Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Finally, the identification of Labosordacus, = Nebo-Sadrach, with Belshazzar has more appearance than truth. Bel is not like Nebo in the sense that both names denote one and the same god; but Bel is the Jupiter of the Babylonians, and Nebo the Mercury. Also the names of the two kings, as found on the inscriptions, are quite different. For the name Aaj3oaopSa^o^ (Joseph. Ant.) Berosus uses Aa^opoaodp^oSo^^ and Abydenus (Euseb. prcep. ev. ix. 41) Aaftaacrdpao-fcos; in the Chron. arm. it is Labossorakos, and Syncellus has Aafioadpoyps. These names do not represent Nebo-Sadrach, but that used by Berosus corresponds to the native Chaldee Nabu-ur-uzuurhudy the others point to Nabu-surusk or -suruk, and show the component parts contained in the name Nabuhudrussur in inverted order, — at least they are very nearly related to this name. Belshazzar, on the contrary, is found in the Inscription published by Oppert (Duncker, p. 720) written Belsarrusur. In this Inscription Nabonetus names Belsarrusur the offspring of his heart. If we therefore consider that Nabonnedus represents himself as carrying forward and completing the work begun by Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon, the supposition presses itself upon us, that also in regard to the name which he gave to his son, who was eventually his successor on the throne, he trod in the footsteps of the celebrated founder of the Babylonian monarchy. Consequently these Inscriptions would indicate that the Belshazzar (= Belsarrusur) of Daniel was the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and his successor on the throne.

Though we may rest satisfied with this supposition, there are yet weighty reasons for regarding Belshazzar as the son and sue- cessor of Nebuchadnezzar, who was put to death by his brotherin-law Neriglissar, and thus for identifying him with Evilmerodach (2 Kings xxv. 27; Jer. Hi. 31). Following the example of Marsham in Canon chron. p. 596, this opinion is maintained among modern critics by Hofmann {Die 70 Jahre, p. 44 ff.), Havernick (N. K. Unt. p. 71), Oehler (Thol. Litt. Am. 1842, p. 398), Hupfeld (Exercitt. Herod, spec. ii. p. 46), Niebuhr {Ges. Ass. p. 91 f.), Ziindel (p. 33), Kranichfeld, and Kliefoth. In favour of this opinion we notice, first, that Belshazzar in the narrative of Daniel is distinctly declared to be the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar. The statement of Berosus, that Evilmerodach managed the affairs of government clvo/jlcds koX aaeXyoos, entirely harmonizes also with the character ascribed to Belshazzar in this chapter, while the arguments which appear to oppose the identity of the two are unimportant. The diversity of names, viz. that Nebuchadnezzar's successor both in 2 Kings xxv. 27 and Jer. Hi. 31 is called TPP ^.> and by Berosus, Abydenus, and in the Canon of Ptolemy Evet\fiapdSov^o<;, Amilmarodokos, 'IWoapovSa/juos (in the Canon only, written instead of ' IXfAapovBa/cos), but by Daniel T¥N£73, is simply explained by this, that as a rule the Eastern kings had several names: along with their personal names they had also a surname or general royal name, the latter being frequently the only one that was known to foreigners; cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs u. Babels, p. 29 ff. In the name Evilmerodach, the component parts, II (== El), i.e. God, and Merodach, recur in all forms. The first part was changeol by the Jews, perhaps after the tragic death of the king, into?^K, stultus (after Ps. liii.?); while Daniel, living at the Babylonian court, transmits the name Belshazzar, formed after the name of the god Bel, which was there used. Moreover the kind benevolent conduct of Evilmerodach towards king Jehoiachin, who was languishing in prison, does not stand in contradiction to the vileness of his character, as testified to by Berosus; for even an unrighteous, godless ruler can be just and good in certain instances. Moreover the circumstance that, according to the Canon of Ptolemy, Evilmerodach ruled two years, while, on the contrary, in Dan. viii. 1 mention is made of the third year of the reign of Belshazzar, forms no inexplicable discrepancy. Without resorting to Syncellus, who in his Canon attributes to him three years, since the numbers mentioned in this Canon contain many errors, the discrepancy may be explained from the custom prevalent in the books of Kings of reckoning the duration of the reign of a king only in full years, without reference to the months that may be wanting or that may exceed. According to this usage, the reign might extend to only two full years if it began about the middle of the calendar year, but might extend into three calendar years, and thus be reckoned as three years, if the year of the commencement of it and the year in which it ended were reckoned according to the calendar. On the other side, it is conceivable that Evilmerodach reigned a few weeks, or even months, beyond two years, which were in the reckoning of the duration of his reign not counted to him, but to his successor. Ptolemy has without doubt observed this procedure in his astronomical Canon, since he reckons to all rulers only full years. Thus there is no doubt of any importance in opposition to the view that Belshazzar was identical with Evilmerodach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar.

With the removal of the historical difficulty lying in the name Belshazzar the historical credibility of the principal contents of this narrative is at the same time established. And this so much the more surely, as the opponents of the genuineness are not in a position to find, in behalf of their assertion that this history is a fiction, a situation from which this fiction framed for a purpose can be comprehended in the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes and in the relations of the times of the Maccabees. According to Berth., v. Leng., Hitz., and Bleek, the author sought on the one hand to represent to the Syrian prince in the fate of Belshazzar how great a judgment from God threatened him on account of his wickedness in profaning the temple, and on the other, to glorify Daniel the Jew by presenting him after the type of Joseph.

But as for the first tendency (or purpose), the chief matter is wholly wanting, viz. the profanation of the holy vessels of the temple by Antiochus on the occasion of a festival, which in this chapter forms the chief part of the wickedness for which Belshazzar brings upon himself the judgment of God. Of Antiochus Epiphanes it is only related that he plundered the temple at Jerusalem in order that he might meet his financial necessities, while on the other hand the carrying away by Nebuchadnezzar of the vessels belonging to the temple (Dan. i. 2) is represented as a providence of God.1

1 According to Bleek and v. Leng., this narrative must have in view 1 Mace. L 21 ff. and 2 Mace. v. 15 ff., where it is related of Antiochus as something in the highest degree vicious, that he entered into the temple at Jerusalem, and

As regards the second tendency of the composition, the glorifying of Daniel after the type of Joseph, Kliefoth rightly remarks: u The comparison of Daniel with Joseph rests on hastily collected indefinite resemblances, along with which there are also found as many contrasts." The resemblances reduce themselves to these: that Daniel was adorned by the king with a golden chain about his neck and raised to the highest office of state for his interpretation of the mysterious writing, as Joseph had been for the interpretation of the dream. But on this Ewald 1 himself remarks: u The promise that whoever should solve the mystery would be made third ruler of the kingdom, and at the same time the declaration in ch. vi. 3 (2), show that in the kingdom of Babylon there existed an arrangement similar to that of the Roman empire after Diocletian, by which under one Augustus there might be three Caesars. Altogether different is the old Egyptian law set forth in Gen. xli. 43 f., and prevailing also in ancient kingdoms, according to which the kin£ miiiht recognise a man as the second ruler in the kingdom, or as his representative; and since that mentioned in the book of Daniel is peculiar, it rests, to all appearance, on some old genuine Babylonish custom. On the other hand, the being clothed with purple and adorned with a golden chain about the neck is more with impure hands carried thence the golden basins, cups, bowls, and other holyvessels. But in spite of this wholly incorrect application of the contents of the passages cited, Bleek cannot but confess that the reference would be more distinct if it were related — which it is not — that Antiochus used the holy vessels at a common festival, or at least at the time of offering sacrifice. But if we look closely at 1 Mace. i. 21 ff., we find that Antiochus not only took away the utensils mentioned by Bleek, but also the golden altar, the golden candlestick, the table of shew -bread, the veil, and the crowns, and the golden ornaments that were before the temple, all which (gold) he pulled off, and took also the silver and gold, and the hidden treasures which he found; from which it clearly appears that Antiochus plundered the temple because of his pecuniary embarrassment, as Grimm remarks, or " for the purpose of meeting his financial necessities" (Grimm on 2 Mace. v. 16). Hitzig has therefore abandoned this reference as unsuitable for the object assumed, and has sought the occasion for the fiction of Dan. v. in the splendid games and feasts which Antiochus held at Daphne (Polyb. xxxi. 3, 4). But this supposition also makes it necessary for the critic to add the profanation of the holy vessels of the temple at these feasts from his own resources, because history knows nothing of it. Polybius merely says that the expense of these entertainments was met partly by the plunder Antiochus brought from Egypt, partly by the gifts of his allies, but most of all by the treasure taken from the temple.

1 P. 380 of the 3d vol. of the second ed. of his work, Die Propheten des A, Bundes.

generally the distinguishing mark of men of princely rank, as is seen in the case of Joseph, Gen. xli. 42."

To this it must be added, that Belshazzar' s relation to Daniel and Daniel's conduct toward Belshazzar are altogether different from the relation of Antiochus to the Jews who remained faithful to their law, and their conduct toward that cruel king. That the conduct of Belshazzar toward Daniel does not accord with the times of the Maccabees, the critics themselves cannot deny. Hitzig expresses his surprise that " the king hears the prophecy in a manner one should not have expected; his behaviour is not the same as that of Ahab toward Micah, or of Agamemnon toward Calchas." Antiochus Epiphanes would have acted precisely as they did. And how does the behaviour of Daniel harmonize with that of Mattathias, who rejected the presents and the favour of the tyrant (1 Mace. ii. 18 ff.), and who put to death with the sword those Jews who were submitting themselves to the demands of the king? Daniel received the purple, and allowed himself to be adorned with a golden chain by the heathen king, and to be raised to the rank of third ruler in his kingdom.1

While thus standing in marked contrast to the circumstances of the Maccabean times, the narrative is perfectly consistent if we regard it as a historical episode belonging to the time of Daniel. It is true it has also a parenetic character, only not the limited object attributed to it by the opponents of the genuineness — to threaten Antiochus Epiphanes with divine judgments on account of his wickedness and to glorify Daniel. Rather it is for all times in which the church of the Lord is oppressed by the powers of the world, to show to the blasphemers of the divine name how the Almighty God in heaven punishes and destroys the lords of this world who proceed to desecrate and abuse that which is sacred, without taking notice of the divine warnings addressed to them on account of their self-glorification, and bestows honour upon His servants who are rejected and despised by the world. But when compared with the foregoing narratives, this event before us shows how the world-power in its development became always the more hardened against the revelations of the living God, and the more

1 " In short, the whole accompaniments of this passage," Kranichfeld thus concludes (p. 213) his dissertation on this point, "are so completely different from those of the Maccabean times, that if it is to be regarded as belonging peculiarly to this time, then we must conceive of it as composed by an author altogether ignorant of the circumstances and of the historical situation."

ripe for judgment. Nebuchadnezzar demanded of all his subjects a recognition of his gods, and prided himself in his great power and worldly gtary, but yet he gave glory to the Lord of heaven for the si^ns and wonders which God did to him. Belshazzar knew this, yet it did not prevent him from blaspheming this God, nor did it move him to seek to avert by penitential sorrow the judgment of death which was denounced against him.

