Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
General Editor for the Old Testament and Apocrypha:—
A. F. KIRKPATRICK, D.D.
THE BOOK OF
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
THE REV. S. R. DRIVER, D.D.,
regius professor of hebrew in the university of oxford.
EDITED FOR THE SYNDICS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
[All Rights reserved.]
The so-called Tomb of Daniel, with the Shaour in front, and the Mounds of Susa in the backgroung (see pp. xxi, 111, 125).
(From Loftus’ Chaldaea and Susiana, 1857, p. 322.)
GENERAL EDITOR FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT
The present General Editor for the Old Testament in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges desires to say that, in accordance with the policy of his predecessor the Bishop of Worcester, he does not hold himself responsible for the particular interpretations adopted or for the opinions expressed by the editors of the several Books, nor has he endeavoured to bring them into agreement with one another. It is inevitable that there should be differences of opinion in regard to many questions of criticism and interpretation, and it seems best that these differences should find free expression in different volumes. He has endeavoured to secure, as far as possible, that the general scope and character of the series should be observed, and that views which have a reasonable claim to consideration should not be ignored, but he has felt it best that the final responsibility should, in general, rest with the individual contributors.
A. F. KIRKPATRICK.
Principal Abbreviations employed
KAT.2 … Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.
KB. … Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889–1900.
L.O.T.6 … S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ed. 6, 1897.
NHWB. … M. Levy, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterbuch, 1876–89.
OTJC.2 … W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, ed. 2, 1892.
P.S. (or Payne Smith) … R. Payne Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus.
RP.1 or RP2 … Records of the Past, first and second series, respectively.
Schürer2 … E. Schürer, Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ed. 2, 1886, 1890 (translated, Edinb. 1890–3); Vol. 2, also, in ed. 3 (2 vols.), 1898.
ZATW. … Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1881 ff.
For the names of Commentators, &c., see pp. cii–civ.
It has been found difficult to preserve entire consistency in the transliteration of foreign words, especially Babylonian and Assyrian names; but it is hoped that the reader will not be seriously misled in consequence. Familiar names have usually been left unchanged. In other words ḥ (or sometimes ch) = ח; ḳ = ק; ṣ (or ẓ) = צ; ṭ = ט.
§ 1. The person of Daniel and the contents of the Book
§ 2. History embraced by the Book of Daniel
§ 3. Authorship and Date
§ 4. Some characteristic features of the Book of Daniel
§ 5. Versions, Commentaries, &c.
On the term ‘Chaldaeans’
On the terms ‘Excellent’ and ‘Excellency’ in A.V., R.V., and P.B.V. of the Psalms
On Nebuchadnezzar’s madness
On the Four Empires of Daniel 2, 7
On the Expression ‘one like unto a son of man’ in Daniel 7:13On the Ruins of Susa
On the Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks
On the Expression ‘The abomination of desolation’
The Inscription recording the vote of thanks to Eumenes and Attalus passed by the Council and people of Antioch
605. Defeat of Egyptians by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish.
586. Fall of Jerusalem.
561. Amêl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach).
559. Nergal-shar-uẓur (Neriglissar).
555 (9 months). Lâbashi-Marduk (Laborisoarchod).
555. Nabu-na’id (Nabonnçdus, Nabonidus).
538. Cyrus. Return of Jews under Zerubbabel.
529–522. Cambyses. 522 (7 months). Gaumâta (Pseudo-Smerdis).
522–485. Darius Hystaspis. 485–465. Xerxes.
333. Persian empire overthrown by Alexander the Great.
323. Death of Alexander.
Kings of Syria.
Kings of Egypt.
312. Seleucus I (Nicator).
322. Ptolemy I (Lagi), satrap.
305. Ptolemy I (Lagi), king.
285. Ptolemy II (Philadelphus).
280. Antiochus I (Soter).
261. Antiochus II (Theos).
249. Antiochus II receives in marriage Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
246. Seleucus II (Callinicus).
247. Ptolemy III (Euergetes I).
226. Seleucus III (Ceraunos).
223. Antiochus III (the Great).
222. Ptolemy IV (Philopator).
205. Ptolemy V (Epiphanes).
198. Antiochus the Great defeats Ptolemy Epiphanes at Paneion, and obtains possession of Palestine.
194–3. Antiochus the Great marries his daughter, Cleopatra, to Ptolemy Epiphanes.
187. Seleucus IV (Philopator).
182. Ptolemy VI (Eupator).
175–164. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes).
182–146. Ptolemy VII (Philometor).
175. Jason purchases the high-priesthood from Antiochus, expelling his brother Onias III.
172. Menelaus, outbidding Jason, becomes high-priest.
170. Antiochus’ first expedition into Egypt. On his return he enters the Temple, and carries off the sacred vessels.
168. Antiochus’ third (or second?) expedition into Egypt.
168. Apollonius surprises Jerusalem on the Sabbath-day.
168. Antiochus’ measures against the Jews. Desecration of the Temple (25 Chisleu).
167. Rise of the Maccabees.
166–5. Victories over the generals of Antiochus.
165. Re-dedication of the Temple (25 Chisleu).
Death of Antiochus.
§ 1. The person of Daniel and the contents of the Book
All that is known of Daniel is contained substantially in the book which bears his name. The Book consists essentially of two parts: (1) a series of narratives (ch. 1–6), describing the experiences of Daniel and his companions, in the three reigns of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 1–4), Belshazzar (ch. 5), and Darius the Mede (ch. 6); and (2) a series of visions (ch. 7–12), with introductions describing the circumstances attending them, purporting to have been seen by Daniel during the reigns of Belshazzar (ch. 7, 8), Darius the Mede (ch. 9), and Cyrus (ch. 10–12). The principal link connecting the two parts of the book is afforded by chaps. 2 and 7—the four empires symbolized by the image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in ch. 2 being the same as the four empires symbolized by the four beasts seen by Daniel in his vision described in ch. 7. The following is an outline of the contents of the Book.
Nebuchadnezzar, having in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (b.c. 605), laid siege to Jerusalem, and carried away to Babylon several Jewish prisoners, determined shortly afterwards to have a number of noble and promising youths educated in the language and learning of the ‘Chaldaeans,’—i.e. of the professors of divination, magic, and astrology in Babylon,—with a view to their entering the king’s service. Among the youths selected for the purpose were four of the Jewish captives, viz. Daniel, who received now the name of Belteshazzar, and Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who received similarly the new names of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, respectively. The four youths, while content to pursue the studies prescribed by Nebuchadnezzar, determined, if possible, not to compromise their religious principles, by partaking of the special food provided for them from the royal table; and succeeded in obtaining permission to confine themselves to vegetable diet. At the end of three years, being found to excel all the others who had been educated with them, they are promoted to a place among the king’s personal attendants, and prove themselves, when tested, to be superior in knowledge and ability even to the ‘wise men’ of Babylon themselves (ch. 1).
 According to Josephus (Ant. xi. x. 1)—though this may be only an inference, which does not necessarily follow, from the terms of Daniel 1:3 b—the four youths were all related to King Zedekiah.
An opportunity soon arrives for Daniel to give proof of his abilities. Nebuchadnezzar, in his second year, being disquieted by a dream, demands of the ‘wise men’ of Babylon that they should repeat and interpret it to him: being unable to do this, they are condemned by him to death. Daniel and his companions, being, in virtue of their education, regarded as belonging to the class of ‘wise men,’ and finding consequently their lives to be in danger, betake themselves to prayer; and in answer to their supplication the secret of the dream is revealed to Daniel. Being now, at his own request, brought before the king, Daniel declares and interprets to him his dream. The dream was of a colossal image, the head consisting of gold, the breast and arms of silver, and the rest of the body of various inferior materials: as the king beheld it, a stone ‘cut out without hands’ suddenly fell, and struck the feet of the image, which thereupon broke up, while the stone grew into a mountain, which filled the whole earth. The image was interpreted by Daniel as signifying four empires—the head of gold being Nebuchadnezzar himself, representing the empire of the Chaldaeans, the other parts of the body symbolizing three other empires, which are not named explicitly, but which (see the notes on Daniel 2:39-40) are in all probability the Median, Persian, and Greek (the empire of Alexander and his successors, the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies). The stone ‘cut out without hands’ denoted the kingdom of God, before which all earthly powers were to succumb, and which was itself ultimately to embrace the entire world. The king was profoundly impressed by Daniel’s skill, and not only rewarded him with numerous gifts, but also made him administrator of ‘the whole province of Babylon,’ and President of all the ‘wise men’ (cf. Daniel 5:11). At Daniel’s request, his three friends also received promotion—probably to act as deputies or assistants to himself (ch. 2).
Ch. 3 describes the wonderful deliverance of Daniel’s three companions, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Nebuchadnezzar had erected, in the plain of Dura, near Babylon, a colossal golden image, and assembled for its dedication the high officials of his kingdom, all being commanded, under penalty of being cast into a burning fiery furnace, to fall down at a given signal and worship it. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, refusing to do this, are cast into the furnace; but, to the king’s astonishment, are rescued miraculously from the power of the flames. Thereupon Nebuchadnezzar solemnly acknowledges the power of their God, issues a decree threatening death to all who presume to blaspheme Him, and bestows upon the three men various marks of his favour.
Afterwards (chap. 4) Nebuchadnezzar had another dream, which Daniel was likewise called in to interpret. This time, the dream was of a mighty tree, the head of which towered to heaven, while its branches sheltered and nourished the beasts and fowls of the earth: as the king watched it, he heard the command given that it should be hewn down to the ground, and only its stump be left standing, and that ‘seven times’ should then ‘pass over’ it. Daniel explained that the tree symbolized Nebuchadnezzar himself; and that the dream was an indication that a great humiliation would ere long befall him: for seven years he would be bereft of his reason; he would imagine himself an ox, and live in the open fields; nor would he recover, and be restored to his kingdom, till he was ready to acknowledge that the Most High was supreme over the kingdoms of the earth, and that he owed all his greatness to Him. At the end of twelve months, as the king was contemplating from the roof of his palace the city which he had built, Daniel’s prediction was suddenly verified, and Nebuchadnezzar remained bereft of his reason for seven years. At the end of that time his reason returned to him; and in gratitude for his recovery, and his restoration to his kingdom, he issued a proclamation, addressed to all the world, in which he publicly acknowledged God’s power and goodness towards him.
The scene of ch. 5 is Belshazzar’s palace, on the eve of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon (b.c. 538), 23 years after the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (b.c. 561), when Daniel, supposing him to have been 16 or 17 at the time of his captivity (b.c. 605), would be 83 or 84 years old. Belshazzar and his lords are at a feast, impiously drinking their wine out of the golden vessels which had once belonged to the Temple of Jehovah in Jerusalem. Suddenly there appears on the white plaister of the wall, almost directly above where the king is sitting, the palm of a hand, with fingers writing on the wall. The ‘wise men,’ being summoned to interpret what is written, are unable to do so. At the suggestion of the queen-mother, Daniel is called. He reads the king a lesson on his impiety and pride, and on his neglect to take warning by the example of Nebuchadnezzar; and having done this, interprets the writing. Its import is that Belshazzar is no more worthy to enjoy his kingdom: its days are numbered, and it is about to be given to the Medes and Persians. Daniel thereupon receives from Belshazzar the rewards which he had promised to any one who should interpret the writing; and is made one of the three chief Ministers in his kingdom. In the same night Belshazzar is slain, and ‘Darius the Mede’ ‘receives’ the kingdom.
Darius the Mede appointed over his kingdom 120 satraps, with three Presidents at their head, to whom they were to be accountable. One of these presidents was Daniel, whom, as he distinguished himself remarkably in his office, Darius contemplated making his chief minister. Upon this, the satraps, and other presidents, were filled with envy, and hoping to ruin him, sought to convict him of some act of disloyalty. They accordingly induced Darius to issue an interdict, forbidding any one, under penalty of being cast into a den of lions, to ask a petition of either God or man, except the king, for 30 days. The aged Daniel nevertheless continued, as before, to pray at his open window towards Jerusalem. The king, upon learning that Daniel had thus incurred the penalty, was greatly vexed; but feeling nevertheless that the law must be obeyed, reluctantly gave directions for him to be cast into the den of lions. Next morning, hastening to the spot, he is over-joyed to find him uninjured; and publishes a decree, enjoining men, in all parts of his dominion, to honour and revere the God of Daniel, who had given such wonderful evidence of His power (ch. 6).
The second, or ‘apocalyptic,’ part of the book, describing Daniel’s visions, now begins (ch. 7–12).
In the first year of Belshazzar, Daniel had a dream, in which he saw four beasts emerging from the sea, a lion with eagle’s wings, a bear, a leopard with four wings and four heads, and a fourth beast, with powerful iron teeth destroying all things, and with ten horns: as Daniel was contemplating it, another ‘little horn’ sprang up among the ten horns, ‘speaking proud things,’ before which three of the other horns were rooted up. The scene then suddenly changed: the Almighty appeared, seated on a throne of flame, and surrounded by myriads of attendants; the books, recording the deeds of men, were opened, and the beast whose horn spake proud things was judged and slain. After this, a figure in human form, coming with the clouds of heaven, was ushered into the presence of the Judge, and received from Him a universal and never-ending dominion. The meaning of the vision was explained to Daniel by one of the angels that stood by: the four beasts represented four kingdoms,—in all probability, as in ch. 2, the Babylonian, Median, Persian, and Greek; the ‘little horn’ was a king (Antiochus Epiphanes), who would persecute, and seek to exterminate, the holy people; but he would be judged, and have his power taken from him, before he had accomplished his purpose: the people of God would then receive a universal and never-ending dominion (ch. 7).
Chap. 8 describes a vision seen by Daniel, in the third year of Belshazzar,—in the view of the author, therefore, two years after the vision described in ch. 7,—in the citadel of Shushan (Susa). A ram with two horns appeared, pushing towards the west, the north, and the south, until a he-goat, with a conspicuous horn between its eyes, emerging from the west attacked the ram, and broke its two horns. After this, the he-goat gained further successes; but ere long its horn was broken; and in place of it there rose up four other horns, looking towards the four quarters of the earth. Out of one of these there came forth a little horn which, waxing great towards the land of Judah, exalted itself against the host of heaven, and against its Prince (i.e. God), struck and hurled down to the earth many of the stars, desecrated the sanctuary, and interrupted the daily sacrifice for 2300 ‘evenings mornings.’ The meaning of this vision was explained to Daniel by the angel Gabriel. The ram with two horns was the Medo-Persian empire; the he-goat was the empire of the Greeks, the conspicuous horn being its ‘first king’ (i.e. Alexander the Great); and the four horns which rose up after this had been broken, were the four kingdoms,—viz. those of Macedonia, Thrace, Syria, and Egypt,—into which, after Alexander’s death, his empire was ultimately resolved. The little horn, which arose out of one of these, and magnified itself against the host of heaven and the sanctuary, represented a king who, though not named, is shewn by the description of his character and doings (vv. 23–25) to be Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 175–164).
Chapter 9 is assigned to the first year of ‘Darius the Mede.’ In that year, Daniel, considering that the seventy years of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah for the Holy City were drawing to their close, made an earnest appeal to God on behalf of his people, confessing his nation’s sin and the justice of the punishment which had overtaken it, and entreating Him now to pardon Israel’s transgression, and no longer to defer its promised restoration. In answer to his entreaty, Gabriel appears, and explains to Daniel that it would be not 70 years, but 70 weeks of years (i.e. 490 years), before Israel’s transgression would be forgiven and its redemption would be complete; that though Jerusalem would indeed before this be rebuilt and re-inhabited, it would be in ‘strait of times’; and that during the last ‘week’ of the 490 years great troubles would fall upon the city and the sanctuary, a heathen abomination would desecrate the Temple, and the regular sacrifices in it would be suspended for ‘half of the week,’ until the destined judgement overtook the persecutor.
The last section of the book (chaps. 10–12) describes a vision seen by Daniel in the third year of Cyrus by the Ḥiddeḳel (the Tigris), and the revelations respecting the future communicated to him in it by an angel. Daniel, grieving for his people’s sin, and anxious about its future, had been fasting for 21 days, when he fell into a state of trance, in which he had a vision of a shining being standing before him, who told him that he had been sent in answer to his prayers, but that he had been prevented from reaching him before by the opposition of the ‘prince,’ or patron-angel, of Persia: with the help of Michael, the ‘prince,’ or patron-angel, of the Jews, he had at length been able to start on his mission, and he was now with Daniel for the purpose of giving him a revelation concerning the future of his nation (Daniel 10:1 to Daniel 11:1). The contents of the revelation may be summarized briefly as follows. First, there would be four Persian kings, one of whom (Xerxes) would ‘stir up all’ in conflict with Greece; then would follow the empire of a ‘warrior-king’ (Alexander the Great), which, however, would soon be broken, and divided into four (Macedonia, under Cassander; Thrace, under Lysimachus; Syria and the East, under Seleucus; and Egypt, under Ptolemy); the leagues and conflicts, with varying fortunes, between the kings of the ‘north’ (Antioch) and of the ‘south’ (Egypt) during the following century and a half are next outlined (Daniel 11:5-20); afterwards, in greater detail, is described the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 175–164), including his conflicts with Egypt, his persecution of the Jews, and the doom which should suddenly cut short his career (Daniel 11:21-45). The death of Antiochus would be followed by the resurrection (of Israelites), and the advent of the kingdom of God (Daniel 12:1-3). The revelation is to be ‘sealed up’ by Daniel until the time of the end (Daniel 12:4), i.e. the time of Antiochus’ persecution (see on Daniel 8:17); for it is intended for the encouragement of the Israelites suffering then for their faith. Daniel asks how long the period of trial is to continue. He is told in reply, with solemn emphasis, that it will last for 3½ years (cf. Daniel 7:25, Daniel 8:14, Daniel 9:27); there will be 1290 days from the time when the daily burnt-offering was interrupted, and the ‘abomination that appalleth’ (a small heathen altar, on the altar of burnt-offering) set up; but 45 days more, or 1335 in all, before complete happiness will have been attained. Daniel himself is commanded meanwhile to depart, and rest (in the grave) till then.
The Book, as will be apparent from this outline of its contents, is very different from those of most of the canonical prophets, even from those which, like the books of Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, contain biographical particulars respecting their authors. It resembles most the Book of Jonah. The canonical prophets shew themselves immersed in the history and circumstances of their own time, in the political, moral, and spiritual condition of their nation, in its relations to its neighbours, especially to the great powers of Assyria, Egypt, or Babylon, and in its prospects in the immediate future,—the discourses, relating primarily and in the main to these various subjects, ever and again dissolving into visions of the future ideal glories of the people of God. In the Book of Daniel, on the contrary, hardly any interest is shewn in the condition or prospects of Israel in the age of Daniel himself: the narratives (ch. 1–6) have an essentially didactic import, their object being to shew how religious constancy and fortitude are, in various ways, rewarded by God, and how one heathen monarch after another is obliged to own the power of Daniel’s God, while Daniel himself and his companions are not only delivered from peril or death, but rise to fresh honours; and in the visions (ch. 7–12), the writer, filling in the great historical picture sketched in outline in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (ch. 2), depicts with particular and increasing distinctness the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, which he plainly regards as immediately preceding the advent of Israel’s final glory. The thoughts and interests of the author thus centre not in the age of the captivity, in which Daniel himself lived, but in the future; and they are directed especially upon a period some four centuries distant from that of Daniel’s lifetime, viz. the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. The one chapter in the book which might seem to contradict what has been said, does so only in appearance: in ch. 9, it is true, Daniel is represented as bewailing the continued exile of his people; but in the answer to his complaint which follows (vv. 25–27), he is referred to the same far-distant age which is ever foremost in the writer’s thoughts: Jeremiah’s 70 years are to be understood as 70 weeks of years; and 63 ‘weeks’ (i.e. 441 years) have still to run their course before the redemption which it was expected (see Isaiah 44:28; Isaiah 45:13) would follow immediately upon Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon, could yet be consummated.
 See, more particularly, the introductions to chaps. 1–6.
With regard to Daniel himself, there is little to be added from other sources to what is stated in the Book. In Ezekiel mention is made of a ‘Daniel’ as a pattern of righteousness (Ezekiel 14:14, ‘Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness’; similarly v. 20) and wisdom (Ezekiel 28:3, addressed to the king of Tyre, ‘Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee’); but it is doubted by many whether the reference is to the Daniel of the present book. Ezekiel 14, 28 date from about b.c. 594 and 588 respectively; and, as Prof. Davidson remarks, it is scarcely natural that the prophet should mention Daniel in such terms, grouping him at the same time with two patriarchs of antiquity, if he were really a younger contemporary of his own. The association with Noah and Job, and the nature of the allusion, imply rather that, in the mind of the prophet, the Daniel whom he referred to was some ancient patriarch, renowned in the traditions of Israel for his piety and wisdom, as Enoch, for instance, was on account of his ‘walking’ with God. The tradition respecting Job was utilized, as we know, by the author of the book which bears his name, for the purpose of teaching a great moral lesson; and it is at least possible, if this view of the ‘Daniel’ of Ezekiel be correct, that there are features in the narrative of the Book of Daniel, which owe their origin, or at all events their form, to traditions of piety and wisdom associated with the name of the ancient patriarch (cf. Davidson, l.c.).
 Note on Ezekiel 14:4 in the Cambridge Bible: cf. also Farrar, The Book of Daniel (in the ‘Expositor’s Bible’), pp. 9, 10.
 ‘Daniel’ is also the name of two other persons mentioned in the O. T.: (1) David’s second son, 1 Chronicles 3:1 (called in 2 Samuel 3:3, Chileab: the text in both places is uncertain; cf. the versions); (2) a priest of the line of Ithamar, who in 458 b.c. returned with Ezra to Judah, Ezra 8:2, Nehemiah 10:6. Among the contemporaries of the latter, it has been observed, there occur a Hananiah (Nehemiah 10:23), a Mishael (Nehemiah 8:4), and an Azariah (Nehemiah 10:2); but the coincidence is probably accidental.
The Greek translations of Daniel (LXX. and Theodotion), and following them the Vulgate, and some of the other derived versions, contain, like the LXX. of Esther, several passages not in the original text, the longer of which are contained, in a separate form, in the Apocrypha of the English Bible, under the titles of The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, and The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. The first of these additions follows Daniel 3:23 of the Aramaic text, and contains a confession and prayer represented as having been uttered by Azariah in the midst of the flames (vv. 25–45), and a doxology (vv. 52–56) leading on into the hymn known familiarly as the Benedicite (vv. 57–90), which has been used in the public services of the Church since the fourth century. The History of Susanna is found in MSS. of Theod. at the beginning of the book. Susanna was the wife of a wealthy Jew, named Joakim (Jehoiakim), resident in Babylon. Two elders, becoming enamoured of her, but finding their advances repelled, accused her falsely of adultery, declaring that she had been detected by them in the act. The tribunal before which she was arraigned, accepting without inquiry the testimony of the two elders, condemned her to death. She protested loudly her innocence; and God, it is said, in answer to her appeal, ‘stirred up the spirit’ of a youth among the bystanders, named Daniel, who, as she was being led forth to execution, proclaimed aloud that he would be no partner in the wrong that was about to be perpetrated, and remonstrated with the people upon what they were permitting. Being invited to conduct the inquiry himself, Daniel examined the two pretended witnesses separately, and quickly proved their testimony to be self-contradictory. Thereupon, in accordance with the law of Deuteronomy 19:19, the punishment which they had designed against the innocent Susanna was put in force against themselves; and Daniel ‘became great in the sight of the people from that day onwards.’ It is this apocryphal incident in Daniel’s life that gives its point to Shylock’s famous line (Merch. of Venice, iv. 1. 223):—
 In the LXX., the Syriac translation of the LXX. (the Syro-Hexaplar), and the Vulg., it follows at the end of the book (as chap. 13), before Bel and the Dragon (chap. 14). Perhaps this was its original place: the fact that it narrates an anecdote of Daniel’s youth, might readily have led to its subsequent transference to the beginning of the book. (On the Greek versions of Dan., see further p. xcviii ff.)
 So Theod. In LXX. an angel is mentioned, who gives Daniel a ‘spirit of understanding.’
A Daniel come to judgement! yea, a Daniel!
and to Gratiano’s hardly less famous retort (ibid. 333):—
A second Daniel, a Daniel, Jew!
and (ibid. 340):—
A Daniel, still say I, a second Daniel!
The narrative of Susanna is evidently designed to illustrate the truth that Providence watches over the innocent, and does not allow them to become the prey of the wicked. It is difficult not to connect the part taken in it by Daniel with the meaning of the name (which is transparent in the Hebrew), ‘God is my judge.’
The History of Bel and the Dragon stands in Greek MSS. at the end of the Book of Daniel: in the LXX. it bears the curious title ‘From the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Joshua, of the tribe of Levi,’ which would seem to imply that it was an extract from a pseudepigraphic writing, attributed to the prophet Habakkuk. Whether that be the case or not, the scene of the story is laid in Babylon, shortly after the accession of Cyrus, with whom, it is said (v. 2), Daniel lived on familiar terms (ἦν συμβιωτὴς τοῦ βασιλέως), and was honoured by him above all his friends. The Babylonians had an idol called Bel (cf. on Daniel 5:1), before whom were placed daily large offerings of flour, sheep, and wine, which the god was supposed to consume during the night. Daniel, being asked by Cyrus why he did not worship this idol, answered that he could worship only the living God, and not idols made with hands. The king replied that Bel was a living god, pointing, in proof of his assertion, to the amount of food regularly consumed by him. Daniel thereupon undertook to prove the contrary. The food was placed, as usual, before Bel; but, before the door of the temple was finally locked, Daniel strewed the floor within with ashes. Next morning, when the door was opened, the food was, of course, found to be gone. The king was triumphant: but, upon Daniel’s pointing out to him the marks of footsteps on the floor, he saw that he had been duped: the priests were discredited and put to death, and Daniel was allowed to overthrow the temple. There was also a dragon in Babylon, which was believed to be a god, and worshipped as such. Daniel, being challenged by Cyrus, gave it a food which caused it to die. The people, enraged with Daniel, terrified the king into delivering him into their hands, and he was cast into a lions’ den. Whilst he was there, the prophet Habakkuk, while carrying food to his reapers, at his home in Judah, was taken up by a lock of his hair (cf. Ezekiel 8:3), and transported by an angel to Babylon, to provide Daniel with a repast. Upon the seventh day the king proceeded to the den to bewail Daniel; but, finding him still alive, he confessed aloud the power of his God: and, like ‘Darius the Mede’ (Daniel 6:24), delivered those who would have destroyed Daniel to the same fate.
 So, at least, according to the text of Theodotion. V. 1, which alone gives the name of the king, is not in the LXX.
 For various allusions in Rabbinical literature to these two stories of Bel and the Dragon, see the extracts quoted by Mr Ball in the Speaker’s Commentary on the Apocrypha, ii. 344 f.
