:\  '<i^  ^•''ftoTr: 
 
 '<J  itJU 
 
 ^^/nGT.,,    9^,^^ 
 
 r>iv 
 
 55 
 
 Sec 
 
 -tio7i 
 
 1/ 
 
CLARK'S 
 
 FOREIGN 
 
 THEOLOGICAL   LIBRARY. 
 
 FOURTH   SERIES. 
 VOL.  XXXIV. 
 
 Witil  on  tf)e  Book  of  IBantel. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T.    &   T.    CLARK,    38,    GEORGE    STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXII. 
 
FEINTED  BY  MURRAY  AND  GIBB, 
 FOR 
 
 T.   &  T.    CLARK,   EDINBURGH. 
 
 LONDON,      ....        HAMILTON,  ADAMS,  AND  CO. 
 DUBLIN,       ....        JOHN  ROBERTSON  AND  CO. 
 NEW  YORK,        .        .        .        C.  SCRIBNER  AND  CO. 
 
BIBLICAL  COMMENTARY 
 
 THE   OLD   TESTAMENT. 
 
 C.  F.  KEIL,  D.I).,  km  F.  DELITZSCH,  D.D. 
 
 PROFESSORS  OF  THEOLOGY. 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  THE  PROPHET  DANIEL, 
 
 V 
 
 C.  F.  KEIL. 
 
 TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN  BV 
 
 THE   REV.    M.    G.    EASTON,    A.M. 
 
 EDINBURGH: 
 T.    &   T.    CLARK,    38,    GEORGE     STREET. 
 
 MDCCCLXXII. 
 
TEANSLATOKS  PKEFACE. 
 
 The  venerable  and  learned  author  of  the  following  Commentary  has 
 produced  a  work  which,  it  is  believed,  will  stand  comparison  with 
 any  other  of  the  present  age  for  the  comprehensive  and  masterly 
 way  in  which  he  handles  the  many  difficult  and  interesting  ques- 
 tions of  Biblical  Criticism  and  Interpretation  that  have  accumulated 
 from  the  earliest  times  around  the  Exposition  of  the  Book  of  the 
 Prophet  Daniel.  The  Translator  is  glad  of  the  opportunity  of 
 bringing  this  work  under  the  notice  of  English  readers.  The 
 severely  critical  and  exegetical  nature  of  the  work  precludes  any 
 attempt  at  elegance  of  style.  The  Translator's  aim  has  simply 
 been  to  introduce  the  English  student  to  Dr.  Keil's  own  modes 
 of  thought  and  forms  of  expression. 
 
TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1.  The  Person  of  the  Prophet,           .....  1 
 
 2.  Daniel's  Place  in  the  History  of  the  Kingdom  of  God,   .            .  4 
 
 The  Exile  a  Turning-point  in  the  Development  of  the  Kingdom  of 
 
 God  and  in  the  History  of  the  Heathen  Nations,          .             .  7 
 
 3.  The  Contents  and  Arrangement  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,             .  13 
 
 4.  The  Genuineness  of  the  Book  of  Daniel,   .            .            .            .  19 
 
 Four  Great  Periods  of  Miracles,       .....  20 
 
 The  Revelations  of  God  first  and  principally  intended  for  Israel,    .  23 
 
 Revelation  by  Dreams  and  by  Visions  distinguished,           .             .  27 
 
 External  Arguments  against  the  Genuineness  of  the  Book  answered,  29 
 Internal  Arguments  against  its  Genuineness  answered : 
 
 (1.)  Greek  Names  of  Musical  Instruments,           ...  34 
 
 (2.)  Historical  Difficulties,            .....  35 
 
 (3.)  Was  composed  in  the  Time  of  the  Maccabees,          .            .  39 
 
 Arguments  against  this  Objection,  and  Origin  in  Time  of 
 
 the  Exile  proved,           .....  43 
 
 EXPOSITION". 
 
 Chap.  I.  Historico-Biographical  Introduction,        .  .  .  58 
 
 Vers.  1,  2.  Expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  against  Jerusalem,  .  58 
 Vers.  3-7.  Daniel  and  his  Companions  set  apart  for  Training  for 
 
 the  King's  Service,       ......  73 
 
 Vers.  8-16.  Daniel's  Request  to  the  Chief  Chamberlain  granted,  .  80 
 Vers.  17-21.  Progress  of  the  Young  Men  in  the  Wisdom  of  the 
 
 Chaldeans,  and  their  Appointment  to  the  King's  Service,        .  82 
 
 PART  FIRST.— THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  WORLD-POWER, 
 
 Chap.  II.-VII., 84-283 
 
 Chap.  II.  Nebuchadnezzar's  Vision  of  the  World-Monarchies,  and 
 
 its  Interpretation  by  Daniel,  ....  84 
 
 Vers.  1-13.  Dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar,       ....  86 
 
 Vers.  14-30.  Daniel's  WilUugness  to  declare  the  Dream  to  the  King, 
 
 and  his  Prayer  for  a  Revelation  of  the  Secret,  .  .  96 
 
vm 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 FA61I 
 
 Vers.  31-45.  The  Dream  and  its  Interpretation,      .  .  .         102 
 
 Vers,  46-49.  Consequences  of  the  Interpretation,  .  .  .        112 
 
 Chap.  III.  Daniel's  Three  Friends  in  the  Fiery  Furnace,    .  .        114 
 
 Vers.  1-18.  Erection  and  Consecration  of  the  Golden  Image,  and 
 
 the  Accusation  against  Daniel's  Friends,  .  .  .117 
 
 Vers.  14-18.  Trial  of  the  Accused,  .  .  .  .125 
 
 Vers.  19-27.  The   Judgment  pronounced  on   the  Accused,  their 
 
 Punishment  and  Deliverance,  .  .  .  .  .128 
 
 Vers.  28-30.  Impression  made  by  this  Event  on  Nebuchadnezzar,  .         131 
 
 Chap.  III.  31  (IV.  1)-IV.  34  (37).  Nebuchadnezzar's  Dream  and  his 
 
 Madness,  .......        133 
 
 Chap.  iii.  31  (iv.  l)-iv.  15  (18).  The  Preface  to  the  King's  Edict, 
 
 and  the  Account  of  his  Dream,  ....        142 
 
 Chap.  iv.  16-24  (19-27).  The  Interpretation  of  the  Dream,  .         154 
 
 Vers.  25-30  (28-33).  The  Fulfilling  of  the  Dream,  .  .         157 
 
 Vers.  31-34  (34-37).  Nebuchadnezzar's  Recovery,  his  Restoration 
 to  his  Kingdom,  and  his  thankful  Recognition  of  the  Lord  in 
 Heaven,  .......        160 
 
 Chap.  V.  Belshazzar's  Feast  and  the  Handwriting  of  God,  .  162 
 
 Belshazzar  and  the  Kings  of  Chaldea,  ....  163 
 
 Vers.  1-4.  Belshazzar  magnifies  himself  against  God,  .  .  179 
 
 Vers.  5-12.  The  Warning  Sign  and  Belshazzar's  Astonishment,  ,  181 
 Vers.  13-28.  Daniel  is  summoned,  reminds  the  King  of  his  Sins, 
 
 reads  and  interprets  the  Dream,  ....  186 
 
 Vers.  29,  30.  Daniel  rewarded,  and  Beginning  of  the  Fulfilment 
 
 of  the  Writing,  ......  190 
 
 Chap.  VI.  Daniel  in  the  Den  of  Lions,  ....        192 
 
 Historical  Statements  of  the  Chapter  vindicated,    .  .  192-201 
 
 Vers.  1-10  (ch.  v.   31-vi.  9).    Transference  of  the  Kingdom  to 
 Darius  the  Mede  ;  Appointment  of  the  Regency,  and  Envy  of 
 the  Satraps  against  Daniel,       .....         203 
 Vers.  11-25  (10-24).  Daniel's  Offence  against  the  Law;  his  Ac- 
 cusation, Condemnation,  and  Miraculous  Deliverance,  .         212 
 Vers.  26-29  (28).  Consequences  of  this  Occurrence,            .  .         218 
 
 Chap.  VII.  The  Vision  of  the  Four  World-Kingdoms  ;  the  Judg- 
 ment; AND  the  Kingdom  of  the  Holt  God,  .  .  .        219 
 Ver.  1.  Time  of  the  Vision,             .....        220 
 Vers.  4-8.  Description  of  the  Four  Beasts,              .             .  .         223 
 Vers.  9-14.  Judgment  on  the  Horn  speaking  Great  Things  and  on 
 the  other  Beasts,  and  the  Delivering  of  the  Kingdom  to  the 
 Son  of  Man,      .... 
 Vers.  15-18.  The  Interpretation  of  the  Vision, 
 
 The  Four  World- Kingdoms, 
 
 The  Messianic  Kingdom  and  the  Son  of  Man,  . 
 
 The  Son  of  Man,  6  viog  rov  du^pliTzov,  . 
 
 The  Little  Horn  and  the  Apocalyptic  Beast,     . 
 
 229 
 237 
 
 245 
 269 
 273 
 275 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART  SECOND.— THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF 
 
 GOD,  Chap.  VIII.-XII.,  ....  283-506 
 
 Chap.  YIII.  The  Enemy  arising  out  of  the  Third  "World-Kingdom, 
 Vers.  1-14.  The  Vision,       ..... 
 Vers.  15-27.  The  Interpretation  of  the  Vision, 
 
 Chap.  IX.  The  Seventy  Weeks,  .... 
 
 Vers.  1,  2.  Occasion  of  the  Penitential  Prayer, 
 
 Vers.  3-19.  Daniel's  Prayer,  .... 
 
 Vers.  20-23.  The  Granting  of  the  Prayer,  . 
 
 Vers.  24-27.  The  Divine  Revelation  regarding  the  Seventy  Weeks, 
 Ver.  24.  Seventy  Weeks  determined,  etc., 
 Ver.  25.  Detailed  Statement  of  the  Seventy  Weeks, 
 Ver.  26.  After  Threescore  and  Two  Weeks  Messiah  cut  off, 
 Ver.  27.  To  Confirm  the  Covenant,  etc., 
 
 The  Abomination  of  Desolation,      .... 
 
 Symbolical  Interpretation  of  the  Seventy  Weeks,    . 
 
 Chap.  X.-XII.  The  Revelation  regarding  the  Affliction  of  the 
 People  of  God  on  the  Part  of  the  Rulers  of  the  World 
 TILL  THE  Consummation  of  the  Kingdom  of  God, 
 Chap,  x.-xi.  2.  The  Theophany,      .... 
 
 Chap.  X.  1-3.  Introduction  to  the  Manifestation  of  God, 
 Vers.  4-6.  The  Theophany,  .... 
 
 Vers.  7-10.  Effect  of  the  Appearance  on  Daniel  and  his  Com 
 panions,  ...... 
 
 Vers.  12-19.  Daniel  raised  up  and  made  capable  of  receiving  the 
 Revelation  of  God,        ..... 
 
 Ver.  20-chap.  xi.  1.  Disclosures  regarding  the  Spirit- World, 
 Chap.  xi.  2-xii.  3.  The  Revelation  of  the  Future,    . 
 Chap.  xi.  2-20.  The  Events  of  the  Nearest  Future, 
 
 Vers.  5-9.  Wars  of  the  Kings  of  the  South  and  the  North, 
 Vers.  10-15.  The  Decisive  War, 
 Vers.  1 6-19.  Further  Undertakings  of  the  King  of  the  North, 
 Ver.  20.  The  Prince  who  strives  after  Supremacy  and  is  the 
 Enemy  of  the  Holy  Covenant,  .... 
 
 Kings  of  Syria  and  Egypt,        ..... 
 
 Chap.  xi.  21-xii.  3.  The  further  Unveiling  of  the  Future, 
 Vers.  21-24.  The  Prince's  Advancement  to  Power, 
 Vers.  25-27.  War  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  against  Ptolemy 
 Philometor,  ...... 
 
 Vers.  28-32.  The  Rising  Up  against  the  Holy  Covenant, 
 Vers.  32-35.  Its  Consequences  for  the  People  of  Israel, 
 Vers.  36-39.    The   Hostile   King  exalting  himself  above  all 
 
 Divine  and  Human  Ordinances  at  the  Time  of  the  End, 
 Vers.  40-43.  The  Last  Undertakings  of  the  Hostile  King,  and 
 his  End,        ....... 
 
 Vers.  44,  45.  The  End  of  the  Hostile  King,     . 
 Chap.  xii.  1-3.  The  Final  Deliverance  of  Israel,  and  their  Con- 
 summation,  ....... 
 
 284 
 285 
 308 
 
 320 
 820 
 326 
 334 
 336 
 338 
 350 
 359 
 365 
 386 
 399 
 
 402 
 405 
 405 
 409 
 
 414 
 
 415 
 420 
 425 
 430 
 433 
 437 
 440 
 
 443 
 445 
 450 
 450 
 
 453 
 455 
 458 
 
 436 
 
 467 
 472 
 
 474 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Chap.  xii.  4-13.  The  Conclusion  of  the  Revelation  of  God  and  of 
 
 the  Book, 484 
 
 Ver.  4.  Daniel  commanded  to  Seal  the  Book,      .            .            .  484 
 Vers.  5-7.  The  Angels  on  the  Banks  of  the  River,  and  the  Man 
 
 clothed  with  Cinen,       ......  486 
 
 Vers.  9-13.  The  Angel's  Answer  to  Daniel's  Inquiry  regarding 
 
 the  End, 494 
 
 Vers.  11,  12.  The  1290  and  the  1335  Days,         .  .  .496 
 
 Ver.  13.  Daniel's  Dismissal  and  his  Rest,             .            .            .  505 
 
THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I. — THE  PEESON  OF  THE  PROPHET. 
 
 The  name  i'X>3T  or  ^3T  (Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20,  xxviii.  3),  Aavi^jX^ 
 i.e.  "  God  is  my  Judge,"  or,  if  the  ^  is  the  Yod  compaginis,  "  God  is 
 judging,"  "  God  will  judge,"  but  not  "  Judge  of  God,"  is  in  the  Old 
 Testament  borne  by  a  son  of  David  by  Abigail  (1  Chron.  iii.  1),  a 
 Levite  in  the  time  of  Ezra  (Ezra  viii.  2  ;  Neh.  x.  7  [0]),  and  by  the 
 prophet  whose  life  and  prophecies  form  the  contents  of  this  book. 
 
 Of  Daniel's  life  the  following  particulars  are  related  : — From 
 eh.  i.  1—5  it  appears  that,  along  with  other  youths  of  the  "  king's 
 seed,"  and  of  the  most  distinguished  families  of  Israel,  he  was 
 carried  captive  to  Babylon,  in  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  by  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, when  he  first  came  up  against  Jerusalem  and  took 
 it,  and  that  there,  under  the  Chaldee  name  of  Belteshazzar,  he 
 spent  three  years  in  acquiring  a  knowledge  of  Chaldee  science 
 and  learning,  that  he  might  be  prepared  for  serving  in  the  king's 
 palace.  Whether  Daniel  was  of  the  "  seed  royal,"  or  only  belonged 
 to  one  of  the  most  distinguished  families  of  Israel,  is  not  decided, 
 inasmuch  as  there  is  no  certain  information  regarding  his  descent. 
 
 O  CD 
 
 The  statement  of  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  10,  1),  that  he  was  e/c  rov 
 SeScKLov  yevov^,  is  probably  an  opinion  deduced  from  Dan.  i.  3, 
 and  it  is  not  much  better  established  than  the  saying  of  Epi- 
 phanius  (Adv.  Hceres.  55.  3)  that  his  father  was  called  ^a/3adv,  and 
 that  of  the  Pseudo-Epiphanius  (de  vita  proph.  ch.  x.)  that  he  was 
 born  at  Upper  Bethhoron,  not  far  from  Jerusalem.  During  the 
 period  set  apart  for  his  education,  Daniel  and  his  like-minded 
 friends,  Hananiah,  Mishael,  and  Azariah,  who  had  received  the 
 Chaldee  names  Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego,  abstained,  with 
 the  consent  of  their  overseer,  from  the  meat  and  drink  provided  for 
 
 A 
 
2  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 them  from  the  king's  table,  lest  they  should  thereby  be  defiled 
 through  contact  with  idolatry,  and  partook  only  of  pulse  and  water. 
 This  stedfast  adherence  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers  was  so 
 blessed  of  God,  that  they  were  not  only  in  bodily  appearance  fairer 
 than  the  other  youths  who  ate  of  the  king's  meat,  but  they  also 
 made  such  progress  in  their  education,  that  at  the  end  of  their 
 years  of  training,  on  an  examination  of  their  attainments  in  the 
 presence  of  the  king,  they  far  excelled  all  the  Chaldean  wise  men 
 throughout  the  whole  kingdom  (vers.  6-20). 
 
 After  this,  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 being  troubled  in  spirit  by  a  remarkable  dream  which  he  had 
 dreamt,  called  to  him  all  the  astrologers  and  Chaldeans  of  Babylon, 
 that  they  might  tell  him  the  dream  and  interpret  it.  They  con- 
 fessed their  inability  to  fulfil  his  desire.  The  king's  dream  and 
 its  interpretation  were  then  revealed  by  God  to  Daniel,  in  answer 
 to  prayer,  so  that  he  could  tell  the  matter  to  the  king.  On  this 
 account  Nebuchadnezzar  gave  glory  to  the  God  of  the  Jews  as  the 
 God  of  gods  and  the  Revealer  of  hidden  things,  and  raised  Daniel  to 
 the  rank  of  ruler  over  the  whole  province  of  Babylon,  and  chief 
 president  over  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon.  At  the  request  of 
 Daniel,  he  also  appointed  his  three  friends  to  be  administrators 
 over  the  province,  so  that  Daniel  remained  in  the  king's  palace 
 (ch.  ii.).  He  held  this  office  during  the  whole  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
 reign,  and  interpreted,  at  a  later  period,  a  dream  of  great  signi- 
 ficance relative  to  a  calamity  which  was  about  to  full  upon  the 
 king  (ch.  iv.). 
 
 After  Nebuchadnezzar's  death  he  appears  to  have  been  deprived 
 of  his  elevated  rank,  as  the  result  of  the  change  of  government. 
 But  Belshazzar,  having  been  alarmed  during  a  riotous  feast  by 
 the  finger  of  a  man's  hand  writing  on  the  wall,  called  to  him  the 
 Chaldeans  and  astrologers.  None  of  them  was  able  to  read  and 
 to  interpret  the  mysterious  writing.  The  king's  mother  thereupon 
 directed  that  Daniel  should  be  called,  and  he  read  and  interpreted 
 the  writing  to  the  king.  For  this  he  was  promoted  by  the  king  to 
 be  the  third  ruler  of  the  kingdom,  i.e.  to  be  one  of  the  three  chief 
 governors  of  the  kingdom  (ch.  v.).  This  office  he  continued  to  hold 
 under  the  Median  king  Darius.  The  other  princes  of  the  empire 
 and  the  royal  satraps  sought  to  deprive  him  of  it,  but  God  the 
 Lord  in  a  wonderful  manner  saved  him  (ch.vi.)  by  His  angel  from 
 the  mouth  of  the  lions ;  and  he  remained  in  office  under  the  govern- 
 ment of  the  Persian  Cyrus  (eh.  vi.  29  [28]). 
 
INTRODUCTION.  3 
 
 During  this  second  half  of  his  life  Daniel  was  honoured  by- 
 God  with  revelations  regarding  the  development  of  the  world- 
 power  in  its  different  phases,  the  warfare  between  it  and  the 
 kingdom  of  God,  and  the  final  victory  of  the  latter  over  all  hostile 
 powers.  These  revelations  are  contained  in  ch.  vii.-xii.  The 
 last  of  them  was  communicated  to  hira  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus 
 the  king  (ch.  x.  1),  i.e.  in  the  second  year  after  Cyrus  had  issued 
 his  edict  (Ezra  i.  1  ff.)  permitting  the  Jews  to  return  to  their  own 
 land  and  to  rebuild  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  we  learn 
 that  Daniel  lived  to  see  the  beginning  of  the  return  of  his  people 
 from  their  exile.  He  did  not,  however,  return  to  his  native  land 
 with  the  company  that  went  up  under  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua, 
 but  remained  in  Babylon,  and  there  ended  his  days,  probably  not 
 Ions  after  the  last  of  these  revelations  from  God  had  been  com- 
 municated  to  him,  which  concluded  with  the  command  to  seal  up 
 the  book  of  his  prophecies  till  the  time  of  the  end,  and  with  the 
 charge,  rich  in  its  comfort,  to  go  in  peace  to  meet  his  death,  and 
 to  await  the  resurrection  from  the  dead  at  the  end  of  the  days  (ch. 
 xii.  4,  13).  If  Daniel  was  a  youth  ("ip."|,  i.  4,  10)  of  from  fifteen  to 
 eighteen  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  his  being  carried  captive  into 
 Chaldea,  and  died  in  the  faith  of  the  divine  promise  soon  after 
 the  last  revelation  made  to  him  in  the  third  3'ear  (ch.  x.  1)  of  king 
 Cyrus,  then  he  must  have  reached  the  advanced  age  of  at  least 
 ninety  years. 
 
 The  statements  of  this  book  regarding;  his  rit]:;hteousness  and 
 piety,  as  also  regarding  his  wonderful  endowment  with  wisdom  to 
 reveal  hidden  things,  receive  a  powerful  confirmation  from  the 
 language  of  his  contemporary  Ezekiel  (ch.  xiv.  14,  20),  who  men- 
 tions Daniel  along  with  Noah  and  Job  as  a  pattern  of  righteousness 
 of  life  pleasing  to  God,  and  (ch.  xxviii.  3)  speaks  of  his  wisdom  as 
 above  that  of  the  princes  of  Tyre.  If  we  consider  that  Ezekiel 
 gave  expression  to  the  former  of  these  statements  fourteen  years, 
 and  to  the  other  eighteen  years,  after  Daniel  had  been  carried 
 captive  to  Babylon,  and  also  that  the  former  statement  was  made 
 eleven,  and  the  latter  fifteen  years,  after  his  elevation  to  the  rank  of 
 president  of  the  Chaldean  wise  men,  then  it  will  in  no  way  appear 
 surprising  to  us  to  find  that  the  fame  of  his  righteousness  and  his 
 wonderful  wisdom  was  so  spread  abroad  among  the  Jewish  exiles, 
 that  Ezekiel  was  able  to  point  to  him  as  a  bright  example  of  these 
 virtues.  When  now  God  gave  him,  under  Belshazzar,  a  new  oppor- 
 tunity, by  reading  and  interpreting  the  mysterious  handwriting  on 
 
4  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  wall,  of  sliowing  his  supernatural  prophetic  gifts,  on  account  of 
 which  he  was  raised  by  the  king  to  one  of  the  highest  offices  of 
 state  in  the  kingdom ;  when,  moreover,  under  the  Median  king 
 Darius  the  machinations  of  his  enemies  against  his  Hfe  were  frus- 
 trated by  his  wonderful  deliverance  from  the  jaws  of  the  lions,  and 
 he  not  only  remained  to  hoary  old  age  to  hold  that  high  office,  but 
 also  received  from  God  revelations  regarding  the  development  of 
 the  world-power  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  in  precision 
 excel  all  the  predictions  of  the  prophets, — then  it  could  not  fail  but 
 that  a  life  so  rich  in  the  wonders  of  divine  power  and  grace  should 
 not  only  attract  the  attention  of  his  contemporaries,  but  also  that  after 
 his  death  it  should  become  a  subject  of  wide-spread  fame,  as  appears 
 from  the  apocryphal  -  addition  to  his  book  in  the  Alexandrine 
 translation  of  it,  and  in  the  later  Jewish  Haggada,  and  be  enlarged 
 upon  by  the  church  fathers,  and  even  by  Mohammedan  authors. 
 Cf.  Herbelot,  Biblioth.  Orient,  s.v.  Daniel^  and  Delitzsch,  de  Hahacuci 
 Propli.  vita  atque  cetate,  Lps.  1842,  p.  24  sqq. 
 
 Regarding  the  end  of  Daniel's  life  and  his  burial  nothing  cer- 
 tain is  known.  The  Jewish  report  of  his  return  to  his  fatherland 
 (cf.  Carpzov,  Introd.  iii.  p.  239  sq.)  has  as  little  historical  value  as 
 that  which  relates  that  he  died  in  Babylon,  and  was  buried  in  the 
 king's  sepulchre  (Pseud.-Epiph.),  or  that  his  grave  was  in  Susa 
 (Abulph.  and  Benjamin  of  Tudela). 
 
 In  direct  opposition  to  the  wide-spread  reports  which  bear  testi- 
 mony to  the  veneration  with  which  the  prophet  was  regarded,  stands 
 the  modern  naturalistic  criticism,  which,  springing  from  antipathy 
 to  the  miracles  of  the  Bible,  maintains  that  the  prophet  never 
 existed  at  all,  but  that  his  life  and  labours,  as  they  are  recorded  in 
 this  book,  are  the  mere  invention  of  a  Jew  of  the  time  of  the  Macca- 
 bees, who  attributed  his  fiction  to  Daniel,  deriving  the  name  from 
 some  unknown  hero  of  mythic  antiquity  (Bleek,  von  Lengerke, 
 Hitzig)  or  of  the  Assyrian  exile  (Ewald). 
 
 II.  —  Daniel's  place  in  the  history  op  the  kingdom  of  god. 
 
 Though  Daniel  lived  during  the  Babylonian  exile,  yet  it  was  not, 
 as  in  the  case  of  Ezekiel,  in  the  midst  of  his  countrymen,  who  had 
 been  carried  into  captivity,  but  at  the  court  of  the  ruler  of  the  world 
 and  in  the  service  of  the  state.  To  comprehend  his  work  for  the 
 kingdom  of  God  in  this  situation,  we  must  first  of  all  endeavour  to 
 make  clear  the  significance  of  the  Babylonian  exile,  not  only  for  the 
 
INTRODUCTION.  0 
 
 people  of  Israel,  but  also  for  the  heathen  Dations,  with  reference  to 
 the  workino;  out  of  the  divine  counsel  for  the  salvation  of  the  human 
 race. 
 
 Let  us  first  fix  our  attention  on  the  significance  of  the  exile  for 
 Israel,  the  people  of  God  under  the  Old  Covenant.  The  destruction 
 of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and  the  deportation  of  the  Jevvs  into 
 Babylonish  captivity,  not  only  put  an  end  to  the  independence  of 
 the  covenant  people,  but  also  to  the  continuance  of  that  constitution 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  which  was  founded  at  Sinai ;  and  that  not 
 only  temporarily,  but  for  ever,  for  in  its  integrity  it  was  never 
 restored.  God  the  Lord  had  indeed,  in  the  foundation  of  the  Old 
 Covenant,  through  the  institution  of  circumcision  as  a  sign  of  the 
 covenant  for  the  chosen  people,  given  to  the  patriarch  Abraham  the 
 promise  that  He  would  establish  His  covenant  with  him  and  his 
 seed  as  an  everlasting  covenant,  that  He  would  be  a  God  to  them, 
 and  would  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan  as  a  perpetual  possession 
 (Gen.  xvii.  18,  19).  Accordingly,  at  the  establishment  of  this 
 covenant  with  the  people  of  Israel  by  Moses,  the  fundamental 
 arrangements  of  the  covenant  constitution  were  desifinated  as 
 everlasting  institutions  (^^^^  ^i^i}  or  pH)  ;  as,  for  example,  the  ar- 
 rangements  connected  with  the  feast  of  the  passover  (Ex.  xii.  14, 
 17,  24),  the  day  of  atonement  (Lev.  xvi.  29,  31,  34),  and  the  other 
 feasts  (Lev.  xxiii.  14,  21,  31,  41),  the  most  important  of  the  arrange- 
 ments concerning  the  offering  of  sacrifice  (Lev,  iii.  17,  vii.  34,  36, 
 X.  15;  Num.  xv.  15,  xviii.  8,  11,  19),  and  concerning  the  duties 
 and  rights  of  the  priests  (Ex.  xxvii.  21,  xxviii.  43,  xxix.  28,  xxx. 
 21),  etc.  God  fulfilled  His  promise.  He  not  only  delivered  the 
 tribes  of  Israel  from  their  bondage  in  Egypt  by  the  wonders  of 
 His  almighty  power,  and  put  them  in  possession  of  the  land  of 
 Canaan,  but  He  also  protected  them  there  against  their  enemies, 
 and  gave  to  them  afterwards  in  David  a  king  who  ruled  over  them 
 according  to  His  will,  overcame  all  their  enemies,  and  made  Israel 
 powerful  and  prosperous.  Moreover  He  gave  to  this  king,  His 
 servant  David,  who,  after  he  had  vanquished  all  his  enemies  round 
 about,  wished  to  build  a  house  for  the  Lord  that  His  name  might 
 dwell  there,  the  Great  Promise  :  "  When  thy  days  be  fulfilled,  and 
 thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers,  I  will  set  up  thy  seed  after  thee, 
 which  shall  proceed  out  of  thy  bowels,  and  I  will  establish  his  king- 
 dom. He  shall  build  an  house  for  my  name,  and  I  will  establish 
 the  throne  of  his  kingdom  for  ever.  I  will  be  his  Father,  and  he 
 shall  be  my  son.     If  he  commit  iniquity,  I  will  chasten  him  with 
 
6  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  rod  of  men,  and  with  the  stripes  of  the  children  of  men  :  but 
 my  mercy  shall  not  depart  away  from  hitn.  .  .  .  And  thine  house 
 and  thy  kingdom  shall  be  established  for  ever  before  thee :  thy 
 throne  shall  be  established  for  ever"  (2  Sam.  vii.  12-16).  Where- 
 fore after  David's  death,  when  his  son  Solomon  built  the  temple, 
 the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him,  saying,  "  If  thou  wilt  walk  in 
 my  statutes,  .  .  .  then  will  I  perform  my  word  unto  thee  which  I 
 spake  unto  David  thy  father,  and  I  will  dwell  among  the  children 
 of  Israel,  and  will  not  forsake  my  people  Israel"  (1  Kings  vi.  12, 
 13).  After  the  completion  of  the  building  of  the  temple  the  glory 
 of  the  Lord  filled  the  house,  and  God  appeared  to  Solomon  the 
 second  time,  renewing  the  assurance,  "  If  thou  wilt  walk  before  me 
 as  David  thy  father  walked,  .  .  .  then  I  will  establish  the  throne  of 
 thy  kingdom  upon  Israel  for  ever,  as  I  promised  to  David  thy 
 father"  (1  Kings  ix.  2-5).  The  Lord  was  faithful  to  this  His 
 word  to  the  people  of  Israel,  and  to  the  seed  of  David.  When 
 Solomon  in  his  old  age,  through  the  influence  of  his  foreign  wives, 
 was  induced  to  sanction  the  worship  of  idols,  God  visited  the  king's 
 house  with  chastisement,  by  the  revolt  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  took 
 place  after  Solomon's  death  ;  but  He  gave  to  his  son  Rehoboam  the 
 kingdom  of  Judah  and  Benjamin,  with  the  metropolis  Jerusalem 
 and  the  temple,  and  He  preserved  this  kingdom,  notwithstanding 
 the  constantly  repeated  declension  of  the  king  and  the  people  into 
 idolatry,  even  after  the  Assyrians  had  destroyed  the  kingdom  of 
 the  ten  tribes,  whom  they  carried  into  captivity.  But  at  length 
 Judah  also,  through  the  wickedness  of  Manasseh,  filled  up  the 
 measure  of  its  iniquity,  and  bi'ought  upon  itself  the  judgment  of 
 the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  carrying  away  of  the  in- 
 habitants into  captivity  into  Babylon. 
 
 In  his  last  address  and  warning  to  the  people  against  their 
 continued  apostasy  from  the  Lord  their  God,  Moses  had,  among 
 other  severe  chastisements  that  would  fall  upon  them,  threatened 
 this  as  the  last  of  the  punishments  with  which  God  would  visit 
 them.  This  threatening  was  repeated  by  all  the  prophets  ;  but  at 
 the  same  time,  following  the  example  of  Moses,  they  further 
 announced  that  the  Lord  would  again  receive  into  His  favour 
 His  people  driven  into  exile,  if,  humbled  under  their  sufferings, 
 they  would  turn  again  unto  Him ;  that  He  would  gather  them 
 together  from  the  heathen  lands,  and  bring  them  back  to  their 
 own  land,  and  renew  them  by  His  Spirit,  and  would  then  erect 
 anew  in  all  its  glory  the  kingdom  of  David  under  the  Messiah. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  7 
 
 Thus  Micah  not  only  prophesied  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 and  of  the  temple,  and  the  leading  away  into  captivity  of  the 
 daughters  of  Zion  (ch.  iii.  12,  iv.  10),  but  also  the  return  from 
 Babylon  and  the  restoration  -of  the  former  dominion  of  the 
 daughters  of  Jerusalem,  their  victory  over  all  their  enemies  under 
 the  sceptre  of  the  Euler  who  would  go  forth  from  Bethlehem, 
 and  the  exaltation  of  the  mountain  of  the  house  of  the  Lord 
 above  all  mountains  and  hills  in  the  last  days  (ch.  v.  1  ff.,  iv. 
 1  ff.).  Isaiah  also  announced  (ch.  xl.-lxvi.)  the  deliverance  of 
 Israel  out  of  Babylon,  the  building  up  of  the  ruins  of  Jerusalem 
 and  Judah,  and  the  final  glory  of  Zion  through  the  creation  of  new 
 heavens  and  a  new  earth.  Jeremiah,  in  like  manner,  at  the  be- 
 ginning of  the  Chaldean  catastrophe,  not  only  proclaimed  to  the 
 people  who  had  become  ripe  for  the  judgment,  the  carrying  away 
 into  Babylon  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  the  continuance  of  the 
 exile  for  the  space  of  seventy  years,  but  he  also  prophesied  the 
 destruction  of  Babylon  after  the  end  of  the  seventy  years,  and 
 the  return  of  the  people  of  Judah  and  Israel  who  might  survive 
 to  the  land  of  their  fathers,  the  rebuilding  of  the  desolated  city, 
 and  the  manifestation  of  God's  grace  toward  them,  by  His 
 entering  into  a  new  covenant  with  them,  and  writing  His  law 
 upon  their  hearts  and  forgiving  their  sins  (ch.  xxv.  29-31). 
 
 Hence  it  evidently  appears  that  the  abolition  of  the  Israelitish 
 theocracy,  through  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and 
 the  carrying  away  of  the  people  into  exile  by  the  Chaldeans, 
 in  consequence  of  their  continued  unfaithfulness  and  the  trans- 
 gression of  the  laws  of  the  covenant  on  the  part  of  Israel,  was 
 foreseen  in  the  gracious  counsels  of  God ;  and  that  the  perpetual 
 duration  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  such,  was  not  dissolved,  but 
 only  the  then  existing  condition  of  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
 changed,  in  order  to  winnow  that  perverse  people,  who,  notwith- 
 standing all  the  chastisements  that  had  hithei'to  fallen  upon  them, 
 had  not  in  earnest  turned  away  from  their  idolatry,  by  that  the 
 severest  of  all  the  judgments  that  had  been  threatened  them  ;  to 
 exterminate  by  the  swoi'd,  by  famine,  by  the  plague,  and  by  other 
 calamities,  the  incorrigible  mass  of  the  people ;  and  to  prepare  the 
 better  portion  of  them,  the  remnant  who  might  repent,  as  a  holy 
 seed  to  whom  God  might  fulfil  His  covenant  promises. 
 
 Accordingly  the  exile  forms  a  great  turning-point  in  the 
 development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  which  He  had  founded  in 
 Israel.     With  that  event  the  form  of  the  theocracy  established  at 
 
8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Sinai  comes  to  an  end,  and  then  begins  the  period  of  the  transi- 
 tion to  a  new  form,  which  was  to  be  established  by  Christ,  and 
 has  been  actually  established  by  Him.  The  form  accoi'ding  to 
 which  the  people  of  God  constituted  an  earthly  kingdom,  taking 
 its  place  beside  the  other  kingdoms  of  the  nations,  was  not  again 
 restored  after  the  termination  of  the  seventy  years  of  the  desola- 
 tions of  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  which  had  been  prophesied  by 
 Jeremiah,  because  the  Old  Testament  theocracy  had  served  its 
 end.  God  the  Lord  had,  during  its  continuance,  showed  daily  not 
 only  that  He  was  Israel's  God,  a  merciful  and  gracious  God,  who 
 was  faithful  to  His  covenant  towards  those  Avho  feared  Him  and 
 walked  in  His  commandments  and  laws,  and  who  could  make  His 
 people  great  and  glorious,  and  had  power  to  protect  them  against 
 all  their  enemies;  but  also  that  He  was  a  mighty  and  a  jealous 
 God,  who  visits  the  blasphemers  of  His  holy  name  according  to 
 their  iniquity,  and  is  able  to  fulfil  His  threatenings  no  less  than 
 His  promises.  It  was  necessary  that  the  people  of  Israel  should 
 know  by  experience  that  a  transgressing  of  the  covenant  and  a 
 turning  away  from  the  service  of  God  does  not  lead  to  safety,  but 
 hastens  onward  to  ruin ;  that  deliverance  from  sin,  and  salvation 
 life  and  happiness,  can  be  found  only  with  the  Lord  who  is  rich 
 in  grace  and  in  faithfulness,  and  can  only  be  reached  by  a  humble 
 •walking  according  to  His  commandments. 
 
 The  restoration  of  the  Jewish  state  after  the  exile  was  not  a 
 re-establishment  of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God.  When 
 Cyrus  granted  liberty  to  the  Jews  to  return  to  their  own  land,  and 
 commanded  them  to  rebuild  the  temple  of  Jehovah  in  Jerusalem, 
 only  a  very  small  band  of  captives  returned  ;  the  greater  part 
 remained  scattered  among  the  heathen.  Even  those  who  went 
 home  from  Babylon  to  Canaan  were  not  set  free  from  subjection 
 to  the  heathen  woi*ld-power,  but  remained,  in  the  land  which  the 
 Lord  had  given  to  their  fathers,  servants  to  it.  Though  now 
 again  the  ruined  walls  of  Jerusalem  and  the  cities  of  Judah  were 
 restored,  and  the  temple  also  was  rebuilt,  and  the  offering  up  of 
 sacrifice  renewed,  yet  the  glory  of  the  Lord  did  not  again  enter 
 into  the  new  temple,  which  was  also  without  the  ark  of  the 
 covenant  and  the  mercy-seat,  so  as  to  hallow  it  as  the  place  of  His 
 gracious  presence  among  His  people.  The  temple  worship  among 
 the  Jews  after  the  captivity  was  without  its  soul,  the  real  presence 
 of  the  Lord  in  the  sanctuary  ;  the  high  priest  could  no  longer  go 
 before  God's  throne  of  grace  in  the  holy  of  holies  to  sprinkle  the 
 
INTRODUCTION.  9 
 
 atoning  blood  of  the  sacrifice  toward  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and 
 to  accomphsh  the  reconciliation  of  the  congregation  with  their  God, 
 and  could  no  longer  find  out,  by  means  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim, 
 the  will  of  the  Lord.  When  Nehemiah  had  finished  the  restoration 
 of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  prophecy  ceased,  the  revelations  of  the 
 Old  Covenant  came  to  a  final  end,  and  the  period  of  expectation 
 (during  which  no  prophecy  was  given)  of  the  promised  Deliverer, 
 of  the  seed  of  David,  began.  When  this  Deliverer  appeared  in 
 Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Jews  did  not  recognise  Him  as  their  Saviour, 
 but  rejected  Him  and  put  Him  to  death,  they  were  at  length,  on 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  by  the  Romans, 
 scattered  throughout  the  whole  world,  and  to  this  day  they  live  in 
 a  state  of  banishment  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  till  they  return 
 to  Christ,  and  through  faith  in  Him  again  enter  into  the  kingdom 
 of  God  and  be  blessed. 
 
 The  space  of  500  years,  from  the  end  of  the  Babylonish  cap- 
 tivity to  the  appearance  of  Christ,  can  be  considered  as  the  last 
 period  of  the  Old  Covenant  only  in  so  far  as  in  point  of  time  it 
 precedes  the  foundation  of  the  New  Covenant ;  but  it  was  in  reality, 
 for  that  portion  of  the  Jewish  people  who  had  returned  to  Judea, 
 no  deliverance  from  subjection  to  the  power  of  the  heathen,  no 
 re-introduction  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  only  a  period  of  transi- 
 tion from  the  Old  to  the  New  Covenant,  during  which  Israel  were 
 prepared  for  the  reception  of  the  Deliverer  coming  out  of  Zion. 
 In  this  respect  this  period  may  be  compared  with  the  forty,  or 
 more  accurately,  the  thirty-eight  years  of  the  wanderings  of  Israel 
 in  the  Arabian  desert.  As  God  did  not  withdraw  all  the  tokens  of 
 His  gracious  covenant  from  the  race  that  was  doomed  to  die  in  the 
 wilderness,  but  guided  them  by  His  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  and 
 gave  them  manna  to  eat,  so  He  gave  grace  to  those  who  had  re- 
 turned from  Babylon  to  Jerusalem  to  build  again  the  temple  and 
 to  restore  the  sacrificial  service,  whereby  they  prepared  themselves 
 for  the  appearance  of  Him  who  should  build  the  true  temple,  and 
 make  an  everlasting  atonement  by  the  offering  up  of  His  life  as 
 a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world. 
 
 If  the  prophets  before  the  captivity,  therefore,  connect  the 
 deliverance  of  Israel  from  Babylon  and  their  return  to  Canaan  im- 
 mediately with  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  glory, 
 without  giving  any  indication  that  between  the  end  of  the  Babylonish 
 exile  and  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah  a  long  period  would  inter- 
 vene, this  uniting  together  of  the  two  events  is  not  to  be  explained  only 
 
10  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 from  the  perspective  and  apotelesmatic  character  of  the  prophecy, 
 but  has  its  foundation  in  the  very  nature  of  the  thing  itself.  The 
 prophetic  perspective,  by  virtue  of  which  the  inward  eye  of  the  seer 
 beholds  only  the  elevated  summits  of  historical  events  as  they 
 unfold  themselves,  and  not  the  valleys  of  the  common  incidents  of 
 history  which  lie  between  these  heights,  is  indeed  peculiar  to  pro- 
 phecy in  general,  and  accounts  for  the  circumstance  that  the  pro- 
 .  phecies  as  a  rule  give  no  fixed  dates,  and  apotelesmatically  bind 
 together  the  points  of  history  which  open  the  way  to  the  end,  with 
 the  end  itself.  But  this  formal  peculiarity  of  prophetic  contem- 
 plation we  must  not  extend  to  the  prejudice  of  the  actual  truth  of  the 
 prophecies.  The  fact  of  the  uniting  together  of  the  future  glory 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  Messiah  with  the  deliverance 
 of  Israel  from  exile,  has  perfect  historical  veracity.  The  banish- 
 ment of  the  covenant  people  from  the  land  of  the  Lord  and  their 
 subjection  to  the  heathen,  was  not  only  the  last  of  those  judg- 
 ments which  God  had  threatened  against  His  degenerate  people, 
 but  it  also  continues  till  the  perverse  rebels  are  exterminated,  and 
 the  penitents  are  turned  with  sincere  hearts  to  God  the  Lord  and 
 are  saved  through  Christ.  Consequently  the  exile  was  for  Israel 
 the  last  space  for  repentance  which  God  in  His  faithfulness  to  His 
 covenant  granted  to  them.  Whoever  is  not  brought  by  this  severe 
 chastisement  to  repentance  and  reformation,  but  continues  opposed 
 to  the  gracious  will  of  God,  on  him  falls  the  judgment  of  death ; 
 and  only  they  who  turn  themselves  to  the  Lord,  their  God  and 
 Saviour,  will  be  saved,  gathered  from  among  the  heathen,  brought 
 in  within  the  bonds  of  the  covenant  of  grace  through  Christ,  and 
 become  partakers  of  the  promised  riches  of  grace  in  His  king- 
 dom. 
 
 But  with  the  Babylonish  exile  of  Israel  there  also  arises  for 
 the  heathen  nations  a  turning-point  of  marked  importance  for  their 
 future  history.  So  long  as  Israel  formed  within  the  borders  of 
 their  own  separated  land  a  peculiar  people,  under  immediate  divine 
 guidance,  the  heathen  nations  dwelling  around  came  into  manifold 
 hostile  conflicts  with  them,  while  God  used  them  as  a  rod  of  cor- 
 rection for  His  rebellious  people.  Though  they  were  often  at  war 
 among  themselves,  yet,  in  general  separated  from  each  other,  each 
 nation  developed  itself  according  to  its  own  proclivities.  Besides, 
 from  ancient  times  the  greater  kingdoms  on  the  Nile  and  the 
 Euphrates  had  for  centuries  striven  to  raise  their  power,  enlarging 
 themselves  into  world-powers  ;  while  the  Phoenicians  on  the  Medi- 
 
INTRODUCTIOX.  11 
 
 terranean  sea-coast  gave  themselves  to  commerce,  and  sought  to 
 enrich  themselves  with  the  treasures  of  the  earth.  In  this  develop- 
 ment the  smaller  as  well  as  the  larger  nations  gradually  acquired 
 strength.  God  had  permitted  each  of  them  to  follow  its  own  way, 
 and  had  conferred  on  them  much  good,  that  they  might  seek  the 
 Lord,  if  haply  they  might  feel  after  Him  and  find  Him  ;  but  the 
 principle  of  sin  dwelling  vvithin  them  had  poisoned  their  natural 
 development,  so  that  they  went  farther  and  farther  away  from  the 
 living  God  and  from  everlasting  good,  sunk  deeper  and  deeper 
 into  idolatiy  and  immorality  of  every  kind,  and  went  down  with 
 rapid  steps  toward  destruction.  Then  God  began  to  winnow  the 
 nations  of  the  world  by  His  great  judgments.  The  Chaldeans 
 raised  themselves,  under  energetic  leaders,  to  be  a  world-power, 
 which  not  only  overthrew  the  Assyrian  kingdom  and  subjugated 
 all  the  lesser  nations  of  Hither  Asia,  but  also  broke  the  power  of 
 the  Phoenicians  and  Egyptians,  and  brought  under  its  dominion 
 all  the  civilised  peoples  of  the  East.  With  the  monarchy  founded 
 by  Nebuchadnezzar  it  raised  itself  in  the  rank  of  world-powers, 
 which  within  not  long  intervals  followed  each  other  in  quick  suc- 
 cession, until  the  Roman  world-monarchy  arose,  by  which  all  the 
 civilised  nations  of  antiquity  were  subdued,  and  under  which  the 
 ancient  world  came  to  a  close,  at  the  appearance  of  Christ.  These 
 world-kingdoms,  which  destroyed  one  another,  each  giving  place, 
 after  a  short  existence,  to  its  successor,  which  in  its  turn  also  was 
 overthrown  by  another  that  followed,  led  the  nations,  on  the  one 
 side,  to  the  knowledge  of  the  helplessness  and  the  vanity  of  their 
 idols,  and  taught  them  the  fleeting  nature  and  the  nothingness  of 
 all  earthly  greatness  and  glory,  and,  on  the  other  side,  placed  limits 
 to  the  egoistical  establishment  of  the  different  nations  in  their 
 separate  interests,  and  the  deification  of  their  peculiarities  in  edu- 
 cation, culture,  art,  and  science,  and  thereby  prepared  the  way,  by 
 means  of  the  spreading  abroad  of  the  language  and  customs  of  the 
 physically  or  intellectually  dominant  people  among  all  the  different 
 nationalities  united  under  one  empire,  for  the  removal  of  the  par- 
 ticularistic isolation  of  the  tribes  separated  from  them  by  language 
 and  customs,  and  for  the  re-uniting  together  into  one  universal 
 family  of  the  scattered  tribes  of  the  human  race.  Thus  they 
 opened  the  way  for  the  revelation  of  the  divine  plan  of  salvation 
 to  all  peoples,  whilst  they  shook  the  faith  of  the  heathen  in  their 
 gods,  destroyed  the  frail  supports  of  heathen  religion,  and  awak- 
 ened the  longing  for  the  Saviour  from  sin,  death,  and  destruction. 
 
12  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 But  God,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth,  revealed  to  the  heathen 
 His  eternal  Godhead  and  His  invisible  essence,  not  only  by  His 
 almiiility  government  in  the  disposal  of  the  affairs  of  their  history, 
 but  He  also,  in  every  great  event  in  the  historical  development  of 
 humanity,  announced  His  will  through  that  people  whom  He  had 
 chosen  as  the  depositaries  of  His  salvation.  Already  the  patriarchs 
 liad,  by  their  lives  and  by  their  fear  of  God,  taught  the  Canaanites 
 the  name  of  the  Lord  so  distinctly,  that  they  were  known  amongst 
 them  as  "  princes  of  God  "  (Gen.  xxiii.  6),  and  in  their  God  they 
 acknowledfred  the  most  high  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth 
 (Gen.  xiv.  19,  22).  Thus,  when  Moses  was  sent  to  Pliaraoh  to 
 announce  to  him  the  will  of  God  regarding  the  departure  of  the 
 people  of  Israel,  and  when  Pharaoh  refused  to  listen  to  the  will  of 
 God,  his  land  and  his  people  were  so  struck  by  the  wonders  of  the 
 divine  omnipotence,  that  not  only  the  Egyptians  learned  to  fear 
 the  God  of  Israel,  but  the  fear  and  dread  of  Him  also  fell  on  the 
 princes  of  Edom  and  Moab,  and  on  all  the  inhabitants  of  Canaan 
 (Ex.  XV.  14  ff.).  Afterwards,  when  Israel  came  to  the  borders  of 
 Canaan,  and  the  king  of  Moab,  in  conjunction  with  the  princes  of 
 Midian,  brought  the  famed  soothsayer  Balaam  out  of  Mesopotamia 
 that  he  might  destroy  the  people  of  God  with  his  curse,  Balaam 
 was  constrained  to  predict,  according  to  the  will  of  God,  to  the 
 king  and  his  counsellors  the  victorious  power  of  Israel  over  all 
 their  enemies,  and  the  subjection  of  all  the  heathen  nations  (Num. 
 xxii.-xxiv.).  In  the  age  succeeding,  God  the  Lord  showed  Him- 
 self to  the  nations,  as  often  as  they  assailed  Israel  contrary  to  His 
 will,  as  an  almighty  God  who  can  destroy  all  His  enemies ;  and 
 even  the  Israelitish  prisoners  of  war  were  the  means  of  making 
 known  to  the  heathen  the  great  name  of  the  God  of  Israel,  as  the 
 history  of  the  cure  of  Naaman  the  Syrian  by  means  of  Elisha 
 shows  (2  Kings  v.).  This  knowledge  of  the  living,  all-powerful 
 God  could  not  but  be  yet  more  spread  abroad  among  the  heathen 
 by  the  leading  away  captive  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  and  of  Judah 
 into  Assyria  and  Chaldea. 
 
 But  fully  to  prepare,  by  the  exile,  the  people  of  Israel  as  well  as 
 the  heathen  world  for  the  appearance  of  the  Saviour  of  all  nations 
 and  for  the  reception  of  the  gospel,  the  Lord  raised  up  prophets, 
 who  not  only  preached  His  law  and  His  justice  among  the  covenant 
 people  scattered  among  the  heathen,  and  made  more  widely  known 
 the  counsel  of  His  grace,  but  also  bore  witness  by  word  and  deed,  in 
 the  presence  of  the  heathen  rulers  of  the  world,  of  the  cmnipotejice 
 
INTKODUCTION,  13 
 
 and  glory  of  God,  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth.  This  mission  was 
 discharged  by  Ezekiel  and  Daniel.  God  placed  the  prophet  Ezekiel 
 among  his  exiled  fellow-countrymen  as  a  watchman  over  the  house 
 of  Israel,  that  he  might  warn  the  godless,  proclaim  to  them  con- 
 tinually the  judgment  which  would  fall  upon  them  and  destroy 
 their  vain  hopes  of  a  speedy  liberation  from  bondage  and  a  return 
 to  their  fatherland ;  but  to  the  God-fearing,  who  were  bowed 
 down  under  the  burden  of  their  sorrows  and  were  led  to  doubt 
 the  covenant  faithfulness  of  God,  he  was  commissioned  to  testify 
 the  certain  fulfilment  of  the  predictions  of  the  earlier  prophets  as 
 to  the  restoration  and  bringing  to  its  completion  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God.  A  different  situation  was  appointed  by  God  to  Daniel. 
 His  duty  was  to  proclaim  before  the  throne  of  the  rulers  of  this 
 world  the  glory  of  the  God  of  Israel  as  the  God  of  heaven 
 and  earth,  in  opposition  to  false  gods ;  to  announce  to  those  in- 
 vested with  worldly  might  and  dominion  the  subjugation  of  all 
 the  kingdoms  of  this  world  by  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  God ; 
 and  to  his  own  people  the  continuance  of  their  afflictions  vmder  the 
 oppression  of  the  world-power,  as  well  as  the  fulfilment  of  the 
 gracious  counsels  of  God  through  the  blotting  out  of  all  sin,  the 
 establishment  of  an  everlasting  righteousness,  the  fulfilling  of  all 
 the  prophecies,  and  the  setting  up  of  a  true  holy  of  holies. 
 
 III. — THE  CONTENTS  AND  ARRANGEMENT  OF  THE  BOOK  OF 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 The  book  begins  (ch.  i.)  with  the  account  of  Daniel's  being 
 carried  away  to  Babylon,  his  appointment  and  education  for  the 
 service  of  the  court  of  the  Chaldean  king  by  a  three  years'  course 
 of  instruction  in  the  literature  and  wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans,  and 
 his  entrance  on  service  in  the  king's  palace.  This  narative,  by 
 its  closing  (ver.  21)  statement  that  Daniel  continued  in  this  office 
 till  the  first  year  of  king  Cyrus,  and  still  more  by  making  manifest 
 his  firm  fidelity  to  the  law  of  the  true  God  and  his  higher  enlighten- 
 ment in  the  meaning  of  dreams  and  visions  granted  to  him  on 
 account  of  this  fidelity,  as  well  as  by  the  special  mention  of  his 
 three  like-minded  friends,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  historico-biogra- 
 phical  introduction  to  the  book,  showing  how  Daniel,  under  the 
 divine  guidance,  was  prepared,  along  with  his  friends,  for  that 
 calling  in  which,  as  prophet  at  the  court  of  the  rulers  of  the  world,  he 
 might  bear  testimony  to  the  omnipotence  and  the  infalhble  wisdom 
 
14  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 of  the  God  of  Israel.  This  testimony  is  given  in  the  following 
 book.  Ch.  ii.  contains  a  remarkable  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 which  none  of  the  Chaldean  wise  men  could  tell  to  the  king  or 
 interpret.  But  God  made  it  known  to  Daniel  in  answer  to  prayer, 
 so  that  he  could  declare  and  explain  to  the  king  the  visions  he  saw 
 in  his  dream,  representing  the  four  great  world-powers,  and  their 
 destruction  by  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  God.  Ch.  iii.  describes 
 the  wonderful  deliverance  of  Daniel's  three  friends  from  the 
 burning  fiery  furnace  into  which  they  were  thrown,  because  they 
 would  not  bow  down  to  the  golden  image  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
 had  set  up.  Ch.  iv.  (in  Heb.  text  iii.  31— iv.  34)  contains  an  edict 
 promulgated  by  Nebuchadnezzar  to  all  the  peoples  and  nations  of 
 his  kingdom,  in  which  he  made  known  to  them  a  remarkable 
 dream  which  had  been  interpreted  to  him  by  Daniel,  and  its  fulfil- 
 ment to  him  in  his  temporary  derangement, — a  beast's  heart  having 
 been  given  unto  him  as  a  punishment  for  his  haughty  self-deifica- 
 tion,— and  his  recovery  from  that  state  in  consequence  of  his 
 humblino;  himself  under  the  hand  of  the  almightv  God.  Ch.  v. 
 makes  mention  of  a  wonderful  handwriting  which  appeared  on 
 the  wall  during  a  riotous  feast,  and  which  king  Belshazzar  saw, 
 and  the  interpretation  of  it  by  Daniel.  Ch.  vi.  narrates  Daniel's 
 miraculous  deliverance  from  the  den  of  lions  into  which  the  Median 
 king  Darius  had  thrown  him,  because  he  had,  despite  of  the  king's 
 command  to  the  contrary,  continued  to  pray  to  his  God. 
 
 The  remaining  chapters  contain  visions  and  divine  revelations 
 regarding  the  development  of  the  world-powers  and  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God  vouchsafed  to  Daniel.  The  seventh  sets  forth  a  vision,  in 
 which,  under  the  image  of  four  ravenous  beasts  rising  up  out  of 
 the  troubled  sea,  are  represented  the  four  world-powers  following 
 one  another.  The  judgment  which  would  fall  upon  them  is  also 
 revealed.  The  eighth  contains  a  vision  of  the  Medo-Persian  and 
 Greek  world-powers  under  the  image  of  a  ram  and  a  he-goat 
 respectively,  and  of  the  enemy  and  desolater  of  the  sanctuary  and 
 of  the  people  of  God  arising  out  of  the  last  named  kingdom  ; 
 the  ninth,  the  revelation  of  the  seventy  weeks  appointed  for  the 
 development  and  the  completion  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  which 
 Daniel  received  in  answer  to  earnest  prayer  for  the  pardon  of 
 his  people  and  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem ;  and,  finally,  ch. 
 x.-xii.  contain  a  vision,  granted  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of 
 Cyrus,  with  further  disclosures  regarding  the  Persian  and  the 
 Grecian  world-powers,  and  the  wars  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  north 
 
INTRODUCTION.  15 
 
 and  the  south,  springing  out  of  the  latter  of  these  powers,  for  tlie 
 supreme  authority  and  the  dominion  over  the  Holy  Land  ;  the 
 oppression  that  would  fall  on  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  at  the 
 time  of  the  end  ;  the  destruction  of  the  last  enemy  under  the  stroke 
 of  divine  judgment ;  and  the  completion  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 by  the  rising  again  from  the  dead  of  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
 of  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt. 
 
 The  book  has  commonly  been  divided  into  two  parts,  consisting 
 of  six  cliapters  each  {e.g.  by  Ros.,  Maur.,  Havern.,  Hitz.,  Ziindel, 
 etc.).  The  first  six  are  regarded  as  historical,  and  the  remaining 
 six  as  prophetical ;  or  the  first  part  is  called  the  "book  of  history," 
 the  second,  the  "  book  of  visions."  But  this  division  corresponds 
 neither  with  the  contents  nor  with  the  formal  design  of  the  book. 
 If  we  consider  the  first  chapter  and  its  relation  to  the  whole 
 already  stated,  we  cannot  discern  a  substantial  reason  for  regarding 
 Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  of  the  image  representing  the  monarchies 
 (ch.  ii.),  which  with  its  interpretation  was  revealed  to  Daniel  in  a 
 night  vision  (ch.  ii.  19),  as  an  historical  narration,  and  Daniel's 
 dream-vision  of  the  four  world-powers  symbolized  by  ravenous 
 beasts,  which  an  angel  interpreted  to  him,  as  a  prophetic  vision, 
 since  the  contents  of  both  chapters  are  essentially  alike.  The 
 circumstance  that  in  ch.  ii.  it  is  particularly  related  how  the 
 Chaldean  wise  men,  who  were  summoned  by  Nubuchadnezzar, 
 could  neither  relate  nor  interpret  the  dream,  and  on  that  account 
 were  threatened  with  death,  and  were  partly  visited  with  punish- 
 ment, does  not  entitle  us  to  refuse  to  the  dream  and  its  contents, 
 which  were  revealed  to  Daniel  in  a  night  vision,  the  character  of  a 
 prophecy.  In  addition  to  this,  ch.  vii.,  inasmuch  as  it  is  written 
 in  the  Chaldee  language  and  that  Daniel  speaks  in  it  in  the  third 
 person  (ch.  vii.  1,  2),  naturally  connects  itself  with  the  chapters 
 preceding  (ch.il.-vi.),  and  separates  itself  from  those  which  follow, 
 in  which  Daniel  speaks  in  the  first  person  and  uses  the  Hebrew 
 language.  On  these  grounds,  we  must,  with  Aub.,  Klief.,  and 
 Ivran.,  regard  ch.  ii.,  which  is  written  in  Chaldee,  as  belonging 
 to  the  first  part  of  the  book,  viz.  ch.  ii.-vii.,  and  ch.  viii.-xii., 
 which  are  written  in  Hebrew,  as  constituting  the  second  part ; 
 and  the  propriety  of  this  division  we  must  seek  to  vindicate  by 
 an  examination  of  the  contents  of  both  of  the  parts. 
 
 Kranichfeld  {das  Buck  Daniel  erkldrt)  thus  explains  the 
 distinction  between  the  two  parts : — The  first  presents  the  suc- 
 cessive development  of   the  whole  heathen  world  power,  and  its 
 
16  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 relation  to  Israel,  till  the  time  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  (ch.  ii. 
 and  vii.),  but  lingers  particularly  in  the  period  lying  at  the 
 beginning  of  this  development,  i.e.  in  the  heathen  kingdoms 
 standing  nearest  the  exiles,  namely,  the  Chaldean  kingdom  and 
 that  of  the  Medes  which  subdued  it  (ch.  vi.).  The  second  part  (ch. 
 viii.-xii.),  on  the  contrary,  passing  from  the  Chaldean  kingdom, 
 lingers  on  the  development  of  the  heathen  world-power  towards 
 the  time  of  its  end,  in  the  Javanic  form  of  power,  and  on  the  Median 
 and  Persian  kingdom  only  in  so  far  as  it  immediately  precedes  the 
 unfolding  of  the  power  of  Javan.  But,  setting  aside  this  explana- 
 tion of  the  world-kingdoms,  with  which  we  do  not  agree,  the 
 contents  of  ch.  ix.  are  altogether  overlooked  in  this  view  of  the 
 relations  between  the  two  parts,  inasmuch  as  this  chapter  does  not 
 treat  of  the  development  of  the  heathen  world-power,  but  of  the 
 kingdom  of  God  and  of  the  time  of  its  consummation  determined 
 by  God.  If  we  inspect  more  narrowly  the  contents  of  the  Jirst 
 part,  we  find  an  interruption  of  the  chronological  order  pervading 
 the  book,  inasmuch  as  events  (ch.  vi.)  belonging  to  the  time  of 
 the  Median  king  Darius  are  recorded  before  the  visions  (ch.  vii. 
 and  viii.)  in  the  first  and  third  year  of  the  Chaldean  king  Bel- 
 shazzar.  The  placing  of  these  events  before  that  vision  can  have 
 no  other  ground  than  to  allow  historical  incidents  of  a  like  kind 
 to  be  recorded  together,  and  then  the  visions  granted  to  Daniel, 
 without  any  interruption.  Hence  has  arisen  the  appearance  of  the 
 book's  being  divided  into  two  parts,  an  historical  and  a  prophetical. 
 In  order  to  discover  a  right  division,  we  must  first  endeavour 
 to  make  clear  the  meaning  of  the  historical  incidents  recorded 
 in  ch.  iii.-vi.,  that  we  may  determine  their  relations  to  the  visions 
 in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  The  two  intervening  chapters  iv.  and  v.  are  like 
 the  second  chapter  in  this,  that  they  speak  of  revelations  which  the 
 possessors  of  the  world-power  received,  and  that,  too,  revelations  of 
 the  judgment  which  they  drew  upon  themselves  by  their  boastful 
 pride  and  violence  against  the  sanctuaries  of  the  living  God.  To 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  the  founder  of  the  world-power,  when  he  boasted 
 (ch.  iv.)  of  the  building  of  great  Babylon  as  a  royal  residence  by 
 his  great  might,  it  was  revealed  in  a  di'eam  that  he  should  be  cast 
 down  from  his  height  and  debased  among  the  beasts  of  the  field, 
 till  he  should  learn  that  the  Most  High  rules  over  the  kingdom  of 
 men.  To  king  Belshazzar  (ch.  v.),  in  the  midst  of  his  riotous 
 banquet,  at  which  he  desecrated  the  vessels  of  the  holy  temple  at 
 Jerusalem,  was  revealed,  by  means  of  a  handwriting  on  the  wall, 
 
INTRODUCTION.  17 
 
 his  death  and  the  destruction  of  his  kingdom.  To  both  of  these 
 kings  Daniel  had  to  explain  the  divine  revelation,  which  soon  after 
 was  fulfilled.  The  other  two  chapters'  (iii.  and  vi.)  make  known 
 the  attempts  of  the  rulers  of  the  world  to  compel  the  servants  of 
 the  Lord  to  offer  supplication  to  them  and  to  their  images,  and 
 the  wonderful  deliverance  from  death  which  the  Lord  vouchsafed 
 to  the  faithful  confessors  of  His  name.  These  four  events  have, 
 besides  their  historical  value,  a  prophetical  import :  they  show  how 
 the  world-rulers,  when  they  misuse  their  power  for  self-idolatry  and 
 in  opposition  to  tlie  Lord  and  His  servants,  will  be  humbled  and 
 cast  down  by  God,  while,  on  the  contrary,  the  true  confessors  of 
 His  name  will  be  wonderfully  protected  and  upheld.  For  the  sake 
 of  presenting  this  prophetic  meaning,  Daniel  has  recorded  these 
 events  and  incidents  in  his  prophetical  book  ;  and,  on  chronological 
 and  essential  grounds,  has  introduced  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  between  the 
 visions,  so  as  to  define  more  clearly  the  position  of  the  world-power 
 in  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  Thus  the  whole  of  the  first 
 part  (ch.  ii.— vii.)  treats  of  the  world-power  and  its  development 
 in  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  and  we  can  say  with  Klief oth,^ 
 that  "  chapter  second  gives  a  survey  of  the  whole  historical  evolu- 
 tion of  the  world-power,  which  survey  ch.  vii.,  at  the  close  of  this 
 part,  further  extends,  while  the  intermediate  chapters  iii.-vi.  show 
 in  concrete  outlines  the  nature  and  kind  of  the  world-power,  and 
 its  conduct  in  opposition  to  the  people  of  God." 
 
 If  we  now  fix  our  attention  on  the  second  part,  ch.  viii.-xii.,  it 
 will  appear  that  in  the  visions,  ch.  viii.  and  x.-xii.,  are  propliesied 
 oppressions  of  the  people  of  God  by  a  powerful  enemy  of  God  and  His 
 saints,  who  would  arise  out  of  the  third  world-kingdom  ;  which  gave 
 occasion  to  Auberlen^  to  say  that  the  first  part  unfolds  and  presents  to 
 view  the  whole  development  of  the  world-powers  from  a  universal 
 historical  point  of  view,  and  shows  how  the  kingdom  of  God  would 
 in  the  end  triumph  over  them ;  that  the  second  part,  on  the  contrary, 
 places  before  our  eyes  the  unfolding  of  the  world-powers  in  their 
 relation  to  Israel  in  the  nearer  future  before  the  predicted  (ch.  ix.) 
 appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesh.  This  designation  of  the  distinction 
 between  the  two  parts  accords  with  that  already  acknowledged  by 
 me,  yet  on  renewed  reflection  it  does  not  accord  with  the  recognised 
 
 ^  Das  Buck  Daniels  ubers.  u.  erJcL 
 
 2  Der  PropTi.  Daniel  u.  die  Offenh.  Johannis,  p.  38,  der  2  Auf.  (T7ie  Pro- 
 pfiecies  of  Daniel,  and  the  Revelations  of  John.  Published  by  Messrs.  T.  and  T. 
 Clai-k,  Edinburgh.) 
 
 B 
 
18  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 reference  of  cli.  ix.  24-27  to  the  first  appearance  of  Christ  in  the 
 flesh,  nor  with  ch.  xi.  36-xii.  7,  which  prophesies  of  Antichrist. 
 Rather,  as  KHef.  has  also  justly  remarked,  the  second  part  treats  of 
 the  hingdom  of  God,  and  its  development  in  relation  to  the  world-power. 
 "  As  the  second  chapter  forms  the  central-point  of  the  first  part,  so 
 does  the  ninth  chapter  of  the  second  part,  gathering  all  the  rest 
 around  it.  And  as  the  second  chapter  presents  the  wliole  historical 
 evolution  of  the  world-power  from  the  days  of  Daniel  to  the  end, 
 so,  on  the  other  hand,  the  ninth  chapter  presents  the  whole  historical 
 evolution  of  the  kingdom  of  God  from,  the  days  of  Daniel  to  the 
 end."  But  the  preceding  vision  recorded  in  ch.  viii.,  and  that  which 
 follows  in  ch.  x.-xii.,  predict  a  violent  incursion  of  an  insolent 
 enemy  rising  out  of  the  Javanic  world-kingdom  against  the  king- 
 dom of  God,  which  will  terminate  in  his  own  destruction  at  the 
 time  appointed  by  God,  and,  as  a  comparison  of  ch.  viii.  and  vii. 
 and  of  ch.  xi.  21-35  with  36-44  and  ch.  xii.  1-3  shows,  will  be  a  type 
 of  the  assault  of  the  last  enemy,  in  whom  the  might  of  the  fourth 
 ■world-power  reaches  its  highest  ppint  of  hostility  against  the  king- 
 dom of  God,  but  who  in  the  final  judgment  will  also  be  destroyed. 
 These  two  visions,  the  second  of  which  is  but  a  further  unfolding 
 of  the  first,  could  not  but  show  to  the  people  of  God  what  wars  and 
 oppressions  they  would  have  to  encounter  in  the  near  and  the 
 remote  future  for  then*  sanctification,  and  for  the  confirmation  of 
 their  faith,  till  the  final  perfecting  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the 
 resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  judgment  of  the  world,  and  at 
 the  same  time  strengthen  the  true  servants  of  God  with  the  assur- 
 ance  of  final  victory  in  these  severe  conflicts. 
 
 AVith  this  view  of  the  contents  of  the  book  the  form  in  which 
 the  prophecies  are  given  stands  also  in  harmony.  In  the  first  part, 
 which  treats  of  the  world-power,  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  founder  of 
 the  world-power,  is  the  receiver  of  the  revelation.  To  him  was 
 communicated  not  only  the  prophecy  (ch.  iv.)  relating  to  himself 
 personally,  but  also  that  which  comprehended  the  whole  develop- 
 ment of  the  world-power  (ch.  ii.)  ;  while  Daniel  received  only  the 
 revelation  (ch.  vii.)  specially  bearing  on  the  relation  of  the  world- 
 power  in  its  development  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  a  certain 
 measure  for  the  confirmation  of  the  revelation  communicated  to 
 Nebuchadnezzar.  Belshazzar  also,  as  the  bearer  of  the  world- 
 power,  received  (ch.  v.)  a  revelation  from  God.  In  the  second 
 part,  on  the  contrary,  which  treats  of  the  development  of  the  king- 
 dom of  God,  Daniel,  *'  who  is  by  birth  and  by  faith  a  member  of 
 
INTRODUCTION.  19 
 
 the  kingdom  of  God,"  alone  receives  a  prophecy. — With  this  the 
 change  in  the  language  of  the  book  agrees.  The  first  part  (ch.  ii.- 
 vii.),  treating  of  the  world-power  and  its  development,  is  written  in 
 Clialdee,  which  is  the  language  of  the  world-power;  the  second 
 part  (ch.  viii.-xii.),  treating  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  its  develop- 
 ment, as  also  the  first  chapter,  which  shows  how  Daniel  the  Israelite 
 was  called  to  be  a  prophet  by  God,  is  written  in  the  Hebrew,  which 
 is  the  language  of  the  people  of  God.  This  circumstance  denotes 
 that  in  the  first  part  the  fortunes  of  the  world-power,  and  that  in 
 the  second  part  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  the 
 subject  treated  of  (cf.  Auber.  p.  39,  Klief.  p.  44).^ 
 
 From  these  things  we  arrive  at  the  certainty  that  the  book  of 
 Daniel  forms  an  organic  whole,  as  is  now  indeed  generally  acknow- 
 ledged, and  that  it  was  composed  by  a  prophet  according  to  a  plan 
 resting  on  higher  illumination. 
 
 IV. — THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 The  book  of  Daniel,  in  its  historical  and  prophetical  contents, 
 corresponds  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times  under  which,  accord- 
 ing to  its  statements,  it  sprang  up,  as  also  to  the  place  which  the 
 receiver  of  the  vision,  called  the  prophet  Daniel  (ch.  vii.  2,  viii.  1, 
 
 ^  Kraniclifeld  (d.  B.  Daniels,  p.  53)  seeks  to  explain  this  interchange  of  the 
 Hebrew  and  Chaldee  (Aramean)  languages  by  supposing  that  the  decree  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  (ch.  iii.  31  [iv.  1]  ff.)  to  his  people,  and  also  his  conversation 
 ■with  the  Chaldeans  (ch.  ii.  4-11),  were  originally  in  the  Aramaic  language,  and 
 that  the  author  was  led  from  this  to  make  use  of  this  language  throughout  one 
 part  of  his  book,  as  was  the  case  with  Ezra,  e.g.  ch.  iv.  23  ff.  And  the  con- 
 tinuous use  of  the  Aramaic  language  in  one  whole  part  of  the  book  will  be 
 sutficiently  explained,  if  it  were  composed  during  a  definite  epoch,  within  which 
 the  heathen  oppressors  as  such,  and  the  heathen  persecution,  stand  everywhere 
 in  the  foreground,  namely  in  the  time  of  the  Chaldean  supremacy,  on  which  the 
 Median  made  no  essential  change.  Thus  the  theocrat,  writing  at  this  time, 
 composed  his  reports  in  the  Aramaic  language  in  order  to  make  them  effective 
 among  the  Chaldeans,  because  they  were  aimed  against  their  enmity  and 
 hostility  as  well  as  against  that  of  their  rulers.  But  this  explanation  fails  from 
 this  circumstance,  that  in  the  tliird  year  of  Belshazzar  the  vision  granted  to 
 Daniel  (ch.  viii.)  is  recorded  in  the  Hebrew  language,  while,  on  the  contrary,  the 
 later  events  which  occurred  in  the  night  on  which  Belshazzar  was  slain  (ch.  v.) 
 are  described  in  the  Chaldee  language.  The  use  of  the  Hebrew  language  in  the 
 vision  (ch.  viii.)  cannot  be  explained  on  Kranichfeld's  supposition,  for  that  vision 
 is  so  internally  related  to  the  one  recorded  in  the  Chaldee  language  in  the 
 seventh  chapter,  that  no  ground  can  be  discerned  for  the  change  of  language 
 in  these  two  chapters. 
 
20  .  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 ix.  2,  X.  2  ff.),  occupied  (luring  the  exile.  If  the  exile  lias  that 
 importance  in  relation  to  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 as  already  described  in  §  2,  then  the  whole  progressive  development 
 of  the  divine  revelation,  as  it  lies  before  us  in  the  Old  and  New 
 Testaments,  warrants  us  to  expect,  from  the  period  of  the  exile,  a 
 book  containing  records  such  as  are  found  in  the  book  of  Daniel. 
 Since  miracles  and  prophecies  essentially  belong  not  only  in  general 
 to  the  realizing  of  the  divine  plan  of  salvation,  but  have  also  been 
 especially  manifested  in  all  the  critical  periods  of  the  history  of 
 the  kingdom  of  God,  neither  the  miracles  in  the  historical  parts  of 
 the  book,  nor  its  prophecies,  consisting  of  singular  predictions,  can 
 in  any  respect  seem  strange  to  us. 
 
 The  history  of  redemption  in  the  Old  and  New  Covenants  pre- 
 sents four  great  periods  of  miracles,  i.e.  four  epochs,  which  are  distin- 
 guished from  other  times  by  numerous  and  remarkable  miracles. 
 These  are,  (1)  The  time  of  Moses,  or  of  the  deliverance  of  Israel 
 out  of  Egypt,  and  their  journey  through  the  Arabian  desert  to 
 Canaan ;  (2)  In  the  promised  land,  the  time  of  the  prophets 
 Elijah  and  Elisha  ;  (3)  The  time  of  Daniel,  or  of  the  Babylonish 
 exile  ;  and  (4)  The  period  from  the  appearance  of  John  the  Bap- 
 tist to  the  ascension  of  Christ,  or  the  time  of  Christ.  These  are 
 the  times  of  the  foundation  of  the  Old  and  the  New  Covenant,  and 
 the  times  of  the  two  deliverances  of  the  people  of  Israel.  Of  these 
 four  historical  epochs  the  first  and  the  fourth  correspond  with  one 
 another,  and  so  also  do  the  second  and  the  third.  But  if  we  con- 
 sider that  the  Mosaic  period  contains  the  two  elements,  the  de- 
 liverance of  Israel  out  of  Egypt  and  the  establishment  of  the 
 kingdom  of  God  at  Sinai,  then,  if  we  take  into  view  the  first  of 
 these  elements,  the  Mosaic  period  resembles  that  of  the  exile  in 
 this  respect,  that  in  both  of  them  the  subject  is  the  deliverance  of 
 Israel  from  subjection  to  the  heathen  world-power,  and  that  the 
 deliverance  in  both  instances  served  as  a  preparation  for  the  found- 
 ing of  the  kingdom  of  God, — the  freeing  of  Israel  from  Egyptian 
 bondage  for  the  founding  of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God, 
 and  the  deliverance  from  Babylonish  exile  for  the  founding  of  the 
 New.  In  both  periods  the  heathen  world-power  had  externally 
 overcome  the  people  of  God  and  reduced  them  to  slavery,  and 
 determined  on  their  destruction.  In  both,  therefore,  God  the  Lord, 
 if  lie  would  not  suffer  His  work  of  redemption  to  be  frustrated 
 by  man,  must  reveal  Himself  by  wonders  and  signs  before  the 
 heathen,  as  the  almighty  God  and  Lord  in  heaven  and  on  earth, 
 
INTRODUCTION.  21 
 
 and  compel  the  oppressors  of  His  people,  by  means  of  great  judg- 
 ments, to  acknowledge  His  omnipotence  and  His  eternal  Godhead, 
 so  that  they  learned  to  fear  the  God  of  Israel  and  released  His 
 people.  In  the  time  of  Moses,  it  was  necessary  to  show  to  the 
 Egyptians  and  to  Pharaoh,  who  had  said  to  Moses,  "  Who  is  the 
 Lord,  that  I  should  obey  His  voice,  to  let  Israel  go  ?  I  know  not 
 the  Lord,  neither  will  I  let  Israel  go,"  that  Israel's  God  was  Jehovah 
 the  Lord,  that  He,  and  not  their  gods,  as  they  thought,  was  Lord 
 in  their  land,  and  that  there  was  none  like  Him  in  the  whole 
 earth  (Ex.  vii.  17,  viii.  18,  ix.  14,  29).  And  as  Pharaoh  did  not 
 know,  and  did  not  wish  to  know,  the  God  of  Israel,  so  also  neither 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  nor  Belshazzar,  nor  Darius  knew  Him.  Since 
 all  the  heathen  estimated  the  power  of  the  gods  according  to  the 
 power  of  the  people  who  honoured  them,  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
 whom  they  had  subjugated  by  their  arms,  would  naturally  appear 
 to  the  Chaldeans  and  their  king  as  an  inferior  and  feeble  God, 
 as  He  had  already  appeared  to  the  Assyrians  (Isa.  x.  8-11,  xxxvi. 
 18-20).  They  had  no  apprehension  of  the  fact  that  God  had 
 given  up  His  people  to  be  punished  by  them  on  account  of  their 
 unfaithful  departure  from  Him.  This  delusion  of  theirs,  by  which 
 not  only  the  honour  of  the  true  God  was  misunderstood  and  sullied, 
 but  also  the  object  for  which  the  God  of  Israel  had  sent  His  people 
 into  exile  among  the  heathen  was  in  danger  of  being  frustrated, 
 God  could  only  dissipate  by  revealing  Himself,  as  He  once  did  in 
 Egypt,  so  now  in  the  exile,  as  the  Lord  and  Ruler  of  the  whole 
 world.  The  similarity  of  circumstances  required  similar  wonderful 
 revelations  from  God.  For  this  reason  there  w^ere  miracles  wrought 
 in  the  exile  as  there  had  been  in  Egypt, — miracles  which  showed 
 the  omnipotence  of  the  God  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  helplessness 
 of  the  heathen  gods ;  and  hence  the  way  and  manner  in  which 
 God  did  this  is  in  general  the  same.  To  the  heathen  kings 
 Pharaoh  (Gen.  xli.)  and  Nebuchadnezzar  (Dan.  ii.)  He  made 
 known  the  future  in  dreams,  which  the  heathen  wise  men  of  the 
 land  were  not  able  to  interpret,  and  the  servants  of  Jehovah,  Joseph 
 and  Daniel,  interpreted  to  them,  and  on  that  account  were  exalted 
 to  high  offices  of  state,  in  which  they  exerted  their  influence  as  the 
 saviours  of  their  people.  And  He  shows  His  omnipotence  by 
 miracles  which  break  through  the  course  of  nature. 
 
 In  so  far  the  revelations  of  God  in  Egypt  and  in  the  Babylonish 
 exile  resemble  one  another.  But  that  the  actions  of  God  revealed 
 in  the  book  of  Daniel  are  not  mere  copies  of  those  which  were 
 
22  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 wrought  in  Egypt,  but  that  in  reahty  they  repeat  themselves,  is 
 clear  from  the  manifest  difference  in  particulars  between  the  two. 
 Of  the  two  ways  iu  which  God  reveals  Himself  as  the  one  only 
 true  God,  in  the  wonders  of  His  almighty  power,  and  in  the 
 displays  of  His  omniscience  in  predictions,  we  meet  with  the  former 
 almost  alone  in  Egypt,  while  in  the  exile  it  is  the  latter  tliat  pre- 
 vails. Leaving  out  of  view  Pharaoh's  dream  in  the  time  of  Joseph, 
 God  spoke  to  the  Pharaoh  of  the  time  of  Moses  through  Moses 
 only  ;  and  He  showed  Himself  as  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth 
 only  in  the  plagues.  In  the  exile  God  showed  His  omnipotence 
 only  tlirough  the  two  miracles  of  the  deliverance  of  Daniel  from 
 the  den  of  lions,  and  of  Daniel's  three  friends  from  the  burning 
 fiery  furnace.  All  the  other  revelations  of  God  consist  in  the  pro- 
 phetic announcement  of  the  course  of  the  development  of  the 
 world-kingdoms  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  For,  besides  the 
 general  object  of  all  God's  actions,  to  reveal  to  men  the  existence 
 of  the  invisible  God,  the  revelations  of  God  in  the  time  of  the 
 exile  had  a  different  specific  object  from  those  in  Egypt.  In 
 Egypt  God  would  break  Pharaoh's  pride  and  his  resistance  to  His 
 will,  and  compel  him  to  let  Israel  go.  This  could  only  be  reached 
 by  the  judgments  which  fell  upon  the  land  of  Egypt  and  its  inha- 
 bitants, and  manifested  the  God  of  Israel  as  the  Lord  in  the  land 
 of  Egypt  and  over  the  whole  earth.  In  the  exile,  on  the  contrary, 
 the  object  was  to  destroy  the  delusion  of  the  heathen,  that  the  God 
 of  the  subjugated  people  of  Judea  was  an  impotent  national  god, 
 and  to  show  to  the  rulers  of  the  world  by  acts,  that  the  God  of 
 this  so  humbled  people  was  yet  the  only  true  God,  who  rules  over 
 the  whole  earth,  and  in  His  wisdom  and  omniscience  determines 
 the  affairs  of  men.  Thus  God  must,  as  Caspari,  in  his  Lectures 
 011  the  Book  of  Daniel^  rightly  remarks,  "  by  great  revelations  lay 
 open  His  omnipotence  and  omniscience,  and  show  that  He  is  infi- 
 nitely exalted  above  the  gods  and  wise  men  of  this  world  and  above 
 all  the  world-powers."  Caspari  further  says  :  "  The  wise  men  of 
 the  Chaldean  world-power,  i.e.  the  so-called  magi,  maintained  that 
 they  were  the  possessors  of  great  wisdom,  and  such  they  were 
 indeed  celebrated  to  be,  and  that  they  obtained  their  wisdom  from 
 their  gods.  The  Lord  must,  through  great  revelations  of  His 
 omniscience,  show  that  He  alone  of  all  the  possessors  of  knowledge 
 is  the  Omniscient,  while  their  knowledge,  and  the  knowledge  of 
 their  gods,  is  nothing.  .  .  .  The  heathen  world-power  rests  in  the 
 ^  Vorlesungen  ueher  das  B.  Daniels,  p.  20. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  23 
 
 belief  that  it  acts  independently, — that  it  rules  and  governs  in  the 
 world, — that  even  the  future,  to  a  certain  degree,  is  in  its  hands. 
 The  Lord  must  show  to  it  that  it  is  only  an  instrument  in  His  hand 
 for  the  furthering  of  His  plans, — that  He  is  the  only  independent 
 agent  in  history, — that  it  is  He  who  directs  the  course  of  the  whole 
 world,  and  therefore  that  all  that  happens  to  His  people  is  His  own 
 work.  And  He  must,  on  this  account,  lay  open  to  it  the  whole 
 future,  that  He  may  show  to  it  that  He  knows  it  all,  even  to  the 
 very  minutest  events, — that  it  all  lies  like  a  map  before  His  eyes, — 
 and  that  to  Him  it  is  history  ;  for  He  who  fully  knows  the  whole 
 future  must  also  be  the  same  who  governs  the  whole  development 
 of  the  world.  Omnipotence  cannot  be  separated  from  omniscience." 
 Only  by  virtue  of  such  acts  of  God  could  the  shaking  of  the  faith 
 of  the  heathen  in  the  reality  and  power  of  their  gods,  effected 
 through  the  fall  and  destruction  of  one  world-kingdom  after  an- 
 other, become  an  operative  means  for  the  preparation  of  the  heathen 
 world  beforehand  for  the  appearance  of  the  Saviour  who  should 
 arise  out  of  Judah. 
 
 But  as  all  the  revelations  of  God  were  first  and  principally 
 intended  for  Israel,  so  also  the  wonderful  manifestations  of  the 
 divine  omnipotence  and  omniscience  in  the  exile,  which  are  re- 
 corded in  the  book  of  Daniel.  The  wonders  of  God  in  Egypt  had 
 their  relation  to  Israel  not  only  in  their  primary  bearing  on  their 
 deliverance  from  the  house  of  bondage  in  Egypt,  but  also  in  a  far 
 wider  respect :  they  were  intended  to  show  actually  to  Israel  that 
 Jehovah,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  possessed  the  power  to  overcome 
 all  the  hindrances  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  accomplishing  of 
 His  promises.  With  the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  the 
 destruction  of  Jerusalem,  the  burning  of  the  temple,  the  dethrone- 
 ment of  the  royal  house  of  David,  the  cessation  of  the  offering 
 up  of  the  Levitical  sacrifices,  the  carrying  away  of  the  king,  the 
 priests,  and  the  people  into  bondage,  the  kingdom  of  God  was 
 destroyed,  the  covenant  relation  dissolved,  and  Israel,  the  people 
 of  Jehovah,  driven  forth  from  their  own  land  among  the  heathen, 
 were  brought  into  a  new  Egyptian  slavery  (cf.  Deut.  xxviii.  68, 
 Hos.  viii.  13,  ix.  3).  The  situation  into  which  Israel  fell  by  the 
 carrying  away  into  Babylon  was  so  grievous  and  so  full  of  afflic- 
 tions, that  the  earnest-minded  and  the  pious  even  might  despair,  and 
 doubt  the  covenant  faithfulness  of  God.  The  predictions  by  the 
 earlier  prophets  of  their  deliverance  from  exile,  and  their  return 
 to  the  land  of  their  fathers  after  the  period  of  chastisement  had 
 
24  TUE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 passed  by,  served  to  prevent  tlieir  sinking  into  despair  or  falling 
 away  into  heathenism,  amid  the  sufferings  and  oppressions  to  which 
 they  were  exposed.  Even  the  labours  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel  in 
 their  midst,  although  his  appearance  was  a  sign  and  a  pledge  that 
 the  Lord  had  not  wholly  cast  off  His  people,  could  be  to  the  van- 
 quished no  full  compensation  for  that  which  they  had  lost,  and 
 must  feel  the  want  of.  Divine  actions  must  be  added  to  the  word 
 of  promise,  which  gave  assurance  of  its  fulfilment, — wonderful 
 works,  which  took  away  every  doubt  that  the  Lord  could  save  the 
 true  confessors  of  His  name  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies,  yea, 
 from  death  itself.  To  these  actual  proofs  of  the  divine  omnipotence, 
 if  they  would  fully  accomplish  their  purpose,  new  disclosures  re- 
 garding the  future  must  be  added,  since,  as  we  have  explained 
 above  (p.  8),  after  the  expiry  of  the  seventy  years  of  Babylonian 
 captivity  prophesied  of  by  Jeremiah,  Babylon  would  indeed  fall, 
 and  the  Jews  be  permitted  to  return  to  their  fatherland,  yet  the 
 glorification  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  Messiah,  which  was 
 connected  by  all  the  earlier  prophets,  and  even  by  Ezekiel,  with  the 
 return  from  Babylon,  did  not  immediately  appear,  nor  was  the  theo- 
 cracy restored  in  all  its  former  integrity,  but  Israel  must  remain 
 yet  longer  under  the  domination  and  the  oppression  of  the  heathen. 
 The  non-fulfilment  of  the  Messianic  hopes,  founded  in  the  deliver- 
 ance from  Babylonian  exile  at  the  end  of  the  seventy  years,  could 
 not  but  have  shaken  their  confidence  in  the  faithfulness  of  God  in 
 the  fulfilment  of  His  promises,  had  not  God  before  this  already  un- 
 veiled His  plan  of  salvation,  and  revealed  beforehand  the  progres- 
 sive development  and  the  continuation  of  the  heathen  world-power, 
 till  its  final  destruction  through  the  erection  of  His  everlasting 
 kingdom. 
 
 Proi)hecy  stands  side  by  side  with  God's  actions  along  the 
 whole  course  of  the  history  of  the  Old  Covenant,  interpreting  these 
 actions  to  the  people,  and  making  known  the  counsel  of  the  Lord 
 in  guiding  and  governing  their  affairs.  As  soon  and  as  often  as 
 Israel  comes  into  conflict  with  the  heathen  nations,  the  prophets 
 appear  and  proclaim  the  will  of  God,  not  only  in  regard  to  the 
 present  time,  but  they  also  make  known  the  final  victory  of  His 
 kingdom  over  all  the  kingdoms  and  powers  of  this  earth.  These 
 prophetic  announcements  take  a  form  corresponding  to  the  cir- 
 cumstances of  each  period.  Yet  they  are  always  of  such  a  kind 
 that  they  shine  out  into  the  future  far  beyond  the  horizon  of  the 
 immediate  present.     Thus  (leaving  out  of  view  the  older  times) 
 
INTRODUCTION,  25 
 
 the  prophets  of  the  Assyrian  period  predict  not  only  the  deliverance 
 of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  from  the  powerful  invasion  of  the  hostile 
 Assyrians  and  the  destruction  of  the  Assyrian  host  before  the 
 gates  of  Jerusalem,  but  also  the  carrying  away  of  Judah  into 
 Babylon  and  the  subsequent  deliverance  from  this  exile,  and  the 
 destruction  of  all  the  heathen  nations  which  fight  against  the  Lord 
 and  against  His  people.  At  the  time  of  the  exile  Jeremiah  and 
 Ezekiel  prophesy  with  great  fulness  of  detail,  and  in  the  most 
 particular  manner,  of  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  and 
 of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  Jeremiah 
 prophesies  as  particularly  the  return  of  Israel  and  of  Judah  from 
 the  exile,  and  the  formation  of  a  new  covenant  which  should  endure 
 for  ever  ;  and  Ezekiel  in  grand  ideal  outlines  describes  the  re-estab- 
 lishment of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  a  purified  and  transfigured 
 form.  Completing  this  prophecy,  the  Lord  reveals  to  His  people 
 by  Daniel  the  succession  and  the  duration  of  the  world-kingdoms,  the 
 relation  of  each  to  the  kingdom  of  God  and  its  preservation  under 
 all  the  persecution  of  the  world-power,  as  well  as  its  completion 
 by  judgments  poured  out  on  the  world-kingdoms  till  their  final 
 destruction. 
 
 Tlie  new  form  of  the  revelation  reffardlnoj  the  course  and  issue 
 of  the  process  commencing  with  the  formation  of  the  world-king- 
 doms— a  process  by  which  the  world-power  shall  be  Judged,  the 
 people  of  God  purified,  and  the  plan  of  salvation  for  the  deliver- 
 ance of  the  human  race  shall  be  perfected — corresponds  to  the  new 
 aspect  of  things  arising  in  the  subjection  of  the  people  of  God  to 
 the  violence  of  the  world-powers.  The  so-called  apocalyptical 
 character  of  Daniel's  prophecy  is  neither  in  contents  nor  in  form 
 a  new  species  of  prophecy.  What  Auberlen  ^  remarks  regarding 
 the  distinction  between  apocalypse  and  prophecy  needs  important 
 limitation.  We  cannot  justify  the  remark,  that  while  the  prophets 
 generally  place  in  the  light  of  prophecy  only  the  existing  condition 
 of  the  people  of  God,  Daniel  had  not  so  special  a  destination,  but 
 only  the  general  appointment  to  serve  to  the  church  of  God  as  a 
 prophetic  light  for  the  500  years  from  the  exile  to  the  coming  of 
 Christ  and  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  during 
 which  there  was  no  revelation.  For  these  other  prophets  do  not 
 limit  themselves  to  the  present,  but  they  almost  all  at  the  same  time 
 throw  light  on  the  future  ;  and  Daniel's  prophecy  also  goes  forth 
 from  the  present  and  reaches  far  beyond  the  time  of  the  destruc- 
 1  Der  Proph.  Dan.  p.  79  ff.     (Eug.  Trans,  p.  70  ff.) 
 
26  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 tion  of  Jerusalem  by  tlie  Eomans.  The  further  observation 
 also,  that  the  apocalypses,  in  conformity  with  their  destination 
 to  throw  prophetic  light  on  the  relation  of  the  world  to  the 
 kingdom  of  God  for  the  times  in  which  the  light  of  immediate 
 revelation  is  wanting,  must  be  on  the  one  side  more  universal  in 
 their  survey,  and  on  the  other  more  special  in  the  presentation  of 
 details,  is,  when  more  closely  looked  into,  unfounded.  Isaiah,  for 
 example,  is  in  his  survey  not  less  universal  than  Daniel.  He 
 throws  light  not  only  on  the  whole  future  of  the  people  and  king- 
 dom of  God  onward  till  the  creation  of  the  new  heavens  and  the 
 new  earth,  but  also  on  the  end  of  all  the  heathen  nations  and 
 kingdoms,  and  gives  in  his  representations  very  special  disclosures 
 not  only  regarding  the  overthrow  of  the  Assyrian  power,  which  at 
 that  time  oppressed  the  people  of  God  and  sought  to  destroy  the 
 kingdom  of  God,  but  also  regarding  far  future  events,  such  as  the 
 carrying  away  into  Babylon  of  the  treasures  of  the  king's  house, 
 and  of  the  king's  sons,  that  they  might  become  courtiers  in  the 
 palace  of  the  king  of  Babylon  (ch.  xxxix.  6,  7),  the  deliverance  of 
 Judah  from  Babylon  by  the  hand  of  Cyrus  (ch.  xliv.  28,  xlv.  1),  etc. 
 Compare  also,  for  special  glances  into  the  future,  the  rich  repre- 
 sentation of  details  in  Mic.  iv.  8-v.  3.  It  is  true  that  the  prophets 
 before  the  exile  contemplate  the  world-power  in  its  present  form 
 together  with  its  final  unfolding,  and  therefore  they  announce  the 
 Messianic  time  for  the  most  part  as  near  at  hand,  while,  on  the 
 contrary,  with  Daniel  the  one  world-power  is  successively  pre- 
 sented in  four  world-monarchies ;  but  this  difference  is  not  essential, 
 but  only  a  wider  expansion  of  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah  correspond- 
 ing to  the  time  and  the  circumstances  in  which  Daniel  was  placed, 
 that  not  Assyria  but  Babylon  would  destroy  the  kingdom  of  Judah 
 and  lead  the  people  of  God  into  exile,  and  that  the  Medes  and 
 Elamites  would  destroy  Babylon,  and  Cyrus  set  free  the  captives 
 of  Judah  and  Jerusalem.  Even  the  "  significant  presentation  of 
 numbers  and  of  definite  chronological  periods  expressed  in  them," 
 which  is  regarded  as  a  "  characteristic  mark  "  of  apocalypse,  has 
 its  roots  and  fundamental  principles  in  simple  prophecy,  which 
 here  and  there  also  gives  significant  numbers  and  definite  periods. 
 Thus  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  form  the  starting-point  for 
 the  seventy  weeks  or  the  seven  times  of  Daniel,  ch.  ix.  Compare 
 also  the  sixty-five  years  of  Isa.  vii.  8 ;  the  three  years,  Isa.  xx.  3 ; 
 the  seventy  years  of  the  desolation  of  Tyre,  Isa.  xxiii.  15 ;  the  forty 
 and  the  three  hundred  and  ninety  days  of  Ezek.  iv.  6,  \). 
 
INTRODUCTION.  27 
 
 In  fine,  If  we  examine  attentively  the  subjective  form  of  the 
 apocalypse,  we  shall  find  of  the  two  ways  in  which  the  future  is 
 unveiled,  viz.  by  dreams  and  visions,  the  latter  with  almost  all  the 
 prophets  together  with  communications  flowing  from  divine  illu- 
 mination, while  revelation  by  dreams  as  a  rule  is  granted  only  to 
 the  heathen  (Abimelech,  Gen.  xx.  3 ;  Pharaoh,  Gen.  xli. ;  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, Dan.  ii.)  or  to  Jews  who  were  not  prophets  (Jacob, 
 Gen.  xxviii.  12 ;  Solomon,  1  Kings  iii.  5),  and  the  revelation  in 
 Dan.  vii.  is  communicated  to  Daniel  in  a  dream  only  on  account 
 of  its  particular  relation,  as  to  the  matter  of  it,  to  the  dream  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar.  Amos,  Isaiah,  and  Jeremiah  (cf.  Amos  vii,-ix., 
 Isa.  vi.,  Ixiii.,  Jer.  i.  13,  xxiv.  1,  2)  had  also  visions.  With  Ezekiel 
 visions  rather  than  discourses  conveying  condemnation  or  comfort 
 prevail,  and  Zechariah  beholds  in  a  series  of  actions  the  future 
 development  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  of  the  world-kingdoms 
 (Zech.  i.  7-vi.  15).  We  also  find  images  representing  angels  seen 
 by  the  prophets  when  in  an  ecstasy,  not  only  with  Zechariah,  who 
 was  after  Daniel's  time,  but  also  with  Ezekiel ;  and  Isaiah  too  saw 
 the  seraphim  standing,  and  even  moving  and  acting,  before  the 
 throne  of  God  (Isa.  vi.  6,  7).  In  the  visions  the  future  appears 
 embodied  in  plastic  figures  which  have  a  symbolical  meaning  and 
 which  need  interpretation.  Thus  the  appearance  of  angels  to 
 Daniel  is  to  be  explained  in  the  same  way  as  their  appearance  to 
 Ezekiel  and  Zechariah. 
 
 Accordingly  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  are  not  distinguished  even 
 in  their  apocalyptic  form  from  the  whole  body  of  prophecy  in  nature, 
 but  only  in  degree.  When  dream  and  vision  form  the  only  means 
 of  announcing  the  future,  the  prophetic  discourse  is  wholly  wanting. 
 But  the  entire  return  of  the  prophecy  to  the  form  of  discourses  of 
 condemnation,  warning,  and  consolation  is  fully  explained  from  the 
 position  of  Daniel  outside  of  the  congregation  of  God  at  the  court 
 and  in  the  state  service  of  the  heathen  world-ruler ;  and  this  posi- 
 tion the  Lord  had  assigned  to  him  on  account  of  the  great  signifi- 
 cance which  the  world-kingdom  had,  as  we  have  shown  (p.  10), 
 for  the  preparation  beforehand  of  Israel  and  of  the  heathen  world 
 for  the  renovation  and  perfecting  of  the  kingdom  of  God  through 
 Christ. 
 
 Both  in  its  contents  and  form  the  book  of  Daniel  has  thus  the 
 stamp  of  a  prophetical  writing,  such  as  we  might  have  expected 
 according  to  the  development  of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of 
 God  from  the  period  of  the  Babylonish  exile ;  and  the  testimony  of 
 
28  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  Jewish  synagogue  as  -well  as  of  the  Christian  church  to  the 
 genuineness  of  the  book,  or  its  composition  by  the  prophet  Daniel, 
 rests  on  a  soHd  foundation.  In  the  whole  of  antiquity  no  one 
 doubted  its  genuineness  except  the  well-known  enemy  of  Christi- 
 anity, the  Neo-Platonist  Porphyry,  who  according  to  the  statement 
 of  Jerome  (in  the  preface  to  his  Comment,  in  Dan.)  wrote  the 
 twelfth  book  of  his  Xo'yoL  kuto,  Xpianavwv  against  the  book  of 
 Daniel,  nolens  eitm  ah  ipso,  cujus  inscriptus  est  nomine,  esse  composi- 
 tian,  seel  a  quodam  qui  temporihus  Antiochi,  qui  appellatus  est  Epi- 
 phanes,  fuerit  in  Judcea,  et  non  tarn  Danielem  ventura  dixisse,  qiiam 
 ilium  narrasse  p)rceterita.  He  was,  however,  opposed  by  Eusehius 
 of  Ca3sarea  and  other  church  Fathers.  For  the  first  time  with 
 the  rise  of  deism,  naturalism,  and  rationahsm  during  the  bygone 
 century,  there  began,  as  a  consequence  of  the  rejection  of  a  super- 
 natural revelation  from  God,  the  assault  against  the  genuineness  of 
 the  book.  To  such  an  extent  has  this  opposition  prevailed,  that  at 
 the  present  time  all  critics  who  reject  miracles  and  supernatural 
 prophecy  hold  its  spuriousness  as  an  undoubted  principle  of  criticism. 
 They  regard  the  book  as  the  composition  of  a  Jew  living  in  the 
 time  of  the  Maccabees,  whose  object  was  to  cheer  and  animate  his 
 contemporaries  in  the  war  which  was  waged  against  them  by 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  for  the  purpose  of  rooting  up  Judaism,  by 
 representing  to  them  certain  feigned  miracles  and  prophecies  of 
 some  old  prophet  announcing  the  victory  of  God's  people  over  all 
 their  enemies.^ 
 
 The  arguments  by  which  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  seek 
 to  justify  scientifically  their  opinion  are  deduced  partly  from  the 
 position  of  the  book  in  the  canon,  and  other  external  circumstances, 
 but  principally  from  the  contents  of  the  book.  Leaving  out  of  view 
 that  which  the  most  recent  opponents  have  yielded  up,  the  following 
 things,  adduced  by  Bleek  and  Stiihelin  (in  their  works  mentioned  in 
 
 1  Cf.  the  historical  survey  of  the  controversy  regarding  the  genuineness  of 
 the  book  in  my  Lehrh.  d.  Einleit.  in  d.  A.  Test.  §  134.  To  what  is  there  men- 
 tioned add  to  the  number  of  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness,  Fr.  Bleek,  Ein- 
 leitimg  in  d.  A.  Test.  p.  577  ff.,  and  his  article  on  the  "  Messianic  Prophecies  in 
 the  Book  of  Daniel "  in  the  Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Thcologie,  v.  1,  p.  45  £f.,  and  J.  J. 
 Stahelin's  Einleit.  in  die  kanon.  Biicher  des  A.  Test.  18G2,  §  73.  To  the  number 
 of  the  defenders  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book  as  there  mentioned  add,  Dav. 
 Zundel's  krit.  Untersuchungen  ueher  die  Ahfassnngszeit  des  B.  Daniel,  18G1,  Rud. 
 Kranichfcld  and  Th.  Kliefoth  in  their  commentaries  on  the  Book  of  Daniel 
 (18G8),  and  the  Catholic  theologian,  Dr.  Fr.  Heinr.  Reusch  (professor  in  Bonn), 
 in  his  Lehr.  der  Einleit.  in  d.  A.  Test.  1868,  §  43. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  29 
 
 the  last  note),  are  asserted,  which  alone  we  wish  to  consider  here, 
 referring  to  the  discussions  on  this  question  in  my  Lehrh.  der  Ein- 
 leitung,  §  133. 
 
 Among  the  external  grounds  great  stress  is  laid  on  the  place  the 
 book  holds  in  the  Hebrew  canon.  That  Daniel  should  here  hold  his 
 place  not  among  the  Nehiyim  [the  prophetical  writings],  but  among 
 the  Ketliuhhn  [the  Hagiographa]  between  the  books  of  Esther  and 
 Ezra,  can  scarcely  be  explained  otherwise  than  on  the  supposition 
 that  it  was  yet  unknown  at  the  time  of  the  formation  of  the 
 Nehiyim,  that  is,  in  the  age  of  Nehemiah,  and  consequently  that 
 it  did  not  exist  previously  to  that  time.  But  this  conclusion,  even 
 on  the  supposition  that  the  Third  Part  of  the  canon,  the  collec- 
 tion called  the  KetlaiMm,  was  for  the  first  time  formed  some  time 
 after  the  conclusion  of  the  Second  Part,  is  not  valid.  On  the  con- 
 trary, Kranichfeld  has  not  without  good  reason  remarked,  that 
 since  the  prophets  before  the  exile  connected  the  beginning  of 
 the  Messianic  deliverance  with  the  end  of  the  exile,  while  on  the 
 other  hand  the  book  of  Daniel  predicts  a  period  of  oppression  con- 
 tinuing long  after  the  exile,  therefore  the  period  succeeding  the 
 exile  might  be  offended  with  the  contents  of  the  book,  and  hence 
 feel  some  hesitation  to  incorporate  the  book  of  one  who  was  less 
 distinctively  a  prophet  in  the  collection  of  the  prophetic  books,  and 
 that  the  Maccabee  time,  under  the  influence  of  the  persecution  pro- 
 phesied of  in  the  book,  first  learned  to  estimate  its  prophetic  worth 
 and  secured  its  reception  into  the  canon.  This  objection  is  thus 
 sufficiently  disproved.  But  the  supposition  of  a  successive  collection 
 of  the  books  of  the  canon  and  of  its  three  Parts  after  the  period 
 in  which  the  books  themselves  were  written,  is  a  hypothesis  which 
 has  never  been  proved  :  cf.  my  Einleit.  in  d.  A.  T.  ^  154  ff.  The 
 place  occupied  by  this  book  in  the  Hebrew  canon  perfectly  corre- 
 sponds with  the  place  of  Daniel  in  the  theocracy.  Daniel  did  not 
 labour,  as  the  rest  of  the  prophets  did  whose  writings  form  the  class 
 of  the  Nehiyim^  as  a  prophet  among  his  people  in  the  congregation 
 of  Israel,  but  he  was  a  minister  of  state  under  the  Chaldean  and 
 Medo-Persian  world-rulers.  Although,  like  David  and  Solomon, 
 he  possessed  the  gift  of  prophecy,  and  therefore  was  called  irpo^r^- 
 rr)<;  (LXX.,  Joseph.,  New  Testament),  yet  he  was  not  a  ^''33,  i.e.  a 
 prophet  in  his  official  position  and  standing.  Therefore  his  book  in 
 its  contents  and  form  is  different  from  the  writings  of  the  Nehiyim. 
 His  prophecies  are  not  prophetic  discourses  addressed  to  Israel  or 
 the  nations,  but  visions,  in  which  the  development  of  the  world- 
 
30  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 kingdoms  and  their  relation  to  the  kingdom  of  God  are  unveiled,  and 
 the  historical  part  of  his  book  describes  events  of  the  time  wheu 
 Israel  went  into  captivity  among  the  heathen.  For  these  reasons 
 his  book  is  not  placed  in  the  class  of  the  Nehiyim^  which  reaches 
 from  Joshua  to  Malachi, — for  these,  according  to  the  view  of  him 
 who  arranged  the  canon,  are  wholly  the  writings  of  such  as  held 
 the  prophetic  office,  i.e.  the  office  requiring  them  openly,  by  word 
 of  mouth  and  by  writing,  to  announce  the  word  of  God, — but  in  the 
 class  of  the  KethuMin,  which  comprehends  sacred  writings  of  differ- 
 ent kinds  whose  common  character  consists  in  this,  that  their  authors 
 did  not  fill  the  prophetic  office,  as  e.g.  Jonah,  in  the  theocracy ; 
 which  is  confirmed  by  the  fact  that  the  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah 
 are  comprehended  in  this  class,  since  Jeremiah  uttered  these 
 Lamentations  over  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  Judali  not 
 qua  a  prophet,  but  as  a  member  of  that  nation  -which  w^as  chastened 
 by  the  Lord. 
 
 Little  importance  is  to  be  attached  to  the  silence  of  Jesus 
 Sirach  in  liis  vfivo^  Trarepcov,  ch.  xlix.,  regarding  Daniel,  since  an 
 express  mention  of  Daniel  could  not  justly  be  expected.  Jesus 
 Sirach  passes  over  other  distinguished  men  of  antiquity,  such  as  Job, 
 the  good  king  Jehoshaphat,  and  even  Ezra  the  priest  and  scribe, 
 who  did  great  service  for  the  re-establishment  of  the  authority  of 
 the  law,  from  which  it  may  be  seen  that  it  was  not  his  purpose  to 
 present  a  complete  list.  Still  less  did  he  intend  to  name  all  the 
 writers  of  the  Old  Testament.  And  if  also,  in  his  praise  of  the 
 fathers,  he  limits  himself  on  the  whole  to  the  course  of  the  biblical 
 books  of  the  Hebrew  canon  from  the  Pentateuch  down  to  the 
 Minor  Prophets,  yet  what  he  says  of  Zerubbabel,  Joshua,  and  Nehe- 
 miah  he  does  not  gather  from  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah. 
 When,  on  the  other  hand,  Bleek  seeks  to  account  for  the  absence 
 of  any  mention  of  Ezra,  which  his  supposition  that  Jesus  Sirach 
 names  all  the  celebrated  men  mentioned  in  the  canonical  books 
 extant  in  his  time  contradicts,  by  the  remark  that  "  Ezra  perhaps 
 would  not  have  been  omitted  if  the  book  which  bears  his  name  had 
 been  before  that  time  received  into  the  canon,"  he  has  in  his  zeal 
 ao-ainst  the  book  of  Daniel  forgotten  to  observe  that  neither  the  book 
 of  Nehemiah  in  its  original  or  then  existing  form,  nor  the  first  part 
 of  the  book  of  Ezra,  containing  notices  of  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua, 
 has  ever,  separated  from  the  second  part,  which  speaks  of  Ezra, 
 formed  a  constituent  portion  of  the  canon,  but  that  rather,  accord- 
 ing to  his  own  statement,  the  second  part  of  the  book  of  Ezra  "  was 
 
INTRODUCTION.  31 
 
 without  doubt  composed  hy  Ezra  himself,"  which  is  consequently  as 
 old,  if  not  older  than  the  genuine  parts  of  the  book  of  Nehemiah, 
 and  that  both  books  in  the  form  in  which  they  have  come  to  us  must 
 have  been  edited  by  a  Jew  living  at  the  end  of  the  Persian  or  at 
 the  beginning  of  the  Grecian  supremacy,  and  then  for  the  first 
 time  in  this  redaction  were  admitted  into  the  canon. 
 
 Besides  all  this,  it  appears  that  in  the  work  of  Jesus  Sirach  the 
 previous  existence  of  the  book  of  Daniel  is  presupposed,  for  the 
 idea  presented  in  Sirach  xvii.  14,  that  God  had  given  to  that  people 
 an  angel  as  rjjovfxevo'i  C^^),  refers  to  Dan.  x.  13,  20-xi.  1,  xii.  1. 
 For  if  Sirach  first  formed  this  idea  from  the  LXX.  translation  of 
 Deut.  xxxii.  8,  9,  then  the  LXX.  introduced  it  from  the  book  of 
 Daniel  into  Deut.  xxxii.  8,  so  that  Daniel  is  the  author  from  whom 
 this  opinion  was  derived ;  and  the  book  which  was  known  to  the 
 Alexandrine  translators  of  the  Pentateuch  could  not  be  unknown 
 to  the  Siracidse. 
 
 Still  weaker  is  the  argumentum  e  silentio,  that  in  the  pro- 
 phets after  the  exile,  Haggai  and  Malachi,  and  particularly 
 Zechariah  (ch.  i.— viii.),  there  are  no  traces  of  any  use  being 
 made  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  that  it  exerted  no  influence 
 on  the  Messianic  representations  of  the  later  prophets.  Kran. 
 has  already  made  manifest  the  weakness  of  this  argument  by 
 replying  that  Bleek  was  silent  as  to  the  relation  of  Daniel's  prayer, 
 ch.  ix.  0-19,  to  Ezra  ix.  and  Neh.  ix.,  because  the  dependence  of 
 Ezra  and  Nehemiah  on  the  book  of  Daniel  could  not  be  denied. 
 Moreover  von  Hofmann,  Ziindel  (p.  249  ff.),  Volck  (Vindicice 
 Danielicce,  1866),  Kran.,  and  Klief.  have  shown  that  Zechariah 
 proceeded  on  the  supposition  of  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  four 
 world-monarchies,  inasmuch  as  not  only  do  the  visions  of  the 
 four  horns  and  of  the  four  carpenters  of  Zech.  ii.  1-4  (i.  18-21) 
 rest  on  Dan.  vii.  7,  8,  viii.  3-9,  and  the  representation  of  nations 
 and  kingdoms  as  horns  originate  in  these  passages,  but  also  in 
 the  symbolic  transactions  recorded  Zech.  xi.  5,  the  killing  of  the 
 three  shepherds  in  one  month  becomes  intelligible  only  by  a 
 reference  to  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  world-rulers  under  whose 
 power  Israel  was  brought  into  subjection.  Cf.  my  Comm.  on 
 Zech.  ii.  1-4  and  xi.  5.  The  exposition  of  Zech.  i.  7-17  and  vi. 
 1-8  as  founded  on  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  world-kingdoms, 
 does  not,  however,  appear  to  us  to  be  satisfactory,  and  in  what 
 Zechariah  (ch.  ii.  5)  says  of  the  building  of  Jerusalem  we  can  find 
 no  allusion  to  Dan.  ix.  25.     But  if  Bleek  in  particular  has  missed 
 
32  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 in  Zecli.  Daniel's  announcement  of  a  Ruler  like  a  son  of  man 
 coming  in  the  clouds,  Kran.  has,  on  the  other  hand,  justly  remarked 
 that  this  announcement  by  Daniel  is  connected  with  the  scene  of 
 judgment  described  in  ch.  vil.,  which  Zechariah,  in  whose  prophecies 
 the  priestly  character  of  the  Messiah  predominates,  had  no  occasion 
 to  repeat  or  expressly  to  mention.  Tliis  is  the  case  also  with  the 
 names  of  the  angels  in  Daniel,  which  are  connected  with  the 
 special  character  of  his  visions,  and  cannot  be  expected  in  Zechariah. 
 Yet  Zechariah  agrees  with  Daniel  in  regard  to  the  distinction  be- 
 tween  the  higher  and  the  lower  ranks  of  angels. 
 
 Rather  the  case  stands  thus  :  that  not  only  was  Zechariah  ac- 
 quainted with  Daniel's  prophecies,  but  Ezra  also  and  the  Levites  of 
 his  time  made  use  of  (Ezra  ix.  and  Neh.  ix.)  the  penitential  prayer 
 of  Daniel  (ch.  ix.).  In  Ezekiel  also  we  have  still  older  testimony 
 for  Daniel  and  the  principal  contents  of  his  book,  which  the  oppo- 
 nents of  its  genuineness  have  in  vain  attempted  to  set  aside.  Even 
 Bleek  is  obliged  to  confess  that  "  in  the  way  in  which  Ezekiel 
 (xiv.  14,  20,  xxviii.  3)  makes  mention  of  the  rectitude  and  wisdom 
 of  Daniel,  we  are  led  to  think  of  a  man  of  such  virtue  and 
 wisdom  as  Daniel  appears  in  this  book  to  have  been  distinguished 
 by,  and  also  to  conceive  of  some  connection  between  the  character 
 there  presented  and  that  which  Ezekiel  had  before  his  eyes ; "  but 
 yet,  notmthstanding  this,  the  manner  in  which  Ezekiel  makes 
 mention  of  Daniel  does  not  lead  him  to  think  of  a  man  who  was 
 Ezekiel's  contemporary  in  the  Babylonish  exile,  and  who  was 
 probably  comparatively  young  at  the  time  when  Ezekiel  spake  of 
 him,  but  of  a  man  who  had  been  long  known  as  an  historic  or 
 mythic  personage  of  antiquity.  But  this  latter  idea  is  based  only 
 on  the  groundless  supposition  that  the  names  Noah,  Daniel,  and 
 Job,  as  found  in  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20,  are  there  presented  in  chrono- 
 logical order,  which,  as  we  have  shown  under  Ezek.  xiv.,  is  a 
 natural  order  determined  by  a  reference  to  the  deliverance  from 
 great  danger  experienced  by  each  of  the  persons  named  on  ac- 
 count of  his  righteousness.  Equally,  groundless  is  the  other  sup- 
 position, that  the  Daniel  named  by  Ezekiel  must  have  been  a  very 
 old  man,  because  righteousness  and  wisdom  first  show  themselves 
 in  old  age.  If  we  abandon  this  supposition  and  fall  in  with  the 
 course  of  thought  in  Ezekiel,  then  the  difficulty  arising  from  the 
 naming  of  Daniel  between  Noah  and  Job  (Ezek.  xiv.  14)  dis- 
 appears, and  at  the  same  time  also  the  occasion  for  thinking  of  an 
 historical  or   mythical  personage  of  antiquity,  of  whose  special 
 
INTRODUCTION.  33 
 
 wisdom  no  trace  can  anywhere  be  found.  What  Ezekiel  says  of 
 Daniel  in  both  places  agrees  perfectly  with  the  Daniel  of  this  book. 
 When  he  (ch.  xxviii.  3)  says  of  the  king  of  Tyre,  "  Thou  re- 
 gardest  thyself  as  wiser  than  Daniel,  there  is  nothing  secret  that  is 
 hidden  from  thee,"  the  reference  to  Daniel  cannot  be  denied,  to 
 whom  God  granted  an  insight  into  all  manner  of  visions  and 
 dreams,  so  that  he  excelled  ten  times  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon 
 in  wisdom  (Dan.  i.  17-20) ;  and  therefore  Nebuchadnezzar  (ch. 
 iv.  6  [9])  and  the  queen  (ch.  v.  11)  regarded  him  as  endowed 
 with  the  spirit  and  the  wisdom  of  the  gods,  which  the  ruler  of 
 Tyre  in  vain  self-idolatry  attributed  to  himself.  The  opinion  pro- 
 nounced regarding  Daniel  in  Ezek.  xiv.  14,  20,  refers  without  a 
 doubt  also  to  the  Daniel  of  this  book.  Ezekiel  names  Noah, 
 Daniel,  and  Job  as  pious  men,  who  by  their  righteousness  before 
 God  in  the  midst  of  severe  judgments  saved  their  souls,  i.e. 
 their  lives.  If  his  discourse  was  intended  to  make  any  impression 
 on  his  hearers,  then  the  facts  regarding  this  saving  of  their  lives 
 must  have  been  well  known.  Record  of  this  was  found  in  the 
 Holy  Scriptures  in  the  case  of  Noah  and  Job,  but  of  a  Daniel  of 
 antiquity  nothing  was  at  all  communicated.  On  the  contrary, 
 Ezekiel's  audience  could  not  but  at  once  think  of  Daniel,  who  not 
 only  refused,  from  reverence  for  the  law  of  God,  to  eat  of  the 
 food  from  the  king's  table,  thereby  exposing  his  life  to  danger, 
 and  who  was  therefore  blessed  of  God  with  both  bodily  and 
 mental  health,  but  who  also,  when  the  decree  had  gone  forth  that 
 the  wise  men  who  could  not  show  to  Nebuchadnezzar  his  dream 
 should  be  put  to  death,  in  the  firm  faith  that  God  would  by  prayer 
 reveal  to  him  the  king's  dream,  saved  his  own  life  and  that  of 
 his  fellows,  and  in  consequence  of  his  interpretation  of  the  dream 
 revealed  to  him  by  God,  was  appointed  ruler  over  the  whole 
 province  of  Babylon  and  chief  over  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon, 
 so  that  his  name  was  known  in  all  the  kingdom,  and  his  fidelity 
 to  the  law  of  God  and  his  righteousness  were  praised  by  all  the 
 captives  of  Judah  in  Chaldea. 
 
 Thus  it  stands  with  respect  to  the  external  evidences  against  the 
 genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel.  Its  place  in  the  canon  among 
 the  KetlmUm  corresponds  with  the  place  which  Daniel  occupied  in 
 the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  Testament ;  the  alleged  want 
 of  references  to  the  book  and  its  prophecies  in  Zechariah  and  in  the 
 book  of  Jesus  Sirach  is,  when  closely  examined,  not  really  the 
 case :  not  only  Jesus  Sirach  and  Zechariah  knew  and  understood 
 
34  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  but  even  Ezekiel  names  Daniel  as  a  bright 
 pattern  of  righteousness  and  wisdom. 
 
 If  we  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  internal  evidences  alleired 
 against  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  the  circumstance  that  the 
 opponents  place  the  Greek  names  of  certain  musical  instruments 
 mentioned  in  Dan.  iii.  in  the  front,  awakens  certainly  no  prejudice 
 favourable  to  the  strength  of  their  argument. 
 
 In  the  list  of  the  instruments  of  music  which  were  played  upon 
 at  the  inauguration  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  golden  image,  three  names 
 are  found  of  Grecian  origin :  Dnri''J7  =  KLdapL<;,  n^J'soiD  (X^Jb^p)  = 
 avfi(})03via,  and  PlJ^iipQ  (ptpJDS)  =  i^aXT??/3toy  (Dan.  iii.  5,  7,  10,  1 5). 
 To  these  there  has  also  been  added  i^33p  =  cra/xlSvKr},  but  unwarrant- 
 ably ;  for  the  aafi^uKrj,  ad/jb/Sv^,  ^a/x^LKT]  is,  according  to  the  testi- 
 mony of  Athen.  and  Strabo,  of  foreign  or  Syrian,  i.e.  of  Semitic 
 origin,  and  the  word  aaix^vKr)  is  without  any  etymon  in  Greek  (cf. 
 Ges.  Thes.  p.  935).  Of  the  other  three  names,  it  is  undoubted  that 
 they  have  a  Grecian  origin;  but  "no  one  can  maintain  that  such 
 instruments  could  not  at  the  time  of  the  Chaldean  supremacy  have 
 found  their  way  from  the  Greek  West  into  Upper  Asia,  who  takes 
 into  view  the  historical  facts  "  (Kran.).  At  the  time  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, not  only  was  "there  intercourse  between  the  inhabitants 
 of  Upper  Asia  and  the  lonians  of  Asia  Minor,"  as  Bleek  thinks, 
 but  according  to  Strabo  (xiii.  2,  3)  there  was  in  the  army  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  Antimenidas,  the  brother  of  the  poet  Alcseus, 
 fighting  victoriously  for  the  Babylonians,  apparently,  as  M.  v. 
 Nieb.  in  his  Gesch.  Assurs,  p.  206,  remarks,  at  the  head  of  a 
 warlike  troop,  as  chief  of  a  band  of  fuorusciti  who  had  bound 
 themselves  to  the  king  of  Babylon.  According  to  the  testimony  of 
 Abydenus,  quoted  in  Eusebius,  Chron.  Arm.  ed.  Aucher,  i.  53, 
 Greek  soldiers  followed  the  Assyrian  Esarhaddon  (Axerdis)  on 
 his  march  through  Asia  ;  and  according  to  Berosus  {Fragm.  hist. 
 Grcec.  ed.  Miiller,  ii.  504),  Sennacherib  had  already  conducted  a 
 successful  war  against  a  Greek  army  that  had  invaded  Cilicia. 
 And  the  recent  excavations  in  Nineveh  confirm  more  and  more 
 the  fact  that  there  was  extensive  intercourse  between  the  inhabi- 
 tants of  Upper  Asia  and  Greece,  extending  to  a  period  long 
 before  the  time  of  Daniel,  so  that  the  importation  of  Greek  instru- 
 ments into  Nineveh  was  by  no  means  a  strange  thing,  much  less 
 could  it  be  so  during  the  tim^  of  the  Chaldean  supremacy  in 
 Babylon,  the  merchant-city,  as  Ezekiel  (ch.  xvii.  4,  19)  calls  it, 
 fi'om  which  even  in    Joshua's  time  a  Babylonish  garment  had 
 
INTRODUCTION.  35 
 
 been  brought  to  the  Cauaanites  (Josh.  vii.  21).  But  if  Staehelin 
 (Einleit.  p.  348)  further  remarks,  that  granting  even  the  possibility 
 that  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  time  the  Babylonians  had  some  know- 
 ledge of  the  Greek  musical  instruments,  yet  there  is  a  great 
 difference  between  this  and  the  using  of  them  at  great  festivals, 
 where  usually  the  old  customs  prevail,  it  must  be  replied  that 
 this  alleged  close  adherence  to  ancient  custom  on  the  part  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  stands  altogether  in  opposition  to  all  we  already 
 know  of  the  king.  And  the  further  remark  by  the  same  critic, 
 that  psalterium  and  symphonie  were  words  first  used  by  the  later 
 Greek  writers  about  150  B.C.,  finds  a  sufficient  reply  in  the  discovery 
 of  the  figure  of  a  yjraXTtjpiov  on  the  Monument  of  Sennacherib.^ 
 But  if  through  this  ancient  commerce,  which  was  principally 
 carried  on  by  the  Phoenicians,  Greek  instruments  were  brought 
 into  Upper  Asia,  it  cannot  be  a  strange  thing  that  their  Greek 
 names  should  be  found  in  the  third  chapter  of  Daniel,  since,  as 
 is  everywhere  known,  the  foreign  name  is  usually  given  to  the 
 foreign  articles  which  may  be  imported  among  any  people. 
 
 More  important  appear  the  historical  improbabilities  and  errors 
 which  are  said  to  occur  in  the  histoi'ical  narratives  of  this  book. 
 
 These  are  :  (1)  The  want  of  harmony  between  the  narrative  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar's  incursion  against  Judah  in  Jer.  xxv.  1  ff.,  xlvi.  2, 
 and  the  statement  of  Daniel  (ch.  i.  1  ff.)  that  this  king  came  up 
 against  Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim,  besieged  the 
 city,  and  carried  away  captive  to  Babylon  Daniel  and  other  Hebrew 
 youths,  giving  command  that  for  three  years  they  should  be  educated 
 in  the  wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans ;  while,  according  to  the  narrative 
 of  ch.  ii.,  Daniel  already,  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, interpreted  to  the  king  his  dream,  which  could  have 
 occurred  only  after  the  close  of  the  period  of  his  education.  This 
 inconsistency  between  Dan.  i.  1  and  Jer.  xxvi.  2,  xxv.  1,  and  also 
 between  Dan.  i.  and  ii.,  would  indeed  be  evident  if  it  were  an 
 undoubted  fact  that  the  statement  that  Nebuchadnezzar  besieged 
 
 ^  Cf .  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  454.  On  a  bas-relief  representing  the 
 return  of  the  Assyrian  army  from  a  victorious  campaign,  companies  of  meu 
 welcome  the  Assyrian  commander  with  song,  and  music,  and  dancing.  Five 
 musicians  go  before,  three  with  many-sided  harps,  a  fourth  with  a  double  flute, 
 such  as  are  seen  on  Egyptian  monuments,  and  were  in  use  also  among  the 
 Romans  and  Greeks  ;  the  fifth  carries  an  instrument  like  the  santur  (pnpiJDS, 
 V.  Gesen.  Thes.  p.  1116),  stUl  in  use  among  the  Egyptians,  which  consists  of  a 
 hollow  box  or  a  sounding-board  with  strings  stretched  over  it. — Quite  in  the 
 Bame  way  Augustin  (under  Ps.  xxxii.)  describes  th.Q  psalterium. 
 
36  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Jerusalem  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  as  men- 
 tioned in  Dan.  i.  1,  meant  that  this  was  done  after  he  ascended  the 
 throne.  But  the  remark  of  AVicseler  (die  70  Wochen  u.  die  63 
 Jahrwoclien  des  Proph.  Daniel^  p.  9),  that  the  supposed  opposition 
 between  Dan.  i.  and  ii.  is  so  great  that  it  cannot  be  thought  of 
 even  in  a  pseudo-Daniel,  cannot  but  awaken  suspicion  against  the 
 accuracy  of  the  supposition  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  the  actual 
 king  of  Babylon  at  the  time  of  the  siege  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
 carrying  away  of  Daniel.  The  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in  ch. 
 ii.  1  is  expressly  placed  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign  (ni3po)  ; 
 in  ch.  i.  Nebuchadnezzar  is  called  the  king  of  Babylon,  but  yet 
 nothing  is  said  of  his  actual  reign,  and  the  time  of  the  siege  of 
 Jerusalem  is  not  defined  by  a  year  of  his  reign.  But  he  who 
 afterwards  became  king  might  be  proleptically  styled  king,  though 
 he  was  at  the  time  only  the  commander  of  the  army.  This  con- 
 jecture is  confirmed  by  the  statement  of  Berosus,  as  quoted  by 
 Josephus  (Ant.  x.  11.  1,  c.  Aj).  i.  19),  that  Nebuchadnezzar  under- 
 took the  first  campaign  against  the  Egyptian  king  during  the  life- 
 time of  his  father,  who  had  entrusted  him  with  the  carrying  on  of 
 the  war  on  account  of  the  infirmity  of  old  age,  and  that  he  received 
 tidings  of  his  father's  death  after  he  had  subdued  his  enemies  in 
 Western  Asia.  The  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  ascending  the  throne 
 and  commencing  his  reign  was  a  year  or  a  year  and  a  half  after 
 the  first  siege  of  Jerusalem  ;  thus  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign, 
 that  is  about  the  end  of  it,  the  three  years  of  the  education  of  the 
 Hebrew  youths  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Chaldees  would  have  come  to 
 an  end.  Thus  the  apparent  contradiction  between  Dan.  ii.  1  and  i.  1 
 is  cleared  up.  In  reference  to  the  date,  "  in  the  third  year  of  the 
 reign  of  Jehoiakim  "  (Dan.  i.  1),  we  cannot  regard  as  justified  the 
 supposition  deduced  from  Jer.  xxxvi.  9,  that  the  Chaldeans  in  the 
 ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim  had  not  yet  come  to 
 Jerusalem,  nor  can  we  agree  with  the  opinion  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
 had  already  destroyed  Jerusalem  before  the  victory  gained  by  him 
 over  Pharaoh-necho  at  Carchemish  (Jer.  xlvi.  2)  in  the  fourth 
 year  of  Jehoiakim,  but  hope  under  ch.  i.  1  to  prove  that  the  taking 
 of  Jerusalem  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  followed  after  the 
 battle  at  Carchemish,  and  that  the  statement  by  Daniel  (ch.  i.  1), 
 when  rightly  understood,  harmonizes  easily  therewith,  since  Ni3 
 (Dan.  i.  1)  signifies  to  go,  to  set  out,  and  not  to  come. 
 
 But  (2)  it  is  not  so  easy  to  explain  the  historical  difficulties 
 which  are  found  in  ch.  v.  and  vi.  1  (v.  31),  since  the  extra-biblical 
 
INTRODUCTION.  37 
 
 infonnation  regarding  the  destruction  of  Babylon  is  very  scanty 
 and  self-contradictory.  Yet  these  difficulties  are  by  no  means  so 
 inexplicable  or  so  great  as  to  make  the  authorship  of  the  book  of 
 Daniel  a  matter  of  doubt.  For  instance,  that  is  a  very  insignificant 
 matter  in  which  Bleek  finds  a  "  specially  great  difficulty,"  viz. 
 that  in  ch.  v. :  "  so  many  things  should  have  occurred  in  one  night, 
 which  it  can  scarcely  be  believed  could  have  happened  so  imme- 
 diately after  one  another  in  so  short  a  time."  For  if  one  only  lays 
 aside  the  statements  which  Bleek  imports  into  the  narrative, — 
 
 (1)  that  the  feast  began  in  the  evening,  or  at  night,  while  it  began 
 really  in  the  afternoon  and  might  be  prolonged  into  the  night ; 
 
 (2)  that  the  clothing  of  Daniel  with  purple  and  putting  a  chain 
 about  his  neck,  and  the  proclamation  of  his  elevation  to  the  rank 
 of  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom,  were  consummated  by  a  solemn  pro- 
 cession moving  through  the  streets  of  the  city ;  (3)  that  Daniel 
 was  still  the  chief  president  over  the  magi ;  and  (4)  that  after  the 
 appearance  of  the  handwriting  lengthened  consultations  took  place, 
 — if  one  gives  up  all  these  suppositions,  and  considers  what  things 
 may  take  place  at  a  sudden  disastrous  occurrence,  as,  for  example, 
 on  the  breaking  out  of  a  fire,  in  a  very  few  hours,  it  will  not  appear 
 incredible  that  all  the  things  recited  in  this  chapter  occurred  in  one 
 night,  and  were  followed  even  by  the  death  of  the  king  before  the 
 dawn  of  the  morning.  The  historical  difficulty  lies  merely  in  this, 
 that,  as  Staehelin  (p.  350)  states  the  matter,  Belshazzar  appears  as 
 the  last  king  of  Babylon,  and  his  mother  as  the  wife  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, which  is  contrary  to  historical  fact.  This  is  so  far  true, 
 that  the  queen-mother,  as  also  Daniel,  repeatedly  calls  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar the  father  (3N)  of  Belshazzar ;  but  that  Belshazzar  was  the 
 last  king  of  Babylon  is  not  at  all  stated  in  the  narrative,  but  is 
 only  concluded  from  this  circumstance,  that  the  writing  on  the 
 wall  announced  the  destruction  of  king  Belshazzar  and  of  his 
 kingdom,  and  that,  as  the  fulfilling  of  this  announcement,  the 
 death  of  Belshazzar  (ch.  v.  30)  occurred  that  same  night,  and  (ch. 
 vi.  1)  also  the  transferring  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Chaldeans  to  the 
 Median  Darius.  But  that  the  destruction  of  the  Chaldean  king- 
 dom or  its  transference  to  the  Medes  occurred  at  the  same  time 
 with  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  is  not  said  in  the  text.  The  connect- 
 ing of  the  second  factum  with  the  first  by  the  copula  1  (ch.  vi.  1) 
 indicates  nothing  further  than  that  both  of  these  parts  of  the  pro- 
 phecy were  fulfilled.  The  first  (ch.  v.  3)  was  fulfilled  that  same 
 night,  but  the  time  of  the  other  is  not  given,  since  ch.  vi.  1  (v.  31) 
 
38  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 does  not  form  the  conclusion  of  the  narrative  of  the  fifth  chapter, 
 but  the  beginning  to  those  events  recorded  in  the  sixth.  How  little 
 may  be  concluded  as  to  the  relative  time  of  two  events  by  the 
 connection  of  the  second  with  the  first  by  the  copula  i,  may  e.g. 
 be  seen  in  the  history  recorded  in  1  Kings  xiv.,  where  the  prophet 
 Ahijah  announces  (ver.  12)  to  the  wife  of  Jeroboam  the  death  of 
 her  sick  son,  and  immediately  in  connection  therewith  the  destruc- 
 tion of  the  house  of  Jeroboam  (ver.  14),  as  well  as  the  exile 
 (ver.  15)  of  the  ten  tribes ;  events  which  in  point  of  time  stood  far 
 apart  from  each  other,  while  yet  they  were  internally  related,  for 
 the  sin  of  Jeroboam  was  the  cause  not  only  of  the  death  of  his 
 son,  but  also  of  the  termination  of  his  dynasty  and  of  the  destruc- 
 tion of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.^  So  here  also  the  death  of 
 Belshazzar  and  the  overthrow  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom  are  inter- 
 nally connected,  without,  however,  rendering  it  necessary  that  the 
 two  events  should  take  place  in  the  self-same  hour.  The  book  of 
 Daniel  gives  no  information  as  to  the  time  when  the  Chaldean 
 kingdom  was  overthrown  ;  this  must  be  discovered  from  extra- 
 biblical  sources,  to  which  we  shall  more  particularly  refer  under 
 ch.  V.  We  hope  to  show  there  that  the  statement  made  by  Daniel 
 perfectly  harmonizes  with  that  which,  from  among  the  contradic- 
 tory reports  of  the  Greek  historians  regarding  this  occurrence, 
 appears  to  be  historically  correct,  and  perhaps  also  to  show  the 
 source  of  the  statement  that  the  destruction  of  Babylon  took  place 
 during  a  riotous  feast  of  the  Babylonians. 
 