Vers. 1.-4. The verses describe the progress of Belshazzar's magnifying himself against the living God, whereby the judgment threatened came upon him and his kingdom. A great feast, which the king gave to his officers of state and to his wives, furnished the occasion for this.

The name of the king, "WKBV3, contains in it the two component parts of the name which Daniel had received (ch. i. 7), but without the interposed 13, whereby it is distinguished from it. This distinction is not to be overlooked, although the LXX. have done so, and have written the two names, as if they were identical, BaXrdaap, The meaning of the name is as yet unknown. On?, meal-time, the festival. The invitation to a thousand officers of state corresponds to the magnificence of Oriental kings. According to Ctesias {Allien, Deipnos^ iv. 146), 15,000 men dined daily from the table of the Persian king (cf. Esth. i. 4). To account for this large number of guests, it is not necessary to suppose that during the siege of Babylon by Cyrus a multitude of great officers from all parts of the kingdom had fled for refuge to Babylon. The number specified is evidently a round number, i.e. the number of the guests amounted to about a thousand. The words, he drank wine before the thousand (great officers), are not, with Havernick, to be explained of drinking first, or of preceding them in drinking, or of drinking a toast to them, but are to be understood according to the Oriental custom, by which at great festivals the king sat at a separate table on an elevated place, so that he had the guests before him or opposite to him. The drinking of wine is particularly noticed as the immediate occasion of the wickedness which followed.

Ver. 2. Nnrpn W^a, while he tasted the wine, i.e. when the wine was relished by him; thus " in the wanton madness of one excited by wine, Prov. xx. 1 " (Hitz.). From these words it appears that Belshazzar commanded the temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem to be brought, not, as Havernick thinks, for the purpose of seeking, in his anxiety on account of the siege of the city, the favour of the God of the Jews, but to insult this God in the presence of his own gods. The supposition of anxiety on account of the siege does not at all harmonize with the celebration of so riotous a festival. Besides, the vessels are not brought for the purpose of making libations in order to propitiate the God to whom they were consecrated, but, according to the obvious statement of the text, only to drink out of them from the madness of lust. I^BB^I, that they may drink; ' 1 before the imperf. expresses the design of the bringing of the vessels. 3 nn^? to drink out of, as Gen. xliv. 5, Amos vi. 6. I?JK>, the wives of the king; cf. Neh. ii. 6 with Ps. xlv. 10. fjnp? concubines; this word stands in the Targg. for the Hebr. fc'A?. The LXX. have here, and also at ver. 23, omitted mention of the women, according to the custom of the Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans (cf. Herod, v. 18; Corn. Nep. prom. § 6); but Xenophon (Cyr. v. 2. 28) and Curtius (v. 1. 38) expressly declare that among the Babylonians the wives also were present at festivals.

Ver. 4. In this verse the expression they drank ivine is repeated for the purpose of making manifest the connection between the drinking and the praising of the gods. The wickedness lay in this, that they drank out of the holy vessels of the temple of the God of Israel to glorify (H3^, to praise by the singing of songs) their heathen gods in songs of praise. In doing this they did not only place "Jehovah on a perfect level with their gods" (Havernick), but raised them above the Lord of heaven, as Daniel (ver. 23) charged the king. The carrying away of the temple vessels to Babylon and placing them in the temple of Bel was a sign of the defeat of the God to whom these vessels were consecrated (see under ch. i. 2); the use of these vessels in the drinking of wine at a festival, amid the singing of songs in praise of the gods, was accordingly a celebrating of these gods as victorious over the God of Israel. And it was not a spirit of hostility aroused against the Jews which gave occasion, as Kranichfeld has well remarked, to this celebration of the victory of his god; but, as the narrative informs us, it was the reckless madness of the drunken king and of his drunken guests (cf. ver. 2a) during the festival which led them to think of the God of the Jews, whom they supposed they had subdued along with His people, although He had by repeated miracles forced the heathen world-rulers to recognise His omnipotence (cf. eh. ii. 47, iii. 32 f., iv. 14, 31, 34). In the disregard of these revelations consisted, as Daniel represents to Belshazzar (cf. ver. 18), the dishonour done to the Lord of heaven, although these vessels of the sanctuary might have been profaned merely by using them as common drinking vessels, or they might have been used also in religious libations as vessels consecrated to the gods, of which the text makes no mention, although the singing of songs to the praise of the gods along with the drinking makes the offering of libations very probable. The six predicates of the gods are divided by the copula 1 into two classes: gold and silver — brass, iron, wood and stone, in order to represent before the eyes in an advancing degree the vanity of these gods.

Vers. 5-12. The learning signs, the astonishment of Belshazzar, the inability of the ivise men to give counsel, and the advice of the queen.

Ver. 5. Unexpectedly and suddenly the wanton mad revelry of the king and his guests was brought to a close amid terror by means of a warning sign. The king saw the finger of a man's hand writing on the plaster of the wall of the festival chamber, and he was so alarmed that his whole body shook. The Kny^-n3 places the sign in immediate connection with the drinking and the praising of the gods. The translation, in the self-same hour, is already shown to be inadmissible (see under ch. iii. 6). The Kethiv }pB3 {came forth) is not to be rejected as the indefinite determination of the subject, because the subject follows after it; the Keri njjSJ is to be rejected, because, though it suits the gender, it does not in respect of number accord with the subject following. The king does not see the whole hand, but only fcO* DS? the end of the hand, that is, the fingers which write. This immediately awakened the thought that the writing was by a supernatural being, and alarmed the king out of his intoxication. The fingers wrote on the plaster of the wall over against the candlestick which stood on the table at which the king sat, and which reflected its light perceptibly on the white wall opposite, so that the fingers writing could be distinctly seen. The feast had been prolonged into the darkness of the night, and the wall of the chamber was not wainscotted? but only plastered with lime, as such chambers are found in the palaces of Nimrud and Khorsabad covered over only with mortar (cf. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon).

Ver. 6. N|p» {the king) stands absolutely, because the impression made by the occurrence on the king is to be depicted. The plur. *nvt has an intensive signification: the colour of the countenance. Regarding VJ, see under ch. iv. 33. The suffix to sni3£> is to be taken in the signification of the dative, since KJK* in the Peal occurs only intransitively. The connection of an intransitive verb with the stiff, accus. is an inaccuracy for which ^3*B?, Ezek. xlvii. 7, and perhaps also TOT^ Ezek. xxix. 3, afford analogies; cf. Ewald's Lehrb. § 315Z>. In ver. 9, where the matter is repeated, the harshness is avoided, and ^vy is used to express the change of colour yet more stroncdv. The meaning is: " the king changed colour as to his countenance, became pale from terror, and was so unmanned by fear and alarm, that his body lost its firmness and vigour," The bands or ligaments of his thighs (HCIj equivalent to the Hebr. D^n) were loosed, i.e. lost the strength to hold his body, and his knees smote one against another. K213")K with Kprosth., for N?^"!, in the Targg. means the knee. The alarm was heightened by a bad conscience, which roused itself and filled hi in with dark forebodings. Immediately the king commanded the magicians to be brought, and promised a great reward to him who would read and interpret the mysterious writing.

Ver. 7. Since there are in this verse only three classes of wise men named as ordered to come to the king, to whom he promised the reward for the reading and the interpretation of the writing, and in ver. 8 it is first stated that all the king's wise men came, the probability is, that at first the king commanded only the three classes named in ver. 7 to be brought to him. On this probability Kranichfeld founds the supposition that the king purposely, or with intention, summoned only the three classes named to avoid Daniel, whom he did not wish to consult, from his heathen religious fear of the God of the Jews. But this supposition is altogether untenable. For, first, it does not follow from ch. viii. 27 that under Belshazzar Daniel was president over all the wise men, but only that he was in the king's service. Then, in the event of Daniel's yet retaining the place assigned to him by Nebuchadnezzar, his non-appearance could not be explained on the supposition that Belshazzar called only three classes of the wise men, because the supposition that?b fcO.rp sp'Z)n {all the king's ivise men) in ver. 8 forms a contrast to the three classes named in ver. 7 is not sustained by the language here used. But if by " all the wise men of the king/' ver. 8, we are to understand the whole body of the wise men of all the classes, and that they appeared before the king, then they must all have been called at the first, since no supplementary calling of the two classes not named in ver. 7 is mentioned. Besides this, the words, " the king spake to the wise men of Babylon," make it probable that all the classes, without the exception of the two, were called. Moreover it is most improbable that in the case before us, where the matter concerned the reading of a writing, the D^Din, the magicians [Schriftkenner], should not have been called merely to avoid Daniel, who was their 3"i {president) (ch. iv. 6). Finally, it is psychologically altogether very improbable, that in the great agitation of fear which had filled him at the sight of the hand writing, Belshazzar should have reflected at all on this, that Daniel would announce to him misfortune or the vengeance of the God of the Jews. Such a reflection might perhaps arise on quiet deliberation, but not in the midst of agitating heart-anguish.

The strange circumstance that, according to ver. 7, the king already promised a reward to the wise men, which presupposes that they were already present, and then that for the first time their presence is mentioned in ver. 8, is occasioned by this, that in ver. 7 the appearing of the wise men is not expressly mentioned, but is naturally presupposed, and that the first two clauses of the eighth verse are simply placed together, and are not united to each other by a causal nexus. The meaning of the statement in vers. 7 and 8 is this: The king calls aloud, commanding the astrologers, etc., to be brought to him; and when the wise men of Babylon came to him, he said to each of them, Whoever reads the writing, etc. But all the king's wise men, when they had come, were unable to read the writing. As to the names of the wise men in ver. 7, see under ch. ii. 2. PHp^ for fcOj5^ from &Oj3, to read. As a reward, the king promises a purple robe, a gold chain for the neck, and the highest office in the kingdom. A robe of purple was the sign of rank worn by the high officers of state among the Persians, — cf. Esth. viii. 15 with Xenophon, Anab. i. 5. 8, — and among the Selucidae, 1 Mace. x. 20; and was also among the Medes the princely garb, Xen. Anab. i. 3. 2, ii. 4. 6. IJII^, Hebr. ]®p$, purple, is a word of Aryan origin, from the Sanscrit rdga, red colour, with the formative syllables man and vat; cf. Gesen. Thes. Addid. p. Ill seq. 'Ul *"l Kaiaoni does not depend on B>3?*, but forms a clause by itself: and a chain of gold shall be about his neck. For the Kethiv lOtttpn the Keri substitutes the Targum. and Syr. form NS^on (vers. 7, 16, and 29), i.e. the Greek /Aavidfcws, from the Sansc. mani, jewel, pearl, with the frequent formative syllable ka in the Zend, whence the Chaldee word is derived; it signifies neck- or arm-band, here the former. The golden neck-chain {a-rpeino^ xpvaeos;) was an ornament worn by the Persians of rank, and was given by kings as a mark of favour even to kings, e.g. Cambyses and the younger Cyrus; cf. Herod, iii. 20; Xen. Anab. i. 1. 27, 5. 8, 8.29.