It is not possible to speak with certainty as to the date of these additions to Daniel; but they may be assigned without improbability to the first cent. b.c.
 Cf. Schürer, Realencyklop. für Prot. Theol.3 i. (1896), p. 640.
Later Jewish writings contain various anecdotes relating to Daniel; but they are destitute of historical value. Naturally, he is often referred to honourably on account of his wisdom, his opposition to idolatry, and his good deeds. It was sometimes said that he returned to Judah and died there: but in the Middle Ages there was a persistent tradition that he was buried in Susa. An early Arab historian describes how what was supposed to be Daniel’s body was discovered at Susa about 640 a.d., and buried by King Sangar’s orders under the river. Benjamin of Tudela, who visited Susa about 1160, found there a community of 7000 Jews, with 14 synagogues, in front of one of which there was, he says, the tomb of Daniel: the bones of the prophet were, however, elsewhere; for, as they were supposed to bring prosperity with them, there had been a dispute between the two quarters of the town for the possession of them, which had been settled by King Sangar ordering them to be suspended in a glass coffin exactly above the middle of the river, where, he adds, they still were. What purports to be the tomb of Daniel is shewn to the present day, a little W. of the mounds which mark the site of the ancient acropolis of Susa (cf. on Daniel 8:1), on the opposite side of the Shaour.
 See e.g. the Midrash on the Song of Songs, on Daniel 3:4, Daniel 5:5, Daniel 7:8-9.
 Cf. Farrar, p. 6 f.
 See Loftus, Chaldaea and Susiana (1857), pp. 317–323.
 See the Frontispiece to the present volume.
The Book of Daniel is written in two languages, Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 2:4 a and 8–12 being in Hebrew, and Daniel 2:4 b (from ‘O king’)—Daniel 7:26 being in Aramaic (cf. on Daniel 2:4). It cannot be said that this change of language has been altogether satisfactorily explained. The principal explanations that have been offered are the following. (1) Diversity of origin, Daniel 2:4 b–6 being supposed (Meinhold) to be a narrative written in Aramaic c. 300 b.c., which was afterwards accommodated to the needs of the Maccabaean age by a writer living then, who prefixed 1–2:4 a as an introduction, and added chs. 7–12, with special regard to the persecutions of Antiochus. But, though the Aramaic sections of the Book of Ezra (Daniel 4:8 to Daniel 6:18; Daniel 7:12-26) are due no doubt to the fact that the compiler incorporated in his work extracts from a pre-existing Aramaic source, the supposition of dual authorship is not probable in the case of the Book of Daniel: not only are there links of subject-matter connecting together the Heb. and the Aram. portions, but Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 2:4 a forms an introduction without which the sequel (Daniel 2:4 b ff.) would not be intelligible; and ch. 7, relating as it does chiefly to Antiochus, ought by the hypothesis to be in Hebrew (which it is not). (2) That the book was written originally in Hebrew, but translated early into Aramaic: a portion of the Hebrew text was accidentally lost, and it was then replaced by the Aramaic translation (Lenormant, Bevan, Prince). This explanation does not account for the two facts (which can hardly both be accidental) that the Aramaic part begins in ch. 2 just where the Aramaic language is mentioned, and breaks off just at the end of a chapter. (3) The explanation which seems to be relatively the best is that of Behrmann and Kamphausen, who suppose that in ch. 2 ‘the author introduced the “Chaldaeans” as speaking the language which he believed to be customary with them: afterwards he continues to use the same language on account of its greater convenience, both for himself and for his original readers, alike in the narrative portions, and in the following (seventh) chapter, which in many respects is a counterpart to ch. 2; for the last three visions (chs. 8, 9, 10–12) a return to Hebrew was suggested by the consideration that this had from of old been the usual sacred language for prophetic subjects.’
 Comp. Kamphausen in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, col. 1005.
§ 2. History embraced by the Book of Daniel
The Book of Daniel covers a wide period of history; and a survey of it, with more particular reference to such portions of it as bear especially upon the book, will probably be of service to the reader.
The Book opens in the third year of king Jehoiakim (b.c. 605), in which, it is said, Daniel and his companions were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon. The bulk of the nation went into exile subsequently, in two detachments, in 597 and 586 respectively. Upon the condition of the Jews generally during the years of exile, it is not necessary for our present purpose to dwell: for the only Jews who figure in the book are Daniel and his three companions; their compatriots being, for all practical purposes, non-existent. Something must, however, be said on the history of Babylon itself, and on the kings who successively occupied its throne. Babylon was at this time under the rule of a dynasty of Chaldaean kings. Originally (see p. 12) resident in the S.E. of Babylonia, near the sea-coast, the Chaldaeans had gradually advanced inland until, under Nabopolassar (b.c. 625–605), they became the ruling caste in Babylon itself. Nabopolassar was at first, it seems, the viceroy in Babylon of the last king of Assyria, Sin-shar-ishkun (Saracus): but, as soon as circumstances appeared favourable, he declared his independence; and the Medes, invading Assyria soon afterwards, at his invitation, razed Nineveh to the ground (b.c. 607). Pharaoh Necho, taking advantage of this disaster to Assyria, proceeded to lay hands on Western Asia as far as the Euphrates (2 Kings 23:29; cf. 2 Kings 23:33-35, 2 Kings 24:7 end); and it was as Nabopolassar’s general, sent on behalf of his infirm and aged father, to oppose his further advance, that Nebuchadnezzar in 605 gained his victory at Carchemish (Jeremiah 46:2; cf. on Daniel 1:1). Shortly afterwards Nabopolassar died; and Nebuchadnezzar hastened home (see Berosus, as quoted in the note on Daniel 1:1) to receive the crown.
 See further particulars in Maspero, The Passing of the Nations (1900), p. 483 ff.; and cf. Davidson’s Nahum (in the Cambridge Bible), p. 137 f.
Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (b.c. 604–561). So far as our information goes, he had no pleasure in warlike expeditions; his campaign against Pharaoh Necho, his two expeditions against Jehoiachin and Zedekiah, his siege of Tyre (Ezekiel 29:17-18), which lasted, according to Josephus (c. Ap. i. 21), for 13 years (b.c. 585–572), and an invasion of Egypt in his 37th year (b.c. 568), being all that we hear of. Nebuchadnezzar was emphatically a builder; and ‘nearly every cuneiform document now extant dating from his reign treats, not of conquest and warfare, like those of his Assyrian predecessors, but of the building and restoration of the walls, temples, and palaces of his beloved city of Babylon’ (Prince, p. 31). The celebrated ‘India House Inscription,’ now preserved in the India Office, gives an eloquent and detailed description of his principal architectural and defensive works. In this inscription, after an exordium, in which he pays homage to Marduk (the supreme God of Babylon), who had ‘created’ him, and entrusted him with the sovereignty over a great empire, Nebuchadnezzar describes first how he renovated, on a sumptuous scale, the two ancient and famous temples of Marduk in Babylon, called E-sagil, and of Nebo in Borsippa (the suburb of Babylon on the S.W.), called E-zida, panelling their roofs with cedar brought from Lebanon, and decorating their walls, till they ‘glistened like suns,’ with gold and precious stones; then, how he restored fifteen other temples in Babylon; after this, how he completed the two great walls of Babylon, which, with a broad moat between them, had been begun by his father, Nabopolassar, adding, at the same time, at some distance from the city on the E., a new and enormous rampart, ‘mountain-high,’ together with another protecting moat; and lastly, how he not only rebuilt the palace of Nabopolassar, but also constructed in fifteen days a yet more magnificent palace, surrounding it with lofty walls, and so making it into a kind of fortress. ‘That house, for admiration I made it, for the beholding of the hosts of men I filled it with magnificence. Awe-inspiring glory, and dread of the splendour of my sovereignty, encompass it round about; the evil, unrighteous man cometh not within it. I kept far from the wall of Babylon the hostile approach of the foe; the city of Babylon I made strong as the wooded hills’ (9:29–44). And he ends with a prayer to Marduk, his ‘lord,’ beseeching him, as he loves and has adorned his abode, to grant him long and prosperous life in the palace which he has built, and to permit his descendants to rule in it for ever (9:45–10:18).
 Cf. Maspero, op. cit. pp. 543 (the Wady Brissa Inscriptions), 549.
 Schrader, KAT.2 p. 364.
 See the inscriptions translated in KB. iii. 2, pp. 1–71.
 RP.2 iii. 104–123; KB. iii. 2, pp. 11–31: cf. Tiele, Bab.-Ass. Gesch. (1886), ii. 441 ff., Maspero, op. cit. pp. 561–6.
 So also Berosus, ap. Jos. c. Ap. i. 19. The famous ‘hanging garden’ (κρεμαστὸς παράδεισος, ibid.), or park with trees arranged on rising terraces (not mentioned in the Inscription), was connected with this palace. See Maspero, op. cit. p. 782.
In addition to the works here described, Nebuchadnezzar also constructed many others: for instance, a huge wall, with outside moats, called the ‘Median wall,’ for protection against invaders from the north, and quays, dykes, and canals for the commerce or irrigation of the country.
Secondly, Nebuchadnezzar, judged by the standard of his age and country, was pre-eminently a religious king. It is true, his treatment of Zedekiah was cruel; but it must be remembered that Zedekiah, even in the judgement of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 17:18-19), had broken faith with him, and acts which would not be tolerated among civilized belligerents now, were not proscribed then by the manners of the age. As Prof. Hommel says, ‘In his inscriptions we see on the one hand the fatherly care of a prince zealously considerate for the welfare of his land, on the other a genuine and heart-felt piety, which does not at all produce the impression of consisting simply of empty phrases.’ His longer inscriptions invariably begin with an acknowledgement of what he owes to Marduk and Nebo, and end with a prayer for further blessings. In the introduction of the India House Inscription, Nebuchadnezzar quotes a prayer which he had addressed to Marduk, perhaps at the time of his accession, for help and guidance in his rule:—
 Gesch. Bab. und Ass. (1885), p. 764.
O Eternal Ruler! Lord of all that is!
Grant that the name of the king whom thou lovest,
Whose name thou hast mentioned (i.e. whom thou hast called to the throne), may flourish as seems good to thee.
Guide him on the right path.
I am the ruler who obeys thee, the creation of thy hand.
It is thou who hast created me,
And thou hast entrusted to me sovereignty over mankind.
According to thy mercy, O lord, which thou extendest over all,
Cause me to love thy supreme rule.
Implant the fear of thy divinity in my heart.
Grant to me whatsoever may seem good before thee,
Since it is thou that dost control my life.
 Jastrow, Religion of Bab. and Ass. (1898), p. 296; KB. iii. 2, p. 13.
And here is a prayer addressed by him to Shamash, the sun-god (whom the Assyrians called ‘the judge of heaven and earth’), upon occasion of his restoring his temple in Sippar—
Shamash, great lord, look graciously with gladness upon my deeds;
Length of days, enjoyment of life, security of throne, and permanence of rule, grant me as thy gift;
Accept favourably in thy faithfulness the lifting up of my hands.
 KB. iii. 2, pp. 61, 63.
Elsewhere also Nebuchadnezzar describes himself as one into whose hands Nebo, ‘overseer of the hosts of heaven and earth, has committed a righteous sceptre for the government of men,’ and as ‘the king of righteousness, the humble, the submissive, who loves justice and righteousness,’ and who ‘places in the mouth of men the fear of the great gods.’
 Ib. pp. 13, 63.
Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Amêl-Marduk (‘man of Marduk’), the Ĕvîl-Merodach of 2 Kings 25:27 ff. (b.c. 561–559). The only inscriptions of this reign, which we at present possess, are contract-tablets. Amêl-Marduk, after a ‘lawless and dissolute’ reign of two years, was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-uẓur (Neriglissar), who then seized the throne. Nergal-shar-uẓur, like Nebuchadnezzar, was a devoted worshipper of Marduk, and restored temples and other buildings. After reigning for four years (b.c. 559–555) he was succeeded by his youthful son Lâbashi-marduk, who, on account of the evil qualities which he displayed (διὰ τὸ πολλὰ ἐμφαίνειν κακοήθη), was after nine months beaten to death (ἀπετυμπανίσθη) by his friends. The conspirators then placed one of their own number, Nabonnçdus (Nabu-na’id), on the throne: in the king’s own words, which here supplement the brief narrative of Berosus by some graphic details—
 Berosus, in an extract ap. Joseph, c. Ap. i. 20.
 KB. iii. 2, pp. 71–79.
 Berosus, l.c. His successor speaks of him as one who ‘knew not how to rule, and placed himself on the throne against the will of the gods’ (Messerschmidt, Die Inschr. der Stele Nabuna’ids, 1896, p. 29).
 Messerschmidt, p. 29 (col. V. ll. 1–13).
They all conducted me to the palace, cast themselves at my feet, and did homage to my royalty. At the command of Marduk, my lord, I was exalted to the sovereignty of the land, while they cried out, ‘Father of the country! there is none his equal!’
Nabu-na’id, as Abydenus says, was ‘no relation’ to his predecessor: he was not, like Nebuchadnezzar, a Chaldaean, but a native Babylonian, the son of one Nabu-balâṭsu-iḳbi, as the inscription on a brick from Babylon testifies—
 Ap. Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 41, 3 (προσήκοντά οἱ οὐδέν).
 KB. iii. 2, p. 119, No. 1 (similarly No. 11, and pp. 97, 121).
Nabu-na’id, king of Babylon, the chosen of Nebo and Marduk, the son of Nabu-balâṭsu-iḳbi, the wise prince, am I.
Nabu-na’id was the last native king of Babylon: he was still on the throne when the city was taken by Cyrus, b.c. 538. As his inscriptions shew, he devoted himself to restoring the ancient shrines and temples of the country, and excavated the substructures of such ancient sanctuaries as those at Larsa, Uruk, Ur, Sippar, and Nippur, until he reached the foundation-stones of the kings who had either originally built or subsequently restored them. The dates given by him for several of the kings thus mentioned by him have been of importance to modern scholars in fixing the chronology of ancient Babylonia. Belshazzar (Bêl-shar-uẓur) was Nabu-na’id’s son: he is named on several contract-tablets, in all except one, with the adjunct, ‘the king’s son,’—a title something like that of ‘Crown Prince.’ There are also two of Nabu-na’id’s own inscriptions in which, after describing his restoration of different temples, he closes with a prayer on his son’s behalf—
 KB. iii. 2, pp. 81–113.
 Eight are referred to by Prince, p. 263 f.; three of these are translated in RP.2 iii. 125–7. The notices are all incidental; e.g. a house is let for three years to ‘Nabo-kin-akhi, the secretary of Bêl-shar-uẓur, the king’s son.’
And as to Bêl-shar-uẓur, the chief son, the offspring of my body, the fear of thy great divinity do thou set in his heart; may he not give way to sin; with life’s abundance may he be satisfied.
 KB. iii. 2, p. 97; similarly pp. 83, 87.
Other references to Belshazzar are contained in the ‘Annalistic Tablet’ of Cyrus, found by Mr Pinches in 1879 among the collections in the British Museum, which also throws valuable light upon the political events of Nabu-na’id’s reign, and upon the manner in which ultimately Cyrus gained possession of Babylon. The top of the tablet is broken off or mutilated; but the most important parts are, happily, intact. Thus, in Nabu-na’id’s 6th year (b.c. 549) it is stated that Kurâsh (Cyrus), ‘king of Anshan’ (a district E. of the Tigris, in the S. or S. W. of Elam), was engaged in war with Ishtuvegu (the Astyages of Herodotus, king of Media); the troops of Ishtuvegu, however, revolted, and delivered their king into the hands of Cyrus (cf. Hdt. i. 127), who then attacked and took his capital Agamtânu (Ecbatana). In his 7th year Nabu-na’id was in Tevâ,—probably some favourite residence in the country,—and did not come to Babylon, so that the great annual procession of Bel and Nebo on New Year’s Day could not take place: ‘the king’s son,—i.e. Belshazzar,—the nobles, and his soldiers were in the country of Akkad’ (north Babylonia). The 8th year is without incident. In the 9th year the statements respecting the king and ‘the king’s son’ are repeated: it is also added that in Nisan (March) Cyrus, ‘king of Persia,’ collected his troops, and crossed the Tigris below Arbçla (a little E. of Nineveh), and in Iyyar (April) attacked and conquered a country, the name of which is now lost. In the 10th and 11th years the statements respecting the king and ‘the king’s son’ are again repeated. The part of the tablet relating to the 12th to the 16th years is lost: under the 17th year (b.c. 538) we have the account of Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon:—
12In the month of Tammuz [July], when Cyrus, in the city of Upê (Opis), on the banks of 13the river Zalzallat, had delivered battle against the troops of Akkad, he subdued the inhabitants of Akkad. 14Wherever they gathered themselves together, he smote them. On the 14th day of the month, Sippar was taken without fighting. 15Nabu-na’id fled. On the 16th, Gubaru, governor [piḥu,—whence the Heb. peḥâh] of the country of Guti, and the soldiers of Cyrus, without fighting 16entered Babylon. In consequence of delaying, Nabu-na’id was taken prisoner in Babylon. To the end of the month the shield(-bearer)s 17of the country of Guti guarded the gates of E-sagil: no one’s spear approached E-sagil, or came within the sanctuaries, 18nor was any standard brought therein. On the 3rd day of Marcheshvan [November], Cyrus entered Babylon. 19Dissensions (?) were allayed (?) before him. Peace for the city he established: peace to all Babylon 20did Cyrus proclaim. Gubaru, his governor, appointed governors in Babylon. 21From the month of Kislev [December] to the month of Adar [March—viz. in the following year, 537], the gods of the country of Akkad, whom Nabu-na’id had brought down to Babylon, 22returned to their own cities. On the 11th day of Marcheshvan, during the night, Gubaru made an assault (?), and slew 23king’s son (?). From the 27th of Adar [March] to the 3rd of Nisan [April] there was lamentation in Akkad: all the people smote their heads, etc.
 The translation is based on that of Hagen in Delitzsch and Haupt’s Beiträge zur Assyriologie, ii. (1894), pp. 205 ff. The translation in RP.2, v. 158 ff., is in many respects antiquated. See further on the inscription Whitehouse, Expos. Times, June, 1893, p. 396 ff.
 Probably (Meyer, ZATW. 1898, p. 340 f.) an error of the engraver for Tishri (October); for Elul (September) has been already reached in l. 10.
 On the Tigris, about 110 miles N. of Babylon.
 Near the Euphrates, about 70 miles N.W. of Babylon.
 Evidently the prototype of the ‘Assyrian’ Gobryas, who, according to Xenophon, having a grudge against the King of Babylon for the murder of his only son, joined Cyrus (Cyrop. iv. vi, v. ii); and is mentioned by him in his (unhistorical) account of the capture of Babylon, as a principal leader of those who first entered the city, while the inhabitants were feasting, and made their way into the palace (vii. v. 8, 24–32).
 A part of the mountainous region W. of Media, and N. of Babylonia.
 The great temple of Marduk in Babylon.
 The tablet is injured at this point; but ‘the king’s son’ is the reading which those who have most carefully examined the tablet consider the most probable.
The stages in the conquests of Cyrus are here traced by a contemporary hand. First, in 549, he appears as king of Anshan (or Anzan)—evidently his native home—in the S. of Elam: in that capacity, the troops of Astyages desert to him, and he gains possession of Ecbatana. In 546 he is called ‘king of Persia’: it is reasonable therefore to infer that in the interval since 549 he had effected the conquest of this country. We thus learn incidentally that though Cyrus and his successors are commonly spoken of as ‘Persian’ kings, he was not a Persian by origin; he and his ancestors were kings of ‘Anshan,’ a district of Elam, and he only became king of Persia by right of conquest. In 538 his attack upon Babylon begins. His approach is made from the North. First, he secures Opis and the surrounding parts of N. Babylonia; then he advances to Sippar, which he takes without striking a blow: two days afterwards his general, Gubaru, enters Babylon, which likewise offers no resistance; Nabu-na’id is taken prisoner, but otherwise everything proceeds peaceably; the victors respect the property of the citizens and of the temples, and a strong guard is placed round the temple E-sagil to protect it from plunder. Shortly afterwards, Cyrus himself enters Babylon, and proclaims peace to the city. He entrusts the government of the city to Gubaru, who in his turn appoints subordinate governors. Belshazzar, however, more energetic—or successful—than his father, still held out,—perhaps in a fortified palace,—but is slain by Gubaru in a night assault. After this, Cyrus formally assumed the title of ‘king of Babylon’ as well as the other grandiloquent titles borne by the Babylonian kings; and (as contract-tablets of the time shew) was at once recognized as the legitimate sovereign.
 See the Map in Maspero’s Struggle of the Nations, p. 31.
The story told by Herodotus (i. 191), and Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. v. 15–31), of the stratagem by which Babylon was taken by Cyrus, the waters of the Euphrates being diverted, and the city entered during the night—according to Xenophon, by Gobryas and Gadates—from the river-bed, while the people were all celebrating a festival,—which has been supposed to fall in with the representation in Daniel 5 and with Isaiah 21:5 (cf. Isaiah 44:27; Jeremiah 51:36),—is shewn by the inscription to be unhistorical: Babylon, it is clear, offered no resistance to the conqueror. At the same time, it is worth observing, Xenophon and the inscription both agree in assigning a prominent part to Gubaru (Gobryas) in gaining possession of the city.
The ease with which the transference of power from Nabu-na’id to Cyrus was effected, was no doubt due largely to the unpopularity of Nabu-na’id, who not only year after year lived in retirement at Tevâ, and neglected to discharge the public duties devolving upon him, but also gave great offence by removing arbitrarily the images of many local deities from their shrines and transferring them to Babylon. It is probable that the priests, who were both numerous and influential, were in particular adverse to the ruling dynasty. Cyrus, in a proclamation (the so-called ‘Cylinder Inscription’) issued by him shortly after his entry into the city, shewed that he understood how to utilize the popular disaffection; he represented himself as the favoured servant of Marduk, specially chosen by him to become sovereign of Babylon, in order to undo the evil deeds of Nabu-na’id, and to redress the grievances of its people.
 The inscription is translated in Ball’s Light from the East, pp. 224 f.; the principal parts of it may be found also in Hogarth’s Authority and Archaeology, p. 128; cf. Prince, pp. 92–104.
It may be of interest to the reader to compare the account given by Berosus (who had access to native records), preserved by Josephus (c. Ap. i. 20):—
In the 17th year of his reign Cyrus, advancing out of Persia with a great army, and having already subdued all the rest of Asia, advanced against Babylonia. Nabonnçdus, hearing of his approach, met him with his forces, but joining battle, was defeated, and fleeing with only a few companions was shut up in the city of Borsippa [the suburb of Babylon, on the S.W.]. Cyrus having taken Babylon, gave directions for the walls outside the city to be destroyed, because the city appeared to him to be very strong, and difficult to take; after which he marched against Borsippa, intending to force Nabonnçdus to surrender. As Nabonnçdus, however, did not await the siege, but delivered himself up beforehand, Cyrus treated him kindly, and giving him Carmania [the country E. of Persia] as a residence, sent him out of Babylonia. Nabonnçdus accordingly spent the rest of his life in that country, and there ended his days.
The two centuries of subjection to Persia (b.c. 538–333), which now followed, may be passed over rapidly. Cyrus continued to reign till b.c. 529,—for the first year or so after his accession in conjunction with his son Cambyses. In his first year (Ezra 1:1) he gave permission to the Jewish exiles to return to Palestine; and a considerable number under Zerubbabel availed themselves of the permission. The nucleus of a restored community was thus formed, which, though it did not realize the ideal glories promised by the great prophet of the exile, the author of Isaiah 40-66, nevertheless gave vitality again, in their ancient home, to the institutions and traditions of the past. Judah became part of a province of the Persian empire, under the authority of the governor (peḥâh) of what, spoken from the Babylonian standpoint, was called ‘the other side of the river’ (עֲבַר נַהֲרָא); and its people, provided they paid their appointed taxes, and did nothing calculated to arouse suspicion upon political grounds, enjoyed full social and religious freedom. The restoration of the Temple under Darius, son of Hystaspes (522–485), the return of a second body of exiles under Ezra in 458, the re-building of the city-walls by Nehemiah in 444, and the reforms introduced by these two leaders, need only be alluded to in passing. The reign of Artaxerxes I (465–425) is followed by a period which, so far as the recorded history of the Jews is concerned, is almost without incident; but under Artaxerxes Ochus (359–339) a revolt of Jews is reported (c. 350), followed by reprisals on the part of the Persians, and the transportation of many captives into Hyrcania and Babylonia, which have been supposed by some recent scholars to have been the occasion of certain prophecies and psalms. In the fourth year of Darius Codomannus (336–333), the Persian empire was brought to its close by the conquests of Alexander the Great.
 Maspero, Passing of the Empires, p. 636. Contract tablets exist dated ‘in the first year of Cyrus king of countries, and of Cambyses king of Babylon,’ or ‘of Cambyses, king of Babylon, in the days of Cyrus, his father, king of countries’: see KB. iv. 261–3, or more fully Prášek, Forschungen zur Gesch. des Alterthumes (1897), i. 25–29, 34–5.
 See L.O.T.6 pp. 222, 246, 321, 389.
 See a summary of these conquests in the note on Daniel 8:5.
It was Alexander’s ambition to build up a world-wide empire, which should be permeated in every part by the spirit and civilization of Greece. Struck down by fever in Babylon, in 323, when even the conquests that he was meditating were still incomplete, he necessarily left this design unrealized: nevertheless, the impulses which he set in motion did not cease to operate with his death, and under his successors, especially those who ruled at Antioch and Alexandria, the diffusion of Greek culture and manners was steadily maintained, and affected Palestine as well as other parts. For the present, however, we may confine ourselves to the political history of Judah during the century and a half which now begins.
 Cf. Ewald, Hist. v. 235–249; Schürer2, ii. 9–50 (§ 22).
Alexander, after his seven months’ siege of Tyre (333), had marched through Palestine, on his way to Egypt, but did not come into hostile collision with the Jews: in fact, though the story of his having offered sacrifice in the Temple is doubtless apocryphal, he treated them with favour, and, according to Josephus (c. Ap. ii. 4), settled many of them as colonists in his new city of Alexandria. The Jews formed an industrious, peace-loving community, which, except when religious fervour stirred them up into rebellion, there was no motive to assail.
 Ewald, v. 214 f.