 The  other  "difficulty"  also,  that  Darius,  a  king  of  Median 
 origin,  succeeds  Belshazzar  (ch.  vi.  1  [v.  31]),  who  also  is,  ch.  ix.  1 
 and  xi.  1,  designated  as  a  Median,  and,  ch.  ix.  1,  as  the  son  of  Aha- 
 suerus,  disappears  as  soon  as  we  give  up  the  unfounded  statement 
 that  this  Darius  immediately  followed  Belshazzar,  and  that  Aha- 
 suerus  the  Persian  king  was  Xerxes,  and  give  credit  to  the  declara- 
 tion, ch.  vi.  29,  that  Cyrus  the  Persian  succeeded  in  the  kingdom 
 to  Darius  the  Median,  according  to  the  statement  of  Xenophon 
 regarding  the  Median  king  Cyaxeres  ii.  and  his  relation  to  Cyrus, 
 as  at  ch.  vi.  1  shall  be  shown. 
 
 The  remaining  "  difficulties"  and  "improbabilities"  are  destitute 
 
 ^  By  a  reference  to  this  narrative  Kran.  has  (p.  26)  refuted  the  objection 
 of  Hitzig,  that  if  the  death  of  Belshazzar  did  not  bring  with  it  the  transference 
 of  the  kingdom  of  the  Chaldeans  to  the  Medcs,  then  ver.  28  ought  to  have  made 
 mention  of  the  death  of  the  king,  and  that  the  kingdom  (twenty-two  years 
 later)  would  come  to  the  Chaldeans  should  have  been  passed  over  in  silence. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  39 
 
 of  importance.  The  erection  of  a  golden  image  of  the  gigantic 
 proportion  of  sixty  cubits  high  in  the  open  plain,  ch.  iii.,  is 
 "  something  very  improbable,"  only  when,  with  Bleek,  we  think  on 
 a  massive  golden  statue  of  such  a  size,  and  lose  sight  of  the  fact 
 that  the  Hebrews  called  articles  that  were  merely  plated  with  gold, 
 golden,  as  e.g.  the  altar,  which  was  overlaid  with  gold,  Ex.  xxxix. 
 38,  xl.  5,  26,  cf.  Ex.  xxxvii.  25  f.,  and  idol  images,  cf.  Isa.  xl.  19, 
 xli.  7,  etc.  Of  the  seven  years'  madness  of  Nebuchadnezzar  the 
 narrative  of  ch.  iv.  says  nothing,  but  only  of  its  duration  for  seven 
 times  (r^^Vj  vers.  20,  22,  29),  which  the  interpreters  have  explained 
 as  meaning  years.  But  that  the  long  continuance  of  the  king's 
 madness  must  have  been  accompanied  with  "very  important  changes 
 and  commotions,"  can  only  be  supposed  if  we  allow  that  during 
 this  period  no  one  held  the  reigns  of  government.  And  the 
 absence  of  any  mentioning  of  this  illness  of  Nebuchadnezzar  by 
 the  extra-biblical  historians  is,  considering  their  very  imperfect 
 acquaintance  with  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign,  not  at  all  strange,  even 
 though  the  intimations  by  Berosus  and  Abydenus  of  such  an  illness 
 should  not  be  interpreted  of  his  madness.  See  on  this  under  ch.  iv. 
 Concerning  such  and  such-like  objections  against  the  historical 
 contents  of  this  book,  what  Kran.,  p.  47,  has  very  justly  remarked 
 regarding  v.  Lengerke's  assertion,  that  the  author  lived  "  in  the 
 greatest  ignorance  regarding  the  leading  events  of  his  time,"  or 
 Hitzig's,  that  this  book  is  "  very  unhistorical,"  maybe  here  adopted, 
 viz.  "  that  they  emanate  from  a  criticism  which  is  astonishingly 
 consistent  in  looking  at  the  surface  of  certain  facts,  and  then 
 pronouncing  objection  after  objection,  without  showing  the  least 
 disposition  toward  other  than  a  wholly  external,  violent  solution  of 
 the  existing  difficulties." 
 
 All  the  opponents  of  the  book  of  Daniel  who  have  followed 
 Porphyry  ^  find  a  powerful  evidence  of  its  being  composed  not  in 
 the  time  of  the  exile,  but  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  in  the 
 contents  and  nature  of  the  prophecies  found  in  it,  particularly  in 
 this,  as  Bleek  has  expressed  it,  that  "  the  special  destination  of  the 
 prediction  extends  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  when  that 
 Syrian  prince  exercised  tyranny  against  the  Jewish  people,  and 
 especially  sought  by  every  means  to  abolish  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
 
 ^  Whose  opinion  of  tiae  contents  of  the  book  is  thus  quoted  by  Jerome 
 (.Prooem.  in  Daii.^ :  '•'■  Quid  quid  (antor  libri  Dan.)  usque  ad  Antiochum  dixerit, 
 veram  historiam  continere ;  si  quid  autem  idtra  opinatus  sit,  quia  futura  nescierit, 
 esse  meniitum.''^ 
 
40  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 and  to  introduce  tlie  Grecian  cultus  into  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  ; 
 for  the  prophecy  either  breaks  off  with  the  death  of  this  prince, 
 or  there  is  immediately  joined  to  it  the  announcement  of  the 
 liberation  of  the  people  of  God  from  all  oppression,  of  the  salvation 
 and  the  kingdom  of  the  Messiah,  and  even  of  His  rising  again  from 
 the  dead."  To  confirm  this  assertion,  which  deviates  from  the 
 interpretation  adopted  in  the  church,  and  is  also  opposed  by  recent 
 opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  Bleek  has  in  his  Einlei- 
 twig,  and  in  his  Abhandlg.  v.  note,  p.  28,  fallen  upon  the  strange 
 expedient  of  comparing  the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  going  backwards 
 from  ch.  xii.,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  as  ch.  xii.  and  xi. 
 21-45  speak  only  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  of  his 
 wicked  actions,  and  especially  of  his  proceedings  against  the  Jewish 
 people  and  against  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  so  also  in  ch.  ix.,  viii., 
 vii.,  and  ii.  the  special  pre-intimations  of  the  future  do  not  reach 
 further  than  to  this  enemy  of  the  people  of  God.  Now  certainly 
 in  ch.  xii.,  vers.  11  and  12  without  doubt  refer  to  the  time  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  xi.  21-35  as  surely  treat  of  the  proceed- 
 ings and  of  the  wicked  actions  of  this  Syrian  king;  but  the  section 
 xi.  36-xii.  3  is  almost  unanimously  interpreted  by  the  church  of 
 the  rise  and  reign  of  Antichrist  in  the  last  time,  and  is  explained 
 of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as  lately  shown  by  Klief.,  only 
 when  an  interpretation  is  adopted  which  does  not  accord  with  the 
 sense  of  the  words,  and  is  in  part  distorted,  and  rests  on  a  false  his- 
 torical basis.  While  now  Bleek,  without  acknowledging  the  ancient 
 church  -  interpretation,  adopts  that  which  has  recently  become 
 prevalent,  applying  the  whole  eleventh  chapter  absolutely  to  Anti- 
 ochus Epiphanes,  and  regards  it  as  necessary  only  to  reject  the 
 artistic  explanation  which  Auberlen  has  given  of  ch.  xii.,  and  then 
 from  the  results  so  gained,  and  with  the  help  of  ch.  viii.,  so  explains 
 the  prophecies  of  the  seventy  weeks,  ch.  ix.,  and  of  the  four  world- 
 monarchies,  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  thatch,  ix.  25-27  closes  with  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  and  the  fourth  world-kingdom  becomes  the  Greco- 
 Macedonian  monarchy  of  Alexander  and  his  successors,  he  has  by 
 means  of  this  process  gained  the  wished-for  result,  disregarding 
 altogether  tlie  organism  of  the  well-arranged  book.  But  scientifi- 
 cally we  cannot  well  adopt  such  a  method,  which,  without  any 
 reference  to  the  organism  of  a  book,  takes  a  retrograde  course  to 
 explain  the  clear  and  unambiguous  expressions  by  means  of  dark 
 and  doubtful  passages.  For,  as  Ziindel  (p.  95)  has  well  remarked, 
 as  we  cannot  certainly  judge  of  a  symphony  from  the  last  tones  of 
 
INTRODUCTION.  '41 
 
 the  finale,  but  only  after  the  first  simple  passages  of  the  tJiema,  so 
 we  cannot  certainly  form  a  correct  judgment  from  its  last  brief 
 and  abrupt  sentences  of  a  prophetical  work  like  this,  in  which  the 
 course  of  the  prophecy  is  such  that  it  proceeds  from  general  to 
 special  predictions.  Ch.  xii.  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  whole 
 book  ;  in  vers.  5-13  are  placed  together  the  two  periods  (ch.  vii.  and 
 viii.)  of  severe  oppression  of  the  people  of  God,  which  are  distinctly 
 separable  from  each  other — that  proceeding  from  the  great  enemy 
 of  the  third  world-kingdom,  i.e.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  (ch.  viii.), 
 and  that  from  the  last  great  enemy  of  the  fourth  v/orld-kingdom, 
 i.e.  Antichrist  (ch.  vii.), — while  the  angel,  at  the  request  of  the 
 prophet,  makes  known  to  him  the  duration  of  both.  These  brief 
 expressions  of  the  angel  occasioned  by  Daniel's  two  questions  receive 
 their  right  interpretation  from  the  earlier  prophecy  in  ch.  vii.  and 
 viii.  If  we  reverse  this  relation,  while  on  the  ground  of  a  very 
 doubtful,  not  to  say  erroneous,  explanation  of  ch.  xi.,  we  misinter- 
 pret the  questions  of  Daniel  and  the  answers  of  the  angel,  and  now 
 make  this  interpretation  the  standard  for  the  exposition  of  ch.  ix., 
 viii.,  vii.,  and  ii.,  then  we  have  departed  from  the  way  by  which 
 we  may  reach  the  right  interpretation  of  the  prophetic  contents  of 
 the  whole  book. 
 
 The  question  how  far  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  reach,  can  only 
 be  determined  by  an  unprejudiced  interpretation  of  the  two  visions 
 of  the  world-kingdoms,  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  in  conformity  with  the 
 language  there  used  and  with  their  actual  contents,  and  this  can 
 only  be  given  in  the  following  exposition  of  the  book.  Therefore 
 we  must  here  limit  ourselves  to  a  few  brief  remarks. 
 
 According  to  the  unmistakeable  import  of  the  two  fundamental 
 visions,  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  the  erection  of  the  Messianic  kingdom 
 follows  close  after  the  destruction  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom 
 (ch.  ii.  34,  44),  and  is  brought  about  (ch.  vii.  9-14,  26  f.)  by  the 
 judgment  on  the  little  horn  which  grew  out  of  the  fourth  world- 
 power,  and  the  investiture  of  the  Messiah  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
 heaven  with  authority,  glory,  and  kingly  power.  The  first  of 
 these  world-powers  is  the  Chaldean  monarchy  founded  by  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, who  is  the  golden  head  of  the  image  (ch.  ii.  37,  38). 
 The  kingdom  of  the  Chaldeans  passes  over  to  Darius,  of  Median 
 origin,  who  is  followed  on  the  throne  by  Cyrus  the  Persian  (ch.  vi. 
 29  [28]),  and  thus  it  passes  over  to  the  Medes  and  Persians.  This 
 kingdom,  in  ch.  vii.  represented  under  the  figure  of  a  bear,  Daniel 
 saw  in  ch.  viii.  under  the  figure  of  a  ram  with  two  horns,  which, 
 
42  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 being  pushed  at  by  a  he-goat  having  a  great  horn  between  his  eyes  as 
 he  was  running  in  his  flight  over  the  earth,  had  his  two  horns  broken, 
 and  was  thrown  to  the  ground  and  trodden  upon.  AVhen  the  he- 
 goat  hereupon  became  strong,  he  broke  his  great  horn,  and  in  its 
 stead  there  grew  up  four  horns  toward  the  four  winds  of  heaven ; 
 and  out  of  one  of  them  came  forth  a  little  horn,  which  became 
 exceeding  great,  and  magnified  itself  even  to  the  Prince  of  the 
 host,  and  took  away  the  daily  sacrifice  (ch.  viii.  3-13).  This  vision 
 was  thus  explained  to  the  prophet  by  an  angel : — The  ram  with 
 two  horns  represents  the  kings  of  the  Medes  and  Persians ;  the 
 he-goat  is  the  king  of  Javan,  i.e.  the  Greco-Macedonian  kingdom, 
 for  "  the  great  horn  that  is  between  his  eyes  is  the  first  king " 
 (Alexander  of  Macedon)  ;  the  four  horns  that  sprang  up  in  the 
 place  of  the  one  that  was  broken  off  are  four  kingdoms,  and  in  the 
 latter  time  of  their  kingdom  a  fierce  king  shall  stand  up  (the  little 
 horn),  who  shall  destroy  the  people  of  the  Holy  One,  etc.  (ch.  viii. 
 20-25).  According  to  this  quite  distinct  explanation  given  by 
 the  angel,  the  horn,  i.e.  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  so  hostile  to  the 
 people  of  God  belongs  to  the  third  world-kingdom,  arises  out  of 
 one  of  the  four  kingdoms  into  which  the  monarchy  of  Alexander 
 the  Great  was  divided ;  the  Messianic  kingdom,  on  the  contrary, 
 does  not  appear  till  after  the  overthrow  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom 
 and  the  death  of  the  last  of  the  enemies  arising  out  of  it  (ch.  vii.). 
 Accordingly,  the  afliirmation  that  in  the  book  of  Daniel  the  appear- 
 ance of  the  Messianic  salvation  stands  in  order  after  the  destruction 
 of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  is  in  opposition  to  the  principal  prophecies 
 of  the  book ;  and  this  opposition  is  not  removed  by  the  supposition 
 that  the  terrible  beast  with  the  ten  horns  (ch.  vii.  7)  is  identical 
 with  the  he-goat,  which  is  quite  otherwise  described,  for  at  first  it 
 had  only  one  horn,  after  the  breaking  off  of  which  four  came  up  in 
 its  stead.  The  circumstance  that  the  description  of  the  little  horn 
 growing  up  between  the  ten  horns  of  the  fourth  beast,  the  speaking 
 great  and  blasphemous  things  against  the  Most  High,  and  tliinking 
 to  change  times  and  laws  (ch.  vii.  8,  24  f.),  harmonizes  in  certain 
 features  with  the  representation  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  described 
 by  the  little  horn  (ch.  viii.),  which  would  destroy  the  people  of 
 the  Holy  One,  rise  up  against  the  Prince  of  princes,  and  be  broken 
 without  the  hand  of  man,  does  not  at  all  warrant  the  identification  of 
 these  enemies  of  God  and  His  people  rising  out  of  different  world- 
 kingdoms,  but  corresponds  perfectly  with  this  idea,  that  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes   in  his  war  against  the  people  of  God  was  a  type  of 
 
INTRODUCTION.  43 
 
 Antichrist,  the  great  enemy  arising  out  of  tlie  last  world-kingdom 
 Along  with  these  resemblances  there  are  also  points  of  dissimilarity, 
 such  e.g.  as  this :  the  period  of  continuance  of  the  domination  of 
 both  is  apparently  alike,  but  in  reality  it  is  different.  The  activity 
 of  the  prince  who  took  away  the  daily  sacrifice,  i.e.  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  was  to  continue  2300  evening-mornings  (ch.  viii.  14), 
 or,  as  the  angel  says,  1290  days  (ch.  xii.  11),  so  that  he  who  waits 
 and  comes  to  the  1335  days  shall  see  (ch.  xii.  12)  salvation;  the 
 activity  of  the  enemy  in  the  last  time,  i.e.  of  Antichrist,  on  the 
 contrary,  is  for  a  time,  (two)  times,  and  an  half  time  (ch.  vii.  25, 
 xii.  7),  or  a  half  Vy^^  (ch.  ix.  27) — designations  of  time  which  have 
 been  taken  without  any  exegetical  justification  to  mean  years,  in 
 order  to  harmonize  the  difference. 
 
 Accordingly,  Daniel  does  not  prophesy  the  appearance  of  the 
 Messianic  redemption  after  the  overthrow  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
 but  announces  that  the  fourth  world-kingdom,  with  the  kingdoms 
 growing  out  of  it,  out  of  which  the  last  enemy  of  the  people  of 
 God  arises,  would  first  follow  Antiochus,  who  belonged  to  the  third 
 world-kingdom.  This  fourth  world-kingdom  with  its  last  enemy 
 is  destroyed  by  the  Judgment  which  puts  an  end  to  all  the  world- 
 kingdoms  and  establishes  the  Messianic  kingdom.  Thus  the 
 assertion  that  the  special  destination  of  the  prediction  only  goes 
 down  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  is  shown  to  be  erroneous.  Not 
 only  in  the  visions  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  is  the  conduct  of  the  little  horn 
 rising  up  between  the  ten  horns  of  the  fourth  beast  predicted, 
 but  also  in  ch.  xi.  36-45  the  actions  of  the  king  designated  by 
 this  horn  are  as  specially  predicted  as  is  the  domination  and  rule 
 of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  ch.  viii.  9  ff.,  24  f.,  and  in  ch.  xi. 
 20-35. 
 
 These  are  all  the  grounds  worth  mentioning  which  the  most 
 recent  opponents  of  the  historical  and  prophetical  character  of 
 this  book  have  adduced  against  its  genuineness.  It  is  proved  from 
 an  examination  of  them,  that  the  internal  arguments  are  of  as 
 little  value  as  the  external  to  throw  doubts  on  its  authorship,  or  to 
 establish  its  Maccabean  origin.  But  we  must  go  a  step  further, 
 and  briefly  show  that  the  modern  opinion,  that  the  book  originated 
 in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  which  is  set  aside  by  the  fact 
 already  adduced  (p.  32),  the  use  of  it  on  the  part  of  Zechariah 
 and  Ezra,  is  irreconcilable  with  the  formal  nature,  with  the  actual 
 contents,  and  with  the  spirit  of  the  book  of  Daniel. 
 
 1.  Neither  the  character  of  the  lann;uaa;e  nor  the  mode  in  which 
 
44  TUE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  prophetic  statements  are  made,  corresponds  with  the  age  of  the 
 Maccabees.  As  regards  tlie  character  of  the  age,  the  interchange 
 of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Chaldee,  in  the  first  place,  agrees  fully  with 
 the  time  of  the  exile,  in  which  the  Chaldee  language  gradually 
 obtained  the  ascendency  over  the  Hebrew  mother-tongue  of  the 
 exiles,  but  not  with  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  in  which  the  He- 
 brew had  long  ago  ceased  to  be  the  language  used  by  the  people.^ 
 In  the  second  place,  the  Hebrew  diction  of  Daniel  harmonizes 
 peculiarly  with  the  language  used  by  writers  of  the  period  of  the 
 exile,  particularly  by  Ezekiel  ;^  and  the  Chaldean  idiom  of  this 
 book  agrees  in  not  a  few  characteristic  points  with  the  Chaldee  of 
 the  book  of  Ezra  and  Jer.  x.  11,  wherein  these  Chaldean  portions 
 are  markedly  distinguished  from  the  Chaldean  language  of  the 
 oldest  Targums,  which  date  from  the  middle  of  the  first  century 
 B.C.^  In  the  third  place,  the  language  of  Daniel  has,  in  common 
 with  that  of  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  certain  Aryan 
 elements  or  Parsisms,  which  can  only  be  explained  on  the  suppo- 
 sition that  their  authoi's  lived  and  wrote  in  the  Babylonish  exile  or 
 
 '  The  use  of  the  Chaldee  along  with  the  Hebrew  in  this  book  points,  as 
 Kran.,  p.  52,  justly  remarks,  "  to  a  conjuncture  in  which,  as  in  the  Hebrew 
 book  of  Ezra  with  its  inwoven  pieces  of  Chaldee,  the  general  acquaintance  of  the 
 people  with  the  Aramaic  is  supposed  to  be  self-evident,  but  at  the  same  time  the 
 language  of  the  fathers  was  used  by  the  exiles  of  Babylon  and  their  children  as 
 the  language  of  conversation."  Rosenm.,  therefore,  knows  no  other  mode  of 
 explaining  tlic  use  of  both  languages  in  this  book  than  by  the  assertion  that  the 
 pseudo-author  did  this  nulla  alia  de  causa,  quam  ut  lectorihus  persuaderet,  com- 
 positum  esse  librum  a  vetere  illo  propheta,  cut  utriusque  linguie  usum  xque  facilem 
 esse  oportuit.  The  supposition  that  even  in  the  second  century  before  Christ 
 a  great  proportion  of  the  people  understood  the  Hebrew,  modern  critics  set 
 themselves  to  establish  by  a  reference  to  the  disputed  book  of  Daniel  and 
 certain  pretended  Maccabean  psalms. 
 
 2  Compare  the  use  of  words  such  as  nn  for  T3,  xi.  24,  33  (2  Chron.  xiv.  13  ; 
 Ezra  ix.  7  ;  Neh.  iii.  36  ;  Esth.  ix.  10)  ;  ?|\n  for  Tj''^,  x.  17  and  1  Chron.  xxiii. 
 12  ;  3n3  for  "IQD,  x.  21  (Ezra  iv.  7,  8 ;  1  Chron.  xxviii.  19  ;  Neh.  vii.  64 ; 
 Esth.  iii.'  14)  ;  y-no,  i.  4,  17  (2  Chron.  i.  10  ;  Eccles.  x.  20)  ;  Tiy-lC,  x.  11  and 
 Ezra  X.  9  ;  WT\V  for  ninVi  ix.  25,  xi.  6,  13,  14  (Chron.,  Ezra,  Neh.,  Ezek.,  and 
 only  once  in  Isaiah,  xxxiii.  6)  ;  '"3'jfn  used  of  the  land  of  Israel,  viii.  9,  cf.  xi.  16, 
 41,  also  Ezek.  xx.  6,  15,  and  Jor.  iii,  10 ;  "int,  brightness,  xii.  3,  Ezek.  viii.  2  ; 
 3>n,  to  make  guilty,  i.  10,  and  ^in,  Ezek.  xviii.  7  ;  ^^jp  nc*n:,  x.  6,  and  Ezek. 
 i.  7  ;  D^'nan  U^'lb,  xii.  6,  7,  and  Ezek.  ix.  3,  11,  x.  2,  6,  7,  etx;. 
 
 ^  See  the  collection  of  Hebraisms  in  the  Chaldean  portions  of  Daniel  and  of 
 the  book  of  Ezra  in  Hengstenberg's  Bcilragc,  i.  p.  303,  and  in  my  Lchrb.  d.  Einl. 
 §  133,  4.     It  may  be  further  remarked,  that  both  books  have  a  peculiar  mode 
 
INTRODUCTION.  45 
 
 under  the  Persian  rule.^  But  the  expedient  adopted  by  the  oppo- 
 nents of  the  genuineness  to  explain  these  characteristic  agreements 
 from  imitation,  is  inadmissible  from  this  consideration,  that  in  the 
 Hebrew  complexion  of  the  Chaldee  portion  as  in  the  Aryan  ele- 
 ment found  in  the  language  there  used,  this  book  shows,  along 
 with  the  agreements,  also  peculiarities  which  announce^  the  inde- 
 pendent character  of  its  language. 
 
 of  formation  of  the  3d  pers.  imperf.  of  t^in  :  NIH^,  Dan.  ii.  20,  28,  29,  45 
 (ninb>  iv.  22),  Ezra  iv.  13,  vii.  26,  j'ln^,  ii.  43,  vi.  2,  3,  and  Ezra  vii.  25, 
 and  ]'')T'0,  v.  17,  for  N"in%  fliT,  and  p'in\  which  forms  are  not  found  in  the 
 biblical  Chaldee,  while  the  forms  with  ?  are  first  used  in  the  Talmud  in  the 
 use  of  the  imperative,  optative,  and  subjunctive  moods  (cf.  S.  D.  Luzzatto, 
 Elementi  grammaticali  del  Caldeo  biblico  e  del  dialetto  talmudico  hahilonese, 
 Padova  1865,  p.  80, — the  first  attempt  to  present  the  grammatical  peculiari- 
 ties of  the  biblical  Chaldee  in  contradistinction  to  the  Babylonico-talmudic 
 dialect),  and  nIh!)  is  only  once  found  in  the  Targ.  Jon.,  Ex.  xxii.  24,  and  per- 
 haps also  in  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  Ex.  x.  28.  The  importance  of  this  linguis- 
 tic phenomenon  in  determining  the  question  of  the  date  of  the  origin  of  both 
 books  has  been  already  recognised  by  J.  D.  Michaelis  (Gram.  Glial,  p.  25),  who 
 has  remarked  concerning  it :  "  ex  his  similibusque  Danielis  et  Ezrse  Jiebraismis, 
 qui  his  libris  peculiares  sunt,  intelliges,  utrumqne  librum  eo  tempore  scriptum  fuisse, 
 quo  recens  adhuc  vernacula  sua  admiscentibus  Hebrteis  lingua  Chaldaica ;  non 
 .seriore  tempore  conjictum.  In  Targumim  enim,  antiquissimis  etiam,  plerumque 
 frustra  hos  hebraismos  qusesieris,  in  Daniele  et  Ezra  ubique  obvios.''^ 
 
 ^  Not  to  mention  the  name  of  dignity  nna  used  in  the  Assyrian  period, 
 and  the  two  proper  names,  TJSC't^,  i-  3,  and  "qVlS,  ii.  14,  cf.  Gen.  xiv.  1,  9, 
 there  are  in  this  book  the  following  words  of  Aryan  origin ;  NITS,  ii.  5,  8, 
 derived  from  the  Old  Persian  dzandci,  found  in  the  inscriptions  of  Bisutun  and 
 Nakhschi-Rustam,  meaning  science,  knowledge;  P"1312,  iii-  2,  3,  and  13^3,  pi^ia, 
 Ezra  i.  8,  vii.  21,  from  the  Old  Persian  gada  or  gaiida,  Zend,  gaza  or  ganga, 
 thus  gada-bara,  treasurer,  the  Old  Persian  form,  while  *i2Til  corresponds  with 
 the  Zend,  gaza-bara ;  "larTl,  iii-  2,  3,  Old  Persian  and  Zend,  data-bara  (New 
 
 T  T  : 
 
 Pers.  ddtavar),  one  who  understands  the  law,  a  judge ;  mn  (po'nn,  ii.  5,  iii. 
 29),  from  the  Old  Persian  handdm,  organized  body,  member  {i/.i'Kog)  ;  J3n2, 
 costly  food,  i.  5,  8,  13,  15  and  xi.  26,  from  the  Old  Persian  pati-baga,  Zend. 
 paiti-bagha,  Sanskr.  prati-bhdga,  allotted  food  ["  a  share  of  small  articles,  as 
 fruit,  flowers,  etc.,  paid  daily  to  the  rajah  for  household  expenditure"]  ;  D2nE3, 
 iii.  16,  iv.  14,  Ezra  iv.  17,  v.  7,  vi.  11,  from  the  Old  Persian  pati-gama,  a 
 message,  a  command ;  D''0m3,  i.  3,  Esth.  i.  3,  vi.  9,  the  distinguished,  the 
 noble,  in  Pehlevi,  pardom,  Sanskr.  prathama,  the  first ;  and  the  as  yet  unex- 
 plained "ivbo,  !•  11,  16,  and  n3T33,  ii-  6,  and  finally  Kii"l3,  a  crier,  a  herald, 
 iii.  4,  Old  Persian  khresii^  crier,  from  which  the  verb  p3,  v.  29,  in  Chald.  and 
 Syr.  of  similar  meaning  with  the  Greek  Knpvauuv. 
 
 2  Thus  Daniel  uses  only  the  plur.  suffixes  |i3,  ]in,  f\2b,  fl^b,  while  in  Ezra 
 
46  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Although  perhaps  the  use  of  peculiar  Aramaic  words  and  word- 
 forms  by  a  Jew  of  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  may  be  explained, 
 yet  the  use  of  words  belonging  to  the  Aryan  language  by  such  an 
 one  remains  incomprehensible,  —  such  words,  e.^.,  as  5^"^,!^?,  P.^^J"!, 
 J3nQj  which  are  met  with  neither  in  the  Targuins  nor  in  the  rab- 
 binical writings,  or  D"^n,  member,  piece,  from  which  the  Targumists 
 formed  the  denom.  ^'''^.l',  fMeXl^eaOai,  to  dismember,  and  have  natu- 
 ralized in  the  Aramaic  language  (cf.  J.  Levy,  Chald.  Worterb. 
 ueher  die  Targ.  i.  p.  194).  Whence  could  a  Maccabean  Jew  of 
 the  era  of  the  Seleucidae,  when  the  Greek  language  and  culture 
 had  become  prominent  in  the  East,  have  received  these  foreign 
 words  ? 
 
 But  as  the  language  of  this  book,  particularly  its  Aryan  ele- 
 ment, speaks  against  its  origin  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees,  so 
 also  "  the  contemplative-visionary  manner  of  representation  in  the 
 book,"  as  Kran.  (p.  59)  justly  remarks,  "  accords  little  with  a 
 conjuncture  of  time  when  (1  Mace.  ii.  ff.)  the  sanctuary  was  dese- 
 crated and  tyranny  rose  to  an  intolerable  height.  It  is  not  con- 
 ceivable that  in  such  a  time  those  who  mingled  in  that  fearful 
 insurrection  and  were  called  on  to  defend  their  lives  with  weapons 
 in  their  hands,  should  have  concerned  themselves  with  visions  and 
 circumstantial  narratives  of  detailed  history,  which  appertain  to  a 
 lengthened  period  of  quietness,  instead  of  directly  encouraging  and 
 counselling  the  men  of  action,  so  that  they  might  be  set  free  from 
 the  fearful  situation  in  which  they  were  placed." 
 
 2.  Thus  in  no  respect  do  the  actual  contents  of  this  book 
 correspond  with  the  relations  and  circumstances  of  the  times  of  the 
 Maccabees ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  they  point  decidedly  to  the  time 
 of  the  exile.  The  historical  parts  show  an  intimate  acquaintance 
 not  only  with  the  principal  events  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  but 
 also  with  the  laws  and  manners  and  customs  of  the  Chaldean  and 
 Medo-Persian  monarchies.  The  definite  description  (ch.  i.  1)  of 
 the  first  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  against  Jerusalem,  which 
 is  fabricated  certainly  from  no  part  of  the  O.  T.,  and  which  is  yet 
 
 the  forms  Db  and  Dh  are  interchanged  with  pa  and  jin  in  such  a  way,  that  Jin 
 19  used  fifteen  times,  Din  ten  times,  pa  once,  and  Qb  five  times.  The  forms 
 with  D  used  by  Ezra,  and  also  by  Jeremiah,  x.  11,  prevail  in  the  Targum. 
 Moreover  Daniel  luis  only  jii^n  (ii.  34,  35,  iii.  22),  Ezra,  on  the  contrary,  has 
 the  abbrenated  form  ii3n  (iv.  10,  23,  v.  5,  11,  etc.)  ;  Daniel  pn,  ii.  31,  vii.  20, 
 21,  Ezra  -jl,  iv.  13,  15,  16,  18,  21,  v.  8,  and  T]l,  v.  16  f.,  vi.  7  f.,  12;  Daniel 
 ^^13,  ii.  5,  Ezra  ^^13,  vi.  11 ;  Daniel  ^^n3^3,  iii.  2,  Ezra  laTi,  i-  8,  vii.  21. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  47 
 
 proved  to  be  correct,  points  to  a  man  well  acquainted  with  this 
 event ;  so  too  the  communication  regarding  king  Belshazzar,  ch.  v., 
 whose  name  occurs  only  in  this  book,  is  nowhere  else  independently 
 found.  An  intimate  familiarity  with  the  historical  relations  of  the 
 Medo-Persian  kingdom  is  seen  in  the  mention  made  of  the  law  of 
 the  Medes  and  Persians,  ch.  vi.  9,  13,  since  from  the  time  of  Cyrus 
 the  Persians  are  always  placed  before  the  Medes,  and  only  in  the 
 book  of  Esther  do  we  read  of  the  Persians  and  Medes  (ch.  i.  3,  14, 
 18),  and  of  the  law  of  the  Persians  and  Medes  (ch.  i.  19).  An  in- 
 timate acquaintance  with  the  state-regulations  of  Babylon  is  manifest 
 in  the  statement  made  in  ch.  i.  7  (proved  by  2  Kings  xxiv.  17  to  be  a 
 Chaldean  custom),  that  Daniel  and  his  companions,  on  their  being 
 appointed  for  the  king's  service,  received  new  names,  two  of  which 
 were  names  derived  from  Chaldean  idols;  in  the  account  of  their  food 
 being  brought  from  the  king's  table  (ch.  i.  5);  in  the  command  to 
 turn  into  a  dunghill  (ch.  ii.  5)  the  houses  of  the  magicians  who  were 
 condemned  to  death  ;  in  the  death-punishments  mentioned  in  ch.  ii.  5 
 and  iii.  6,  the  being  hewn  to  pieces  and  cast  into  a  burning  fiery 
 furnace,  which  are  shown  by  Ezek.  xvi.  10,  xxiii.  47,  Jer.  xxix.  29, 
 and  other  proofs,  to  have  been  in  use  among  the  Chaldeans,  while 
 among  the  Medo-Persians  the  punishment  of  being  cast  into  the  den 
 of  lions  is  mentioned,  ch.  vi.  8,  13  ff.  The  statement  made  about 
 the  clothing  worn  by  the  companions  of  Daniel  (ch.  iii.  21)  agrees 
 with  a  passage  in  Herodotus,  i.  195;  and  the  exclusion  of  women  fi'om 
 feasts  and  banquets  is  confirmed  by  Xen.  Cyrop.  v.  2,  and  Curtius,  v. 
 1,  38.  As  to  the  account  given  in  ch.  ii.  5,  7,  of  the  priests  and  wise 
 men  of  Chaldea,  Fr.  Miinter  (Religion  der  Babyl.  p.  5)  has  remarked, 
 "  What  the  early  Israelitish  prophets  record  regarding  the  Baby- 
 lonish religion  agrees  well  with  the  notices  found  in  Daniel ;  and 
 the  traditions  preserved  by  Ctesias,  Herod.,  Berosus,  and  Diodor 
 are  in  perfect  accordance  therewith."  Compare  with  this  what 
 P.  F.  Stuhr  (^Die  heidn.  Religion,  des  alt.  Orients,  p.  416  ff.)  has 
 remarked  concerning  the  Chaldeans  as  the  first  class  of  the  wise 
 men  of  Babylon.  A  like  intimate  acquaintance  with  facts  on  the 
 part  of  the  author  of  this  book  is  seen  in  his  statements  regarding 
 the  government  and  the  state  officers  of  the  Chaldean  and  Medo- 
 Persian  kingdom  (cf.  Hgstb.  Beitr.  i.  p.  346  ff.). 
 
 The  prophetical  parts  of  this  book  also  manifestly  prove  its 
 origin  in  the  time  of  the  Babylonian  exile.  The  foundation  of 
 the  world-kingdom  by  Nebuchadnezzar  forms  the  historical  start- 
 ing-point for  the  prophecy  of  the  world-kingdoms.     "  Know,  O 
 
48  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 king,"  says  Daniel  to  him  in  interpreting  his  dream  of  the  world- 
 monarchies,  "  thou  art  the  head  of  gold"  (eh.  ii.  37).  The  visions 
 which  are  vouchsafed  to  Daniel  date  from  the  reign  of  Belshazzar 
 the  Chaldean,  Darius  the  Median,  and  Cyrus  the  Persian  (ch.  vii.  1, 
 viii.  1,  ix.  1,  X.  1).  With  this  stands  in  harmony  the  circumstance 
 that  of  the  four  world-kingdoms  only  the  first  three  are  histori- 
 cally explained,  viz.  besides  the  first  of  the  monarchy  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar (ch.  ii.  37),  the  second  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Medes  and 
 Persians,  and  the  third  of  the  kingdom  of  Javan,  out  of  which,  at 
 the  death  of  the  first  king,  four  kingdoms  shall  arise  toward  the 
 four  winds  of  heaven  (ch.  viii.  20-22).  Of  the  kings  of  the  Medo- 
 Persian  kingdom,  only  Darius  the  Median  and  Cyrus  the  Persian, 
 during  whose  reign  Daniel  lived,  are  named  Moreover  the  rise 
 of  yet  four  kings  of  the  Persians  is  announced,  and  the  warlike 
 expedition  of  the  fourth  against  the  kingdom  of  Javan,  as  also  the 
 breaking  up  and  the  division  toward  the  four  winds  (ch.  xi.  5-19) 
 of  the  kingdom  of  the  victorious  king  of  Javan.  Of  the  four 
 kingdoms  arising  out  of  the  monarchy  of  Alexander  of  ^Macedon 
 nothing  particular  is  said  in  ch.  viii.,  and  in  ch.  xi.  5-19  only  a 
 series  of  wars  is  predicted  between  the  king  of  the  south  and  the 
 king  of  the  north,  and  the  rise  of  the  daring  king  who,  after  the 
 founding  of  his  kingdom  by  craft,  would  turn  his  power  against 
 the  people  of  God,  lay  waste  the  sanctuary,  and  put  an  end  to  the 
 daily  sacrifice,  and,  according  to  ch.  viii.  23,  shall  arise  at  the  end 
 of  these  four  kingdoms. 
 
 However  full  and  particular  be  the  description  given  in  ch.  viii. 
 and  ch.  xi.  of  this  daring  king,  seen  in  ch.  viii.  as  the  little  horn, 
 yet  it  nowhere  passes  over  into  the  prediction  of  historical  particu- 
 larities, so  as  to  overstep  the  boundaries  of  prophecy  and  become 
 prognostication  or  the  feigned  setting  forth  of  the  empiric  course 
 of  history.  Now,  though  the  opinion  of  Kran.  p.  58,  that  "  the 
 prophecy  of  Daniel  contains  not  a  single  passus  which  might 
 not  (leaving  the  fulfilment  out  of  view)  in  a  simple,  self-evident 
 way  include  the  development  founded  in  itself  of  a  theocratic 
 thought,  or  of  such-like  thoughts,"  is  not  in  accordance  with  the 
 supernatural  factor  of  prophecy,  since  neither  the  general  pro- 
 phecy of  the  unfolding  of  the  world-power  in  four  successive 
 world-kingdoms,  nor  the  special  description  of  the  appearance  and 
 unfolding  of  this  world-kingdom,  can  be  conceived  of  or  rightly 
 regarded  as  a  mere  explication  of  theocratic  thorghts,  yet  the 
 remark  of  the  same  theologian,  that  the  special  prophecies  in  Daniel 
 
INTRODUCTION.  49 
 
 viii.  and  xi.  do  not  abundantly  cover  themselves  with  the  historical 
 facts  in  which  they  found  their  fulfilment,  and  are  fundamentally 
 different  from  the  later  so-called  Apocalypse  of  Judaism  in  the 
 Jewish  Sibyl,  the  book  of  Enoch  and  the  book  of  Ezra  (  =  Esdras), 
 which  are  appended  to  the  book  of  Daniel,  is  certainly  well  founded. 
 
 What  Daniel  prophesied  regarding  the  kings  of  Persia  who 
 succeeded  Cyrus,  regarding  the  kingdom  of  Javan  and  its  division 
 after  the  death  of  the  first  king  into  four  kingdoms,  etc.,  could  not 
 be  announced  by  him  by  virtue  of  an  independent  development 
 of  prophetic  thoughts,  but  only  by  virtue  of  direct  divine  reve- 
 lation ;  but  this  revelation  is  at  the  same  time  not  immediate 
 prediction,  but  is  an  addition  to  the  earlier  prophecies  of  further 
 and  more  special  unveilings  of  the  future,  in  which  the  point  of 
 connection  for  the  reference  of  the  third  world-kingdom  to  Javan 
 was  already  given  in  the  prophecy  of  Balaam,  Num.  xxiv.  24, 
 cf.  Joel  iv.  6  (iii.  6).  The  historical  destination  of  the  world-king- 
 doms does  not  extend  to  the  kingdom  of  Javan  and  the  ships  of 
 Chittim  (ch.  xi.  30),  pointing  back  to  Num.  xxiv.  24,  which  set 
 bounds  to  the  thirst  for  conquest  of  the  daring  king  who  arose  up 
 out  of  the  third  world-kingdom.  The  fourth  world-kingdom,  how- 
 ever distinctly  it  is  described  according  to  its  nature  and  general 
 course,  lies  on  the  farther  side  of  the  historical  horizon  of  this 
 prophet,  although  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees  the  growth  of  the 
 Roman  power,  striving  after  the  mastery  of  the  world,  was  already 
 so  well  known  that  the  Alexandrine  translators,  on  the  ground  of 
 historical  facts,  interpreted  the  coming  of  the  ships  of  Chittim  by 
 Tj^ovav  'Pcofiacoi.  The  absence  of  every  trace  of  the  historical 
 reference  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom,  furnishes  an  arcjument 
 worthy  of  notice  in  favour  of  the  origin  of  this  book  of  Daniel 
 during  the  time  of  the  exile.  For  at  the  time  of  the  Babylonian 
 exile  Rome  lay  altogether  out  of  the  circle  of  vision  opened  up  to 
 the  prophets  of  Scripture,  since  it  had  as  yet  come  into  no  relation 
 at  all  to  the  then  dominant  nations  which  were  exercising  an  influ- 
 ence on  the  fate  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  Altogether  different 
 was  the  state  of  matters  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees,  for  they  sent 
 messengers  with  letters  to  Rome,  proposing  to  enter  into  a  leaguo 
 with  the  Romans :  cf.  1  Mace.  viii.  xii. 
 
 The  contents  of  Dan.  ix.  accord  with  the  age  of  the  Maccabees 
 still  less  than  do  the  visions  of  the  world-kingdoms.  Three  and  a 
 half  centuries  after  the  accomplishment  of  Jeremiah's  prophecy  of 
 the  desolation  of  Judah,  after  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  had  been 
 
 D 
 
50  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 long  ago  rebuilt,  it  could  not  come  into  the  mind  of  any  Jew  to 
 put  into  the  mouth  of  the  exiled  prophet  Daniel  a  penitential 
 prayer  for  the  restoration  of  the  holy  city,  and  to  represent  Gabriel 
 as  having  brought  to  him  the  prophecy  that  the  seventy  years  of 
 the  desolation  of  Jerusalem  prophesied  of  by  Jeremiah  were  not 
 yet  fulfilled,  but  should  only  be  fulfilled  after  the  lapse  of  seventy 
 year-weeks,  in  contradiction  to  the  testimony  of  Ezra,  or,  according 
 to  modern  critics,  of  the  author  of  the  books  of  Chronicles  and  of 
 Ezra,  living  at  the  end  of  the  Persian  era,  that  God,  in  order  to  fulfil 
 His  word  spoken  by  Jeremiah  the  prophet,  had  in  the  first  year  of 
 Cyrus  stirred  up  the  spirit  of  Cyrus  the  king  of  Persia  to  send 
 forth  an  edict  throughout  his  whole  kingdom,  which  directed  the 
 Jews  to  return  to  Jerusalem  and  commanded  them  to  rebuild  the 
 temple  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22  f.,  Ezra  i.  1-4). 
 
 3.  If  now,  in  conclusion,  we  take  into  consideration  the  religious 
 spirit  of  this  book,  we  find  that  the  opponents  of  its  genuineness  dis- 
 play no  special  gift  of  SidKpLac<i  Trvevixdriov  when  they  place  the  book 
 of  Daniel  in  the  same  category  with  the  Sybilline  Oracles,  the  fourth 
 book  of  Ezra  (=  2  Esdras),  the  book  of  Enoch,  the  Ascensio  Jesajce, 
 and  other  pseudepigraphical  products  of  apocryphal  literature,  and 
 represent  the  narrative  of  the  events  of  Daniel's  life  and  his  visions 
 as  a  literary  production  after  the  manner  of  Deuteronomy  and  the 
 book  of  Koheleth  (Ecclesiastes),  which  a  Maccabean  Jew  has  chosen, 
 in  order  to  gain  for  the  wholesome  truths  which  he  wished  to  repre- 
 sent to  his  contemporaries  the  wished-for  acceptance  (Bleek,  p. 
 593  f.).  For  this  purpose,  he  must  in  the  historical  narratives,  "  by 
 adducing  the  example  of  Daniel  and  his  companions  on  the  one 
 side,  and  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Belshazzar  on  the  other,  exhort  his 
 fellow-countrymen  to  imitate  the  former  in  the  inflexible  stedfastness 
 of  their  faith,  in  their  open,  fearless  confession  of  the  God  of  their 
 fathers,  and  show  them  how  this  only  true,  all-powerful  God  will 
 know  in  His  own  time  to  humble  those  who,  like  Antiochus  Epi- 
 phanes,  raised  themselves  against  Him  in  presumptuous  pride  and 
 sought  to  turn  away  His  people  from  His  service,  and,  on  the  other 
 hand,  to  make  His  faithful  worshippers  in  the  end  victorious"  (Bleek, 
 p.  GOl).  Hence  the  tendency  is  conspicuous,  "  that  the  author  in 
 his  descriptions  in  ch.  iii.  and  vi.  almost  always,  in  whole  and  in 
 part,  has  kept  before  his  eye  the  relations  of  his  time  (the  land  of 
 Judca  being  then  under  the  oppression  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes) 
 and  the  surrounding  circumstances ;  and  these  he  brings  before  his 
 readers  in  a  veiled,  yet  by  them  easily  recognisable,  manner"  (p. 
 
INTRODUCTION.  51 
 
 602).  Wherein,  then,  does  the  "  easily  recognisable  "  resemblance 
 of  these  two  facta  consist"?  Nebuchadnezzar  directed  a  colossal 
 image  of  threescore  cubits  in  height  and  six  cubits  in  breadth  to  be 
 erected  on  the  plain  of  Dura,  and  to  be  solemnly  consecrated  as  a 
 national  image,  the  assembled  people  falling  down  before  it  doing 
 it  homage.  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  on  the  contrary,  did  not  com- 
 mand an  idol-image,  as  has  been  supposed  from  a  false  interpreta- 
 tion of  the  ^BeXvy/jia  epr}/j,coaeco<i  (1  Mace.  i.  54),  to  be  placed  on 
 the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  but  only  a  small  idol-altar  {^co/jLov, 
 1  INIacc.  i.  59)  to  be  built ;  no  mention  is  made,  however,  of  its 
 being  solemnly  consecrated.  He  then  commanded  the  Jews  to 
 offer  sacrifice  month  after  month  on  this  idol-altar ;  and  because  he 
 wished  that  in  his  whole  kingdom  all  should  form  but  one  people, 
 and  that  each  should  leave  his  laws  (ver.  41),  he  thus  sought  to  con- 
 strain the  Jews  to  give  up  the  worship  of  God  inherited  from  their 
 fathers,  and  to  fall  in  with  the  heathen  forms  of  worship.  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar did  not  intend  to  forbid  to  the  nations  that  became 
 subject  to  him  the  worship  of  their  own  gods,  and  to  the  Jews  the 
 worship  of  Jehovah,  but  much  more,  after  in  the  wonderful 
 deliverance  of  the  three  friends  of  Daniel  he  recognised  the  omni- 
 potence of  the  supreme  God,  he  forbade  by  an  edict,  on  the  pain  of 
 death,  all  his  subjects  from  blaspheming  this  God  (Dan.  iii.  28-30). 
 And  wherein  consists  the  resemblance  between  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  and  the  Median  Darius  (Dan.  vi.)?  Darius,  it  is  true, 
 at  the  instigation  of  his  princes  and  satraps,  issued  an  ordinance 
 that  whoever  within  thirty  days  should  offer  a  prayer  to  any  god  or 
 man  except  to  the  king  himself  should  be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions, 
 but  certainly  not  with  the  view  of  compelling  the  Jews,  or  any 
 other  of  his  subjects,  to  apostatize  from  their  ancestral  religion, 
 for  after  the  expiry  of  the  appointed  thirty  days  every  one  might 
 again  direct  his  prayer  to  his  own  god.  The  special  instigators  of 
 this  edict  did  not  contemplate  by  it  the  bringing  of  the  Jewish 
 people  under  any  religious  restraint,  but  they  aimed  only  at  the 
 overthrow  of  Daniel,  whom  Darius  had  raised  to  the  rank  of  third 
 ruler  in  the  realm  and  had  thought  to  set  over  the  whole  kingdom. 
 But  when  Daniel  was  denounced  to  him  by  the  authors  of  this  law, 
 Darius  became  greatly  moved,  and  did  all  he  could  to  avert  from 
 him  the  threatened  punishment.  And  when,  by  an  appeal  of  his 
 satraps  to  the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  that  no  royal  edict 
 could  be  changed,  necessity  was  laid  upon  him  to  cause  Daniel  to 
 be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions,  he  spent  a  sleepless  night,  and  was 
 
52  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 very  glad  when,  coming  to  tlie  lions'  den  early  in  the  morninnf,  he 
 found  Daniel  uninjured.  He  then  not  only  commanded  Daniel's 
 accusers  to  be  cast  to  the  lions,  but  he  also  by  a  proclamation 
 ordered  all  his  subjects  to  do  homage  to  the  living  God  who  did 
 signs  and  wonders  in  heaven  and  earth.  In  this  conduct  of  Darius 
 towards  Daniel  and  towards  the  living  God  of  heaven  and  earth, 
 whom  Daniel  and  the  Jews  worshipped,  can  a  single  incident  be 
 found  which  will  remind  us  of  the  rage  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 against  tlie  Jews  and  their  worship  of  God? 
 
 Still  less  can  it  be  conceived  that  (as  Bleek,  p.  604,  says)  the 
 author  of  this  book  had  ''  without  doubt  Antiochus  Epiphanes  before 
 his  eyes  "  in  Nebuchadnezzar,  ch.  iv.,  and  also  in  Belshazzar,  ch.  v. 
 It  is  true  that  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Belshazzar,  according  to  ch.  iv. 
 and  v.,  sin  against  the  Almighty  God  of  heaven  and  earth  and  are 
 punished  for  it,  and  Antiochus  Epiphanes  also  at  last  fell  under  the 
 judgment  of  God  on  account  of  his  wickedness.  But  this  general 
 resemblance,  that  heathen  rulers  by  their  contact  with  the  Jews  did 
 dishonour  to  the  Almighty  God,  and  were  humbled  and  punished 
 for  it,  repeats  itself  at  all  times,  and  forms  no  special  characteristic 
 of  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  all  the  special  features  of 
 the  narratives  of  Dan.  iv.  and  v.,  on  the  other  hand,  complete 
 differences  are  met  with.  Nebuchadnezzar  was  struck  with  beast- 
 like madness,  not  because  he  had  persecuted  the  Jews,  but  because 
 in  his  haughty  pride  as  a  ruler  he  deified  himself,  because  he  knew 
 not  that  the  Most  High  ruleth  over  the  kingdom  of  men  (ch.  iv.  14)  ; 
 and  when  he  humbled  himself  before  the  Most  High,  he  was  freed 
 from  his  madness  and  a^ain  restored  to  his  kingdom.  Belshazzar 
 also  did  not  transgress  by  persecuting  the  Jews,  but  by  causing  at 
 a  riotous  banquet,  in  drunken  insolence,  the  golden  vessels  which 
 had  been  brought  from  the  temple  in  Jerusalem  to  Babylon  to  be 
 produced,  and  by  drinking  out  of  these  vessels  with  his  captains 
 and  his  wives  amid  the  singing  of  songs  in  praise  of  the  idol-gods ; 
 thus,  as  Daniel  represented- to  him,  raising  himself  up  against  the 
 Lord  of  heaven,  and  not  honouring  the  God  in  whose  hand  his 
 breath  -was  and  with  whom  were  all  his  ways,  although  he  knew 
 how  his  father  Nebuchadnezzar  had  been  punished  by  this  God 
 (ch.  V.  20-23)  for  his  haughty  presumption. 
 
 The  relation  not  only  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  of  Darius,  but 
 also  of  Belshazzar,  to  the  Jews  and  their  religion  is  therefore  funda- 
 mentally different  from  the  tendency  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to 
 uproot  Judaism  and  the  Mosaic  worship  of  God.     The  Babylonian 
 
INTRODUCTION.  53 
 
 Idngs  were  indeed  heathen,  who,  according  to  the  common  opinion 
 of  all  heathens,  held  their  national  gods  to  be  greater  and  more 
 powerful  than  the  gods  of  the  nations  subdued  by  them,  among 
 whom  they  also  placed  the  God  of  Israel;  but  when  they  heard  of 
 the  wonders  of  His  divine  omnipotence,  they  gave  honour  to  the 
 God  of  Israel  as  the  God  of  heaven  and  of  earth,  partly  by  express 
 confession  of  Him,  and  partly,  at  least  as  Belshazzar  did,  by  hon- 
 ouring the  true  worshippers  of  this  God.  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
 on  the  contrary,  persisted  in  his  almost  mad  rage  against  the  wor- 
 ship of  God  as  practised  by  the  Jews  till  he  was  swept  away  by  the 
 divine  judgment.  If  the  pretended  pseudo-Daniel,  therefore,  had 
 directed  his  view  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  the  setting  forth  of 
 such  narratives,  we  could  only  imagine  the  purpose  to  have  been 
 that  he  might  lead  this  fierce  enemy  of  his  people  to  acknowledge 
 and  worship  the  true  God.  But  with  such  a  supposition  not  only 
 does  the  sentiment  of  the  Jews,  as  it  is  brought  to  light  in  the 
 books  of  the  Maccabees,  stand  in  opposition,  but  it  is  also  contra- 
 dicted by  the  prophecies  of  this  book,  which  threaten  the  daring 
 and  deceitful  king,  who  would  take  away  the  daily  sacrifice  and  lay 
 waste  the  sanctuary,  with  destruction  without  the  hand  of  man, 
 without  giving  any  room  for  the  thought  of  the  possibility  of  a 
 change  of  mind,  or  of  his  conversion.  The  author  of  these  pro- 
 phecies cannot  therefore  have  followed,  in  the  historical  narratives 
 of  his  book,  the  tendency  imputed  to  him  by  modern  critics. 
 
 On  the  whole,  an  entire  misapprehension  of  the  spirit  which 
 pervades  the  historical  parts  of  the  book  of  Daniel  lies  at  the  foun- 
 dation of  the  supposition  of  such  a  tendency.  The  narratives 
 regarding  Nebuchadnezzar,  his  dream,  the  consecration  of  the 
 golden  statue,  and  his  conduct  after  his  recovery  from  his  madness, 
 as  well  as  those  regarding  Darius,  ch.  vi.,  could  not  be  invented,  at 
 least  could  not  be  invented  by  a  Maccabean  Jew,  because  in  the 
 pre-exilian  history  there  are  altogether  wanting  types  corresponding 
 to  the  psychological  delineation  of  these  characters.  It  is  true 
 that  a  Pharaoh  raised  Joseph,  who  interpreted  his  dream,  to  be 
 the  chief  ruler  in  his  kingdom,  but  it  does  not  come  into  his  mind 
 to  give  honour  to  the  God  who  revealed  in  the  dream  what 
 would  befall  his  kingdom  (Gen.  xli.).  For  the  other  narratives  of 
 this  book  there  are  wanting  in  the  Old  Testament  incidents  with 
 which  they  could  be  connected ;  and  the  resemblance  between  the 
 life-experience  of  Joseph  and  that  of  Daniel  extends  only  to  these 
 general  matters,  that  both  received  from  God  the  gift  of  interpret- 
 
54  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 ing  dreams,  and  b}'  means  of  this  gift  brought  help  and  deliverance 
 to  their  people  :^  in  all  details,  however,  Daniel  is  so  different  from 
 Joseph,  that  the  delineation  of  his  portrait  as  found  in  this  book  can- 
 not be  regarded  as  a  copy  of  the  history  of  Joseph.  Still  less  can 
 we  think  of  the  narratives  of  Daniel  as  poetical  compositions  ;  for  the 
 characters  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  of  Darius  the  Mede  are  essenti- 
 ally different  from  the  prevailing  views  of  Judaism  concerning  the 
 heathen.  The  relation  of  both  of  these  genuine  heathen  kings  to 
 the  revelations  of  God  shows  a  receptivity  for  the  control  of  the 
 living  God  in  the  lot  of  men,  as  is  predicated  before  and  after  the 
 exile  in  no  Jewish  writing  of  a  single  heathen.  Such  representa- 
 tions of  character  cannot  be  invented  ;  they  are  drawn  according  to 
 life,  and  can  only  be  understood  if  the  wonders  of  divine  omnipo- 
 tence and  grace  which  the  book  of  Daniel  relates  truly  happened. 
 
 But  as  in  the  historical  narrations,  so  also  in  the  visions  of 
 Daniel,  there  is  wanting  every  trace  of  any  tendency  pointing  to 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes.  This  tendency  is  derived  only  from  the 
 view  already  (p.  42)  shown  to  be  incorrect,  that  all  the  prophecies 
 of  Daniel  extend  only  down  to  this  king,  and  that  with  his  death 
 the  destruction  of  the  God-opposing  Avorld-power  and  the  setting 
 up  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  of.  God  is  to  be  expected.  But  if  the 
 opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  this  book  derive  support  for  their 
 views  from  the  relation  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  to  the  pseud- 
 epigraphic  products  of  the  Jewish  Apocalyptics,  so  also,  on  the 
 other  hand,  Zundel  {Krit.  Unter.  p.  134  ff.)  has  so  conclusively 
 proved  the  decided  difference  between  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  and 
 the  Sibylline  Oracles,  which,  according  to  Bleek,  Liicke,  and  others, 
 must  have  flowed  from  one  source  and  are  homogeneous,  that  we 
 may  limit  ourselves  to  a  brief  condensed  exhibition  of  the  main 
 results  of  this  proof  (p.  165  ff.). 
 
 First,  the  subject  of  the  two  writings  is  perfectly  different.  In 
 Daniel  the  seer  stands  in  moral  connection  with  the  vision  ;  this  is 
 not  so  with  the  Sibyl.  Daniel  is  a  pious  Israelite,  whose  name,  as 
 we  see  from  Ezekiel,  was  well  known  during  the  Chaldean  exile, 
 and  whose  life-history  is  spent  in  inseparable  connection  with  his 
 prophecies  ;  on  the  contrary,  the  Sibyls  withdraw  their  existence 
 from  all  historical  control,  for  they  date  back  in  the   times  of 
 
 ^  Chr.  B.  Micbaelis  thus  brings  together  the  analogies  between  the  events  in 
 the  life  of  Joseph  and  of  Daniel :  "  Uterqtie  in  peregriuam  delatus  terram,  uterque 
 felix  sonmiorum  iitferpres,  uterque  familix  ac  populi  sui  slatnr,  uterque  summorum 
 principum  administer,  uterque  sapienlum  sui  loci  supremus  antistes.^^ 
 
INTRODUCTION.  55 
 
 lioary  antiquitj'-,  not  only  of  Israel,  but  of  all  nations,  viz.  in  the 
 period  of  the  deluge,  and  their  persons  disappear  in  apocryphal 
 darkness.  "  While  Daniel  on  his  knees  prays  for  the  divine  dis- 
 closure regarding  the  time  of  the  deliverance  of  his  people,  and 
 each  of  his  revelations  is  at  the  same  time  an  answer  to  prayer, 
 the  Sibyl  in  the  Maccabeau  time  is  represented,  in  a  true  hea- 
 thenish manner,  powerfully  transported  against  her  will  by  the 
 word  of  God  as  by  a  madness,  and  twice  she  prays  that  she  might 
 rest  and  cease  to  prophesy." 
 
 Again,  the  prophetic  situation  is  just  as  different.  As  is  the 
 case  with  all  the  earlier  prophets,  Daniel's  prophecy  goes  forth 
 from  a  definite  historical  situation,  the  growing  up  of  the  first  great 
 world-power  in  Assyria-Chaldea  ;  it  stands  in  a  moral  practical 
 connection  with  the  deliverance  of  Israel,  about  which  it  treats, 
 after  the  expiry  of  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah ;  the  four  world- 
 monarchies  which  were  revealed  to  him  take  root  in  the  historical 
 ground  of  the  time  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  In  the  Seleucidan-Jewish 
 Sibyl,  on  the  contrary,  there  is  no  mention  made  of  a  prophetical 
 situation,  nor  of  a  politico-practical  tendency ;  the  Sibyl  has  in  a 
 true  Alexandrine  manner  a  literary  object,  viz.  this,  to  represent 
 Judaism  as  the  world-religion.  "  That  life-question  for  Israel  and 
 the  world.  When  comes  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  which  in  Daniel 
 springs  up  in  an  actual  situation,  as  it  shall  also  be  only  answered 
 by  divine  fact,  is  in  the  Alexandrine  Sibyllist  only  a  question  of 
 doctrine  which  he  believes  himself  called  on  to  solve  by  making 
 the  heathen  Jews  and  associates  of  the  Jews. 
 
 Finally,  in  the  Sibyls  there  is  wanting  a  prophetical  object. 
 The  prophetical  object  of  Daniel  is  the  world-power  over  against 
 the  kingdom  of  God.  This  historico-prophetic  idea  is  the  deter- 
 minating, sole,  all-penetrating  idea  in  Daniel,  and  the  centre  of  it 
 lies  throughout  in  the  end  of  the  world-power,  in  its  inner  deve- 
 lopment and  its  inner  powerlessness  over  against  the  kincrdom  of 
 God.  The  four  world-forms  do  not  begin  with  the  history  of 
 nations  and  extend  over  our  present  time.  On  the  contrary,  the 
 creative  prophetic  spirit  is  wanting  to  the  Sibyl ;  not  one  historical 
 thought  of  deliverance  is  peculiar  to  it ;  it  is  a  genuine  Alexandrine 
 compilation  of  prophetic  and  Grseco-classic  thoughts  externally  con- 
 ceived. The  thought  peculiarly  pervading  it,  to  raise  Judaism  to 
 the  rank  of  the  world-religion,  is  only  a  human  reflection  of  the 
 divine  plan,  that  in  Abraham  all  the  nations  shall  be  blessed,  which 
 pervades  all  the  prophets  as  the  great  thought  in  the  history  of  the 
 
56  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 world ;  in  Daniel  it  comes  out  into  the  greatest  clearness,  and  is 
 realized  by  Christianity.  This  prophetic  world-thought  the  Sibyl 
 has  destroyed,  i.e.  has  religiously  spiritualized  and  politically  mate- 
 rialized it.  "  Not  the  living  and  holy  covenant  God  Jehovah,  who 
 dwells  on  high  and  with  the  contrite  in  heart,  but  Godhead  un- 
 created and  creating  all  things,  without  distinction  in  Plimself,  the 
 invisible  God,  who  sees  all  things,  who  is  neither  male  nor  female, 
 as  He  appears  at  a  later  period  in  the  teaching  of  the  school  of 
 Philo,  is  He  whom  the  Sibyl  in  very  eloquent  language  declares 
 to  the  heathen.  But  of  the  God  of  Israel,  who  not  only  created  the 
 world,  but  who  also  has  a  divine  kingdom  on  the  earth,  and  will 
 build  up  this  kingdom,  in  a  word,  of  the  God  of  the  history  of 
 redemption,  as  He  is  seen  in  His  glory  in  Daniel,  we  find  no  trace 
 whatever."  The  materialistic  historic  prophecy  of  the  Sibyllist 
 corresponds  with  this  religious  spiritualism.  Pie  seeks  to  imitate 
 the  prophecies  of  Daniel,  but  he  does  not  know  the  prophetic 
 fundamental  thought  of  the  kingdom  of  God  over  against  the 
 kingdom  of  the  world,  and  therefore  he  copies  the  empirical  world- 
 history  :  "  first  Egypt  will  rule,  then  Assyria,  Persia,  Media,  Mace- 
 donia, Egypt  again,  and  then  Rome." 
 
 Thus  the  Sibylline  Apocalyptic  is  fundamentally  different  from 
 the  prophecies  of  Daniel.^  AVhoever  has  a  mind  so  little  disciplined 
 that  he  cannot  perceive  this  difference,  cannot  be  expected  to  know 
 how  to  distinguish  between  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  and  the  philo- 
 sophical reflections  of  the  book  of  Koheleth.^  If  Koheleth  brings 
 forward  his  thoughts  regarding  the  vanity  of  all  things  in  the  name 
 of  the  wise  king  Solomon,  then  is  this  literary  production,  which 
 moreover  is  so  very  transparent  that  every  reader  of  the  book  can 
 see  through  it,  altogether  comprehensible.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
 a  Maccabean  Jew  clothe  his  own  self-conceived  ideas  regarding 
 the  development  of  the  war  of  the  heathen  world-powers  against 
 the  people  of  God  in  revelations  from  God,  which  the  prophet 
 
 ^  This  may  be  said  also  of  the  other  apocryphal  apocalypses  of  Judaism, 
 which  we  have  no  need,  however,  here  specially  to  consider,  because  these 
 apocalypses,  as  is  generally  acknowledged,  originate  in  a  much  later  time,  and 
 therefore  have  no  place  iu  discussions  regarding  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of 
 Daniel. 
 
 2  The  Deuteronomy  which  Bleck  and  others  quote  along  with  the  book  of 
 Koheleth  cannot  be  therefore  taken  into  consideration  as  capable  of  supplying 
 analogical  proof,  because  the  supposition  that  this  book  is  not  genuine,  was 
 not  composed  by  Moses,  is  no  better  grounded  than  is  the  supposed  non- 
 genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel. 
 
INTEODUCTION.  57 
 
 living  in  the  Babylonian  exile  might  have  received,  then  this 
 undertaking  is  not  merely  literary  deception,  but  at  the  same  time 
 an  abuse  of  prophecy,  which,  as  a  prophesying  out  of  one's  own 
 heart,  is  a  sin  to  which  God  in  His  law  has  annexed  the  punish- 
 ment of  death. 
 
 If  the  book  of  Daniel  were  thus  a  production  of  a  Maccabean 
 Jew,  who  would  bring  "  certain  wholesome  truths"  which  he 
 thought  he  possessed  before  his  contemporaries  as  prophecies  of  a 
 divinely  enlightened  seer  of  the  time  of  the  exile,  then  it  contains 
 neither  prophecy  given  by  God,  nor  in  general  wholesome  divine 
 truth,  but  mere  human  invention,  which  because  it  was  clothed 
 with  falsehood  could  not  have  its  origin  in  the  truth.  Such  a 
 production  Christ,  the  eternal  personal  Truth,  never  could  have 
 regarded  as  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  the  prophet,  and  commended 
 to  the  observation  of  His  disciples,  as  He  has  done  (Matt.  xxiv.  15, 
 cf.  Mark  xiii.  14). 
 
 This  testimony  of  our  Lord  fixes  on  the  external  and  internal 
 evidences  which  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel  the 
 seal  of  divine  confirmation. 
 
 For  the  exegetical  literature  of  the  book  of  Daniel  see  in  my 
 Lehrh.  der  Einl  in  d.  A .  Test.  §  385  f .  [The  Messrs.  T.  and  T. 
 Clark  of  Edinburgh  have  recently  published  an  English  translation 
 of  this  work,  under  the  title  of  Manual  of  Historico- Critical  Intro- 
 duction to  the  Canonical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  etc.,  trans- 
 lated by  the  Rev.  Professor  Douglas,  D.D.,  Free  Church  College, 
 Glasgow.  2  vols.,  Edinburgh  1869].  To  what  is  there  recorded 
 we  may  add,  Das  Buch  Daniel  erkl.  von  Rud.  Kranichfeld,  Berlin 
 1868  ;  Das  Buch  Daniels  uehers.  u.  erkl.  von  Dr.  Th.  Kliefoth, 
 Schwerin  1868  ;  J.  L.  Fuller,  der  Prophet  Daniel  erkl.,  Basel 
 1868  (for  the  educated  laity)  ;  Pusey,  Daniel  the  Prophet,  Oxf. 
 1864  ;  and  Mayer  (Cath.),  die  Messian.  Prophezieen  des  Daniel, 
 Wien  1866.  \_Der  Prophet  Daniel,  theologisch-homiletisch  hear- 
 heitet.  von  Dr.  Zoeckler,  Professor  der  Theologie  zu  Greifswald 
 (J.  P.  Lange's  Bibelwerk,  17er  Thiel  des  A.  T.),  1870.] 
 
EXPOSITION. 
 
 CHAP.  I.    IIISTORICO-BIOGRAPHICAL  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 When  Nebuchadnezzar  first  besieged  Jerusalem  he  not  only  took 
 away  the  holy  vessels  of  the  temple,  but  also  commanded  that 
 several  Israelitish  youths  of  noble  lineage,  among  whom  was  Daniel, 
 should  be  carried  to  Babylon  and  there  educated  in  the  science  and 
 wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans  for  service  in  his  court,  which  they 
 entered  upon  when  their  education  was  completed.  This  narrative, 
 in  which  the  stedfast  attachment  of  Daniel  and  his  three  friends  to 
 the  reliijion  of  their  father?,  and  the  blessings  which  flowed  to  them 
 from  this  fidelity  (vers.  8-17),  are  particularly  set  forth,  forms  the 
 historical  introduction  to  the  following  book,  whilst  it  shows  how 
 Daniel  reached  the  place  of  influence  which  he  held,  a  place  which 
 was  appointed  for  him  according  to  the  divine  counsel,  during  the 
 Babylonish  exile,  for  the  preservation  and  development  of  the  Old 
 Testament  kingdom  of  God.  It  concludes  (ver.  21)  with  the 
 remark,  that  Daniel  continued  to  occupy  this  place  till  the  first 
 year  of  Cyrus. 
 
 Vers.  1  and  2.  Of  this  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  against 
 Jerusalem  it  is  related  in  the  second  book  of  Kings  (ch.  xxiv.  1)  : 
 "  In  his  days  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of  Babylon  came  up,  and 
 Jehoiakim  became  his  servant  three  years;  then  he  turned  and 
 rebelled  against  him  : "  and  in  the  second  book  of  Chronicles 
 (ch.  xxxvi.  6)  :  "  Against  him  came  up  Nebuchadnezzar  king  of 
 Babylon,  and  bound  him  in  fetters  to  carry  him  to  Babylon. 
 Nebuchadnezzar  also  carried  of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  the  Lord 
 to  Babylon,  and  put  them  in  his  tem})le  at  Babylon."  That  both 
 of  these  statements  refer  to  the  same  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar 
 against  Jehoiakim  mentioned  here,  appears  not  only  from  the  state- 
 ment of  the  book  of  Chronicles  agreeing  with  ver.  2  of  this  chapter, 
 
CHAP.  I.  1,  2.  59 
 
 namely,  that  Nebucliadnezzar  took  away  a  part  of  the  sacred  vessels 
 of  the  temple  to  Babylon,  and  there  put  them  in  the  temple  of  his 
 god,  but  also  from  the  circumstance  that,  beyond  all  doubt,  during 
 the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  there  was  not  a  second  siege  of  Jerusalem 
 by  Nebuchadnezzar.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  when  Jehoiakim 
 threw  off  the  yoke  at  the  end  of  three  years'  subjection,  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar sent  Chaldean,  Aramaean,  Moabitish,  and  Ammonitish  hosts 
 against  him  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  him  into  subjection,  but 
 Jerusalem  was  not  again  laid  siege  to  by  these  hosts  till  the  death 
 of  Jehoiakim.  Not  till  his  son  Jehoiachin  ascended  the  throne  did 
 the  servants  of  Nebuchadnezzar  again  come  up  against  Jerusalem 
 and  besiege  it.  When,  during  the  siege,  Nebuchadnezzar  himself 
 came  up,  Jehoiachin  surrendered  to  him  after  three  months,  and 
 was,  along  with  the  chief  men  of  his  kingdom,  and  the  strength  of 
 the  population  of  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  and  the  treasures  of  the 
 royal  palace  and  of  the  temple,  carried  down  to  Babylon  (2  Kings 
 xxiv.  2-16).  The  year,  however,  in  which  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the 
 reign  of  Jehoiakim,  first  took  Jerusalem  and  carried  away  a  part  of 
 the  treasures  of  the  temple  to  Babylon,  is  stated  neither  in  the 
 second  book  of  Kings  nor  in  Chronicles,  but  may  be  pretty  certainly 
 determined  by  the  statements  of  Jeremiah  (ch.  xlvi.  2,  xxv.  1  ff., 
 xxxvi.  1  ff.).  According  to  Jer.  xlvi.  2,  Nebuchadnezzar  smote 
 the  Egyptian  king  Pharaoli-Necho  with  his  army  at  Carchemish 
 in  the  fourth  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim.  That  same  year  is 
 spoken  of  (Jer.  xxv.  1)  as  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  the  king 
 of  Babylon,  and  is  represented  by  Jeremiah  not  only  as  a  critical 
 period  for  the  kingdom  of  Judah ;  but  also,  by  the  prediction  that 
 the  Lord  would  bring  His  servant  Nebuchadnezzar  against  Judah 
 and  against  its  inhabitants,  and  against  all  the  nations  round  about, 
 that  He  would  make  Judah  a  desolation,  and  that  these  nations  would 
 serve  the  king  of  Babylon  seventy  years  (vers.  2-11),  he  without 
 doubt  represents  it  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventy  years  of  Baby- 
 lonish exile.  In  this  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  the  prophet  was 
 also  commanded  (ch.  xxxvi.  1  ff.)  to  write  in  a  book  all  the  words 
 which  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto  him  against  Israel,  and  against 
 Judah,  and  against  all  the  nations,  from  the  day  in  which  He  had 
 spoken  to  him  in  the  time  of  Josiah  even  till  then,  that  the  house  of 
 Judah  might  hear  all  the  evil  which  He  purposed  to  do  unto  them, 
 and  might  return  every  man  from  his  evil  way.  Jeremiah  obeved 
 this  command,  and  caused  these  predictions,  written  in  the  roll 
 of  a  book,  to  be  read  by  Baruch  to  the  people  in  the  temple ;  for 
 
60  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 he  himself   was  a  prisoner,  and  therefore  could  not  go  to    the 
 temple. 
 
 The  first  capture  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  cannot 
 therefore  have  taken  place  in  the  third,  but  must  have  been  in  the 
 fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  i.e.  in  the  year  606  B.C.  This,  however, 
 appears  to  stand  in  opposition  to  the  statement  of  the  first  verse  of 
 this  chapter :  "  In  tlie  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  N3 
 Nebuchadnezzar  to  Jerusalem."  The  modern  critics  accordingly 
 number  this  statement  among  the  errors  which  must  disprove  the 
 genuineness  of  this  book  (see  above,  p.  35  f.).  The  apparent  op- 
 position between  the  language  of  Daniel  (ch.  i.  1)  that  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar undertook  his  first  expedition  against  Jerusalem  in  the  third 
 year  of  Jehoiakim,  and  the  affirmation  of  Jeremiah,  according  to 
 which  not  only  was  Pharaoh-Necho  slain  by  Nebuchadnezzar  at  the 
 Euphrates  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  but  also  in  this  same 
 year  Nebuchadnezzar's  invasion  of  Judea  is  for  the  first  time 
 announced,  cannot  be  resolved  either  by  the  hypothesis  of  a  differ- 
 ent mode  of  reckoning  the  years  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim  and  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  nor  by  the  supposition  that  Jerusalem  had  been 
 already  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar  before  the  battle  of  Carchemish, 
 in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim.  The  first  supposition  is  set  aside 
 by  the  circumstance  that  there  is  no  certain  analogy  for  it.^  The 
 latter  supposition  is  irreconcilable  with  Jer.  xxv.  and  xxxvi.^  If 
 Jeremiah  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  announced  that  because 
 Judah  did  not  hearken  unto  his  warnings  addressed  to  them  "  from 
 the  thirteenth  year  of  Josiali  even  unto  this  day,"  that  is,  for  the 
 space  of  three  and  twenty  years,  nor  yet  to  the  admonitions  of  all 
 the  other  prophets  (ch.  xxv.  3-7)  whom  the  Lord  had  sent  unto 
 them,  therefore  the  Lord  would  now  send  His  servant  Nebuchad- 
 
 ^  The  old  attempt  to  reconcile  the  difference  in  this  way  has  already  been 
 shown  by  Hengstenberg  (^Beit.  z.  Einl.  in  d.  A.  T.  p.  53)  to  be  untenable  ;  and 
 the  supposition  of  Klief.  (p.  65  f.),  that  Jehoiakim  entered  on  his  reign  near  the 
 end  of  a  year,  and  that  Jeremiah  reckons  the  year  of  his  reign  according  to  the 
 calendar  year,  but  that  Daniel  reckons  it  from  the  day  of  his  ascendmg  the 
 throne,  by  which  it  is  made  out  that  there  is  no  actual  difference,  is  wholly  over- 
 thrown by  the  circumstance  that  in  the  sacred  Scriptures  there  is  no  analogy  for 
 the  reckoning  of  the  year  of  a  king's  reign  according  to  the  day  of  the  month 
 on  which  he  began  to  reign.  On  this  supposition  we  might  reconcile  the  appa- 
 rent difference  only  if  no  other  plan  of  reconciliation  were  possible.  But  such  is 
 not  the  actual  state  of  the  case. 
 
 *  Following  the  example  of  Hofmann  (f/?e  70  Jahre  Jer.  p.  13  ff.),  Havernick 
 {Neue  Krit.  Uiiterss.  iiher  d.  B.  Daniel,  p.  62  ff.),  Zuudel  (A'rji.  Unterss.  p.  20 
 ff.),  and  others  have  decided  in  favour  of  it. 
 
CHAP.  I.  1,  2.  61 
 
 nezzar  with  all  the  people  of  the  north  against  the  land  and  against 
 the  inhabitants  thereof,  and  against  all  these  nations  round  about, 
 utterly  to  destroy  the  land  and  make  it  desolate,  etc., — then  it  must 
 be  affirmed  that  he  publicly  made  known  the  invasion  of  Judah  by 
 the  Chaldeans  as  an  event  which  had  not  yet  taken  place,  and 
 therefore  that  the  supposition  that  Jerusalem  had  already  in  the 
 preceding  year  been  taken  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  that  Jehoiakim 
 had  been  brought  under  his  subjection,  is  entirely  excluded.  It  is 
 true  that  in  ch.  xxv.  Jeremiah  prophesies  a  judgment  of  "  perpetual 
 desolations  against  Jerusalem  and  against  all  the  nations,"  but  it  is 
 as  unwarrantable  to  apply,  as  Klief.  does,  this  prophecy  only  "  to 
 the  total  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  of  Judah,  which  took  place 
 in  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah,"  as  with  older  interpreters  only  to 
 the  first  expedition  of  Nebuchadnezzar  against  Jehoiakim,  2  Kings 
 xxiv.  1  and  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6  f.  In  the  words  of  threatening 
 uttered  by  the  prophet  there  are  included  all  the  expeditions  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  against  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  from  his  first  against 
 Jehoiakim  to  the  final  destruction  of  Jerusalem  under  Zedekiah  ;  so 
 that  we  cannot  say  that  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  first  siege  of 
 Jerusalem  under  Jehoiakim,  but  to  the  final  destruction  of  Judah 
 and  Jerusalem,  as  this  whole  prophecy  is  only  a  comprehensive 
 intensified  summary  of  all  the  words  of  God  hitherto  spoken  by  the 
 mouth  of  the  prophet.  To  strengthen  the  impression  produced  by 
 this  comprehensive  word  of  God,  he  was  commanded  in  that  same 
 year  (ch.  xxxvi.  1  f.),  as  already  mentioned,  to  write  out  in  the  roll 
 of  a  book  all  the  words  hitherto  spoken  by  him,  that  it  might  be 
 seen  whether  or  not  the  several  words  gathered  together  into  a 
 whole  might  not  exert  an  influence  over  the  people  which  the 
 separate  words  had  failed  to  do. 
 
 Moreover  a  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldeans  before 
 the  overthrow  of  the  Egyptian  power  on  the  Euphrates,  which  took 
 place  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  cannot  at  all  be  thought  of. 
 King  Jehoiakim  was  "  put  into  bands"  by  Pharaoh-Necho  and 
 made  a  tributary  vassal  to  him  (2  Kings  xxiii.  33  if.),  and  all  the 
 land  from  the  river  of  Egypt  even  unto  the  Euphrates  was  brought 
 under  his  sway ;  therefore  Nebuchadnezzar  could  not  desolate 
 Judah  and  Jerusalem  before  Pharaoh-Necho  was  slain.  Neither 
 could  Nebuchadnezzar  pass  in  the  presence  of  the  Egyptian  hotst 
 stationed  in  the  stronghold  of  Carchemish,  on  the  Euplirates,  and 
 advance  toward  Judah,  leaving  behind  him  the  city  of  Babylon  as 
 a  prize  to  so  powerful  an  enemy,  nor  would  Necho,  supposing  that 
 
62  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar  had  done  this,  have  quietly  allowed  his  enemy  to 
 carry  on  his  operations,  and  march  against  liis  vassal  Jehoiakim, 
 without  following  in  the  rear  of  Egypt's  powerful  foe.^ 
 
 The  statement  in  the  first  verse  may  indeed,  literally  taken,  be 
 interpreted  as  meaning  that  Nebuchadnezzar  came  up  against 
 Jerusalem  and  took  it  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim, 
 because  ^\i3  frequently  means  to  come  to  a  place.  But  it  is  not 
 necessary  always  so  to  interpret  the  word,  because  Ni3  means  not 
 only  to  come,  but  also  to  go,  to  march  to  a  place.  The  assertion, 
 that  in  this  verse  Nin  is  to  be  interpreted  (Ilav.  iV.  Kr.  U.  p.  61, 
 Ew.,  and  others)  as  meaning  to  come  to  a  place,  and  not  to  march 
 to  it,  is  as  incorrect  as  the  assertion  that  the  translation  of  N3  by 
 he  marched  is  inadmissible  or  quite  impossible,  because  npy  is  gene- 
 rally used  of  the  march  of  an  army  (Staeh.,  Ziind.).  The  word 
 Nis,  from  the  first  book  of  the  Canon  (cf.  Gen.  xiv.  5)  to  the  last, 
 the  book  of  Daniel  not  excepted  (cf.  e.g.  xi.  13,  17,  29,  etc.),  is 
 used  of  military  expeditions ;  and  regarding  the  very  general 
 opinion,  that  Ni3,  in  the  sense  of  to  march,  to  go  to  a  place,  occurs 
 less  frequently,  Kran.  (p.  21)  has  rightly  remarked,  that  "it  stands 
 always  and  naturally  in  this  sense  whenever  the  movement  has  its 
 point  of  departure  from  the  place  of  him  who  observes  it,  thinks 
 of  it,  or  makes  a  communication  regarding  it."  Therefore,  e.g.,  it 
 is  used  "  always  in  a  personal  verbal  command  with  reference  to 
 the  movement,  not  yet  undertaken,  where  naturally  the  thought  as 
 to  the  beginning  or  point  of  departure  passes  into  the  foreground  ; 
 as  e.g.  in  Gen.  xlv.  17  ;  Ex.  vi.  11,  vii.  26,  ix,  1,  x.  1 ;  Num.  xxxii. 
 6  ;  1  Sam.  xx.  19  ;  2  Kings  v.  5.  In  Jonah  i.  3  it  is  used  of  the 
 ship  that  was  about  to  go  to  Tarshish  ;  and  again,  in  the  words 
 DHcy  i<i27,  ibid.,  it  is  used  when  speaking  of  the  conclusion  of  the 
 journey."  "  On  the  contrary,  if  the  speaker  or  narrator  is  at  the 
 terminus  ad  quern  of  the  movement  spoken  of,  then  of  course  tlie 
 word  Ni3  is  used  in  the  other  sense  of  to  come,  to  approach,  and 
 the  like."  Accordingly  these  words  of  Daniel,  "Nebuchadnezzar 
 Ni3  to  Jerusalem,"  considered  in  themselves,  may  be  interpreted 
 without  any  regard  to  the  point  of  departure  or  the  termination  of 
 
 1  "With  the  above  compare  my  Lchrh.  der  Eiiil.  §  131,  and  my  Coinmentary  on 
 2  Kings  xxiv.  1.  With  this  Kran.  agrees  (p.  17  f.),  and  in  addition  remarks : 
 "  In  any  case  Necho  would  at  once  have  regarded  with  jealousy  every  invasion 
 of  the  Chaldean  into  the  region  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and  v.ould  least  of 
 all  have  suffered  him  to  make  an  extensive  western  expedition  for  the  purpose 
 of  coucjucring  Judea,  which  was  under  the  sway  of  Egypt." 
 
CHAP.  I.  1,  2.  63 
 
 t]ie  movement.  Tliey  may  mean  "Nebuchadnezzar  came  to  Jeru- 
 salem," or  that  "he  marched  to  Jerusalem,"  according  as  the  writer 
 is  regarded  as  writing  in  Judah  or  Jerusalem,  or  in  Babylon  at 
 the  point  of  departure  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  journey.  If  the  book 
 was  composed  by  a  Maccabean  Jew  in  Palestine,  then  the  transla- 
 tion, "  he  came  to  Jerusalem,"  would  be  the  more  correct,  because 
 such  a  writer  would  hardly  have  spoken  of  a  military  movement 
 from  its  eastern  point  of  departure.  The  case  is  altogether  differ- 
 ent if  Daniel,  who  lived  as  a  courtier  in  Babylon  from  his  youth 
 up  to  old  age,  wrote  this  account.  "  For  him,  a  Jew  advanced  in 
 years,  naturally  the  first  movement  of  the  expedition  threatening 
 and  bringing  destruction  to  his  fatherland,  whether  it  moved 
 directly  or  by  a  circuitous  route  upon  the  capital,  would  be  a  sig- 
 nificant fact,  which  he  had  in  every  respect  a  better  opportunity 
 of  comprehending  than  his  fellow-countrymen  living  in  the  remote 
 west,  since  this  expedition  was  an  event  which  led  to  the  cata- 
 strophe of  the  exile.  For  the  Jew  writing  in  Babylon  about  the 
 expedition,  the  fatal  commencement  of  the  march  of  the  Chaldean 
 host  would  have  a  mournful  significance,  which  it  could  not  have 
 for  a  writer  living  in  Jerusalem." 
 
 In  this  way  Kran.  has  thoroughly  vindicated  the  rendering  of 
 N3,  "  he  marched"  to  Jerusalem,  and  also  the  explanation  of  the 
 word  as  referring  to  the  setting  out  of  the  Chaldean  army  which 
 Hitz.,  Hofm.,  Staeh.,  Ziind.,  and  others  have  declared  to  be 
 opposed  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  and  "  impossible,"  and  at  the 
 same  time  he  has  set  aside  as  groundless  the  further  remark  of 
 Hitzig,  that  the  designation  of  the  time  also  applies  to  "i^'Jl-  If 
 N2  is  to  be  understood  of  an  expedition  with  reference  to  its  point 
 of  departure,  then  the  fixing  of  its  time  cannot  of  course  refer  also 
 to  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  expedition  at  its  termination  and 
 the  siege  then  ensuing.  The  time  of  its  arrival  before  Jerusalem, 
 as  well  as  the  beginning,  duration,  and  end  of  the  siege,  is  not 
 defined,  and  only  its  result,  the  taking  of  Jerusalem,  is,  according 
 to  the  object  of  the  author,  of  sufficient  importance  to  be  briefly 
 announced.  The  period  of  the  taking  of  the  city  can  only  be 
 determined  from  dates  elsewhere  given.  Thus  from  the  passages 
 in  Jeremiah  already  referred  to,  it  appears  that  this  happened  in 
 the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  in  which  year  Nebuchadnezzar 
 overcame  the  army  of  Necho  king  of  Egypt  at  the  Euphrates 
 (Jer.  xlvi.  2),  and  took  all  the  land  which  the  king  of  Egypt  had 
 subdued,   from   the   river   of  Egypt   to  the  Euphrates,   so    that 
 
64  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Pliaraoh-Neclio  came  no  more  out  of  his  land  (2  Kings  xxiv.  7). 
 With  this  agrees  Bcrosus  in  the  fragments  of  his  Chaldean  history 
 preserved  by  Josephus  (Ant.  x.  11.  1,  and  c.  Ap.  i.  19).  His  words, 
 as  found  in  the  latter  passage,  are  these  :  "  When  his  (Nebuc.) 
 father  Nabopolassar  heard  that  the  satrap  whom  he  had  set  over 
 Egypt  and  over  the  parts  of  Coelesyriaand  Plioenicia  had  revolted 
 from  him,  he  was  unable  to  bear  the  annoyance  any  longer,  but 
 committing  a  part  of  his  army  to  his  son  Nabuchodonosor,  who 
 was  then  a  vouth,  he  sent  him  against  the  rebel.  Nabuchodonosor 
 encountered  him  in  battle  and  overcame  him,  and  brouglit  the 
 land  again  under  his  dominion.  It  happened  that  his  father 
 Nabopolassar  at  this  time  fell  sick  and  died  at  the  city  of  Babylon, 
 after  he  had  reigned  twenty-one  years  (Berosus  says  twenty-nine 
 years).  But  when  Nabuchodonosor  not  long  after  heard  of  the 
 death  of  his  father,  he  set  the  affairs  of  Egypt  and  of  the  other 
 countries  in  order,  and  committed  the  prisoners  he  had  taken  from 
 the  Jews,  the  Phoenicians,  and  Syrians,  and  from  the  nations 
 belonging  to  Egypt,  to  some  of  his  friends,  that  they  might  conduct 
 the  heavy  armed  troops  with  the  rest  of  the  baggage  to  Babylonia, 
 while  he  himself  hastened  with  a  small  escort  through  the  desert  to 
 Babylon.  When  he  came  hither,  he  found  that  the  public  affairs 
 had  been  managed  by  the  Chaldeans,  and  that  the  principal  persons 
 among  them  had  preserved  the  kingdom  for  him.  He  now  obtained 
 possession  of  all  his  father's  dominions,  and  gave  directions  that  the 
 captives  should  be  placed  as  colonies  in  the  most  favourably  situ- 
 ated districts  of  Babylonia,"  etc.  This  fragment  illustrates  in  an 
 excellent  manner  the  statements  made  in  the  Bible,  in  case  one  be 
 disposed  to  estimate  the  account  of  the  revolt  of  the  satrap  placed 
 over  Egypt  and  the  countries  lying  round  Coelesyria  and  Phoenicia 
 as  only  the  expression  of  boastfulness  on  the  part  of  the  Baby- 
 lonish historian,  claiming  that  all  the  countries  of  the  earth  of  right 
 belonged  to  the  monarch  of  Babylon  ;  and  it  also  shows  that  the 
 rebel  satrap  could  be  none  other  than  Pharaoh-Necho.  For 
 Berosus  confirms  not  only  the  fact,  as  declared  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  7, 
 that  Pharaoh-Necho  in  the  last  year  of  Nabopolassar,  after  the 
 battle  at  Megiddo,  had  subdued  Judah,  Phoenicia,  and  Coelesyria, 
 i.e.  "  all  the  land  from  the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  river  Euphrates," 
 but  he  also  bears  witness  to  the  fact  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  after 
 he  had  slain  Pharaoh-Necho  (Jer.  xlvi.  2)  "  by  the  river  Euphrates 
 in  Carchemish,"  made  Coelesyria,  Phoenicia,  and  Judah  tributary 
 to  the  Chaldean  empire,  and  consequently  that  he  took  Jerusalem 
 
CHAP.  I.  ],  2.  65 
 
 not  before  but  after  the  battle  at  Carcliemisli,  in  prosecution  of 
 the  victory  he  had  obtained  over  the  Egyptians. 
 
 This  does  not,  however,  it  must  be  confessed,  prove  that  Jeru- 
 salem had  already  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  come  under  the 
 dominion  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Therefore  Hitz.  and  others  con- 
 clude from  Jer.  xxxvi.  9  that  Nebuchadnezzar's  assault  upon 
 Jerusalem  was  in  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
 as  yet  only  in  prospect,  because  in  that  month  Jeremiah  prophesied 
 of  the  Chaldean  invasion,  and  the  extraordinary  fast  then  appointed 
 had  as  its  object  the  manifestation  of  repentance,  so  that  thereby 
 the  wrath  of  God  might  be  averted.  This  Kran.  endeavours  to 
 prove  from  2  Kings  xxv.  27,  cf.  Jer.  lii.  31.  But  in  the  ninth 
 month  of  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  Jeremiah  caused  to  be  re- 
 hearsed to  the  people  in  the  court  of  the  temple  his  former  pro- 
 phecies, written  by  Baruch  in  a  book  according  to  the  commandment 
 of  the  Lord,  and  pronounced  the  threatening  against  Jehoiakim 
 because  he  had  cut  to  pieces  this  book  and  had  cast  it  into  the  fire, 
 Jer.  xxxvi.  29  ff.  This  threatening,  that  God  would  bring  upon  the 
 seed  and  upon  the  servants  of  Jehoiakim,  and  upon  the  inhabitants 
 of  Jerusalem,  all  the  evil  which  He  had  pronounced  auainst  them 
 (ver.  31),  does  not  exclude  the  previous  capture  of  Jerusalem  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  but  announces  only  the  carrying  out  of  the 
 threatened  judgment  in  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the 
 kingdom  of  Judali  to  be  as  yet  imminent. 
 
 The  extraordinary  fast  of  the  people  also,  which  was  appointed 
 for  the  ninth  month,  was  not  ordained  with  the  view  of  avert- 
 ing the  destruction  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 which  was  then  expected,  after  the  battle  at  Carchemish ;  for 
 although  fasts  were  sometimes  appointed  or  kept  for  the  pur- 
 pose of  turning  away  threatened  judgment  or  punishment  (e.g. 
 2  Sam.  xii.  15 ff.;  1  Kings  xxi.  27  ;  Esth.  iv.  1,  iii.  16),  yet,  in 
 general,  fasts  were  more  frequently  appointed  to  preserve  the 
 penitential  remembrance  of  punishments  and  chastisements  which 
 had  been  already  endured  :  cf.  e.g.  Zech.  vii.  5 ;  Ezra  x.  G  f . ; 
 Neh.  i.  4 ;  1  Sam.  xxxi.  13  ;  2  Sam.  i.  12,  etc.  To  ascertain, 
 therefore,  what  was  the  object  of  this  fast  which  was  appointed,  we 
 must  keep  in  view  the  character  of  Jehoiakim  and  his  relation  to 
 this  fast.  The  godless  Jehoiakim,  as  he  is  represented  in  2  Kings 
 xxiii.  37,  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  5,  and  Jer.  xxii.  13  ff.,  was  not  the  man 
 who  would  have  ordained  a  fast  (or  allowed  it  if  the  priests  had 
 wished  to  appoint  it)  to  humble  himself  and  his  people  before 
 
 £ 
 
66  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 God,  and  by  repentance  and  prayer  to  turn  away  the  threatened 
 judgment.  Before  he  could  ordain  a  fast  for  such  a  purpose, 
 Jehoiakim  must  hear  and  observe  the  word  of  the  prophet,  and  in 
 that  case  he  would  not  have  been  so  enraged  at  the  reading  of  the 
 prophecies  of  Jeremiah  as  to  have  cut  the  book  to  pieces  and  cast  it 
 into  the  fire.  If  the  fast  took  place  previous  to  the  arrival  of  the 
 Chaldeans  before  Jerusalem,  then  neither  the  intention  of  the  king 
 nor  his  conduct  in  regard  to  it  can  be  comprehended.  On  the 
 other  hand,  as  Ziind.  p.  21,  and  Klief.  p.  57,  have  shown,  both 
 the  ordaining  of  a  general  fast,  and  the  anger  of  the  king  at  the 
 reading  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  in  the  presence  of  the  people 
 in  the  temple,  are  well  explained,  if  the  fast  is  regarded  as  designed 
 to  keep  in  remembrance  the  day  of  the  year  on  which  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar took  Jerusalem.  As  Jehoiakim  bore  with  difficulty  the 
 yoke  of  the  Chaldean  oppression,  and  from  the  first  meditated  on 
 a  revolt,  for  after  three  years  he  did  actually  revolt,  he  instituted 
 the  fast  "  to  stir  up  the  feelings  of  the  people  against  the  state  of 
 vassalage  into  which  they  had  been  brought"  (Klief.),  "  and  to  call 
 forth  a  religious  enthusiasm  among  them  to  resist  the  oppressor " 
 (Ziind.).  This  opposition  could  only,  however,  result  in  the  de- 
 struction of  the  people  and  the  kingdom.  Jeremiah  therefore 
 had  his  prophecies  read  to  the  people  in  the  temple  on  that  day 
 by  Baruch  "  as  a  counterbalance  to  the  desire  of  the  king,"  and 
 announced  to  them  that  Nebuchadnezzar  would  come  again  to 
 subdue  the  land  and  to  destroy  from  out  of  it  both  man  and  beast. 
 "Therefore  the  king  was  angry,  and  destroyed  the  book,  because 
 he  would  not  have  the  excitement  of  the  people  to  be  so  hindered  ; 
 and  therefore  also  the  princes  were  afraid  (Jer.  xxxvi.  16)  when  they 
 heard  that  the  book  of  these  prophecies  was  publicly  read  "  (Klief.). 
 The  words  of  2  Kings  xxv.  27,  cf.  Jer.  Hi.  31,  do  not  contra- 
 dict this  conclusion  from  Jer.  xxxvi.  9,  even  though  that  drawn  by 
 Kran.,  p.  18,  from  this  passage  were  adopted,  viz.  that  since  almost 
 thirty-seven  whole  years  had  passed  from  the  carrying  away  of 
 Jehoiachin  to  the  end  of  the  forty-three  years  of  the  reign  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  but  Jehoiachin  had  reigned  only  for  a  few 
 months,  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar  must  be 
 dated  in  the  sixth  of  the  eleven  years'  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  the 
 predecessor  of  Jehoiachin.  For  since,  according  to  the  testimony 
 of  Berosus,  Nebuchadnezzar  conducted  the  war  against  Hither 
 Asia,  in  which  he  slew  king  Necho  at  Carchemish,  and  as  a  further 
 consequence  of  this  victory  took  Jerusalem,  before  the  death  of  his 
 
CHAP.  I.  1,  2.  67 
 
 father,  in  the  capacity  of  a  commander-in-chief  clothed  with  royal 
 power,  and  when  in  Hither  Asia,  as  it  seems,  and  on  the  confines 
 of  Egypt,  he  then  for  the  first  time  heard  tidings  of  his  father's 
 death,  and  tlierefore  hastened  by  the  shortest  road  to  Babylon  to 
 assume  the  crown  and  lay  claim  to  all  his  father's  dominions, — then 
 it  follows  that  his  forty-three  years'  reign  begins  after  the  battle  of 
 Carchemish  and  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  under  Jehoiakim,  and 
 might  possibly  have  begun  in  the  sixth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  some 
 five  months  after  the  ninth  month  of  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim 
 (Jer.  xxxvi.  9).  Against  this  supposition  the  circumstance  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  as  stated  in  Jer.  xlvi.  2,  xxv.  1,  and  also  Dan.  i.  1, 
 was  called  king  of  Babylon  before  he  had  actually  ascended  the 
 tlirone  is  no  valid  objection,  inasmuch  as  this  title  is  explained  as 
 a  prolepsis  which  would  be  easily  understood  by  the  Jews  in  Pales- 
 tine. Nabopolassar  came  into  no  contact  at  all  with  Judah ;  the 
 Jews  therefore  knew  scarcely  anything  of  his  reign  and  his  death  ; 
 and  the  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  approach  to  Jerusalem  would 
 be  regarded  in  a  general  way  both  by  Jeremiah  and  his  cotem- 
 poraries  as  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  and  the  commander  of  the 
 Chaldean  army  as  the  king  of  Babylon,  no  matter  whether  on 
 account  of  his  being  actual  co-regent  with  his  aged  and  infirm 
 father,  or  merely  because  he  was  clothed  with  royal  power  as  the 
 chief  commander  of  the  army.^  In  this  sense  Daniel  (ch.  i.  1) 
 names  him  who  was  afterwards  king,  at  a  time  when  he  was  not 
 yet  the  possessor  of  the  throne,  the  king  of  Babylon  ;  for  he  was  in 
 effect  the  king,  so  far  as  the  kingdom  of  Judah  was  concerned, 
 when  he  undertook  the  first  expedition  against  it. 
 
 But  the  reckoning  of  Kran.  is  also  not  exact.  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's ascending  the  throne  and  the  beginning  of  his  reign  would 
 only  happen  in  the  sixth  year  of  Jehoiakim  if  either  the  three 
 months  of  Jehoiachin  (37  years'  imprisonment  of  Jehoiachin  -{-  1 
 year's  reign  -}-  5  years  of  Jehoiakim  =  43  years  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar) are  to  be  reckoned  as  1  year,  or  at  least  the  11  years  of 
 Jehoiakim  as  11  full  years,  so  that  5|  years  of  Jehoiakim's  reio-n 
 must  be  added  to  the  37  years  of  Jehoiachin's  imprisonment  and 
 
 1  Thus  not  only  Hgstb.  Beitr.  i.  p.  63,  Hiiv.,  Klief.,  Kran.,  etc.,  but  also 
 V.  Lengerke,  Dan.  p.  3,  and  Hitz.  Da7i.  p.  3.  The  latter,  e.g.,  remarks  :  "  The 
 designation  as  king  does  not  furnish  any  obvious  objection,  for  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 the  commander-in-chief  of  the  army,  is  to  the  Jewish  writers  (thus  Jer.  xxv.  1) 
 a  king  when  he  first  comes  under  their  notice.  They  appear  to  have  had  no 
 knowledge  whatever  of  his  father  " 
 
G8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 the  3  montlis  of  liis  reign  so  as  to  make  up  the  43  years  of  tlie 
 reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  Tims  Jehoiakim  must  liave  reigned  5^ 
 years  at  the  time  when  Nebucliadnezzar  ascended  the  throne. 
 Whereas  if  Jehoiakim's  reign  extended"  only  to  10^  years,  which 
 were  reckoned  as  11  years  in  the  books  of  the  Kings,  according  to 
 the  general  method  of  recording  the  length  of  the  reign  of  kings, 
 then  Nebuchadnezzar's  ascending  the  throne  took  place  in  the  fifth 
 year  of  Jehoiakim's  reign,  or,  at  the  furthest,  after  he  had  reigned 
 4|  years.  This  latter  reckoning,  whereby  the  first  year  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's reign  is  made  to  coincide  with  the  fifth  year  of 
 Jeliolakim's,  is  demanded  by  those  passages  in  which  the  years  of 
 the  reign  of  the  kings  of  Judah  are  made  parallel  with  the  years 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  ;  viz.  2  Kings  xxiv.  12,  where  it  is  stated 
 that  Jehoiachin  was  taken  prisoner  and  carried  awaj*  captive  in 
 the  eighth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  also  Jer.  xxxii.  1,  where  the 
 tenth  year  of  Zedekiah  corresponds  with  the  eighteenth  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar ;  and  finally,  Jer.  lii.  5, 12,  and  2  Kings  xxv.  2,  8,  where 
 the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah  corresponds  with  the  nineteenth 
 year  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  According  to  all  these  passages,  the 
 death  of  Jehoiakim,  or  the  end  of  his  reign,  happened  either  in 
 the  eighth  year,  or  at  all  events  in  the  end  of  the  seventh  year,  of 
 the  reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  for  Jehoiachin  reigned  only  three 
 months ;  so  that  Nebuchadnezzar  reigned  six  full  years,  and  per- 
 haps a  few  months  longer,  as  contemporary  with  Jehoiakim,  and 
 consequently  he  must  have  mounted  the  throne  in  the  fifth  of  the 
 eleven  years  of  Jehoiakim's  reign.^ 
 
 The  above  discussion  has  at  the  same  time  also  furnished  us 
 with  the  means  of  explaining  the  apparent  contradiction  which  has 
 been  found  between  Dan.  i.  1  ff.  and  Dan.  ii.  1  ff.,  and  which  has 
 been  brought  forward  as  an  historical  error  in  argument  against  the 
 genuineness  of  the  book.  According  to  ch.  i.  3  ff.,  Nebuchadnezzar 
 after  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  commanded  that  young  Israelites  of 
 
 '  The  synchronistic  statements  iu  the  passages,  2  Kings  xxiv.  12,  xxv.  2.  8, 
 Jer.  xxxii.  1  and  lii.  5, 12,  might  indeed  be  interpreted  as  meaning,  that  in  them 
 the  years  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  are  reckoned  from  the  time  wiicn  his  father 
 entrusted  to  him  the  chief  command  of  the  army  at  the  breaking  out  of  the  war 
 with  Necho  (see  my  Commentary  on  2  Kings  xxiv.  12)  ;  but  in  that  case  the 
 years  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  reign  would  amount  to  44:|^  years,  viz.  37  years  of 
 Jehoiachin's  imprisonment,  3  months  of  his  reign,  and  7  years  of  Jehoiakim's 
 reign.  And  according  to  this  reckoning,  it  would  also  result  from  the  passages 
 referred  to,  that  the  beginning  of  his  43  years'  rcigu  happened  iu  the  fifth  year 
 of  Jehoiakim. 
 
CHAP.  1.  1, 2.  69 
 
 noble  birth  should  be  carried  away  to  Babylon,  and  there  educated 
 for  tlie  space  of  three  years  in  the  literature  and  wisdom  of  the 
 Chaldeans ;  and,  according  to  ch.  i.  18,  after  the  expiry  of  the 
 appointed  time,  they  were  brought  in  before  the  king  that  they 
 might  be  employed  in  his  service.  But  these  three  years  of  instruc- 
 tion, according  to  ch.  ii.  1  ff.,  expired  in  the  second  year  of  the 
 reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  when  Daniel  and  his  companions  were 
 ranked  among  the  wise  men  of  Babylon,  and  Daniel  interpreted  to 
 the  king  his  dream,  which  his  Chaldean  magi  were  unable  to  do 
 (ch.  ii.  13  ff.,  19  ff.).  If  we  observe  that  Nebuchadnezzar  dreamed 
 his  dream  "  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,"  and  that  he  entered  on 
 his  reign  some  time  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
 captivity  of  Jehoiakim,  then  we  can  understand  how  the  three 
 years  appointed  for  the  education  of  Daniel  and  his  companions 
 came  to  an  end  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign ;  for  if  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar began  to  reign  in  the  fifth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  then  in  the 
 seventh  year  of  Jehoiakim  three  years  had  passed  since  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem,  which  took  place  in  the  fourth  year  of  this  king. 
 For  the  carrying  away  of  the  Israelitish  youths  followed,  without 
 doubt,  immediately  after  the  subjugation  of  Jehoiakim,  so  that  a 
 whole  year  or  more  of  their  period  of  education  had  passed  before 
 Nebuchadnezzar  mounted  the  throne.  This  conclusion  is  not  set 
 aside  by  what  Berosus  affirms,  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  he  heard 
 of  the  death  of  his  father,  committed  the  captives  he  had  taken  from 
 the  Jews  to  the  care  of  some  of  his  friends  that  they  might  be 
 brought  after  him,  while  he  himself  hastened  over  the  desert  to 
 Babylon;  for  that  statement  refers  to  the  great  transport  of  prisoners 
 who  were  carried  away  for  the  colonization  of  Central  Asia.  As 
 little  does  the  consideration  that  a  twofold  method  of  reckoning  the 
 year  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  government  by  Daniel  is  improbable  mili- 
 tate against  this  reconciliation  of  the  discrepancy,  for  no  such  two- 
 fold method  of  reckoning  exists.  In  ch.  i.  the  year  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's reign  is  not  given,  but  Nebuchadnezzar  is  only  named  as 
 being  king;^  while  in  ch.  ii.  1  mention  is  made  not  merely  of  the 
 
 ^  If,  on  the  contrary,  Bleek  understands  from  Dan.  i.  1  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
 had  become  king  of  Babylon  in  the  third  year  of  Jehoiakim  at  Jerusalem,  whilst, 
 "  perhaps  only  with  the  design  of  making  the  pretended  opposition  between  ch. 
 i.  1  and  ii.  1  truly  evident,  he  understands  the  appositioual  designation  T]^D 
 ^22  as  a  more  definite  determination  of  the  meaning  of  the  verb  S3,  this  idea 
 finds  recommendation  neither  in  the  position  of  the  words,  nor  in  the  expression, 
 ch.  i.  3,  nor  in  the  accents."'    Kiauichfeld,  p.  19. 
 
70  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  but  of  the  second  year  of  his  reign, 
 from  which  it  appears  that  the  historian  here  reckons  from  the  actual 
 commencement  of  his  reign.  Also,  as  Klief.,p.G7,has  well  remarked, 
 one  may  "  easily  discover  the  ground  on  Avhich  Daniel  in  ch.  i.  1 
 followed  a  different  mode  of  reckoning  from  that  adopted  in  ch.  ii.  1. 
 In  ch.  i.  Daniel  had  to  do  with  Israelitish  circumstances  and  persons, 
 and  therefore  followed,  in  making  reference  to  Nebuchadnezzar,  the 
 general  Israelitish  mode  of  contemplation.  He  reckons  his  years 
 according  to  the  years  of  the  Israelitish  kings,  and  sees  in  him 
 already  the  king ;  on  the  contrary,  in  ch.  ii.  Daniel  treats  of  the 
 relations  of  the  world-power,  and  he  reckons  here  accurately  the  year 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  bearer  of  the  world-power,  from  the  day  in 
 which,  having  actually  obtained  the  possession  of  the  world-power, 
 he  became  king  of  Babylon." 
 
 If  we  now,  in  conclusion,  briefly  review  the  results  of  the  pre- 
 ceding discussions,  it  will  be  manifest  that  the  following  is  the  course 
 of  events  : — Necho  the  king  of  Egypt,  after  he  had  made  Jehoiakim 
 his  vassal  king,  went  forth  on  an  expedition  against  the  Assyrian 
 kingdom  as  far  as  the  Euphrates.  Meanwhile,  however,  with  the 
 dissolution  of  the  Assyrian  kingdom  by  the  fall  of  Nineveh,  the 
 part  of  that  kingdom  lying  on  this  side  of  the  Tigris  had  come 
 under  the  dominion  of  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  old  and  enfeebled 
 king  Nabopolassar  gave  to  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar  the  chief  com- 
 mand of  the  army,  with  the  commission  to  check  the  advance  of  the 
 Egyptians,  and  to  rescue  from  them  the  countries  they  had  occupied 
 and  bring  them  again  under  the  Chaldean  rule.  In  consequence 
 of  this,  Nebuchadnezzar  took  the  field  against  Hither  Asia  in  the 
 third  year  of  the  reign  of  Jehoiakim,  and  in  the  first  month  of  the 
 fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  slew  Pharaoh-Necho  at  Carchemish  and 
 pursued  his  army  to  the  confines  of  Egypt,  and  in  the  ninth  month 
 of  the  same  year  took  Jerusalem  and  made  king  Jehoiakim  his 
 subject.  "While  Nebuchadnezzar  was  busied  in  Hither  Asia  with 
 the  subjugation  of  the  countries  that  had  been  conquered  by 
 Pharaoh-Necho,  he  received  the  tidings  of  the  death  of  his  father 
 Nabopolassar  in  Babylon,  and  hastened  forward  with  a  small  guard 
 by  the  nearest  way  through  the  desert  to  Babylon  in  order  to  assume 
 the  government,  giving  directions  that  the  army,  along  with  the 
 whole  band  of  prisoners,  should  follow  him  by  slow  marches.  But 
 as  soon  as  the  Chaldean  army  had  left  Judea  and  returned  to 
 Babylon,  Jehoiakim  sought  how  he  might  throw  off  the  Chaldean 
 yoke,  and  three  years  after  his  subjugation  he  revolted,  probably  at 
 
CHAP.  I.  1,  2.  71 
 
 a  time  when  Nebuchadnezzar  was  engaged  in  establishing  his 
 dominion  in  the  East,  so  that  he  could  not  immediately  punish  this 
 revolt,  but  contented  himself  meanwhile  with  sending  against  Jehoia- 
 kim  the  armies  of  Chaldeans,  Syrians,  Moabites,  and  Ammonites, 
 whom  he  had  left  behind  on  the  confines  of  Judah.  They  were 
 unable,  however,  to  vanquish  him  as  long  as  he  lived.  It  was 
 only  after  his  son  Jehoiachin  had  ascended  the  throne  that  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, as  commander  of  the  army,  returned  with  a  powerful 
 host  to  Jerusalem  and  besieged  the  city.  While  the  city  was  being 
 besieged,  Nebuchadnezzar  came  in  person  to  superintend  the  war. 
 Jehoiachin  with  his  mother,  and  his  chief  officers  from  the  city, 
 went  out  to  surrender  themselves  to  the  king  of  Babylon.  But 
 Nebuchadnezzar  took  him  as  a  prisoner,  and  commanded  that  the 
 golden  vessels  of  the  temple  and  the  treasures  of  the  royal  palace 
 should  be  taken  away,  and  he  carried  the  king  with  the  great  men 
 of  the  kingdom,  the  men  of  war,  the  smiths  and  craftsmen,  as 
 prisoners  to  Babylon,  and  made  his  vassal  Mattaniah,  Jehoiachin's 
 uncle,  king  in  Jerusalem,  under  the  name  of  Zedekiah  (2  Kings 
 xxviii.  8-17).  This  happened  in  the  eighth  year  of  the  reign  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxiv.  12),  and  thus  about  six  years  after 
 Daniel  had  interpreted  his  dream  (ch.  ii.),  and  had  been  promoted 
 by  him  to  the  rank  of  president  of  the  wise  men  in  Babylon. 
 
 The  name  "ii*xnDi23  is  written  in  ver.  1  with  x,  as  it  is  uni- 
 formly in  Jeremiah,  e.g.  xxvii.  6,  8,  20,  xxviii.  3, 11, 12,  xxix.  i.  3, 
 and  in  the  books  of  the  Kings  and  Chronicles,  as  2  Kings  xxiv.  1, 
 10,  11,  XXV.  1,  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  10,  13  ;  whereas  in  Dan.  i.  18 
 it  is  written  without  the  X,  as  it  is  also  in  ch.  ii.  1,  28,  46,  iii.  1-3, 
 5  ff.,  and  Ezra  i.  7,  v.  12,  14,  Esth.  ii.  6.  From  this  circum- 
 stance Hitzig  concludes  that  the  statement  in  Daniel  is  derived 
 from  2  Kings  xxiv.  1,  because  the  manner  of  writing  the  name 
 with  the  N  is  not  peculiar  to  this  book  (and  is  not  the  latest 
 form),  but  is  that  of  2  Kings  xxiv.  1.  Both  statements  are  incor- 
 rect. The  writing  without  the  N  cannot  on  this  account  be  taken 
 as  the  latest  form,  because  it  is  not  found  in  the  Chronicles,  and 
 that  with  the  X  is  not  peculiar  to  the  second  book  of  Kings,  but  is 
 the  standing  form,  along  with  the  more  national  Babylonian  form 
 n^*xnn3i33  (with  v),  in  Jer.  xxi.  2,  7,  xxxii.  1,  xxxv.  11,  xxxix.  11, 
 Ezek.  xxvi.  7,  xxix.  18,  xxx.  10,  which,  according  to  Menant 
 (^Grammaire  Assyrienne,  1868,  p.  327),  is  written  in  Babylonian 
 inscriptions  Nahukudurriusur  ("iVX  113  U3,  i.e.  Nebo  coronam  servat), 
 the  inscription  of  Behistan  having  the  form  Nabukudratschara. 
 
72  THE  COOK  OF  DAKIEL. 
 
 Megastlienes  and  Berosus,  in  Polyhistor,  write  the  name  Na^ov- 
 Kohp6aopo<;.  The  writing  Nehucliadnezar,  with  n  and  without  the 
 N,  appears  to  be  the  Aramean  form,  since  it  prevails  in  the  Glial 
 dean  portions  of  Daniel  and  Ezra,  and  accounts  for  the  !Masoretic 
 pronunciation  of  the  word  (the  S  with  Dagesch  forte).  On  other 
 forms  of  the  name,  cf.  Niebuhr,  Gesch.  Assurs,  p.  41  f. 
 
 Ver.  2.  "  The  Lord  gave  Jelioiakhn  into  his  hands^^  corresponds 
 with  the  words  in  2  Kings  xxiv.  1,  "  he  became  his  servant,"  and 
 with  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  6,  "  and  he  bound  him  in  fetters."  "  And 
 part  of  the  vessels  of  the  house  of  Godr  riV|po  without  the  Dag. 
 forte,  meaning  properly  fi'om  the  end  or  extremity,  is  abbreviated 
 from  HYP  nj;  n^;i^a,  cf.  Jer.  xxv.  33,  Gen.  xlvii.  21,  Ex.  xxvi.  28, 
 and  shows  that  "  that  which  was  found  from  end  to  end  contri- 
 buted its  share ;  meaning  that  a  great  part  of  the  whole  was 
 taken,  although  DVp  of  itself  never  means  a  part"  (Kran.).  As 
 to  the  statement  of  the  text,  cf.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  7.  These  vessels 
 he  brought  (commanded  to  be  brought)  into  the  land  of  Shinar,  i.e. 
 Babylonia  (Gen.  x.  10),  into  the  temple  of  his  god,  i.e.  Bel,  and  in- 
 deed into  the  treasure-house  of  this  temple.  Thus  we  understand  the 
 meaning  of  the  two  latter  clauses  of  ver.  2,  while  Hitz.  and  Kran., 
 with  manyokler  interpreters,  refer  the  suffix  in  2^?"?'!  to  Jehoiakim, 
 and  also  to  the  vessels,  on  account  of  the  express  contrast  in  the 
 following  words,  D'^psn-nx')  (Kran.),  and  because,  if  it  is  not  stated 
 here,  it  is  nowhere  else  mentioned  that  Nebuchadnezzar  carried 
 away  men  also  (Hitz.).  But  the  latter  fact  is  expressly  affirmed 
 in  ver.  3,  and  not  only  supposed,  as  Hitz.  alleges,  and  it  was  not 
 necessary  that  it  should  be  expressed  in  ver.  2.  The  application 
 of  the  suffix  to  Jehoiakim  or  the  Jewish  youths  who  were  carried 
 captive  is  excluded  by  the  connection  of  D^^''^''  with  vn'^X  JV2^  into 
 the  house  of  his  god.  But  the  assertion  that  n''3,  house,  here  means 
 country,  is  not  proved  from  Hos.  viii.  1,  ix.  15,  nor  is  warranted  by 
 such  passages  as  Ex.  xxix.  45,  Num.  xxxv.  34,  Ezek.  xxxvii.  27, 
 etc.,  where  mention  is  made  of  God's  dwelling  in  the  land.  For 
 God's  dwelling  in  the  land  is  founded  on  the  fact  of  His  gracious 
 presence  in  the  temple  of  the  land,  and  even  in  these  passages  the 
 word  land  does  not  stand  for  the  word  house.  Equally  unfounded 
 is  the  further  remark,  that  if  by  the  expression  '^'^>y^.  ^"'5  the  temple 
 is  to  be  understood,  the  preposition  b^  would  stand  before  it,  for 
 which  Zech.  xi.  13,  Isa.  xxxvii.  23,  Gen.  xlv.  25  are  appealed  to. 
 But  such  passages  have  been  referred  to  without  observing  that 
 in  them  the  preposition  ^X  stands  only  before  living  objects,  where 
 
CHAP.  I.  3-7.  73 
 
 it  IS  necessary,  but  not  before  inanimate  objects,  such  as  0^3,  where 
 the  special  object  of  the  motion  is  with  sufficient  distinctness  de- 
 noted by  the  accusative.  The  words  following,  DvanTiKl,  fall  in 
 not  as  adversative,  but  explicative :  and  indeed  (or,  namely)  the 
 vessels  brought  he  into  the  treasure-house  of  his  god — as  booty.  The 
 carrying  away  of  a  part  of  the  vessels  of  the  temple  and  a  num- 
 ber of  the  distinguished  Jewish  youth  to  Babylon,  that  they 
 might  be  there  trained  for  service  at  the  royal  court,  was  a  sign 
 and  pledge  of  the  subjugation  of  Judah  and  its  God  under  the 
 dominion  of  the  kings  and  the  gods  of  Babylon.  Both  are  here, 
 however,  mentioned  with  this  design,  that  it  might  be  known 
 that  Daniel  and  his  three  friends,  of  whom  this  book  gives  fur- 
 ther account,  were  among  these  youths,  and  that  the  holy  vessels 
 were  afterwards  fatal  (ch.  v.)  to  the  house  of  the  Babylonian 
 king. 
 
 Vers.  3-7.  The  name  TJSK'X,  sounding  like  the  Old  Persian  Agp, 
 a  horse,  has  not  yet  received  any  satisfactory  or  generally  adopted 
 explanation.  The  man  so  named  was  the  chief  marshal  of  the 
 court  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  D''P^"!9  ^"i  (the  word  3i  used  for  "ib*,  vers. 
 7,  9,  belongs  to  the  later  usage  of  the  language,  cf.  Jer,  xxxix.  3) 
 means  chief  commander  of  the  eunuchs,  i.e.  overseer  of  the  serail, 
 the  Kislar  Aga,  and  then  in  a  wider  sense  minister  of  the  royal 
 palace,  chief  of  all  the  officers  ;  since  D"'"iD  frequently,  with  a  de- 
 parture from  its  fundamental  meaning,  designates  only  a  courtier, 
 chamberlain,  attendant  on  the  king,  as  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  36.  The 
 meaning  of  ^^^v'?,  more  definitely  determined  by  the  context,  is  to 
 lead,  i.e.  into  the  land  of  Shinar,  to  Babylon.  In  P'^'pl  V.??  Israel 
 is  the  theocratic  name  of  the  chosen  people,  and  is  not  to  be  ex- 
 plained, as  Hitz.  does,  as  meaning  that  Benjamin  and  Levi,  and 
 many  belonging  to  other  tribes,  yet  formed  part  of  the  kingdom 
 of  Judah.  10^  .  .  .  Vytp^,  as  well  of  the  seed  ,  .  .  as  also.  Ci''P^12  is 
 the  Zend,  frathema,  Sanscr.  prathama,  i.e.  persons  of  distinction, 
 magnates.  ^"'1^^.,  the  object  to  '^"'^n^,  designates  youths  of  from 
 fifteen  to  twenty  years  of  age.  Among  the  Persians  the  education 
 of  boys  by  the  iraiSd'ycoyai,  jSaaikeioL  began,  according  to  Plato 
 (Alcib.  i.  37),  in  their  fourteenth  year,  and  according  to  Xenophon 
 {Cyrop.  i.  2),  the  e<j)7]/3oL  were  in  their  seventeenth  year  capable  of 
 entering  into  the  service  of  the  king.  In  choosing  the  young  men, 
 the  master  of  the  eunuchs  was  commanded  to  have  regard  to  bodily 
 perfection  and  beauty  as  well  as  to  mental  endowments.  Freedom 
 from  blemish  and  personal  beauty  were  looked  upon  as  a  charac- 
 
74  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL, 
 
 teristic  of  moral  and  intellectual  nobility ;  cf.  Curtius,  xvli.  5,  29. 
 W^HJD,  blemish,  is  written  with  an  n,  as  in  Job  xxxi.  7. 
 
 Ver.  4.  -'^3"V''?,  skilful^  intelligent  in  all  wisdom,  i.e.  in  the  sub- 
 jects of  Chaldean  wisdom  (cf.  ver.  17),  is  to  be  understood  of  the 
 ability  to  apply  themselves  to  the  study  of  wisdom.  In  like 
 manner  the  other  mental  requisites  here  mentioned  are  to  be 
 understooil.  r\Vl  ''p^,  having  knowledge^  shoioing  understanding  ; 
 V'no  ''?."''?P7  po.sscs.«{?j(7  a  faculty  for  knowledge,  a  strength  of  judg- 
 ment. Cna  ni3  I'J'NIj  in  idiom  teas  strength,  i.e.  who  had  the  fitness 
 in  bodily  and  mental  endowments  appropriately  to  stand  in  the 
 palace  of  the  hing,  and  as  sei'vants  to  attend  to  his  commands. 
 ^'3'???''  (io  (each  them)  is  co-ordinate  with  X"'3np  (to  bring)  in  ver.  3, 
 and  depends  on  i^^'5  {and  he  spake).  For  this  service  they  must 
 be  instructed  and  trained  in  the  learning  and  language  of  the 
 Chaldeans.  IS?  refers  to  the  Chaldee  literature,  and  in  ver.  17 
 ■)SD"?3,  and  pti'p  to  conversation  or  the  power  of  speaking  in  that 
 language.  Ci"''nt:'3^  Chaldeans,  is  the  name  usually  given  (1)  to  the 
 inhabitants  of  the  Babylonian  kingdom  founded  by  Nabopolassar 
 and  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  (2)  in  a  more  restricted  sense  to  the  first 
 class  of  the  Babylonish  priests  and  learned  men  or  magi,  and  then 
 frequently  to  the  whole  body  of  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  ;  cf.  at 
 ch.  ii.  2.  In  this  second  meaning  the  word  is  here  used.  The 
 language  of  the  D''"ni^'3  is  not,  as  Eos.,  Hitz.,  and  Kran.  suppose, 
 the  Eastern  Aramaic  branch  of  the  Semitic  language,  which  is 
 usually  called  the  Chaldean  lanijuage  ;  for  this  tongue,  in  which 
 the  Chaldean  wise  men  answered  Nebuchadnezzar  (ch.  ii.  4  ff.),  is 
 called  in  ch.  ii.  4,  as  well  as  in  Ezra  iv.  7  and  Isa.  xxxvi.  11,  the 
 n^jp'iX,  Aramaic  (Si/riac),  and  is  therefore  different  from  the 
 language  of  the  2"'1y  r- 
 
 But  the  question  as  to  what  this  language  used  by  the  Chal- 
 deans was,  depends  on  the  view  that  may  be  taken  of  the  much 
 controverted  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  D"'1'frj  XaXBaioi. 
 Tiie  oldest  liistorical  trace  of  the  C'^V'S  lies  in  the  name  D''TJ'3  n^N 
 (Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  LXX.  %&)pa  rwy  XaXSaiwv),  the  place  from 
 which  Terah  the  father  of  Abraham  went  forth  with  his  family  to 
 Charran  in  the  north  of  Mesopotamia.  The  origin  of  Abraham 
 from  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  wdien  taken  in  connection  with  the  fact 
 (Gon.  xxii.  22)  that  one  of  the  sons  of  Nahor,  Abraham's  brother, 
 was  called  ^t^'^  {Chescd),  whose  descendants  would  be  called  Q^li^'?, 
 appears  to  speak  for  the  origin  of  the  C3*"^t^'3  from  Shem.  In  addi- 
 tion to  this  also,  and  in  support  of  the  same  opinion,  it  has  been 
 
CHAP.  I.  3-7.  75 
 
 noticed  that  one  of  Shem's  sons  was  called  I^^S'ix  (^Arplmxact). 
 But  the  connection  of  Itibsns  with  Tb'3  is  unwarrantable;  and  that 
 Nahor's  son  "tt"?  was  the  father  of  a  race  called  Dnb'3,  is  a  sup- 
 position which  cannot  be  established.  But  if  a  race  actually- 
 descended  from  this  nb'3,  then  they  could  be  no  other  than  tlie 
 Bedouin  tribe  the  D''"lti'3,  which  fell  upon  Job's  camels  (Job  i.  17), 
 but  not  the  people  of  the  Chaldees  after  whom,  in  Terah's  time, 
 Ur  was  already  named.  The  sojourn  of  the  patriarch  Abraham 
 in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees  finally  by  no  means  proves  that  Terah 
 himself  was  a  Chaldean.  He  may  have  been  induced  also  by  the 
 advance  of  the  Chaldeans  into  Northern  Mesopotamia  to  go  forth 
 on  his  wanderings. 
 
 This  much  is  at  all  events  unquestionable,  and  is  now  acknow- 
 ledged, that  the  original  inhabitants  of  Babylonia  were  of  Semitic 
 origin,  as  the  account  of  the  origin  of  the  nations  in  Gen.  x.  shows. 
 According  to  Gen.  x.  22,  Shem  had  five  sons,  Elam,  Asshur, 
 Arphaxad,  Lud,  and  Aram,  whose  descendants  peopled  and  gave 
 name  to  the  following  countries : — The  descendants  of  Elam  occu- 
 pied the  country  called  Elymais,  between  the  Lower  Tigris  and  the 
 mountains  of  Iran ;  of  Asshur,  Assyria,  lying  to  the  north — the 
 hilly  country  between  the  Tigris  and  the  mountain  range  of  Iran ; 
 of  Arphaxad,  the  country  of  Arrapachitis  on  the  Upper  Tigris,  on 
 the  eastern  banks  of  that  river,  where  the  highlands  of  Armenia 
 begin  to  descend.  Lud,  the  father  of  the  Lydians,  is  the  represen- 
 tative of  the  Semites  who  went  westward  to  Asia  Minor  ;  and  Aram 
 of  the  Semites  who  spread  along  the  middle  course  of  the  Euphrates 
 to  the  Tigris  in  the  east,  and  to  Syria  in  the  west.  From  this  M. 
 Duncker  (Gesch.  des  Altertli.)  has  concluded:  "According  to  this 
 catalogue  of  the  nations,  which  shows  the  extension  of  the  Semitic 
 race  from  the  mountains  of  Armenia  southward  to  the  Persian 
 Gulf,  eastward  to  the  mountains  of  Iran,  westward  into  Asia  Minor, 
 we  follow  the  Semites  along  the  course  of  the  two  great  rivers, 
 the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris,  to  the  south.  Northwards  from 
 Arphaxad  lie  the  mountains  of  the  Chasdim,  whom  the  Greeks 
 call  Chaldgei,  Carduchi,  Gordisei,  whose  boundary  toward  Armenia 
 was  the  river  Centrites." 
 
 "  If  we  find  the  name  of  the  Chaldeans  also  on  the  Lower 
 Euphrates,  if  in  particular  that  name  designates  a  region  on  the 
 western  bank  of  the  Euphrates  to  its  mouth,  the  extreme  limit  of 
 the  fruitful  land  watered  by  the  Euphrates  towards  the  Arabian 
 desert,  then  we  need  not  doubt  that  this  name  was  brought  from  the 
 
76  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Armenian  mountains  to  the  Lower  Euplirates,  and  that  it  owes  its 
 origin  to  the  mi<iration  of  these  Chaldeans  from  tlie  mountains. — 
 Berosus  uses  as  interchangeable  the  names  Chaldea  and  Babylonia 
 for  the  \Yhole  region  between  the  Lower  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris 
 down  to  the  sea.  But  it  is  remarkable  that  the  original  Semitic 
 name  of  this  region,  Shinar,  is  distinct  from  that  of  tlie  Chaldeans; 
 remarkable  that  tiie  priests  in  Shinar  were  specially  called  Chaldeans, 
 that  in  the  fragments  of  Berosus  the  patriarchs  were  already  desig- 
 nated Chaldeans  of  this  or  that  city,  and  finally  that  the  native  rulers 
 were  particularly  known  by  this  name.  We  must  from  all  this 
 conclude,  that  there  was  a  double  migration  from  the  north  to  the 
 regions  on  the  Lower  Euphrates  and  Tigris ;  that  they  were  first 
 occupied  by  the  Elamites,  who  came  down  along  the  Tigris;  and  that 
 afterwards  a  band  came  down  from  the  mountains  of  the  Chaldeans 
 along  the  western  bank  of  the  Tigris,  that  they  kept  their  fiocks  for 
 a  long  time  in  the  region  of  Nisibis,  and  finally  that  they  followed 
 the  Euplirates  and  obtained  superiority  over  the  earlier  settlers, 
 who  had  sprung  from  the  same  stem  (?),  and  spread  themselves 
 westward  from  the  mouth  of  the  Euphrates.  The  supremacy  which 
 was  thus  established  was  exercised  by  the  chiefs  of  the  Chaldeans ; 
 they  were  the  ruliiig  family  in  the  kingdom  which  they  founded  by 
 their  authority,  and  whose  older  form  of  civilisation  they  adopted." 
 If,  according  to  this,  the  Chaldeans  are  certainly  not  Semites, 
 then  it  is  not  yet  decided  whether  they  belonged  to  the  Japhetic 
 race  of  Aryans,  or,  as  C.  Sax  ^  has  recently  endeavoured  to  make 
 probable,  to  the  Hamitic  race  of  Cushites,  a  nation  belonging  to  the 
 Tartaric  (Turamic)  family  of  nations.     As  to  the  Aryan  origin, 
 
 1  In  the  Abhdl.  "on  the  ancient  history  of  Babylon  and  the  nationality  of 
 the  Cushites  and  the  Chaldeans,"  in  the  Deulsch.  morg.  Zl.schr.  xxii.  pp.  1-G8. 
 Here  Sax  seeks  to  prove  "that  the  Chaldeans,  identical  with  the  biblical  Chas- 
 dim,  were  a  tribe  ruling  from  ancient  times  from  the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  Black 
 Sea,  and  particularly  in  Babylonia,  which  at  length  occupied  the  southern  region 
 from  the  mouth  of  the  Euphrates  to  the  Armeneo-Pontine  range  of  mountains, 
 but  was  in  Babylonia  especially  represented  by  the  priest  caste  and  the  learned." 
 This  idea  the  author  grounds  on  tlie  identification  of  the  Bible  Cibshites  with  the 
 Scythians  of  the  Greeks  and  Ivomans,  the  evidence  for  which  is  for  the  most 
 part  extremely  weak,  and  consists  of  arbitrary  and  violent  combinations,  the 
 inconsistency  of  which  is  at  once  manifest,  a.s  e.y.  the  identification  of  the  D^'nb'3 
 with  the  D^nSoa,  Gen.  x.  14,  the  conclusions  drawn  from  Ezek.  xxix.  10  and 
 xxxviii.  5  f.  of  the  spread  of  the  Cushites  into  Arabia  and  their  reception  into 
 the  Scythian  army  of  the  nortiiern  Gog,  etc.  In  general,  as  Sax  presents  it, 
 this  supposition  is  untenable,  yet  it  contains  elements  of  truth  which  are  not  to 
 Le  overlooked. 
 
