isa. vi.
predicts the destruction of the Jewish people by the Assyrians; but it
happened only by the Chaldeans. In Isa. 8: 4 and 17: 1—3, the con
temporaneous fall of Damascus and Samaria is predicted, and that this
will take place in 65 years. Neither of these predictions was fulfilled.
Isa. xiii. and xiv. predict the destruction of Babylon by the Medes and
Persians, and the slaying of the last Babylonish king when the city
was taken. Neither happened ; for Cyrus spared both the city and its
king. Isa. xxix. predicts a siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians ; but
chap, xxxvi. xxxvii. show us the contrary. Nearly all the prophets
foretell the utter destruction of the Edomites, (see Isa. chap, xxxiv.
xliii. and Jer. chap, xlix., also Obadiah) ; yet this did not take place,
for the Edomites ravaged Palestine during the Babylonish exile, and
Herod, the king of Judea, sprung from them. In Isa. xxiii. and Ezek.,
xxvi. xxviii. the seizure of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar is predicted;
but Nebuchadnezzar marched to Egypt, and left the matter of the seige
unaccomplished. According to Isa. xl. xiv. xlvi., after the return from
exile, Jerusalem will be built up and adorned in the most magnificent
manner, and all nations will go up to it, and offer their richest presents.
Was there any thing like to this, as a matter of fact ? Hos. 9: 3. 11: 5
declares that the ten tribes shall go into Egypt as captives ; a thing
that never happened. In fact, in all cases where seemingly future
events actually take place, the alleged predictions are spurious and
written post eventum, or a wrong exegesis is put upon them, in order to
make them correspond with historical facts; e. g. Jer. 1. Ii.; and for
what may be done by exegesis to make out fulfilment, see Heno-st. on
Zech. 9: 1 — 8. If neither of these principles will solve any particular
case, then the pretended prophet does nothing more than describe what
is present before his vision ; as in Isa. xiii. xiv. and xxi. 1  10. Of
what concerns foreign heathen nations, in their mutual relations and
strifes, the Hebrew prophets say nothing ; so that Daniel is a perfect
anai Xsyopevov among them, on any other ground than that the book
was written post eventum. Indeed this is the only possible way in.
which it could be written.' Thus Leng. § 14.
Here again I am puzzled to know the drift of the argument. Isaiah,
and all the prophets besides Daniel, have predicted things, it is said,
that never came to pass. Be it so then, for the sake of argument.
How does this prove the book of Daniel to be spurious ? This book,
it is said, has predicted things in the same manner as the others ; e. g.
the coming of the Messiah's kingdom immediately after the death of

480 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
Antiochus. But allowing the correctness of this statement, what bear
ing has it on the genuineness of the book ? If the other prophets did
but guess, and if they sometimes failed to guess rightly, yet the fact
that they wrote the books assigned to them by universal consent, is not at
all disproved thereby. Now Daniel's case is just the same. If he guessed
wrong, it does not prove that he did not write the book which bears his
name. Whether his predictions were fulfilled or not, has no concern
with the question whether he wrote' the book ; excepting that, in case
of actual fulfilment, it would prove that some prophetic man, at all
events, wrote the book. According to Lengerke himself, then, Daniel
stands on as good ground as any of the other prophets.
On the other hand, when it becomes convenient, Daniel's definiteness
and certainty or exactness is made the ground of confident conclusion,
that all was written post eventum. Why ? Because a miracle is im
possible ; and prediction in its proper sense would be a miracle. The
interposition of a Pseudo-Daniel, then, becomes a matter of necessity,
and of course must be admitted. But this process of logic we have
examined in the preceding pages, and therefore need not repeat the
examination here.
As to that part of Lengerke's objection, which asserts that predic
tions concerning the future are always clothed in general and indefinite
expressions, conveying no idea of any thing definite and tangible, the
answer is short and easy. Jeremiah (in chap. xxv. xxix.) predicts 70
years' exile. Bleek, Lengerke, and others say, that this is only a mere
round number. But Zech. 1: 12 and Ezra 1: 1, both written after the
exile, when it must of necessity have been exactly known how long it
had lasted, declare that it had continued 70 years. Besides, is not the
time definite in Isa. 7: 14 — 16; 8: 1 — 4; 16: 14, three years for the
crushing of the Moabites ; 17: 14, destruction of the Assryian host be
tween evening and morning ; 20: 3, three years for the subjugation of
Egypt and Ethiopia; 21: 16, exactly one year for the humbling of
Kedar; 38: 15. (comp. 2 K. 20: 6), life of Hezekiah prolonged 15
years. To these, others might be added ; but I deem it unnecessary.
Lengerke asserts that most of these predictions failed, and those which
did not, were written post eventum. Was Jeremiah's prediction, then,
of 70 years' exile, written post eventum ? If so then he must have lived
some 115 years, and have written after this. Comp. Jer. 1: 2 and Ezra
1: 1. But enough. I might follow all his assertions as to failure in
the fulfilment of definite predictions, by showing that he has either done
violence to the exegesis, or presented a distorted view of* historical facts.
But this would lead me quite away from my present object. The thing