After Alexander’s death, the fiction of a united empire was still for a while maintained, the generals who ultimately became his heirs being at first administrators of particular provinces under Perdikkas, who acted as regent on behalf of Alexander’s feeble brother, Aridaeus. As it happened, an ambiguous position was taken, almost from the beginning, by Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine; and this, coupled with the fact that these provinces lay on the debateable border-land between the two powerful kingdoms of Syria and Egypt, caused Judah repeatedly to change hands during the century and a half which followed. On the whole, however, except during some brief intervals, Palestine remained subject to Egypt till Antiochus the Great, in 198, defeated the forces of Ptolemy Epiphanes at Paneion (under the foot of Hermon); after this date it passed permanently into the power of Syria. In the preliminary distribution of provinces arranged between Alexander’s generals on the day after his death, Syria was assigned to Laomedon, and Egypt to Ptolemy Lagi. In 321 Perdikkas, having quarrelled with Ptolemy, led an army against him through Palestine, and advanced as far as Pelusium, where, however, he met with a repulse and was defeated. At the convention of Triparadisus, held shortly afterwards in the same year, Laomedon’s title to Syria was confirmed. Ptolemy, however, in direct contravention of this agreement, sent in 320 an expedition through Palestine, and annexed Syria by force of arms. But Ptolemy did not hold it long. Antigonus, the general who had obtained Phrygia, Syria, and Pamphylia, cherished ambitious projects, and in 315 invaded Syria. Ptolemy’s garrisons had to withdraw; and Syria and Palestine remained for the greater part of the next 14 years in the hands of Antigonus, Ptolemy only recovering them for a few months after his victory at Gaza in 312. In the course of the following years a coalition was formed between Seleucus (the satrap of Babylonia), Lysimachus, Cassander, and Ptolemy, for the purpose of checking the advances of Antigonus; and in 302 Ptolemy took possession of Coele-Syria. In the next year (301) Antigonus met his antagonists at Ipsus (in Phrygia), where he was totally defeated and slain. As a result of the victory, Seleucus became master of Syria; but upon his proceeding to occupy Coele-Syria, Ptolemy remonstrated, averring that he had only joined the coalition on the understanding that Coele-Syria was to be his. Seleucus denied this, declaring that not only had he contributed to the victory far more than Ptolemy (who had not been present at the battle at all), but that after the battle it had been agreed by his colleagues, Lysimachus and Cassander, that he should have the whole of Syria. He consented, however, for the present to waive his claim. The dispute thus remained an open one; but, for the time, the rights of possession remained with Ptolemy.
 See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptolemies, p. 66 (an extract from Diod. xxi. 5), p. 254 f. (from Polyb. v. 67).
These repeated occupations of Palestine by foreign armies seem to have been not unaccompanied by hardships for the Jews. On one occasion Ptolemy captured Jerusalem by a sudden attack on the Sabbath, because the Jews refused to fight on that day: he also transported numbers, either as slaves or as compulsory settlers, to Egypt, where, however, recognizing their honesty and fidelity, he employed many in his garrisons, giving them equal rights with the Macedonians in Egypt: after the battle of Gaza, also, many Jews migrated to Egypt voluntarily, attracted partly by the advantages which the country offered them, partly by the kindliness shewn towards them by Ptolemy. These settlements of Jews in Egypt (which, as we have seen, appear to have begun under Alexander) were the nucleus of what ultimately became an extensive and important Jewish colony.
 Jos. Ant, xii. i.; c. Ap. i. 22, ii. 4; cf. Mahaffy, pp. 85–90.
 Cf. Schürer2, ii. 499 ff. (§ 31); more fully ed. 3, iii. 19 ff.
The successors of Ptolemy Lagi were Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–247) and Ptolemy Euergetes I (247–222). Ptolemy Euergetes I, an active, enterprising ruler, in revenge for his sister Berenice’s murder (see on Daniel 11:6), began his reign with a war against Syria, attacking it, however, from the sea, and not by land. Among his successes (cf. Daniel 11:7-8), he took in 246 Seleukeia, the port of Antioch, which remained in the possession of Egypt for some 26 years. Under both these Ptolemies Coele-Syria and Palestine appear to have continued provinces of Egypt. The same two rulers were also favourably disposed towards the Jews: Philadelphus figured in Jewish tradition—rightly or wrongly—as the royal patron, at whose instance the Law was translated into Greek; and Euergetes, after a successful campaign in Syria, was reported to have offered sacrifices of thanksgiving in the Temple at Jerusalem.
 For Philadelphus cf. the lines of Theocritus (xviii. 86 f.).
 Ewald, Hist. v. 283 ff.; Jos. c. Ap. ii. 4. 5. Philo, in a passage (Vit. Mos. § 5) quoted by Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 146, passes a warm encomium on Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Ναὶ μὴν Φοινίκας ἀποτέμνεται Ἀραβίας τε,
Καὶ Συρίας Λιβύας τε κελαινῶν τʼ Λἰθιοπήων.
Cf. Mahaffy, p. 130f.
Under Ptolemy (IV) Philopator (222–205), the prosperity of Egypt began to decline. Philopator, who was aged only 24 at his accession, was a dissolute and indolent king, who thought solely of his own pleasures, and was the prey of intriguing courtiers. His great rival was Antiochus (III), the Great (223–187), who almost as soon as he came to the throne, began taking steps to secure Coele-Syria and Palestine (cf. Daniel 11:10). First, he recovered Seleukeia, which since 246 had been held by an Egyptian garrison. Next Theodotus, the Aetolian, governor of Coele-Syria, ‘despising Ptolemy Philopator for his vices, and mistrusting his court,’ betrayed Coele-Syria and Phoenicia to Antiochus (219). An army sent by Ptolemy in 218 for their recovery was defeated by Antiochus near Lebanon. Antiochus now occupied Palestine; but advancing with a large army to meet Ptolemy, was defeated by him with great loss at Raphia, on the border of Egypt, and obliged to retire to Antioch (217; cf. Daniel 11:11-12). Philopator, in consequence, recovered Coele-Syria and Palestine; and Antiochus, being engaged in wars elsewhere, made no attempt for the time to retrieve his disaster. In 205, however, Philopator died, leaving the throne to his son Ptolemy Epiphanes (205–182), a child four or five years old. Antiochus now formed a league with Philip, king of Macedonia, for the partition of the dominions of Egypt between them (Daniel 11:3-14). In 202 he occupied Coele-Syria and Palestine, and took possession of Jerusalem. An Egyptian army was sent under Scopas, an Aetolian condottiere to recover these provinces; but though successful at first he was in 198 defeated at Paneion (Bâniâs), near the sources of the Jordan, and afterwards, when he had withdrawn to Sidon, obliged to surrender (Daniel 11:15-16). From this time onwards, until the Romans interfered, Palestine remained in the undisturbed possession of the kings of Syria. The sufferings of the Jews during these years were considerable: as Josephus says (Ant. xii. iii. 3), whichever side prevailed for the time, their country was burdened by the presence in it of an invading army; and many in addition were either carried off as slaves, or took refuge in flight. In the end, however, the Jews gave their support to Antiochus, welcomed his troops into Jerusalem, and assisted in the ejection of the Egyptian garrison which had been left in the citadel by Scopas. In return for this support, Antiochus, in a letter written to his general Ptolemy, directed many privileges to be granted to them: contributions were to be made, on a liberal scale, towards defraying the expenses both of the regular sacrifices, and of the repair of the Temple, till the country should have recovered its losses (cf. on Daniel 11:14).
In 193 Antiochus gave the taxes of Coele-Syria and Palestine as a dowry to his daughter, Cleopatra, on her marriage to Ptolemy Epiphanes (Daniel 11:17). This grant of Antiochus became before long the occasion of serious disputes between Egypt and Syria, but it made no difference in the position of the two subject provinces: they continued to be held by Syria. Three years afterwards, in 190, Antiochus was utterly defeated at Magnesia by the Romans (Daniel 11:18): humiliating conditions of peace were imposed; and Antiochus was bound to pay for 12 years an annual fine of 1000 talents, his son Antiochus and other hostages being sent to Rome as security for his observance of the terms of the treaty. In 187 Antiochus was succeeded by his son Seleucus (IV) Philopator (187–175). The reign of this prince was uneventful; the only incident in it which need be here mentioned is the attempt made by him to replenish his empty treasuries by sending his chief minister, Heliodorus, on an abortive mission to pillage the Temple (see on Daniel 11:20).
Seleucus Philopator was murdered in 175 in consequence of a conspiracy headed by Heliodorus, who aspired to the throne. Heliodorus did not, however, attain his ambition: Antiochus, the brother of Seleucus, after having been for 14 years a hostage in Rome, had just been exchanged for Seleucus’ son, Demetrius, and was at Athens on his way home when he heard of his brother’s fate: hastening back at once to Antioch, he succeeded, with the help of Eumenes, King of Pergamum, and his brother Attalus, in expelling Heliodorus and securing the throne for himself (cf. Daniel 11:21, and p. 207 f.).
Antiochus, who afterwards assumed the title Epiphanes, is, in the later chapters of the Book of Daniel, the principal figure. He was a strange character,—a man of ability, though with a taint of folly and madness in his veins. On the one hand he was ambitious, arbitrary, and determined. He laid deep designs, and had a remarkable power of concealing them. During the years spent by him as hostage at Rome, he was well received, and moved in the best circles of Roman society; the consequence was that he contracted a taste for Western habits and ideas, and also for Western luxuries. He was munificent, and even lavish: he shewed, in Livy’s words, a truly ‘regal mind’ in the gifts made by him to Greek cities and temples: he also greatly improved his capital, Antioch: he added a new quarter to it; he adorned it with numerous copies of the principal masterpieces of Greek sculpture: he erected magnificent temples both in Antioch, and in its suburb Daphne; and even introduced gladiatorial shows (Livy xli. 20). But he courted popularity to an excessive degree. Polybius, in a well-known passage, describes how, putting off his royal robes, he would wander alone through the streets of Antioch, now discussing questions of art in the goldsmiths’ shops, now offering himself as a candidate for some public office, and entreating people to vote for him, while at other times, again, he might be seen making unexpected presents to utter strangers, startling a party of boon companions by rushing in upon them with a band of music, or bathing with the townspeople in the public bath. His behaviour was at times so undignified and extraordinary that men doubted even whether he was altogether sane, and instead of ‘Epiphanes’ he was called ‘Epimanes’ (Madcap). To the Jews, on account of the determined effort made by him to denationalize them and heathenize their religion, he appeared simply as a persecuting tyrant and monster of iniquity; and though other features of his character are alluded to (Daniel 8:23; Daniel 11:21-30 a, 39), it is this aspect of it which is chiefly delineated in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:25; Daniel 8:9-12; Daniel 8:23-25; Daniel 9:26-27; Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30 b–38; Daniel 12:7 b, 11).
 This title does not mean ‘illustrious,’ but ‘manifest’; and implies that the bearer of it claimed to be a visible god. There was a Ptolemy ‘Epiphanes’ in Egypt (205–182 b.c.), who was also called θεὸς ἐπιφανής (Mahaffy, pp. 290, 315, 316, 317, &c.). See below (p. 193) the titles of Antiochus, as borne by him on his coins.
 Cf. p. 177, note.
 Cf. p. 183, note.
 xxvi. x. 3 ff. (preserved in Athen. v. 21, p. 193 f.); cf. Athen. x. 52, Diod. xxix. 32. It is translated in Montefiore’s Bible for Home Reading, ii. 660 f.
The principal public events in Antiochus’s reign referred to in Daniel are (1) his expeditions against Egypt; and (2) his treatment of the Jews. The former may be dealt with briefly here: fuller particulars will be found in the note on Daniel 11:21. Ptolemy Epiphanes had died in 182, and his widow, Cleopatra (Antiochus’s sister), in 173, leaving as heir to the throne Ptolemy Philometor, a boy 14 or 15 years old, who was, of course, nephew to Antiochus Epiphanes. The youthful king having been induced by his ministers to take steps for the recovery of Coele-Syria, Antiochus determined to forestall him: in 170 he led an army into Egypt, defeated Ptolemy’s forces at Pelusium, and obtaining possession of his nephew’s person, occupied the country,—ostensibly, on his nephew’s behalf, in reality with the view of securing it for himself. In spite, however, of the presence in Egypt of Antiochus’s troops, Philometor’s younger brother, Ptolemy Physcon (afterwards Ptolemy Euergetes II), was proclaimed king in Alexandria. This gave Antiochus an excuse for resuming military operations, under the pretence of restoring Philometor to his lawful rights: he accordingly laid siege to Alexandria, but finding himself unable to take it, returned home to Syria, leaving Philometor nominal king at Memphis, and stationing a large garrison at Pelusium (cf. Daniel 11:25-28). The garrison left at Pelusium opened Philometor’s eyes: a reconciliation between the two brothers was soon effected, and Philometor was received into Alexandria. This led to Antiochus’s ‘third’ campaign in Egypt (168), which was brought to an abrupt termination by the intervention of the Romans; Antiochus, when within four miles of Alexandria, being met by the Roman legate, Q. Popilius Laenas, and peremptorily commanded to leave the country (Daniel 11:29-30 a).
 On the question whether or not this was a second invasion of Egypt, see the note on Daniel 11:27 (p. 185).
The policy of Antiochus towards the Jews was not, at least in its origin, the outcome of any particular hostility towards their religion: it was simply a corollary of the plan which he had conceived of unifying the various peoples of his empire by bringing them all under the influence of Hellenic civilization. ‘His reign, his political rôle, and even the types of his coins, cannot be properly understood, unless account is taken of the fact that this prince was profoundly Hellenized, and that he exerted himself, without intermission and without scruple, to transplant Hellenic culture into Syria.’ His plan was not entirely out of harmony with feeling in Judah. For some time past,—probably indeed from the peaceful years of the earlier Ptolemies,—Greek influences had been making their way into Judah, and had found a home among the educated classes. Alexander himself, in furtherance of his scheme alluded to above, of creating a Hellenic world-empire, had founded Greek cities in several of the countries conquered by him; and under his successors Greek colonies were established in Palestine, and Greek colonists found their way thither. Many Jews also, as we have seen (p. xxxv), settled in Egypt; and the intercourse which was kept up in consequence between the two countries formed another channel by which Western influences would find entrance into Judah. Under Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–247) parts of the O. T. were (in Egypt) translated into Greek: the Greek language became known in Judah—the grandson of Ben-Sira, who translated his grandfather’s gnomic work into Greek, was a native of Palestine; and Greek ideas and Greek customs were no longer unfamiliar in Jewish circles.
 Babelon, Les Rois de Syrie, p. xcii.
 Cf. Ewald, Hist. v. 244–267.
The effect of this influx of new ideas into Judah was to emphasize parties there. On the one hand, since the return from Babylon, attention had more and more been concentrated by the Jews on their sacred books, especially on the Law, which had been made into an absolute rule of conduct, and the principles of which had been,—or at least, were being,—gradually systematized into a code governing every department of life. Though this devotion to the Law had its dangers, and in fact (as allusions in the N. T., and the Mishna, shew) degenerated ultimately into a barren ceremonialism, this was not its effect upon the more spiritually-minded Israelites; and the Psalms, many of which (especially those in the later books) certainly date from this period, shew what a real and profound piety prevailed among the religious section of the people. On the other hand, among the more worldly-minded, it became a fashion to adopt ostentatiously Greek customs: Hebrew names were exchanged for Greek, Joshua or Jesus became Jason, Eliakim became Alkimos; an influential and growing Hellenizing party sprang up, who made it their aim to obliterate the distinctive characteristics of their nation. Naturally innovations such as these intensified the rigour of the opposite or conservative party, and led them to cling together the more closely for the purpose of maintaining the integrity of their national institutions; and the crisis was precipitated by the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Jesus, or, as he preferred to call himself, Jason, brother of the high-priest, Onias III, was the principal leader of the Hellenizing party; and by means of a large bribe, induced Antiochus not only to depose his brother and confer the vacant office upon himself, but also to grant permission for a ‘gymnasium,’ or exercise-ground, to be constructed in Jerusalem, in which the Jewish youths might emulate the Greeks in athletic contests, and to bestow the citizenship of Antioch upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem (175 or 174 b.c.). ‘And when the king had given assent, and he had gotten possession of the office, he forthwith brought over them of his own race to the Greek fashion. And setting aside the royal ordinances of special favour to the Jews …, he brought in new customs forbidden by the Law: for he eagerly established an exercise-ground under the citadel itself, and caused the noblest of the young men to wear the (Greek) cap [the petasus, a broad-brimmed hat, such as appeared on statues of Hermes, the patron-god of the palaestra]. And thus there was an extreme of Greek fashions, and an advance of an alien religion, by reason of the exceeding profaneness of Jason, that ungodly man and no high-priest,’ so that even the priests, it is said, leaving their sacrificial duties unfinished, hastened down from the Temple-court to take part in the spectacle, as soon as they heard the signal for throwing the discus, with which the games were opened (2Ma 4:7-14; cf. 1Ma 1:11-15).
Jason continued high-priest for three years (till 172 or 171); and under his patronage, the Hellenizing Jews naturally became bolder. At the end of this time, one Menelaus, an unscrupulous adventurer, whom Jason had employed as his agent to carry the promised money to Antiochus, outbid his master, got him expelled from the high-priesthood, and secured the office for himself. Jason fled across the Jordan, and took refuge with the Ammonites: Menelaus, who is described as ‘having the passion of a cruel tyrant, and the rage of a savage beast’ (2Ma 4:25), stole some of the vessels of the Temple for the purpose of meeting his obligations to Antiochus, and when rebuked by the late high-priest for sacrilege was said to have procured his murder (see on Daniel 9:26). The sacrileges of Menelaus occasioned riots in Jerusalem: he was arraigned before Antiochus at Tyre, but managed by judicious bribery to get himself liberated, and his accusers condemned. Menelaus consequently remained for the time in power (2Ma 4:43-50). Soon afterwards a rumour reached Palestine that Antiochus had been killed in Egypt; and Jason, thinking that now his opportunity had come for recovering his position in Jerusalem, attacked the city with 1000 men, shut up Menelaus in the citadel, and slew many of the citizens, but was obliged before long to retire. Antiochus, thinking Judaea to be in revolt (2Ma 5:11), and (Jos. B. J. i. 1) invited also by Menelaus and his friends, on his return from Egypt in 170 made a détour by way of Jerusalem: the gates of the city were opened to him by Hellenizing sympathisers within (Jos. Ant. xii. v. 3); he led his army in, slew many of the inhabitants, under the guidance of Menelaus ‘entered presumptuously into the sanctuary,’ and carried away most of its golden vessels, as well as whatever other valuables he found in it: having done this, he proceeded home to Antioch, leaving, as governors in Jerusalem, Menelaus, and a Phrygian, named Philip, described as being ‘more barbarous than him that set him there’ (1Ma 1:20-28; 2Ma 5:11-16; 2Ma 5:21-23 : cf. Jos. ll. cc.; Daniel 11:28 b).
Two years afterwards, in 168, after his final withdrawal from Egypt, partly perhaps through disappointment at his failure to secure that country, partly on account of reports received from his Hellenizing friends in Jerusalem (cf. Daniel 11:30), Antiochus sent Apollonius, a ‘chief collector of tribute,’ who, pretending that his intentions were peaceable, surprised the city on a sabbath-day: a massacre took place in the streets: numbers of women and children were sold into slavery; many of the houses and fortifications were demolished; and a Syrian garrison was established in the citadel overlooking the Temple, for the purpose of controlling and overawing the city. The immediate result was that many of those who had escaped massacre or servitude took to flight, and their places were filled by strangers (1Ma 1:29-40). In the pathetic, semi-poetical words of 1 Macc., ‘And the inhabitants of Jerusalem fled because of them; and she became a habitation of strangers; and she became strange to them that were born in her, and her own children forsook her. Her sanctuary was laid waste like a wilderness, her feasts were turned into mourning, her sabbaths into reproach, her honour into contempt’ (1Ma 1:38-39).
Soon after this, Antiochus adopted energetic measures to give effect to his scheme for the religious unification of his empire, ‘that all should be one people, and that each should forsake his own laws’ (ib. 1Ma 1:41). Jerusalem, and the Jewish people, were to be completely Hellenized. All practices of the Jewish religion were to be prohibited under pain of death; the Temple was to be transformed into a sanctuary of Zeus Olympios (2Ma 6:2); altars dedicated to heathen gods were to be set up, not only in Jerusalem, but also in the country towns of Judah; the Jews were to be compelled to sacrifice upon them, and also to eat of food ceremonially ‘unclean’; and officers were appointed to see that all these injunctions were duly carried out (1Ma 1:41-53). On the 15th of Chisleu (Dec.) b.c. 168, an ‘abomination of desolation,’ i.e. a small heathen altar, was erected upon the altar of burnt-offering, and on the 25th of the same month the first sacrifices were offered upon it (1Ma 1:54; 1Ma 1:59; see further the notes on Daniel 11:31). Books of the Law were burnt; and women who had their children circumcised were put to death. Many of the Jews, it is added, conformed to the requirements of Antiochus (1Ma 1:43-61; cf. Daniel 11:30 b–32 a).
The distress among the loyal Jews was naturally intense. Many, as has been already mentioned, had abandoned their homes in the city, when Apollonius took possession of it: others now followed their example, taking refuge in hiding-places in the country (1Ma 1:53; cf. 1Ma 2:29-31). The dirge over the desolation of Jerusalem, placed in the mouth of Mattathias (1Ma 2:7-13), no doubt represents truly the feelings of faithful Jews at the time. Nevertheless, they were quite determined, even at the risk of their lives, not to yield to the demands of Antiochus. The consequence was that there were numerous martyrdoms (1Ma 1:62-63; 1Ma 2:31-38, etc.: Daniel 11:32 b, Daniel 11:33; Daniel 11:35). But the ‘little help’ (Daniel 11:34) before long appeared (167). The brave Mattathias, a priest, resident at Modin, a town about 18 miles N.W. of Jerusalem, when ordered by the king’s commissioner to do sacrifice, stoutly refused, and slew both an apostate Jew who came forward to do it in his stead, and the king’s officer as well. The flame of revolt soon spread. The national party, who were now known as the ḥasîdîm or ‘godly’ (1Ma 2:42; 1Ma 7:13; 2Ma 14:6), rallied round Mattathias and his five sons, and organized themselves for concerted action. At first they remained on the defensive, fleeing to the mountains, and taking refuge in inaccessible hiding-places. In one case, a party of 1000 allowed themselves to be cut off without resistance, rather than profane the sabbath by fighting. But as their numbers increased they grew bolder, and began soon to assume the aggressive. Traversing the country, they destroyed heathen altars, enforced circumcision, and hunted down apostates. In 167 Mattathias died, after exhorting his sons, in a parting charge, to continue the struggle bravely (1 Maccabees 2).
 The word is a frequent one in the Psalms (as Psalm 4:3; Psalm 12:1; A.V., R.V. often ‘saints’); and in some of the later ones (as Psalm 116:15, Psalm 149:1; Psalm 149:5; Psalm 149:9) may denote the same party. It is the party which developed ultimately into that of the ‘Pharisees’ (פְּרוּשִׁים, ‘separated ones,’ or, as we should say, ‘separatists’): see Schürer2, ii. 334 f. (§ 26).
His son Judas, the ‘Maccabee,’ a man of singular ability and strength of character, assumed now the leadership of the patriotic party. His enterprises were almost uniformly successful. Within a year, he defeated and slew the two Syrian generals, Apollonius and Seron, who had successively invaded Judah (1Ma 3:10-24). Exasperated by these disasters, Antiochus (166) entrusted his general, Lysias, with half of his entire army, commissioning him to extirpate entirely the Jewish nation, and to people their land with strangers (1Ma 3:34-36). But his efforts were of no avail: though Lysias despatched against Judah an army of 4000 infantry, and 7000 cavalry, under three generals, they were discomfited by Judas, with great loss, at Emmaus (15 m. W.N.W. of Jerusalem); and when, in the following year (165), he took the command in person with an army of 65,000 men, he met with no better fortune, but was defeated at Beth-zur (16 m. S.S.W. of Jerusalem), and returned to Antioch (1Ma 4:1-35). As a consequence of these successes, the Jews were in a position to restore the ‘desolated’ sanctuary,—the gates, it is said, were burnt, the priests’ chambers pulled down, and shrubs were growing in the courts,—and to re-dedicate the altar. 1Ma 4:36-60 describes how this was done, amid great rejoicings, on the 25th of Chisleu (Dec.), 165, exactly three years after the first heathen sacrifices had been offered upon it. The heathen neighbours of Judah, Idumaeans, Ammonites, and others, were jealous of these successes, and ‘took counsel to destroy the race of Jacob’: but Judas and his brother Simon took the field against them (164), and gained important victories in Galilee and Gilead, and smaller successes in Idumaea and Philistia (1 Maccabees 5). In the same year (164), Antiochus, who had made an expedition into the far East for the purpose of replenishing his exchequer (1Ma 3:28-31; 1Ma 3:37), died, somewhat suddenly, at Tabae (a little S.E. of Ecbatana), after a futile attempt to rob a temple in Elymais (1Ma 6:1-16; see also the not on p. 197). Lysias made another determined effort to stamp out the rebellion in Judah, and succeeded in capturing the fortress of Beth-zur; but being anxious, for political reasons, to get back to Antioch, he agreed to sign a treaty with the Jews, granting them complete religious freedom (1Ma 6:55-61). The war did not indeed end yet; but it was henceforth a war for merely civil independence: the religious liberties of the Jews were now secure.
 ote In Daniel, however, it is to be noted, it is the Egyptian king with whom the attack begins.
§ 3. Authorship and Date
 The following pages are adapted, with some additions and modifications of form, from the writer’s Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, chap. xi.
It used formerly to be assumed as a matter of course that the Book of Daniel was written by Daniel himself,—and there are still scholars who, upon apologetic grounds, defend this opinion. A careful survey, however, of the facts presented by the book, in the light of the larger knowledge which recent years have brought, shews that this position is not really a tenable one. Internal evidence demonstrates, with a cogency that cannot be resisted, that the Book of Daniel must have been written not earlier than c. 300 b.c., and in Palestine; and there are considerations which make it highly probable that it was, in fact, composed during the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, between b.c. 168 and 165.
i. The following are facts of a historical nature which point, more or less decisively, to an author later than Daniel himself:—
1. The position of the Book in the Jewish Canon, not among the prophets, but in the miscellaneous collection of writings, called the Kethûbîm, or ‘Hagiographa.’ The Jewish Canon consists of three distinct parts: (1) the Tôrâh or Pentateuch; (2) the Prophets (consisting of the ‘Former Prophets,’ i.e. Josh., Judg., Sam., Kings, and the ‘Latter Prophets,’ i.e. Is., Jer., Ezek., and the 12 Minor Prophets); and (3) the Kethûbîm, or ‘Hagiographa,’ comprising (according to the order adopted in ordinary Hebrew Bibles) Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the five Megilloth (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. This is the manner in which the books of the O. T. are arranged in both MSS. and printed editions; and though little definite is known respecting the formation of the Canon, there are strong reasons for thinking that the threefold division represents three stages in the collection and canonization of the sacred books of the O. T.,—the Pent. being canonized first, then the ‘Prophets’ (in the Jewish sense of the expression), and lastly the Kethûbîm. The collection of the ‘Prophets’ could hardly have been completed before the third century b.c.; and had the Book of Daniel existed at the time, and been believed to be the work of a prophet, it is difficult not to think that it would have ranked accordingly, and been included with the writings of the other prophets.