CHAP.  I.  3-7.  <  « 
 
 besides  the  relation  of  the  Chaldeans,  the  Gordigei,  and  the  Car- 
 duchi  to  the  modern  Kurds,  whose  language  belongs  to  the 
 Indo-Germanic,  and  indeed  to  the  Aryan  family  of  languages, 
 the  further  circumstance  may  be  referred  to  :  that  in  Assyria  and 
 Babylonia  the  elements  of  the  Aryan  language  are  found  in  very 
 ancient  times.  Yet  these  two  facts  do  not  furnish  any  conclusive 
 evidence  on  the  point.  From  the  language  of  the  modern  Kurds 
 being  related  to  the  Aryan  language  no  certain  conclusion  can  be 
 drawn  as  to  the  language  of  the  ancient  Chaldees,  Gordisei,  and 
 Carduchi ;  and  the  introduction  of  Aryan  words  and  appellations 
 into  the  language  of  the  Semitic  Assyrians  and  Babylonians  is  fully 
 explained,  partly  from  the  intercourse  which  both  could  not  but 
 maintain  with  Iranians,  the  Medes  and  Persians,  who  were  border- 
 ins  nations,  partly  from  the  dominion  exercised  for  some  time  over 
 Babylonia  by  the  Iranian  race,  which  is  affirmed  in  the  fragments 
 of  Berosus,  according  to  which  the  second  dynasty  in  Babylon  after 
 the  Flood  was  the  Median.  Notwithstanding  we  would  decide  in 
 favour  of  the  Aryan  origin  of  the  Chaldeans,  did  not  on  the  one 
 side  the  biblical  account  of  the  kingdom  which  Kimrod  the  Cushite 
 founded  in  Babel  and  extended  over  Assyria  (Gen.  x.  8-12),  and 
 on  the  other  the  result  to  which  the  researches  of  the  learned  into 
 the  antiquities  of  Assyria  regarding  the  development  of  culture  and 
 of  writing  in  Babylonia,^  make  this  view  very  doubtful. 
 
 1  The  biblical  tradition  regarding  the  kingdom  founded  by  Nimrod  in  Babel, 
 Duncker  (p.  204)  has  with  arbitrary  authority  set  aside,  because  it  is  irrecon- 
 cilable with  his  idea  of  the  development  of  Babylonian  culture.  It  appears, 
 however,  to  receive  confirmation  from  recent  researches  into  the  ancient  monu- 
 ments of  Babylonia  and  Assyria,  which  have  led  to  the  conclusion,  that  of  the 
 three  kinds  of  cuneiform  letters  that  of  the  Babylonian  bricks  is  older  than  the 
 Assyrian,  and  that  the  oldest  form  originated  in  an  older  hieroglyphic  writing, 
 of  which  isolated  examples  are  found  in  the  valley  of  the  Tigris  and  in  Susiana  ; 
 whence  it  must  be  concluded  that  the  invention  of  cuneiform  letters  did  not  take 
 place  among  the  Semites,  but  among  a  people  of  the  Tauranian  race  which  pro- 
 bably had  in  former  tunes  their  seat  in  Susiana,  or  at  the  mouth  of  the  Eu- 
 phrates and  the  Tigris  on  the  Persian  Gulf.  Cf.  Spiegel  in  Herz.'s  Picakncydop., 
 who,  after  stating  this  result,  remarks :  "  Thus  the  fact  is  remarkable  that  a 
 people  of  the  Turko -Tartaric  race  appear  as  the  possessors  of  a  high  culture, 
 while  people  of  this  tribe  appear  in  the  world's  history  almost  always  as  only 
 destitute  of  cultiu-e,  and  in  many  ways  hindering  civilisation  ;  so  that  it  cannot 
 but  be  confessed  that,  so  far  as  matters  now  are,  one  is  almost  constrained  to 
 imagine  that  the  state  of  the  case  is  as  follows,"  and  thus  he  concludes  his  history 
 of  cuneiform  writing :— "  Cuneiform  writing  arose  in  ancient  times,  several  thou- 
 sand years  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  very  probably  from  an  ancient  hieroglyphic 
 system  of  writing,  in  the  region  about  the  mouths  of  the  Euphrates  and  the 
 
78  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 If,  then,  for  the  present  no  certain  answer  can  be  given  to  tlie 
 question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  Clialdeans  and  the  nature  of  their 
 hmguage  and  writing,  yet  this  much  may  be  accepted  as  certain,  that 
 the  KaniTuan-e  and  writing  of  the  Dnb'D  was  not  Semitic  or  Aramaic, 
 but  that  the  Chaldeans  had  in  remote  times  migrated  into  Babylonia, 
 and  there  had  obtained  dominion  over  the  Semitic  inhabitants  of 
 the  land,  and  that  from  among  this  dominant  race  the  Chaldees,  the 
 priestly  and  the  learned  caste  of  the  Chaldeans,  arose.  This  caste 
 in  Babylon  is  much  older  than  the  Chaldean  monarchy  founded  by 
 Kebuchadnezzar. 
 
 Daniel  and  his  companions  were  to  be  educated  in  the  wisdom 
 of  the  Chaldean  priests  and  learned  men,  which  was  taught  in  the 
 schools  of  Babylon,  at  Borsippa  in  Babylonia,  and  Hipparene  in 
 Mesopotamia  (Strab.  xvi.  1,  and  Plin.  Hist.  Nat.  vi.  26).  Ver.  5. 
 To  this  end  Nebuchadnezzar  assigned  to  them  for  their  support 
 provision  from  the  king's  household,  following  Oriental  custom, 
 according  to  which  all  officers  of  the  court  were  fed  from  the 
 king's  table,  as  Athen.  iv.  10,  p.  69,  and  V\\xi.  prohl.  vii.  4,  testify 
 regarding  the  Persians.  This  appears  also  (1  Kings  v.  2,  3)  to 
 have  been  the  custom  in  Israel.  i0V3  OV  "in"n,  the  daily  portion, 
 cf.  Ex.  v.  13,  19  ;  Jer.  lii.  34,  etc.  Jsna  comes  from  path,  in 
 Zend,  'paiti^  Ssinscr.  prati=7r port,  ttjoo?,  and  hag,  in  Sanscr.  bhdga, 
 portion,  provision,  cf.  Ezek.  xxv.  7.  With  regard  to  the  composition, 
 cf.  the  ^2i\\sci\  pratihhdga,  a  portion  of  fruits,  flowers,  etc.,  which 
 the  liajah  daily  requires  for  his  household ;  cf.  Gildemeister  in 
 Lassen's  Zeits.f.  d.  Kunde  des  Morg.  iv.  1,  p.  214.  J^ns  therefore 
 means  neither  ambrosia,  nor  dainties,  but  generally  food,  victuals, 
 
 Tigris  on  the  Persian  Gulf.  It  was  found  existing  by  a  people  of  a  strange  race, 
 belonging  neither  to  the  Semites  nor  to  the  Indo-Germaus.  It  was  very  soon, 
 however,  adopted  by  the  Semites.  The  oldest  monuments  of  cuneiform  writing 
 belong  to  the  extreme  south  of  the  Mesopotamiau  plain.  In  the  course  of  time 
 it  pressed  northward  first  to  Babylon,  where  it  assumed  a  more  regular  form 
 than  among  the  Assyrians.  From  Assyria  it  may  have  come  among  the  Indo- 
 Germans  first  to  Armenia ;  for  the  si)ecimens  of  cuneiform  writing  found  in 
 Armenia  are  indeed  in  syllabic  writing,  but  in  a  decidedly  Indo-Germanic 
 language.  How  the  syllabic  writing  was  changed  into  letter-  (of  the  alphabet) 
 writing  is  as  yet  obscure.  The  most  recent  kind  of  cuneiform  writing  which 
 we  know,  the  Old  Persian,  is  decidedly  letter-writing."  Should  this  view  of 
 the  development  of  the  cuneiform  style  of  writing  be  confirmed  by  further  in- 
 vestigations, then  it  maybe  probable  that  the  Chaldeans  were  the  jiossessors  and 
 cultivators  of  this  science  of  writing,  and  that  their  language  and  literature  be- 
 longed neither  to  the  Semitic  nor  yet  to  the  Indo-Germauic  or  Aiyau  family 
 of  languages. 
 
CHAP.  I.  3-7.  79 
 
 food  of  flesh  and  meal  in  opposition  to  wine,  drink  (I^J^K'p  is 
 singular),  and  vegetables  (ver.  12). 
 
 The  king  also  limits  the  period  of  their  education  to  three 
 years,  according  to  the  Persian  as  well  as  the  Chaldean  custom. 
 ^^1^?^  does  not  depend  on  1^^^'^  (ver.  3),  but  is  joined  with  ]^\],  and 
 is  the  final  infinitive  with  1  explicative,  meaning,  and  that  he  may 
 nourish  them.  The  infinitive  is  expressed  by  the  fin.  verb  1"ipy^, 
 to  stand  before  (the  king).  The  carrying  out  of  the  king's  com- 
 mand is  passed  over  as  a  matter  of  course,  yet  it  is  spoken  of  as 
 obeyed  (cf.  ver.  6  f.). 
 
 Ver.  6.  Daniel  and  his  three  friends  were  among  the  young  men 
 who  were  carried  to  Babylon.  They  were  of  the  sons  of  Judah, 
 i.e.  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  From  this  it  follows  that  the  other 
 youths  of  noble  descent  who  had  been  carried  away  along  with 
 them  belonged  to  other  tribes.  The  name  of  none  of  these  is 
 recorded.  The  names  only  of  Daniel  and  his  three  companions 
 belonging  to  the  same  tribe  are  mentioned,  because  the  history 
 recorded  in  this  book  specially  brings  them  under  our  notice.  As 
 the  future  servants  of  the  Chaldean  king,  they  received  as  a  sign 
 of  their  relation  to  him  other  names,  as  the  kings  Eliakim  and 
 Mattaniah  had  their  names  changed  (2  Kings  xxiii.  34,  xxiv.  17) 
 by  Necho  and  Nebuchadnezzar  when  they  made  them  their 
 vassals.  But  while  these  kings  had  only  their  paternal  names 
 changed  for  other  Israelitish  names  which  were  given  to  them  by 
 their  conquerors,  Daniel  and  his  friends  received  genuine  heathen 
 names  in  exchange  for  their  own  significant  names,  which  were 
 associated  with  that  of  the  true  God.  The  names  given  to  them 
 were  formed  partly  from  the  names  of  Babylonish  idols,  in  order 
 that  thereby  they  might  become  wholly  naturalized,  and  become 
 estranged  at  once  from  the  religion  and  the  country  of  their 
 fathers.-^  Daniel,  i.e.  God  will  judge,  received  the  name  Belte- 
 shazzar,  formed  from  Bel,  the  name  of  the  chief  god  of  the 
 Babylonians.  Its  meaning  has  not  yet  been  determined.  Hananiahj 
 i.e.  the  Lord  is  gracious,  received  the  name  Shadrach,  the  origin 
 of  which  is  wholly  unknown  ;  Mishael,  i.e.  who  is  what  the  Lord 
 is,  was  called  Meshach,  a  name  yet  undeciphered  ;  and  Azariah, 
 i.e.  the  Lord  helps,  had  his  name  changed  into  Abedncgo,  i.e.  slave, 
 servant  of   Nego  or  Neho,  the  name  of   the  second  god  of   the 
 
 1  "  The  design  of  the  king  was  to  lead  these  youths  to  adopt  the  customs 
 of  the  Chaldeans,  that  they  might  have  nothing  in  common  ^yith  the  chosen 
 people."— Calvin. 
 
80  Tin:  BOOK  of  daniel. 
 
 Babylonians  (Isa.  xlvl.  1),  tlie  2  he\nrr  changed  by  the  influence  of 
 3  in  nay  into  3  (i.e.  Nego  instead  of  Neho). 
 
 Vers.  8-16.  The  command  of  the  king,  tliat  the  young  men 
 should  be  fed  ^Yith  the  food  and  wine  from  the  king's  table,  was  to 
 Daniel  and  his  friends  a  test  of  their  fidelity  to  the  Lord  and  to 
 His  law,  like  that  to  which  Joseph  was  subjected  in  Egypt,  corre- 
 sponding to  the  circumstances  in  which  he  was  placed,  of  his  fidelity 
 to  God  (Gen.  xxxix.  7  f.).  The  partaking  of  the  food  brought  to 
 them  from  the  king's  table  was  to  them  contaminating,  because 
 forbidden  by  law  ;  not  so  much  because  the  food  was  not  prepared 
 according  to  the  Levitical  ordinance,  or  perhaps  consisted  of  the 
 flesh  of  animals  which  to  the  Israelites  wore  unclean,  for  in  this 
 case  the  youths  were  not  under  the  necessity  of  refraining  from 
 the  wine,  but  the  reason  of  their  rejection  of  it  was,  that  the 
 heathen  at  their  feasts  offered  up  in  sacrifice  to  their  gods  a  part 
 of  the  food  and  the  drink,  and  thus  consecrated  their  meals  by  a 
 religious  rite ;  whereby  not  only  he  who  participated  in  such  a 
 meal  participated  in  the  worship  of  idols,  but  the  meat  and  the 
 wine  as  a  whole  were  the  meat  and  the  wine  of  an  idol  sacrifice, 
 partaking  of  which,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  apostle  (1  Cor. 
 X.  20  f.),  is  the  same  as  sacrificing  to  devils.  Their  abstaining 
 from  such  food  and  drink  betrayed  no  rigorism  going  beyond 
 the  Mosaic  law,  a  tendency  which  first  showed  itself  in  the  time 
 of  the  Maccabees.  What,  in  this  respect,  the  pious  Jews  did  in 
 those  times,  however  (1  Mace.  i.  62  f. ;  2  Mixcc.  v.  27),  stands  on 
 the  ground  of  the  law  ;  and  the  aversion  to  eat  anything  that  was 
 unclean,  or  to  defile  themselves  at  all  in  heathen  lands,  did  not  for 
 the  first  time  spring  up  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  nor  yet  in 
 the  time  of  the  exile,  but  is  found  already  existing  in  these 
 threatenings  in  Hos.  ix.  3  f.,  Amos  vii.  17.  Daniel's  resolution  to 
 refrain  from  such  unclean  food  flowed  therefore  from  fidelity  to 
 the  law,  and  from  stedfastness  to  the  faith  that  "man  lives  not 
 by  bread  only,  but  by  every  word  that  proceedeth  out  of  the  mouth 
 of  the  Lord"  (Deut.  viii.  3),  and  from  the  assurance  that  God 
 would  bless  the  humbler  provision  which  he  asks  for  himself,  and 
 would  by  means  of  it  make  him  and  his  friends  as  strong  and 
 vigorous  as  the  other  youths  who  did  eat  the  costly  provision  from 
 the  king's  table.  Firm  in  this  conviction,  he  requested  the  chief 
 chamberlain  to  free  him  and  his  three  friends  from  the  use  of  the 
 food  and  drink  brought  from  the  royal  table.  And  the  Lord  was 
 favourable  to  him,  so  that  his  request  was  granted. 
 
CHAP.  I.  8-16,  81 
 
 Ver.  9.  ''cn'?  inSj  to  procure  favour  for  any  one,  cf.  1  Kings  viii. 
 30,  Ps.  cvi.  4G,  Nell.  i.  11.  The  statement  that  God  gave  Daniel 
 favour  with  the  chief  chamberlain,  refers  to  the  fact  that  he  did 
 not  reject  the  request  at  once,  as  one  not  to  be  complied  with, 
 or  as  punishable,  but,  esteeming  the  religious  conviction  out  of 
 which  it  sprang,  pointed  only  to  the  danger  into  which  a  disregard 
 of  the  king's  command  would  bring  him,  thus  revealing  the 
 inclination  of  his  heart  to  grant  the  request.  This  willingness  of 
 the  prince  of  the  eunuchs  was  the  effect  of  divine  grace. 
 
 Ver.  10.  The  words  nsb  nc/X  =  m^bu  (Song  i.  7),  for  why 
 sJwuld  he  see  ?  have  the  force  of  an  emphatic  denial,  as  ^'a?  in 
 Gen.  xlvii.  15,  19,  2  Chron.  xxxii.  4,  and  as  nop  '•'n  in  Ezra  vii. 
 23,  and  are  equivalent  to  "  he  must  not  indeed  see."  D"'Dyt,  morose, 
 disagreeable,  looking  sad,  here,  a  pitiful  look  in  consequence  of 
 inferior  food,  corresponding  to  a-Kv6po)7r6<;  in  Matt.  vi.  16.  ''JQ  is 
 to  be  understood  before  ^^1^^77  according  to  the  comparatio  decur- 
 tata  frequently  found  in  Hebrew  ;  cf..  Ps.  iv.  8,  xviii.  34,  etc. 
 Dri3>ni  with  1  relat.  depends  on  nisp :  and  ye  shall  bring  into  danger, 
 so  that  ye  bring  into  danger.  t^'NTJlS  a>n,  make  the  head  guilty, 
 i.e.  make  it  that  one  forfeits  his  head,  his  life. 
 
 Vers.  11-16.  When  Daniel  knew  from  the  answer  of  the  chief 
 that  he  would  grant  the  request  if  he  were  only  free  from  personal 
 responsibility  in  the  matter,  he  turned  himself  to  the  officer  who 
 was  under  the  chief  chamberlain,  whom  they  were  immediately 
 subject  to,  and  entreated  him  to  make  trial  for  ten  days,  permitting 
 them  to  use  vegetables  and  water  instead  of  the  costly  provision 
 and  the  wine  furnished  by  the  king,  and  to  deal  further  with  them 
 according  as  the  result  would  be.  '^Vr^L',  having  the  article,  is  to 
 be  regarded  as  an  appellative,  expressing  the  business  or  the  callino- 
 of  the  man.  The  translation,  steicard  or  chief  cook,  is  founded 
 on  the  explanation  of  the  word  as  given  by  Haug  (Ewald's  hibl. 
 Jahrhh.  v.  p.  159  f.)  from  the  New  Persian  word  mel,  spirituous 
 liquors,  wine,  con'esponding  to  the  Zend,  madhu  (fiedv),  intoxicat- 
 ing drink,  and  1^  ^  gara,  Sanscr.  ciras,  the  head  ;  hence  overseer 
 over  the  drink,  synonymous  with  '^pi^'^l,  Isa.  xxxvi.  2. — XJ  DJ^  ^ry, 
 I  beseech  thee,  thy  servants,  i.e.  try  it  with  us,  ten  days.  Ten,  in  the 
 decimal  system  the  number  of  completeness  or  conclusion,  may, 
 according  to  circumstances,  mean  a  long  time  or  only  a  propor- 
 tionally short  time.  Here  it  is  used  in  the  latter  sense,  because  ten 
 days  are  sufficient  to  show  the  cifect  of  the  kind  of  food  on  the 
 appearance.     ^'V%  food  from  the  vegetable  kingdom,  vegetables, 
 
 F 
 
02  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 leguminous  fruit.  Ver.  13.  ^j'^>1P  is  singular,  and  is  used  with 
 1^^■)^  in  the  plural  because  two  subjects  follow,  nsiiri  "i^'SS,  as  thou 
 shalf.  see,  viz.  our  appearance,  i.e.  as  thou  shalt  then  find  it,  act 
 accordingly.  In  this  proposal  Daniel  trusted  in  the  help  of  God, 
 and  God  did  not  put  his  confidence  to  shame.^  The  youths  throve 
 so  visibly  on  the  vegetables  and  water,  that  the  steward  relieved 
 them  wholly  from  the  necessity  of  eating  from  the  royal  table. 
 Ver.  15.  "i?^'3  ''^?''"!?,  faf,  loell  nourished  in  fiesh,  is  grammatically 
 united  to  the  suffix  of  Dn^s:"i?Oj  from  which  the  pronoun  is  easily 
 supplied  in  thought.     Ver.  16.  N^':,  took  away  =  no  more  gave. 
 
 Vers.  17—21.  Tlie  progress  of  the  young  men  in  the  wisdom  of 
 the  Chaldeans,  and  their  appointment  to  the  service  of  the  king. 
 
 As  God  blessed  the  resolution  of  Daniel  and  his  three  friends 
 that  they  would  not  defile  themselves  by  the  food.  He  also  blessed 
 the  education  which  they  received  in  the  literature  (">???,  ver.  17 
 as  ver.  4)  and  wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans,  so  that  the  whole  four 
 made  remarkable  progress  therein.  But  besides  this,  Daniel  ob- 
 tained an  insight  into  all  kinds  of  visions  and  dreams,  i.e.  he 
 attained  great  readiness  in  interpreting  visions  and  dreams.  This 
 is  recorded  regarding  him  because  of  what  follows  in  this  book,  and 
 is  but  a  simple  statement  of  the  fact,  without  any  trace  of  vain- 
 glory. Instruction  in  the  wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans  was,  besides, 
 for  Daniel  and  his  three  friends  a  test  of  their  faith,  since  the 
 wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  was  closely 
 allied  to  the  Chaldean  idolatry  and  heathen  superstition,  which  the 
 learners  of  this  wisdom  might  easily  be  led  to  adopt.  But  that 
 Daniel  and  his  friends  learned  only  the  Chaldean  wisdom  without 
 adopting  the  heathen  element  which  was  mingled  with  it,  is  evi- 
 denced from  the  stedfastness  in  the  faith  with  which  at  a  later 
 period,  at  the  danger  of  their  lives  (cf.  Dan.  iii.  6),  they  stood  aloof 
 from  all  participation  in  idolatry,  and  in  regard  to  Daniel  in  parti- 
 cular, from  the  deep  glance  into  the  mysteries  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 which  lies  before  us  in  his  prophecies,  and  bears  witness  of  the  clear 
 
 ^  The  request  is  perfectly  intelligible  from  the  nature  of  living  faith,  with- 
 out our  having  rccoiuse  to  Calvin's  supposition,  that  Daniel  had  received 
 by  secret  revelation  the  assurance  that  such  would  be  the  result  if  he  and  his 
 companions  were  permitted  to  live  on  vegetables.  The  confidence  of  living 
 faith  which  hopes  in  the  preseute  and  help  of  God  is  fundamentally  different 
 from  the  eager  expectation  of  miraculous  interference  of  a  Maccabean  Jew, 
 which  C.  V.  Lengorke  and  other  deists  and  atheists  wish  to  find  here  iu  Daniel. 
 
CHAP.  I.  17-21.  83 
 
 separation  between  the  sucred  and  the  profane.  But  he  needed  to 
 be  deeply  versed  in  the  Chaldean  wisdom,  as  formerly  Moses  was 
 in  the  wisdom  of  Ecjypt  (Acts  vii.  22),  so  as  to  be  able  to  put  to 
 shame  the  wisdom  of  this  world  by  the  hidden  wisdom  of  God. 
 
 Ver.  18.  After  the  expiry  of  the  period  of  three  years  the 
 youths  were  brought  before  the  king.  They  were  examined  by 
 iiim,  and  these  four  were  found  more  intellifrent  and  discriminatinix 
 than  all  the  others  that  had  been  educated  along  with  them  (S??*?, 
 "  than  all,"  refers  to  the  other  Israelitish  youths,  ver.  3,  that  had 
 been  brought  to  Babylon  along  with  Daniel  and  his  friends),  and 
 were  then  appointed  to  his  service.  "^"^T.-,  as  in  ver.  5,  of  standing 
 as  a  servant  before  his  master.  The  king  found  them  indeed,  in  all 
 matters  of  wisdom  about  which  he  examined  them,  to  excel  all  the 
 wise  men  in  the  whole  of  his  kingdom.  Of  the  two  classes  of  the 
 learned  men  of  Chaldea,  who  are  named  instar  omnium  in  ver.  20, 
 see  at  ch.  ii.  2. 
 
 In  ver.  21  the  introduction  to  the  book  is  concluded  with  a 
 general  statement  as  to  the  period  of  Daniel's  continuance  in  the 
 office  appointed  to  him  by  God.  The  difficulty  which  the  explana- 
 tion of  ''i7*!l  offers  is  not  removed  by  a  change  of  the  reading  into 
 "'n';!!,  since  Daniel,  according  to  ch.  x.  1,  lived  beyond  the  first  year 
 of  Cyrus  and  received  divine  revelations.  HJ?  marks  the  terminus 
 ad  quern  in  a  wide  sense,  i.e.  it  denotes  a  termination  without 
 reference  to  that  which  came  after  it.  The  first  year  of  king  Cyrus 
 is,  according  to  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22,  Ezra  i.  1,  vi.  3,  the  end  of  the 
 Babylonish  exile,  and  the  date,  "  to  the  first  year  of  king  Cyrus," 
 stands  in  close  relation  to  the  date  in  ver.  1,  Nebuchadnezzar's 
 advance  against  Jerusalem  and  the  first  taking  of  the  city,  which 
 forms  the  commencement  of  the  exile;  so  that  the  statement,  '-Daniel 
 continued  unto  the  first  year  of  king  Cyrus,"  means  only  that  he 
 lived  and  acted  during  the  whole  period  of  the  exile  in  Babylon, 
 without  refei'ence  to  the  fact  that  his  work  continued  after  the 
 termination  of  the  exile.  Cf.  the  analogous  statement,  Jer.  i.  2  f., 
 that  Jeremiah  prophesied  in  the  days  of  Josiah  and  Jehoiakim  to 
 the  end  of  the  eleventh  year  of  Zedekiah,  although  his  book  con- 
 tains prophecies  also  of  a  date  subsequent  to  the  taking  of  Jeru- 
 salem. ^"^^^  stands  neither  for  '•n'jl,  he  lived,  nor  absolutely  in  the 
 sense  of  he  existed^  was  present ;  for  though  n\T  means  existere,  to 
 be,  3'et  it  is  never  used  absolutely  in  this  sense,  as  n^n^  to  live,  but 
 always  only  so  that  the  "  how "  or  "  where "  of  the  being  or 
 existence  is  either  expressly  stated,  or  at  least  is  implied  in  the 
 
84  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 connection.  Thus  here  also  the  qualification  of  the  "  being"  must 
 be  supplied  from  the  context.  The  expression  will  then  mean,  not 
 that  he  lived  at  the  court,  or  in  Babylon,  or  in  high  esteem  with 
 the  king,  but  more  generally,  in  the  place  to  which  God  had  raised 
 him  in  Babylon  by  his  wonderful  endowments. 
 
 PART  FIRST.— THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  WORLD-POWER. 
 Chap,  ii.-vii. 
 
 This  Part  contains  in  six  cha})ters  as  many  reports  regarding 
 the  successive  forms  and  the  natural  character  of  the  world-power. 
 It  begins  (ch.  ii.)  and  ends  (ch.  vii.)  with  a  revelation  from  God 
 recardiniT  its  historical  unfoldincj  in  four  ci'cat  world-kincrdoms 
 following  each  other,  and  their  final  overthrow  by  the  kingdom  of 
 God,  which  shall  continue  for  ever.  Between  these  chapters  (ii.  and 
 vii.)  there  are  inserted  four  events  belonging  to  the  times  of  the  first 
 and  second  world-kingdom,  which  partly  reveal  the  attempts  of  the 
 rulers  of  the  world  to  compel  the  worshippers  of  the  true  God  to 
 pray  to  their  idols  and  their  gods,  together  with  the  failure  of  this 
 attempt  (ch.  iii.  and  vi.),  and  partly  the  humiliations  of  the  rulers  of 
 the  world,  who  were  boastful  of  their  power,  under  the  judgments 
 of  God  (ch.  iv.  and  v.),  and  bring  under  our  consideration  the 
 relation  of  the  rulers  of  this  world  to  the  Almighty  God  of  heaven 
 and  earth  and  to  the  true  fearers  of  His  name.  The  narratives  of 
 these  four  events  follow  each  other  in  chronological  order,  because 
 they  are  in  actual  relation  bound  togethez",  and  therefore  also  the 
 occurrences  (ch.  v.  and  vi.)  which  belong  to  the  time  subsequent 
 to  the  vision  in  ch.  vii.  are  placed  before  this  vision,  so  that  the 
 two  revelations  regarding  the  development  of  the  world-power 
 form  the  frame  Avithin  which  is  contained  the  historical  section 
 which  describes  the  character  of  that  world-power. 
 
 CHAP.  II.  Nebuchadnezzar's  vision  of  the  wokld- 
 
 MONARCIIIES,  AND  ITS  INTERPRETATION  BY  DANIEL. 
 
 When  Daniel  and  his  three  friends,  after  the  completion  of 
 their  education,  had  entered  on  the  service  of  the  Chaldean  king, 
 Nebuchadnezzar  dreamed  a  dream  which  so  greatly  moved  him, 
 that  he  called  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  that  they  might  make 
 
CHAP.  II.  85 
 
 known  to  him  the  dream  and  give  the  interpretation  of  it ;  and 
 when  they  were  not  able  to  do  this,  he  gave  forth  the  command 
 (vers.  1-13)  that  they  should  all  be  destroyed.  But  Daniel 
 interceded  with  the  king  and  obtained  a  respite,  at  the  expiry  of 
 wdiich  he  promised  (vers.  14-18)  to  comply  with  his  demand.  In 
 answer  to  his  prayers  and  those  of  his  friends,  God  revealed  the 
 secret  to  Daniel  in  a  vision  (vers.  19-23),  so  that  he  was  not  only 
 able  to  tell  the  king  his  dream  (vers.  24-36),  but  also  to  give  him  its 
 interpretation  (vers.  37-45)  ;  whereupon  Nebuchadnezzar  praised 
 the  God  of  Daniel  as  the  true  God,  and  raised  him  to  high  honours 
 and  dignities  (vers.  46-49).  It  has  justly  been  regarded  as  a 
 significant  thing,  that  it  was  Nebuchadnezzar,  the  founder  of  the 
 world-power,  who  first  saw  in  a  dream  the  whole  future  develop- 
 ment of  the  world-power.  "  The  world-power,"  as  Auberlen 
 properly  remarks,  "  must  itself  learn  in  its  first  representative, 
 who  had  put  an  end  to  the  kingdom  of  God  [the  theocracy],  what 
 its  own  final  destiny  would  be,  that,  in  its  turn  overthrown,  it 
 would  be  for  ever  subject  to  the  kingdom  of  God."  This  circum- 
 stance also  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  him- 
 self understand  the  revelation  which  he  received,  but  the  prophet 
 Daniel,  enlightened  by  God,  must  interpret  it  to  liim.^ 
 
 ^  According  to  Bleek,  Lengerke,  Hitz.,  Ew.,  and  others,  tlie  whole  nar- 
 rative is  to  be  regarded  as  a  pure  invention,  as  to  its  plan  formed  in  imitation 
 of  the  several  statements  of  the  narrative  in  Gen.  xli.  of  Pharaoh's  dream  and 
 its  interpretation  by  Joseph  the  Hebrew,  when  the  Egyptian  wise  men  were 
 unable  to  do  so.  Nebuchadnezzar  is  the  copy  of  Pharaoh,  and  at  the  same  time 
 the  type  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  was  certainly  a  half-mad  despot,  as 
 Nebuchadnezzar  is  here  described  to  be,  although  he  was  not  so  in  reality.  But 
 the  resemblance  between  Pharaoh's  dream  and  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar  consists 
 only  in  that  (1)  both  kings  had  significant  dreamswhich  their  own  wise  men  could 
 not  interpret  to  them,  but  which  were  interpreted  by  Israelites  by  the  help  of 
 God  5  (2)  Joseph  and  Daniel  in  a  similar  manner,  but  not  in  the  same  words, 
 directed  the  kings  to  God  (cf.  Gen.  xli.  16,  Dan.  ii.  27,  28) ;  and  (3)  that  in 
 both  narratives  the  word  DJ?3  [_U''as  disquieted']  is  used  (Gen.  xli.  8,  Dan.  ii.  1,  3). 
 In  all  other  respects  the  narratives  are  entirely  different.  But  "the  resem- 
 blance," as  Hengst.  has  already  well  remarked  (^Beitr.  i.  p.  82),  "is  explained 
 partly  from  the  great  significance  which  in  ancient  times  was  universally 
 attached  to  dreams  and  their  interpretation,  partly  from  the  dispensations  of 
 divine  providence,  which  at  different  times  has  made  use  of  this  means  for 
 the  deliverance  of  the  chosen  people."  In  addition  to  this,  Kran.,  p.  70,  has 
 not  less  appropriately  said :  "  But  that  only  one  belonging  to  the  people  of  God 
 should  in  both  cases  have  had  communicated  to  him  the  interpretation  of  the 
 dream,  is  not  more  to  be  wondered  at  than  that  there  is  a  true  God  who  morally 
 and  spiritually  supports  and  raises  those  who  know  and  acknowledge  Him, 
 
86  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Vers.  1-13.  The  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the  inability  of 
 the  Chaldean  wise  men  to  interpret  it. — By  the  1  copulative  standiuu; 
 at  the  commencement  of  this  chapter  the  following  narrative  is 
 connected  with  ch.  i.  21.  "  We  shall  now  discover  what  the  youth- 
 ful Daniel  became,  and  what  he  continued  to  be  to  the  end  of  the 
 exile"  (Klief.).  The  plur.  niopn  (dreams,  vers.  1  and  2),  the  singu- 
 lar of  which  occurs  in  ver.  3,  is  not  the  plur.  of  definite  universality 
 (Hiiv.,  !Maur.,  Klief.),  but  of  intensive  fulness,  implying  that  the 
 dream  in  its  parts  contained  a  plurality  of  subjects.  CVS'"''?  (from 
 Dys,  to  thrust,  to  strike,  as  Dys^  an  anvil,  teaches,  to  be  tossed  hither 
 and  thither)  marks  great  internal  disquietude.  In  ver.  3  and  in  Gen. 
 xli.  8,  as  in  Ps.  Ixxvii.  5,  it  is  in  the  Niphal  form,  but  in  ver.  1  it  is  in 
 Hithp.,  on  which  Kran.  finely  remarks  :  "  The  Hithpael  heightens 
 the  conception  of  internal  unquiet  lying  in  the  Niphal  to  the  idea 
 that  it  makes  itself  outwardly  manifest."  His  sleep  was  gone. 
 This  is  evidenced  without  doubt  by  the  last  clause  of  ver.  1,  '"in^n: 
 Ivy.  These  interpretations  are  altogether  wrong  : — "  His  sleep  came 
 upon  him,  i.e.  he  began  again  to  sleep"  (Calvin)  ;  or  "  his  sleep  was 
 against  him,"  i.e.  was  an  aversion  to  him,  was  troublesome  (L.  de 
 Dieu) ;  or,  as  Hav.  also  interprets  it,  "  his  sleep  offended  him,  or 
 was  like  a  burden  heavy  upon  him ; "  for  n^nj  does  not  mean  to  fall, 
 and  thus  does  not  agree  with  the  thought  expressed.  The  Niph. 
 nviJ  means  to  have  become,  been,  happeJied.  The  meaning  has  already 
 been  rightly  expressed  by  Theodoret  in  the  words  iyevero  utt  avrov, 
 
 according  to  psychological  laws,  even  in  a  peculiar  ■way."  Moreover,  if  the  word 
 Dys  was  really  borrowed  from  Gen.  xli.  8,  that  would  prove  nothing  more  than 
 that  Daniel  had  read  the  books  of  Moses.  But  the  grounds  on  which  the  above- 
 named  critics  wish  to  prove  the  unhistorical  character  of  this  narrative  are 
 formed  partly  from  a  superficial  consideration  of  the  whole  narrative  and  a  mani- 
 festly false  interpretation  of  separate  parts  of  it,  and  partly  from  the  dogmatic 
 prejudice  that  "  a  particular  foretelling  of  a  remote  future  is  not  the  nature  of 
 Hebrew  prophecy,"  i.e.  in  other  words,  that  there  is  no  prediction  arising  from 
 a  supernatural  revelation.  Against  the  other  grounds  Kran.  has  already  very 
 truly  remarked:  "  That  the  narrative  of  the  actual  circumstances  wants  (of.  Ilitz. 
 p.  17)  proportion  and  unity,  is  not  corroborated  by  a  just  view  of  the  situation  ; 
 the  wliole  statement  rather  leaves  the  impression  of  a  lively,  fresh  iinmediateness, 
 in  which  a  careful  consideration  of  the  circumstances  easily  furnishes  the  means 
 for  filling  up  the  details  of  the  brief  sketch."  Hence  it  follows  that  the  contents 
 of  the  dream  show  not  the  least  resemblance  to  Pharaoh's  dream,  and  in  the 
 whole  story  there  is  no  trace  seen  of  a  hostile  relation  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
 his  courtiers  to  Judaism  ;  nay  rather  Nebuchadnezzar's  relation  to  the  God  of 
 Daniel  presents  a  decided  contrast  to  the  mad  rage  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 against  the  Jewish  reliiriou. 
 
CHAP.  II.  1-13.  87 
 
 and  in  the  Vulgate  by  the  words  "  fxgit  ah  illo;^''  and  Berth.,  Ges., 
 and  others  have  with  equal  propriety  remarked,  that  "^n^nj  inJC^  cor- 
 responds in  meaning  with  rn3  HriVk^,  ch.  vi.  19  (18),  and  W^  '""ll^,, 
 Esth.  vi.  1.  This  sense,  to  have  been,  however,  does  not  conduct  to 
 the  meaning  given  by  Klief . :  his  sleep  had  been  upon  him ;  it  was 
 therefore  no  more,  it  had  gone ;  for  "  to  have  been  "  is  not  "  to  be 
 no  more,"  but  "  to  be  finished,"  past,  gone.  This  meaning  is  con- 
 firmed by  ^nV.O^j  ch.  viii.  27  :  it  was  done  xvith  me,  I  was  gone.  The 
 Ivy  stands  not  for  the  dative,  but  retains  the  meaning,  over,  upon, 
 expressing  the  influence  on  the  mind,  as  e.g.  Jer.  viii.  18,  Hos. 
 xi.  8,  Ps.  xlii.  6,  7,  12,  xliii.  5,  etc.,  which  in  German  we  express 
 by  the  word  bei  or  fiir. 
 
 The  reason  of  so  great  disquietude  we  may  not  seek  in  the  cir- 
 cumstance that  on  awaking  he  could  not  remember  the  dream.  Thi' 
 follows  neither  from  ver.  3,  nor  is  it  psychologically  probable  that 
 so  impressive  a  dream,  which  on  awaking  he  had  forgotten,  should 
 have  yet  sorely  disquieted  his  spirit  during  his  waking  hours. 
 "  The  disquiet  was  created  in  him,  as  in  Pharaoh  (Gen.  xli.), 
 by  the  specially  striking  incidents  of  the  dream,  and  the  fearful, 
 alarming  apprehensions  with  reference  to  his  future  fate  connected 
 therewith"  (Kran.). 
 
 Ver.  2.  In  the  disquietude  of  his  spirit  the  king  commanded  all 
 his  astrologers  and  wise  men  to  come  to  him,  four  classes  of  whom 
 are  mentioned  in  this  verse.  1.  The  D^SD")!!,  who  w^ere  found  also  in 
 Egypt  (Gen.  xli.  24).  They  are  so  named  from  t3"in,  a  "  stylus  " — 
 those  who  went  about  with  the  stylus,  the  priestly  class  of  the  lepo- 
 fypaixiMareh,  those  learned  in  the  sacred  writings  and  in  literature. 
 2.  The  Q''?!^'^?,  conjurers,  from  ^XK^  or  ^^J,  to  breathe,  to  blow,  to 
 whisper ;  for  they  practised  their  incantations  by  movements  of  the 
 
 breath,  as  is  shown  by  the  Arabic  (.2^.,  fiavit  ut  prcestigiator  in 
 
 nexos  a  se  nodos,  incantavit,  with  which  it  is  compared  by  Hitz.  and 
 Kran.  3.  The  D^S^^D,  magicians,  found  also  in  Egypt  (Ex.  vii.  11), 
 and,  according  to  Isa.  xlvii.  9,  12,  a  powerful  body  in  Babylon.  4. 
 The  Q"''^"^'?,  the  priest  caste  of  the  Chaldeans,  who  are  named,  vers. 
 4,  10,  and  ch.  i.  4,  instar  omnium  as  the  most  distinguished  class 
 among  the  Babylonian  wise  men.  According  to  Herod,  i.  171,  and 
 Diod.  Sic.  ii.  24,  the  Chaldeans  appear  to  have  formed  the  priest- 
 hood in  a  special  sense,  or  to  have  attended  to  the  duties  specially 
 devolving  on  the  priests.  This  circumstance,  that  amongst  an 
 Aramaic  people  the  priests  in  a  stricter  sense  were  called  Chaldeans, 
 
88  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 is  explained,  as  at  p.  78,  from  the  fact  of  the  ancient  supremacy  of 
 the  Chaldean  people  in  Babylonia. 
 
 Besides  these  four  classes  there  is  also  a  fifth,  ver.  27,  ch.  iv.  4 
 (7),  V.  7,  11,  called  the  P.|3,  the  astrologers,  not  haruspices,  from  "iT3, 
 *'  to  cut  flesh  to  pieces,"  but  the  determiners  oi  the  n"iT3,  the  fatum  or 
 the/a^a,  who  announced  events  by  the  appearances  of  the  heavens 
 (cf.  Isa.  xlvii.  13),  the  forecasters  of  nativities,  horoscopes,  who 
 determined  the  fate  of  men  from  the  position  and  the  movement  of 
 the  stars  at  the  time  of  their  birth.     These  different  classes  of  the 
 priests  and  the  learned  are  comprehended,  ver.  12  ff.,  under  the 
 general  designation  of  rp"'?n  (cf.  also  Isa.  xliv.  25,  Jer.  1.  35),  and 
 they  formed  a  crvar'qfia^  i.e.  collegium  (Diod.  Sic.  ii.  31),  under  a 
 president  (P^^P  ^i,  ver.  48),  who  occupied  a  high  place  in  the  state  ; 
 \:.ee  at  ver.  48.      These  separate  classes  busied  themselves,  without 
 doubt,  with  distinct  branches  of  the  Babylonian  wisdom.     While 
 each  class  cultivated  a  separate  department,  yet  it  was  not  exclu- 
 sively, but  in  such  a  manner  that  the  activities  of  the  several  classes 
 intermingled  in  many  ways.     This  is  clearly  seen   from  what  is 
 said  of  Daniel  and  his  companions,  that  they  were  trained  in  all 
 the  wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans  (ch.  i.  17),  and  is  confirmed  by  the 
 testimony  of  Diod.  Sic.  (ii.  29),  that  the  Chaldeans,  who  held  almost 
 the  same  place  in  the  state  that  the  priests  in  Egypt  did,  while 
 applying  themselves  to  the  service  of  the  gods,  sought  their  greatest 
 glory  in  the  study  of  astrology,  and  also  devoted  themselves  mucii 
 to  prophecy,  foretelling  future  things,  and  by  means  of  lustrations, 
 sacrifices,  and  incantations  seeking  to  turn  away  evil  and  to  secure 
 that  which  was  good.     They  possessed  the  knowdedge  of  divination 
 from  omens,  of  expounding  of  dreams  and  prodigies,  and  of  skil- 
 fully casting  horoscopes. 
 
 That  he  might  receive  an  explanation  of  his  dream,  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar commanded  all  the  classes  of  the  priests  and  men  skilled  in 
 wisdom  to  be  brought  before  him,  because  in  an  event  which  was 
 to  him  so  weighty  he  must  not  only  ascertain  the  facts  of  the  case, 
 but  should  the  dream  announce  some  misfortune,  he  must  also 
 adopt  the  means  for  averting  it.  In  order  that  the  correctness  of 
 the  explanation  of  the  dream  might  be  ascertained,  the  stars  must 
 be  examined,  and  perhaps  other  means  of  divination  must  be  re- 
 sorted to.  The  proper  priests  could  by  means  of  sacrifices  make 
 the  gods  favourable,  and  the  conjurers  and  magicians  by  their  arts 
 endeavour  to  avert  the  threatened  misfortune. 
 
 Ver.  3.  As  to  the  king's  demand,  it  is  uncertain  whether  he 
 
CHAP.  II.  1-13.  89 
 
 wislied  to  know  the  dream  itself  or  its  import.  The  wise  men 
 (ver.  4)  understood  his  words  as  if  he  desired  only  to  know  the 
 meaning  of  it ;  but  the  king  replied  (ver.  5  ff.)  that  they  must  tell 
 him  both  the  dream  and  its  interpretation.  But  this  request  on 
 the  part  of  the  king  does  not  quite  prove  that  he  had  forgotten  the 
 dream,  as  Bleek,  v.  Leng.,  and  others  maintain,  founding  thereon 
 the  objection  against  the  historical  veracity  of  the  narrative,  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar's  demand  that  the  dream  should  be  told  to  him 
 was  madness,  and  that  there  was  no  sufficient  reason  for  his  rage 
 (ver.  12).  On  the  contrary,  that  the  king  had  not  forgotten 
 his  dream,  and  that  there  remained  only  some  oppressive  recol- 
 lection that  he  had  dreamed,  is  made  clear  from  ver.  9,  where 
 the  king  says  to  the  Chaldeans,  "  If  ye  cannot  declare  to  me  the 
 dream,  ye  have  taken  in  hand  to  utter  deceitful  words  before  me ; 
 therefore  tell  me  the  dream,  that  I  may  know  that  ye  will  give  to 
 me  also  the  interpretation."  According  to  this,  Nebuchadnezzar 
 wished  to  hear  the  dream  from  the  wise  men  that  he  might  thus 
 have  a  guarantee  for  the  correctness  of  the  interpretation  which 
 they  might  give.  He  could  not  thus  have  spoken  to  them  if  he 
 had  wholly  forgotten  the  dream,  and  had  only  a  dark  apprehension 
 remaining  in  his  mind  tliat  he  had  dreamed.  In  this  case  he 
 would  neither  have  offered  a  great  reward  for  the  announcement  of 
 the  dream,  nor  have  threatened  severe  punishment,  or  even  death, 
 for  failure  in  announcing  it.  For  then  he  would  only  have  given 
 the  Chaldeans  the  opportunity,  at  the  cost  of  truth,  of  declaring 
 any  dream  with  an  interpretation.  But  as  threatening  and  promise 
 on  the  part  of  the  king  in  that  case  would  have  been  unwise,  so 
 also  on  the  side  of  the  wise  men  their  helplessness  in  complying 
 with  the  demand  of  the  king  would  have  been  incomprehensible. 
 If  the  king  had  truly  forgotten  the  dream,  they  had  no  reason  to 
 be  afraid  of  their  lives  if  they  had  given  some  self-conceived 
 dream  with  an  interpretation  of  it ;  for  in  that  case  he  could  not 
 have  accused  them  of  falsehood  and  deceit,  and  punished  them  on 
 that  account.  If,  on  the  contrary,  he  still  knew  the  dream  which 
 so  troubled  him,  and  the  contents  of  which  he  desired  to  hear  from 
 the  Chaldeans,  so  that  he  might  put  them  to  the  proof  whether  he 
 might  trust  in  their  interpretation,  then  neither  his  demand  nor 
 the  severity  of  his  proceeding  was  irrational.  "  The  magi  boasted 
 that  by  the  help  of  the  gods  they  could  reveal  deep  and  hidden 
 things.  If  this  pretence  is  well  founded — so  concluded  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar— then  it  must  be  as  easy  for  them  to  make  known  to 
 
90  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 me  my  dream  as  its  interpretation ;  and  since  they  could  not  do 
 the  former,  he  as  rightly  held  them  to  be  deceivers,  as  the  people 
 did  the  priests  of  Baal  (1  Kings  xviii,)  because  their  gods  an- 
 swered not  by  fire."     Hengst, 
 
 Ver.  4.  The  Chaldeans,  as  speaking  for  the  whole  company, 
 understand  the  word  of  the  king  in  the  sense  most  favourable  for 
 themselves,  and  they  ask  the  king  to  tell  them  the  dream.  ^"^^T.) 
 for  'ii^'^'l,  which  as  a  rule  stands  before  a  quotation,  is  occasioned  by 
 the  addition  of  JT^JplX,  and  the  words  which  follow  are  zeugmati- 
 cally  joined  to  it.  Aramaic,  i.e.  in  the  native  language  of  Bab}'- 
 lonia,  where,  according  to  Xenoph.  (Cyrop.  vii.  5),  the  Si/riac,  i.e.. 
 the  Eastern  Aramaic  dialect,  was  spoken.  From  the  statement  here, 
 that  the  Chaldeans  spoke  to  the  king  in  Aramaic,  one  must  not 
 certainly  conclude  that  Nebuchadnezzar  spoke  the  Aryan-Chaldaic 
 language  of  his  race.  The  remark  refers  to  the  circumstance 
 that  the  following  words  are  recorded  in  the  Aramaic,  as  Ezra  iv. 
 7.  Daniel  wrote  this  and  the  following  chapters  in  Aramaic,  that 
 he  might  give  the  prophecy  regarding  the  world-power  in  the  lan- 
 guage of  the  world-power,  which  under  the  Chaldean  dynasty  was 
 native  in  Babylon,  the  Eastern  Aramaic.  The  formula,  "  O  king, 
 live  for  ever,"  was  the  usual  salutation  when  the  king  was  ad- 
 dressed, both  at  the  Chaldean  and  the  Persian  court  (cf.  ch.  iii.  9, 
 v.  10,  vi.  7,  22  [6,  21]  ;  Neh.  ii.  3).  In  regard  to  the  Persian 
 court,  see  iElian,  var.  hist.  i.  32.  With  the  kings  of  Israel  this  form 
 of  salutation  was  but  rarely  used:  1  Sam.  x.  24;  1  Kings  i.  31. 
 The  Ketldv  (text)  ^''^^ypj  with  Jod  before  the  suffix,  supposes  an 
 original  form  ^Hr^i^-'  here,  as  at  ver.  26,  ch.  iv.  16,  22,  but  it 
 is  perhaps  only  the  etymological  mode  of  writing  for  the  form 
 with  a  long,  analogous  to  the  Hebr.  suffix  form  vy  for  iy,  since 
 the  Jod.  is  often  wanting  ;  cf.  ch.  iv.  24,  v.  10,  etc.  A  form 
 N^X—  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  form  ^f^y^i'^  ;  the  Keri  (margin) 
 substitutes  the  usual  Chaldee  form  ''^^'^J?'?  from  NK'nb'S,  with  the  in- 
 sertion of  the  litera  quiescib.  '',  homog.  to  the  quies.  e,  while  in  the 
 Kethiv  the  original  Jod  of  the  sing.  ^li^3  is  retained  instead  of  the 
 substituted  N,  thus  '^.''.'^t^'?.  This  reading  is  perfectly  warranted 
 (cf.  ch.  iii.  2,  8,  24  ;  Ezra  iv.  12,  13)  by  the  analogous  method 
 of  formation  of  the  stat.  emphat.  plur.  in  existing  nouns  in  ""—  in 
 biblical  Chaldee. 
 
 Ver.  5.  The  meaning  of  the  king's  answer  shapes  itself  diffe- 
 rently according  to  the  different  explanations  given  of  the  words 
 K'lTN  ^30  nnpp.    The  word  ^^^J^?,  which  occurs  only  again  in  the  same 
 
CHAP.  II.  1-13.  91 
 
 phrase  in  ver.  8,  is  regarded,  in  accordance  with  the  translations  of 
 Tiieodot.,  o  X0709  air  ifj-ov  airearri,  and  of  the  Vulg.,  "ser7iio  recessit 
 a  me"  as  a  verb,  and  as  of  like  meaning  with  ?ts,  "  to  go  away  or 
 depart,"  and  is  therefore  rendered  by  M.  Geier,  Berth.,  and  others 
 in  the  sense,  "  the  dream  has  escaped  from  me  ;"  but  Ges.,  Hav., 
 and  many  older  interpreters  translate  it,  on  the  contrary,  "  the 
 command  is  gone  out  from  me."  But  without  taking  into  account 
 that  the  punctuation  of  the  word  NIT^  is  not  at  all  that  of  a 
 verb,  for  this  form  can  neither  be  a  particip.  nor  the  3d  pers.  pret. 
 fem.,  no  acknowledgment  of  the  dream's  having  escaped  from  hhn 
 is  made  ;  for  such  a  statement  would  contradict  what  was  said  at 
 ver.  3,  and  would  not  altogether  agree  with  the  statement  of  ver.  8. 
 nnpo  is  not  the  dream.  Besides,  the  supposition  that  IIX  is  equiva- 
 lent to  PTX,  to  go  away,  depart,  is  not  tenable.  The  change  of 
 the  b  into  1  is  extremely  rare  in  the  Semitic,  and  is  not  to  be 
 assumed  in  the  "word  blX,  since  Daniel  himself  uses  ?T^i|,  ch.  ii.  17, 
 24,  vi.  19,  20,  and  also  Ezra,  iv.  23,  v.  8,  15.  Moreover  ^tx 
 has  not  the  meaning  of  t'^'J,  to  go  out,  to  take  one's  departure, 
 but  corresponds  with  the  Hebr.  'ij^'i^,  to  go.  Therefore  Winer, 
 Hengst.,  Ibn  Esr.  [Aben  Ezra],  Saad.,  and  other  rabbis  interpret 
 the  word  as  meaning  jirmus :  "  the  word  stands  firm  ;  "  cf.  ch. 
 vi.  13  (12),  Nn^p  nTi?:  ("the  thing  is  true").  This  interpretation 
 is  justified  by  the  actual  import  of  the  words,  as  it  also  agrees 
 with  ver.  8  ;  but  it  does  not  accord  with  ver.  5.  Here  (in  ver.  5) 
 the  declaration  of  the  certainty  of  the  king's  word  was  superfluous, 
 because  all  the  royal  commands  were  unchangeable.  For  this 
 reason  also  the  meaning  <77roi;SatGJ9,  studiously,  earnestly,  as  Hitz., 
 by  a  fanciful  reference  to  the  Persian,  whence  he  has  derived 
 it,  has  explained  it,  is  to  be  rejected.  Much  more  satisfactory  is 
 the  derivation  from  the  Old  Persian  word  found  on  inscriptions, 
 dzanda,  "  science,"  "  that  which  is  known,"  given  by  Delitzsch 
 (Herz.'s  Recdenc.  iii.-p.  274),  and  adopted  by  Ki-an.  and  Klief.^ 
 Accordingly  Klief .  thus  interprets  the  phrase  :  "  let  the  word  from 
 me  be  known,"  "  be  it  known  to  you ; "  which  is  more  suitable 
 obviously  than  that  of  Kran. :  "  the  command  is,  so  far  as  regards 
 
 ^  In  regard  to  the  explanation  of  the  word  N'HTX  as  given  above,  it  is,  how- 
 ever, to  be  remarked  that  it  is  not  confirmed,  and  Delitzsch  has  for  the  present 
 given  it  up,  because — as  he  has  informed  me — the  word  azdd,  which  appears 
 once  in  the  large  inscription  of  Behistan  (Bisutun)  and  twice  in  the  inscrip- 
 tion of  Nakhschi-Rustam,  is  of  uncertain  reading  and  meaning.  Spiegel 
 explains  it  "  unknown,"  from  zan,  to  know,  and  a  privativum. 
 
92  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 me,  made  public."  For  tlie  king  now  for  the  first  time  distinctly  and 
 definitely  says  that  he  wishes  not  only  to  hear  from  the  wise  men  the 
 interpretation,  but  also  the  dream  itself,  and  declares  the  punish- 
 ment that  shall  visit  them  in  the  event  of  their  not  being  able  to 
 comply.  p?-V^  12j;,  fiiXT]  TTOLelv,  2  Mace.  i.  16,  LXX.  in  Dan.  iii. 
 39,  Sia/xeXiXeadac,  to  cut  in  pieces^,  a  punishment  that  was  common 
 among  the  Babylonians  (ch.  iii.  39,  cf.  Ezek.  xvi.  40),  and  also 
 among  the  Israelites  in  the  case  of  prisoners  of  war  (cf.  1  Sam.  xv. 
 33).  It  is  not,  however,  to  be  confounded  with  the  barbarous  custom 
 which  was  common  among  the  Persians,  of  mangling  particular 
 limbs.  v)?j  in  Ezra  vi.  1 1  lSl3,  dunghill,  sink.  The  changing  of 
 their  houses  into  dunghills  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  meaninfic  that 
 the  house  built  of  clay  would  be  torn  down,  and  then  dissolved  by 
 the  rain  and  storm  into  a  heap  of  mud,  but  is  to  be  interpreted  ac- 
 cording to  2  Kings  X.  27,  where  the  temple  of  Baal  is  spoken  of  as 
 having  been  broken  down  and  converted  into  private  closets ;  cf. 
 Hav.  in  loco.  The  Keri  in3J?nn  without  the  Dasesh  in  n  misht  stand 
 as  the  Kethiv  for  Ithpaal,  but  is  apparently  the  Ithpeal,  as  at  ch.  iii. 
 29,  Ezra  vi.  11.  As  to  p3'^3,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  Daniel  uses 
 only  the  suffix  forms  ps  and  )in,  while  with  Ezra  Db  and  p  are 
 interchanged  (see  above,  p.  45),  which  are  found  in  the  language  of 
 the  Targums  and  might  be  regarded  as  Hebraisms,  while  the  forms 
 pa  and  pn  are  peculiar  to  the  Syriac  and  the  Samaritan  dialects. 
 This  distinction  does  not  prove  that  the  Aramaic  of  Daniel  belongs 
 to  a  period  later  than  that  of  Ezra  (Hitz.,  v.  Leng.),  but  only  that 
 Daniel  preserves  more  faithfully  the  famiUar  Babylonian  form  of 
 the  Aramaic  than  does  the  Jewish  scribe  Ezra. 
 
 Ver.  6.  The  rigorous  severity  of  this  edict  accords  with  the 
 character  of  Oriental  despots  and  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  particularly 
 in  his  dealings  with  the  Jews  (2  Kings  xxv.  7,  18  ff. ;  Jer.  xxxix. 
 6  f.,  Hi.  10  f.,  24-27).  In  the  promise  of  rewards  the  explanation 
 of  '"i?p3  (in  the  plur.  I^3T3:,  ch.  v.  17)  is  disputed  ;  its  rendering 
 by  "money,"  "gold"  (by  Eichh.  and  Berth.),  has  been  long  ago 
 abandoned  as  incorrect.  The  meaning  gift,  jyresent,  is  agreeable 
 to  the  context  and  to  the  ancient  versions ;  but  its  derivation 
 formed  from  the  Chald.  DD,  Pealp.  of  n3,  erogavit,  expendit,  by 
 the  substitution  of  :  for  d  and  the  excision  of  the  second  I  from 
 '^Jr'pPj  ^"  ^^^®  meaning  largitio  amplior,  the  Jod  in  the  plural  form 
 being  explained  from  the  affinity  of  verbs  v'V  and  n'^  (Ges.  Tkes.  p. 
 842,  and  Kran.),  is  highly  improbable.  The  derivation  from  the 
 Persian  nuvdzan^  nuvdzisc/i,  to  caress,  to  flatter,  then  to  make  a 
 
CHAP.  II.  1-13.  93 
 
 present  to  (P.  v.  Bohlen),  or  from  the  Sanscr.  namas,  present, 
 gift  (Hitz.),  or  from  the  Vedish  bag',  to  give,  to  distribute,  and 
 the  related  New  Persian  bdj  (bash),  a  present  (Haug),  are  also 
 very  questionable.  \\}^,  on  that  account,  therefore  (cf.  ver.  9  and 
 ch.  iv.  24),  formed  from  the  prepos.  p  and  the  demonstrative  ad- 
 verb ][},  has  in  negative  sentences  (as  the  Hebr.  ''3  and  ]\}^)  the 
 meaning  but,  rather  (ch.  ii.  30),  and  in  a  pregnant  sense,  07ili/ 
 (ch.  ii.  11,  iii.  28,  vi.  8),  without  inp  being  derived  in  such  in- 
 stances from  N?  and  ]>]  =  ^^-'  25< 
 
 Ver.  7.  The  wise  men  repeat  their  request,  but  the  king  per- 
 sists that  they  only  justify  his  suspicion  of  them  by  pressing  such 
 a  demand,  and  that  he  saw  that  they  wished  to  deceive  him  with 
 a  self-conceived  interpretation  of  the  dream.  '"'7^'r"'  is  not,  as 
 Hitz.  proposes,  to  be  changed  into  i^l^Sl.  The  form  is  a  Hebr. 
 stat.  emphat.  for  ^"^^Sl,  as  e.g.  '^Q?^,  ver.  5,  is  changed  into  i^^?^  in 
 vers.  8  and  11,  and  in  biblical  Chaldee,  in  final  syllables  n  is  often 
 found  instead  of  x. — Ver.  8.  2"^!  IP,  an  adverbial  expression,  to  be 
 sure,  certainly,  as  t3C^P  ip,  truly,  ver.  47,  and  other  adverbial 
 forms.  The  words  p^f  ^J^J^<  i^J^V  ''1.  do  not  mean  either  "  that 
 ye  wish  to  use  or  seize  the  favourable  time  "  (Hav.,  Kran.),  or 
 "  that  ye  wish  to  buy  up  the  present  perilous  moment,"  i.e.  bring 
 it  within  your  power,  become  masters  of  the  time  (Hitz.),  but 
 simply,  that  ye  buy,  that  is  loish  to  gain  time  (Ges.,  Maur.,  etc.). 
 nV  t?t  =  tempus  emere  in  Cicero.  Nothing  can  be  here  said  of  a 
 favourable  moment,  for  there  was  not  such  a  time  for  the  wise  men, 
 either  in  the  fact  that  Nebuchadnezzar  had  forgotten  his  dream 
 (Hiiv.),  or  in  the  curiosity  of  the  king  with  reference  to  the  inter- 
 pretation of  the  dreara,  on  which  they  could  speculate,  expecting 
 that  the  king  might  be  induced  thereby  to  give  a  full  communica- 
 tion of  the  dream  (Kran.).  But  for  the  wise  men,  in  consequence 
 of  the  threatenincf  of  the  kino*,  the  crisis  was  indeed  full  of 
 danger;  but  it  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  they  appeared  to  think 
 that  they  could  control  the  crisis,  bringing  it  under  their  own 
 power,  by  their  willingness  to  interpret  the  dream  if  it  were 
 reported  to  them.  Their  repeated  request  that  the  dream  should 
 be  told  to  them  shows  only  their  purpose  to  gain  time  and  save 
 their  lives,  if  they  now  truly  believed  either  that  the  king  could 
 not  now  distinctly  remember  his  dream,  or  that  by  not  repeating 
 it  he  wished  to  put  them  to  the  test.  Thus  the  king  says  to  them : 
 I  see  from  your  hesitation  that  ye  are  not  sure  of  your  case ;  and 
 since  ye  at  the  same  time  think  that  I  have  forgotten  the  dream, 
 
94  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 therefore  ye  wish  me,  by  your  repeated  requests  to  rehite  the 
 dream,  only  to  gain  time,  to  extend  the  cas(>,  because  ye  fear 
 the  threatened  punishment  (KHef.).  '•'^  ''i?!?"-'?,  xoliolly  because; 
 not,  notwithstanding  that  (Hitz.).  As  to  the  last  "vvords  of  ver.  8, 
 see  under  ver.  5. 
 
 Ver.  9.  ]\}  ''T  is  equivalent  to  DN*  "iK'x,  quodsi.  "  The  ^T  sup- 
 poses the  fact  of  the  foregoing  passage,  and  brings  it  into  ex- 
 press relation  to  the  conditional  clause"  (Kran.).  P3n"=l  does  not 
 mean,  your  design  or  opinion,  or  your  lot  (Mich.,  Hitz.,  Maur.), 
 but  ni  is  laio,  decree,  sentence ;  P^J?'^,  the  sentence  that  is  going  forth 
 or  has  gone  forth  against  you,  i.e.  according  to  ver.  5,  the  sentence 
 of  death.  iTin,  one,  or  the  one  and  no  other.  This  judgment  is 
 founded  on  the  following  passage,  in  which  the  cop.  1  is  to  be 
 explained  as  equivalent  to  namely,  nn^nc'l  nn^S,  lies  and  pernicious 
 icordsy  are  united  together  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the 
 idea,  in  the  sense  of  loiched  lies  (Hitz.).  poioin  is  not  to  be  read, 
 as  Hav.,  V.  Leng.,  Maur.,  and  Kran.  do,  as  the  Aphel  P'^^^t']  '-  ye 
 have  prepared  or  resolved  to  say  ;  for  in  the  Aphel  this  word  (JOT) 
 means  to  appoint  or  summon  a  persori^  but  not  to  prepare  or  appoint 
 a  thing  (see  Buxt.  Lex.  Tal.  s.  v.).  And  the  supposition  that  the 
 king  addressed  the  Chaldeans  as  the  speakers  appointed  by  the 
 whole  company  of  the  wise  men  (Kran.)  has  no  place  in  the  text. 
 The  Kethiv  V^^^'^V)  is  to  be  read  as  Ithpa.  for  pWS'^Tn  according  to 
 the  Keri  (cf.  ^31i7  for  ^3'\iTn,  Isa.  i.  16),  meaning  inter  se  convenire, 
 as  the  old  interpreters  rendered  it.  "  Till  the  time  be  changed," 
 i.e.  till  the  king  either  drop  the  matter,  or  till  they  learn  some- 
 thing more  particular  about  the  dream  through  some  circumstances 
 that  may  arise.  The  lies  which  Nebuchadnezzar  charged  the  wise 
 men  with,  consisted  in  the  explanation  which  they  promised  if  he 
 would  tell  them  the  dream,  while  their  desire  to  hear  the  dream  con- 
 tained a  proof  that  they  had  not  the  faculty  of  revealing  secrets. 
 The  words  of  the  king  clearly  show  that  he  knew  the  dream,  for 
 otherwise  he  would  not  have  been  able  to  know  whether  the  wise 
 men  spoke  the  truth  in  telling  him  the  dream  (Klief.). 
 
 Ver.  10.  Since  the  king  persisted  in  his  demand,  the  Chaldeans 
 were  compelled  to  confess  that  they  could  not  tell  the  dream.  This 
 confession,  however,  they  seek  to  conceal  under  the  explanation 
 that  compliance  with  the  king's  request  was  beyond  human  power, 
 — a  request  which  no  great  or  mighty  king  had  ever  before  made  of 
 any  magician  or  astrologer,  and  which  was  possible  only  with  the 
 gods,  who  however  do  not  dwell  among  mortals.     """^  ^"^jf^"^  does 
 
CHAP.  II.  1-13.  95 
 
 not  mean  quam  oh  rem,  wherefore,  as  a  particle  expressive  of  a 
 consequence  (Ges.),  but  is  here  used  in  the  sense  of  because, 
 assigning  a  reason.  The  thought  expressed  is  not :  because  the 
 matter  is  impossible  for  men,  therefore  no  king  has  ever  asked  any- 
 such  thing ;  but  it  is  this  :  because  it  has  come  into  the  mind  of 
 no  great  and  mighty  king  to  demand  any  such  thing,  therefore  it 
 is  impossible  for  men  to  comply  with  it.  They  presented  before 
 the  king  the  fact  that  no  king  had  ever  made  such  a  request  as 
 a  proof  that  the  fulfilling  of  it  was  beyond  human  ability.  The 
 epithets  great  and  mighty  are  here  not  mere  titles  of  the  Oriental 
 kings  (Hav.),  but  are  chosen  as  significant.  The  mightier  the 
 king,  so  much  the  greater  the  demand,  he  believed,  he  might 
 easily  make  upon  a  subject. 
 
 Ver.  11.  ]\b,  hut  only,  see  under  ver.  6.  In  the  words,  ivlwse 
 dwelling  is  not  with  Jlesh,  there  lies  neither  the  idea  of  higher 
 and  of  inferior  gods,  nor  the  thought  that  the  gods  only  act  among 
 men  in  certain  events  (Hav.),  but  only  the  simple  thought  of  the 
 essential  distinction  between  gods  and  men,  so  that  one  may  not 
 demand  anything  from  weak  mortals  which  could  be  granted  only 
 by  the  gods  as  celestial  beings.  ^"J^^^  jflesh,  in  opposition  to 
 nin,  marks  the  human  nature  according  to  its  weakness  and 
 infirmity;  cf.  Isa.  xxxi.  3,  Ps.  Ivi.  5.  The  king,  however,  does 
 not  admit  this  excuse,  but  falls  into  a  violent  passion,  and  gives  a 
 formal  command  that  the  wise  men,  in  whom  he  sees  deceivers 
 abandoned  by  the  gods,  should  be  put  to  death.  This  was  a 
 dreadful  command ;  but  there  are  illustrations  of  even  greater 
 cruelty  perpetrated  by  Oriental  despots  before  him  as  well  as  after 
 him.  The  edict  {^^'^)  is  carried  out,  but  not  fully.  Not  "  all 
 the  wise  men,"  according  to  the  terms  of  the  decree,  were  put  to 
 death,  but  pptSi^rUD  i^'^O'^sn,  i.e.  the  wise  men  were  put  to  death. 
 
 Ver.  13.  While  it  is  manifest  that  the  decree  was  not  carried 
 fully  out,  it  is  yet  clearer  from  what  follows  that  the  participle 
 iY^i?np  does  not  stand  for  the  preterite,  but  has  the  meaning: 
 the  xvork  of  putting  to  death  was  hegun.  The  participle  also 
 does  not  stand  as  the  gerund  :  they  were  to  be  put  to  death,  i.e. 
 were  condemned  (Kran.),  for  the  use  of  the  passive  participle  as 
 the  gerund  is  not  made  good  by  a  reference  to  1D^^D,  ch.  ii.  45, 
 and  ?''ni,  ch.  ii.  31.  Even  the  command  to  kill  all  the  wise  men 
 of  Babylon  is  scarcely  to  be  understood  of  all  the  wise  men  of  the 
 whole  kingdom.  The  word  Babylon  may  represent  the  Babylonian 
 empire,  or  the  province  of  Babylonia,  or  the  city  of  Babylon  only. 
 
9(3  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 In  the  city  of  Babylon  a  college  of  the  Babylonian  wise  meifi  or 
 Chaldeans  was  established,  who,  according  to   Strabo  (xv  t'e.  6), 
 occupied  a  particular  quarter  of  the  city  as  their  own ;  but  ntssides 
 this,  there  were  also  colleges  in  the  province  of  Babylon  at  i.r.  opa-     j 
 renum,  Orchoe,  which  Plin.  liist.  nat.  vi.  26  (30)  designates  as    ertia 
 Chaldceorum  doctrina,  at  Borsippa^  and  other  places.     The  wiscj  men 
 who  were   called  (ver.   2)  into   the  presence  of  the  king,  >were 
 naturally  those  who  resided  in  the  city  of  Babylon,  for  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was  at  that  time  in  his  palace.     Yet  of  those  who  had  i*-heir 
 residence  there,  Daniel  and  his  companions  were  not  summoiaed, 
 because  they  had  just  ended  their  noviciate,  and  because,  obvious  ly, 
 only  the  presidents  or  the  older  members  of  the  several  classes  wer  e 
 sent  for.     But  since  Daniel  and  his  companions  belonged  to  the  ^ 
 whole  body  of  the  wise  men,  they  also  were  sought  out  that  they    > 
 might  be  put  to  death. 
 
 Vers.  14-30.  DanieVs  lollUngness  to  declare  his  dream  to  the 
 king ;  his  prayer  for  a  revelation  of  the  secret,  and  the  ansiver  to 
 his  prayer ;  his  explanation  before  the  king. 
 
 Ver.  14.  Through  Daniel's  judicious  interview  with  Arioch,  the 
 further  execution  of  the  royal  edict  was  interrupted.  NDy  n^rin 
 oypi,  he  ansioered,  replied,  counsel  and  understanding,  i.e.  the  words 
 of  counsel  and  understanding ;  cf.  Prov.  xxvi.  16.  The  name  Arioch 
 appears  in  Gen.  xiv.  1  as  the  name  of  the  king  of  Ellasar,  along 
 with  the  kings  of  Elam  and  Shinar.  It  is  derived  not  from  the 
 Sanscr.  drjaka,  venerabilis,  but  is  probably  formed  from  ""IXj  a 
 lion,  as  '^1^03  from  nisr  =  '\^\  Kjn3t:"3"i  is  tlie  chief  of  the  body- 
 guard, which  was  regarded  as  the  highest  office  of  the  kingdom 
 (cf.  Jcr.  xxxix.  9, 11,  xl.  1  ff.).  It  was  his  business  to  see  to  the  exe- 
 cution of  tlie  king's  commands  ;  see  1  Kings  ii.  25,  2  Kings  xxv.  8. 
 
 Ver.  15.  The  partic.  Aph.  nD!>nnQ  standing  after  the  noun  in 
 the  staf.  absol.  is  not  predicative:  "  on  what  account  is  the  command 
 so  hostile  on  the  part  of  the  king  ?  "  (Kran.),  but  it  stands  in  appo- 
 sition to  the  noun  ;  for  with  participles,  particularly  when  further 
 definitions  follow,  the  article,  even  in  union  with  substantives  de- 
 fined by  the  article,  may  be  and  often  is  omitted  ;  cf.  Song  vii.  5, 
 and  Ew.  §  335  a.  ^VH,  to  be  hard,  sharp,  hence  to  be  severe.  Daniel 
 showed  understanding  and  counsel  in  the  question-  he  put  as  to  the 
 cause  of  so  severe  a  command,  inasmuch  as  he  thereby  gave  Arioch 
 to  understand  that  there  was  a  possibility  of  obtaining  a  fulfilment 
 of  the  royal  wish.     When  Arioch  informed  him  of  the  state  of  the 
 
CHAP.  II.  14-30.  97 
 
 matter,  Daniel  went  in  to  the  king — i.e.,  as  is  expressly  mentioned  in 
 ver.  24,  ^Tas  introduced  or  brought  in  by  Arioch — and  presented  to 
 the  king  the  request  that  time  should  be  granted,  promising  that 
 he  would  show  to  the  king  the  interpretation  of  the  dream. 
 
 Ver.  IQ.  With  ^'inn^  ntj'21  the  construction  is  changed.  This 
 passage  does  not  depend  on  "'"n.,  tiine,  namely,  to  show  the  interpre- 
 tation (Hitz.),  but  is  co-ordinate  with  the  foregoing  relative  clause, 
 and  like  it  is  dependent  on  ^^J^?i.  The  change  of  the  construction 
 is  caused  by  the  circumstance  that  in  the  last  passage  another 
 subject  needed  to  be  introduced  :  The  king  should  give  him  time, 
 and  Daniel  will  show  the  interpretation.  The  copulative  1  before 
 N'lC'a  (interpretation)  is  used  neither  explicatively,  namely,  and  in- 
 deed, nor  is  it  to  be  taken  as  meaning  also  ;  the  simple  and  is  suffi- 
 cient, although  the  second  part  of  the  request  contains  the  explana- 
 tion and  reason  of  the  first ;  i.e.  Daniel  asks  for  the  granting  of  a 
 space,  not  that  he  might  live  longer,  but  that  he  might  be  able  to 
 interpret  the  dream  to  the  king.  Besides,  that  he  merely  speaks  of 
 the  meaning  of  the  dream,  and  not  also  of  the  dream  itself,  is,  as 
 vers.  25  ff.  show,  to  be  here  explained  (as  in  ver.  24)  as  arising  from 
 the  brevity  of  the  narrative.  For  the  same  reason  it  is  not  said 
 that  the  king  granted  the  request,  but  ver.  17  f .  immediately  shows 
 what  Daniel  did  after  the  granting  of  his  request.  He  went  into 
 his  own  house  and  showed  the  matter  to  his  companions,  that  they 
 might  entreat  God  of  His  mercy  for  this  secret,  so  that  they  might 
 not  perish  along  with  the  rest  of  the  wise  men  of  Babylon. 
 
 Ver.  18a.  The  final  clause  depends  on  Vlin  (v.  17).  The  1  is  to 
 be  interpreted  as  explicative  :  and  indeed,  or  namely.  Against  this 
 interpretation  it  cannot  be  objected,  with  Hitz.,  that  Daniel  also 
 prayed.  He  and  his  friends  thus  prayed  to  God  that  He  would 
 grant  a  revelation  of  the  secret,  i.e.  of  the  mysterious  dream  and 
 its  interpretation.  The  designation  "  God  of  heaven "  occurs  in 
 Gen.  xxiv.  7,  where  it  is  used  of  Jehovah ;  but  it  was  first  com- 
 monly used  as  the  designation  of  the  almighty  and  true  God  in 
 the  time  of  the  exile  (cf.  vers.  19,  44  ;  Ezra  i.  2,  vi.  10,  vii.  12, 
 21 ;  Neh.  i.  5,  ii.  4;  Ps.  cxxxvi.  26),  who,  as  Daniel  names  Him 
 (ch.  V.  23),  is  the  Lord  of  heaven ;  i.e.  the  whole  heavens,  with  all 
 the  stars,  which  the  heathen  worshipped  as  gods,  are  under  His 
 dominion. 
 
 Ver.  19.  In  answer  to  these  supplications,  the  secret  was  re- 
 vealed to  Daniel  in  a  night-vision.  A  vision  of  the  night  is  not 
 necessarily  to  be  identified  with  a  dream.     In  the  case  before  us, 
 
 G 
 
98  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Daniel  does  not  speak  of  a  dream ;  and  the  idea  tlia'-c  he  had 
 dreamed  precisely  the  same  dream  as  Nebuchadnezzar  is  jirbitrariiy 
 imported  into  the  text  by  Hitz.  in  order  to  gain  a  "  psychological 
 impossibility,"  and  to  be  able  to  cast  suspicion  on  the  historical 
 character  of  the  narrative.  It  is  possible,  indeed,  that  dreams  may 
 be,  as  the  means  of  a  divine  revelation,  dream-visions,  and  as  such 
 may  be  called  visions  of  the  night  (cf.  vii.  1,  13) ;  but  in  itself  a 
 vision  of  the  night  is  a  vision  simply  which  any  one  receives 
 during  the  night  whilst  he  is  awake.^ 
 
 Ver.  20.  On  receiving  the  divine  revelation,  Daniel  answered 
 ('^?.y)  with  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving.  The  word  njy  retains  its 
 proper  meaning.  The  revelation  is  of  the  character  of  an  address 
 from  God,  which  Daniel  answers  with  praise  and  thanks  to  God. 
 The  forms  ^)J}]!,  and  in  the  plur.  fin?  and  i)in?,  which  are  peculiar 
 to  the  biblical  Chaldee,  we  regard,  with  Maur.,  Hitz.,  Kran.,  and 
 others,  as  the  imperfect  or  future  forms,  3d  pers.  sing,  and  plur., 
 in  which  the  ?  instead  of  the  ^  is  to  be  explained  perhaps  from  the 
 Syriac  prseform.  3,  which  is  frequently  found  also  in  the  Chaldee 
 Targums  (cf.  Dietrich,  de  sermonis  chalcl.  proprietate,  p.  43), 
 while  the  Hebrew  exiles  in  the  word  Nin  used  ^  instead  of  3  as 
 more  easy  of  utterance.  The  doxology  in  this  verse  reminds  us  of 
 Job  i.  21.  The  expression  "/or  ever  and  ever"  occurs  here  in  the 
 O.  T.  for  the  first  time,  so  that  the  solemn  liturgical  Beracha 
 (^Blessing)  of  the  second  temple,  Neh.  ix.  5,  1  Chron.  xvi.  36, 
 with  which  also  the  first  (Ps.  xlv.  14)  and  the  fourth  (Ps.  cvi.  48) 
 books  of  the  Psalter  conclude,  appears  to  have  been  composed  after 
 this  form  of  praise  used  by  Daniel.  "The  name  of  God"  will  be 
 praised,  i.e.  the  manifestation  of  the  existence  of  God  in  the  world  ; 
 thus,  God  so  far  as  He  has  anew  given  manifestation  of  His  glorious 
 existence,  and  continually  bears  witness  that  He  it  is  who  possesses 
 
 ^  "  Dream  and  x-is'wn  do  not  constitute  two  separate  categories.  The  dream- 
 xmage  is  a  vision,  the  vision  while  awake  is  a  dreaming — only  that  in  the  latter 
 case  the  consciousness  of  the  relation  between  the  inner  and  the  outer  maintains 
 itself  more  easily.  Intermediate  between  the  two  stand  the  night-visions^  ■which, 
 as  in  Job  iv.  13,  cither  having  risen  up  before  the  spirit,  fade  away  from  the 
 mind  in  after-thought,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Dan.  ii.  29),  are 
 an  image  before  the  imagination  into  which  the  thoughts  of  the  night  run  out. 
 Zechariah  saw  a  number  of  visions  in  one  night,  ch.  i.  7,  vi.  15.  Also  these 
 •which,  according  to  ch.  i,  8,  are  called  visions  of  the  night  are  not,  as  Ew.  and 
 Hitz.  suppose,  dream-images,  but  are  waking  perceptions  in  the  night.  Just 
 because  the  prophet  did  not  sleep,  he  says,  ch.  iv.,  '  The  angel  awaked  me  as 
 one  is  awaked  out  of  sleep.''  " — Tiioluck's  Die  Propheten^  u.s.w.,  p.  52. 
 
CHAP.  II.  14-oa.  99 
 
 wisdom  and  strength  (cf.  Job  xii.  13).  Tlie  ^T  before  the  ^'^  is 
 the  emphatic  re-assumption  of  the  preceding  confirmatory  "'"7,  for. 
 
 Vers.  21,  22.  The  evidence  of  the  wisdom  and  power  of  God 
 is  here  unfolded  ;  and  first  the  manifestation  of  His  power.  He 
 i,lianges  times  and  seasons.  LXX.,  Theodot.,  Kaipov'^  kul  ■^povov;, 
 would  be  more  accurately  '^p6vov<i  kuI  Kuipov^,  as  in  Acts  i.  7, 
 1  Thess.  V.  1 ;  for  the  Peschito  in  these  N.  T.  passages  renders 
 Xpovoi  by  the  Syriac  word  which  is  equivalent  to  ^'*^pf,  according 
 to  which  I'^y  is  the  more  general  expression  for  time  =:  circum- 
 stance of  time,  19?  for  measured  time,  the  definite  point  of  time. 
 The  uniting  together  of  the  synonymous  words  gives  expres- 
 sion to  the  thought :  ej;  arhitrio  Dei  pendere  revolutiones  omnium 
 omnino  temporum,  qua^cungue  et  qualia-cunque  ilia  fuerint.  C  B. 
 Mich.  God's  unlimited  control  over  seasons  and  times  is  seen  in 
 this,  that  He  sets  up  and  casts  down  kings.  Thus  Daniel  explains 
 the  revelation  regarding  the  dream  of  Nebuchadnezzar  made  to 
 him  as  announcing  great  changes  in  the  kingdoms  of  the  world, 
 and  revealing  God  as  the  Lord  of  time  and  of  the  world  in  their 
 developments.  All  wisdom  also  comes  from  God.  He  gives  to  men 
 disclosures  regarding  His  hidden  counsels.  This  Daniel  had  just 
 experienced.  Illumination  dwells  with  God  as  it  were  a  person, 
 as  Wisdom,  Prov.  viii.  30.  The  Kethiv  ^"J^'l^  is  maintained  against 
 the  Keri  by  =ii'nJ,  ch.  v.  11, 14.  With  the  perf.  ^~}p  the  participial 
 construction  passes  over  into  the  temp.  Jin. ;  the  perfect  stands  in 
 the  sense  of  the  completed  act.  Therefore  (ver.  23)  praise  and 
 thanksgiving  belong  to  God.  Through  the  revelation  of  the  secret 
 hidden  to  the  wise  men  of  this  world  He  has  proved  Himself  to 
 Daniel  as  the  God  of  the  fathers,  as  the  true  God  in  opposition  to 
 the  gods  of  the  heathen.     \V^^  =  '^^J?'!,  and  now. 
 
 Vers.  24  ff.  Hereupon  Daniel  announced  to  the  king  that  he  was 
 prepared  to  make  known  to  hun  the  dream  with  its  interpretation. 
 njT  ^^P"''?;  for  that  very  reason,  viz.  because  God  had  revealed  to 
 him  the  king's  matter,  Daniel  was  brought  in  by  Arioch  before  the 
 king ;  for  no  one  had  free  access  to  the  king  except  his  immediate 
 servants.  P]X,  he  ivent,  takes  up  inconsequenter  the  ?y  (intjxivit), 
 which  is  separated  by  a  long  sentence,  so  as  to  connect  it  with  what 
 follows.  Arioch  introduced  (ver.  25)  Daniel  to  the  king  as  a  man 
 from  among  the  captive  Jews  who  could  make  known  to  him  the 
 interpretation  of  his  dream.  Arioch  did  not  need  to  take  any 
 special  notice  of  the  fact  that  Daniel  had  already  (ver.  16)  spoken 
 with  the  king  concerning  it,  even  if  he  had  knowledge  of  it.     In 
 
100  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  form  bv}J},  ver.  25,  also  ch.  iv.  3  (6)  and  vi.  19  ^18),  the 
 Dagesch  lying  in  ^Vn,  ver.  24,  is  compensated  by  an  epe:it'^i3tic  3  : 
 cf.  AViner,  Chald.  Gram.  §  19,  1.  n^nanna,  in  haste,  for  the  matter 
 concerned  the  further  execution  of  the  king's  command,  which 
 Arioch  had  suspended  on  account  of  Daniel's  interference,  and  his 
 offer  to  make  known  the  dream  and  its  interpretation,  nns'ii'n  for 
 nnac'S,  cf.  Winer,  §  15,  3.  The  relative  """I,  which  many  Codd. 
 insert  after  "i^a,  is  the  circumstantially  fuller  form  of  expression 
 before  prepositional  passages.  Cf.  ch.  v.  13,  vi.  14;  Winer,  § 
 41,5. 
 
 Vers.  26,  27.  To  the  question  of  the  king,  w^hether  he  was  able 
 to  show  the  dream  with  its  interpretation,  Daniel  replies  by  direct- 
 ing him  from  man,  who  is  unable  to  accomplish  such  a  thing,  to  the 
 living  God  in  heaven,  who  alone  reveals  secrets.     Tlie  expression, 
 whose  name  teas  Belteshazzar  (ver.  26),  intimates  in  this  connection 
 that  he  who  was  known  among  the  Jews  by  the  name  Daniel  was 
 known  to  the  Chaldean  king  only  under  the  name  given  to  him  by 
 the  conqueror — that  Nebuchadnezzar  knew  of  no  Daniel,  but  only  of 
 Belteshazzar.    The  question,  "  art  thou  able  ?  "  i.e.  hast  thou  ability  ? 
 does  not  express  the  king's  ignorance  of  the  person  of  Daniel,  but 
 only  his  amazement  at  his  ability  to  make  known  the  dream,  in  the 
 sense,  "  art  thou  really  able  ?  "     This  amazement  Daniel  acknow- 
 ledges as  justified,  for  he  replies  that  no  wise  man  was  able  to 
 do  this  thincT.     In  the  enumeration  of  the  several  classes  of  macri-' 
 cians  the  word  P^"'?'!'  is  the  general  designation  of  them  all,     "  But 
 there  is  a  God  in  heaven."     Daniel  "  declares  in  the  presence  of 
 the  heathen  the  existence  of  God,  before  he  speaks  to  him  of  His 
 works."    Klief.     But  when  he  testifies  of  a  God  in  heaven  as  One 
 who  is  able  to  reveal  hidden  things,  he  denies  this  ability  eo  ipso  to 
 all  the  so-called  gods  of  the  heathen.     Tiiereby  he  not  only  assigns 
 the  reason  of  the  inability  of  the  heathen  wise  men,  Avho  knew  not 
 the  living  God  in  heaven,  to  show  the  divine  mysteries,  but  he  refers 
 also  all  the  revelations  which  tlie  heathen  at  any  time  receive  to  the 
 one  true  God.     The  "i  in  Vlini  introduces  the  development  of  the 
 general  thought.    That  there  is  a  God  in  heaven  who  reveals  secrets, 
 Daniel  declares  to  the  king  by  this,  that  he  explains  his  dream  as 
 an  inspiration  of  this  God,  and  shows  to  him  its  particular  circum- 
 stances.   God  made  known  to  him  in  a  dream  "  what  would  happen 
 in  the  end  of  the  days."     X'OV  nnns  =^  D^D'n  nnnx  designates  here 
 not  the  future  generally  (Hliv.),  and  still  less  "  that  which  comes 
 after  the  days,  a  time  which  follows  after  another  time,  compre- 
 
CHAP.  II.  14-30.  101 
 
 hended  under  the  D"''?''!' "  (Klief.),  but  the  concluding  future  or  the 
 Messianic  period  of  the  world's  time  ;  see  Gen.  xlix.  1. 
 
 From  n:i  ^nns  in  ver.  29  that  general  interpretation  of  the 
 expression  is  not  proved.  The  expression  t^''?^^  nnnxa  of  ver.  28 
 is  not  explained  by  the  nn  ^^qx  sin^  ^t  no  of  ver.  29,  but  this 
 nn  •'"inx  relates  to  Nebuchadnezzar's  thoufjlits  of  a  future  in  the 
 history  of  the  world,  to  which  God,  the  revealer  of  secrets,  unites 
 His  Messianic  revelations ;  moreover,  every  Messianic  future 
 event  is  also  an  njT  ""nnx  (cf.  ver.  45),  without,  however,  every 
 ■^51  ""in^  being  also  Messianic,  though  it  may  become  so  when  at 
 the  same  time  it  is  a  constituent  part  of  the  future  experience  and 
 the  history  of  Israel,  the  people  of  the  Messianic  promise  (Kran.). 
 "  The  visions  of  thy  head  "  (cf.  iv.  2  [5],  7  [10],  10  [13],  vii.  1)  are 
 not  dream-visions  because  they  formed  themselves  in  the  head  or 
 brains  (v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitz.),  which  would  thus  be  only  phan- 
 toms or  fancies.  The  words  are  not  a  poetic  expression  foi' 
 dreams  hovering  about  the  head  (Hav.)  ;  nor  yet  can  we  say,  with 
 Klief.,  that  "  the  visions  of  thy  head  upon  thy  bed,  the  vision  which 
 thou  sawest  as  thy  head  lay  on  thy  pillow,"  mean  only  dream- 
 visions.  Against  the  former  interpretation  this  may  be  stated, 
 that  dreams  from  God  do  not  hover  about  the  head  ;  and  against 
 the  latter,  that  the  mention  of  the  head  would  in  that  case  be 
 superfluous.  The  expression,  peculiar  to  Daniel,  designates  much 
 rather  the  divinely  ordered  visions  as  such,  "  as  were  perfectly 
 consistent  with  a  thoughtfulness  of  the  head  actively  encrao-ed" 
 (Kran.).  The  singular  N^n  n:i  goes  back  to  ^0?^  (thy  dream)  as 
 a  fundamental  idea,  and  is  governed  by  '^^i^'}.  \l.Tni  in  the  sense : 
 "  thy  dream  with  the  visions  of  thy  head ; "  cf .  Winer,  §  49,  6. 
 The  plur.  Win  is  used,  because  the  revelation  comprehends  a  series 
 of  visions  of  future  events. 
 
 Ver.  29.  The  pronoun  "J^^x  {as  for  ^A^e),  as  Daniel  everywhere 
 writes  it,  while  the  Keri  substitutes  for  it  the  later  Targ.  form  ^3^?, 
 is  absolute,  and  forms  the  contrast  to  the  n3N1  (as  for  me)  of  ver.  30. 
 The  thoughts  of  the  king  are  not  his  dream  (Hitz.),  but  thoughts 
 about  the  future  of  his  kingdom  which  filled  his  mind  as  he  lay 
 upon  his  bed,  and  to  which  God  gave  him  an  answer  in  the  dream 
 (v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Kran.,  Klief.).  Therefore  they  are  to  be  distin- 
 guished from  the  thoughts  of  thy  heart,  ver.  30,  for  these  are  the 
 thoughts  that  troubled  the  king,  which  arose  from  the  revelations 
 of  the  dream  to  him.  The  contrast  in  ver.  30a  and  305  is  not  this  : 
 ''  not  for  my  wisdom  before  all  that  live  to  show,"  but  "  for  the 
 
102  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 sake  of  the  king  to  explain  the  dream  ;  "  for  3  is  not  the  preposition 
 of  the  object,  but  of  the  means,  thus  :  "  not  by  the  wisdom  which 
 might  be  in  me."  The  supernatural  revelation  (v  v?)  forms  the 
 contrast,  and  the  object  to  which  ^"^  ITiaTPy  points  is  compre- 
 hended implicite  in  t<;^n~73"|?Dj  for  in  the  words,  "  the  wisdom  which 
 may  be  in  me  before  all  living,"  lies  the  unexpressed  thought:  that  I 
 should  be  enlightened  by  such  superhuman  wisdom.  i^VliiT!,  '■'■that 
 they  might  niake  it  hwwn : "  the  plur.  of  vindefined  generality,  cf. 
 Winer,  §  49,  3.  The  impersonal  form  of  expression  is  chosen  in 
 order  that  his  own  person  might  not  be  brought  into  view.  The 
 idea  of  Aben  Ezra,  Vatke,  and  others,  that  angels  are  the  subject 
 of  the  verb,  is  altogether  untenable. 
 
 Vers.  31-45.  The  Dream  and  its  Interpretation. — Nebuchad- 
 nezzar saw  in  his  dream  a  great  metallic  imao;e  which  was  terrible 
 to  look  upon.  1''^^.  [behold),  which  Daniel  interchanges  with  1"l^5, 
 corresponds  with  the  Hebrew  words  nx"i^  ^X"i,  or  t^^}^.  Ci^V  is  not 
 an  idol-image  (Hitz.),  but  a  statue,  and,  as  is  manifest  from  the 
 following  description,  a  statue  in  human  form,  in  is  not  the  in- 
 definite article  (Ges,,  Win.,  Maur.),  but  the  numeral.  "  The 
 world-power  is  in  all  its  phases  one,  therefore  all  these  phases  are 
 united  in  the  vision  in  one  image"  (Kllef.).  The  words  from  K^-^ 
 to  1''^^  contain  two  parenthetical  expressions,  introduced  for  the 
 purpose  of  explaining  the  conception  of  ^''^t^  (great).  C^<i5  is  to 
 be  united  with  v^^l.  |3"^  here  and  at  ch.  vii.  20  f.  is  used  by 
 Daniel  as  a  peculiar  form  of  the  demonstrative  pronoun,  for  which 
 Ezra  uses  "^"^^  The  appearance  of  the  colossal  image  was  terrible, 
 not  only  on  account  of  its  gi'eatness  and  its  metallic  splendour,  but 
 because  it  represented  the  world-power  of  fearful  import  to  the 
 people  of  God  (Klief.). 
 
 Vers.  32,  33.  The  description  of  the  image  according  to  its 
 several  parts  is  introduced  with  the  absolute  ^^^"4  ^'^'^,  concerning 
 this  image,  not :  "  this  was  the  image."  The  pronoun  Xin  is  made 
 prominent,  as  ^3*7,  ch.  iv.  15,  and  the  Plebr.  HT  more  frequently, 
 e.g.  Isa.  xxiii.  13.  "''li^n^  plur.  pn — its  singular  occurs  only  in  the 
 Targums — corresponding  with  the  Hebr.  nrn^  the  breast.  PV^j  the 
 bowels,  here  the  abdomen  enclosing  the  bowels,  the  belly.  naT,  the 
 tliighs  (hiifte)  and  upper  part  of  the  loins.  Ver.  33.  P^,  the  leg^ 
 including  the  upper  part  of  the  thigh.  pnJO  is  partitive  :  part  of 
 it  of  iron.  Instead  of  pnjp  the  Keri  prefers  the  fem.  V}yo  here 
 and  at  vers.  41  and  42,  with  reference  to  this,  that  IvJT  is  usually 
 
CHAP.  II.  31-45.  1C3 
 
 tlie  gen.  fern.,  after  the  custom  of  nouns  denoting  members  of  the 
 body  that  are  double.  The  Kethiv  unconditionally  deserves  the 
 preference,  although,  as  the  apparently  anomalous  form,  which 
 appears  with  this  suffix  also  in  ch.  vii.  8,  20,  after  substantives  of 
 seemingly  feminine  meaning,  where  the  choice  of  the  masculine 
 form  Is  to  be  explained  from  the  undefined  conception  of  the 
 subjective  Idea  apart  from  the  sex  ;  cf.  Evvald's  Lehr.  d.  hebr. 
 Sp.  §  319. 
 
 The  image  appears  divided  as  to  Its  material  into  four  or  five 
 parts — the  head,  the  breast  with   the  arms,  the  belly  with  the 
 thighs,  and  the  legs  and  feet.     "  Only  the  first  part,  the  head, 
 constitutes  in  itself  a  united  whole ;  the  second,  with  the  arms, 
 represents  a  division  ;  the  third  runs  Into  a  division  in  the  thighs  ; 
 the  fourth,  bound  Into  one  at  the  top,  divides  itself  in  the  two 
 legs,  but  has   also  the   power  of   moving  In  itself ;  the   fifth   is 
 from  the  first  divided  in  the  legs,  and  finally  In  the  ten  toes  runs 
 out  Into  a  wider  division.      The  material  becomes  Inferior  from 
 the  head  downward — gold,  silver,    copper,    iron,    clay ;    so   that, 
 though  on  the  whole  metallic.  It  becomes  inferior,  and  finally  ter- 
 minates In  clay,  losing  Itself  In  common  earthly  matter.     Notwith- 
 standing that  the  material  becomes  always  the  harder,  till  it  Is 
 iron,  yet  then  suddenly  and  at  last  It  becomes  weak  and  brittle 
 clay." — Kllef.     The  fourth  and  fifth  parts,  the  legs  and  the  feet, 
 are,  it  is  true,  externally  separate  from  each  other,  but  Inwardly, 
 through  the  unity  of  the  material,  iron,  are  bound  together ;  so 
 that  we  are  to  reckon  only  four  parts,  as  afterwards  is  done  In 
 the   Interpretation.      This   image   Nebuchadnezzar   was    contem- 
 plating (ver.  34),  i.e.  reflected  upon  with  a  look  directed  toward 
 it,  until  a  stone  moved  without  human  hands  broke  loose  from 
 a  mountain,  struck  against  the  lowest  part  of  the  image,  broke 
 the  whole  of  It  into  pieces,  and  ground  to  powder  all  its  material 
 from  the  head  even  to  the  feet,  so  that  It  was  scattered  like  chaff 
 of  the  summer  thrashing-floor.    IH"'?  ^f  ''"l  does  not  mean  :  "  which 
 was  not  in  the  hands  of  any  one"  (Klief.),  but  the  words  are  a  pre- 
 positional expression  for  loithout ;  3  ^7^  not  with  =  without,  and  ^T 
 expressing  the  dependence  of  the  word  on  the  foregoing  noun. 
 Without  hands,  without  human  help,  is  a  litotes  for :  hy  a  higher, 
 a  divine  providence ;  cf.  ch.  viii.  25  ;  Job  xxxiv.  20  ;  Lam.  iv.  6. 
 '"•"^Dlj  0.8  one  =  at  once,  with  one  stroke.     'ipT  for  ip"^  Is  not  Intran- 
 sitive or  passive,  but  with  an  indefinite  plur.  subject :  they  crushed, 
 referring  to  the  supernatural  power  by  which  the  crushing  was 
 
104  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 effected.  The  destruction  of  the  statue  is  so  described,  that  the 
 image  passes  over  into  tlie  matter  of  it.  It  is  not  said  of  the  parts 
 of  the  image,  the  head,  the  breast,  the  belly,  and  the  thighs,  that 
 they  were  broken  to  pieces  by  the  stone,  "  for  the  forms  of  the 
 world-power  represented  by  these  parts  had  long  ago  passed  away, 
 when  the  stone  strikes  against  the  last  form  of  the  world-power 
 represented  by  the  feet,"  but  only  of  the  materials  of  which  these 
 parts  consist,  the  silver  and  the  gold,  is  tlie  destruction  predicated  ; 
 "  for  the  material,  the  combinations  of  peoples,  of  which  these 
 earlier  forms  of  the  world-power  consist,  pass  into  the  later  forms 
 of  it,  and  thus  are  all  destroyed  when  the  stone  destroys  the  last 
 form  of  the  world-power"  (Klief.).  But  the  stone  which  brought 
 this  destruction  itself  became  a  great  mountain  which  filled  the 
 whole  earth.  To  this  Daniel  added  the  interpretation  which  he 
 announces  in  ver.  36.  i^f^?.,  ice  loill  tell,  is  "  a  generalizing  form 
 of  expression"  (Kran.)  in  harmony  with  ver.  30.  Daniel  asso- 
 ciates himself  with  his  companions  in  the  faith,  who  worshipped 
 the  same  God  of  revelation  ;  cf.  ver.  236. 
 
 Vers.  37,  38.  The  interpretation  begins  with  the  golden  head, 
 ^'^r'?  ^r?P)  the  usual  title  of  the  monarchs  of  the  Oriental  world- 
 kingdoms  (yid.  Ezek.  xxvi.  7),  is  not  the  predicate  to  i^^^^?,  but 
 stands  in  apposition  to  ^^3?^.  The  following  relative  passages, 
 vers.  376  and  38,  are  only  further  explications  of  the  address  King 
 of  Kings,  in  which  nri3i«  is  again  taken  up  to  bring  back  the  predi- 
 cate. "'"l"''9?j  ivherever,  everi/ichere.  As  to  the  form  Pl^'"^,  see  the 
 I'emarks  under  ^'?^5i5  at  ch.  iii.  3.  The  description  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's dominion  over  men,  beasts,  and  birds,  is  formed  after  the 
 words  of  Jer.  xxvii.  6  and  xxviii.  14 ;  the  mention  of  the  beasts 
 serves  only  for  the  strengthening  of  the  thought  that  his  dominion 
 was  that  of  a  world-kingdom,  and  that  God  had  subjected  all 
 things  to  him.  Nebuchadnezzar's  dominion  did  not,  it  is  true, 
 extend  over  the  whole  earth,  but  perhaps  over  the  whole  civilised 
 world  of  Asia,  over  all  the  historical  nations  of  his  time;  and  in 
 this  sense  it  was  a  world-kingdom,  and  as  such,  "the  prototype  and 
 pattern,  the  beginning  and  primary  representative  of  all  world- 
 powers  "  (Klief.).  "^tf* N"],  Stat,  empliat.  for  K*^'**"?. ;  the  reading  ^''^,^'}, 
 defended  by  Hitz.  is  senseless.  If  Daniel  called  him  (Nebuchad- 
 nezzar) the  golden  head,  the  designation  cannot  refer  to  his  person, 
 but  to  the  world-kingdom  founded  by  him  and  represented  in  his 
 person,  having  all  things  placed  under  his  sway  by  God.  Ilifzig's 
 idea,  that   Nebuchadnezzar  is  the   golden  head  as  distinguished 
 
CHAP.  II.  31-45.  105 
 
 from  his  successors  in  the  Babylonian  kingdom,  is  opposed  by  ver. 
 39,  where  it  is  said  that  after  him  (not  another  king,  but)  "  another 
 kingdom  "  would  arise.  Tiiat  "  Daniel,  in  the  words,  '  Thou  art  the 
 golden  head,'  speaks  of  the  Babylonian  kingdom  as  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar personally,  while  on  the  contrary  he  speaks  of  the  other 
 world-kingdoms  impersonally  only  as  of  kingdoms,  has  its  founda- 
 tion in  this,  that  the  Babylonian  kingdom  personified  in  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar stood  before  him,  and  therefore  could  be  addressed  by  the 
 word  tliou,  while  the  other  kingdoms  could  not "  (Klief.). 
 
 Ver.  39.  In  this  verse  the  second  and  third  parts  of  the  image 
 are  interpreted  of  the  second  and  third  world-kingdoms.  Little 
 is  said  of  these  kingdoms  here,  because  they  are  more  fully  de- 
 scribed in  ch.  vii.  viii.  and  x.  That  the  first  clause  of  ver.  39 
 refers  to  the  second,  the  silver  part  of  the  image,  is  apparent  from 
 the  fact  that  ver.  38  refers  to  the  golden  head,  and  the  second  clause 
 of  ver.  39  to  the  belly  of  brass.  According  to  this,  the  breast  and 
 arms  of  silver  represent  another  kingdom  which  would  arise  after 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  i.e.  after  the  Babylonian  kingdom.  This  king- 
 dom will  be  'n^p  ^V"!*^?  inferior  to  thee,  i.e.  to  the  kingdom  of  which 
 thou  art  the  representative.  Instead  of  the  adjective  t^y"!5:?,  here 
 used  adverbially,  the  Masoretes  have  substituted  the  adverbial  form 
 V']'^,  in  common  use  in  later  times,  which  Hitz.  incorrectly  inter- 
 prets by  the  phrase  "  downwards  from  thee."  Since  the  other,  i.e. 
 the  second  kingdom,  as  we  shall  afterwards  prove,  is  the  Medo- 
 Persian  world-kingdom,  the  question  arises,  in  how  far  was  it 
 inferior  to  the  Babylonian?  In  outward  extent  it  was  not  less, 
 but  even  greater  than  it.  With  reference  to  the  circumstance  that 
 the  parts  of  the.  image  representing  it  were  silver,  and  not  gold  as 
 the  head  was,  Calv.,  Aub.,  Kran.,  and  others,  are  inclined  to  the 
 opinion  that  the  word  "  inferior  "  points  to  the  moral  condition  of 
 the  kingdom.  But  if  the  successive  deterioration  of  the  inner 
 moral  condition  of  the  four  world-kingdoms  is  denoted  by  the 
 succession  of  the  metals,  this  .cannot  be  expressed  by '^30  ^'V"^'?, 
 because  in  regard  to  the  following  world-kingdoms,  represented  by 
 copper  and  iron,  such  an  intimation  or  declaration  does  not  find 
 a  place,  notwithstanding  that  copper  and  iron  are  far  inferior  to 
 silver  and  gold.  Klief.,  on  the  contrary,  thinks  that  the  Medo- 
 Persian  kingdom  stands  inferior  to,  or  is  smaller  than,  the  Baby- 
 lonian kingdom  in  respect  of  universality  ;  for  this  element  is 
 exclusively  referred  to  in  the  text,  being  not  only  attributed  to 
 the  Babylonian  kingdom,  ver.  37,  in  the  widest  extent,  but  also 
 
lOG  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 to  the  third  kingdom,  ver.  30,  and  not  less  to  the  fourth,  ver.  40. 
 The  universality  belonging  to  a  world-kingdom  does  not,  however, 
 require  that  it  should  rule  over  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  its 
 very  end,  nor  that  its  territory  should  have  a  defined  extent,  but 
 only  that  such  a  kingdom  should  unite  in  itself  the  otKovixivq^  i.e. 
 the  civilised  world,  the  whole  of  the  historical  nations  of  its  time. 
 And  this  was  truly  the  case  with  the  Babylonian,  the  Macedonian, 
 and  the  Roman  world-monarchies,  but  it  was  not  so  with  the 
 Medo-Persian,  although  perhaps  it  was  more  powerful  and  em- 
 braced a  more  extensive  territory  than  the  Babylonian,  since 
 Greece,  which  at  the  time  of  the  Medo-Persian  monarchy  had  al- 
 ready decidedly  passed  into  the  rank  of  the  historical  nations,  as  yet 
 stood  outside  of  the  Medo-Persian  rule.  But  if  this  view  is  correct, 
 then  would  universality  be  wanting  to  the  third,  i.e.  to  the  Gr^eco- 
 Macedonian  world-monarchy,  which  is  predicated  of  it  in  the  words 
 "  That  shall  bear  rule  over  the  whole  earth,"  since  at  the  time  of 
 this  monarchy  Rome  had  certainly  passed  into  the  rank  of  historical 
 nations,  and  yet  it  was  not  incorporated  with  the  Macedonian  empire. 
 
 The  Medo-Persian  world-kingdom  is  spoken  of  as  "inferior" 
 to  the  Babylonian  perhaps  only  in  this  respect,  that  from  its  com- 
 mencement it  wanted  inner  unity,  since  the  Medians  and  Per- 
 sians did  not  form  a  united  people,  but  contended  with  each  other 
 for  the  supremacy,  which  is  intimated  in  the  expression,  ch.  vii. 
 5,  that  the  bear  "  raised  itself  up  on  one  side : "  see  under  that 
 passage.  In  the  want  of  inward  unity  lay  the  weakness  or  the 
 inferiority  in  strength  of  this  kingdom,  its  inferiority  as  compared 
 with  the  Babylonian.  This  originally  divided  or  separated  cha- 
 racter of  this  kingdom  appears  in  the  image  in  the  circumstance 
 that  it  is  represented  by  the  breast  and  the  arms.  "  jSIedes  and 
 Persians,"  as  Hofm.  (  Weiss,  u.  Erf.  i.  S.  279)  well  remarks,  "  are  the 
 two  sides  of  the  breast.  The  government  of  the  Persian  kingdom 
 was  not  one  and  united  as  was  that  of  the  Chaldean  nation  and 
 king,  but  it  was  twofold.  The  Magi  belonged  to  a  different  race 
 from  Cyrus,  and  the  !Medes  were  regarded  abroad  as  the  people 
 ruling  with  and  beside  the  Persians."  This  two-sidedness  is  plainly 
 denoted  in  the  two  horns  of  the  ram,  ch.  viii. 
 
 Ver.  39^>  treats  of  the  third  world-kingdom,  which  by  the 
 expression  ''1^'?,  "  another,"  is  plainly  distinguished  from  the  pre- 
 ceding ;  as  to  its  quality,  it  is  characterized  by  the  predicate  "  of 
 copper,  brazen."  In  this  chapter  it  is  said  only  of  this  kingdom 
 that  "  it  shall  rule  over  the  whole  earth,"  and  thus  be  superior  in 
 
CHAP.  II.  81-45.  107 
 
 point  of  extent  and  power  to  the  preceding  kingdoms.  Cf.  vii.  G, 
 where  it  is  distinctly  mentioned  that  "  power  was  given  unto  it." 
 Fuller  particulars  are  communicated  regarding  the  second  and 
 third  world-kingdoms  in  ch.  viii.  and  x.  f. 
 
 Vers.  40-43.  The  interpretation  of  the  fourth  component  part 
 of  the  image,  the  legs  and  feet,  which  represent  a  fourth  world- 
 kingdom,  is  more  extended.  That  kingdom,  corresponding  to  the 
 legs  of  iron,  shall  be  hard,  firm  like  iron.  Because  iron  breaks  all 
 things  in  pieces,  so  shall  this  kingdom,  which  is  like  to  iron,  break 
 in  pieces  and  destroy  all  these  kingdoms. 
 
 Ver.  40.  Instead  of  *^^i?^?"^,  which  is  formed  after  the  analogy  of 
 the  Syriac  language,  the  Keri  has  the  usual  Chaldee  form  '^'^i'''?"!, 
 which  shall  correspond  to  the  preceding  nsn^n,  ver.  39.  See  the 
 same  Keri  ch.  iii.  25,  vii.  7,  23.  '''^  ''^i?"''?  does  not  mean  just  as 
 (Ges.,  V.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitz.),  but  because,  and  the  passage  intro- 
 duced by  this  particle  contains  the  ground  on  which  this  kingdom 
 is  designated  as  hard  like  iron.  ^t^.'H,  breaks  in  pieces^  in  Syriac  to 
 forge,  i.e.  to  break  by  the  hammer,  cf.  XT^'^n^  bruised  grain,  and 
 thus  separated  from  the  husks,  r?^"''^  is  referred  by  Kran.,  in  con- 
 formity with  the  accents,  to  the  relative  clause,  "  because  by  its 
 union  with  the  following  verbal  idea  a  blending  of  the  image  with 
 the  thing  indicated  must  first  be  assumed ;  also  nowhere  else,  neither 
 here  nor  in  ch.  vii.,  does  the  non-natural  meaning  appear,  e.g.,  tliat 
 by  the  fourth  kingdom  only  the  first  and  second  kingdoms  shall 
 be  destroyed  ;  and  finally,  in  the  similar  expression,  ch.  vii.  7, 19,  the 
 \>'^J)  stands  likewise  without  an  object."  But  all  the  three  reasons 
 do  not  prove  much.  A  mixing  of  the  figure  with  the  thing  signified 
 does  not  lie  in  the  passage:  "the  fourth  (kingdom)  shall,  like  crush- 
 ing iron,  crush  to  pieces  all  these"  (kingdoms).  But  the  "non- 
 natural  meaning,"  that  by  the  fourth  kingdom  not  only  the  third, 
 but  also  the  second  and  the  first,  would  be  destroyed,  is  not  set 
 aside  by  our  referring  T^'^"''?  ^^  the  before-named  metals,  because 
 the  metals  indeed  characterize  and  represent  kingdoms.  Finally, 
 the  expressions  in  ch.  vii.  7,  19  are  not  analogous  to  those  before 
 us.  The  words  in  question  cannot  indeed  be  so  understood  as  if 
 the  fourth  kingdom  would  find  the  three  previous  kingdoms  existing 
 together,  and  would  dash  them  one  against  another ;  for,  according 
 to  the  text,  the  first  kingdom  is  destroyed  by  the  second,  and  the 
 second  by  the  third ;  but  the  materials  of  the  first  two  kingdoms 
 were  comprehended  in  the  third.  "  The  elements  out  of  which  the 
 Babylonian  world-kingdom  was  constituted,  the  countries,  peoples, 
 
108  THE  DOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 and  civilisation  comprehended  in  it,  as  its  external  form,  would  be 
 destroyed  by  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom,  and  carried  forward  with 
 it,  so  as  to  be  constituted  into  a  new  external  form.  Such,  too,  was 
 the  relation  between  the  Medo-Persian  and  the  Macedonian  world- 
 kingdom,  that  the  latter  assumed  the  elements  and  component 
 parts  not  only  of  the  Medo-Persian,  but  also  therewith  at  the  same 
 time  of  the  Babylonian  kingdom"  (Klief.).  In  such  a  way  shall 
 the  fourth  world-kingdom  crush  "all  these"  past  kingdoms  as  iron, 
 i.e.  will  not  assume  the  nations  and  civilisations  comprehended  in 
 the  earlier  world-kingdoms  as  organized  formations,  but  will 
 destroy  and  break  them  to  atoms  with  iron  strength.  Yet  will  this 
 world-kingdom  not  throughout  possess  and  manifest  the  iron  hard- 
 ness. Only  the  legs  of  the  image  are  of  iron  (ver.  41),  but  the  feet 
 and  toes  which  grow  out  of  the  legs  are  partly  of  clay  and  partly 
 of  iron. 
 
 Regarding  Pi^iO,  see  under  ver.  33.  ^on  means  clai/,  a  piece  of 
 clay,  then  an  earthly  vessel,  2  Sam.  v.  20.  "iHQ  in  the  Targums 
 means  p)otter,  also  potter  s  earth,  potsherds.  The  ins  '•'i  serves  to 
 strengthen  the  ^on^  as  in  the  following  the  addition  of  N'J"'?,  clay, 
 in  order  the  more  to  hei<2;hten  the  idea  of  brittleness.  This  two-  . 
 fold  material  denotes  that  it  will  be  a  divided  or  severed  kingdom, 
 not  because  it  separates  into  several  (two  to  ten)  kingdoms,  for  this 
 is  denoted  by  the  duality  of  the  feet  and  by  the  number  of  the 
 toes  of  the  feet,  but  inwardly  divided  ;  for  J^S  always  in  Hebr.,  and 
 often  in  Chald.,  signifies  the  unnatural  or  violent  division  arising 
 from  inner  disliarmony  or  discord ;  cf.  Gen.  x.  25,  Ps.  Iv.  10,  Job 
 xxxviii.  25;  and  Levy,  chald.  Worterb.  s.v.  Notwithstanding  this 
 inner  division,  there  will  yet  be  in  it  the  firmness  of  iron,  ^^^yj^ 
 firmness,  related  to  3^^,  Pa.  to  make  fast,  but  in  Chald.  generally 
 plantatio,  properly  a  slip,  a  plant. 
 
 Vers.  42,  43.  In  ver.  42  the  same  is  said  of  the  toes  of  the 
 feet,  and  in  ver.  43  the  comparison  to  iron  and  clay  is  defined  as 
 the  mixture  of  these  two  component  parts.  As  the  iron  denotes 
 the  firmness  of  the  kingdom,  so  the  clay  denotes  its  brittleness. 
 The  mixing  of  iron  with  clay  represents  the  attempt  to  bind  the 
 two  distinct  and  separate  materials  into  one  combined  whole  as 
 fruitless,  and  altogether  in  vain.  The  mixing  of  themselves  with 
 the  seed  of  men  (ver.  43),  most  interpreters  refer  to  the  marriage 
 politics  of  the  princes.  They  who  understand  by  the  four  king- 
 doms the  monarchy  of  Alexander  and  his  followers,  think  it  refers 
 to  the  marriages  between  the  Seleucidae  and  the  Ptolemies,  of 
 
CHAP,  II.  31-45.  109 
 
 which  indeed  there  is  mention  made  in  ch.  xi.  G  and  17,  but  not 
 here ;  while  Hofm.  thinks  it  relates  to  marriages,  such  as  those 
 of  the  German  Kaiser  Otto  ii.  and  the  Russian  Grand-Duke 
 Wladimir  with  the  daughters  of  the  Kaiser  of  Eastern  Rome. 
 But  this  interpretation  is  rightly  rejected  by  Klief.,  as  on  all  points 
 inconsistent  with  the  text.  The  subject  to  P^l^rip  is  not  the  kings, 
 of  wdiom  mention  is  made  neither  in  ver.  43  nor  previously.  For 
 the  two  feet  as  well  as  the  ten  toes  denote  not  kings,  but  parts 
 of  the  fourth  kingdom  ;  and  even  in  ver.  44,  by  ^l^^^,  not  kings 
 in  contradistinction  to  the  kingdoms,  but  the  representatives  of  the 
 parts  of  the  kingdom  denoted  by  the  feet  and  the  toes  as  existing 
 contemporaneously,  are  to  be  understood,  from  which  it  cannot 
 rightly  be  concluded  in  any  way  that  kings  is  the  subject  to 
 )''3"ii?np  (^shall  mingle  themselves). 
 
 As,  in  the  three  preceding  kingdoms,  gold,  silver,  and  brass 
 represent  the  material  of  these  kingdoms,  i.e.  their  peoples  and 
 their  culture,  so  also  in  the  fourth  kingdom  iron  and  clay  repre- 
 sent the  material  of  the  kino;doms  arising  out  of  the  division  of 
 this  kingdom,  i.e.  the  national  elements  out  of  which  they  are  con- 
 stituted, and  which  will  and  must  mingle  together  in  them.  If, 
 then,  the  "  mixing  themselves  with  the  seed  of  men"  points  to 
 marriages,  it  is  only  of  the  mixing  of  different  tribes  brought 
 together  by  external  force  in  the  kingdom  by  marriages  as  a  means 
 of  amalgamating  the  diversified  nationalities.  But  the  expression 
 is  not  to  be  limited  to  this,  although  27.-^nn^  Ezra  ix.  2,  occurs  of 
 the  mixing  of  the  holy  nation  with  the  heathen  by  marriage.  The 
 peculiar  expression  ><^'J^?  Vl!,  the  seed  of  men,  is  not  of  the  same 
 import  as  J^IT.  ^^^^,  but  is  obviously  chosen  with  reference  to  the 
 following  contrast  to  the  divine  Ruler,  ver.  44  f.,  so  as  to  place 
 (Kran.)  the  vain  human  endeavour  of  the  heathen  rulers  in  con- 
 trast with  the  doings  of  the  God  of  heaven ;  as  in  Jer.  xxxi.  27 
 ^7?  V}!  is  occasioned  by  the  contrast  of  HDnii  J?"IT.  The  figure  of 
 mixing  by  seed  is  derived  from  the  sowing  of  the  field  with  mingled 
 seed,  and  denotes  all  the  means  employed  by  the  rulers  to  combine 
 the  different  nationalities,  among  which  the  connuhium  is  only 
 spoken  of  as  the  most  important  and  successful  means. 
 
 But  this  mixing  together  will  succeed  just  as  little  as  will  the 
 effort  to  bind  together  into  one  firm  coherent  mass  iron  and  clay. 
 The  parts  mixed  together  will  not  cleave  to  each  other.  Regarding 
 Pil?,  see  under  ver.  20. 
 
 Ver.  44.  The  world-kingdom  will  be  broken  to  pieces  by  the 
 
110  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 kingdom  -vvliich  the  God  of  heaven  will  set  up.  "  In  the  days  of 
 these  kings,"  i.e.  of  the  kings  of  the  world-kingdoms  last  described ; 
 at  the  time  of  the  kingdoms  denoted  by  the  ten  toes  of  the  feet  of 
 the  image  into  which  the  fourth  world-monarchy  extends  itself;  for 
 the  stone  (ver.  34)  rolling  against  the  feet  of  the  image,  or  rather 
 against  the  toes  of  the  feet,  breaks  and  destroys  it.  This  king- 
 dom is  not  founded  by  the  hands  of  man,  but  is  erected  by  the 
 God  of  heaven,  and  shall  for  ever  remain  immoveable,  in  contrast 
 to  the  world-kingdoms,  the  one  of  which  will  be  annihilated  by  the 
 other.  Its  dominion  will  not  be  given  to  another  people.  '"^^l^^O, 
 Ids  dominion,  i.e.  of  the  kinodom.  This  word  needs  not  to  be 
 changed  into  nnia^Dj  which  is  less  suitable,  since  the  mere  status 
 ahsol.  would  not  be  here  in  place.  Among  the  world-kingdoms 
 the  dominion  goes  from  one  people  to  another,  from  the  Baby- 
 lonians to  the  Persians,  etc.  On  the  contrary,  the  kingdom  of 
 God  comprehends  always  the  same  people,  i.e.  the  people  of  Israel, 
 chosen  by  God  to  be  His  own,  only  not  the  Israel  Kara  adpKU, 
 but  the  Israel  of  God  (Gal.  vi.  16).  But  the  kingdom  of  God  will 
 not  merely  exist  eternally  without  change  of  its  dominion,  along 
 w'ith  the  world-kingdoms,  which  are  always  changing  and  bringing 
 one  another  to  dissolution,  it  will  also  break  in  pieces  and  destroy 
 all  these  kingdoms  {^^.^,  from  fi^D,  to  bring  to  an  end,  to  make  an  end 
 to  them),  but  itself  shall  exist  for  ever.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
 stone  setting  itself  free  without  the  hands  of  man,  and  breaking  the 
 image  in  pieces. 
 
 Ver.  45.  The  Ny.t30  before  ninns,  which  is  wanting  in  ver.  34, 
 and  without  doubt  is  here  used  significantly,  is  to  be  observed,  as  in 
 ver.  42  "  the  toes  of  the  feet,"  which  in  ver.  33  were  also  not  men- 
 tioned. As  it  is  evident  that  a  stone,  in  order  to  its  rolling  without 
 the  movement  of  the  human  hand,  must  be  set  free  from  a  moun- 
 tain, so  in  the  express  mention  of  the  mountain  there  can  be  only  a 
 reference  to  Mount  Zion,  where  the  God  of  heaven  has  founded 
 IHs  kingdom,  which  shall  from  thence  spread  out  over  the  earth  and 
 shall  destroy  all  the  world-kingdoms.  Cf.  Ps.  1.  2,  Isa.  ii.  3,  Mic. 
 iv.  2. 
 
 The  first  half  of  the  45tli  verse  (down  to  ^9^"^:)  gi^'es  the  con- 
 firmation of  that  which  Daniel  in  ver.  44  said  to  the  king  regard- 
 ing the  setting  up  and  the  continuance  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
 and  essentially  belongs  to  this  verse.  On  the  other  hand,  Hitz. 
 (and  Kran.  follows  him)  wishes  to  unite  this  confirmatory  passage 
 with  the  following :  "  because  thou  hast  seen  that  the  stone,  setting 
 
CHAP.  II.  31-45.  Ill 
 
 itsolf  free  from  the  mountain,  breaks  in  pieces  the  iron,  etc.,  thus 
 has  God  permitted  thee  a  glimpse  behind  the  veil  that  hides  the 
 future," — in  order  that  he  may  conclude  from  it  that  the  writer, 
 since  he  notes  only  the  vision  of  the  stone  setting  itself  free  as 
 an  announcement  of  the  future,  betrayed  his  real  standpoint,  i.e. 
 the  standpoint  of  the  Maccabean  Jew,  for  whom  only  this  last 
 catastrophe  was  as  j-et  future,  M'hile  all  the  rest  was  already  past. 
 This  conclusion  Kran.  has  rejected,  but  with  the  untenable  argu- 
 ment that  the  expression,  "  what  shall  come  to  pass  hereafter,"  is 
 to  be  taken  in  agreement  with  the  words,  "  what  should  come  to 
 pass,"  ver.  29,  which  occur  at  the  beginning  of  the  address.  Though 
 this  may  in  itself  be  right,  yet  it  cannot  be  maintained  if  the  passage 
 ver.  45a  forms  the  antecedent  to  ver.  45i.  In  this  case  np  (this), 
 in  the  phrase  "■  aflei'  this"  (  =  hereafter,  ver.  45),  can  be  referred 
 only  to  the  setting  loose  of  the  stone.  But  the  reasons  which  Hitz. 
 adduces  for  the  uniting  together  of  the  passages  as  adopted  by  him 
 are  without  any  importance.  Why  the  long  combined  passage  cannot 
 suitably  conclude  with  ^^Dp^.  there  is  no  reason  which  can  be  under- 
 stood ;  and  that  it  does  not  round  itself  is  also  no  proof,  but  merely 
 a  matter  of  taste,  the  baselessness  of  which  is  evident  from  ver.  10, 
 where  an  altogether  similar  long  passage,  beginning  with  ''T  ^^P'^2 
 {forasmuch  as),  ends  in  a  similar  manner,  without  formally  round- 
 ing itself  off.  The  further  remark  also,  that  the  following  new 
 passage  could  not  so  unconnectedly  and  baldly  begin  with  31  rhu, 
 is  no  proof,  but  a  mere  assertion,  which  is  set  aside  as  groundless  by 
 many  passages  in  Daniel  where  the  connection  is  wanting;  cf.  e.g. 
 iv.  16b,  27.  The  want  of  the  copula  before  this  passage  is  to  be 
 explained  on  the  same  ground  on  which  Daniel  uses  T)  nbi^  (stat. 
 absoL,  i.e.  without  the  article)  instead  of  ^^/.^  ^^n^  Ezra  v.  8. 
 For  tliat  21  n^s  means,  not  "  a  (undefined)  great  God,"  but  the  great 
 God  in  heaven,  whom  Daniel  had  already  (ver.  28)  announced  to 
 the  king  as  the  revealer  of  secrets,  is  obvious.  Kran.  has  rio'htly 
 remarked,  that  m  nbx  may  stand  "in  elevated  discourse  without  the 
 article,  instead  of  the  prosaic  xm  Nn^x,  Ezra  v.  8."  The  elevated 
 discourse  has  occasioned  also  the  absence  of  the  copula,  which  will 
 not  be  missed  if  one  only  takes  a  pause  at  the  end  of  the  interpreta- 
 tion, after  which  Daniel  then  in  conclusion  further  says  to  the  king, 
 *'  The  great  God  has  showed  to  the  king  what  will  be  hereafter." 
 '^P.  ""IC.^j  after  this  which  is  now,  does  not  mean  "  at  some  future 
 time  "  (Hitz.),  but  after  that  which  is  at  present,  and  it  embraces 
 the  future  denoted  in  the  dream,  from  the  time  of  Nebuchad- 
 
112  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 nezzar  till  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  the  time  of  the 
 Messiah. 
 
 Ver.  45^.  The  word  with  which  Daniel  concludes  his  address, 
 ^^^,  firm^  sure,  is  the  dream,  and  certain  its  interpretation,  is  not 
 intended  to  assure  the  king  of  the  truth  of  the  dream,  because  the 
 particulars  of  the  dream  had  escaped  him,  and  to  certify  to  him  the 
 correctness  of  the  interpretation  (Kran.),  but  the  importance  of  the 
 dream  should  put  him  in  mind  to  lay  the  matter  to  heart,  and  give 
 honour  to  God  who  imparted  to  him  these  revelations  ;  but  at  the 
 same  time  also  the  word  assures  the  readers  of  the  book  of  the  cer- 
 tainty of  the  fulfilment,  since  it  lay  far  remote,  and  the  visible 
 course  of  things  in  the  present  and  in  the  proximate  future  gave  no 
 indication  or  only  a  very  faint  prospect  of  the  fulfilment.  For  other 
 such  assurances  see  ch.  viii.  26,  x.  21,  Rev.  xix.  9,  xxi.  5,  xxii.  6. 
 
 We  shall  defer  a  fuller  consideration  of  the  fulfilment  of  this 
 dream  or  the  historical  references  of  the  four  world-kingdoms,  in 
 order  to  avoid  repetition,  till  we  have  expounded  the  vision  which 
 Daniel  received  regarding  it  in  ch.  vii. 
 
 Vers.  46-49.  The  impression  lohich  this  interpretation  of  the 
 dream  made  upon  Nebuchadnezzar^  and  the  consequences  lohich  thence 
 arose  for  Daniel. 
 
 The  announcement  and  the  interpretation  of  the  remarkable 
 dream  made  so  powerful  an  impression  on  Nebuchadnezzar,  that 
 he  fell  down  in  supplication  before  Daniel  and  ordered  sacrifice  to 
 be  offered  to  him.  Falling  prostrate  to  the  earth  is  found  as  a 
 mark  of  honour  to  men,  it  is  true  (1  Sam.  xx.  41,  xxv.  28  ;  2  Sam. 
 xiv.  4),  but  *13D  is  used  only  of  divine  homage  (Isa.  xliv.  15, 17,  19, 
 xlvi.  6,  and  Dan.  iii.  5  ff.).  To  the  Chaldean  king,  Daniel  appeared 
 as  a  man  in  whom  the  gods  manifested  themselves  ;  therefore  he 
 shows  to  him  divine  honour,  such  as  was  shown  by  Cornelius  to  the 
 Apostle  Peter,  and  at  Lystra  was  shown  to  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
 Acts  X.  25,  xiv.  13.  "^Q^^j  an  unbloody  sacrijice,  and  rnn'':^  are  not 
 burnt  sacrifices  or  offerings  of  pieces  of  fat  (Hitz.),  but  incensings, 
 the  offering  of  incense  ;  cf .  Ex.  xxx.  9,  where  the  rinbp  is  particularly 
 mentioned  along  with  the  nVy  and  the  nmn.  'i]D3  is,  with  Hitz.,  to  be 
 taken  after  the  Arabic  in  the  general  signification  sacrificare,  but  is 
 transferred  zcugmatically  from  the  pouring  out  of  a  drink-offering  to 
 the  offering  of  a  sacrifice.  Ver.  47,  where  Nebuchadnezzar  praises 
 the  God  of  the  Jews  as  the  God  of  gods,  does  not  stand  in  contra- 
 diction to  the  rendering  of  divine  honour  to  Daniel  in  such  a  way 
 
CHAP.  II.  4G-49.  113 
 
 that,  with  Hitz.,  in  the  conduct  of  the  king  we  miss  consistency 
 and  propriety,  and  find  it  improbable.  For  Nebuchadnezzar  did 
 not  pray  to  the  man  Daniel,  but  in  the  person  of  Daniel  to  his 
 God,  i.e.  to  the  God  of  the  Jews ;  and  he  did  this  because  this 
 God  had  manifested  Himself  to  him  through  Daniel  as  the 
 supreme  God,  who  rules  over  kings,  and  reveals  hidden  things 
 which  the  gods  of  the  Chaldean  wise  men  were  not  able  to  reveal. 
 Moreover,  in  this,  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  abandon  his  heathen 
 standpoint.  He  did  not  recognise  the  God  of  the  Jews  as  the 
 only,  or  the  alone  true  God,  but  only  as  God  of  gods,  as  the 
 highest  or  the  most  exalted  of  the  gods,  who  excelled  the  other 
 gods  in  might  and  in  wisdom,  and  was  a  Lord  of  kings,  and  as 
 such  must  be  honoured  along  with  the  gods  of  his  own  country. 
 ^■=1  tDL:'ip"|Dj  of  truth  (it  is)  that,  stands  adverbially  for  truli/. 
 
 Ver.  48.  After  Nebuchadnezzar  had  given  honour  to  the  God 
 of  the  Jews,  he  rewarded  Daniel,  the  servant  of  this  God,  with 
 gifts,  and  by  elevating  him  to  high  offices  of  state.  ''3'i,  fo  make 
 great,  is  more  fully  defined  by  the  following  passages.  '^'^7^^'],  he 
 made  him  a  man  of  'power,  ruler  over  the  province  of  Babylon,  i.e. 
 vicegerent,  governor  of  this  province.  According  to  ch.  iii.  2,  the 
 Chaldean  kingdom  consisted  of  several  fc*ri3''*iOj  each  of  which  had 
 its  own  }it3pti^.  The  following  PJJD  3"i"i  depends  zeugmatically, 
 however,  on  '^'u>^t\  ;  and  (made  him)  president  over  all  the  ivise 
 men.  PJ^D,  Hebr.  Cl''3Jp,  vicegerent,  prefect,  is  an  Aryan  word  in- 
 corporated into  the  Hebrew,  ^a)<ydvr)<;  in  Athen.,  but  not  yet 
 certainly  authenticated  in  Old  Persian ;  vide  Spiegel  in  Delitzsch 
 on  Isa.  xli.  25.  The  wise  men  of  Babylon  were  divided  into 
 classes  according  to  their  principal  functions,  under  P^?,  chiefs, 
 whose  president  (=  ■^9"'^"^)  J^'"*  xxxix.  3)  Daniel  was. 
 
 Ver.  49.  At  Daniel's  request  the  king  made  his  three  friends 
 governors  of  the  province.  ''30^  is  not,  with  Hav.  and  other  older 
 writers,  to  be  translated  that  he  should  ordain ;  this  sense  must  be 
 expressed  by  the  imperfect.  The  matter  of  the  prayer  is  not 
 specially  given,  but  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  granting  of  it. 
 But  this  prayer  is  not,  with  Hitz.  and  older  interpreters,  to  be 
 understood  as  implying  that  Daniel  entreated  the  king  to  release 
 him  from  the  office  of  vicegerent,  and  that  the  king  entrusted  that 
 office  to  his  three  friends  ;  for  if  Daniel  wished  to  retain  this 
 dignity,  but  to  transfer  the  duty  to  his  friends,  there  was  no  need, 
 as  Hitz.  thinks,  for  this  purpose,  for  the  express  appointment  of 
 the  king;  his  mere  permission  was  enough.      But  whence   did 
 
 H 
 
114  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Hitz.  obtain  this  special  information  regarding  the  state  arrange- 
 ments of  Babylon  ?  and  how  does  he  know  that  "S??,  to  decree, 
 means  an  express  appointment  in  contradistinction  to  a  royal  per- 
 mission ?  The  true  state  of  the  matter  Hav.  has  clearly  ex- 
 plained. The  chief  ruler  of  the  province  had  a  number  of 
 inrapj(oi,^  nnder-offi,cers,  in  the  province  for  the  various  branches 
 of  the  government.  To  such  offices  the  king  appointed  Daniel's 
 three  friends  at  his  request,  so  tiiat  he  might  be  able  as  chief  ruler 
 to  reside  continually  at  the  court  of  the  king.  t^riTIiy,  rendering 
 of  service  =  'H?;?'!'  ^1^^?,  service  of  the  king,  1  Chron.  xxvi.  30, 
 according  as  the  matter  may  be :  the  management  of  business. 
 S27D  yins,  near  the  gate,  i.e.  at  the  court  of  the  king,  for  the 
 gate,  the  door,  is  named  for  the  building  to  which  it  formed  the 
 entrance;  cf.  'HP'^n  "lyii^j  Esth.  ii.  19,  21,  iii.  2  ff.  Gesenius  is  in 
 error  when  he  explains  the  words  there  as  meaning  that  Daniel 
 was  made  prefect  of  the  palace. 
 