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 481
moreover, has already been done by others ; and it will be easy, either
in Calvin, or Vitringa, or Hengstenberg, to find a refutation of such
assertions. Truly I do not wonder, that those who reject the possibility of pre
diction should be so anxious to show the lateness of Daniel's book. It
is so definite in many cases, so graphic, and in chap. xi. so historically
minute and true, that all possibility of being explained away is out of
question. And hence the confident and often repeated assertions of its
being written post eventum. But as this whole subject has already
been discussed, it need not be again repeated here.
(18) ' In no other book of the Old Testament is any nation or king
dom ever spoken of, which did not exist at the time of the prophet. In
Daniel, future kingdoms and nations are brought before our view in
abundance ; a thing impossible before history had actually developed
them.' Yet in Num. 24: 14 — 24, in Balaam's prophecy, there seems to be a
distant and then unknown nation in view. Ezek. (chap, xxxviii. xxxix.)
brings to view, in Gog and Magog, the incursion of nations then seem
ingly unknown. At all events, the fifth kingdom in Daniel, viz. that
which is named the Messianic reign elsewhere, and which is future and
distant, is often spoken of. Lengerke avers, however, that the prophets
had very erroneous views as to the time of this, and that they expecte d
it after a short period. But this is a result of his own special exegesis-
In my apprehension, however, it is not of much moment to find parallels
here in other prophets. Who of all these prophets, except Daniel, was
called to disclose the state of the Jews after their return from exile, and
before the appearance of the Messiah ? No one has undertaken it. If
Daniel then occupies a ground, in his book, which is not occupied by
others, why should it be strange that he has predicted things unlike
what is found in other prophets. The last great national prophet had
views extending beyond those of his predecessors. His situa
fitted him for it. Hence he brings dynasties to view, as yet unknown .
They are intimately connected with the chosen people of God. Hence
he was commissioned to describe them. Who now can show, that one
prophet may not have had different and more extended views than
another? Who shall set the metes and bounds of individual pro
phecy ? There is the book of Daniel, at all events, a part of it
written almost with the minuteness of historical narrative. If it was
actually written during the exile, then it certainly contains prediction.
Whether it was or was not then written, is a question of course depen
dent on testimony as to facts — and it is altogether a mere question of
41

482 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
fact. How can such a question be decided by an a priori theory ?
Such a theory is irrelevant, and a mere petitio principii.
(19) " That the writer lived in the Maccabaean age, is evident from
the fact that he every where represents the Messianic reign as com
mencing immediately after the death of Antiochus." (p. 81 pref.).
On this Lengerke has often insisted, in his commentary ; and yet I
have never been able to see any force in this argument. According to
Lengerke, the writer must have known the time and manner of Anti
ochus' death, as things already developed in fact and in history. Grant
ing, for the present, that the author did live at that late period, how
came he by an expectation of the immediate appearance of the Mes
siah ? In the latter part of the very year of Antiochus' death, Lysias,
the self-appointed regent of Syria and guardian of Antiochus' son,
attacked the Jews with an army of 80,000 foot, 80 elephants, and a
large body of cavalry. He was repulsed ; but the Syrian garrison at
Jerusalem held out, and continually annoyed the Jews ; and in a short
time Lysias rallied and sent a much larger army than before against
them. Bethsura was taken, and Jerusalem besieged. Fortunately
Philip, the real regent appointed by Antiochus, at that time invaded
Syria with oriental troops, and took possession of Antioch. In order
to expel him, Lysias was obliged to make peace with the Jews, and
withdraw his army. But even after the treaty of peace, when he was
admitted into Jerusalem, he caused the walls of the city to be thrown
down. In 161 B. G, Demetrius Soter then on the throne of Syria,
sent another army to Palestine, in order to enforce upon the Jews the
renegado Alcimus as high priest. But soon afterwards the Jews rallied
under Judas, and expelled Alcimus. He fled to Syria, and excited and
persuaded Demetrius to send another army, in order to establish his
official dignity as high priest. It was sent, commanded by Nicanor ;
the country was ravaged, the inhabitants killed, and Judas was pro
scribed. But Judas collected his patriot soldiers around him, encoun
tered Nicanor, slew him and utterly routed and dispersed his army.
However, only a few months of peace followed ; for in 160 B. G, another
large, army of Demetrius was sent against Judea ; and it was in
attacking the 22,000 troops of which it was composed, that Judas, at
the head of only 800 men lost bis life. Thus much for the first three
years after the death of Antiochus : How was it in the sequel?
It was still worse. The Syrian army, headed by Bacchides, gave full
power to the apostate heathenized Jews, who behaved with unbounded
insolence and ferocity. To heighten calamity a famine occurred ;• the
apostates monopolized all the provisions of the land, and Bacchides

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 483
ravaged the country, and massacred the friends of Judas. It was only
after the death of Alcimus (159 B. G), that the country had a good
degree of quiet for nearly two years. Again in 158 B. G Bacchides
came up against the Jews, with a large army. The war did not last
long ; but all the treaties and truces of the Jews with the Syrian despots
were utterly disregarded, whenever it appeared to be for their interest
to disregard them. Thus until some 30 years afterwards, the Jews were
subjected continually to petty vexations and occasionally to violent
attacks. It was not until a generation had passed away, not until the
reign of John Hyrcanus (135 — 106 B. G), that peace and indepen
dence were wholly achieved.
Such are the exhibitions of history. What now is there in all this,
to induce any man in his senses to say, that the Messianic period had
come ? What was there to encourage even a hope of it, during the
whole generation that succeeded the death of Antiochus ? Nothing —
if possible, less than nothing. How then could the shrewd Pseudo-
Daniel think of uniting the death of Antiochus with the introduction of
the Messianic reign ? The thing is absolutely incredible. No man of
sense could say that such a period was ominous of an immediate Mes
sianic reign, or that it was ushering in a peaceful and universal kingdom.
Nothing then can be more improbable, than Lengerke's assertions in
regard to this matter. The thing is critically and rationally impossible.
' But,' I shall be asked, ' is it not matter of fact that Daniel ha3 joined
the advent of the fifth or Messianic dynasty, with the destruction of the
last of the other four ? Yes, I reply, prima facie his words would
seem to import this. But any one well acquainted with the tenor of
Old Testament prophecies, will find nothing strange or peculiar in this.
It is merely treading in the steps of all the other prophets. Peter has
given us an opening in respect to this matter. He tells us (1 Pet.
1: 11), that the ancient prophets " sought both what time, and also
what manner of time, the spirit that was in them did signify, when it
testified of the sufferings and the glory of Christ." In other words,
their curiosity was greatly excited to know when Christ would come ;
and in what manner he would develop himself. But was this curiosity
gratified? Peter has told us (v. 12), that only so much was revealed
as would show that a distant future period was intended — "not unto
themselves, but unto us, they ministered, etc." So it is in fact. Not one
prophet has marked the tempus in quo. We have seen above, that the
famous period of 70 weeks accomplishes no such obj ect ; and surely
it will not be said that it is to be found any where else, if not found ¦
there.