It is not quite certain what the princely situation is which was promised to the interpreter of the writing, since the meaning of Vlpfl is not quite clear. That it is not the ordinale of the number third, is, since Hiivernick, now generally acknowledged, because for tertius in Aram. W?? is used, which occurs also in ch. ii. 39. Hiivernick therefore regards wn for which Nfipfl is found in vers. 16 and 29, as an adjective formation which indicates a descent or occupation, and is here used as a nornen officii corresponding to the Hebr. '•B'w, Gesenius and Dietrich regard Wn as only the singular form for Tivfl, and Nri7fi as the stat. abs. of T\?T\ third rank. Hitzig would change wfl into Wn, and regard fcsrpn as a singular formed from PKfl?fl, as triumvir from triumvirorum, and would interpret it by t/q/to? o-vtos, the third (selbstdritt): as one of three he shall rule in the kingdom, according to ch. vi. 3. Finally, Kranichfeld takes TOH to be a fern, verbal formation according to the analogy of n"1*?"}**, "HPf?? i*1 tne sense of threeruler-wise. and Kfi?n for a noun formed from NJvn triumvir.

Almost all these explanations amount to this, that the statements here regard the government of a triumvirate as it was regulated by the Median king Darius, ch. vi. 3 (2); and this appears also to be the meaning of the words as one may literally explain wfl and Wjbfl, Regarding the Keri yN see under ch. iv. 4, and regarding K")B>B, under ch. iv. 15.

As all the wise men were unable to read the writing, it has been thought that it was in a foreign language different from the usual language of Babylon, the knowledge of which could not legitimately be expected to be possessed by the native wise men; and since, according to vers. 17, 24 f., Daniel at once showed his acquaintance with the writing in question, it has from this been concluded that already the old Babylonians had handwriting corresponding to the later Syro-Palmyrenian inscriptions, while among the Hebrews to the time of the Exile the essentially Old-Phoenician writing, which is found on the so-called Samaritan coins and in the Samaritan Scriptures, was the peculiar national style of writing (Kran.). But this interpretation of the miracle on natural principles is quite erroneous. First, it is very unlikely that the Chaldean wise men should not have known these old Semitic characters, even although at that time they had ceased to be in current use among the Babylonians in their common writing. Then, from the circumstance that Daniel could at once read the writing, it does not follow that it was the well-known Old-Hebrew writing of his fatherland. " The characters employed in the writing," as Hengstenberg has rightly observed (Beitr. i. p. 122), " must have been altogether unusual so as not to be deciphered but by divine illumination." Yet we must not, with M. Geier and others, assume that the writing was visible only to the king and Daniel. This contradicts the text, according to which the Chaldean wise*men, and without doubt all that were present, also saw the traces of the writing, but were not able to read it.

Ver. 9. By this not only was the astonishment of the king heightened, but the officers of state also were put into confusion. " In p^sri^p lies not merely the idea of consternation, but of confusion, of great commotion in the assembly " (Hitzig). The whole company was thrown into confusion. The magnates spoke without intelligence, and were perplexed about the matter.

Not only was the tumult that arose from the loud confused talk of the king and the nobles heard by those who were there present, but the queen-mother, who was living in the palace, the wife of Nebuchadnezzar, also heard it and went into the banqueting hall. As soon as she perceived the cause of the commotion, she directed the attention of her royal son to Daniel, who in the days of his father Nebuchadnezzar had already, as an interpreter of dreams and of mysteries, shown that the spirit of the holy gods dwelt in him (vers. 10-12).

Ver. 10. By KnapD interpreters rightly understand the mother of the reigning king, the widow of his father Nebuchadnezzar, since according to ver. 2 f. the wives of the king were present at the festival, and the queen came before the king as only a mother could do. Among the Israelites also the mother of the reigning king was held in high respect; cf. 1 Kings xv. 13; 2 Kings xxiv. 12, 15; Jer. xiii. 18, xxix. 2. n>? '?!?.£? by reason of the words, not: because of the affair, to which neither the plur. ^p nor the gen. *rto"D"] agrees. Instead of the Kethiv TU7V the Keri has npy, the later form. The queen-mother begins in an assuring manner, since she can give an advice which is fitted to allay the embarrassment.

Ver. 11. Her judgment concerning Daniel is that of Nebuchadnezzar, ch. iv. 5, 6 (8, 9); and that she states it in the same words leads to the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar was her husband. The N3?*? ^K at the end of this verse may be an emphatic repetition of the foregoing ^3S '23 N3?D (Maur., Hitz.), but in that case N3po would perhaps stand first. N3p£> is better interpreted by Ros., v. Leng., Klief., and others as the vocative: thy father, 0 king, by which the words make a greater impression.

Ver. 12. The remarkable endowments of Daniel are again stated (according to ver. 11) to give weight to the advice that he should be called in. The words from 1$?*? [interpreting] to ppp [doubts] are an explanatory parenthetical clause, after which the following verb, according to rule, joins itself to UJTO&. In the parenthetical clause the nomen actiouis «"WnK [showing'] is used instead of the participle, whereby the representation of the continued capability lying in the participle is transferred to that of each separate instance; literally, interpreting dreams, the explanation of mysteries and dissolving knots. The allusion of HPi? ^T^P to £3p$? "ir' *5?Pi ver* 6> is only apparent, certainly is not aimed at, since the former of these expressions has an entirely different meaning. Knots stands figuratively for involved complicated problems. That Daniel did not at first appear along with the wise men, but was only called after the queen had advised it, is to be explained on this simple ground, that he was no longer president over the magicians, but on the occasion of a new king ascending the throne had lost that situation, and been put into another office (cf. ch. viii. 27). The words of the queen do not prove that Belshazzar was not acquainted with Daniel, but only show that he had forgotten the service rendered by him to Nebuchadnezzar; for according to ver. 13 he was well acquainted with the personal circumstances of Daniel.

Vers. 13-28. Daniel is summoned, reminds the king of his sin, and reads and interprets the writing.

The counsel of the queen was followed, and without delay Daniel was brought in.?V^, cf. wn ver. 15, is Hebr. Hophal of Vy =??V, to go in, as ^Din^ ch. iv. 33. The question of the king: Art thou Daniel... 1 did not expect an answer, and has this meaning: Thou art indeed Daniel. The address shows that Belshazzar was acquainted with Daniel's origin, of which the queen had said nothing, but that he had had no official intercourse with him. It shows also that Daniel was no longer the president of the magicians at the king's court (ch. ii. 48 f.).

Ver. 14, cf. ver. 11. It is not to be overlooked that here Belshazzar leaves out the predicate holy in connection with pnpg (of the gods).

Ver. 15. The asyndeton KJBPK is in apposition to KJO^an as explanatory of it: the wise men, namely the conjurers, who are mentioned instar omnium. **! with the imperf. following is not the relative particle, but the conjunction that before the clause expressive of design, and the infinitive clause dependent on the clause of design going before: that you may read the writing to make known to me the interpretation. NA?P is not the mysterious writing = word, discourse, but the writing with its wonderful origin; thus, the matter of which he wishes to know the meaning.

Vers. 16, 17. The Kethiv btfl, ver. 16, is the Hebr. Hophal, as ch. ii. 10; the Keri ^3n the formation usual in the Chaldee, found at ch. iii. 29. Regarding the reward to Daniel, see under ver. 7. Daniel declines (ver. 17) the distinction and the place of honour promised for the interpretation, not because the former might be dangerous to him and the latter only temporary, as Hitzig supposes; for he had no reason for such a fear, when he spoke (C as one conveying information who had just seen the writing, and had read it and understood its import," for the interpretation, threatening ruin and death to the king, could bring no special danger to him either on the part of Belshazzar or on that of his successor. Much rather Daniel rejected the gift and the distinction promised, to avoid, as a divinely enlightened seer, every appearance of self-interest in the presence of such a king, and to show to the king and his high officers of state that he was not determined by a regard to earthly advantage, and would unhesitatingly declare the truth, whether it might be pleasing or displeasing to the king. But before he read and interpreted the writing, he reminded the king of the punishment his father Nebuchadnezzar had brought upon himself on account of his haughty pride against God (vers. 18-21), and then showed him how he, the son, had done wickedly toward God, the Lord of his life (vers. 22, 23), and finally explained to him that on this account this sign had been given by God (ver. 24).

Ver. 18. The address, Thou, 0 king, is here an absolute clause, and is not resumed till ver. 22. By this address all that follows regarding Nebuchadnezzar is placed in definite relation to Belshazzar. The brilliant description of Nebuchadnezzar's power in vers. 18 and 19 has undeniably the object of impressing it on the mind of Belshazzar that he did not equal his father in power and majesty. Regarding 'til N*£??V, see under ch. iii. 4, and with regard to the Kethiv PVKJ, with the Keri p^T, see under ch. iii. 3. KQO is not from NnD, to strike (Theodot., Vulg.), but the Aphel of OTj (to live), the particip. of which is 'TO in Deut. xxxii. 39, contracted from K.7!1*?, here the part, NnD, in which the Jod is compensated by the lengthening of the vowel a. Accordingly, there is no ground for giving the preference, with Buxt., Ges., Hitz., and others, to the variant Nnn which accommodates itself to the usual Tarmim. form. The last clause in ver. 19 reminds us of 1 Sam. ii. 6, 7. In vers. 20 and 21 Daniel brings to the remembrance of Belshazzar the divine judgment that fell upon Nebuchadnezzar (ch. iv.). D"j is not the passive part., but the per/, act. with an intransitive signification; cf. Winer, § 22, 4. ^li?^, strong, to be and to become firm, here, as the Hebr. pin, Ex. vii. 13, of obduracy. ^J£}, 3d pers. plur. impers., instead of the passive: they took away, for it was taken away, he lost it; see under ch. iii. 4, and Winer, § 49, 3. H)P is also to be thus interpreted, since in its impersonal use the singular is equivalent to the plur.; cf. Winer. There is no reason for changing (with v. Leng. and Hitz.) the form into *}&?, part. Peil. The change of construction depends on the rhetorical form of the address, which explains also the naming of the PTJS?, voild asses, as untraceable beasts, instead of K"J3 nvn (beasts of the field), ch. iv. 20 (23). Regarding the Kethiv TVOV, see under ch. iv. 14; and for the subject, cf. ch. iv. 22 (25), 29 (32).