 CHAP.  III.  1-30.  Daniel's  three  friends  in  the  fiery 
 
 FURNACE. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar  commanded  a  colossal  golden  image  to  be  set 
 up  in  the  plain  of  Dura  at  Babylon,  and  summoned  all  his  high 
 officers  of  state  to  be  present  at  its  consecration.  He  caused  it  to 
 be  proclaimed  by  a  herald,  that  at  a  given  signal  all  should  fall 
 down  before  the  image  and  do  it  homage,  and  that  whosoever 
 refused  to  do  so  would  be  cast  into  a  burning  fiery  furnace  (vers. 
 1-7).  This  ceremony  having  been  ended,  it  was  reported  to  the 
 king  by  certain  Chaldeans  that  Daniel's  friends,  who  had  been 
 placed  over  the  province  of  Babylon,  had  not  done  homage  to  the 
 image ;  whereupon,  being  called  to  account  by  the  king,  they 
 refused  to  worship  the  image  because  they  could  not  serve  his 
 gods  (vers.  8-18).  For  this  opposition  to  the  king's  will  they  were 
 cast,  bound  in  their  clothes,  into  the  burning  fiery  furnace.  They 
 were  uninjured  by  the  fire ;  and  the  king  perceived  with  terror 
 that  not  three,  but  four  men,  were  walking  unbound  and  unin- 
 jured in  the  furnace  (vers.  19-27).  Then  he  commanded  them  to 
 come  out ;  and  when  he  found  them  wholly  unhurt,  he  not  only 
 praised  their  God  who  had  so  wonderfully  protected  them,  but  also 
 commanded,  on  the  pain  of  death,  all  the  people  of  his  kingdom 
 not  to  despise  this  God  (vers.  28-30). 
 
 The  LXX.  and  Theodotion  have  placed  the  date  of  this  event 
 
CHAP.  III.  1-30.  115 
 
 in  the  eighteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  apparently  only  because 
 they  associated  the  erection  of  this  statue  with  the  taking  of  Jeru- 
 salem under  Zedekiah,  although  that  city  was  not  taken  and  de- 
 stroyed till  the  nineteenth  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xxv. 
 8  ff.).  Bat  though  it  is  probable  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  he 
 had  firmly  established  his  world-kingdom  by  the  overthrow  of  all 
 his  enemies,  first  felt  himself  moved  to  erect  this  image  as  a  monu- 
 ment of  his  great  exploits  and  of  his  world-power ;  yet  the  destruc- 
 tion of  the  capital  of  Judea,  which  had  been  already  twice  de-^ 
 stroyed,  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  having  furnished  a  sufficient 
 occasion  for  this.  This  much,  however,  is  certain,  that  the  event 
 narrated  in  this  chapter  occurred  later  than  that  of  the  2d  chapter, 
 since  ch.  iii.  12  and  30  refer  to  ch.  ii.  49  ;  and  on  the  other  hand, 
 that  they  occurred  earlier  than  the  incident  of  the  4th  chapter,  in 
 which  there  are  many  things  which  point  to  the  last  half  of  the 
 reign  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  while  the  history  recorded  in  the  chapter 
 before  us  appertains  more  to  the  middle  of  his  reign,  when  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar stood  on  the  pinnacle  of  his  greatness.  The  circumstance 
 that  there  is  no  longer  found  in  the  king  any  trace  of  the  impression 
 which  the  omnipotence  and  infinite  wisdom  of  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
 as  brought  to  view  in  the  interpretation  of  his  dream  by  Daniel, 
 made  upon  his  mind  (ch.  ii.),  affords  no  means  of  accurately  de- 
 termining the  time  of  the  occurrence  here  narrated.  There  is  no 
 need  for  our  assuming,  with  Jerome,  a  velox  ohlivio  veritatis,  or  with 
 Calvin,  the  lapse  of  a  considerable  interval  between  the  two  events. 
 The  deportment  of  Nebuchadnezzar  on  this  occasion  does  not  stand 
 in  opposition  to  the  statements  made  at  the  close  of  ch.  ii.  The 
 command  that  all  who  were  assembled  at  the  consecration  of  the 
 image  should  fall  down  before  it  and  worship  it,  is  to  be  viewed 
 from  the  standpoint  of  the  heathen  king.  It  had  no  reference  at 
 all  to  the  oppression  of  those  who  worshipped  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
 nor  to  a  persecution  of  the  Jews  on  account  of  their  God.  It  only 
 demanded  the  recognition  of  the  national  god,  to  whom  the  king 
 supposed  he  owed  the  greatness  of  his  kingdom,  as  the  god  of  the 
 kingdom,'and  was  a  command  which  the  heathen  subjects  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar could  execute  without  any  violence  to  their  consciences. 
 The  Jews  could  not  obey  it,  however,  without  violating  the  first  pre- 
 cept of  their  law.  But  Nebuchadnezzar  did  not  think  on  that.  Dis- 
 obedience to  his  command  appeared  to  him  as  culpable  rebellion 
 against  his  majesty.  As  such  also  the  conduct  of  Daniel's  friends 
 is  represented  to  him  by  the  Chaldean  informers  in  ver.  12.     The 
 
116  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 words  of  the  informers,  "  The  Jews  wliom  thou  hast  set  over  the 
 affairs  of  the  province  of  Babylon  have  not  regarded  thee,  O  king; 
 they  serve  not  thy  gods,"  etc.,  clearly  show  that  they  were  rightly 
 named  (ver.  8)  "  accusers  of  the  Jews,"  and  that  by  their  denun- 
 ciation of  them  they  wished  only  to  expel  the  foreigners  from 
 their  places  of  influence  ;  and  for  this  purpose  they  made  use  of 
 the  politico-national  festival  appointed  by  Nebuchadnezzar  as  a 
 fitting  opportunity.  Hence  we  can  understand  Nebuchadnezzar's 
 anger  against  those  who  disregarded  his  command ;  and  his  words, 
 with  which  he  pronounced  sentence  against  the  accused — "  who  is 
 that  God  that  shall  deliver  you  out  of  my  hand?" — are,  judged  of 
 from  the  religious  point  of  view  of  the  Israelites,  a  blaspheming  of 
 God,  but  considered  from  Nebuchadnezzar's  heathen  standpoint, 
 are  only  an  expression  of  proud  confidence  in  his  own  might  and 
 in  that  of  his  gods,  and  show  nothing  further  than  that  the  reve- 
 lation of  the  living  God  in  ch.  ii.  had  not  permanently  impressed 
 itself  on  his  heart,  but  had  in  course  of  time  lost  much  of  its 
 influence  over  him. 
 
 The  conduct  of  Nebuchadnezzar  toward  the  Jews,  described 
 in  this  chapter,  is  accordingly  fundamentally  different  from  the 
 relation  sustained  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  towards  Judaism ;  for 
 he  wished  entirely  to  put  an  end  to  the  Jewish  form  of  worship. 
 In  the  conduct  of  Daniel's  friends  who  were  accused  before  the 
 king  there  is  also  not  a  single  trace  of  the  religious  fanaticism  pre- 
 valent among  the  Jews  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees,  who  were 
 persecuted  on  account  of  their  fidelity  to  the  law.  Far  from 
 trusting  in  the  miraculous  help  of  God,  they  regarded  it  as 
 possible  that  God,  whom  they  served,  would  not  save  them,  and 
 they  only  declare  that  in  no  case  will  they  reverence  the  heathen 
 deities  of  the  king,  and  do  homage  to  the  image  erected  by  him 
 (ver.  IG  ff.). 
 
 The  right  apprehension  of  the  historical  situation  described  in  this 
 chapter  is  at  complete  variance  with  the  supposition  of  the  modern 
 critics,  that  the  narrative  is  unhistorical,  and  was  invented  for  the 
 purpose  of  affording  a  type  for  the  relation  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 to  Judaism.  The  remarkable  circumstance,  that  Daniel  is  not 
 named  as  having  been  present  at  this  festival  (and  he  also  would 
 certainly  not  have  done  homage  to  the  image),  can  of  itself  alone 
 furnish  no  argument  against  the  historical  accuracy  of  the  matter, 
 although  it  cannot  be  explained  on  the  supposition  made  by  llgstb., 
 that  Daniel,  as  president  over  the  wise  men,  did  not  belong  to  the 
 
CHAP.  III.  1-18.  117 
 
 class  of  state-officers,  nor  by  the  assertion  of  Hitz.,  that  Daniel 
 did  not  belong  to  the  class  of  chief  officers,  since  according  to 
 ch.  ii.  49  he  had  transferred  his  office  to  his  friends.  Both 
 suppositions  are  erroneous ;  cf.  under  ch.  ii.  49.  But  many  other 
 different  possibilities  may  be  thought  of  to  account  for  the  absence 
 of  all  mention  of  Daniel's  name.  Either  he  may  have  been  pre- 
 vented for  some  reason  from  being  present  on  the  occasion,  or  he 
 may  have  been  present  and  may  have  refused  to  bow  down  before 
 the  image,  but  yet  may  only  not  have  been  informed  against.  In 
 the  latter  case,  the  remark  of  Calvin,  ut  ahstmuerint  a  Daniele  ad 
 tempus,  quern  sciebant  magnijieri  a  Eege,  would  scarcely  suffice,  but 
 we  must  suppose  that  the  accusers  had  designed  first  only  the 
 overthrow  of  the  three  rulers  of  the  province  of  Babylon.^  But 
 the  circumstance  that  Daniel,  if  he  were  present,  did  not  employ 
 himself  in  behalf  of  his  friends,  may  be  explained  from  the  quick 
 execution  of  Babylonish  justice,  provided  some  higher  reason  did 
 not  determine  him  confidently  to  commit  the  decision  of  the  matter 
 to  the  Lord  his  God.^ 
 
 Vers.  1-18.  The  erection  and  co7isecration  of  the  golden  image, 
 and  the  accusation  brought  against  DanieVs  friends,  that  they  had 
 refused  to  obey  the  king^s  command  to  do  homage  to  this  image. 
 
 Ver.  1.  Nebuchadnezzar  commanded  a  golden  image  to  be 
 erected,  of  threescore  cubits  in  height  and  six  cubits  in  breadth. 
 
 ^  Kran.'s  supposition  also  (p.  153),  that  Daniel,  as  president  over  the  class 
 of  the  wise  men,  claimed  the  right  belonging  to  him  as  such,  while  in  his 
 secular  office  he  could  be  represented  by  his  Jewish  associates,  and  thus  was 
 withdrawn  from  the  circle  of  spectators  and  from  the  command  laid  upon  them 
 of  falling  down  before  the  image,  has  little  probaLility  ;  for  although  it  is  not 
 said  that  this  command  was  laid  upon  the  caste  of  the  wise  men,  and  even  though 
 it  should  be  supposed  that  the  priests  were  present  at  this  festival  as  the 
 directors  of  the  religious  ceremonial,  and  thus  were  brought  under  the  command 
 to  fall  down  before  the  image,  yet  this  can  scarcely  be  supposed  of  the  whole 
 caste.  But  Daniel  could  not  in  conscience  take  part  in  this  idolatrous  festival, 
 nor  associate  himself  with  the  priests,  nor  as  president  of  all  the  Magi  withdraw 
 into  the  background,  so  as  to  avoid  the  ceremony  of  doing  homage  to  the 
 image. 
 
 -  TTe  have  already  in  part  noticed  the  arguments  against  the  historical 
 accuracy  of  the  narrative  presented  by  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the 
 book,  such  as  the  giving  of  Greek  names  to  the  musical  instruments,  and  the 
 conduct  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  placing  an  idol-image  on  the  altar  of  burnt- 
 offering  (pp.  34,  50).  All  the  others  are  dealt  with  in  the  Exposition.  The 
 principal  objection  adduced  is  the  miracle,  on  account  of  which  alone  Hitz. 
 thinks  himself  warranted  in  affirming  that  the  narrative  has  no  historical  reality. 
 
118  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Dpy  is  properly  an  image  in  human  likeness  (cf.  cli.  ii.  31),  and  ex- 
 cludes the  idea  of  a  mere  pillar  or  an  obelisk,  for  which  i^^iJO  would 
 have  been  the  appropriate  word.  Yet  from  the  use  of  the  word 
 D.?V  it  is  not  by  any  means  to  be  concluded  that  the  image  was  in 
 all  respects  perfectly  in  human  form.  As  to  the  upper  part — the 
 head,  countenance,  arms,  breast — it  may  have  been  in  the  form  of  a 
 man,  and  the  lower  part  may  have  been  formed  like  a  pillar.  This 
 would  be  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  Babylonian  art,  which 
 delighted  in  grotesque,  gigantic  forms  ;  cf.  Hgstb.  Beitr.  i.  p.  96  f . 
 The  measure,  in  height  threescore  cubits,  in  breadth  six  cubits,  is 
 easily  explained,  since  in  the  human  figure  the  length  is  to  the 
 breadth  in  the  proportion  of  about  six  to  one.  In  the  height  of 
 threescore  cubits  the  pedestal  of  the  image  may  be  regarded  as  in- 
 cluded, so  that  the  whole  image  according  to  its  principal  compo- 
 nent part  (a  potiori)  was  designated  as  Spy ;  although  the  passage 
 Judg.  xviii.  30,  31,  adduced  by  Kran.,  where  mention  is  made  of 
 the  image  alone  which  was  erected  by  Micah,  without  any  notice 
 being  taken  of  the  pedestal  belonging  to  it  (cf.  vers.  17  and  18), 
 furnishes  no  properly  authentic  proof  that  'P^,^  in  vers.  30  and  31 
 denotes  the  image  with  the  pedestal.  The  proportion  between  the 
 height  and  the  breadth  justifies,  then,  in  no  respect  the  rejection  of 
 the  historical  character  of  the  narrative.  Still  less  does  the  mass  of 
 gold  necessary  for  the  construction  of  so  colossal  an  image,  since, 
 as  has  been  already  mentioned  (p.  39),  according  to  the  Hebrew 
 modes  of  speech,  we  are  not  required  to  conceive  of  the  figure  as 
 having  been  made  of  solia  gold,  and  since,  in  the  great  riches 
 of  the  ancient  world,  Nebuchadnezzar  in  his  successful  campaigns 
 might  certainly  accumulate  an  astonishing  amount  of  this  precious 
 metal.  The  statements  of  Herodotus  and  Diodorus  regarding  the 
 Babylonian  idol-images,^  as  well  as  the  description  in  Isa.  xl.  19 
 of  the  construction  of  idol-imao-es,  lead  us  to  think  of  the  ima^e 
 as  merely  overlaid  with  plates  of  gold. 
 
 The  king  commanded  this  image  to  be  set  up  in  the  plain  of 
 Dura  in  the  province  of  Babylon.     The  ancients  make  mention 
 
 ^  According  to  Herod,  i.  183,  for  the  great  golden  image  of  Belus,  which 
 was  twelve  cubits  high,  and  the  great  golden  table  standing  before  it,  the 
 golden  steps  and  the  golden  chair,  only  800  talents  of  gold  were  used ;  and 
 according  to  Diod.  Sic.  ii.  9,  the  golden  statue,  forty  feet  high,  placed  in  the 
 temple  of  Belus  consisted  of  1000  talents  of  gold,  which  would  have  been  not 
 far  from  suflicient  if  these  objects  had  been  formed  of  solid  gold.  Diod.  also 
 expressly  says  regarding  the  statue,  that  it  was  made  with  the  hammer,  and 
 therefore  was  not  solid.     Cf.  Hgstb.  Beitr.  i.  p.  98,  and  Kran.  in  loco. 
 
CHAP.  III.  1-18.  119 
 
 of  two  places  of  the  name  of  Dura^  the  one  at  the  mouth  of  the 
 Chaboras  where  it  empties  itself  into  the  Euphrates,  not  far  from 
 Carchemish  (Polyb.  v.  48  ;  Ammian.  Marc,  xxiii.  5,  8,  xxiv.  1,  5), 
 the  other  beyond  the  Tigris,  not  far  from  Apollonia  (Polyb.  v.  52  ; 
 Amm.  Marc.  xxv.  6,  9).  Of  these  the  latter  has  most  probabi- 
 lity in  its  favour,  since  the  former  certainly  did  not  belong  to 
 the  province  of  Babylon,  which  according  to  Xenophon  extended 
 36  miles  south  of  Tiphsach  (cf.  Nieb.  Gescli.  Assiirs,  S.  421). 
 The  latter,  situated  in  the  district  of  Sittakene,  could  certainly  be 
 reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  province  of  Babylon,  since  according 
 to  Strabo,  Sittakene,  at  least  in  the  Old  Parthian  time,  belonged 
 to  Babylon  (Nieb.  p.  420).  But  even  this  place  lay  quite  too  far 
 from  the  capital  of  the  kingdom  to  be  the  place  intended.  We 
 must,  without  doubt,  much  rather  seek  for  this  plain  in  the  neigh- 
 bourhood of  Babylon,  where,  according  to  the  statement  of  Jul. 
 Oppert  (Exped.  Scientif.  en  Mesopotamie,  i.  p.  238  ff.),  there  are 
 at  present  to  be  found  in  the  S.S.E.  of  the  ruins  representing  the 
 former  capital  a  row  of  mounds  which  bear  the  name  of  Dura^  at 
 the  end  of  which,  along  with  two  larger  mounds,  there  is  a  smaller 
 one  which  is  named  el  Mohattat  (=  la  colline  alignSe^,  which  forms 
 a  square   six  metres  high,  with  a  basis  of  fourteen  metres,  wholly 
 
 built  en  hnques  crues  (i^),  which  shows  so  surprising  a  resemblance 
 
 to  a  colossal  statue  with  its  pedestal,  that  Oppert  believes  that  this 
 little  mound  is  the  remains  of  the  golden  statue  erected  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar.^ 
 
 There  is  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  signification  of  this 
 image.  According  to  the  common  view  (cf.  e.g.  Hgstb.  Beitr.  i. 
 p.  97),  Nebuchadnezzar  wished  to  erect  a  statue  as  an  expression 
 of  his  thanks  to  his  god  Bel  for  his  great  victories,  and  on  that 
 account  also  to  consecrate  it  with  religious  ceremonies.     On  the 
 
 ^  "  On  seeing  this  mound,"  Oppert  remarks  (l.  c.  p.  239),  "  one  is  immedi- 
 ately struck  with  the  resemblance  which  it  presents  to  the  pedestal  of  a  colossal 
 statue,  as,  for  example,  that  of  Bavaria  near  Miinich,  and  everything  leads  to 
 the  belief  that  the  statue  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Daniel  (ch.  iii.  1)  was  set  up 
 in  this  place.  The  fact  of  the  erection  by  Nebuchadnezzar  of  a  colossal  statue 
 has  nothing  which  can  cause  astonishment,  however  recent  may  have  been  the 
 Aramean  form  of  the  account  of  Scripture."  Oppert,  moreover,  finds  no  diffi- 
 culty in  the  size  of  the  statue,  but  says  regarding  it :  "  There  is  nothing 
 incredible  in  the  existence  of  a  statue  sixty  cubits  high  and  six  cubits  broad  ; 
 moreover  the  name  of  the  plain  of  Dura,  in  the  province  (nj^D)  of  Babylon, 
 agrees  also  with  the  actual  conformation  of  the  ruin." 
 
120  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 other  hand,  Hofm.  (Weiss,  u.  Erf.  i.  p.  277)  remarks,  that  the 
 statue  was  not  the  image  of  a  god,  because  a  distinction  is  made 
 between  falling  down  to  it  and  the  service  to  his  god  which  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar required  (vers.  12,  14,  18)  from  his  officers  of  state. 
 This  distinction,  however,  is  not  well  supported  ;  for  in  these  verses 
 praying  to  the  gods  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  placed  on  an  equality 
 with  falling  down  before  the  image.  But  on  the  other  hand,  the 
 statue  is  not  designated  as  the  image  of  a  god,  or  the  image  of 
 Belus ;  therefore  we  agree  with  Klief.  in  his  opinion,  that  the 
 statue  was  a  symbol  of  the  world-power  established  by  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, so  that  falling  down  before  it  was  a  manifestation  of 
 reverence  not  only  to  the  world-power,  but  also  to  its  gods  ;  and 
 that  therefore  the  Israelites  could  not  fall  down  before  the  image, 
 because  in  doing  so  they  would  have  rendered  homage  at  the 
 same  time  also  to  the  god  or  gods  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the  image 
 of  the  w'orld-power.  But  the  idea  of  representing  the  world- 
 power  founded  by  him  as  a  ^nvn  uyi  was  probably  suggested  to 
 Nebuchadnezzar  by  the  D^^*  seen  (ch.  ii.)  by  him  in  a  dream,  wliose 
 head  of  gold  his  world-kingdom  was  described  to  him  as  being. 
 We  may  not,  however,  with  Klief.,  seek  any  sanction  for  the  idea 
 that  the  significance  of  the  image  is  in  its  size,  6,  10,  and  six  mul- 
 tiplied by  ten  cubits,  because  the  symbolical  significance  of  the 
 number  6  as  the  signature  of  human  activity,  to  which  the  divine 
 completion  (7)  is  wanting,  is  not  a  Babylonian  idea.  Still  less  can 
 we,  with  Ziindel  (p.  13),  explain  the  absence  of  Daniel  on  this 
 occasion  as  arising  from  the  political  import  of  the  statue,  because 
 the  supposition  of  Daniel's  not  having  been  called  to  be  present  is 
 a  mere  conjecture,  and  a  very  improbable  conjecture ;  and  the 
 supposition  that  Daniel,  as  being  chief  of  the  Magi,  would  not 
 be  numbered  among  the  secular  officers  of  state,  is  decidedly 
 erroneous. 
 
 Vei-.  2.  Nebuchadnezzar  commanded  all  the  chief  officers  of 
 the  kingdom  to  be  present  at  the  solemn  dedication  of  the  imam-. 
 npK',  he  sent,  viz.  Q^3X?»  or  D"'>*^,  messengers^  1  Sam.  xi.  7  ;  2  Chron. 
 XXX.  6,  10;  Esth.  iii.  15.  Of  the  great  officers  of  state,  seven 
 classes  are  named : — 1.  N^32"i'nj:'nx,  i.e.  administrators  of  the  Khsltati-a, 
 in  Old  Pers.  dominion,  province,  and  pdvan  in  Zend.,  guardians, 
 watchers,  in  Greek  ^arpnirrj^,  the  chief  representatives  of  the  king 
 in  the  provinces.  2.  ^'^•'9?  Hebr.  Q^^^P,  from  the  Old  Pers.  (although 
 not  proved)  gahana,  to  command  (see  under  ch.  ii.AS),  comtnanders, 
 probably  the  7nilitary  chiefs  of  the  provinces.     3.  ^^J^)'!!.?,  Hebr.  nnSj 
 
CHAP.  III.  1-18.  121 
 
 ninSj  also  an  Old  Pers.  word,  whose  etymon  and  meaning  have  not 
 yet  been  established  (see  under  Hag.  i.  1),  denotes  the  presidents  of 
 the  civil  government,  the  guardians  of  the  country  ;  cf.  Hag.  i.  1,  14, 
 Neh.  V.  14,  18.  4.  NnTjn-is,  chief  judges,  from  the  Sem.  in,  to  dis- 
 tinguish, and  '\'lii,  dignity  (cf.  '^^'^'^I^?),  properly,  chief  arbitrators, 
 counsellors  of  the  government.  5.  i<p.313j  a  word  of  Aryan  origin, 
 from  "'^'i?,  identical  with  IBTS  (see  note,  p.  45),  masters  of  the 
 treasury/,  superintendents  of  the  public  treasury.  6.  ^'i?'^'^.,  the  Old 
 Pers.  ddta-bara  (p.  45),  guardians  of  the  law,  lawyers  (cf.  n^, 
 law).     7.  5<*^?^,  Semitic,  from       "\j  IV.  to  give  a  just  sentence, 
 
 thus  judges  in  the  narrower  sense  of  the  word.  Finally,  all  "'llbpi.'', 
 rulers,  i.e.  governors  of  provinces,  prefects,  who  were  subordinate 
 to  the  chief  governor,  cf.  ch.  ii.  48,  49. 
 
 All  these  officers  were  summoned  "  to  come  (^^Hf?  from  ^!^l^^J  with 
 the  rejection  of  the  initial  s)  to  the  dedication  of  the  image."  The 
 objection  of  v.  Leng.  and  Hitz.,  that  this  call  would  ''  put  a  stop  to 
 the  government  of  the  country,"  only  shows  their  ignorance  of  the 
 departments  of  the  state-government,  and  by  no  means  makes  the 
 narrative  doubtful.  The  affairs  of  the  state  did  not  lie  so  exclu- 
 sively in  the  hands  of  the  presidents  of  the  different  branches  of  the 
 government,  as  that  their  temporary  absence  should  cause  a  suspen- 
 sion of  all  the  affairs  of  government.  n3pn  is  used  of  the  dedication 
 of  a  house  (Deut.  xx.  5)  as  well  as  of  the  temple  (1  Kings  vili.  63 ; 
 2  Chron.  vii.  5  ;  Ezra  vi.  16),  and  here  undoubtedly  denotes  an  act 
 connected  with  religious  usages,  by  means  of  which  the  image,  when 
 the  great  officers  of  the  kingdom  fell  down  before  it,  was  solemnly 
 consecrated  as  the  symbol  of  the  world-power  and  (In  the  heathen 
 sense)  of  its  divine  glory.  This  act  is  described  (vers.  3-7)  in  so 
 far  as  the  object  contemplated  rendered  it  necessary. 
 
 When  all  the  great  officers  of  state  were  assembled,  a  herald  pro- 
 claimed that  as  soon  as  the  sound  of  the  music  was  heard,  all  who 
 were  present  should,  on  pain  of  death  by  being  cast  into  the  fire, 
 fall  down  before  the  image  and  offer  homage  to  it;  which  they  all 
 did  as  soon  as  the  signal  was  given.  The  form  TP^i^,  ver.  3,  corre- 
 sponds to  the  sing.  DNj?  (ch.  ii.  31)  as  it  is  written  in  Syr.,  but  is  read 
 T'ly'?^.  The  Masoretes  substitute  for  it  in  the  Talm.  the  common 
 form  pPli^;  cf.  Fiirst,  Lehi^gh.  der  aram.  Idiom,  p.  161,  and  Luzzatto, 
 Elem.  Gram.  p.  33.  The  expression  ''^Pp,  ver.  3,  and  Ezra  iv.  16, 
 is  founded  on  ^^p^  the  semi-vowel  of  the  preceding  sound  being 
 
 absorbed,  as  in  the  Syr.  ^'-^'■^nX.    On  f^pi3,  herald,  see  note  1,  p. 
 
l22 
 
 THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 45,  and  on  the  form  i^^,  see  under  ch.  ii.  5.  P.'?^*,  they  sai/,  for  "  it 
 is  said  to  you."  The  expression  of  the  passive  by  means  of  a  plural 
 form  of  the  active  used  impersonally,  either  participially  or  by  3d 
 pers.  perf.  plur.,  is  found  in  Hebr.,  but  is  quite  common  in  Chald. ; 
 cf.  Ewald,  Lehr.  d.  hebr.  Sjrr.  §  128,  b,  and  Winer,  Chald.  Gram. 
 §  49,  3.  The  proclamation  of  the  herald  refers  not  only  to  the 
 officers  who  were  summoned  to  the  festival,  but  to  all  who  were 
 present,  since  besides  the  officers  there  was  certainly  present  a 
 great  crowd  of  people  from  all  parts  of  the  kingdom,  as  M.  Geier 
 has  rightly  remarked,  so  that  the  assembly  consisted  of  persons  of 
 various  races  and  languages.  N^SX  denotes  t7'ibes  of  people,  as  the 
 Hebr.  ntSNj  ni?2)X  Gen.  xxv.  16,  denotes  the  several  tribes  of  Ishmael, 
 and  Num.  xxv.  15  the  separate  tribes  of  the  Midianites,  and  is 
 thus  not  so  extensive  in  its  import  as  P'r'V,  peoples.  ^\Vf?,  corre- 
 sponding to  niJfc^pn,  Isa.  Ixvi.  18,  designates  {vide  Gen.  x.  5,  20,  31) 
 communities  of  men  of  the  same  language,  and  is  not  a  tautology, 
 since  the  distinctions  of  nation  and  of  language  are  in  the  course 
 of  history  frequently  found.  The  placing  together  of  the  three 
 words  denotes  all  nations,  however  they  may  have  widely  branched 
 off  into  tribes  with  different  languages,  and  expresses  the  sense  that 
 no  one  in  the  whole  kingdom  should  be  exempted  from  the  com- 
 mand. It  is  a  mode  of  expression  (cf.  vers.  7,  29,  31  [iv.  1],  and 
 vi.  26  [25])  specially  characterizing  the  pathetic  style  of  the  herald 
 and  the  official  language  of  the  world-kingdom,  which  Daniel  also 
 (ch.  V.  19,  vii,  14)  makes  use  of,  and  which  from  the  latter  passage 
 is  transferred  to  the  Apocalypse,  and  by  the  union  of  these  passages 
 in  Daniel  with  Isa.  Ixvi.  18  is  increased  to  eOvq  (Dia  in  Isa.),  ^vWai, 
 \aol  Koi  yXcbaaai  (Rev.  v.  9,  vii.  9,  xiii.  7,  xiv.  6,  xvii.  15). 
 
 In  the  same  passage  WlDT  na,  ver.  7  (cf.  also  ver.  8),  is  inter- 
 changed with  ^^"^V^,  at  the  time  (vers.  5  and  15) ;  but  it  is  to  be 
 distinguished  from  ^s^lJ?J^"n2,  at  the  same  moment,  vers.  6  and  15; 
 for  NJ/'K'  or  ^V^  has  in  the  Bib.  Chald.  only  the  meaning  instant, 
 moment,  cf.  ch.  iv.  16,  30,  v.  5,  and  acquires  the  signification  short 
 time,  hour,  first  in  the  Targ.  and  Rabbin.  In  the  enumeration  also 
 of  the  six  names  of  the  musical  instruments  with  the  addition  :  and 
 all  hinds  of  music,  the  pompous  language  of  the  world-ruler  and  of 
 the  herald  of  his  power  is  well  expressed.  Regarding  the  Greek 
 names  of  three  of  tiiese  instruments  see  p.  34.  The  great  delight 
 of  the  Babylonians  in  music  and  stringed  instruments  appears  from 
 Isa.  xiv.  11  and  Ps.  cxxxvii.  3,  and  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony 
 of  Herod,  i.  191,  and  Curtius,  v.  3.     Wip,  liorn,  is  the  far-sounding 
 
CHAP.  III.  1-18.  123 
 
 tuha  of  the  ancients,  the  P.i?  or  "iSiti*  of  the  Hebr. ;  see  under  Josh. 
 vi.  5.  Kri*iphi;'0,  from  Pl^,  to  hiss,  to  ivhistle,  is  the  reed-flute^  trans- 
 lated by  the  LXX.  and  Theodot.  avpiy^^  the  sheplierd^s  or  PanHs 
 pipes,  which  consisted  of  several  reeds  of  different  thicknesses  and 
 of  different  lengths  bound  together,  and,  according  to  a  Greek 
 tradition  (Pollux,  iv.  9,  15),  was  invented  by  two  Medes.  Diri''p 
 (according  to  the  Kethiv;  but  the  Keri  and  the  Targ.  and  Rabbin, 
 give  the  form  Dhnp)  is  the  Greek  KiOdpa  or  Kl6apL<i,  harp,  for  the 
 Greek  ending  t?  becomes  o?  in  the  Aramaic,  as  in  many  similar 
 cases;  cf.  Ges.  Thes.  p.  1215.  ^???j  corresponding  to  the  Greek 
 aafi/SvKi],  but  a  Syrian  invention,  see  p.  34,  is,  according  to  Athen. 
 iv.  p.  175,  a  four-stringed  instrument,  having  a  sharp,  clear  tone; 
 cf.  Ges.  Thes.  p.  935.  n^??ri  (in  ver.  7  written  with  a  D  instead 
 of  n,  and  in  vers.  10  and  15  pointed  with  a  Tsere  under  the  D)  is 
 the  Greek  yjrakrijpLop,  of  which  the  Greek  ending  lov  becomes  ab- 
 breviated in  the  Aram,  into  11  (cf.  Ges.  Thes.  p.  1116).  The  word 
 has  no  etymology  in  the  Semitic.  It  was  an  instrument  like  a  harp, 
 which  according  to  Augustin  (on  Ps.  xxxii.  [xxxiii.]  2  and  Ps.  xlii. 
 [xliii.]  4)  was  distinguished  from  the  cithara  in  this  particular, 
 that  while  the  strings  of  the  cithara  passed  over  the  sounding- 
 board,  those  of  the  psalterium  (or  organon^  were  placed  under  it. 
 Such  harps  are  found  on  Egyptian  (see  Rosellini)  and  also  on 
 Assyrian  monuments  (cf.  Layard,  JVinev.  and  Bah.,  Table  xiii.  4). 
 n^ysp^Dj  in  ver.  10  '"'^^2''P,  is  not  derived  from  ISO?  contignare,  but  is 
 the  Aramaic  form  of  crv/xcpcovLa,  hag-pipes,  which  is  called  in  Italy 
 at  the  present  day  sampogna,  and  derives  its  Greek  name  from  the 
 accord  of  two  pipes  placed  in  the  bag;  cf.  Ges.  Thes.  p.  941.  N"inT 
 signifies,  not  "  song,"  but  musical  playing,  from  "i?2Tj  to  play  the 
 strings,  ■xIrdWecv :  and  because  the  music  of  the  instrument  was 
 accompanied  with  song,  it  means  also  the  song  accompanying  the 
 music.  The  explanation  of  N"iOt  by  singing  stands  here  in  opposi- 
 tion to  the  V.t  ''^5  since  all  sorts  of  songs  could  only  be  sung  after 
 one  another,  but  the  herald  speaks  of  the  simultaneous  rise  of  the 
 sound.  The  limiting  of  the  word  also  to  the  playing  on  a  stringed 
 instrument  does  not  fit  the  context,  inasmuch  as  wind  instruments 
 are  also  named.  Plainly  in  the  words  ^<■^DT  V.t  ^^  all  the  other 
 instruments  not  particularly  named  are  comprehended,  so  that  ^y^\ 
 is  to  be  understood  generally  of  p)laying  on  musical  instruments. 
 ^PiV^'r\2,  hi  the  same  instant.  The  frequent  pleonastic  use  in  the 
 later  Aramaic  of  the  union  of  the  preposition  with  a  suffix  antici- 
 pating the  following  noun,  whereby  the  preposition  is  frequently 
 
124  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 repeated  before  the  noun,  as  e.g.  ^^'^P^  "^3,  ch.  v.  12,  of.  ch.  v.  30, 
 has  in  the  Bib.  Chald.  generally  a  certain  emphasis,  for  the  pro- 
 nominal suffix  is  manifestly  used  demonstratively,  in  the  sense  even 
 this,  even  that. 
 
 Homage  was  commanded  to  be  shown  to  the  image  under  the 
 pain  of  death  to  those  who  refused.  Since  "  the  dominion  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar was  founded  not  by  right,  but  by  the  might  of  con- 
 quest "  (Klief.),  and  the  homage  which  he  commanded  to  be  shown 
 to  the  image  was  regarded  not  only  as  a  proof  of  subjection  under 
 the  power  of  the  king,  but  comprehended  in  it  also  the  recognition 
 of  his  gods  as  the  gods  of  the  kingdom,  instances  of  refusal  were 
 to  be  expected.  In  the  demand  of  the  king  there  was  certainly 
 a  kind  of  religious  oppression,  but  by  no  means,  as  Bleek,  v. 
 Leng.,  and  other  critics  maintain,  a  religious  persecution,  as  among 
 heathen  rulers  Antiochus  Epiphanes  practised  it.  For  so  toler- 
 ant was  heathenism,  that  it  recognised  the  gods  of  the  different 
 nations ;  but  all  heathen  kings  required  that  the  nations  subdued  by 
 them  should  also  recognise  the  gods  of  their  kingdom,  which  they 
 held  to  be  more  powerful  than  were  the  gods  of  the  vanquished 
 nations.  A  refusal  to  yield  homage  to  the  gods  of  the  kingdom 
 they  regarded  as  an  act  of  hostility  against  the  kingdom  and  its 
 monarch,  while  every  one  might  at  the  same  time  honour  his  own 
 national  god.  This  acknowledgment,  that  the  gods  of  the  kingdom 
 were  the  more  powerful,  every  heathen  could  grant;  and  thus 
 Nebuchadnezzar  demanded  nothing  in  a  religious  point  of  view 
 which  every  one  of  his  subjects  could  not  yield.  To  him,  there- 
 fore, the  refusal  of  the  Jews  could  not  but  appear  as  opposition  to 
 the  greatness  of  his  kingdom.  But  the  Jews,  or  Israelites,  could 
 not  do  homage  to  the  gods  of  Nebuchadnezzar  without  rejecting 
 their  faith  that  Jehovah  alone  was  God,  and  that  besides  Him 
 there  were  no  gods.  Therefore  Nebuchadnezzar  practised  towards 
 them,  without,  from  his  polytheistic  standpoint,  designing  it,  an 
 intolerable  religious  coercion,  which,  however,  is  fundamentally 
 different  from  the  persecution  of  Judaism  by  Antiochus  Epi[)hanes, 
 who  forbade  the  Jews  on  pain  of  death  to  serve  their  God,  and 
 endeavoured  utterly  to  destroy  the  Jewish  religion. — Regarding 
 the  structure  of  the  fiery  furnace,  see  under  ver.  22. 
 
 Ver.  8.  ff.  The  Chaldeans  immediately  denounced  Daniel's  three 
 friends  as  transgressors  of  the  king's  command.  Hjt  72\>~b3^  there- 
 Jore,  viz.  because  the  friends  of  Daniel  who  were  placed  over  the 
 province  of  Babylon  had  not,  by  falling  down  before  the  golden 
 
cnAP.  III.  1-18.  125 
 
 image,  done  it  homage.  That  they  did  not  do  so  is  not  expressly 
 said,  but  is  expressed  in  what  follows.  P'^y^li  i^"}2:T  are  not  Chal- 
 deans as  astrologers  or  magi  (D"''nJi'3),  but  members  of  the  Chaldean 
 nation,  in  contrast  to  ^n'''^^  t^^®  Jews,  'i^li?,  tliey  came  near  to  the 
 king.  ""T  ''^"}i?  ^?^5,  literally,  to  eat  the  flesh  of  any  one,  is  in  Aramaic 
 the  common  expression  for  to  calumniate.)  to  denounce.  That  which 
 was  odious  in  their  report  was,  that  they  used  this  instance  of  dis- 
 obedience to  the  kino-'s  command  on  the  nart  of  the  Jewish  officers 
 as  an  occasion  of  removing  them  from  their  offices, — that  their 
 denunciation  of  them  arose  from  their  envying  the  Jews  their 
 position  of  influence,  as  in  ch.  vi.  5  (4)  f.  Therefore  they  give 
 prominence  to  the  fact  that  the  king  had  raised  these  Jews  to 
 places  of  rule  in  the  province  of  Babylon. 
 
 With  this  form  of  address  in  ver.  9,  cf.  ch.  ii.  4.  Di'p  D''K' 
 signifies  in  ver.  12  rationem  o'eddere,  to  attend  to,  to  have  regard 
 for.  In  ver.  10,  as  frequently,  the  expression  signifies,  on  the  con- 
 trary, to  give  an  opinion^  a  judgment,  i.e.  to  publish  a  command. 
 The  Keth.  '^1'!'^^^.?  (ver.  12),  for  which  the  Keri  prefers  the  sing, 
 form  ^v"?^/,  in  sound  the  same  as  the  contracted  plur.,  is  to  be 
 maintained  as  correct ;  for  the  Keri  here,  as  in  ver.  18,  supporting 
 itself  on  '^>f^^?.,  ver.  14,  rests  on  the  idea  that  by  the  honouring  of 
 his  god  only  the  doing  of  homage  to  the  image  is  meant,  while 
 the  not  doing  homage  to  the  image  only  gives  proof  of  this,  that 
 they  altogether  refused  to  honour  the  gods  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
 This  is  placed  in  the  foreground  by  the  accusers,  so  as  to  arouse 
 the  indignation  of  the  king.  "  These  Chaldeans,"  Hitz.  remarks 
 quite  justly,  "  knew  the  three  Jews,  who  were  so  placed  as  to  be 
 well  known,  and  at  the  same  time  envied,  before  this.  They  had 
 long  known  that  they  did  not  worship  idols ;  but  on  this  occasion, 
 when  their  religion  made  it  necessary  for  the  Jews  to  disobey  the 
 king's  command,  they  make  use  of  their  knowledge." 
 
 Ver.  13.  That  they  succeeded  in  tlieir  object,  Nebuchadnezzar 
 shows  in  the  command  given  in  anger  and  fury  to  bring  the  rebels 
 before  him.  Vn'-n^  notwithstanding  its  likeness  to  the  Hebr.  Hiphil 
 form  vnn,  Isa.  xxi.  14,  is  not  the  Hebraizing  Aphel,  but,  as  ^l;^l^'^J 
 ch.  vi.  18,  shows,  is  a  Hebraizing  passive  form  of  the  Aphel,  since 
 the  active  form  is  '^'''^''J^,  ch.  v.  3,  and  is  a  passive  formation  peculiar 
 to  the  Bib.  Chald.,  for  which  in  the  Targg.  Ittaphal  is  used. 
 
 Vers.  14-18.  The  trial  of  the  accused. 
 
 Ver.  14.  The  question  N^vn  the  old  translators  incorrectly 
 explain  by  Is  it  true  ?     In  the  justice  of  the  accusation  Nebuchad- 
 
126  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 nezzar  had  no  doubt  whatever,  and  i<"i^*  has  not  this  nieaninrr. 
 Also  the  meaiunt:,  scorn^  which  "'1>'X  in  Aram,  has,  and  L.  de 
 Dieu,  Hiiv.,  and  Kran.  make  use  of,  does  not  appear  to  be  quite 
 consistent,  since  Nebuchadnezzar,  if  he  had  seen  in  the  refusal  to  do 
 homage  to  the  image  a  despising  of  his  gods,  then  certainly  he  would 
 not  have  publicly  repeated  his  command,  and  afforded  to  the  accused 
 the  possibility  of  escaping  the  threatened  punishment,  as  he  did 
 (ver.  15).  We  therefore  agree  with  Hitz.  and  Klief.,  who  interpret 
 it,  after  the  Hebr.  n^nVj  Num.  xxxv.  20  f.,  of  malicious  resolutionj 
 not  merely  intention,  according  to  Gesen.,  Winer,  and  others. 
 For  all  the  three  could  not  unintentionally  or  accidentally  have 
 made  themselves  guilty  of  transgression.  The  form  Nivn  ^ve 
 regard  as  a  noun  form  with  n  interrog.  prefixed  in  adverbial 
 cases,  and  not  an  Aphel  formation :  Scorning^  Shadrach,  etc.,  do 
 ye  not  serve'?  (Kran.)  The  affirmative  explanation  of  the  verse, 
 according  to  which  the  king  would  suppose  the  motive  of  the 
 transo;ression  as  decided,  does  not  am'ee  with  the  alternative  which 
 (ver.  15)  he  places  before  the  accused.  But  if  t^^Vn  is  regarded 
 as  a  question,  there  is  no  need  for  our  supplying  the  conjunction 
 ■•■=]  before  the  following  verb,  but  w^e  may  unite  the  ^^^VO  in  one 
 sentence  with  the  following  verb  :  "  are  ye  of  design  .  .  .  not 
 obeying  ?  "  Nebuchadnezzar  speaks  of  his  god  in  contrast  to  the 
 God  of  the  Jews. 
 
 Ver.  15.  riT'y  taken  with  the  following  clause,  IvSn  .  .  .  "•'n,  is 
 not  a  circumlocution  for  the  future  (according  to  Winer,  Chald. 
 Gram.  §  45,  2).  This  does  not  follow  from  the  use  of  the  simple 
 future  in  the  contrast,  but  it  retains  its  peculiar  meaning  ready. 
 The  conclusion  to  the  first  clause  is  omitted,  because  it  is  self-evi- 
 dent from  the  conclusion  of  the  second,  opposed  passage  :  then  ye 
 icill  not  he  cast  into  the  fiery  furnace.  Similar  omissions  are  found 
 in  Ex.  xxxii.  32,  Luke  xiii.  9.  For  the  purpose  of  giving  strength 
 to  his  threatening,  Nebuchadnezzar  adds  that  no  god  would  deliver 
 them  out  of  his  hand.  In  this  Hitz.  is  not  justified  in  supposing 
 there  is  included  a  blaspheming  of  Jehovah  like  that  of  Sennacherib, 
 Isa.  xxxvii.  10.  The  case  is  different.  Sennacherib  raised  his 
 gods  above  Jehovah,  the  God  of  the  Jews  ;  Nebuchadnezzar  only 
 declares  that  deliverance  out  of  the  fiery  furnace  is  a  work  which 
 no  god  can  accomplish,  and  in  this  he  only  indirectly  likens  the 
 God  of  the  Jews  to  the  gods  of  the  heathen. 
 
 Ver.  16.  In  the  answer  of  the  accused,  ">^*nDn3  is  not,  contrary 
 to  the  accent,  to  be  placed  in  apposition  to  ^^stJ?^? ;  for,  as  Kran. 
 
CHAP.  III.  1-18.  127 
 
 has  rightly  remarked,  an  intentional  omission  of  i^^pn  In  address- 
 ing Nebuchadnezzar  is,  after  ver.  18,  where  ^^3po  occurs  in  the  ad- 
 dress, as  httle  likely  as  that  the  Athnach  is  placed  under  ^'3;"??  only 
 on  account  of  the  apposition  going  before,  to  separate  from  it  the 
 nomen  loropr.;  and  an  error  in  the  placing  of  the  distinctivus,  judging 
 from  the  existing  accuracy,  is  untenable.  "  The  direct  address  of  the 
 king  by  his  name  plainly  corresponds  to  the  king's  address  to  the 
 three  officers  in  the  preceding  words,  ver.  14."  We  are  not  to  con- 
 clude from  it,  as  Hitz.  supposes,  "  that  they  address  him  as  a 
 plebeian,"  but  much  rather,  as  in  the  corresponding  address,  ver.  14, 
 are  to  see  in  it  an  evidence  of  the  deep  impression  sought  to  be 
 produced  in  the  person  concerned. 
 
 Ver.  16.  D3n£i  is  the  accus.,  and  is  not  to  be  connected  with 
 n:"n  ?y :  as  to  this  command  (Hav.).  If  the  demonstrative  were 
 present  only  before  the  noun,  then  the  noun  must  stand  in  the 
 status  absol.  as  ch.  iv.  15  (18).  ^l^^,  from  the  Zend,  paiti  =  7rp6<;j 
 and  gdm^  to  go,  properly,  "  the  going  to,"  therefore  message,  edict, 
 then  generally  loord  (as  here)  and  matter  (Ezra  vi.  11),  as  fre- 
 quently in  the  Targ.,  corresponding  to  the  Hebr.  13^. 
 
 Ver.  17.  y'^l  denotes  the  ethical  ahility,  i.e.  the  ability  limited 
 by  the  divine  holiness  and  righteousness,  not  the  omnipotence  of 
 God  as  such.  For  this  the  accused  did  not  doubt,  nor  will  they 
 place  in  question  the  divine  omnipotence  before  the  heathen 
 king.  The  conclusion  begins  after  the  Athnach,  and  in  means,  not 
 see !  lo  !  (according  to  the  old  versions  and  many  interpreters), 
 for  which  Daniel  constantly  uses  vS  or  1"IJ^,  but  it  means  if,  as  here 
 the  contrast  N?  ini,  and  if  not  (ver.  18),  demands.  There  lies  in 
 the  answer,  "  If  our  God  will  save  us,  then  .  .  .  and  if  not,  know, 
 O  king,  that  we  will  not  serve  thy  gods,"  neither  audacity,  nor  a 
 superstitious  expectation  of  some  miracle  (ver.  17),  nor  fanaticism 
 (ver.  18),  as  Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  and  Hitz.  maintain,  but  only  the 
 confidence  of  faith  and  a  humble  submission  to  the  will  of  God. 
 "  The  three  simply  see  that  their  standpoint  and  that  of  the  king 
 are  altogether  different,  also  that  their  standpoint  can  never  be 
 clearly  understood  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  therefore  they  give 
 up  any  attempt  to  justify  themselves.  But  that  which  was  de- 
 manded of  them  they  could  not  do,  because  it  would  have  been 
 altogether  contrary  to  their  faith  and  their  conscience.  And  then 
 without  fanaticism  they  calmly  decline  to  answer,  and  only  say, 
 '  Let  him  do  according  to  his  own  will;'  thus  without  superstitious- 
 ness  committing  their  deliverance  to  God"  (Klief.). 
 
128  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ycrs.  19-27.  Tlie  judgment  pronounced  on  the  accused^  their 
 puniKhnent,  and  their  miraculous  deliverance. 
 
 After  the  decided  refusal  of  the  accused  to  worship  his  gods, 
 Nebuchadnezzar  changed  his  countenance  toward  them.  Full  of 
 anger  at  such  obstinacy,  he  commanded  that  the  furnace  should  be 
 heated  seven  times  greater  than  was  usual  (ver.  19),  and  that  the 
 rebels  should  be  bound  in  their  clothes  by  powerful  men  of  his 
 army,  and  then  cast  into  the  furnace  (vers.  20,  21).  The  form  of 
 his  countenance  changed,  and  his  wrath  showed  itself  in  the  linea- 
 ments of  his  face.  The  Kethiv  13111?'^?  {plur.)  refers  to  the  genitive 
 [TiiSjSj  plur.,  "  of  his  countenances"]  as  the  chief  idea,  and  is  not, 
 after  the  Keri,  to  be  changed  into  the  sing.  NTOT  for  K.^.^'^f'.  On 
 nyy^-in,  sevenfold,  cf.  Winer,  Chald.  Gram.  §  59,  5.  ntn  ^^_  bv, 
 beyond  that  xvhich  was  Jit,  i.e.  which  was  necessary.  Seven  is  used 
 as  expressive  of  an  exceedingly  great  number,  with  reference  to 
 the  religious  meaning  of  the  punishment. 
 
 Ver.  21.  Of  the  different  parts  of  clothing  named,  ly^lP  are 
 not  hose,  short  stockings,  from  which  Hitz.  concludes  that  the 
 enumeration  proceeds  from  the  inner  to  the  outer  clothing.  This 
 remark,  correct  in  itself,  proves  nothing  as  to  the  covering  for  the 
 legs.      This  meaning  is  given  to  the  word  only  from  the  New 
 
 Persian  shalwdr,  which  in  the  Arabic  is  Jj^I^;  cf.  Haug  in  Ew.'s 
 hill.  Jahrhh.  v.  p.  162.    But  the  word  corresponds  with  the  genuine 
 
 Semitic  word  i^.j^,  which  means  tunica  or  indusium;  cf.  Ges.  Thes} 
 
 p.  970,  and  Heb.  Lex.  s.  v.  Accordingly,  r??1°  denotes  under- 
 clothing which  would  be  worn  next  the  body  as  our  shirt.  iin^ti''L33j 
 for  which  the  Keri  uses  the  form  pn^'j'paj  corresponding  to  the 
 
 Syriac  ^nm  .  1  ^<y>.,  is  explained  in  the  Hebr.  translation  of  the 
 
 ^  The  LXX.  have  omitted  {"iSaip  in  their  translation.  Theoclot.  has  rendered 
 it  by  aupoiiiapa,,  and  the  third-named  piece  of  dress  p3"i3  by  '7reptKvyi/^7'^£;,  which 
 the  LXX.  have  rendered  by  ria.pxg  iTt  rZu  x,i(px>.uv.  Theodoret  explains  it : 
 vipiKi/rifiilx;  5s  T«f  Kd'Aovf/Av/a;  ccvx^vpi^u;  "hiytt.  These  are,  according  to 
 Herod,  vii.  IGl,  the  duu^vp'ibii,  i.e.  hraccx,  worn  by  the  Persians  vipi  rd  aniMct. 
 Regarding  2a/)«/3s«^!:t  Theodoret  remarks:  'ioTi  UipaiK^v  "mpiiioy.ctioiu  iio/i.  Thus 
 Theodot.  and  Thcodor.  exjM-ossly  distinguish  the  aupalictpoc,  (p^3"iD)  from  the 
 "TTspiKi/Yifilhi ;  but  the  false  interpretation  of  p?3"iD  by  breeches  has  given  rise 
 to  the  confounding  of  that  word  with  |i?3"l3  and  the  identification  of  the  two, 
 the  ■TrepiKi/Yiiiilli;  being  interpreted  of  coverings  for  the  feet ;  and  the  Vulg.  trans- 
 lates the  passage :  "  cum  hruccis  suis  et  tiaris  et  calceamentis  et  vestibus,''^  while 
 
CHAP.  III.  19-27.  129 
 
 Cliald.  portions  of  Daniel  by  njh3,  tunica,  and  is  derived  from 
 tDC'D,  expandit  (by  the  transposition  of  the  second  and  third  radicals). 
 Thus  the  Syriac  word  is  explained  by  Syr.  lexicographers.  Theo- 
 dotion's  translation,  ridpai,  is  probably  only  hit  upon  from  the  simi- 
 larity of  the  sound  of  the  Greek  ireraao';,  the  covering  for  the  head 
 worn  by  the  e^rj^oi.  i??!?  are  mantles,  from  7?"!3,  R.  ''^S,  to  hind,  to 
 lay  around,  with  r  intercalated,  which  occurs  1  Chron.  xv.  27  of  the 
 putting  around  or  putting  on  of  the  rV^  (upper  garment),  prft/'^ap 
 are  the  other  pieces  of  clothing  ( Aben  Ezra  and  others),  not  mantles. 
 For  that  ^w  was  specially  used  of  over-clothes  (Hitz.)  cannot  be 
 proved  from  Job  xxiv.  7  and  2  Kings  x.  22.  We  have  here,  then, 
 the  threefold  clothing  which,  according  to  Herodotus,  i.  195,  the 
 Babylonians  wore,  namely,  the  r?2"]P,  the  kiOwv  iTohr,veKr]<i  \iveo<i^ 
 the  X^''L:s  worn  above  it,  aWov  elplveov  Kcdcova,  and  the  i^^^"]"^ 
 thrown  above  that,  •^avlSiou  XevKov ;  while  under  the  word  JilT't/'Q? 
 the  other  articles  of  clothing,  coverings  for  the  feet  and  the  head, 
 are  to  be  understood.'^  The  separate  articles  of  clothing,  consisting 
 of  easily  inflammable  material,  are  doubtlessly  mentioned  with 
 reference  to  the  miracle  that  followed,  that  even  these  remained 
 unchanged  (ver.  27)  in  the  fiery  furnace.  In  the  easily  inflam- 
 mable nature  of  these  materials,  namely,  of  the  fine  kiOmv  TroST^z/e/c^? 
 XtWo?,  we  have  perhaps  to  seek  the  reason  on  account  of  which  the 
 accused  were  bound  in  their  clothes,  and  not,  as  Theodoret  and 
 most  others  think,  in  the  haste  with  which  the  sentence  against 
 them  was  carried  out. 
 
 Ver.  22.  """^  I??  (because  that),  a  further  explanatory  expression 
 added  to  njT  ?^P'?^  {xoholly  for  this  cause)  :  because  the  word  of 
 the  king  was  sharp,  and  in  consequence  of  it  (1),  the  furnace 
 was  heated  beyond  measure  for  that  reason.     The  words  'il?X  xnna 
 
 Luther  has  "  cloaks,  shoes,  and  hats."  This  confounding  of  the  two  words 
 was  authorized  by  the  Greek  scholiasts,  to  which  the  admission  of  the  Persian 
 shalwdr  into  the  Arabic  saraviln  may  have  contributed.  In  Suidas  we  find  the 
 right  interpretation  along  with  the  false  one  when  he  says :  1  a  p  a,  (i  ct.  p  »  ka6-/i; 
 Uipc^iKYi'  hiot  oi  'Kiyovat  fipctyJa.  Hesychius,  on  the  other  hand,  briefly  exjilains 
 (jctpci^ocpx  by  (ipuyJa,  auyj^illsg,  ax.i'hicii.  Hence  the  word  in  the  forms  sarahara, 
 siravara,  saravara  or  sarahalla,  sarabela,  is  commonly  used  in  the  middle  ages 
 for  Jtose,  and  has  been  transferred  into  various  modern  languages ;  cf.  Geseu. 
 Thes.  p.  971. 
 
 ^  "With  the  setting  aside  of  the  false  interpretation  we  have  disposed  of  the 
 objection  against  the  historical  character  of  the  narrative  which  v.  Leng.  and 
 Hitz.  have  founded  on  the  statement  of  Herodotus  Z.c,  that  the  Babylonians 
 wore  no  hose,  but  that  they  were  first  worn  by  the  Persians,  who  adopted  them 
 from  the  Medes. 
 
 I 
 
130  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 {these  miglity  men)  stand  here  in  the  status  ahsoL,  and  are  again 
 taken  np  in  the  pronoun  t^^^  after  the  verb  ^^?_.  If  the  three 
 Avere  brought  up  to  the  furnace,  it  must  have  had  a  mouth  above, 
 through  which  the  victims  could  be  cast  into  it.  When  heated  to 
 an  ordinary  degree,  this  could  be  done  without  danger  to  the  men 
 Avho  performed  this  service  ;  but  in  the  present  case  the  heat  of 
 the  fire  was  so  great,  that  the  servants  themselves  perished  by  it. 
 This  circumstance  also  is  mentioned  to  show  the  greatness  of  the 
 miracle  by  which  the  three  were  preserved  unhurt  in  the  midst  of 
 the  furnace.  Tiie  same  thing  is  intended  by  the  repetition  of  the 
 word  POt'tP,  bound,  ver.  23,  which,  moreover,  is  purposely  placed 
 at  the  close  of  the  passage  to  prepare  for  the  contrast  T?P,  at 
 liberty,  free  from  the  bonds,^  ver.  25. 
 
 Ver.  24  ff.  Tlie  king,  who  sat  watching  the  issue  of  the  matter, 
 looked  through  the  door  into  the  furnace,  and  observed  that  the 
 three  who  had  been  cast  into  it  bound,  walked  about  freed  from 
 their  bonds  and  unhurt ;  and,  in  truth,  he  saw  not  the  three  only, 
 but  also  a  fourth,  "  like  to  a  son  of  the  gods,"  beside  them.  At  this 
 sight  he  was  astonished  and  terrified.  He  hastily  stood  up ;  and 
 liaving  assured  himself  by  a  consultation  with  his  counsellors  that 
 three  men  had  indeed  been  cast  bound  into  the  furnace,  while  he 
 saw  four  walking  in  the  midst  of  it,  he  approached  the  mouth  of  the 
 furnace  and  cried  to  the  three  to  come  forth.  They  inmiediately 
 came  out,  and  were  inspected  by  the  assembled  officers  of  state, 
 and  found  to  be  wholly  uninjured  as  to  their  bodies,  their  clothes 
 being  unharmed  also,  and  without  even  the  smell  of  fire  upon 
 them,  n?"^,']  refers,  without  doubt,  to  the  officers  of  the  kingdom, 
 ministers  or  counsellors  of  state  standing  very  near  the  king,  since 
 they  are  named  in  ver.  27  and  ch.  vi.  8  (7)  along  with  the  first 
 three  ranks  of  officers,  and  (ch.  iv.  23  [26])  during  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's madness  they  conducted  the  affairs  of  government.  The 
 literal  meaning  of  the  word,  however,  is  not  quite  obvious.  Its 
 derivation  from  the  Chald.  P"!?^,  duces,  with  the  Hebr.  article 
 (Gesen.),  which  can  only  be  supported  by  ^"^^IP,  Prov.  xi.  14 
 
 ^  Between  vers.  23  and  24  the  LXX.  have  introduced  the  Prayer  of 
 Azariah  and  the  Song  of  the  three  men  in  the  fiery  furnace  ;  and  those  two 
 hymns  are  connected  together  by  a  narrative  which  explains  the  death  of  the 
 Chaldeans  who  threw  the  three  into  the  furnace,  and  the  miracle  of  the  de- 
 liverance of  Daniel's  friends.  Eegarding  the  apocryphal  origin  of  these  addi- 
 tions, composed  in  the  Greek  language,  which  Luther  in  his  translation  has 
 rightly  placed  in  the  Apocrypha,  see  my  LeUr.  der  Eiiil.  in  d.  A.  Test.  §  251. 
 
CHAP.  III.  28-30.  131 
 
 (Targ.),  Is  decidedly  opposed  by  the  absence  of  all  analogies  for  the 
 blending  into  one  word  of  the  article  with  a  noun  in  the  Semitic 
 language.  The  Alkoran  offers  no  corresponding  analogues,  since 
 this  word  with  the  article  is  found  only  in  the  more  modern  dialects. 
 But  the  meaning  which  P.  v.  Bohlen  (^Sijmholce  ad  interp.  s.  Codicis 
 ex  ling.  pers.  p.  26)  has  sought  from  the  Persian  word  which  is 
 translated  by  simul  judex,  i.e.  socius  in  judicio,  is  opposed  not  only 
 by  the  fact  that  the  compensation  of  the  Mini  by  the  Dagesch,  but 
 also  the  composition  and  the  meaning,  has  very  little  probability. 
 
 The  fourth  whom  Nebuchadnezzar  saw  in  the  furnace  was  like 
 in  his  appearance,  i.e.  as  commanding  veneration,  to  a  son  of  the 
 gods,  i.e.  to  one  of  the  race  of  the  gods.  In  ver.  28  the  same  person- 
 age is  called  an  angel  of  God,  Nebuchadnezzar  there  following  the 
 religious  conceptions  of  the  Jews,  in  consequence  of  the  conversa- 
 tion which  no  doubt  he  had  with  the  three  who  were  saved.  Here, 
 on  the  other  hand,  he  speaks  in  the  spirit  and  meaning  of  the 
 Babylonian  doctrine  of  the  gods,  according  to  the  theogonic  repre- 
 sentation of  the  av^vyla  of  the  gods  peculiar  to  all  Oriental  reli- 
 gions, whose  existence  among  the  Babylonians  the  female  divinity 
 Mylitta  associated  with  Bel  places  beyond  a  doubt ;  cf.  Hgst. 
 Beitr.  i.  p.  159,  and  Hiiv.,  Kran.,  and  Klief.  in  loc. 
 
 Acting  on  this  assumption,  which  did  not  call  in  question  the 
 deliverance  of  the  accused  by  the  miraculous  interposition  of  the 
 Deity,  Nebuchadnezzar  approached  the  door  of  the  furnace  and 
 cried  to  the  three  men  to  come  out,  addressing  them  as  the  servants 
 (worshippers)  of  the  most  high  God.  This  address  does  not  go 
 beyond  the  circle  of  heathen  ideas.  He  does  not  call  the  God  of 
 Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego  the  only  true  God,  but  only 
 the  most  high  God,  the  chief  of  the  gods,  just  as  the  Greeks  called 
 
 their  Zeus  o  ijy^iaTo<;  6e6<i.     The  Kethiv  fr5^?J?  (in  Syr.  'jj.V.v.,  to 
 
 preserve^j  is  here  and  everywhere  in  Daniel  (ver.  32,  ch.  iv.  14,  21, 
 etc.)  pointed  by  the  Masoretes  according  to  the  form  ^^^''V  (with  n) 
 prevailing  in  the  Targg.  The  forms  Cil'a,  NOK'a,  are  peculiar  to 
 Daniel  (ver.  27  f.,  ch.  iv.  30,  v.  21,  vii.  11).  The  Targg.  have  wSOB'^a 
 instead  of  it. 
 
 Vers.  28-30.  The  impression  made  hy  this  event  on  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar. 
 
 The  marvellous  deliverance  of  the  three  from  the  flames  of  the 
 furnace  produced  such  an  impression  on  Nebuchadnezzar,  that  he 
 
132  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 changed  his  earlier  and  humbler  judgment  (ver.  15)  regarding 
 the  God  of  the  Jews,  and  spoke  now  in  praise  of  tlie  might  of  this 
 God.  For  at  the  same  time  he  not  only  openly  announced  that  He 
 had  saved  (ver.  28)  His  servants,  but  also  by  an  edict,  issued  to  all 
 the  peoples  of  his  kingdom,  he  forbade  on  pain  of  death  the  doing 
 of  any  dishonour  to  tlie  God  of  the  Jews  (ver.  29).  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, however,  did  not  turn  to  the  true  God.  He  neither 
 acknowledged  Jehovah  as  the  only,  or  the  alone  true  God,  nor  did 
 he  command  Him  to  be  worshipped.  He  only  declared  Him  to  be 
 a  God  who  is  able  to  save  His  servants  as  no  other  could,  and 
 merely  forbade  the  despising  and  reviling  of  this  God.  Whoever 
 speaks  ^Y^,  that  loMch  is  erroneous  or  unjust,  against  the  God  of 
 Shadrach,  etc.,  shall  be  put  to  death,  np".^^  from  n?*^^  to  err,  to 
 commit  a  fault,  is  changed  in  the  Keri  into  l-'K',  which  occurs  in 
 ch.  vi.  5  and  Ezra  iv.  22,  and  in  the  Targg. ;  but  without  suffi- 
 cient ground,  since  with  other  words  both  forms  are  found  together, 
 e.g.  ^^J'P"!^?,  vidua,  with  v?p"iKj  viduitas.  According  to  this,  ^p'^  iji 
 abstr.  means  the  error;  npti'  in  concr.,  the  erroneous.  Hitz.  finds 
 the  command  partly  too  narrow,  partly  quite  unsuitable,  because 
 an  error,  a  simple  oversight,  should  find  pardon  as  soon  as  pos- 
 sible. But  the  distinction  between  a  fault  arising  from  mistake 
 and  one  arising  from  a  bad  intention  does  not  accord  with  the 
 edict  of  an  Oriental  despot,  which  must  be  in  decided  terms,  so 
 that  there  may  be  no  room  in  cases  of  transgression  for  an  appeal 
 to  a  mere  oversight.  Still  less  importance  is  to  be  attached  to  the 
 objection  that  the  carrying  out  of  the  command  may  have  had  its 
 difficulties.  But  by  such  difficulties  the  historical  character  of  the 
 narrative  is  not  brought  under  suspicion.  As  the  Chaldeans  in  this 
 case  had  watched  the  Jews  and  accused  them  of  disobedience,  so 
 also  could  the  Jews  scattered  throuo;hout  the  kingdom  bring  before 
 the  tribunal  the  heathen  who  blasphemed  their  God. 
 
 Ver.  29.  Regarding  the  collocation  of  the  words  Iti'pi  nsx  Dy,  see 
 under  ver.  4 ;  and  regarding  the  TP"^'?  and  the  threatened  punish- 
 ment, see  under  ch.  ii.  5.  nnp  we  regard,  with  the  LXX.,  Theodrt., 
 Vulg.,  and  old  interpreters,  as  a  fem.  adverbial :  ovTw<i,  ita,  as  it 
 occurs  in  ch.  ii.  10,  Ezra  v.  7,  and  Jer.  x.  11.  The  interpreting  of 
 it  as  masculine,  as  this  God,  does  not  correspond  with  the  heathen 
 consciousness  of  God,  to  which  a  God  perceptible  by  sight  was  more 
 appropriate  than  a  God  invisible  (Kran.).  Tlie  history  concludes 
 (ver.  30)  with  the  remark  that  Nebuchadnezzar  now  regarded  the 
 three  men  with  the  greatest  favour.     In  what  way  he  manifested 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-lV.  34.  133 
 
 his  regard  for  them  is  not  stated,  inasmuch  as  this  is  not  necessary 
 to  the  object  of  the  narrative.  Jy^^]  with  ^,  to  give  to  any  one 
 happiness,  prosperity,  to  cause  him  to  be  fortunate. 
 
 If  we  attentively  consider  the  import  of  this  narrative  in  its 
 bearing  on  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  we  learn  how  the 
 true  worshippers  of  the  Lord  under  the  dominion  of  the  world- 
 power  could  and  would  come  into  difficulties,  imperilling  life,  be- 
 tween the  demands  of  the  lords  of  this  world  and  the  duties  they 
 owe  to  God.  But  we  also  learn,  that  if  in  these  circumstances 
 they  remain  faithful  to  their  God,  they  will  in  a  wonderful  manner 
 be  protected  by  Him ;  while  He  will  reveal  His  omnipotence  so 
 gloriously,  that  even  the  heathen  world-rulers  will  be  constrained 
 to  recognise  their  God  and  to  give  Him  glory. 
 
 CHAP.  III.  31  (IV.  l)-IV.  34  (37).   NEBUCHADNEZZAH'S  DREAJI 
 AND  HIS  MADNESS. 
 
 This  section  is  in  the  form  of  a  proclamation  by  king  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar to  all  the  peoples  of  his  kingdom,  informing  them  of  a 
 wonderful  event  in  which  the  living  God  of  heaven  made  Himself 
 known  as  the  ruler  over  the  kingdoms  of  men.  After  a  short 
 introduction  (ch.  iii.  31-33  [iv.  1-3])  the  king  makes  known  to  his 
 subjects,  that  amid  the  peaceful  prosperity  of  his  life  he  had  dreamed 
 a  dream  which  filled  him  with  disquietude,  and  which  the  wise  men 
 of  Babylon  could  not  interpret,  until  Daniel  came,  who  was  able  to 
 do  so  (ch.  iv.  1-5  [4-8]).  In  his  dream  he  saw  a  great  tree,  with 
 vast  branches  and  bearing  much  fruit,  which  reached  up  to  heaven, 
 under  which  beasts  and  birds  found  a  lodging,  shelter,  and  food. 
 Then  a  holy  watcher  came  down  from  heaven  and  commanded  the 
 tree  to  be  cut  down,  so  that  its  roots  only  remained  in  the  earth,  but 
 bound  with  iron  and  brass,  till  seven  times  shall  pass,  so  that  men 
 may  know  the  power  of  the  Alost  High  over  the  kingdoms  of  men 
 (vers.  6-15  [9-18]).  Daniel  interpreted  to  him  this  dream,  that  the 
 tree  represented  the  king  himself,  regarding  whom  it  was  resolved  by 
 Heaven  that  he  should  be  driven  forth  from  men  and  should  live 
 among  the  beasts  till  seven  times  should  pass,  and  he  should  know 
 that  the  Highest  rules  over  the  kingdoms  of  men  (vers.  16-24 
 [19-27]).  After  twelve  months  this  dream  began  to  be  fulfilled, 
 and  Nebuchadnezzar  fell  into  a  state  of  madness,  and  became  like 
 a  beast  of  the  field  (vers.  25-30  [28-33]).  But  after  the  lapse  of 
 the  appointed  time  his  understanding  returned  to  him,  whereupon 
 
134  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 he  was  again  restored  to  his  kingdom  and  became  exceeding  great, 
 and  noAv  praised  and  honoured  the  King  of  heaven  (vers.  31-34 
 [34-37]). 
 
 If  the  preceding  history  teaches  how  the  Almighty  God  wonder- 
 fully protects  His  true  worshippers  against  the  enmity  of  the  world- 
 power,  this  narrative  may  be  regarded  as  an  actual  confirmation  of 
 the  truth  that  this  same  God  can  so  humble  the  rulers  of  the  world, 
 if  in  presumptuous  pride  they  boast  of  their  might,  as  to  constrain 
 them  to  recognise  Him  as  the  Lord  over  the  kings  of  the  earth. 
 Although  this  narrative  contains  no  miracle  contrary  to  the  course 
 of  nature,  but  only  records  a  divine  judgment,  bringing  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar for  a  time  into  a  state  of  madness, — a  judgment  announced 
 beforehand  in  a  dream,  and  happening  according  to  the  prediction, 
 — yet  Bleek,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  and  others  have  rejected  its  historical 
 veracity,  and  have  explained  it  as  only  an  invention  by  which  the 
 Maccabean  pseudo-Daniel  threatens  the  haughty  Antiochus  Epi- 
 phanes  with  the  vengeance  of  Heaven,  which  shall  compel  him  to 
 recognise  One  higher  than  himself,  namely,  the  God  of  Israel.  A 
 proof  of  this  assertion  of  theirs  they  find  in  the  form  of  the  narra- 
 tive. The  proclamation  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  all  the  nations  of  his 
 kingdom,  in  which  the  matter  is  set  forth,  shows,  in  its  introduction 
 and  its  close,  greater  familiarity  with  biblical  thoughts  than  one 
 would  have  expected  in  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  doxologies,  ch.  iii. 
 33  (iv.  3)  and  iv.  31  (34),  agree  almost  literally  with  Ps.  cxlv.  13 ; 
 and  in  the  praise  of  the  omnipotence  and  of  the  infinite  majesty  of 
 God,  ch.  iv.  32  (35),  the  echoes  of  Isa.  xl.  17,  xliii.  13,  24,  21  cannot 
 fail  to  be  recognised.  The  circumstance  that  in  vers.  25  (28)-30 
 (33)  Nebuchadnezzar  is  spoken  of  in  the  third  person,  appears  to 
 warrant  also  the  opinion  that  the  writing  was  composed  by  some 
 other  person  than  by  the  king.  But  the  use  of  the  third  person  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  verses  named  is  fully  explained  from  the 
 contents  of  the  passage  (see  Exposition),  and  neither  justifies  the 
 conclusion  that  the  author  was  a  different  person  from  the  king, 
 nor  the  supposition  of  Hiiv.  that  the  vers.  26  (29)-30  (33)  are  a 
 passage  parenthetically  added  by  Daniel  to  the  brief  declaration  of 
 the  edict,  ver.  25  (28),  for  the  purposeof  explaining  it  and  making 
 the  matter  better  understood  by  posterity.  The  circumstance  that 
 ver.  31  (34)  refers  to  the  statement  of  time  in  ver.  26  (29),  and 
 that  the  royal  proclamation  would  be  incomplete  without  vers.  26 
 (29)-30  (33),  leads  to  the  opposite  conclusion.  The  existence  of 
 these    biblical    thoughts,  however,  even   though    not    sufficiently 
 
CHAP.  III.  31- IV.  34.^  135 
 
 explained  by  the  supposition  that  Nebucliadnezzar  had  heard  these 
 thoughts  and  words  in  a  conference  on  the  matter  with  Daniel,  and 
 had  appropriated  them  to  himself,  cannot  be  adduced  against  the 
 genuineness  of  the  edict,  but  only  shows  this  much,  that  in  the  com- 
 position of  it  Nebuchadnezzar  had  made  use  of  the  pen  of  Daniel, 
 whereby  the  praise  of  God  received  a  fuller  expression  than  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar would  have  given  to  it.  For  in  the  whole  narrative  of 
 the  event  the  peculiar  heathen  conceptions  of  the  Chaldean  king 
 so  naturally  present  themselves  before  us,  that  beyond  question  we 
 read  the  very  words  used  by  Nebuchadnezzar  himself. 
 
 Then  it  has  been  found  in  the  highest  degree  strange  that  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar himself  should  have  published  to  his  people  an  account 
 of  his  madness,  instead  of  doing  all  to  make  this  sad  history  forgot- 
 ten. But,  notwithstanding  that  the  views  of  the  ancients  regard- 
 ing madness  were  different  from  ours,  we  must  say,  with  Klief .  and 
 others,  on  the  contrary,  that  "  publicity  in  such  a  case  was  better 
 than  concealment ;  the  matter,  besides,  being  certainly  known,  could 
 not  be  made  either  better  or  worse  by  being  made  public.  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar wishes  to  publish,  not  his  madness,  but  the  help  which 
 God  had  imparted  to  him  ;  and  that  he  did  this  openly  does  honour 
 indeed  to  his  magnanimous  character." 
 
 But  the  principal  argument  against  the  historical  veracity  of 
 the  occurrence  is  derived  from  the  consideration  that  no  mention  is 
 anywhere  else  made  of  the  seven  years'  madness,  an  event  which 
 certainly  could  not  but  introduce  very  important  changes  and  com- 
 plications into  the  Babylonian  kingdom.  It  is  true  that  the 
 Hebrew  history  does  not  at  all  refer  to  the  later  years  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's reign,  though  it  extends,  Jer.  Hi.  31,  to  a  period  later 
 than  these  times,  and  should,  without  doubt,  give  as  much  promi- 
 nence to  such  a  divine  judgment  against  this  enemy  as  to  the  fate 
 of  Sennacherib  (2  Kings  xix.  37)  (Hitz.).  But  the  brief  notice, 
 Jer.  lii.  31,  that  king  Jehoiachin,  thirty- seven  years  after  his 
 deportation,  was  delivered  from  prison  by  Evilmerodach  when  he 
 became  king,  afforded  no  opportunity  to  speak  of  Nebuchadnezzar's 
 madness,  which  for  a  time  rendered  him  incapable  of  conducting 
 the  affairs  of  government,  but  did  not  cause  his  death.  And  the 
 reference  to  the  murder  of  Sennacherib  proves  nothing  regarding 
 it,  because,  according  to  the  view  of  Jeremiah  and  the  biblical 
 historians,  Nebuchadnezzar  occupied  an  altogether  different  relation 
 to  the  theocracy  from  that  of  Sennacherib.  Nebuchadnezzar 
 appeared  not  as  an  arch-enemy,  but  as  the  servant  of  Jehovah  he 
 
136  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 executed  the  will  of  God  against  the  sinful  kingdom  of  Judah; 
 Sennacherib,  on  the  contrary,  in  daring  insolence  derided  the  God 
 of  Israel,  and  was  punished  for  this  by  the  annihilation  of  his  host, 
 and  afterwards  murdered  by  his  own  son,  while  Nebuchadnezzar 
 was  cured  of  his  madness. 
 
 But  when  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  moreover  argue 
 that  even  the  Chaldean  historian  Berosus  can  have  announced 
 nothing  at  all  regarding  Nebuchadnezzar's  madness,  since  Josephus, 
 and  Origen,  and  Jerome,  who  were  well-versed  in  books,  could  find 
 nothing  in  any  author  which  pointed  to  such  an  event,  it  is  to  be 
 replied,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  representations  of  seven  years' 
 duration  of  the  madness,  and  of  the  serious  complications  whicli 
 this  malady  must  have  brought  on  the  Babylonian  kingdom,  are 
 mere  frivolous  suppositions  of  the  modern  critics ;  for  the  text 
 limits  the  duration  of  the  malady  only  to  seven  times,  by  which  we 
 may  understand  seven  months  as  well  as  seven  years.  The  com- 
 plications in  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom  were,  moreover,  prevented 
 l)y  an  interim  government.  Then  Hgstb.  {Deitr.  i.  p.  101  ff.), 
 Hilv.,  Del.,  and  others,  have  rightly  shown  that  not  a  single  his- 
 torical work  of  that  period  is  extant,  in  which  one  could  expect  to 
 find  fuller  information  regarding  the  disease  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 which  is  certainly  very  significant  in  sacred  history,  but  which  in 
 no  respect  had  any  influence  on  the  Babylonian  kingdom.  Hero- 
 dotus, the  father  of  history,  did  not  know  Nebuchadnezzar  even  by 
 name,  and  seems  to  have  had  no  information  of  his  great  exploits — 
 €.(1.  of  his  great  and  important  victory  over  the  Egyptian  host  at 
 Carchemish.  Josephus  names  altogether  only  six  authors  in  whose 
 works  mention  is  made  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  four  of  these 
 authorities — viz.:  The  Annals  of  the  Phcenicians,  Philostratus, 
 author  of  a  Phoenician  history,  Megasthenes,  and  Diodes  —  are 
 not  here  to  be  taken  into  account,  because  the  first  two  contain 
 only  what  relates  to  Phoenicia,  the  conquest  of  the  land,  and  the 
 siege  of  Tyre,  the  capital ;  while  the  other  two,  Megasth.  in  his 
 Indian  history,  and  Diodes  in  his  Persian  history,  speak  only  quite 
 incidentally  of  Nebuchadnezzar.  There  remain  then,  besides,  only 
 Berosus  and  Abydenus  who  have  recorded  the  Chaldean  history. 
 But  of  Berosus,  a  priest  of  Belus  at  Babylon  in  the  time  of  Alex- 
 ander the  Great,  who  had  examined  many  and  ancient  documents, 
 and  is  justly  acknowledged  to  be  a  trustworthy  historian,  we 
 possess  only  certain  poor  fragments  of  his  XaXSaiKo.  quoted  in  the 
 writings  of  Josephus,  Eusebius,  and  later  authors,  no  one  of  whom 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-IV.  34.  137 
 
 had  read  and  extracted  from  the  -work  of  Berosus  itself.  Not 
 only  Eusebius,  but,  as  M.  v.  Niebulir  has  conclusively  proved, 
 Josephus  also  derived  his  account  from  Berosus  only  through  the 
 remains  of  the  original  preserved  by  Alexander  Polyhistor,  a  con- 
 temporary of  Sulla,  a  "  tumultuous  worker,"  whose  abstract  has  no 
 great  security  for  accuracy,  and  still  less  for  integrity,  although 
 he  has  not  purposely  falsified  anything  ;  cf.  M.  v.  Niebuhr,  Gesch. 
 Assure,  p.  12  f.  Abydenus  lived  much  later.  He  wrote  appa- 
 rently after  Josephus,  since  the  latter  has  made  no  use  of  him,  and 
 thus  he  was  not  so  near  the  original  sources  as  Berosus,  and  was, 
 moreover,  to  judge  of  his  fragments  which  are  preserved  by  Euse- 
 bius and  Syncellus,  not  so  capable  of  making  use  of  them,  although 
 one  cannot  pass  sentence  against  the  trustworthiness  of  the  peculiar 
 sources  used  by  him,  since  the  notices  formed  from  them,  notwith- 
 standing their  independence  on  Berosus,  agree  well  with  his  state- 
 ments ;  cf.  ]\I.  V.  Niebuhr,  p.  15  f. 
 
 But  if  Josephus  did  not  himself  read  the  work  of  Berosus,  but 
 only  reported  what  he  found  in  the  extracts  by  Polyhistor,  we  need 
 not  wonder  thouo;h  he  found  nothincr  refrardino;  Nebuchadnezzar's 
 madness.  And  yet  Josephus  has  preserved  to  us  a  notice  from 
 Berosus  which  points  to  the  unusual  malady  by  which  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was  afflicted  before  his  death,  in  the  words,  "  Nabucho- 
 donosor,  after  he  had  begun  to  build  the  fore-mentioned  wall,  fell 
 sick  and  departed  this  life,  when  he  had  reigned  forty-three  years" 
 {contra  Ajnon,  i.  20).  In  these  words  lies  more  than  the  simple 
 remark,  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  is  wont  to  happen  to  the  most  of 
 men,  died  after  an  illness  going  before,  and  not  suddenly,  as  Berth., 
 Hitz.,  and  others  wish  to  interpret  it.  Berosus  uses  a  formula  of 
 this  kind  in  speaking  neither  of  Nabonedus  nor  of  Neriglissor,  who 
 both  died,  not  suddenly,  but  a  natural  death.  He  remarks  only, 
 however,  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  father :  "  Now  it  so  fell  out  that  he 
 (his  father  Nabopolassar)  fell  into  a  distemper  at  this  time,  and  died 
 in  the  city  of  Babylon,"  because  he  had  before  stated  regarding 
 him,  that  on  account  of  the  infirmity  of  old  age  he  had  committed 
 to  his  son  the  carrying  on  of  the  war  against  Egypt ;  and  hence 
 the  words,  "  at  that  time  he  fell  into  a  distemper,"  or  the  distemper 
 which  led  to  his  death,  acquire  a  particular  significance.^  If, 
 accordingly,  the  "falling  sick"  pointed  to  an  unusual    affliction 
 
 1  When  Hitzig  adduces  2  Kings  xiii.  14  in  support  of  bis  view,  he  has 
 failed  to  observe  that  iu  this  place  is  narrated  how  the  tidings  of  Elisha's  sick- 
 ness unto  death  gave  occasion  to  the  king  Joash  to  visit  the  prophet,  from 
 
138  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 upon  Nebuchadnezzar,  so  also  the  fact  that  Berosus  adds  to  the 
 statement  of  the  distemper  the  account  of  his  death,  while  on  the 
 contrary,  according  to  this  chapter,  Nebuchadnezzar  again  recovered 
 and  reigned  still  longer,  does  not  oppose  the  reference  of  the  "  dis- 
 temper" to  the  king's  madness;  for  according  to  Berosus,  as  well 
 as  according  to  Daniel,  the  malady  fell  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the 
 later  period  of  his  reign,  after  he  had  not  only  carried  on  wars  for 
 the  founding  and  establishment  of  his  world-kingdom,  but  had  also, 
 for  the  most  part  at  least,  finished  his  splendid  buildings.  After  his 
 recovery  down  to  the  time  of  his  death,  he  carried  forward  no  other 
 great  work,  regarding  which  Berosus  is  able  to  give  any  communi- 
 cation; it  therefore  only  remained  for  him  to  mention  the  fact  of  his 
 death,  along  with  the  statement  of  the  duration  of  his  reign.  No 
 one  is  able,  therefore,  to  conclude  from  his  summary  statement,  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar  died  very  soon  after  his  recovery  from  the  madness. 
 A  yet  more  distinct  trace  of  the  event  narrated  in  this  chapter 
 is  found  in  Abydenus,  in  the  fragments  preserved  by  Euseb.  in 
 the  Pi'ccpar.  evang.  ix.  41,  and  in  the  Chronic.  Armen.  ed.  Aucher, 
 i.  p.  59,  wherein  Abydenus  announces  as  a  Chaldee  tradition  (A,e- 
 7eTai  77/309  XaXhaiwv),  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  the  ending  of 
 his  war  in  the  farther  west,  mounted  his  royal  tower,  i.e.  to  the  flat 
 roof,  and,  there  seized  by  some  god  {KaTaty^eddT]  Oeoj  oreco  8?)),  he 
 oracularly  {Oea-'irLaai)  announced  to  the  Babylonians  their  inevit- 
 able subjugation  by  the  nepa-7)<i  i)[xiovo<i  united  with  the  Medes, 
 who  would  be  helped  by  their  own  Babylonian  gods.  He  prayed 
 that  the  Persian  might  be  destroyed  in  the  abyss  of  the  sea,  or 
 condemned  to  wander  about  in  a  desert  wilderness,  inhabited  only 
 by  wild  beasts ;  and  for  himself  he  wished  a  peaceful  death  before 
 these  misfortunes  should  fall  on  the  Chaldean  empire.  Immedi- 
 ately after  this  utterance  Nebuchadnezzar  was  snatched  away  from 
 the  sight  of  men  (Trapw^prj/xa  i)cpdviaTo).  In  this  Chaldean  tra- 
 dition Eusebius  has  recognised^  a  disfigured  tradition  of  this  his- 
 
 wliom  he  at  that  time  received  a  significant  pro2:)hetical  announcement,  and 
 that  thus  this  passage  contains  something  quite  different  from  the  trivial 
 notice  merely  that'Elisha  was  sick  previous  to  his  death. 
 
 1  In  the  Chroii.  Arm.  p.  61,  Eusebius  has  thus  remarked,  after  recording  the 
 saying  by  Abyd. :  "  /«  Daniclis  sane  historiis  de  Nabnchadonosoro  narratur,  quo- 
 vKulo  et  quo  pacta  mcnle  captus  fuerit:  quod  si  Griecorinn  liistorici  aiit  Chaldiei 
 morhum  tcgunt  et  a  Deo  cum  acccplum  comminisciintur,  Denmque  insaniavi,  qux  in 
 ilium  intravit,  vel  Dxmoncm  quciulam,  qui  in  eum  venerit,  nominant,  miraiubnn 
 non  est.  Etenim  hoc  quidem  illorum  mos  est,  cuncia  similia  Deo  adscribcre,  Deus- 
 que  nominare  Dxmones." 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-IV.  34.  139 
 
 toiy ;  and  even  Bertholdt  will  not  "  deny  that  this  strange  saying 
 is  in  its  main  parts  identical  with  our  Aramaic  record."  On  the 
 other  hand,  Hitz.  knows  nothing  else  to  bring  forward  than  that 
 *'  the  statement  sounds  so  fabulous,  that  no  historical  substance  can 
 be  discovered  in  it."  But  the  historical  substance  lies  in  the  occur- 
 rence which  Daniel  relates.  As,  according  to  Daniel,  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar was  on  the  roof  of  his  palace  when  he  was  suddenly  struck 
 by  God  with  madness,  so  also  according  to  Abydenus  he  was  &)? 
 avajBa<;  iirl  ra  ^aaiXij'ia  when  seized  by  some  god,  or  possessed. 
 Here  not  only  the  time  and  the  place  of  the  occurrence  agree,  but 
 also  the  circumstance  that  the  king's  being  seized  or  bound  was 
 effected  by  some  god,  i.e.  not  by  his  own,  but  by  a  strange  god. 
 Not  the  less  striking  is  the  harmony  in  the  curse  which  he  prayed 
 might  fall  on  the  Persian — "  ^lay  he  wander  in  the  wilderness 
 where  no  cities  are,  no  human  footstep,  where  wild  beasts  feed 
 and  the  birds  wander" — with  the  description  of  the  abode  of  the 
 kincf  in  his  madness  in  ch.  v.  21  :  "  And  he  was  driven  from  the 
 sons  of  men  ;  and  his  heart  was  made  like  the  beasts,  and  his 
 dwelling  was  with  the  wild  asses ;  and  they  fed  him  with  grass  like 
 oxen."  Moreover,  though  the  designation  of  the  Persian  as  rjfj,Lovo<; 
 in  Abyd.  may  not  be  formed  from  the  H"]!?  of  Daniel,  but  derived 
 from  old  oracles  regarding  Cyrus  diffused  throughout  the  East,  as 
 Hav.  (yV.  Krit.  Unters.  p.  53,  under  reference  to  Herod,  i.  55, 
 91)  regards  as  probable,  then  the  harmony  of  the  Chaldean  tradi- 
 tion in  Abyd.  with  the  narrative  in  Daniel  leaves  no  doubt  that 
 the  fact  announced  by  Daniel  lies  at  the  foundation  of  that  tradi- 
 tion, but  so  changed  as  to  be  adapted  to  the  mythic  glorification  of 
 the  hero  who  was  celebrated,  of  whom  Megasthenes  says  that  he 
 excelled  Hercules  in  boldness  and  courage  (HpaKXica  aXKi/jLcorepov 
 'yeyovora,  in  Euseb.  Pra'p.  ev.  I.e.). 
 
 To  represent  the  king's  state  of  morbid  psychical  bondage  and 
 want  of  freedom  as  his  being  moved  by  God  with  the  spirit  of  pro- 
 phecy was  natural,  from  the  resemblance  which  the  mantic  inspira- 
 tion in  the  gestures  of  the  ecstasy  showed  to  the  fiavia  (cf.  the 
 combination  of  «?3rip^  ^Ji^•b  c>*,  Jer.  xxix.  26,  2  Kings  ix.  11)  ;  and 
 in  the  madness  which  for  a  time  withdrew  the  founder  of  the  world- 
 kingdom  from  the  exercise  of  his  sovereignty  there  might  appear  as 
 not  very  remote  to  the  Chaldeans,  familiar  with  the  study  of  por- 
 tents and  prodigies  as  pointing  out  the  fate  of  men  and  of  nations, 
 an  omen  of  the  future  overthrow  of  the  world-power  founded  by  him. 
 As  the  powerful  monarchy  of  Nebuchadnezzar  was  transferred  to 
 
140  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  JJepcrrif;  rjfiiovo<;  not  a  full  generation  (25-26  years)  after  the 
 death  of  its  founder,  it  might  appear  conformable  to  the  national 
 vanity  of  the  Chaldeans  to  give  the  interpretation  to  the  ominous 
 experience  of  the  great  king,  that  the  celebrated  hero  himself  before 
 his  death — Oeai  oTeco  Bij  Karda-'^eTO'i — had  prophesied  its  fall,  and  had 
 imprecated  on  the  destroyer  great  evil,  but  had  wished  for  himself 
 a  happy  death  befoi'e  these  disasters  should  come. 
 
 But  even  if  there  were  no  such  traditional  references  to  the 
 occurrence  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  yet  would  the  supposition  of 
 its  invention  be  excluded  by  its  nature.  Although  it  could  be  pro- 
 phesied to  Antiochus  as  an  ^Eirifiavi]^  (madman)  that  he  would 
 wholly  lose  his  understanding,  yet  there  remains,  as  even  Hitz,  is 
 constrained  to  confess,  the  choice  of  just  this  form  of  the  madness, 
 the  insania  zoanthropica,  a  mystery  in  the  solution  of  which  even 
 the  acuteness  of  this  critic  is  put  to  shame;  so  that  he  resorts  to  the 
 foolish  conjecture  that  the  Maccabean  Jew  had  fabricated  the  his- 
 tory out  of  the  name  "iVJIIiU:,  since  "JUJ  means  oberravit  cum  per- 
 turbatione,  and  p3,  to  bind,  fasten,  while  the  representation  of  the 
 king  as  a  tree  is  derived  from  the  passages  Isa.  xiv.  12,  Ezek. 
 xxxi.  3  ff.  To  this  is  to  be  added  the  fact,  that  the  tendency 
 attributed  to  the  narrative  does  not  at  all  fit  the  circumstances  of 
 the  Maccabean  times.  With  the  general  remark  that  the  author 
 wished  to  hold  up  as  in  a  mirror  before  the  eyes  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  to  what  results  haughty  presumption  against  the  Most 
 High  will  lead,  and  how  necessary  it  is  penitentially  to  recognise 
 His  power  and  glory  if  he  would  not  at  length  fall  a  victim  to 
 the  severest  judgments  (Bleek),  the  object  of  the  invention  of  so 
 peculiar  a  malady  becomes  quite  inconceivable.  Ilitzig  therefore 
 seeks  to  explain  the  tendency  more  particularly.  "  The  transgressor 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  who  for  his  haughtiness  is  punished  with  madness, 
 is  the  type  of  that  arrogant  ^E'mfiavi]';,  who  also  sought  unsuitable 
 society,  as  king  degraded  himself  (Polyb.  xxvi.  10),  and  yet  had 
 lately  given  forth  a  circular-letter  of  an  altocjetlier  different  cha- 
 racter (1  Mace.  i.  41  ff.)." 
 
 "If  in  ver.  28  (31)  the  loss  of  the  kingdom  is  placed  before  the 
 view  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (Antiochus  Epiphanes),  the  passage  appears 
 to  have  been  composed  at  a  time  when  the  Maccabees  had  already 
 taken  up  arms,  and  gained  the  superiority  (1  Mace.  ii.  42-48)." 
 According  to  this,  we  must  suppose  that  the  author  of  this  book, 
 at  a  time  when  the  Jews  who  adhered  to  their  religion,  under  the 
 leadership  of  Mattathias,  marched  throughout  the  land  to  put  an 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-1 V.  34.  141 
 
 end  by  the  force  of  arms  to  the  oppression  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
 had  proposed  to  the  cruel  king  the  full  restoration  of  his  supremacy 
 and  the  willing  subjection  of  the  Jews  under  his  government,  on 
 the  condition  that  he  should  recognise  the  omnipotence  of  their 
 God.  But  how  does  such  a  proposal  of  peace  agree  witli  the  war 
 of  the  Jews  led  by  Mattathias  against  the  viol  tt}?  virepri<^avia<;, 
 against  the  heathen  and  transgressors,  whose  horn  (power)  they 
 suffer  not  to  prosper  (1  Mace.  ii.  47,  48)  ?  How  with  the  pas- 
 sionate address  of  the  dying  Mattathias,  "  Fear  ye  not  the  words 
 of  a  sinful  man  {avZpo'i  a/xapTcoXov,  i.e.  Antiochus),  for  his 
 glory  shall  be  dung  and  worms  "  (ver.  62)  ?  And  wherein  then 
 consists  the  resemblance  between  the  Nebuchadnezzar  of  this 
 chapter  and  Antiochus  Epiplianes?  —  the  latter,  a  despot  who 
 cherished  a  deadly  hatred  against  the  Jews  who  withstood  him  ; 
 the  former,  a  prince  who  showed  his  good-will  toward  the  Jews  in 
 the  person  of  Daniel,  who  was  held  in  high  esteem  by  him.  Or  is 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  in  the  fact  that  he  gloried  in  the  erection  of  the 
 great  Babylon  as  the  seat  of  his  kingdom,  and  in  that  he  was 
 exhorted  by  Daniel  to  show  compassion  toward  the  poor  and  the 
 oppressed  (ver.  24  [27]),  a  type  of  Antiochus,  "who  sought  improper 
 society,  and  as  king  denied  himself,"  i.e.,  according  to  Polybius  as 
 quoted  by  Hitzig,  delighted  in  fellowship  with  the  lower  classes 
 of  society,  and  spent  much  treasure  amongst  the  poor  handicrafts- 
 men with  whom  he  consorted?  Or  is  there  seen  in  the  circular- 
 letter  of  Antiochus,  "  that  in  his  whole  kingdom  all  should  be  one 
 people,  and  each  must  give  up  his  own  laws,"  any  motive  for  the 
 fabrication  of  the  proclamation  in  which  Nebuchadnezzar  relates 
 to  all  his  people  the  signs  and  wonders  which  the  most  high 
 God  had  done  to  him,  and  for  which  he  praised  the  God  of 
 heaven  ? 
 
 And  if  we  fix  our  attention,  finally,  on  the  relation  of  Daniel 
 to  Nebuchadnezzar,  shall  that  prophet  as  the  counsellor  of  the 
 lieathen  king,  who  in  true  affection  uttered  the  wish  that  the  dream 
 might  be  to  them  that  hated  him,  and  the  interpretation  thereof 
 to  his  enemies  (ver.  16  [19]),  be  regarded  as  a  pattern  to  the 
 Maccabees  sacrificing  all  for  the  sake  of  their  God,  who  wished 
 for  their  deadly  enemy  Antiochus  that  his  glory  might  sink  into 
 "  dung  and  the  worms'?"  Is  it  at  all  conceivable  that  a  Maccabean 
 Jew,  zealous  for  the  law  of  his  fathers,  could  imagine  that  the 
 celebrated  ancient  prophet  Daniel  would  cherish  so  benevolent  a 
 wish  toward  the  heathen  Nebuchadnezzar,  in  order  that  by  such 
 
142  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL, 
 
 an  invention  he  might  animate  his  contemporaries  to  stedfast  per- 
 severance in  war  against  the  ruthless  tyrant  Antiochus  1 
 
 This  total  difference  between  tlie  facts  recorded  in  this  chapter 
 and  the  circumstances  of  the  ^laccabean  times  described  in  1  Mace. 
 ii.  42-48,  as  Kranichfeld  has  fully  shown,  precludes  any  one,  as 
 he  has  correctly  observed,  "  from  speaking  of  a  tendency  delineated 
 according  to  the  orisjinal  of  the  !Maccabean  times  in  the  name  of 
 an  exegesis  favourable  to  historical  investigation."  The  efforts  of  a 
 hostile  criticism  will  never  succeed  on  scientific  grounds  in  changing 
 the  historical  matters  of  fact  recorded  in  this  chapter  into  a  fiction 
 constructed  with  a  tendency. 
 
 Chap.  iii.  31  (iv.  l)-iv.  15  (18).  The  preface  to  the  king's  edict, 
 and  the  account  of  his  dream. 
 
 Ch.  iii.  31-33  (iv.  l-o).  These  verses  form  the  introduction^ 
 to  the  manifesto,  and  consist  of  the  expression  of  good  wishes,  and 
 the  announcement  of  its  object.  The  mode  of  address  here  used, 
 accompanied  by  an  expression  of  a  good  wish,  is  the  usual  form 
 also  of  the  edicts  promulgated  by  the  Persian  kings  ;  cf.  Ezra  iv.  17, 
 vii.  12.  Regarding  the  designation  of  his  subjects,  cf.  ch.  iii.  4. 
 Ny"!X"/33j  not  •'  in  all  lands "  (Hiiv.),  but  on  the  whole  earthy  for 
 Nebuchadnezzar  regarded  himself  as  the  lord  of  the  whole  earth. 
 X^noni  K>ris:  corresponds  with  the  Hebr.  D'riiibi  nhis ;  cf.  Dent.  vi. 
 22,  vii.  19.  The  experience  of  this  miracle  leads  to  the  offering  Up 
 of  praise  to  God,  ver.  33  (ch.  iv.  3).  The  doxology  of  the  second 
 part  of  ver.  33  occurs  again  with  little  variation  in  ch.  iv.  31  (34), 
 
 ^  The  connection  of  these  verses  -with  the  tliird  chapter  in  the  Hebrew, 
 Greek,  and  Latin  Bibles  is  altogether  improper.  The  originator  of  the  division 
 into  chapters  appears  to  have  entertained  the  idea  that  Kebuchadnezzar  had 
 made  known  the  miracle  of  the  deliverance  of  the  thi'ec  men  from  the  fiery  fur- 
 nace to  his  subjects  by  means  of  a  proclamation,  according  to  which  the  fourth 
 chapter  would  contain  a  new  royal  ijroclamation  different  from  that  former  one, 
 — an  idea  which  was  rejected  by  Luther,  who  has  accordingly  properly  divided 
 the  chapters.  Conformably  to  that  division,  as  Chr.  B.  Michaelis  has  well 
 remarked,  '"'■  prius  illud  prorjramma  in  fine  capitis  tcrtii  excerpUan  caput  sine 
 corpore,  posterius  vera  quod  capiie  IV.  exhibetur,  corpus  sine  capiie,  illic  enim  con- 
 spicitur  quidem  exordium,  sed  sine  narratione,  hie  vcro  narratio  quidem,  sed  sine 
 exordia."  Quite  arbitrarily  Ewald  has,  according  to  the  LXX.,  who  have  intro- 
 duced the  words  '  Apxyi  ri;;  iTriaro'h^s  before  ch.  iii.  31,  and  "Erov;  oy.Tux.ut- 
 OiKOLTov  TY,;  (IccaMioc;  Nui3civx,ooou6Gop  uTrm  before  ch.  iv.  1,  enlarged  this  passage 
 by  the  superscription  :  ''In  the  :28tli  year  of  the  reign  of  king  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 king  Nebuchadnezzar  wrote  thus  to  all  the  nations,  communities,  and  tongues 
 who  dwell  in  the  whole  earth." 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-1 V.  15.  143 
 
 vli.  14,  18,  and  is  met  with  also  in  Ps.  cxlv.  13,  which  bears  the 
 name  of  David;  while  the  rendering  of  "I'J").  '^'^'^V^  from  generation 
 to  generation,  i.e.  as  long  as  generations  exist,  agrees  with  Ps.  Ixxii.  5. 
 
 With  ch.  iv.  1  (4)  Nebuchadnezzar  begins  the  narration  of  his 
 wonderful  experience.  When  he  was  at  rest  in  his  palace  and 
 prospering,  he  had  a  dream  as  he  lay  upon  his  bed  which  made  him 
 afraid  and  perplexed.  ^11'^,  quiet,  in  undisturbed,  secure  prosperity. 
 \\V?.j  properly  growing  green,  of  the  fresh,  vigorous  growth  of  a  tree, 
 to  which  the  happiness  and  prosperity  of  men  are  often  compared  ; 
 e.g.  in  Ps.  Hi.  10  (8),  xcii.  11  (10).  Here  plainly  the  word  is 
 chosen  with  reference  to  the  tree  which  had  been  seen  in  the 
 dream.  From  this  description  of  his  prosperity  it  appears  that 
 after  his  victories  Nebuchadnezzar  enjoyed  the  fruit  of  his  exploits, 
 was  firmly  established  on  his  throne,  and,  as  appears  from  ver.  26 
 (29)  f.,  a  year  after  his  dream  could  look  with  pleasure  and  pride 
 on  the  completion  of  his  splendid  buildings  in  Babylon  ;  and  there- 
 fore this  event  belon2;s  to  the  last  half  of  his  rei^'n. 
 
 Ver.  2  (ch.  iv.  5).  While  in  this  state  of  security  and  peace, 
 he  was  alarmed  by  a  dream.  The  abrupt  manner  in  which  the 
 matter  is  here  introduced  well  illustrates  the  unexpected  suddenness 
 of  tlie  event  itself,  pnirij  thoughts,  from  "innrij  to  think,  to  meditate  ; 
 in  the  Mishna  and  in  Syr.  images  of  the  imagination  ;  here,  images  in 
 a  dream.  The  words  ''^3r  P  ^^  Pl'^"'.']  are  more  properly  taken  as  a 
 passage  by  themselves  with  the  verb,  I  had  (I  saw),  supplied,  than 
 connected  with  the  following  noun  to  '•J^pni'^.  Regarding  ''t^'NT  "'"iTn 
 see  under  ch.  ii.  28.  On  this  matter  Chr.  B.  Michaelis  has  well 
 remarked  :  "  Licet  somnii  inter pretationem  nondum  intelligeret,  tamen 
 sensit,  infortunium  sibi  isthoc  somnio  piortendi.^^ 
 
 Ver.  3  f.  (ch.  iv.  6).  Therefore  Nebuchadnezzar  conmianded 
 the  wise  men  of  Babylon  (cf.  ii.  2)  to  be  called  to  him,  that  they 
 might  interpret  to  him  the  dream.  But  they  could  not  do  so, 
 although  on  this  occasion  he  only  asked  them  to  give  the  inter- 
 pretation, and  not,  as  in  ch.  ii.  2,  at  the  same  time  the  dream 
 itself.  Instead  of  the  Kethiv  IvpV,  the  Keri  here  and  at  ch.  v.  8 
 gives  the  contracted  form  r?^;  which  became  possible  only  by  the 
 shortening  of  ^,  as  in  in'-^'n  ch.  iii.  16.  The  form  nnjj  is  differently 
 explained  ;  apparently  it  must  be  the  plur.  masc.  instead  of  pp^*, 
 and  T~}}}^  "'V,  to  the  last,  a  circumlocution  of  the  adverb  at  last. 
 That  P7n^  means  posterus,  and  PJi^  alius,  Hitzig  has  not  yet  fur- 
 nished the  proof.  The  question,  wherefore  Daniel  came  only 
 when  the  Chaldean  wise  men  could  not  interpret  the  dream,  is 
 
144  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 not  answered  satisfactorily  by  the  remark  of  Ziindel,  p.  16,  that 
 it  was  the  natural  course  that  first  they  should  be  called  who  by 
 virtue  of  their  wisdom  should  interpret  the  dream,  and  that  then, 
 after  their  wisdom  had  failed,  Daniel  should  be  called,  who  had 
 gained  for  himself  a  name  by  revelations  not  proceeding  from  the 
 class  of  the  Magi.  For  if  Nebuchadnezzar  had  still  the  events  of 
 cli.  ii.  in  view,  he  would  without  doubt  have  called  him  forthwith, 
 since  it  certainly  did  not  come  into  his  mind,  in  his  anxiety  on 
 account  of  his  dream,  first  to  try  the  natural  wisdom  of  his  Magi. 
 The  objection  offered  by  Hitzig,  that  the  king  does  not  go  at  once 
 to  his  chief  magician,  ver.  6  (9),  who  had  already  (ch.  ii.)  shown 
 himself  to  be  the  best  interpreter  of  dreams,  is  not  thereby  confuted  ; 
 still  less  is  it  by  the  answer  that  the  custom  was  not  immediately  to 
 call  the  president  of  the  ^lagi  (Jahn),  or  that  in  the  haste  he  was 
 not  at  once  thought  of  (Hiiv.).  Tliough  it  may  have  been  the 
 custom  not  to  call  the  chief  president  in  every  particular  case,  yet 
 a  dream  by  the  king,  which  had  filled  him  with  terror,  was  an 
 altogether  unusual  occurrence.  If  Daniel,  therefore,  was  in  this 
 case  first  called  only  when  the  natural  wisdom  of  the  Magi  had 
 proved  its  inadequacy,  the  reason  of  this  was,  either  that  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar had  forgotten  what  had  occurred  several  years  before 
 (ch.  ii.),  and  since  the  chief  president  of  the  wise  men  was  only  in 
 special  cases  called  on  for  counsel,  therefore  only  the  incorporated 
 cultivators  of  the  magician's  art  were  called,  and  only  when  these 
 could  not  accomplish  that  which  was  asked  of  them  was  the  chief 
 president  Daniel  required  to  come, — or  it  lay  in  this,  that  the  king, 
 afraid  of  receiving  an  unwelcome  answer,  purposely  adopted  the 
 course  indicated.  Kranichfeld  has  decided  in  favour  of  this  latter 
 supposition.  "The  king,"  he  thinks,  "knew  from  the  dream  itself 
 that  the  tree  (ver.  8  [H])  reaching  unto  heaven  and  extending  to 
 the  end  of  the  whole  earth  represented  a  royal  person  ruling  the 
 earth,  who  would  come  to  ruin  on  account  of  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
 and  would  remain  in  his  ruin  till  there  was  an  acknowledgment 
 of  the  Almighty;  cf.  vers.  13,  14  (16,  17).  There  was  this 
 reason  for  the  king's  keeping  Daniel  the  Jeio  at  a  distance  from 
 this  matter  of  the  dream.  Without  doubt  he  would  think  himself 
 intended  by  the  person  concerned  in  the  dream;  and  since  the 
 special  direction  which  the  dream  took  (ver.  14)  set  forth  as  its 
 natural  point  of  departure  an  actual  relation  corresponding  to 
 that  of  the  king  to  the  God  of  Daniel,  it  must  have  occasioned 
 to  him  a  well-grounded  fear  (cf.  ver.  24),  as  in  the  case  of  Ahab, 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-lV.  15.  145 
 
 the  Idolater,  towards  Micali,  the  prophet  of  Jehovah  (cf.  1  Kino's 
 xxii.  8),  of  a  severe  judgment,  leading  him  to  treat  with  any  other 
 regarding  his  matter  rather  than  with  Daniel."  For  the  establish- 
 ment of  this  view  Kranichfeld  refers  to  the  "king's  subsequent 
 address  to  Daniel,  designed  especially  to  appease  and  captivate 
 (vers.  5,  6  [8,  9]),  as  well  as  the  visibly  mild  and  gentle  deportment 
 of  the  king  toward  the  worshipper  of  the  God  of  the  Jews."  This 
 proceeding  tending  to  captivate  appears  in  the  appellation,  Daniel, 
 whose  name  luas  Belteshazzar,  according  to  the  name  of  my  god ;  for 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  by  the  addition  of  a  name  of  honour  in  com- 
 memoration of  the  celebrated  god  of  the  kingdom,  intended  to 
 show  favour  toward  him,  as  also  in  the  expression  which  follows. 
 In  ivhom  is  the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods,  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
 repeats  in  the  address.  But  neither  in  the  one  nor  the  other  of 
 these  considerations  can  we  perceive  the  intention  of  specially 
 captivating  and  appeasing  the  Jew  Daniel ; — not  in  the  latter  of 
 these  expressions,  for  two  reasons :  1.  because  Nebuchadnezzar 
 uses  the  expression  not  merely  in  the  address  to  Daniel,  but  also 
 in  the  references  to  him  which  go  before ;  had  he  designed  it  to 
 captivate  him,  he  would  have  used  these  words  of  honour  only  in 
 the  address  to  him;  2.  because  the  expression,  "in  whom  is  the 
 spirit  of  the  holy  gods,"  is  so  truly  heathenish,  that  the  Jew,  who 
 knew  only  one  God,  could  not  feel  himself  specially  flattered  by 
 having  the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods  ascribed  to  him. 
 
 If  Nebuchadnezzar  had  had  the  intention  of  gaining  the  favour 
 of  Daniel,  he  would  certainly,  according  to  his  confession  (ch.  ii. 
 47),  have  attributed  to  him  the  spirit  of  the  God  of  gods,  the 
 Lord  of  lords, — a  confession  which  even  as  a  heathen  he  could 
 utter.  We  cannot  give  the  king  so  little  credit  for  understanding 
 as  to  suppose  that  he  meant  to  show^  a  special  favour  to  Daniel, 
 who  held  so  firmly  the  confession  of  his  father's  God,  by  reminding 
 him  that  he  had  given  him  the  name  Belteshazzar  after  the  name 
 of  his  god  Bel,  whom  the  Jews  abhorred  as  an  idol.  Thus  the 
 reminding  him  of  this  name,  as  well  as  the  saying  that  he  pos- 
 sessed the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods,  is  not  accounted  for  by  sup- 
 posing that  he  intended  to  appease  and  captivate  Daniel.  In 
 showing  the  unsatisfactoriness  of  this  interpretation  of  these  ex- 
 pressions, we  have  set  aside  also  the  explanation  of  the  reason, 
 which  is  based  upon  it,  why  Daniel  was  called  in  to  the  king  only 
 
 '  Calvin  here  rightly  remarks :  non  duhium  est,  quin  Jioc  nomen  graviter  vul- 
 neraverit  animum  propJietx. 
 
 K 
 
146  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 after  the  Chaldean  wise  men ;  and  other  weighty  considerations 
 can  also  be  adduced  against  it.  First,  the  edict  contains  certainly 
 nothing  which  can  give  room  to  the  conjecture  that  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar entertained  no  true  confidence,  but  much  rather  want  of 
 confidence,  in  him.  The  comparison  of  Nebuchadnezzar  also 
 with  king  Ahab  in  his  conduct  toward  the  prophet  Micah  is  not 
 suitable,  because  Ahab  was  not  a  mere  polytheist  as  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, but  much  rather,  like  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  persecuted  the 
 servants  of  Jehovah  in  his  kingdom,  and  at  the  instigation  of  his 
 heathenish  wife  Jezebel  wished  to  make  the  worship  of  Baal  the 
 only  religion  of  his  kingdom.  Finally,  the  relation  of  the  dream 
 does  not  indicate  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  if  he  knew  or  suspected 
 that  the  dream  referred  to  himself  as  ruler  over  the  whole  earth, 
 thought  that  he  would  come  to  ruin  because  of  the  God  of  the 
 Jews.  For  that  this  does  not  follow  from  ver.  14  (17),  is  shown 
 not  only  by  the  divine  visitation  that  happened  to  the  king,  as 
 mentioned  in  ver.  27  (30)  in  fulfilment  of  the  dream,  but  also  "by 
 the  exhortation  to  the  king  with  which  Daniel  closes  the  interpre- 
 tation, "  to  break  off  sin  by  righteousness,  and  his  iniquities  by 
 showing  mercy  to  the  poor"  (ver.  24  [27]). 
 
 Thus  there  only  remains  this  supposition,  that  the  former  reve- 
 lations of  God  to  the  king  had  passed  away  from  his  heart  and  his 
 memory  ;  which  was  not  surprising  in  the  successful  founder  and 
 ruler  of  a  world-kingdom,  if  we  consider  that  from  twenty-five 
 to  thirty  years  must  have  passed  away  since  Daniel  interpreted  to 
 him  his  dream  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  and  from  ten  to 
 fifteen  had  passed  since  the  miracle  of  the  deliverance  of  the  three 
 from  the  burning  fiery  furnace.  But  if  those  earlier  revelations 
 of  God  were  obscured  in  his  heart  by  the  fulness  of  his  prosperity, 
 and  for  ten  years  Daniel  had  no  occasion  to  show  himself  to  him 
 as  a  revealer  of  divine  secrets,  then  it  is  not  difficult  to  conceive 
 how,  amid  the  state  of  disquietude  into  which  the  dream  recorded 
 in  this  chapter  had  brought  him,  he  only  gave  the  command  to 
 summon  all  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  without  expressly  mention- 
 ing their  president,  so  that  they  came  to  him  first,  and  Daniel  was 
 called  only  when  the  natural  wisdom  of  the  Chaldeans  had  shown 
 itself  helpless. 
 
 The  naming  of  Daniel  by  his  Hebrew  name  in  the  manifesto, 
 intended  for  all  the  people  of  the  kingdom  as  well  as  for  the  Jews, 
 is  simply  intended,  as  in  ch.  ii.  29,  to  designate  the  interpreter  of 
 the  dream,  as  distinguished  from  the  native  wise  men  of  Babylon, 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-IV.  15.  147 
 
 as  a  Jew,  and  at  the  same  time  as  a  worshipper  of  the  most  high 
 God ;  and  by  the  addition,  "  whose  name  is  Belteshazzar,  accord- 
 ing to  the  name  of  my  god,"  Nebuchadnezzar  intends  to  indicate 
 that  Daniel  by  this  name  was  brought  into  fellowship  with  his  chief 
 god  Bel,  and  that  not  only  as  a  worshipper  of  the  God  of  the  Jews, 
 but  also  of  the  great  god  Bel,  he  had  become  a  partaker  of  the 
 spirit  of  the  holy  gods.  But  by  the  holy  gods  Nebuchadnezzar 
 does  not  understand  Jehovah,  the  Holy  One,  deriving  this  predi- 
 cate "holy,"  as  M.  Geier  says,  ex  theologia  Israelitica,  and  the  plur. 
 "  gods  "  denoting,  as  Calovius  supposes,  the  mysterium  jyluralitatis 
 personariim ;  but  he  speaks  of  the  holy  gods,  as  Jerome,  Calvin, 
 and  Grotius  supposed,  as  a  heathen  (ut  idololatrd)  in  a  polytheistic 
 sense.  For  that  the  revelation  of  supernatural  secrets  belonged  to 
 the  gods,  and  that  the  man  who  had  this  power  must  possess  the 
 spirit  of  the  gods,  all  the  heathen  acknowledged.  Thus  Pharaoh 
 (Gen.  xli.  38)  judged  regarding  Joseph,  and  thus  also  the  Chal- 
 deans say  to  Nebuchadnezzar  (Dan.  ii.  11)  that  only  the  gods 
 could  know  his  dream.  The  truth  lying  at  the  foundation  of  this 
 belief  was  acknowledged  by  Joseph  before  Pharaoh,  as  also  by 
 Daniel  before  the  Chaldean  king,  for  both  of  them  declared 
 before  the  heathen  kings  that  the  interpretation  of  their  dreams 
 was  not  in  the  power  of  man,  but  could  come  only  from  God 
 (Gen.  xli.  16 ;  Dan.  ii.  28).  But  when  in  the  case  before  us 
 Nebuchadnezzar  speaks  of  the  holy  gods,  he  means  by  the  ex- 
 pression the  d'yadoSai/jiove'i  as  opposed  to  the  KaKoSaLfxove<;,  using 
 the  word  holy  of  the  good  gods,  probably  from  his  conversation 
 with  Daniel  on  the  subject. 
 
 In  the  address,  ver.  6,  he  calls  Belteshazzar  ^5*'2P1^  ^1,  master 
 of  the  magicians,  probably  from  the  special  branch  of  Chaldean 
 wisdom  with  which  Daniel  was  particularly  conversant,  at  the 
 same  time  that  he  was  chief  president  over  all  the  magicians. 
 D3N*,  to  oppress,  to  compel  any  one,  to  do  violence  to  him ;  here, 
 to  make  trouble,  diffi,culty. 
 
 Vers.  7-14  (10-17).  Nebuchadnezzar  in  these  verses  tells  his 
 dream.  The  first  part  of  ver.  7  is  an  absolute  nominal  sentence  ; 
 the  visions  of  my  head  lying  upon  my  bed,  then  I  saw,  etc. — A  tree 
 stood  in  the  midst  of  the  earth.  Although  already  very  high,  yet  it 
 became  always  the  greater  and  the  stronger,  so  that  it  reached  even 
 unto  heaven  and  was  visible  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  Ver.  8.  The 
 perf.  nnn  and  ^''i?J^  express  not  its  condition,  but  its  increasing 
 greatness  and  strength.    In  the  second  hemistich  the  imperf.  i^^p\, 
 
148  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 as  the  form  of  the  striving  movement,  corresponds  to  them.  Ch. 
 B.  Michaelis  properly  remarks,  that  Nebuchadnezzar  saw  the  tree 
 gradually  grow  and  become  always  the  stronger,  nirn,  the  si'jht^ 
 visibleness.  Its  visibility  reached  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The 
 LXX.  have  correctly  rj  opaai^  avrov ;  so  the  Vulgate  ;  while  Theo- 
 dotion,  with  to  kvto<;  avrov,  gives  merely  the  sense,  its  largeness,  or 
 
 dome.  Ilitzig  altogether  improperly  refers  to  the  Arab.  ^;,-^  ;  for 
 i\j=-^,  from  j*»~)  corresponds  neither  with  the  Plebr.  nin,  nor  does 
 it  mean  extent,  but  comprehension,  embracing,  enclosure,  according 
 to  which  the  meanings,  tractuSy  latus,  regio,  given  in  the  Arab. 
 Lex.,  are  to  be  estimated. 
 
 Ver.  9  (12).  At  the  same  time  the  tree  abounded  with  leaves 
 and  fruit,  so  that  birds  and  beasts  found  shadow,  protection,  and 
 nourishment  from  it.  ^''?^,  neither  g7'eat  nor  many,  but  poioerful, 
 expressing  the  quantity  and  the  greatness  of  the  fruit.  The  ^3  the 
 Masoretes  have  rightly  connected  with  ^p^P,  to  which  it  is  joined 
 by  Maqqcph.  The  meaning  is  not :  food  was  in  it,  the  tree  had 
 food  for  all  (Hiiv.,  Maur.,  and  others),  but ;  (it  had)  food  for  all 
 in  it,  i.e.  dwelling  within  its  district  (Kran.,  Klief.).  The  words, 
 besides,  do  not  form  an  independent  sentence,  but  are  only  a  further 
 view  of  the  N^JK'  (Kran.),  and  return  in  the  end  of  the  verse  into 
 further  expansion,  while  the  first  and  the  second  clauses  of  the 
 second  hemistich  give  the  further  expansion  of  the  first  clause  in 
 the  verse.  ^.?P^?,  umbram  captavit,  enjoyed  the  shadow ;  in  Targg. 
 the  Aphel  has  for  the  most  part  the  meaning  obumbravit.  The 
 Keihiv  pi"i^.  is  not  to  be  changed,  since  the  TIS^  is  gen.  comm.  The 
 Keri  is  conform,  to  ver.  18^,  where  the  word  is  construed  as  fem. 
 Th.e  expression  all  flesh  comprehends  the  beasts  of  the  field  and  the 
 fowls  of  heaven,  but  is  chosen  with  reference  to  men  represented 
 under  this  image.  For  the  tree,  mighty,  reaching  even  to  the 
 heavens,  and  visible  over  the  whole  earth,  is  an  easily  recognised 
 symbol  of  a  world-ruler  whose  power  stretches  itself  over  the 
 whole  earth.  The  description  of  the  growth  and  of  the  greatness 
 of  the  tree  reminds  us  of  the  delineation  of  Pharaoh  and  his  power 
 under  the  figure  of  a  mighty  cedar  of  Lebanon,  cf.  Ezek.  xxxi. 
 3  ff.,  also  Ezek.  xvii.  22  ff.,  xix.  10  ff.  The  comparison  of  the 
 growth  of  men  to  the  growth  of  the  trees  is  very  frequent  in 
 biblical  and  other  writings. 
 
 Ver.  10  (13).  By  the  words  "  I  saw,"  etc.,  a  new  incident  of  the 
 dream  is  introduced.    "A  watcher  and  an  holy  one  came  down  from 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-IV.  15.  149 
 
 heaven."  ^'''^p)  with  the  expHc.  i,  even,  and  that  ^oo,  brings  it  before 
 us  in  a  very  expressive  way  that  the  "fy  was  an  "  holy  one."  "i"'V  is 
 not  to  be  combined  with  ">''V,  a  messenger,  but  is  derived  from  "ilj?,  to 
 watch,  and  corresponds  with  the  Hebr.  ">y,  Song  v.  2,  Mai.  ii.  12, 
 and  signifies  not  keeping  watch,  but  being  watchful,  one  who  is 
 awake,  as  the  scholium  to  the  elp  of  Theodotion  in  the  Cod.  Alex, 
 explains  it :  iyp^yopo';  kuI  a'ypvTTvo';.  Similarly  Jerome  remarks  : 
 "  significat  angelos,  quod  semper  vigilent  et  ad  Dei  imperium  sint 
 paratir  From  this  place  is  derived  the  name  of  e^yprj^yopo^  for  the 
 higher  angels,  who  watch  and  slumber  not,  which  is  found  in  the 
 book  of  Enoch  and  in  other  apocryphal  writings,  where  it  is  used 
 of  good  and  of  bad  angels  or  demons.  The  designation  of  the 
 angel  as  "^V  is  peculiar  to  this  passage  in  the  O.  T.  This  gives 
 countenance  to  the  conjecture  that  it  is  a  word  associated  with  the 
 Chaldee  doctrine  of  the  gods.  Kliefoth  quite  justly,  indeed, 
 remarks,  that  this  designation  does  not  come  merely  from  the  lips  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  but  is  uttered  also  by  the  holy  watcher  himself 
 (ver.  14),  as  well  as  by  Daniel ;  and  he  draws  thence  the  conclusion, 
 that  obviously  the  holy  watcher  himself  used  this  expression  first  of 
 himself  and  the  whole  council  of  his  companions,  that  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar used  the  same  expression  after  him  (ver.  10),  and  that 
 Daniel  again  adopted  it  from  Nebuchadnezzar.  Thence  it  follows 
 that  by  the  word  angel  we  are  not  to  understand  a  heathen  deity ; 
 for  as  certainly  as,  according  to  this  narrative,  the  dream  was  given 
 to  Nebuchadnezzar  by  God,  so  certainly  was  it  a  messenger  of  God 
 who  brought  it.  But  from  this  it  is  not  to  be  concluded  that  the 
 name  accords  with  the  religious  conceptions  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and 
 of  the  Babylonians.  Regarding  the  Babylonian  gods  Diod.  Sic. 
 ii.  30,  says:  "  Under  the  five  planets  (=  gods)  are  ranked  thirty 
 others  whom  they  call  the  counselling  gods  {6eo\  ^ovXatoi),  the 
 half  of  whom  have  the  oversight  of  the  regions  under  the  earth, 
 and  the  other  half  oversee  that  which  goes  on  on  the  earth,  and 
 among  men,  and  in  heaven.  Every  ten  days  one  of  these  is  sent 
 as  a  messenger  of  the  stars  from  the  upper  to  the  lower,  and  at  the 
 same  time  also  one  from  the  lower  to  the  upper  regions." 
 
 If,  according  to  ver.  14,  the  pi/V  constitute  a  deliberative 
 council  forming  a  resolution  regarding  the  fate  of  men,  and  then 
 one  of  these  p/y  comes  down  and  makes  known  the  resolution  to 
 the  king,  the  conclusion  is  tenable  that  the  TyV  correspond  to  the 
 6eo\  ^oiikaioi  of  the  Babylonians.  The  divine  inspiration  of  the 
 dream  corresponds  with  this  idea.     The  correct  thought  lay  at  the 
 
150  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 foundation  of  the  Chaldean  representation  of  the  Oeol  ^ovXaioi,, 
 that  the  relation  of  God  to  the  world  was  mediate  through  the  in- 
 strumentality of  heavenly  beings.  The  biblical  revelation  recog- 
 nises these  mediating  beings,  and  calls  them  messengers  of  God, 
 or  angels  and  holy  ones.  Yea,  the  Scripture  speaks  of  the  assem- 
 bling of  angels  before  the  throne  of  God,  in  which  assemblies  God 
 forms  resolutions  regarding  the  fate  of  men  which  the  angels  carry 
 into  execution ;  cf.  Job  i.  6  ff.,  1  Kings  xxii.  19  ff.,  Ps.  Ixxxix.  8 
 (7).  Accordingly,  if  Nebuchadnezzar's  dream  came  from  God,  we 
 can  regard  the  "'"'V  as  an  angel  of  God  who  belonged  to  the  D''ti'"Ti5 1)D 
 around  the  throne  of  God  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  8).  But  this  angel  an- 
 nounced himself  to  the  Chaldean  king  not  as  a  messenger  of  the  most 
 high  God,  not  as  an  angel  in  the  sense  of  Scripture,  but  he  speaks 
 (ver.  14)  of  TyV  rniji^  of  a  resolution  of  the  watchers,  afatum  of  the 
 6eol  jSovKaLOL  who  have  the  oversight  of  this  world.  The  concep- 
 tion pTV  ^"H.?  is  not  biblical,  but  Babylonian  heathen.  According 
 to  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  the  angels  do  not  determine  the  fate  of 
 men,  but  God  alone  does,  around  whom  the  angels  stand  as  mini- 
 stering spirits  to  fulfil  His  commands  and  make  known  His  counsel 
 to  men.  The  angel  designates  to  the  Babylonian  king  the  divine 
 resolution  regarding  that  judgment  which  would  fall  upon  him 
 from  God  to  humble  him  for  his  pride  as  "  the  resolution  of  the 
 watchers,"  that  it  might  be  announced  to  him  in  the  way  most 
 easily  understood  by  him  as  a  divine  judgment.  On  the  other 
 hand,  one  may  not  object  that  a  messenger  of  God  cannot  give 
 himself  the  name  of  a  heathen  deity,  and  that  if  Nebuchadnezzar 
 had  through  misunderstanding  given  to  the  bringer  of  the  dream 
 the  name  of  one  of  his  heathen  gods,  Daniel  ought,  in  interpreting 
 the  dream,  to  have  corrected  the  misunderstanding,  as  Klief.  sa3's. 
 For  the  messenger  of  God  obviated  this  misunderstanding  by  the 
 explanation  that  the  matter  was  a  decree  of  the  "watchers,  to  acknoAV- 
 ledge  the  living  God,  that  the  Most  High  rules  over  the  kingdom 
 of  men  and  gives  it  to  whomsoever  He  will  (ver.  14),  whereby  he 
 distinctly  enough  announces  himself  as  a  messenger  of  the  Most 
 High,  i.e.  of  the  living  God.  To  go  yet  further,  and  to  instruct  the 
 king  that  his  religious  conceptions  of  the  gods,  the  (''TV,  or  6eol 
 jBovKaioL,  were  erroneous,  inasmuch  as,  besides  the  Highest,  the  only 
 God,  there  are  no  other  gods,  but  only  angels,  who  are  no  deoi^  but 
 creatures  of  God,  was  not  at  all  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  his 
 message.  This  purpose  was  only  to  lead  Nebuchadnezzar  to  an 
 acknowledgment  of  the  Most  High,  i.e.  to  an  acknowledgment  that 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-IV.  15.  151 
 
 the  Most  Hln;h  rules  as  King  of  heaven  over  the  kingdom  of  men. 
 Now,  since  this  was  declared  by  the  messenger  of  God,  Daniel 
 in  interpreting  the  dream  to  the  king  needed  to  say  nothing  more 
 than  what  he  said  in  vers.  21,  22  (24,  25),  where  he  designates  the 
 matter  as  a  resolution  of  the  Most  High,  and  thereby  indirectly 
 corrects  the  view  of  the  king  regarding  the  "  resolutions  of  the 
 watchers,"  and  gives  the  king  distinctly  to  understand  that  the 
 humiliation  announced  to  him  was  determined,^  not  by  the  $eol 
 ^ovXaioi  of  the  Babylonians,  but  by  the  only  true  God,  whom 
 Daniel  and  his  people  worshipped.  For  Nebuchadnezzar  desig- 
 nates "i^V  as  K'"''^P  in  the  same  sense  in  which,  in  ver.  5,  he  speaks  of 
 the  holy  gods. 
 
 Ver.  11  (14).  The  messenger  of  God  cried  with  might  (cf.  iii. 
 4),  "  as  a  sign  of  the  strong,  firm  utterance  of  a  purpose  "  (Kran.). 
 The  command.  Hew  it  down,  is  not  given  to  the  angels  (Hav., 
 Hitz.,  Auberl.).  The  plur.  here  is  to  be  regarded  as  impersonal : 
 the  tree  shall  be  cut  down.  ^'^'^^  stands  for  ^"iJiiX  according  to  the 
 analogy  of  the  verbs  3d  gutt.,  from  in3j  to  fall  off,  spoken  of 
 withering  leaves.  In  consequence  of  the  destruction  of  the  tree, 
 the  beasts  which  found  shelter  under  it  and  among  its  branches 
 flee  away.  Yet  the  tree  shall  not  be  altogether  destroyed,  but  its 
 stock  (ver.  12  [15])  shall  remain  in  the  earth,  that  it  may  again 
 afterwards  spring  up  and  grow  into  a  tree.  The  stem  is  not  the 
 royalty,  the  dynasty  which  shall  remain  in  the  house  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (Hav.),  but  the  tree  with  its  roots  is  Nebuchadnezzar,  who 
 shall  as  king  be  cut  down,  but  shall  as  a  man  remain,  and  again 
 shall  grow  into  a  king.  But  the  stock  must  be  bound  "  with  a 
 band  of  iron  and  brass."  With  these  words,  to  complete  which 
 we  must  supply  ^?^^  from  the  preceding  context,  the  language 
 passes  from  the  type  to  the  person  represented  by  it.  This  transi- 
 tion is  in  the  last  part  of  the  verse  :  luith  the  beasts  of  the  field  let 
 him  have  his  portion  in  the  grass  of  the  earth  ;  for  this  cannot  be 
 said  of  the  stock  with  the  roots,  therefore  these  words  are  in  the 
 interpretation  also  (ver.  22   [25])  applied  directly  to  Nebuchad- 
 
 ^  We  must  altogether  reject  the  assertion  of  Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  and 
 l^Iaur.,  that  the  language  of  this  verse  regarding  the  angel  sent  to  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar is  formed  in  accordance  with  the  Persian  representation  of  the  seven 
 Amschaspands  (Amescha-gpenta'),  since,  according  to  the  judgment  of  all  those 
 most  deeply  conversant  with  Parsism,  the  doctrine  of  the  AmesclM-gpenta  does 
 not  at  all  occur  in  the  oldest  parts  of  the  Avesta,  and  the  Avesta  altogether  is 
 not  so  old  as  that  the  Babylonian  doctrine  of  the  gods  can  be  shown  to  be 
 dependent  on  the  Zend  doctrine  of  the  Parsees. 
 
152  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 nezzar.  But  even  in  the  preceding  passages  this  transition  is 
 not  doubtful.  Neither  the  words  in  the  gi'ass  of  the  field,  nor 
 the  being  icet  loith  the  dew  of  heaven,  are  suitable  as  applied  to  the 
 stock  of  the  tree,  because  both  expressions  in  that  case  would  affirm 
 nothing ;  still  less  is  the  hand  of  iron  and  brass  congruous,  for  the 
 trunk  of  a  tree  is  not  wont  to  be  surrounded  with  bands  of  iron  in 
 order  to  prevent  its  being  rent  in  pieces  and  completely  destroyed. 
 Thus  the  words  refer  certainly  to  Nebuchadnezzar ;  but  the  fasten- 
 ing in  brass  and  iron  is  not,  with  Jerome  and  others,  to  be  under- 
 stood of  the  binding  of  the  madman  with  chains,  but  figuratively 
 or  spiritually  of  the  withdrawal  of  free  self-determination  through 
 the  fetter  of  madness  ;  cf.  the  fetters  of  affliction,  Ps.  cvii.  10, 
 Job  xxxvi.  8.  With  this  fettering  also  agrees  the  going  forth 
 under  the  open  heaven  among  the  grass  of  the  field,  and  the  being 
 wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  without  our  needing  thereby  to  think 
 of  the  maniac  as  wandering  about  without  any  oversight  over 
 him. 
 