484 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
I grant that in the order of disclosure, the Messianic times, as repre
sented in Daniel, follow on immediately after the death of Antiochus.
But such is the case, also, in all the prophets, whatever the events may be.
In Isa. iii. the Messianic day follows the severe punishment of the then
offending Jews. With the Assyrian invasion, in ch. vii. viii., is con
nected one of the most striking of all the Messianic prophecies, Isa. 9:
1 — 7. With the end of the Assyrian invasion, in ch. x., is united another
magnificent prediction of the same nature, in ch. xi. With the overthrow
of Idumea, ch. xxxiv., is united a Messianic prediction, ch. xxxv. In
ch. xl — lxvi. the return from exile is constantly connected with the Mes
sianic times. In Jeremiah, promises of gospel-times are attached to the
penitence of Israel then backsliding, ch- iii. In ch. xxiii., the Branch
is to reign, after the scattered Jews are called in. In. ch. xxxi. xxxii.
xxxiii., substantially the same things are repeated, in the like connection.
The same is the case in Ezek. xxxiv. and xxxvii. In Joel ii., gospel-
times are predicted, in connection with a recovery from drought and
locusts. In Joel iii., the Messianic period follows the defeat of the sur
rounding nations who attack Jerusalem. In Amos ix., the same period
follows punishment and repentance. In Micah iv. v., it follows a time of
punishment and desolation. In Hag. ii. it follows the finishing of the
temple, " after a little while." In Zech. ii., it follows the return from exile.
In ch. iii. xii. xiv., it follows the subjugation of foreign enemies who had
afflicted the Jews. But in Mai. iii. iv., and almost only there in the
prophets, it hardly stands related to specific occurrences.
Such is the view which the prophets afford us. To say now that Dan
iel is strange or peculiar, in regard to associating the Messianic times
with definite historical events, is to say what is plainly against the whole
tenor of the prophets. We have just seen this. If Daniel is in the
wrong, they are equally so. If he has mistaken or misrepresented the
matter, so have they ; and some of them, e. g. Isaiah, have misrepre
sented it even more abundantly than he. If they are all in the wrong)
that is another affair. My present business is, to show that Daniel stands
on the same platform as his brethren.
If it be a fact, then, (and we have seen that it is), that Daniel's Mes
sianic predictions are in conformity with those of all the other prophets
as to arrangement, how can the matter of arrangement be adduced as an
argument for the later composition of the book ? And what shall we say ,
moreover, when we find that the Saviour himself has spoken in like man
ner of his second coming ? In Matt. xxiv. xxv., his coming, and even his
final coming, seems, at first view, to be linked with the destruction of Je
rusalem by the Romans. So is it, too, with Paul and other writers of the

§7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 485
N. Test. The coming of the Lord is seemingly put in connection with
certain events, or personages, of apostolic times. So in the Apocalypse,
the Millenium is linked with the destruction of the beast which has seven
heads and ten horns, i. e. Pagan and persecuting Rome. So the general
judgment seems to follow on, as soon as the Millennium is concluded.*
What now are we to conclude from all this, in respect to Lengerke's
allegations ? And more especially, what are we to say, when we take a
view of the Messianic developments at the Maccabaean period ? We
have seen (p. 435 above), that nothing but the most tame and anti-
spiritual views of the Messianic period are to be found in Sirach,
1 Mace, Tobit, or Baruch, which are the writings of that period.
There is not a word in all of them even of a personal Messiah, much less
of a Redeemer who was immediately to come. Where then does Len
gerke get data, from which he comes to the conclusion, that the Macca
baean times cherished the expectation of an immediate Messianic Deliv
erer ? There is not a word in all history, nor in all the coetaneous writ
ers of those times, which entitles him to make the conclusions which he
has made. Directly the contrary ; for, as we have seen above (p. 435),
Daniel differs heaven-wide in his Messianic developments from the writers
of the Maccabaean age. Lengerke's argument, then, is altogether ground
less ; and even if he could show that the Maccabaean period cherished
hopes of the immediate advent of the Messiah, it would prove nothing.
The representations of Daniel are in strict conformity with the method
and arrangement of all the older prophets.
It is a different question, how the phenomena before us are to be
accounted for. Is it, as has often been alleged, because prophets and
apostles really thought the advent of the Messiah was immediately
to take place, that they have thus spoken ? Believe this who may or can ;
I cannot in any measure accede to it. When Paul wrote to the Thessa-
lonians in the usual manner about the coming of Christ, even his last com
ing (1 Thess. 4: 13 — 18, comp. ch. v.), and they interpreted his words as
Neologists and some others now interpret them — what did he do ? He
wrote another epistle, in which he corrected their mistake, 2 Thess. 2:
1 seq. And John — how was it with him? One coming of Christ was
speedily to take place, John 21: 22, 23. Rev. 1: 1, 3, 7. 22: 7, 10, 20.
What shall be said, then, of that exegesis, which, allowing only of one
coming of Christ, makes it out from John, that he expected the end of the
world during his day ? Is this so ? How then came John so fully and
* If Prof. Crosby had diligently surveyed this whole ground, he might have
spared himself and others the enigmas which he has charged upon the N.Test. writers,
in his little book on the subject of Christ's coming.
41*