 There are slight differences in Heb. MSS. in the order in which the books comprising both the Latter Prophets and the Hagiographa are arranged (see L.O.T.6 p. ii; or more fully Ryle, Canon of the O. T. pp. 219–234, 281 f., ed. 2, pp. 230–246, 292 ff.); but no book belonging to one division of the Canon is ever found in another.
 Ryle, l. c. pp. 106–113 (ed. 2, pp. 117–124); cf. p. 120 f. (131 f.).
The Canon of Melito (Euseb. iv. 26) does not bear witness to a different arrangement of the Heb. Bible: as (amongst other things) the Septuagint titles shew, it merely enumerates the Hebrew books in the order in which they were current in the Greek O. T. (Ryle, pp. 214, 218 f., ed. 2, pp. 225, 229 f.).
2. Jesus, the son of Sirach (writing c. 200 b.c.), in his enumeration of famous Israelites, Sirach 44-50, though he mentions Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and (collectively) the Twelve Minor Prophets, is silent as to Daniel. In view of the remarkable distinctions attained by Daniel, and the faculties displayed by him, according to the Book, the statement in Sir 49:15 that no man had ever been born ‘like unto Joseph,’ seems certainly to suggest that the writer was unacquainted with the narratives respecting Daniel.
3. That Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, and carried away some of the sacred vessels in ‘the third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel 1:1-2), though it cannot, strictly speaking, be disproved, is at least doubtful: not only is the Book of Kings silent, but Jeremiah, in the following year (Jeremiah 25:9 ff., see v. 1), as also in Jehoiakim’s fifth year (Jeremiah 36:29, see v. 9), speaks of the Chaldaeans in terms which seem to imply that their arms had not yet been seen in Judah (see further the note on Daniel 1:1).
The following table exhibits the chronology of the period:—
 The names of the months are given in their Hebraized forms.
Twenty-first year of Nabopolassar.
Approximate date of the battle of Carchemish.
Accession of Nebuchadnezzar (the first contract-tablet of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, at present known, is dated Tammuz 14 in the ‘beginning of his reign,’ i.e. his accession-year [see on Daniel 2:1]: Winckler, Alttest. Untersuchungen, 1892, p. 81; KB iv. 181).
 B. Eb. Schrader, Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (transliterations and translations of Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions), 1889–1900.
Fourth year of Jehoiakim
First year of Nebuchadnezzar,
The Babylonian year began in spring (with Nisan), the Jewish year (probably) in autumn (with the month called by the Babylonians Tishri). The fourth year of Jehoiakim would be most naturally equated with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1) in the manner suggested. It is consequently doubtful whether the date in Jeremiah 46:2 is correct: it may be a gloss, added to the text of Jeremiah upon the assumption that Nebuchadnezzar was already king when he won the battle of Carchemish. If the scheme given above is correct, the battle of Carchemish will have taken place in Jehoiakim’s third year; but there remains the doubt (see below, p. 2 f.) whether, following it in the same year, there was really any ‘siege’ of Jerusalem.
 Nowack, Hebr. Archäologie (1894), i. 219. Cf. also Tiele, Bab.-Ass. Gesch. (1886), pp. 439–41; Hommel, Gesch. Bab. u. Ass. (1885), pp. 752–5.
4. The ‘Chaldaeans’ (Kasdim) are synonymous in Dan. (Daniel 1:4, Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:4-5, etc.) with the class of wise men. This sense ‘is unknown in the Ass.-Bab. language, and, wherever it occurs, has formed itself after the end of the Babylonian empire; it is thus an indication of the post-exilic composition of the book’ (Schrader, KAT, p. 429). It dates in fact from a time when ‘Chaldaean’ (the name of the ruling caste in Babylonia under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar) had become synonymous with ‘Babylonian’ in general, and when substantially the only ‘Chaldaeans’ known were either, as in Herodotus’s time, members of the priestly class, or, as in the later classical period, itinerant astrologers and fortune-tellers (cf. p. 12 ff.). Prof. Sayce writes: ‘In the eyes of the Assyriologist the use of the word Kasdim in the Book of Daniel would alone be sufficient to indicate the date of the work with unerring certainty.’
 AT. Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.
 Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.
 Monuments, p. 535.
5. Belshazzar is represented as king of Babylon (Daniel 5:1 ff., Daniel 7:1, Daniel 8:1), and Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of throughout ch. 5 (vv. 2, 11, 13, 18, 22) as his father. In point of fact (see above, p. xxx) Nabu-na’id (p. xxvii ff.) was the last king of Babylon; he was a usurper, not related to Nebuchadnezzar; and his father’s name was Nabu-balâṭsu-iḳbi (p. xxvii). Bêl-sharuẓur (i.e. Belshazzar) is mentioned in the inscriptions as his son, the title regularly appended to his name being ‘the king’s son.’ In the ‘Annalistic Tablet’ of Cyrus (see p. xxix) the ‘king’s son’ is mentioned during a series of years as being ‘with the nobles and his soldiers in the country of Akkad’ (North Babylonia): it may thus be supposed that he acted as his father’s general. When at last the troops of Cyrus gained possession of Babylon, Nabu-na’id was taken prisoner: not long afterwards, on the 3rd of Marcheshvan (Oct.), Cyrus himself entered Babylon, and eight days later, on the 11th of Marcheshvan, during the night, the ‘king’s son’ was slain. The inscriptions thus lend no support to the supposition that Bêl-shar-uẓur was his father’s viceroy, or was entitled to be spoken of as ‘king’: according to the best accredited reading of the passage just quoted (p. xxx, not), he was called the ‘king’s son’ to the day of his death. Further, when the Persians (as the same inscription shews) were already in peaceable possession of Babylon, and governors had been appointed in it (ll. 19, 20), it is difficult to understand how Belshazzar, even supposing (what is not in itself inconceivable) that he still held out in the palace, and was slain afterwards in attempting to defend it, could promise and dispense (Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29) honours in his kingdom; or what need there could be for the solemn announcement (Daniel 5:25-28), as of something new and unexpected, that his (or his father’s) kingdom was to be given to the Medes and Persians, when it must have been patent to every one that they were already in possession of it. As regards Belshazzar’s relationship to Nebuchadnezzar, there remains the possibility that Nabu-na’id may have sought to strengthen his position by marrying a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, in which case the latter might be spoken of as Belshazzar’s father (= grandfather, by Heb. usage). None of Nabu-na’id’s inscriptions, however, imply any kind of relationship to Nebuchadnezzar, or trace his descent beyond his father Nabu-balâṭsu-iḳbi; and the terms of ch. 5 produce certainly the impression that in the view of the writer Belshazzar was actually Nebuchadnezzar’s son. The historical situation presupposed by Daniel 5 is not consistent with the testimony of the contemporary monuments. Belshazzar may have distinguished himself, perhaps more than his father Nabu-na’id, at the time when Babylon passed into the hands of the Persians; and hence in the recollections of a later age he may have been pictured as its last king: but he was not styled ‘king’ by his contemporaries (cf. Schrader, KAT on Daniel 5:1-2).
 17 or 18 days, if the correction in l. 12 (p. xxix) is right.
 The supposition, sometimes made, that he was ‘co-regent’ with his father is also destitute of foundation in the inscriptions.
 ote The great temple of Marduk in Babylon.
 Dr Green’s statement (The Canon, p. 63) that Nabu-na’id calls himself ‘descendant’ of Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar, is incorrect. The passage referred to follows the one quoted, p. xxvii, and runs, ‘I am the mighty legate (našparu) of Nebuchadnezzar and Nergal-shar-uẓur, the kings who walked before me. Their people are committed to my hand, their command I transgress not, their mind I obey. Amêl-Marduk, and Lâbashi-Marduk … broke their commands’ (Messerschmidt, p. 29 f.). The passage is in fact evidence that Nabu-na’id could not call himself son (or descendant) of the famous kings whom he names: he was, as Abydenus says (p. xxvii, n. 5), no relation to them; but he claims nevertheless to be in a sense their representative, and to be ruling as their lawful successor, on the ground that he follows out their policy and principles of government, which Amêl-Marduk and Lâbashi-Marduk (see p. xxvii) had deserted (cf. Messerschmidt, p. 22).
 AT. Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.
 Eb. Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., ed. 2, 1883 (translated under the title The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the O.T. 1885, 1888). The references are to the pagination of the original, which is given on the margin of the English translation.
6. Darius, son of Ahasuerus—Ǎḥashwçrôsh, elsewhere the Hebrew form of Xerxes (Pers. Khshayârshâ)—a Mede, after the death of Belshazzar, ‘receives the kingdom,’ and is ‘made king over the realm of the Chaldaeans’ (Daniel 5:31, Daniel 9:1; cf. Daniel 6:1 ff., Daniel 11:1).
It has been disputed what sense is to be attached to these expressions, and whether Darius the Mede, according to the representation of the Book, is an independent sovereign (Bevan, p. 20; al.), or merely a viceroy with ‘delegated royalty’ (Hengst., Keil, Pusey, p. 122 f.). Certainly, if Daniel 5:31 and Daniel 9:1 be read under the presupposition that Cyrus was conqueror of Babylon, it is natural to suppose that it was he from whom Darius ‘received the kingdom,’ and by whom he was ‘made king’; but Cyrus is not mentioned in this connexion in the Book itself: the Medes are mentioned regularly (Daniel 5:28; Daniel 5:6 &c.) before the Persians, as though in the view of the writer they were the more important people; and according to the representation of the Book (see on Daniel 2:39 and Daniel 5:31), the Persian empire (of Cyrus) was preceded by a Median empire: hence it is more natural to suppose that, in the view of the writer, Darius ‘received the kingdom’ from the victors jointly, and was ‘made king,’ either by them, or by God (cf. Daniel 5:28 ‘is given,’ sc. by God). This interpretation agrees with ch. 6, in which Darius unquestionably acts as an independent sovereign, organising (v. 1) the whole kingdom into satrapies, and (v. 25) addressing the entire world as his subjects, exactly as Nebuchadnezzar had done (Daniel 4:1); while (v. 29) his ‘reign’ is succeeded by the ‘reign’ of Cyrus the Persian. At all events, if the ‘kingdom,’ received by him in Daniel 5:28, was conferred upon him by Cyrus, he must have been ‘made king’ by him in as full a sense as Jehoiakim, for instance, was ‘made king’ by Pharaoh Necho, or Zedekiah by Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 23:34; 2 Kings 24:17).
 Prof. Bevan (p. 20) points to an example in Syriac, in which the same words, ‘received the kingdom,’ are used of the accession of the Emperor Julian.
There seems, however, to be no room for such a ruler: for according to all other authorities, Cyrus is the immediate successor of Nabu-na’id, and the ruler of the entire Persian empire.
The following are the principal identifications that have been proposed of ‘Darius the Mede.’ Four kings of the Medes are known to us from Herodotus (i. 96–130), viz. Deioces (699–646), Phraortes (646–624), Cyaxares (624–584), and Astyages (584–549), whose reign was brought to a close, as described above (p. xxx), by Cyrus. ‘Darius the Mede,’ now, has been supposed to be (1) Cyaxares (II),—according to Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, a son of Astyages, and his successor on the throne of Media (Joseph. Ant. x. xi. 4; Häv., Hengst, Keil., al.). According to Xenophon this Cyaxares assisted Cyrus in his military preparations, and after his conquest of Babylon was assigned a palace in the city; at the same time he also made Cyrus his heir, by giving him his daughter in marriage. ‘It appears to be a fatal objection to this hypothesis that the only direct evidence for the existence of a second Cyaxares is that of Xenophon’s romance. Herodotus, on the other hand, expressly states that Astyages was the last king of the Medes, and that he died without leaving any male issue (i. 109, 127–130)’ (Westcott, in Smith, DB.1 s.v. 1 Darius). (2) Another opinion is that ‘Darius the Mede’ may have been Astyages (Niebuhr, Westcott): it is pointed out that it would have been quite in accordance with Cyrus’s usual magnanimity to treat his vanquished foe with respect, and it would have been good policy on his part to gratify his Median subjects by making the son of Cyaxares viceroy in Babylon. A younger brother, or a nephew, of Astyages, or an otherwise unknown Median prince, whom Cyrus may have appointed under-king in Babylon, while he himself was completing his conquests elsewhere, have also been suggested (cf. Pusey, pp. 126, 128).
 See further, on these hypotheses, Kuenen, Einl. ii. § 90. 3.
It is, however, far from apparent why Astyages (who is regularly known by this name) should, especially by a contemporary (as is supposed by those who adopt this view), be called ‘Darius’; and in point of fact, if Cyrus made any one ‘king’ in Babylon, it was his son Cambyses, who, in certain inscriptions of his first year (p. xxxii), is named conjointly with himself. And Cambyses was neither ‘Darius,’ nor a ‘Mede.’ Contemporary monuments, though they do not indeed shew that a Median, named ‘Darius,’ did not exist, shew that, if he existed, he could not have occupied the position assigned to him in the Book of Daniel; he could not have acted as ‘king’ in Babylon. If it be supposed that he was merely a governor, this is inconsistent with the representation of the Book of Daniel: if he was a ‘king,’ this is inconsistent with the testimony of the inscriptions, which allow no room for such a ‘king’ at this time.
 This is particularly clear from the contract-tablets, which have been discovered recently in such numbers (see KB. iv. passim), and which, bearing date at this period almost continuously, pass from the 10th of Marcheshvan, in the 17th year of Nabu-na’id, to the 24th of the same month in the accession-year of Cyrus: comp. Sayce, Monuments, pp. 522 f., 528; Strassmaier, Babyl. Texte, i. (1887), p. 25, vii. (1890), p. 1; and the translations in KB. iv. 255 (No. lviii), and 259 (No. ii).
How the figure of ‘Darius the Mede’ arose, must remain matter of conjecture; it seems, however, clearly to be connected with the unhistorical idea of a ‘Median’ empire, intervening between the Chaldaean and the Persian, implied elsewhere in the Book of Daniel (see on Daniel 2:39). In Daniel 6:1 the temptation to suspect a confusion with Darius Hystaspis (the successor of Cambyses), b.c. 522–485, who actually organized the Persian empire into ‘satrapies,’ though much fewer than 120,—is strong. Tradition, it can hardly be doubted, has here confused persons and events in reality distinct (Behrmann, p. xix): ‘Darius the Mede’ must be a ‘reflection into the past’ of Darius Hystaspis, father—not son—of Xerxes (‘Ahasuerus,’ ix. 1), who had twice to reconquer Babylon from the hands of rebels, and who established the system of satrapies, combined, not impossibly, with indistinct recollections of Gubaru, who first occupied Babylon on Cyrus’s behalf, and who, in appointing governors there (p. xxx), appears to have acted as Cyrus’s deputy.
 See the note on Daniel 6:1.
 Behistun Inscr. (RP.1 i. 111 ff.), i. 16–ii. 1 (cf. Hdt. iii. 150–9); iii. 13, 14; see also Rawlinson, Anc. Mon.4 iii. 410 f., 414.
 Comp. Sayce, Monuments, pp. 524–537. The statement of Harpocration and Suidas (Prince, p. 49 n.) that the name of the coin ‘darik’ (δαρεικός) was derived from a king ‘Darius,’ though not Darius Hystaspis, but an earlier king of that name, has been supposed to be indirect testimony to the historical character of Darius the Mede; but its correctness is, upon philological grounds, extremely questionable (see Prince, p. 265).
7. In Daniel 9:2 it is stated that Daniel ‘understood by the books (בַּסְּפָרִים)’ the number of years, during which, according to Jeremiah, Jerusalem should lie waste. The expression used implies that Jeremiah’s prophecies formed part of a collection of sacred books, which, nevertheless, it may be safely affirmed, was not the case in 538 b.c.
 Cf. Ryle, Canon of the O. T., p. 104 ff.
8. The incorrect explanation of the name Belteshazzar in Daniel 4:8 is often quoted as evidence that the writer, if not the speaker (Nebuchadnezzar), was ignorant of the Babylonian language; but possibly it is only an assonance, not an etymology (in our sense of the word), which is implied by the king’s words: see the note ad loc.
9. Other indications adduced to shew that the Book of Daniel is not the work of a contemporary, are such as the following:—The improbability that Daniel and his companions, all strict Jews, should have suffered themselves to be initiated into the superstitious arts of the ‘wise men’ (p. 14 ff.), or that he should have been accepted as their president by the ‘wise men’ themselves (ch. 1; cf. Daniel 2:13; Daniel 2:48); the improbability that Nebuchadnezzar should hold all the wise men of Babylon, including Daniel and his three companions, responsible for the failure of some, and condemn them to death even before their skill had been tried (Daniel 2:12-13); Nebuchadnezzar’s seven years’ insanity (‘lycanthropy’), with his public proclamation respecting it (Daniel 4:1-3; Daniel 4:34-37); the absolute terms in which both he and Darius, while retaining, so far as appears, their idolatry, recognize the eternal and universal sovereignty of the God of Israel (Daniel 4:1-3; Daniel 4:34-37; Daniel 6:25-27 : cf. Daniel 2:47, Daniel 3:29). On these and some other similar considerations our knowledge is hardly such as to give us an objective criterion for estimating their cogency. The circumstances alleged will appear improbable, or not improbable, according as the critic, upon independent grounds, has satisfied himself that the Book is the work of a later author, or written by Daniel himself. It might be hazardous to use the statements in question in proof of the late date of the Book; though, if its late date were established on other grounds, it is certainly true that they would be more naturally explained as due to the manner in which the past was viewed by a writer living at some distance from it, than as statements of actual fact authenticated by a contemporary.
 Lenormant felt the latter difficulty so strongly that he regarded the words, or clauses, in Daniel 2:48, Daniel 4:9, Daniel 5:11-12, which attributed this position to Daniel, as interpolated (La Divination chez les Chaldéens, 1875, p. 219 f.). This, however, is an expedient of very questionable legitimacy.
Of the arguments that have been here stated, while 8 is doubtful, and 9 should be used with reserve, the rest all possess weight,—particularly 4, 5, and 6. They do not, however, except 2 (which, standing alone, it would be hazardous to press), shew positively that the Book is a work of the second cent. b.c.; but they point with some cogency to the conclusion that it reflects the traditions, and historical impressions, of an age considerably later than that of Daniel himself.
ii. The evidence of the language of Daniel must next be considered.
(1) The number of Persian words in the Book, especially in the Aramaic part, is remarkable.
The number is at least 15, if not more: viz. פרתמים nobles (Daniel 1:3; also Esther 1:3; Esther 6:6), פתבג choice food, delicacy (Daniel 1:5; Daniel 1:8; Daniel 1:13; Daniel 1:15-16, Daniel 11:26), אזדא certain (Daniel 2:5; Daniel 2:8), הדם limb (Daniel 2:5, Daniel 3:29), דת law (Daniel 2:9; Daniel 2:13; Daniel 2:15, Daniel 6:5; Daniel 6:8; Daniel 6:12; Daniel 6:15, Daniel 7:25; also Ezra 8:36, and often in Est.), רז secret (Daniel 2:18-19; Daniel 2:27-30; Daniel 2:47, Daniel 4:9), אחשדרפן satrap (Daniel 3:2-3; Daniel 3:27, Daniel 6:1-4; Daniel 6:6-7; also Ezra 8:36, Esther 3:12; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3), אדרגזר counsel-giver (Daniel 3:2-3), דתבר law-bearer, justice (Daniel 3:2-3), זן kind (Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:7; Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:15; also 2 Chronicles 16:14, Psalm 144:13, Sir 37:28; Sir 49:8 [Heb.]), פתגם message, order, decree (properly something going [i.e. sent] to), even in the weakened sense of word, or thing (Daniel 3:16, Daniel 4:17; also Ezra 4:17; Ezra 5:7; Ezra 5:11; Ezra 6:11, Esther 1:20, Ecclesiastes 8:11), הדבר minister (Daniel 3:24; Daniel 3:27, Daniel 4:36, Daniel 6:7), סרך president (Daniel 6:2-4; Daniel 6:6-7), נדן receptacle, sheath (Daniel 7:15—if the reading be correct; also 1 Chronicles 21:27); אפדן palace, throne-room (Daniel 11:45); probably also נבזבה present (Daniel 2:6, Daniel 5:17), סרבל mantle (Daniel 3:21; Daniel 3:27), and המניך necklace (Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:16; Daniel 5:29). גדבריא (Daniel 3:2-3), and תפתיא (Daniel 3:2-3), are both uncertain.
 For further particulars on most of the following words, see the note on the first occurrence of each.
These words are not Assyrian or Babylonian (as peḥâh, ii. 8, and sâgân, iii. 2, for example, are): they are distinctively Persian. Some of them describe offices or institutions, and are not found elsewhere in the O. T., or occur only in Ezra, Esther, and other late parts of the O. T., written after the establishment of the Persian rule: the mention of ‘satraps’ under Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3:2-3; Daniel 3:27) is alone a remarkable anachronism. Others (as those for law, limb, secret, kind, word) are used exactly as in the later Aramaic, and are of a kind that would not be borrowed by one people from another unless intercourse between them had subsisted for a considerable time. That words such as these should be found in books written after the Persian empire was organised, and when Persian influences prevailed, is not more than would be expected; Persian words (both some of those noted here, and also others) occur in Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, and the Chronicles, and many were permanently naturalised in Aramaic (both Syriac and the Aramaic of the Targums); but that they should be used as a matter of course by Daniel under the Babylonian supremacy, or in the description of Babylonian institutions before the conquest of Cyrus, is in the last degree improbable. The argument is confirmed by the testimony of the Inscriptions. The numerous contract-tablets which have come down to us from the age of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, and which represent the every-day language of commercial life, shew no traces of Persian influence; and if the language of Babylonia was uninfluenced by Persia, that of Israel would be far less likely to be so influenced.
 The attempt made in the Speaker’s Commentary to shew some of these words to be Semitic, is a resort of desperation.
 These books, it will be recollected, contain nothing earlier than c. 450 b.c. (the reign of Artaxerxes); and they are mostly considerably later.
 Cf. Sayce, Monuments, p. 493 f.
(2) Not only, however, does Daniel contain Persian words, it contains at least three Greek words: קיתרם kîtharos, Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:7; Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:15 = κίθαρις; פסנתרין psantçrîn, Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:7 (פסנטרין), 10, 15 = ψαλτήριον; סומפניה sûmpônyâh, Daniel 3:5; Daniel 3:15 (A.V. dulcimer) = συμφωνία. Whatever might conceivably be the case with κίθαρις, it is incredible that ψαλτήριον and συμφωνία can have reached Babylon c. 550 b.c. Anyone who has studied Greek history knows what the condition of the Greek world was in the sixth century b.c., and is aware that the arts and inventions of civilised life streamed then into Greece from the East, not from Greece eastwards. Still, if the instruments named were of a primitive kind, such as the κίθαρις (in Homer), it is just possible—though, in view of the fact that the Semitic languages have their own name for the ‘lyre,’ by no means probable—that it might be an exception to the rule, and that the Babylonians might have been indebted for their knowledge of it to the Greeks; so that, had קיתרם stood alone, it could not, perhaps, have been pressed. But no such exception can be made in the case of ψαλτήριον and συμφωνία, both derived forms, the former found first in Aristotle, the latter first in Plato, and in the sense of concerted music (or, perhaps, of a specific musical instrument) first in Polybius. These words, it may be confidently affirmed, could not have been used in the Book of Daniel unless it had been written after the dissemination of Greek influences in Asia through the conquests of Alexander the Great (cf. pp. xxxiii ff.).
 With ין- for -ιον, as in סנהדרין = συνέδριον, מסטירין = μυστήριον, &c.; and with ת and ט interchanging, as in פיתק and פיטק (πιττάκιον), and other words.
 Cf. סימפניה in the sense of double flute in the Mishna. The form סיפוניה in Daniel 3:10 is remarkably illustrated by ספון = σύμφωνοι, in the sense agreed, in the great bilingual inscription from Palmyra of a.d. 137 (see Lidzbarski, Handbuch der Nord-Semitischen Epigraphik, pp. 330, 467 l. 46, 468 ll. 14, 45). It is difficult to understand why Behrmann (pp. ix–x) should have recourse to a non-existent σιφώνια.
 Cf. Sayce in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 1878, p. 60 ff. Such facts as that a Mytilenaean, the brother of the poet Alcaeus, fought in the ranks of the Babylonians, c. 600 b.c. (Strabo, xiii. ii. 3), or that Psammitichus (b.c. 664–610) introduced Greek settlers and mercenaries into Egypt, are altogether insufficient to make it probable that Greek words could have found their way to Babylon in the sixth cent. b.c.: cf. Whitehouse in the Expos. Times, 1894, March, p. 284 ff., July, p. 474 f.
 And, singularly enough, in his account of the festivities in which Antiochus Epiphanes indulged (xxvi. 10. 5; xxxi. 4. 8); see p. 39 n. In Plato and Aristotle συμφωνία means only harmony.
 The Speaker’s Commentary makes the vain endeavour to prove these three words to be Semitic!
(3) The Aramaic of Daniel (which is all but identical with that of Ezra) is a Western Aramaic dialect, of the type spoken in and about Palestine. It is nearly allied to the Aramaic of the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan; and still more so to the Aramaic dialects spoken E. and S.E. of Palestine, in Palmyra and Nabataea, and known from inscriptions dating from the 3rd cent. b.c. to the 2nd cent. a.d. In some respects it is of an earlier type than the Aramaic of Onkelos and Jonathan; and this fact was formerly supposed to be a ground for the antiquity of the Book. But the argument is not conclusive. For (1) the differences are not considerable, and largely orthographical: the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan did not probably receive their present form before the 4th cent. a.d.: and we are not in a position to affirm that the transition from the Aramaic of Daniel and Ezra to that of the Targums must have required eight or nine centuries, and could not have been accomplished in four or five; (2) recently discovered inscriptions have shewn that many of the forms in which it differs from the Aramaic of the Targums were in use in neighbouring countries, especially in Palmyra and Nabataea, down to the 1st cent. a.d.
 Nöldeke in the Encyclopaedia Britannica9, xxi. 647 b–648 a (= Die Semitischen Sprachen, 1899, pp. 35, 37); Kautzsch, Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram. §§ 1, 2, 6. The idea that the Jews forgot their Hebrew in Babylonia, and spoke in ‘Chaldee’ when they returned to Palestine, is unfounded. Haggai and Zechariah and other post-exilic writers use Hebrew: Aramaic is exceptional. Hebrew was still normally spoken c. 430 b.c. in Jerusalem (Nehemiah 13:24). The Hebrews, after the Captivity, acquired gradually the use of Aramaic from their neighbours in and about Palestine. See, for example, Wright, Compar. Gramm. of the Semitic Languages (1890), p. 16: ‘Now do not for a moment suppose that the Jews lost the use of Hebrew in the Babylonian Captivity, and brought back with them into Palestine this so-called Chaldee. The Aramean dialect, which gradually got the upper hand since 4–5 cent. b.c., did not come that long journey across the Syrian desert; it was there, on the spot; and it ended by taking possession of the field, side by side with the kindred dialect of the Samaritans.’ The term ‘Chaldee’ for the Aramaic of either the Bible or the Targums is a misnomer (due originally to a misunderstanding of Daniel 2:4), the use of which is only a source of confusion. The proper term for the Aramaic of Ezra and Daniel is ‘Biblical Aramaic.’