Vers. 22-24. Daniel now turns to Belshazzar. The words: forasmuch as thou, i.e. since thou truly knowest all this, place it beyond a doubt that Belshazzar knew these incidents in the life of Nebuchadnezzar, and thus that he was his son, since his grandson (daughter's son) could scarcely at that time have been so old as that the for^etfulness of that divine judgment could have been charged against him as a sin. In the *] >3p?3, just because thou knowest it, there is implied that, notwithstanding his knowledge of the matter, he did not avoid that which heightened his culpability. In ver. 23 Daniel tells him how he had sinned against the God of heaven, viz. by desecrating (see vers. 2 and 3) the vessels of the temple of the God of Israel. And to show the greatness of this sin, he points to the great contrast that there is between the gods formed of dead material and the living God, on whom depend the life and fortune of men. The former Belshazzar praised, the latter he had not honoured — a Litotes for had dishonoured. The description of the gods is dependent on Deut. iv. 28, cf. with the fuller account Ps. cxv. 5 ff., cxxxv. 15 ff., and reminds us of the description of the government of the true God in Job xii. 10, Num. xvi. 22, and Jer. x. 23. ^1?, ways, i.e. the destinies. — To punish Belshazzar for this wickedness, God had sent the hand which wrote the mysterious words (ver. 24 cf. with ver. 5).

Vers. 25-28. Daniel now read the writing (ver. 25), and gave its interpretation (vers. 26-28). The writing bears the mysterious character of the oracle, ens, bpn, WO (ver. 28) are partic. Peil, and the forms?i?fl and CHS), instead of /*?!? and Dn^ are chosen on account of their symphony with WD. jWa is generally regarded as partic. plur., but that would be Tp"]^; it much rather appears to be a noun form, and plur. of Dns = Hebr. D"is (cf. t^?"!?? Zech. xi. 16), in the sense of broken pieces, fragments, for D"iQ signifies to divide, to break in pieces, not only in the Hebr. (cf. Lev. xi. 4, Isa. lviii. 7, Ps. Ixix. 32), but also in the Chald., 2 Kings iv. 39 (Targ.), although in the Targg. the meaning to spread out prevails. In all the three words there lies a double sense, which is brought out in the interpretation. WO, for the sake of the impression, or perhaps only of the parallelism, is twice given, so as to maintain two members of the verse, each of two words. In the numbering lies the determination and the completion, or the conclusion of a matter, a space of time. Daniel accordingly interprets WO thus: God has numbered (pyo for WO? perf. act.) thy kingdom, i.e. its duration or its days, ^7^\ and has finished it, i.e. its duration is so counted out that it is full, that it now comes to an end. In?i?n there lies the double sense that the word?pn, to iveigh, accords with the Niphal of /6jJ, to be light, to be found light (cf.?i?fl, Gen. xvi. 4). The interpretation presents this double meaning: Thou art iveighed in the balances (Wipjpri) and art found too light (like the?i?fi). "**?!?j wanting in necessary weight, i.e. deficient in moral worth. *wi?n, a perf. formed from the partic. Peil; cf. Winer, § 13, 2. As to the figure of the balance, cf. Job xxxi. 6, Ps. lxii. 10 (9).

For Tpis (ver. 25) Daniel uses in the interpretation the sing. D"ia, which, after the analogy of?$&, may be regarded as partic. Peil, and he interprets it accordingly, so that he brings out, along with the meaning lying in the word, also the allusion to D*1B, Persian: thy kingdom is divided, or broken into pieces, and given to the Medes and Persians. The meaning is not that the kingdom was to be divided into two equal parts, and the one part given to the Medes and the other to the Persians; but D"iB is to divide into pieces, to destroy, to dissolve the kingdom. This shall be effected by the Medes and Persians, and was so brought about when the Persian Cyrus with the united power of the Medes and Persians destroyed Babylon, and thus put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, whereby the kingdom was transferred first to the Median Darius (ch. vi. 1 [v. 31]), and after him to the Persian Cyrus. In the naming of the Median before the Persian there lies, as already remarked in the Introduction (see p. 47), a notable proof of the genuineness of this narrative, and with it of the whole book; for the hegemony of the Medes was of a very short duration, and after its overthrow by the Persians the form of expression used is always tl Persians and Medes" as is found in the book of Esther.

Vers. 29 and 30. Daniel rewarded, and the beginning of the fulfilment of the writing.

Belshazzar fulfilled the promise he had made to Daniel by rewarding him for reading and interpreting the writing. VJ>3?rn is not to be translated: (commanded) that they should clothe, — this meaning must be conveyed by the imperfect (cf. ch. ii. 49), — but: and they clothed him. The command was then carried out: Daniel was not only adorned with purple and with a golden chain, but was also proclaimed as the third ruler of the kingdom. The objection that this last-mentioned dignity was not possible, since, according to ver. 30, Belshazzar was slain that very night, is based on the supposition that the proclamation was publicly made in the streets of the city. But the words do not necessitate such a supposition. The proclamation might be made only before the assembled magnates of the kingdom in the palace, and then Belshazzar may have been slain on that very night. Perhaps, as Kliefoth thinks, the conspirators against Belshazzar availed themselves of the confusion connected with this proclamation, and all that accompanied it, for the execution of their purpose. We may not, however, add that therewith the dignity to which Daniel was advanced was again lost by him. It depended much rather on this: whether Belshazzar's successor recognised the promotion granted to Daniel in the last hours of his reign. But the successor would be inclined toward its recognition by the reflection, that by Daniel's interpretation of the mysterious writing from God the putting of Belshazzar to death appeared to have a higher sanction, presenting itself as if it were something determined in the councils of the gods, whereby the successor might claim before the people that his usurpation of the throne was rendered legitimate. Such a reflection might move him to confirm Daniel's elevation to the office to which Belshazzar had raised him. This supposition appears to be supported by ch. vi. 2 (1).

Bleek and other critics have based another objection against the historical veracity of this narrative on the improbability that Belshazzar, although the interpretation predicted evil against him, and he could not at all know whether it was a correct interpretation, should have rewarded Daniel instead of putting him to death (Hitzig). But the force of this objection lies in the supposition that Belshazzar was as unbelieving with regard to a revelation from God, and with regard to the providence of the living God among the affairs of men, as are the critics of our day; the objection is altogether feeble when one appreciates the force of the belief, even among the heathen, in the gods and in revelations from God, and takes into consideration that Belshazzar perhaps scarcely believed the threatened judgment from God to be so near as it actually was, since the interpretation by Daniel decided nothing as regards the time, and perhaps also that he hoped to be able, by conferring honour upon Daniel, to appease the wrath of God.1 The circumstance, also, that Daniel received the honour promised to him notwithstanding his declining it (ver. 17), can afford no ground of objection against the truth of the narrative, since that refusal was only an expression of the entire absence of all self-interest, which was now so fully established by the matter of the interpretation that there was no longer any ground for his declining the honours which were conferred upon him unsought, while they comprehended in themselves in reality a recognition of the God whom he served.

Ver. 30. With the death of Belshazzar that very night the interpretation given by Daniel began to be fulfilled, and this fulfilment afforded a certainty that the remaining parts of it would also sooner or later be accomplished. That this did not take place

1 " Non mirum, si Baltasar audiens tristia, solvent prsemium quod pollicitus est. Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura qiLse dixerat, aut dum Dei prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecuturum." — Jerome.

Darius, the king of the Medes, had it in view to place Daniel as chief officer over the whole of his realm, and thereby he awakened against Daniel (vers. 1-6 [ch. v. 31-vi. 5]) the envy of the high officers of state. In order to frustrate the kind's intention and to set Daniel aside, they procured an edict from Darius, which forbade for the space of thirty days, on the pain of death, prayer to be offered to any god or man, except to the king (vers. 7-10). Daniel, however, notwithstanding this, continued, according to his usual custom, to open the windows of his upper room, and there to pray to God three times a day. His conduct was watched, and he was accused of violating the king's edict, and thus he brought upon himself the threatened punishment of being thrown into the den of lions (vers. 11-18). But he remained uninjured among the lions; whereupon the king on the following morning caused him to be brought out of the den, and his malicious accusers to be thrown into it (vers. 19— 25), and then by an edict he commanded his subjects to reverence the God of Daniel, who did wonders (vers. 26-28). As a consequence of this, Daniel prospered during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian (ver. 29).

From the historic statement of this chapter, that Darius the Mede took the Chaldean kingdom when he was about sixtv-two years old (ver. 1 [ch. v. 31]), taken in connection with the closing remark (ver. 29) that it went well with Daniel during the reign of Darius and of Cyrus the Persian, it appears that the Chaldean kingdom, after its overthrow by the Medes and Persians, did not immediately pass into the hands of Cyrus, but that between the last of the Chaldean kiniis who lost the kingdom and the rei^n of Cyrus the Persian, Darius, descended from a Median family, held the reins of government, and that not till after him did Cyrus mount the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, which had been subdued by the Medes and Persians. This Median Darius was a son of Ahasuerus (ch. ix. 1), of the seed of the Medes; and according to ch. xi. 1, the angel Gabriel stood by him in his first year, which can mean no more than that the Babylonian kingdom was not taken without divine assistance.

This Darius the Mede and his reign are not distinctly noticed by profane historians. Hence the modern critics have altogether denied his existence, or at least have called it in question, and have thence derived an argument against the historical veracity of the whole narrative.

According to Berosus and Abydenus (Fragmenta, see p. 163), Nabonnedus, the last Babylonian king, was, after the taking of Babylon, besieged by Cyrus in Borsippa, where he was taken prisoner, and then banished to Carmania. After this Cyrus reigned, as Alex. Polyhistor says, nine years over Babylon; while in the Fragments preserved by Eusebius in his Citron* Armen., to the statement that Cyrus conferred on him (i.e. Nabonet), when he had obtained possession of Babylon, the margraviate of the province of Carmania, it is added, " Darius the king removed (him) a little out of the country." Also in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, Nabonadius the Babylonian is at once followed by the list of Persian kings, beginning with Kvpos, who reigned nine years.