 Ver.  13  (IG).  Here  the  angel  declares  by  what  means  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar shall  be  brought  into  this  condition.  His  heart  shall  be 
 changed  from  a  man's  heart,  according  to  the  following  passage, 
 into  the  heart  of  a  beast.  |^  ^W,  to  change,  to  mahe  different  from, 
 so  that  it  is  no  longer  what  it  was.  The  Kethiv  NK^i^x  is  the  Hebr. 
 form  for  the  Chald.  N^J^  of  the  Keri,  here,  as  in  ver.  14,  where 
 along  with  it  also  stands  the  Hebr.  plur.  form  Q''^J^^.  *^"fij?< 
 stands  here  for  the  abbreviated  comparison  frequent  in  Hebr., 
 N^'i3X  2^7  jp,  and  the  3d  pers.  plur.'\\^^'\  impers.  for  the  passive. 
 2'y7  is  tlie  heart,  the  centre  of  the  intelligent  soul-life.  The  heart 
 of  man  is  dehumanized  when  his  soul  becomes  like  that  of  a  beast ; 
 for  the  difference  between  the  heart  of  a  man  and  that  of  a  beast 
 has  its  foundation  in  the  difference  between  the  soul  of  a  man  and 
 the  soul  of  a  beast  (Delitzsch,  bihl.  Psych,  p.  252).  And  seven 
 times  shall  pass  over  him,  viz.  during  the  continuance  of  the  circum- 
 stances described  ;  i.e.  his  condition  of  bondage  shall  last  for  seven 
 times.  Following  the  example  of  the  LXX.  and  of  Josephus, 
 many  ancient  and  recent  interpreters,  down  to  Maur.,  Ilitz.,  and 
 Kran.,  understood  by  the  word  I'^y^V  years,  because  the  times  in 
 eh.  vii.  25,  xii.  7,  are  also  years,  and  because  in  ver.  26  mention 
 is  made  of  twelve  months,  and  thereby  the  time  is  defined  as  one 
 year.  But  from  ver.  26  the  duration  of  the  l'"^"^V  cannot  at  all  be 
 concluded,  and  in  ch.  vii.  25  and  xii.  7  the  times  are  not  years. 
 l"iy  designates  generally  a  definite  period  of  time,  whose  length  or 
 
CHAP.  III.  31-IV.  15.  153 
 
 duration  may  be  very  different.  Seven  is  the  "  measure  and 
 signature  of  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God,  and  of  all  the  factors  and  phenomena  significant  for  it " 
 (Lammert's  "  Revision  of  the  biblical  Symbolical  Numbers "  in 
 the  Jahrhh.f.  deutsche  Theol.  ix.  p.  11),  or  as  Leyrer,  in  Herzog's 
 Realencykl.  xviii.  p.  366,  expresses  himself,  "  the  signature  for  all 
 the  actions  of  God,  in  judgment  and  in  mercy,  punishments,  ex- 
 piations, consecrations,  blessings,  connected  with  the  economy  of 
 redemption,  perfecting  themselves  in  time."  Accordingly,  "  seven 
 times  "  is  the  duration  of  the  divine  punishment  which  was  de- 
 creed against  Nebuchadnezzar  for  purposes  connected  with  the 
 history  of  redemption.  Whether  these  times  are  to  be  under- 
 stood as  years,  months,  or  weeks,  is  not  said,  and  cannot  at  all 
 be  determined.  The  supposition  that  they  were  seven  years 
 "  cannot  well  be  adopted  in  opposition  to  the  circumstance  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar  was  again  restored  to  reason,  a  thing  which  very 
 rarely  occurs  after  so  long  a  continuance  of  psychical  disease " 
 (J.  B.  Friedreich,  Zur  BiheL  Naturhist.^  anthrop.  u.  med.  Fragmented 
 i.  p.  316). 
 
 Ver.  14  (17).  The  divine  messenger  concludes  his  announce- 
 ment with  the  words  that  the  matter  was  unchangeably  decreed, 
 for  this  purpose,  that  men  might  be  led  to  recognise  the  supremacy 
 of  the  Most  High  over  the  kings  of  the  earth.  The  first  two 
 passages  have  no  verb,  and  thus  the  verb,  substant.  must  be  sup- 
 plied. Accordingly  we  must  not  translate :  iy  the  decree  of  the 
 watchers  is  the  message,  i.e.  is  it  delivered  (Kran.),  nor  :  the  decree  is 
 included  in  the  fate,  the  unalterable  will  of  Heaven  (Hav.) ;  but  3 
 denotes  the  department  within  which  the  nnra  lies,  and  is  to  be 
 translated :  "  the  message  consists  in,  or  rests  on,  the  decree  of  the 
 ivatchers."  ^1%  the  unchangeable  decision,  the  decretum  divinum, 
 quod  homini  aut  rebus  humanis  tanquani  inevitabile  impositum  est 
 (Buxtorf's  Lex.  talm.  rabb.  p.  419),  the  Fatum  in  which  the 
 Chaldeans  believed.  Regarding  DSnS)  see  under  ch.  iii.  16.  Here 
 the  fundamental  meaning,  the  message,  that  xohich  is  to  happen,  can 
 be  maintained.  The  second  member  is  synonymous,  and  affirms 
 the  same  thing  in  another  way.  The  word,  the  utterance  of  the 
 holy  ones,  i.e.  the  watchers  (see  under  ver.  10),  is  NripsB',  the 
 matter.  The  meaning  lying  in  the  etymon,  request  or  question,  is 
 not  here  suitable,  but  only  the  derivative  meaning,  matter  as  the 
 object  of  the  request  or  inquiry.  The  thing  meant  is  that  which 
 is  decided  regarding  the  tree,  that  it  should  be  cut  down,  etc. 
 
154  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 This  is  so  clear,  that  a  pronoun  referring   to  it  appears  super- 
 fluous. 
 
 ^n  man  IV,  till  the  matter  that  .  .  .  to  the  end  that;  not=r 
 ■'T  Ijj  ver.  22,  because  here  no  defining  of  time  goes  before. 
 The  changing  of  ^V  into  bv  (Hitz.)  is  unnecessary  and  arbitrary. 
 That  the  living  may  knoiv,  etc.  The  expression  is  general,  because 
 it  is  not  yet  said  who  is  to  be  understood  by  the  tree  which  should 
 be  cut  down.  This  general  expression  is  in  reality  correct ;  for  the 
 king  comes  by  experience  to  this  knowledge,  and  so  all  will  attain 
 to  it  who  consider  this.  The  two  last  passages  of  ver.  14  express 
 more  fully  how  the  Most  High  manifests  His  supremacy  over  the 
 kingdom  of  men.  The  Kethiv  T^'hv  is  shortened  from  Nn^^y,  and 
 in  the  Keri  is  yet  further  shortened  by  the  rejection  of  the  "•;  cf. 
 ch.  V.  21,  vii.  4ff.,  etc. 
 
 Ver.  15  (18).  Nebuchadnezzar  adds  to  his  communication  of 
 his  dream  a  command  to  Daniel  to  interpret  it.  The  form  >^7.^'5) 
 {its  interpretation)  is  the  old  orthography  and  the  softened  form 
 for  n-itya  (cf.  ver.  6). 
 
 Vers.  16-24  (19-27).   The  interpretation  of  the  dream. 
 
 As  Daniel  at  once  understood  the  interpretation  of  the  dream, 
 he  was  for  a  moment  so  astonished  that  he  could  not  speak  for 
 terror  at  the  thoughts  which  moved  his  soul.  This  amazement 
 seized  him  because  he  wished  well  to  the  king,  and  yet  he  must 
 now  announce  to  him  a  weighty  judgment  from  God. 
 
 Ver.  16.  The  punctuation  DDin'^'si  for  DDintJ'N  is  Syriac,  as  in 
 the  Hebr.  ch.  viii.  27 ;  cf.  Winer's  'Chald.  Gram.  §  25,  2.  riV^3 
 Nin  means,  not  about  an  hour  (Mich.,  Hitz.,  Kran.,  etc.),  but  as  it 
 were  an  instant,  a  moment.  Regarding  ny^,  see  under  ch.  iii.  6. 
 Tiie  king  perceives  the  astonishment  of  Daniel,  and  remarks  that 
 he  has  found  the  interpretation.  Therefore  he  asks  him,  witli 
 friendly  address,  to  tell  him  it  without  reserve.  Daniel  then  com- 
 municates it  in  words  of  affectionate  interest  for  the  welfare  of 
 the  king.  The  words,  let  the  dream  he  to  thine  enemies,  etc.,  do 
 not  mean  :  it  is  a  dream,  a  prophecy,  such  as  the  enemies  of  the  king 
 might  ungraciously  wish  (KHef.),  but:  may  the  dream  ivith its  inter- 
 pretation he  to  thine  enemies,  may  it  he  fulfilled  to  them  or  refer  to 
 them  (Hliv.,  Hitz.,  etc.).  The  Kethiv  "'^^"1J?  is  the  regular  formation 
 from  ^79  with  the  suffix,  for  which  the  Masoretes  have  substituted 
 the  later  Talmudic-Targ.  form  "lO.  "With  regard  to  '^''^^^  with  the 
 a  shortened,  as  also  rO^'O  (ch.  iii.  16)  and  other  participial  forms, 
 
CHAP,  IV.  16-2i,  155 
 
 cf.  Winer,  Chald.  Gram.  §  34,  in.  That  Nebuchadnezzar  (ver.  16) 
 in  his  account  speaks  in  the  third  person  does  not  justify  the  con- 
 clusion, either  that  another  spake  of  him,  and  that  thus  the  docu- 
 ment is  not  genuine  (Hitz.),  nor  yet  the  conclusion  that  this  verse 
 includes  an  historical  notice  introduced  as  an  interpolation  into 
 the  document ;  for  similar  forms  of  expression  are  often  found  in 
 such  documents :  cf.  Ezra  vii.  13-15,  Esth.  viii.  7,  8. 
 
 Ver.  17  (20).  Daniel  interprets  to  the  king  his  dream,  repeat- 
 ing only  here  and  there  in  an  abbreviated  form  the  substance  of 
 it  in  the  same  words,  and  then  declares  its  reference  to  the  king. 
 With  vers.  17  (20)  and  18  (21)  cf.  vers.  8  (11)  and  9  (12).  The 
 fuller  description  of  the  tree  is  subordinated  to  the  relative  clause, 
 which  thou  hast  seeti,  so  that  the  subject  is  connected  by  Xin  (ver. 
 19),  representing  the  verb,  subst.,  according  to  rule,  with  the  pre- 
 dicate ^i^''^.  The  interpretation  of  the  separate  statements  regard- 
 ing the  tree  is  also  subordinated  in  relative  clauses  to  the  subject. 
 For  the  Kethiv  n^ni  =  n''2"i,  the  Keri  gives  the  shortened  form 
 na"ij  with  the  elision  of  the  third  radical,  analogous  to  the  shorten- 
 ing of  the  following  ODD  for  nop.  To  the  call  of  the  angel  to 
 "  cut  down  the  tree,"  etc.  (ver.  20,  cf.  vers.  10-13),  Daniel  gives 
 the  interpretation,  ver.  21,  "  This  is  the  decree  of  the  Most  High 
 which  is  come  upon  the  king,  that  he  shall  be  driven  from  men, 
 and  dwell  among  the  beasts,"  etc.  bv  N^p  =  Hebr.  hv  Ni3.  The 
 indefinite  plur.  form  i^l^  stands  instead  of  the  passive,  as  the 
 following  T]^  nt3J?D^^  and  PvV?)  cf.  under  ch.  iii.  4.  Thus  the 
 subject  remains  altogether  indefinite,  and  one  has  neither  to 
 think  on  men  who  will  drive  him  from  their  society,  etc.,  nor  of 
 angels,  of  whom,  perhaps,  the  expulsion  of  the  king  may  be 
 predicated,  but  scarcely  the  feeding  on  grass  and  being  wet  with 
 dew. 
 
 Ver.  23  (26).  In  this  verse  the  emblem  and  its  interpretation 
 are  simply  placed  together,  so  that  we  must  in  thought  repeat  the 
 NTki'S  njT  from  ver.  21  before  ^nia^o.  N»>i?,  DSj?  do  not  in  this 
 place  mean  to  stand,  to  exist,  to  remain,  for  this  does  not  agree 
 with  the  following  ^Ti?;  for  until  Nebuchadnezzar  comes  to  the 
 knowledge  of  the  supremacy  of  God,  his  dominion  shall  not  con- 
 tinue, but  rest,  be  withdrawn.  Dip,  to  rise  up,  has  here  an  in- 
 choative meaning,  again  rise  up.  To  T^'h^  (do  rule)  there  is  to 
 be  added  from  ver.  22  (25)  the  clause,  over  the  kingdom  of  men. 
 From  this  passage  we  have  an  explanation  of  the  use  of  ^<^0t^', 
 heaven,  for  i^'^V,   the  Most  High,   God  of  heaven,  whence  after- 
 
156  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 wards   arose  the  use  of  ^aaiXeLa  rchv  ovpavdv  for  ^aaikela  rod 
 
 &€0V. 
 
 Ver.  24  (27).  Daniel  adds  to  his  interpretation  of  the  dream 
 the  warning  to  the  king  to  break  off  his  sins  by  righteousness  and 
 mercy,  so  that  his  tranquilHty  may  be  lengthened.  Daniel  knew 
 nothing  of  a  heathen  Fatum,  but  he  knew  that  the  judgments  of 
 God  were  directed  against  men  according  to  their  conduct,  and 
 that  punishment  threatened  could  only  be  averted  by  repentance  ; 
 cf.  Jer.  xviii.  7  ff. ;  Jonah  lii.  5  ff. ;  Isa.  xxxviii.  1  f.  This  way  of 
 turning  aside  the  threatened  judgment  stood  open  also  for  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, particularly  as  the  time  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  dream 
 was  not  fixed,  and  thus  a  space  was  left  for  repentance.  Tlie 
 counsel  of  Daniel  is  interpreted  by  Berth.,  Hitz.,  and  others,  after 
 Theodotion,  the  Vulgate,  and  many  Church  Fathers  and  Rabbis, 
 as  teaching  the  doctrine  of  holiness  by  works  held  by  the  later 
 Jews,  for  tliey  translate  it :  redeem  thy  sins  by  loeli-doing  (Hitz. : 
 buy  freedom  from  thy  sins  by  alms)^  and  thy  transgressions  by  show- 
 ing mercy  to  the  poor}  But  this  translation  of  the  first  passage  is 
 verbally  false ;  for  PIS  does  not  mean  to  redeem,  to  ransom^  and 
 '"•i^lV  does  not  mean  alms  or  charity.  P13  means  to  break  off,  to 
 break  in  pieces,  hence  to  separate,  to  disjoin,  to  put  at  a  distance ; 
 see  under  Gen.  xxi.  40.  And  though  in  the  Targg.  piD  is  used 
 for  -'^?3,  iTiSj  to  loosen,  to  unbind,  of  redeeming,  ransoming  of  the 
 first-born,  an  inheritance  or  any  other  valuable  possession,  yet  this 
 use  of  the  word  by  no  means  accords  with  sins  as  the  object, 
 because  sins  are  not  goods  which  one  redeems  or  ransoms  so  as  to 
 retain  them  for  his  own  use.  ^9'^-  •'"^^  can  only  mean  to  throio  aivay 
 sins,  to  set  one's  self  free  from  si7is.  Hj^n^*  nowhere  in  the  O.  T. 
 means  well-doing  or  abns.  This  meaning  the  self-righteous  Rabbis 
 first  gave  to  the  word  in  their  writings.  Daniel  recommends  the 
 king  to  practise  righteousness  as  the  chief  virtue  of  a  ruler  in 
 contrast  to  the  unrighteousness  of  the  despots,  as  Hgstb.,  Hiiv., 
 Hofm.,  and  Klief.  have  justly  observed.  To  this  also  the  second 
 member  of  the  verse  corresponds.  As  the  king  should  practise 
 righteousness  toward  all  his  subjects,  so  should  he  exercise  mercy 
 
 ^  Theodot.  translates  :  kui  rei;  ccfietpriu;  aov  it)  i'hiyiinoavs/eti;  'Kinpuaui,  x.xi 
 T«j  eiZiKtu;  aov  iu  olKzipf^oi;  -TrevTiTuu.  The  Vulg.  :  et  pcccata  tiia  elcoiwsynis 
 redime  et  iniquitates  tuas  misericordiis  paitpenim.  Accordingly,  the  Catholic 
 Church  regards  this  passage  as  a  locus  classicus  for  the  doctrine  of  the  merit  of 
 works,  against  which  the  Apologia  Con/.  Awjmt.  first  set  forth  the  right  ex- 
 position. 
 
CHAP.  IV.  25-30.  157 
 
 toward  the  oppressed,  the  miserable,  the  poor.  Both  of  these 
 virtues  are  frequently  named  together,  e.g.  Isa.  xi.  4,  Ps.  Ixxii.  4, 
 Isa.  xli.  2,  as  virtues  of  the  Messiah.  '^^9^  is  the  plur.  of  ""on,  as 
 the  parallel  'nn>iy  shows,  and  the  Keri  only  the  later  abbreviation 
 or  defective  suffix-formation,  as  ch.  ii.  4,  v.  10. 
 
 The  last  clause  of  this  verse  is  altogether  misunderstood  by 
 Theodotion,  who  translates  it  ccrct)?  ecrrat  fiaKp69v/xo<i  rot?  Trapair- 
 T(o/xaaiv  aov  6  &e6<i,  and  by  the  Vulgate,  where  it  is  rendered  by 
 forsitan  ignoscet  delictis  tuis,  and  by  many  older  interpreters, 
 where  they  expound  ^3"!^  in  the  sense  of  2^.2X  T]ns:,  patience,  and 
 derive  ^n\7C'  from  ^^^^  to  fail,  to  go  astray  (cf.  ch.  iii.  29).  i<3"ifr5 
 means  continuance,  or  length  of  time,  as  ch.  vii.  12  ;  ^\>}^,  rest, 
 safety,  as  the  Hebr.  ^"y^,  here  tlie  peaceful  prosperity  of  life ;  and 
 in,  neither  ecce  nor  forsitan,  si  forte,  but  simply  if,  as  always  in 
 the  book  of  Daniel. 
 
 Daniel  places  before  the  king,  as  the  condition  of  the  continu- 
 ance of  prosperity  of  life,  and  thereby  implicite  of  the  averting  of 
 the  threatened  punishment,  reformation  of  life,  the  giving  up  of 
 injustice  and  cruelty  towards  the  poor,  and  the  practice  of  righteous- 
 ness and  mercy. 
 
 Vers.  25-30  (28-33).   The  fulfilling  of  the  dream. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar  narrates  the  fulfilment  of  the  dream  alto- 
 gether objectively,  so  that  he  speaks  of  himself  in  the  third  person. 
 Berth.,  Hitz.,  and  others  find  here  that  the  author  falls  out  of  the 
 role  of  the  king  into  the  narrative  tone,  and  thus  betrays  the  fact 
 that  some  other  than  the  king  framed  the  edict.  But  this  con- 
 clusion is  opposed  by  the  fact  that  Nebuchadnezzar  from  ver.  31 
 speaks  of  his  recoveiy  again  in  the  first  person.  Thus  it  is  beyond 
 doubt  that  the  change  of  person  has  its  reason  in  the  matter  itself. 
 Certainly  it  could  not  be  in  this  that  Nebuchadnezzar  thought  it 
 unbecoming  to  speak  in  his  own  person  of  his  madness  ;  for  if  he 
 had  had  so  tender  a  regard  for  his  own  person,  he  would  not  have 
 .  published  the  whole  occurrence  in  a  manifesto  addressed  to  his 
 subjects.  But  the  reason  of  his  speaking  of  his  madness  in  the 
 third  person,  as  if  some  other  one  were  narrating  it,  lies  simply  in 
 this,  that  in  that  condition  he  was  not  Ich  =  Ego  (Kliefoth).  With 
 the  return  of  the  Ich,  I,  on  his  recovery  from  his  madness,  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar begins  again  to  narrate  in  the  first  person  (ver. 
 31  [34]). 
 
 Ver.  25  (28).   In  this  verse  there  is   a  brief  comprehensive 
 
158  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL, 
 
 statement  regarding  the  fulfilment  of  the  dream  to  the  king,  which 
 is  then  extended  from  ver.  26  to  30.  At  the  end  of  twelve 
 months,  i.e.  after  the  expiry  of  twelve  months  from  the  time  of  the 
 dream,  the  king  betook  himself  to  his  palace  at  Babylon,  i.e.  to  the 
 flat  roof  of  the  palace  ;  cf.  2  Sam.  xi.  2.  The  addition  at  Babylon 
 does  not  indicate  that  the  kino;  was  then  livino;  at  a  distance  from 
 Babylon,  as  Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  and  others  imagine,  but  is 
 altogether  suitable  to  the  matter,  because  Nebuchadnezzar  cer- 
 tainly had  palaces  outside  of  Babylon,  but  it  is  made  with  special 
 reference  to  the  language  of  the  king  which  follows  regarding  the 
 greatness  of  Babylon.  ^}V  means  here  not  simply  to  begin  to  speak, 
 but  properly  to  answer,  and  suggests  to  us  a  foregoing  colloquy 
 of  the  king  with  himself  in  his  own  mind.  Whether  one  may 
 conclude  from  that,  in  connection  with  the  statement  of  time,  after 
 twelve  monthsy  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  exactly  one  year  after  he  had 
 received  the  important  dream,  was  actively  engaging  himself  re- 
 garding that  dream,  must  remain  undetermined,  and  can  be  of  no 
 use  to  a  psychological  explanation  of  the  occurrence  of  the  dream. 
 The  thoughts  which  Nebuchadnezzar  expresses  in  ver.  26  (29)  are 
 not  favourable  to  such  a  supposition.  Had  the  king  remembered 
 that  dream  and  its  interpretation,  he  would  scarcely  have  spoken 
 so  proudly  of  his  splendid  city  which  he  had  built  as  he  does  in 
 ver.  27  (30). 
 
 When  he  surveyed  the  great  and  magnificent  city  from  the  top 
 of  his  palace,  "  pride  overcame  him,"  so  that  he  dedicated  the 
 building  of  this  great  city  as  the  house  of  his  kingdom  to  the  might 
 of  his  power  and  the  honour  of  his  majesty.  From  the  addition 
 Kri3T  it  does  not  follow  that  this  predicate  was  a  standing  Epitheton 
 ornans  of  Babylon,  as  with  nan  ncn,  Amos  vi.  2,  and  other  towns 
 of  Asia  ;  for  although  Pausanias  and  Strabo  call  Babylon  fieydXij 
 and  fieyi<TTr}  7r6\t<i,  yet  it  bears  this  designation  as  a  surname  in  no 
 ancient  author.  But  in  Rev.  xiv.  8  this  predicate,  quoted  from 
 the  passage  before  us,  is  given  to  Babylon,  and  in  the  mouth  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  it  quite  corresponds  to  the  self-praise  of  his  great 
 might  by  which  he  had  built  Babylon  as  the  residence  of  a  great 
 king,  nja  designates,  as  nja  more  frequently,  not  the  building  or 
 founding  of  a  city,  for  the  founding  of  Babylon  took  place  in  the 
 earliest  times  after  the  Flood  (Gen.  xi.),  and  was  dedicated  to  the 
 god  Belus,  or  the  mythic  Semiramis,  i.e.  in  the  pre-historic  time ; 
 but  njn  means  tlie  building  up,  the  enlargement,  the  adorning  of  the 
 city  ^3?o  ri^ap,  for  the  house  of  the  kingdom,  i.e.  for  a  royal   resi- 
 
CHAP.  IV.  25-30.  159 
 
 dence ;  cf.  the  related  expression  •^^PttO  n''3,  Amos  vii.  13.  ri^3 
 stands  in  this  connection  neither  for  toiun  nor  for  ?^^'^  (ver.  26), 
 but  has  the  meaning  dwelling-place.  The  royalty  of  the  Baby- 
 lonian kingdom  has  its  dwelling-place,  its  seat,  in  Babylon,  the 
 capital  of  the  kingdom. 
 
 With  reference  to  the  great  buildings  of  Nebuchadnezzar  in 
 Babylon,  vide  the  statements  of  Berosus  in  Josephi  Ant.  x.  11,  1, 
 and  con.  Ap.  i.  19,  and  of  Abydenus  in  Eusebii  proepar.  evang. 
 ix.  41,  and  Chron.  i.  p.  59 ;  also  the  delineation  of  these  buildings 
 in  Duncker's  Gesch.  des  Alterth.  i.  p.  854  ff.  The  presumption  of 
 this  language  appears  in  the  words,  "  by  the  strength  of  my  might, 
 and  for  the  splendour  (honour)  of  my  majesty."  Thus  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar describes  himself  as  the  creator  of  his  kingdom  and  of  its 
 glory,  while  the  building  up  of  his  capital  as  a  residence  bearing 
 witness  to  his  glory  and  his  might  pointed  at  the  same  time  to  the 
 duration  of  his  dynasty.  This  proud  utterance  is  immediately 
 followed  by  his  humiliation  by  the  omnipotent  God.  A  voice  fell 
 from  heaven.  ?3J  as  in  Isa.  ix.  7,  of  the  sudden  coming  of  a  divine 
 revelation.  p.P^  for  the  passive,  as  ch.  iii.  4.  The  perf.  my 
 denotes  the  matter  as  finished.  At  the  moment  when  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar heard  in  his  soul  the  voice  from  heaven,  the  prophecy 
 begins  to  be  fulfilled,  the  king  becomes  deranged,  and  is  deprived 
 of  his  royalty. 
 
 Vers.  29,  30  (32,  33).  Here  the  contents  of  the  prophecy,  ver. 
 22  (25),  are  repeated,  and  then  in  ver.  30  (33)  it  is  stated  that  the 
 word  regarding  Nebuchadnezzar  immediately  began  to  be  fulfilled. 
 On  S<W  na,  cf.  ch.  iii.  6.  nSD,  from  «1^D,  to  go  to  an  end.  The 
 prophecy  goes  to  an  end  when  it  is  realized,  is  fulfilled.  The  ful- 
 filling is  related  in  the  words  of  the  prophecy.  Nebuchadnezzar 
 is  driven  from  among  men,  viz.  by  his  madness,  in  which  he  fled 
 from  intercourse  with  men,  and  lived  under  the  open  air  of  heaven 
 as  a  beast  among  the  beasts,  eating  grass  like  the  cattle ;  and  his 
 person  was  so  neglected,  that  his  hair  became  like  the  eagles' 
 feathers  and  his  nails  like  birds'  claws.  P.^^3  and  PISV?  are 
 abbreviated  comparisons ;  vide  under  ver.  13.  That  this  condition 
 was  a  peculiar  appearance  of  the  madness  is  expressly  mentioned 
 in  ver.  31  (34),  where  the  recovery  is  designated  as  the  restoration 
 of  his  understanding. 
 
 This  malady,  in  which  men  regard  themselves  as  beasts  and 
 imitate  their  manner  of  life,  is  called  insania  zoanthropica,  or,  in 
 the  case  of  those  who  think  themselves  wolves,  lycanthropia.     The 
 
160  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 conflltion  is  described  in  a  manner  true  to  nature.  Even  "  as  to 
 the  eating  of  grass,"  as  G.  Kosch,  in  the  Deutsch.  Morgenl.  Zeitschr. 
 XV.  p.  521,  remarks,  "  there  is  nothing  to  perplex  or  that  needs  to  be 
 explained.  It  is  a  circumstance  that  has  occurred  in  recent  times, 
 as  e.g.  in  the  case  of  a  woman  in  the  Wiirttemberg  asylum  for  the 
 insane."  Historical  documents  regardinn;  this  form  of  madness 
 have  been  collected  by  Trusen  in  his  Sitten,  Gehr.  u.  Krank.  der 
 alien  IL'hraer,  p.  205  f.,  2d  ed.,  and  by  Friedreich  in  Zur  Bibel, 
 i.  p.  308  f.' 
 
 Vers.  3.1-34  (34-37).  Nelmchadnezzar  s  recovery.^  Ids  restora- 
 tion to  his  kingdom,  and  his  thanlcful  recognition  of  the  Lord  in 
 heaven. 
 
 The  second  part  of  the  prophecy  was  also  fulfilled.  "  At  the 
 end  of  the  days,"  i.e.  after  the  expiry  of  the  seven  times,  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar lifted  up  his  eyes  to  heaven, — the  first  sign  of  the  return 
 of  human  consciousness,  from  which,  however,  we  are  not  to  con- 
 clude, with  Hitzig,  that  before  this,  in  his  madness,  he  went  on  all- 
 fours  like  an  ox.  Nebuchadnezzar  means  in  these  words  only  to 
 say  that  his  first  thought  was  a  look  to  heaven,  whence  help  came 
 to  him  ;  cf.  Ps.  cxxiii.  1  f.  Then  his  understanding  immediately 
 returned  to  him.  The  first  thought  he  entertained  was  to  thank 
 God,  to  praise  Him  as  the  ever-living  One,  and  to  recognise  the 
 eternity  of  His  sway.  Nebuchadnezzar  acknowledges  and  praises 
 God  as  the  "  ever-living  One,"  because  He  had  again  given  to  him 
 his  life,  which  had  been  lost  in  his  madness;  cf.  ch.  vi.  27  (26). 
 
 Ver.  31i,  cf.  with  ch.  iii.  33  (iv.  1).  The  eternity  of  the  supre- 
 macy of  God  includes  His  omnipotence  as  opposed  to  the  weakness 
 of  the  inhabitants  of  earth.  This  eternity  Nebuchadnezzar  praises 
 in  ver.  32  (35)  in  words  which  remind  us  of  the  expressions  of 
 Isaiah;  cf.  with  the  first  half  of  the  verse,  Isa.  xl.  17,  xxiv.  21; 
 and  with  the  second  half  of  it,  Isa.  xliii.  13.  '173  for  ^^^^,  as  not., 
 as  not  existing.  HTa  snp  in  the  Pa.,  to  strike  on  the  hand,  to  hinder^ 
 derived  from  the  custom  of  striking  children  on  the  hand  in  chas- 
 
 ^  Regarding  tlie  statement,  "his  hair  grew  as  the  feathers  of  an  eagle,',' 
 etc.,  Fricdr.  remarks,  p.  olG,  that,  besides  the  neglect  of  the  external  appear- 
 ance, there  is  also  to  be  observed  the  circumstance  that  sometimes  in  psychical 
 maladies  the  nails  assume  a  peculiarly  monstrous  luxuriance  with  deformity. 
 Besides,  his  remaining  for  a  long  time  in  the  open  air  is  to  be  considered,  "  for 
 it  is  an  actual  experience  that  the  hair,  the  more  it  is  exposed  to  the  influences 
 of  the  rough  weather  and  to  the  sun's  rays,  the  more  does  it  grow  in  hardness, 
 and  thus  becomes  like  unto  the  feathers  of  an  eagle." 
 
CHAP.  IV.  31-34.  161 
 
 tising  them.     The  expression  is  common  in  the  Targg.  and  in  the 
 Arabic. 
 
 Ver.  33  (36).  With  the  restoration  of  his  understanding  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar also  regained  his  royal  dignity  and  his  throne.  In 
 order  to  intimate  the  inward  connection  between  the  return  of 
 reason  and  the  restoration  to  his  sovereignty,  in  this  verse  the  first 
 element  of  his  restoration  is  repeated  from  ver.  31  (34),  and  the 
 second  follows  in  connection  with  it  in  the  simple  manner  of 
 Semitic  narrative,  for  which  we  in  German  (and  English)  use  the 
 closer  connection:  "  when  my  understanding  returned,  then  also  my 
 royal  state  and  my  glory  returned."  The  passage  beginning  with 
 li^V"!  is  construed  very  differently  by  interpreters.  Many  co-ordinate 
 70  ijy^b  with  y\)  ■'"ll'l,  and  then  regard  "ipv  either  as  the  nominative, 
 "  and  then  my  kingly  greatness,  my  glory  and  splendour,  came  to 
 me  again  "  (Hitzig),  or  unite  ''VH  ^"IIl}  as  the  genitive  with  '•nispo : 
 "  and  for  the  honour  of  my  royalty,  of  my  fame  and  my  glory, 
 it  (my  understanding)  returned  to  me  again "  (v.  Leng.,  Maur., 
 Klief.).  The  first  of  these  interpretations  is  grammatically  in- 
 admissible, since  ?  cannot  be  a  sign  of  the  genitive ;  the  other 
 is  unnecessarily  artificial.  We  agree  with  Eosenmiiller  and 
 Kranichfeld  in  regarding  ''Vn  "'"I'ln  as  the  subject  of  the  passage, 
 inn  [^splendour,  2^om2D]  is  the  majestic  appearance  of  the  prince, 
 which  according  to  Oriental  modes  of  conception  showed  itself 
 in  splendid  dress;  cf.  Ps.  ex.  3,  xxix.  2,  xcvi.  9;  2  Chron.  xx.  21. 
 VT,  splendour  (ch.  ii.  31),  is  the  shining  colour  or  freshness  of  the 
 appearance,  which  is  lost  by  terror,  anxiety,  or  illness,  as  in  ch.  v. 
 6,  9,  10,  vii.  28.  ipv  as  in  ver.  27.  In  how  far  the  return  of  the 
 external  dignified  habitus  was  conducive  to  the  honour  of  royalty, 
 the  king  most  fully  shows  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse,  where 
 he  says  that  his  counsellors  again  established  him  in  his  kingdom. 
 The  i^V^,  to  seek,  does  not  naturally  indicate  that  the  king  was 
 suffered,  during  the  period  of  his  insanity,  to  wander  about  in  the 
 fields  and  forests  without  any  supervision,  as  Bertholdt  and  Hitzig 
 think ;  but  it  denotes  the  seeking  for  one  towards  whom  a  commis- 
 sion has  to  be  discharged,  as  ch.  ii.  13 ;  thus,  here,  the  seeking  in 
 order  that  they  might  transfer  to  him  again  the  government.  The 
 "counsellors  and  great  men"  are  those  who  had  carried  on  the 
 government  during  his  insanity.  nJipnn,  on  account  of  the  accent, 
 distinct.,  is  Hophal  pointed  with  Patach  instead  of  Tsere,  as  the 
 following  nsDin.  If  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  his  restoration  to  the 
 kingdom,  attained  to  yet  more  i^"!,  greatness,  than  he  had  before,  so 
 
 L 
 
162  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 he  must  have  reigned  yet  a  considerable  time  without  our  needing 
 to  suppose  that  he  accomplislied  also  great  deeds. 
 
 Ver.  34  (37).  Tlie  manifesto  closes  with  praise  to  God,  the  King 
 of  heaven,  whose  works  are  truth  and  righteousness,  which  show 
 themselves  in  humbling  the  proud.  DVC'p  corresponds  to  the  Hebr. 
 ripx,  and  P'^.  to  the  Hebr.  t22L*'0.  Nebuchadnezzar  thus  recognised 
 the  humiliation  which  he  had  experienced  as  a  righteous  punish- 
 ment for  his  pride,  without,  hoAvever,  being  mindful  of  the  divine 
 grace  which  had  been  shown  in  mercy  toward  him  ;  whence  Calvin 
 has  drawn  the  conclusion  that  he  was  not  brought  to  true  heart- 
 repentance. 
 
 CHAP.  V.   belshazzar's  feast  and  the  handwriting  of 
 
 GOD. 
 
 The  Chaldean  king  Belshazzar  made  a  feast  to  his  chief 
 officers,  at  whicli  in  drunken  arrogance,  by  a  desecration  of  the 
 sacred  vessels  which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  carried  away  from  the 
 temple  at  Jerusalem,  he  derided  the  God  of  Israel  (vers.  1-4). 
 Then  he  suddenly  saw  the  finger  of  a  hand  writing  on  the  wall 
 of  the  guest-chamber,  at  which  he  was  agitated  by  violent  terror, 
 and  commanded  that  the  wise  men  should  be  sent  for,  that  they 
 might  read  and  interpret  to  him  the  writing  ;  and  when  they  were 
 not  able  to  do  this,  he  became  pale  with  alarm  (vers.  5-9).  Then 
 the  queen  informed  him  of  Daniel,  who  would  be  able  to  interpret 
 the  writing  (vers.  10-12).  Daniel,  being  immediately  brought  in, 
 declared  himself  ready  to  read  and  interpret  the  writing ;  but  first 
 he  reminded  the  king  of  his  sin  in  that  he  did  not  take  warning 
 from  the  divine  chastisement  whicli  had  visited  king  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (ch.  iv.),  but  offended  the  Most  High  God  by  desecrating 
 the  holy  vessels  of  His  temple  (vers.  13,  14).  He  then  interpreted 
 to  him  the  writing,  showinji  the  kin£j  that  God  had  announced  to 
 him  by  means  of  it  the  end  of  his  reign,  and  the  transference  of 
 the  kingdom  to  the  Medes  and  Persians  (vers.  25-28).  Daniel 
 was  thereupon  raised  to  honour  by  Belshazzar,  who  was,  however, 
 in  that  same  night  put  to  death  (vers.  29,  30). 
 
 This  narrative  presents  historical  difficulties,  for  a  Chaldean 
 king  by  the  name  of  Belshazzar  is  nowhere  else  mentioned,  except 
 in  the  passage  in  Baruch  i.  11  f.,  which  is  dependent  on  this 
 chapter  of  Daniel;  and  the  judgment  here  announced  to  him,  the 
 occurrence  of  which  is  in  part  mentioned  in  ver.  30,  and  in  part 
 
CHAP.  V.  163 
 
 set  forth  in  ch.  vi.  1  (v.  31),  does  not  appear  to  harmonize  with  the 
 extra-biblical  information  which  we  have  regarding  the  destruction 
 of  the  Chaldean  kingdom. 
 
 If  we  consider  closely  the  contents  of  this  chapter,  it  appears 
 that  Belshazzar,  designated  in  ver.  30  as  king  of  the  Chaldeans,  is 
 not  only  in  ver.  22  addressed  by  Daniel  as  Nebuchadnezzar's  son, 
 but  in  vers.  11,  13,  and  18  is  also  manifestly  represented  in  the 
 same  character,  for  the  queen-mother  (ver.  11),  Belshazzar  him- 
 self (ver.  13),  and  Daniel  (ver.  18)  call  Nebuchadnezzar  his  3^1, 
 father.  If  now  3S  and  "'S  do  not  always  express  the  special 
 relation  of  father  and  son,  but  3>>!  is  used  in  a  wider  sense  of  a 
 grandfather  and  of  yet  more  remote  ancestors,  and  13  of  grand- 
 sons and  other  descendants,  yet  this  wider  interpretation  and 
 conception  of  the  words  is  from  the  matter  of  the  statements  here 
 made  highly  improbable,  or  indeed  directly  excluded,  inasmuch  as 
 the  queen-mother  speaks  of  things  which  she  had  experienced,  and 
 Daniel  said  to  Belshazzar  (ver.  22)  that  he  knew  the  chastisement 
 which  Nebuchadnezzar  had  suffered  from  God  in  the  madness 
 that  had  come  upon  him,  but  had  not  regarded  it.  In  that  case 
 the  announcement  of  the  judgment  threatening  Belshazzar  and 
 his  kingdom  (vers.  24-28),  when  compared  with  its  partial  fulfil- 
 ment in  Belshazzar's  death  (ver.  30),  appears  to  indicate  that  his 
 death,  together  with  the  destruction  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom  and 
 its  transference  to  the  Medes  and  Persians  (ch.  vi.  1  [v.  31]),  oc- 
 curred at  the  same  time.  Nevertheless  this  indication,  as  has 
 already  been  remarked  (p.  37),  appears  to  have  more  plausibility 
 than  truth,  since  neither  the  combination  of  the  two  events  in  their 
 announcement,  nor  their  union  in  the  statement  of  their  fulfil- 
 ment, by  means  of  the  copula  1  in  ch.  vi.  1,  affords  conclusive  proof 
 of  their  being  contemporaneous.  Since  only  the  time  of  Belshazzar's 
 death  is  given  (ver.  30),  but  the  transference  of  the  Chaldean  king- 
 dom to  the  Median  Darius  (ch.  vi.  1)  is  not  chronologically  defined, 
 then  we  may  without  hesitation  grant  that  the  latter  event  did  not 
 happen  till  some  considerable  time  after  the  death  of  Belshazzar, 
 in  case  other  reasons  demand  this  supposition.  For,  leaving  out 
 of  view  the  announcement  of  the  judgment,  the  narrative  contains 
 not  the  least  hint  that,  at  the  time  when  Belshazzar  revelled  with 
 his  lords  and  his  concubines,  the  city  of  Babylon  was  besieged  by 
 enemies.  "  Belshazzar  (vers.  1-4)  is  altogether  without  care,  which 
 he  could  not  have  been  if  the  enemy  had  gathered  before  the  gates. 
 The  handwriting  announcing  evil  appears  out  of  harmony  with 
 
164  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 tlie  circumstances  (ver.  5),  while  it  would  have  had  a  connection 
 with  them  if  the  city  had  been  beleaguered.  Belshazzar  did  not 
 believe  (ver.  29)  that  the  threatened  end  was  near,  which  would 
 not  have  been  in  harmony  with  a  state  of  siege.  All  these  cir- 
 cumstances are  not  to  be  explained  from  the  light-mindedness  of 
 Belshazzar,  but  they  may  be  by  the  supposition  that  his  death  was 
 the  result  of  an  insurrection,  unexpected  by  himself  and  by  all." 
 Kliefoth,  p.  148. 
 
 Now  let  us  compare  with  this  review  of  the  chapter  the  non- 
 biblical  reports  regarding  the  end  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy. 
 Berosus,  in  a  fragment  preserved  by  Josephus,  c.  Ap.  i.  20,  says 
 that  "  Nebuchadnezzar  was  succeeded  in  the  kingdom  by  his  son 
 Evilmerodach,  who  reigned  badly  (Trpoo-ra?  rwv  Trpay/jbdrcov  av6fj.ci)<i 
 Kul  aae\y(t)<;),  and  was  put  to  death  (avijpeOrj)  by  Neriglissor,  the 
 husband  of  his  sister,  after  he  had  reigned  two  years.  This  Neri- 
 glissor succeeded  him,  and  reigned  four  years.  His  son  Laboro- 
 soarchod,  being  still  a  child  (Trat?  wu),  reigned  after  him  nine 
 months,  and  was  murdered  by  his  friends  (Bca  rb  ttoWcl  i/xcfiaLveiv 
 Ka/corjdri  iiiro  rwv  (f)L\ci)v  aireTvixiraviaOrj),  because  he  gave  many 
 proofs  of  a  bad  character.  His  murderers  by  a  general  resolution 
 transferred  the  government  to  Nabonnedus,  one  of  the  Baby- 
 lonians who  belonged  to  the  conspirators.  Under  him  the  walls 
 of  Babylon  along  the  river-banks  were  better  built.  But  in  the 
 seventeenth  year  of  his  reign  Cyrus  came  from  Persia  with  a  great 
 army  and  took  Babylon,  after  he  had  subjugated  all  the  rest  of 
 Asia.  Nabonnedus  went  out  to  encounter  him,  but  was  vanquished 
 in  battle,  and  fled  with  a  few  followers  and  shut  himself  up  in 
 Borsippa.  But  Cyrus,  after  he  had  taken  Babylon  and  demolished 
 its  walls,  marched  against  Borsippa  and  besieged  Nabonnedus. 
 But  Nabonnedus  could  not  hold  out,  and  therefore  surrendered 
 himself.  He  was  at  first  treated  humanely  by  Cyrus,  who  removed 
 him  from  Babylon,  and  gave  him  Carmania  as  a  place  of  residence 
 (Sou?  oiKrjTi'jpcov  avTU)  Kap/xaviav),  where  he  spent  the  remainder 
 of  his  days  and  died." 
 
 Abydenus,  in  a  shorter  fragment  preserved  by  Eusebius  in  the 
 Prcepar.  Ev.  ix.  41,  and  in  the  C/iron.  y\rmen.  p.  fiO  sq.,  makes  the 
 same  statements.  Petermann's  translation  of  the  fragment  found 
 in  Niebuhrs  Gescli.  Assnrs,  p.  504,  is  as  follows: — "  There  now 
 reigned  (after  Nebuchodrossor)  his  son  Amilmarodoko?,  whom  his 
 son-in-law  Niglisaris  immediately  murdered,  whose  only  son  Labos- 
 sorakos  remained  yet  alive ;  but  it  happened  to  him  also  that  he 
 
CHAP.  V.  165 
 
 met  a  violent  death.  He  commanded  that  Nabonedokhos  should 
 be  placed  on  the  throne  of  the  kingdom,  a  person  who  was  alto- 
 gether unfit  to  occupy  it."  (In  the  Praqoar.  Evang.  this  passage 
 is  given  in  these  words :  NajSovviSo'xov  airohelKwat,  ^aaCKea^ 
 irpocryKovra  ol  ovSev.)  "  Cyrus,  after  he  had  taken  possession  of 
 Babylon,  appointed  him  margrave  of  the  country  of  Carmania. 
 Darius  the  king  removed  him  out  of  the  land."  (This  last  passage 
 is  wanting  in  the  Prap.  Ev.y 
 
 According  to  these  reports,  there  reigned  in  Babylon  after 
 Nebuchadnezzar  four  other  kings,  among  whom  there  was  no  one 
 called  Belshazzar,  and  only  one  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  viz.  Evil- 
 merodach ;  for  Neriglissar  is  son-in-law  and  Laborosoarchod  is 
 grandson  (daughter's  son)  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  Nabonnedus 
 was  not  at  all  related  to  him,  nor  of  royal  descent.  Of  these  kings, 
 only  Evilmerodach  and  Laborosoarchod  were  put  to  death,  while 
 on  the  contrary  Neriglissar  and  Nabonnedus  died  a  natural  death, 
 and  the  Babylonian  dominion  passed  by  conquest  to  the  Medes, 
 without  Nabonnedus  thereby  losing  his  life.      Hence  it  follows, 
 
 ^  With  these  statements  that  of  Alexander  Polyhistor,  in  Euseb.  Chron. 
 Armen.  ed.  Aucher,  i.  p.  45,  in  the  main  agrees.  His  report,  according  to 
 Petermann's  translation  (as  above,  p.  497),  is  as  follows  : — "  After  Nebuchod- 
 rossor,  his  son  Amilmarudokhos  reigned  12  years,  whom  the  Hebr.  hist,  calls 
 Ilmarudokhos.  After  him  there  reigned  over  the  Chaldeans  Neglisaros  4  years, 
 and  then  Nabodenus  17  years,  nnder  whom  Cyrus  (son)  of  Cambyses  assembled 
 an  army  against  the  land  of  the  Babylonians.  Nabodenus  opposed  him,  but 
 was  overcome  and  put  to  flight.  Cyrus  now  reigned  over  Babylon  9  years," 
 etc.  The  12  years  of  Amilmarudokhos  are  without  doubt  an  error  of  the 
 Armenian  translator  or  of  some  transcriber  ;  and  the  omission  of  Loborosoar- 
 chod  is  explained  by  the  circumstance  that  he  did  not  reign  a  full  year.  The 
 correctness  of  the  statement  of  Berosus  is  confirmed  by  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy, 
 who  names  as  successors  of  Nabokolassar  (i.e.  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  reigned 
 43  years),  lUoarudmos  2  years,  Nerigassolassaros  4  years,  and  Nabonadius  17 
 years  ;  thus  omitting  Laborosoarchod  on  the  grounds  previously  mentioned. 
 The  number  of  the  years  of  the  reigns  mentioned  by  Berosus  agrees  with  the 
 biblical  statements  regarding  the  duration  of  the  exile.  From  the  first  taking 
 of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim  are  men- 
 tioned— Jehoiakim  7  years,  Jehoiachin  3  months,  and  his  imprisonment  37 
 years  (Jer.  In.  31),  Evilmerodach  2  years,  Neriglissar  4  years,  Laborosoarchod 
 9  months,  and  Nabonnedus  17  years — in  all  68  years,  to  which,  if  the  2  years 
 of  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Mede  are  added,  we  shall  have  70  years.  The  years 
 of  the  reigns  of  the  Babylonian  kings  amount  in  all  to  the  same  number ;  viz. 
 Nebuchadnezzar  44^  years, — since  he  did  not  become  king  till  one  year  after  the 
 destruction  of  Jerusalem,  he  reigned  43  years, — Evilmerodach  2  years,  Neri- 
 glissar 4  years,  Loborosoarchod  9  months,  Nabonnedus  17  years,  and  Darius  the 
 ilede  2  years — in  all  70  years. 
 
1 QQ  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 (1)  that  Belshazzar  cannot  be  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  nor  is 
 identical  with  Nabonnedus,  who  was  neither  a  son  nor  descendant 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  was  not  put  to  death  by  Cyrus  at  the 
 destruction  of  Babylon  and  the  overthrow  of  tlie  Chaldean  kinir- 
 dom ;  (2)  that  Belshazzar  could  neither  be  Evilmerodach  nor 
 Laborosoarchod,  since  only  these  two  were  put  to  death — the 
 former  after  he  had  reigned  only  two  years,  and  the  latter  after  he 
 had  reigned  only  nine  months,  while  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar's 
 reign  is  mentioned  in  Dan.  viii.  1 ;  and  (3)  that  the  death  of 
 Belshazzar  cannot  have  been  at  the  same  time  as  the  destruction 
 of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
 
 If  we  now  compare  with  these  facts,  gathered  from  Oriental 
 sources,  those  narrated  by  the  Greek  historians  Herodotus  and 
 Xenophon,  we  find  that  the  former  speaks  of/  several  Babylonian 
 kings,  but  says  nothing  particular  regarding  them,  but,  on  the 
 other  hand,  reports  many  sayings  and  fabulous  stories  of  two 
 Babylonian  queens,  Semiramis  and  Nitocris,  to  whom  he  attri- 
 butes (i.  184  f.)  many  exploits,  and  the  erection  of  buildings 
 which  Berosus  has  attributed  to  Nebuchadnezzar.  Of  Babylonian 
 kings  he  names  (i.  188)  only  Labynetis  as  the  son  of  Nitocris, 
 with  the  remark,  that  he  had  the  same  name  as  his  father,  and 
 that  Cyrus  waged  war  against  this  second  Labynetos,  and  by 
 diverting  the  Euphrates  from  its  course  at  the  time  of  a  nocturnal 
 festival  of  its  inhabitants,  stormed  the  city  of  Babylon  (i.  191), 
 after  he  had  gained  a  battle  before  laying  siege  to  the  capital  of 
 the  Babylonians  (i.  190).  Xenophon  {Cyrop.  vii.  5,  15  £f.), 
 agreeing  with  Herodotus,  relates  that  Cyrus  entered  the  city  by 
 damming  off  the  Euphrates  during  a  festival  of  its  inhabitants, 
 and  that  the  king  was  put  to  death,  whose  name  he  does  not  men- 
 tion, but  whom  he  describes  (v.  2.  27,  iv.  6.  3)  as  a  youth,  and 
 (iv.  6.  3,  v.  2.  27  f.,  v.  3.  6,  vii.  5.  32)  as  a  riotous,  voluptuous, 
 cruel,  godless  man.  The  preceding  king,  the  father  of  the  last, 
 he  says,  was  a  good  man,  but  his  youngest  son,  who  succeeded  to 
 the  government,  was  a  wicked  man.  Herodotus  and  Xenophon 
 appear,  then,  to  agree  in  this,  that  both  of  them  connect  the  de- 
 struction of  Babylon  and  the  downfall  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom 
 by  Cyrus  with  a  riotous  festival  of  the  Babylonians,  and  both 
 describe  the  last  king  as  of  royal  descent.  They  agree  with  the 
 narrative  of  Daniel  as  to  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  that  it  took 
 place  during  or  immediately  after  a  festival,  and  regarding  the 
 transference  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom  to  the  Medes  and  Persians  ; 
 
CHAP.  V.  167 
 
 and  they  confirm  the  prevalent  interpretation  of  this  chapter,  that 
 Belshazzar  was  the  last  Chaldean  king,  and  was  put  to  death  on 
 the  occasion  of  the  taking  of  Babylon.  But  in  their  statements 
 concerning  the  last  king  of  Babylon  they  both  stand  in  opposition 
 to  the  accounts  of  Berosus  and  Abydenus.  Herodotus  and  Xeno- 
 phon  describe  him  as  the  king's  son,  while  Nabonnedus,  according 
 to  both  of  these  Chaldean  historians,  was  not  of  royal  descent. 
 Besides  this,  Xenophon  states  that  the  king  lost  his  life  at  the 
 taking  of  Babylon,  while  according  to  Berosus,  on  the  contrary, 
 he  was  not  in  Babylon  at  all,  but  was  besieged  in  Borsippa,  sur- 
 rendered to  Cyrus,  and  was  banished  to  Carmania,  or  according 
 to  Abydenus,  was  made  deputy  of  that  province.  Shall  we  then 
 decide  for  Herodotus  and  Xenophon,  and  against  Berosus  and 
 Abydenus  ?  Against  such  a  decision  the  great  imperfection  and 
 indefiniteness  of  the  Grecian  account  must  awaken  doubts.  If, 
 as  is  generally  supposed,  the  elder  Labynetus  of  Herodotus  is  the 
 husband  of  Nitocris,  who  was  the  wife  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  then 
 his  son  of  the  same  name  cannot  be  identical  with  the  Nabonnedus 
 of  Berosus  and  Abydenus ;  for  according  to  the  testimonies  of 
 biblical  and  Oriental  authorities,  which  are  clear  on  this  point,  the 
 Chaldean  kingdom  did  not  fall  under  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 and  then  the  statement  of  Herodotus  regarding  the  two  Laby- 
 netuses  is  certainly  incorrect,  and  is  fabricated  from  very  obscure 
 traditions.  Xenophon  also  shows  himself  to  be  not  well  informed 
 regarding  the  history  of  the  Chaldean  kings.  Although  his  descrip- 
 tion of  the  last  of  these  kings  appears  to  indicate  an  intimate 
 knowledge  of  his  character,  and  accords  with  the  character  of  Bel- 
 shazzar, yet  he  does  not  even  know  the  name  of  this  king,  and 
 still  less  the  duration  of  his  reign. 
 
 Accordingly  these  scanty  and  indefinite  Grecian  reports  can- 
 not counterbalance  the  extended  and  minute  statements  of  Berosus 
 and  Abydenus,  and  cannot  be  taken  as  regulating  the  historical 
 interpretation  of  Dan.  v.  Josephus,  it  is  true,  understands  the 
 narrative  in  such  a  way  that  he  identifies  Belshazzar  with  Nabon- 
 nedus, and  connects  his  death  with  the  destruction  of  the  Babylonish 
 kingdom,  for  (Ant.  x.  11,  2  f.)  he  states  that,  after  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, his  son  Evilmerodach  reigned  eighteen  years.  But  when 
 he  died,  his  son  Neriglissar  succeeded  to  the  government,  and  died 
 after  he  had  reigned  forty  years.  After  him  the  succession  in  the 
 kingdom  came  to  his  son  Labosordacus,  who  continued  in  it  but 
 nine  months ;  and  when  he  was  dead  (Te\€VTy]a-avTo<;  avTov)^  it 
 
1 G8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 came  to  Baltasar,  who  by  the  Babylonians  was  called   Naboan- 
 delus  (Nabonncdus),   against    whom  Cyrus   the    king    of    Persia 
 and  Darius  the  king  of  Media  made  war.      While  they  besieged 
 Babylon  a  wonderful  event  occurred  at  a  feast  which  the  king 
 gave  to  his  magnates  and  his  wives,  as  described  by  Dan.  v.     Not 
 long  after  Cyrus  took  the  city  and  made  Baltasar  prisoner.     "  For 
 it  was,"  he  continues,  "  under  Baltasar,  after  he  had  reigned  seven- 
 teen years,  that  Babylon  was  taken.     This  was,  as  has  been  handed 
 down  to  us,  the  end  of  the  descendants  of  Nebuchadnezzar."     But 
 it  is  clear  that  in  these  reports  which  Josephus  has  given  he  has 
 not  drawn  his  information    from  sources  no  longer  accessible  to 
 us,  but  has  merely  attempted  in  them  to  combine  the  reports  of 
 Berosus,  and  perhaps  also  those  of  the  Greek  historians,  with  his 
 own  exposition  of  the  narrative  of  Dan.  v.     The  deviations  from 
 Berosus  and  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy  in  regard  to  the  number  of  the 
 years  of  the  reign  of  Evilmerodach  and  of  Neriglissar  are  to  be  at- 
 tributed to  the  transcriber  of  Josephus,  since  he  himself,  in  his  work 
 contra  Apion,  gives  the  number  in  harmony  with  those  stated  by 
 those  authors  without  making  any  further  remark.     The  names 
 of  the  four  kings  are  derived  from  Berosus,  as  well  as  the  nine 
 months'  reign  of  Labosordacus  and  the  seventeen  years  of  Nabo- 
 andelus ;  but  the  deviations  from   Berosus    with    respect   to  the 
 death  of  Evilmerodach,  and  the  descent  of  Neriglissar  and  Nabon- 
 ncdus from  Nebuchadnezzar,  Josephus  has  certainly  derived  only 
 from  Jer.  xxvii.  7  and  Dan.  v. ;  for  the  statement  by  Jeremiah, 
 that  all  the  nations  would  serve  Nebuchadnezzar,  his  son  and  his 
 son's  son,  "  until  the  very  time  of  his  land  come,"  is  literally  so 
 understood  by  him   as  meaning  that  Evilmerodach,  the  son   of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  was  succeeded   by  his  own  son,  who   again  was 
 succeeded  by  his  son,  and  so  on  down  to  Belshazzar,  whom  Daniel 
 (ch.  V.  22)  had  called  the  son  of   Nebuchadnezzar,  and  whom 
 Josephus  regarded  as  the  last  king  of  Babylon,  the  Nabonnedus 
 of  the  Babylonians.     Josephus  did  not  know  how  to  harmonize 
 with  this  view  the  fact  of  the  murder  of  Evilmerodach  by  his 
 brother-in-law,  and  therefore  he  speaks  of  Evilmerodach  as  dying 
 in  peace,  and  of  his  son  as  succeeding  him  on  the  throne,  while  he 
 passes  by  in  silence  the  death  of  Labosordacus  and  the  descent 
 of  Baltasar,   and  only  in  the  closing   sentence  reckons  him  also 
 among  the  successors  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 But  if  in  the  passages  quoted  Josephus  gives  only  his  own  view 
 regarding  the  Chaldean  rulers  down  to  the  time  of  the  overthrow 
 
CHAP.  V.  169 
 
 of  the  kingdom,  and  in  that  contradicts  on  several  points  the 
 statements  of  Berosus,  without  supporting  these  contradictions  by 
 authorities,  we  cannot  make  use  of  his  narrative  as  historical  evi- 
 dence for  the  exposition  of  this  chapter,  and  the  question.  Which 
 Babylonian  king  is  to  be  understood  by  Belshazzar?  must  be  decided 
 on  the  ground  of  existing  independent  authorities. 
 
 Since,  then,  the  extra-biblical  authorities  contradict  one  another 
 in  this,  that  the  Chaldean  historians  describe  Nabonnedus,  the  last 
 king  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  as  a  Babylonian  not  of  royal  descent 
 who,  after  putting  to  death  the  last  descendant  of  the  royal  family, 
 usurped  the  throne,  which,  according  to  their  account,  he  occupied 
 till  Babylon  was  destroyed  by  Cyrus,  when  he  was  banished  to 
 Carmania,  where  he  died  a  natural  death  ;  while,  on  the  other 
 hand,  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  represent  the  last  Babylonian 
 king,  whom  Herodotus  calls  Labynetus  =  Nabonedos  [=  Nabonned 
 =  Nabonid],  as  of  royal  descent,  and  the  successor  of  his  father  on 
 the  throne,  and  connect  the  taking  of  Babylon  with  a  riotous 
 festival  held  in  the  palace  and  in  the  city  generally,  during  which, 
 Xenophon  says,  the  king  was  put  to  death ; — therefore  the  deter- 
 mination regarding  the  historical  contents  of  Dan.  v.  hinges  on  this 
 point:  whether  Belshazzar  is  to  be  identified,  on  the  authority 
 of  Greek  authors,  with  Nabonnedus ;  or,  on  the  authority  of  the 
 Chaldean  historians,  is  to  be  regarded  as  different  from  him,  and 
 is  identical  with  one  of  the  two  Babylonian  kings  who  were  de- 
 throned by  a  conspiracy. 
 
 The  decision  in  favour  of  the  former  I  have  in  my  Lelirh. 
 der  Einl.,  along  with  many  interpreters,  contended  for.  By  this 
 view  the  statements  of  Berosus  and  Abydenus  regarding  Nabon- 
 ned's  descent  and  the  end  of  his  life  must  be  set  aside  as  unhis- 
 torical,  and  explained  only  as  traditions  intended  for  the  glorifi- 
 cation of  the  royal  house  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  by  which  the 
 Babylonians  sought  to  lessen  the  undeniable  disgrace  attending 
 the  downfall  of  their  monarchy,  and  to  roll  away  the  dishonour 
 of  the  siege  at  least  from  the  royal  family  of  the  famed  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar. But  although  in  the  statements  of  Berosus,  but  par- 
 ticularly in  those  of  Abydenus  regarding  Nebuchadnezzar,  their 
 laudatory  character  cannot  be  denied,  yet  Hiivernick  {N.  Krit. 
 Unterss.  p.  70  f.)  and  Kranichfeld,  p.  30  ff.,  have  with  justice 
 replied  that  this  national  partiality  in  giving  colour  to  his  narrative 
 is  not  apparent  in  Berosus  generally,  for  he  speaks  very  condemna- 
 torily  of  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  saying  that  he  administered 
 
170  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  affairs  of  government   dv6/j,Q)<i  koX  uaeK'yd'i  ;  lie  also  blames 
 the  predecessor  of  Naboiinedus,  and  assigns  as  the  reason  of  the 
 murder  of  the  former  as  well  as  of  the  latter  their  own  evil  con- 
 duct.    Nor  does  it  appear  that  Berosus  depreciated  Nabonnedus 
 in  order  to  benefit  his  predecessors,  rather  he  thought  of  him  as 
 worthy  of  distinction,  and  placed  him  on  the  throne  in  honour 
 among  his  predecessors.     "  What  Herodotus  says  (i.  186)  of  the 
 wife  of  Nebuchadnezzar  is  expressly  stated   by    Berosus  to  the 
 honour  of  the  government  of  Nabonnedus,  namely,  that  under  his 
 reign  a  great  part  of  the  city  wall  was  furnished  with  fortifications 
 (ra   Trepl  rov  Trora/Mov  Tei-^rj   r?}?  Ba/3vXa>vicov   TroXew"?   e^   ottt/)? 
 TfKivdov   KoX   aa^dXrov  KaT6Koafiy6r))  ;   and  it   is   obviously  with 
 reference   to  this  statement  that   in  the  course  of  the  narrative 
 mention   is  made  of  the   strong   fortifications   of  the   city  which 
 defied  the  assault  of  Cyrus.     Moreover,  in  the  narrative  Nabon- 
 nedus  appears  neither  as  a  traitor  nor  as  a   coward.     On  the 
 contrary,  he  goes  out  well  armed  against    the  enemy  and   offers 
 him  battle   (^aTravr^aa^;  fxerd  rrj^  Swdf^eai^;  kol   7rapaTa^djj,evo<;)  ; 
 and  the  circumstance  that  he  surrendered  to  Cyrus  in  Borsippa  is 
 to  be  accounted  for  from  this,  that  he  only  succeeded  in  fleeing 
 thither  with  a  very  small  band.     Finally,  it  is  specially  mentioned 
 that  Cyrus  made  war  against  Babylon  after  he  had  conquered  the 
 rest  of   Asia.      From   this   it  is  manifest  that   the   fame  of  the 
 strength  of  Babylon  was  in  no  respect  weakened  by  Nabonnedus' 
 seventeen  years'  reign."     (Kranichfeld.)     All  these  circumstances 
 stand  in   opposition  to  the  opinion   that  there  is  a   tendency  in 
 Berosus  to  roll  the  disgrace  of  the  overthrow  of  the  kingdom  from 
 off   the   family  of   Nebuchadnezzar,  and  to   attribute    it  to    an 
 incapable  upstart. 
 
 What  Berosus,  moreover,  says  regarding  the  treatment  of 
 Nabonnedus  on  the  part  of  Cyrus  shows  no  trace  of  a  desire  to 
 depreciate  the  dethroned  monarch.  That  Cyrus  assigned  him 
 a  residence  during  life  in  Carmania  is  in  accordance  with  the 
 noble  conduct  of  Cyrus  in  other  cases,  e.g.  toward  Astyages  the 
 ]Mede,  and  toward  the  Lydian  king  Croesus  (Herod,  i.  130 ;  Justin, 
 i.  6,  7).  In  addition  to  all  this,  not  only  is  the  statement  of  Berosus 
 regarding  the  battle  which  preceded  the  overthrow  of  Babylon 
 confirmed  by  Herodotus,  i.  190,  but  his  report  also  of  the  descent 
 of  Nabonnedus  and  of  his  buildings  is  established  by  inscriptions 
 reported  on  by  Oppert  in  his  Expedit.  Scient.  i.  p.  182  ff. ;  for  the 
 ruins  of  Babylon  on  both  banks  of  the  Euphrates  preserve  to  this 
 
CHAP.  V.  171 
 
 day  the  foundations  on  wlilch  were  built  the  walls  of  Nabonnedus, 
 consisting  of  hard  bricks  almost  wholly  covered  with  asphalt,  bearing 
 the  name  of  Nabonetos,  who  is  not  described  as  a  king's  son,  but 
 is  only  called  the  son  of  Nabobalatirib.  Cf.  Duncker,  Gesch.  des 
 Alterth.  ii.  p.  719,  3d  ed. 
 
 After  all  that  has  been  said,  Berosus,  as  a  native  historian, 
 framing  his  narratives  after  Chaldean  tradition,  certainly  merits 
 a  preference  not  only  to  Herodotus,  who,  according  to  his  own 
 statement,  i.  95,  followed  the  Persian  tradition  in  regard  to  Cyrus, 
 and  is  not  well  informed  concerning  the  Babylonian  kings,  but  also 
 to  Xenophon,  who  in  his  Cyropcedia,  however  favourably  we  may 
 judge  of  its  historical  value,  follows  no  pure  historical  aim,  but 
 seeks  to  set  forth  Cyrus  as  the  pattern  of  a  hero-king,  and  reveals 
 no  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  the  Chaldean  kings. 
 But  if,  in  all  his  principal  statements  regarding  Nabonnedus, 
 Berosus  deserves  full  credit,  we  must  give  up  the  identification 
 of  Belshazzar  with  Nabonnedus,  since  the  narrative  of  Dan.  v.,  as 
 above  remarked,  connects  the  death  of  Belshazzar,  in  point  of  fact 
 indeed,  but  not  in  point  of  time,  with  the  destruction  of  the  Baby- 
 lonian kingdom ;  and  the  narratives  of  Herodotus  and  Xenophon 
 with  respect  to  the  destruction  of  Babylon  during  a  nocturnal 
 revelry  of  its  inhabitants,  may  rest  also  only  on  some  tradition 
 that  had  been  transmitted  to  their  time.^ 
 
 *  Kranichfeld,  p.  84  ff.,  has  so  clearly  shown  this  origin  of  the  reports  given 
 by  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  regarding  the  circumstances  attending  the  taking 
 of  Babylon  by  Cyrus,  that  we  cannot  refrain  from  here  communicating  the  prin- 
 cipal points  of  his  proof.  Proceeding  from  the  Augenschein  (appearance),  on 
 which  Hitzig  argues,  that,  according  to  Dan.  v.  26  ff.,  the  death  of  Belshazzar 
 coincided  with  the  destruction  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  since  both  events  are 
 announced  together  in  God's  writing,  Kranichfeld  assumes  that  this  appearance 
 (although  it  presents  itself  as  an  optical  illusion,  on  a  fuller  acquaintance  with 
 the  manner  of  prophetic  announcement  in  which  the  near  and  the  more  remote 
 futures  are  immediately  placed  together)  has  misled  the  uncritical  popular 
 traditions  which  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  record,  and  that  not  from  first  and 
 native  sources.  "  The  noteworthy  factum  of  the  mysterious  writing  which 
 raised  Daniel  to  the  rank  of  third  ruler  in  the  kingdom,  and  certainly,  besides, 
 made  him  to  be  spoken  of  as  a  conspicuous  personage,  and  the  interpretation 
 which  placed  together  ivfo  facta,  and  made  them  apparently  contemporaneous, 
 as  well  as  the  factum  of  one  part  of  the  announcement  of  the  mysterious  writing 
 being  actually  accomplished  that  very  night,  could  in  the  course  of  time,  even 
 among  natives,  and  so  much  the  sooner  in  the  dim  form  which  the  tradition 
 very  naturally  assumed  in  foreign  countries,  e.g.  in  the  Persian  tradition,  easily 
 give  occasion  to  the  tradition  that  the  factum  mentioned  in  the  mysterious 
 writing  occurred,  as  interpreted,  in  that  same  night."     In  this  way  might  the 
 
172  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 But  if  Belshazzar  is  not  the  same  person  as  Nabonnedus,  nor 
 the  last  Babylonian  king,  then  he  can  only  be  either  Evilmerodach 
 or  Laborosoarchod,  since  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  successors  only  these 
 two  \vere  murdered.  Both  suppositions  have  found  their  advocates. 
 Following  the  example  of  Scaliger  and  Calvisius,  Ebrard  {Comm. 
 zur  Ojjh.  Johannes^  p.  45)  and  Delitzsch  (Herz.'s  RealencyM.  iii.  p. 
 277)  regard  Belshazzar  as  Laborosoarchod  or  Labosordacus  (as 
 Josephus  writes  the  name  in  the  Antt.),  i.e.  Nebo-Sadrach,  and 
 Bel  =  Nebo ;  for  the  appearance  of  the  queen  leads  us  to  think 
 of  a  very  youthful  king,  and  Belshazzar  (ch.  v.  13)  speaks  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  as  if  all  he  knew  regarding  him  was  derived 
 from  hearsay  alone.  In  ch.  vi.  1  (v.  31)  it  is  indicated  that  a  man 
 of  advanced  age  came  in  the  room  of  a  mere  youth.  If  Daniel 
 reckons  the  years  of  Belshazzar  from  the  death  of  Evilmerodach 
 
 Persian  or  Median  popular  tradition  easily  tliink  of  the  king  who  was  put  to 
 death  that  night,  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as  also  the  last  Babylonian 
 king,  with  whom  the  kingdom  perished,  and  attribute  to  him  the  name  Laby- 
 netus,  i.e.  the  Nabonnedus  of  Berosus,  which  is  confirmed  by  the  agreement  of 
 Herodotus  with  Berosus  in  regard  to  the  battle  preceding  the  overthrow  of 
 Babylon,  as  well  as  the  absence  of  the  king  from  Babylon  at  the  taking  of  the 
 city. — "  The  historical  facts  with  respect  to  the  end  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom, 
 as  they  are  preserved  by  Berosus,  were  thrown  together  and  confused  along  the 
 dim  course  of  the  tradition  with  a  narrative,  preserved  to  us  in  its  original  form 
 by  Daniel,  of  the  contents  of  the  mysterious  writing,  connecting  the  death  of  the 
 king  with  the  end  of  the  kingdom,  corresponding  with  Avhich,  and  indeed  in 
 that  very  night  in  which  it  was  interpreted,  the  murder  of  the  king  took  place ; 
 and  this  dim  tradition  we  have  in  the  reports  given  by  Herodotus  and  Xenophon. 
 But  the  fact,  as  related  by  Daniel  v.,  forms  the  middle  member  between  the 
 statement  given  by  Berosus  and  the  form  which  the  tradition  has  assumed  in 
 Herodotus  and  Xenophon."  "  This  seems  to  me,"  as  Kran.,  in  conclusion, 
 remarks,  "to  be  the  very  simple  and  natural  state  of  the  matter,  in  view  of 
 the  open  contradiction,  on  the  one  side,  in  which  the  Greek  authors  stand  to 
 Berosus  and  Abydenus,  without,  however  (cf.  Herodotus),  in  all  points  differing 
 from  the  former ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  in  view  of  the  manifest  harmony  in 
 which  they  stand  with  Daniel,  without,  however,  agreeing  with  him  in  all 
 points.  In  such  circumstances  the  Greek  authors,  as  well  as  Berosus  and 
 Abydenus  on  the  other  side,  serve  to  establish  the  statements  in  the  book  of 
 Daniel." 
 
 Against  this  view  of  the  origin  of  the  tradition  transmitted  by  Herodotus 
 and  Xenophon,  that  Cyrus  took  Babylon  during  a  riotous  festival  of  its  inhabi- 
 tants, the  prophecies  of  Isa.  xxi.  6,  and  of  Jer.  li.  39,  cannot  be  adduced  as 
 historical  evidence  in  support  of  the  historical  truth  of  this  tradition  ;  for  these 
 prophecies  contain  only  the  thoiiglit  that  Babylon  shall  suddenly  be  destroyed 
 amid  the  tumult  of  its  revelry  and  drunkenness,  and  would  only  be  available  as 
 valid  evidence  if  they  were  cither  valicinia  ex  eventu,  or  were  literally  delivered 
 as  predictions. 
 
CHAP.  V.  173 
 
 (cf.  Jer.  xxvii.  7),  for  Belshazzar's  father  NerigHssar  (Nergal-Sar), 
 since  he  was  only  the  husband  of  a  daughter  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 could  only  rule  in  the  name  of  his  son,  then  Belshazzar  (Nebo- 
 Sadrach)  was  murdered  after  a  reign  of  four  years  and  nine  months, 
 of  which  his  father  Nergal-Sar  reigned  four  years  in  his  stead,  and 
 he  himself  nine  months.  With  Belshazzar  the  house  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar had  ceased  to  reign.  Astyages,  the  Median  king,  regarded 
 himself  as  heir  to  the  Chaldean  throne,  and  held  as  his  vassal 
 Nabonnedus,  who  was  made  king  by  the  conspirators  who  had 
 murdered  Belshazzar ;  but  Nabonnedus  endeavoured  to  maintain 
 his  independence  by  means  of  a  treaty  with  the  king  of  Lydia, 
 and  thus  there  be£i;an  the  war  wdiich  was  directed  first  against  the 
 Lydian  king,  and  then  against  Nabonnedus  himself. 
 
 But  of  these  conjectures  and  combinations  there  is  no  special 
 probability,  for  proof  is  wanting.  For  the  alleged  origin  of  the 
 war  against  the  Lydian  king  and  against  Nabonnedus  there  is  no 
 historical  foundation,  since  the  supposition  that  Astyages  regarded 
 himself,  after  the  extinction  of  the  house  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  as 
 the  heir  to  the  Chaldean  throne  is  a  mere  conjecture.  Neither 
 of  these  conjectures  finds  any  support  either  in  the  fact  that 
 Nabonnedus  remained  quiet  during  the  Lydian  war  instead  of 
 rendering  help  to  the  Lydian  king,  or  from  that  which  we  find 
 on  inscriptions  refiardino;  the  buildings  of  Nabonnedus.  Accordino* 
 to  the  researches  of  Oppert  and  Duncker  {Gesch.  d.  Alterthwns,  ii. 
 p.  719),  Nabonetus  (Nabunahid)  not  merely  completed  the  walls 
 left  unfinished  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  which  were  designed  to  shut 
 in  Babylon  from  the  Euphrates  along  both  sides  of  the  river ;  but 
 he  designates  himself,  in  inscriptions  found  on  bricks,  as  the  pi'e- 
 server  and  the  restorer  of  the  pyramid  and  the  tower,  and  he  boasts 
 of  having  built  a  temple  at  Mugheir  to  the  honour  of  his  deities,  the 
 goddess  Belit  and  the  god  Sin  (god  of  the  Moon).  The  restoration 
 of  the  pyramid  and  the  tower,  as  well  as  the  building  of  the  temple, 
 does  not  agree  with  the  supposition  that  Nabonnedus  ascended  the 
 throne  as  vassal  of  the  Median  king  with  the  thought  of  setting 
 himself  free  as  soon  as  possible  from  the  Median  rule.  Moreover 
 the  supposition  that  Neriglissar,  as  the  husband  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's daughter,  could  have  conducted  the  government  only  in 
 the  name  of  his  son,  is  opposed  to  the  statements  of  Berosus  and 
 to  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  which  reckon  Neriglissar  as  really  king, 
 and  his  reign  as  distinct  from  that  of  his  son.  Thus  the  appearance 
 of  the  queen  in  Dan.  v.  by  no  means  indicates  that  Belshazzar  was 
 
174  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 yet  a  boy ;  much  rather  does  tlie  participation  of  the  wives  and 
 concubines  of  Belshazzar  in  the  feast  point  to  the  age  of  the  king 
 as  beyond  that  of  a  boy.  Finally,  it  does  not  follow  from  ch.  v. 
 13  that  Belshazzar  knew  about  Nebuchadnezzar  only  from  hear- 
 say. In  the  verse  referred  to,  Belshazzar  merely  says  that  he  had 
 heard  regarding  Daniel  that  he  was  one  of  the  Jews  who  had  been 
 carried  captive  by  his  father  Nebuchadnezzar.  But  the  carrying 
 away  of  Daniel  and  of  the  Jews  by  Nebuchadnezzar  took  place,  as 
 to  its  beginning,  before  he  had  ascended  the  throne,  and  as  to  its 
 end  (under  Zedekiah),  during  the  first  half  of  his  reign,  when  his 
 eldest  son  might  be  yet  a  mere  youth.  That  Belshazzar  knew 
 about  Nebuchadnezzar  not  from  hearsay  merely,  but  that  he  knew 
 from  personal  knowledge  about  his  madness,  Daniel  tells  him  to 
 his  face,  ver.  22. 
 
 Finally,  the  identification  of  Labosordacus,  =  Nebo-Sadrach, 
 with  Belshazzar  has  more  appearance  than  truth.  Bel  is  not  like 
 Neho  in  the  sense  that  both  names  denote  one  and  the  same  god ; 
 but  Bel  is  the  Jupiter  of  the  Babylonians,  and  Nebo  the  ^Mercury. 
 Also,  the  names  of  the  two  kings,  as  found  on  the  inscriptions, 
 are  quite  different.  For  the  name  Aa^oaopZa'^o^  (Joseph.  Ant.) 
 Berosus  uses  Aa^opoaodp-^oBo';,  and  Abydenus  (Euseb.  pra>p.  ev. 
 ix.  41)  Aa^aaadpaaKO'i  ;  in  the  Citron,  arm.  it  is  Lahossorakos, 
 and  Syncellus  has  Aa^ocrdpo')(p^.  These  names  do  not  represent 
 Nebo-Sadrach,  but  that  used  by  Berosus  corresponds  to  the  native 
 Chaldee  Nabu-ur-uzuurhud,  the  others  point  to  Nabu-sxirush  or 
 'Surukj  and  show  the  component  parts  contained  in  the  name  Nabxo- 
 hudrussur  in  inverted  order, — at  least  they  are  very  nearly  related 
 to  this  name.  Belshazzar,  on  the  contrary,  is  found  in  the  Inscrip- 
 tion published  by  Oppert  (Duncker,  p.  720)  written  JJelsarrusur. 
 In  this  Inscription  Nabonetus  names  Belsarrusur  the  offspring  of 
 his  heart.  If  we  therefore  consider  that  Nabonnedus  represents 
 himself  as  carrying  forward  and  completing  the  work  begun  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar  in  Babylon,  the  supposition  presses  itself  upon  us, 
 that  also  in  regard  to  the  name  which  he  gave  to  his  son,  who  was 
 eventually  his  successor  on  the  throne,  he  trod  in  the  footsteps  of 
 the  celebrated  founder  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy.  Conse- 
 quently these  Inscriptions  would  indicate  that  the  Belshazzar  (= 
 Belsarrusur)  of  Daniel  was  the  son  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  his 
 successor  on  the  throne. 
 
 Though  we  may  rest  satisfied  with  this  supposition,  there  are 
 yet  weighty  reasons  for  regarding  Belshazzar  as  the  son  and  sue- 
 
CHAP.  V.  175 
 
 cesser  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  who  was  put  to  death  by  his  brother- 
 in-law  Nerighssar,  and  thus  for  identifying  him  with  Evihnerodach 
 (2  Kings  XXV.  27  ;  Jer.  hi.  31).    Following  the  example  of  Marsham 
 in  Canon  chron.  p.  596,  this  opinion  is  maintained  among  modern 
 critics  by  Hofmann  {Die  70  JaJire,  p.  44  ff.),  Hiivernick  {N'.  K. 
 Unt.  p.  71),  Oehler  (Thoh  Litt.  Am.  1842,  p.  398),   Hupfeld 
 {Exercitt.  Herod,  spec.  ii.  p.  46),  Niebuhr  {Ges.  Ass.  p.  91  f.), 
 Ziindel  (p.  33),  Kranichfeld,  and  Kliefoth.     In  favour  of  this 
 opinion  we  notice,  first,  that  Belshazzar  in  the  narrative  of  Daniel 
 is  distinctly  declared  to  be  the  son  and  successor  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar.    The  statement  of  Berosus,  that  Evilmerodach  managed 
 the  affairs  of  government  avofico^  koI  aaeXym,  entirely  harmo- 
 nizes also  with  the  character  ascribed  to  Belshazzar  in  this  chapter, 
 while  the  arguments  which  appear  to  oppose  the  identity  of  the 
 two  are  unimportant.     The  diversity  of  names,  viz.   that  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar's successor  both  in  2  Kings  xxv.  27  and  Jer.  lii.  31  is 
 called  "ni^P  ^'')^.,  and  by  Berosus,  Abydenus,  and  in  the  Canon  of 
 Ptolemy    EvetXfA,apdhov^o<;,    Amilmarodokos,    'IX\oapov8afjbo<i    (in 
 the  Canon  only,  written  instead  of  'IXfiapovBaKa),  but  by  Daniel 
 "i'^'X'J75,  is  simply  explained   by  this,  that  as  a  rule  the  Easteri? 
 kings  had  several  names :  along  with  their  personal  names  they 
 had  also  a  surname  or  general  royal  name,  the  latter  being  fre- 
 quently the  only  one  that  was  known  to  foreigners  ;  cf.  Niebuhr, 
 Gesch.  Assurs  u.  Babels,  p.  29  ff.     In  the  name  Evilmerodach^  the 
 component  parts,  II  (=  El),  i.e.  God,  and  Merodacli,  recur  in  all 
 forms.     The  first  part  was  changed  by  the  Jews,  perhaps  after  the 
 tragic  death  of  the  king,  into  y^^^.,  stultus  (after  Ps.  liii.  ?)  ;  while 
 Daniel,  living  at  the  Babylonian  court,  transmits  the  name  Bel- 
 shazzar, formed  after  the  name  of  the  god  Bel,  which  was  there 
 used.      Moreover  the  kind  benevolent  conduct  of  Evilmerodach 
 towards  king  Jehoiachin,  who  was  languishing  in  prison,  does  not 
 stand  in  contradiction  to  the  vileness  of  his  character,  as  testified 
 to  by  Bei'osus  ;  for  even  an  unrighteous,  godless  ruler  can  be  just 
 and  good  in  certain  instances.     Moreover  the  circumstance  that, 
 according  to  the  Canon  of  Ptolemy,  Evilmerodach  ruled  two  years, 
 while,  on  the  contrary,  in  Dan.  viii.  1  mention  is  made  of  the  third 
 year  of  the  reign  of  Belshazzar,  forms  no  inexplicable  discrepancy. 
 Without  resorting  to  Syncellus,  who  in  his  Canon  attributes  to  him 
 three  years,  since  the  numbers  mentioned  in  this  Canon  contain 
 many  errors,  the  discrepancy  may  be  explained  from  the  custom 
 prevalent  in  the  books  of  Kings  of  reckoning  the  duration  of  the 
 
17(3  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 reign  of  a  king  only  in  full  years,  without  reference  to  the  months 
 that  may  be  wanting  or  that  may  exceed.  According  to  tliis 
 usage,  the  reign  might  extend  to  only  two  full  years  if  it  began 
 about  the  middle  of  the  calendar  year,  but  might  extend  into  three 
 calendar  years,  and  thus  be  reckoned  as  three  years,  if  the  year  of 
 the  commencement  of  it  and  the  year  in  which  it  ended  were 
 reckoned  according  to  the  calendar.  On  the  other  side,  it  is 
 conceivable  that  Evilmerodach  reigned  a  few  weeks,  or  even 
 months,  beyond  two  years,  which  were  in  the  reckoning  of  the 
 duration  of  his  reign  not  counted  to  him,  but  to  his  successor. 
 Ptolemy  has  without  doubt  observed  this  procedure  in  his  astro- 
 nomical Canon,  since  he  reckons  to  all  rulers  only  full  years. 
 Thus  there  is  no  doubt  of  any  importance  in  opposition  to  the  view 
 that  Belshazzar  was  identical  with  Evilmerodach,  the  son  and  suc- 
 cessor of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 With  the  removal  of  the  historical  difficulty  Ipng  in  the  name 
 Belshazzar  the  historical  credibility  of  the  principal  contents  of 
 this  narrative  is  at  the  same  time  established.  And  this  so  much 
 the  more  surely,  as  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  are  not  in  a 
 position  to  find,  in  behalf  of  their  assertion  that  this  history  is  a 
 fiction,  a  situation  from  which  this  fiction  framed  for  a  purpose 
 can  be  comprehended  in  the  actions  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  and 
 in  the  relations  of  the  times  of  the  Maccabees.  According  to 
 Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  and  Bleek,  the  author  sought  on  the  one 
 hand  to  represent  to  the  Syrian  prince  in  the  fate  of  Belshazzar 
 how  great  a  judgment  from  God  threatened  him  on  account  of  his 
 wickedness  in  profaning  the  temple,  and  on  the  other,  to  glorify 
 Daniel  the  Jew  by  presenting  him  after  the  type  of  Joseph. 
 
 But  as  for  the  first  tendency  (or  purpose),  the  chief  matter  is 
 wholly  wanting,  viz.  the  profanation  of  the  holy  vessels  of  the 
 temple  by  Antiochus  on  the  occasion  of  a  festival,  which  in  this 
 chapter  forms  the  chief  part  of  the  wickedness  for  which  Bel- 
 shazzar brings  upon  himself  the  judgment  of  God.  Of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  it  is  only  related  that  he  plundered  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
 salem in  order  that  he  might  meet  his  financial  necessities,  while 
 on  the  other  hand  the  carrying  away  by  Nebuchadnezzar  of  the 
 vessels  belonging  to  the  temple  (Dan.  i.  2)  is  represented  as  a  pro- 
 vidence of  God.^ 
 
 ^  According  to  Bleek  and  v.  Long.,  this  narrative  must  have  in  view  1  Mace. 
 L  21  S.  and  2  Mace.  v.  15  fF.,  where  it  is  related  of  Antiochus  as  something  in 
 ihe  highest  degree  vicious,  that  he  entered  into  the  temple  at  Jerusalem,  and 
 
CHAP.  V.  177 
 
 As  regards  tlie  second  tendency  of  the  composition,  the  glori- 
 fying of  Daniel  after  the  type  of  Joseph,  Kliefoth  rightly  remarks: 
 "  The  comparison  of  Daniel  with  Joseph  rests  on  hastily  collected 
 indefinite  resemblances,  along  with  which  there  are  also  found  as 
 many  contrasts."  The  resemblances  reduce  themselves  to  these  : 
 that  Daniel  was  adorned  by  the  king  with  a  golden  chain  about  his 
 neck  and  raised  to  the  highest  office  of  state  for  his  interpretation 
 of  the  mysterious  writing,  as  Joseph  had  been  for  the  interpreta- 
 tion of  the  dream.  Baton  this  Ewald^  himself  remarks:  "The 
 promise  that  whoever  should  solve  the  mystery  would  be  made  tliird 
 ruler  of  the  kingdom^  and  at  the  same  time  the  declaration  in  ch. 
 vi.  3  (2),  show  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Babylon  there  existed  an 
 arrangement  similar  to  that  of  the  Roman  empire  after  Diocletian, 
 by  which  under  one  Augustus  there  might  be  three  Caesars.  Alto- 
 gether different  is  the  old  Egyptian  law  set  forth  in  Gen.  xli.  43  f., 
 and  prevailing  also  in  ancient  kingdoms,  according  to  which  the 
 king  might  recognise  a  man  as  the  second  ruler  in  the  kingdom,  or 
 as  his  representative ;  and  since  that  mentioned  in  the  book  of 
 Daniel  is  peculiar,  it  rests,  to  all  appearance,  on  some  old  genuine 
 Babylonish  custom.  On  the  other  hand,  the  being  clothed  with 
 purple  and  adorned  with  a  golden  chain  about  the  neck  is  more 
 
 with  impure  hands  carried  thence  the  golden  basins,  cups,  bowls,  and  other  holy- 
 vessels.  But  in  spite  of  this  wholly  incorrect  application  of  the  contents  of  the 
 passages  cited,  Bleek  cannot  but  confess  that  the  reference  would  be  more  dis- 
 tinct if  it  were  related — which  it  is  not — that  Antiochus  used  the  holy  vessels  at 
 a  common  festival,  or  at  least  at  the  time  of  offering  sacrifice.  But  if  we  look 
 closely  at  1  Mace.  i.  21  ff.,  we  find  that  Antiochus  not  only  took  away  the  utensils 
 mentioned  by  Bleek,  but  also  the  golden  altar,  the  golden  candlestick,  the 
 table  of  shew-bread,  the  veil,  and  the  crowns,  and  the  golden  ornaments  that 
 were  before  the  temple,  all  which  (gold)  he  pulled  off,  and  took  also  the  silver 
 and  gold,  and  the  hidden  treasures  which  he  found ;  from  which  it  clearly 
 appears  that  Antiochus  plundered  the  temple  because  of  his  pecuniary  embar- 
 rassment, as  Grimm  remarks,  or  "  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  his  financial 
 necessities"  (Grimm  on  2  Mace.  v.  16).  Hitzig  has  therefore  abandoned  this 
 reference  as  unsuitable  for  the  object  assumed,  and  has  sought  the  occasion  for 
 the  fiction  of  Dan.  v.  in  the  splendid  games  and  feasts  which  Antiochus  held  at 
 Daphne  (Polyb.  xxxi.  3,  4).  But  this  supposition  also  makes  it  necessary  for 
 the  critic  to  add  the  profanation  of  the  holy  vessels  of  the  temple  at  these  feasts 
 from  his  own  resources,  because  history  knows  nothing  of  it.  Polybius  merely 
 says  that  the  expense  of  these  entertainments  was  met  partly  by  the  plunder 
 Antiochus  brought  from  Egypt,  partly  by  the  gifts  of  bis  allies,  but  most  of  all 
 by  the  treasure  taken  from  the  temple. 
 
 ^  P.  380  of  the  3d  vol.  of  the  second  ed.  of  his  work,  Die  Propheten  des  A. 
 Bundes. 
 
 M 
 
178  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 generally  the  distinfruisliing  mark  of  men  of  princely  rank,  as  is 
 seen  in  the  case  of  Joseph,  Gen.  xli.  42." 
 
 To  this  it  must  be  added,  that  Belshazzar's  relation  to  Daniel 
 and  Daniel's  conduct  toward  Belshazzar  are  altogether  different 
 from  the  relation  of  Antiochus  to  the  Jews  who  remained  faithful 
 to  their  law,  and  their  conduct  toward  that  cruel  king.  That  the 
 conduct  of  Belshazzar  toward  Daniel  does  not  accord  with  the  times 
 of  the  Maccabees,  the  critics  themselves  cannot  deny.  Hitzig 
 expresses  his  surprise  that  "  the  king  hears  the  prophecy  in  a 
 manner  one  should  not  have  expected ;  his  behaviour  is  not  the 
 same  as  that  of  Aliab  toward  Micah,  or  of  Agamemnon  toward 
 Calchas."  Antiochus  Epiphanes  would  have  acted  precisely  as 
 they  did.  And  how  does  the  behaviour  of  Daniel  harmonize  with 
 that  of  Mattathias,  who  rejected  the  presents  and  the  favour  of  the 
 tyrant  (1  Mace.  ii.  18  ff.),  and  who  put  to  death  with  the  sword 
 those  Jews  who  were  submitting  themselves  to  the  demands  of  the 
 king?  Daniel  received  the  purple,  and  allowed  himself  to  be 
 adorned  with  a  golden  chain  by  the  heathen  king,  and  to  be  raised 
 to  the  rank  of  third  ruler  in  his  kingdom.^ 
 
 While  thus  standing  in  marked  contrast  to  the  circumstances 
 of  the  Maccabean  times,  the  narrative  is  perfectly  consistent  if 
 we  regard  it  as  a  historical  episode  belonging  to  the  time  of 
 Daniel.  It  is  true  it  has  also  a  parenetic  character,  only  not  the 
 limited  object  attributed  to  it  by  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness 
 — to  threaten  Antiochus  Epiphanes  with  divine  judgments  on  ac- 
 count of  his  wickedness  and  to  glorify  Daniel.  Eather  it  is  for  all 
 times  in  which  the  church  of  the  Lord  is  oppressed  by  the  powers  of 
 the  world,  to  show  to  tlie  blasphemers  of  the  divine  name  how  the 
 Almighty  God  in  heaven  punishes  and  destroys  the  lords  of  this 
 world  who  proceed  to  desecrate  and  abuse  that  which  is  sacred, 
 without  taking  notice  of  the  divine  warnings  addressed  to  them  on 
 account  of  their  self-glorification,  and  bestows  honour  upon  His 
 servants  who  are  rejected  and  despised  by  the  world.  But  when 
 compared  with  the  foregoing  narratives,  this  event  before  us  shows 
 how  the  world-power  in  its  development  became  always  the  more 
 hardened  against  the  revelations  of  the  living  God,  and  the  more 
 
 1  "In  short,  the  whole  accompaniments  of  this  passage,"  Kranichfeld  thus 
 concludes  (p.  213)  his  dissertation  on  this  point,  "are  so  completely  different 
 from  those  of  the  Maccabean  times,  that  if  it  is  to  be  regarded  as  belonging 
 peculiarly  to  this  time,  then  we  must  conceive  of  it  as  composed  by  an  author 
 altogether  ignorant  of  the  circumstances  and  of  the  historical  situation." 
 
CHAP.  V.  1-4.  179 
 
 ripe  for  judgment.  Nebuchadnezzar  demanded  of  all  his  subjects 
 a  recognition  of  his  gods,  and  prided  himself  in  his  great  power 
 and  worldly  glory,  but  yet  he  gave  glory  to  the  Lord  of  heaven 
 for  the  signs  and  wonders  which  God  did  to  him.  Belshazzar 
 knew  this,  yet  it  did  not  prevent  him  from  blaspheming  this  God, 
 nor  did  it  move  him  to  seek  to  avert  by  penitential  sorrow  the 
 judgment  of  death  which  was  denounced  against  him. 
 
 Vers.  1.-4.  The  verses  describe  the  progress  of  Belshazzar's 
 magnifying  himself  against  the  living  God,  whereby  the  judgment 
 threatened  came  upon  him  and  his  kingdom.  A  great  feast,  which 
 the  king  gave  to  his  officers  of  state  and  to  his  wives,  furnished 
 the  occasion  for  this. 
 
 The  name  of  the  king,  "i^'Xw^p^j  contains  in  it  the  two  com- 
 ponent parts  of  the  name  which  Daniel  had  received  (ch.  i.  7), 
 but  without  the  interposed  D,  whereby  it  is  distinguished  from  it. 
 This  distinction  is  not  to  be  overlooked,  although  the  LXX. 
 have  done  so,  and  have  written  the  two  names,  as  if  they  were 
 identical,  BaXTaaap.  The  meaning  of  the  name  is  as  yet  unknown. 
 2n7j  meal-time,  the  festival.  The  invitation  to  a  thousand  officers 
 of  state  corresponds  to  the  magnificence  of  Oriental  kings.  Ac- 
 cording to  Ctesias  [Athen.  Deipnos.  iv.  146),  15,000  men  dined 
 daily  from  the  table  of  the  Persian  king  (cf.  Esth.  i.  4).  To 
 account  for  this  large  number  of  guests,  it  is  not  necessary  to  sup- 
 pose that  during  the  siege  of  Babylon  by  Cyrus  a  multitude  of 
 great  officers  from  all  parts  of  the  kingdom  had  fled  for  refuge  to 
 Babylon.  The  number  specified  is  evidently  a  round  number,  i.e. 
 the  number  of  the  guests  amounted  to  about  a  thousand.  The 
 words,  he  drank  loine  before  the  thousand  (great  officers),  are  not, 
 with  Hiivernick,  to  be  explained  of  drinking  first,  or  of  preceding 
 them  in  drinking,  or  of  drinking  a  toast  to  them,  but  are  to  be 
 understood  according  to  the  Oriental  custom,  by  which  at  great 
 festivals  the  king  sat  at  a  separate  table  on  an  elevated  place,  so 
 that  he  had  the  guests  before  him  or  opposite  to  him.  The  drink- 
 ing of  wine  is  particularly  noticed  as  the  immediate  occasion  of 
 the  wickedness  which  followed. 
 
 Ver.  2.  ^'"JJpn  Dyp3,  while  he  tasted  the  ivine,  i.e.  when  the  wine 
 was  relished  by  him  ;  thus  "  in  the  wanton  madness  of  one  excited 
 by  wine,  Prov.  xx.  1 "  (Hitz.).  From  these  words  it  appears  that 
 Belshazzar  commanded  the  temple  vessels  which  Nebuchadnezzar 
 had  carried  away  from  Jerusalem  to  be  brought,  not,  as  Hiivernick 
 
180  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 thinks,  for  the  purpose  of  seeking,  in  his  anxiety  on  account  of  the 
 siege  of  the  city,  the  favour  of  the  God  of  the  Jews,  but  to  insult 
 this  God  in  the  presence  of  his  own  gods.  The  supposition  of 
 anxiety  on  account  of  the  siege  does  not  at  all  harmonize  with  the 
 celebration  of  so  riotous  a  festival.  Besides,  the  vessels  are  not 
 brought  for  the  purpose  of  making  libations  in  order  to  propitiate 
 the  God  to  whom  they  were  consecrated,  but,  according  to  the 
 obvious  statement  of  the  text,  only  to  drink  out  of  them  from  the 
 madness  of  lust.  P^'^'^.l,  that  they  may  drink ;  1  before  the  imperf. 
 expresses  the  design  of  the  bringing  of  the  vessels.  3  nnt^^  to  drink 
 out  of,  as  Gen.  xliv.  5,  Amos  vi.  6.  \^^^,  the  wives  of  the  king ; 
 cf.  Neh.  ii.  6  with  Ps.  xlv.  10.  Ijnp^  concubines  ;  this  word  stands 
 in  the  Targg.  for  the  Hebr.  K'J??.  The  LXX.  have  here,  and 
 also  at  ver.  23,  omitted  mention  of  the  women,  according  to  the 
 custom  of  the  Macedonians,  Greeks,  and  Romans  (cf.  Herod,  v.  18; 
 Corn.Nep.2?roem.  §  6);  but  Xenophon  {Cyr.  v.  2.  28)  and  Curtius 
 (v.  1.  .38)  expressly  declare  that  among  the  Babylonians  the  wives 
 also  were  present  at  festivals. 
 
 Ver.  3.  ^<^3''D  denotes  the  holy  place  of  the  temple,  the  timer 
 apartment  of  the  temp}le,  as  at  1  Kings  vi.  3,  Ezek.  xli.  1.  Vnp'K 
 for  vn^^,  with  N  prosthet.,  cf.  Winer,  chald.  Gr.  §  23,  1. 
 
 Ver.  4.  In  this  verse  the  expression  they  drank  loine  is  re- 
 peated for  the  purpose  of  making  manifest  the  connection  between 
 the  drinking  and  the  praising  of  the  gods.  The  wickedness  lay 
 in  this,  that  they  drank  out  of  the  holy  vessels  of  the  temple  of  the 
 God  of  Israel  to  glorify  (^3t^'J  to  praise  by  the  singing  of  songs) 
 their  heathen  gods  in  songs  of  praise.  In  doing  this  they  did  not 
 only  place  "Jehovah  on  a  perfect  level  with  their  gods"  (Haver- 
 nick),  but  raised  them  above  the  Lord  of  heaven,  as  Daniel  (ver. 
 23)  charged  the  king.  The  carrying  away  of  the  temple  vessels 
 to  Babylon  and  placing  them  in  the  temple  of  Bel  was  a  sign  of 
 the  defeat  of  the  God  to  whom  these  vessels  were  consecrated  (see 
 under  ch.  i.  2)  ;  the  use  of  these  vessels  in  the  drinking  of  wine  at  a 
 festival,  amid  the  singing  of  songs  in  praise  of  the  gods,  was  accord- 
 ingly a  celebrating  of  these  gods  as  victorious  over  the  God  of 
 Israel.  And  it  was  not  a  spirit  of  hostility  aroused  against  the 
 Jews  which  gave  occasion,  as  Kranichfeld  has  well  remarked,  to 
 this  celebration  of  the  victory  of  his  god;  but,  as  the  narrative 
 informs  us,  it  was  the  reckless  madness  of  the  drunken  king  and 
 of  his  drunken  guests  (cf.  ver.  2a)  during  the  festival  which  led 
 them  to  think  of  the  God  of  the  Jews,  whom  they  supposed  they 
 
CHAP.  V.  5-12.  181 
 
 had  subdued  along  with  His  people,  although  He  had  by  repeated 
 miracles  forced  the  heathen  v/orld-rulers  to  recognise  His  omnipo- 
 tence (cf.  ch.  ii.  47,  iii.  32  f.,  iv.  14  [17],  31  [34],  34  [37]).  In 
 the  disregard  of  these  revelations  consisted,  as  Daniel  represents 
 to  Belshazzar  (cf.  ver.  18),  the  dishonour  done  to  the  Lord  of 
 heaven,  although  these  vessels  of  the  sanctuary  might  have  been 
 profaned  merely  by  using  them  as  common  drinking  vessels,  or 
 they  might  have  been  used  also  in  religious  libations  as  vessels 
 consecrated  to  the  gods,  of  which  the  test  makes  no  mention, 
 although  the  singing  of  songs  to  the  praise  of  the  gods  along  with 
 the  drinking  makes  the  offering  of  libations  very  probable.  The 
 six  predicates  of  the  gods  are  divided  by  the  copula  1  into  two 
 classes :  gold  and  silver — brass,  iron,  wood  and  stone,  in  order  to 
 represent  before  the  eyes  in  an  advancing  degree  the  vanity  of 
 these  gods. 
 
 Vers.  5-12.  The  ivarning  signs,  the  astonishment  of  Belshazzar, 
 the  inahility  of  the  loise  men  to  give  counsel,  and  the  advice  of  the 
 queen. 
 
 Ver.  5.  Unexpectedly  and  suddenly  the  wanton  mad  revelry  of 
 the  king  and  his  guests  was  brought  to  a  close  amid  terror  by 
 means  of  a  warning  sign.  The  king  saw  the  finger  of  a  man's 
 hand  writing  on  the  plaster  of  the  wall  of  the  festival  chamber, 
 and  he  was  so  alarmed  that  his  whole  body  shook.  The  t^ny^'J^? 
 places  the  sign  in  immediate  connection  with  the  drinking  and  the 
 praising  of  the  gods.  The  translation,  in  the  self-same  hour,  is 
 already  shown  to  be  inadmissible  (see  under  ch.  iii.  6).  The 
 Kethiv  ^P33  {came  forth)'  is  not  to  be  rejected  as  the  indefinite 
 determination  of  the  subject,  because  the  subject  follows  after 
 it ;  the  Keri  nj^Si  is  to  be  rejected,  because,  though  it  suits  the 
 gender,  it  does  not  in  respect  of  number  accord  with  the  subject 
 following.  The  king  does  not  see  the  whole  hand,  but  only  i^*]^  DS^ 
 the  end  of  the  hand,  that  is,  the  fingers  which  write.  This  immedi- 
 ately awakened  the  thought  that  the  writing  was  by  a  supernatural 
 being,  and  alarmed  the  king  out  of  his  intoxication.  The  fingers 
 wrote  on  the  plaster  of  the  wall  over  against  the  candlestick  which 
 stood  on  the  table  at  which  the  king  sat,  and  which  reflected  its 
 light  perceptibly  on  the  white  wall  opposite,  so  that  the  fingers 
 writing  could  be  distinctly  seen.  The  feast  had  been  prolonged 
 into  the  darkness  of  the  night,  and  the  wall  of  the  chamber  was 
 not  wainscotted,  but  only  plastered  with  lime,  as  such  chambers  are 
 
1B2  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 found  in  the  palaces  of  Nimrud  and  Khorsabad  covered  over  only 
 with  mortar  (of.  Layard's  Nineveh  and  Babylon). 
 
 Ver.  6.  t^^po  {the  king)  stands  absolutely,  because  the  impres- 
 sion made  by  the  occurrence  on  the  king  is  to  be  depicted.  The 
 plur.  '•nvf  has  an  intensive  signification :  the  colour  of  the  counte- 
 nance. Regarding  VT,  see  under  ch.  iv.  33.  The  suffix  to  N'liJK'  is 
 to  be  taken  in  the  signification  of  the  dative,  since  ^y^  in  the  Peal 
 occurs  only  intransitively.  The  connection  of  an  intransitive  verb 
 w^ith  the  suff.  accus.  is  an  inaccuracy  for  which  Vr!''*'^'j  Ezek.  xlvii.  7, 
 and  perhaps  also  "'^''n''v"y,  Ezek.  xxix.  3,  afford  analogies ;  cf.  Ewald's 
 Lehrb.  §  'dl5b.  In  ver.  9,  where  the  matter  is  repeated,  the  harsh- 
 ness is  avoided,  and  ^'^i-'V  is  used  to  express  the  change  of  colour  yet 
 more  strongly.  The  meaning  is  :  "  the  king  changed  colour  as  to 
 his  countenance,  became  pale  from  terror,  and  was  so  unmanned 
 by  fear  and  alarm,  that  his  body  lost  its  firmness  and  vigour." 
 The  bands  or  Ligaments  of  his  thighs  (HCIj  equivalent  to  the  Hebr. 
 ^""V^C!)  u^ere  loosed^  i.e.  lost  the  strength  to  hold  his  body,  and  his 
 knees  smote  one  against  another.  Naianx  with  iijjrosth.,  for  ^^''S'!, 
 in  the  Targg.  means  the  knee.  The  alarm  was  heightened  by  a  bad 
 conscience,  which  roused  itself  and  filled  him  with  dark  forebodings. 
 Immediately  the  king  commanded  the  magicians  to  be  brought,  and 
 promised  a  great  reward  to  him  who  would  read  and  interpret  the 
 mysterious  writing. 
 
 Ver.  7.  Since  there  are  in  this  verse  only  three  classes  of  wise 
 men  named  as  ordered  to  come  to  the  king,  to  whom  he  promised 
 the  reward  for  the  reading  and  the  interpretation  of  the  writing, 
 and  in  ver.  8  it  is  first  stated  that  all  the  king's  wise  men  came, 
 the  probability  is,  that  at  first  the  king  commanded  only  the  three 
 classes  named  in  ver.  7  to  be  brought  to  him.  On  this  probability 
 Kranichfeld  founds  the  supposition  that  the  king  purposely,  or  with 
 intention,  summoned  only  the  three  classes  named  to  avoid  Daniel, 
 whom  he  did  not  wish  to  consult,  from  his  heathen  religious  fear  of 
 the  God  of  the  Jews.  But  this  supposition  is  altogether  untenable. 
 For,  first,  it  does  not  follow  from  ch.  viii.  27  that  under  Belshazzar 
 Daniel  was  president  over  all  the  wise  men,  but  only  that  he  was 
 in  the  king's  service.  Then,  in  the  event  of  Daniel's  yet  retaining 
 the  place  assigned  to  him  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  his  non-appearance 
 could  not  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  Belshazzar  called 
 only  three  classes  of  the  wise  men,  because  the  supposition  that  ^3 
 **???  ^??"'r"?  {all  the  king's  wise  men)  in  ver.  8  forms  a  contrast  to 
 the  three  classes  named  in  ver.  7  is  not  sustained  by  the  language 
 
CHAP.  V.  5-12.  183 
 
 here  used.  But  if  by  "  all  the  wise  men  of  the  king,"  ver.  8,  we 
 are  to  understand  the  whole  body  of  the  wise  men  of  all  the  classes, 
 and  that  they  appeared  before  the  king,  then  they  must  all  have 
 been  called  at  the  first,  since  no  supplementary  calling  of  the  two 
 classes  not  named  in  ver.  7  is  mentioned.  Besides  this,  the  words, 
 "  the  king  spake  to  the  wise  men  of  Babylon,"  make  it  probable 
 that  all  the  classes,  without  the  exception  of  the  two,  were  called. 
 Moreover  it  is  most  improbable  that  in  the  case  before  us,  where 
 the  matter  concerned  the  reading  of  a  writing,  the  D"'?3t:"in,  the 
 magicians  [Schriftkenner],  should  not  have  been  called  merely  to 
 avoid  Daniel,  who  was  their  ^1  {president)  (ch.  iv.  6  [9]).  Finally, 
 it  is  psychologically  altogether  very  improbable,  that  in  the  great 
 agitation  of  fear  which  had  filled  him  at  the  sio;ht  of  the  hand 
 writing,  Belshazzar  should  have  reflected  at  all  on  this,  that  Daniel 
 would  announce  to  him  misfortune  or  the  vengeance  of  the  God  of 
 the  Jews.  Such  a  reflection  might  perhaps  arise  on  quiet  delibera- 
 tion, but  not  in  the  midst  of  agitating  heart-anguish. 
 
 The  strange  circumstance  that,  according  to  ver.  7,  the  king 
 already  promised  a  reward  to  the  wise  men,  which  presupposes  that 
 they  were  already  present,  and  then  that  for  the  first  time  their 
 presence  is  mentioned  in  ver.  8,  is  occasioned  by  this,  that  in  ver.  7 
 the  appearing  of  the  wise  men  is  not  expressly  mentioned,  but  is 
 naturally  presupposed,  and  that  the  first  two  clauses  of  the  eighth 
 verse  are  simply  placed  together,  and  are  not  united  to  each  other 
 by  a  causal  nexus.  The  meaning  of  the  statement  in  vers.  7  and 
 8  is  this ;  The  king  calls  aloud,  commanding  the  astrologers,  etc., 
 to  be  brought  to  him ;  and  when  the  wise  men  of  Babylon  came 
 to  him,  he  said  to  each  of  them,  Whoever  reads  the  writing,  etc. 
 But  all  the  king's  wise  men,  when  they  had  come,  were  unable  to 
 read  the  writing.  As  to  the  names  of  the  wise  men  in  ver.  7,  see 
 under  ch.  ii.  2.  nnp''  for  K7.P";,  from  N"^P,  to  read.  As  a  reward,  the 
 king  promises  a  purple  robe,  a  gold  chain  for  the  neck,  and  the 
 highest  office  in  the  kingdom.  A  robe  of  purple  was  the  sign  of 
 rank  worn  by  the  high  officers  of  state  among  the  Persians, — cf. 
 Esth.  viii.  15  with  Xenophon,  Anah.  i.  5.  8, — and  among  the  Selu- 
 cidge,  1  Mace.  x.  20;  and  was  also  among  the  Medes  the  princely 
 garb,  Xen.  Anah.  i.  3.  2,  ii.  4.  6.  1)3"!^?,  Hebr.  l^l"!'?,  purple^  is  a 
 word  of  Aryan  origin,  from  the  Sanscrit  rdga,  red  colour,  with  the 
 formative  syllables  man  and  vat;  cf.  Gesen.  Tlies.  Addid.  p.  Ill 
 seq.  '1J1  ■'1  ^^iJOni  does  not  depend  on  ^'^\  but  forms  a  clause  by 
 itself:  and  a  chain  of  gold  shall  be  about  his  neck.     For  the  Kethiv 
 
184  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 N3i3»ri  the  Keri  substitutes  the  Targum.  and  Syr.  form  S*^''^^'!!  (vers. 
 
 7,  16,  and  29),  i.e.  the  Greek  fiavidKr}<i,  from  the  Sansc.  mani, 
 jewel,  pearl,  with  the  frequent  formative  syllable  ka  in  the  Zend, 
 whence  the  Chaldee  word  is  derived ;  it  signifies  neck-  or  arm-hand, 
 here  the  former.  The  golden  neck-chain  (arpeirTO'^  ')(^pvaeo<i)  was 
 an  ornament  worn  by  the  Persians  of  rank,  and  was  given  by 
 kings  as  a  mark  of  favour  .even  to  kings,  e.g.  Cambyses  and  the 
 younger  Cyrus;  of.  Herod,  iii.  20;   Xen.  Anah.  i.  1.  27,  5.  8, 
 
 8.  29. 
 
 It  is  not  quite  certain  what  the  princely  situation  is  which  was 
 promised  to  the  interpreter  of  the  writing,  since  the  meaning  of 
 ^iiipJi  is  not  quite  clear.  That  it  is  not  the  ordinale  of  the  number 
 third,  is,  since  Havernick,  now  generally  acknowledged,  because 
 for  tertins  in  Aram,  ''^y^  is  used,  which  occurs  also  in  ch.  ii.  39. 
 Havernick  therefore  regards  "'^pJ?,  for  which  ^T^^^  is  found  in  vers. 
 16  and  29,  as  an  adjective  formation  which  indicates  a  descent 
 or  occupation,  and  is  here  used  as  a  nomen  officii  corresponding 
 to  the  Plebr.  ""tr'r'^.  Geseuius  and  Dietrich  regard  w^  as  only 
 the  singular  form  for  ''Ovrij  and  i<J^?J!i  as  the  stat.  ahs.  of  ripn,  third 
 rank.  Hitzio;  would  chancre  ''Wn  into  Tipn  and  re£!;ard  Nn?n  as 
 a  singular  formed  from  P^^r^,  as  triumvir  from  triumvirorum^  and 
 would  interpret  it  by  rpLTo^  avr6<i,  the  third  (selhstdritt) :  as  one 
 of  three  he  shall  rule  in  the  kino;dom,  accordinfj  to  ch.  vi.  3. 
 Finally,  Kranichfeld  takes  "^^^^  to  be  a  fem.  verbal  formation 
 according  to  the  analogy  of  n'^D^Nj  '•'inst,  in  the  sense  of  tJiree- 
 ruler-ioise,  and  ^'^^  for  a  noun  formed  from  ^!^^^,  triumvir. 
 Almost  all  these  explanations  amount  to  this,  that  the  state- 
 ments here  regard  the  government  of  a  triumvirate  as  it  was 
 regulated  by  the  Median  king  Darius,  ch.  vi.  3  (2) ;  and  this 
 appears  also  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  words  as  one  may  liter- 
 ally explain  "'ripn  and  NJ^^Jii.  Regarding  the  Keri  y?V  see  under 
 ch.  iv.  4,  and  regarding  N"iK>3^  under  ch.  iv.  15. 
 
 As  all  the  wise  men  were  unable  to  read  the  writing,  it  has 
 been  thought  that  it  was  in  a  foreign  language  different  from  the 
 usual  language  of  Babylon,  the  knowledge  of  which  could  not 
 legitimately  be  expected  to  be  possessed  by  the  native  wise  men  ; 
 and  since,  according  to  vers.  17,  24  f.,  Daniel  at  once  showed  his 
 acquaintance  with  the  writing  in  question,  it  has  from  this  been 
 concluded  that  already  the  old  Babylonians  had  handwriting  corre- 
 sponding to  the  later  Syro-Palmyrenian  inscriptions,  while  among 
 the  Hebrews  to  the  time  of  the  Exile  the  essentially  Old-Phcenician 
 
CHAP.  V.  5-12,  185 
 
 writing,  ■which  is  found  on  the  so-called  Samaritan  coins  and  in 
 the  Samaritan  Scriptures,  was  the  peculiar  national  style  of  writ- 
 ing (Kran.).  But  this  interpretation  of  the  miracle  on  natural 
 principles  is  quite  erroneous.  First,  it  is  very  unlikely  that  the 
 Chaldean  wise  men  should  not  have  known  these  old  Semitic 
 characters,  even  although  at  that  time  they  had  ceased  to  be  in 
 current  use  among  the  Babylonians  in  their  common  writing. 
 Then,  from  the  circumstance  that  Daniel  could  at  once  read  the 
 writing,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  was  the  well-known  Old-Hebrew 
 writing  of  his  fatherland.  "  The  characters  employed  in  the 
 writing,"  as  Hengstenberg  has  rightly  observed  (Beltr.  i.  p.  122), 
 "  must  have  been  altogether  unusual  so  as  not  to  be  deciphered 
 but  by  divine  illumination."  Yet  we  must  not,  with  M.  Geier  and 
 others,  assume  that  the  writing  was  visible  only  to  the  king  and 
 Daniel.  This  contradicts  the  text,  according  to  which  the  Chaldean 
 wise  men,  and  without  doubt  all  that  were  present,  also  saw  the 
 traces  of  the  writing,  but  were  not  able  to  read  it. 
 
 Ver.  9.  By  this  not  only  was  the  astonishment  of  the  king 
 heightened,  but  the  officers  of  state  also  were  put  into  confusion. 
 "  In  pK^'snc^p  lies  not  merely  the  idea  of  consternation,  but  of 
 confusion,  of  great  commotion  in  the  assembly  "  (Hitzig).  The 
 whole  company  was  thrown  into  confusion.  The  magnates  spoke 
 without  intelligence,  and  were  perplexed  about  the  matter. 
 
 Not  only  was  the  tumult  that  arose  from  the  loud  confused 
 talk  of  the  king  and  the  nobles  heard  by  those  who  were  there 
 present,  but  the  queen-mother,  who  was  living  in  the  palace,  the 
 wife  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  also  heard  it  and  went  into  the  banquet- 
 ing hall.  As  soon  as  she  perceived  the  cause  of  the  commotion, 
 she  directed  the  attention  of  her  royal  son  to  Daniel,  who  in  the 
 days  of  his  father  Nebuchadnezzar  had  already,  as  an  interpreter 
 of  dreams  and  of  mysteries,  shown  that  the  spirit  of  the  holy  gods 
 dwelt  in  him  (vers.  10-12). 
 
 Ver.  10.  By  i^^Sf'^  interpreters  rightly  understand  the  mother 
 of  the  reigning  king,  the  widow  of  his  father  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 since  according  to  ver.  2  f.  the  wives  of  the  king  were  present  at 
 the  festival,  and  the  queen  came  before  the  king  as  only  a  mother 
 could  do.  Among  the  Israelites  also  the  mother  of  the  reigning 
 king  was  held  in  high  respect;  cf.  1  Kings  xv.  13  ;  2  Kings  xxiv. 
 12,  15  ;  Jer.  xiii.  18,  xxix.  2.  Tf"?  ''?i?.'J,  %  reason  of  the  words, 
 not :  because  of  the  affair^  to  which  neither  the  plur.  "^70  nor  the 
 gen.  ^^iJ^■]3•^  agrees.     Instead  of  the  Kethlo  ribSy  the  Keri  has 
 
186  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 ripy,  the  later  form.  The  queen-mother  begins  in  an  assuring 
 manner,  since  she  can  give  an  advice  which  is  fitted  to  allay  the 
 embarrassment. 
 
 Ver.  11.  Her  judgment  concerning  Daniel  is  that  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, ch.  iv.  5,  6  (8,  9)  ;  and  that  she  states  it  in  the  same 
 ■words  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Nebuchadnezzar  was  her  hus- 
 band. The  N3??p  'TjUX  at  the  end  of  this  verse  may  be  an  emphatic 
 repetition  of  the  foregoing  ^^3X;  '23  S3?o  (Maur.,  Hitz.),  but  in 
 that  case  ^5^?'?  would  perhaps  stand  first.  ^^?^  is  better  inter- 
 preted by  Ros.,  V.  Leng.,  Klief.,  and  others  as  the  vocative  :  thi/ 
 father,  0  king^  by  which  the  words  make  a  greater  impression. 
 
 Ver.  12.  The  remarkable  endowments  of  Daniel  are  again 
 stated  (according  to  ver.  11)  to  give  weight  to  the  advice  that 
 he  should  be  called  in.  The  words  from  1^?^  [interpreting]  to 
 pipip  [doubts']  are  an  explanatory  parenthetical  clause,  after  which 
 the  following  verb,  according  to  rule,  joins  itself  to  ^^ripD'^.  In  the 
 parenthetical  clause  the  nomen  actionis  '^l\'?^  [shoioing]  is  used 
 instead  of  the  participle,  whereby  the  representation  of  the  con- 
 tinued capability  lying  in  the  participle  is  transferred  to  that  of 
 each  separate  instance  ;  literally,  interpreting  dreams,  the  explana- 
 tion of  mysteries  and  dissolving  knots.  The  allusion  of  p.Pi?  ^T^'P 
 to  r"]|Ji?'9  '"^^  ^"?.'?i?5  ver.  6,  is  only  apparent,  certainly  is  not  aimed 
 at,  since  the  former  of  these  expressions  has  an  entirely  different 
 meaning.  Knots  stands  figuratively  for  involved  complicated 
 problems.  That  Daniel  did  not  at  first  appear  along  with  the 
 wise  men,  but  was  only  called  after  the  queen  had  advised  it,  is  to 
 be  explained  on  this  simple  ground,  that  he  was  no  longer  president 
 over  the  magicians,  but  on  the  occasion  of  a  new  king  ascending 
 the  throne  had  lost  that  situation,  and  been  put  into  another  office 
 (cf.  ch.  viii.  27).  Tlie  words  of  the  queen  do  not  prove  that  Bel- 
 shazzar  was  not  acquainted  with  Daniel,  but  only  show  that  he 
 had  forgotten  the  service  rendered  by  him  to  Nebuchadnezzar  ;  for 
 according  to  ver.  13  he  was  well  acquainted  with  the  personal 
 circumstances  of  Daniel. 
 
 Vers.  13-28.  Daniel  is  summoned,  reminds  the  king  of  his  sin, 
 and  reads  and  interprets  the  xoriting. 
 
 The  counsel  of  the  queen  was  followed,  and  without  delay 
 Daniel  was  brought  in.  ^yn,  cf.  wH  ver.  15,  is  Hebr.  Hophai 
 of  hv  =  ?py,  to  go  in,  as  ^pin^  ch.  iv.  33.  The  question  of  the 
 king :  Art  thou  Daniel  .  .  .  ?  did  not  expect  an  answer,  and  has 
 
CHAP.  V.  10-28.  187 
 
 this  meaning  :  Thou  art  indeed  Daniel.  The  address  shows  that 
 Belshazzar  was  acquainted  with  Daniel's  origin,  of  which  the 
 queen  had  said  nothing,  but  that  he  had  had  no  official  intercourse 
 with  him.  It  shows  also  that  Daniel  was  no  longer  the  president 
 of  the  magicians  at  the  king's  court  (ch.  ii.  48  f.). 
 
 Ver.  14,  cf.  ver.  11.  It  is  not  to  be  overlooked  that  here  Bel- 
 shazzar  leaves  out  the  predicate  holy  in  connection  with  PO^?^.  {of 
 the  gods). 
 
 Ver.  15.  The  asyndeton  ^'?tr^^  is  in  apposition  to  i^'^''3n  as 
 explanatory  of  it :  the  wise  men,  namely  the  conjurers,  who  are 
 mentioned  instar  omniwn.  '•'H  with  the  impei'f.  following  is  not 
 the  relative  particle,  but  the  conjunction  that  before  the  clause 
 expressive  of  design,  and  the  infinitive  clause  dependent  on  the 
 clause  of  design  going  before  :  that  you  may  read  the  loridng  to 
 make  known  to  vie  the  i)iterj?retaiion.  ^^n?p  is  not  the  mysterious 
 writing  =  word,  discourse,  but  the  xoriting  ivith  its  ivonderful  origin  ; 
 thus,  the  matter  of  which  he  wishes  to  know  the  meaning. 
 
 Vers.  16,  17.  The  Kethiv  hy^P\^  ver.  16,  is  the  Hebr.  Hophal, 
 as  ch.  ii.  10  ;  the  Keri  ?l3n  the  formation  usual  in  the  Chaldee, 
 found  at  ch.  iii.  29.  Regarding  the  reward  to  Daniel,  see  under 
 ver.  7.  Daniel  declines  (ver.  17)  the  distinction  and  the  place  of 
 honour  promised  for  the  interpretation,  not  because  the  former 
 might  be  dangerous  to  him  and  the  latter  only  temporary,  as 
 Hitzig  supposes  ;  for  he  had  no  reason  for  such  a  fear,  when  he 
 spoke  "  as  one  conveying  information  who  had  just  seen  the 
 writing,  and  had  read  it  and  understood  its  import,"  for  the  inter- 
 pretation, threatening  ruin  and  death  to  the  king,  could  bring  no 
 special  danger  to  him  either  on  the  part  of  Belshazzar  or  on  that 
 of  his  successor.  Much  rather  Daniel  rejected  the  gift  and  the 
 distinction  promised,  to  avoid,  as  a  divinely  enlightened  seer, 
 every  appearance  of  self-interest  in  the  presence  of  such  a  king, 
 and  to  show  to  the  king  and  his  high  officers  of  state  that  he  was 
 not  determined  by  a  regard  to  earthly  advantage,  and  would  un- 
 hesitatingly declare  the  truth,  whether  it  might  be  pleasing  or 
 displeasing  to  the  king.  But  before  he  read  and  interpreted 
 the  writing,  he  reminded  the  king  of  the  punishment  his  father 
 Nebuchadnezzar  had  brought  upon  himself  on  account  of  his 
 haughty  pride  against  God  (vers.  18-21),  and  then  showed  him 
 how  he,  the  son,  had  done  wickedly  toward  God,  the  Lord  of  his 
 life  (vers.  22,  23),  and  finally  explained  to  him  that  on  this 
 account  this  sign  had  been  given  by  God  (ver.  24). 
 
188  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ver.  18.  The  address,  Thou^  0  king^  is  here  an  absolute  clause, 
 and  is  not  resumed  till  ver.  22.  By  this  address  all  that  follows 
 regarding  Nebuchadnezzar  is  placed  in  definite  relation  to  Bel- 
 shazzar.  The  brilliant  description  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  power  in 
 vers.  18  and  19  has  undeniably  the  object  of  impressing  it  on  the 
 mind  of  Belshazzar  that  he  did  not  equal  his  father  in  power  and 
 majesty.  Regarding  'IJI  ^^''?'?V,  see  under  ch.  iii.  4,  and  with  regard 
 to  the  Kethiv  TV^I,  with  the  Keri  ITJ,  see  under  ch.  iii.  3.  NHJO  is 
 not  from  Nm^,  to  strike  (Theodot.,  Vulg.),  but  the  Aphel  of  ^]n 
 {to  live),  the  particip.  of  which  is  "'no  in  Deut.  xxxii.  39,  contracted 
 from  t^."'.'!"?,  here  the  part,  t^no,  in  which  the  Jod  is  compensated  by 
 the  lengthening  of  the  vowel  a.  Accordingly,  there  is  no  ground 
 for  giving  the  preference,  with  Buxt,,  Ges.,  Hitz.,  and  others,  to 
 the  variant  ^^'^^,  which  accommodates  itself  to  the  usual  Targum. 
 form.  The  last  clause  in  ver.  19  reminds  us  of  1  Sam.  ii.  6,  7. 
 In  vers.  20  and  21  Daniel  brings  to  the  remembrance  of  Belshazzar 
 the  divine  judgment  that  fell  upon  Nebuchadnezzar  (ch.  iv.).  D") 
 is  not  the  passive  part,,  but  the  perf.  act.  with  an  intransitive  signi- 
 fication; cf.  Winer,  §  22,  4.  ^i?Jii,  strong,  to  he  and  to  become  firm^ 
 here,  as  the  Hebr.  Ptn,  Ex.  vii.  13,  of  obduracy.  ^''"IJ-"'!?,  3d  pers. 
 plur.  impers.,  instead  of  the  passive :  they  took  aicay,  for  it  was 
 taken  away,  he  lost  it;  see  under  ch.  iii.  4,  and  Winer,  §  49,  3. 
 '^K'  is  also  to  be  thus  interpreted,  since  in  its  impersonal  use  the 
 singular  is  equivalent  to  the  plur. ;  cf.  Winer.  There  is  no  reason 
 for  changing  (with  v.  Leng.  and  Hitz.)  the  form  into  "'VC'^  part. 
 Peil.  The  change  of  construction  depends  on  the  rhetorical  form 
 of  the  address,  which  explains  also  the  naming  of  the  TT)^.,  tvild 
 assesj  as  untractable  beasts,  instead  of  t^'^^  nvn  (beasts  of  the  field), 
 ch.  iv.  20  (23).  Regarding  the  Kethiv  n'hv,  see  under  ch.  iv.  14 ; 
 and  for  the  subject,  cf.  ch.  iv.  22  (25),  29  (32). 
 
 Vers.  22-24.  Daniel  now  turns  to  Belshazzar.  The  words : 
 forasmuch  as  thou,  i.e.  since  thou  truly  knowest  all  this,  place  it 
 beyond  a  doubt  that  Belshazzar  knew  these  incidents  in  the  life  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  and  thus  that  he  was  his  son,  since  his  grandson 
 (daughter's  son)  could  scarcely  at  that  time  have  been  so  old  as 
 that  the  foro;etfulness  of  that  divine  iudo;mcnt  could  have  been 
 charged  against  him  as  a  sin.  In  the  ^"H  ???  ^^,  just  because  thou 
 knowest  it,  there  is  implied  that,  notwithstanding  his  knowledge  of 
 the  matter,  he  did  not  avoid  that  which  heightened  his  culpability. 
 In  ver.  23  Daniel  tells  him  how  he  had  sinned  affainst  the  God  of 
 heaven,  viz.  by  desecrating  (see  vers.  2  and  3)  the  vessels  of  the 
 
CHAP.  V.  13-28.  189 
 
 temple  of  tlie  God  of  Israel.  And  to  show  the  greatness  of  this 
 sin,  he  points  to  the  great  contrast  that  there  is  between  the  gods 
 formed  of  dead  material  and  the  living  God,  on  whom  depend  the 
 life  and  fortune  of  men.  The  former  Belshazzar  praised,  the  latter 
 he  had  not  lionoured — a  Litotes  for  liad  dishonoured.  The  descrip- 
 tion of  the  gods  is  dependent  on  Deut.  iv.  28,  cf.  with  the  fuller 
 account  Ps.  cxv.  5  ff.,  cxxxv.  15  ff.,  and  reminds  us  of  the  descrip- 
 tion of  the  government  of  the  true  God  in  Job  xii.  10,  Num. 
 xvi.  22,  and  Jer.  x.  23.  '^O"'.?,  ways,  i.e.  the  destinies. — To  punish 
 Belshazzar  for  this  wickedness,  God  had  sent  the  hand  which  wrote 
 the  mysterious  words  (ver.  24  cf.  with  ver.  5). 
 
 Vers.  25-28.  Daniel  now  read  the  writing  (ver.  25),  and  gave 
 its  interpretation  (vers.  26-28).  The  writing  bears  the  mysterious 
 character  of  the  oracle.  D"i.Q,  ?Pn,  X3^  (ver.  28)  are  partic.  Peil, 
 and  the  forms  ^p.^  and  DiS,  instead  of  ^''\^^  and  Dnsi^  are  chosen  on 
 account  of  their  symphony  with  NJp.  Pp"]?  is  generally  regarded 
 as  partic.  plur.,  but  that  would  be  r?")2 ;  it  much  rather  appears  to 
 be  a  noun  form,  and  plur.  of  D"iQ  =  Hebr.  D"i3  (cf .  l^''?"!?,  Zech.  xi. 
 16),  in  the  sense  of  broken  pieces^  fragments,  for  D"iQ  signifies  to 
 divide,  to  break  in  pieces,  not  only  in  the  Hebr.  (cf.  Lev.  xi.  4, 
 Isa.  Iviii.  7,  Ps.  Ixix.  32),  but  also  in  the  Chald.,  2  Kings  iv.  39 
 (Targ.),  although  in  the  Targg.  the  meaning  to  spread  out  prevails. 
 In  all  the  three  words  there  lies  a  double  sense,  which  is  brought 
 out  in  the  interpretation.  ^})P,  for  the  sake  of  the  impression,  or 
 perhaps  only  of  the  parallelism,  is  twice  given,  so  as  to  maintain 
 two  members  of  the  verse,  each  of  two  words.  In  the  numberinir 
 lies  the  determination  and  the  completion,  or  the  conclusion  of  a 
 matter,  a  space  of  time.  Daniel  accordingly  interprets  Npp  thus : 
 God  has  numbered  (l^^p  for  X30,  perf.  act.)  thy  kingdom,  i.e.  its 
 duration  or  its  days,  no^p'ri")^  and  has  finished  it,  i.e.  its  duration  is 
 so  counted  out  that  it  is  full,  that  it  now  comes  to  an  end.  In  ^pn 
 there  lies  the  double  sense  that  the  word  pi^^,  to  weigh,  accords  with 
 the  Niphal  of  ??i^,  to  be  light,  to  be  found  light  (cf.  ^p_^.  Gen.  xvi. 
 4).  The  interpretation  presents  this  double  meaning :  Thou  art 
 weighed  in  the  balances  (XPipipri)  and  art  found  too  light  (like  the 
 7pn).  "T'Dn,  loanting  in  necessary  loeight,  i.e.  deficient  in  moral  worth. 
 Nrippn^  a  perf.  formed  from  the  partic.  Peil;  cf.  Winer,  §  13,  2. 
 As  to  the  figure  of  the  balance,  cf.  Job  xxxi.  6,  Ps.  Ixii.  10  (9). 
 
 For  r?"'.?  (ver.  25)  Daniel  uses  in  the  interpretation  the  sing. 
 ^7f,  which,  after  the  analogy  of  t'p.ri,  may  be  regarded  as  partic. 
 Peil,  and  he  interprets  it  accordingly,  so  that  he  brings  out,  along 
 
190  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 with  the  meaning  lying  in  the  word,  also  the  allusion  to  DIQ,  Per- 
 sian :  thy  kingdom  is  divided,  or  broken  into  pieces,  and  given  to  the 
 Medes  and  Persians.  The  meaning  is  not  that  the  kino;dom  was 
 to  be  divided  into  two  equal  parts,  and  the  one  part  given  to  the 
 Medes  and  the  other  to  the  Persians ;  but  Dia  is  to  divide  into 
 pieces,  to  destroy^  to  dissolve  tlie  kingdom.  This  shall  be  effected 
 by  the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  was  so  brought  about  when  the 
 Persian  Cyrus  with  the  united  power  of  the  Medes  and  Persians 
 destroyed  Babylon,  and  thus  put  an  end  to  the  Chaldean  kingdom, 
 whereby  the  kingdom  was  transferred  first  to  the  Median  Darius 
 (eh.  vi.  1  [v.  31]),  and  after  him  to  the  Persian  Cyrus.  In  the 
 naming  of  the  Median  before  the  Persian  there  lies,  as  already 
 remarked  in  the  Introduction  (see  p.  47),  a  notable  proof  of  the 
 genuineness  of  this  narrative,  and  with  it  of  the  whole  book;  for 
 the  hegemony  of  the  Medes  was  of  a  very  short  duration,  and  after 
 its  overthrow  by  the  Persians  the  form  of  expression  used  is  always 
 "  Persians  and  Medes^^  as  is  found  in  the  book  of  Esther. 
 
 Vers.  29  and  30.  Daniel  rewarded,  and  the  beginning  of  the 
 fuljihnent  of  the  loriting. 
 
 Belshazzar  fulfilled  the  promise  he  had  made  to  Daniel  by 
 rewarding  him  for  reading  and  interpreting  the  writing.  1^?r''I'"! 
 is  not  to  be  translated :  (commanded)  that  they  should  clothe, — this 
 meaning  must  be  conveyed  by  the  imperfect  (cf.  ch.  ii.  49), — but : 
 and  they  clothed  him.  The  command  was  then  carried  out :  Daniel 
 w^as  not  only  adorned  with  purple  and  with  a  golden  chain,  but  was 
 also  proclaimed  as  the  third  ruler  of  the  kingdom.  The  objection 
 that  this  last-mentioned  dignity  was  not  possible,  since,  according 
 to  ver.  30,  Belshazzar  was  slain  that  very  night,  is  based  on  the 
 supposition  that  the  proclamation  was  publicly  made  in  the  streets 
 of  the  city.  But  the  words  do  not  necessitate  such  a  supposition. 
 Tlie  proclamation  might  be  made  only  before  the  assembled  mag- 
 nates of  the  kingdom  in  the  palace,  and  then  Belshazzar  may  have 
 been  slain  on  that  very  night.  Perhaps,  as  Kliefoth  thinks,  the 
 conspirators  against  Belshazzar  availed  themselves  of  the  confusion 
 connected  with  this  proclamation,  and  all  that  accompanied  it,  for 
 the  execution  of  their  purpose.  We  may  not,  however,  add  that 
 therewith  the  dignity  to  which  Daniel  was  advanced  was  again  lost 
 by  him.  It  de])ended  much  rather  on  this:  whether  Belshazzar's 
 successor  recognised  the  promotion  granted  to  Daniel  in  the  last 
 hours  of  his  reign.     But  the  successor  would  be  inclined  toward  its 
 
CHAP.  V.  29,  30.  191 
 
 recognition  by  the  reflection,  that  by  Daniel's  interpretation  of  the 
 mysterious  writing  from  God  the  putting  of  Belshazzar  to  death 
 appeared  to  have  a  higher  sanction,  presenting  itself  as  if  it  were 
 something  determined  in  the  councils  of  the  gods,  whereby  the 
 successor  might  claim  before  the  people  that  his  usurpation  of  the 
 throne  was  rendered  legitimate.  Such  a  reflection  miglit  move 
 him  to  confirm  Daniel's  elevation  to  the  office  to  which  Belshazzar 
 had  raised  him.  This  supposition  appears  to  be  supported  by  ch. 
 vi.  2  (1). 
 