486 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
formally to declare, in Rev. xx., that a thousand years, yea, all this time
moreover after the extinction of the beast and the false prophet (Rev.19:
20, 21), must needs be passed, during which the universal triumphs of the
gospel were to continue ? All this period must first pass away, before
" the great white throne" (Rev. 20: 1 1) will be occupied by the Judge of all.
How then did John expect the end of the world during his own life-time ?
Did he really expect to live during all the period occupied by Messianic
conquests, (which he has sung in his sublime epic with notes so loud and
clear,) and then a thousand years more in addition ; and then, no one
knows how much longer before the end of the world ? Or if he were to
live so long, did he expect others whom he addressed, to live during all
this period ? One must think very differently of him from what I am
disposed or able to think, if he believes all this. At all events, a man
who can believe all this, has very little claim to tax others with credulity.
We are not at liberty, then, to charge the sacred writers of the
N. Test, (who have thus developed their views), with a belief in the im
mediate and final coming of the Messiah. As little are the O. Test.
prophets chargeable with a belief that his first coming was to be imme
diate. Such a supposition is opposed by the consideration, that the
same prophets, who speak apparently of his immediate coming, have
predicted other events, the happening of which must occupy many years,
yea a long period, before that coming. How can we suppose them to be
so grossly and palpably inconsistent with themselves ?
Thus far then, we have no satisfactory solution of the problem before us.
In what does this solution lie, or how can we explain the usage in ques
tion ? Only in the way, I would answer, in which Peter (1 Pet. 1:11)
has taught us to go. He says, that although prophets sought most anx
iously to know the when of the Messianic development, yet they were
merely taught that it would be at a distant day, even at the period in
which Peter lived. " The times and the seasons hath the Father kept in
his own power." Hence no prophet, not even Daniel, specificates the time
of the advent. The fact then, everywhere apparent, that the prophets
have connected the coming of the Messiah with events of their time, is
to be regarded in quite a different light from that in which Lengerke and
others have placed it. It results from a connection and sequency of
order and arrangement, not from an immediate sequency of time. After
predictions of evil of any kind, and of devastation and destruction, words
of comfort are next subjoined. The pious are thus led to the cheering
hope of better times and a future Deliverer. This saves them from a
despairing attitude of mind. If they know not, and are not permitted to
know, the day nor the hour of the promised good, yet they are per-

§ 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS. 487
mitted to cherish the animated hope which the certain futurition of good
inspires. In contemplating their position, I imagine to myself a spectator, from
an elevated station, looking to a distant mountain-prospect Behind each
other are ridges of mountains, with intervening vallies or table-lands.
The latter he cannot see ; but the ridges heaved up to a great altitude
are perfectly visible, while at the same time they appear quite proximate
to each other. The eye can discern nothing between them, and the inex
perienced seer is ready to affirm that they are in close proximity ; while
the experienced observer knows how fallacious such a conclusion may be.
So is it with the prophets. According to Peter the specific time of the
Messiah's advent was not revealed. But the advent itself loomed up
into distinct visibility. The prophets wrote according to the appearance
of things ; or rather, they wrote according to the train of thought in their
own minds. While they were seeing visions of calamity and deep distress,
they were filled with gloom. Daniel and others tell us that they were
sick, and fainted, in the midst of such visions. But the scene soon changes.
Their fainting spirits are revived. They see the Sun of righteousness aris
ing upon the darkness. They are cheered with his light How long the
darkness will endure, it may be that they know not ; but that light and
peace and hope and joy will follow, they feel assured. Their pens follow
the visions and emotions of their minds. These are in immediate succes
sion ; and they describe them accordingly. But the times and seasons
are not specifically hmited. Events only are made definite and certain,
while chronology stands silently by. The prophets are not writing annals,
but they simply foretell events of thrilling interest.
In this way I should account for the striking phenomena in question.
As these phenomena are so uniform and all but universal, there must be
one common principle at the basis of the whole. I see no other so prob
able and satisfactory as the one just stated.
But enough of Lengerke, and of objections. I have not canvassed
every thing which he has said, or rather declaimed ; but I have omitted
no one thing to which a reasonable and sober man can attach any im
portance. And now, at the conclusion of this protracted discussion, let me merely
glance at some of the leading reasons for receiving the book of Daniel
as genuine, and I shall dismiss the topic
I will not insist on the writer's own declaration of his authorship,
although such an argument has weight, when there are no particular
grounds of suspicion. But that such a man as Daniel existed, is testified
repeatedly by Ezekiel ; that he was a prophet, is asserted by Christ and