When we compare with this the accounts given by the Greek historians, we find that Herodotus (i. 96-103, 106 ff.) makes mention of a succession of Median kings: Dejoces, Phraortes, Cyaxares, and Astyages. The last named, who had no male descendants, had a daughter, Mandane, married to a Persian Cambyses. Cyrus sprung from this marriage. Astyages, moved with fear lest this son of his daughter should rob him of his throne, sought to put him to death, but his design was frustrated. When Cyrus had reached manhood, Harpagus, an officer of the court of Astyages, who out of revenge had formed a conspiracy against him, called upon him at the head of the Persians to take the kingdom from his grandfather Astyages. Cyrus obeyed, moved the Persians to revolt from the Medes, attacked Astyages at Pasargada, and took him prisoner, but acted kindly toward him till his death; after which he became king over the realm of the Medes and Persians, and as such destroyed first the Lydian, and then the Babylonian kingdom. He conquered the Babylonian king, Labynetus the younger, in battle, and then besieged Babylon; and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians he penetrated the city by damming off the water of the Euphrates, and took it. Polyaenus, Justin, and others follow in its details this very fabulous narrative, which is adorned with dreams and fictitious incidents. Ctesias also, who records traditions of the early history of Media altogether departing from Herodotus, and who names nine kings, yet agrees with Herodotus in this, that Cyrus overcame Astyages and dethroned him. Cf. the different accounts given by Greek writers regarding the overthrow of the Median dominion by the Persians in M. Duncker's Ges. d. Alterth. ii. p. 634 ff., 3d ed.

Xenophon in the Cyropcedia reports somewhat otherwise regarding Cyrus. According to him, the Median king Astyages, son of Cyaxares I., gave his daughter Mandane in marriage to Cambyses, the Persian king, who was under the Median supremacy, and that Cyrus was born of this marriage (i. 2. 1). When Cyrus arrived at man's estate Astyages died, and was succeeded on the Median throne by his son Cyaxares II., the brother of Mandane (i. 5. 2). When, after this, the Lydian king Croesus concluded a covenant with the king of the Assyrians (Babylonians) having in view the overthrow of the Medes and Persians, Cyrus received the command of the united army of the Medes and Persians (iii. 3. 20 if.); and when, after a victorious battle, Cyaxares was unwilling to proceed further, Cyrus carried forward the war by his permission, and destroyed the host of Croesus and the Assyrians, on hearing of which, Cyaxares, who had spent the night at a riotous banquet, fell into a passion, wrote a threatening letter to Cyrus, and ordered the Medes to be recalled (iv. 5. 18). But when they declared, on the statement given by Cyrus, their desire to remain with him (iv. 5. 18), Cyrus entered on the war against Babylon independently of Cyaxares (v. 3. 1). Having driven the Babylonian king back upon his capital, he sent a message to Cyaxares, desiring him to come that he might decide regarding the vanquished and regarding the continuance of the war (v. 5. 1). Inasmuch as all the Medes and the confederated nations adhered to Cyrus, Cyaxares was under the necessity of taking this step. He came to the camp of Cyrus, who exhibited to him his power by reviewing before him his whole host; he then treated him kindly, and supplied him richly from the stores of the plunder he had taken (v. 5. 1 ff.). After this the war against Babylonia was carried on in such a way, that Cyaxares, sitting on the Median throne, presided over the councils of war, but Cyrus, as general, had the conduct of it (vi. 1. 6); and after he had conquered Sardes, taken Croesus the king prisoner (vii. 2. 1), and then vanquished Hither Asia, he returned to Babylon (vii. 4. 17), and during a nocturnal festival of the Babylonians took the city, whereupon the king of Babylon was slain (vii. 5. 15-33). After the conquest of Babylon the army regarded Cyrus as king, and he began to conduct his affairs as if he were king (vii. 5. 37); but he went however to Media, to present himself before Cyaxares. He brought presents to him, and showed him that there was a house and palace ready for him in Babylon, where he might reside when he went thither1 (viii. 5. 17 f.). Cyaxares gave him his daughter to wife, and along with her, as her dowry, the whole of Media, for he had no son (viii. 5. 19). Cyrus now went first to Persia, and arranged that his father Cambyses should retain the sovereignty of it so long as he lived, and that then it should fall to him. He then returned to Media, and married the daughter of Cyaxares (viii. 5. 28). He next went to Babylon, and placed satraps over the subjugated peoples, etc. (viii. 6. 1), and so arranged that he spent the winter in Babylon, the spring in Susa, and the summer in Ecbatana (viii. 6. 22). Having reached an advanced old age, he came for the seventh time during his reign to Persia, and died there, after he had appointed his son Cambyses as his successor (viii. 7. 1 ff.).

This narrative by Xenophon varies from that of Herodotus in the following principal points: — (1) According to Herodotus, the line of Median kings closes with Astyages, who had no son; Xenophon, on the contrary, speaks of Astyages as having been succeeded by his son Cyaxares on the throne. (2) According to Herodotus, Cyrus was related to the Median royal house only as being the son of the daughter of Astyages, and had a claim to the Median throne only as being the grandson of Astyages; Xenophon, on the other hand, says that he was related to the royal house of Media, not only as being the grandson of Astyages and nephew of Cyaxares II., but also as having received in marriage the daughter of his uncle Cyaxares, and along with her the dowry of the Median throne. (3) According to Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the conspiracy formed by Harpagus against Astyages, slew his grandfather in battle, and took forcible possession of the dominion over the Medes; on the contrary, Xenophon relates that, though he was at variance with Cyaxares, he became again reconciled to him, and not only did not dethrone him, but permitted him to retain royal dignity even after the overthrow of Babylon, which was not brought about without his co-operation.

1 The words are: on oixog aura i^ypyipivog eiq tu 'Boc.fivhZut kcc) dp%eicc, oVa? tXV *«< oreiir ixfioe thQy dg oUilcc KccTccytaOcti, on which L. Dindorf remarks, *' oIkos videtur esse domus reglay dp&l» officio, palatina."

tion. Xenophon only communicates more of the tradition than Herodotus, who, according to his custom, makes mention only of the more celebrated of the rulers, passing by those that are less so,1 and closes the list of Median kings with Astyages. Accordingly, in not mentioning Cyaxares n., he not only overlooks the second relationship Cyrus sustained to the Median royal house, but also is led to refer the tradition that the last of the Median kincrs had no male descendant to Astyages. The third point only presents an actual contradiction between the statements of Herodotus and those of Xenophon, viz. that according to Herodotus, Cyrus by force of arms took the kingdom from his grandfather, overcame Astyages in a battle at Pasargada, and dethroned him; while according to Xenophon, the Median kingdom first fell to Cyrus by his command of the army, and then as the dowry of his wife. Shall? we now on this point decide, with v. Leng., Hitzig, and others, in favour of Herodotus and against Xenophon, and erase Cyaxares II. from the list not only of the Median kings, but wholly from the page of history, because Herodotus and Ctesias have not made mention of him? Has then Herodotus or Ctesias alone recorded historical facts, and that fully, and Xenophon in the Cyropcedia fabricated only a psedagogic romance destitute of historical veracity? All thorough investigators have testified to the very contrary, and Herodotus himself openly confesses (i. 95) that he gives only the sayings regarding Cyrus which appeared to him to be credible; and yet the narrative, as given by him, consists only of a series of popular traditions which in his time were in circulation among the Medes, between two and three hundred years after the events. Xenophon also has gathered the historic material for his Cyropcedia only from tradition, but from Persian tradition, in which, favoured by the reigning dynasty, the Cyruslegend, interwoven with the end of the Median independence and the founding of the Persian sovereignty, is more fully transmitted than among the Medes, whose national recollections, after the extinction of their dynasty, were not fostered. If we may therefore expect more exact information in Xenophon than in Herodotus, yet it is imaginable that Xenophon transformed the narrative of

1 Solere Herodotum prxtermissis mcdiocribus liominibus ex longa regum seric nonnisi amim alterumve mcmorare reliquis eminent iorem, et aliunde constat et ipsa Bahylouiie historia docet, et qua unius Nitocris reginse mentionem injicit, reliquos regcs omnes usque ad Ldbynetum, ne Nebucadnczare quidem excepto, eilcniio transit (i. 185-187).— Ges. Thes. p. 350.

the rebellion by Cyrus and his war against Cyaxares into that which he has recorded as to the relation he sustained towards Cyaxares, in order that he might wipe out this moral stain from the character of his hero. But this supposition would only gain probability under the presumption of what Hitzig maintains, if it were established: tt If, in Cyrop. viii. 5. 19, the Median of his own free will gave up his country to Cyrus, Xenophon's historical book shows, on the contrary, that the Persians snatched by violence the sovereignty from the Medes (Anab. iii. 4. 7, 11, 12);" but in the A nab. I.e. Xenophon does not say this, but (§8) only, ore irapa MrjScov ttjv apyj)v i\dfA/3avov Ilepaai.1 Thus, supposing the statement that the cities of Larissa and Mespila were besieged by the Persian king at the time when the Persians gained the supremacy over the Medes were historically true, and Xenophon communicated here not a mere fabulam ab incolis narratam, yet Xenophon would not be found contradicting his Cyropcedia, since, as Kran. has well observed, " it can be nothing surprising that among a people accustomed to a native royal dynasty, however well founded Cyrus' claim in other respects might be, manifold commotions and insurrections should arise, which needed to be forcibly suppressed, so that thus the kingdom could be at the same time spoken of as conquered."