 Bleek  and  other  critics  have  based  another  objection  against 
 the  historical  veracity  of  this  narrative  on  the  improbability  that 
 Belshazzar,  although  the  interpretation  predicted  evil  against  him, 
 and  he  could  not  at  all  know  whether  it  was  a  correct  interpreta- 
 tion, should  have  rewarded  Daniel  instead  of  putting  him  to  death 
 (Hitzig).  But  the  force  of  this  objection  lies  in  the  supposition 
 that  Belshazzar  was  as  unbelieving  with  regard  to  a  revelation  from 
 God,  and  with  regard  to  the  providence  of  the  living  God  among 
 the  affairs  of  men,  as  are  the  critics  of  our  day ;  the  objection  is 
 altogether  feeble  when  one  appreciates  the  force  of  the  belief,  even 
 among  the  heathen,  in  the  gods  and  in  revelations  from  God,  and 
 takes  into  consideration  that  Belshazzar  perhaps  scarcely  believed 
 the  threatened  judgment  from  God  to  be  so  near  as  it  actually  was, 
 since  the  interpretation  by  Daniel  decided  nothing  as  regards  the 
 time,  and  perhaps  also  that  he  hoped  to  be  able,  by  conferring 
 honour  upon  Daniel,  to  appease  the  wrath  of  God.^  The  circum- 
 stance, also,  that  Daniel  received  the  honour  promised  to  him  not- 
 withstanding his  declining  it  (ver.  17),  can  afford  no  ground  of 
 objection  against  the  truth  of  the  narrative,  since  that  refusal  was 
 only  an  expression  of  the  entire  absence  of  all  self-interest,  which 
 was  now  so  fully  established  by  the  matter  of  the  interpretation 
 that  there  was  no  longer  any  ground  for  his  declining  the 
 honours  which  were  conferred  upon  him  unsought,  while  they  com- 
 prehended in  themselves  in  reality  a  recognition  of  the  God  whom 
 he  served. 
 
 Ver.  30.  With  the  death  of  Belshazzar  that  very  night  the 
 interpretation  given  by  Daniel  began  to  be  fulfilled,  and  this  fulfil- 
 ment afforded  a  certainty  that  the  remaining  parts  of  it  would  also 
 sooner  or  later  be  accomplished.      That  tiiis  did  not  take  place 
 
 ^  "  Non  mirum,  si  Baltasar  audiens  tristia,  solverit  prseminm  quod  poUicUus  est. 
 Ant  enhn  longo  post  tempore  credidit  ventura  qux  dixerat,  aut  dam  Dti proplietam 
 honorat,  sperat  se  veniam  consecuturum.''^ — Jekojie. 
 
192  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 immediately,  we  have  already  shown  in  our  preliminary  remarks  to 
 this  chapter. 
 
 CHAP.  VI.    DANIEL  IN  THE  DEN  OF  LIONS. 
 
 Darius,  the  king  of  the  Medes,  had  it  In  view  to  place  Daniel  as 
 chief  officer  over  the  whole  of  his  realm,  and  thereby  he  awakened 
 against  Daniel  (vers.  1-6  [ch.  v.  31-vi.  5])  the  envy  of  the  high 
 officers  of  state.  In  order  to  frustrate  the  king's  intention  and  to 
 set  Daniel  aside,  they  procured  an  edict  from  Darius,  which  for- 
 bade for  the  space  of  thirty  days,  on  the  pain  of  death,  prayer  to  be 
 offered  to  any  god  or  man,  except  to  the  king  (vers.  7  [G]-10  [9]). 
 Daniel,  however,  notwithstanding  this,  continued,  according  to  his 
 usual  custom,  to  open  the  windows  of  his  upper  room,  and  there 
 to  pray  to  God  three  times  a  day.  His  conduct  was  watched,  and 
 he  was  accused  of  violating  the  king's  edict,  and  thus  he  brought 
 upon  himself  the  threatened  punishment  of  being  thrown  into  the 
 den  of  lions  (vers.  11  [10]-18  [17]).  But  he  remained  uninjured 
 among  the  lions ;  whereupon  the  king  on  the  following  morning 
 caused  him  to  be  brought  out  of  the  den,  and  his  malicious  accusers 
 to  be  thrown  into  it  (vers.  19  [18]-25  [24]),  and  then  by  an  edict 
 he  commanded  his  subjects  to  reverence  the  God  of  Daniel,  who 
 did  wonders  (vers.  26  [25]-28  [27]).  As  a  consequence  of  this, 
 Daniel  prospered  during  the  reign  of  Darius  and  of  Cyrus  the 
 Persian  (ver.  29  [28]). 
 
 From  the  historic  statement  of  this  chapter,  that  Darius  the 
 Mede  took  the  Chaldean  kingdom  when  he  was  about  sixty-two 
 years  old  (ver.  1  [ch.  v.  31]),  taken  in  connection  with  the  closing 
 remark  (ver.  29  [28])  that  it  went  well  with  Daniel  during  the 
 reign  of  Darius  and  of  Cyrus  the  Persian,  it  appears  that  the 
 Chaldean  kingdom,  after  its  overthrow  by  the  Medes  and  Persians, 
 did  not  immediately  pass  into  the  hands  of  Cyrus,  but  that  between 
 the  last  of  the  Chaldean  kinn;s  who  lost  the  kinfijdom  and  the  reicja 
 
 n  o  o 
 
 of  Cyrus  the  Persian,  Darius,  descended  from  a  Median  family, 
 held  the  reins  of  government,  and  that  not  till  after  him  did  Cyrus 
 mount  the  throne  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  which  had  been  sub- 
 dued by  the  INIedes  and  Persians.  This  Median  Darius  was  a  son 
 of  Ahasuerus  (ch.  ix.  1),  of  the  seed  of  the  ^ledes;  and  according 
 to  ch.  xi.  1,  the  angel  Gabriel  stood  by  him  in  his  first  year,  wliicli 
 can  mean  no  more  than  that  the  Babylonian  kingdom  was  not  taken 
 without  divine  assistance. 
 
CHAP.  VI.  103 
 
 This  Darius  the  Mede  and  his  reign  are  not  distinctly  noticed 
 by  profane  historians.  Hence  the  modern  critics  have  altogether 
 denied  his  existence,  or  at  least  have  called  it  in  question,  and 
 have  thence  derived  an  argument  against  the  historical  veracity  of 
 the  whole  narrative. 
 
 According  to  Berosus  and  Abydenus  (^Fragmenfa,  see  p.  163), 
 Nabonnedus,  the  last  Babylonian  king,  was,  after  the  taking  of 
 Babylon,  besieged  by  Cyrus  in  Borsippa,  where  he  was  taken 
 prisoner,  and  then  banished  to  Carmania.  After  this  Cyrus 
 reigned,  as  Alex.  Polyhistor  says,  nine  years  over  Babylon  ;  while 
 in  the  Fragments  preserved  by  Eusebius  in  his  Chron,  Armen.,  to 
 the  statement  that  Cyrus  conferred  on  him  (i.e.  Nabonet),  when 
 he  had  obtained  possession  of  Babylon,  the  margraviate  of  the 
 province  of  Carmania,  it  is  added,  "  Darius  the  king  removed 
 (him)  a  little  out  of  the  country."  Also  in  the  astronomical  Canon 
 of  Ptolemy,  Nabonadius  the  Babylonian  is  at  once  followed  bygon 
 list  of  Persian  kings,  beginning  with  Kvpo^,  who/reJr"'^; 
 years.  ^  ^  ^  lolu';  in 
 
 When  we  compare  with  this  thb  aocounts  given  by  the  .^^^'-^le 
 historians,  we  find  that  Herodotus  (i.  96-103,  106  ff.)  makes  m.^.. 
 tion  of  a  succession  of  Median  kings  :  Dejoces,  Phraortes,  Cyaxares, 
 and  Astyages.  The  last  named,  who  had  no  male  descendants, 
 had  a  daughter,  Mandane,  married  to  a  Persian  Cambyses.  Cyrus 
 sprung  from  this  marriage.  Astyages,  moved  with  fear  lest  this 
 son  of  his  daughter  should  rob  him  of  his  throne,  sought  to  put 
 him  to  death,  but  his  design  was  frustrated.  When  Cyrus  had 
 reached  manhood,  Harpagus,  an  officer  of  the  court  of  Astyages, 
 who  out  of  revenge  had  formed  a  conspiracy  against  him,  called 
 npon  him  at  the  head  of  the  Persians  to  take  the  kingdom  from  his 
 grandfather  Astyages.  Cyrus  obeyed,  moved  the  Persians  to  revolt 
 from  the  JNIedes,  attacked  Astyages  at  Pasargada,  and  took  him 
 prisoner,  but  acted  kindly  toward  him  till  his  death ;  after  which  he 
 became  king  over  the  realm  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  and  as  such 
 destroyed  first  the  Lydian,  and  then  the  Babylonian  kingdom.  He 
 conquered  the  Babylonian  king,  Labynetus  the  younger,  in  battle, 
 and  then  besieged  Babylon ;  and  during  a  nocturnal  festival  of  the 
 Babylonians  he  penetrated  the  city  by  damming  off  the  water  of 
 the  Euphrates,  and  took  it.  Polysenus,  Justin,  and  others  follow 
 in  its  details  this  very  fabulous  narrative,  which  is  adorned  with 
 dreams  and  fictitious  incidents.  Ctesias  also,  who  records  traditions 
 of  the  early  history  of  Media  altogether  departing  from  Herodotus, 
 
194  THE  BOOK  OF  DAKIEL. 
 
 and  who  names  nine  kings,  yet  agrees  with  Herodotus  in  this,  that 
 Cyrus  overcame  Astyages  and  dethroned  him.  Cf.  the  different 
 accounts  given  by  Greek  writers  regarding  tlie  overthrow  of  the 
 Median  dominion  by  the  Persians  in  M.  Duncker's  Ges.  d.  Alterth. 
 ii.  p.  634  ff.,  3d  ed. 
 
 Xenophon  in  the  Cyropcedia  reports  somewhat  otherwise  re- 
 garding Cyrus.  According  to  liim,  the  Median  king  Astyages, 
 son  of  Cyaxares  i.,  gave  his  daughter  Mandane  in  marriage  to 
 Cambyses,  the  Persian  king,  who  was  under  the  Median  supremacy, 
 and  that  Cyrus  was  born  of  this  marriage  (i.  2.  1).  When  Cyrus 
 arrived  at  man's  estate  Astyages  died,  and  was  succeeded  on  the 
 Median  tin-one  by  his  son  Cyaxares  ii.,  the  brother  of  Mandane 
 (i.  5.  2).  "When,  after  this,  the  Lydian  king  Croesus  concluded  a 
 covenant  with  the  king  of  the  Assyrians  (Babylonians)  having  in 
 view  the  overthrow  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  Cyrus  received  the 
 he  rimand  of  the  united  army  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  (ii'  3. 
 upon  h  -crod  v.hcvi-ufli?;  a  victorious  battle,  Cyavavoo  \vas  unwilling 
 den  of  \\r  further,  Cyrus  carried  for":::iia  the  war  by  his  permission, 
 among  oyed  the  host  of  CrCfcoUS  and  the  Assyrians,  on  hearing  of 
 c^ufth,  Cyaxares,  who  had  spent  the  night  at  a  riotous  banquet,  fell 
 into  a  passion,  wrote  a  threatening  letter  to  Cyrus,  and  ordered 
 the  Medes  lo  be  recalled  (iv.  5.  18).  But  when  they  declared,  on 
 the  statement  given  by  Cyrus,  their  desire  to  remain  with  him 
 (iv.  5.  18),  Cyrus  entered  on  the  war  against  Babylon  inde- 
 pendently of  Cyaxares  (v.  3.  1).  Having  driven  the  Babylonian 
 king  back  upon  his  capital,  he  sent  a  message  to  Cyaxares,  desiring 
 him  to  come  that  he  might  decide  regarding  the  vanquished  and 
 regarding  the  continuance  of  the  war  (v.  5.  1).  Inasmuch  as 
 all  the  Medes  and  the  confederated  nations  adhered  to  Cyrus, 
 Cyaxares  was  under  the  necessity  of  taking  this  step.  He  came  to 
 the  camp  of  Cyrus,  who  exhibited  to  him  his  power  by  reviewing 
 before  him  his  whole  host ;  he  then  treated  him  kindly,  and  sup- 
 plied him  richly  from  the  stores  of  the  plunder  he  had  taken  (v. 
 5.  1  ff.).  After  this  the  war  against  Babylonia  was  carried  on  in 
 such  a  way,  that  Cyaxares,  sitting  on  the  Median  throne,  presided 
 over  the  councils  of  war,  but  Cyrus,  as  general,  had  the  conduct 
 of  it  (vi.  1.  G)  ;  and  after  he  had  conquered  Sardes,  taken  Croesus 
 the  king  prisoner  (vii.  2.  1),  and  then  vanquished  Hither  Asia, 
 he  returned  to  Babylon  (vii.  4. 17),  and  during  a  nocturnal  festival 
 of  the  Babylonians  took  the  city,  whereupon  the  king  of  Babylon 
 was  slain  (vii.  5.  15-33).    After  the  conquest  of  Babylon  the  army 
 
CHAP.  VI. 
 
 195 
 
 regarded  Cyras  as  king,  and  he  began  to  conduct  his  affairs  as  if 
 he  were  king  (vii.  5.  37)  ;  but  he  went  however  to  Media,  to  pre- 
 sent himself  before  Cyaxares.  He  brought  presents  to  him,  and 
 showed  him  that  there  was  a  house  and  palace  ready  for  him  in 
 Babylon,  where  he  might  reside  when  he  went  thither^  (viii.  5. 
 17  f.).  Cyaxares  gave  liim  his  daughter  to  wife,  and  along  with 
 her,  as  her  dowry,  the  whole  of  Media,  for  he  had  no  son  (viii.  5. 
 19).  Cyrus  now  went  first  to  Persia,  and  arranged  that  his  father 
 Cambyses  should  retain  the  sovereignty  of  it  so  long  as  he  Hved,  and 
 that  then  it  should  fall  to  him.  He  then  returned  to  Media,  and 
 married  the  daughter  of  Cyaxares  (viii.  5.  28).  He  next  went  to 
 Babylon,  and  placed  satraps  over  the  subjugated  peoples,  etc.  (viii. 
 6.  1),  and  so  arranged  that  he  spent  the  winter  in  Babylon,  the 
 spring  in  Susa,  and  the  summer  in  Ecbatana  (viii.  6.  22).  Havmg 
 reached  an  advanced  old  age,  he  came  for  the  seventh  time  during 
 his  reign  to  Persia,  and  died  there,  after  he  had  appointed  his  son 
 Cambyses  as  his  successor  (viii.  7.  1  ff.). 
 
 This  narrative  by  Xenophon  varies  from  that  of  Herodolun  in 
 thefollowing  principal  points:— (1)  According  to  Herodotus,  the^riie 
 of  Median  kings  closes  with  Astyages,  who  had  no  son  ;  Xenophon, ; 
 on  the  contrary,  speaks  of  Astyages  as  having  been  succeeded  by 
 his  son  Cyaxares  on  the  throne.  (2)  According  to  Herodotus,  Cyrus 
 was  related  to  the  Median  royal  house  only  as  being  the  son  of  the 
 daughter  of  Astyages,  and  had  a  claim  to  the  Median  throne  only 
 as  being  the  grandson  of  Astyages ;  Xenophon,  on  the  other  hand, 
 says  that  he  was  related  to  the  royal  house  of  Media,  not  only  as 
 being  the  grandson  of  Astyages  and  nephew  of  Cyaxares  ii.,  but 
 also  as  having  received  in  marriage  the  daughter  of  his  uncle 
 Cyaxares,  and  along  with  her  the  dowry  of  the  Median  throne. 
 (3)  According  to  Herodotus,  Cyrus  took  part  in  the  conspiracy 
 formed  by  Harpagus  against  Astyages,  slew  his  grandfather  in 
 battle,  and  took  forcible  possession  of  the  dominion  over  the 
 Medes  ;  on  the  contrary,  Xenophon  relates  that,  though  he  was  at 
 variance  with  Cyaxares,  he  became  again  reconciled  to  him,  and 
 not  only  did  not  dethrone  him,  but  permitted  him  to  retain  royal 
 dignity  even  after  the  overthrow  of  Babylon,  which  was  not 
 brought  about  without  his  co-operation. 
 
 Of  these  discrepancies  the  first  two  form  no  special  contradic- 
 
 *  The  words  are :  oti  oJko;  uvtu  i^tjpnfisvog  i'l'vi  iv  Bce./iv>.uvt  kxi  ccpx'^x,  oTrug 
 iX*l  >««'  oTst;/  ix-shi  'iy^Syi  ii;  o'lKilx  Kxrtzyiadui,  On  which  L.  Diudorf  remarks, 
 "  oIko;  videtur  ease  domusregia,  dpx^loi,  ojficia  palatina." 
 
19G  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 tion.  Xcnoplion  only  communicates  more  of  the  tradition  than 
 Herodotus,  who,  according  to  his  custom,  makes  mention  only  of 
 the  more  celebrated  of  the  rulers,  passing  by  those  that  are  less 
 so/  and  closes  the  list  of  Median  kings  with  Astyages.  Accord- 
 ingly, in  not  mentioning  Cyaxares  ii.,  he  not  only  overlooks  the 
 second  relationship  Cyrus  sustained  to  the  Median  royal  house,  but 
 also  is  led  to  refer  the  tradition  that  the  last  of  the  Median  kings 
 had  no  male  descendant  to  Astyages.  The  third  point  only  pre- 
 sents an  actual  contradiction  between  the  statements  of  Hero- 
 dotus and  those  of  Xenophon,  viz.  that  according  to  Herodotus, 
 Cyrus  by  force  of  arms  took  the  kingdom  from  his  grandfather, 
 overcame  Astyages  in  a  battle  at  Pasargada,  and  dethroned  him ; 
 while  according  to  Xenophon,  the  Median  kingdom  first  fell  to 
 Cyrus  by  his  command  of  the  army,  and  then  as  the  dowry  of  his 
 wife.  Shall  we  now  on  this  point  decide,  with  v.  Leng.,  Hitzig, 
 and  others,  in  favour  of  Herodotus  and  against  Xenophon,  and 
 erase  Cyaxares  II.  from  the  list  not  only  of  the  Median  kings,  but 
 wholl  from  the  page  of  history,  because  Herodotus  and  Ctesias 
 havnftiot  made  mention  of  hfm  ?  Has  then  Herodotus  or  Ctesias 
 alene  recorded  historical  fac's,  and  that  fully,  and  Xenophon  in 
 the  Cijropcvdia  fabricated  only  a  psedagogic  romance  destitute  of 
 historical  veracity  ?  All  thoi'ough  investigators  have  testified  to  the 
 very  contrary,  and  Herodotus  himself  openly  confesses  (i.  95)  that 
 he  gives  only  the  sayings  regarding  Cyrus  which  appeared  to  him 
 to  be  credible  ;  and  yet  the  narrative,  as  given  by  him,  consists 
 only  of  a  series  of  popular  traditions  which  in  his  time  were  in 
 circulation  among  the  Medes,  between  two  and  three  hundred  years 
 after  the  events.  Xenophon  also  has  gathered  the  historic  ma- 
 terial for  his  Cyropcedia  only  from  tradition,  but  from  Persian 
 tradition,  in  which,  favoured  by  the  reigning  dynasty,  the  Cyrus- 
 legend,  interwoven  with  the  end  of  the  Median  independence  and 
 the  founding  of  the  Persian  sovereignty,  is  more  fully  transmitted 
 than  among  the  Medes,  wdiose  national  recollections,  after  the  ex- 
 tinction of  their  dynasty,  were  not  fostered.  If  we  may  therefore 
 expect  more  exact  information  in  Xenophon  than  in  Herodotus, 
 yet  it  is  imaginable  that  Xenophon  transformed  the  narrative  of 
 
 '  Solere  Ilerodotum  pnetermissis  mediocrihus  hominihus  ex  longa  regum  serie 
 nonnisi  uiiu7n  alterumve  memorare  religuis  eminentiorem,  et  aliunde  constat  et 
 ipsa  Bahylonix  historia  docet,  et  qua  iinius  Nitocris  regime  mcntionem  injicit, 
 rcliquos  reges  omnes  usque  ad  Labynetum,  ne  Nehucadmzare  quidem  excepto, 
 sikntio  transit  (i.  185-187).— Ges.  71ies.  p.  350. 
 
CHAP.  VI.  197 
 
 the  rebellion  by  Cyrus  and  his  war  against  Cyaxares  into  that 
 which  he  has  recorded  as  to  the  relation  he  sustained  towards 
 Cyaxares,  in  order  that  he  might  wipe  out  this  moral  stain  from 
 the  character  of  his  hero.  But  this  supposition  would  only  gain 
 probability  under  the  presumption  of  what  Hitzig  maintains,  if  it 
 were  established :  '•  If,  in  Cyrop.  viii.  5.  19,  the  Median  of  his  own 
 free  will  gave  up  his  country  to  Cyrus,  Xenophon's  historical  book 
 shows,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  Persians  snatched  by  violence  the 
 sovereignty  from  the  Medes  {Anah.  iii.  4.  7,  11,  12)  ;"  but  in  the 
 Anah.  I.e.  Xenophon  does  not  say  this,  but  (§  8)  only,  ore  irapa 
 Mrihoov  rr]v  ap'^ijv  i\d/j,/3avov  Uepaac}  Thus,  supposing  the  state- 
 ment that  the  cities  of  Larissa  and  Mespila  were  besieged  by  the 
 Persian  king  at  the  time  when  the  Persians  gained  the  supremacy 
 over  the  Medes  were  historically  true,  and  Xenophon  communi- 
 cated here  not  a  mere  fabulam  ah  incolis  narratam,  yet  Xenophon 
 would  not  be  found  contradicting  his  Cyropcedia,  since,  as  Kran. 
 has  well  observed,  "  it  can  be  nothing  surprising  that  among  a 
 people  accustomed  to  a  native  royal  dynasty,  however  well  founded 
 Cyrus'  claim  in  other  respects  might  be,  manifold  commotions  ""ind 
 insurrections  should  arise,  which  needed  to  be  forcibly  suppressed^ 
 so  that  thus  the  kingdom  could  be  at  the  same  time  spoken  of  as 
 conquered." 
 
 Add  to  this  the  decisive  fact,  that  the  account  given  by  Herod, 
 of  Cyrus  and  the  overthrow  of  Astyages,  of  which  even  Duncker, 
 p.  649,  remarks,  that  in  its  prompting  motive  "  it  awakens  great 
 doubts,"  is  in  open  contradiction  with  all  the  well-established  facts 
 of  Medo-Persian  history.  "  All  authentic  reports  testify  that  in 
 the  formation  of  Medo-Persia  the  Medes  and  the  Persians  are  sepa- 
 rated in  a  peculiar  way,  and  yet  bound  to  each  other  as  kindred 
 races.  If  Herod,  is  right,  if  Astyages  was  always  attempting  to 
 take  Cyrus'  life,  if  Cyrus  took  the  kingdom  from  Astyages  by 
 force,  then  such  a  relation  between  the  '  Medes  and  Persians '  (as 
 it  always  occurs  in  the  O.  T.)  would  have  been  inconceivable ;  the 
 Medes  would  not  have  stood  to  the  Persians  in  any  other  relation 
 
 ^  Concerning  the  expression  sKuy.^ctvov  t'av  »p%iiu,  Dindorf  remarks :  "  Ver- 
 bum  hoc  Medos  sjjonte  Persarum  imperio  subjcctos  signijicat,  quanquam  reliqua 
 narratio  seditionem  aliquam  Larissensium  arguere  videatur.  Igitur  hie  nihil  est 
 dissensionis  inter  Cyropxdiam  et  Anahasin.  .  .  .  Gravius  e.st  quod  Xenophon 
 statim  in  simili  narraiione  posuit,  &'tj  u.vu'Kina.v  t)^u  d,px')jv  vivo  Uipouv  MijSo/. 
 Sed  ibidem  scriptor  incolarum  fidem  antestatur.^'  Thus  the  philologists  are  iu 
 their  judgment  of  the  matter  opposed  to  the  modern  critics. 
 
198  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 til  an  did  the  other  subjugated  peoples,  e.g.  the  Babylonians'* 
 (Kliof.).  On  the  other  hand,  the  account  given  by  Xenophon 
 regarding  Cyaxares  so  fully  agrees  with  the  narrative  of  Daniel 
 regarding  Darius  the  Mede,  that,  as  Ilitzig  confesses,  "  the  identity 
 of  the  two  is  beyond  a  doubt."  If,  according  to  Xen.,  Cyrus  con- 
 quered Babylon  by  the  permission  of  Cyaxares,  and  after  its  over- 
 throw not  only  offered  him  a  "residence"  there  (Hitzig),  but  went 
 to  Media,  presented  himself  before  Cyaxares,  and  showed  him  that 
 he  had  appointed  for  him  in  Babylon  olKo<i  koI  up-^ela,  in  order 
 that  when  he  went  thither  et?  olKeia  KaruyeaOai,  i.e.  in  order  that 
 when,  according  to  Eastern  custom,  he  changed  his  residence  he 
 might  have  a  royal  palace  there,  so,  according  to  Daniel,  Darius 
 did  not  overthrow  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  but  received  it  (ch.  vi. 
 1),  and  was  made  king  {'^^^'^,  ch.  ix.  1),  namely,  by  Cyrus,  who, 
 according  to  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah,  was  to  overthrow  Babylon, 
 and,  according  to  Dan.  vi.  29,  succeeded  Darius  on  the  throne. 
 The  statement,  ako,  that  Darius  was  about  sixty-two  years  old 
 when  he  ascended  the  throne  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  harmonizes 
 with  the  report  given  by  Xenophon,  that  when  Cyaxares  gave  his 
 -daughter  to  Cyrus,  he  gave  him  along  with  her  the  kingdom  of 
 Media,  because  he  had  no  male  heir,  and  was  so  far  advanced  in 
 years  that  he  could  not  hope  to  have  now  any  son.  Finally,  even 
 in  respect  of  character  the  Cyaxares  of  Xen.  resembles  the  Darius 
 of  Daniel.  As  the  former  describes  the  conduct  of  Cyrus  while  he 
 revelled  in  sensual  pleasures,  so  Darius  is  induced  by  his  nobles 
 to  issue  an  edict  without  obtaining  any  clear  knowledge  as  to  its 
 motive,  and  allows  himself  to  be  forced  to  put  it  into  execution, 
 however  sorrowful  he  might  be  on  account  of  its  relation  to  Daniel. 
 After  all  this,  there  can  be  no  reason  to  doubt  the  reign  of 
 Darius  the  Mede.  But  how  lonjj  it  lasted  cannot  be  determined 
 either  from  the  book  of  Daniel,  in  which  (ch.  ix.  1)  only  the  first 
 year  of  his  reign  is  named,  or  from  any  other  direct  sources. 
 Ptolemy,  in  his  Canon,  places  after  Nabonadius  the  reign  of  Cyrus 
 the  Persian  for  nine  years.  With  this,  the  words  of  Xenophon, 
 TO  e^Bo/jLov  iirl  tt}?  avrov  apxv^:  which  by  supplying  eVo?  after 
 €/3Bofxov  are  understood  of  seven  years'  reign,  are  combined,  and 
 thence  it  is  concluded  that  Cyaxares  reigned  two  years.  But  the 
 supplement  of  6to^  is  not  warranted  by  the  context.  The  supposi- 
 tion, however,  that  Darius  reigned  for  two  years  over  Babylon  is 
 correct.  For  the  Babylonian  kingdom  was  destroyed  sixty-eight 
 years  after  the  commencement  of  the  Exile.      Since,  then,  the 
 
CHAP.  VI.  199 
 
 seventy  years  of  the  Exile  were  completed  in  the  first  year  of  the 
 reign  of  Cyrus  (2  Chron.  xxxvi.  22  f. ;  Ezra  i.  1),  it  follows  that 
 Cyrus  became  king  two  years  after  the  overthrow  of  Babylon,  and 
 thus  after  Darius  had  reigned  two  years.     See  at  ch.  ix.  1,  2. 
 
 From  the  shortness  of  the  reign  of  Darius,  united  with  the 
 circumstance  that  Cyrus  destroyed  Babylon  and  put  an  end  to 
 the  Chaldean  kingdom,  it  is  easy  to  explain  how  the  brief  and  not 
 very  independent  reign  of  Darius  might  be  quite  passed  by,  not 
 only  by  Herodotus  and  Ctesias,  and  all  later  Greek  historians,  but 
 also  by  Berosus.  Although  Cyrus  only  as  commander-in-chief  of 
 the  army  of  Cyaxares  had  with  a  Medo-Persian  host  taken  Baby- 
 lon, yet  the  tradition  might  speak  of  the  conquering  Persian  as  the 
 lord  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom,  without  taking  at  all  into  account 
 the  Median  chief  king,  whom  in  a  brief  time  Cyrus  the  conqueror 
 succeeded  on  the  throne.  In  the  later  tradition  of  the  Persians,^ 
 from  which  all  the  historians  known  to  us,  with  the  exception  of 
 Berosus,  have  constructed  their  narrative,  the  Me^^ian  rule  over 
 the  Chaldean  kingdom  naturally  sinks  down  into  an  insignificant 
 place  in  relation  to  the  independent  government  of  the  conqueror 
 Cyrus  and  his  people  which  was  so  soon  to  follow.  The  absence 
 of  all  notice  by  Berosus,  Herod.,  and  Ctesias  of  the  short  Median 
 reign  can  furnish  no  substantial  ground  for  calling  in  question  the 
 statements  of  Xen.  regarding  Cyaxares,  and  of  Daniel  regarding 
 the  Median  Darius,  although  all  other  witnesses  for  this  were 
 altogether  of  no  force,  which  is  indeed  asserted,  but  has  been 
 proved  by  no  one.^ 
 
 ^  "  In  the  Babylonian  tradition,"  Kranichfeld  -well  remarks,  "  the  memorable 
 catastrophe  of  the  overthrow  of  Babylon  would,  at  all  events,  be  joined  to  the 
 warlike  operations  of  Cyrus  the  conquering  Persian,  who,  according  to  Xenoph., 
 conducted  himself  in  Babylon  as  a  king  (cf.  Cyrop.  vii.  5.  37),  and  it  might  be 
 very  indifferent  to  the  question  for  whom  he  specially  undertook  the  siege. 
 The  Persian  tradition  had  in  the  national  interest  a  reason  for  ignoring  alto- 
 gether the  brief  Median  feudal  sovereignty  over  Babylon,  which,  besides,  was 
 only  brought  about  by  the  successful  war  of  a  Persian  prince." 
 
 ^  Of  these  witnesses  the  notice  by  Abydenus  {Chron.  Anneii.,  Euseb.)  already 
 mentioned,  p.  1G4,  bears  in  its  aphoristic  brevity,  "  Darius  the  king  removed 
 him  out  of  the  land,"  altogether  the  stamp  of  an  historical  tradition,  and  can 
 be  understood  only  of  Darius  the  Mede,  since  Eusebius  has  joined  it  to  the 
 report  regarding  the  dethroning  of  the  last  Babylonian  king  by  Cyrus.  Also, 
 the  often-quoted  lines  of  jEschylus,  Peis.  762-765, 
 
 IM'^Soj  yccp  i^v  6  vpcoTog  iiysftuy  arpuTov, 
 A'h'Xo;  d   eaitvov  vrul;  too    'ipyou  'Ji'jvai  .... 
 TpiTog  0  fl65r'  cci/rov  Kipog  liioxifius/  ci!/'/;p,  ^.t.X., — 
 
200  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 This  result  is  not  rendered  doubtful  by  tlie  fact  that  Xenophon 
 calls  this  Median  king  Kva^dpr}<i  and  describes  him  as  the  son  of 
 Astyages,  while,  on  the  contrary,  Daniel  calls  him  Darjmvesch 
 (Darius)  the  son  of  Aliasuerus  (ch.  ix.  1).  The  name  Kva^up7}<i 
 is  the  ^Median  Uic aJcsJi at r a,  ^nd  means  autocrat;  '-4 o-ruaY?;?  corre- 
 sponds to  the  Median  Ajisdahdka,  tlie  name  of  the  Median  dynasty, 
 meaning  the  biting  sejyent  (cf.  Nieb.  Gesch.  Assws,  p.  175  f.). 
 W"}"n,  Aapelo^j  the  Persian  Ddrjaiousch^  rightly  explained  by  Herod, 
 vi.  98  by  the  word  ep^elrj^;,  means  the  keeper ^  ruler;  and  ti'ni'J'ns, 
 Ahasverus,  as  the  name  of  Xerxes,  in  the  Persian  cuneiform  in- 
 scriptions Kschajdrschu,  is  certainly  formed,  however  one  may 
 interpret  the  name,  from  Kschaja,  kingdom^  the  title  of  the  Persian 
 rulers,  like  the  Median  "  Astyages."  The  names  Cyaxares  and 
 Darjaioesch  are  thus  related  to  each  other,  and  are  the  paternal 
 names  of  both  dynasties,  or  the  titles  of  the  rulers.  Xeuophon 
 has  communicated  to  us  the  Median  name  and  title  of  the  last 
 king;  Danieh,.^ives,'as  it  appears,  the  Persian  name  and  title  which 
 Cyaxares,  as  king  of  the  united  Chaldean  and  Medo-Persian  king- 
 dom, received  and  bore. 
 
 -The  circumstances  reported  in  this  chapter  occurred,  according 
 to  the  statement  in  ver.  29a,  in  the  first  of  the  two  years'  reign  of 
 Darius  over  Babylon.  The  matter  and  object  of  this  report  are 
 related  to  the  events  recorded  in  ch.  iii.  As  in  that  chapter 
 Daniel's  companions  are  condemned  to  be  cast  into  the  fiery 
 furnace  on  account  of  their  transgression  of  the  royal  com- 
 mandment enjoining  them  to  fall  down  before  the  golden  image 
 that  had  been  set  up  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  so  here  in  this  chapter 
 Daniel  himself  is  cast  into  the  den  of  lions  because  of  his  trans- 
 gression of  the  command  enjoining  that  prayer  was  to  be  offered 
 
 are  in  the  simplest  manner  explained  historically  if  by  the  work  which  the  first 
 Mede  began  and  tlie  second  completed,  and  which  yet  brought  all  the  glory  to 
 the  third,  viz.  Cyrus,  is  understood  the  taking  of  Babylon ;  according  to  which 
 Astyages  is  the  first,  Cyaxares  ii.  the  second,  and  Cyrus  the  tliird,  and  ^scliylus 
 agrees  with  Xenophon.  Other  interpretations,  e.r/.  of  Phraortes  and  Cyaxares  i., 
 agree  with  no  single  report.  Finally,  the  Darics  also  give  evidence  for  Dariu3 
 the  Mede,  since  of  all  explanations  of  the  name  of  this  gold  coin  (the  Daric)  its 
 derivation  from  a  king  Darius  is  the  most  probable  ;  and  so  also  do  the  state- 
 ments of  the  rlietorician  Harpocration,  the  scholiast  to  Aristophanis  Ecclcsiaz. 
 589,  and  of  Suidas,  that  the  Aa^&s/xo/did  not  derive  their  name,  as  most  suppose, 
 from  Darius  the  father  of  Xerxes,  but  from  another  and  an  older  king  (Darius), 
 according  to  the  declaration  of  Herodot.  iv.  16G,  that  Darius  first  struck  this 
 coin,  which  is  not  outweighed  by  his  scanty  knowledge  of  the  more  ancient 
 history  of  the  Medes  and  Persians. 
 
CHAP.  VI.  201 
 
 to  no  otlier  god,  but  to  the  king  only.  The  motive  of  the  accu- 
 sation is,  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other,  envy  on  account  of  the 
 high  position  wliich  the  Jews  had  reached  in  the  kingdom,  and  the 
 object  of  it  was  the  driving  of  the  foreigners  from  their  influential 
 offices.  The  wonderful  deliverance  also  of  the  faithful  worship- 
 pers of  God  from  the  death  which  threatened  them,  with  the 
 consequences  of  that  deliverance,  are  alike  in  both  cases.  But 
 along  with  these  similarities  there  appear  also  differences  altogether 
 corresponding  to  the  circumstances,  which  show  that  historical 
 facts  are  here  related  to  us,  and  not  the  products  of  a  fiction  formed 
 for  a  purpose.  In  ch.  iii.  Nebuchadnezzar  requires  all  the  sub- 
 jects of  his  kingdom  to  do  homage  to  the  image  he  had  set  up, 
 and  to  worship  the  gods  of  his  kingdom,  and  his  command  affords 
 to  the  enemies  of  the  Jews  the  wished-for  opportunity  of  accusing 
 the  friends  of  Daniel  of  disobedience  to  the  royal  will.  In  ch.  vi., 
 on  the  other  hand,  Darius  is  moved  and  induced  by  his  great 
 officers  of  state,  wliose  design  was  to  set  Daniel  asiras  ^boipue  the 
 edict  there  mentioned,  and  he  is  greatly  troubledv.  30,  so  iisees 
 the  application  of  the  edict  to  the  case  of  Daniel.  Tlioart  of  tire 
 of  Darius  is  fundamentally  different  from  that  of  Nebuchadnezzar.' 
 Tlie  latter  was  a  king  distinguished  by  energy  and  activity,  a 
 perfect  autocrat ;  the  former,  a  weak  prince  and  wanting  in  energy, 
 who  allowed  himself  to  be  guided  and  governed  by  his  state  officers. 
 The  command  of  Nebuchadnezzar  to  do  homage  to  his  gods  is  the 
 simple  consequence  of  the  supremacy  of  the  ungodly  world-power ; 
 the  edict  extorted  from  Darius,  on  the  contrary,  is  a  deification  of 
 the  world-power  for  the  purpose  of  oppressing  the  true  servants  of 
 God.  The  former  command  only  places  the  gods  of  the  world- 
 power  above  the  living  God  of  heaven  and  earth ;  the  latter  edict 
 seeks  wholly  to  set  aside  the  recognition  of  this  God,  if  only  for  a 
 time,  by  forbidding  prayer  to  be  offered  to  Him.  This  tyranny 
 of  the  servants  of  the  world-power  is  more  intolerable  than  the 
 tyranny  of  the  world-ruler. 
 
 Thus  the  history  recorded  in  this  chapter  shows,  on  the  one 
 side,  how  the  ungodly  world-power  in  its  progressive  development 
 assumes  an  aspect  continually  more  hostile  toward  the  kingdom  of 
 God,  and  how  with  the  decrease  of  its  power  of  action  its  hatred 
 against  the  true  servants  of  God  increases ;  and  it  sliows,  on  the 
 other  side,  how  the  Almighty  God  not  only  protects  His  worship- 
 pers against  all  the  intrigues  and  machinations  of  the  enemy,  but 
 also  requites  the  adversaries  according  to  their  deeds.     Daniel  was 
 
202  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 protected  against  the  rage  of  tlie  lions,  -while  his  enemies  were 
 torn  by  them  to  pieces  as  soon  as  they  were  cast  into  the  den. 
 
 This  miracle  of  divine  power  is  so  vexatious  to  the  modern 
 critics,  that  Bleek,  v.  Leiig.,  Hitzig,  and  others  have  spared  no 
 pains  to  overthrow  the  historical  trustworthiness  of  the  narrative, 
 and  represent  it  as  a  fiction  written  with  a  design.  Not  only  does 
 the  prohibition  to  offer  any  petition  to  any  god  or  man  except 
 to  the  king  for  a  month  "  not  find  its  equal  in  absurdity,"  but 
 the  typology  (Daniel  an  antitype  of  Joseph  !)  as  well  as  the 
 relation  to  ch.  iii.  betray  the  fiction.  Darius,  it  is  true,  does  not 
 show  himself  to  be  the  type  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  also  the 
 command,  vers.  27  and  28,  puts  no  restraint  in  reality  on  those 
 concerned ;  but  by  the  prohibition,  ver.  8,  the  free  exercise  of  their 
 religion  is  undoubtedly  attacked,  and  such  hostility  against  the 
 faith  found  its  realization  for  the  first  time  only  and  everywhere 
 in  the  epoch  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Consequently,  according 
 to  HitYj^i^^i^-!  prohibition  here  is  reflected  from  that  of  Antiochus 
 Ep^i^iianes  (1  ]\lilacc.  i.  41-50),  and  exaggerates  it  even  to  a  carica- 
 ilre  of  it,  f^or  the  purpose  of  placing  clearly  in  the  light  the  hate- 
 luihcss  of  such  tyranny." 
 
 On  the  contrary,  the  advocates  of  the  genuineness  of  Daniel 
 have  conclusively  shown  that  the  prohibition  referred  to,  ver.  8, 
 corresponds  altogether  to  the  religious  views  of  the  Medo-Persians, 
 while  on  the  other  hand  it  is  out  and  out  in  contradiction  to  the 
 circumstances  of  the  times  of  the  Maccabees.  Thus,  that  the  edict 
 did  not  contemplate  the  removal  or  the  uprooting  of  all  religious 
 worship  except  praying  to  the  king,  is  clearly  manifest  not  only 
 in  this,  that  the  prohibition  was  to  be  enforced  for  one  month 
 only,  but  also  in  the  intention  which  the  magnates  had  in  their 
 eye,  of  thereby  effecting  certainly  the  overthrow  of  Daniel.  The 
 religious  restraint  which  was  thus  laid  upon  the  Jews  for  a  month 
 is  very  different  from  the  continual  rage  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 against  the  Jewish  worship  of  God.  Again,  not  only  is  the  cha- 
 racter of  Darius  and  his  relation  to  Daniel,  as  the  opponents 
 themselves  must  confess,  such  as  not  to  furnish  a  type  in  which 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  may  be  recognised,  but  the  enemies  of 
 Daniel  do  not  really  become  types  of  this  tyrant ;  for  they  seek 
 his  overthrow  not  from  religious  antipathy,  biit,  moved  only  by 
 vulgar  envy,  they  seek  to  cast  him  down  from  his  lofty  position  in 
 the  state.  Thus  also  in  this  respect  the  historical  point  of  view 
 of  the  hostility  to  Daniel  as  representing  Judaism,  is  fundamen- 
 
CHAP.  VI.  1-10.  203 
 
 tally  different  from  that  of  the  war  waged  by  Antioclius  against 
 Judaism,  so  that  this  narrative  is  destitute  of  every  characteristic 
 mark  of  the  Seleucidan-Maccabee  sera.  Cf.  the  further  repre- 
 sentation of  this  difference  by  Kranichfeld,  p.  229  ff. — The 
 views  of  Hitzig  will  be  met  in  our  exposition. 
 
 Vers.  1-10  (ch.  v.  31-vi.  9).  Transference  of  the  hingdom  to 
 Darius  the  Mede ;  appointment  of  the  regency  ;  envy  of  the  satraps 
 against  Daniel^  and  their  attempt  to  destroy  him. 
 
 The  narrative  of  this  chapter  is  connected  by  the  copula  1  with 
 the  occurrence  recorded  in  the  preceding ;  yet  ver.  1  does  not,  as 
 in  the  old  versions  and  with  many  interpreters,  belong  to  the  fifth 
 chapter,  but  to  the  sixth,  and  forms  not  merely  the  bond  of  con- 
 nection between  the  events  narrated  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  chapters, 
 but  furnishes  at  the  same  time  the  historical  basis  for  the  followinf; 
 narrative,  vers.  2  (l)-29  (28).  The  statement  of  the  verse,  that 
 Darius  the  Mede  received  the  kingdom  when  he  was  about  sixty- 
 two  years  old,  connects  itself  essentially  with  ch.  v.  30,  so  far  as 
 it  joins  to  the  fulfilment,  there  reported,  of  the  first  part  of  the 
 sacred  writing  interpreted  by  Daniel  to  Belshazzar,  the  fulfi^-^ent 
 also  of  the  second  part  of  that  writing,  but  not  so  closely  that'^ihe 
 designation  of  time,  in  that  same  night  (ch.  v.  30),  is  applicable 
 also  to  the  fact  mentioned  in  ch.  vi.  1  (v.  31),  and  as  warranting 
 the  supposition  that  the  transference  of  the  kingdom  to  Darius  the 
 Mede  took  place  on  the  night  in  which  Belshazzar  was  slain. 
 Against  such  a  chronological  connection  of  these  two  verses,  ch. 
 v.  30  and  vi.  1  (v.  31),  we  adduce  in  the  second  half  of  ver.  1 
 (ch.  v.  31)  the  statement  of  the  age  of  Darius,  in  addition  to  the 
 reasons  already  adduced  in  p.  163.  This  is  not  to  make  it  remark- 
 able that,  instead  of  the  young  mad  debauchee  (Belshazzar),  with 
 whom,  according  to  prophecy,  the  Chaldean  bondage  of  Israel  was 
 brought  to  an  end,  a  man  of  mature  judgment  seized  the  reigns  of 
 government  (Delitzsch)  ;  for  this  supposition  fails  not  only  with 
 the  hypothesis,  already  confuted,  on  which  it  rests,  but  is  quite 
 foreign  to  the  text,  for  Darius  in  what  follows  does  not  show  him- 
 self to  be  a  ruler  of  matured  experience.  The  remark  of  Kiiefoth 
 has  much  more  in  its  favour,  that  by  the  statement  of  the  age  it 
 is  designed  to  be  made  prominent  that  the  government  of  Darius 
 the  Mede  did  not  last  long,  soon  giving  place  to  that  of  Cyrus  the 
 Persian,  ver.  29  (28),  whereby  the  divine  writing,  that  the  Chaldean 
 kingdom  would  be  given  to  the  Medes  and  Persians,  was  fully  ac- 
 
204  THE  BOOK  OF  DAXIEL. 
 
 complislied.  Regarding  DarjaicescJi,  Darins,  see  the  preliminary 
 remarks.  The  addition  of  ^^'^^  (Kethiv)  forms  on  tlie  one  hand 
 a  contrast  to  the  expression  "  the  king  of  the  Chaldeans  "  (eh.  v. 
 30),  and  on  the  other  it  points  forward  to  t^'O"!?,  ver.  29  (28) ;  it, 
 however,  furnishes  no  proof  that  Daniel  distinguished  tlie  ^ledian 
 kingdom  from  the  Persian;  for  the  kingdom  is  not  called  a  Median 
 kingdom,  but  it  is  only  said  of  Darins  that  he  was  of  Median 
 descent,  and,  ver.  29  (28),  that  Cyrus  the  Persian  succeeded  him 
 in  the  kingdom.  In  ?3i?,  he  received  the  kingdom,  it  is  indicated 
 that  Darius  did  not  conquer  it,  but  received  it  from  the  conqueror  ; 
 see  p.  198.  The  3  in  133  intimates  that  the  statement  of  the  age 
 rests  only  on  a  probable  estimate. 
 
 Ver.  2  (1).  For  the  government  of  the  affairs  of  the  kingdom 
 he  had  received,  and  especially  for  regulating  the  gathering  in  of 
 the  tribute  of  the  different  provinces,  Darius  placed  120  satraps 
 over  the  whole  kingdom,  and  over  these  satraps  three  chiefs,  to 
 whom  the  satraps  should  give  an  account.  Regarding  ^^*^2i7^^"nx 
 (satrajys),  see  at  ch.  iii.  2.  p?")!?,  plur.  of  T\^ ;  ^^I^D  has  in  the 
 Semitic  no  right  etymology,  and  is  derived  from  the  Aryan,  from 
 the  Zend,  sara,  gara,  head,  with  the  syllable  ach.  In  the  Targg.,  in 
 use  for  the  Hebr.  "itib'j  it  denotes  a  president,  of  whom  the  three 
 named  in  ver.  2  (1),  by  their  position  over  the  satraps,  held  the 
 rank  of  chief  governors  or  ministers,  for  which  the  Targg.  use  I3"iD, 
 while  r^lD  in  ver.  8  denotes  all  the  military  and  civil  j^refects  of  the 
 kingdom. 
 
 The  modern  critics  have  derived  from  this  arrangement  for  the 
 government  of  the  kingdom  made  by  Darius  an  argument  against 
 the  credibility  of  the  narrative,  which  Ilitzig  has  thus  formulated  : 
 — According  to  Xenophon,  Cyrus  first  a})j)ointed  satraps  over  the 
 conquered  regions,  and  in  all  to  the  number  of  six  {Ci/rop.  viii.  6, 
 §  1,  7)  ;  according  to  the  historian  Herodotus,  on  the  contrary 
 (iii.  89  ff.),  Darius  Ilystaspes  first  divided  the  kingdom  into  twenty 
 satrapies  for  the  sake  of  the  administration  of  the  taxes.  With 
 this  statement  agrees  the  number  of  the  peoples  mentioned  on  the 
 Inscription  at  Bisutun  ;  and  if  elsewhere  (Insc.  J.  and  Nakschi 
 Rustam)  at  least  twenty-four  and  also  twenty-nine  are  mentioned, 
 we  know  that  several  regions  or  nations  might  be  placed  under  one 
 satrap  (Ilerod.  I.e.).  The  kingdom  was  too  small  for  120  satraps 
 in  the  Persian  sense.  On  the  other  hand,  one  may  not  appeal  to 
 the  127  provinces  (nirip)  of  king  Ahasuerus  =  Xerxes  (Esth.  i.  1, 
 ix.  30) ;  for  the  ruler  of  the  nj'"!^  is  not  the  same  as  (Esth.  viii.  9) 
 
CHAP.  VI.  1-10.  205 
 
 the  satrap.  In  Esth.  iii.  12  it  is  the  nns^  as  e.g.  of  tlie  province 
 of  Judah  (Hag.  i.  1 ;  Mai.  i.  8 ;  Neh.  v.  14).  It  is  true  there 
 were  also  greater  provinces,  such  e.g.  as  of  Media  and  Babylonia 
 (Ezra  vi.  2 ;  Dan.  ii.  49),  and  perhaps  also  peclia  i^K}'^)  might  be 
 loosely  used  to  designate  a  satrap  (Ezra  v.  3,  vi.  6) ;  yet  the  127 
 provinces  were  not  such,  nor  is  a  satrap  interchangeably  called  a 
 pecha.  When  Daniel  thus  mentions  so  large  a  number  of  satraps, 
 it  is  the  Grecian  satrapy  that  is  apparently  before  his  mind.  Under 
 Seleucus  Nicator  there  were  seventy-two  of  these. 
 
 The  foundation  of  this  argument,  viz.  that  Darius  Hystaspes, 
 "  according  to  the  historian  Herodotus,"  first  divided  the  kingdom 
 into  satrapies,  and,  of  course,  also  that  the  statement  by  Xenophon 
 of  the  sending  of  six  satraps  into  the  countries  subdued  by  Cyrus 
 is  worthy  of  no  credit,  is  altogether  unhistorical,  resting  only  on 
 the  misinterpretation  and  distortion  of  the  testimonies  adduced. 
 Neither  Herodotus  nor  Xenophon  represents  the  appointment  of 
 satraps  by  Cyrus  and  Darius  as  an  entirely  new  and  hitherto  un- 
 tried method  of  governing  the  kingdom  ;  still  less  does  Xenophon 
 say  that  Cyrus  sent  in  all  only  six  satraps  into  the  subjugated 
 countries.  It  is  true  he  mentions  by  name  (viii.  6,  7)  only  six 
 satraps,  but  he  mentions  also  the  provinces  into  which  they  were 
 sent,  viz.  one  to  Arabia,  and  the  other  five  to  Asia  Minor,  with  the 
 exception,  however,  of  Cilicia,  Cyprus,  and  Paphlagonia,  to  which 
 he  did  not  send  any  Ilepawi  aaTpd7ra<;,  because  they  had  voluntarily 
 joined  him  in  fighting  against  Babylon.  Hence  it  is  clear  as  noon- 
 day that  Xenophon  speaks  only  of  those  satraps  whom  Cyrus  sent 
 to  Asia  Llinor  and  to  Arabia,  and  says  nothing  of  the  satrapies  of 
 the  other  parts  of  the  kingdom,  such  as  Judea,  Syria,  Babylonia, 
 Assyria,  Media,  etc.,  so  that  no  one  can  affirm  that  Cyrus  sent  in 
 all  only  six  satraps  into  the  conquered  countries.  As  little  does 
 Herodotus,  I.e.,  say  that  Darius  Hystaspes  was  the  Jirst  to  intro- 
 duce the  government  of  the  kingdom  by  satraps  :  he  only  says  that 
 Darius  Hystaspes  divided  the  whole  kingdom  into  twenty  ap^al 
 which  were  called  aarpaTTrjtai,  appointed  ap^ovTe<i,  and  regulated 
 the  tribute ;  for  he  numbers  these  satrapies  simply  with  regard  to 
 the  tribute  with  which  each  was  chargeable,  while  under  Cyrus 
 and  Cambyses  no  tribute  was  imposed,  but  presents  only  were 
 contributed.  Consequently,  Herod,  speaks  only  of  a  regulation 
 for  the  administration  of  the  different  provinces  of  the  kingdom 
 for  the  special  purpose  of  the  certain  payment  of  the  tribute  which 
 Darius  Hystaspes  had  appointed.     Thus  the  historian  M.  Duncker 
 
\ 
 
 206  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 also  understands  this  statement;  for  lie  says  (GescJi.  des  A IterfJi. 
 ii.  p.  891)  regarding  it: — "About  the  year  515  Darius  established 
 fixed  government-districts  in  place  of  the  vice- regencies  which 
 Cyrus  and  Cambyses  had  appointed  and  changed  according  to 
 existing  exigencies.  lie  divided  the  kingdom  into  twenty  satrapies." 
 Then  at  p.  893  he  further  shows  how  this  division  also  of  the  king- 
 dom by  Darius  was  not  fixed  unchangeably,  but  was  altered  accord- 
 ing to  circumstances.  Ilitzig's  assertion,  that  the  kingdom  was  too 
 small  for  120  satrapies  in  the  Persian  sense,  is  altogether  ground- 
 less. From  Esth.  viii.  9  and  iii.  19  it  follows  not  remotely,  that  not 
 satraps  but  the  riiriQ  represent  the  rii3''*i?p.  In  ch.  viii.  9  satraps, 
 nina^  and  niinisn  ^"il"  are  named,  and  in  ch.  iii.  12  they  are  called  the 
 king's  satraps  and  nrnn  hv  nt:'N  ninQ.  On  Esth.  iii.  12  Bertheau 
 remarks :  "  The  pechas,  who  are  named  along  with  the  satraps, 
 are  probably  the  officers  of  the  circles  within  the  separate  satrapies;" 
 and  in  ch.  viii.  9  satraps  and  pechas  are  named  as  riionrsn  ^"ib*,  i.e. 
 presidents,  superintendents  of  the  127  provinces  of  the  kingdom 
 from  India  to  Ethiopia,  from  which  nothing  can  be  concluded 
 regarding  the  relation  of  the  satraps  to  the  pechas.  Berth,  makes 
 the  same  remark  on  Ezra  viii.  36 : — "  The  relation  of  the  kino;'s 
 satraps  to  the  pachavoili  ahar  nahara  (governors  on  this  side  the 
 river)  we  cannot  certainly  determine ;  the  former  wxre  probably 
 chiefly  military  rulers,  and  the  latter  government  officials."  For 
 the  assertion  that  pccha  is  perhaps  loosely  used  for  satrap,  but  that 
 interchangeably  a  satrap  cannot  be  called  a  peclia^  rests,  unproved, 
 on  the  authority  of  Hitzig. 
 
 From  the  book  of  Esther  it  cannot  certainly  be  proved  that  so 
 many  satraps  were  placed  over  the  127  provinces  into  which  Xerxes 
 divided  the  kingdom,  but  only  that  these  provinces  were  ruled  by 
 satraps  and  p)echas.  But  the  division  of  the  whole  kingdom  into 
 127  provinces  nevertheless  shows  that  the  kingdom  might  have 
 been  previously  divided  under  Darius  the  Mede  into  120  provinces, 
 whose  prefects  might  be  called  in  this  verse  p3an"nynXj  i.e.  kschatra- 
 pavan^  protectors  of  the  kingdom  or  of  the  provinces,  since  this  title 
 is  derived  from  the  Sanscrit  and  Old  Persian,  and  is  not  for  the 
 first  time  used  under  Darius  Ilystaspes  or  Cyrus.  The  Median 
 Darius  might  be  led  to  appoint  one  satrap,  i.e.  a  prefect  clothed 
 with  military  power,  over  each  district  of  his  kingdom,  since 
 the  kingdom  was  but  newly  conquered,  that  he  might  be  able  at 
 once  to  suppress  every  attempt  at  insurrection  among  the  i:ations 
 coming  under  his  dominion.     The  separation  of  the  civil  govern- 
 
CHAP.  VI.  1-10.  207 
 
 ment,  particularly  in  the  matter  of  the  raising  of  tribute,  from  the 
 military  government,  or  the  appointment  of  satraps  ol  rov  haajMov 
 Xafx^dvovTa,  K.r.X.,  along  with  the  (jjpovpap'^oL  and  the  '^^iXi'.ap'^oif 
 for  the  protection  of  the  boundaries  of  the  kingdom,  was  first 
 adopted,  according  to  Xenophon  I.e.,  by  Cyrus,  who  next  appointed 
 satraps  for  the  provinces  of  Asia  Minor  and  of  Arabia,  which  were 
 newly  brought  under  his  sceptre ;  while  in  the  older  provinces 
 which  had  formed  the  Babylonian  kingdom,  satrapies  which  were 
 under  civil  and  military  rulers  already  existed  from  the  time  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar;  cf.  Dan.  ii.  3  ff.  This  arrangement,  then,  did 
 not  originate  with  Darius  Hystaspes  in  the  dividing  of  the  whole 
 kingdom  into  twenty  satrapies  mentioned  by  Herodotus.  Thus 
 the  statements  of  Herodotus  and  Xenophon  harmonize  perfectly 
 with  those  of  the  Scriptures,  and  every  reason  for  regarding  with 
 suspicion  the  testimony  of  Daniel  wholly  fails. 
 
 Vers.  2,  3  (1,  2).  According  to  ver.  2,  Darius  not  only  ap- 
 pointed 120  satraps  for  all  the  provinces  and  districts  of  his  king- 
 dom, but  he  also  placed  the  whole  body  of  the  satraps  under  a 
 government  consisting  of  three  presidents,  who  should  reckon  with 
 tiie  individual  satraps,  ^^py,  in  the  Targg.  ^Y^.,  the  height,  with 
 the  adverb  ]^,  higher  than,  above.  i^^^^S  2r\]^  to  give  reckoning,  to 
 account,  pfj,  part,  of  pT3,  to  suffer  loss,  particularly  with  reference 
 to  the  revenue.  This  triumvirate,  or  higher  authority  of  three, 
 was  also  no  new  institution  by  Darius,  but  according  to  ch.  v.  7, 
 already  existed  in  the  Chaldean  kingdom  under  Belshazzar,  and 
 was  only  continued  by  Darius ;  and  the  satraps  or  the  district 
 rulers  of  the  several  provinces  of  the  kingdom  were  subordinated 
 to  them.  Daniel  was  one  of  the  triumvirate.  Since  it  is  not  men- 
 tioned that  Darius  first  appointed  him  to  this  office,  we  may  cer- 
 tainly conclude  that  he  only  confirmed  him  in  the  office  to  which 
 Belshazzar  had  promoted  him. 
 
 Ver.  4  (3).  In  this  situation  Daniel  excelled  all  the  presidents 
 and  satraps,  nsf^nx^  to  shoio  one's  self  prominent.  Regarding  his 
 excellent  spirit,  cf.  ch.  v.  12.  On  that  account  the  king  thought  to 
 set  him  over  the  whole  kingdom,  i.e.  to  make  him  chief  ruler  of 
 the  kingdom,  to  make  him  ^^s^  n^c'b  (Esth.  x.  3).  r\'VV  for  m,, 
 intrans.  form  of  the  Peal,  to  think,  to  consider  about  anything.  This 
 intention  of  the  king  stirred  up  the  envy  of  the  other  presidents 
 and  of  the  satraps,  so  that  they  sought  to  find  an  occasion  against 
 Daniel,  that  he  might  be  cast  down.  >v?V,  an  occasion ;  here,  as 
 ttiTta,  John  xviii.  38,  Matt,  xxvii.  37;  an  occasion  for  impeachment. 
 
208  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 sniapo  *l5f»j  on  the  part  of  the  kingdom,  i.e.  not  merely  in  a  political 
 sense,  but  with  regard  to  his  hohling  a  public  office  iu  the  king- 
 dom, with  reference  to  his  service.  But  since  they  could  find  no 
 occasion  against  Daniel  in  this  respect,  for  he  was  I^^np,  faithful^ 
 to  be  relied  on,  and  no  fault  could  be  charged  against  liim,  they 
 sought  occasion  against  him  on  the  side  of  his  particular  religion, 
 in  the  matter  of  the  law  of  his  God,  i.e.  in  his  worship  of  God. 
 
 Ver.  7  (6).  For  this  end  they  induced  the  king  to  sanction 
 and  ratify  with  all  the  forms  of  law  a  decree,  which  they  contrived 
 as  the  result  of  the  common  consultation  of  all  the  high  officers, 
 that  for  thirty  days  no  man  in  the  kingdom  should  offer  a  prayer 
 to  any  god  or  man  except  to  the  king,  on  pain  of  being  cast  into 
 the  den  of  lions,  and  to  issue  this  command  as  a  law  of  the  Medes 
 and  Persians,  i.e.  as  an  irrevocable  law.'  ti'^in,  from  SJ'JT  to  make  a 
 noise,  to  rage,  in  x\phel  c.  ^V,  to  assail  one  in  a  tumidtuous  manner, 
 i.e.  to  assault  him.  "  These  presidents  and  satraps  (princes)," 
 ver.  7  (6),  in  ver.  6  (5)  designated  "these  men,"  and  not  the  whole 
 body  of  the  presidents  and  satraps,  are,  according  to  ver.  5  (4), 
 the  special  enemies  of  Daniel,  who  wished  to  overthrow  him.  It 
 was  only  a  definite  number  of  them  who  may  have  had  occasion 
 to  be  dissatisfied  with  Daniel's  service.  The  words  of  the  text  do 
 not  by  any  means  justify  the  supposition  that  the  whole  council  of 
 state  assembled,  and  in  corpore  presented  themselves  before  the 
 king  (Hiivernick)  ;  for  neither  in  ver.  5  (4)  nor  in  ver.  7  (6)  is 
 mention  made  of  all  (^53)  the  presidents  and  satraps.  From  the 
 fact  also  that  these  accusers  of  Daniel,  ver.  25  (24),  represent  to 
 the  king  that  the  decree  they  had  framed  was  the  result  of  a  con- 
 sultation of  all  the  prefects  of  the  kingdom,  it  does  not  follow  that 
 all  the  satraps  and  chief  officers  of  the  whole  kingdom  had  come 
 to  Babylon  in  order,  as  Dereser  thinks,  to  lay  before  the  three 
 overseers  the  annual  account  of  their  management  of  the  affairs 
 of  their  respective  provinces,  on  which  occasion  they  took  counsel 
 together  against  Daniel ;  from  which  circumstance  Hitzig  and 
 others  derive  an  argument  against  the  historical  veracity  of  the 
 narrative.  The  whole  connection  of  the  narrative  plainly  shows 
 that  the  authors  of  the  accusation  deceived  the  king.  The  council 
 of  state,  or  the  chief  court,  to  which  all  the  satraps  had  to  render 
 an  account,  consisted  of  three  men,  of  whom  Daniel  was  one.  But 
 Daniel  certainly  was  not  called  to  this  consultation  ;  therefore 
 their  pretence,  that  all  '•  presidents  of  the  kingdom"  had  con- 
 sulted on  the  matter,  was  false.     Besides,  they  deceived  the  king 
 
CHAP.  VI.  1-10.  209 
 
 in  this,  that  they  concealed  from  him  the  intention  of  tlie  decree, 
 or  misled  him  regarding  it.  t^y^lS  means  not  merely  that  they 
 consulted  together,  but  it  includes  the  result  of  the  consultation  : 
 they  loere  of  one  mind  (Hitz.). 
 
 Ver.  8.  i<rii3^p  ''2")D  73  does  not  denote  the  three  presidents 
 named  in  ver.  3  (2),  but  all  the  prefects  of  the  kingdom,  of  whom 
 there  were  four  classes,  as  is  acknowledged  by  Chr.  B.  Michaelis, 
 though  Hitz.  opposes  this  view.  Such  an  interpretation  is  required 
 by  the  genitive  i<rii3po,  and  by  the  absence  of  ^D,  or  at  least  of  the 
 copula  1,  before  the  official  names  that  follow ;  while  the  objection, 
 that  by  this  interpretation  just  the  chief  presidents  who  are  prin- 
 cipally concerned  are  omitted  (Hitz.),  is  without  foundation,  for 
 they  are  comprehended  under  the  word  N'?Jp.  If  we  compare  the 
 list  of  the  four  official  classes  here  mentioned  with  that  of  the  great 
 officers  of  state  under  Nebuchadnezzar,  ch.  iii.  2,  the  naming  of 
 the  ^^Vt^  before  the  N'^^S'i'nji'ns  {satraps)  (while  in  ch.  iii.  2  they  are 
 named  after  them)  shows  that  the  ^\i^'^  are  here  great  officers  to 
 whom  the  satraps  were  subordinate,  and  that  only  the  three  r?19 
 could  be  meant  to  whom  the  satraps  had  to  render  an  account. 
 Moreover,  the  list  of  four  names  is  divided  by  the  copula  •>  into 
 two  classes.  To  the  first  class  belong  the  i<*3JCp  and  the  satraps  ; 
 to  the  second  the  n?"ilO,  state  councillors,  and  the  ^nins^  civil  pre- 
 fects of  the  provinces.  Accordingly,  we  will  scarcely  err  if  by  ^''}}p 
 we  understand  the  members  of  the  highest  council  of  state,  by  ^^*1^"^'!' 
 the  ministers  or  members  of  the  (lower)  state  council,  and  by  the 
 satraps  and  pechas  the  military  and  civil  rule^^s  of  the  provinces. 
 This  grouping  of  the  names  confirms,  consequently,  the  general 
 interpretation  of  the  Nni3^p  ''anD  h^,  for  the  four  classes  named 
 constitute  the  entire  chief  prefecture  of  the  kingdom.  This  inter- 
 pretation is  not  made  questionable  by  the  fact  that  the  p'lO  had 
 in  the  kingdom  of  Darius  a  different  position  from  that  they  held 
 in  the  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar;  for  in  this  respect  each  king- 
 dom had  its  own  particular  arrangement,  which  underwent  mani- 
 fold changes  according  to  the  times. 
 
 The  infinitive  clause  'l^l  Q'P  i^^'i?;'  presents  the  conclusion  arrived 
 at  by  the  consultation.  ^'^^'Q  is  not  the  genitive  to  Q^p,  but  accord- 
 ing to  the  accents  and  the  context  is  the  subject  of  the  infinitive 
 clause  :  that  the  king  should  appoint  a  statute,  not  that  a  royal  statute 
 should  be  appointed.  According  to  the  analogy  of  the  pronoun  and 
 of  the  dimin.  noun,  the  accusative  is  placed  before  the  subject-geni- 
 tive, as  e.g.  Isa.  xx.  1,  v.  24,  so  as  not  to  separate  from  one  another 
 
 o 
 
\ 
 
 210  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 \ 
 
 the  D^,i?  N^*i^  (to  establish  a  statute)  and  the  "ipX  ns|5n  (to  mah  a 
 firm  decree).  Ver.  9a  requires  this  construction.  It  is  the  king 
 who  issues  the  decree,  and  not  his  chief  officers  of  state,  as  would 
 liave  been  the  case  if  ^'^?^  were  construed  as  the  genitive  to 
 uy>.  D^p,  manifesto,  ordinance,  command.  The  command  is  more 
 accurately  defined  by  the  parallel  clause  IDS  HDi'^rij  to  make  fast, 
 i.e.  to  decree  a  prohibition.  The  officers  wished  that  the  king  should 
 issue  a  decree  which  should  contain  a  binding  prohibition,  i.e.  it 
 should  forbid,  on  pain  of  death,  any  one  for  the  space  of  thirty 
 days,  i.e.  for  a  month,  to  offer  any  prayer  to  a  god  or  man  except 
 to  the  king.  ^^3  is  here  not  any  kind  of  request  or  supplication, 
 but  prayer,  as  the  phrase  ver.  14  (13),  nniyzi  Nys,  directing  his  prayer ^ 
 shows.  The  word  KOXl  does  not  prove  the  contrary,  for  the  heathen 
 prayed  also  to  men  (cf.  ch.  ii.  46)  ;  and  here  the  clause,  except 
 to  the  king,  places  together  god  and  man,  so  that  the  king  might  not 
 observe  that  the  prohibition  was  specially  directed  against  Daniel. 
 
 Ver.  9.  In  order  that  they  may  more  certainly  gain  their  object, 
 they  request  the  king  to  put  the  prohibition  into  writing,  so  that 
 it  might  not  be  changed,  i.e.  might  not  be  set  aside  or  recalled, 
 according  to  the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  in  conformity  with 
 which  an  edict  once  emitted  by  the  king  in  all  due  form,  i.e.  given 
 in  writing  and  sealed  with  the  king's  seal,  was  unchangeable;  cf. 
 ver.  16  and  Esth.  viii.  8,  i.  19.  ^^'^.V^  ^}  ''\  ivhich  cannot  pass 
 away,  i.e.  cannot  be  set  aside,  is  irrevocable.  The  relative  """^  refers 
 to  JTH,  by  which  we  are  not  to  understand,  with  v.  Lengerke,  the 
 entire  national  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  as  if  this  were  so 
 unalterable  that  no  law  could  be  disannulled  or  changed  according 
 to  circumstances,  but  HT  is  every  separate  edict  of  the  king  emitted 
 in  the  form  of  law.  This  remains  unchangeable  and  irrevocable, 
 because  the  king  was  regarded  and  honoured  as  the  incarnation  of 
 deity,  who  is  unerring  and  cannot  change. 
 
 Ver.  10.  The  king  carried  out  the  proposal.  ^19^.}  is  explica- 
 tive :  the  writing,  namely,  the  prohibition  (spoken  of) ;  for  this 
 was  the  chief  matter,  therefore  N'JDN  alone  is  here  mentioned,  and 
 not  also  D)p  (edict),  ver.  8. 
 
 The  right  interpretation  of  the  subject-matter  and  of  the 
 foundation  of  the  law  which  was  sanctioned  by  the  king,  sets  aside 
 the  objection  that  the  prohibition  was  a  senseless  "  bedlamite " 
 law  (v.  Leng.),  which  instead  of  regulating  could  only  break  up 
 all  society.  The  law  would  be  senseless  only  if  the  prohibition 
 had  related  to  every  petition  in  common  life  in  the  intercourse  of 
 
CHAP,  VI.  1-10,  211 
 
 civil  society.  But  it  only  referred  to  the  religious  sphere  of  prayer, 
 as  an  evidence  of  worshipping  God  ;  and  if  the  king  was  venerated 
 as  an  incarnation  of  the  deity,  then  it  was  altogether  reasonable 
 in  its  character.  And  if  we  consider  that  the  intention  of  the 
 law,  which  they  concealed  from  the  king,  was  only  to  effect  Daniel's 
 overthrow,  the  law  cannot  be  regarded  as  designed  to  press  Parsism 
 or  the  Zend  religion  on  all  the  nations  of  the  kingdom,  or  to  put 
 an  end  to  religious  freedom,  or  to  make  Parsism  the  world-religion. 
 Eather,  as  Kliefoth  has  clearly  and  justly  shown,  "  the  object  of 
 the  law  was  only  to  bring  about  the  general  recognition  of  the 
 principle  that  the  king  was  the  living  manifestation  of  all  the 
 gods,  not  only  of  the  ^ledian  and  Persian,  but  also  of  the  Baby- 
 lonian and  Lydian,  and  all  the  gods  of  the  conquered  nations. 
 It  is  therefore  also  not  correct  that  the  king  should  be  represented 
 as  the  incarnation  of  Ormuzd.  The  matter  is  to  be  explained  not 
 from  Parsism  alone,  but  from  heathenism  in  general.  According 
 to  the  general  fundamental  principle  of  heathenism,  the  ruler  is 
 the  son,  the  representative,  the  living  manifestation  of  the  people's 
 gods,  and  the  w^orld-ruler  thus  the  manifestation  of  all  the  gods 
 of  the  nations  that  were  subject  to  him.  Therefore  all  heathen 
 world -rulers  demanded  from  the  heathen  nations  subdued  by 
 them,  that  religious  homage  should  be  rendered  to  them  in  the 
 manner  peculiar  to  each  nation.  Now  that  is  what  was  here 
 sought.  All  the  nations  subjected  to  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom 
 were  required  not  to  abandon  their  own  special  worship  rendered 
 to  their  gods,  but  in  fact  to  acknowledge  that  the  Medo-Persian 
 world-ruler  Darius  was  also  the  son  and  representative  of  their 
 national  gods.  For  this  purpose  they  must  for  the  space  of  thirty 
 days  present  their  petitions  to  their  national  gods  only  in  him  as 
 their  manifestation.  And  the  heathen  nations  could  all  do  this 
 without  violating  their  consciences  ;  for  since  in  their  own  manner 
 they  served  the  Median  king  as  the  son  of  their  gods,  they  served 
 their  gods  in  him.  The  Jews,  however,  were  not  in  the  condition 
 of  being  able  to  regard  the  king  as  a  manifestation  of  Jehovah, 
 and  thus  for  them  there  was  involved  in  the  law  truly  a  religious 
 persecution,  although  the  heathen  king  and  his  satraps  did  not 
 thereby  intend  religious  persecution,  but  regarded  such  disobedi- 
 ence as  only  culpable  obstinacy  and  political  rebellion."  ^ 
 
 ^  Brissonius,  De  regio  Persariimprinc.  p.  17  sqq.,  has  collected  the  testimonies 
 of  the  ancients  to  the  fact  that  the  Persian  kings  laid  claim  to  divine  honour. 
 Persas  regca  mion  inter  Dtos  coltre,  majtsLatem  tnim  imperil  salulis  esse  tutelam. 
 
212  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL.  \ 
 
 The  religious  persecution  to  which  this  law  subjected  the  Jews 
 was  rendered  oppressive  by  this:  that  the  Jews  were  brought  by  it 
 into  this  situation,  that  for  a  whole  month  they  must  either  omit 
 prayer  to  God,  and  thus  sin  against  their  God,  or  disregard  the 
 king's   prohibition.      The  satraps  had  thus  rightly  formed  their 
 plan.     Since  without  doubt  they  were  aware  of  Daniel's  piety, 
 they  could  by  this  means  hope  with  certainty  to  gain  their  object 
 in  his  overthrow.     There  is  no  ground  for  rejecting  the  narrative 
 in  the  fact  that  Darius,  without  any  suspicion,  gave  their  con- 
 trivance the  sanction  of  law.     We  do  not  need,  on  the  contrary, 
 to  refer  to  the  indolence  of  so  many  kings,  who  permit  themselves 
 to  be  wholly  guided  by  their  ministers,  although  the  description 
 we  have  of  Cyaxares  ii.  by  Xenophon  accords  very  well  with 
 this  supposition ;  for  from  the  fact  that  Darius  appears  to  have 
 sanctioned  the  law  without  further  consideration  about  it,  it  does 
 not  follow  that  he  did  not  make  inquiry  concerning  the  purpose 
 of  the  plan  formed  by  the  satraps.     The  details  of  the  intercourse 
 of  the  satraps  with  the  king  concerning  the  occasion  and  object 
 of  the  law  Daniel  has  not  recorded,  for  they  had  no  significance 
 in  relation  to  the  main  object  of  the  narrative.     If  the  satraps 
 represented  to  the  king  the  intention  of  compelling,  by  this  law, 
 all  the  nationalities  that  were  subject  to  his  kingdom  to  recognise 
 his  royal  power  and  to  prove  their  loyalty,  then  the  propriety  of 
 this  design  would  so  clearly  recommend  itself  to  him,  that  without 
 reflection  he  gave  it  the  sanction  of  law. 
 
 Vers.  11  (10)-25  (24).  DanieVs  offence  against  the  law;  his 
 accusation,  condemnation,  and  miraculous  deliverance  from  the  den 
 of  lions ;  and  the  punishment  of  his  accusers. 
 
 The  satraps  did  not  wait  long  for  Daniel's  expected  disregard 
 of  the  king's  prohibition.  It  was  Daniel's  custom,  on  bended 
 knees,  three  times  a  -day  to  offer  prayer  to  his  God  in  the  upper 
 chamber  of  his  house,  the  window  thereof  being  open  towards 
 Jerusalem.     He  continued  this  custom  even  after  the  issuing  of 
 
 Curtius,  viii.  5.  11.  With  this  cf.  Plutarch,  Themist.  c.  27.  And  that  this 
 custom,  which  even  Alexander  the  Great  (Curt.  vi.  6.  2)  followed,  was  derived 
 from  the  Medes,  appears  from  the  statement  of  Herodotus,  i.  99,  that  Dejoces  vipi 
 ixvTou  asfivviiv,  withdrew  his  royal  person  from  the  view  of  men.  The  ancient 
 Egyptians  and  Ethiopians  paid  divine  honours  to  their  kings,  according  to  Diod. 
 Sic.  i.  90,  iii.  3,  5  ;  and  it  is  well  known  that  the  Koman  emperors  required  that 
 their  images  should  be  worshipped  with  religious  veneration. 
 
CHAP.  VI.  11-25.  213 
 
 the  edict ;  for  a  discontinuance  of  it  on  account  of  that  law  would 
 have  been  a  denying  of  the  faith  and  a  sinning  against  God.     On 
 this  his  enemies  had  reckoned.     They  secretly  watched  him,  and 
 immediately  reported  his  disregard  of  the  king's  command.     In 
 ver.  11  the  place  where  he  was  wont  to  pray  is  more  particularly 
 described,  in  order  that  it  might  be  shown  how  they  could  observe 
 him.    In  the  upper  chamber  of  his  house  (n^V,  Hebr.  njpj;,  1  Kings 
 xvii.  19,  2  Sam.  xix.  1),  which  was  wont  to  be  resorted  to  when 
 one  wished  to  be  undisturbed,  e.g.  wished  to  engage  in  prayer  (cf . 
 Acts  i.  13,  X.  9),  the  windows  were   open,  i.e.  not  closed   with 
 lattice- work  (cf.  Ezek.  xl.  16),  opposite  to,  i.e.  in  the  direction 
 of,  Jerusalem.       ^^  does  not  refer  to  Daniel :   he   had   opened 
 windows,  but  to  f^n^??  :  his  house  had  open  loindoios.    If  '"^5?  referred 
 to  Daniel,  then  the  Nin  following  would  be  superfluous.   The  custom 
 of  turning  in  prayer  toward  Jerusalem  originated  after  the  build- 
 ing of  the  temple  at  Jerusalem  as  the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah  ; 
 cf.   1   Kings  viii.  33,  35,  Ps.  v.  8,  xxviii.  2.      The  offering  of 
 prayer  three  times  a  day, — namely,  at  the  third,  sixth,  and  ninth 
 hour,  i.e.  at  the  time  of  the  morning  and  the  evening  sacrifices 
 and  at  mid-day, — was  not  first  introduced  by  the  men  of  the  Great 
 Synagogue,  to  whom  the  uncritical  rabbinical  tradition  refers  all 
 ancient  customs  respecting  the  worship  of  God,  nor  is  the  opinion 
 of  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  and  others,  that  it  is  not  of  later  origin  than 
 the  time  of  the  Median  Darius,  correct;  but  its  origin  is  to  be  traced 
 back  to  the  times  of  David,  for  we  find  the  first  notice  of  it  in 
 Ps.  Iv.  18.     If  Daniel  thus  continued  to  oifer  prayer  daily  (^^"110  = 
 ^"'>'^'?j  ch.  ii.  23)  at  the  open  window,  directing  his  face  toward 
 Jerusalem,  after  the  promulgation  of  the  law,  just  as  he  had  been 
 in  the  habit  of  doing  before  it,  then  there  was  neither  ostentation 
 nor  pharisaic  hypocrisy,  nor  scorn  and  a  tempting  of  God,  as 
 Kirmss  imagines ;  but  his  conduct  was  the  natural  result  of  his 
 fear  of  God  and  of  his  religion,  under  the  influence  of  which  he 
 offered  prayers  not   to   make  an  outward  show,  for  only  secret 
 spies  could  observe  him  when  so  engaged.      '•"^  ''?i?~''3   does  not 
 mean  altogether  so  as  (Rosenmiiller,  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitzig),  but, 
 as  always,  07i  this  account  because,  because.     Because  he  always  did 
 thus,  so  now  he  continues  to  do  it. 
 
 Ver.  12  (11).  When  Daniel's  enemies  had  secretly  observed 
 him  praying,  they  rushed  into  the  house  while  he  was  offering  his 
 supplications,  that  they  might  apprehend  him  in  the  very  act  and 
 be  able  to  bring  him  to  punishment.     That  the  act  of  watching 
 
214  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 liim  is  not  particularly  mentioned,  since  it  is  to  be  gathered  from 
 the  context,  does  not  make  the  fact  itself  doubtful,  if  one  only  does 
 not  arbitrarily,  with  Hitzig,  introduce  all  kinds  of  pretences  for 
 throwing  suspicion  on  the  narrative ;  as  e.g.  by  inquiring  whether 
 the  122  satraps  had  placed  themselves  in  ambush ;  why  Daniel  had 
 not  guarded  against  them,  had  not  shut  himself  in  ;  and  the  like. 
 '^'^^1'?)  as  ver.  7,  to  rush  foricard,  to  press  in  eagerly,  here  "  shows 
 the  greatness  of  the  zeal  with  which  they  performed  their  business  " 
 (Kran.). 
 
 Ver.  13  (12).  They  immediately  accused  him  to  the  king. 
 Reminding  the  king  of  the  promulgation  of  the  prohibition,  they 
 showed  him  that  Daniel,  one  of  the  captive  Jews,  had  not  regarded 
 the  king's  command,  but  had  continued  during  the  thirty  days  to 
 pray  to  his  own  God,  and  thus  had  violated  the  law.  In  this 
 accusation  they  laid  against  Daniel,  we  observe  that  his  accusers 
 do  not  describe  him  as  one  standing  in  office  near  to  the  king,  but 
 only  as  one  of  a  foreign  nation,  one  of  the  Jewish  exiles  in  Baby- 
 lon, in  order  that  they  may  thereby  bring  his  conduct  under  the 
 suspicion  of  being  a  political  act  of  rebeUion  against  the  royal 
 authority. 
 
 Ver.  15  (14).  But  the  king,  wdio  knew  and  highly  valued  (cf. 
 ver.  2  [1])  Daniel's  fidelity  to  the  duties  of  his  office,  was  so  sore 
 displeased  by  the  accusation,  that  he  laboured  till  the  going  down 
 of  the  sun  to  effect  his  deliverance.  The  verb  t^'N3  has  an  intran- 
 sitive meaning :  to  he  evil,  to  be  displeased,  and  is  not  joined  into 
 one  sentence  with  the  subject  ^'f?^,  which  stands  here  absolute ; 
 and  the  subject  to  ^li^y  ^'^^  is  undefined :  it,  namely,  tJie  matter 
 displeased  him;  cf.  Gen.  xxi.  11.  ?3  DB'  corresponds  to  the  Hebr. 
 ^  IT'B',  Prov.  xxii.  17,  to  lay  to  heart.     The  word  72,  cor,  mens,  is 
 
 unknown  in  the  later  Chaldee,  but  is  preserved  in  the  Syr.  |li3 
 
 and  the  Arab.  Jb. 
 
 Ver.  16  (15).  When  the  king  could  not  till  the  going  down 
 of  the  sun  resolve  on  passing  sentence  against  Daniel,  about 
 this  time  his  accusers  gathered  themselves  together  into  his  pre- 
 sence for  the  purpose  of  inducing  him  to  carry  out  the  threatened 
 punishment,  reminding  him  that,  according  to  the  law  of  the  Medes 
 and  Persians,  every  prohibition  and  every  command  which  the  king 
 decreed  (D^pn'')^  i,e.  issued  in  a  legal  form,  could  not  be  changed, 
 i.e.  could  not  be  recalled.     There  being  no  way  of  escape  out  of 
 
/  CHAP.  VI.  11-25.  215 
 
 tlie  difficulty  for  the  king,  he  had  to  give  the  command  that  the 
 punishment  should  be  inflicted,  and  Daniel  was  cast  into  the  den  of 
 lions,  ver.  17  (16).  On  the  Aphel  "^''^".^j,  and  the  pass,  form  (ver.  18) 
 r\)n^n^  see  at  ch.  iii.  13.  The  execution  of  the  sentence  was  carried 
 out,  according  to  Oriental  custom,  on  the  evening  of  the  day  in 
 which  the  accusation  was  made :  this  does  not,  however,  imply 
 that  it  was  on  the  evening  in  which,  at  tlie  ninth  hour,  he  had 
 prayed,  as  Hitzig  affirms,  in  order  that  he  may  thereby  make  the 
 whole  matter  improbable.  In  giving  up  Daniel  to  punishment,  the 
 king  gave  expression  to  the  wish,  "  May  thy  God,  whom  thou  servest 
 continually,  deliver  thee !"  not  "  He  will  deliver  thee  ;"  for  Darius 
 could  not  have  this  confidence,  but  he  may  have  had  the  feeble 
 hope  of  the  possibility  of  the  deliverance  which  from  his  heart  he 
 wished,  inasmuch  as  he  may  have  heard  of  the  miracles  of  the 
 Almighty  God  whom  Daniel  served  in  the  days  of  Belshazzar  and 
 Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 Ver.  18  (17).  After  Daniel  had  been  thrown  into  the  lions' 
 den,  its  mouth  was  covered  with  a  flat  stone,  and  the  stone 
 was  sealed  with  the  king's  seal  and  that  of  the  great  officers  of 
 state,  that  nothing  might  change  or  be  changed  ('''^.'^"13  ^3^*)  con- 
 cerning Daniel  (^^V,  ojf«"',  matter),  not  that  the  device  against 
 Daniel  might  not  be  frustrated  (Hav.,  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Klief.). 
 This  thought  required  the  stat.  emphat,  ^^^^"^j  and  also  does  not 
 correspond  with  the  application  of  a  double  seal.  The  old  translator 
 Theodot.  is  correct  in  his  rendering :  ottw?  /mt}  aWoioidrj  irpdyfia 
 iv  Tw  AavLrj\  and  the  LXX.  paraphrasing :  ottcu?  /x^  air  avrSiv 
 (fxejiardvcov)  apOrj  o  Aavti^X,  i)  o  ySaciXeu?  avTOV  avaairdar]  i/c  tov 
 XaKKov.     Similarly  also  Ephr.  Syr.  and  others. 
 
 The  den  of  lions  is  designated  by  i<3a,  which  the  Targg.  use  for 
 the  Hebr.  nia,  a  cistern.  From  this  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  and  Hitzig 
 infer  that  the  writer  had  in  view  a  funnel-shaped  cistern  dug  out 
 in  the  ground,  with  a  moderately  small  opening  or  mouth  from 
 above,  which  could  be  covered  with  a  stone,  so  that  for  this  one 
 night  the  lions  had  to  be  shut  in,  while  generally  no  stone  lay  on 
 the  opening.  The  pit  also  into  which  Joseph,  the  type  of  Daniel, 
 was  let  down  was  a  cistern  (Gen.  xxxvii.  24),  and  the  mouth  of 
 the  cistern  was  usually  covered  with  a  stone  (Gen.  xxix.  3 ;  Lam. 
 iii.  53).  It  can  hence  scarcely  be  conceived  how  the  lions,  over 
 which  no  angel  watched,  could  have  remained  in  such  a  subter- 
 ranean cavern  covered  with  a  stone.  "  The  den  must  certainly 
 have  been  very  capacious  if,  as  it  appears,  122  men  with  their 
 
216  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 wives  and  children  could  have  been  thrown  into  it  immediately 
 after  one  another  (ver.  25  [24]) ;  but  tliis  statement  itself  only 
 shows  again  the  deficiency  of  every  view  of  the  matter," — and  thus 
 the  whole  history  is  a  fiction  fabricated  after  the  type  of  the  history 
 of  Joseph !  But  these  critics  who  speak  thus  have  themselves 
 fabricated  the  idea  of  the  throwinc;  into  the  den  of  122  men  with 
 women  and  children — for  the  text  states  no  number — in  order 
 that  they  might  make  tlie  whole  narrative  appear  absurd  ;  cf.  what 
 we  have  observed  regarding  this  supposition  at  p.  208. 
 
 We  have  no  account  by  the  ancients  of  the  construction  of 
 lions'  dens.  Ge.  Host,  in  his  work  on  Fez  and  Morocco,  p.  77, 
 describes  the  lions'  dens  as  they  have  been  found  in  Morocco. 
 According  to  his  account,  they  consist  of  a  large  square  cavern 
 under  the  earth,  having  a  partition-wall  in  the  middle  of  it,  which 
 is  furnished  with  a  door,  which  the  keeper  can  open  and  close  from 
 above.  By  throwing  in  food  they  can  entice  the  lions  from  the 
 one  chamber  into  the  other,  and  then,  having  shut  the  door,  they 
 enter  the  vacant  space  for  the  purpose  of  cleaning  it.  The  cavern 
 is  open  above,  its  mouth  being  surrounded  by  a  wall  of  a  yard  and 
 a  half  high,  over  which  one  can  look  down  into  the  den.  This 
 description  agrees  perfectly  with  that  which  is  here  given  in  the 
 text  regarding  the  lions'  den.  Finally,  ^??  does  not  denote  com- 
 mon cisterns.  In  Jer.  xli.  7,  9,  N313  (Hebr.  lis)  is  a  subterranean 
 chamber  into  which  seventy  dead  bodies  were  cast;  in  Isa.  xiv.  15, 
 the  place  of  Sheol  is  called  213.  No  reason,  therefore,  exists  for 
 supposing  that  it  is  a  funnel- formed  cistern.  The  mouth  (D^s)  of 
 the  den  is  not  its  free  opening  above  by  which  one  may  look  down 
 into  it,  but  an  opening  made  in  its  side,  through  which  not  only 
 the  lions  were  brought  into  it,  but  by  which  also  the  keepers 
 entered  for  the  pui'pose  of  cleansing  the  den  and  of  attending  to 
 the  beasts,  and  could  reach  the  door  in  the  partition-wall  (cf.  Host, 
 p.  270).  This  opening  was  covered  with  a  great  flat  stone,  which 
 was  sealed,  the  free  air  entering  to  the  lions  from  above.  This 
 also  explains  how,  according  to  ver.  21  (20)  ff.,  the  king  was  able 
 to  converse  with  Daniel  before  the  removal  of  the  stone  (namely, 
 by  the  opening  above). 
 
 Ver.  19  (18).  Tlien  the  king  icent  to  his  palace,  and  passed  the 
 night  fasting :  neither  were  any  of  his  concubines  brought  before 
 him;  and  his  sleep  loent  from  Jam.  The  king  spent  a  sleepless 
 night  in  sorrow  on  account  of  Daniel,  n^^p,  used  adverbially,  in 
 fasting,  i.e.  without  partaking  of  food  in  the  evening,     nin^^  concu- 
 
CHAP.  VI.  11-25.  217 
 
 bina;  cf.  the  Arab.  U».t3  and  U-j,  suhigere  fosminam,  and  Gesen. 
 
 Thes.  p.  333.  On  the  following  morning  (ver.  20  [19])  the  king 
 rose  early,  at  the  dawn  of  day,  and  went  to  the  den  of  lions,  and 
 with  lamentable  voice  called  to  him,  feebly  hoping  that  Daniel 
 might  be  delivered  by  his  God  whom  he  continually  served. 
 Daniel  answered  the  king,  thereby  showing  that  he  had  been  pre- 
 served ;  w'hereupon  the  king  was  exceeding  glad.  The  future  or 
 imperf.  D^P^.  (ver.  20)  is  not  to  be  interpreted  with  Kranichfeld 
 hypothetically,  he  thought  to  rise  early,  seeing  he  did  actually  rise 
 early,  but  is  used  instead  of  the  perf .  to  place  the  clause  in  relation 
 to  the  following,  meaning :  the  king,  as  soon  as  he  arose  at  morning 
 dawn,  ivent  hastily  by  the  early  light.  **v'^5?j  ^^  ^^^^  shining  of  the 
 light,  serves  for  a  nearer  determination  of  the  X"i2"i3C'3,  at  the 
 morning  dawn,  namely,  as  soon  as  the  first  rays  of  the  rising  sun 
 appeared.  The  predicate  tlie  living  God  is  occasioned  by  the  pre- 
 servation of  life,  which  the  king  regarded  as  possible,  and  probably 
 was  made  known  to  the  king  in  previous  conversations  with  Daniel ; 
 cf.  Ps.  xlii.  3,  Ixxxiv.  3,  1  Sam.  xvii.  36,  etc. 
 
 Ver.  22  (21)  ff.  In  his  answer  Daniel  declares  his  innocence, 
 which  God  had  recognised,  and  on  that  account  had  sent  His  angel 
 (cf.  Ps.  xxxiv.  8,  xci.  11  ff.)  to  shut  the  mouths  of  the  lions  ;  cf. 
 Heb.  X.  33.  ^i<l.,  and  also  (concluding  from  the  innocence  actually 
 testified  to  by  God)  before  the  king,  i.e.  according  to  the  king's 
 judgment,  he  had  done  nothing  wrong  or  hurtful.  By  his  trans- 
 gression of  the  edict  he  had  not  done  evil  against  the  king's  person. 
 This  Daniel  could  the  more  certainly  say,  the  more  he  perceived 
 how  the  king  was  troubled  and  concerned  about  his  preservation, 
 because  in  Daniel's  transgression  he  himself  had  seen  no  conspiracy 
 against  his  person,  but  only  fidelity  toward  his  own  God.  The  king 
 hereupon  immediately  gave  command  that  he  should  be  brought 
 out  of  the  den  of  lions.  The  Aph.  nj^wn  and  the  Hoph.  \>^\^  do 
 not  come  from  Pp3,  but  from  Pt^ ;  the  :  is  merely  compensative. 
 P?D,  to  mount  up,  Aph.  to  bring  out;  by  which,  however,  we  are  not 
 to  understand  a  being  drawn  up  by  ropes  through  the  opening  of 
 the  den  from  above.  The  bringing  out  was  by  the  opened  passage 
 in  the  side  of  the  den,  for  which  purpose  the  stone  with  the  seals 
 was  removed.  To  make  the  miracle  of  his  preservation  manifest, 
 and  to  show  the  reason  of  it,  ver.  24  (23)  states  that  Daniel  was 
 found  without  any  injury,  because  he  had  trusted  in  his  God. 
 
 Ver.  25  (24).  But  now  the  destruction  which  the  accusers  of 
 
218  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Daniel  thought  to  bring  upon  him  fell  upon  themselves.  The  king 
 commanded  tliat  they  should  be  cast  into  the  den  of  lions,  where 
 immediately,  before  they  had  reached  the  bottom,  they  were  seized 
 and  torn  to  pieces  by  the  lions.  On  ''0^^*"!i?  ^^^.  see  at  eh.  iii.  8. 
 By  the  accusers  we  are  not  (with  Hitzig)  to  think  of  the  120 
 satraps  together  with  the  two  chief  presidents,  but  only  of  a  small 
 number  of  the  special  enemies  of  Daniel  who  had  concerned 
 themselves  with  the  matter.  The  condemning  to  death  of  the 
 wives  and  children  along  with  the  men  was  in  accordance  with 
 Persian  custom,  as  is  testified  by  Herodotus,  iii.  119,  Amm.  Marcell. 
 xxiii.  6.  81,  and  also  with  the  custom  of  the  Macedonians  in  the 
 case  of  treason  (Curtius,  vi.  ii.),  but  was  forbidden  in  the  law  of 
 Moses;  cf.  Deut.  xxiv.  16. 
 
 Vers.  26  (25)-29  (28).  The  consequences  of  this  occurrence. 
 
 As  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  the  wonderful  deliverance  of  Daniel's 
 friends  from  the  burning  fiery  furnace,  issued  an  edict  to  all  the 
 nations  of  his  kingdom  forbidding  them  on  pain  of  death  from 
 doing  any  injury  to  these  men  of  God  (ch.  iii.  29),  so  now  Darius, 
 in  consequence  of  this  wonderful  preservation  of  Daniel  in  the 
 den  of  lions,  gave  forth  an  edict  commanding  all  the  nations  of 
 his  whole  kingdom  to  fear  and  reverence  Daniel's  God.  But  as 
 Nebuchadnezzar  by  his  edict,  so  also  Darius,  did  not  depart  from 
 the  polytheistic  standpoint.  Darius  acknowledged  the  God  of 
 Daniel,  indeed,  as  the  living  God,  whose  kingdom  and  dominion 
 were  everlasting,  but  not  as  the  only  true  God,  and  he  commanded 
 Him  to  be  reverenced  only  as  a  God  who  does  wonders  in  heaven 
 and  on  earth,  without  prejudice  to  the  honour  of  his  own  gods  and 
 of  the  gods  of  his  subjects.  Both  of  these  kings,  it  is  true,  raised 
 the  God  of  Judea  above  all  other  gods,  and  praised  the  everlasting 
 duration  of  His  dominion  (see  ch.  iii.  29,  32  [iv.  2  ]  f.,  and  ch.  iv.  31 
 [28]  ff.,  vi.  27  [26]  f.),  but  they  did  not  confess  Him  as  the  one 
 only  God.  This  edict,  then,  shows  neither  the  conversion  of  Darius 
 to  the  worship  of  the  God  of  the  Jews,  nor  does  it  show  intoler- 
 ance toward  the  gods  of  his  subjects.  On  ver.  26  (25)  cf.  ch.  iii.  31 
 (iv.  1).  As  Nebuchadnezzar,  so  also  Darius,  regarded  his  kingdom 
 as  a  world-kingdom.  On  27a  (26)  cf.  ch.  iii.  29.  The  reverence 
 which  all  the  nations  were  commanded  to  show  to  Daniel's  God  is 
 described  in  the  same  words  as  is  the  fear  and  reverence  which  the 
 might  and  greatness  of  Nebuchadnezzar  inspired  in  all  the  nations 
 that  were  subject  to  him  (ch.  v.  19),  which  has  led  Hitzig  justly 
 
CHAP.  VII.  219 
 
 to  remark,  that  the  words  ^f??'^?  1^0?;?  P.']?  (they  must  worship  his 
 God)  are  not  used.  God  is  described  as  living  (of.  ver.  21  [20]) 
 and  eternal,  with  which  is  connected  the  praise  of  the  everlasting 
 duration  of  His  dominion  and  of  His  rule  in  heaven  and  on  earth  ; 
 cf.  ch.  ii.  44  and  iii.  33  (iv.  3).  The  ""1  after  "^ri^^po  is  not  a  con- 
 junction, but  is  the  relative,  and  the  expression  briefly  denotes  that 
 His  kingdom  is  a  kingdom  ivhich  is  not  destroyed;  cf.  ch.  iv.  31 
 (34).  NSiD  ly,  to  the  end — not  merely  of  all  heathen  kingdoms 
 which  arise  on  the  earth,  i.e.  to  their  final  destruction  by  the  king- 
 dom of  the  Messiah,  ch.  ii.  44  (Kranichfeld),  for  there  is  no  thought 
 of  the  Messianic  kincrdorai  here  at  all,  but  to  the  end  of  all  things, 
 to  eternity.  In  ver.  28  (27)  this  God  is  lauded  as  the  deliverer 
 and  wonder-worker,  because  in  the  case  of  Daniel  He  had  showed 
 Himself  as  such  ;  cf.  ch.  iii.  32.  ^!  ip,  from  the  hand,  i.e.  from  the 
 power  of  ;  cf.  Ps.  xxii.  21. 
 
 Ver.  29  (28)  closes  the  narrative  in  the  same  way  as  that 
 regarding  the  deliverance  of  Daniel's  friends  (ch.  iii.  30)  ;  only  it 
 is  further  stated,  that  Daniel  continued  in  office  till  the  reign  of 
 the  Persian  Cyrus.  By  the  pronoun  n3^,  this  Daniel,  the  identity 
 of  the  person  is  accentuated:  the  same  Daniel,  whom  his  enemies 
 wished  to  destroy,  prospered.  From  the  repetition  of  n^^poa  before 
 ti'^is  it  does  not  follow  that  Daniel  separates  the  Persian  kingdom 
 from  the  Median ;  for  ^j?^  here  does  not  mean  kingdom,  but 
 dominion,  i.e.  reign.  The  succession  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus  the 
 Persian  to  that  of  Darius  the  Median  does  not  show  the  diversity 
 of  the  two  kingdoms,  but  only  that  the  rulers  of  the  kingdom  were 
 of  different  races. 
 
 CHAP.  VII.   THE  VISION  OF  THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS  ;   THE 
 JUDGMENT  ;    AND  THE  KINGDOM  OF  THE  HOLY  GOD. 
 
 After  presenting  to  view  (ch.  iii.-vi.)  in  concrete  delineation, 
 partly  in  the  prophetically  significant  experiences  of  Daniel  and 
 his  friends,  and  partly  in  the  typical  events  which  befell  the  world- 
 rulers,  the  position  and  conduct  of  the  representatives  of  the  world- 
 power  in  relation  to  the  worshippers  of  the  living  God,  there  fol- 
 lows in  this  chapter  the  record  of  a  vision  seen  by  Daniel  in  the 
 first  year  of  Belshazzar.  In  this  vision  the  four  world-monarchies 
 which  were  shown  to  Nebuchadnezzar  in  a  dream  in  the  form  of 
 an  image  are  represented  under  the  symbol  of  beasts ;  and  there  is 
 a  further  unfolding  not  only  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the 
 
220  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 four  successive  world-kin o-doms,  but  also  of  the  everlastincj  kincr- 
 dom  of  God  established  by  the  judgment  of  the  world-kingdoms. 
 "With  this  vision,  recorded  like  the  preceding  chapters  in  the  Chal- 
 dean language,  the  first  part  of  this  work,  treating  of  the  develop- 
 ment of  the  world-power  in  its  four  principal  forms,  is  brought  to 
 a  conclusion  suitable  to  its  form  and  contents. 
 
 Tliis  chapter  is  divided,  according  to  its  contents,  into  two 
 equal  portions.  Vers.  1-14  contain  the  vision,  and  vers.  15-28 
 its  interpretation.  After  an  historical  introduction  it  is  narrated 
 how  Daniel  saw  (vers.  2-8)  four  great  beasts  rise  up  one  after 
 another  out  of  the  storm-tossed  sea ;  then  the  judgment  of  God 
 against  the  fourth  beast  and  the  other  beasts  (vers.  9-12)  ;  and 
 finally  (vers.  13,  14),  the  delivering  up  of  the  kingdom  over  all 
 nations  to  the  Son  of  man,  who  came  with  the  clouds  of  heaven. 
 Being  deeply  moved  (ver.  15)  by  what  he  saw,  the  import  of  the 
 vision  is  first  made  known  to  him  in  general  by  an  angel  (vers. 
 16-18),  and  then  more  particularly  by  the  judgment  (vers.  19-2G) 
 against  the  fourth  beast,  and  its  destruction,  and  by  the  setting  up 
 of  the  kingdom  of  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  (ver.  27).  The 
 nari'ative  of  the  vision  is  brought  to  a  close  by  a  statement  of  the 
 impression  made  by  this  divine  revelation  on  the  mind  of  the 
 prophet  (ver.  28).^ 
 
 Ver.  1.  The  time  here  indicated,  "  in  the  first  year  of  Bel- 
 
 *  According  to  the  modern  critics,  this  vision  also  is  to  be  regarded  as  belong- 
 /ing  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  ;  and,  as  von  Lengerke  says,  the  repre- 
 sentation of  the  Messianic  kingdom  (vers.  13  and  14)  is  the  only  prophetic 
 portion  of  it,  all  the  other  parts  merely  announcing  what  had  already  occurred. 
 According  to  Hitzig,  this  dream-vision  must  have  been  composed  (cf.  ver.  25, 
 viii.  14)  shortly  before  the  consecration  of  the  temple  (1  Mace.  iv.  52,  59). 
 On  the  other  hand,  Kranichfeld  remarks,  that  if  this  chapter  were  composed 
 during  the  time  of  the  persecution  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  "  then  it  would 
 show  that  its  author  was  in  the  greatest  ignorance  as  to  the  principal  historical 
 dates  of  his  own  time ;"  and  he  adduces  in  illustration  the  date  in  ver.  25,  and 
 the  failure  of  the  attempts  of  the  opponents  of  its  genuineness  to  authenticate 
 in  history  the  ten  horns  which  grew  uji  before  the  eleventh  horn,  and  the  three 
 kingdoms  (vers.  7  f.,  20).  According  to  ver.  25,  the  blaspheming  of  the  Jlost 
 High,  the  wearing  out  of  the  saints,  and  the  changing  of  all  religious 
 ordinances  continue  for  three  and  a  half  times,  which  are  taken  for  three 
 and  a  half  years,  after  the  expiry  of  which  an  end  will  be  made,  by  means 
 of  the  judgment,  to  the  heathen  oppression.  But  these  three  and  a  half  years 
 are  not  historically  proved  to  be  the  period  of  the  religious  persecution  under 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes.     "  lu  both  of  the  books  of  the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  i.  54  ; 
 
/  CHAP.  VII.  1.  221 
 
 shazzar,"  which  cannot,  as  is  evident,  mean  "shortly  before  the 
 reign  of  Belshazzar"  (Hitz.),  but  that  Daniel  received  the  follow- 
 ing revelation  in  the  course  of  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  this 
 king,  stands  related  to  the  contents  of  the  revelation.  This  vision 
 accords  not  only  in  many  respects  with  the  dream  of  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar (ch.  ii.),  but  has  the  same  subject.  This  subject,  however, 
 the  representation  of  the  world-power  in  its  principal  forms,  is 
 differently  given  in  the  two  chapters.  In  ch.  ii.  it  is  represented 
 accordinfic  to  its  whole  character  as  an  imao;e  of  a  man  whose  dif- 
 ferent  parts  consist  of  different  metals,  and  in  ch.  vii.  under  the 
 figure  of  four  beasts  which  ai'ise  one  after  the  other  out  of  the  sea. 
 In  the  former  its  destruction  is  represented  by  a  stone  breaking  the 
 image  in  pieces,  while  in  the  latter  it  is  effected  by  a  solemn  act  of 
 judgment.  This  further  difference  also  is  to  be  observed,  that  in 
 this  chapter,  the  first,  but  chiefly  the  fourth  world-kingdom,  in  its 
 development  and  relation  to  the  people  of  God,  is  much  more  clearly 
 exhibited  than  in  ch.  ii.  These  differences  have  their  principal! 
 reason  in  the  difference  of  the  recipients  of  the  divine  revelation  :'^ 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  the  founder  of  the  world-power,  saw  this  power 
 in  its  imposing  greatness  and  glory  ;  while  Daniel,  the  prophet  of 
 God,  saw  it  in  its  opposition  to  God  in  the  form  of  ravenous 
 beasts  of  prey.  Nebuchadnezzar  had  his  dream  in  the  second 
 year  of  his  reign,  wdien  he  had  just  founded  his  world-monarchy ; 
 
 2  Mace.  X.  5)  the  period  of  the  desecration  of  the  temple  (according  to  v. 
 Leng.)  lasted  only  three  years ;  and  Josephus,  Ant.  xii.  7.  G,  speaks  also  of 
 th7-ee  years,  reckoning  from  the  year  145  Sekiicid.  and  the  25th  day  of  the 
 month  ICisleu,  when  the  first  burnt-offering  was  offered  on  the  idol-altar 
 (1  Mace.  i.  57),  to  the  25th  day  of  Kisleu  in  the  year  148  Seleitcid.,  when 
 for  the  first  time  sacrifice  was  offered  (1  Mace.  iv.  52)  on  the  newly  erected 
 altar."  But  since  the  liZi'Avy/^oi,  kprifiuascdg  was,  according  to  1  Mace.  i.  54, 
 erected  on  the  15th  day  of  Kisleu  in  the  year  145  SeleiccicL,  ten  days  before  the 
 first  offering  of  sacrifice  upon  it,  most  reckon  from  the  15th  Kisleu,  and  thus 
 make  the  period  three  years  and  ten  days.  Hitzig  seeks  to  gain  a  quarter  of  a 
 year  more  by  going  back  in  his  reckoning  to  the  arrival  in  Judea  (1  Mace.  i. 
 29,  cf.  2  Mace.  v.  24)  of  the  chief  collector  of  tribute  sent  by  Apollonius. 
 C.  von  Lengerke  thinks  that  the  period  of  three  and  a  half  years  cannot  be 
 reckoned  with  historical  accuracy.  Hilgenfeld  would  reckon  the  commence- 
 ment of  this  period  from  some  other  event  in  relation  to  the  temple,  which, 
 however,  has  not  been  recorded  in  history. — From  all  this  it  is  clear  as  noon- 
 day tliat  the  three  and  a  half  years  are  not  historically  identified,  and  thus  that 
 the  Maceabean  pseudo-Daniel  was  ignorant  of  the  principal  events  of  his  time. 
 Just  as  little  are  these  critics  able  historically  to  identify  the  ten  kings  (vers.  7 
 
 sent,  acc't^Y^e  shall  show  in  an  Excursus  on  the  four  world-kingdoms  at  the 
 
 not  the  ■lestRt^''- 
 
\ 
 
 222  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 while  Daniel  had  his  vision  of  the  world-kingdoms  and  of  the 
 judgment  against  them  in  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar,  i.e.  Evil- 
 merodach,  the  son  and  successor  of  Nebucliadnezzar,  when  with 
 the  death  of  the  golden  head  of  the  world-monarchy  its  glory  began 
 to  fade,  and  the  spirit  of  its  opposition  to  God  became  more  mani- 
 fest. This  revelation  was  made  to  the  prophet  in  a  dream-vision 
 by  night  upon  his  bed.  Compare  ch.  ii.  28.  Immediately  there- 
 after Daniel  wrote  down  the  principal  parts  of  the  dream,  tliat  it 
 might  be  publicly  proclaimed — the  sum  of  the  things  (IvP  ^'^'}.) 
 which  he  had  seen  in  the  dream.  i^S,  to  say,  to  relate,  is  not  opposed 
 to  3n3j  to  torite,  but  explains  it :  by  means  of  writing  down  the 
 vision  he  said,  i.e.  reported,  the  chief  contents  of  the  dream,  omit- 
 ting secondary  things,  e.g.  the  minute  description  of  the  beasts. 
 
 With  ver.  2  Daniel  begins  his  written  report :  "  Daniel  began 
 and  said,"  introduces  the  matter.  Kv'''?"Qy  "'Uri,  visions  in  (during) 
 the  night,  cf.  ch.  ii.  19.  Vers.  2  and  3  describe  the  scene  in  general. 
 The  four  winds  of  heaven  break  loose  upon  the  great  sea,  and 
 rage  fiercely,  so  that  four  great  beasts,  each  diverse  from  the 
 others,  arise  out  of  its  bosom.  The  great  sea  is  not  the  Medi- 
 terranean (Berth.,  Ges.,  Hitz.,  Ewald),  for  such  a  geographical 
 reference  is  foreign  to  the  context.  It  is  the  ocean  ;  and  the 
 storm  on  it  represents  the  "  tumults  of  the  people,"  commotions 
 among  the  nations  of  the  world  (Hav.,  Leng.,  Hofm.,  etc.),  cor- 
 responding to  the  prophetic  comparison  found  in  Jer.  xvii.  12, 
 xlvi.  7  f.  "  Since  the  beasts  represent  the  forms  of  the  world- 
 power,  the  sea  must  represent  that  out  of  which  they  arise,  the 
 whole  heathen  world "  (Hofmann).  In  the  interpretation  of  the 
 image  (ver.  17)  N'S^. !»  is  explained  by  ^V')^  ip.  H''?  means  to 
 break  forth  (Ezek.  xxxii.  2),  to  hurst  out  in  storm,  not  causative, 
 "to  make  the  great  sea  break  forth"  (Kran.).  The  causative 
 meaning  is  not  certainly  found  either  in  the  Hebrew  or  the 
 Chaldee.  The  four  winds  stand  in  relation  to  the  four  quarters 
 of  the  heavens  ;  cf.  Jer.  xlix.  39.  Calvin  remarks :  Mundus  similis 
 turhulento  mari,  quod  non  agiiatur  una  procella  vel  uno  vento,  sed 
 diversis  ventis  inter  se  confligeniihus,  ac  si  totum  caelum  conspiraret 
 ad  motus  excitandos.  With  this,  however,  the  meaning  of  the  words 
 is  not  exhausted.  The  four  winds  of  heaven  are  not  merely  diversi 
 venti,  and  their  bursting  forth  is  not  only  an  image  of  a  general 
 C  commotion  represented  by  a  storm  in  the  ocean.  The  winds  aj(,^^/t/; 
 '  /  heavens  represent  the  heavenly  powers  and  forces  bycutioa  under 
 sets  the  nations  of  the  world  in  motion  ;  and  the  nr  •=  (l  Mace.  i.  54 ; 
 
CHAP.  VII.  4-8.  223 
 
 a  symbolical  meaning  :  that  the  people  of  all  regions  of  the  earth  , 
 are  moved  hither  and  thither  in  violent  commotion.  "  QEcumeni-  ^ 
 cal  commotions  give  rise  to  oecumenical  kingdoms"  (Kliefoth). 
 As  a  consequence  of  the  storm  on  the  sea,  there  arise  out  of  it 
 four  fierce  beasts,  not  all  at  once,  but,  as  vers.  6  and  7  teach,  one 
 after  another,  and  each  having  a  different  appearance.  The 
 diversity  of  the  form  of  the  beasts,  inasmuch  as  they  represent 
 kingdoms,  is  determined  beforehand,  not  only  to  make  it  noticeable 
 that  the  selection  of  this  symbol  is  not  arbitrary  but  is  significant 
 (Hiivernick),  but  emphatically  to  intimate  that  the  vision  of  dif- 
 ferent kingdoms  is  not  to  be  dealt  with,  as  many  interpreters  seem 
 inclined  to  do,  as  one  only  of  different  kings  of  one  kingdom. 
 
 Vers.  4-8.  In  these  verses  there  is  a  description  of  the  four 
 beasts. — Ver.  4.    The  frst  beast   resembled   a   lion  with    eagle's 
 wings.     At  the  entrance  to  a  temple  at  Birs  Nimrud  there  has 
 been  found  (Layard,  Bab.  and  Nin.)  such  a  symbolical  figure,  viz. 
 a  winged  eagle  with  the  head  of  a  man.     There  have  been  found  \ 
 also  images  of  winged  beasts  at  Babylon  (Miinter,  Helig.  der  Bab.).  ' 
 These  discoveries  may  be  referred  to  as  evidence  that  this  book 
 was  composed  in  Babylon,  and  also  as  explaining  the  Babylonian    , 
 colouring  of  the  dream.     But  the  representation  of  nations  and   / 
 kingdoms  by  the  images  of  beasts  is  much  more  widely  spread, 
 and  affords  the  prophetic  symbolism  the  necessary  analogues  and 
 substrata  for  the  vision.     Lions  and  eagles  are  not  taken  into  con- '^ 
 sideration  here  on  account  of  their  strength,  rapacity,  and  swift- 
 ness, but  simply  because  they  are  kings  among  beasts  and  birds  : 
 "  The  beast  rules  royally  like  the  lion,  and  wings  its  conquering 
 royal  iii'ight  high  over  the  olfcov/jbivr}  like  the  eagle"  (Kliefoth). 
 This  em^blem  corresponds  with  the  representation  of  the  first  king- 
 dom with  the  golden  head  (ch.  ii.).    -What  the  gold  is  among 
 metals  aibd  the  head  among  the  members  of  the  body,  that  the 
 lion  is  amlong  beasts  and  the  eagle  among  birds. 
 
 After  a  time  Daniel  sees  a  change  take  place  with  this  beast. 
 The  wing.s,  i.e.  the  feathers  by  which  it  flies,  are  plucked  off :  it  is 
 deprived  of  its  power  of  flight,  so  that  it  can  no  more  fly  conquer- 
 ing over  tlhe  earth,  or  hover  as  a  ruler  over  it ;  i.e.  the  kingdom 
 will  be  de|)rived  of  the  power  of  conquering,  for  it  will  be  lifted 
 up  from  the  earth  (no''i?n  is  Hoph.,  cf.  ch.  iv.  33),  and  be  placed  on 
 its  feet  as  a  man.  The  lifting  up  from  the  earth  does  not  repre- 
 sent, accordingly,  being  taken  away  or  blown  away  from  the  earth, 
 not  the  Eestruction  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom  (Theodrt.,  Hieron., 
 
224  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Rasclii,  Hitzig,  and  others),  but  the  raising  of  it  up  when  lying 
 prostrate  on  the  ground  to  the  right  attitude  of  a  human  being. 
 This  change  is  further  described  by  the  words,  "  a  man's  heart  was 
 given  to  it,"  denoting  that  the  beast-nature  was  transformed  to  that 
 of  a  man.  The  three  expressions  thus  convey  the  idea,  that  the 
 lion,  after  it  was  deprived  of  its  power  of  flight,  was  not  only  in 
 external  appearance  raised  from  the  form  of  a  beast  to  that  of  a 
 man,  but  also  that  inwardly  the  nature  of  the  beast  was  ennobled 
 into  that  of  a  man.  In  this  description  of  the  change  that  occurred 
 to  the  lion  there  is  without  doubt  a  reference  to  what  is  said  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar  in  ch.  iv. :  it  cannot,  however,  be  thence  con- 
 cluded, with  Hofmann  and  others,  that  the  words  refer  directly 
 to  Nebuchadnezzar's  insanity  ;  for  here  it  is  not  the  king,  but  the 
 kingdom,  that  is  the  subject  with  reference  to  whose  fate  that 
 event  in  the  life  of  its  founder  was  sio;nificant.  Forasmuch  as  it 
 was  on  account  of  his  haughtiness  that  madness  came  upon  him, 
 so  that  he  sank  down  to  the  level  of  the  beasts  of  the  field,  so  also 
 for  the  same  reason  was  his  kingdom  hindered  in  its  flight  over 
 the  earth.  "  Nebuchadnezzar's  madness  was  for  his  kingdom  the 
 plucking  off  of  its  wings;"  and  as  when  he  gave  glory  to  the  Most 
 Hiiih  his  reason  returned  to  him,  and  then  for  the  first  time  he 
 attained  to  the  true  dignity  of  man,  so  also  was  his  world-kingdom 
 ennobled  in  him,  although  the  continued  influence  of  this  en- 
 nobling may  not  be  perceived  from  the  events  in  the  reign  of  his 
 son,  recorded  in  ch.  v.  Besides,  there  lies  herein  not  only  the  idea 
 of  the  superiority  of  the  first  world-kingdom  over  the  others,  as  is 
 represented  in  ch.  ii.  by  the  golden  head  of  the  metallic  iniage,  but 
 also  manifestly  the  typical  thought  that  the  world-kingdoni  will 
 first  be  raised  to  the  dignity  of  manhood  when  its  beast-like  nature 
 is  taken  away.     Where  this  transformation  does  not  take  i  place,  or 
 
 /'  where  it  is  not  permanent,  there  must  the  kingdom  peri,sh.     This 
 is  the  prophetic  meaning,  for  the  sake  of  which  that  occjarrence  in 
 
 /    the  life  of  the  founder  of  the  world-monarchy  is  here  t^-ansferred 
 
 --  to  his  kingdom. 
 
 Ver.  5.  The  second  beast. — 1"l^5.1  signifies  that  this  K)east  came 
 first  into  sight  after  the  lion,  which  also  the  predicate^'  nj^jri  ''■ins 
 prove,  ""in*^  expresses  the  difference  from  the  first  beas.K  ^^1^^  the 
 order  in  which  it  appears.  IThe  beast  was  like  a  bear.  Next  to 
 the  lion  it  is  the  strongest  among  animals  ;Jand  on  acccj>unt  of  its 
 voracity  it  was  called  by  Aristotle  ^coov  Tra/jLcpdyov.  T'-he  words 
 ^^'iPn  ''!!'"""?V?  present  some  difiiculty.    They  have  been  d'a«fferently 
 
CHAP.  VII.  4-8.  225 
 
 explained.  The  explanation  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  "  and  it  estab- 
 lished a  dominion,"  with  which  Kranichfeld  also  agrees,  is  not  only 
 in  opposition  to  the  ''n,  but  is  also  irreconcilable  with  the  line  of 
 thought,  "in  is  not  the  indefinite  article,  but  the  numeral ;  and  the 
 thought  that  the  beast  established  one  dominion,  or  a  united  do- 
 minion, is  in  the  highest  degree  strange,  for  the  character  of  a 
 united  or  compact  dominion  belongs  to  the  second  world-kingdom 
 in  no  case  in  a  greater  degree  than  to  the  Babylonian  kingdom, 
 and  in  general  the  establishing  of  a  dominion  cannot  properly  be 
 predicated  of  a  beast  =  a  kingdom.  The  old  translators  (LXX., 
 Theod.,  Peshito,  Saad.)  and  the  rabbis  have  interpreted  the  word 
 itO'^  in  the  sense  of  side,  a  meaning  which  is  supported  by  the 
 Targ.  I^Pj  and  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  Arabic  stliar,  with- 
 out our  needing  to  adopt  the  reading  it?i^,  found  in  several  Codd 
 The  object  to  the  verb  no''pn  is  easily  supplied  by  the  context :  it 
 raised  up,  i.e.  its  body,  on  one  side.  This  means  neither  that  it 
 leaned  on  one  side  (Ebrard),  nor  that  it  stood  on  its  fore  feet 
 (Havernick),  for  the  sides  of  a  bear  are  not  its  fore  and  hinder 
 part ;  but  we  are  to  conceive  that  the  beast,  resting  on  its  feet,  raised 
 up  the  feet  of  the  one  side  for  the  purpose  of  going  forward,  and 
 so  raised  the  shoulder  or  the  whole  body  on  that  side.  But  with 
 such  a  motion  of  the  beast  the  geographical  situation  of  the  king- 
 dom (Geier,  Mich.,  Ros.)  cannot  naturally  be  represented,  much 
 less  can  the  near  approach  of  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom 
 (Hitzig)  be  signified.  Hofmann,  Delitzsch,  and  Kliefoth  have 
 found. the  right  interpretation  by  a  reference  to  ch.  ii.  and  viii. 
 As  in  ch.  ii.  the  arms  on  each  side  of  the  breast  signify  that  the 
 second  kingdom  will  consist  of  two  parts,  and  this  is  more  dis- 
 tinctly indicated  in  ch.  viii.  by  the  two  horns,  one  of  which  rose  up 
 after  the  other,  and  higher,  so  also  in  this  verse  the  double-sided- 
 ness  of  this  world-kingdom  is  represented  by  the  beast  lifting  itself 
 up  on  the  one  side.  The  Medo-Persian  bear,  as  such,  has,  as 
 Kliefoth  well  remarks,  two  sides  :  the  one,  the  Median  side,  is  at 
 rest  after  the  efforts  made  for  the  erection  of  the  world-kingdom  ; 
 but  the  other,  the  Persian  side,  raises  itself  up,  and  then  becomes 
 not  only  higher  than  the  first,  but  also  is  prepared  for  new  rapine. 
 The  further  expression,  it  had  three  ribs  in  its  mouth  between 
 its  teeth,  has  also  been  variously  interpreted.  That  Tvb^  means 
 ribsy  not  sides,  is  as  certain  as  that  the  ribs  in  the  mouth  between 
 t.he  teeth  do  not  denote  side-teeth,  tusks,  or  fangs  (Saad.,  Hiiv.). 
 1  he  PVr'V  in  the  mouth  between  the  teeth  are  the  booty  which 
 
 P 
 
226  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  bear  has  seized,  according  to  the  undoubted  use  of  the  word ; 
 cf.  Amos  iii.  12,  Ps.  cxxlv.  6,  Job  xxix.  17,  Jer.  11.  44.  Accord- 
 ingly, by  the  ribs  we  cannot  understand  either  the  Persians, 
 Medians,  and  Babylonians,  as  the  nations  that  constituted  the 
 strength  of  the  kingdom  (Ephr.  Syr.,  Hieron.,  Ros.),  or  the  three 
 Median  kings  (Ewald),  because  neither  the  Medes  nor  the  three 
 ^Median  kings  can  be  regarded  as  a  prey  of  the  Median  or  Medo- 
 Persian  world.  The  ''  ribs"  which  the  beast  is  grinding  between 
 its  teeth  cannot  be  the^eoples  who  constitute  the  kingdom,  or  the 
 kind's  ruling  over  it,2}nt  only  peoples  or  countries  which  it  has 
 conquered  and  annexed  to  itself.  The  determining  of  these  peoples 
 and  countries  depends  on  which  kingdom  is  represented  by  the 
 bearT)  Of  the  interpreters  who  understand  by  the  bear  the  Median 
 kingdom,  Maurer  and  Delitzsch  refer  to  the  three  chief  satrapies  (ch. 
 vi.  3  [2]).  Not  these,  however,  but  only  the  lands  divided  between 
 them,  could  be  regarded  as  the  prey  between  the  teeth  of  the  beast, 
 and  then  Media  also  must  be  excluded  ;  so  that  the  reference  of  the 
 words  to  the  three  satrapies  is  altogether  inadmissible.  Hitzig 
 thinks  that  the  reference  is  to  three  towns  that  were  destroyed 
 by  the  Medians,  viz.  Nineveh,  Larissa,  and  a  third  which  he  can- 
 not specify ;  v.  Leng.  regards  the  number  three  as  a  round 
 number,  by  which  the  voracity  of  the  beast  is  shown ;  Kranichfeld 
 understands  by  the  three  ribs  constituent  parts  of  a  whole  of  an 
 older  national  confederation  already  dissolved  and  broken  asunder, 
 of  which,  however,  he  has  no  proof.  We  see,  then,  that  if  the  bear 
 is  taken  as  representing  the  Median  kingdom,  the  three  ribs  in  its 
 mouth  cannot  be  explained.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Medo- 
 Persian  w'orld-kingdom  is  intended  by  the  bear,  then  the  three  ribs 
 in  its  mouth  are  the  three  kingdoms  Babylon,  Lydia,  and  Egypt, 
 which  were  conquered  by  the  Medo-Persians.     This  is  the  view 
 
 Hofm,,  Ebr.,  Ziind.,  and  Klief.  The  latter,  however,  thinks 
 that  the  number  "Three"  ought  not  to  be  regarded  as  symbolical, 
 but  as  forming  only  the  contrast  to  the  number  four  in  ver.  6,  and 
 intimating  that  the  second  beast  will  not  devour  in  all  the  regions 
 of  the  world,  but  only  on  three  sides,  and  will  make  a  threefold 
 and  not  a  fourfold  plunder,  and  therefore  will  not  reach  absolute 
 universality.  But  since  the  symbolical  value  of  each  number  is 
 formed  from  its  arithmetical  signification,  there  is  no  reason  here, 
 any  more  than  there  is  in  the  analogous  passages,  ch.  viii.  4,  22, 
 to  depart  wholly  from  the  exact  signification. 
 
 The  last  expression  of  the  verse,  Arisej  devour  muchjleshj  most 
 
 / 
 / 
 
CHAP,  VII.  4-8.  227 
 
 Interpreters  regard  as  a  summons  to  go  forth  conquering.  But 
 this  exposition  is  neither  necessary,  nor  does  it  correspond  to  the 
 relative  position  of  the  words.  The  eating  much  flesh  does  not 
 form  such  a  contrast  to  the  three  ribs  in  the  mouth  between  the 
 teeth,  that  it  must  be  interpreted  of  other  flesh  than  that  already 
 held  by  the  teeth  with  the  ribs.  It  may  be  very  well  understood, 
 with  Ebrard  and  Kliefoth,  of  the  consuming  of  the  flesh  of  the 
 ribs ;  so  that  the  command  to  eat  much  flesh  is  only  an  explication 
 of  the  figure  of  the  ribs  held  between  the  teeth,  and  contains  only 
 the  thought  that  the  beast  must  wholly  consume  the  plunder  it  has 
 seized  with  its  teeth.  The  plur.  Pl'^^J  {they  spoke)  is  impersonal, 
 and  is  therefore  not  to  be  attributed  to  the  angel  as  speaking. 
 
 Ver.  6.  TJie  third  beast,  which  Daniel  saw  after  the  second,  was 
 like  a  panther  (leopard),  which  is  neither  so  kingly  as  the  lion  nor 
 so  strong  as  the  bear,  but  is  like  to  both  in  rapacity,  and  superior 
 to  them  in  the  springing  agility  with  which  it  catches  its  prey ;  so 
 that  one  may  say,  with  Kliefoth,  that  in  the  subordination  of  the 
 panther  to  the  lion  and  the  bear,  the  same  gradation  is  repeated  as 
 that  which  is  found  (of  the  third  kingdom)  in  ch.  ii.  of  the  copper 
 (brass).  Of  the  panther  it  is  said,  that  it  had  four  wings  of  a  fowl 
 and  four  heads.  The  representation  of  the  beast  with  four  wings 
 increases  the  agility  of  its  movements  to  the  speed  of  the  flight  of 
 a  bird,  and  expresses  the  thought  that  the  kingdom  represented 
 by  that  beast  would  extend  itself  in  flight  over  the  earth;  not 
 so  royally  as  Nebuchadnezzar,  —  for  the  panther  has  not  eagle's 
 wings,  but  only  the  wings  of  a  fowl, — but  extending  to  all  the 
 regions  of  the  earth,  for  it  has  four  wings.  At  the  same  time 
 the  beast  has  four  heads,  not  two  only,  as  one  might  have  ex- 
 pected with  four  wings.  The  number  four  thus  shows  that 
 the  heads  have  an  independent  signification,  and  do  not  stand  in 
 relation  to  the  four  wings,  symbolizing  the  spreading  out  of  the 
 kingdom  into  the  four  quarters  of  the  heavens  (Bertholdt,  Hav., 
 Kran.).  As  little  do  the  four  wings  correspond  with  the  four 
 heads  in  such  a  way  that  by  both  there  is  represented  only  the 
 dividing  of  the  kingdom  into  four  other  kingdoms  (Hiiv.  Comment.y 
 Auberl.).  Wings  are  everywhere  an  emblem  of  rapid  motion ; 
 heads,  on  the  contrary,  where  the  beast  signifies  a  kingdom,  are 
 the  heads  of  the  kingdom,  i.e.  the  kings  or  rulers :  hence  it  fol- 
 lows that  the  four  heads  of  the  panther  are  the  four  successive 
 Persian  kings  whom  alone  Daniel  knows  (ch.  xi.  2).  Without 
 J    ,'gard  to  the  false  interpretations  of   ch.  xi.  2  on  which  this 
 
228  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 opinion  rests,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  four  heads  do  not  rise 
 up  one  after  another,  but  that  they  all  exist  contemporaneously  on 
 the  body  of  the  beast,  and  therefore  can  only  represent  four  co- 
 temporary  kin^s,  or  signify  that  this  kingdom  is  divided  into  four 
 kingdoms.  That  the  four  wings  are  mentioned  before  the  four 
 heads,  signifies  that  the  kingdom  spreads  itself  over  the  earth  with 
 the  speed  of  a  bird's  flight,  and  then  becomes  a  fourfold-kingdom, 
 or  divides  itself  into  four  kingdoms,  as  is  distinctly  shown  in  ch. 
 viii.  5  ff. — The  last  statement,  and  dominion  was  given  to  it,  corre- 
 sponds with  that  in  ch.  ii.  39,  it  shall  bear  ride  over  all  the  earthf 
 i.e.  shall  found  an  actual  and  strong  world-empire. 
 
 Vers.  7  and  8.  The  fourth  beast. — Introduced  by  a  more  detailed 
 description,  the  fourth  beast  is  presented  more  distinctly  before  our 
 notice  than  those  which  preceded  it.  Its  terribleness  and  its  strength, 
 breaking  in  pieces  and  destroying  all  things,  and  the  fact  that  no 
 beast  is  named  to  which  it  can  be  likened,  represent  it  as  different 
 from  all  the  beasts  that  went  before.  This  description  corresponds 
 with  that  of  the  fourth  kingdom  denoted  by  the  legs  and  the  feet 
 of  the  metallic  image  of  the  monarchies  (ch.  ii.).  The  iron  break- 
 ing in  pieces  all  things  (ch.  ii.  40)  is  here  represented  by  the  great 
 iron  teeth  with  which  this  monster  devoured  and  brake  in  pieces. 
 In  addition  to  that,  there  are  also  feet,  or,  as  ver.  19  by  way  of 
 supplement  adds,  "  claws  of  brass,"  with  which  in  the  mere  fury 
 of  its  rage  it  destroyed  all  that  remained,  i.e.  all  that  it  did  not 
 devour  and  destroy  with  its  teeth.  'li1  n^^K'p  N"'n  (it  was  made 
 different)  denotes  not  complete  diversity  of  being,  from  which 
 Hitz.  and  Del.  conclude  that  the  expression  suits  only  the  Mace- 
 donian world-kingdom,  which  as  occidental  was  different  in  its 
 nature  from  the  three  preceding  monarchies,  which  shared  among 
 themselves  an  oriental  home  and  a  different  form  of  civilisation 
 and  despotic  government.  For  although  n^^C'p  expresses  more 
 than  '•'inx  (ver.  5),  yet  the  t^'^  p  NT  j^JC'  {diverse  one  from  another), 
 spoken  (ver.  3)  of  all  the  beasts,  shows  that  "^^^^^  cannot  be  re- 
 garded as  expressing  perfect  diversity  of  being,  but  only  diversity 
 in  appearance.  The  beast  was  of  such  terrible  strength  and 
 destructive  rage,  that  the  whole  animal  world  could  furnish  no  re- 
 presentative by  whose  name  it  might  be  characterized.  It  had  ten 
 horns,  by  which  its  terrible  strength  is  denoted,  because  a  horn  is  in 
 Scripture  always  the  universal  symbol  of  armed  strength.  With  this 
 the  interpretation  (ver.  24),  that  these  horns  are  so  many  kings  or 
 kingdoms,  fully  corresponds.     In  the  ten  horns  the  ten  toes  of  thei 
 
CHAP.  VII.  9-14.  229 
 
 / 
 
 Image  (cli.  ii.)  are  again  repeated.  The  number  ten  comes  into 
 consideration  only  according  to  its  symbolical  meaning  of  compre- 
 hensive and  definite  totality.  That  the  horns  are  on  the  head  of 
 the  one  beast,  signifies  that  the  unfolding  of  its  power  in  the  ten 
 kingdoms  is  not  a  weakening  of  its  power,  but  only  its  full  display. 
 