488 § 7. OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE GENUINENESS.
his apostles who quote from his book ; that his book was in the Canon
before the Maccabaean period, is clear from the testimony of Sirach (at
least 180 B. G), of the N. Test, of Philo, of Josephus, of Melito, of
Origen, and of all the Christian Fathers and Jewish Rabbies down to the
fifth century ; what I mean is, that all of them tell in substance the same
story, without a dissenting voice. That Daniel was ranked with the
prophets, and stood immediately before or after Ezekiel, is clear from the
description of the nature of the Canon in Sirach, the N. Test., Philo,
and Josephus ; and from Melito down to Jerome, by the catalogues of
the 0. Test, books where each is named seriatim. Jerome was the first
who learned from the Rabbins, that they in his time, ranked Daniel
among the writers of the Hagiography or Kethubhim. For this disloca
tion, Theodoret, of that same period, taxes them with impudent audacity.
Then the internal evidences in favor of the antiquity of the book are of
the most conclusive kind. Whether we make inquiries in reference to
history, or customs, or manners, or laws, or natural objects, or political
regime, or the language or dialects of the book — to whatever quarter
we direct our scrutiny, all — all is as it should be, all is as we might
expect it would be, in case the book is genuine and ancient. Not a soli
tary voice for more than 2200 years was ever raised against it, except
by some Porphyry who denied all revelation. What more do we want ?
What more can we reasonably ask for ? Indeed, I feel prepared to aver
with open face, and without fear of confutation, that there is no book in
the O. Test, whose antiquity and genuineness are better vouched for
than that of Daniel.
Lengerke thinks there is no good evidence that David wrote the
Psalms, or Solomon a good part of the Proverbs, certainly not Canticles
or Ecclesiastes. He believes that Moses did not write the Pentateuch,
nor Isaiah the most of what goes under his name ; and so of several of
the prophets. So in the New Testament. Matthew is rejected by one
critic ; Mark by a second ; Luke by another ; John by another ; all the
Gospels are assigned to the second century by others ; many of Paul's
writings are wrested from him ; the 2 Peter is lopped off; Jude is sup
posititious ; the Apocalypse is the work of an enthusiastic Millenarian
of the second century. Such are the heights to which the new criticism
climbs, or rather, the deep abysses into which it plunges. The stopping
place, I suppose, is where Bruno Baur has found his rest, viz. that the
whole is a fiction and a fraud, got up by superstitious priests in order to
sway and manage the vulgar. But if this be not the ultima Thule, then
it may be thought by some, that Kant and Hegel have proposed a more
inviting region. Christianity, and its predecessor, Mosaism, were but

§ 8. ANCIENT VEKSIONS. 489
stepping stones in our way to the top of the mountain. Reason, pure
reason, reason absolute, instinctive, godlike, indeed the Divinity itself —
this sits in judgment on all revelations and on all religions, and enthroned
high above them all looks down on all and says : ' Before due place was
given to me, you were of some account ; but now I have no further ser
vice for you to perform ; take j'our humble place at my footstool, and
there await my pleasure.'
Such is the ultimatum of neological criticism in religion and philosophy.
And as to the book before us, nearly every objection which is urged
against it converges to, and centers in, one single a priori maxim, viz.
' A miracle is an impossibility ; prediction would be a miracle ; if
the book of Daniel be ancient and genuine, prediction must inevitably
be admitted ; and because this cannot be admitted, the book must be
from the hand of a Pseudo-Daniel, and have been written post eventum'
Such are the positions, such the objections, and such the spirit, that a
sober inquirer is called to meet with and to oppose. But if he will have
patience, and examine the whole matter, he need not fear a challenge
to combat. He enters the lists with prophets, and apostles, and the
whole church of God in past ages, and the Saviour himself, on his side,
and ready to support him. Neology has indeed raised a loud outcry
against the book before us. It has contradicted ; it has poured out con
tumely ; it has haughtily looked down with contemptuous sneering. And
yet, after all, there is not a single argument on which it can place any
reliance, which will not prove the Saviour of the world to have been
an impostor, in pretending to work miracles ; and his apostles to have
been enthusiasts or impostors, in believing in them and also pretending
to work them. The arguments that eject Daniel from the Canon, cast
out with equal violence the writings of the evangelists and the apostles.
It is time to pass on to remaining topics. They are but few, and will
require but a little space to canvass them.
*¦ § 8. Ancient Versions of the book of Daniel.
(1) That an Alexandrine or Septuagintal Version of Daniel was ex
tant, in the latter part of the Maccabaean period, is quite certain ; for
1 Mace has quoted it in a number of places : e. g. comp. Sept. Daniel, 11:
31 with 1 Mace 1: 46; Sept. 11: 25 with Mace 1: 17, 18; Sept. 11: 26
with Mace 1: 18 — 20, 24, 28, 36, 54, et al. That it continued to be
used until the time of Theodotion (2nd century), is plain. Justin Martyr
(Dial. c. Tryp. p. 128) clearly quotes it ; and so in other passages. Ter-
tullian (De Jejun.) quotes Daniel 2: 19, according to the same Version.
Origen had it included in his Hexapla. But from that time down to