Add to this the decisive fact, that the account given by Herod, of Cyrus and the overthrow of Astyages, of which even Duncker, p. 649, remarks, that in its prompting motive u it awakens great doubts," is in open contradiction with all the well-established facts of Medo-Persian history. a All authentic reports testify that in the formation of Medo-Persia the Medes and the Persians are separated in a peculiar way, and yet bound to each other as kindred races. If Herod, is right, if Astyages was always attempting to take Cyrus' life, if Cyrus took the kingdom from Astyages by force, then such a relation between the l Medes and Persians ' (as it always occurs in the O. T.) would have been inconceivable; the Medes would not have stood to the Persians in any other relation

bum hoc Medos sponte Persarum imperio subjectos significat, quanquam reliqua narratio seditionem aliquam Larissensium. arguere videatur. Igitur hie nihil est dissensionis inter Cyropsediam et Andbasin.... Gravius est quod Xenophon.statim in simili narratione posuit, ore dvahea ecu rvju otpxM» vko Htpouu MijBo/. Sed ibidem scriptor incolarum Jidem antestatur." Thus the philologists are in

their judgment of the matter opposed to the modern critics.

than did the other subjugated peoples, e.g. the Babylonians " (Klief.). On the other hand, the account given by Xenophon regarding Cyaxares so fully agrees with the narrative of Daniel regarding Darius the Mede, that, as Hitzig confesses, u the identity of the two is beyond a doubt." If, according to Xen., Cyrus conquered Babylon by the permission of Cyaxares, and after its overthrow not only offered him a " residence " there (Hitzig), but went to Media, presented himself before Cyaxares, and showed him that he had appointed for him in Babylon oIkos teal ap^da, in order that when he went thither eh olftela /cardyeaOcu, i.e. in order that when, according to Eastern custom, he changed his residence he might have a royal palace there, so, according to Daniel, Darius did not overthrow the Chaldean kingdom, but received it (ch. vi. 1), and was made king (^l?*??, ch. ix. 1), namely, by Cyrus, who, according to the prophecies of Isaiah, was to overthrow Babylon, and, according to Dan. vi. 29, succeeded Darius on the throne. The statement, also, that Darius was about sixty-two years old when he ascended the throne of the Chaldean kingdom, harmonizes with the report given by Xenophon, that when Cyaxares gave his daughter to Cyrus, he gave him along with her the kingdom of Media, because he had no male heir, and was so far advanced in years that he could not hope to have now any son. Finally, even in respect of character the Cyaxares of Xen. resembles the Darius of Daniel. As the former describes the conduct of Cyrus while he revelled in sensual pleasures, so Darius is induced by his nobles to issue an edict without obtaining any clear knowledge as to its motive, and allows himself to be forced to put it into execution, however sorrowful he might be on account of its relation to Daniel. After all this, there can be no reason to doubt the reign of Darius the Mede. But how loner it lasted cannot be determined either from the book of Daniel, in which (ch. ix. 1) only the first year of his reign is named, or from any other direct sources. Ptolemy, in his Canon, places after Nabonadius the reign of Cyrus the Persian for nine years. With this, the words of Xenophon, to efiSofiov eVi t?}? avrov ap^r}*;, which by supplying eVo? after €/3Bo/jlov are understood of seven years' reign, are combined, and thence it is concluded that Cyaxares reigned two years. But the supplement of eVo? is not warranted by the context. The supposition, however, that Darius reigned for two years over Babylon is correct. For the Babylonian kingdom was destroyed sixty-eight years after the commencement of the Exile. Since, then, the seventy years of the Exile were completed in the first year of the reign of Cyrus (2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f.; Ezra i. 1), it follows that Cyrus became king two years after the overthrow of Babylon, and thus after Darius had reigned two years. See at ch. ix. 1, 2.

From the shortness of the reijjn of Darius, united with the circumstance that Cyrus destroyed Babylon and put an end to the Chaldean kingdom, it is easy to explain how the brief and not very independent reign of Darius might be quite passed by, not only by Herodotus and Ctesias, and all later Greek historians, but also by Berosus. Although Cyrus only as commander-in-chief of the army of Cyaxares had with a Medo-Persian host taken Babylon, yet the tradition might speak of the conquering Persian as the lord of the Chaldean kingdom, without taking at all into account the Median chief king, whom in a brief time Cyrus the conqueror succeeded on the throne. In the later tradition of the Persians,1 from which all the historians known to us, with the exception of Berosus, have constructed their narrative, the Median rule over the Chaldean kingdom naturally sinks down into an insignificant place in relation to the independent government of the conqueror Cyrus and his people which was so soon to follow. The absence of all notice by Berosus, Herod., and Ctesias of the short Median reign can furnish no substantial ground for calling in question the statements of Xen. regarding Cyaxares, and of Daniel regarding the Median Darius, although all other witnesses for this were altogether of no force, which is indeed asserted, but has been proved by no one.2

1 " In the Babylonian tradition," Kranichfeld well remarks, " the memorable catastrophe of the overthrow of Babylon would, at all events, be joined to the warlike operations of Cyrus the conquering Persian, who, according to Xenoph., conducted himself in Babylon as a king (cf. Cyrop. vii. 5. 37), and it might be very indifferent to the question for whom he specially undertook the siege. The Persian tradition had in the national interest a reason for ignoring altogether the brief Median feudal sovereignty over Babylon, which, besides, was only brought about by the successful war of a Persian prince."

2 Of these witnesses the notice by Abydenus (Chron. Armen., Euseb.) already mentioned, p. 164, bears in its aphoristic brevity, " Darius the king removed him out of the land," altogether the stamp of an historical tradition, and can be understood only of Darius the Mede, since Eusebius has joined it to the report regarding the dethroning of the last Babylonian king by Cyrus. Also, the often-quoted lines of iEschylus, Pers. 762-765,

This result is not rendered doubtful by the fact that Xenophon calls this Median king Kva%dpr)<; and describes him as the son of Astyages, while, on the contrary, Daniel calls him Darjawesch (Darius) the son of Ahasuerus (ch. ix. 1). The name Kvai;dpr)<; is the Median Uivakshatra, and means autocrat; 'Aarvdyns corresponds to the Median Ajisdahdka, the name of the Median dynasty, meaning the biting serpent (cf. Nieb. Gesch. Assiws, p. 175 f.). ^Tr"}% Aapelosj the Persian Ddrjawusch, rightly explained by Herod, vi. 98 by the word epfjeirjSy means the keeper, ruler; and wyiWti^ Ahasverus, as the name of Xerxes, in the Persian cuneiform inscriptions Kschajdrschd, is certainly formed, however one may interpret the name, from Ksc7iaja, kingdom, the title of the Persian rulers, like the Median " Astyages." The names Cyaxares and Darjawesch are thus related to each other, and are the paternal names of both dynasties, or the titles of the rulers. Xenophon has communicated to us the Median name and title of the last king; Daniel gives, as it appears, the Persian name and title which Cyaxares, as king of the united Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom, received and bore.

The circumstances reported in this chapter occurred, according to the statement in ver. 29a, in the first of the two years' reign of Darius over Babylon. The matter and object of this report are related to the events recorded in ch. iii. As in that chapter Daniel's companions are condemned to be cast into the fiery furnace on account of their transgression of the royal commandment enjoining them to fall down before the golden image that had been set up by Nebuchadnezzar, so here in this chapter Daniel himself is cast into the den of lions because of his transgression of the command enjoining that prayer was to be offered are in the simplest manner explained historically if by the work which the first Mede began and the second completed, and which yet brought all the glory to the third, viz. Cyrus, is understood the taking of Babylon; according to which Astyages is the first, Cyaxares II. the second, and Cyrus the third, and iEschylus agrees with Xenophon. Other interpretations, e.g. of Phraortes and Cyaxares I., agree with no single report. Finally, the Darics also give evidence for Darius the Mede, since of all explanations of the name of this gold coin (the Daric) its derivation from a king Darius is the most probable; and so also do the statements of the rhetorician Harpocration, the scholiast to Aristophanis Ecclcsiaz. 589, and of Suidas, that the Aoe.pttx.oi did not derive their name, as most suppose, from Darius the father of Xerxes, but from another and an older king (Darius), according to the declaration of Herodot. iv. 166, that Darius first struck this coin, which is not outweighed by his scanty knowledge of the more ancient history of the Medes and Persians.

to no other god, but to the king only. The motive of the accusation is, in the one case as in the other, envy on account of the high position which the Jews had reached in the kingdom, and the object of it was the driving of the foreigners from their influential offices. The wonderful deliverance also of the faithful worshippers of God from the death which threatened them, with the consequences of that deliverance, are alike in both cases. But along with these similarities there appear also differences altogether corresponding to the circumstances, which show that historical facts are here related to us, and not the products of a fiction formed for a purpose. In, ch. iii. Nebuchadnezzar requires all the subjects of his kingdom to do homage to the image he had set up, and to worship the gods of his kingdom, and his command affords to the enemies of the Jews the wished-for opportunity of accusing the friends of Daniel of disobedience to the royal will. In ch. vi., on the other hand, Darius is moved and induced by his great officers of state, whose design was to set Daniel aside, to issue the edict there mentioned, and he is greatly troubled when he sees the application of the edict to the case of Daniel. The character of Darius is fundamentally different from that of Nebuchadnezzar. The latter was a king distinguished by energy and activity, a perfect autocrat; the former, a weak prince and wanting in energy, who allowed himself to be guided and governed by his state officers. The command of Nebuchadnezzar to do homage to his gods is the simple consequence of the supremacy of the ungodly world-power; the edict extorted from Darius, on the contrary, is a deification of the world-power for the purpose of oppressing the true servants of God. The former command only places the gods of the worldpower above the living God of heaven and earth; the latter edict seeks wholly to set aside the recognition of this God, if only for a time, by forbidding prayer to be offered to Him. This tyranny of the servants of the world-power is more intolerable than the tyranny of the world-ruler.

Thus the history recorded in this chapter shows, on the one side, how the ungodly world-power in its progressive development assumes an aspect continually more hostile toward the kingdom of God, and how with the decrease of its power of action its hatred against the true servants of God increases; and it shows, on the other side, how the Almighty God not only protects His worshippers against all the intrigues and machinations of the enemy, but also requites the adversaries according to their deeds. Daniel was protected against the rage of the lions, while his enemies were torn by them to pieces as soon as they were cast into the den.

This miracle of divine power is so vexatious to the modern critics, that Bleek, v. Leng., Hitzig, and others have spared no pains to overthrow the historical trustworthiness of the narrative, and represent it as a fiction written with a design. Not only does the prohibition to offer any petition to any god or man except to the king for a month " not find its equal in absurdity," but the typology (Daniel an antitype of Joseph!) as well as the relation to ch. iii. betray the fiction. Darius, it is true, does not show himself to be the type of Antiochus Epiphanes, also the command, vers. 27 and 28, puts no restraint in reality on those concerned; but by the prohibition, ver. 8, the free exercise of their religion is undoubtedly attacked, and such hostility against the faith found its realization for the first time only and everywhere in the epoch of Antiochus Epiphanes. Consequently, according to Hitzig, " the prohibition here is reflected from that of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Mace. i. 41-50), and exaggerates it even to a caricature of it, for the purpose of placing clearly in the light the hatefulness of such tyranny."

On the contrary, the advocates of the genuineness of Daniel have conclusively shown that the prohibition referred to, ver. 8, corresponds altogether to the religious views of the Medo-Persians, while on the other hand it is out and out in contradiction to the circumstances of the times of the Maccabees. Thus, that the edict did not contemplate the removal or the uprooting of all religious worship except praying to the king, is clearly manifest not only in this, that the prohibition was to be enforced for one month only, but also in the intention which the magnates had in their eye, of thereby effecting certainly the overthrow of Daniel. The religious restraint which was thus laid upon the Jews for a month is very different from the continual rage of Antiochus Epiphanes against the Jewish worship of God. Again, not only is the character of Darius and his relation to Daniel, as the opponents themselves must confess, such as not to furnish a type in which Antiochus Epiphanes may be recognised, but the enemies of Daniel do not really become types of this tyrant; for they seek his overthrow not from religious antipathy, but, moved only by vulgar envy, they seek to cast him down from his lofty position in the state. Thus also in this respect the historical point of view of the hostility to Daniel as representing Judaism, is fundamentally different from that of the war waged by Antiochus against Judaism, so that this narrative is destitute of every characteristic mark of the Seleucidan-Maccabee sera. Cf. the further representation of this difference by Kranichfeld, p. 229 ff. — The views of Hitzig will be met in our exposition.