 They are carefully collected (on the basis, largely, of M‘Gill’s investigations) by Dr Pusey, Daniel, ed. 2, pp. 45 ff., 602 ff. (an interesting lexical point is that the vocabulary agrees sometimes with Syriac against the Targums). But when all are told, the differences are far outweighed by the resemblances; so that relatively they cannot be termed important or considerable. (The amount of difference is much exaggerated in the Speaker’s Commentary, p. 228. The statement in the text agrees with the judgment of Nöldeke, l.c. p. 648 b.)
 Deutsch in Smith’s D. B. iii. 1644, 1652; cf. Dalman, Gramm. des Jüd.-Pal. Aramäisch, pp. 9, 11 (5th cent. a.d.).
 See particulars in the writer’s Introduction, p. 472 f. (ed. 6 or 7, p. 504). Numerous specimens of the inscriptions there referred to may be seen in Lidzbarski’s excellent Handbuch, quoted above, pp. 447, 450 (No. C), 451–5, 457–481.
A particularly clear indication that the Aramaic of Daniel was not that spoken in Babylon in the 5th cent b.c. is afforded by the fact that in the numerous, if brief, Aramaic inscriptions from Nineveh and Babylon which we possess, dating from c. 725 b.c. to the 5th cent., the relative is regularly זי, not, as uniformly in Dan. (and Ezra), די (see the Corpus Inscr. Sem. ii. i. Nos. 1, 2, 3 מנן ׀׀׀ זי ארקא ‘three m’nas of the country’ [Jeremiah 10:11; L.O.T p. 255], 4, 5, 17, 28, 30, &c., esp. No. 65, b.c. 504, Nos. 69–71, b.c. 418, 407, 408, all contract-tablets from Babylon).
 .O.T. S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ed. 6, 1897.
 S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament, ed. 6, 1897.
 Cf. זנא and זא, for the demonstr. pron., in the Inscriptions from Zinjirli, Cilicia, Têma, and Egypt, not, as in Ezr., Dan., Palmyrene, and Nabataean, דנה, דא (Lidzbarski, p. 264; S. A. Cook, Glossary of Aramaic Inscriptions, 1898, pp. 46, 49).
(4) The Hebrew of Daniel is also that of a much later age than the sixth cent b.c. The type of Hebrew which it mostly resembles is not that of Ezekiel, or of Isaiah 40-66, or even of Haggai and Zechariah, but that of Esther, Ecclesiastes (to a certain extent), and especially the Chronicles (c. b.c. 300). The Hebrew of the three last-named books differs in a marked degree from that of all earlier writers, even including those who lived in the early post-exilic period. In vocabulary many new words appear, often of Aramaic origin, occasionally Persian, and frequently such as continued in use afterwards in the ‘New Hebrew’ of the Mishna (200 a.d.), &c.; old words also are sometimes used with new meanings or applications. In syntax, the ease and grace and fluency of the earlier writers (down to at least Zechariah 12-14) have passed away; the style is often laboured and inelegant; and new and uncouth constructions make their appearance. The beginnings of these peculiarities are observable in the ‘memoirs’ of Ezra and Nehemiah (i.e. the parts of Ezra and Neh. which are the work of these reformers themselves); but they become much more numerous afterwards. The three books mentioned above do not, however, exhibit them in equal proportions: Ecclesiastes has the most striking Mishnic idioms: the Chronicler has many peculiarities of his own, and may be said to shew the greatest uncouthness of style; but they agree in the possession of many common (or similar) features, which differentiate them from all previous Hebrew writers (including Zech., Hagg., Mal.), and which recur in them with decidedly greater frequency and prominence than in the memoirs of Ezra and Neh. And the Hebrew of Daniel is of the type just characterised: in all distinctive features it resembles, not the Hebrew of Ezekiel, or even of Haggai and Zechariah, but that of the age subsequent to Nehemiah.
 See the writer’s Introduction, p. 511 ff., (ed. 6 or 7, p. 544 ff.).
 Ibid. p. 444 ff. (474 f.).
 Ibid. p. 502 ff. (535 ff.).
In the writer’s Introduction p. 474 f. (506 f.) will be found a list of upwards of thirty expressions, some found otherwise only in post-Biblical Hebrew, or in Aramaic, others common to the Hebrew of Daniel and that of Chronicles and other late writings, but occurring never, or (in the case of one or two) very rarely, in the earlier literature. For instances of sentences constructed in the later, uncouth style, see Daniel 8:12 ff., Daniel 8:24 ff., Daniel 9:25 ff., Daniel 10:9 b, Daniel 12:11, and the greater part of ch. 11. The only part of the Book in which a better style prevails is the prayer of ch. 9; but here the thought expresses itself almost entirely in phrases borrowed from earlier writings (esp. Deut. and Jer.).
The supposition that Daniel may have unlearnt in exile the language of his youth does not satisfy the requirements of the case: it does not explain, viz., how the new idioms which he acquired should have so exactly agreed with those which appeared in Palestine independently 250 years afterwards. Daniel himself, also, it is probable, would not (unlike both Jer. and Ezek.) have uniformly written the name Nebuchadnezzar incorrectly (see the note on Daniel 1:1).
It is evident that the author is more at home in Aramaic than in Hebrew, and writes it much more idiomatically and fluently. No doubt it was the language which was spoken around him, and which he would use naturally himself (cf. p. lix, not). ‘The recently discovered fragments of the original Hebrew of Ecclesiasticus shew,’ however, ‘that a very fair imitation of classical Hebrew was written in the Greek period’ (W. H. Bennett in A Biblical Introduction, 1899, p. 226). The Heb. style of Daniel is not, however, identical with that of Ben-Sira, any more than it is identical with that of Ecclesiastes. The age was a transitional one; and different writers adopted different styles, according to choice. The author of Ecclesiastes yielded himself largely to the ‘New Hebrew,’ which had already developed considerably, especially in the schools. The author of the book of Daniel wrote sometimes in Hebrew, sometimes in Aramaic: in his Hebrew, like the Chronicler, he writes in imitation of the older Biblical style, though constantly, in idiom and vocabulary, betraying his later date. Ben-Sira did the same, and in some respects with better success than either of these other writers: his general style is decidedly more flowing and idiomatic than theirs, but his vocabulary is marked by a greater proportion of Aramaic and New Hebrew words.
 ote And, singularly enough, in his account of the festivities in which Antiochus Epiphanes indulged (xxvi. 10. 5; xxxi. 4. 8); see p. 39 n. In Plato and Aristotle συμφωνία means only harmony.
It may interest the reader to see Delitzsch’s judgement on this subject (Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie2, s.v. Daniel, p. 470); ‘The Hebrew of Daniel attaches itself here and there to Ezekiel (cf. עת קץ time of the end, Daniel 11:35; Daniel 11:40, Daniel 12:4; Daniel 8:17, with עת עון קץ time of the iniquity of the end, Ezekiel 21:30; Ezekiel 34, Ezekiel 35:5; בן אדם Song of Solomon of man in the address to the seer, Daniel 8:17, as regularly in Ezekiel); and also to Habakkuk (cf. Daniel 11:27; Daniel 11:29; Daniel 11:35, with Habakkuk 2:3); in general character it resembles the Hebrew of the Chronicler, who wrote shortly before the beginning of the Greek period [b.c. 333], and, as compared either with the ancient Hebrew or with the Hebrew of the Mishnah, is full of singularities (Sonderbarkeiten) and harshnesses of style.’
 Delitzsch means that the writer borrows particular expressions from Ezek. He might have added one or two more: as הצבי the beauty, Daniel 8:9, and ארץ הצבי, the land of beauty, Daniel 11:16; Daniel 11:41 (cf. v. 45), of Canaan (comp. Jeremiah 3:19, Ezekiel 20:6; Ezekiel 20:15); נחשת קלל, burnished brass, Daniel 10:6, Ezekiel 1:7; לבוש הבדים, clothed in linen, Daniel 12:6 f., Ezekiel 9:3. The statement in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible (ed. 1) and the Speaker’s Comm. (p. 227), that the language of Daniel bears ‘the closest affinity’ to that of Ezek. is altogether incorrect, and seems indeed to be due merely to a misunderstanding of Delitzsch’s expression in Herzog (ed. 1).
 Comp. Breasted, Hebraica, vii. (1891), p. 246.
The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (b.c. 332). With our present knowledge, this is as much as the language authorizes us definitely to affirm; though συμφωνία, as the name of an instrument (considering the history of the term in Greek), would seem to point to a date somewhat advanced in the Greek period.
(iii) The theology of the Book (in so far as it has a distinctive character) points to a later age than that of the Exile. It is true, this argument has sometimes been stated in an exaggerated form, as when, for instance, it is said that the doctrine of the resurrection, or that of distinctions of rank and office among the angels, is derived from Parseeism, or that the asceticism of Daniel and his companions, and the frequency of their prayers, &c., are traits peculiar to the later Judaism. For exaggerations such as these there is no adequate foundation: nevertheless it is undeniable that the conception of the future kingdom of God, and the doctrines of angels, of the resurrection, and of a judgement on the world, appear in Daniel in a more developed form than elsewhere in the O.T., and exhibit features approximating to (though not identical with) those met with in the Book of Enoch (which was written probably, for the most part, during the century following the rise of the Maccabees). Whether the ‘one like unto a son of man’ in Daniel 7:13 symbolizes the Messiah or the ideal people of Israel (see p. 104 f.), the representation of the judgement upon heathen powers, and of the manner in which the Divine kingdom is inaugurated upon earth (Daniel 7:9-14; Daniel 7:26-27), is unlike any other representation of the same facts contained in the Old Testament: let the reader study, for example, successively Amos 9:9-15; Hosea 1:10 to Hosea 2:1; Hosea 14:4-8; Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 4:2-6; Isaiah 9:1-7; Isaiah 9:11; Isaiah 28:18-24; Isaiah 29:18-24; Isaiah 32:1-8; Jeremiah 23:1-8; Jeremiah 23:31; Jeremiah 23:33; Ezekiel 34:11-31; Ezekiel 36; Isaiah 54, 55, 60; and he can hardly fail to feel that when he comes to Daniel 7 he is in a different circle of ideas: on the other hand, the representation in Daniel (as shewn on pp. 85 f., 106 f.) has many traits resembling those appearing shortly afterwards in the Book of Enoch. Angels, again, have in Daniel ‘special personal names (Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:21, Daniel 12:1), special ranks (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20, Daniel 12:1), and the guardianship of different countries (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20-21). These representations go far beyond those of Ezek., and Zech., and are relatively identical with those of Tobit, and other Jewish writings of the first cent. b.c. Daniel plainly teaches a personal resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked (Daniel 12:2). This also is a decided advance upon the doctrine taught elsewhere in the O.T.… Thus while the determination of the date of an O.T. writing from its religious doctrines is always a delicate procedure, yet, as far as a doctrinal development can be found in the O.T., the Book of Daniel comes after all other O.T. writings, and approximates most closely to the Jewish literature of the first cent. b.c.’
 See further the notes on Daniel 4:13, Daniel 8:16, Daniel 10:13.
 Comp. p. xc ff.
 Curtis in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, i. 554.
Even though there should be no truth in the opinion that these developments have been even partially moulded by foreign influences, they undoubtedly mark a later phase of revelation than that which is set before us in other books of the O.T. And the conclusion to which these special features in the Book point is confirmed by the general atmosphere which breathes in it, and the tone that prevails in it. This atmosphere and tone are not those of any other writings belonging to the period of the Exile: they are those of a stage intermediate between that of the early post-exilic and that of the early post-Biblical Jewish literature.
 Comp. below, p. xciv ff.
A number of independent considerations, including some of great cogency, thus combine in favour of the conclusion that the Book of Daniel was not written earlier than c. 300 b.c. And there are certainly grounds, which though they may not be regarded as demonstrative, except on the part of those who deny all predictive prophecy, nevertheless make the opinion a highly probable one, that the Book is a work of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. The interest of the Book manifestly culminates in the relations subsisting between the Jews and Antiochus. Antiochus, it is admitted on all hands, is the subject of Daniel 8:9-14; Daniel 8:23-25; and, as pointed out on pp. 99 f., there are cogent exegetical reasons for supposing that he is likewise the ‘little horn’ of Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:24-26, and that events of his reign are described in Daniel 9:25-27. The survey of Syrian and Egyptian history in ch. 11 leads up to a detailed description of his reign (vv. 21–45): Daniel 12:6-7; Daniel 12:10-12 revert again to the persecution which the Jews experienced at his hands. This being so, it is certainly remarkable that the revelations respecting him should be given to Daniel, in Babylon, nearly four centuries previously: it is consonant with God’s general methods of providence to raise up teachers, for the instruction or encouragement of His people, at the time when the need arises. It is remarkable also that Daniel—so unlike the prophets generally—should display, as remarked above (p. viii), so little interest in the welfare, or prospects, of his contemporaries; that his hopes and Messianic visions should attach themselves, not (as is the case with Jer., Ezek., Isaiah 40-66) to the approaching return of the exiles to the land of their fathers, but to the deliverance of his people in a remote future. The minuteness of the predictions, embracing even special events in the distant future, is also out of harmony with the analogy of prophecy. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets unquestionably uttered predictions of the future; but their predictions, when definite, relate to events of the proximate future only; when (as in the case of Jeremiah’s prediction of 70 years’ Babylonian supremacy) they concern a more distant future, they are general and indefinite in their terms. And while down to the period of Antiochus’s persecution the actual events are described with surprising distinctness, after this point the distinctness ceases: the closing events of Antiochus’s own life are, to all appearance, not described as they actually occurred (see on Daniel 11:40-45); and when the end of his life has been reached, the prophecy either breaks off altogether (Daniel 8:25, Daniel 9:27), or merges in an ideal representation of the Messianic future (Daniel 7:27, Daniel 12:1-3). Judged by the analogy of other prophecies (e.g. Isaiah 8:1 to Isaiah 9:7; Isaiah 10:5 to Isaiah 11:16), these facts would imply that the author wrote during the period of Antiochus’s persecution itself.
 Cf. p. 193.
 As Isaiah 8:4; Jeremiah 28:16. See more fully the writer’s Sermons on the Old Testament, pp. 107–113. Prophecies relating to the future kingdom of God stand upon a different footing: comp. p. lxxxvii ff.
As a matter of fact, this supposition explains consistently all the features of the Book. The author lives in the age in which he manifests an interest, and which needs the consolations which he has to address to it. He does not write after the persecutions are ended (in which case his prophecies would be pointless), but while they are in progress, when his message of encouragement would have a value for the godly Jews in the season of their trial.
It is hardly possible to fix the actual year in which the book was written; but the inexactness respecting the closing events of Antiochus’ life renders it almost certain that these were still in the future when the author wrote: the general tenor of chs. 9, 11, and 12 makes it improbable that the re-dedication of the Temple had yet taken place (Bevan, p. 129; Kamphausen in the Encycl. Bibl. col. 1013): from the Maccabees being alluded to as a ‘little help’ (Daniel 11:34), it is probable further (Kuenen, Einl. §§ 88. 12; 89. 20) that it was written before Judas’ defeat of Lysias in 165 (1Ma 4:28-35), perhaps (Kuen.) in 166, during the time described in 1Ma 3:1 to 1Ma 4:27. Cf. Ewald, Hist. v. 303, Proph. iii. 301, 308 [E.T. v. 155 f., 163], ‘b.c. 168–167’; Wellh. Isr. u. Jüd. Gesch. p. 252 (ed. 3, p. 246), ‘before b.c. 165.’
 N.B. Kuenen’s dates for this period are consistently lower by a unit than those commonly adopted; so that by b.c. 164, for instance, he means the same year which is commonly called b.c. 165.
The author thus utters genuine predictions: at a moment when the national peril was great, and the very existence of Israel as a nation was threatened (1Ma 3:35-36), he comes forward with words of consolation and hope, assuring his faithful compatriots that the future, like the past and the present, is part of God’s predetermined plan, and that within less than 3½ years of the time at which he speaks, their persecutor will be no more, and the period of their trial will be past. This prediction is exactly on a footing with those of the earlier prophets—of Isaiah, for instance, who says (Isaiah 8:4) that before a child just born can cry Father, and Mother, Damascus will be taken by the king of Assyria; who declares (Isaiah 16:14, Isaiah 21:16) that within three years the glory of Moab, and within one year the glory of Kedar, will both be humbled; and who announces (Isaiah 29:1-5) Jerusalem’s deliverance, within a year, from the siege and distress, which he sees impending; or of the great prophet of the Exile, who, as Cyrus is advancing on his career of conquest (Isaiah 41:2-3; Isaiah 41:25), bids his people not be in alarm (Isaiah 41:8-11, &c.), the successes of Cyrus are part of God’s providential plan (Isaiah 41:2; Isaiah 41:4; Isaiah 41:25), and will issue in the deliverance of Israel from exile (Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:4; Isaiah 45:13).
 Comp. especially Daniel 8:25 end with the event.
 On the manner in which the Book of Daniel, like the earlier prophets, represents the kingdom of God as beginning immediately after the coming deliverance, see below, p. lxxxix.
The historical features of the Book are also explained consistently by means of the same supposition. In some respects it preserves the memory of genuine historical facts: in other respects, it exhibits confused and inaccurate traditions, such as might easily be current in an age later than that of Daniel himself. Nebuchadnezzar was actually the builder of Babylon, and the words placed in his mouth in Daniel 4:30 are, as Prince observes, in entire accordance with historical fact; Belshazzar was a real person, whose lifetime is correctly placed at the close of the Babylonian empire; there was in all probability an actual plain of Dura; and the learned men of Babylon were actually versed in the interpretation of dreams. But there were no ‘satraps’ (Daniel 3:2) under Nebuchadnezzar; the learned men of Babylon were not then known distinctively as ‘Chaldeans’; Belshazzar was not either ‘son’ of Nebuchadnezzar, or ‘king’ of Babylon; Darius the Mede, son of Aḥashwerosh, and ‘king’ over the realm of the Chaldeans (Daniel 9:1), is a figure for whom history has no room: in other representations of the Book,—as, for example, the attitude assumed by the different heathen kings towards the God of Daniel, and the madness of Nebuchadnezzar,—there are also in all probability elements of exaggeration or distortion. This double character of the narrative is exactly what would be expected, supposing the Book to be what critics hold it to be, a work not of Daniel’s own age, but written some four centuries subsequently.
 As Josephus (Ant. x. xi. 2) identifies Belshazzar with Nabonidus, it is probable that Berosus (whom Jos. quotes for this period of the history) did not mention him; and hence it may perhaps be inferred that his name was preserved by Jewish tradition, and handed down by it in conjunction with that of Daniel.
It by no means follows, however, from this view of the Book that the narrative is throughout a pure work of the imagination. That is not probable. Delitzsch, Meinhold, and others—most recently Behrmann—insist rightly that the Book rests upon a traditional basis. How much of its contents is, in our sense of the word, historical, it is, indeed, impossible to say: but it is probable that Daniel was one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, who, with his three companions, was noted for his staunch adherence to the principles of his religion, who attained a position of influence at the court, and who perhaps also foretold something of the future fate of the Chaldaean and Persian empires. The traditions relating to him were combined with those which reached the author respecting the public events of Daniel’s time, and developed by him into the existing narratives, with a special view to the circumstances of his own age. The motive underlying chs. 1–6 is manifest. The primary aim of these chapters is not historical, but didactic: the incidents of Daniel’s life are not narrated for their own sakes, but for the sake of inculcating certain lessons, to magnify the God of Daniel, and to shew how He, by His providence, frustrates the purposes of the proudest of earthly monarchs, while He defends and rewards His servants, who in time of danger or temptation cleave to Him faithfully. The narratives in chs. 1–6 are thus adapted to supply motives for the encouragement, and models for the imitation, of the loyal Israelites, at the time when Antiochus was making his assaults upon their religion,—when (1Ma 1:62-63) the question of eating meat was made a test of faith (cf. Daniel 1), when (1Ma 1:41-50) the worship of foreign deities was commanded and that of Jehovah proscribed, under pain of death (cf. Daniel 3, 6), and when men might well need to be reminded that it was not God’s purpose to allow the powers of heathenism to prevail against Him (cf. Daniel 2, 4, 5). The general aim of the visions attributed to Daniel in chs. 7–12 is to shew, with increasing detail and distinctness, that as the course of history, so far as it has hitherto gone, has been in accordance with God’s predetermined plan, so it is not less part of His plan that the trial of the saints should not continue indefinitely, but that within three years and a half of the time when the persecuting measures of Antiochus first began it should reach its appointed term. God, in other words, was guiding the whole course of history towards the salvation of His people. And the standpoint from which the survey of the future is represented as being made is an appropriate one: from the very centre and stronghold of heathendom, and in the age in which Israel first becomes permanently dependent upon foreign rulers, Daniel views the centuries, and in weird, impressive imagery portrays the growing deterioration and final impotence of the one, and the ultimate triumph of the other.
It is sometimes objected that this view of the Book of Daniel not only destroys its religious value, but makes it into a forgery: the Book, it has been said, is either Divine or an imposture; if the writer be not Daniel himself, describing events which actually occurred, he must be an impostor, manufacturing falsehoods deliberately in the name of God. In estimating this argument it is necessary in the first place to consider carefully whether the dilemma suggested is a real one. There are circumstances under which no doubt this would be the case: the dilemma would, for instance, be a real one, if we were assured that the object for which the Book was written was to prove the reality of the supernatural by an appeal to miracles, or fulfilled predictions; a writer who alleged unreal miracles or predictions, for such a purpose, would unquestionably be guilty of gross and unpardonable imposture. The assumption, however, that this was the purpose for which the Book of Daniel was written is a gratuitous one: there is nothing in the Book either stating or suggesting it; and if the Book was written for another purpose, this may have been one for which the use of imaginative narratives would be perfectly innocent and harmless: all depends upon the motive actuating the writer, and the purpose with which he wrote. According to critics, the purpose for which the Book of Daniel was written was the consolation and encouragement of the afflicted Jews in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. For this purpose imaginative narratives might be employed with perfect propriety, and without the smallest intention to deceive. Fiction, even fiction without any foundation of fact whatever, has played an important part in the education of humanity; and religious fiction, written with a didactic purpose, has in both ancient and modern times, been valued by teachers as a powerful instrument of edification, and has won a remarkable amount of popular appreciation. The Old Testament abounds with instances in which poetry and oratory have been employed by the Spirit of God for the purpose of giving expression to moral and religious truth, and of stirring the moral and religious emotions of those who either listened in the first instance to the words of the poet or the prophet, or who have since read them; and if the imagination be a faculty granted by God to man, and capable of being employed in instruction and edification, there is no intelligible reason why, where no fact conditioning a theological verity is concerned, it may not have been made subservient to religious ends. The idea that the Bible can contain nothing but matter-of-fact descriptions of actual occurrences is supported by nothing said in the Bible itself, and is in reality a survival of an extreme Puritanical conception of its contents. The opening words of the Epistle to the Hebrews authorize us to expect diversity in the literary forms in which ‘God spake unto the fathers’ in the Old Testament. The Jews are moreover a nation highly gifted with powers of imagination: many passages of the prophets owe the magic of their charm to a chastened use of the imagination; and in post-Biblical times, imaginative narratives, or anecdotes, with a didactic purpose (‘haggâdâhs,’ or ‘midrâshîm’), have formed a large and important part of their religious literature. There is thus the less reason, especially when examples of this kind of literature appear among the earliest of the non-canonical books (for instance, in Tobit and Judith), that it should be unrepresented in the Old Testament.
 πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως. Cf. the writer’s Sermons on the O.T., p. 143 ff., esp. p. 155 f. Jonah is another book of the same character.
 I.e. edifying religious narratives, longer or shorter as the case might be, and sometimes developed out of a text, or even a word, of Scripture, sometimes constructed independently. See further, on these two terms, the author’s Literature of the Old Testament, p. 497 (ed. 6 or 7, pp. 484, 487, 529). The term ‘midrash’ occurs twice in the O. T., of two of the sources used by the Chronicler, 2 Chronicles 13:22; 2 Chronicles 24:27 [A.V. story]; and many of the narratives peculiar to the Chronicles have a ‘midrashic’ character.
But it may be said, ‘If we have no assurance that God really helped and delivered His servants in the manner described in the Book, what value could the narratives have had for the encouragement and consolation of the Jews persecuted by Antiochus? To encourage them by the narrative of deliverances which never happened is nothing but cruel mockery.’ The answer to this objection lies in the distinction which must be drawn between a truth or doctrine in itself, and the form,—where there are independent reasons for supposing this to be figurative,—in which the truth or doctrine is presented. This distinction is so aptly explained by the Rev. C. J. Ball, in his Introduction to the ‘Song of the Three Children’ in the Speaker’s Commentary on the Apocrypha (ii. 307), that the passage is worth transcribing in full:—
‘The above passages [quotations from the Talmud, including a reference to the story of Abraham’s deliverance from the fire, mentioned below, p. 35] not only illustrate the tendency to put appropriate thanksgivings into the mouth of the Three Martyrs, which we find exemplified at length in our Apocryphon: they also shew that the conception of a deliverance from a fiery furnace was traditional among the Jews, in all probability from very ancient times. And we have to bear in mind a fact familiar enough to students of the Talmudic and Midrashic literature, though apparently unknown to many expositors of Scripture, whose minds conspicuously lack that orientation which is an indispensable preliminary to a right understanding of the treasures of Eastern thought; I mean the inveterate tendency of Jewish teachers to convey their doctrine not in the form of abstract discourse, but in a mode appealing directly to the imagination, and seeking to arouse the interest and sympathy of the man rather than of the philosopher. The Rabbi embodies his lesson in a story, whether parable, or allegory, or seeming historical narrative; and the last thing he or his disciples would think of is to ask whether the selected persons, events, and circumstances which so vividly suggest the doctrine are in themselves real or fictitious. The doctrine is everything; the mode of presentation has no independent value. To make the story the first consideration, and the doctrine it was intended to convey an after-thought, as we, with our dry Western literalness, are predisposed to do, is to reverse the Jewish order of thinking, and to do unconscious injustice to the authors of many edifying narratives of antiquity.’
The Book of Daniel, like the Book of Jonah, is in its narrative parts (chs. 1–6) a vivid presentation of real and important religious truths, even though the events described in it did not in all cases occur in actual fact as the narrative recounts.