490 §8. ANCIENT VERSIONS.
A. D. 1772, nothing more was heard or known of it, so far as can now
be discovered, excepting what Jerome says respecting it. In the year
last named, this LXX. Version was published at Rome, from the Codex
Chisianus in the Vatican library, in a folio volume. The important parts
of this volume were republished by J. D. Michaelis, 1774 ; and by Se-
gaar at Utrecht soon after, accompanied by his own annotations.
Jerome's testimony mostly respects the desuetude into which the Version
had fallen, even long before his time. Origen himself, in his Commen
tary, uses the Version of Theodotion, then but recently made. Jerome
seems to be in some perplexity, about the cause of the neglect exhibited
toward the Sept. Version. In the preface to his own version of Daniel,
in speaking of this neglect, he says : " Hoc cur accidit nescio." After
suggesting various conjectures respecting the matter he adds : " Quod
multum a veritate discordet, et recto judicio repudiata sit" In com
menting on Dan. iv., he adverts to a remarkable departure of the Sept.
version from the Hebrew original, and then adds : " Unde judicio magis-
trorum ecclesiae editio eorum in hoc volumine repudiata est ;" and to
this he subjoins the remark that " the version of Theodotion is read in
the churches, which agrees better with the Hebrew and with other
translators." Probably the version of the Sept. went gradually into
desuetude ; for that of Theodotion was, on account of his alleged heresy,
somewhat slow in coming into usage. Michaelis (in Bib. Orient. Th. 4.)
has given a most minute and circumstantial account of this version, having
examined every word and letter in it. Its historical worth is not much.
It shows an effort at an ornate style and purity of Greek, and often
sacrifices to these the exactness required in a version. Not a few arbi
trary omissions and additions are made ; the notions of the times are
sometimes developed, and historical facts, then recent, are alluded to.
The wonderful in the book is augmented in the version. The same
spirit which led to this is exhibited by the apocryphal additions to the
book, which are described in § 9.
There are many specific departures from the Hebrew. By consulting
Michaelis (ut supra), the student may find them all enumerated. Here
and there a happy rendering occurs, which assists the intelligible reading
of the original.
(2) The Greek of Daniel, in our common Septuagint, is the translation
of Theodotion, made in the second century of the Christian era. It is
much more literal and exact than the Sept. version. There can be no
doubt, however, that the translator had this before him. Yet he has
extended his corrections further than was necessary. However, it is
beyond any reasonable doubt, that many of these have been interpolated
since the time of Theodotion ; for some of them hardly consist with the

§ 8. ANCIENT VERSIONS. 491
general character of his version. There is no good reason to believe,
that the long addition to Dan. iii., viz. the prayer of Azarias and the
hymn of the three martyrs, also Dan. xiii. xiv. (as appended to the book
since Theodotion's time), were originally attached to his version ; for he
merely translated the Hebrew Daniel. The prayer and hymn, the story
of Susanna, and the history of Bel and the Dragon, were doubtless
composed in Greek ; but at an early period. We find Origen defending
them ; the Alexandrine church very partial to them ; and the Romish
church admitting them into the canon, as incorporated with the book of
Daniel. But Jerome denounces them all as mere fables ; and even
Origen admits that the Hebrews never had them. It is remarkable, that
our oldest MSS. of the Sept. in general, exhibit these apocryphal books
as connected with the Daniel of Theodotion. That this was originally
the case, there is not, as has been said, the slightest probability. The
whole thing was brought about by the fondness of the Alexandrine
churches for the marvellous, and their unscrupulous reception into the
canon of many books that did not belong there, and which even the
Romish church named deutero-canonical.
On the whole, not much important aid can be drawn from the version
even of Theodotion. Now and then there is a happy rendering of a
Hebrew word or phrase ; but not unfrequently, also, one which shows
that the translator had no very exact view of the meaning of the
Hebrew text. Great caution is needed, in reading such a version ; one
moreover, which has beyond all doubt been considerably interpolated
and sometimes abriged. It is sound advice to the student of the book
of Daniel that he should consider the Greek version as merely adventi
tious aid, but never as an authority.
(3). The Syriac version of this book, as already intimated (p. 312
above), exhibits a knowledge of the Hebrew, which renders it well
worth the attention of the enquirer. As Daniel has no Targum or
Chaldee version, it performs a valuable service in the explanation of
Hebrew words. In the Chaldee part of Daniel, however, it exhibits
some strange misconceptions of the meaning of the author. The
apocryphal additions made to the book, as before noticed, are appended
to this version; but probably by interpolation in the third century.
The student may find in this version, something of the same assistance,
which is rendered to other books by the Targums.
(4). The Vulgate. This is, as a whole, superior to any other
ancient version, and shows a more thorough knowledge than any of
them in respect to the tenor and nature of the book. An invaluable
service has Jerome done, by this translation of Daniel and by his com
mentary upon the book. As received by the Romish church, it has

492 § 9. APOCRYPHAL ADDITIONS TO DANIEL.
the apocryphal additions, translated from the Greek as appended to the
version of Theodotion. Jerome evidently bestowed much time and
pains upon these works.
(5) Some other versions, or fragments of versions, are extant, {a)
A Greek version, out of St. Mark's Library at Venice, published by
Villoison, A. D. 1784 ; a slavishly literal translation, {b) Fragments
out of Theodotion by Jacob of Edessa, in Syriac. (c) A Hebrew ver
sion of the Chaldee in Daniel and Ezra, printed in Kennicott's Bible,
from a manuscript of 1327 in the Vatican.
§ 9. Apocryphal additions to Daniel.
Already we had occasion to advert frequently to them, in describing
the ancient versions. It will be proper here to descant on them with
somewhat more of particularity.
{a) In the midst of the third chapter (after v. 24,) is inserted, first
the prayer of Azarias (Abednego), who, for himself and his friends,
made confession and supplication. The prayer is plainly made up of
fragments from Dan. ix. and Neh. ix. It abounds in the confession of
Jewish national sins, and supplications for pardon and restoration.
There is scarcely anything in it which is appropriate to the condition o f
Azarias and his friends. It is such a prayer as we could well suppose
might have been uttered in a fast-day-assemblage of exiled Jews. But
there is one feature in it, that seems to betray the fact that a later hand has
been meddling with the original composition. In v. 40, Azarias prays
thus : " As in the offering of rams, bulls, and thousands of fat lambs, so
let our sacrifice in thy sight to day make propitiation for us ! " This
savors strongly of a Romish Christian hand. I know not where to find
any parallel in the Hebrew Scriptures. I could with a good degree of
confidence say, that some such man as wrote Hermas' Pastor, must
have written this. The prayer includes vs. 25 — 45, and vs. 46 — 51 are
then occupied with narrative, stating how the furnace was heated, that
the flame mounted up 49 cubits, and how an angel descended into the
furnace and made the air like a dewy blowing wind. Forthwith the
martyrs burst into a song of praise, which is contained in vs. 52 — 90.
The model of the writer was Ps. 148, where the different creatures of
God, animate and inanimate, are called on to praise him. But here the
matter is extended to a wearisome length ; for the same objects in dif
ferent combinations are repeatedly introduced. There is a kind of
chorus to nearly every verse, like that in Ps. 136. For the rest — some
of the thoughts are expressed in a pleasing manner, but on the whole
there is great tameness and want of vital energy. It is but a sorry