Vers. 1-10 (ch. v. 31-vi. 9). Transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede; appointment of the regency; envy of the satraps against Daniel, and their attempt to destroy him.

The narrative of this chapter is connected by the copula 1 with the occurrence recorded in the preceding; yet ver. 1 does not, as in the old versions and with many interpreters, belong to the fifth chapter, but to the sixth, and forms not merely the bond of connection between the events narrated in the fifth and sixth chapters, but furnishes at the same time the historical basis for the following narrative, vers. 2 (1)— 29 (28). The statement of the verse, that Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixtytwo years old, connects itself essentially with ch. v. 30, so far as it joins to the fulfilment, there reported, of the first part of the sacred writing interpreted by Daniel to Belshazzar, the fulfilment also of the second part of that writing, but not so closely that the designation of time, in that same night (ch. v. 30), is applicable also to the fact mentioned in ch. vi. 1 (v. 31), and as warranting the supposition that the transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede took place on the night in which Belshazzar was slain. Against such a chronological connection of these two verses, ch. v. 30 and vi. 1 (v. 31), we adduce in the second half of ver. 1 (ch. v. 31) the statement of the age of Darius, in addition to the reasons already adduced in p. 163. This is not to make it remarkable that, instead of the young mad debauchee (Belshazzar), with whom, according to prophecy, the Chaldean bondage of Israel was brought to an end, a man of mature judgment seized the reigns of government (Delitzsch); for this supposition fails not only with the hypothesis, already confuted, on which it rests, but is quite foreign to the text, for Darius in what follows does not show himself to be a ruler of matured experience. The remark of Kliefoth has much more in its favour, that by the statement of the age it is designed to be made prominent that the government of Darius the Mede did not last long, soon giving place to that of Cyrus the Persian, ver. 29 (28), whereby the divine writing, that the Chaldean kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians, was fully accomplished. Regarding Darjawesch, Darius, see the preliminary remarks. The addition of K^JE (Kethiv) forms on the one hand a contrast to the expression " the king of the Chaldeans " (ch. v. 30), and on the other it points forward to ^9"??> ver« 29 (28); it, however, furnishes no proof that Daniel distinguished the Median kingdom from the Persian; for the kingdom is not called a Median kingdom, but it is only said of Darius that he was of Median descent, and, ver. 29 (28), that Cyrus the Persian succeeded him in the kingdom. In bsp, he received the kingdom, it is indicated that Darius did not conquer it, but received it from the conqueror; see p. 198. The 3 in "03 intimates that the statement of the age rests only on a probable estimate.

Ver. 2 (1). For the government of the affairs of the kingdom he had received, and especially for regulating the gathering in of the tribute of the different provinces, Darius placed 120 satraps over the whole kingdom, and over these satraps three chiefs, to whom the satraps should give an account. Regarding N*3£fPitrnK (satraps), see at ch. iii. 2. P?")j?, plur. of "5pTD; KD"|D has in the Semitic no right etymology, and is derived from the Aryan, from the Zend, sara, cara, head, with the syllable ach. In the Targg., in use for the Hebr. TOfe*, it denotes a president, of whom the three named in ver. 2 (1), by their position over the satraps, held the rank of chief governors or ministers, for which the Targg. use [3"|D, while P3"]D in ver. 8 denotes all the military and civil prefects of the kingdom.

The modern critics have derived from this arrangement for the government of the kingdom made by Darius an argument against the credibility of the narrative, which Hitzig has thus formulated: — According to Xenophon, Cyrus first appointed satraps over the conquered regions, and in all to the number of six (Cyrop. viii. 6, § 1, 7); according to the historian Herodotus, on the contrary (iii. 89 ff.), Darius Hystaspes first divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies for the sake of the administration of the taxes. With this statement agrees the number of the peoples mentioned on the Inscription at Bisutun; and if elsewhere (Insc. J. and Nakschi Rustam) at least twenty-four and also twenty-nine are mentioned, we know that several regions or nations might be placed under one satrap (Herod. I.e.). The kingdom was too small for 120 satraps in the Persian sense. On the other hand, one may not appeal to the 127 provinces (rnOHO) of king Ahasuerus = Xerxes (Esth. i. 1, ix. 30); for the ruler of the njHD is not the same as (Esth. viii. 9)

the satrap. In Esth. iii. 12 it is the nns? as e.g. of the province of Judah (Hag. i. 1; Mai. i. 8; Neh. v. 14). It is true there were also greater provinces, such e.g. as of Media and Babylonia (Ezra vi. 2; Dan. ii. 49), and perhaps also pecha (ni?£) might be loosely used to designate a satrap (Ezra v. 3, vi. 6); yet the 127 provinces were not such, nor is a satrap interchangeably called a pecha. When Daniel thus mentions so large a number of satraps, it is the Grecian satrapy that is apparently before his mind. Under Seleucus Nicator there were seventv-two of these.

The foundation of this argument, viz. that Darius Hystaspes, " according to the historian Herodotus," first divided the kingdom into satrapies, and, of course, also that the statement by Xenophon of the sending of six satraps into the countries subdued by Cyrus is worthy of no credit, is altogether unhistorical, resting only on the misinterpretation and distortion of the testimonies adduced. Neither Herodotus nor Xenophon represents the appointment of satraps by Cyrus and Darius as an entirely new and hitherto untried method of governing the kingdom; still less does Xenophon say that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the subjugated countries. It is true he mentions by name (viii. 6, 7) only six satraps, but he mentions also the provinces into which they were sent, viz. one to Arabia, and the other fiVe to Asia Minor, with the exception, however, of Cilicia, Cyprus, and Paphlagonia, to which he did not send any Ilepo-as craTpdiras, because they had voluntarily joined him in fighting against Babylon. Hence it is clear as noonday that Xenophon speaks only of those satraps whom Cyrus sent to Asia Minor and to Arabia, and says nothing of the satrapies of the other parts of the kingdom, such as Judea, Syria, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, etc., so that no one can affirm that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the conquered countries. As little does Herodotus, I.e., say that Darius Hystaspes was the first to introduce the government of the kingdom by satraps: he only says that Darius Hystaspes divided the whole kingdom into twenty apyal which were called aarpa7rrjtai, appointed apxovres, and regulated the tribute; for he numbers these satrapies simply with regard to the tribute with which each was chargeable, while under Cyrus and Cambyses no tribute was imposed, but presents only were contributed. Consequently, Herod, speaks only of a regulation for the administration of the different provinces of the kingdom for the special purpose of the certain payment of the tribute which Darius Hystaspes had appointed. Thus the historian M. Duncker also understands this statement; for he says (Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 891) regarding it: — "About the year 515 Darius established fixed government-districts in place of the vice- regencies which Cyrus and Cambyses had appointed and changed according to existing exigencies. He divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies." Then at p. 893 he further shows how this division also of the kingdom by Darius was not fixed unchangeably, but was altered according to circumstances. Hitzig's assertion, that the kingdom was too small for 120 satrapies in the Persian sense, is altogether groundless. From Esth. viii. 9 and iii. 19 it follows not remotely, that not satraps but the rrinQ represent the nfa^lD. In ch. viii. 9 satraps, rririD, and nfa'HBn nb> are named, and in ch. iii. 12 they are called the king's satraps and njHD bv "WN nins. On Esth. iii. 12 Bertheau remarks: " The pechas, who are named along with the satraps, are probably the officers of the circles within the separate satrapies;" and in ch. viii. 9 satraps and pechas are named as UfaHDTi *"$?, i.e. presidents, superintendents of the 127 provinces of the kingdom from India to Ethiopia, from which nothing can be concluded regarding the relation of the satraps to the pechas. Berth, makes the same remark on Ezra viii. 36: — " The relation of the king's satraps to the pachavoth abar nahara (governors on this side the river) we cannot certainly determine; the former were probably chiefly military rulers, and the latter government officials." For the assertion that pecha is perhaps loosely used for satrap, but that interchangeably a satrap cannot be called a pecha, rests, unproved, on the authority of Hitzig.

From the book of Esther it cannot certainly be proved that so many satraps were placed over the 127 provinces into which Xerxes divided the kingdom, but only that these provinces were ruled by satraps and pechas. But the division of the whole kingdom into 127 provinces nevertheless shows that the kingdom might have been previously divided under Darius the Mede into 120 provinces, whose prefects might be called in this verse pjBTtt?nK, i.e. kschatrapavan, protectors of the kingdom or of the provinces, since this title is derived from the Sanscrit and Old Persian, and is not for the first time used under Darius Ilystaspes or Cyrus. The Median Darius might be led to appoint one satrap, i.e. a prefect clothed with military power, over each district of his kingdom, since the kingdom was but newly conquered, that he might be able at once to suppress every attempt at insurrection among the nations coming under his dominion. The separation of the civil govern- merit, particularly in the matter of the raising of tribute, from the military government, or the appointment of satraps ol top Sacrfibv Xa/uLffdvovTes, k.t.X., along with the cfrpovpapxoi, and the x^aPX°h for the protection of the boundaries of the kingdom, was first adopted, according to Xenophon I.e., by Cyrus, who next appointed satraps for the provinces of Asia Minor and of Arabia, which were newly brought under his sceptre; while in the older provinces which had formed the Babylonian kingdom, satrapies which were under civil and military rulers already existed from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; cf. Dan. ii. 3 ff. This arrangement, then, did not originate with Darius Hystaspes in the dividing of the whole kingdom into twenty satrapies mentioned by Herodotus. Thus the statements of Herodotus and Xenophon harmonize perfectly with those of the Scriptures, and every reason for regarding with suspicion the testimony of Daniel wholly fails.

Vers. 2, 3 (1, 2). According to ver. 2, Darius not only appointed 120 satraps for all the provinces and districts of his kingdom, but he also placed the whole body of the satraps under a government consisting of three presidents, who should reckon with the individual satraps. wV, in the Targg. *6^, the height, with the adverb JO, higher than, above. N^V^ ^rv, to give reckoning, to account. P!J, part, of PU, to suffer loss, particularly with reference to the revenue. This triumvirate, or higher authority of three, was also no new institution by Darius, but according to ch. v. 7, already existed in the Chaldean kingdom under Belshazzar, and was only continued by Darius; and the satraps or the district rulers of the several provinces of the kingdom, were subordinated to them. Daniel was one of the triumvirate. Since it is not mentioned that Darius first appointed him to this office, we may certainly conclude that he only confirmed him in the office to which Belshazzar had promoted him.