 Ver.  8.  Here  a  new  event  is  brought  under  our  notice.  While 
 continuing  to  contemplate  the  horns  (the  idea  of  continuance  lies 
 in  the  particip.  with  the  verb.  Jin?),  Daniel  sees  another  little  horn 
 rise  up  among  them,  which  uproots,  i.e.  destroys,  three  of  the  other 
 horns  that  were  already  there.  He  observes  that  this  horn  had  the 
 eyes  of  a  man,  and  a  mouth  vs^hich  spake  great  things.  The  eye 
 and  the  mouth  suggest  a  human  being  as  represented  by  the  horn. 
 Eyes  and  seeing  with  eyes  are  the  symbols  of  insight,  circumspec- 
 tion, prudence.  This  king  will  thus  excel  the  others  in  point  of 
 wisdom  and  circumspection.  But  why  the  eyes  of  a  man  ?  Cer- 
 tainly this  is  not  merely  to  indicate  to  the  reader  that  the  horn 
 signified  a  man.  This  is  already  distinctly  enough  shown  by  the 
 fact  that  eyes,  a  moutli,  and  speech  were  attributed  to  it.  The 
 eyes  of  a  man  were  not  attributed  to  it  in  opposition  to  a  beast,  but 
 in  opposition  to  a  higher  celestial  being,  for  whom  the  ruler  denoted 
 by  the  horn  might  be  mistaken  on  account  of  the  terribleness  of 
 his  rule  and  government ;  "  ne  sum  putemus  juxta  quorundam 
 opinionem  vel  diaholum  esse  vel  dcemonenif  sed  unum  de  hominibus, 
 in  quo  totus  Satanas  hahitaturus  sit  corporaliter^^  as  Jerome  well 
 remarks ;  cf.  Hofmann  and  Kliefoth. — A  mouth  which  speaketh 
 great  things  is  a  vainglorious  mouth.  I^l?!  are  presumptuous  things, 
 not  directly  blasphemies  (Hav.).  In  the  Apocalypse,  xiii.  5,  iJ,6>ydXa 
 and  /3Xaa^7)fjLLaL  are  distinguished. 
 I 
 
 Vers.  9-14.  The  judgment  on  the  horn  speaMng  great  things  and 
 on  the  other  beasts,  and  the  delivering  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Son  of 
 Man. 
 
 After  Daniel  had  for  a  while  contemplated  the  rising  up  of  the 
 little  horn  that  appeared  among  the  ten  horns,  the  scene  changed. 
 There  is  a  solemn  sitting  in  judgment  by  God,  and  sentence  is 
 pronounced.  Seats  or  chairs  were  placed.  V^n^  activ.  with  an 
 indefinite  subject :  they  were  thrown,  i.e.  they  were  placed  in  order 
 quickly,  or  with  a  noise.  Seats,  not  merely  a  throne  for  God  the 
 Judge,  but  a  number  of  seats  for  the  assembly  sitting  in  judgment 
 with  God.  That  assembly  consists  neither  of  the  elders  of  Israel 
 {Iiabb.)j  nor  of  glorified  men  (Hengstb.  on  Rev.  iv.  4),  but  of  angels 
 
230  Tllli  BOOK  OF  DANIEL, 
 
 (Ps.  Ixxxlx.  8),  who  are  to  be  distingulslicd  from  tlie  thousands  and 
 tens  of  thousands  mentioned  in  ver.  10 ;  for  tliese  do  not  sit  upon 
 thrones,  but  stand  before  God  as  servants  to  fulfil  His  commands 
 and  execute  His  judgments.  T^i^  p^nj;,  one  advanced  in  days,  very 
 old,  is  not  the  Eternal ;  for  although  God  is  meant,  yet  Daniel  does 
 not  see  the  everlasting  God,  but  an  old  man,  or  a  man  of  grey 
 liairs,  in  whose  majestic  form  God  makes  Himself  visible  (cf. 
 Ezek.  i.  26).  When  Daniel  represents  the  true  God  as  an  aged 
 man,  he  does  so  not  in  contrast  with  the  recent  gods  of  the  heathen 
 which  Antiochus  Epiphanes  wished  to  introduce,  or  specially  with 
 reference  to  new  gods,  as  Hitzig  and  Kran.  suppose,  by  refer- 
 ence to  Deut.  xxxii.  17  and  Jer.  xxiii.  23;  for  God  is  not  called 
 the  old  God,  but  appears  only  as  an  old  man,  because  age  inspires 
 veneration  and  conveys  the  impression  of  majesty.  This  impres- 
 sion is  heightened  by  the  robe  with  which  He  is  covered,  and  by 
 the  appearance  of  the  hair  of  His  head,  and  also  by  the  flames  of 
 fire  which  are  seen  to  go  forth  fi'om  His  throne.  His  robe  is  white 
 as  snow,  and  the  hair  of  His  head  is  white  like  pure  wool ;  cf.  Rev. 
 i.  14.  Both  are  symbols  of  spotless  purity  and  holiness.  Flames 
 of  fire  proceed  from  His  throne  as  if  it  consisted  of  it,  and  the 
 wheels  of  His  throne  scatter  forth  fire.  One  must  not  take  the 
 fire  exclusively  as  a  sign  of  punishment.  Fire  and  the  shining  of 
 fire  are  the  constant  phenomena  of  the  manifestation  of  God  in 
 the  world,  as  the  earthly  elements  most  fitting  for  the  representa- 
 tion of  the  burning  zeal  with  which  the  holy  God  not  only  punishes 
 and  destroys  sinners,  but  also  purifies  and  renders  glorious  His  own 
 people ;  see  under  Ex.  iii.  3.  The  fire-scattering  wheels  of  the 
 throne  show  the  omnipresence  of  the  divine  throne  of  judgment, 
 the  going  of  the  judgment  of  God  over  the  whole  earth  (Kliefoth). 
 The  fire  which  engirds  with  flame  the  throne  of  God  pours  itself 
 forth  as  a  stream  from  God  into  the  world,  consuming  all  that  is 
 sinful  and  hostile  to  God  in  the  world,  and  rendering  the  people 
 and  kingdom  of  God  glorious.  ''O^'^li?.  IP  {from  before  Ilim)  refers 
 to  God,  and  not  to  His  throne.  A  thousand  times  a  thousand  and 
 ten  thousand  times  ten  thousand  are  hyperbolical  expressions  for 
 an  innumerable  company  of  angels,  who  as  His  servants  stand 
 around  God;  cf.  Deut.  xxxiii.  2,  Ps.  Ixviii.  18.  The  Ke?^  pre- 
 sents the  Chaldaic  form  ps^lSt  for  the  Hebraizing  form  of  the  text 
 D*D?N  {thousands),  and  for  ipi  the  Hebraizing  form  133"!  (myriads), 
 often  found  in  the  Targg.,  to  harmonize  the  plur.  form  with  the 
 siniiular  i3"i  o;oin<T  before. 
 
CHAP.  VII.  9-14.  231 
 
 Fortliwitli  the  judgment  begins,  sn^  W'''n  we  translate,  with 
 most  interpreters,  the  judgment  sets  itself.  N3'''n,  judgment,  ahstr. 
 pro  co7ic7'eto,  as  jitdicmm  in  Cicero,  Ver7\  2.  18.  This  idea  alone 
 is  admissible  in  ver.  26,  and  here  also  it  is  more  simple  than  that 
 defended  by  Dathe  and  Krau. :  "  He  "  (i.e.  the  Ancient  of  days) 
 *'sets  Himself  for  judgment," — which  would  form  a  pure  tautology, 
 since  His  placing  Himself  for  judgment  has  been  already  (ver.  9) 
 mentioned,  and  nothing  would  be  said  regarding  the  object  for 
 which  the  throne  was  set. — "  The  hooks  loere  opened.''^  The  actions 
 of  men  are  recorded  in  the  books,  according  to  which  they  are 
 judged,  some  being  ordained  to  eternal  life  and  others  condemned  to 
 eternal  death  ;  cf.  Rev.  xx.  12,  and  the  notes  under  Dan.  xii.  1. 
 The  horn  speaking  great  things  is  first  visited  with  the  sentence  of 
 death. 
 
 Ver.  11.  The  construction  of  this  verse  is  disputed.  The 
 second  n\\n  riTn  (/  loas  seeing)  repeats  the  first  for  the  purpose  of 
 carrying  on  the  line  of  thought  broken  by  the  interposed  sentence. 
 P"iX2  (then)  is  separated  by  the  accents  from  the  first  n'')n  ntn  and 
 joined  to  the  clause  following  :  ^^then  on  account  of  the  voice  of  the 
 great  ivordsJ"  By  this  interposed  sentence  the  occasion  of  the 
 judgment  which  Daniel  sees  passed  upon  the  beast  is  once  more 
 brought  to  view,  ^i^  I^,  "  07i  account  of  the  voice  of  the  words^^ 
 i.e.  on  account  of  the  loud  words,  not  "  from  the  time  of  the  words, 
 or  from  the  time  when  the  voice  of  the  great  words  made  itself 
 heard  "  (Klief .).  The  following  expression,  ^'n  ^V  (till  that),  does 
 not  by  any  means  require  the  temporal  conception  of  |^.  To 
 specify  the  ter7ninus  a  quo  of  the  vision  was  as  little  necessary 
 here  as  in  the  "''^.  ^y  n^)n  ntrij  ver.  9.  The  temporal  conception 
 of  IP  alters  not  only  the  parallelism  of  the  passage  vers.  9  and  11, 
 but  also  the  course  of  thought  in  the  representation,  according  to 
 which  Daniel  remains  overwhelmed  durincr  the  vision  till  all  the 
 separate  parts  of  it  have  passed  before  his  view,  i.e.  till  he  has 
 seen  the  close  of  the  judgment.  The  first  part  of  this  scene  consists 
 of  the  constituting  of  the  judgment  (vers.  9,  10),  the  second  of  the 
 death  and  extinction  of  the  horn  speaking  great  things  (ver.  11), 
 with  which  is  connected  (ver.  12)  the  mention  of  the  destruction 
 of  the  dominion  of  the  other  beasts.  If  one  considers  that  the 
 words  "  /  beheld  till  that "  correspond  with  the  like  expression  in 
 ver.  9,  he  will  not  seek,  with  Kran.,  in  the  "•'^  Ty  a  reference  to  a 
 lasting  process  of  judicial  execution  ending  with  destruction.  The 
 thought  is  simply  this  :  Daniel  remained  contemplating  the  vision 
 
232  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 till  tlie  beast  was  slain,  etc.  ^^nvn  (jhe  least)  is,  Ly  virtue  of  tlie 
 explanatory  sentence  interposed  in  the  first  hemistich,  the  horn 
 speaking  great  things.  The  ungodly  power  of  the  fourth  beast 
 reaches  its  climax  in  the  blaspheming  horn  ;  in  this  horn,  therefore, 
 the  beast  is  slain  and  destroyed,  while  its  body  is  given  to  the 
 burning,  i^y'^  ^']i?r  {to  the  burning  fire)  corresponds  with  the 
 Hebr.  t^'i?  riDX'v,  Isa.  Ixiv.  10.  The  burning  in  the  fire  is  not  the 
 mere  figure  of  destruction,  specially  justified  by  the  thunder-storm 
 which  gathered  as  a  veil  around  the  scene  of  judgment  (Kran.), 
 for  there  is  no  mention  of  a  storm  either  in  vcr.  9  or  anywhere  else 
 in  this  entire  vision.  The  supposition  that  the  burning  is  only  the 
 figure  of  destruction,  as  e.g.  in  Isa.  ix.  4,  is  decidedly  opposed  by 
 the  parallel  passages,  Isa.  Ixvi.  14,  which  Daniel  had  in  view,  and 
 Rev.  xix.  20  and  xx.  10,  where  this  prophecy  is  again  taken  up, 
 and  the  judgment  is  expressed  by  a  being  cast  into  a  lake  of  fire 
 with  everlasting  torment;  so  that  v.  Lengerke  is  right  when  he 
 remarks  that  this  passage  speaks  of  the  fiery  torments  of  the 
 wicked  after  death,  and  thus  that  a  state  of  retribution  after  death 
 is  indicated. 
 
 Ver.  12.  In  this  verse  it  is  in  addition  remarked,  that  the 
 dominion  of  the  other  beasts  was  also  destroyed,  because  the 
 duration  of  their  lives  was  determined  for  a  time  and  an  hour. 
 The  construction  of  the  words  forbids  us  (with  Luther)  to  regard 
 the  first  part  of  ver.  12  as  dependent  on  ''T  "ty  of  ver.  11.  The 
 object  i^nvn  INK''^  {the  rest  of  the  beasts)  is  presented  in  the  form 
 of  an  absolute  nominative,  whereby  the  statement  of  ver.  12  is 
 separated  from  the  preceding.  ''''IVO5  impersonal,  instead  of  the 
 passive,  as  ^P'^  in  ch.  ii.  35  :  "  their  dominion  was  made  to  perish," 
 for  "  their  dominion  was  destroyed."  "  The  other  beasts  "  are  not 
 those  that  remained  of  the  seven  horns  of  the  fourth  beast,  which 
 were  not  uprooted  by  the  horn  coming  up  amongst  them,  the 
 remaining  kingdoms  of  the  fourth  monarcliy  after  the  destruction 
 by  that  horn,  for  with  the  death  of  the  beast  the  whole  fourth 
 world-monarcliy  is  destroyed  ;  nor  are  they  the  other  kingdoms 
 yet  remaining  at  the  time  of  the  overthrow  of  the  fourth  world- 
 monarchy  or  the  destruction  of  the  fourth  beast  (J.  D.  Mich., 
 V.  Leng.),  which  only  lose  their  political  power,  but  first  of  all 
 would  become  subject  to  the  new  dominant  people  (Hitzig),  for 
 such  other  kingdoms  have  no  existence  in  the  prophetic  view  of 
 Daniel,  since  the  beasts  represent  world-kingdoms  whose  dominion 
 stretches  over  the  whole  earth.    The  "  remainin<!;  beasts  "  are  umch 
 
CHAP.  VII.  9-14.  233 
 
 rather  tlie  first  three  beasts  \v])ich  arose  out  of  the  sea  before 
 tlie  fourth,  as  is  rightly  ackuowledged  by  Chr.  B.  Mich.,  Ros., 
 Hiiv.,  Hofm.,  Maur.,  Klief.,  and  Kran,,  with  the  old  interpreters. 
 Although  the  four  world-kingdoms  symbolized  by  those  beasts 
 follow  each  other  in  actual  history,  so  that  the  earlier  is  always 
 overthrown  by  that  Avhich  comes  after  it,  yet  the  dominion  of  the 
 one  is  transferred  to  the  other ;  so  in  the  prophetic  representation 
 the  death  or  the  disappearance  of  the  first  three  beasts  is  not  expressly 
 remarked,  but  is  here  first  indicated,  without  our  needing  for  that 
 reason  to  regard  V'nyn  as  the  pluperfect.  For  the  exposition  of 
 this  verse  also  we  may  not  appeal  to  eh.  ii.,  where  all  the  four 
 world-kingdoms  are  represented  in  one  human  image,  and  the  stone 
 which  rolled  against  the  feet  of  tins  image  broke  not  only  the 
 feet,  but  with  them  the  whole  image  to  pieces  (ch.  ii.  34  f .),  which 
 in  ver.  44  is  explained  as  meaning  that  the  kingdom  of  God  will 
 bring  to  an  end  all  those  kingdoms.  From  this  we  cannot  con- 
 clude that  those  kingdoms  had  long  before  already  perished  at  the 
 hour  appointed  for  them,  but  that  a  remainder  {"^^f)  of  them  yet 
 continued  to  exist  (Hiiv.),  for  the  representation  in  this  chapter  is 
 different ;  and  the  rest  of  the  beasts  cannot  possibly  mean  that  which 
 remained  of  the  beasts  after  their  destruction,  but  only  the  beasts 
 that  remained  after  the  death  of  the  fourth  beast.  The  mas. 
 suff.  to  P'^pf^r'^  (their  dominion)  and  pnp  refer  ad  sensuin  to  the 
 possessor  or  ruler  of  the  world-kingdom  represented  by  the  beasts. 
 With  that  interpretation  of  "the  rest  of  the  beasts  "  the  statement 
 also  of  the  second  half  of  the  verse  does  not  agree,  for  it  proves  that 
 the  subject  is  the  destruction  of  the  dominion  of  all  the  beasts  which 
 arose  up  before  the  fourth.  The  length  or  duration  of  life  is  the 
 time  of  the  continuance  of  the  world-kingdoms  represented  by  the 
 beasts,  and  thus  the  end  of  life  is  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom. 
 The  passive  pret.  nn''n''  is  not  to  be  taken  thus  as  the  imperf. :  "  a 
 period  of  life  was  appointed  to  them,"  but  as  the  pluperf. :  "  had 
 been  granted  to  them,"  and  the  passage  formally  connected  by  the 
 simple  1  is  to  be  taken  as  confirming  the  preceding  statement. 
 \^^)  I'??  (placed  together  as  ch.  ii.  21  in  the  meaning  there  explained) 
 is  not  to  be  identified  with  NJOT,  ver.  22  (v.  Leng.,  Kran.).  The 
 form  {stat.  ahsoL,  not  emphat.)  shows  that  not  a  definite  time,  the 
 time  of  the  divine  judgment  of  the  fourth  beast,  is  meant,  but 
 the  time  of  the  continuance  of  the  power  and  dominion  for  each 
 of  the  several  beasts  (kingdoms),  foreseen  only  in  the  counsel  of 
 the  Most  High,  and  not  further  defined.      In  accordance   with 
 
234  TUC  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 this,  tlie  statement  of  ver.  12  is  that  tlie  first  three  beasts  also  liad 
 tlieir  dominion  taken  away  one  after  another,  each  at  its  appointed 
 time ;  for  to  each  God  gave  its  duration  of  life,  extending  to  the 
 season  and  time  appointed  by  Him.  Thus  Kliefotli,  with  the  older 
 interpreters,  correctly  regards  the  connecting  of  the  end  of  the 
 first  three  beasts  with  that  of  the  last  as  denoting  that  in  the  horn 
 not  merely  the  fourth  kingdom,  but  also  the  first  three  kingdoms, 
 the  whole  world-power,  is  brought  to  an  end  by  the  last  judgment. 
 This  thought,  right  in  itself,  and  distinctly  announced  in  the 
 destruction  of  the  image  (ch.  ii.),  appears,  however,  to  lie  less  in 
 the  altogether  loose  connection  of  ver.  12  with  ver.  11  than  in  the 
 whole  context,  and  certainly  in  this,  that  with  the  fourth  beast  in 
 general  the  unfolding  of  the  world-jiower  in  its  diverse  phases  is 
 exhausted,  and  with  the  judgment  of  this  kingdom  the  kingdom 
 of  God  is  raised  to  everlasting  supremacy. 
 
 Vers.  13.  and  14.  The  giving  of  tlie  kingdom  to  the  Son  of  Man. 
 — The  judgment  does  not  come  to  an  end  with  the  destruction  of 
 the  world-power  in  its  various  embodiments.  That  is  only  its 
 first  act,  which  is  immediately  followed  by  the  second,  the  erection 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  Son  of  man.  This  act  is  intro- 
 duced by  the  repetition  of  the  formula,  /  saiv  in  the  night-visions 
 (vers.  7  and  2).  (One)  like  a  son  of  man  came  in  the  clouds  of 
 heaven.  "'Jjy  DV?  w^^^*  ^^'^  clouds,  i.e.  in  connection  with  them,  in 
 or  on  them,  as  the  case  may  be,  surrounded  by  clouds ;  cf.  Rev. 
 i.  7,  Mark  xiii.  26,  Matt.  xxiv.  30,  xxvi.  64.  He  who  comes  is 
 not  named,  but  is  only  described  according  to  his  appearance  like 
 a  son  of  man,  i.e.  resembling  a  man  {^'l^.  "i?  as  2^5;<  |3  =  lJ'iJi<  or 
 DTN).  That  this  was  a  man  is  not  implied  in  these  words,  but 
 only  that  he  was  like  a  man,  and  not  like  a  beast  or  some  other 
 creature.  Now,  as  the  beasts  signify  not  beasts  but  kingdoms,  so 
 that  which  appeared  in  the  form  of  a  man  may  signify  something 
 else  than  a  human  individuum.  Following  the  example  of  Aben 
 Ezra,  Paulus,  and  Wegscheider,  Hofniann  {Schriftbeiu.  ii.  1.  80, 
 and  2,  p.  582  f.),  Hitzig,  Weisse,  Volkmar,  Fries  {Jahrbb.  f  D. 
 Theol.  iv.  p.  261),  Baxmann,  and  Ilorzfeld  {Gesch.  des  V.  Jsr.  ii. 
 p.  381)  interpret  this  appearance  in  the  form  of  a  man  not  of  the 
 Messiah,  as  the  Jewish  and  Christian  interpreters  in  general  do, 
 but  of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  adduce  in  sujiport  of  this  view  the 
 fact  that,  in  the  explanation  of  the  vision,  ver.  27,  cf.  ver.  24,  the 
 kingdom,  the  dominion,  and  the  power,  which  according  to  ver.  14 
 the  son  of  man  received,  was  given  to  the  people  of  the  saints  of 
 
CHAP.  VII.  0-14.  235 
 
 the  Most  High.  But  ver.  27  affords  no  valid  support  to  tliis 
 supposition,  for  the  angel  there  gives  forth  his  declaration  regard- 
 inn;  the  everlastinj;  kino;dom  of  God,  not  in  the  form  of  an  inter- 
 pretation  of  Daniel's  vision,  as  in  the  case  of  the  four  beasts  in  vers. 
 17  and  23,  but  he  only  says  that,  after  the  destruction  of  the  horn 
 and  its  dominion,  the  kingdom  and  the  power  will  be  given  to  the 
 people  of  the  saints,  because  he  had  before  (ver.  26,  cf.  22) 
 spoken  of  the  blasphemies  of  the  horn  against  God,  and  of  its 
 war  against  the  saints  of  the  Most  Hio;h.  But  the  delivering  of 
 the  kingdom  to  the  people  of  God  does  not,  according  to  the 
 prophetic  mode  of  contemplation,  exclude  the  Messiah  as  its  king, 
 but  much  rather  includes  Him,  inasmuch  as  Daniel,  like  the  other 
 prophets,  knows  nothing  of  a  kingdom  without  a  head,  a  Messianic 
 kingdom  without  the  King  Messiah.  But  when  Hofmann  further 
 remarks,  that  "  somewhere  it  must  be  seen  that  by  that  appearance 
 in  the  form  of  a  man  is  meant  not  the  holy  congregation  of  Israel, 
 but  an  individual,  a  fifth  king,  the  Messiah,"  Auberlen  and 
 Kranichfeld  have,  with  reference  to  this,  shown  that,  according  to 
 ver.  21,  the  saints  appear  in  their  multiplicity  engaged  in  war 
 when  the  person  who  comes  in  the  clouds  becomes  visible,  and 
 thus  that  the  difference  between  the  saints  and  that  person  is 
 distinctly  manifest.  Hence  it  appears  that  the  "  coming  with  the 
 clouds  of  heaven "  can  only  be  applied  to  the  congregation  of 
 Israel,  if  we  agree  with  Hofmann  in  the  opinion  that  he  who 
 appeared  was  not  carried  by  the  clouds  of  heaven  down  to  the 
 earth,  but  from  the  earth  up  to  heaven,  in  order  that  he  might 
 there  receive  the  kingdom  and  the  dominion.  But  this  opinion 
 is  contradicted  by  all  that  the  Scriptures  teach  regarding  this 
 matter.  In  this  very  chapter  before  us  there  is  no  expression  or 
 any  intimation  whatever  that  the  judgment  is  held  in  heaven.  No 
 place  is  named.  It  is  only  said  that  judgment  was  held  over  the 
 power  of  the  fourth  beast,  which  came  to  a  head  in  the  horn  speak- 
 ing blasphemies,  and  that  the  beast  was  slain  and  his  body  burned. 
 If  he  who  appears  as  a  son  of  man  with  the  clouds  of  heaven 
 comes  before  the  Ancient  of  days  executing  the  judgment  on  the 
 earth,  it  is  manifest  that  he  could  only  come  from  heaven  to  earth. 
 If  the  reverse  is  to  be  understood,  then  it  ought  to  have  been  so 
 expressed,  since  the  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  in  opposi- 
 tion to  the  rising  up  of  the  beasts  out  of  the  sea  very  distinctly 
 indicates  a  coming  down  from  heaven.  The  clouds  are  the  veil 
 or  the  "  chariot "  on  which  God  comes  from  heaven  to  execute 
 
236  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 jiulfrment  against  His  enemies;  cf.  Ps.  xvlii.  10 f.,  xcvii.  2-4, 
 civ.  3,  Isa.  xix.  1,  Nali.  i.  3.  This  passage  forms  the  founda- 
 tion for  the  declaration  of  Christ  regarding  His  future  coming, 
 uhich  is  described  after  Dan.  vii.  13  as  a  coming  of  the  Son  of 
 man  with,  in,  on  the  clouds  of  heaven  ;  jMatt.  xxiv.  30,  xxvi.  64 ; 
 Mark  xiii.  26  ;  Rev.  i.  7,  xiv.  14.  Against  this,  Ilofmann,  in 
 behalf  of  his  explanation,  can  only  adduce  1  Thess.  iv.  17,  in  total 
 disregard  of  the  preceding  context,  ver.  16.^ 
 
 AVith  all  other  interpreters,  we  must  accordingly  firmly  main- 
 tain that  he  who  appears  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  comes  from 
 heaven  to  earth  and  is  a  personal  existence,  and  is  brought  before 
 God,  who  judges  the  world,  that  he  may  receive  dominion,  majesty, 
 and  a  kingdom.  But  in  the  words  "  as  a  man  "  it  is  not  meant 
 that  he  was  only  a  man.  He  that  comes  w'ith  the  clouds  of 
 heaven  ma}',  as  Kranichfeld  rightly  observes,  "  be  regarded,  ac- 
 cording to  current  representations,  as  the  God  of  Israel  coming 
 on  the  clouds,  while  yet  he  who  appears  takes  the  outward  form  of 
 a  man."  The  comparison  (3,  as  a  man)  proves  accordingly  much 
 more,  that  this  heavenly  or  divine  being  was  in  human  form.  This 
 "  Son  of  man  "  came  near  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  as  God  appears 
 in  the  vision  of  the  judgment,  ver.  9,  and  was  placed  before  Him. 
 The  subject  to  "'i}''^'!i?']  is  undefined ;  Kran.  thinks  that  it  is  the 
 clouds  just  mentioned,  others  think  it  is  the  ministering  angels. 
 Analogous  passages  may  be  adduced  in  support  of  both  views: 
 for  the  first,  the  vecpeXrj  vireka^ev  avrov  in  Acts  i.  9  ;  but  the 
 parallel  passages  with  intransitive  verbs  speak  more  in  favour  of 
 the  impersonal  translation,  "  they  brought  him  "  =  he  was  brought. 
 The  words,  "  dominion,  and  glory,  and  a  kingdom  were  given  to 
 him,"  remind  us  of  the  expression  used  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  ch.  ii. 
 37  f.,  but  they  are  elevated  by  the  description  following  to  the 
 conception  of  the  everlasting  dominion  of  God.     God  gave  to 
 
 ^  The  force  of  these  considerations  is  also  recognised  by  Hitzig.  Since  the 
 people  of  the  saints  cannot  come  from  heaven,  he  resorts  to  the  expedient  that 
 the  Son  of  man  is  a  "  figure  for  the  concrete  whole,  the  kingdom,  the  saints — 
 this  kingdom  comes  down  from  heaven."  The  difhculties  of  such  an  idea 
 are  very  obvious.  Fries  appears  to  be  of  opinion,  with  Hofmanu,  that  there 
 is  an  ascension  to  heaven  of  the  people  of  the  saints ;  for  to  him  "  clear 
 evidence"  that  the  "  Sou  of  man"  is  the  people  of  Israel  lies  especially  in  the 
 words,  "  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before 
 Him,"  which  necessitates  the  adoption  of  the  opposite  terminus  a  quo  from 
 Matt.  xxiv.  30,  Mark  xiv.  62,  Rev.  i.  7  ;  and  hence  makes  the  direct  parallelism 
 of  Dan.  vii.  13  with  the  pas^:age3  named  impossible  (?). 
 
CHAP.  VII.  15-28.  237 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  the  founder  and  first  bearer  of  the  world-power, 
 a  kingdom,  and  might,  and  majesty,  and  dominion  over  all  the 
 inhabitants  of  the  earth,  men,  and  beasts,  and  birds,  that  he  might 
 govern  all  nations,  and  tribes,  and  tongues  (eh.  v.  18,  19),  but  not 
 indeed  in  such  a  manner  as  that  all  nations  and  tribes  should 
 render  him  religious  homage,  nor  was  his  dominion  one  of  ever- 
 lastinor  duration.  These  two  things  belong  only  to  the  kincrdom 
 of  God.  npa  is  used  in  biblical  Chaldee  only  of  the  service  and 
 homage  due  to  God ;  cf.  ver.  27,  ch.  iii.  12,  14,  17  f.,  Ezra  vii.  19, 
 24.  Thus  it  indicates  here  also  the  religious  service,  the  reverence 
 which  belong  to  God,  though  in  the  Targg.  it  corresponds  with 
 the  Heb.  *l3y  in  all  its  meanings,  colere  Deum,  terrain^  lahorare. 
 Regarding  the  expression  "  nations,  tribes,  and  tongues,"  see  under 
 vers.  3,  4.  The  eternity  of  the  duration  of  the  dominion  is  in  this 
 book  the  constant  predicate  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  His 
 Anointed,  the  Messiah  ;  cf.  ch.  iii.  33,  iv.  31,  ii.  44.  For  further 
 remarks  regarding  the  Son  of  man,  see  at  the  close  of  this 
 chapter. 
 
 Vers.  15-28.  The  interpretation  of  the  vision. — Ver.  14  con- 
 cludes the  account  of  the  contents  of  the  vision,  but  not  the  vision 
 itself.  That  continues  to  the  end  of  the  chapter.  Ver.  15.  The 
 things  which  Daniel  saw  made  a  deep  impression  on  his  mind.  Idis 
 spirit  was  troubled  within  him  ;  the  sight  filled  him  with  terror.  It 
 was  not  the  mystery  of  the  images,  nor  the  fact  that  all  was  not 
 clear  before  his  sight,  that  troubled  and  disquieted  him  ;  for  ver.  28 
 shows  that  the  disquietude  did  not  subside  when  an  angel  explained 
 the  images  he  had  seen.  It  was  the  things  themselves  as  they 
 passed  in  vision  before  him — the  momentous  events,  the  calamities 
 which  the  people  of  God  would  have  to  endure  till  the  time  of  the 
 completion  of  the  everlasting  kingdom  of  God — which  filled  him 
 with  anxiety  and  terror,  ""nil  stands  for  the  Hebr.  ''ir'23j  and  n:i? 
 7N*n  is  in  apposition  to  the  suflSx  in  ''H^i,  for  the  suffix  is  repeated 
 with  emphasis  by  the  pronoun,  ch.  viii.  1,  15,  Ezra  vii.  21,  and 
 more  frequently  also  in  the  Hebr. ;  cf .  Winer,  Chald.  Gram.  §  40,  4 ; 
 Ges.  Hehr.  Gram.  §  121,  3.  The  emphatic  bringing  forward  of 
 the  person  of  the  prophet  corresponds  to  the  significance  of  the 
 vision,  which  made  so  deep  an  impression  on  him  ;  cf.  also  ch.  x.  1,  7, 
 xii.  15.  In  this  there  is  no  trace  of  anxiety  on  the  part  of  the 
 speaker  to  make  known  that  he  is  Daniel,  as  Hitzig  supposes. 
 The  figure  here  used,  "  in  the  sheaOi''  (E.  V.  "  in  the  midst  of  my 
 
238  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 body"),  by  which  the  body  is  likened  to  a  sheath  for  the  soul, 
 which  as  a  sword  in  its  sheath  is  concealed  by  it,  is  found  also  in 
 Job  xxvii.  8,  and  in  the  writings  of  the  rabbis  (cf.  Buxt.  Lex. 
 talm.  s.v.)  It  is  used  also  by  Pliny,  vii.  52.  On  "  visions  of  my  head,'" 
 cf.  ver.  1. 
 
 Ver.  16.  Daniel  turned  himself  towards  an  angel  who  stood 
 by,  with  a  request  for  an  explanation  of  these  things.  One  of  them 
 that  stood  by  refers  to  those  mentioned  in  ver.  10,  who  stood  around 
 the  throne  of  God  ;  whence  it  is  obvious  that  the  vision  is  still  con- 
 tinued, ^^y?'?  is  not  the  preterite,  I  asked  him,  but  the  subjunctive, 
 that  (1)  I  might  ask.  So  also  "'^SV"!^'"'"'.  is  to  be  taken  with  the  i  going 
 before  :  he  spake  to  me,  that  lie  informed  me,  namely  by  his  speaking. 
 
 In  vers  17-27  the  angel  gives  the  wished-for  explanation.  In 
 vers.  17  and  18  he  gives  first  a  general  interpretation  of  the  vision. 
 The  words,  these  great  Leasts,  of  which  there  w.ire  four,  form  an 
 absolute  nominal  clause  :  "  as  for  the  beasts;"  as  concerning  their 
 meaning,  it  is  this  :  "  they  represent  four  kings."  The  kings  are 
 named  as  founders  and  representatives  of  world-kingdoms.  Four 
 kingdoms  are  meant,  as  ver.  23  shows,  where  the  fourth  beast  is 
 explained  as  l^?^,  "  dominion,"  "  kingdom."  Compare  also  ch. 
 viii.  20  and  21,  where  in  like  manner  kings  are  named  and  kins- 
 donis  are  meant.  From  the  future  no^PI  [shall  arise)  Hitzig  con- 
 cludes that  the  first  kingdom  was  yet  future,  and  therefore,  that 
 since  Daniel  had  the  vision  under  Belshazzar,  the  first  king  could 
 only  be  Belshazzar,  but  could  not  represent  the  Chaldean  monarchy. 
 But  if  from  the  words  shall  arise  it  follows  that  the  vision  is  only 
 of  kings  who  arise  in  the  future,  then,  since  Daniel  saw  the 
 vision  in  the  first  year  of  Belshazzar,  it  cannot  of  course  be  Bel- 
 shazzar who  is  represented  by  the  first  beast ;  and  if  Belshazzar 
 was,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  the  last  king  of  Chaldea,  then  the  entire 
 Chaldean  monarchy  is  excluded  froiu  the  number  of  the  four  gieat 
 beasts.  Kranichfeld  therefore  understands  this  word  as  modal,  and 
 interprets  it  should  arise.  This  was  the  divine  decree  by  which 
 also  the  duration  of  their  kingdoms  was  determined  (vers.  12, 
 25).  But  the  modal  interpretation  does  not  agree  with  ver.  16, 
 accordintr  to  which  the  ancjel  wishes  to  make  known  the  meaning 
 of  the  matter  to  Daniel,  not  to  show  what  w^as  determined  in  the 
 divine  counsel,  but  what  God  had  revealed  to  him  by  the  beasts 
 rising  up  out  of  the  sea.  The  future,  shall  arise,  is  rather  (I\os., 
 v.  I^eng.,  Maur.,  Klief.,  etc.)  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  that  the 
 vision  represents  the  development  of  the  world-power  as  a  whole, 
 
CHAP.  VII.  15-28.  239 
 
 as  it  would  unfold  itself  in  four  successive  phases  ;  whereupon  the 
 angel  so  summarily  interprets  the  vision  to  the  prophet,  that, 
 dating  from  the  time  of  their  origin,  he  points  out  the  first  world- 
 kingdom  as  arising  along  with  the  rest,  notwithstanding  that 
 it  had  already  come  into  existence,  and  only  its  last  stages  were 
 then  future.  The  thought  of  this  summary  interpretation  is  mani- 
 festly nothing  else  than  this  :  "  Four  kingdoms  shall  arise  on  the 
 earth,  and  shall  again  disappear ;  but  the  saints  of  God  shall 
 receive  the  kine;dom  which  shall  have  an  everlastincj  duration." 
 1^' ?i?*,  receive ;  not  found  and  establish  by  their  own  might,  but 
 receive  through  the  Son  of  man,  to  whom  God  (ver.  14)  has 
 given  it.  pvSy  (cf.  vers.  22,  25,  27)  is  the  name  of  God,  the  Most 
 High,  analogous  to  the  plur.  forms  Ci?^^,  D"'K''iip.  "  The  saints  of 
 the  Most  High,"  or  briefly  "  the  saints"  (vers.  21,  22),  are  neither 
 the  Jews,  who  are  accustomed  to  call  themselves  "  saints,"  in 
 contrast  with  the  heathen  (v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitzig,  etc.),  nor  the 
 converted  Israel  of  the  millennium  (Hofmann  and  other  chiliasts), 
 but,  as  we  argue  from  Ex.  xix.  6,  Deut.  vii.  6,  the  true  members 
 of  the  covenant  nation,  the  New  Testament  Israel  of  God,  i.e.  the 
 congregation  of  the  New  Covenant,  consisting  of  Israel  and  the 
 faithful  of  all  nations  ;  for  the  kingdom  which  God  gives  to  the 
 Son  of  man  will,  according  to  ver.  14,  comprehend  those  that  are 
 redeemed  from  among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth.  The  idea  of 
 the  everlasting  duration  of  their  kingdom  is,  by  the  words  *<'D?J^  0?^ 
 (/or  ever  and  ever)^  raised  to  the  superlative  degree. 
 
 The  angel  does  not  here  give  further  explanations  regarding  the 
 first  three  kingdoms.  Since  the  second  chapter  treats  of  them,  and 
 the  eighth  also  gives  further  description  of  the  second  and  third, 
 it  is  enough  here  to  state  that  the  first  three  beasts  represent  those 
 kingdoms  that  are  mentioned  in  ch.  ii.  The  form  of  the  fourth 
 beast,  however,  comprehends  much  more  regarding  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom  than  the  dream-image  of  Nebuchadnezzar  did. 
 Therefore  Daniel  asks  the  angel  further  for  certain  information 
 (certainty)  regarding  the  dreadful  form  of  this  beast,  and  con- 
 sequently the  principal  outlines  of  the  representation  before  given 
 of  it  are  repeated  by  him  in  vers.  19-21,  and  are  completed  by 
 certain  circumstances  there  omitted.  Thus  ver.  19  presents  the 
 addition,  that  the  beast  had,  along  with  iron  teeth,  also  claws  of 
 brass,  with  which  it  stamped  to  pieces  what  it  could  not  devour ; 
 and  ver.  20,  that  the  little  horn  became  greater  than  its  fellows, 
 made  war  against  the  people  of  God  and  overcame  them,  till  the 
 
2iO  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 judgment  brought  its  dominion  to  an  end.  ^^^.r  '^'^V,  ^  wished 
 for  sure  knowledge,  i.e.  to  experience  certainty  regarding  it. 
 
 In  ver.  20,  from  vD3^  {fell  doxon)  the  relative  connection  of 
 the  passage  is  broken,  and  the  direct  description  is  continued. 
 (ZiT  N3"i|5"i  [and  that  horn)  is  an  absolute  idea,  which  is  then  ex- 
 plained by  the  Vav  epexegetic.  ^)][},  the  appearance  which  it  pre- 
 sented, i.e.  its  aspect,  i^nn^n  |p  (above  his  fellows)^  for  •^J^'^^n  ^rn  p 
 {above  the  asjoect  of  his  felloios),  see  under  ch.  i.  10. 
 
 Ver.  21.  r^^li?  (without  the  article),  although  used  in  a  defi- 
 nite sense  of  the  saints  already  mentioned,  appertains  to  the 
 elevated  solemn  style  of  speech,  in  which  also  in  the  Ilebr.  the 
 article  is  frequently  wanting  in  definite  names;  cf.  Ewald's  Lehrb. 
 
 Ver.  22.  As  compared  with  vers.  13  and  14,  this  verse  says 
 nothing  new  regarding  the  judgment.  For  '"ipr"  2"'?!  *<5''T  is  not 
 to  be  rendered,  as  Hengstenberg  thinks  {Beitr.  i.  p.  274),  by  a 
 reference  to  1  Cor.  vi.  2  :  "to  the  saints  of  the  Most  High  the  judg- 
 ment is  given,"  i.e.  the  function  of  the  judge.  This  interpretation 
 is  opposed  to  the  context,  according  to  which  it  is  God  Himself 
 who  executes  judgment,  and  by  that  judgment  justice  is  done  to 
 the  people  of  God,  i.e.  they  are  delivered  from  the  unrighteous 
 oppression  of  the  beast,  and  receive  the  kingdom.  N^'n  is  justice 
 procured  by  the  judgment,  corresponding  to  the  Hebrew  word 
 l3S*fO,  Deut.  x.  18. 
 
 Ver.  23  ff.  Daniel  receives  the  following  explanation  regarding 
 the  fourth  beast.  It  signifies  a  fourth  kingdom,  which  would  be 
 different  from  all  the  preceding,  and  would  eat  up  and  destroy  the 
 whole  earth.  "  The  whole  earth  is  the  oLKovfiivr],''^  the  expression, 
 without  any  hyperbole,  for  the  "  whole  circle  of  the  historical 
 nations"  (Kliefoth).  The  ten  horns  which  the  beast  had  signify 
 ten  kings  who  shall  arise  out  of  that  kiniidom.  nni37D  nuo  from 
 it,  the  kingdom,  i.e.  from  this  very  kingdom.  Since  the  ten  horns 
 all  exist  at  the  same  time  together  on  the  head  of  the  beast,  the 
 ten  kincrs  that  arise  out  of  the  fourth  kingdom  are  to  be  regarded 
 as  contemporary.  In  this  manner  the  division  or  dismemberment 
 of  this  kingdom  into  ten  principalities  or  kingdoms  is  symbolized. 
 For  the  ten  contemporaneous  kings  imply  the  existence  at  the 
 same  time  of  ten  kingdoms.  Hitzig's  obiections  against  this  view 
 are  of  no  weight.     That  ^S-'O  and  ^^'O  are  in  this  verse  used  as 
 
 O  :    "  'v  v 
 
 distinct  from  each  other  proves  nothing,  because  in  the  whole 
 vision  king  and  kingdom  are  congruent  ideas.     But  that  the  horn, 
 
CHAP.  VII.  15-23.  241 
 
 ver.  8,  unmistaheahly  denotes  a  person,  is  only  so  far  right,  as 
 things  are  said  of  the  horn  which  are  in  abstracto  not  suitable  to  a 
 kingdom,  but  they  can  only  be  applicable  to  the  bearer  of  royal 
 power.  But  eh.  viii.  20  and  21,  to  which  Hitzig  further  refers, 
 furnishes  no  foundation  for  his  view,  but  on  the  contrary  confutes 
 it.  For  although  in  ch,  viii.  21  the  great  horn  of  the  goat  is 
 interpreted  as  the  first  king  of  Javan,  yet  the  four  horns  springing 
 up  immediately  (ver.  22)  in  the  place  of  this  one  which  was  broken, 
 are  interpreted  as  four  kingdoms  (not  kings),  in  distinct  proof  not 
 only  that  in  Daniel's  vision  king  and  kingdom  are  not  "  separate 
 from  each  other,"  but  also  that  the  further  assertion,  that  "  horn  " 
 is  less  fitted  than  "  head  "  to  represent  a  kingdom,  is  untenable. 
 
 \  After  those  ten  kingdoms  another  shall  arise  which  shall  be 
 jdifferent  from  the  previous  ten,  and  shall  overthrow  three  of  them. 
 ^QB^rfj  in  contrast  with  D^'px  (cf.  ch.  ii.  21),  signifies  to  overthrow,  to 
 ie'jjrive  of  the  sovereignty.  But  the  king  coming  after  them  can  only 
 overthrow  three  of  the  ten  kingdoms  when  he  himself  has  estab- 
 lished and  possesses  a  kingdom  or  empire  of  his  own.  According  to 
 this,  the  king  arising  after  the  ten  is  not  an  isolated  ruler,  but  the 
 monarch  of  a  kingdom  which  has  destroyed  three  of  the  kingdoms 
 already  in  existence. 
 
 p  Ver.  25  refers  to  the  same  king,  and  says  that  he  shall  speak 
 against  the  Most  High.  ^V^  means,  properly,  against  or  at  the  side 
 of^  and  is  more  expressive  than  ?y.  It  denotes  that  he  would  use 
 language  by  which  he  would  set  God  aside,  regard  and  give  him- 
 self out  as  God ;  cf.  2  Thess.  ii.  4.  Making  himself  like  God,  he 
 will  destroy  the  saints  of  God.  N^?,  Pa.,  not  "  make  unfortunate  " 
 (Hitzig),  but  consume,  afflict,  like  the  Hebr.  npa,  1  Chron.  xvii.  9, 
 and  Targ.  Jes.  iii.  15.  These  passages  show  that  the  assertion 
 that  np3j  in  the  sense  of  to  destroy,  never  takes  after  it  the  accusa- 
 tive of  the  person  (Hitz.),  is  false.  Finally,  "  he  thinks  to  change 
 times  and  laws."  "  To  change  times "  belongs  to  the  all-perfect 
 power  of  God  (cf.  ch.  ii.  21),  the  creator  and  ordainer  of  times 
 (Gen.  i.  14).  There  is  no  ground  for  supposing  that  pJpT  is  to  be 
 specially  understood  of  "  festival  or  sacred  times,"  since  the  word, 
 like  the  corresponding  Hebr.  ^''"li'io,  does  not  throughout  siginfy 
 merely  "festival  times;"  cf.  Gen.  i.  14,  xvii.  21,  xviii.  14,  etc. 
 The  annexed  n*i1  does  not  point  to  arrangements  of  divine  worship, 
 but  denotes  "  law  "  or  "  ordinance "  in  general,  human  as  well  as 
 divine  law ;  cf.  ch.  ii.  13,  15  with  ch.  vi.  6,  9.  "  Times  and  laws  " 
 are  the  foundations  and  main  conditions,  emanating  from  God,  of 
 
 Q 
 
242  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  life  and  actions  of  men  in  the  world.  The  sin  of  the  kins  in 
 placing  himself  with  God,  therefore,  as  Kliefoth  rightly  remarks, 
 "  consists  in  this,  that  in  these  ordinances  he  does  not  regard  the 
 fundamental  conditions  given  by  God,  but  so  changes  the  laws  of 
 human  life  that  he  puts  his  own  pleasure  in  the  place  of  the  divine 
 arrangements."  Thus  shall  he  do  with  the  ordinances  of  life,  not 
 only  of  God's  people,  but  of  all  men.^„  "  But  it  is  to  be  confessed 
 that  the  people  of  God  are  most  affected  thereby,  because  they 
 hold  their  ordinances  of  life  most  according  to  the  divine  plan; 
 and  therefore  the  otherwise  general  passage  stands  between  two 
 expressions  affecting  the  conduct  of  the  horn  in  its  relation  to  the 
 people  of  God." 
 
 This  tyranny  God's  people  will  suffer  "  till,  i.e.  during,  a  time, 
 (two)  times,  and  half  a  time."  By  these  specifications  of  time  the 
 duration  of  the  last  phase  of  the  world-power  is  more  definitely 
 declared,  as  a  period  in  its  whole  course  measured  by  God ;  vers,  li 
 and  22.  The  plural  word  pj'^y  (times)  standing  between  time  anc 
 half  a  time  can  only  designate  the  simple  plural,  i.e.  tico  times,  used 
 in  the  dual  sense,  since  in  the  Chaldee  the  plural  is  often  used  to 
 denote  a  pair  where  the  dual  is  used  in  Hebrew  ;  cf.  Winer,  Chald. 
 Gr.  §  55,  3.  Three  and  a  half  times  are  the  half  of  seven  times 
 (ch.  iv.  13).  The  greater  number  of  the  older  as  well  as  of  the 
 more  recent  interpreters  take  time  (I'^V)  as  representing  the  space 
 of  a  year,  thus  three  and  a  half  times  as  three  and  a  half  years; 
 and  they  base  this  view  partly  on  ch.iv.  13,  where  seven  times  must 
 mean  seven  years,  partly  on  ch.  xii.  7,  where  the  corresponding 
 expression  is  found  in  Hebrew,  partly  on  Rev.  xiii.  5  and  xi.  2,  3, 
 where  forty-two  months  and  1260  days  are  used  interchangeably. 
 But  none  of  these  passages  supplies  a  proof  that  will  stand  the  test. 
 The  supposition  that  in  ch.  iv.  13  the  seven  times  represent  seven 
 years,  neither  is  nor  can  be  proved.  As  regards  the  time  and  times 
 in  ch.  xii.  7,  and  the  periods  named  in  the  passages  of  the  Rev. 
 referred  to,  it  is  very  questionable  whether  the  loeeks  and  the  days 
 represent  the  ordinary  weeks  of  the  year  and  days  of  the  week, 
 and  whether  these  periods  of  time  are  to  be  taken  chronologically. 
 Still  less  can  any  ex[)lanation  as  to  this  designation  of  time  be 
 derived  from  the  2o00  days  (evening-mornings)  in  ch.  viii.  14, 
 since  the  periods  do  not  agree,  nor  do  both  passages  treat  of  the 
 same  event.  Tlie  choice  of  the  chronologically  indefinite  expres- 
 sion I^y,  time,  shows  tliat  a  chronological  determination  of  the 
 period  is  not  in  view,  but  that  the  designation  of  time  is  to  be 
 
\ 
 
 CHAP.  VII.  15-28.  243 
 
 sinderstood  symbolically.      We   have   thus   to    inquire    after   the 
 Symbolical  meaning  of  the  statement.     This  is  not  to  be  sought, 
 with  Hofmann  ( Weiss,  i.  289),  in  the  supposition  that  as  three  and 
 a  half  years  are  the  half  of  a  Sabbath-period,  it  is  thus  announced 
 that  Israel  would  be  oppressed  during  half  a  Sabbath-period  by 
 Anticlirist.      For,  apart  from  the  unwarrantable  identification  of 
 time  with  year,  one  does  not  perceive  what  Sabbath-periods  and 
 the  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  have  in  common.     This  much 
 is  beyond  doubt,  that  three  and  a  half  times  are  the  half  of  seven 
 times.     The  meaning  of  this  half,  however,  is  not  to  be  derived, 
 with  Kranichfeld,  from  ch.  iv.  13,  where  ''seven  iimes^'  is  an  ex- 
 pression used  for  a  long  continuance  of  divinely-ordained  suffering. 
 It  is  not  hence  to  be  supposed  that  the  dividing  of  this  period  into 
 two  designates  only  a  proportionally  short  time  of  severest  oppres- 
 sion endured  by  the  people  of  God  at  the  hands  of  the  heathen. 
 For  the  humbling  of  the  haughty  ruler  Nebuchadnezzar  (ch.  iv. 
 13)  does  not  stand  in  any  inner  connection  with  the  elevation  of 
 the  world-power  over  the  people  of  God,  in  such  a  way  that  we 
 could  explain  the  three  and  a  half  times  of  this  passage  after  the 
 seven  times  of  ch.  iv.  13.     In  general,  the  question  may  be  asked, 
 Whether  the  meaning  of  the  three  and  a  half  times  is  to  be  dei;'"Cxie 
 merely  from  the  symbolical  signification  of  the  number  a  feet,  are 
 whether,  with  Lammert,  we  must  not  much  rather  go  back,  in  orcrvs.ts 
 to  ascertain  the  import  of  this  measure  of  time,  to  the  divine  judek, 
 ments  under  Elias,  when  the  heavens  were  shut  for  three  years  '  and 
 six  months;  Luke  iv.  25  and  Jas.  v.  17.     "  As  Ahab  did  mcjs,  ac- 
 provoke  God  to  anger  than  all  the  kings  who  w^ere  before  h'ch,  are 
 this  king,  Dan.  vii.  24,  in  a  way  altogether  different  from.nd  the 
 who  went  before  him,  spake  words  against  the  Most  Higlserves, 
 persecuted  His  saints,  etc."     But  should  this  reference  also  nablish 
 established,  and  the  three  and  a  half  times  be  regarded  as  only  tury, 
 half  of  seven  times,  yet  the  seven  does  not  here  come  into  vie\5und 
 the  time  of  God's  works,  so  that  it  could  be  said  the  oppression  -ral 
 the  people  of  God  by  the  little  horn  will  last  (Kliefoth)  only  hah^ 
 as  long  as  a  work  of  God ;  but  according  to  the  symbolical  inter- 
 pretation of  the  seven  times  (see  p.  152),  the  three  and  a  hnlf,  as  the 
 period  of  the  duration  of  the  circumstances  into  which  the  people 
 of  God  are  brought  by  the  world-power  through  the  divine  per- 
 mission, indicate  "  a  testing  period,  a  period  of  judgment  which  will 
 (Matt.  xxiv.  22;  Prov.  x.  27),  for  the  elect's  sake,  be  interrupted 
 and  shortened  (septenarius  truncus).'"    Leyrer  in  Herz.'s  Meal,  Enc. 
 
244  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 xviii.  3G9.  Besides,  it  is  to  be  considered  liow  this  space  of  time  i  ^ 
 described,  not  as  three  and  a  half,  but  a  time,  two  times,  and  hall* 
 a  time.  Ebrard  {Offenh.  p.  49)  well  remarks  regarding  this,  that 
 "  it  appears  as  if  his  tyranny  would  extend  itself  always  the  longer 
 and  longer :  first  a  time,  then  the  doubled  time,  then  the  fourfold 
 — this  would  be  a  seven  times ;  but  it  does  not  go  that  length ; 
 suddenly  it  comes  to  an  end  in  the  midst  of  the  seven  times,  so 
 that  instead  of  the  f(jurfold  time  there  is  only  half  a  time."  "  Tiie 
 proper  analysis  of  the  three  and  a  half  times,"  Kliefoth  further 
 remarks,  "  in  that  the  periods  first  mount  up  by  doubling  them, 
 and  then  suddenly  decline,  shows  that  the  power  of  the  horn  and 
 its  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  would  first  quickly  manifest 
 itself,  in  order  then  to  come  to  a  sudden  end  by  the  interposition 
 of  the  divine  judgment  (ver.  26)."  For,  a  thing  which  is  not  here 
 to  be  overlooked,  the  three  and  a  half  times  present  not  the  whole 
 duration  of  the  existence  of  the  little  horn,  but,  as  the  half  of  a 
 week,  only  the  latter  half  of  its  time,  in  which  dominion  over  the 
 saints  of  God  is  given  to  it  (ver.  21),  and  at  the  expiry  of  which  it 
 falls  before  the  judgment.     See  under  ch.  xii.  7. 
 
 In  vers.  26  and  27  this  judgment  is  described  (cf.  ver.  10),  but 
 "^^".as  to  its  consequences  for  the  world-power.  The  dominion  of 
 (ch.  iv.  }  in  which  the  power  of  the  fourth  beast  culminates  is  taken 
 J?iray  and  altogether  annihilated.  The  destruction  of  the  beast  is 
 Oj^re  passed  by,  inasmuch  as  it  is  already  mentioned  in  ver.  1 1 ; 
 antije,  on  the  other  hand,  that  whicli  is  said  (ver.  12)  about  the 
 meatcr  away  of  its  power  and  its  dominion  is  strengthened  by  the 
 expre.ioi^'n^  {to  destroy),  nnninbl  {and  to  consume),  being  added  to 
 vi\\Qve' lji(,y  gjiall  take  away),  to  which  nptoV^  {Ids  dominion)  is  to  be 
 But  flfe^i  as  the  object,  t^sio  '^V,  to  the  end,  i.e.  not  absolutely,  but, 
 The  ch.  vi.  27,  to  the  end  of  the  days,  i.e.  for  ever, 
 year^er,  27.  After  the  destruction  of  the  beast,  the  kingdom  and 
 ill  ^  dominion,  which  hitherto  comprehended  the  kingdom  under 
 ''^e  whole  heaven,  are  given  to  the  people  of  God,  i.e.  under  the 
 ?eign  of  the  Son  of  man,  as  is  to  be  supplied  from  ver.  14.  As  in 
 ver.  26  nothing  is  further  said  of  the  fate  of  the  horn,  because  all 
 that  was  necessary  regarding  it  had  been  already  said  (ver.  11),  so 
 also  all  that  was  to  be  said  of  the  Son  of  man  was  already  men- 
 tioned in  vers.  13  and  14 ;  and  according  to  the  representation  of 
 the  Scripture,  the  kingdom  of  the  people  of  the  saints  without  the 
 Son  of  man  as  king  is  not  a  conceivable  idea./  ^J^pp  ''T  {of  the  king- 
 dom) is  a  subjective  genitive,  which  is  required  by  the  idea  of  the 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  245 
 
 intransitive  Nri^3"i  (tJie  greatness)  preceding  it.  /  The  meaning  is  thus 
 not  "  power  over  all  kingdoms,"  but  "  the  power  which  the  king- 
 doms under  the  whole  heaven  had."  With  regard  to  ver.  27,  cf. 
 vers.  14  and  18.  y 
 
 In  ver.  28  the  end  of  the  vision  is  stated,  and  the  impression 
 which  it  left  on  Daniel.  Hitherto,  to  this  point,  was  the  end  of 
 the  history ;  i.e.  thus  far  the  history,  or,  with  this  the  matter  is  at 
 an  end.  ^^n???,  the  matter,  is  not  merely  the  interpretation  of  the 
 angel,  but  the  whole  revelation,  the  vision  together  with  its  inter- 
 pretation. Daniel  was  greatly  moved  by  the  event  (cf.  ch.  v.  9), 
 and  kept  it  in  his  heart. 
 
 The  Four  World-hingdoms. 
 
 There  yet  remains  for  our  consideration  the  question,  What  are 
 the  historical  world-kingdoms  which  are  represented  by  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar's image  (ch.  ii.),  and  by  Daniel's  vision  of  four  beasts  rising 
 up  out  of  the  sea?  Almost  all  interpreters  understand  that  these 
 two  visions  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way.  "The  four 
 kingdoms  or  dynasties,  -which  were  symbolized  (ch.  ii.)  by  the 
 different  parts  of  the  human  image,  from  the  head  to  the  feet,  are 
 the  same  as  those  which  were  symbolized  by  the  four  great  beasts 
 rising  up  out  of  the  sea."  This  is  the  view  not  only  of  Bleek, 
 who  herein  agrees  with  Auberlen,  but  also  of  Kranichfeld  and 
 Kliefoth,  and  all  church  interpreters.  These  four  kingdoms,  ac- 
 cording to  the  interpretation  commonly  received  in  the  church,  are 
 the  Babylonian,  the  Medo-Persian,  the  Macedo-Grecian,  and  the 
 Roman.  "  In  this  interpretation  and  opinion,"  Luther  observes, 
 "  all  the  world  are  agreed,  and  history  and  fact  abundantly  establish 
 it."  This  opinion  prevailed  till  about  the  end  of  the  last  century, 
 for  the  contrary  opinion  of  individual  earlier  interpreters  had  found 
 no  favour.^     But  from  that  time,  when  faith  in  the  supernatural 
 
 ^  This  is  true  regarding  the  opinion  of  Ephrem  Syrus  and  of  Cosmas 
 Indicopleustes,  who  held  that  the  second  kingdom  was  the  Median,  the  third 
 the  Persian,  and  the  fourth  the  kingdom  of  Alexander  and  his  successors.  This 
 view  has  been  adopted  only  by  an  anonymous  writer  in  the  Comment.  Var. 
 in  Dan.  in  Mai's  Collectio  nov.  Script.  Vett.  p.  176.  The  same  thing  may  be 
 said  of  the  opinion  of  Polychronius  and  Grotius,  that  the  second  kingdom  was 
 the  Medo-Persian,  the  third  the  monarchy  of  Alexander,  and  the  fourth  the 
 kingdom  of  his  followers — a  view  which  has  found  only  one  weak  advocate  la 
 J.  Chr.  Becmann  in  a  dissert,  de  MonarcJiia  Quarta,  Franc,  ad  Od.  1671. 
 
246  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 origin  and  character  of  biblical  prophecy  was  shaken  by  Deism 
 and  Rationalism,  then  as  a  consequence,  with  the  rejection  of  the 
 genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel  the  reference  of  the  fourth 
 kingdom  to  the  Roman  world-monarchy  was  also  denied.  For  the 
 pseudo-Daniel  of  the  times  of  the  Maccabees  could  furnish  no 
 prophecy  -which  could  reach  further  than  the  time  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes.  If  the  reference  of  the  fourth  kingdom  to  the  Roman 
 empire  was  therefore  a  priori  excluded,  the  four  kingdoms  must 
 be  so  explained  that  the  pretended  prophecy  should  not  extend 
 further  than  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  For  this  end 
 all  probabilities  were  created,  and  yet  nothing  further  was  reached 
 than  that  one  critic  confuted  another.  While  Ewald  and  Bunsen 
 advanced  the  opinion  that  the  Assyrian  kingdom  is  specially  to  be 
 understood  by  the  first  kingdom,  and  that  the  Maccabean  author  of 
 the  book  was  first  compelled  by  the  reference  to  Nebuchadnezzar 
 to  separate,  in  opposition  to  history,  the  Median  from  the  Persian 
 kingdom,  so  as  to  preserve  the  number  four,  Hitzig,  in  agreement 
 with  von  Redepenning,  has  sought  to  divide  the  Babylonian  king- 
 dom, and  to  refer  the  first  kingdom  to  Nebuchadnezzar  and  the 
 second  to  his  successor  Belshazzar ;  while  Bertholdt,  Jahn,  and 
 Rosenmiiller,  with  Grotius,  have  divided  the  kingdom  of  Alex- 
 ander from  the  kingdom  of  his  successors.  But  as  both  of  these 
 divisions  appear  to  be  altogether  too  arbitrary,  Venema,  Bleek,  de 
 Wette,  Liicke,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  Hitzig  (ch.  vii.),  Hilgenfeld,  and 
 Kranichfeld  have  disjoined  the  Medo-Persian  monarchy  into  two 
 world-kingdoms,  the  Median  and  the  Persian,  and  in  this  they  are 
 followed  by  Delitzsch.     See  Art.  Daniel  in  Herz.'s  Real.  Encyc. 
 
 When  we  examine  these  views  more  closely,  the  first  named  is 
 confuted  by  what  Ewald  himself  {Die  Proph.  iii.  314)  has  said  on 
 this  point.  The  four  world-kingdoms  "  must  follow  each  other 
 strictly  in  chronological  order,  the  succeeding  being  always  inferior, 
 sterner,  and  more  reckless  than  that  which  went  before.  They  thus 
 appear  in  the  gigantic  image  (ch.  ii.),  which  in  its  four  parts,  from 
 head  to  feet,  is  formed  of  altogether  different  materials  ;  in  like 
 manner  in  ch.  vii.  four  different  beasts  successively  appear  on  the 
 scene,  the  one  of  which,  according  to  ch.  viii.,  always  destroys  the 
 other.  Now  it  cannot  be  said,  indeed,  in  strict  historical  fact  that 
 the  Chaldean  kingdom  first  gave  way  to  the  Median,  and  this  again 
 to  the  Persian,  but,  as  it  is  always  said,  the  Persian  and  Median 
 together  under  Cyrus  overthrew  the  Chaldean  and  formed  one 
 kingdom.     This  is  stated  by  the  author  himself  in  ch.  viii.,  where 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  247 
 
 the  Medo-Persian  kingdom  is  presented  as  one  under  the  image  of 
 a  two-horned  ram.  According  to  this,  he  should  have  reckoned 
 from  Nabucodrossor  only  three  world -kingdoms,  if  he  had  not 
 received  the  number  of  four  world-kingdoms  from  an  old  prophet 
 living  under  the  Assyrian  dominion,  who  understood  by  the  four 
 kingdoms  the  Assyrian,  the  Chaldean,  the  Medo-Persian,  and  the 
 Grecian.  Since  now  this  number,  it  is  self-evident  to  him,  can 
 neither  be  increased  nor  diminished,  there  remained  nothing  else 
 for  him  than  to  separate  the  Median  from  the  Persian  kingdom  at 
 that  point  where  he  rendered  directly  prominent  the  order  and  the 
 number  /our,  while  he  at  other  times  views  them  together."  But 
 W'hat  then  made  it  necessary  for  this  pseudo-prophet  to  interpret 
 the  golden  liead  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  and  to  entangle  himself 
 thereby,  in  opposition  not  only  to  the  history,  but  also  to  his  own 
 better  judgment,  ch.  viii.,  if  in  the  old  sources  used  by  him  the 
 Assyrian  is  to  be  understood  as  the  first  kingdom?  To  this  mani- 
 fest objection  Ewald  has  given  no  answer,  and  has  not  shown 
 that  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  the  IMedian  kingdom  is  separated  from  the 
 Persian.  Thus  this  hypothesis  is  destitute  of  every  foundation, 
 and  the  derivation  of  the  number  four  for  the  world-kingdoms  from 
 a  prophetic  book  of  the  Assyrian  period  is  one  of  the  groundless 
 ideas  with  which  Ewald  thinks  to  eni'ich  biblical  literature. 
 
 Hitzig's  opinion,  that  Daniel  had  derived  the  idea  of  separating 
 the  heathen  power  into  four  kingdoms  following  each  other  from 
 the  representation  of  the  four  ages  of  the  world,  has  no  better 
 foundation.  It  was  natural  for  him  to  represent  Assyria  as  the 
 first  kingdom,  yet  as  he  wished  not  to  refer  to  the  past,  but  to  the 
 future,  he  could  only  begin  with  the  kingdom  of  Nebuchadnezzar. 
 Regarding  himself  as  bound  to  the  number  four,  he  divided  on  that 
 account,  in  ch.  ii.,  the  Chaldean  dominion  into  two  periods,  and  in 
 ch.  vii.,  for  the  same  reason,  the  Medo-Persian  into  two  kingdoms, 
 the  Median  and  the  Persian.  This  view  Hitzig  founds  paitly  on 
 this,  that  in  ch.  ii.  38  not  the  Chaldean  kingdom  but  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar is  designated  as  the  golden  head,  and  that  for  Daniel  there 
 exist  only  two  Chaldean  kings ;  and  partly  on  this,  that  tlie  second 
 =iDpD  (ch.  ii.  39)  is  named  as  inferior  to  the  Chaldean,  which  could 
 not  be  said  of  the  Medo-Persian  as  compared  with  the  Chaldean ; 
 and,  finally,  partly  on  this,  that  in  the  vision  seen  in  the  first  year 
 of  Belshazzar  (ch.  vii.),  Nebuchadnezzar  already  belonged  to  the 
 past,  while  according  to  ver.  17  the  first  kingdom  was  yet  future. 
 But  apart  from  the  incorrectness  of  the  assertion,  that  for  the  author 
 
248  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 of  tills  book  only  two  Chaldean  kings  existed,  it  does  not  follow 
 from  the  circumstance  tliat  Nebuchadnezzar  is  styled  the  golden 
 head  of  the  image,  tliat  he  personally  is  meant  as  distinct  from 
 the  Chaldean  king  that  succeeded  him ;  on  the  contrary,  that 
 Nebuchadnezzar  comes  to  view  only  as  the  founder,  and  at  that 
 time  the  actual  ruler,  of  the  kingdom,  is  clear  from  ch.  ii.  39, 
 "after  thee  shall  arise  another  kin£rdom"  O^^'^).  not  another  king 
 (Jp.l?),  as  it  ought  to  be  read,  according  to  Ilitzig's  opinion.  Bel- 
 shazzar  did  not  found  another  kingdom,  or,  as  Ilitzig  saj-s,  another 
 dominion  (Herschaft),  but  he  only  continued  the  kingdom  or  do- 
 minion of  Nebuchadnezzar.  The  two  other  reasons  advanced  have 
 been  already  disposed  of  in  the  interpretation  of  ch.  ii.  39  and  of  ch. 
 vii.  17.  The  expression,  ^'inferior  to  thee^'  (ch.  ii.  39),  would  not 
 relate  to  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom  as  compared  with  the  Chaldean 
 only  if  it  referred  to  the  geographical  extension  of  the  kingdom, 
 which  is  not  the  case.  And  the  argument  deduced  from  the  words 
 "  shall  arise"  in  ch.  vii.  17  proves  too  much,  and  therefore  nothing. 
 If  in  the  word  \V2^P\  (shall  arise)  it  be  held  that  the  first  kingdom 
 was  yet  to  arise,  then  also  the  dominion  of  Belshazzar  would  be 
 thereby  excluded,  which  existed  at  the  time  of  that  vision.  Moreover 
 the  supposition  that  ispo  means  in  ch.  ii.  39  the  government  of  an 
 individual  king,  but  in  ch.  ii.  4  a  kingdom,  the  passages  being 
 parallel  in  their  contents  and  in  their  form,  and  that  r^?0  in  ch. 
 vii.  17  ("the  four  beasts  are  four  kings")  means,  when  applied  to 
 the  first  two  beasts,  separate  kings,  and  when  applied  to  the  two 
 last,  kingdoms,  violates  all  the  rules  of  hermeneutics.  "  Two  rulers 
 personally  cannot  possibly  be  placed  in  the  same  category  with  two 
 kingdoms"  (Kliefoth). 
 
 But  the  view  of  Bertholdt,  that  the  third  kingdom  represents 
 the  monarchy  of  Alexander,  and  the  fourth  that  of  his  SiuSo^ol 
 (successors),  is  at  the  present  day  generally  abandoned.  And 
 there  is  good  reason  that  it  should  be  so ;  for  it  is  plain  that  the 
 description  of  the  iron  nature  of  the  fourth  kingdom  in  ch.  ii. 
 breaking  all  things  in  pieces,  as  well  as  of  the  terribleness  of  the 
 fourth  beast  in  ch.  vii.,  by  no  means  agrees  with  the  kingdoms  of 
 the  successors  of  Alexander,  which  in  point  of  might  and  great- 
 ness were  far  inferior  to  the  monarchy  of  Alexander,  as  is  indeed 
 expressly  stated  in  ch.  xi.  4.  Hitzig  has,  moreover,  justly  re- 
 marked, on  the  other  hand,  that  "  for  the  author  of  this  book  the 
 kiniidom  of  Alexander  and  that  of  his  successors  form  together 
 the  }V  nispOj  ch.  viii.  21  (the  kingdom  of  Jav an  =  Grecla).     But 
 
i 
 
 THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  249 
 
 if  he  had  separated  them,  he  could  not  have  spoken  of  the  kuig- 
 dom  of  the  successors  as  'diverse'  in  character  from  that  of 
 Alexander,  ch.  vii.  7,  19.  Finally,  by  such  a  view  a  right  inter- 
 pretation of  the  four  heads,  cli.  vii.  6,  and  the  special  meaning 
 of  the  legs  which  were  wholly  of  iron,  ch.  ii.  33,  is  lost." 
 
 Now,  since  the  untenableness  of  these  three  suppositions  is 
 obvious,  there  only  remains  the  expedient  to  divide  the  Medo- 
 Persian  world-kingdom  into  a  Median  and  a  Persian  kingdom, 
 and  to  combine  the  former  with  the  second  and  tlie  latter  with  the 
 third  of  Daniel's  kingdoms.  But  this  scheme  also  is  broken  to 
 pieces  by  the  twofold  circumstance,  (1)  that,  as  Maurer  himself 
 acknowledges,  history  knows  nothing  whatever  of  a  Median  world- 
 kingdom  ;  and  (2)  that,  as  Kranichfeld  is  compelled  to  confess 
 (p.  122  ff.),  "it  cannot  be  proved  from  Dan.  v.  28,  vi.  1,  29,  ix.  1, 
 xi.  1,  that  the  author  of  the  book,  in  the  vision  in  ch.  ii.  or  vii.,  or 
 at  all,  conceived  of  an  exclusively  Median  world-kingdom,  and 
 knew  nothing  of  the  Persian  race  as  an  inner  component  part  of 
 this  kingdom."  It  is  true  the  book  of  Daniel,  according  to  ch.  viii., 
 recognises  a  distinction  between  a  Median  and  a  Persian  dynasty 
 (cf.  ver.  3),  but  in  other  respects  it  recognises  only  one  kingdom, 
 which  comprehends  in  its  unity  the  Median  and  the  Persian  race. 
 In  harmony  with  this,  the  author  speaks,  at  the  time  when  the 
 Median  government  over  Babylon  was  actually  in  existence,  only  of 
 one  law  of  the  kingdom  for  Medes  and  Persians  (ch.  vi.  9, 13,  16), 
 i.e.  one  law  which  rested  on  a  common  agreement  of  the  two 
 nations  bound  together  into  one  kingdom.  "Tlie  author  of  this 
 book,  who  at  the  time  of  Darius,  king  of  the  Medes,  knew  only 
 of  one  kingdom  common  to  both  races,"  according  to  Kran., 
 "  speaks  also  in  the  preceding  period  of  the  Chaldean  independence 
 of  the  Medes  only  in  conjunction  with  the  Persians  (cf.  ch.  v.  28, 
 viii.  20),  and,  after  the  analogy  of  the  remark  already  made,  not 
 as  of  two  separated  kingdoms,  but  in  the  sense  of  one  kingdom, 
 comprehending  in  it,  along  with  the  Median  race,  also  the  Persians 
 as  another  and  an  important  component  part.  This  finds  its 
 ratification  during  the  independence  of  Babylon  even  in  ch.  viii. 
 20 ;  for  there  the  kings  of  the  Medes  and  the  Persians  are  repre- 
 sented by  one  beast,  although  at  the  same  time  two  separate 
 dynasties  are  in  view.  This  actual  fact  of  a  national  union  into 
 one  kingdom  very  naturally  and  fully  explains  why,  in  the  case  of 
 Cyrus,  as  well  as  in  that  of  Darius,  the  national  origin  of  the 
 governors,  emphatically  set  forth,  was  of  interest  for  the  author  (cf . 
 
250  THE  BOOK  OP  DANIEL. 
 
 cli.  ix.  1,  vi.  1,  xi.  1,  vi.  28),  while  with  regard  to  the  Chaldean 
 kings  there  is  no  similar  particular  notice  taken  of  their  origin  ; 
 and  generally,  instead  of  a  statement  of  the  personal  descent  of 
 Darius  and  Cyrus,  much  rather  only  a  direct  mention  of  the  par- 
 ticular people  ruled  by  each — e.g.  for  these  rulers  the  special 
 desio-nations  'kinsj  of  the  Persians,'  '  kini;  of  the  Medes ' — 
 was  to  be  expected^  (cf.  ch.  viii.  20,  x.  1,  13,  20,  xi.  2)."  Hence, 
 as  Kranichfeld  further  rightly  judges,  it  could  not  (ch.  viii.) 
 appear  appropriate  to  suppose  that  the  author  had  Persia  in 
 view  as  the  third  kingdom,  while  in  the  visions  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  we 
 would  regard  Persia  as  a  kingdom  altogether  separated  from  the 
 Median  kingdom.  Moreover  the  author  in  ch.  viii.  speaks  of  the 
 one  horn  of  the  ram  as  growing  up  after  the  other,  in  order 
 thereby  to  indicate  the  growing  up  of  the  Persian  dynasty  after 
 the  Median,  and  consequently  the  two  dynasties  together  in  one 
 and  the  same  kingdom  (ver.  3,  cf.  ver.  20).  Yet,  in  spite  of  all 
 these  testimonies  to  the  contrary,  Daniel  must  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii. 
 have  had  in  view  by  the  second  world-kingdom  the  Median,  and 
 by  the  third  the  Persian,  because  at  that  time  he  did  not  think 
 that  in  the  relation  of  the  Median  and  the  Persian  no  other 
 change  in  the  future  would  happen  than  a  simple  change  of 
 dynasty,  but  because,  at  the  time  in  which  the  Median  kingdom 
 stood  in  a  threatening  attitude  toward  the  Chaldean  (both  in  the 
 second  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  and  in  the  first  year  of  his  son 
 Belshazzar,  I.e.  Evilmerodach),  he  thought  that  a  sovereign  Persian 
 kingdom  would  rise  up  victoriously  opposite  the  Median  rival  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 ^  Kranichfeld  goes  on  to  say,  that  Hilgenfcld  goes  too  far  if  he  concludes 
 from  the  attribute,  Ihe  Mede  (ch.  vi.  1  [v.  ol]),  that  the  author  wished  to  repre- 
 sent thereby  a  separate  kingdom  of  the  ^tedes  in  opposition  to  a  kingdom  of  the 
 Persians  at  a  later  time  nationally  distinct  from  it ;  further,  that  as  in  the  sequel 
 the  Median  dynasty  of  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom  passed  over  into  a  Persian 
 dynasty,  and  through  the  government  of  the  Persian  Cyrus  the  Persian  race 
 naturally  came  forth  into  the  foreground  and  assumed  a  prominent  place,  the 
 kingdom  was  designvited  a  potiori  as  that  of  the  Persians  (ch.  x.  1,  13,  20, 
 xi.  2),  like  as,  in  other  circumstances  (Isa.  xiii.  17  ;  Jer.  Ii.  11,  28),  the  Medians 
 alone  are  a  potiori  represented  as  the  destroyers  of  Babylon.  "As  there  was, 
 during  the  flourishing  period  of  the  Median  dynasty,  a  kingdom  of  the  Medes 
 and  Persians  (cf.  Dan.  v.  28,  viii.  20),  so  there  is,  since  the  time  of  Cyrus  the 
 Persian,  a  kingdom  of  the  Persians  and  Medes  (cf.  Esth.  i.  3,  18,  1  Mace.  i.  1, 
 xiv.  2).  We  find  in  Daniel,  at  the  time  of  the  Median  supremacy  in  the  king- 
 dom, the  law  of  the  Medes  and  Persians  (Dan.  vi.  9,  13,  16),  and  subsequently 
 we  naturally  find  the  law  of  the  Persians  and  Medes,  Esth.  i.  19." 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  251 
 
 As  opposed  to  this  expedient,  we  will  not  insist  on  the  im- 
 probability that  Daniel  within  two  years  should  have  wholly 
 changed  his  opinion  as  to  the  relation  between  the  Medians  and  the 
 Persians,  though  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  valid  ground  for 
 this.  Nor  shall  we  lay  any  stress  on  this  consideration,  that  the 
 assumed  error  of  the  prophet  regarding  the  contents  of  the  divine 
 revelation  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  appears  irreconcilable  with  the  super- 
 natural illumination  of  Daniel,  because  Kranichfeld  regards  the 
 prophetic  statements  as  only  the  product  of  enlightened  human 
 mental  culture.  But  we  must  closely  examine  the  question  how 
 this  reference  of  the  world-kingdoms  spoken  of  stands  related  to 
 the  characteristics  of  the  third  and  fourth  kingdoms  as  stated  in 
 ch.  ii.  and  vii. 
 
 Tlie  description  of  the  second  and  third  kingdoms  is  very  briefly 
 given  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  Even  though  the  statement,  ch.  ii.  39,  that 
 the  second  kingdom  would  be  smaller  than  the  kingdom  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar could  point  to  a  Median  kingdom,  and  the  statement 
 that  the  third  kingdom  would  rule  over  the  whole  earth  mio;ht 
 refer  to  the  spread  of  the  dominion  of  the  Persians  beyond  the 
 boundaries  of  the  Chaldean  and  Medo-Persian  kingdom  under 
 Darius,  yet  the  description  of  both  of  these  kingdoms  in  ch.  vii. 
 5  sufficiently  shows  the  untenableness  of  this  interpretation.  The 
 second  kingdom  is  represented  under  the  image  of  a  bear,  which 
 raises  itself  up  on  one  side,  and  has  three  ribs  in  its  mouth  between 
 its  teeth.  The  three  ribs  in  its  mouth  the  advocates  of  this  view 
 do  not  know  how  to  interpret.  According  to  Kran.,  they  are 
 to  be  regarded  as  pointing  out  constituent  parts  of  a  whole,  of 
 an  older  kingdom,  which  he  does  not  attempt  more  definitely  to 
 describe,  because  history  records-  nothing  of  the  conquests  which 
 Darius  the  Mede  may  have  gained  during  the  two  years  of  his 
 reign  after  the  conquest  of  Babylon  and  the  overthrow  of  the 
 Chaldean  kingdom  by  Cyrus.  And  the  leopard  representing  (ch. 
 vii.  6)  the  third  kingdom  has  not  only  four  wings,  but  also  four 
 heads.  The  four  heads  show  beyond  a  doubt  the  division  of  the 
 kingdom  represented  by  the  leopard  into  four  kingdoms,  just  as 
 in  ch.  viii.  the  four  horns  of  the  he-goat,  which  in  ver.  22  are 
 expressly  interpreted  of  four  kingdoms  rising  out  of  the  kingdom 
 of  Javan.  But  a  division  into  four  kingdoms  cannot  by  any  means 
 be  proved  of  the  Persian  world-kingdom.  Therefore  the  four 
 heads  must  here,  according  to  Kran.,  represent  only  the  vigilant 
 watchfulness   and  aggression  over  all  the  regions  of   the  earth, 
 
252  THE  BOOK  OF  DAXIEL. 
 
 the  pushing  movement  toward  the  different  regions  of  the  heavens, 
 or,  according  to  Ilitzig,  the  four  kings  of  Persia  whom  alone 
 Daniel  knew.  But  the  first  of  tliese  interpretations  confutes 
 itself,  since  heads  are  never  the  symbol  of  watchfulness  or  of 
 aggressive  power;  and  the  second  is  set  aside  by  a  comparison 
 with  eh.  viii.  22.  If  the  four  horns  of  the  he-goat  represent  four 
 •world-kingdoms  rising  up  together^  then  the  four  heads  of  the 
 leopard  can  never  represent  four  kings  reigning  after  one  another, 
 even  though  it  were  the  case,  which  it  is  not  (ch.  xi.  2),  that 
 Daniel  knew  only  four  kings  of  Persia. 
 
 Yet  more  incompatible  are  the  statements  regarding  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  with  the  supposition  that  the 
 kingdom  of  Alexander  and  his  followers  is  to  be  understood  by  it. 
 Neither  the  monarchy  of  Alexander  nor  the  Javanic  world-king- 
 dom accords  with  the  iron  nature  of  the  fourth  kingdom,  repre- 
 sented by  the  legs  of  iron,  breaking  all  things  in  pieces,  nor  with 
 the  internal  division  of  this  kingdom,  represented  by  tlie  feet  con- 
 sisting partly  of  iron  and  partly  of  clay,  nor  finally  with  the  ten  toes 
 formed  of  iron  and  clay  mixed  (ch.  ii.  33,  40-43).  As  little  does 
 the  monarcliy  of  Alexander  and  his  successors  resemble  a  fearful 
 beast  with  ten  horns,  which  was  without  any  representative  in  the 
 animal  world,  according  to  which  Daniel  could  have  named  it  (ch. 
 vii.  7,  19).  Kranichfeld  rejects,  therefore,  the  historical  meaning 
 of  the  image  in  ch.  ii.,  and  seeks  to  interpret  its  separate  features 
 only  as  the  expression  of  the  irreparable  division  of  the  un- 
 ffodly  kingdom  assailing  the  theocracy  with  destructive  vehemence, 
 and  therein  of  dependent  weakness  and  inner  dissolution.  Hitzig 
 finds  in  the  two  legs  the  representation  of  a  monarchy  which,  as 
 the  Greek  domination,  sets  its  one  foot  on  Europe  and  its  other  on 
 Asia ;  and  he  regards  Syria  and  Egypt  as  the  material  of  it — 
 Syria  as  the  iron,  Egypt  as  the  clay.  Others,  again,  regard  the 
 feet  as  the  kingdoms  of  the  Seleucidae  and  the  Ptolemies,  and  in 
 the  ten  horns  they  seek  the  other  kingdoms  of  the  AidBo'^ot.  On 
 the  other  hand,  Kliefoth  justly  asks,  "  How  came  Syria  and  Egypt 
 to  be  feet  ?  And  the  toes  go  out  of  the  feet,  but  the  other  kingdoms 
 of  the  ALdSo)(^oi,  do  not  arise  out  of  Syria  and  Egypt."  And  if 
 in  this*  circumstance,  that  it  is  said  of  the  fourth  terrible  beast  that 
 it  was  different  from  all  the  beasts  that  went  before,  and  that  no 
 likeness  was  found  for  it  among  the  beasts  of  prey,  Kran.  only 
 finds  it  declared  *'  that  it  puts  forth  its  whole  peculiarity  accord- 
 ing to  its  power  in  such  a  way  that  no  name  can  any  longer  be 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  253 
 
 found  for  it,"  tlien  this  in  no  respect  whatever  agrees  with  the 
 monarchy  of  Alexander.  According  to  Hitz.,  the  difference  of 
 the  fourth  beast  is  to  be  sought  in  the  monarchy  of  Alexander 
 transplanted  from  Europe  into  Asia,  as  over  against  the  three 
 monarchies,  which  shared  in  common  an  oriental  home,  a  different 
 kind  of  culture,  and  a  despotic  government.  But  Avas  the  trans- 
 ference of  a  European  monarchy  and  culture  into  Asia  somethinn- 
 so  fearful  that  Daniel  could  find  no  name  whereby  to  represent 
 the  terribleness  of  this  beast  ?  The  relation  of  Alexander  to  the 
 Jews  in  no  respect  corresponds  to  this  representation  ;  and  in 
 ch.  viii.  Daniel  does  not  say  a  word  about  the  terribleness  of  the 
 Javanic  kingdom,  but  presents  only  the  great  rapidity  of  its  con- 
 quests. He  had  thus  an  entirely  different  conception  of  the  Greek 
 monarchy  from  that  of  his  modern  interpreters. 
 
 Finally,  if  we  take  into  consideration  that  the  terrible  beast  which 
 represents  the  fourth  world-power  has  ten  horns  (ch.  vii.  7),  which 
 is  to  be  explained  as  denoting  that  out  of  the  same  kingdom  ten 
 kings  shall  arise  (ch.  vii.  24),  and,  on  the  contrary,  that  by  the 
 breaking  off  from  the  he-goat,  representing  the  monarchy  of  Alex- 
 ander, of  the  one  great  horn,  which  signified  the  first  king,  and  the 
 subsequent  springing  up  of  four  similar  horns,  is  to  be  understood 
 that  four  kingdoms  shall  arise  out  of  it  (ch.  viii.  5,  8,  21,  22) ; 
 then  the  difference  of  the  number  of  the  horns  shows  that  the 
 beast  with  the  ten  horns  cannot  represent  the  same  kingdom  as 
 that  which  is  represented  by  the  he-goat  with  four  horns,  since  the 
 number  four  is  neither  according  to  its  numerical  nor  its  sym- 
 bolical meaning  identical  with  the  number  ten.  Moreover,  this 
 identifying  of  the  two  is  quite  set  aside  by  the  impossibility  of 
 interpreting  the  ten  horns  historically.  Giving  weight  to  the 
 explanation  of  the  angel,  that  the  ten  horns  represent  the  rising 
 up  of  ten  kings,  Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  and  Del.  have  endeavoured 
 to  find  these  kings  among  the  Seleucidge,  but  they  have  not  been 
 able  to  discover  more  than  seven  :  1.  Seleucus  Nicator ;  2.  Antio- 
 chus  Soter ;  3.  Antiochus  Theus  ;  4.  Seleucus  Callinicus ;  5.  Seleu- 
 cus Ceraunus ;  6.  Antiochus  the  Great ;  7.  Seleucus  Philopator, 
 the  brother  and  predecessor  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  who  after 
 Philopator's  death  mounted  the  throne  of  Syria,  having  set  aside 
 other  heirs  who  had  a  better  title  to  it,  and  who  must  be  that  little 
 horn  which  reached  the  kingdom  by  the  rooting  up  of  three  kings. 
 The  three  kings  whom  Antiochus  plucked  up  by  the  roots  (cf.  ch. 
 vii.  8,  20,  24)  must  be  Heliodorus,  the  murderer  of  Philopator ; 
 
254  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Demetrius,  who  was  a  hostage  in  Rome,  the  son  of  Philopator,  and 
 the  legitimate  successor  to  the  throne  ;  and  the  son  of  Ptolemy 
 Philometor,  for  whom  his  mother  Cleopatra,  the  sister  of  Seleucus 
 Philopator  and  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  claimed  the  Syrian  throne. 
 But  no  one  of  these  three  reached  the  royal  dignity,  and  none  of 
 them  was  dethroned  or  plucked  up  by  the  roots  by  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes.  Pleliodorus,  it  is  true,  strove  for  the  kingdom  (Appian, 
 Si/riac.  45)  ;  but  his  efforts  were  defeated,  yet  not  by  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  but  by  Attains  and  Eumenes.  Demetrius,  after  his 
 death,  was  the  legitimate  heir  to  the  throne,  but  could  not  assert 
 his  rights,  because  he  was  a  hostage  in  Home ;  and  since  he  did 
 not  at  all  mount  the  throne,  he  was  not  of  course  dethroned  by 
 his  uncle  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  Finally,  Ptolemy  Philometor, 
 after  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  for  a  short  time,  it  is  true, 
 united  the  Syrian  crown  with  the  Egyptian  (1  Mace.  xi.  13  ;  Polyb. 
 xl.  12),  but  during  the  life  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  before 
 he  ascended  the  throne,  he  was  neither  de  jure  nor  de  facto  king 
 of  Syria ;  and  the  "  pretended  efforts  of  Cleopatra  to  gain  for  her 
 son  Philometor  the  crown  of  Syria  are  nowhere  proved"  (Hitzig). 
 Of  this  historical  interpretation  we  cannot  thus  say  even  so 
 much  as  that  it  "  only  very  scantily  meets  the  case"  (Delitzsch) ; 
 for  it  does  not  at  all  accord  with  the  prophecy  that  the  little  horn 
 (Antiochus  Epiphanes)  plucked  up  by  the  roots  three  of  the  exist- 
 ing kings.  Hitzig  and  Hilgenfeld  (Die  Froph.  Esra  u.  Dan. 
 p.  82)  have  therefore  dropped  out  of  view  the  Syrian  kingdom 
 of  Philometor,  and,  in  order  to  gain  the  number  ten,  have  ranked 
 Alexander  the  Great  among  the  Syrian  kings,  and  taken  Seleucus 
 Philopator  into  the  triad  of  the  pretended  Syrian  kings  that  were 
 plucked  up  by  the  roots  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  But  Alexander 
 the  Great  can  neither  according  to  the  evidence  of  history,  nor 
 according  to  the  statement  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  be  counted 
 among  the  kings  of  Syria ;  and  Seleucus  Philopator  was  not  mur- 
 dered by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  but  Antiochus  Epiphanes  lived  at 
 the  time  of  this  deed  in  Athens  (Appian,  Syr,  45)  ;  and  the  mur- 
 derer Ileliodorus  cannot  have  accomplished  that  crime  as  the 
 instrument  of  Antiochus,  because  he  aspired  to  gain  the  throne 
 for  himself,  and  was  only  prevented  from  doing  so  by  the  interven- 
 tion of  Attalus  and  Eumenes.  Hilgenfeld  also  does  not  venture 
 to  reckon  Heliodorus,  the  murderer  of  the  king,  among  the  triad 
 of  uprooted  kings,  but  seeks  to  supply  his  place  by  an  older  son 
 of  Seleucus  Philopatox',  murdered  at  the  instigation  of  Antiochus 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  255 
 
 Epiphanes  according  to  Gutschmid  ;  but  he  fails  to  observe  that 
 a  king's  son  murdered  during  the  lifetime  of  his  father,  reigning 
 as  king,  could  not  possibly  be  represented  as  a  king  whom  Antlo- 
 chus  Epiphanes  drove  from  his  throne.     Of  the  ten  kings  of  the 
 Grecian   world-kingdom  of  the  branch  of  the  Seleucida3  before 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  whom  Hilgenfeld  believes  that  he  is  almost 
 able  "  to  grasp  with  his  hands,"  history  gives  as  little  information  as 
 of  the  uprooting  of  the  three  Syrian  kings  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
 But  even   though  the  historical  relevancy  of  the  attempt  to 
 authenticate  the  ten  Syrian  kings  in  the  kingdom  of  the  Seleucidge 
 were  more  satisfactory  than,  from  what  has  been  remarked,  appears 
 to  be  the  case,  yet  this  interpretation  of  the  fourth  beast  would  be 
 shattered  against  the  ten  horns,  because  these  horns  did  not  grow 
 lip  one  after  another,  but  are  found  simultaneously  on  the  head  of 
 the  beast,  and  consequently  cannot  mean  ten   Syrian  kings  follow- 
 ing one  another,  as  not  only  all  interpreters  who  regard  the  beast 
 as  representing  the  Roman  empire,  but   also  Bleek  and   Kran., 
 acknowledge,  in  spite  of  the  reference  of  this  beast  to  the  Javanic 
 world-kingdom.     "  We  are  induced,"  as   Bleek  justly  observes, 
 "  by  ver.  8,  where  it  is  said  of  the  little  horn  that  it  would  rise  up 
 between  the  ten  horns,  to  think  of  ten  contemporaneous  kings,  or 
 rather  kingdoms,  existing  along  with  each  other,  which  rise  out  of 
 the  fourth  kingdom."    Therefore  he  will  "  not  deny  that  the  refer- 
 ence to  the  successors  of  Alexander  is  rendered  obscure  by  the 
 fact  that  ch.  viii.  speaks  of  four  monarchies  which  arise  out  of 
 that  of  Alexander  after  his  death."     This  obscurity,  however,  he 
 thinks  he  is  able  to  clear  up  by  the  remark,  that  "  in  the  kind  of 
 development  of  the  historical  relations  after  the  death  of  Alex- 
 ander, the  parts  of  his  kingdom  which  formed  themselves  into 
 independent   kingdoms  might  be   numbered  in  different  ways." 
 Thus,  in  ch.  vii.,  "  as  ten  from  the  number  of  the  generals  who 
 in  the  arrangements  of   the  division  of  the  kingdom   (323  B.C.) 
 retained  the  chief  provinces :   1.  Kraterus  (Macedonia) ;  2.  An- 
 tipater  (Greece)  ;  3.  Lysimachus  (Thrace)  ;  4.  Leonatus  (Phrygia 
 Minor  on  the  Hellespont)  ;  5.  Antigonus  (Phrygia  Major,  Lycia, 
 and  Pamphylia)  ;  6.  Cassander  (Karia)  ;  7.  Eumenes  (Cappadocia 
 and  Paphlagonia) ;  8.  Laomedon  (Syria  and  Palestine)  ;  9.  Pithon 
 (Media) ;    10.  Ptolemy   Lagus    (Egypt)."      But   Ziindel   justly 
 observes  in  opposition  to  this  view,  that  "  these  kingdoms  could 
 only  have  significance  if  this  number,  instead  of  being  a  selection 
 from  the  whole,  had  been  itself  the  whole.     But  this  is  not  the 
 
256  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 case.  For  at  tliat  time  the  kingdom,  according  to  Justin,  last. 
 L.  xiii.  4,  was  divided  into  more  than  thirty  separate  parts/  Al- 
 though all  the  names  do  not  perfectly  agree  as  given  by  different 
 writers,  yet  this  is  manifest,  that  there  is  no  information  regard- 
 ing a  division  of  the  kingdom  of  Alexander  into  ten  exclusively. 
 History  knows  nothing  of  such  a  thing ;  not  only  so,  but  much 
 more,  this  reckoning  of  Bleek's  falls  into  the  same  mistake  as 
 the  oldest  of  Porphyry,  that  it  is  an  arbitrary  selection  and  not  a 
 fixed  number."  But  if  Bleek  wishes  to  support  his  arbitrary 
 selection  by  references  to  the  Sibylline  Oracles,  where  also  mention 
 is  made  of  the  horns  of  Daniel  in  connection  with  Alexander, 
 Hilgenfeld  (Jild.  Apokal.  p.  71  ff.)  has,  on  the  contrary,  shown 
 that  this  passage  is  derived  from  Daniel,  and  is  therefore  useless 
 as  a  support  to  Bleek's  hypothesis,  because  in  it  the  immediate 
 successors  of  Alexander  are  not  meant,  but  ten  kings  following 
 one  another  ;  this  passage  also  only  shows  that  the  sibyllist  had 
 given  to  the  number  ten  an  interpretation  regarded  by  Bleek 
 himself  as  incompatible  with  the  words  of  Daniel. 
 
 But  notwithstanding  the  impossibility  of  interpreting  the  ten 
 horns  of  the  Greek  world-kingdom,  and  notwithstanding  the  above- 
 mentioned  mcompatibility  of  the  statements  of  ch.  ii.  and  vii. 
 regarding  the  third  kingdom  with  those  of  ch.  viii.  regarding  the 
 Medo-Persian  kingdom,^  yet,  according  to  Kranichfeld,  the  identi- 
 
 ^  Justinns,  I.e.,  mentions  the  following,  viz.  :  1.  Ptolemy  (Egypt,  Africa, 
 Arabia)  ;  2.  Laomedon  (Syria  and  Palestine)  ;  3.  Philotas  (Cilicia)  ;  4.  Philo 
 (Illyria)  ;  5.  Atropatos  (Media  Major)  :  6.  Scynus  (Susiana)  ;  7.  Antigonus 
 (Phrygia  Major) ;  8.  Nearchus  (Lycia  and  Pamphylia)  ;  9.  Cassander  (Caria)  ; 
 10.  Menandor  (Lydia)  ;  11.  Leouatus  (Phrygia  Minor) ;  12.  Lysimachus 
 (Thracia  and  Poutus) ;  13.  Eumenes  (Cappadocia  and  Paphlagouia)  ;  14. 
 Taxiles  (the  countries  between  the  Hydaspes  and  the  Indus)  ;  15.  Pithon 
 (India)  ;  16.  Extarches  (Caucasus)  ;  17.  Sybirtios  (Gcdrosia)  ;  18.  Statanor 
 or  Stasanor  (Drangiana  and  Aria)  ;  19.  Amyntas  (Bactria) ;  20.  Scytajus 
 (Sogdiana)  ;  21.  Nicanor  (Parthia)  ;  22.  Philippus  (Hyrcania)  ;  23.  Phrata- 
 phernes  (Armenia)  ;  24.  Tlepolenus  (Persia)  ;  25.  Peucestes  (Babylonia)  ;  26. 
 Archou  (the  Pelasgi)  ;  27.  Arcesilaus  (Mesopotamia).  Besides  these  there 
 were  other  generals  not  named. 
 
 2  This  incompatibility  Kliefoth  has  so  conclusively  (p.  245  f.)  stated,  that 
 in  confirmation  of  the  above  remarks  we  quote  his  words.  "  The  bear  and  the 
 panther,"  he  says,  "  are  related  to  each  other  as  the  ram  and  the  he-goat ;  but 
 how,  in  two  visions  following  each  other  and  related  to  each  other,  the  one 
 Medo-Persian  kingdom  could  be  likened  to  beasts  so  entirely  different  as  a 
 winged  panther  and  a  he-goat  is  quite  inconceivable.  The  interpreters  must 
 help  themselves  by  saying  that  the  choice  of  the  beasts  is  altogether  arbitrary. 
 Ch.  viii.  describes  Medo-Persia  as  a  kingdom  comprehending  two  peoples  imited 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  257 
 
 fication  of  the  fourth  kingdom  of  Daniel  with  the  Javanic  world- 
 kingdom  receives  a  confinnation  from  the  representation  of  ch. 
 xi.  and  xii.,  particularly  by  the  striking  resemblance  of  the  de- 
 scription of  the  fourth  kingdom  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  with  that  of  the 
 Javanic  in  ch.  viii.ff.  "  As  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  the  inward  discord 
 of  the  fourth  kingdom  is  predicated,  so  this  is  obviously  represented 
 in  the  inner  hateful  strife  of  the  kingdom,  of  which  ch.  xi.  3  ff. 
 treats ;  as  here  the  discord  appears  as  inextinguishable,  so  there  ; 
 as  to  the  special  means  also  for  preventing  the  ominous  ruin,  cf. 
 ch.  ii.  43  with  ch.  xi.  6,  17." 
 
 But  is,  then,  this  resemblance  indeed  so  striking  that  it  can 
 overbalance  the  fundamental  differences  ?  "  Of  all  that  ch.  vili. 
 Siiys,  in  vers.  5-8,  21,  22,  of  Macedonia,  nothing  at  all  is  found  in 
 the  statements  of  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  regarding  the  fourth  kingdom." 
 Kliefoth.  Also  the  inner  dissolution  predicated  of  the  fourth 
 kingdom,  ch.  ii.  41  ff.,  which  is  represented  by  the  iron  and  clay 
 of  the  feet  of  the  image,  is  fundamentally  different  from  the  strife 
 of  the  prince  of  the  south  with  the  prince  of  the  north  represented 
 in  ch.  xi.  3  ff.  The  mixing  of  iron  and  clay,  which  do  not  unite 
 together,  refers  to  two  nationalities  essentially  different  from  each 
 other,  which  cannot  be  combined  into  one  nation  by  any  means  of 
 human  effort,  but  not  at  all  to  the  wars  and  conflicts  of  princes 
 (ch.  xi.  3  ff.),  the  Ptolemies  and  the  Seleuclda3,  for  the  supremacy ; 
 and  the  attempts  to  combine  together  national  individualities  into 
 one  kingdom  by  means  of  the  mingling  together  of  different  races 
 by  external  force,  are  essentially  different  from  the  political  mar- 
 riages by  which  the  Ptolemies  and  the  Seleucidee  sought  to  establish 
 peace  and  friendship  with  each  other.^ 
 
 together  within  it ;  but  cli.  vii.  says  regarding  its  third  kingdom  Avith  four 
 heads,  that  after  an  original  unity  it  shall  fall  to  pieces  ou  all  sides.  And 
 interpreters  are  compelled  to  meet  this  contradiction  by  explaining  the  four 
 heads,  some  in  one  way,  and  others  in  another,  but  all  equally  unsuccessfully. 
 According  to  ch.  viii.  Medo-Persia  will  extend  itself  only  into  three  regions 
 of  the  earth,  while  according  to  ch.  vii.  the  third  kingdom  with  its  four  wings 
 will  extend  itself  on  all  sides.  It  comes  to  this,  therefore,  that  these  inter- 
 l^reters  must  divide  Medo-Persia  in  eh,  ii.  and  ch.  vii.  into  two  kingdoms,  of 
 Media  and  Persia,  while  in  ch.  viii.  they  must  recognise  but  one  Medo-Persian 
 kingdom." 
 
 i  How  little  political  marriages  were  characteristic  of  the  Ptolemies  and  the 
 Seleucidse,  rather  how  much  more  frequently  they  took  place  aniong  the 
 Romans,  from  the  time  of  Sulla  down  to  that  of  Diocletian,  and  that  often  in  a 
 violent  way — cum  frequenti  divortio  et  raptu  gravidarum — as  a  means  of  obtain- 
 ing or  holding  the  government,  is  shown  from  the  numerous  collection  of  cases 
 
 H 
 
258  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 There  is  more  plausibility  in  criticism  which  gives  prominence 
 to  the  resemblance  in  the  description  of  the  two  violent  perse- 
 cutors of  the  people  of  God  who  arise  out  of  the  Javanic  and 
 the  fourth  world-kingdom,  and  are  represented  in  ch.  viii.  as  well 
 as  in  ch.  vii.  under  the  figure  of  a  little  horn.  "  If  " — for  thus 
 Kran.  has  formulated  this  resemblance — "  in  the  fourth  kino;- 
 dom,  according  to  ch.  vii.  8,  11,  20,  21,  25,  the  heathen  oppressor 
 appears  speaking  insolent  words  against  the  Most  High  and  making 
 Mar  with  the  saints,  so  ch.  viii.  10  ff.,  24,  xi.  31,  36,  unfolds,  only 
 more  fully,  in  his  fundamental  characteristics,  the  same  enemy; 
 and  as  in  ch.  vii.  25  the  severe  oppression  continues  for  three 
 and  a  half  times,  so  also  that  contemplated  in  ch.  viii.  14  and 
 in  xii.  7,  in  connection  with  ch.  xii.  1  ff.  and  ch.  xi."  On  the 
 ground  of  this  view  of  the  case,  Delitzsch  (p.  280)  asks,  "  Is  it 
 likely  that  the  little  horn  which  raised  itself  up  and  persecuted 
 the  church  of  God  is  in  ch.  viii.  Antiochus  Epiphanes  rising  up 
 out  of  the  divided  kingdom  of  Alexander,  and  in  ch.  vii.,  on  the 
 contrary,  is  a  king  rising  up  in  the  Roman  world-kingdom?  The 
 representation  of  both,  in  their  relation  to  Jehovah,  His  people, 
 and  their  religion,  is  the  same.  The  symbolism  in  ch.  vii.  and  viii. 
 coincides,  in  so  far  as  the  arch-enemy  is  a  little  horn  which  rises 
 above  three  others."  We  must  answer  this  question  decidedly  in 
 the  afhrmative,  since  the  difference  between  the  two  enemies  is  not 
 only  likely,  but  certain.  The  similarity  of  the  symbol  in  ch.  vii. 
 and  viii.  reaches  no  further  than  that  in  both  chapters  the  perse- 
 cuting enemy  is  represented  as  a  little  horn  growing  gradually  to 
 greater  power.  But  in  ch.  viii.  9  this  little  horn  arises  from  one 
 of  the  four  horns  of  the  he-goat,  without  doing  injury  to  the  other 
 three  horns ;  while  in  ch.  vii.  8  the  little  horn  rises  up  between  the 
 ten  horns  of  the  dreadful  beast,  and  outroots  three  of  these  horns. 
 The  little  horn  in  ch.  viii.,  as  a  branch  which  grows  out  of  one  of 
 these,  does  not  increase  the  number  of  the  existing  horns,  as  that  in 
 ch.  vii.,  which  increases  the  number  there  to  eleven.     This  distinc- 
 
 of  this  sort  compiled  by  J.  C.  Velthusen  in  his  treatise  Animad.  ad  Dan.  ii. 
 27-45,  imprinils  dc  prlnclpum  Ilomunorum  cuiinnhiis  ad  Jirmandam  (yrannidem 
 inventis,  Hehnst.  1783,  ia  vol.  v.  of  the  Comciitait.  Theolog.  of  VelLh.,  edited 
 by  Kuinoel  and  Kuperti.  Since  this  treatise  has  not  received  any  attention 
 from  modern  critics,  we  will  quote  from  it  the  judgment  which  Cato  passed  on 
 Ciesar's  triplex  ad  evertendam  rempublicam  inventa  politicarum  nuptiarum 
 cuiispiratio.  His  words  are  these :  "  rem  esse  plane  non  tolerahilem,  quod  con- 
 nubiurum  lenocin'ds  impcrium  collocari  (oioc/nxaTpuTrsveadui^  caperit,  el  per  mtdkres 
 sese  mutuo  ad  prxfccluras^  exercitus,  imperia  auderet  introducere"  (p.  379). 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  259 
 
 tion  cannot,  as  Kranichfeld  supposes,  be  regarded  merely  as  a 
 formal  difference  in  the  figurative  representation ;  it  constitutes 
 an  essential  distinction  for  which  the  use  of  different  symbols  for 
 the  representation  of  the  world-kingdoms  in  ch.  ii.  and  vii.  fur- 
 nishes no  true  analogue.  By  these  two  different  images  two  wholly 
 different  things  are  compared  with  each  other. 
 
 The  representations  of  the  four  world-kingdoms  in  ch.  ii.  and  in 
 ch.  vii.  are  only  formally  different, — in  ch.  ii.  a  human  image,  in 
 ch.  vii.  four  beasts, — but  in  reality  these  representations  answer  to 
 each  other,  feature  for  feature,  only  so  that  in  ch.  vii.  further  out- 
 lines are  added,  which  entirely  agree  with,  but  do  not  contradict, 
 the  image  in  ch.  ii.  On  the  contrary,  in  ch.  vii.  and  viii.  essential 
 contradictions  present  themselves  in  the  parallel  symbols — four 
 horns  and  ten  horns — which  cannot  be  weakened  down  to  mere 
 formal  differences.  As  little  does  the  description  of  the  enemy  of 
 the  people  of  God,  portrayed  as  a  little  horn  in  ch.  viii.,  correspond 
 with  that  in  ch.  vii.  The  fierce  and  crafty  king  arising  out  of  the 
 kingdoms  of  Alexander's  successors  will  become  "  great  toward  the 
 south  and  toward  the  east  and  toward  the  pleasant  land,  and  wax 
 great  even  to  the  host  of  heaven,  and  cast  down  some  of  the  host 
 and  of  the  stars  to  the  ground ;  yea,  he  will  magnify  himself  even 
 to  the  prince  of  the  host,  and  take  away  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  cast 
 down  the  place  of  the  sanctuary  "  (ch.  viii.  9-12,23-25).  On  the 
 other  hand,  the  king  who  rises  up  out  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom, 
 who  overthrows  three  other  kings,  will  "  speak  great  things  against 
 the  Most  High,  and  make  war  against  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, 
 and  prevail  against  them,  and  think  to  change  times  and  laws  "  (ch. 
 vii.  8,  20,  25).  These  two  enemies  resemble  each  other  in  this, 
 that  they  both  make  war  against  the  people  of  God;  but  they  differ 
 in  that  he  who  arises  out  of  the  third  world-kingdom,  extending 
 his  power  toward  the  south  and  the  east,  i.e.  towards  Egypt  and 
 Babylon,  and  towards  the  Holy  Land,  shall  crush  some  of  the 
 people  of  God,  and  by  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  worship  and 
 the  destruction  of  the  sanctuary  in  Jerusalem,  will  rise  up  against 
 God ;  wliil'i,  on  the  contraiy,  he  that  shall  arise  out  of  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom  will  go  much  further.  He  will  establish  his  king- 
 dom by  the  destruction  of  three  kingdoms,  by  great  words  put 
 himself  in  the  place  of  God,  and  as  if  he  were  God  will  think  to 
 change  the  times  and  the  laws  of  men.  Conformably  to  this,  the 
 length  of  time  during  which  the  persecution  of  these  two  adver- 
 saries will  continue  is  different.    The  laying  waste  of  the  sanctuary 
 
2  GO  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 by  tlie  power  of  the  little  horn  arising  out  of  the  Jr.vanic  world- 
 kingJom  will  continue  2300  evening-mornings  (eh.  viii.  14)  :  to  the 
 power  of  the  little  horn  arising  out  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom 
 the  saints  of  the  Most  High  must  be  given  up  for  a  time,  two 
 times,  and  half  a  time  (ch.  vii.  25).  No  one  will  be  pei'suaded, 
 with  Kranichfeld,  that  these  two  entirely  different  periods  of  time 
 are  alike.  This  difference  of  the  periods  of  time  again  appears  in  ch. 
 xii.  7,  11,  12,  where  also  the  three  and  a  half  times  (ver.  7)  agree 
 neither  with  the  1290  nor  with  the  1335  days.  It  is  therefore  not 
 correct  to  say  that  in  ch.  viii.  and  vii.  Antichrist,  the  last  enemy 
 of  the  church,  is  represented,  and  that  the  aspects  of  the  imagery 
 in  both  chapters  strongly  resemble  each  other.  The  very  opposite 
 is  apparent  as  soon  as  one  considers  the  contents  of  the  description 
 without  prejudice,  and  does  not,  with  Kranichfeld  and  others,  hold 
 merely  by  the  details  of  the  representation  and  take  the  husk  for  the 
 kernel.  The  enemy  in  ch.  viii.  proceeds  only  so  far  against  God 
 that  he  attacks  His  people,  removes  His  worship,  and  lays  waste 
 the  sanctuary ;  the  enemy  in  ch.  vii.  makes  himself  like  God  (^^7, 
 ver.  25),  thinks  himself  to  be  God,  and  in  his  madness  dares  even 
 to  seek  to  change  the  times  and  the  laws  which  God  has  ordained, 
 and  which  He  alone  has  the  power  to  change.  The  enemy  in  ch. 
 viii.  it  is  an  abuse  of  words  to  call  Antichrist;  for  his  offence 
 against  God  is  not  greater  than  the  crime  of  Ahaz  and  Manasseh, 
 who  also  took  away  the  worship  of  the  true  God,  and  set  up  the 
 worship  of  idols  in  His  stead.  On  the  other  hand,  it  never  came 
 into  the  mind  of  an  Ahaz,  nor  of  Manasseh,  nor  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  who  set  himself  to  put  an  end  to  the  worship  of  God 
 among  the  Jews,  to  put  themselves  in  the  place  of  God,  and  to 
 seek  to  change  times  and  laws.  The  likeness  which  the  enemy  in 
 ch.  viii.,  i.e.  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  in  his  rage  against  the  Mosaic 
 religion  and  the  Jews  who  were  faithful  to  their  law,  has  to  the 
 enemy  in  ch.  vii.,  who  makes  himself  like  God,  limits  itself  to  the 
 relation  between  the  type  and  the  antitype.  Antiochus,  in  his 
 conduct  towards  the  Old  Testament  people  of  God,  is  only  the  type 
 of  Antichrist,  who  will  arise  out  of  the  ten  kingdoms  of  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom  (ch.  vii.  24)  and  be  diverse  from  them,  arrogate 
 to  himself  the  omnipotence  which  is  given  to  Christ,  and  in  this 
 arrogance  will  put  himself  in  the  place  of  God. 
 
 The  sameness  of  the  designation  given  to  both  of  these  adver- 
 saries of  the  people  of  God,  a  "  Utile  horn"  not  only  points  to  the  re- 
 lation of  type  and  antitype,  but  also,  as  Kliefoth  has  justly  remarked^ 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  2G1 
 
 to  "intentional  and  definite"  parallelism  between  the  third  world- 
 kingdom  (the  Macedonian)  and  the  fourth  (the  Roman).  "  On  all 
 points  the  changes  of  the  fourth  kingdom  are  described  similarly 
 to  the  changes  which  took  place  in  the  Macedonian  kingdom ;  but 
 in  every  point  of  resemblance  also  there  is  indicated  some  distinct 
 difference,  so  that  the  Macedonian  kingdom  in  its  development 
 comes  to  stand  as  the  type  and  representative  of  the  fourth  king- 
 dom, lying  as  yet  in  the  far-off  future."  The  parallelism  appears 
 in  this,  that  in  the  he-goat,  representing  the  Javanic  kingdom,  after 
 the  breaking  of  the  one  great  horn  four  considerable  horns  come 
 up;  and  the  fourth  beast  has  ten  horns;  and  the  horns  in  both  show 
 that  out  of  the  one  kingdom  four,  and  out  of  the  other  ten,  king- 
 doms shall  arise; — further,  that  as  out  of  one  of  the  Javanic  Diadoch 
 kingdoms,  so  also  from  among  the  ten  kingdoms  into  which  the 
 fourth  kingdom  is  divided,  a  little  horn  comes  up ;  the  little  horn 
 in  the  Javanic  kingdom,  however,  developes  itself  and  founds  its 
 dominion  differently  from  that  of  the  fourth  kingdom.  If  one 
 carefully  considers  the  resemblances  and  the  differences  of  this 
 description,  he  cannot  fail  to  observe  "  the  relation  of  an  imperfect 
 preliminary  step  of  heathenish  ungodliness  to  a  higher  step  after- 
 wards taken,"  which  Kran.  (p.  282)  seeks  in  a  typical  delineation. 
 For  the  assertion  of  this  critic,  that  "  in  the  pretended  typical,  as 
 in  the  antitypical  situation,  the  same  thoughts  of  the  rising  up 
 against  the  Most  High,  the  removal  of  His  worship,  and  the 
 destruction  of  the  sanctuary  always  similarly  occur,"  is,  according 
 to  the  exegetical  explanation  given  above,  simply  untrue.  The 
 difference  reduces  itself  not  merely  to  the  greater  fulness  with 
 which,  "  not  the  chief  hero,  but  the  type,"  is  treated,  but  it  shows 
 itself  in  the  diversity  of  the  thoughts ;  for  the  elevation  to  the 
 place  of  God,  and  the  seeking  to  change  the  times  and  the  laws, 
 manifests  one  of  a  higher  degree  of  godlessness  than  the  removing 
 of  the  Jewish  sacrificial  worship  and  the  desecration  of  the  Jewish 
 temple. 
 
 Finally,  the  relation  of  the  type  to  the  antitype  appears  yet 
 more  distinctly  in  the  determining  of  the  time  which  will  be  ap- 
 pointed to  both  enemies  for  their  opposition  to  God ;  for,  though 
 apparently  they  are  alike,  they  are  in  reality  very  differently  desig- 
 nated, and  particularly  in  the  explanation  of  the  angel,  ch.  viii.  17, 
 19,  and  in  the  representation  of  the  conduct  of  both  enemies  in  ch. 
 si.  and  xii.,  as  we  shall  show  in  our  exposition  of  these  chapters. 
 
 Since,  then,  neither  the  division  of  the  Medo-Persian  kingdom 
 
262  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 into  the  ^Median  and  the  Persian  is  allowaWe,  nor  the  identifi- 
 cation of  the  fourth  kingdom,  ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  with  the  Javanic 
 world-kingdom  in  ch.  viii.,  we  may  regard  as  correct  the  traditional 
 church  view,  that  the  four  workl-kingdoms  are  the  Chahlean,  the 
 Medo-Persian,  the  Grecian,  and  the  Roman.  This  opinion,  which 
 has  been  recently  maintained  by  Hiiv.,  Hengst.,  Hofm.,  Auberl., 
 Zundel,  Klief.,  and  by  C.  P.  Caspar!  and  H.  L.  Reichel,  alone 
 accords  without  any  force  or  arbitrariness  w'ith  the  representation 
 of  these  kingdoms  in  both  visions,  with  each  separately  as  well  as 
 with  both  together.  If  we  compare,  for  instance,  the  two  visions 
 with  each  other,  they  are  partly  distinguished  in  this,  that  while 
 Nebuchadnezzar  sees  the  world-power  in  its  successive  unfoldings 
 represented  by  07ie  metallic  image,  Daniel,  on  the  other  hand,  sees 
 it  in  the  form  of  four  ravenous  beasts  ;  partly  in  this,  that  in  ch. 
 vii.  the  nature  of  the  world-power,  and  its  relation  to  the  kingdom 
 of  God,  is  more  distinctly  described  than  in  the  image  seen  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  ch.  ii.  These  diversities  have  their  foundation 
 in  the  person  of  the  respective  recipients  of  the  revelation.  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, the  founder  of  the  world-power,  sees  its  development 
 in  its  unity  and  in  its  earthly  glory.  As  opposed  to  the  kingdom 
 of  God,  the  world-kingdoms,  in  all  the  phases  of  their  develop- 
 ment, form  a  united  power  of  outward  glory.  But  its  splendour 
 gradually  decreases.  The  image  with  the  golden  head  has  its 
 breast  and  arms  of  silver,  its  belly  of  brass,  its  legs  of  iron,  its 
 feet  of  iron  and  clay  mixed.  Thus  the  image  stands  on  feet  that 
 are  weak  and  easily  broken,  so  that  a  stone  rolling  against  them 
 can  break  in  pieces  the  whole  colossus.  Since,  then,  the  image 
 must  represent  four  phases  of  the  world-kingdoms  following  each 
 other,  they  must  be  represented  by  the  separate  parts  of  the  image. 
 Beginning  with  the  head,  as  denoting  the  first  kingdom,  the  second 
 kingdom  is  in  natural  order  represented  by  the  breast  and  arms, 
 the  third  by  the  belly,  and  the  fourth  by  the  legs  and  feet.  Since 
 this  of  necessity  follows  from  the  image  being  that  of  the  human 
 body,  yet  in  the  interpretation  we  may  not  attach  any  weight  to 
 the  circumstance  that  the  second  kingdom  is  represented  by  the 
 breast  and  the  two  arms,  and  the  fourth  by  the  two  legs  ;  but  this 
 circumstance  may  be  taken  into  consideration  only  in  so  far  as 
 importance  is  given  to  it  by  the  interpretation  which  is  furnished 
 in  the  text,  or  as  it  finds  corresponding  importance  in  the  vision 
 of  ch.  vii. 
 
 If  we  thus  consider  now  the  image,  ch.  ii.,  the  selection  of  dif- 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOJIS.  "       263 
 
 ferent  metals  for  its  separate  parts  must  be  regarded  as  certainly 
 designed  not  only  to  distinguish  the  four  world-kingdoms  from 
 each  other,  but  also  at  the  same  time  to  bring  to  view  their  different 
 natures  and  qualities.  This  is  evident  from  the  interpretation  in 
 ch.  ii.  39  ff.,  where  the  hardness  and  the  crushing  power  of  the 
 iron,  and  the  brittleness  of  the  clay,  are  brought  to  view.  From 
 this  intimation  it  is  at  the  same  time  obvious  that  the  metals  are 
 not,  as  Auberlen,  p.  228  ff.,  thinks,  to  be  viewed  only  as  to  their 
 worth,  and  that  by  the  successive  depreciation  of  the  materials — 
 gold,  silver,  brass,  iron,  clay — a  continuous  decline  of  the  world- 
 power,  or  a  diminution  of  the  world-kingdoms  as  to  their  inner  worth 
 and  power,  is  intended.  Though  Aub.  says  many  things  that  are 
 true  and  excellent  regarding  the  downward  progress  of  the  world- 
 development  in  general,  the  successive  deterioration  of  humanity 
 from  paradise  to  the  day  of  judgment,  yet  this  aspect  of  the  sub- 
 ject does  not  come  here  primarily  before  us,  but  is  only  a  subordi- 
 nate element  in  the  contemplation.  Daniel  does  not  depict,  as 
 Aub.  with  P.  Lange  supposes,  the  world-civilisations  in  the  world- 
 monarchies  ;  he  does  not  describe  "  the  progress  from  a  state  of 
 nature  to  one  of  refined  culture — from  a  natural,  vigorous,  solid 
 mode  of  existence  to  a  life  of  refinement  and  intellectualism,  which 
 is  represented  by  the  eye  (ch.  vii.  8)  of  Antichrist ;"  but  he  describes 
 in  both  visions  only  the  development  of  the  world-power  opposite 
 to  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  its  influence  upon  it  in  the  future. 
 If  Aub.  holds  as  the  foundation  of  his  opinion,  that  "  gold  and 
 silver  are  nobler  and  more  valuable  metals,  but  that,  on  the  other 
 hand,  ii'on  and  brass  are  infinitely  more  important  for  the  cause  of 
 civilisation  and  culture,"  he  has  confounded  two  different  points 
 of  view :  he  has  made  the  essential  worth  and  value  of  the  former 
 metals,  and  the  purpose  and  use  of  the  latter,  the  one  point  of 
 comparison.  Gold  and  silver  are  nobler  and  more  valuable  than 
 brass  and  iron,  yet  they  have  less  intrinsic  worth.  The  difference 
 is  frequently  noticed  in  the  Old  Testament.  Gold  and  silver  are 
 not  only  more  highly  valued  than  brass  and  iron  (cf.  Isa.  Ix.  17), 
 but  silver  and  gold  are  also  metonymically  used  to  designate  moral 
 purity  and  righteousness  (cf.  Mai.  iii.  3  with  Isa.  i.  22)  ;  brass  and 
 iron,  on  the  contrary,  are  used  to  designate  moral  impurity  (cf. 
 Jer.  vi.  28,  Ezek.  xxii.  18)  and  stubborn  rebellion  against  God 
 (Isa.  xlviii.  4).  With  reference  to  the  relative  w^orth  of  the 
 metals,  their  gradation  in  the  image  shows,  without  doubt,  an 
 increasing  moral  and  religious  deterioration   of   the  world-king- 
 
2G4-  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 cloms.  It  must  not,  however,  be  hence  tlionght,  as  Anberlen  docs, 
 "  that  the  Babylonian  and  Persian  religions  presuppose  more  gen- 
 uine truthfulness,  more  sacred  reverence  for  that  Avhich  is  divine, 
 deeper  earnestness  in  contending  against  the  evil,  in  the  nations 
 among  whom  tiiey  sprung  up,  than  the  Hellenic,  which  is  so 
 much  richer  and  more  beautifully  developed  ;"  for  this  distinction 
 is  not  supported  by  history.  But  although  this  may  be  said  of  the 
 Persian,  it  cannot  be  held  as  true  of  the  Babylonian  religion,  from 
 all  we  know  of  it.  Kranichfeld  (p.  107)  is  more  correct  when  in 
 the  succession  of  the  metals  he  finds  "  the  thought  conceived  by 
 the  theocrat  of  a  definite  fourfold  procedure  or  expression  of  cha- 
 racter comparatively  corresponding  to  them,  of  a  fourfold  ^1^  {xoay, 
 Jer.  vi.  27)  of  the  heathen  kingdoms  manifesting  an  increasing 
 deterioration."  The  two  first  kingdoms,  the  golden  and  the  silver, 
 in  general  appear  to  him  in  their  conduct  as  proportionally  noble, 
 virtuous,  and  in  their  relation  to  the  theocracy  even  relatively 
 pious ;  the  two  latter,  on  the  contrary,  which  presented  themselves 
 to  him  in  the  likeness  of  brass  and  iron,  as  among  the  four 
 morally  base,  as  standing  in  the  moral  scale  lower  and  lowest,  and 
 in  relation  to  the  theocracy  as  more  relentless  and  wicked  (see  ver. 
 40^).  With  this  the  declaration  of  the  text  as  to  the  position  of  the 
 four  world-kingdoms  and  their  rulers  with  reference  to  the  people 
 of  God  stand  in  accord  ;  for,  on  the  one  hand,  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 and  the  first  rulers  of  the  second  kingdom,  Darius  the  Median  and 
 Cyrus  the  Persian,  respect  the  revelations  of  the  living  God,  and 
 not  only  in  their  own  persons  give  honour  to  this  God,  but  also 
 command  their  heathen  subjects  to  render  unto  Plim  fear  and 
 reverence  ;  on  the  other  hand,  on  the  contrary,  from  the  third  and 
 the  fourth  kingdoms  the  greatest  persecutors  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God,  who  wish  utterly  to  destroy  it  (ch.  vii.,  viii.),  arise.     In  this 
 
 ^  Kliefoth  (p.  93)  in  a  similar  manner  says,  "  From  the  application  which 
 in  ch.  ii.  40  is  made  of  the  iron  material,  we  see  that  the  substances  represent- 
 ing the  different  kingdoms,  and  their  deterioration  from  the  gold  down  to  the 
 iron,  must  denote  something  else  than  that  the  world-power,  in  the  course  of 
 its  historical  formation,  will  become  always  baser  and  more  worthless — that  also 
 its  more  tender  or  more  cruel  treatment  of  the  nations,  and  of  the  men  sub- 
 dued by  it,  must  be  characterized.  If  the  bonds  whicli  the  Babylonian  world- 
 monarchy  wound  around  the  nations  which  were  brought  into  subjection  to 
 it,  by  its  very  primitive  military  and  bureaucratic  regulations,  were  loose, 
 gentle,  pliable  as  a  golden  ring,  those  of  the  Medo-Persiau  were  of  harder  silver, 
 those  of  the  Macedonian  of  yet  harder  copper,  but  the  yoke  of  the  fourth  will 
 be  one  of  iion." 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  265  ' 
 
 respect  the  two  first  world-kingdoms,  seen  in  their  rulers,  are  hke 
 gold  and  silver,  the  two  latter  like  copper  and  iron. 
 
 The  relation  of  the  world-kingdoms  to  the  kingdom  and  people 
 of  God,  represented  by  this  gradation  of  the  metals,  corresponds 
 only  to  the  Babylonian,  Medo- Persian,  Grecian,  and  Roman 
 world-kingdoms,  but  not  to  the  Babylonian,  Median,  and  Persian. 
 This  appears  more  manifest  in  the  representation  of  them  by  four 
 ravenous  beasts,  the  lion,  the  bear,  the  leopard,  and  another  beast 
 to  which  no  likeness  can  be  found,  ch.  vii.  Its  eagle's  wings  were 
 torn  from  the  lion,  and  it  had  given  to  it,  by  God,  a  man's  heart ; 
 the  bear  shows  only  wild  voracity, — holding  its  prey  between  its 
 teeth,  it  raises  its  one  side  for  new  prey;  the  leopard  with  four  heads 
 and  four  wings  springs  forward  as  in  flight  over  the  whole  earth,  to 
 seize  it  and  to  exercise  dominion  over  it;  the  fourth  nameless  beast 
 devours  and  breaks  in  pieces  with  its  iron  teeth  all  that  remains, 
 and  stamps  upon  it  with  its  iron  feet,  and  thus  represents  godless 
 barbarity  in  its  fullest  development.  But  for  the  historical  inter- 
 pretation there  comes  yet  particularly  into  view  the  circumstance 
 that  the  fourth  beast  is  represented  by  no  animal  existing  in 
 nature,  and  is  designated  by  no  historical  name,  as  in  the  case  of 
 the  first  (ch.  ii.  38)  and  the  second  and  third  (ch,  viii.  20,  21); 
 for  the  two  first  had  already  come  into  existence  in  Daniel's  time, 
 and  of  the  third,  the  people  at  least  out  of  whom  it  was  to  arise 
 had  then  already  come  into  relation  to  the  people  of  Israel  (Joel 
 iv.  6,  8).  The  fourth  kingdom,  on  the  contrary,  is  represented 
 by  a  nameless  beast,  because  in  Daniel's  time  Rome  had  not  come 
 into  contact  with  Israel,  and  as  yet  lay  beyond  the  circle  of  vision 
 of  Old  Testament  prophecy.  Although  Daniel  receives  much 
 more  special  revelations  regarding  this  world-kingdom  (ch.  vii.) 
 than  Nebuchadnezzar  does  in  his  dream  (ch.  ii.),  yet  all  the 
 separate  lines  of  the  representation  of  the  beast  and  its  horns 
 are  given  with  so  much  want  of  precision  that  every  reference 
 to  a  historical  people  is  at  fault,  and  from  the  vision  and  its  inter- 
 pretation it  was  not  to  be  known  where  this  kingdom  would  arise, 
 whether  in  Asia  or  elsewhere.  The  strength  of  the  monster, 
 devouring  and  trampling  mercilessly  on  all  things,  is  in  harmony 
 with  its  iron  nature,  and  in  its  ten  horns  its  powerful  armour  is 
 depicted.  The  very  concrete  expressions  regarding  the  little  or 
 eleventh  horn  contain  only  ideal  traces  respecting  the  position 
 of  the  king  or  kingdom  represented  by  it,  which  distinctly  show, 
 indeed,  the  elevation  of  the  same  above  all   human   and   divine 
 
266  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 autliorit}',  but  give  no  indication  at  all  of  any  special  historical 
 connections. 
 
 Thus  it  appears  that  the  two  visions,  on  the  one  hand,  do  not 
 copy  their  prophetic  representation  from  historical  facts,  that  the 
 prophecy  is  not  vaticinhim  ex  eventu;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  also 
 that  it  is  not  derived  from  general  ideas,  as  Hitz.  and  Kran.  have 
 attempted  to  show.  While  Hitzig  tliinks  that  the  idea  of  the  four 
 ages  of  the  world  lies  at  the  foundation,  not  of  the  fourfoklness  of 
 the  monarchies,  but  of  the  kind  of  representation  given  of  them  in 
 Dan.  ii., — an  idea  which  came  from  India  to  Greece,  and  was 
 adopted  by  Daniel  in  its  Greek  form, — Kranichfeld  considers  that, 
 under  divine  enlightenment,  Daniel  delineated  the  ideal  of  the  ad- 
 vancing completion  of  heatlien  depravation  in  four  stages  (not  in 
 five,  six,  etc.),  after  the  notion  of  the  four  ages  of  the  world  which 
 we  find  not  only  in  the  Indian  four  jugas,  but  also  in  the  Greco- 
 Koman  representation  of  the  metallic  peons.  Now  although  for 
 this  book  of  Daniel  no  special  dependence  on  the  Greeks  can  be 
 proved  from  the  use  and  value  of  the  metals,  because  they  were 
 used  by  the  ancient  Hebrews  as  metaphorical  symbols,  yet  the 
 combination  of  the  idea  of  the  ages  of  the  world  so  firmly  and 
 definitely  stamped  with  just  the  number  four  remains  a  very  note- 
 M'orthy  phenomenon,  which  must  have  had  a  deeper  foundation 
 lying  in  the  very  fact  itself.  This  foundation,  he  concludes,  is  to 
 be  sought  in  the  four  stages  of  the  age  of  man. 
 
 This  conjecture  might  appear  plausible  if  Kranichfeld  had  proved 
 the  supposed  four  stages  of  the  age  of  man  as  an  idea  familiar  to 
 the  O.  T.  He  has  not,  however,  furnished  this  proof,  but  limited 
 himself  to  the  remark,  that  the  combination  of  the  number  four 
 with  the  ages  of  the  life  of  man  was  one  lying  very  near  to  Daniel, 
 since  the  four  phases  of  the  development  of  heathenism  come  into 
 view  (cli.  ii.)  in  the  image  of  a  human  being,  the  personification 
 of  heathendom.  A  very  marvellous  conclusion  indeed !  What, 
 then,  have  the  four  parts  of  the  human  figure — the  head,  breast, 
 belly,  feet — in  common  with  the  four  stages  of  the  age  of  man? 
 The  whole  combination  wants  every  point  of  support.  The  idea 
 of  the  development  of  the  world-power  in  four  kingdoms  following 
 after  each  other,  and  becoming  continually  the  more  oppressive  to 
 the  people  of  God,  has  no  inward  connection  with  the  representa- 
 tion of  the  four  ages  of  the  world,  and — as  even  Ewald  (Dan.  p. 
 346),  in  opposition  to  tiiis  combination,  remarks — "  the  mere  com- 
 parison with  gold,  silver,  brass,  iron  lies  too  near  for  the  author 
 
THE  FOUR  WORLD-KINGDOMS.  267 
 
 of  this  book  to  need  to  borrow  it  from  Hesiod."  The  agreement 
 of  the  two  ideas  in  the  number  four  (although  Hesiod  has  inserted 
 the  age  of  the  heroes  between  the  brazen  and  the  iron  £eon,  and 
 thus  has  not  adliered  to  the  number  four)  would  much  more  readily 
 have  been  explained  from  the  symbolical  meaning  of  four  as  the 
 number  of  the  world,  if  it  were  the  mere  product  of  human 
 speculation  or  combination  in  the  case  of  the  world-ages  as  of 
 the  world -kingdoms,  and  not  much  rather,  in  the  case  of  the 
 ■world -ages,  were  derived  from  the  historical  development  of 
 humanity  and  of  Daniel's  world-kingdoms,  from  divine  revelation. 
 Yet  much  less  are  the  remaining  declarations  regarding  the  develop- 
 ment and  the  course  of  the  world-kingdoms  to  be  conceived  of  as 
 the  product  of  enlightened  human  thought.  This  may  be  said  of 
 the  general  delineation  of  the  second  and  third  world-kingdoms 
 (ch.  ii.  and  vii.),  and  yet  much  more  of  the  very  special  declara- 
 tion regarding  them  in  ch.  viii.,  but  most  of  all  of  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom.  If  one  wished  to  deduce  the  fearful  power  of 
 this  kingdom  destroying  all  things  from  the  idea  of  the  rising  up 
 of  hostility  against  that  which  is  divine,  closely  bound  up  with  the 
 deterioration  of  the  state  of  the  world,  and  to  attach  importance 
 to  this,  that  the  number  ten  of  the  horns  of  the  fourth  beast, 
 corresponding  to  the  number  of  the  toes  of  the  feet,  is  derived 
 from  the  apprehension  of  heathendom  as  the  figure  of  a  man, 
 and  is  not  to  be  understood  numerically,  but  symbolically;  yet 
 there  remains,  not  to  mention  other  elements,  the  growth  of  the 
 little  horn  between  the  ten  existing  horns,  and  its  elevation  to 
 power  through  the  destruction  of  three  existing  horns,  which 
 are  deduced  neither  from  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  num- 
 bers nor  are  devised  by  enlightened  human  thought,  but  much 
 rather  constrain  us  to  a  recognition  of  an  immediate  divine  reve- 
 lation. 
 