§ 9. APOCHKYPHAL ADDITIONS TO DANIEL. 493
composition, when compared with the Psalms which it attempts to imi
tate. From v. 91 to 100, the original Chaldee of Daniel is followed
although with not a few of minor departures from the original. The
days of abounding zeal for litanies and liturgies, must have given birth
to such a composition ; and only such a period sanctioned the addition of
it to the Jewish canonical Daniel.
(5) The History op Susanna. This is quite an attractive novel
ette. Most children and young persons read it with great pleasure,
The narration is simple, and the style indicates a writer more expert in
Greek than Hebrews in general were. Vs. 54, 55, also 58, 59, betray
a Greek original beyond all doubt, by the paronomasias which they ex
hibit. The object of the narration is, to exalt the early youth of Daniel.
Dan. i. ii. gave rise, no doubt,-to the story. The modesty, virtue, and
piety of Susanna form an attractive picture; and the dexterity of Daniel
in bringing out the concealed guilt of the elders, is not unworthy of the
man. One is inclined to ask, however, in what way a youth came by
authority to sit in judgment, as Daniel does, upon elders ; but the writer
has solved the nodus, by telling us (v. 45), that he had a special divine
commission. The narrative ends, in imitation of several passages in the
genuine Daniel, with bringing to view the elevation and influence of the
prophet. If apocryphal writers had never composed anything worse
than the history of Susanna, we might feel quite favorably disposed to
ward them. I add merely that Jer. 29: 23 seq. appears to have suggest
ed material to the author for the plan of his work.
(c) Bel and the Dragon. Somewhat inappropriately has the
writer introduced Bel here, as the object of religious worship under
Cyrus. The older Magi had no temples, no altars, no idol-statues. Xen
ophon, indeed, makes Cyrus oftentimes speak and act like a Greek, in
relation to Grecian divinities. This is the greatest mistake in his book,
and shows that he knew little of the religion of the Parsis. But he was
writing for Grecian readers ; and they probably felt but little interest
in Parsism. The writer of the story under revjew has brought Cyrus
before us as a worshipper of Bel, who was a Babylonian god. The story
itself is composed with some adroitness, and is attractive to readers in
general. The exposure of the imposture of the heathen priests, in pro
viding such sumptuous feasts for Bel, while they themselves secretly
consumed the whole by night, is very well managed, and in itself would
present nothing incredible. But the latter part of the story spoils the
credit of the whole. Daniel is cast into the lions' den by Cyrus, who
was forced by the priests to give him up to their vengeance. While
there, the spirit of God bids the prophet Habakkuk, in Judea, to go to
42

494 § 10. LEADING COMMENTARIES AND CRITICAL DISQUISITIONS.
Babylon, and furnish Daniel with food. On the suggestion of difficulties by
the prophet about obeying this command, an angel takes him by the hair
of his head, and carries him through the air to the lions' den at Babylon,
with the food in his possession, and there Habakkuk feeds and comforts
Daniel. The angel then transports him back to Judea. After seven
days Cyrus comes to mourn for Daniel ; he finds him living and well ;
and causes him to be taken out of the den, and his persecutors to be
thrown into it, who were instantly devoured.
The transportation through the air is an exact imitation of Ezek.
8: 3. But in Ezekiel's case, all is done merely in a trance or prophetic
vision. The rest of the last paragraph is all taken from Daniel vi.
One escape of Daniel from lions was not enough for the author of this
fiction. He seems to have practised upon the maxim : " The more of a
good thing, the better."
The two last named works compare well with some of the Jewish
(Rabbinic) Haggadoth, i. e. niljn , pleasant stories. They seem to be
of Jewish origin, whether Christian or not it would be difficult to say.
There is nothing decisive of this point, in the narratives themselves.
Be this as it may, no one can imbue himself with the spirit of the
canonical Daniel, without feeling that he is transported to a foreign
region, when he begins to open his eyes upon these romances. It is in
deed a difficult task, to imitate such a writer as Daniel. Full surely,
the apocryphal writers have attempted it with very little success. My
belief is, that a Pseudo-Daniel of the Maccabaean period would have
won few, if any, more laurels than they have won.
§ 10. Leading Commentaries and Critical Disquisitions on the Book of
Daniel.
Among the ancients, is the Commentary of Ephrem Syrus, and is of
Importance principally as leading to an understanding of the Peshito or
old Syriac Version. The four monarchies are ill understood, and the
exegesis tasteless and adventurous. Among the Greeks, Theodoret
has left behind him a Commentary on the Greek version of Theodotion.
Few of his remarks are grammatico-exegetical, but he has some histori
cal data that are of value. Jerome (in Latin) stands preeminent above
all the ancients, for tact in exegesis, and for historical and Rabbinical
learning. Specially has he given us the views of Porphyry, which
otherwise would have been wholly lost. Among the moderns stands
conspicuous the great Genevan, John Calvin, whose work is rich in
psychological and doctrinal remarks. A critical examination of the
Hebrew in a. grammatical way, was a thing not begun in his day, and