Mutatis mutandis, the dream in ch. 2, and the visions in chs. 7–12 are to be explained upon the same principles. They are (for the most part) indirect, and to our minds artificial, modes of presenting the truth that the movements of history are in God’s hands, and are determined by Him beforehand. At the same time, in what relates to the close of the persecution, and the period of happiness which they represent as then beginning, they contain, as has been already remarked, genuine predictions, and genuine delineations of the future kingdom of God, quite in the manner of the older prophets (comp. also the notes on Daniel 9:24, p. 136 f.).
The following are the earliest extant references, or allusions, to the Book of Daniel. (1) The prophecy Daniel 7:7 end, 8 seems to be alluded to in the so-called ‘Sibylline Oracles’ (p. lxxxiii), iii. 397–400 (c. 140 b.c.): see p. 98. (2) In 1Ma 1:54 (cf. Daniel 6:7)—written, probably, during the early decades of the first cent. b.c.—the heathen altar erected by Antiochus on the altar of burnt-offering is called an ‘abomination of desolation,’ being the same expression which is used in the LXX. of Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11 (see more fully p. 150). This, however, does not prove necessarily the use of the Book of Daniel by the author of 1 Macc.: the author of 1 Macc. may have known independently that the Jews of the Maccabee period called the heathen altar a שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם (מְשֹׁמֵם); and the identity of the Greek rendering (βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως) may be accounted for in more ways than one: it may have been the conventional Greek rendering of the Heb. expression in question, or the translator of either book may have adopted it from the translation of the other. (3) In 1Ma 2:59 f., in the speech put into the mouth of the dying Mattathias, after the mention of Abraham, Joseph, and other Israelitish worthies, who had been examples of constancy and faith, there occur the words, ‘Hananiah, Azariah, Mishael believed, and were saved out of the flame. Daniel in his guilelessness [ἐν τῇ ἁπλότητι αὐτοῦ = בְּתֻמּוֹ; cf. v. 37] was delivered from the mouth of lions,’ with evident allusion to the narratives contained in Daniel 3, 4 (4) The prayer in Bar 1:15 to Bar 3:8 contains (in Daniel 1:15 to Daniel 2:19) many nearly verbal similarities of expression with Daniel 9:4-19, which shew incontestably either that the author of the one derived many of his expressions from the other, or that both were dependent upon a common source: it can scarcely, however, be said to be clear, beyond the reach of doubt, that it is the prayer in Daniel which is the original (see p. lxxv). (5) In the N.T. Daniel is mentioned by name in Matthew 24:15 (but in the "" Mark 13:14 not in the best MSS.); and the narratives of the book are not improbably alluded to in Hebrews 11:33-34 (Daniel 6, 3). For instances in which the imagery or expression of the N.T. appears to have been suggested by the book see p. lxxxv.
 Schürer, ii. 581 (§ 32); 1 Maccabees in the Cambridge Bible, p. 43.
The external evidence which has been sometimes appealed to as tending to shew that the Book of Daniel was in existence before b.c. 168–165, is slight and inconclusive.
(i) The allusion, just noted, in 1Ma 2:59-60 does not prove more than that the narratives of Daniel 3, 6 were known to the author of 1 Macc., who wrote pretty clearly (see 1Ma 16:23-24) after the close of the reign of John Hyrcanus, b.c. 135–105, probably about b.c. 90.
(ii) The parallels between Daniel 9:4-19 and Bar 1:15 to Bar 2:19 are numerous and striking: see Bar 1:15 (Daniel 9:7 a, 8 a), 16 (Daniel 9:8 b). 17 (Daniel 9:8 end), 18 (Daniel 9:9 b, 10 b), 20 a (Daniel 9:10), 21 (Daniel 9:10), Daniel 2:1 a (Daniel 9:12), 2 (Daniel 9:12 b, 13 a) 4 b (Daniel 9:16 b), 6 (Daniel 9:7 a, 8 a), 7 (Daniel 9:13 a), 8 (Daniel 9:13 b), 9 (Daniel 9:14), 10 (Daniel 9:10), 11 a, c, 12 a (Daniel 9:15), 12 b, 13 a (Daniel 9:16 a), 14 a (Daniel 9:17 a), 14 ‘for thine own sake’ (Daniel 9:17), 15 b (Daniel 9:18 middle, 19 end, 16 b, 17 a (Daniel 9:18 to ‘eyes’), 19 (Daniel 9:18 b); in other parts of the prayer in Baruch, there are reminiscences principally from Deut. and Jer. The Book of Baruch is manifestly of composite authorship; and Daniel 1:1 to Daniel 3:8 (if Daniel 1:1-14 is the real introduction to the sequel) purports to be a confession and prayer sent by the exiles in Babylon, in the fifth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin, to their brethren in Jerusalem, to be used by them on their (the exiles’) behalf. The real date of the Book of Baruch is disputed. The second part (Daniel 3:9 to Daniel 5:9) is generally allowed to have been written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (a.d. 70): the first part is assigned by Schürer (ii. 723) to the same date, though others think it to be a good deal earlier, Ewald, and Reuss, for instance, assigning it to the period of the earlier Ptolemies (c. 300 b.c.). It is, however, seldom possible, given simply two parallel texts, to determine, without assuming the question in dispute, which is the older, and which it is that contains reminiscences of the other: the prayer in Baruch might, no doubt, be an expansion (with, at the same time, some omissions) of that in Daniel, but the prayer in Daniel might also be an abridgement and adaptation of that in Baruch; or both might also be based upon an ancient traditional form of confession, preserved in its most original form in Daniel. The Book of Baruch cannot be regarded as having any bearing on the date of the Book of Daniel until it has been shewn more clearly than has yet been done, not only that the prayer in Baruch is older than c. 165 b.c., but also if this is really the case, that the passages common to it and Dan. cannot have been borrowed in the latter from the former.
 N.B. ‘Plagues’ in A.V., R.V. of Daniel 1:20, Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:7; Daniel 2:9, Daniel 3:4 = κακὰ = the ‘evil’ of Daniel 9:12 (Gk. κακά), 13, 14.
 N.B. ‘Plagues’ in A.V., R.V. of Daniel 1:20, Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:7; Daniel 2:9, Daniel 3:4 = κακὰ = the ‘evil’ of Daniel 9:12 (Gk. κακά), 13, 14.
 N.B. ‘Plagues’ in A.V., R.V. of Daniel 1:20, Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:7; Daniel 2:9, Daniel 3:4 = κακὰ = the ‘evil’ of Daniel 9:12 (Gk. κακά), 13, 14.
 N.B. ‘Plagues’ in A.V., R.V. of Daniel 1:20, Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:7; Daniel 2:9, Daniel 3:4 = κακὰ = the ‘evil’ of Daniel 9:12 (Gk. κακά), 13, 14.
 The rôle assumed is not however consistently maintained, Daniel 2:13-14, Daniel 3:7-8, being evidently spoken from the standpoint of the exiles themselves. See Baruch, Book of, in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible.
 And in his art. on Baruch in Herzog, ed. 2, i. 500 f., ed. 3, i. 641 f. So also Kneucker, in his excellent edition of Baruch (1879), pp. 57–60, cf. 68–70.
 The positive grounds favouring this early date are, however, slight: cf. Kneucker, p. 39 f. The arguments in Hastings against Schürer’s date do not seem to be conclusive.
 The principal additions in Baruch are in Daniel 1:16 b, 19 a, 20 b–22, Daniel 2:1 b, 3–7 a, 8 b, 11 middle, 13 b, 14 b–16 a, 17 b–18, 19 a (‘of our fathers and of our kings’), and all from Daniel 2:20 to Daniel 3:8. The principal additions in Daniel are in Daniel 9:4-7 b–8 a, 9 a, 10 end, 11 b (partly), 13 end, 16 (from ‘and thy fury’), 17 b, 18 (from ‘our desolations’ to ‘thy name,’ and ‘but for thy great mercies’), 19. (The references, both here and in the text, are to the Greek, which should be compared throughout: let the reader underline, in his two texts (Daniel in Theod.), the passages which are (substantially) the same in both. In Bar 2:12 b observe that δικαιώματα = צְדָקוֹת (see vv. 17, 19), while in Daniel 9:16 ἐλεημοσύυη in Theod., and δικαιοσύνη in LXX., both = צְדָקָה: see below, p. 54; Kneucker, pp. 235, 353.)
 Marshall, ap. Hastings, p. 252a, towards the bottom.
(iii) No conclusion of any value as to the date of Daniel can be drawn from the LXX. translation. (1) The date of the translation is quite uncertain; the grounds that have been adduced for the purpose of shewing that it was made in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes himself (e.g. the renderings of Daniel 9:24-27, Daniel 11:30; Daniel 11:33) being altogether insufficient. (2) The errors in the LXX. translation of the book have been supposed to shew that many Hebrew words used in it were unfamiliar to the translators, and consequently that it must have been written at a much earlier date than that assigned to it by critics. It is, however, remarkable that throughout O.T. the LXX. translators (who, as is well known, were not the same for all the books) stand singularly aloof from the Palestinian tradition—often, for instance, not only missing the general sense of a passage, but shewing themselves to be unacquainted with the meaning even of common Hebrew words. Thus the errors in the LXX. translation of Daniel merely shew that the meaning of particular words was unknown in Alexandria at the time, whatever it may have been, at which the translation was made: they do not afford evidence that the words were unknown in Palestine in the second cent. b.c., and would not have been used by an author writing there then. The Greek translator of the Proverbs of Jesus, the son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), though a grandson of the author himself, nevertheless often misunderstood the Hebrew in which they were written.
§ 4. Some characteristic features of the Book of Daniel
As has been pointed out in § 1, the first part of the Book of Daniel (chs. 1–6) consists essentially of a series of didactic narratives; the second part of the Book (chs. 7–12),—as also ch. 2, in so far as a succession of world-empires forms the subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream,—deals with what, viewed from Daniel’s standpoint, is future, and is apocalyptic in its character. It will not be necessary to dwell further upon the narrative portions of the Book; but something remains to be said with regard to its apocalyptic parts, and also on some of the more characteristic doctrines which find expression in it. And firstly, as regards the symbolism and the veiled predictions, which form such conspicuous features in these parts of the Book. Symbolism is employed already by the later prophets to a greater extent than is the case with the earlier prophets. Thus in Ezekiel we have the allegories of the vine-tree (ch. 15), the abandoned infant (ch. 16), the two eagles and the vine (ch. 17), the lion’s whelps (ch. 19), the two harlots (ch. 23), the flourishing tree (ch. 31), the shepherds and their flock (ch. 34); and in Zech. we find a series of visions, in which the prophet sees, for instance, the Divine horses, symbolizing the ubiquity of Jehovah’s presence upon the earth (Daniel 1:8-17), four horns symbolizing the powers of the world arrayed against Israel (Daniel 1:18-21), a golden candlestick, representing the restored community (ch. 4), and chariots proceeding to the different quarters of the earth, symbolizing the fulfilment of Jehovah’s judgements (Daniel 6:1-8) But, as applied in Daniel, both the symbolism and the veiled predictions are characteristic of a species of literature which was now beginning to spring up, and which is known commonly by modern writers as Apocalyptic Literature.
The word ‘apocalypse’ means disclosure, revelation; and though ordinary prophecy contains ‘disclosures,’ whether respecting the will of God in general, or respecting the future, the term is applied in particular to writings in which the ‘disclosure,’ or ‘revelation,’ is of a specially marked and distinctive character. The beginnings of this type of writing are to be found in those post-exilic prophecies of the O. T. relating to the future, which are less closely attached to the existing order of things than is usually the case, and which, though they cannot be said actually to describe it, may nevertheless be regarded as prophetic anticipations of the final judgement, and consummation of all things, as Isaiah 24-27, Zechariah 14, Joel 3:9-17. But at a later date, apocalyptic prophecy assumed a special form, and became the expression of particular feelings and ideas.
 Cf. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 475 f., 481, 488 f.; and the present writer’s Joel and Amos (in the Cambridge Bible), p. 33.
Apocalyptic prophecy arose in an age in which there were no longer any prophets of the older type, addressing themselves directly to the needs of the times, and speaking in person to the people in the name of God: and it consists essentially of a development and adaptation of the ideas and promises expressed by the older prophets, designed especially with the object of affording encouragement and consolation to faithful Israelites in a period of national distress. The call to repentance, and rebuke for sin, which formed the primary and central element in the teaching of the older prophets, assumed in the age now under consideration a secondary place: Israel was subject to the heathen, and the crying question was, When would its long and humiliating servitude be at an end? When would the older prophecies of future glory and triumph over the heathen be fulfilled? How much longer would Jehovah’s promised redemption be deferred? Hence, in the form of prophecy which now arose, a much more prominent place was taken than had formerly been the case by visions of the future: older, but hitherto unfulfilled, promises of Israel’s destined glory were reaffirmed, and were made the basis of larger and broader outlooks into the future. Its mode of representation was artificial. The disclosures which were the most characteristic element of apocalyptic prophecy were not made by the author in his own person, they were placed in the mouth of some pious and famous man of old—an Enoch, a Moses, a Baruch, an Ezra: from the standpoint of the assumed speaker the future was unrolled, usually under symbolic imagery, down to the time in which the actual author lived: the heavens were thrown open, glimpses were given of the offices and operation of the celestial hierarchy: God’s final judgement both upon His own people and upon the powers opposed to it was described: the approaching deliverance of the afflicted Israelites was declared: the resurrection and future lot alike of the righteous and of the wicked were portrayed in vivid imagery. The seer who is represented as the author of the book, sometimes beholds these things himself in a vision or dream, but often he holds discourse with an angel, who either explains to him what he does not fully understand, or communicates to him the revelations in their entirety. Naturally there are variations in detail: the subjects enumerated do not appear uniformly with precisely the same prominence; hortatory or didactic matter is also often present as well: but speaking generally some at least of them are present in every ‘apocalypse,’ and constitute its most conspicuous and distinctive feature. A brief account of two or three of the more important apocalypses may help to give substance to what has been said.
The Book of Enoch is the longest known work of the kind; and in its earliest parts (for it is evidently of composite authorship) is certainly the nearest in date to the Book of Daniel. It is said of Enoch in Genesis 5:24 that he ‘walked with God’; and the expression was taken in later times to mean not only that he led a godly life, but also that he was the recipient of supernatural knowledge. The ‘Book of Enoch’ gives an account of the knowledge which he was supposed in this way to have attained. The oldest sections of the book are chs. i.–xxxvi., lxxii.–cviii., probably (Dillmann, Schürer) c. 120 b.c., and chs. lxxxiii.–xc. may even, according to Charles, be almost contemporary with Daniel (b.c. 166–161). In chs. i.–xxxvi. Enoch first (ch. i.) tells how he had had a vision of future judgement: God would appear, ‘with ten thousands of His holy ones’ (Judges 14, 15) on Mount Sinai, to punish the fallen angels, and wicked men, and to reward the righteous with peace and felicity. In chs. xvii.–xxxvi. he relates how he had been led in vision through different parts of the earth; and had been shewn by an angel, Uriel or Raphael, the fiery abyss prepared for the rebellious angels, Sheol, with four divisions set apart for different classes of the departed (xxii.), Jerusalem (xxv.–xxvi.), Gehenna (the valley of Hinnom) close by (xxvii.), and Paradise, with the tree of life, in the far East (xxxii.). The ultimate lot of the righteous, as depicted here, is not, however, eternal life in heaven, but long, untroubled life in an ideal Paradise on earth. In chs. lxxxiii.–xc.—perhaps, as just said, the oldest part of the book,—Enoch recounts to his son Methuselah two visions which he has seen. The first vision (lxxxiii.–lxxxiv.) describes the approaching Deluge; the second (lxxxv.–xc.) unfolds, in a symbolical form,—the leaders of the chosen race being represented by domestic animals, bulls or sheep, and the Gentiles by different wild beasts and birds of prey,—the entire history of the patriarchs and Israel, from Adam to the author’s own time; after that (xc. 18 ff.) God Himself appears to judge the world, Israel’s oppressors are destroyed, and the Messianic kingdom is established. The events indicated by the symbolism are usually sufficiently clear; but sometimes (as in Daniel) there is ambiguity: indeed, the date of this part of the book depends upon whether the ‘great horn’ which grows upon one of the ‘sheep’ in xc. 9 is to be interpreted (with Dillm., Schürer, and others) of John Hyrcanus (b.c. 135–105), or (with Charles) of Judas Maccabaeus (b.c. 165–161). As illustrating Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20-21; Daniel 12:1, it is worth noticing that Israel, after its apostasy, is committed to the charge of 70 ‘shepherds’ (i.e. angels), who are held responsible for what happens to it, and are afterwards called up before God for judgement (lxxxix. 54–xc. 17, 22–25).
Chs. xci.–xciii., also addressed to Methuselah, contain another historical apocalypse: the history of the patriarchs and of Israel is divided into seven weeks, in the first of which lives Enoch, in the second Noah, &c. (but without any names being actually mentioned); at the end of the seventh week, which is described as an age of apostasy, the writer lives himself: the eighth week, that of ‘righteousness,’ sees the kingdom of God established in the land of Israel: in the ninth week it is spread over all the earth: in the tenth week will be the ‘eternal judgement’ upon the fallen angels; there will then follow ‘weeks without number in goodness and righteousness, and sin will no more be mentioned for ever’ (xciii. 1–10, xci. 12–17). Chs. xciv.–cv., addressed to Enoch’s sons, consist of a series of woes pronounced upon sinners, intermixed with exhortations to follow righteousness and avoid the ways of sin and death.
In all the preceding sections of the book there is either no Messiah, or, at most (xc. 37), a Messiah who is merely a superior man, mentioned only in passing, very different from the glorious super-human Messiah of chs. xxxvii.–lxxi.
Chs. xxxvii.–lxxi., commonly known as the ‘Similitudes,’ date, according to Dillm., Charles, and others, from shortly before b.c. 64, according to Schürer, from the time of Herod. In these chapters the Messiah is a much more prominent and also a much more exalted figure than in the other parts of the book. The chapters consist of three ‘similitudes,’ or visions. In the first (xxxviii.–xliv.) Enoch sees the abodes of the righteous, and the ‘Elect One’ (the Messiah), the Almighty surrounded by myriads of angels, and with the four ‘presences,’ Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel, ever praying before Him, and is admitted also to the ‘secrets of the heavens’ (including the explanation of different natural phenomena, as lightnings, wind, dew, &c.). In the second vision (xlv.–lvii.) he beholds the Messianic judgement, the ‘Elect One,’ or the ‘Son of Man,’ beside the ‘Head of Days’ (the Almighty), and afterwards sitting on the ‘throne of his glory,’ for the purpose of judging the world; after the judgement, the fallen angels and wicked kings are cast into a furnace of fire; a resurrection of Israelites takes place (li. 1), the righteous ‘become angels’ (li. 4), and crying everlasting felicity. In the third vision (lviii–lxix., but with many interpolations, interrupting the connexion) Enoch describes more fully the ultimate felicity of the righteous (lviii.) in the light of eternal life (lviii. 3), and in the immediate presence of the ‘Son of Man’ (lxii. 14), and the judgement of the Messiah upon angels and men (lxi.–lxiii., lxix. 26–29). The imagery of the ‘Similitudes’ is fine: and the thought is often an expansion of parts of Daniel (see the notes on Daniel 7:9-10, and p. 106 f.).
The Apocalypse of Baruch was written probably shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (a.d. 70), at a time when the problem which seemed to the Jews so difficult of solution was, how God could have permitted such a disaster to fall upon His people. Baruch, after the Chaldaeans have carried off the mass of the people, having fasted (cf. Daniel 10:3) for seven days, is told to remain in Jerusalem in order to receive disclosures respecting the future; and, after a second fast (xii. 5), hears a voice telling him that the heathen also will receive their punishment in due time (xiii. 5): he debates at some length with God respecting the prosperity of the wicked and the sufferings of the righteous, but is given to understand that these anomalies will be adjusted in a future life. After a third fast, and prayer (ch. xxi.), Baruch sees the heavens opened (Ezekiel 1:1), and is assured, in answer to his further questionings, that the time of redemption is not now far distant: ‘Behold, the days come, and the books will be opened in which are written the sins of all those who have sinned, and the treasuries in which the righteousness of all those who have been righteous in creation is gathered’ (xxiv. 1): the period of coming tribulation is divided into 12 times, each marked by its own woe (xxvi.–xxvii.); at the end of the twelfth time, the Messiah will be revealed, those who have ‘fallen asleep in hope’ will rise again, and a reign of happiness will begin upon earth (xxix.–xxx.). Soon afterwards Baruch has a vision of a great forest, with a vine growing opposite to it: the forest was laid low till only a single cedar remained standing; this, after being rebuked by the vine for its iniquities, was destroyed by fire, while the vine spread, and the plain around blossomed into flowers. The forest is explained to signify the four empires which oppressed Israel: the vine was the Messiah, who should destroy the last empire (the Roman) for its impieties, and establish a rule of peace (xxxvi.–xl.). On the strength of this revelation, Baruch exhorts the elders of the people to obedience and patience (xliv.–xlvi.). In a fourth vision Baruch sees a great cloud rising up from the sea, and pouring down upon the earth black and bright waters alternately, twelve times in succession, the last bright waters being followed by waters blacker than any which had preceded, and these being followed by lightnings, and twelve rivers ascending from the sea (liii.). After a prayer (liv.), the interpretation of the vision is disclosed to him by the angel Ramiel: the twelve black and bright waters symbolize twelve evil and good periods in the history of the world: the eleventh dark waters symbolizing the Chaldaean disaster, the twelfth bright waters the restoration of Jerusalem, the blacker waters which followed, the future consummation of troubles, the lightning and the twelve rivers, the Messiah, and the felicity which he would bring (lvi.–lxxiv.).
A third apocalypse is the Fourth Book of Esdras (2 Esdras of the English Apocrypha), written most probably under Domitian (a.d. 81–96). Chs. 1–2, 15–16, are Christian additions: the Apocalypse itself consists only of chs. 3–14. It contains seven visions, purporting to have been seen by Ezra whilst in captivity. In the first of these Ezra, having unfolded to God in prayer his perplexity at the sight of Israel suffering at the hand of a nation more wicked than itself, is told, in the course of a colloquy with the angel Uriel, that he is not in a position to judge of the dealings of Providence (Ezra 3:1 to Ezra 5:13). In a second and third vision (5:20–6:34, 6:36–9:25), the same subject being continued, Ezra is taught (among other things) that the events of history must run their appointed course, and that in a future state the righteous and the wicked will each be rewarded according to their due: there will be ‘seven ways’ of punishment for the one, and ‘seven orders’ of blessedness for the other (7:79–99, R.V.). In the fifth vision Ezra sees in a dream an eagle rising up out of the sea, with 12 wings and three heads: as he watched her spreading her wings over the earth, he perceived eight smaller wings growing up out of them: the 20 wings and the three heads bare rule over the earth in succession until a lion appeared, and in a loud voice rebuked the eagle for its tyranny and cruelty, and bade it disappear (11). The interpretation follows. The eagle is the fourth kingdom which appeared to Daniel, i.e. according to the interpretation adopted by the author (p. 95, 99 .), the Roman empire: the wings and heads are different Roman rulers: the lion is the ‘anointed one’ (the Messiah), who should arise in the end of the days out of the seed of David, and reprove and overthrow these rulers, and give rest and peace unto his people, for 400 years (12:24; see Daniel 7:28 ff.), until the final judgement. The sixth vision (13), of the one ‘in the likeness of a man,’ is summarized below, p. 107 f. In the seventh and last vision (14), we have the curious story of the manner in which, the law having been burnt, the 24 books of the O.T., as well as 70 other ‘apocryphal’ books, were written, in the course of 40 days, by five scribes, at Ezra’s dictation.
 See the Commentary on Daniel in vol. ii. of his Syriac works (ed. 1740).
 The names are not given; and very different opinions have been held as to what rulers are meant. See Schürer, ii. 650 ff. (ed. 3, 1898, iii. 236 ff.).
The Assumption of Moses,—written, as vi. 2–9 shews, within a very few years of the death of Herod, b.c. 4,—contains an ‘apocalypse’ of the history of Israel from their entry into Canaan till the days of Herod (chs. ii.–v.). Ch. vii. describes the rule of impious and scornful men, preceding the time of the end. Chs. viii.–ix., as the text at present stands, foretell a ‘second visitation’ destined then to befall the nation, which reads like a repetition of the persecution of Antiochus: indeed, it is possible that Dr Charles is right in supposing that it is really a description of that persecution, and that the two chapters have become displaced from their proper position after ch. v. Ch. x. is a Psalm of triumph over the approaching judgement. From the death of Moses till the final judgement there are assigned (x. 12) 250 ‘times,’ or weeks of years, i.e. (cf. i. 2) it is placed a.m. 4250.
The so-called Sibylline Oracles,—a heterogeneous compilation, in Greek hexameters, of materials of very different origin and dates, partly Jewish and partly Christian,—contain in Book iii. (ll. 162–807) a long ‘apocalypse,’ in which the seventh Ptolemy (Physcon, b.c. 145–117) is more than once referred to (ll. 191–193, 316–318, 608–610), and which is considered by the best authorities to have been written c. 140 b.c. This apocalypse contains a survey of the history of Israel from the age of Solomon: Antiochus Epiphanes is referred to in all probability in ll. 388–400 (see p. 98), and certainly in ll. 612–615; the Sibyl also foretells the advent of the Messianic king, his vengeance on his adversaries, the prosperity which will prevail under him (652–731), and the signs which are to herald the end of all things (795–807).
 See further, on both these and other ‘Apocalypses,’ Charles’ translations of the Book of Enoch, the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Assumption of Moses; the introductions and translations in Kautzsch’s Pseudepigraphen des AT.s (1899); the art. Apocalyptic Literature in the Encyclopaedia Biblica; the arts. Baruch, Enoch, &c. in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible; Schürer, ii. 616–691, 790–807, § 32 (ed. 3, iii. 190–294, 420–450); Dillmann in Herzog2, xii. 342 ff.; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha (1891); and comp. the remarks of Wellhausen in his Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vi. (1899), pp. 226–234.