Ver. 4 (3). In this situation Daniel excelled all the presidents and satraps, nsf^ri^ to show one's self prominent Regarding his excellent spirit, cf. ch. v. 12. On that account the king thought to set him over the whole kingdom, i.e. to make him chief ruler of the kingdom, to make him rjfib mfto (Esth. x. 3). 1TOJ> for n^JJ, intrans. form of the Peal, to think, to consider about anything. This intention of the king stirred up the envy of the other presidents and of the satraps, so that they sought to find an occasion against Daniel, that he might be cast down. n?y, an occasion; here, as ahta, John xviii. 38, Matt, xxvii. 37, an occasion for impeachment.

MIWD TOO, on the part of the kingdom, i.e. not merely in a political sense, but with regard to his holding a public office in the kingdom, with reference to his service. But since they could find no occasion against Daniel in this respect, for he was ]^^, faithful, to be relied on, and no fault could be charged against him, they sought occasion against him on the side of his particular religion, in the matter of the law of his God, i.e. in his worship of God.

Ver. 7 (6). For this end they induced the king to sanction and ratify with all the forms of law a decree, which they contrived as the result of the common consultation of all the high officers, that for thirty days no man in the kingdom should offer a prayer to any god or man except to the king, on pain of being cast into the den of lions, and to issue this command as a law of the Medes and Persians, i.e. as an irrevocable law. &yj, from VF] to make a noise, to rage, in Aphel c. /V, to assail one in a tumultuous manner, i.e. to assault him. u These presidents and satraps (princes)," ver. 7 (6), in ver. 6 (5) designated " these men," and not the whole body of the presidents and satraps, are, according to ver. 5 (4), the special enemies of Daniel, who wished to overthrow him. It was only a definite number of them who may have had occasion to be dissatisfied with Daniel's service. The words of the text do not by any means justify the supposition that the whole council of state assembled, and in corpore presented themselves before the king (Havernick); for neither in ver. 5 (4) nor in ver. 7 (6) is mention made of all (fe) the presidents and satraps. From the fact also that these accusers of Daniel, ver. 25 (24), represent to the king that the decree they had framed was the result of a consultation of all the prefects of the kingdom, it does not follow that all the satraps and chief officers of the whole kingdom had come to Babylon in order, as Dereser thinks, to lay before the three overseers the annual account of their management of the affairs of their respective provinces, on which occasion they took counsel together against Daniel; from which circumstance Hitzig and others derive an argument against the historical veracity of the narrative. The whole connection of the narrative plainly shows that the authors of the accusation deceived the king. The council of state, or the chief court, to which all the satraps had to render an account, consisted of three men, of whom Daniel was one. But Daniel certainly was not called to this consultation; therefore their pretence, that all " presidents of the kingdom" had consulted on the matter, was false. Besides, they deceived the king in this, that they concealed from him the intention of the decree, or misled him regarding it. crns means not merely that they consulted together, but it includes the result of the consultation: they were of one mind (Hitz.).

Ver. 8. Nrnspp WD 73 does not denote the three presidents named in ver. 3 (2), but all the prefects of the kingdom, of whom there were four classes, as is acknowledged by Chr. B. Michaelis, though Hitz. opposes this view. Such an interpretation is required by the genitive NJTDpD, and by the absence of 73, or at least of the copula 1, before the official names that follow; while the objection, that by this interpretation just the chief presidents who are principally concerned are omitted (Hitz.), is without foundation, for they are comprehended under the word NJtip. If we compare the list of the four official classes here mentioned with that of the great officers of state under Nebuchadnezzar, ch. iii. 2, the naming of the &WJD before the Kjaftf^rw (satraps) (while in ch. iii. 2 they are named after them) shows that the NJ^p are here great officers to whom the satraps were subordinate, and that only the three r?1? could be meant to whom the satraps had to render an account. Moreover, the list of four names is divided by the copula i into two classes. To the first class belong the N»:3p and the satraps; to the second the FW5, state councillors, and the N^C]?, civil prefects of the provinces. Accordingly, we will scarcely err if by KJ33D we understand the members of the highest council of state, by KJ^in the ministers or members of the {lower) state council, and by the satraps and pechas the military and civil rulers of the provinces. This grouping of the names confirms, consequently, the general interpretation of the KHwO WD 73, for the four classes named constitute the entire chief prefecture of the kingdom. This interpretation is not made questionable by the fact that the p3*iD had in the kingdom of Darius a different position from that they held in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar; for in this respect each kingdom had its own particular arrangement, which underwent manifold changes according to the times.

The infinitive clause 'til QJi? KOJi?? presents the conclusion arrived at by the consultation. N37D is not the genitive to &\>, but according to the accents and the context is the subject of the infinitive clause: that the king should appoint a statute, not that a royal statute should be appointed. According to the analogy of the pronoun and of the dimin. noun, the accusative is placed before the subject-genitive, as e.g. Isa. xx. 1, v. 24, so as not to separate from one another the D£ K?Ji? (to establish a statute) and the "JDK nDfjn (fo wja^ a y?r??i decree), Ver. 9a requires this construction. It is the king who issues the decree, and not his chief officers of state, as would have been the case if K3p» were construed as the genitive to D^p. D/p, manifesto, ordinance, command. The command is more accurately defined by the parallel clause "IDS ""^i??? io m&ke fast, i.e. to decree a 'prohibition. The officers wished that the king should issue a decree which should contain a binding prohibition, i.e. it should forbid, on pain of death, any one for the space of thirty days, i.e. for a month, to offer any prayer to a god or man except to the king. W2 is here not any kind of request or supplication, but prayer, as the phrase ver. 14 (13), Pinwa KID, directing his prayer, shows. The word PJKJ does not prove the contrary, for the heathen prayed also to men (cf. ch. ii. 46) j and here the clause, except to the king, places together god and man, so that the king might not observe that the prohibition was specially directed against Daniel.

Ver. 9. In order that they may more certainly gain their object, they request the king to put the prohibition into writing, so that it might not be changed, i.e. might not be set aside or recalled, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, in conformity with which an edict once emitted by the king in all due form, i.e. given in writing and sealed with the king's seal, was unchangeable; cf. ver. 16 and Esth. viii. 8, i. 19. N?.y$ &y *% which cannot pass away, i.e. cannot be set aside, is irrevocable. The relative *1 refers to rvn, by which we are not to understand, with v. Lengerke, the entire national law of the Medes and Persians, as if this were so unalterable that no law could be disannulled or changed according to circumstances, but JT3 is every separate edict of the king emitted in the form of law. This remains unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honoured as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change.

Ver. 10. The king carried out the proposal. ^DSl is explicative: the writing, namely, the prohibition (spoken of); for this was the chief matter, therefore K"]!?- alone is here mentioned, and not also D/i? {edict), ver. 8.

The right interpretation of the subject-matter and of the foundation of the law which was sanctioned by the king, sets aside the objection that the prohibition was a senseless " bedlamite " law (v. Leng.), which instead of regulating could only break up all society. The law would be senseless only if the prohibition had related to every petition in common life in the intercourse of civil society. But it only referred to the religious sphere of prayer, as an evidence of worshipping God; and if the king was venerated as an incarnation of the deity, then it was altogether reasonable in its character. And if we consider that the intention of the law, which they concealed from the king, was only to effect Daniel's overthrow, the law cannot be regarded as designed to press Parsism or the Zend religion on all the nations of the kingdom, or to put an end to religious freedom, or to make Parsism the world-religion. Rather, as Kliefoth has clearly and justly shown, " the object of

the law was only to bring about the general recognition of the principle that the king was the living manifestation of all the gods, not only of the Median and Persian, but also of the Babylonian and Lydian, and all the gods of the conquered nations. It is therefore also not correct that the king should be represented as the incarnation of Ormuzd. The matter is to be explained not from Parsism alone, but from heathenism in general. According to the general fundamental principle of heathenism, the ruler is the son, the representative, the living manifestation of the people's gods, and the world-ruler thus the manifestation of all the gods of the nations that were subject to him. Therefore all heathen world -rulers demanded from the heathen nations subdued by them, that religious homage should be rendered to them in the manner peculiar to each nation. Now that is what was here sought. All the nations subjected to the Medo-Persian kingdom were required not to abandon their own special worship rendered to their gods, but in fact to acknowledge that the Medo-Persian world-ruler Darius was also the son and representative of their national gods. For this purpose they must for the space of thirty days present their petitions to their national gods only in him as their manifestation. And the heathen nations could all do this without violating their consciences; for since in their own manner they served the Median king as the son of their gods, they served their gods in him. The Jews, however, were not in the condition of being able to regard the king as a manifestation of Jehovah, and thus for them there was involved in the law truly a religious persecution, although the heathen king and his satraps did not thereby intend religious persecution, but regarded such disobedience as only culpable obstinacy and political rebellion." *

1 Brissonius, De regio Persarumprinc. p. 17 sqq., has collected the testimonies of the ancients to the fact that the Persian kings laid claim to divine honour. Persas rages suos inter Deos colere, majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam.

The religious persecution to which this law subjected the Jews was rendered oppressive by this: that the Jews were brought by it into this situation, that for a whole month they must either omit prayer to God, and thus sin against their God, or disregard the king's prohibition. The satraps had thus rightly formed their plan. Since without doubt they were aware of Daniel's piety, they could by this means hope with certainty to gain their object in his overthrow. There is no ground for rejecting the narrative in the fact that Darius, without any suspicion, gave their contrivance the sanction of law. We do not need, on the contrary, to refer to the indolence of so many kings, who permit themselves to be wholly guided by their ministers, although the description we have of Cyaxares n. by Xenophon accords very well with this supposition; for from the fact that Darius appears to have sanctioned the law without further consideration about it, it does not follow that he did not make inquiry concerning the purpose of the plan formed by the satraps. The details of the intercourse of the satraps with the king concerning the occasion and object of the law Daniel has not recorded, for they had no significance in relation to the main object of the narrative. If the satraps represented to the king the intention of compelling, by this law, all the nationalities that were subject to his kingdom to recognise his royal power and to prove their loyalty, then the propriety of this design would so clearly recommend itself to him, that without reflection he gave it the sanction of law.

Vers. 11 (10)-25 (24). Daniels offence against the law; his accusation, condemnation, and miraculous deliverance from the den of lions; and the punishment of his accusers.

The satraps did not wait long for Daniel's expected disregard of the king's prohibition. It was Daniel's custom, on bended knees, three times a -day to offer prayer to his God in the upper chamber of his house, the window thereof being open towards Jerusalem. He continued this custom even after the issuing of