§ 10. LEADING COMMENTARIES AND CRITICAL DISQUISITIONS. 495
must not be looked for in him. But many a fine remark will be found,
and a deep insight into the spiritual meaning of the author is every
where manifest. ^
The most considerable Commentators after him, are Grotius, and G
B. Michaelis in the Notae Uberiores. Bertholdt (1806—1808) pub
lished an extensive work on Daniel, in two parts. He exhibits many
useful explanations of a historical nature ; but he has not a few tasteless
conceits, and abounds every where in rationalistic views. Rosenmueller
on Daniel ; Maurer's brief Commentary ; Havernick on Daniel, and
Lengerke on the same, all contain useful things, although in different
measures and in a diversity of ways. The first two and the last are
pretty thoroughly neological; specially as to all critical and literary
matters ; but Lengerke especially, as we have already seen, goes all
lengths in the destructive criticism. But in the explanation of words
and phrases, he is not inferior to any of the others ; for he evidently
possesses a good knowledge of the Hebrew and the Chaldee.
In regard to the literature of the book, we have an abundance of
writers. Among those who have called in question the genuineness of
the book, are Corrodi, in his Freimuthige Versuche and Beleuchtung
des Bibelkanons, the oldest opponent of the book, who is really in
earnest and at all formidable; Eichhorn, in his Einleitung ; Bertholdt,
in his Einleitung und Commentar; Griesinger, in his Neue Ansicht des
Daniel, Gesenius, in Allgem. Litt. Zeitung (Halle), Erganz. Blatter
No. 80; De Wette in his Einleit; Bleek in Theol. Zeitschrift von
S chleiermacher etc. Heft iii. s. 171 seq. ; also Rosenmiiller in Comm. ;
Lengerke in Comm.; Hitzig, in Heidelb. Jahrb. Heft ii. ; Redepen-
ning, in Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1833 and also 1835 (review of
Havernick) ; Ewald, in Berliner Jahrb. 1831 ; and Knobel, Hebrew
Propheten, ii. § 40, brief, but full of matter, and full of neology.
In defence of the genuineness of the book, may be mentioned Liid-
erwald, die 6 ersten capp. Daniel's gepriift, 1787 ; Staudlin, Neue Beit-
rage ; Beckhaus, Integritat prophet. Schriften ; Jahn, Einleit. ; Sack,
Apologetik ; and, preeminent above them all, Hengstenberg, Authentie
des Daniel, altogether the most thorough, fundamental, and discriminating
performance, yet not free from some inadmissible exegesis, specially in
regard to the fourth monarchy and the 70 weeks. Havernick's Com
mentar defends, in the introduction, the genuineness of Daniel, with a
good degree of critical ability ; but his Neue Untersuchungen, written
after the work of Lengerke, is a great advance upon his former defence,
and in many respects even upon the work of Hengstenberg. He has
thoroughly dissipated not a few of Lengerke's skeptical conclusions.

496 § 10. LEADING COMMENTARIES AND CRITICAL DISQUISITIONS.
This last work is now usually appended to his Commentary. Besides
this, in his Einleitung he has put the last hand to what he desired to
do, for the book which he had so long and earnestly defended. But he
also believes in a Roman empire, as predicted by Daniel ; yet in his
Excursus on the fourth monarchy, at the close of his Commentary, he
has altogether failed to satisfy the reasonable demands of historico-
grammatical exegesis.
More recent still are some very valuable remarks of Oehler, in
Tholuck's Lit. Anzeiger, 1842, Nos. 49—51.
I have not referred to English writers, who, although some of them
have valuable remarks on the book before us, have almost en masse,
gone in the old road of a fourth Roman empire, and entirely neglected
grammatico-historical exegesis. Nearly all have made out an exposi
tion a priori, and harmonize Daniel and the Apocalypse together, as if
the main object of both books were one and the same. There may be
some writing with which I am unacquainted, which has undertaken
the historico-grammatical interpretation of the book ; if so, I regret
that I have not had access to it. England now has men fitted for such
labor, but hitherto the study of Daniel has been pursued in quite a
different way. A recent work of Mr. Birk's on Daniel I have seen,
and examined to some extent ; but I find no attempt to cast light on
the book by the aid of interpretation grounded on philology, nor even
the slightest evidence of any knowledge of the original language of the
book. Of course it must follow, that Daniel is explained by the process
which the Germans name hineinexegesiren, i. e. throwing an a priori
explanation into it, instead of getting one out of it. I cannot conceive,
how any valuable light can be thrown on the Scriptures in this way pf
writing. So far as I know, all the books written in the U. States on the
subject of Daniel's prophecies, (none of them are running Commentaries
on the book), are of the same character as the English ones, excepting
a like book of the Rev. Ira Chase, D. D., and another of the Rev. Mr.
Folsom. These reject the idea of a Roman monarchy, and show that
the writers of them had discovered the fallacies in the older modes pf
interpretation, with regard to this subject. They can find no Pope in
the book, other than Antiochus; and for this lieresy (?), they have found
the usual retribution from those interpreters, who make Daniel to speak
out their own views, instead of laboriously searching after his. It re
quires no prophetic views that are profound, to predict that such a
method of interpretation as the last cannot continue to be current long,
with an enlightened ministry now coming on the stage of action.

'r>-