These examples will illustrate sufficiently the general character of the Jewish ‘Apocalypses.’ While including an element of exhortation, and theological reflexion, they are in their most distinctive parts imaginative developments, varying in detail, but with many common features, partly of the thought (which is usually placed as a ‘revelation’ in the mouth of an ancient seer) that the movements of history, including the course and end of the distress out of which the apocalypse itself arose, are predetermined by God; partly of the eschatological hopes which the writer expects to see realized as soon as the period of present distress is past, but which vary in character—being for instance more or less material, and being with or without a Messiah—according to the individual writer. And these are just the features which appear in the Book of Daniel. It is of course not for a moment denied that the Book of Daniel is greatly superior to the other ‘apocalypses’ that have been referred to,—not only for example is its teaching more spiritual, but it is entirely free from the fantastic and sometimes indeed absurd representations in which the non-canonical apocalyptic writers often indulge: nevertheless, just as there are Psalms both canonical and non-canonical (the so-called ‘Psalms of Solomon’), Proverbs both canonical and non-canonical (Ecclesiasticus), histories both canonical and non-canonical (1 Macc.), ‘midrashim’ both canonical (Jonah) and non-canonical (Tobit, Judith), so there are analogously apocalypses both canonical and non-canonical; the superiority, in each case, from a theological point of view, of the canonical work does not place it in a different literary category from the corresponding non-canonical work or works. Probably, indeed, the Book of Daniel formed the model, especially in chs. 7–12, upon which the non-canonical apocalypses were constructed: it is at all events undoubted that there are many passages in the book which furnished in germ the thought or imagery which was expanded or embellished by subsequent apocalyptic writers.
Comp., for instance, not merely the general mode of representation by means of symbolism and visions, the latter being often explained to the seer by the intervention of an angel; but also, more particularly, in Enoch, the titles ‘Most High’ (see on Daniel 3:26), and ‘watcher,’ or wakeful one (see on Daniel 4:13), the representation of the Almighty as an aged man, seated as judge on His throne, surrounded by myriads of angels (Daniel 7:9, and p. 106 f.), the books in which the deeds of men are recorded (Daniel 7:10), and those in which the citizens of the Messianic kingdom are registered (Daniel 12:1), the resurrection and ‘eternal life’ (Daniel 12:2), the ‘son of man’ (Daniel 7:13, and p. 106 f.), the saints compared to stars (Daniel 8:10, and Daniel 12:3), the fear at the sight of the vision, and the restoration by an angelic touch (Daniel 8:17-18, Daniel 10:8 ff.), the revelation designed for the future, not for the present (Daniel 8:26 b, Daniel 12:4), the 10 ‘weeks’ into which the history of the world is divided (En. xciii., xci. 12–15), the names and ranks of angels (more fully developed than in Dan.), with Michael appointed guardian over Israel (Daniel 8:16; Daniel 10:13); comp. in Baruch and 2 Esdras, also, the fast, predisposing to a vision (Daniel 10:3; see on vv. 5–9).
The Book of Daniel is also one of the sources of the imagery, or the expression, of the Book of Revelation: see on Daniel 3:4, Daniel 7:3; Daniel 7:7 (‘ten horns’: Revelation 12:3; Revelation 13:1; Revelation 17:3; Revelation 17:7; Revelation 17:12; Revelation 17:16), 8, 9 (‘white as snow’), 10 (thrice), 13 (Revelation 1:7; Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14), 21 (Revelation 13:7), 25 (Revelation 12:14; cf. also the 42 months of tribulation in Revelation 11:2, Revelation 13:5 (see v. 7), and the 1260 days of Revelation 11:3 and Revelation 12:6—each being equal to 3½ years), 27, Daniel 8:10 (Revelation 12:4), Daniel 10:6 (Revelation 1:14 b, Revelation 1:15), Daniel 12:1; Daniel 12:7 (Revelation 10:5-6; Revelation 12:14). Comp. also p. xcvii f.
It remains to consider briefly certain doctrines and representations, which are characteristic of the Book of Daniel.
1. The kingdom of God. One of the most fundamental ideas in the Book of Daniel is the triumph of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world. This is the thought expressed already in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in ch. 2, where the stone ‘cut out without hands,’ falling upon the feet of the colossal image, and causing it to break up, and afterwards itself filling the entire earth, represents the triumph of the kingdom of God over the anti-theocratic powers of the world. It is the same ultimate triumph of the kingdom of God over the kingdoms of the world, which, with increasing distinctness of detail, and with more special reference to the climax of heathen hostility to the truth in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes, is depicted in chs.7–12: upon a divinely appointed succession of world-empires follows at last the universal and eternal kingdom of the holy people of God, a kingdom which (ch. 7) contrasts with all previous kingdoms, as man contrasts with beasts of prey. The book is thus dominated, ‘not only by an unshaken confidence in the ultimate triumph of truth, but also by an over-mastering sense of a universal divine purpose which overrules all the vicissitudes of human history, the rise and fall of dynasties, the conflicts of nations, and the calamities that overtake the faithful.’
 Ottley, Bampton Lectures, 1897, p. 332.
According to the Book of Daniel, when the need of the saints is the greatest, through the exterminating measures of Antiochus Epiphanes (Daniel 7:21; Daniel 7:25, Daniel 8:24-25, Daniel 11:31-39, Daniel 12:7 b), the Almighty will interpose: His throne of judgement will be set up, and the powers hostile to Israel will be overthrown (Daniel 2:35; Daniel 2:44, Daniel 7:9-12; Daniel 7:22 a, 26, Daniel 8:25 end, Daniel 11:45 end); everlasting dominion will be given to the people of the saints, and all surviving nations will serve them (Daniel 7:14; Daniel 7:22 b, 27); sin will be abolished and forgiven, and everlasting righteousness be brought in (Daniel 9:24). The righteous dead of Israel will rise to an eternal life of glory; the apostate Jews will rise likewise, but only to be visited with contumely and shame (Daniel 12:2-3). The inauguration of the kingdom of God will follow immediately upon the overthrow of the ‘fourth empire’ in the person of Antiochus Epiphanes.
This representation of the future kingdom of God, though it differs in details, and displays traits marking the later age to which it belongs, is, in all essential features the same as that which is found repeatedly in the earlier prophets. The earlier prophets, as Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Second Isaiah, all pictured the advent of an age, when the trials and disappointments of the present would be no more, when human infirmity and human sin would cease to mar the happiness of earth, when Israel, freed from foreign oppressors without and purified from unworthy and ungodly members within, would realize its ideal character, and live an idyllic life of righteousness and peace upon its own soil (see e.g. Hosea 14:4-8; Isaiah 1:26; Isaiah 4:2-4; Isaiah 29:18-24; Isaiah 32:1-8; Isaiah 33:24, &c.), and when the nations of the world would either be themselves incorporated in the kingdom of God (Isaiah 2:2; Isaiah 19:18-25; Jeremiah 3:17; Isaiah 51:4-5; Isaiah 56:7), or would be held in more or less willing subjection by the restored and invigorated people of Israel (Amos 9:12; Isaiah 11:14; Isaiah 14:2; Isaiah 45:14; Isaiah 60:10; Isaiah 60:14; Isaiah 61:5), or,—which is more particularly the representation of the later prophets,—in so far as they remained irreconcilably hostile, would be destroyed (Zephaniah 3:8 [but contrast Daniel 3:9]; Ezekiel 38-39; Isaiah 60:12; Isaiah 63:3-6; Isaiah 66:15-16; Joel 3:9-17; Zechariah 14:12-13).
 On the prophetic pictures of the future kingdom of God, see more fully Kirkpatrick’s Doctrine of the Prophets; the present writer’s Isaiah his life and times, or the third of his Sermons on the Old Testament.
In comparing these representations with that contained in the Book of Daniel, there are two important points which ought to be borne in mind, one a point of difference, the other a point of resemblance. The point of difference is that the representation in Daniel is more distinctly eschatological than are those of the earlier prophets. The change did not take place at once; it was brought about gradually. At first the future contemplated by the prophets consisted of little more than a continuance of the existing state of society, only purged by a judgement from sin, and freed from trouble; but gradually it was severed more and more widely from the present order of things: whereas for long the prophets had been content to look at the destinies of the nation as a unity, without distinctly facing the question of the ultimate fate of individuals, in course of time the destinies of individuals began to claim consideration; the judgement which was to introduce God’s kingdom assumed more and more the character of a final judgement, which, as soon as the idea of a resurrection began to be current, was regarded as held by God over the dead as well as over the living; and the expectation of a glorified earthly life of righteous Israelites, which was the prevalent ideal of the Old Testament, became gradually transformed into the belief in a spiritual or heavenly life of all righteous men in general, which is the ideal revealed in the New Testament. Some of the later prophets, the Book of Daniel, and the Apocalyptic writers spring from the transition-period, in which the former of these ideals was gradually merging into the other, and in which the line of demarcation between the earthly and the heavenly ideal was not always clearly or consistently drawn, so that it is not always easy to be confident in particular passages which of the two ideals the writer means to express. The passages from the prophets in which the character of the representation is such as to suggest that it is beginning to be eschatological, are Isaiah 26:18-19; Joel 3:9-17; Malachi 4:2-3. The representation in Daniel is of the same intermediate character; it is more distinctly eschatological than the passages just quoted, but less so than, for instance, parts of the Book of Enoch. The scene of judgement in Daniel 7:9-14 belongs far more to the other world than any other representation of God’s judgement to be found in the Old Testament; and in Daniel 12:2 the doctrine of a resurrection is taught more distinctly and definitely than is the case in any other Old Testament writing (see below, p. xcii).
 Comp. A. B. Davidson, art. Eschatology in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, p. 738 b.
The characteristic point of resemblance between the representation of the kingdom of God contained in the Book of Daniel and that found in earlier prophets is this. It was a great and ennobling ideal which the prophets, as described briefly above, projected upon the future, and it was one which was portrayed by many of them in brilliant colours. But it was an ideal which was not destined to be realized in the manner in which they anticipated. The prophets almost uniformly foreshortened the future: they did not stop to ask themselves how national character was to be regenerated and transformed: and consequently they did not realize the length of period which must necessarily elapse,—for God does not in such cases interpose by miracle,—before corrupt human nature could be so transformed as to produce a perfect or ideal society. Isaiah and Micah pictured the Messianic age as commencing immediately after the troubles were past, to which their nation was exposed at the hands of the Assyrians (Isaiah 11:1-10, see Isaiah 10:28-34; Isaiah 29:19-24, see v. 31; Isaiah 31:7, Isaiah 32:1-8, see Isaiah 31:8; Micah 5:4-7); the prophets of the exile pictured it as beginning with the restoration of Israel to Palestine. Neither of these anticipations corresponded to the event: in each case the sombre reality contrasted strongly with the glowing delineations of the prophets. The same foreshortening of the future is characteristic of the prophecies in the Book of Daniel. A careful study of Daniel 7-12 makes it evident that the reign of righteousness, and the everlasting dominion of the saints, are represented as beginning immediately after the fall of Antiochus: as in the case of the other prophets, the ideal consummation of history is thus conceived by the writer as being much closer at hand than actually proved to be the case.
The facts just referred to meet an objection which might otherwise perhaps be felt against the interpretation of the visions adopted in the present commentary, on the ground that the age of righteousness (Daniel 7:27, Daniel 9:24), or the resurrection (Daniel 12:2), did not actually follow immediately after the fall of Antiochus: the ideal glories promised by Isaiah and other earlier prophets were not realized, as these prophets in many cases plainly shew that they expect them to be realized, in the immediate future; the Book of Daniel, regarded from this point of view, is consequently in exact analogy with the writings of the earlier prophets. The non-agreement (as it seems) of the particulars contained in Daniel 11:40-45 a with the event (see the notes) is also in exact accordance with the same analogies: the earlier prophets often foretell correctly a future event,—e.g. the failure of Sennacherib’s expedition against Jerusalem, or the capture of Babylon by Cyrus,—though the details by which they imaginatively represent these events as accompanied do not form part of the fulfilment, but merely constitute the drapery in which the prophet clothes what is to him the important and central idea (see, for example, Isaiah 10:28-34; Isaiah 23:15-18; Isaiah 30:32-33; Isaiah 46:1-2). In the same way, Antiochus did actually meet his doom shortly, as foretold in Daniel 11:45 b (cf. Daniel 8:25 end, Daniel 9:27 end), though the circumstances under which the writer pictures him as advancing towards it (Daniel 11:40-45 a) do not correspond to what we know of the historical reality.
 Comp. the writer’s Isaiah, pp. 61, 73, 94, 106, 111–114, 146 n.
 The idea that prophecy is ‘history written beforehand’ is radically false: it is a survival from an age in which the prophets were not studied in the light of history, and it is a source of many and serious misunderstandings of their meaning (comp. Kirkpatrick, Doctrine of the Prophets, pp. 15–17, 194–6, 402–6, 524 f.)
2. The Resurrection. The ordinary belief of the ancient Hebrews on the subject of a future life, was that the spirit after death passed into the underworld, Sheol, the ‘meeting-place,’ as Job (Job 30:23) calls it, ‘for all living,’ good and evil alike (Genesis 37:35; Isaiah 14:8-9; Isaiah 14:15), where it entered upon a shadowy, half-conscious, joyless existence, not worthy of the name of ‘life,’ where communion with God was at an end, and where God’s mercies could be neither apprehended nor acknowledged (Isaiah 38:18; Psalm 6:5; Psalm 30:9; Psalm 88:10-12; Psalm 115:17, &c.). But the darkness which thus shrouded man’s hereafter did not remain in the O.T. without gleams of light; and there are three lines along which the way is prepared for the fuller revelation brought by the Gospel. There is, firstly, the limitation of the power of death set forth by the prophets, in their visions of a glorified, but yet earthly, Zion of the future: ‘For as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people, and the work of their hands shall my chosen ones wear out’ (Isaiah 65:22; cf. v. 20, where it is said that death at the age of 100 years will be regarded then as premature); or even its abolition altogether, ‘He hath swallowed up death for ever’ (Isaiah 25:8). There is, secondly, the conviction uttered by particular Psalmists that their close fellowship with God implies and demands that they will themselves be personally superior to death: ‘Therefore my heart is glad and my glory [i.e. my spirit] rejoiceth: my flesh also dwelleth securely. For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol; thou wilt not suffer thy godly one to see the pit’ (Psalm 16:9-10; cf. Psalm 17:15; Psalm 49:15; Psalm 73:26; Job 19:26). And, thirdly, we meet with the idea of a resurrection, which, however, only takes shape gradually, and is at first a hope and not a dogma, national and not individual, and in the Old Testament, even to the end, is limited to Israel. The hope is expressed first, though dimly, in Hosea 6:2, where it is evidently national: ‘After two days he will revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live before him’: and the promise in Hosea 13:14 is national likewise. The passage which comes next chronologically is Ezekiel 37, the vision of the valley of dry bones, where, by the express terms of v. 11 (‘Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel’), the promise is limited to Israel, and where also, as Prof. Davidson points out, what the prophet contemplates is a resurrection, not of individuals, but of the nation,—‘it is a prophecy of the resurrection of the nation, whose condition is figuratively expressed by the people when they represent its bones as long scattered and dry.’ In the next prophecy in which the idea occurs, the (post-exilic) apocalyptic prophecy, Isaiah 24-27, there is, however, an advance, and the resurrection of individual Israelites is certainly contemplated, though rather as the object of a hope or prayer than as a fixed doctrine: the people confess that they could not effect any true deliverance themselves: ‘We were with child, we writhed in pain, when we bare, it was wind, we made not the land salvation, neither were inhabitants of the world brought forth’; they turned therefore to God: ‘May Thy dead live! may my dead bodies arise!’ and the prophet breaks in with the words of jubilant assurance: ‘Awake, and sing aloud, ye that dwell in the dust; for a dew of lights [a dew charged with the light of life] is Thy dew, and the earth shall bring forth the Shades!’ The dwindled and suffering nation is thus represented as replenished and strengthened by the resurrection of its deceased members. ‘The doctrine of the resurrection here presented is reached through the conviction, gradually produced by the long process of revelation, that the final redemption of Israel could not be accomplished within the limits of nature. It became clear that the hopes and aspirations engendered by the Spirit in believing minds pointed forward to the great miracle here described, and thus the belief in the resurrection was firmly bound up with the indestructible hopes of the future of Israel. The idea is represented in a form which is immature in the light of the New Testament,’ but it marks almost the highest development of O.T. revelation on the subject. That the hope is limited to Israel, appears both from the words of the passage itself, and also from v. 14, where it is denied of Israel’s foes (‘The dead live not (again), the Shades arise not’).
 Not ‘in Sheol’: the hope expressed by the Psalmist is not that he will rise again, but that he will not die.
 See further the notes on these passages in the Cambridge Bible; and the Introduction to the Psalms, pp. lxxv.–lxxviii.
 Cf. Oehler, Theol. of the O.T., § 225.
 In his notes on the chapter in the Cambridge Bible.
 Skinner, in the Cambridge Bible, ad loc.
The last passage in the O.T. in which the idea is expressed is Daniel 12:2, ‘And many of them that sleep in the dusty ground shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence.’ Here a resurrection of the wicked is taught for the first time, as also a doctrine of future rewards and punishments: both doctrines are, however, still applied only to Israelites, and (as the word ‘many’ shews) not even to all of these; the writer, it seems, having in view not individuals as such, but those individuals who had in an extraordinary degree helped or hindered the advent of God’s kingdom, i.e. the Jewish martyrs and apostates respectively, the great majority of the nation, who were of average character, neither overmuch righteous nor overmuch wicked, remaining still in Sheol. The nature of the future reward and retribution is also left indefinite, the expressions used being quite general.
 Cf. the note ad loc., and Charles, Eschatology, p. 180. The idea that the resurrection was to be limited to Israel appears also among the later Jews; indeed, it became ultimately the accepted doctrine that it was to be limited to righteous Israelites, the wicked being either annihilated, or confined in prison-houses of perpetual torment: cf. e.g. 2Ma 7:9; 2Ma 7:14; 2Ma 7:36; Psalms of Sol. 3:13, 16, 13:9, 10, 14:6, 7, 15:13–15; Apoc. of Baruch xxx.; Joseph. Ant. xviii. i. 3 (the creed of the Pharisees); and see Charles on Enoch li. 1, Weber, Altsynag. Theol. p. 372 ff.
 See further, on the subject of the two preceding paragraphs, Salmond’s Christian Doctrine of Immortality, ed. 3 (1897), pp. 233–267.
It does not fall within the scope of a Commentary on Daniel to trace the development of the doctrine in subsequent times; it must suffice to point out generally how, in the century or so following the age of the Maccabees, the religious imagination of pious Jews, meditating upon the intimations of a future life contained in the Old Testament, and combining them with different prophetic representations of the future triumph of the kingdom of God, arrived at fairly definite, though not always perfectly consistent, conceptions of a resurrection, a final judgement, a place of punishment (Gehenna), Paradise, and a future life (which is more or less spiritually conceived, according to the point of view adopted by the particular writer); and how, further, by this means currency was given to certain figures and expressions, in which even our Lord and His Apostles could clothe appropriately the truths enunciated by them.
 The writer has sketched the growth of belief in a future state, with special reference to the Book of Enoch and the Targums, in the fourth of his Sermons on subjects connected with the Old Testament (pp. 72–98); for more detailed particulars see Charles’ Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and Christian (1899), chaps. v.–viii.
3. Angels. The angelology of the Book of Daniel has been sufficiently explained, and compared with that of other Jewish writings of 2–1 cent. b.c., in the notes on Daniel 8:16 and Daniel 10:13. It has there been shewn that it is only in the later books of the O.T. that angels begin to receive names, and that differences of grade and function are recognized among them; in particular, also, it has been pointed out that the ‘chief princes’ mentioned in Daniel 10:13 are very probably the seven superior angels (or ‘archangels’) referred to in Tob 12:15 and in different parts of the Book of Enoch, and that the doctrine of patron or tutelary angels of nations; though alluded to probably in Isaiah 24:21, appears for the first time distinctly in Daniel (Daniel 10:13; Daniel 10:20-21, Daniel 11:1, Daniel 12:1). A few words must however be said here on the opinion that the angelology of Daniel was derived from, or at least influenced by, the religion of the ancient Persians, commonly called either (from the name of its traditional founder) Zoroastrianism, or (from the name of its supreme deity) Mazdeism. There are undoubtedly affinities between some of the doctrines of Zoroastrianism and those of Israel,—its supreme god, Ahura-mazda (mentioned repeatedly by Darius Hystaspis in his inscriptions), ‘the Lord, the great knower,’ was, for instance, a purer and more spiritual being than many of the gods of the heathen,—so that it is not difficult to imagine elements from the system being borrowed by the Jews; but in the case of angels, the influence, if it was exerted at all, must have been slight. The facts are these. Ahura-mazda is in the sacred canon of Zoroastrianism,—known generally as the Zend-Avesta,—the Creator of all things, but ‘he is assisted in his administration of the universe by legions of beings, who are all subject to him. The most powerful among his ministers were originally nature-gods, such as the sun, moon, earth, winds, water,’ &c.; but there were an immense number besides. At the head of all these subordinate beings are ‘six genii of a superior order, six ever-active energies, who preside under his guidance over the kingdoms and forces of nature.’ These genii are called ‘Amesha-spentas’ (Mod. Pers. ‘Amshaspands’), or ‘Beneficent (lit. ‘increase-giving’) immortals’; and their names are Vohumanô (‘good thought’) presiding over cattle, Asha-vahista (‘perfect holiness’) presiding over fire, Khshathra-vairya (‘good government’) over metals, Spenta-armaiti (‘meek piety’) over the earth, Haurvatât (‘health’) over vegetation, and Ameretât (‘immortality’) over water. Sometimes, also, Ahura-mazda is himself included among the Amesha-spentas, thus bringing their number up to seven. There is also an evil principle, Angrô-mainyus (Ahriman), co-eternal with Ahura-mazda, who is ever endeavouring to thwart the purposes, and mar the work, of Ahura-mazda, who against the six Amesha-spentas sets in array six evil spirits of equal power, and who also has under him a multitude of other evil beings (Daêvas), who never cease to do what they can to vex and seduce mankind.
 Maspero, The Passing of the Empires, pp. 577–586 (who quotes further authorities).
The Amesha-Spentas are alluded to frequently in the sacred writings of Mazdeism: we meet for instance constantly with such invocations as these:—‘We sacrifice to Ahura-Mazda, bright and glorious: we sacrifice to the Amesha-Spentas, the all-ruling, the all-beneficent’ (invocations to the individual Amesha-Spentas, and to other subordinate spirits, or deities, follow).
 Darmesteter in the Sacred Books of the East, xxiii. (the Zend-Avesta, Part ii.) pp. 13, 15, 17, 37, &c. (see the Index).
In Daniel, now, two angels, Gabriel and Michael, are mentioned by name; and Michael is said (Daniel 10:13) to be one of ‘the chief princes,’ i.e. probably (see on Daniel 10:13) one of the ‘seven holy angels’ mentioned in Tob 12:15 as presenting the prayers of the saints before God; seven principal angels are also mentioned in Enoch xx. 1–7, lxxxi. 5, xc. 21, 22 (elsewhere four are particularized, viz. in ix. 1, xl. 2–10, lxxxvii. 2, 3, lxxxviii. 1, lxxxix. 1). In order to estimate properly the bearing of Tobit upon the question, it should be added that Asmodeus, the name of the evil spirit in Tob 3:8; Tob 3:17, is almost certainly of Mazdean origin, viz. Aêshmô daêvô, the ‘raving demon.’ It must however be owned that the resemblance between this system and the angelology of Daniel is exceedingly slight. Even supposing that seven principal angels are certainly implied in Daniel 10:13, they differ from the Amesha-spentas not only in the names (which bear no resemblance whatever), but also in the fact that the seven Amesha-spentas include the supreme god of Zoroaster, Ahura-mazda, whereas the seven angels are of course exclusive of Jehovah. Seven, also, though it may be a mystical or sacred number among the Iranians, was also, independently, regarded similarly by the Hebrews; so that, as the idea of angels generally is unquestionably a native Hebrew one, the idea of seven principal angels might readily have arisen upon purely Hebrew ground. The utmost that can be granted,—and that not as certain, but only as possible,—is that the idea of seven superior angels—in so far as this is rightly regarded as involved in Daniel 10:13—may have been suggested by the vague knowledge that the religion of Zoroaster knew of seven good spirits, holding supremacy over the rest.
 Where, in the Greek text of Syncellus (Charles, p. 67), but not in the Gizeh text (ib. p. 333), they are called ‘the four great archangels.’
 Maspero, l.c. p. 585. Aêshma is one of the leaders of the evil demons created by Ahriman.
 Darmesteter, u. s. iv. p. lix. § 7: cf. also the seven Persian counsellors or princes of Ezra 7:14, Esther 1:14, and the seven principal Persian families in Hdt. iii. 84.
 In the later angelology of the Talmud, however, Mazdean influences are unquestionably traceable. Cf. further Pusey, pp. 463, 526–539; Cheyne, Origin of the Psalter, p. 335.
4. Antiochus Epiphanes and Antichrist. The Jews had suffered often at the hands of foreign rulers; but Antiochus Epiphanes was the first foreign king who persecuted them expressly on account of their religion, and not only forbade them, under pain of death, to practise any of its observances, but when they resisted him, avowed openly his determination to extirpate their nation (1Ma 3:35-36). By all loyal Jews he was regarded in consequence with far greater aversion than any of their previous conquerors or oppressors; and his hostility to their religion, combined with his ostentatious admiration of Hellenic deities, and the assumption by himself of Divine honours (see p. 191), caused him to be viewed by them as the impersonation of presumptuous and defiant impiety. These are the traits which appear prominently in the descriptions of Daniel 7:8 b, 20 b, 21, 25, Daniel 8:10-12; Daniel 8:25, Daniel 11:36-38. Many of the older interpreters supposed the description in ch. 7, and also that in vv. 36–45 of ch. 11, to refer not to Antiochus Epiphanes, but to the future ‘Antichrist.’ The figure of ‘Antichrist,’ the future ideal arch-enemy of the Messiah and of Israel, is ultimately of Jewish origin; but it was appropriated at an early date by the Christian Church, and received a Christian colouring. St John, though he spiritualizes the idea, applying it to tendencies already at work, attests its currency even in the Apostolic age (1 John 2:18; 1 John 2:23; 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7); and St Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10) developes it with fuller details. This interpretation of the passages of Daniel is indeed, upon exegetical grounds, untenable: nevertheless, it is true that Antiochus, as described in Daniel, is to a certain degree a prototype of the future Antichrist, and that traits in St Paul’s description have their origin in the Book of Daniel. In 2 Thess. it is said that the coming of Christ is to be preceded by a great falling away (‘apostasy’—ἡ ἀποστασία), in which the ‘man of sin’ (or, according to what is probably the better reading, ‘the man of lawlessness’) will be revealed, who ‘opposeth and exalteth himself against all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God’ (cf. Daniel 11:36-37): there is something (vv. 6, 7) which for the time prevents his appearance, though, when he does appear, he will be slain by the Lord Jesus, with the ‘breath of his mouth’ (cf. Isaiah 11:4). The beast having seven heads and ten horns, who in Revelation 13:1-8 rises out of the sea, and has given him ‘a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies,’ who receives authority ‘to do (his pleasure) [ποιῆσαι] during forty and two months’ (= 3½ years), and ‘to make war with the saints and overcome them,’ and whom all inhabitants of the earth (except those whose names are written in the ‘book of life’) ‘will worship’ (cf. vv. 12–15, Revelation 19:20), is in all probability ‘Nero redivivus’; but traits of the representation, as will be evident from the words quoted, are suggested by the descriptions in Daniel 7:8; Daniel 7:20-21; Daniel 7:25; Daniel 8:24 [LXX. Theod. ποιήσει], Daniel 11:28; Daniel 11:30 [ποιήσει], 36, of Antiochus Epiphanes. Many of the Fathers, also, drew afterwards pictures of Antichrist, formed by a combination of the representations in Daniel 7 and Daniel 11:36-45 (according to the interpretation mentioned above) with those contained in the New Testament; but it lies beyond the scope of the present introduction to pursue the history of the subject further.
 Cf. 2Es 5:6; Apoc. of Baruch xl. 1, 2. If chaps. 8–9 of the Assumption of Moses are not displaced (p. lxxxiii), the writer expected the time of the end to be preceded by a period of persecution almost exactly resembling that of Antiochus.
 Cf. pp. lxv, 99 f., 193.
 Where, according to an old, though of course incorrect, Jewish exegesis, the ‘wicked’ is the future arch-enemy of the Jews.
 See further the article Man of Sin in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, and (with fuller details) Antichrist in the Encyclopaedia Biblica.
 See e.g. Iren. v. 25; Hippolytus (c. 220 a.d.), ed. Lagarde, pp. 101–114, &c.
§ 5. Versions, Commentaries, &c.
A detailed consideration of the Versions of Daniel does not fall within the scope of the present Commentary: but some general remarks must be made with reference to the Greek Versions. The Septuagint Version of the O.T., as is well known, was completed gradually, and is the work of different hands, the translations of the different books, or groups of books, varying in style, and exhibiting very different degrees of excellence and accuracy. The translation of Daniel is one of the most paraphrastic and unsatisfactory; and upon this ground, as it seems,—intensified perhaps by the difficulty which was practically experienced in appealing to it in controversy,—it was viewed with disfavour by the early Christian Church, and the more literal version of Theodotion took its place. Jerome mentions the fact, and though he owns that he does not know the precise explanation of it, he is evidently inclined to believe that it was that which has been just stated:—
‘Danielem prophetam, iuxta LXX interpretes, Domini Salvatoris Ecclesiae non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione; et hoc cur acciderit, nescio. Sive enim quia sermo Chaldaicus est, et quibusdam proprietatibus a nostro eloquio discrepat, noluerunt LXX interpretes easdem linguae lineas in translatione servare; sive sub nomine eorum ab alio nescio quo non satis Chaldaeam linguam sciente editus est liber; sive aliud quid causae extiterit ignorans: hoc unum affirmare possum, quod multum a veritate discordet, et recto iudicio repudiatus sit.’
 Preface to Daniel, printed at the beginning of ordinary editions of the Vulgate (cf. in the Prologue to his Commentary on Daniel, ed. Bened. iii. 1074, ed. Vallarsi, v. 619 f.). There follows a curious passage, in which Jerome speaks of the ‘anhelantia stridentiaque verba’ of the ‘Chaldee’ language, and of the difficulty which he experienced in acquiring it.
Cf. Contra Ruff. ii. 33 (ed. Bened. iv. 431; ed. Vallarsi, ii. 527) ‘… ecclesias Christi hunc prophetam iuxta Theodotionem legere, et non iuxta LXX translatores. Quorum si in isto libro editionem dixi multum a veritate distare et recto ecclesiarum Christi iudicio reprobatam, non est meae culpae qui dixi, sed eorum qui legunt.’
And in his Commentary on iv. 5 [A.V. 8] (ed. Bened. iii. 1088; ed. Vallarsi, v. 645, 646): ‘donec collega ingressus est in conspectu meo Daniel, cui nomen Balthasar secundum nomen Dei mei [as in the Vulg.]. Exceptis LXX translatoribus, qui haec omnia [viz. vv. 3–6 (A.V. 6–9)] nescio qua ratione praeterierunt, tres reliqui [Aq. Theod. and Symm.] collegam interpretati sunt. Unde iudicio magistrorum Ecclesiae editio eorum in hoc volumine repudiata est; et Theodotionis legitur, quae et Hebraeo, et ceteris translationibus, congruit.’
 This is an error, due apparently to ἕτερος, in the MS. used by Jerome, being written ἑταῖρος.
Theodotion lived probably in the second century: he is mentioned by Irenaeus (iii. 21), who wrote about a.d. 180. The age was one in which a desire was felt to have a Greek version of the Old Testament more faithful than that of the LXX.: and three scholars, Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, came forward to supply the want. The principles upon which they worked were not entirely the same; while Aquila’s ideal was, for example, a translation of extreme literalness, Theodotion sought merely to revise the LXX. version, by correcting its more serious deviations from the Hebrew. None of these three ‘revised versions’ of the O.T. has, however, been preserved in its integrity: in most cases, they have been transmitted only in the form of glosses on the text of the LXX., which was placed by Origen (3rd cent. a.d.) in the fifth column of his ‘Hexapla,’ and transcribed thence into other MSS. But in the case of Daniel, the version of Theodotion displaced the true Septuagintal version in MSS. of the LXX.; and the latter version remained actually unknown to scholars till the middle of the last century, when a MS. containing it, was published at Rome in 1772. This MS. belongs to the Library of the Chigi family, and is known as the Codex Chisianus. It contains Jer., Baruch, Lam., Ep. of Jeremiah, Daniel according to the LXX., Hippolytus on Daniel, Daniel according to Theodotion, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. It has been supposed to date from the ninth century, though it is very possibly later. In Tischendorf’s edition of the LXX., the version of Daniel contained in the body of the work (ii. 480 ff.) is, in accordance with what has been just stated, that of Theodotion: the genuine ‘Septuagint’ version, as found in the Chisian MS., is given at the end of the volume (p. 589 ff.). In Dr Swete’s edition of the LXX., to the great convenience of the reader, the two versions are printed side by side on opposite pages (vol. iii. p. 498 ff.).
 See particulars in Dr Field’s edition of the Hexapla, i. pp. xxi ff., xxx ff., xxxix ff.; or the art Hexapla in the Dict. of Christian Biography. It is remarkable that renderings differing from those of the LXX., but agreeing largely with those of Theod., occur in the N.T. (see esp. 1 Corinthians 15:54; John 19:37, cf. Revelation 1:7), and writers of the early part of the second cent. a.d.; hence it has been conjectured that there was a ‘Theodotion’ before Theodotion, or in other words, that a revision of the LXX. had been begun before Theodotion, though Theodotion was the first to carry it through systematically (cf. Salmon, Introd. to the N.T.3, p. 586 ff.; Schürer3, iii. 323 f.).
 The five remaining columns contained, respectively, the Hebrew, the Hebrew in Greek characters, and the versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus.
 Cf. Dr Field’s Hexapla, ii. 904 ff. There are also other, more recent editions, the best being that of Cozza in his Sacrorum Bibliorum vetustissima fragmenta, vol. iii. (1877). It is true, in the colophon at the end of Daniel 12, the text of this MS. is said to have been taken from a copy based on the Tetrapla of Origen; but the Tetrapla was simply a subsequent edition of the Hexapla, with the first two columns omitted.
The recension of the LXX. exhibited by the Chisian MS., being based upon the text adopted by Origen for his Hexapla, is known as the ‘Hexaplar’ text; and it contains (though with many misplacements and omissions) the obelisks and asterisks by which this learned Father indicated, respectively, the passages which had nothing corresponding to them in the current Hebrew text, and those which, having something corresponding to them in the Hebrew, but being not represented in the genuine LXX., were supplied by him from some other version (usually that of Theod.). Of the ‘Hexaplar’ text of the LXX., now, a very literal Syriac translation was made at Alexandria in 616–7 by Paul, Bishop of Tella (in Mesopotamia); and a great part of this Syriac version of the LXX. has been preserved in a MS., now in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, which was edited in facsimile by Ceriani in 1874. The text which formed the basis of this ‘Syro-hexaplar’ version of the LXX. (as it is commonly called) was in a purer state than that found in the Chisian MS.: it exhibits more completely the obelisks and asterisks, and it is not disfigured by the omissions, additions, and other clerical errors, which are manifest blots in the Chisian text. It is thus of importance for assisting scholars to restore the LXX. text of Daniel, at least approximately, to the state in which it was when it left Origen’s hands; and the readings which it presupposes, when they differ from those of the Chisian MS., are accordingly appended at the foot of the LXX. text in Tischendorf’s edition, and (after the more thorough collation of Dr Field in his Hexapla, ii. 908 ff.) in that of Dr Swete (e.g. Daniel 2:28-29, a long passage which has dropped out of the Chisian text by inadvertence; Daniel 7:27 ὑψίστου for the erroneous ὑψίστῳ).
 The Book of Daniel in this version was published first by Bugati in 1788. See further Field, Hexapla, i. lxvii ff.; and cf. Swete, The Old Testament in Greek, iii. p. xiii.
 The longer additions in the Greek versions of Dan. (both LXX. and Theod.), The Song of the Three Children, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon, have been referred to above, p. xviii ff.
For further particulars respecting the character of the LXX., and illustrations of its renderings, reference must be made to the Commentaries of Bevan, pp. 42–54, and Behrmann, pp. xxviii–xxx, xxxiv–xxxvii, and to the monograph of A. Bludau, De Alex. Interpr. Libri Danielis indole critica et hermeneutica (1881). Behrmann, also, describes briefly (p. xxxii f., cf. pp. xxxiv–xxxvi) the characteristics of Theodotion’s version, of the Peshiṭtâ, and of that of Jerome (the Vulgate). There is no Targum to Daniel, just as there is none to Ezra-Nehemiah.
 On the text of the LXX., both in itself, and in the light of the renderings of the Syro-Hex., see also Löhr’s study in the ZATW. 1895, p. 75 ff., 1896, p. 33 ff. A synopsis of the very numerous variations from the Heb. is given (in English) by Dr Pusey, p. 606 ff. (ed. 2, p. 624 ff.).
As regards the Massoretic text of Daniel, though it contains, no doubt, a few corrupt or suspicious passages, there are no reasons for questioning that we possess it, on the whole, in a correct form. The LXX., though in isolated passages it may preserve a more original reading, as a whole has no claim whatever to consideration beside it: the liberties which the translator has manifestly taken with his text being such as to deprive the different readings which, if it were a reasonably faithful translation, it might be regarded as presupposing, of all pretensions to originality,—except, indeed, in a comparatively small number of instances, in which they are supported by strong grounds of intrinsic probability. The other versions (which deviate very much less widely from the Heb. and Aram. than the LXX. does) also occasionally preserve a reading better than that of the Massoretic text. The principal cases in which the existing text of Daniel may be corrected from the versions are mentioned in the notes; but it must not be inferred that there are no suspicious or doubtful passages beyond those on which corrections have been noted.
The principal commentaries on Daniel in modern times are those of Hävernick (1832), von Lengerke (1835), Hitzig (1850), Auberlen (1857), Ewald (in vol. iii. of his Propheten, ed. 2, 1868: in the translation, vol. v. 152 ff.), Keil (1869), Zöckler, in Lange’s ‘Bibelwerk’ (1870), Reuss in La Bible, Traduction nouvelle, avec introductions et commentates, O.T., Part vii. (1879), p. 205 ff., Meinhold, in Strack and Zöckler’s ‘Kurzgef. Komm.’ 8th div. p. 257 ff. (1889), Bevan (1892), and Behrmann (1894): the older commentaries, however, including that of Keil (who identifies, for instance, Belshazzar with Evil-merodach), contain much that has been superseded, or shewn to be untenable, by the progress of archaeology. There are also Kamphausen’s edition of the Heb. and Aram. text, with critical annotations, in Haupt’s ‘Sacred Books of the O.T.’ (1896: the part containing the English translation, and exegetical notes, has not at present [July, 1900] appeared); and Marti’s translation in Kautzsch’s Die Heilige Schrift des AT.s (1894), with brief critical notes (in the ‘Beilagen,’ pp. 87–89). Dean Farrar’s Commentary, in the ‘Expositor’s Bible’ (1895), contains much that is helpful and suggestive. J. D. Prince’s Commentary (London and New York, 1899) is especially rich in Assyriological information.
Among ancient commentaries, a special value attaches to that of Jerome. Porphyry, a learned and able neo-Platonist, the most distinguished pupil of Plotinus (see the art. Porphyry in the Dict. of Christian Biography), had written a treatise (not now extant) in which he sought to shew that the historical survey in Daniel 11 must have been written after the events referred to had taken place; and the information collected by him from Greek historians, whose works are now lost, and preserved to us by Jerome, often throws a welcome light on passages of this chapter, which must otherwise have remained obscure. There are also many other points on which this, like the other commentaries of the same most learned and industrious Biblical scholar, contains much that is still valuable, and should not be neglected by the student.
 Jerome, though he upheld himself the interpretation of Daniel 11:36-45 current at the time (see below, p. 193), added, however, the notable and far-sighted words, ‘Pone haec dici de Antiocho, quid nocet religioni nostrae?’
On the question of the date of the Book of Daniel, the chief advocates of the traditional view have been Hengstenberg in vol. i. of his Beiträge zur Einl. ins alte Test., 1831 (cf. the discussion of Daniel 9:24-27 in his Christologie des AT.s, 1854–7, iii. 83–235 in Clark’s translation); Hävernick in his Comm. (1832), his Neue kritische Untersuchungen, 1838 (a reply to von Lengerke), and his Einleitung, ii. ii. (1844), p. 435 ff.; Auberlen; Keil in his Comm. (1869), and his Einleitung, ed. 3, 1873, §§ 131–7; E. B. Pusey in the volume of lectures entitled Daniel the Prophet, 1864 (extremely learned and thorough): the same view is also adopted by J. M. Fuller in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ and by J. E. H. Thomson in the ‘Pulpit Commentary’ (1897),—who, however, like Zöckler (pp. v, 16b, 17b, 199 f.), rejects most, if not all, of ch. 11 as an interpolation (pp. iv, vii, xviii, 287), and evades many other difficulties which the book presents by the hypothesis that ‘the text is in a very bad state, and has been subjected to various interpolations and alterations’ (p. 40b); see also H. Deane, Daniel, his life and times, in the ‘Men of the Bible’ series (1888). The most complete treatment of the question from the opposite standpoint is that of Kuenen in his Hist.-crit. Onderzock, Part ii. (1889), §§ 87–92 (in the German translation, the Einleitung, ii. p. 430 ff.): see also Bleek’s classical exegetical study, ‘The Messianic prophecies in the Book of Daniel,’ in the Jahrb. für Deutsche Theologie, 1860, pp. 47–101 (discusses Daniel 9:24-27 very fully; and shews in particular that the acknowledged fact that ch. 8 and Daniel 11:21-35 refer to Ant. Ep., involves, on exegetical grounds, the conclusion that chs. 2, 7, 9, Daniel 11:36 to Daniel 12:13, culminate in references to the same age); and Kamphausen’s brochure, Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Geschichts-forschung (1893).
 The references are to ed. 1: in ed. 2 (1868), after p. 44, the pagination gradually rises till p. 564 in ed. 1 = p. 568 in ed. 2.
Books or monographs dealing with special points are referred to, as occasion requires, in the notes. The most thorough grammar of the Biblical Aramaic is Kautzsch’s Gramm. des Bibl.-Aram. (1884); there are shorter grammars by Marti (Kurzgefasste Grammatik der Bibl.-Aram. Sprache, 1896), and Strack (Abriss des Bibl.-Aram., ed. 2, 1897). The Commentaries most useful philologically are those of Bevan, Behrmann, and Prince.
The view of the date of the Book of Daniel adopted in the present volume is that accepted by the most moderate and reasonable of recent critics, as Delitzsch (in Herzog’s Real-Encyklopädie2, vol. iii. (1878), s.v.), Riehm, Einleitung (1890), ii. 292 ff., König, Einleitung (1893), §§ 78–9, Kamphausen, op. cit., and in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, Strack, Einleitung4 (1895), § 63, Schüre, ii. 613 ff. (Engl. tr. II. iii. p. 49 ff.), C. A. Briggs, Messianic Prophecy (1886), p. 411 f., Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 215 ff., Dillmann, A. T. Theol. (1895), p. 522 f., Ottley, Bampton Lectures, 1897, p. 331 f., Hebrew Prophets (1898), pp. 15, 103 ff., E. L. Curtis in Hastings’ Dict. of the Bible, s.v., &c. The position is one of those which are sometimes yielded with reluctance, especially by those who have been brought up in the older view, and who can recollect the strenuousness and firm conviction with which that view was contended for by the apologists of a former generation. But the wider knowledge of antiquity which we now possess has shewn that many opinions relating to the Old Testament, not less than to the literature and history of other ancient nations, which were once generally accepted, can no longer be maintained; and the apologist, where, in a matter affecting him, he finds this to be the case, must change his ground. The traditional view of the authorship of the Book of Daniel, it must be remembered, is no article of the Christian faith; and the impossibility of defending it by arguments which will carry general conviction, deprives it of the apologetic value which it was once regarded as possessing.
 chürer E. Schürer, Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ed. 2, 1886, 1890 (translated, Edinb. 1890–3); Vol. 2, also, in ed. 3 (2 vols.), 1898.
 E. Schürer, Gesch. des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, ed. 2, 1886, 1890 (translated, Edinb. 1890–3); Vol. 2, also, in ed. 3 (2 vols.), 1898.
As stated above (p. xxii), it is argued by Meinhold that the Book of Daniel is of composite authorship, Daniel 2:4 b–6 being considerably earlier in origin than the rest of the Book; but this view has not otherwise found supporters. Another theory of the composite character of the book is developed by G. A. Barton in the Journ. of Biblical Literature, 1898, p. 62 ff. The unity of the Book has also been doubted, on the conservative side, and with the object, at the same time, of explaining its bilingual character, by Mr Thomson: the Book, he supposes (p. vii), ‘originally floated about in separate little tractates, some relating incidents, others visions; some in Aramaic, some in Hebrew; and in a somewhat later age an editor collected them together, and added a prologue.’ It is true, there are features in the Book which might seem to suggest that the author was not throughout the same; but the question is, whether they are decisive, especially in view of the many marks of unity which link the different parts of the Book together. The reader who is interested in the subject may consult further Budde’s criticism of Meinhold in the Theol. Lit.-zeitung, 29 Dec. 1888; and von Gall, Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel (1895), with J. W. Rothstein’s reviews of Behrmann’s Comm. and of this work in the Deutsche Litt.-zeitung, 28 Nov. and 26 Dec. 1896: comp. also Kamphausen in the Encycl. Biblica, s.v., § 4.
It is possible that, as Gunkel has argued (Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit, 1895, pp. 323–335), the imagery of the four beasts in Daniel 7 is in part suggested by traditional reminiscences of the old Babylonian cosmogonic epic: but the fact, in so far as it is true (for it is certainly overstated by Gunkel), possesses only an antiquarian interest; it has no bearing upon the sense in which the author applied his materials, or upon the exegesis of the vision (cf. Wellhausen, Skizzen, vi. 232–5). Some verbal parallels between Daniel 1-6 and the ‘Story of Aḥiḳar,’ have suggested also the inference that the author of Dan. was perhaps acquainted with the last-named work: see J. Rendel Harris, The Story of Aḥiḳar (Camb. 1898), pp. lvii–lx, lxxxiii, 25, 72, 73, 87, 101, and Barton, Amer. Journ. of Sem. Lang., July 1900, p. 242 ff.
 The ‘Achiacharus’ of Tob 1:21-22; Tob 2:10; Tob 11:18; Tob 14:10 (cf. Harris, p. xxviii). The story is a ‘midrash,’ or moralizing narrative, describing how Aḥiḳar, a vizier of Sennacherib, being accused falsely of treason, was cast into a dungeon, and how afterwards he was delivered, and his accuser consigned to the dungeon in his stead (cf. Tob 14:10).
The Inscription recording the Vote of Thanks to Eumenes and Attalus passed by the Council and people of Antioch
 From Fränkel, Die Inschriften von Pergamon (1890), I. No. 160.
As this inscription, which was discovered inscribed on a marble stele, on the site of the ancient Pergamum in Aug. 1885, is of some interest, and has never, so far as the present writer is aware, been published in England, it may be worth quoting here. Its purport, it will be seen, is to describe how Eumenes, king of Pergamum, came forward, with great readiness and liberality, to assist Antiochus with money and forces to gain his throne, how his brother Attalus co-operated with him, and how two other brothers, Philetaerus and Athenaeus, also shewed good-will at the same time. The Council of Antioch agreed therefore to propose to the people to honour with golden crowns not only Eumenes and his brothers, for the benefits they had conferred upon the state, but also their deceased father Attalus, and the queen-mother Apollonis, for having educated their children in such virtuous ways. The bestowal of these honours was to be announced both in Daphne, the pleasure-suburb of Antioch, and in Pergamum, at the public games; and stone tablets, with the decree engraved upon them, were to be set up in Antioch itself, in Daphne, and in Pergamum. The inscription confirms, and fills out, the brief statement of Appian (Syr. 45) that Eumenes and Attalus τὸν Ἀντίοχον ἐς αὐτὴν [τὴν Συρίαν] κατάγουσιν ἑταιριζόμενοι τὸν ἄνδρα. The opening lines are imperfect.
6 … ὡς εἰς σύσστασιν ἦι θε[λ-
 The conspiracy of Heliodorus.
… καὶ ἀδελφοῦ πέμπτου τὰ ε …
 In all probability, Antiochus Epiphanes, who is known to have had both four brothers and four sisters.
… μετ]αλλάξαντος Σελεύκου [καὶ
τῆς συμφορ]ᾶς παρακαλούσης θεωροῦντες
10 πόρον τ]ὸγ καιρὸμ παραδίδοντα πρὸς τὸ κατα-
θέσθαι χάριγ καὶ εὐεργεσίαν, πάντα πάρεργα
τ]ἆλλα ποιησάμενοι καὶ ἑαυτοὺς ἐπέχρησαν καὶ
 Risked their lives.
μέχρι τῶν ὁρίων τῆς ἰδίας βασιλείας συμπρο-
ελθόντες καὶ χρήμασι χορηγήσαντες καὶ
15 δυνάμεις παρασκευάσαντες καὶ τῶι διαδήματι
μετὰ τῆς ἄλλης κατασκευῆς κοσμήσαντες
ὡς καθῆκεν καὶ βο[υθ]υτήσαντες καὶ πίστεις
ποιησάμενοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους μετὰ πάσης εὐνοίας
καὶ φιλοστοργίας ἀξιολόγως συγκατέστησαν ἐπὶ τὴ[μ
20 πατρώιαν ἀρχὴν τὸμ βασιλέα Ἀντίοχον. Ὅπως ἂν οὖ[ν
ὁ δῆμος ἐγ χάριτος ἀποδόσει φαίνηται πρωτεύω[ν
καὶ τοὺς ἑαυτὸν καὶ τοὺς φίλους εὐεργετοῦντα[ς
ἀπαρακλήτως φανερὸς εἶ τιμῶν καὶ τὰ καλὰ τῶ[ν
ἔργων εἰς ἀΐδιομ μνήμην ἀνάγων καὶ νῦν καθάπε[ρ
25 καὶ πρότερον• ἀγαθεῖ τύχηι δεδόχθαι τεῖ βουλεῖ
τοὺς λαχόντας προέδρους εἰς τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἐκκλησίαν
χρηματίσαι περὶ τούτων, γνώμην δὲ ξυμβάλλεσθαι
τῆς βουλῆς εἰς τὸν δῆμον ὅτι δοκεῖ τεῖ βουλεῖ
ἐπαινέσαι τὸμ βασιλέα Εὐμένη βασιλέως Ἀττά[λου
30 καὶ βασιλίσσης Ἀπολλωνίδος καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσ[ῶι
στεφάνωι ἀριστέωι κατὰ τὸν νόμον ἀρετῆς ἕνεκεν
καὶ εὐνοίας καὶ καλοκαγαθίας ἢν ἀπεδείξατο
πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις σπεύσας ὑπὲρ τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου
καὶ συγκαταστήσας αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν τῶμ προγόνων [ἀ]ρ[χήν.
35 Κατὰ ταὐτὰ δὲ στεφανῶσαι καὶ Ἄτταλον, ὅτι μετὰ τοῦ
ἀδελφοῦ Εὐμένους πάντα συνέπραξεν ἀόκνως
καὶ φιλοκινδύνως. Ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
αὐτῶν Φιλέταιρον καὶ Ἀθηναῖον καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι
στεφάνωι ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν εὐνοίας ἓνεκεν καὶ
40 φιλοτιμίας, ἣμ παρέσχοντο κατὰ τὴγ κάθοδον τοῦ
βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου. Ἐπαινέσαι δὲ καὶ τοὺς γονεῖς
αὐτῶν, τόν τε βασιλέα Ἄτταλον καὶ τὴμ βασίλισσαν
Ἀπολλωνίδα, καὶ στεφανῶσαι χρυσῶι στεφάνωι
 Attalus I. (now dead), and Apollonis, the mother of Eumenes, who was still living.
ἀριστείωι ἀρετῆς ἔνεκεν καὶ καλοκαγαθίας,
45 ἣμ περιεποίησαν τοῖς ὑοῖς προστάντες τῆς παιδείας
αὐτῶν καλῶς καὶ σωφρόνως. Ἀναγορεῦσαι δὲ τοὺς
στεφάνους τούτους ἔν τε τοῖς ἀγῶσιν οἶς.…
ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ ἐν οἶς ὁ βασιλεὺς Εὐμένης μετά τε τῶν
ἀδελφῶν καὶ τοῦ δήμου τοῦ Περγαμηνῶν, κατά ταὐτὰ δὲ
50 καὶ ἐν οἶς ὁ βασιλεὺς Ἀντίοχος ἐπὶ Δάφνει [θ]ήσει, καθάπερ
αὐτοῖς ἔθος ἦν. Ἵνα δὲ καὶ τὸ ὑπόμνημα διαμένει συμ[φ]α[νὲς
εἰς τὸν αἰώνιογ χρόνον, ἀναγράψαι τόδε τὸ ψήφισμα εἰς στήλας
λιθίνας καὶ στῆσαι τὴμ μὲν ἐν ἀγορᾶι παρὰ τὰς εἰκόνας τάς
τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀντιόχου, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῶι ἰερῶι τῆς Νικηφόρου
55 Ἀθηνᾶς, τὴν δὲ ἐν τῶι ἐπὶ Δάφνει, τοῦ Ἀπόλλωνος ἱερῶι.
 At Pergamum,—no doubt the same stele on which the inscription was found.
Τῆς δέ διαποστολῆς αὐτοῦ πρός τε τὸμ βασιλέα καὶ τὴ[μ
μητέρα καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ἐπιμεληθῆναι τοὺς στρατηγ[ούς,
ὅπως ἐπιμελῶς γένηται καὶ τὴν ταχίστην.