 If  we  now  approach  more  closely  to  the  historical  reference  of 
 the  fourth  world-kingdom,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  we  cannot 
 understand  by  it  the  Grecian,  but  only  the  Roman  world-power. 
 With  it,  not  with  the  Macedonian  monarchy,  agree  both  the  iron 
 nature  of  the  image  (ch.  ii.),  and  the  statements  (ch.  vii.  23)  that 
 this  kingdom  would  be  different  from  all  that  preceded  it,  and  that 
 it  would  devour  and  break  and  trample  upon  the  whole  earth.  The 
 Roman  kingdom  was  the  first  universal  monarchy  in  the  full  sense. 
 Along  with  the  three  earlier  world-kingdoms,  the  nations  of  the 
 world-historical  future  remained  still  unsubdued :  along  with  the 
 
26S  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Oriental  kingdoms,  Greece  and  Rome,  and  along  with  the  Mace- 
 donian, the  growing  power  of  Kome. 
 
 First  the  Roman  kingdom  spread  its  power  and  dominion  over 
 the  whole  olKovjjbevq,  over  all  the  historical  nations  of  antiquity  in 
 Europe,  Africa,  and  Asia.  "  There  is"  (says  Herodian,  ii.  11.  1) 
 "  no  part  of  the  earth  and  no  region  of  the  heavens  whither  the 
 Romans  have  not  extended  their  dominion."  Still  more  the  pro- 
 phecy of  Daniel  reminds  us  of  the  comparison  of  the  Roman  world- 
 kingdom  with  the  earlier  world-kingdoms,  the  Assyrico-Babylonian, 
 the  Persian,  and  the  Grecian,  in  Dionys.  Halicar.,  when  in  the 
 procem.  9  he  says :  "  These  are  the  most  famous  kingdoms  down 
 to  our  time,  and  this  their  duration  and  power.  But  the  kingdom 
 of  the  Romans  ruled  through  all  the  regions  of  the  earth  which  are 
 not  inaccessible,  but  are  inhabited  by  men ;  it  ruled  also  over  the 
 whole  sea,  and  it  alone  and  first  made  the  east  and  the  west  its 
 boundaries."  Concernins;  the  other  features  of  the  imae;e  in  ch. 
 ii.,  we  can  seek  neither  (see  p.  2G1)  in  the  two  legs  and  feet  of  the 
 image,  nor  in  the  twofold  material  of  the  feet,  any  hint  as  to  the 
 division  of  the  Roman  kingdom  into  the  Eastern  and  Western 
 Rome.  The  iron  and  clay  are  in  the  image  indeed  not  so  divided 
 as  that  the  one  foot  is  of  iron  and  the  other  of  clay,  but  iron  and 
 clay  are  bound  together  in  both  of  the  feet.  In  this  union  of  two 
 heterogeneous  materials  there  also  lies  no  hint  that,  by  the  dis- 
 persion of  the  nations,  the  plastic  material  of  the  Germanic  and 
 the  Sclavic  tribes  was  added  to  the  Old  Roman  universal  kingdom 
 (ver.  40)  with  its  thoroughly  iron  nature  (Auberl.  p.  2b2^  cf.  with 
 Hof.  Weiss,  u.  Erf.  i.  p.  281).  For  the  clay  in  the  image  does  not 
 come  into  view  as  a  malleable  and  plastic  material,  but,  according 
 to  the  express  interpretation  of  Daniel  (ver.  42),  only  in  respect  of 
 its  brittleness.  The  mixing  of  iron  and  clay,  which  do  not  inwardly 
 combine  together,  shows  the  inner  division  of  the  nations,  of  separate 
 natural  stocks  and  national  characters,  which  constituted  the  Roman 
 empire,  who  were  kept  together  by  external  force,  whereby  the  iron 
 firmness  of  the  Roman  nation  was  mingled  with  brittle  clay. 
 
 The  kingdoms  represented  by  the  ten  horns  belong  still  to  the 
 future.  To  be  able  to  judge  regarding  them  with  any  certainty, 
 we  must  first  make  clear  to  ourselves  the  place  of  the  Messianic 
 kingdom  with  reference  to  the  fourth  world-kingdom,  and  then 
 compare  the  prophecy  of  the  Apocalypse  of  John  regarding  the 
 formation  of  the  world-power — a  prophecy  which  rests  on  the  book 
 of  Daniel. 
 
THE  MESSIANIC  KINGDOM  AND  THE  SON  OF  MAN.  2G9 
 
 Hie  Messianic  Kingdom  and  the  Son  of  Man. 
 
 In  the  image  of  tlie  monarchies,  ch.  ii.,  the  everlasting 
 kingdom  of  God  is  simply  placed  over  against  the  kingdoms  of  tlie  • 
 world  without  mention  being  made  of  the  king  of  this  kingdom. 
 The  human  image  is  struck  and  broken  to  pieces  by  a  stone  rolling 
 down  against  its  feet,  but  the  stone  itself  grows  into  a  great  mountain 
 and  fills  the  whole  earth  (ch.  ii.  34  ff.).  This  stone  is  a  figure  of 
 that  kingdom  which  the  God  of  heaven  will  erect  in  the  days  of 
 the  kin£i;s  of  the  fourth  world-kin  n;dom  ;  a  kingdom  which  to  all 
 eternity  shall  never  be  destroyed,  and  which  shall  crush  all  the 
 kingdoms  of  the  world  (ch.  ii.  44).  In  ch.  vii.,  on  the  contrary, 
 Daniel  sees  not  only  the  judgment  which  God  holds  over  the 
 kingdoms  of  the  world,  to  destroy  them  for  ever  with  the  death 
 of  their  last  ruler,  but  also  the  deliverance  of  the  kingdom  to  the 
 Messiah  comins  with  the  clouds  of  heaven  in  the  likeness  of  a 
 son  of  man,  whom  all  nations  shall  serve,  and  whose  dominion 
 shall  stand  for  ever  (ch.  vii.  9-14,  cf.  ver.  26  f.). 
 
 In  both  visions  the  Messianic  kingdom  appears  in  its  com- 
 pletion. Whence  Auberlen  (p.  248),  with  other  chiliasts,  con- 
 cludes that  the  beginning  of  this  kingdom  can  refer  to  nothing 
 else  than  to  the  coming  of  Christ  for  the  founding  of  the  so-called 
 kingdom  of  the  thousand  years ;  an  event  still  imminent  to  us. 
 In  favour  of  this  view,  he  argues  (1)  that  the  judgment  on  Anti- 
 christ, whose  appearance  is  yet  future,  goes  before  the  beginning 
 of  this  kingdom ;  (2)  that  this  kingdom  in  both  chapters  is 
 depicted  as  a  kingdom  of  glory  and  dominion,  while  till  this  time 
 the  kingdom  of  heaven  on  the  earth  is  yet  a  kingdom  of  the  cross. 
 But  the  judgment  on  Antichrist  does  not  altogether  go  before  the 
 beginning  of  this  kingdom,  but  only  before  the  final  completion  of 
 the  Messianic  kingdom  ;  and  the  Messianic  kingdom  has  the  glory 
 and  dominion  over  all  the  kingdoms  under  heaven,  according  to 
 ch.  ii.  and  vii.,  not  from  the  beginning,  but  acquires  them  only 
 for  the  first  time  after  the  destruction  of  all  the  world-kingdoms 
 and  of  the  last  powerful  enemy  arising  out  of  them.  The  stone 
 which  breaks  the  image  becomes  for  the  first  time  after  it  has 
 struck  the  image  a  great  mountain  which  fills  the  whole  earth 
 (ch.  ii.  35),  and  the  kingdom  of  God  is  erected  by  the  God  of 
 heaven,  according  to  ch.  ii.  44,  not  for  the  first  time  after  the  de- 
 struction of  all  the  v/orld-kingdoms,  but  in  the  days  of  the  kings 
 of  the  fourth  world-mouarchy,  and  thus  during  its  continuance. 
 
270  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 With  this  ch.  vii.  harmonizes  ;  for,  according  to  vers.  21,  22,  25, 
 27,  the  little  horn  of  the  fourth  beast  carries  on  war  with  the 
 saints  of  the  Most  High  till  the  Ancient  of  days  executes  judg- 
 ment m  their  behalf,  and  the  time  arrives  when  the  saints  shall 
 possess  the  kingdom.  Here  we  distinctly  see  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  upon  earth  bearing  the  form  of  the  cross,  out  of  which 
 condition  it  shall  be  raised  by  the  judgment  into  the  state  of 
 glory.  The  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  is  thus  already  begun,  and  is 
 warred  against  by  Antichrist,  and  the  judgment  on  Antichrist 
 only  goes  before  the  raising  of  it  to  glory.  (3)  Auberlen  adduces 
 as  a  third  argument,  that  (according  to  Koos,  Hofm.,  etc.)  only  the 
 people  of  Israel  in  opposition  to  the  heathen  nations  and  kingdoms 
 can  be  understood  by  the  "  people  of  the  saints  of  the  ^lost  High  " 
 (ch.  vii.  18,  27),  because  Daniel  could  only  think  of  this  people. 
 But  to  this  Kranichfeld  has  rightly  replied,  that  Daniel  and  the 
 whole  O.  T.  knew  nothing  whatever  of  such  a  distinction  between 
 a  non-Israelitish  and  an  Israelitish  epoch  within  the  kingdom  of 
 Messiah,  but  only  a  Messianic  kingdom  in  which  Israel  forms  the 
 enduring  centre  for  the  heathen  believing  nations  drawing  near  to 
 them.  To  this  we  add,  that  the  division  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
 founded  by  Christ  on  the  earth  into  a  period  of  the  church  of  the 
 Gentiles,  and  following  this  a  period  of  a  thousand  years  of  the 
 dominion  of  Jewish  Christians,  contradicts  the  clear  statements  of 
 Christ  and  the  apostles  in  the  N.  T.,  and  is  only  based  on  a  mis- 
 conception of  a  few  passages  of  the  Apocalypse  (cf.  Comm.  on 
 Ezeh.  p.  504  ff.). 
 
 Daniel  certainly  predicts  the  completion  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God  in  glory,  but  he  does  not  prophesy  that  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  will  then  for  the  first  time  begin,  but  indicates  its  begin- 
 nings in  a  simple  form,  although  he  does  not  at  large  represent  its 
 gradual  development  in  the  war  against  the  world-power,  just  as  he 
 also  gives  only  a  few  brief  intimations  of  the  temporary  develop- 
 ment of  the  world-kingdoms.  If  Aub.  (p.  251)  replies  that  the 
 words  of  the  text,  ch.  ii.  35, "  then  was  the  iron,  the  clay,  the 
 brass,  the  silver,  and  the  gold  broken  to  pieces  together,"  cannot 
 at  all  permit  the  thought  of  the  co-existence  of  the  fourth  world- 
 kinfidom  and  the  kiniidom  of  God,  he  attributes  to  these  words  a 
 meaning  which  they  do  not  bear.  The  "  together  "  refers  only  to 
 tlie  breaking  in  pieces  of  the  five  substances  named,  of  which 
 the  world-kingdoms  are  formed,  the  destruction  of  the  world- 
 power  in  all  its  parts,  but  not  that  this  happened  at  one  and  the 
 
THE  MESSIANIC  KINGDOM  AND  THE  SON  OF  MAN.  271 
 
 same  moment,  and  that  then  for  the  first  time  the  kingdom  of 
 God  which  is  from  heaven  began.  The  stone  which  brake  the 
 image  in  pieces,  then  first,  it  is  true,  grows  up  into  a  great  mountain 
 fining  the  whole  earth.  The  destruction  of  the  world-kingdoms 
 can  in  reality  proceed  only  gradually  along  with  the  growth  of  the 
 stone,  and  thus  also  the  kingdom  of  God  can  destroy  the  world-king- 
 doms only  by  its  gradual  extension  over  the  earth.  The  destruc- 
 tion of  the  world-power  in  all  its  component  parts  began  with  the 
 foundation  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  at  the  appearance  of  Christ 
 upon  earth,  or  with  the  establishment  of  the  church  of  Christ,  and 
 only  reaches  its  completion  at  the  second  coming  of  our  Lord  at 
 the  final  judgment.  In  the  image  Daniel  saw  in  a  moment,  as  a 
 single  act,  what  in  its  actual  accomplishment  or  in  its  historical 
 development  extends  through  the  centuries  of  Christendom.  Auber- 
 len  has  in  his  argument  identified  the  image  with  the  actual  realiza- 
 tion, and  has  not  observed  that  his  conception  of  the  words  ch. 
 ii,  35  does  not  accord  with  the  millennium,  which  according  to 
 Rev.  XX.  does  not  gradually  from  small  beginnings  spread  itself 
 over  the  earth — is  not  to  be  likened  to  a  stone  which  first  after 
 the  destruction  of  the  world-kingdom  grows  up  into  a  mountain. 
 
 So  also  in  ch.  vii.  Daniel  sees  the  judgment  of  the  world- 
 kingdoms  in  the  form  of  an  act  limited  to  a  point  of  time,  by 
 which  not  only  the  beast  whose  power  culminates  in  the  little 
 horn  is  killed,  but  also  the  dominion  and  the  kingdom  over  all 
 nations  is  given  over  to  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds  of 
 heaven  and  appearing  before  God  the  Judge.  If  one  here 
 identifies  the  form  of  the  prophetic  vision  with  the  actual  fact, 
 then  he  places  Daniel  in  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  the  N.  T. 
 regarding  the  judgment  of  the  world.  According  to  N.  T.  doc- 
 trine, Christ,  the  Son  of  man,  receives  the  dominion  and  power  over 
 all  nations  not  for  the  first  time  on  the  day  of  judgment,  after  the 
 destruction  of  the  world-kingdoms  by  the  Father,  but  He  received 
 it  (Matt,  xxviii.  18)  after  the  completion  of  His  work  and  before 
 His  ascension;  and  it  is  not  God  the  Father  who  holds  the  judg- 
 ment, but  the  Son  raised  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Father  comes 
 in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  judge  the  world  (Matt.  xxv.  31).  The 
 Father  committed  the  judgment  to  the  Son  even  while  He  yet 
 sojourned  on  this  earth  in  the  form  of  a  servant  and  founded 
 the  kingdom  of  heaven  (John  v.  27).  The  judgment  begins  not 
 for  the  first  time  either  before  or  after  the  millennium,  about  which 
 chiliasts  contend  with  one  another,  but  the  last  judgment  forms 
 
272  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 only  the  final  completion  of  tlie  judgment  commencing  at  the  first 
 coming  of  Christ  to  the  earth,  wliich  continues  from  that  time 
 onward  through  the  centuries  of  the  spread  of  the  kingdom  of 
 heaven  upon  earth  in  tlie  form  of  the  Christian  church,  till  the 
 visible  return  of  Clirist  in  His  glory  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  the 
 final  judgment  of  the  living  and  the  dead.  This  doctrine  is  dis- 
 closed to  us  for  the  first  time  by  the  appearance  of  Christ ;  for  by 
 it  are  unfolded  to  us  for  the  first  time  the  prophecies  regarding 
 the  ^Icssiah  in  His  lowliness  and  in  His  glory,  in  the  clear  know- 
 ledge of  the  first  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  form  of  a  servant  for 
 the  founding  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  His  death  and  resurrection, 
 and  the  return  of  the  Son  of  man  from  heaven  in  the  glory  of  His 
 Father  for  the  perfecting  of  His  kingdom  by  the  resurrection  of 
 the  dead  and  the  final  judgment. 
 
 That  which  has  been  said  above,  avails  also  for  explaining 
 the  revelation  which  Daniel  received  regarding  the  King  of  the 
 kingdom  of  God.  While  His  appearance  in  the  form  of  a  son 
 of  man  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  according  to  the  statements 
 of  the  N.  T.  regarding  the  second  coming  of  Christ,  points  to 
 His  coming  again  in  glor}',  yet,  as  above  remarked,  His  coming 
 before  the  Ancient  of  days,  i.e.  before  God,  and  receiving  from 
 God  the  kingdom  and  the  dominion,  does  not  accord  with  the 
 statements  of  the  N.  T.  regarding  the  return  of  Christ  to  judge  the 
 world  ;  so  that  we  must  here  also  distinguish  between  the  actual 
 contents  and  the  form  of  the  prophetic  representation,  and  between 
 the  thought  of  the  prophecy  and  its  realization  or  historical  fulfil- 
 ment. Only  because  of  a  disregard  of  this  distinction  could  Fries, 
 (.(J.,  derive  from  Dan.  vii.  13  an  argument  against  the  parallelizing 
 of  this  passage  with  Matt.  xxiv.  30,-  Mark  xiv.  62,  and  Rev.  i.  7, 
 as  well  as  against  the  reference  to  the  Messias  of  the  personage 
 seen  by  Daniel  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  as  a  son  of  man. 
 
 In  the  vision,  in  which  the  Ancient  of  days,  i.e.  God,  holds 
 judgment  over  the  world  and  its  rulers,  and  in  the  solemn  assembly 
 for  judgment  grants  to  the  Son  of  man  appearing  before  Him 
 the  kingd(mi  and  the  dominion,  only  this  truth  is  contemplated  by 
 the  prophet,  that  the  Father  gave  to  the  Son  all  power  in  heaven 
 and  in  earth  ;  that  He  gave  the  power  over  the  nations  which  the 
 rulers  of  the  earth  had,  and  which  they  used  only  for  the  oppres- 
 sion of  the  saints  of  God,  to  the  Son  of  man,  and  in  Him  to  the 
 people  of  the  saints,  and  thereby  founded  the  kingdom  which  shall 
 endure  for  ever.     But  as  to  the  way  and  manner  in  wliich  God 
 
 I 
 
THE  SON  OF  MAN.  273 
 
 executes  judgment  over  the  world-power,  and  in  which  He  gives 
 (ch.  vii.  22,  27)  to  the  Son  of  man  and  to  the  people  of  the  saints 
 the  dominion  and  the  power  over  all  the  kingdoms  under  the 
 heavens — on  this  the  prophecy  gives  no  particular  disclosures  ; 
 this  much,  however,  is  clear  from  ver.  27,  that  the  judgment  held 
 by  the  Ancient  of  days  over  the  world-power  which  was  hostile 
 to  God  is  not  a  full  annihilation  of  the  kingdoms  under  the  whole 
 heavens,  but  only  an  abolition  of  their  hostile  dominion  and  power, 
 and  a  subjection  of  all  the  kingdoms  of  this  earth  to  the  power  and 
 dominion  of  the  Son  of  man,  whereby  the  hostile  rulers,  together 
 with  all  ungodly  natures,  shall  be  for  ever  destroyed.  The  further 
 disclosures  regarding  the  completion  of  this  judgment  are  given 
 us  in  the  N.  T.,  from  which  we  learn  that  the  Father  executes 
 judgment  by  the  Son,  to  whom  He  has  given  all  power  in  heaven 
 and  on  earth.  With  this  further  explanation  of  the  matter  the 
 passages  of  the  N.  T.  referring  to  Dan.  vii.  13,  regarding  the 
 coming  of  the  Son  of  man  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  execute  judg- 
 ment over  the  world,  easily  harmonize.  To  show  this,  we  must 
 examine  somewhat  more  closely  the  conception  and  the  use  of  the 
 words  "  Son  of  man  "  in  the  N.  T. 
 
 The  Son  of  Man^  6  vib<;  tov  uvOpujirou. 
 
 It  is  well  known  that  Jesus  only  during  His  sojourn  on  earth 
 made  use  of  this  designation  of  Himself,  as  appears  in  the  N.  T. 
 Bengel  on  Matt.  xvi.  13  remarks  :  "  Nemo  nisi  solus  Christus 
 a  nemine  dxini  ipse  in  terra  ambularet,  nisi  a  semetipso  appel- 
 litatus  est  filius  hominis"  Even  after  Christ's  ascension  the 
 apostles  do  not  use  this  name  of  Christ.  In  the  passages  Acts 
 vii.  56  and  Kev.  i.  13,  xiv.  14,  w^here  alone  it  is  found  in  the 
 N.  T.  beyond  the  Gospels,  the  title  is  borrowed  from  Dan.  vii. 
 13.  It  is,  moreover,  generally  acknowledged  that  Jesus  wished 
 by  thus  designating  Himself  to  point  Himself  out  as  the  Messiah  ; 
 and  "  this  pointing  Himself  out  as  the  Messiah  is  founded,"  as 
 H.  A.  W.  Meyer  on  Matt.  viii.  20  rightly  remarks,  "  not  on  Ps. 
 viii.,  but,  as  is  manifest  from  such  passages  as  Matt.  xxiv.  30, 
 xxvi.  64  (cf.  also  Acts  vii.  56),  on  the  description  of  that  prophetic 
 vision,  Dan.  vii.  13,  well  known  to  the  Jews  (John  xii.  34),  and 
 found  also  in  the  pre-Christian  book  of  Enoch,  where  the  Messiah 
 appears  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  ti'JX  "^33  =  co?  fto?  avOpcoTrov, 
 amid  the  angels  of  the  divine  judgment-seat."     The  comparison 
 
 S 
 
274  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 in  the  3  =:  &)?  to  a  son  of  man  refers  to  the  form  in  which  He  is 
 seen  by  the  prophet  (see  p.  234),  and  affirms  neither  the  true  hu- 
 manity nor  the  superhuman  nature  of  Him  who  appeared.  The 
 superhuman  or  divine  nature  of  the  person  seen  in  the  form  of  a 
 man  lies  in  the  coming  with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  since  it  is  true 
 only  of  God  that  He  makes  the  clouds  His  chariot ;  Ps.  civ.  3,  cf. 
 Isa.  xix.  1.  But  on  the  other  hand,  also,  the  words  do  not  exclude 
 the  humanity,  as  little  as  the  6fMoio<;  vlut  dvOpcoTrov,  Rev.  i.  13 ;  for, 
 as  C.  B.  Michaelis  has  remarked,  3  no7i  excludit  rei  veritatem,  sed 
 formam  ejus  quod  visum  est  descrihit ;  so  that  with  Oehler  (Herz. 
 Realenc^  we  may  say :  The  Messiah  here  appears  as  a  divine  being 
 as  much  as  He  does  a  human.  The  union  of  the  divine  and  the 
 human  natures  lies  also  in  the  self-designation  of  Christ  as  o  vLo<i 
 701)  dvOpMTTov,  although  as  to  the  meaning  Jesus  unites  with  it 
 there  is  diversity  of  opinion. 
 
 That  this  was  a  designation  of  the  Messiah  common  among  the 
 Jews  in  the  time  of  Jesus,  we  cannot  positively  affirm,  because 
 only  Jesus  Himself  made  use  of  it ;  His  disciples  did  not,  much 
 less  did  the  people  so  style  the  Messiah.  If,  then,  Jesus  speaks  of 
 Himself  as  the  Son  of  man,  He  means  thereby  not  merely  to  say 
 that  He  was  the  Messiah,  but  He  wishes  to  designate  Himself  as 
 the  Messiah  of  Daniel's  prophecy,  i.e.  as  the  Son  of  man  coming 
 to  the  earth  in  the  clouds  of  heaven.  He  thereby  lays  claim  at 
 once  to  a  divine  original,  or  a  divine  pre-existence,  as  well  as  to 
 affirm  true  humanity  of  His  person,  and  seeks  to  represent  Him- 
 self, according  to  John's  expression,  as  the  Logos  becoming  flesh.'^ 
 This  view  of  the  expression  will  be  confirmed  by  a  comparison  of 
 the  passages  in  which  Jesus  uses  it.  In  John  i.  51,  "  Hereafter 
 ye  shall  see  heaven  open,  and  the  angels  of  God  ascending  and 
 descending  upon  the  Son  of  man,"  the  divine  glory  is  intimated 
 
 ^  Meyer  justly  remarks :  "  The  consciousness  from  ■which  Jesus  appro- 
 priates to  Himself  this  designation  by  Daniel  was  the  antithesis  of  the  God- 
 sonship,  the  necessary  (contrary  to  Schleiermacher)  self-consciousness  of  a 
 divine  pre-existence  appearing  in  the  most  decided  manner  in  John,  the  glory 
 (loicc)  of  which  He  had  laid  aside  that  He  might  appear  as  that  u;  vio; 
 civ6pu7^ov  of  Daniel  in  a  form  not  originally  appertaining  to  Him.  .  .  Whatever 
 has,  apart  from  this,  been  found  in  the  expression,  as  that  Christ  hereby 
 designated  Himself  as  the  Son  of  vian  in  the  highest  sense  of  the  word,  as  the 
 second  Adam,  as  the  ideal  of  humanity  (Buhme,  Neander,  Ebrard,  Olsb., 
 Kahnis,  Gess,  and  Weisse),  or  as  the  man  whom  the  whole  history  of  mankind 
 since  Adam  has  in  view  (Hofm.  Schri/lbew.  ii.  1,  p.  81,  cf.  Thomas.  Chr.  Peru, 
 u.  Werk,  ii.  p.  16),  is  introduced  unhistorically  with  reference  to  Dan.  vii." 
 
THE  LITTLE  HORN,  DAN.  VIL,  AND  THE  BEAST,  REV.  XIIL,  XVII.    275 
 
 as  concealed  in  the  lowliness  of  the  Son  of  man  :  the  Son  of  man 
 who  M^alks  on  the  earth  in  the  form  of  a  man  is  the  Son  of  God. 
 So  also  in  the  answer  which  Jesus  gave  to  the  high  priest,  when 
 he  solemnly  adjured  Him  to  say  "  whether  He  were  the  Christ, 
 the  Son  of  God"  (Matt.  xxvi.  63),  pointing  distinctly  to  Dan.  vii. 
 
 13,  "  Hereafter  shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right 
 hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven."  In  like 
 manner  in  all  the  other  passages  in  the  Gospels  in  which  Jesus 
 designates  Himself  the  Son  of  man.  He  points  either  to  His 
 present  lowliness  or  to  His  future  glory,  as  is  abundantly  proved 
 by  Fr.  A.  Philippi  {Kirch.  Glaiibenslehre,  iv.  1,  p.  415,  der  2 
 Aufl.)  by  a  lucid  comparison  of  all  the  passages  in  the  Gospel  of 
 Matthew. 
 
 From  the  use  of  the  expression  "  the  Son  of  man  "  by  Jesus 
 (not  only  where  He  refers  to  His  supernatural  greatness  or  His 
 divine  pre-existence,  but  also  where  He  places  His  human  lowli- 
 ness in  contrast  with  His  divine  nature),  it  follows  that  even  in  those 
 passages  which  treat  of  His  coming  to  judgment,  connected  with 
 the  description,  borrowed  from  Dan.  vii.  13,  of  His  coming  in  the 
 clouds  of  heaven.  He  seeks  to  prove  not  so  much  His  appear- 
 ance for  judgment,  as  rather  only  the  divine  power  and  glory 
 which  the  Father  gave  Him,  or  to  indicate  from  the  Scriptures  that 
 the  Father  gave  Him  dominion  over  all  people,  and  that  He  will 
 come  to  reveal  this  dominion  by  the  judgment  of  the  world  and 
 the  completion  of  His  kingdom.  The  power  to  execute  judgment 
 over  the  living  and  the  dead,  the  Father,  i.e.  God  as  the  Lord  of 
 the  world,  has  given  to  His  Son,  to  Christ,  because  He  is  the  Son 
 of  man  (John  v.  27),  i.e.  because  He  as  man  is  at  the  same  time 
 of  a  divine  nature,  by  virtue  of  which  He  is  of  one  essence  with 
 the  Father.     This  truth  is  manifested  in  the  vision,  Dan.  vii.  13, 
 
 14,  in  this,  that  the  Ancient  of  days  gives  glory  and  the  kingdom 
 to  Him  who  appears  before  Him  in  the  form  of  a  man  coming  in 
 the  clouds  of  heaven,  that  all  people  and  nations  might  honour 
 Him.  Therewith  He  gave  Him  also  impUcite  the  power  to  execute 
 judgment  over  all  peoples ;  for  the  judgment  is  only  a  disclosure 
 of  the  sovereignty  given  to  Him. 
 
 The  giving  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Son  of  man  goes  before  the 
 appearance  of  the  great  adversary  of  the  people  of  God  repre- 
 
276  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 sented  by  tlio  little  horn — the  adversary  in  whom  the  enmity  of 
 the  world  against  the  kingdom  of  God  reaches  its  highest  mani- 
 festation. But  to  form  a  well-founded  ludirment  refrardinrr  the 
 appearance  of  this  last  enemy,  we  must  compare  the  description 
 given  of  him  in  Dan.  vii.  8,  24  f.  with  the  apocalyptic  description 
 of  the  same  enemy  under  the  image  of  the  Least  out  of  the  sea  or 
 out  of  the  abi/.<s,  Rev.  xiii.  1-8  and  xvii.  7-13. 
 
 John  saw  a  beast  rise  up  out  of  the  sea  which  had  seven 
 heads  and  ten  horns,  and  on  its  horns  ten  crowns  ;  it  was  like  a 
 leopard,  but  had  the  feet  of  a  bear  and  the  mouth  of  a  lion,  and 
 the  dragon  gave  him  his  throne  and  great  power.  One  of  its 
 heads  appears  as  if  it  had  received  a  deadly  w'ound,  but  its  deadly 
 wound  was  healed,  Rev.  xiii.  1-3.  In  this  beast  the  four  beasts 
 of  Daniel,  the  lion,  the  bear,  the  leopard,  and  the  nameless  ten- 
 horned  beast  (Dan.  vii.  7),  are  united,  and  its  heads  and  horns  are 
 represented,  like  the  beasts  of  Daniel,  as  kings  (Rev.  xvii.  9,  12). 
 The  beast  seen  by  John  represents  accordingly  the  world-power, 
 in  such  a  way  that  the  four  aspects  of  the  same,  which  Daniel 
 saw  in  the  form  of  four  beasts  rising  up  one  after  another,  are  a 
 whole  united  together  into  one.  In  this  all  interpreters  are  agreed. 
 Hofmann  is  wrong  {Schriftheiv.  ii.  2,  p.  699),  however,  when  from 
 the  circumstance  that  this  beast  has  the  body  of  a  leopard,  has  its 
 peculiar  form  like  that  of  a  leopard,  he  draws  the  conclusion 
 "  that  John  sees  the  Grecian  kingdom  rise  again  in  a  new  form, 
 in  which  it  bears  the  lion's  mouth  of  the  Chaldean,  the  bear's  feet 
 of  the  Median  or  Persian,  and  the  ten  horns  of  the  last  king- 
 dom." For  the  apocalyptic  beast  has  the  body  of  a  leopard  from 
 no  other  reason  than  because  the  fourth  beast  of  Daniel  was  to  be 
 compared  with  no  other  beast  existing  in  nature,  whose  appearance 
 could  be  selected  for  that  purpose.  In  these  circumstances  no- 
 thing else  remained  than  to  lay  hold  on  the  form  of  Daniel's  third 
 beast  and  to  make  choice  of  it  for  the  body  of  the  beast,  and  to 
 unite  with  it  the  feet,  the  mouth  or  the  jaws,  and  the  ten  horns  of 
 the  other  beasts. 
 
 But  that  the  apocalyptic  beast  must  represent  not  the  rising 
 again  of  Daniel's  third  world-kingdom,  but  the  appearance  of  the 
 fourth,  and  that  specially  in  its  last  form,  which  Daniel  had  seen 
 as  the  little  horn,  apjiears  evidently  from  this,  not  to  mention  the 
 explanation  given  in  Rev.  xvii.,  that  the  beast  with  the  seven 
 heads  and  ten  horns,  with  the  name  of  blasphemy  on  its  heads 
 (Rev.  xiii.  1),  the  marks  of  the  little  horn  of  Daniel,  speaks  great 
 
THE  LITTLE  HORN,  DAN.  VIL,  AND  THE  BEAST,  REV.  XIIL,  XVIL      277 
 
 things  and  blasphemies,  and  continues  forty  and  two  months  (ch. 
 xiii.  5),  corresponding  to  the  three  and  a  half  times  of  Daniel,  ch. 
 vii.  25.  Plofmann,  on  the  other  hand,  riglitly  remarks,  that  the 
 beast  must  represent  not  merely  the  last  world-power,  but  at  the 
 same  time  the  last  world-ruler,  the  chief  enemy  of  the  saints  of 
 God.  As  with  Daniel  the  world-power  and  its  representative  are 
 conceived  of  as  one  and  the  same,  so  here  also  with  John.  This  is 
 seen  in  the  insensible  transition  of  the  neuter  to  the  masculine,  tw 
 d-qplu)  09  €)(6L,  ver.  14,  In  this  beast  not  only  does  the  whole 
 world-power  concentrate  itself,  but  in  it  also  attains  to  its  personal 
 head.  The  ten  horns  are  to  be  conceived  of  as  on  one  of  the  heads, 
 and  that  the  seventh  or  last,  and  not  (Diisterdieck,  etc.)  as  distri- 
 buted among  the  seven  heads,  so  that  one  horn  should  be  assigned 
 to  each  head,  and  three  horns  should  be  conceived  as  between  the 
 sixth  and  the  seventh  head.  This  wonderful  supposition  owes  its 
 origin  only  to  the  historical  reference  of  the  beast  to  the  first 
 Roman  emperor,  and  stands  in  opposition  to  the  interpretation  of 
 the  beast  which  is  given  by  John,  ch.  xvii.  7  ff.  There  John  sees 
 the  woman,  the  great  Babylon,  the  mother  of  harlots  and  abomina- 
 tions, sitting  on  a  scarlet-coloured  beast,  which  was  full  of  names 
 of  blasphemy,  and  had  ten  horns  (ch.  xvii.  3).  The  identity  of 
 the  seven-headed  beast  (ch.  xiii.)  with  the  scarlet-coloured  beast 
 (ch.  xvii.)  is  justly  recognised  by  the  greater  number  of  recent 
 interpreters,  even  by  Diist.  Of  this  red  beast  the  angel,  ch.  xvii. 
 8,  says  first,  "  The  beast  that  thou  sawest  was  {fjv)  and  is  not, 
 and  shall  ascend  out  of  the  bottomless  pit  and  go  into  perdition ; 
 and  they  that  dwell  on  the  earth  shall  wonder  .  .  .  when  they  be- 
 hold the  beast  that  was  and  is  not,  and  yet  is"  (/cat  Trapeo-rat  =:  shall 
 come,  be  present,  i.e.  again,  according  to  a  more  accurate  reading). 
 In  these  words  the  most  of  interpreters  find  a  paraphrase  of  the 
 statement,  ch.  xiii.  3,  12,  14,  that  the  beast  was  wounded  to  the 
 death,  but  that  its  deadly  wound  was  healed.  "  The  distinguishing 
 of  the  two  statements  (viz.  of  the  not-being  and  the  death-wound, 
 the  coming  again  and  the  healing  of  the  wound)  has,"  as  A. 
 Christiani  {iiebersichtl.  Darstellung  des  Inhalts  der  Apok.,  in  der 
 Dorpater  Zeitschrift  f.  Theol.  1861,  iii.  p.  219)  rightly  remarks, 
 "  its  foundation  (against  Ebrard)  either  in  the  false  supposi- 
 tion that  the  beast  in  ch.  xvii.  is  different  from  that  in  ch.  xiii., 
 or  in  this,  that  there  must  abstractly  be  a  distinction  between 
 the  world-power  (ch.  xiii.)  and  the  ruler  of  the  world  (ch.  xvii.)  ; 
 whereby,  moreover,  it  is  not  clear  wherein  the  difference  between 
 
278  THE  DOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  cleatli-wound  and  the  not-being  consists  (against  Aub.)."  The 
 being,  the  not-being,  and  the  appearing  again  of  the  beast,  are  not 
 to  be  understood  of  the  present  time  as  regards  the  seer,  so  as  to 
 mean  :  the  beast  existed  before  John's  time,  after  that  it  was  not, 
 and  then  one  day  shall  again  appear,  which  lias  been  combined 
 with  the  fable  of  Nero's  coming  again  ;  but  the  past,  the  present, 
 and  the  future  of  the  beast  are,  with  Vitringa,  Bengel,  Christ.,  to 
 be  regarded  from  the  standpoint  of  the  vision,  according  to  which 
 the  time  of  the  fulfdment,  belonging  to  the  future,  is  to  be  re- 
 garded as  the  point  of  time  from  which  the  being,  the  not-being, 
 and  the  appearing  again  are  represented,  so  that  these  three  ele- 
 ments form  the  determination  of  the  nature  of  the  beast  in  its 
 historical  manifestation. 
 
 Hereupon  the  angel  points  out  to  the  seer  the  secret  of  the 
 woman  and  of  the  beast  which  bears  the  woman,  beginning  with 
 the  interpretation  of  the  beast,  ch.  xvii.  9.  "  The  seven  heads 
 are  seven  mountains,  on  which  the  woman  sitteth  ;  and  there  are 
 seven  kings."  The  heads  are  thus  defined  in  a  twofold  way  : 
 For  the  woman  they  are  seven  mountains,  on  which  she  sits  ;  but 
 in  so  far  as  they  belong  to  the  beast,  they  are  seven  kings  (Hofm. 
 p.  711,  Christ.,  etc.).  The  reference  of  the  mountains  to  the  seven 
 hills  of  Rome  is  to  be  rejected,  because  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
 stand how  the  heads  can  represent  at  one  and  the  same  time  both 
 mountains  and  kings.  Mountains  are,  according  to  the  prophetic 
 view,  seats  of  power,  symbols  of  world-kingdoms  (cf.  Ps.  Ixviii.  17, 
 Ixxvi.  5  ;  Jer.  li.  25  ;  Ezek.  xxxv.  2),  and  thus  are  here  as  little 
 to  be  thought  of  as  occupying  space  along  with  one  another  as  are 
 the  seven  kings  to  be  thought  of  as  contemporaneous  (Hofm., 
 Aub.).  According  to  this,  the  y8acrtXet9  are  not  also  separate 
 kings  of  one  kingdom,  but  kingships,  dominions,  as  in  Daniel 
 ruler  and  kingdom  are  taken  together.  One  need  not,  however, 
 on  this  account  assume  that  ySaatXet?  stands  for  ^aaiXelac ;  for, 
 according  to  Dan.  viii.  20-22,  "  the  kingdom  is  named  where  the 
 person  of  the  ruler  is  at  once  brought  into  view  ;  but  where  it 
 is  sought  to  designate  the  sovereignty,  then  the  king  is  named, 
 either  so  that  he  represents  it  altogether,  or  so  that  its  founder  is 
 particularly  distinguished"  (Hofm.  p.  714). 
 
 The  angel  further  says  of  the  seven  heads :  "  Five  (of  these 
 sovereignties)  are  fallen,"  i.e.  are  already  past,  "one  is,"  i.e.  still 
 exists,  "  the  other  is  not  yet  come;  and  when  it  cometh,  it  must  con- 
 tinue a  short  space."    This  explanation  is  obviously  given  from  the 
 
THE  LITTLE  HORN,  DAN.  VIL,  AND  THE  BEAST,  REV.  XIIL,  XVIL      279 
 
 point  of  view  of  the  present  of  the  seer.  The  five  fallen  ^acrtXeU 
 (sovereignties)  are  Egypt,  Assyria,  Babylonia,  Medo-Persia,  and 
 Greece  (Hengst.,  Aub.,  Christ.),  and  not  Assyria,  Chaldea,  Persia, 
 Grecia,  and  the  kingdom  of  the  Selencidoe,  as  Hofmann,  with 
 Ebrard  and  Stier,  affirms.  The  reception  of  the  Seleucidas  or  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  into  the  rank  of  world-rulers,  depends,  with 
 Hofmann,  on  the  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  apocalyptic  beast- 
 image  as  representing  the  reappearance  of  the  Grecian  world- 
 kingdom,  and  falls  with  this  error.  The  chief  argument  which 
 Hofmann  alleges  against  Egypt,  that  it  was  never  a  power  which 
 raised  itself  up  to  subdue  or  unite  the  world  under  itself,  or  is  thus 
 represented  in  the  Scriptures,  Aub.  (p.  309)  has  already  invalidated 
 by  showing  that  Egypt  was  the  first  world-power  with  which  the 
 kingdom  of  God  came  into  conflict  under  Moses,  when  it  began  to 
 exist  as  a  nation  and  a  kingdom.  Afterwards,  under  the  kings, 
 Israel  was  involved  in  the  wars  of  Egypt  and  Assyria  in  like 
 manner  as  at  a  later  period  they  were  in  those  of  the  Ptolemies 
 and  the  Seleucidse.  For  this  reason  Egypt  and  Assyria  are  often 
 named  together  by  the  prophets,  particularly  as  the  world-powers 
 with  which  the  people  of  God  committed  whoredom,  yea,  by  the 
 older  prophets  generally  as  the  representatives  of  the  world-power 
 (2  Kings  xvii.  4;  Hos.  vii.  11,  xii.  1,  ix.  3,  xi.  5,  11 ;  Micah  vii. 
 12  ;  Isa.  lii.  4,  xix.  23-25 ;  Jer.  ii.  18,  36;  Zech.  x.  10).  On  the 
 other  hand,  the  Seleucidan  appears  before  us  in  Dan.  viii.  and  xi. 
 1-35  as  an  offshoot  of  the  Grecian  world-kingdom,  without  any- 
 thing further  being  intimated  regarding  him.  In  Dan.  vii.  there 
 is  as  little  said  of  him  as  there  is  in  Zechariah's  vision  of  the  four- 
 horsed  chariots. 
 
 The  sixth  sovereignty,  which  "  is  "  (o  eh  eariv),  is  the  Roman 
 world-power  exercising  dominion  at  the  time  of  John,  the  Roman 
 emperor.  The  seventh  is  as  yet  future  (ovirco  rjXdev),  and  must, 
 when  it  comes,  continue  a  short  time  (oXlyov).  If  the  sixth  sove- 
 reignty is  the  Roman,  then  by  the  seventh  we  may  understand  the 
 world-powers  of  modern  Europe  that  have  come  into  its  place. 
 The  angel  adds  (ver.  11),  *'  The  beast  that  was  and  is  not,  even 
 he  is  the  eighth  (king),  and  is  of  the  seven,  and  goeth  into  per- 
 dition." By  that  which  is  called  "  even  the  eighth  "  can  properly 
 be  meant  only  the  seventh.  The  contrast  lying  in  the  Kal  avTo<; 
 67S009  demands  this.  But  that  instead  of  the  seventh  (ver.  10,  o 
 dXX.o<;)  the  beast  itself  is  named,  therewith  it  is  manifestly  inti- 
 mated that  in  the  eighth  the  beast  embodies  itself,  or  passes  into 
 
280  THE  BOOK  OF  DAXIEL. 
 
 its  completed  form  of  existence  as  a  beast.  This  is  supported 
 partly  by  the  expression  eV  tcov  kind  which  is  added  to  078009, 
 partly  by  the  designation  as  "  the  beast  that  was  and  is  not."  That 
 addition  does  not  merely  say,  one  out  of  the  seven,  for  which  John 
 would  have  written  eh  eK  rwv  eirrd  (cf.  ch.  xvii.  1  and  xxi.  9), 
 or,  formed  like  the  seven,  but,  ^rowing  up  out  of  the  seven,  as 
 the  blossom  out  of  the  plant  {/SXaardvcov,  as  the  Greek  Andreas 
 explains,  and  erroneously  adds  e/c  /xia^;  avrcov).  It  is  the  compre- 
 hensive essence  of  these  seven,  the  embodiment  of  the  beast  itself, 
 which  for  the  first  time  reaches  in  it  to  its  perfect  form  (Aub., 
 Dusterd.,  Christ.).  As  such  it  is  placed  over  against  the  seven  as 
 the  eighth  ;  but  it  is  not  therefore  an  eighth  kingdom,  for  it  is  not 
 represented  by  an  eighth  head,  but  only  by  the  beast — only  the 
 beast  which  was,  and  is  not,  and  then  shall  be  again  (jrdpearai, 
 ver.  11,  cf.  ver.  8).  If  now  this  definition,  according  to  the  above, 
 means  the  same  thing  as  is  intended  in  ch.  xiii.  by  the  deadly 
 wound  of  the  beast  and  the  healing  again  of  the  wound,  then  these 
 words  mean  that  the  world-power  in  one  of  its  heads  (the  seventh?) 
 receives  the  deadly  wound,  so  that  the  beast  is  not — i.e.  it  cannot 
 show  its  power,  its  beast-nature — till  the  healing  of  the  same,  but 
 after  the  healing  of  the  wound  it  will  appear  as  the  eighth  ruler 
 in  its  full  nature  as  a  beast,  and  will  unfold  the  power  of  its  ten 
 horns.  Of  these  ten  horns  the  angel  says,  ver.  12,  "  They  are  ten 
 kings  which  have  received  no  /SaaiXeiav,  but  will  receive  power  as 
 kings  one  hour  with  the  beast."  By  this  it  is  affirmed,  on  the  one 
 side,  that  the  ten  horns  belong  to  the  seventh  beast ;  but,  on  the 
 other,  it  appears  from  this  interpretation  of  the  angel,  taken  in 
 connection  with  that  going  before,  that  the  ruler  with  the  ten 
 horns  growing  up  as  the  eighth  out  of  the  seven  represents  the 
 last  and  the  highest  phases  of  the  development  of  the  world-power, 
 and  is  to  be  regarded  as  contemporary  with  the  ten  ySacrtXeZ?  which 
 receive  power  as  kings  with  the  beast. 
 
 The  statement,  however,  that  the  seventh  ruler  is  also  an  eighth, 
 and  must  represent  the  beast  in  its  perfect  form,  without  his  being 
 denoted  by  an  eighth  head  to  the  beast,  has  its  foundation,  without 
 doubt,  in  the  dependence  of  the  apocalyptic  delineation  on  Daniel's 
 prophecy  of  the  fourth  world-power,  in  which  (ch.  ii.)  the  iron  legs 
 are  distinguished  from  the  feet,  which  consist  partly  of  iron  and 
 partly  of  clay ;  and  yet  more  distinctly  in  ch.  vli.  the  climax  of  the 
 power  of  the  fourth  beast  is  represented  in  the  little  horn  growing 
 up  between  its  ten  horns,  and  yet  neither  is  it  called  in  ch.  ii.  a 
 
THE  LITTLE  HORN,  DAN.  VIL,  AND  THE  BEAST,  REV.  XIIL,  XVIL      281 
 
 fifth  kingdom,  nor  yet  in  cli.  vii.  is  the  little  horn  designated  as  a 
 fifth  world-ruler. 
 
 The  apocalyptic  delineation  of  the  world-power  and  the  world- 
 ruler  is  related,  therefore,  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel  in  such  a 
 manner  that,  in  the  first  place,  it  goes  back  to  the  elements  of 
 the  same,  and  gathers  them  together  into  one  combined  image, 
 according  to  its  whole  development  in  the  past,  present,  and  future, 
 while  Daniel's  prophecy  goeS  forth  from  the  present,  beginning 
 with  the  Chaldean  world -kingdom.  Moreover,  the  Apocalypse 
 discloses  the  spiritual  principle  working  in  the  world-power.  The 
 dragon,  i.e.  Satan,  as  prince  of  this  world,  gave  his  throne  and  his 
 power  to  the  beast.  Finally,  the  Apocalypse  extends  itself  at  large 
 over  the  unfolding,  as  yet  future,  of  the  ungodly  world-kingdom ; 
 for  it  places  in  view,  in  addition  to  the  sixth  ruler  existing  in  the 
 presence  of  the  seer,  the  rising  up  of  yet  a  seventh,  in  which  the 
 beast,  healed  of  its  death-wound,  will  first  as  the  eighth  ruler  fully 
 reveal  its  ungodly  nature.  The  dividing  of  the  fourth  world-king- 
 dom of  Daniel  between  two  rulers  has  its  foundation  in  the  purpose 
 to  gain  the  significant  number  seven.  By  the  number  seven  of  the 
 heads,  while  Daniel  saw  only  four  beasts,  the  apocalyptic  beast 
 must  be  represented  as  the  diabolical  contrast  to  the  Lamb.  The 
 seven  heads  and  ten  horns  the  beast  has  in  common  with  the 
 dragon,  which  gave  his  power  to  the  beast  (cf.  Rev.  xiii.  1,  2 
 with  xii.  3).  The  seven  heads  of  the  dragon  and  of  the  beast  are 
 the  infernal  caricature  and  the  antithesis  of  the  seven  Spirits  of 
 God,  the  seven  eyes  and  seven  horns  of  the  Lamb  (Rev.  v.  6), 
 just  as  the  seven  mountains  on  which  the  woman  sits  are  the  anti- 
 type and  the  antithesis  of  the  hill  of  Zion,  the  chosen  mountain  of 
 the  Lord.  (Cf.  Lammert,  Babel,  das  Thier  u.  der  fahcJie  Pro2?liet, 
 1863,  p.  84.)  From  the  symbolical  signification  of  the  numbers,  it 
 is  also  clear  how  the  beast  which  was  and  is  not  can  also  appear 
 as  the  eighth  ruler.  The  eighth,  arising  from  the  addition  of  one 
 to  seven,  denotes  a  new  beginning,  or  the  beginning  of  a  new  life, 
 as  frequently  in  the  laws  relating  to  religious  worship,  as  e.g.  re- 
 garding circumcision,  the  consecration  of  priests,  the  purification  of 
 lepers,  the  eight  days  of  the  Feast  of  Tabernacles,  etc.  Cf.  Leyrer 
 in  Herz.'s  Real.  Eiicycl.  xviii.  p.  370.  According  to  him,  the  beast 
 is  called  koX  avTo<;  07S009  (Rev.  xvii.  11),  "  because,  although  it 
 is  of  the  seven  which  hitherto  have  constituted  the  antichristian 
 ■  development  in  its  completeness,  a  new  one  presumes  to  establish 
 itself  in  self-deification,  and  in  open  rebellion  against  God,  raising 
 
282  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 itself  to  the  experiment  of  an  absolute  world-monarcliy  before  the 
 final  judgment  passes  upon  it." 
 
 As  the  number  seven  of  the  heads  of  the  beast  in  the  Apoca- 
 lypse, so  also  the  number  four  of  the  beasts  rising  up  out  of  the 
 sea  in  Daniel's  vision  comes  first  under  consideration,  according  to 
 their  symbolical  meaning  as  the  number  of  the  world.  For  the 
 sake  of  this  significance  of  the  number  four,  only  the  four  world- 
 kingdoms  are  spoken  of,  while  in  the  fourth  there  are  distinctly 
 two  different  phases  of  the  development  of  the  world-kingdom.  If 
 we  look  at  this  significance  of  the  numbers,  the  difference  between 
 the  representation  of  Daniel  and  that  of  the  Apocalypse  reduces 
 itself  to  this,  that  Daniel  designates  the  world-power  simply  only 
 in  opposition  to  the  kingdom  of  God;  the  Apocalypse,  on  the  con- 
 trary, designates  it  according  to  its  concealed  spiritual  background, 
 and  in  its  antichristian  form.  The  world-number  four  appears 
 here  auo-mented  to  the  antichristian  contrast  to  the  divine  number 
 seven.  But  in  both  representations  the  beast  forming  the  last 
 phase  of  the  world-kingdom  has  ten  horns.  This  number  also 
 has  a  symbolical  meaning ;  it  is  the  signature  of  definitive  com- 
 pleteness, of  fullest  development  and  perfection.  "  The  ten  horns 
 are  kings ;  for  '  horn  '  as  well  as  '  king  '  signifies  might  crushing, 
 conquering"  (Liimmert,  p.  78).  The  little  horn  which  outrooted 
 three  existing  ones  and  entered  into  their  place,  makes,  with  the 
 remaining  seven,  eight;  but  eight  is  seven  augmented.  It  is  there- 
 fore the  beast  itself  in  its  highest  power,  and  ripe  for  judgment, 
 just  as  the  beast  which  was  and  is  not  mounts  up  as  the  eighth 
 ruler,  to  be  destroyed,  after  a  short  period  of  action,  by  the  judg- 
 ment. 
 
 But  while  we  attach  a  symbolical  import  to  the  numbers,  we  do 
 not,  however,  wish  to  dispute  that  their  numerical  worth  may  not 
 also  be  realized  in  the  fulfilment.  As  the  comparison  of  Daniel 
 vii.  with  viii.  beyond  doubt  shows  that  the  second  and  third  king- 
 doms which  the  prophet  saw  have  historically  realized  themselves 
 in  the  succession  of  the  Medo-Persian  and  Grecian  kingdoms 
 after  the  Babylonian ;  as,  moreover,  in  the  prophetic  delinea- 
 tion of  the  fourth  world-kingdom  the  character  of  the  Roman 
 world-power  is  not  to  be  mistaken  ;  finally,  as  in  the  Apocalypse 
 the  first  six  heads  of  the  beast  are  referred  to  the  world-powers 
 that  have  hitherto  appeared  in  history  :  so  may  also  the  prophecy 
 of  the  seven  heads  and  of  the  ten  horns  of  the  beast  (in  Dan.  and 
 the  Apoc.)  perhaps  yet  so  fulfil  itself  in  the  future,  that  the  anti- 
 
CHAP,  vnr.-xii.  283 
 
 christian  world-power  may  reach  its  completion  in  ten  rulers  who 
 receive  power  as  kings  one  hour  with  the  beast,  i.e.,  as  companions 
 and  helpers  of  Antichrist,  carry  on  war  for  a  while  against  the 
 Lord  and  His  saints,  till  at  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  to  judg- 
 ment they  shall  be  destroyed,  together  w^ith  the  beast  and  the 
 dragon. 
 
 How  indeed  this  part  of  the  prophecy,  relating  to  the  last 
 unfolding  of  the  ungodly  and  antichristian  world-power,  shall  fulfil 
 itself,  whether  merely  according  to  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the 
 numbers,  or  finally  also  actually,  the  day  will  first  make  clear. 
 
 PART  SECOND.— THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 
 
 Chap,  vni.-xii. 
 
 This  Part  contains  three  revelations,  which  Daniel  received 
 during  the  reigns  of  Belshazzar,  Darius  the  Mede,  and  Cyrus  the 
 Persian,  regarding  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  After 
 describing  in  the  First  Part  the  development  of  the  world-power 
 and  its  relation  to  the  people  and  kingdom  of  God  from  the  days 
 of  Nebuchadnezzar,  its  founder,  down  to  the  time  of  its  final 
 destruction  by  the  perfected  kingdom  of  God,  in  this  Second  Part 
 it  is  revealed  to  the  prophet  how  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  war 
 against  the  power  and  enmity  of  the  rulers  of  the  world,  and  amid 
 severe  oppressions,  is  carried  forward  to  final  victory  and  is  per- 
 fected. 
 
 The  first  vision,  ch.  viii.,  represents  what  Avill  happen  to  the 
 people  of  God  during  the  developments  of  the  second  and  third 
 world-kingdoms.  The  second  revelation,  ch.  ix.,  gives  to  the 
 prophet,  in  answer  to  his  penitential  prayer  for  the  restoration  of 
 the  ruined  holy  city  and  the  desolated  sanctuary,  disclosures  regard- 
 ing the  whole  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  from  the  close 
 of  the  Babylonish  exile  to  the  final  accomplishment  of  God's  plan  of 
 salvation.  In  the  last  vision,  in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus,  ch.  x.-xii., 
 he  received  yet  further  and  more  special  revelations  regarding  the 
 severe  persecutions  which  await  the  people  of  God  for  their  puri- 
 fication, in  the  nearer  future  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  in 
 the  time  of  the  end  under  the  last  foe,  the  Antichrist. 
 
284  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 CHAP.  VIII.   THE  ENEMY  ARISING  OUT  OF  THE  THIRD 
 WORLD-KINGDOM. 
 
 At  Susa,  in  the  province  of  Elam,  Daniel  saw  in  vision  (vers. 
 1,  2)  a  ram  with  two  horns,  which  a  lie-goat  coming  from  the  west, 
 running  over  the  earth,  having  a  great  horn  on  his  brow,  smote 
 and  destroyed  (vers.  3-7).  After  that  the  goat  waxed  very 
 mighty,  till  his  great  horn  was  broken  ;  and  in  its  place  four  notable 
 horns  grew  up  towai'd  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  and  out  of  one 
 of  them  there  came  forth  a  little  horn,  which  directed  its  might 
 toward  the  south  and  the  east  and  toward  the  holy  land,  contended 
 against  the  host  of  heaven,  and  magnified  itself  to  the  Prince  of 
 the  heavenly  host,  took  away  the  daily  sacrifice,  and  desolated  the 
 place  of  the  sanctuary  (vers.  8-12).  He  then  hears  from  an  angel 
 how  long  this  sacrilege  shall  continue  (vers.  13,  14).  Another  angel 
 thereafter  gives  him  an  explanation  (vers.  15-26)  of  the  vision  ; 
 and  with  a  remark  (ver.  27)  regarding  the  effect  of  this  revelation 
 on  the  mind  of  Daniel,  the  chapter  closes. 
 
 This  vision,  it  is  manifest  from  the  definition  of  the  time  in 
 ver.  1,  stands  in  relation  to  the  vision  of  the  foregoing  chapter, 
 and  in  its  contents  is  united  to  it  also  in  so  far  as  it  gives  more 
 particular  revelations  regarding  the  relations  of  the  second  and 
 third  world-kingdoms,  which  are  only  briefly  set  forth  in  ch.  vii. 
 But  notwithstanding  this  point  of  union,  this  chapter  does  not 
 form  a  mere  appendix  to  the  foregoing,  but  gives  a  new  revela- 
 tion regarding  a  phase  in  the  development  of  the  world-power 
 and  its  enmity  against  the  people  of  God  of  which  nothing  is 
 prophesied  in  ch.  vii.  The  opinion  that  this  chapter  forms  only 
 an  appendix  to  ch.  vii.  is  based  on  the  erroneous  idea  that  the 
 fourth  world-kingdom,  the  Macedonian,  and  the  little  horn  in  ch. 
 vii.  are  identical  with  that  prophesied  of  in  this  chapter.^ 
 
 ^  According  to  the  modern  critics  (Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  Block),  this 
 chapter  must  have  been  written  shortly  before  the  re-consecration  of  the  temple, 
 or  immediately  tliereafter,  before  or  immediately  after  the  death  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphancs.  This  supposition  is  drawn  frorti  ver.  14,  according  to  which  the 
 period  of  oppression  shall  continue  2300  evening-mornings.  But,  overlooking 
 the  circumstance  that  these  critics  cannot  agree  as  to  the  reckoning  of  this 
 period  of  time,  and  thus  announce  the  uncertainty  of  their  hypothesis,  the 
 whole  of  the  other  contents  of  the  chapter  stand  in  contradiction  to  this  sup- 
 position. It  contains  no  hint  whatever  of  the  great  victories  of  the  Maccabees 
 which  preceded  the  consecration  of  the  temple,  and  first  made  it  possible,  but, 
 on  the  contrary,  speaks  of  the  oppression  as  continuing  unchanged  till  the 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-u.  285 
 
 Vers.  1-14.   The   Vision. 
 
 Vers.  1,  2  contain  the  historical  introduction  to  this  new  reve- 
 lation. This  was  given  to  Daniel  in  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of 
 Belshazzar,  and  thus  two  years  after  the  vision  of  the  four  world- 
 kingdoms  (ch.  vii.  1),  but  not  in  a  dream  as  that  was,  but  while  he 
 was  awake.  The  words  1,  Daniel^  are  neither  a  pleonasm  (Hav.) 
 nor  a  sign  that  the  writer  wished  specially  to  give  himself  out  for 
 Daniel  (Ewald),  but  expressly  denote  that  Daniel  continues  to 
 speak  of  himself  in  the  first  person  (Kliefoth).  The  article  in 
 '^^l?']  {that  which  appeared)  takes  the  place  of  the  relative  "iti'tJ, 
 and  the  expression  is  concise  for  nS"iJ  "IK^'X  pTnn  (the  vision  which 
 appeared)  ;  cf.  Ewald's  Lehr.  §  335  a.  n?nri3  (at  the  first),  as  in 
 ch.  ix.  21,  in  the  general  signification  earlier,  and  in  Gen.  xiii.  3, 
 xli.  21,  xliii.  18,  20,  Isa.  i.  26,  synonymous  with  njb'{<"in  (in  the 
 beginning).  Here  the  word  points  back  to  ch.  vii.,  and  in  ch.  ix. 
 21  it  refers  to  ver.  16  of  this  chapter. 
 
 "  In  vision,"  i.e.  iv  Trvevfj-ari,  not  iv  awjiarL,  Daniel  was  placed 
 in  the  city  of  Susa,  in  the  province  of  Elam  (Elymais).  By  the 
 words,  "  I  saw  in  vision  ;  and  it  came  to  pass  when  I  saw,"  which 
 precede  the  specification  of  the  scene  of  the  vision,  is  indicated  the 
 fact  that  he  ^vas  in  Susa  only  in  vision,  and  the  misconception  is 
 sufficiently  guarded  against  that  Daniel  was  actually  there  in  the 
 body.  This  is  acknowledged  by  v.  Leng.,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  Hav., 
 Hgstb.,  Kran.,  and  Kliefoth,  against  Bertholdt  and  Rosenmiiller, 
 who  understand  this,  in  connection  with  ver.  27,  as  meaning  that 
 Daniel  was  personally  present  in  Susa  to  execute  the  king's  busi- 
 ness, from  which  Bertholdt  frames  the  charge  against  the  pseudo- 
 Daniel,  that  he  was  not  conscious  that  Elam  under  Nabonned  did 
 not  belong  to  Babylon,  and  that  the  royal  palace  at  Susa  had  as 
 yet  no  existence.  But  this  accusation  has  no  historical  foundation. 
 We  have  no  accurate  information  whether  under  Belshazzar  Elam 
 was  added  to  Babylon  or  the  Chaldean  empire.  It  is  true  that 
 not  Hengstenberg  (Beitr.  i.  p.  42  f.)  only  has,  with  older  theolo- 
 gians, concluded  from  the  prophecies  of  Jer.  xlix.  34  ff.,  com- 
 
 oppressor  is  himself  destroyed  (ver.  25),  and  then  it  breaks  off  without  any 
 Messianic  view,  as  one  should  expect  from  a  parenetic  poem  of  a  Maccabean  Jew  ; 
 so  that  Bleek  finds  himself  compelled  from  his  own  resources  to  add  "  the  inti- 
 mation, that  the  beginning  of  the  deliverance  destined  by  God  for  His  people  is 
 closely  and  immediately  joined  to  the  discontinuance  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
 by  Antioch.  Epiph.,  and  to  the  destruction  of  this  prince,"  in  order  to  give  to 
 the  vision  "  a  Messianic  character." 
 
286  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 pared  with  ch.  xxv.  25  and  Ezek.  xxxii.  24,  that  Nebuchadnezzar 
 subjugated  Susa,  but  Niebuhr  also  (^Gesch.  Assurs,  p.  211  ff.) 
 seeks  from  these  and  other  passages  of  the  O.  T.  to  estabhsh 
 the  view,  that  Nebuchadnezzar,  after  the  death  of  Cjaxares 
 (Uwakhshatra),  to  whom  he  owed  allegiance,  refused  to  do  homage 
 to  his  successor,  and  entered  on  a  war  against  Media,  which  re- 
 sulted in  the  annexation  of  Elam  to  his  kingdom.  But,  on  the 
 contrary,  Havernick  has  well  remarked,  that  the  subjugation  of 
 Elam  by  Nebuchadnezzar  can  scarcely  harmonize  with  the  fact  of 
 the  division  of  the  Assyrian  kingdom  between  the  Babylonian 
 king  Nabopolassar  and  the  Median  king  Cyaxares,  whereby  the 
 former  obtained  the  western  and  the  latter  the  eastern  half,  and 
 that  from  these  passages  of  prophecy  a  subjugation  of  Elam  by 
 the  Chaldeans  cannot  be  concluded.  Jeremiah  announces  neither 
 in  ch.  xxv.  25  nor  in  ch.  xlix.  34  ff.  a  conquest  of  Elam  by  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, but  rather  in  ch.  xlix.  prophesies  the  complete  destruc- 
 tion of  Elam,  or  a  divine  judgment,  in  language  which  is  much 
 too  strong  and  elevated  for  a  mere  making  of  it  tributary  and 
 annexing  it  to  a  new  state. 
 
 Besides,  this  passage  in  no  respect  requires  that  Susa  and 
 Elam  should  be  regarded  as  provinces  of  the  Chaldean  kingdom, 
 since  the  opinion  that  Daniel  was  in  Susa  engaged  in  some  public 
 business  for  the  Chaldean  king  is  founded  only  on  a  false  inter- 
 pretation of  vers.  2  and  27.  From  the  prophet's  having  been 
 placed  in  an  ecstasy  in  the  cit}-  of  Susa,  there  follows  nothing 
 further  than  that  this  city  was  already  at  the  time  of  the  existing 
 Chaldean  kingdom  a  central-point  of  Elamitish  or  Persian  power. 
 And  the  more  definite  description  of  the  situation  of  this  city  in 
 the  words,  "  which  was  in  the  province  of  Elam,"  points  de- 
 cidedly to  the  time  of  Daniel,  in  which  Susa  as  yet  belonged  to 
 the  province  of  Elam,  while  this  province  was  made  a  satrapy, 
 Susis,  Susiana,  now  Chusistan,  by  the  kings  of  Persia,  and  Susa 
 became  the  capital  of  this  province  ;  therefore  the  capital  Susa  is 
 not  reckoned  as  situated  in  Elam  by  writers,  who  after  this  time 
 distinguish  between  Susis  (Susiana)  and  Elyma'is  (Elam),  as  Strabo, 
 xvi.  1.  17  f.,  Pliny,  hist.  nat.  vi.  27  :  Susianen  ah  Eli/maide  disier- 
 minat  amnis  Eulams. 
 
 Still  more  groundless  is  the  assertion,  that  the  city  of  Susa  was 
 not  in  existence  in  the  time  of  Daniel,  or,  as  Dunckcr  (Gesch.  der 
 Alterth.  ii.  p.  913,  3  Aufl.)  affirms,  that  Darius  first  removed  the 
 residence  or  seat  of  the  king  to  Susa  with  the  intention  that  it 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  287 
 
 should  become  the  permanent  residence  for  him  and  his  successors, 
 the  central-point  of  his  kingdom  and  of  his  government,  and  that 
 Pliny  and  .^lian  say  decidedly  that  Darius  built  Susa,  the  king's 
 city  of  Persia,  and  that  the  inscriptions  confirm  this  saying.  For, 
 to  begin  with  the  latter  statement,  an  inscription  found  in  the  ruins 
 of  a  palace  at  Susa,  according  to  the  deciphering  of  Mordtmann 
 {in  der  D.  morgl.  Ztschr.  xvi.  pp.  123  ff.),  which  Duncker  cites  as 
 confirming  his  statement,  contains  only  these  words  :  "  Thus  speaks 
 Artaxerxes  the  great  king,  the  son  of  Darius  the  son  of  Achame- 
 nides  Vista9pa :  This  building  my  great-great-grandfather  Darius 
 erected ;  afterwards  it  was  improved  by  Artaxerxes  my  grand- 
 father." This  inscription  thus  confirms  only  the  fact  of  the  build- 
 ing of  a  palace  in  Susa  by  Darius,  but  nothing  further,  from  which 
 it  is  impossible  to  conclude  that  Darius  first  founded  the  city,  or 
 built  the  first  tower  in  it.  Still  less  does  such  an  idea  lie  in  the 
 words  of  ^lian,  7iat.  animal,  i.  59  :  "  Darius  was  proud  of  the 
 erection  of  a  celebrated  building  which  he  had  raised  in  Susa." 
 And  Pliny  also,  taken  strictly,  speaks  only  of  the  elevation  of  Susa 
 to  the  rank  of  capital  of  the  kingdom  by  Darius,  which  does  not  ex- 
 clude the  opinion  that  Susa  was  before  this  already  a  considerable 
 town,  and  had  a  royal  castle,  in  which  Cyrus  may  have  resided 
 during  several  months  of  the  year  (according  to  Xenophon,  Cyrop. 
 viii.  6.  22,  Anah.  iii.  5.  15  ;  cf.  Brissonius,  de  regio  Pers.  princ.  p. 
 88  seq.).-^  The  founding  of  Susa,  and  of  the  old  tower  in  Susa, 
 reaches  back  into  pre-historic  times.  According  to  Strabo,  xv.  2.  3, 
 Susa  must  have  been  built  by  Tithonos,  the  father  of  Memnon. 
 With  this  the  epithet  Me/xvovca  Xovaa,  which  Herod,  vii.  151,  v.  54, 
 53,  and  ^lian,  nat.  anim.  xiii.  18,  give  to  the  town  of  Susa,  stands 
 in  unison.  For  if  this  proves  nothing  more  than  that  in  Susa 
 there  was  a  tomb  of  Memnon  (Hav.),  yet  would  this  sufficiently 
 pi'ove  that  the  city  or  its  citadel  existed  from  ancient  times — times 
 so  ancient  that  the  mythic  Memnon  lived  and  was  buried  there. 
 
 The  city  had  its  name  X^"^'^,  Lily,  from  the  lilies  which  grew 
 in  great  abundance  in  that  region  (Athen.  Deipnos.  xii.  p.  409  ; 
 
 ^  Pliny,  Mst.  nat.  vi.  27,  says  regarding  Susicam,  "  In  qua  veins  regia  Persa- 
 rum  Susa  a  Dario  Hystaspis  Jilio  condita"  which  may  be  understood  as  if  he 
 ascribed  to  Darius  the  founding  of  the  city  of  Susa.  But  how  little  weight  is 
 to  be  given  to  this  statement  appears  from  the  similar  statement,  liist.  nat.  vi. 
 14  (17)  :  "  Echatana  caput  Medix  Seleucus  rex  condidit,^^  which  plainly  con- 
 tains an  error,  since  Ecbatana,  under  the  name  of  Achmeta,  is  mentioned  (Ezra 
 vi.  2)  in  the  time  of  Darius  Hystaspes,  in  the  tower  of  which  the  archives  of  the 
 Persian  kings  were  preserved 
 
288  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Steplian.  Byz.,  etc.),  and  liad,  according  to  Strabo,  xv.  3.  2,  a 
 circuit  of  120  (twelve  English  miles),  and  according  to  others, 
 200  stadia.  Its  palace  was  called  Memnoneion,  and  was  strongly 
 fortified.  Here  was  "  the  golden  seat ;"  here  also  were  "  the 
 apartments  of  Darius,  which  were  adorned  with  gold,"  as  -/Eschylos 
 says  (Pers.  3.  4.  150,  160),  "  the  widely-famed  palace," — the  irept- 
 ^OTjTu  ^aaCkela,  as  Diod.  Sic.  xvii.  65,  expresses  himself. 
 
 The  ruins  of  Susa  are  now  only  a  wilderness,  inhabited  by 
 lions  and  hyaenas,  on  the  eastern  banks  of  the  Shapur,  between 
 it  and  the  Dizful,  where  three  great  mountains  of  ruins,  from 
 80  to  100  feet  high,  raise  themselves,  showing  the  compass  of  the 
 city,  while  eastward  smaller  heaps  of  ruins  point  out  the  remains  of 
 the  city,  which  to  this  day  bear  the  name  Schusch ;  cf.  Herz.'s 
 liealenc.  xv.  p.  263  f.,  and  Duncker,  Gesch.  d.  Alt.  ii.  p.  942  ff. 
 
 The  designation  of  Elam  as  "^J^l^,  a  province,  does  not  refer  to 
 a  Chaldean  province.  D^''^^  in  Greek  ^EXvjxaU^  formed  the  western 
 part  of  the  Persian  satrapy  of  Susis  or  Susiana,  which  lay  at  the 
 foot  of  the  highlands  of  Iran,  at  the  beginning  of  the  valley  of  the 
 Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  between  Persia  and  Babylon,  called  by 
 the  Persians  Uvaja,  and  by  the  Greeks  Susis  or  Susiana  after  the 
 capital,  or  Cissia  after  its  inhabitants.  It  is  bounded  by  the 
 western  border  mountains  of  Persia  and  the  Tigris,  and  on  the 
 south  terminates  in  a  warm,  swampy  and  harbourless  coast,  which 
 stretches  from  the  mouth  of  the  Tigris  to  that  of  the  Aurvaiti 
 (Oroatis).  Strabo  (xv.  732)  says  Susiana  is  inhabited  by  two 
 races,  the  Cisssei  and  the  Elymiii ;  Herodotus  (iii.  91,  v.  49,  vii. 
 62),  on  the  contrary,  names  only  the  Cissoei  as  the  inhabitants  of 
 the  country  of  the  same  name.  The  saying  put,  into  circulation 
 by  Josephus  (^Aiitt.  i.  6.  4,  "E\afio<;  yap  ^ EXa/xatovi  Uepawv  ovrwi 
 ^p-^rjyira'i  KaTektirev)^  that  the  Elamites  are  the  primitive  race  of 
 the  Persians,  has  no  historical  foundation.  The  deep  valley  of  the 
 Tigris  and  the  Euphrates  was  the  country  of  the  Semites.  "  The 
 names  of  the  towns  and  rivers  of  the  country  confirm  the  state- 
 ments of  Genesis,  which  names  Elam  among  the  sons  of  Shem, 
 although  the  erecting  of  the  Persian  royal  residence  in  Elam,  and 
 the  long  continuance  of  the  Persian  rule,  could  not  but  exercise, 
 as  it  did,  an  influence  on  the  manners  and  arts  of  the  Semitish 
 inhabitants"  (Duncker,  p.  942). 
 
 The  further  statement,  that  Daniel  in  vision  was  by  the  river 
 Ulai^  shows  that  Susa  lay  on  the  banks  of  that  river,  vl^^  is  the 
 EuXalo<;j  Eula'us,  of  the  Greeks  and  liomans,  of  which  Pliny 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  289 
 
 says,  "circuit  arcem  Susorum^''  and  which  Arrlan  {Exped.  Alex. 
 vii.  7)  also  mentions  as  a  navigable  river  of  Susis.  On  the  con- 
 trary, Herodotus,  i.  188,  v.  49,  52,  and  Strabo,  xv.  3,  4,  place  Susa 
 on  the  river  Choaspes.  These  contradictory  statements  are  recon- 
 ciled in  the  simplest  manner  by  the  supposition  that  Ulai^  Eulceus, 
 was  the  Semitish,  Choaspes  the  Aryan  (Persian)  name  of  the  Kiiran, 
 which  received  the  Shapur  and  Dizful.  In  favour  of  this,  we  have 
 not  only  the  circumstance  that  the  name  Clwaspes  is  undoubtedly 
 of  Persian  origin,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  v''^  is  a  word  of  Semitic 
 formation;  but  still  more,  that  Herodotus  knows  nothing  whatever  of 
 the  Eulceus,  while  Ptolemy  (vi.  3.  2)  does  not  mention  the  ChoasjyeSy 
 but,  on  the  contrary,  two  sources  of  the  Eulceus,  the  one  in  Media, 
 the  other  in  Susiana ;  and  that  what  Herod,  i.  188,  says  of  the 
 Choaspes,  that  the  kings  of  Persia  drink  its  water  only,  and  caused 
 it  to  be  carried  far  after  them,  is  mentioned  by  Pliny  of  the  Eulaus, 
 h.  n.  vi.  27,  and  in  xxxi.  3  of  the  Choaspes  and  Eulaus.^ 
 
 Daniel  was  in  spirit  conveyed  to  Susa,  that  here  in  the  future 
 royal  citadel  of  the  Persian  kingdom  he  might  witness  the  destruc- 
 tion of  this  world-power,  as  Ezekiel  was  removed  to  Jerusalem  that 
 he  might  there  see  the  judgment  of  its  destruction.  The  placing 
 of  the  prophet  also  on  the  river  of  Ulai  is  significant,  yet  it  is 
 not  to  be  explained,  with  Kranichfeld,  from  vers.  3  and  6,  "  where 
 the  kingdom  in  question  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  the  flowing 
 river  as  the  four  kingdoms  in  ch.  vii.  2  do  to  the  sea."  For  the 
 geographically  defined  river  Ulai  has  nothing  in  common  with  the 
 sea  as  a  symbol  of  the  nations  of  the  world  (ch.  vii.  2).  The  Ulai 
 is  rather  named  as  the  place  where  afterwards  the  ram  and  the  he- 
 goat  pushed  against  one  another,  and  the  shock  followed,  deciding 
 the  fate  of  the  Persian  kingdom. 
 
 As,  then,  the  scene  of  the  vision  stands  in  intimate  relation  to 
 its  contents,  so  also  the  time  at  which  the  revelation  was  made  to 
 Daniel.  With  the  third  year  of  Belshazzar  the  dynasty  of  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, the  founder  of  the  Babylonian  world-kingdom,  was 
 extinguished.  In  this  year  Belshazzar,  the  son  and  successor  of 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  died,  and  the  sovereignty  was  transferred  to  a 
 
 ^  There  is  little  probability  in  the  supposition  that  Choaspes  is  the  modem 
 Kerrali  or  Kerkha,  the  Eulaus  the  modern  Dizful,  as  Susa  lay  between  these 
 two  rivers  (Ker  Porter,  Winer,  Ruetschi  in  Herz.'s  Bealen.  xv.  246),  and  receives 
 no  sufficient  support  from  the  bas-relief  of  Kojundshik  discovered  by  Layard, 
 which  represents  the  siege  of  a  town  lying  between  two  rivers,  since  the  identi- 
 fication of  this  town  with  Susa  is  a  mere  conjecture. 
 
 T 
 
290  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 collateral  branch,  and  finally  to  an  intruder,  under  whom  that 
 \Yorld-kingdoin,  once  so  powerful,  in  a  few  years  fell  to  pieces. 
 Shortly  before  the  death  of  Belshazzar  the  end  of  the  Babylonian 
 monarchy  was  thus  to  be  seen,  and  the  point  of  time,  not  very  re- 
 mote, which  must  end  the  Exile  with  the  fall  of  Babylon.  This 
 point  of  time  was  altogether  fitted  to  reveal  to  the  prophet  in  a 
 vision  what  would  happen  after  the  overthrow  of  Babylon,  and 
 after  the  termination  of  the  Exile. 
 
 Vers.  3-14.  The  vision. — Ver.  3.  Daniel  first  sees  one  ram, 
 ^)^,  standing  by  the  river.  The  *inx  (o/je)  does  not  here  stand 
 for  the  indefinite  article,  but  is  a  numeral,  in  contradistinction 
 to  the  tivo  horns  which  the  one  ram  has.  The  two  horns  of  the 
 ram  were  high,  but  the  one  was  higher  than  the  other,  the 
 higher  coming  up  later,  nnxn  does  not  mean  the  first,  but  the 
 one,  and  ri''3t:'n  the  other ;  for  the  higher  grew  up  last.  This  is  not 
 to  be  understood  as  if  Daniel  first  saw  the  ram  without  horns,  and 
 then  saw  the  horns  grow  up,  and  at  length  the  one  horn  become 
 higher  than  the  other  (v.  Leng.,  Hitzig) ;  but  that  from  the  first 
 Daniel  saw  the  ram  with  two  horns,  but  afterwards  saw  the  one 
 horn  grow  higher  than  the  other  (Kliefoth).  The  angel  (ver.  20) 
 explains  the  ram  with  two  horns  of  the  kings  of  Media  and  Persia. 
 This  does  not  mean  that  the  two  horns  are  to  be  understood  (with 
 Theodoret)  of  the  two  dynasties  of  Cyrus  and  of  Darius  Plystaspes ; 
 but  since  the  ram  represents  the  one  kingdom  of  the  INIedes  and 
 Persians,  so  the  two  horns  represent  the  people  of  the  Medes  and 
 Persians,  from  the  union  of  which  the  Medo- Persian  kingdom 
 grew  up.  Both  nations  were  the  horns,  i.e.  the  power  of  the 
 monarchy ;  therefore  are  they  both  high.  The  one  horn,  which 
 afterwards  grew  up  higher  than  the  other,  represents  the  Persians, 
 who  raised  themselves  above  the  Medians.  A  ram  and  goat,  as 
 emblems  of  kings,  princes,  chiefs,  often  occur;  cf.  Isa.  xiv.  9  ;  Ezek. 
 xxxiv.  17,  xxxix.  18 ;  Jer.  1.  8 ;  Zech.  x.  3.  In  Bandehesch  the 
 guardian  spirit  of  the  Persian  kingdom  appears  under  the  form  of 
 a  ram  with  clean  feet  and  sharp-pointed  horns,  and,  according  to 
 Amm.  Marcell.  xix.  1,  the  Persian  king,  when  he  stood  at  the  head 
 of  his  army,  bore,  instead  of  the  diadem,  the  head  of  a  ram  (cf. 
 Hav.).  The  point  of  resemblance  of  this  symbol  is  to  be  sought, 
 not  in  the  richness  (the  wool)  and  in  the  aggressive  nature  (the 
 horns)  of  the  ram  (Theod.,  Venema),  but  the  ram  and  the  he-goat 
 form,  as  Hofmann  has  justly  remarked,  a  contrast  to  dull  firmness 
 and  nimble  lightness,  as  the  bear  and  the  panther. 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  291 
 
 The  ram  stands  by  the  river  and  pushes  toward  the  west,  north, 
 and  south,  but  not  toward  the  east.  Tlie  river  is  thus  not  the  one 
 flowing  on  the  east  of  Susa,  for,  standing  there,  the  ram  pushing 
 toward  the  west  from  Susa  would  push  against  the  capital  of  his 
 kingdom,  but  the  one  flowing  on  the  west ;  and  the  ram  is  to  be 
 conceived  of  as  standing  on  the  western  bank  of  this  river,  from 
 whence  he  pushed  down  with  his  horns  all  beasts  before  him,  i.e. 
 subdued  all  nations  and  kingdoms  to  his  power  in  three  regions 
 of  the  earth.  In  the  west  he  pushed  against  Babylon,  Syria,  and 
 Asia  Minor;  in  the  south,  Egypt;  in  the  north,  the  Armenian 
 and  Scythian  nations.  These  he  subdued  and  incorporated  in  the 
 Persian  kingdom.  He  did  not  push  toward  the  east — not  because 
 he  could  only  push  forwards  and  against  that  which  was  nearei',  but 
 not,  without  changing  his  position,  backwards  (Hitzig);  nor  because 
 the  Medo- Persians  themselves  came  from  the  east  (v.  Leng.,  Kran.); 
 nor  yet  because  the  conquests  of  the  Pei'sians  did  not  stretch  toward 
 the  east  (Hiiv.),  for  Cyrus  and  Darius  subdued  nations  to  the  east 
 of  Persia  even  as  far  as  to  the  Indus ;  but  because,  for  the  unfold- 
 ing of  the  Medo-Persian  monarchy  as  a  world-power,  its  conquests 
 in  the  east  were  subordinate,  and  therefore  are  not  mentioned. 
 The  pushing  toward  the  three  world-regions  corresponds  to  the 
 three  ribs  in  the  mouth  of  the  bear,  ch.  vii.  5,  and  intimates  that 
 the  Medo-Persian  world-kingdom,  in  spite  of  the  irresistibility  of 
 its  arms,  did  not,  however,  extend  its  power  into  all  the  regions  of 
 the  world.  HiJ,  to  push,  of  beast,  Ex.  xxi.  28,  in  the  Piel  figura- 
 tively is  used  of  nations,  Deut.  xxxiii.  17,  Ps.  xliv.  6.  ^"^^T.  is 
 potentialis:  could  not  stand.  The  masculine  is  here  used,  because 
 ni»n  (beasts)  represents  kingdoms  and  nations,  i^'i^i.?  "^'^V;  ^^^  accord- 
 ing to  Ms  ivill,  expresses  arbitrary  conduct,  a  despotic  behaviour. 
 ^^"njn^  became  great.  The  word  does  not  mean  to  become  haughty, 
 for  i^???,  in  Ids  heart,  is  not  added  here  as  it  is  in  ver.  25,  but  to 
 magnify  the  action.  It  is  equivalent  to  T\wvb  ?''"njn  in  Joel  ii.  20 
 (Jiath  done  great  things),  and  Ps.  cxxvi.  2,  3,  in  the  sense  of  to 
 become  great,  poioerful;  cf.  ver.  8. 
 
 Vers.  5-7.  After  Daniel  had  for  a  while  contemplated  the 
 conduct  of  the  ram,  he  saw  a  he-goat  come  from  the  west  over  the 
 earth,  run  with  furious  might  against  the  two-horned  ram,  and 
 throw  it  to  the  ground  and  tread  upon  it.  The  he-goat,  according 
 to  the  interpretation  of  the  angel,  ver.  21,  represents  the  king  of 
 Javan  (Greece  and  Macedonia) — notthe  person  of  theking(Gesen.), 
 but  the  kingship  of  Javan  ;  for,  according  to  ver.  21,  the  great  horn 
 
292  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 of  the  goat  symbolizes  tlie  first  king,  and  thus  the  goat  itself  can- 
 not represent  a  separate  king.  The  goat  comes  from  the  west ; 
 for  Macedonia  lay  to  the  west  of  Sasa  or  Persia.  Its  coming  over 
 the  earth  is  more  definitely  denoted  by  the  expression  p.'J?  V^?^  r*?1, 
 cmd  he  was  not  touching  the  earth,  i.e.  as  he  hastened  over  it  in 
 his  flight.  This  remark  corresponds  with  the  four  wings  of  the 
 leopard,  ch.  vii.  6.  The  goat  had  between  its  eyes  niTn  fij? ;  i.e.  not 
 a  horn  of  vision,  a  horn  such  as  a  goat  naturally  has,  but  here  only 
 in  vision  (Hofm.,  Klief.).  This  interpretation  would  render  niTn 
 an  altogether  useless  addition,  since  the  goat  itself,  only  seen  in 
 vision,  is  described  as  it  appeared  in  the  vision.  For  the  right  ex- 
 planation of  the  expression  reference  must  be  made  to  ver.  8,  where, 
 instead  of  liorn  of  vision,  there  is  used  the  expression  n?n3ri  pjpn 
 {the  great  horn).  Accordingly  ri^Tn  has  the  meaning  of  t^^"]^,  in 
 the  Keri  nx"i»  t^''t<,  2  Sam.  xxiii.  21,  a  man  of  countenance  or  sight 
 (cf.  Targ.  Esth.  ii.  2) :  a  horn  of  sight,  consideration,  of  considerable 
 greatness ;  Kepa<;  Oeoprjrov  (LXX.,  Theodot.),  which  Theodoret 
 explains  by  iiria-rj/xov  kuI  irepi^Xeirrov. 
 
 The  horn  was  between  the  eyes,  i.e.  in  the  middle  of  the  fore- 
 head, the  centre  of  its  whole  strength,  and  represents,  according 
 to  ver.  21,  the  first  king,  i.e.  the  founder  of  the  Javanic  world- 
 kingdom,  or  the  dynasty  of  this  kingdom  represented  by  him.  The 
 he-goat  ran  up  against  the  ram,  the  possessor  of  the  two  horns, 
 i.e.  the  two-horned  ram  by  the  river  Ulai,  in  the  fire  of  his  anger, 
 i.e.  in  the  glowing  anger  which  gave  him  his  strength,  and  with  the 
 greatest  fury  threw  him  down.  The  prophet  adds,  "  And  I  saw 
 him  come  close  unto  the  ram,"  as  giving  prominence  to  the  chief 
 matter,  and  then  further  describes  its  complete  destruction.  It 
 broke  in  pieces  both  of  the  horns,  which  the  ram  still  had,  i.e.  the 
 power  of  the  Medes  and  Persians,  the  two  component  elements  of 
 the  Persian  world-kingdom.  This  representation  proves  itself  to 
 be  genuine  prophecy,  whilst  an  author  writing  ex  eventu  would 
 have  spoken  of  the  horn  representing  the  power  of  the  Medes  as 
 assailed  and  overthrown  earlier  by  that  other  horn  (see  under  ch, 
 vii.  8,  20).  The  pushing  and  trampling  down  by  the  Ulai  is  ex- 
 plained from  the  idea  of  the  prophecy,  according  to  which  the 
 power  of  the  ram  is  destroyed  at  the  central  seat  of  its  might, 
 without  reference  to  the  historical  course  of  the  victories  by  which 
 Alexander  the  Great  completed  the  subjugation  of  the  Persian 
 monarchy.  In  the  concluding  passage,  ver.  7,  the  complete 
 destruction  is  described  in  the  words  of  the  fourth  verse,  to  express 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  293 
 
 the  idea  of  righteous  retribution.    As  the  Medo-Persian  had  crushed 
 the  other  kingdoms,  so  now  it  also  was  itself  destroyed. 
 
 Ver.  8.  The  transformation  of  the  Javanic  kingdom. — By  the 
 kingdom  of  the  ram  the  he-goat  became  very  great,  powerful 
 (^'"'^Jn  as  in  ver.  4).  But  the  great  horn  was  broken  at  the  height 
 of  his  strength,  and  four  similar  horns  grew  up  in  its  stead,  toward 
 the  four  regions  of  heaven.  HlTn  is  here  used  adverbially,  conspi- 
 cuously :  there  came  forth  conspicuously  four  in  its  place.  This 
 statement  does  not  contradict  ver.  22  and  ch.  xi.  4,  according  to 
 which  the  four  kingdoms  have  not  the  power  of  the  one  great  horn  ; 
 for  the  thought  is  only  this  :  they  represent  in  themselves  a  con- 
 siderable power,  without,  however,  gaining  the  power  of  the  one 
 undivided  kingdom.  The  breaking  of  the  great  horn  indicates  the 
 breaking  up  of  the  monarchy  of  Alexander  by  his  death.  The  four 
 horns  which  grow  up  in  the  place  of  the  one  great  horn  are, 
 according  to  ver.  22,  four  kingdoms.  These  are  the  dynasties 
 of  the  Diadochs,  of  whom  there  were  indeed  five :  Antigonus, 
 Ptolemy,  Cassander,  and  Lysimachus  laid  claim  to  the  title  of 
 king ;  but  for  the  first  time  after  the  overthrow  of  Antigonus  at 
 the  battle  of  Ipsus,  301  B.C.,  and  thus  twenty-two  years  after  the 
 death  of  Alexander  (323  B.C.),  they  became  in  reality  four  kings, 
 and  so  divided  the  kingdom  among  themselves,  that  Lysimachus 
 had  Thrace  and  Bithynia, — Cassander,  Macedonia  and  Greece, — 
 Seleucus,  Syria,  Babylonia,  and  the  Eastern  countries  as  far  as 
 India, — and  Ptolemy,  Egypt,  Palestine,  and  Arabia  Petrea.  But 
 from  the  fact  that  this  first  happened  after  all  the  descendants  of 
 the  royal  family  had  been  extirpated,  we  are  not  to  conclude,  with 
 Havernick,  that  the  breaking  of  the  great  horn  did  not  denote  the 
 death  of  Alexander,  but  the  extinction  of  his  race  or  house :  a  con- 
 clusion which  derives  no  valid  support  from  these  words  of  Justin  : 
 "  All  of  them  abstained  from  the  use  of  the  insignia  of  this  (royal) 
 dignity  while  the  sons  of  their  king  survived.  So  great  was  their 
 veneration,  that  although  they  had  royal  wealth  and  resources, 
 they  cared  not  for  the  name  of  kings  so  long  as  there  existed  a 
 legitimate  heir  to  Alexander"  {Hist.  xv.  2.  13).  If  the  breaking 
 of  the  horn  is  placed  at  the  point  of  time  when  the  horn  was 
 powerful,  here  as  well  as  at  ch.  xi.  4,  the  reference  of  the  words 
 to  the  sudden  death  of  Alexander  in  the  prime  of  his  days,  and 
 when  in  the  very  height  of  his  victorious  career,  cannot  be  dis- 
 puted ;  and  by  the  breaking  of  the  horn  we  can  only  understand 
 Alexander's  death,  and  the  breaking  up  of  the  kingdom  founded 
 
294  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 by  him,  although  it  was  still  held  together  in  a  considerable  degree 
 for  two  decenniums  by  his  generals,  till  the  most  imperious  and 
 the  most  powerful  amongst  them  usurped  the  rank  of  kings,  and 
 then,  after  the  conquest  of  Antigonus,  a  formal  division  of  the 
 kingdom  into  the  four  considerable  kingdoms  here  named  raised 
 them  to  royal  dignity. 
 
 The  prophetic  representation  is  not  a  prediction  of  historical 
 details,  but  it  gives  only  the  fundamental  traces  of  the  develop- 
 ment of  the  world-kingdoms,  and  that  not  in  the  form  of  a  historic- 
 graphical  prophecy,  but  only  so  that  it  sketches  the  ground-thoughts 
 of  the  divinely  ordained  unfolding  of  these  world-kingdoms.  This 
 ideal  fundamental  thought  of  the  prophecy  has  so  wrought  itself  out 
 in  actual  history,  that  from  the  one  great  kingdom,  after  the  death 
 of  the  founder,  in  the  course  of  time  four  considerable  kingdoms 
 arise.  The  number  four  in  the  prophetic  contemplation  comes  into 
 view  only  according  to  its  symbolical  idea  as  the  number  of  the 
 world  in  its  extension  toward  the  four  regions  of  heaven,  so  that 
 thereby  only  the  thought  is  declared,  that  a  kingdom  embracing 
 the  world  will  fall  to  ruins  in  a  plurality  of  kingdoms  toward  all 
 the  regions  of  heaven  (KliefcAh).  This  has  been  so  historically 
 realized,  that  out  of  the  wars  of  the  Diadochs  for  the  supremacy 
 four  kingdoms  arose  toward  the  four  remons  of  the  earth  into 
 longer  duration, — that  of  Cassander  (Macedonia)  toward  the  west, 
 that  of  Seleucus  (Babylonia,  etc.)  toward  the  east,  that  of  Lysi- 
 machus  (Thracia  and  Bithynia)  toward  the  north,  and  finally  that 
 of  Ptolemy  (Egypt)  toward  the  south. ^ 
 
 Vers.  9-12.   The  interpretation  of  the  vision. 
 
 Ver.  9.  Without  following  the  development  of  the  four  horns 
 further,  the  prophecy  passes  over  to  the  little  horn,  which  grew 
 up  out  of  one  of  the  four  horns,  and  gained  great  significance 
 in  relation  to  the  history  of  the  people  of  God.  The  masculine 
 forms  ono  and  i^^*^  (^out  of  them  came)  are  to  be  explained  as  a  co7i- 
 structio  ad  sensiim.     nnx  (one)  after  Hi^  (liorn)  is  as  little  super- 
 
 ^  Wben,  on  the  other  hand,  Hitzig  seeks  to  explain  the  prophetic  represen- 
 tation, here  as  well  as  at  ch.  xi.  4,  that  with  or  immediately  after  the  death  of 
 Alexander  his  kingdom  was  divided,  by  reference  to  1  Mace.  i.  6,  according  to 
 which  Alexander  himself,  shortly  before  his  death,  divided  the  kingdom  among 
 his  generals,  he  thereby  not  only  misapprehends  the  ideal  character  of  the  pro- 
 phecy, but  does  not  in  the  least  degree  clear  up  the  matter  itself.  For  the  pas- 
 sage in  1  Mace.  i.  6,  which  not  only  Arabic  and  Persian  authors  repeat,  but  also 
 Moses  V.  Chorene,  and  even  later  Greek  and  Latin  historiographers,  as  Ammian 
 Marcell.,  has  been  explained  by  Curtius  (x.  10.  6)  as  afama  vana,  and  is  proved 
 
CHAP,  VIII.  1-14.  295 
 
 fluous  as  is  the  p  in  HTyvo.  nnx  is  a  numeral,  one  horn,  not 
 several  ;  H?  is  either  comparative,  less  than  little,  i.e.  very  little 
 (Ewald),  or,  as  less  than  insignificance,  wretchedness,  i.e.  in  an  alto- 
 gether miserable  loay  (Ha v.).  The  one  explanation  is  more  forced 
 than  the  other,  and  the  idea  of  wretchedness  is  altogether  unten- 
 able. Yet  the  ip  serves  as  a  circumlocution  for  the  superlative  = 
 perpaucus  (Gesen.,  Win.,  Aub.),  while  verbal  analogies  for  it  are 
 wanting.  |^  signifies /rom,  out  of ;  but  it  is  not  to  be  united  with 
 ni^ :  one  horn  of  smallness  (v.  Leng.),  in  which  case  |p  would  be 
 superfluous,  but  with  the  verb  ^^y^ :  it  came  up  out  of  littleness,  a 
 jjarvo,  i.e.  a  parvis  initiis  (Maur.,  Hofm.,  Kran.,  Klief.).  Thus  it 
 corresponds  with  rii?pp  nyyT,  ch.  vii.  8.  In  the  words  "  it  arose 
 out  of  littleness  "  there  lies  the  idea  that  it  grew  to  great  power 
 from  a  small  beginning ;  for  it  became  very  great,  i.e.  powerful, 
 toward  the  south,  toward  the  east,  and  toward  the  ''^i'n  (^/^g 
 sple7idour,  glori/)^  i.e.  toward  the  glorious  land.  ''3S.*ri  = ''3i*ri  px^ 
 ch.  xi.  16,  41.  This  designation  of  the  land  of  Israel  is  framed 
 after  Jer.  iii.  19  and  Ezek.  xx.  6,  15,  where  this  land  is  called  "  a 
 heritage  of  the  greatest  glory  of  nations  "  (a  goodly  heritage  of 
 the  host  of  nations,  E.  V.),  "  a  glory  of  all  lands,"  i.e.  the  most 
 glorious  land  which  a  people  can  possess.  The  expression  is 
 synonymous  with  n^»n  px  ("pleasant  land"),  Jer.  iii.  19,  Zech. 
 vii.  14,  Ps.  cvi.  24.  Canaan  was  so  designated  on  account  of  its 
 great  fruitfulness  as  a  land  flowing  with  milk  and  honey;  cf. 
 Ezek.  XX.  6. 
 
 The  one  of  the  four  horns  from  which  the  little  horn  grew  up 
 is  the  Syrian  monarchy,  and  the  horn  growing  up  out  of  it  is  the 
 king  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as  Josephus  (^Ant.  x.  11.  7)  and  all 
 interpreters  acknowledge,  on  the  ground  of  1  Mace.  i.  10.  The 
 south,  against  which  he  became  great,  is  Egypt  (cf.  ch.  xi.  5 
 and  1  Mace.  i.  16  ff.).  The  east  is  not  Asia  (Kranichfeld),  but 
 Babylon,  and  particularly  Elymais  and  Armenia,  1  Mace.  i.  31,  37, 
 iii.  31,  37,  vi.  1-4,  according  to  which  he  subdued  Elymais  and 
 
 by  Wernsdorf  (de  Fide  Librr.  Mace.  p.  40  sq.)  and  Droysen  {das  Test.  Alex.  Ste 
 Beilage,  zu  Gesch.  des  Hellen.  i.)  to  be  without  foundation  (cf.  Grimm,  K.  ex. 
 Hdh.  zu  1  Mace.  i.  6).  This  may  have  been  originally  put  into  circulation  by 
 the  partisans  of  the  Hellenic  kings,  in  order  to  legitimatize  their  sovereignty  in 
 the  eyes  of  the  people,  as  Grimm  conjectures  ;  yet  the  confirmation  which  the 
 book  cf  Daniel  appears  to  give  to  it  contributed  to  its  wide  diffusion  by 
 Oriental  and  Byzantine  authors,  and  the  author  of  the  first  book  of  the  Macca- 
 bees had  without  doubt  the  book  of  Daniel  before  his  eyes  in  the  representation 
 he  gives. 
 
295  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 overcame  Artaxias,  king  of  Armenia  (App.  Syr.  c.  45,  46  ;  Polyb. 
 xsxi.  11).  Besides  the  south  and  the  east,  Canaan,  the  holy 
 land,  as  lying  between,  is  named  as  the  third  land,  as  in  Isa.  xix. 
 23  ff.  it  is  named  as  third,  between  Egypt  and  Assyria ;  but  ?N1 
 ■•^i'ri  ("  and  toward  the  glorious  land")  is  not,  with  Kranichfeld,  to 
 be  regarded  as  an  exegetical  addition  to  H'lTSn  ?xi  ("  and  toward 
 the  east").  Palestine  lay  neither  to  the  east  of  Daniel,  nor  geo- 
 graphically to  the  east  of  the  kingdom  denoted  by  the  little  horn, 
 because  the  text  gives  no  support  to  the  identifying  of  this  king- 
 dom with  the  Javanic,  the  horn  operating  from  the  west. 
 
 Ver.  10.  As  this  horn  became  great  in  extent  toward  the 
 south  and  toward  the  east,  so  also  it  grew  up  in  height  even  unto 
 the  host  of  heaven,  and  some  of  them  it  cast  down,  i.e.  some  of  the 
 stars,  to  the  earth.  The  host  of  heaven  is  here,  as  in  Jer.  xxxiii.  22, 
 the  w^hole  body  of  the  stars  of  heaven,  the  constellations,  and  of 
 the  stars  is  epexegetical  of  of  the  host.  Daniel  in  the  vision  sees  the 
 horn  grow  so  great  in  height,  that  it  reaches  even  to  the  heavens,  can 
 reach  the  heavenly  bodies  with  the  hand,  and  throws  some  of  the 
 stars  (IP  is  partitive)  down  to  the  earth  and  tramples  upon  them, 
 destroys  them  with  scorn.  The  words  of  the  angel,  ver.  24,  show 
 that  by  the  stars  we  are  to  understand  the  people  of  the  saints,  the 
 people  of  God.  The  stars  cast  down  to  the  earth  are,  according 
 to  this,  neither  the  Levites  (Grotius),  nor  the  viri  illustres  in  Israel 
 (Glass.),  nor  the  chief  rulers  of  the  Jews  in  church  and  state 
 (Dathe).  If  the  people  of  the  saints  generally  are  compared  to 
 the  host  of  heaven,  the  stars,  then  the  separate  stars  cannot  be 
 the  ecclesiastical  or  civil  chiefs,  but  the  members  of  this  nation 
 in  common.  But  by  "  the  people  of  the  saints "  is  to  be  under- 
 stood (since  the  little  horn  denotes  Antiochus  Epiphanes)  the 
 people  of  God  in  the  Old  Covenant,  the  people  of  Israel.  They 
 are  named  the  people  of  the  saints  by  virtue  of  their  being 
 called  to  be  an  holy  nation  (Ex.  xix.  G),  because  "  they  had 
 the  revelation  of  God  and  God  Himself  dwelling  among  them, 
 altogether  irrespective  of  the  subjective  degrees  of  sanctification 
 in  individuals"  (Kliefoth).  But  the  comparing  of  them  with 
 the  host  of  the  stars  does  not  arise  from  Jewish  national  pride, 
 nor  does  it  mean  that  Daniel  thought  only  of  the  truly  faithful 
 in  Israel  (Theod.,  Hiiv.),  or  that  the  pseudo-Daniel  thought 
 that  with  the  death  of  Antiochus  the  Messiah  would  appear, 
 and  that  then  Israel,  after  the  extermination  of  the  godless, 
 would  become  a  people  of  pure  holiness.     The  comparison  rather 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  297 
 
 has  its  root  in  this,  that  God,  the  King  of  Israel,  is  called  the  God 
 of  hosts,  and  by  the  nisny  (Jwsts)  are  generally  to  be  understood 
 the  stars  or  the  angels ;  but  the  tribes  of  Israel  also,  who  were  led 
 by  God  out  of  Egypt,  are  called  "  the  hosts  of  Jehovah  "  (Ex.  vii. 
 4,  xii.  41).  As  in  heaven  the  angels  and  stars,  so  on  earth  the 
 sons  of  Israel  form  the  host  of  God  ;  and  as  the  angels  on  account 
 of  the  glory  of  their  nature  are  called  D^K^np  (Jioly  ones),  so  the 
 Israelites  by  virtue  of  their  being  chosen  to  be  the  holy  nation  of 
 God,  forming  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  this  world.  As  God,  the 
 King  of  this  people,  has  His  throne  in  heaven,  so  there  also  Israel 
 have  their  true  home,  and  are  in  the  eyes  of  God  regarded  as  like 
 unto  the  stars.  This  comparison  serves,  then,  to  characterize  the 
 insolence  of  Antiochus  as  a  wickedness  against  Heaven  and  the 
 heavenly  order  of  things.^     Cf.  2  Mace.  ix.  10. 
 
 Ver.  11.  This  horn  raised  its  might  even  to  the  Prince  of  the 
 host.  NDSfn  "ib'j  the  Prince  of  the  host  of  heaven,  is  obviously  not 
 the  high  priest  Onias  (Grotius),  but  the  God  of  heaven  and  the 
 King  of  Israel,  the  Prince  of  princes,  as  He  is  called  in  ver.  25. 
 IV  ?''"n2n  (he  magnified  himself  to)  is  repeated  in  ver.  25  by 
 bv  "lioy^  {he  shall  stand  up  against).  Wherein  this  rising  up 
 against  God  consisted,  the  second  half  of  the  verse  indicates  in  the 
 statement  that  the  T'^J^  (daily  sacrifice)  was  taken  away,  and  the 
 building  of  His  sanctuary  was  destroyed.  This  verse  does  not 
 record  a  part  of  the  vision,  but  is  a  further  development  of  that 
 which  was  seen  in  prophetic  words.  Hence  we  may  not,  with 
 Ebrard,  refer  its  contents  to  heavenly  events,  to  a  putting  away  of 
 the  sacrifice  from  before  the  throne  of  God  and  a  destruction  of  the 
 heavenly  sanctuary.  On  the  contrary,  Kliefoth  has  well  remarked 
 that  it  is  "  without  example  in  Scripture  that  men  penetrate  into 
 heaven  to  insult  God ;  what  men  do  against  God  is  done  on  the 
 
 1  The  deep  practical  explanation  of  Calvin  deserves  attention  : — "  Although 
 the  cliurch  often  lies  prostrate  in  the  world  and  is  trodden  under  foot,  yet  is  it 
 always  precious  before  God.  Hence  the  prophet  adorns  the  church  with  this 
 remarkable  praise,  not  to  obtain  for  it  great  dignity  in  the  sight  of  men,  but 
 because  God  has  separated  it  from  the  world  and  provided  for  it  a  sure  inheri- 
 tance in  heaven.  Although  the  sons  of  God  are  pilgrims  on  the  earth,  and 
 have  scarcely  any  place  in  it,  because  they  are  as  castaways,  yet  they  are 
 nevertheless  citizens  of  heaven.  Hence  we  derive  this  useful  lesson,  that  we 
 should  bear  it  patiently  when  we  are  thrown  prostrate  on  the  ground,  and  are 
 despised  by  tyrants  and  contemners  of  God.  In  the  meantime  our  seat  is  laid 
 up  in  heaven,  and  God  numbers  us  among  the  stars,  although,  as  Paul  says, 
 we  are  as  dung  and  as  the  offscourings  of  all  things." — Calv.  in  loc. 
 
298  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 earth."  T'^on  Is  everything  in  the  worship  of  God  wlilch  is  not 
 used  merely  temporarily,  but  is  permanent,  as  the  daily  sacrifice, 
 the  setting  forth  of  the  shew-bread,  and  the  like.  The  limitation 
 of  it  to  the  daily  morninrr  and  eveninsj  service  in  the  writings  of 
 the  Rabbis  is  unknown  in  the  O.  T.  The  word  much  rather  com- 
 prehends all  that  is  of  2^ermanent  use  in  the  holy  services  of  divine 
 loorship  (Hgst.,  Hiiv.,  Hofm.,  Kran.,  Klief.).  Thus  interpreted,  the 
 prophetic  announcement  corresponds  with  history ;  for,  according 
 to  1  Mace.  i.  45,  Antiochus  gave  orders  that  they  should  "  forbid 
 burnt-offerings,  and  sacrifice,  and  drink-offerings  in  the  temple  ; 
 and  that  they  should  profane  the  Sabbath  and  festival  days." 
 
 The  horn  also  overthrew  the  place  of  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah. 
 "=1  c^'']j  to  cast  away,  to  cast  forth^ — used  of  buildings,  to  lay  waste ; 
 cf.  Jer.  ix.  18.  ps^j  properly,  that  tvhich  is  set  up,  erected ;  here, 
 as  frequently,  of  the  dwelling-place  of  God,  the  temple :  so  also 
 ^n3K^  p30  (a  settled  place  for  thee  to  dwell  m),  Ex.  xv.  17,  1  Kings 
 viii.  13.  It  is  used  also  of  the  heavenly  dwelling-place  of  God, 
 1  Kings  viii.  39,  43;  here,  of  the  temple  in  Jerusalem.  With 
 regard  to  the  historical  fulfilment,  cf.  the  expressions,  "  her 
 (Jerusalem's)  sanctuary  was  laid  waste  like  a  wilderness,"  and 
 "  pollute  the  sanctuary,"  1  Mace.  i.  39,  46 ;  and  "  the  sanctuary 
 was  trodden  down,"  1  INIacc.  iii.  45. 
 
 Ver.  12.  The  actions  of  the  little  horn  are  definitively  compre- 
 hended in  this  verse,  as  may  be  seen  from  this,  that  in  the  first 
 hemistich  N3V  and  T'pJ^  are  mentioned  together.  But  this  hemi- 
 stich has  been  very  variously  interpreted.  We  must  altogether 
 reject  the  interpretation  of  the  Vulgate,  "  Rohur  autem  datum  est 
 contra  jiige  sqcrificium  propter  peccataj"  which  is  reproduced  in 
 Luther's  translation,  "  There  was  given  to  him  such  strength 
 against  the  daily  sacrifice  on  account  of  sin  ; "  or  Calvin's,  "  Et 
 iempns  datum  est  super  jiigi  sacrifcio  in  scelere"  whereby,  after 
 Raschi's  example,  &<3y  is  interpreted  of  the  statio  militarise  and 
 thence  the  interpretation  tempus  or  intervallum  is  derived.  For 
 N3y  means  neither  robur,  nor  tempus,  nor  statio  militaris,  but  only 
 military  service,  and  perhaps  military  forces.  Add  to  this  that 
 N3y  both  in  vers.  10  and  13  means  host.  If  we  maintain  this, 
 with  the  majority  of  interpreters,  only  two  explanations  are  ad- 
 missible, according  as  we  understand  Niy  of  the  host  of  heaven, 
 i.e.  of  Israel,  or  of  some  other  host.  The  latter  interpretation  is 
 apparently  supported  partly  by  the  absence  of  the  article  in  i<3V,  and 
 partly  by  the  construction  of  the  word  as  fern.  (lO?'?).     Accordingly, 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  299 
 
 Ilitzig  says  that  a  Hebrew  reader  could  not  understand  the  words 
 otherwise  than  as  meaning,  "  and  a  warlike  expedition  was  made 
 or  conducted  against  the  daily  sacrifice  with  wickedness "  (i.e. 
 the  impure  service  of  idols)  ;  while  others  translate,  "  and  a  host 
 placed  against  the  daily  sacrifice  on  account  of  sin"  (Syr.,  Grot., 
 Harenb.,  J.  D.  Michaelis)  ;  or,  "  a  host  is  given  against  the  daily 
 sacrifice  in  wickedness  "  (Wieseler)  ;  or,  "  given  against  that  which 
 was  continual  with  the  service  of  idols,"  i.e.  so  that,  in  the  place 
 of  the  "  continual,"  wickedness,  the  worship  of  idols,  is  appointed 
 (Hofmann)  ;  or,  "  the  power  of  an  army  is  given  to  it  (the  horn) 
 against  the  daily  sacrifice  through  wickedness,"  i.e.  by  the  evil 
 higher  demons  (Ebrard).  But  the  latter  interpretation  is  to  be 
 rejected  on  account  of  the  arbitrary  insertion  of  i^  (to  it);  and 
 against  all  the  others  it  is  to  be  remarked,  that  there  is  no  proof 
 either  from  ver.  13,  or  from  Ezek.  xxxii.  23  or  xxvi.  8,  that 
 (03  means  to  lead  out,  to  bring  forward,  to  give  contrary  to  or 
 against. 
 
 In  ver.  13  nn  (to  ciive)  is  more  closely  defined  by  D»"!0  (some- 
 thing trodden  under  foot)  ;  but  in  these  passages  in  Ezek.  above 
 referred  to,  it  [the  verb  jnj]  is  connected  with  an  actual  object. 
 Construed  with  the  accus.  pers.  and  ?y,  iri3  means  "  to  place  one 
 over  anything."  This  conception  in  its  different  shades  is  not  so 
 much  derived  from  the  words  of  the  text  as  from  a  reference  to 
 the  history;  for  it  is  supposed  (cf.  Grotius,  Wies.)  that  because  the 
 matter  spoken  of  is  the  wickedness  of  Antiochus,  the  entrance  of 
 the  Syrian  army  into  Jerusalem  and  its  proceedings  (1  Mace, 
 i.  29  ff.)  must  be  set  forth,  ^yi,  notwithstanding  the  want  of  the 
 article,  and  notwithstanding  the  feminine  construction,  cannot 
 properly  be  otherwise  understood  in  ver.  12  than  in  vers.  10  and 
 13,  not  of  the  host  of  the  Syrians,  but  only  of  the  people  of  Israel. 
 The  article  is  wanting  also  in  ver.  13,  where  yet,  because  of  its 
 being  taken  in  connection  with  ^~]p,  it  can  only  refer  to  Israel. 
 Besides  this  passage,  the  fern,  construction  is  found  also  only  in 
 Isa.  xl.  2,  where  it  signifies  the  service  of  war  or  vassalage.  But 
 this  meaning  here,  where  weighty  reasons  oppose  it,  this  construc- 
 tion does  not  require  us  to  adopt,  for  such  a  construction  is  not 
 infrequent.  It  is  found  not  merely  with  names  of  nations  and 
 races,  so  far  as  land  and  people  are  nearly  related  ideas,  but  also 
 with  other  words,  such  as  even  DV,  people.,  fern. ^  Ex.  v.  16,  1  Kings 
 xviii.  7,  Jer.  viii.  5 ;  li^n^  a  multitude,  Job  xxxi.  34 ;  V"]?,  seed, 
 i.e.  descendants,  Deut.  xxxi.  21 ;  cf.  Ewald's  Lehr.  §  174.     But 
 
300  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  want  of  the  article  in  N3V  in  ver.  12  and  in  13  has  its  reason 
 in  this,  that  that  which  is  said  does  not  concern  the  whole  host, 
 but  only  one  part  of  it,  since,  according  to  ver.  10,  the  hostile  horn 
 will  cast  only  some  t<3i:n  )o  {of  the  host)  to  the  earth.  If,  there- 
 fore, there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  rejecting  the  application  of 
 the  N'^y  to  the  people  of  Israel,  it  follows  that  this  interpretation 
 is  decidedly  required  not  only  by  the  connection,  chiefly  by  ver. 
 13,  but  also  by  that  which  is  said  of  ^53V  in  ver.  12a. 
 
 "  Since  in  ver.  13  the  inquirer  resumes  the  contents  of  vers. 
 10-12,  and  along  with  the  sanctuary  names  also  the  '  host'  as  the 
 object  of  the  '  treading  down,'  it  is  not  credible  that  this  *  host ' 
 should  be  different  from  that  mentioned  in  ver.  12 "  (Klief.). 
 Moreover,  jnsn  can  have  in  this  passage  only  the  meaning  of 
 to  be  given  up.  'T'P'^l'  ^V  can  then  only  be  translated  because  of  the 
 permanent  sacrifice,  if  y^'?2  (^^  reason  of  transgressioii)  is  united  as 
 object  with  iri3n  in  the  sense :  "  was  delivered  up  in  transgression." 
 But  apart  from  this,  that  iri3  in  the  sense  of  to  give  up  is  construed 
 with  "113,  and  there  are  wanting  certain  parallels  for  its  construction 
 with  3  merely,  this  interpretation,  "  the  host  (  =  Israel)  is  given  up 
 in  wickedness  on  account  of  the  continual  sacrifice,"  presents  an 
 idea  not  to  be  tolerated.  We  agree,  therefore,  in  general  with 
 the  interpretation  of  Ch.  B.  Michaelis,  Hiivernick,  v.  Lengerke, 
 Maurer,  Kranichfeld,  and  Kliefoth,  and  explain  the  words  thus  : 
 "  and  (an)  host  shall  be  given  up  together  with  the  daily  sacri- 
 fice, because  of  transgression."  &^3V,  an  host,  i.e.  a  great  company 
 of  the  host,  the  people  of  Israel.  3  before  VtJ'S  (transgression) 
 in  the  meaning  of  3  pretii,  on  account  of  (iim),  or  because  of, 
 cf.  Gen.  xviii.  28.  V^^^  is  the  apostasy  of  the  Israelites  from  God, 
 the  wickedness  proceeding  from  the  Q^Vy'a  (transgressors),  ver.  23. 
 The  objection  that  this  interpretation  is  not  appropriate,  because  yt^'3 
 is  repeated  in  ver.  13  in  union  with  D^b'  (desolation),  and  therefore 
 a  wickedness  devoted  to  destruction  is  characterized  (Klief.),  avails 
 nothing,  because  it  in  no  way  follows  from  this  that  the  "  trans- 
 gression" must  be  wickedness  seating  itself  in  the  place  of  the 
 "  daily  sacrifice,"  idolatrous  worship  supplanting  the  true  worship. 
 But  "  the  transcrression "  cannot  be  that  which  sets  itself  in  the 
 place  of  the  "  daily  sacrifice,"  because  T''?'^']  is  not  the  subject  of 
 the  sentence,  but  is  only  co-ordinated  to  the  subject.  If  3  in  V^M 
 is  regarded  as  the  3  pretii,  then  yt'D  can  only  be  that  which  would 
 be  put  in  the  place  of  the  N3y.  The  preposition  ?y  before  "^'P^'"? 
 means  thereon^  after  that,  also  at  the  same  time,  or  together  with,  as 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  301 
 
 in  Am.  iii.  15,  Hos.  x.  14,  etc.  *T'^J^,  as  in  ver.  11,  is  not  merely 
 the  daily  sacrijicef  but  all  that  had  continuance  in  the  Mosaic 
 worship.  Finally,  the  jussive  forms  jnan  and  ^?,^^  (to  be  trodden) 
 are  to  be  observed,  since,  according  to  the  just  observation  of 
 Kran.,  they  are  not  simply  identical  with  the  future,  as  Ewald 
 (§  343)  thinks,  but  here,  as  in  ch.  xi.  4,  10,  16,  modify  the  con- 
 ception of  time  by  the  presentation  of  the  divine  pre-determina- 
 tion  or  the  decree,  and  thus  express  a  sliould,  may,  or  a  facidty,  a 
 being  able,  in  consequence  of  the  divine  counsel.  To  the  verbs  of 
 the  second  half  of  the  verse  T)]?.  (horn)  is  easily  supplied  from  the 
 foregoing  context  as  the  subject ;  and  the  passage  closes  with  the 
 thought :  thus  must  the  horn  throw  the  truth  to  the  ground,  and 
 he  shall  succeed  in  this.^  HttN,  the  objective  truth,  the  word  of 
 God,  so  far  as  it  is  embodied  in  the  worship.  As  to  this  matter 
 of.  1  Mace.  i.  43-52,  56,  60. 
 
 Vers.  13  and  14.  In  addition  to  what  has  been  already  seen 
 and  communicated  in  the  vision,  a  further  vision  unfolds  itself,  by 
 which  there  is  conveyed  to  the  prophet  disclosures  regarding  the 
 duration  of  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  by  the  little 
 horn.  Daniel  hears  a  holy  one,  i.e.  an  angel  (see  under  ch.  iv. 
 10),  talking.  What  he  said  is  not  recorded.  But  while  he  is 
 talking,  another  angel  interrupts  him  with  the  question  as  to  the 
 duration  of  the  affliction,  and  this  is  done  that  Daniel  may  hear  the 
 answer.  Therefore  the  first  angel  immediately  turns  himself  to 
 Daniel,  and,  addressing  him,  makes  known  to  him  the  information 
 that  was  desired. 
 
 The  vN  (to  me),  ver.  14,  is  not,  according  to  the  old  versions,  to 
 be  changed  into  V7NI  (to  him).  What  Hitzig  says  in  justification  of 
 IvN  is  of  no  weight ;  cf .  Kran.  The  angel  that  talked  is  designated 
 by  ''^iopQj  qiddam,  nescio  quis,  as  not  being  more  particularly  defin- 
 able. The  question  condenses  the  contents  of  vers.  10-12 :  "  Till 
 how  long  is  the  vision,  etc.?"  |iTnn  is  not  the  action,  but  the  con- 
 tents of  the  vision,  the  thing  seen.  The  contents  of  the  vision  are 
 arranged  in  the  form  of  appositions :  that  which  is  continual  and 
 the  desolating  wickedness,  for:  the  vision  of  that  which  is  continual 
 and  of  the  desolation.  The  meaning  of  this  apposition  is  more 
 particularly  defined  by  the  further  passage  following  asyndetos :  to 
 give  up  the  sanctuary  as  well  as  the  host  to  destruction.     DDb'  after 
 
 1  "  Succcssus  AntiocJii  potuit  pios  omnes  iurhare,  acsi  tyrannus  ille  esset  Deo 
 superior.  Ergo  oportuit  etiam  hoc  prxdici,  ne  quid  novum  vel  inopinatum  con- 
 tingeret  Jidelibus.^^ — Calvin. 
 
302  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  definite  noun  without  the  article,  wliich  is  sometimes  wanting 
 (Jer.  ii.  21 ;  Ezek.  xxxix.  27  ;  cf.  Ew.  §  293),  does  not  mean  being 
 benumbed,  confounded,  but  laid  waste,  fallen  into  ruin ;  thus  the 
 ■wickedness  which  consists  in  laying  waste.  D^*^  cannot  be  under- 
 stood transitively,  since  D?:?!^  and  D^'i^'9  are  placed  over  against  each 
 other  in  ch.  ix.  27. 
 
 In  the  answer,  IV  is  to  be  interpreted  as  in  the  question :  till 
 2300  eveninc'-raornings  have  been,  or  have  passed,  thus:  2300  even- 
 ing-mornings long,  so  (=then)  the  sanctuary  is  brought  into  its 
 rifdit  state.  Pl^  primarily  means  to  be  just,  whence  the  meaning 
 is  derived  to  justify,  which  is  not  here  suitable,  for  it  must  be 
 followed  by,  from  the  defilement  of  the  desolation.  The  restoration 
 of  the  temple  to  its  right  condition  is,  it  is  true,  at  the  same  time 
 a  justification  of  it  from  its  desolation,  and  it  includes  in  it  the 
 restoration  of  the  permanent  worship. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  the  period  of  time,  2300  evening-morn- 
 incs,  named  by  the  angel  is  beset  with  difficulty.     And  first  the 
 verbal  import  of  ip3  ^ny  is  doubtful.     Among  recent  interpreters. 
 Berth.,  HLiv.,  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  and  Hofm.  {Weiss,  u.  Erf.  p.  295) 
 understand  by  it  days  consisting  of  morning  and  evening  (twenty- 
 four  hours);  others,  as  Bleek,  Kirmss,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Wieseler  (who, 
 however,  in  his  treatise,  Die  70  Woclien,  u.s.w.,  p.  115  ff.,  defends 
 the  first  explanation),  Kran.,  and  Delitzsch,  are  of  opinion  that 
 evening- morning  is  particularly  reckoned  with  reference  to  the 
 offering  of  a  morning  and  an  evening  sacrifice  each  day,  so  that 
 2300  evening-mornings  make  only  1150  whole  days.     But  there  is 
 no  exegetical  foundation  for  this  latter  opinion.     It  is  derived  only 
 from  a  comparison,  or  rather  an  identification,  of  this  passage  with, 
 Dan.  vii.  25,  xii.  11  f.,  and  ix.  27  ;  and  therewith  it  is  proved  that, 
 according  to  1  Mace.  i.  54,  59,  cf.  iv.  52,  the  desolation  of  the 
 sanctuary  by  the  worship  of  idols  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 lasted  not  longer  than  three  years  and  ten  days,  and  that  froral 
 Dan.  xii.  11  it  extends  only  to  1290  days.     But  these  arguments! 
 rest  on  assertions  which  must  first  be  justified.      The  passages] 
 Dan.  vii.  25  and  ix.  27   cannot  be  here  taken  into  account,  be- 
 cause they  do  not  speak  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  the  1290| 
 days  (1335  days,  ch.  xii.  11  f.)  do  not  give  2300  evening-mornings,! 
 that  we  can  and  may  at  once  identify  these  statements  with  this! 
 before  us.     In  ch.  xii.  11  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  1290  days  is 
 unquestionably  the  putting  away  or  the  removal  of  the  I'pJ^  {^^ai^y\ 
 sacrifice)^  and  the  giving  (placing,  raising  up)  of  the  abominationj 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  ]-14.  303 
 
 that  maketh  desolate  {i.e.  the  altar  of  idol-worship) ;  but  in  this 
 verse  (ch.  viii.  14),  on  the  contrary,  the  continuance  not  only  of 
 the  taking  away  of  the  "'''?'?,  but  also  of  the  delivering  up  of  the 
 saints  and  the  people  to  be  trodden  under  foot,  is  fixed  to  2300 
 evening-mornings.  This  oppression  continued  longer  than  the 
 removal  of  the  appointed  daily  sacrifice.  According  to  1  Mace, 
 i.  10  ff.,  the  violent  assaults  of  Antiochus  against  the  temple  and 
 the  Jews  who  remained  faithful  to  the  law  began  in  the  143d  year 
 of  the  era  of  the  Seleucidas,  but  the  abomination  that  maketh 
 desolate,  i.e.  the  idol-altar,  was  first  erected  on  Jehovah's  altar  of 
 burnt-offering,  according  to  1  Mace.  i.  54,  in  the  145th  year  of  the 
 Seleucidse,  and  the  purification  of  the  temple  from  this  abomination, 
 and  its  re-consecration,  took  place  on  the  25th  day  of  Kisleu  (9th 
 month)  of  the  year  of  the  Seleucidge  148.  According  to  this,  from 
 the  beginning  of  the  desecration  of  the  temple  by  the  plundering 
 of  its  vessels  and  its  golden  ornaments  (1  Mace.  i.  20  ff.)  to  its 
 restoration  to  its  right  condition,  more  than  five  years  passed.  The 
 fulfilment,  or  the  historical  reference,  of  this  prophecy  accordingly 
 affords,  as  is  suflSciently  manifest,  no  proper  means  of  ascertaining 
 the  import  of  the  "  evening-morning."  This  must  rather  be  exe- 
 getically  decided.  It  occurs  only  here,  and  corresponds  to  vv-^Orj- 
 uepov,  2  Cor.  xi.  25.  But  the  choice  of  so  unusual  a  measure  of 
 time,  derived  from  the  two  chief  parts  of  the  day,  instead  of  the 
 simple  measure  of  time  by  days,  probably  originates  with  reference 
 to  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice,  by  which  the  day  was  to  be 
 consecrated  to  the  Lord,  after  Gen.  i.  5,  8,  13,  etc.,  where  the  days 
 of  the  creation  week  are  named  and  reckoned  according  to  the 
 succession  of  evening  and  morning.  This  separation  of  the  expres- 
 sion into  evening  and  morning,  so  that  to  number  them  separately 
 and  add  them  together  would  make  2300  evening-mornings  =  1150 
 days,  is  shown  to  be  inadmissible,  both  by  the  asyndeton  evening- 
 morning  and  the  usages  of  the  Hebrew  language.  That  in  ver. 
 26  "li^sni  ^"}.V!'7  (t^^e  evening  and  the  morning)  stands  for  it,  does  not 
 prove  that  the  evening  and  morning  are  reckoned  separately,  but 
 only  that  evening-morning  is  a  period  of  time  consisting  of  evening 
 and  morning.  When  the  Hebrews  wish  to  express  separately  day 
 and  night,  the  component  parts  of  a  day  of  a  week,  then  the  num- 
 ber of  both  is  expressed.  They  say,  e.g.,  forty  days  and  forty 
 nights  (Gen.  vii.  4,  12 ;  Ex.  xxiv.  18 ;  1  Kings  xix.  8),  and  three 
 days  and  three  nights  (Jonah  ii.  1 ;  ^latt.  xii.  40),  but  not  eighty 
 or  sis  days-and-nights,  when  they  wish  to  speak  of  forty  or  three 
 
304  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 full  days.  A  Hebrew  reader  could  not  possibly  understand  the 
 period  of  time  2300  evening-mornings  of  2300  half  days  or  1150 
 whole  days,  because  evening  and  morning  at  the  creation  consti- 
 tuted not  the  half  but  the  whole  day.  Still  less,  in  the  designation 
 of  time,  "till  2300  evening-mornings,"  could  "evening-mornings" 
 be  understood  of  the  evening  and  morning  sacrifices,  and  the  words 
 be  regarded  as  meaning,  that  till  1150  evening  sacrifices  and  1150 
 mornino;  sacrifices  are  discontinued.  We  must  therefore  take  the 
 words  as  they  are,  i.e.  understand  them  of  2300  whole  days. 
 
 This  exegetical  resolution  of  the  matter  is  not  made  doubtful 
 by  the  remark,  that  an  increasing  of  the  period  of  oppression  to 
 2300  days,  over  against  the  duration  of  the  oppression  limited  in 
 ch.  vii.  25  to  only  three  and  a  half  times,  or  to  1290  (or  1335 
 days,  ch.  xii.  11,  12),  is  very  unlikely,  since  there  is  in  no  respect 
 any  reason  for  this  increase  over  against  these  statements  (Kran. 
 p.  298).  This  remark  can  only  be  valid  as  proof  if,  on  the  one 
 side,  the  three  and  a  half  times  in  ch.  vii.  25  are  equal  to  three 
 and  a  half  civil  years,  for  which  the  proof  fails,  and,  on  the  other 
 side,  if  the  1290  or  the  1335  days  in  ch.  xii.  11  f.  indicate  the 
 whole  duration  of  the  oppression  of  Israel  by  Antiochus.  But  if 
 these  periods,  on  the  contrary,  refer  only  to  the  time  of  the  greatest 
 oppression,  the  erection  of  the  idol-altar  in  the  temple,  this  time 
 cannot  be  made  the  measure  for  the  duration  of  the  whole  period 
 of  tribulation. 
 
 The  objection  also,  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  prove  historically 
 an  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  for  2300  days  by  Antiochus 
 than  the  1150  days'  duration  of  this  oppression,  need  not  move  us 
 to  depart  from  the  exegetically  ascertained  meaning  of  the  words. 
 The  opponents  of  this  view  are  indeed  at  one  in  this,  that  the  con- 
 secration of  the  temple  after  its  purification,  and  after  the  altar  of 
 Jehovah  was  restored,  on  the  25th  Kisleu  of  the  148th  year  of  the 
 Seleucidae,  formed  the  termination  of  the  period  named,  but  they 
 are  at  variance  as  to  the  commencement  of  the  period.  Delitzsch 
 reckons  from  the  erection  of  the  idol-altar  in  the  temple  on  15th 
 Kisleu  in  the  145th  year  of  the  Sel..,  and  thus  makes  it  only  three 
 years  and  ten  days,  or  1090  to  1105  days.  Hitzig  reckons  from 
 the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice,  which  would  take  place 
 somewhat  earlier  than  the  setting  up  of  the  idol-altar,  but  has  not 
 furnished  proof  that  this  happened  two  months  earlier.  Bleek  and 
 Kirmss  reckon  from  the  taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Apollonius  in  the 
 year  of  the  Sel.  145  (1  Mace.  i.  30  ff.;  2  Mace.  v.  24  ff.),  misplacing 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  305 
 
 this  in  the  first  month  of  the  year  named,  but  without  having  any 
 other  proof  for  it  than  the  agreement  of  the  reckoning. 
 
 To  this  is  to  he  added,  that  the  adoption  of  the  consecration  of 
 the  temple  as  the  terminus  ad  quern  is  not  so  well  grounded  as 
 is  supposed.  The  words  of  the  text,  ^"ip  P^.^*?"!  ("  thus  is  the 
 sanctuary  placed  in  the  right  state"),  comprehend  more  than  the 
 purification  and  re-consecration  of  the  temple.  In  ver.  11,  also 
 ch.  ix.  17  and  xi.  31,  Daniel  uses  the  word  ^pp  for  temple,  while 
 on  the  other  hand  ^"i?  means  all  that  is  holy.  Was,  then,  the  sanc- 
 tuary, in  this  comprehensive  meaning  of  the  word,  placed  in  its 
 right  state  with  the  consecration  of  the  temple,  when  after  this 
 occurrence  "  they  that  were  in  the  tower  (Acra)  shut  up  the 
 Israelites  round  about  the  sanctuary,"  sought  to  hinder  access  to 
 the  temple,  and,  when  Judas  Maccabseus  had  begun  to  besiege  the 
 tower,  the  Syrians  approached  with  a  reinforced  army,  besieged 
 the  sanctuary  for  many  days,  and  on  their  departure  demolished 
 its  strongholds  (1  Mace.  vi.  18  ff.,  51,  62)  ? — when,  again,  under 
 Demetrius  Soter  of  Bacchides,  the  high  priest  Menelaus  was  de- 
 posed, and  Alcimus,  who  was  not  descended  from  the  family  of  a 
 high  priest,  was  advanced  to  his  place,  who  cruelly  persecuted  the 
 pious  in  Israel  ? — when  the  Syrian  general  Nicanor  mocked  the 
 priests  who  showed  to  him  the  burnt-offering  for  the  king,  and 
 defiled  and  threatened  to  burn  the  temple  (1  Mace,  vii.)  ?  And 
 did  the  trampling  upon  Israel  cease  with  the  consecration  of  the 
 temple,  when  at  the  building  up  of  the  altar  and  the  restoration 
 of  the  temple  the  heathen  around  became  so  furious,  that  they 
 resolved  to  destroy  all  who  were  of  the  race  of  Jacob  amongst 
 them,  and  began  to  murder  them  (1  Mace.  v.  1  ff.) "?  Havernick 
 therefore,  with  Bertholdt,  places  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  2300 
 days  in  the  victory  over  Nicanor,  by  which  the  power  of  the 
 Syrians  over  Judea  was  first  broken,  and  the  land  enjoyed  rest,  so 
 that  it  was  resolved  to  celebrate  annually  this  victory,  as  well  as 
 the  consecration  of  the  temple  (1  Mace.  vii.  48-50),  according  to 
 which  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  period  named  would  be  shortly 
 before  the  erection  of  the  abomination  of  idolatry  in  the  temple. 
 
 If  we  now,  however,  turn  from  this  supposition,  since  the  text 
 speaks  further  of  it,  to  seek  the  end  of  the  oppression  in  the 
 restoration  of  the  legal  temple-worship,  or  in  the  overthrow  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  which  the  angel  brings  to  view  in  the  inter- 
 pretation of  the  vision  (ver.  26),  so  also  in  these  cases  the  2300 
 days  are  to  be  calculated.     C.  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  and  Wiesel.,  who 
 
 U 
 
306  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 regard  the  deatli  of  Antiochus  as  the  termination,  place  the  begin- 
 ning of  the  2300  days  one  year  before  the  beginning  of  violence 
 with  which  Antiochus,  after  his  return  from  the  expedition  into 
 Egypt  in  the  year  143  Sel.,  went  forth  to  destroy  (1  Mace.  i.  20) 
 the  Mosaic  woi'sliip  and  law.  Only  a  few  weeks  or  months  earlier, 
 in  the  middle  of  the  year  142  Set.,  the  point  of  commencement 
 must  be  placed,  if  the  consecration  of  the  temple  is  held  to  be  the 
 termination.  In  the  year  142  not  only  was  the  pious  high  priest 
 Onias  removed  from  his  office  by  the  godless  Jason,  but  also  Jason 
 himself  was  forced  from  the  place  he  had  usurped  by  Menelaus, 
 who  gave  Antiochus  a  greater  bribe  than  he  did,  and  gave  away 
 as  presents  and  sold  to  the  heathen  the  golden  utensils  of  the 
 temple,  and  commanded  Onias,  who  denounced  his  wickedness,  to 
 be  deceitfully  murdered  (2  Mace.  ii.  4).  Hence  we  need  not,  with 
 Hofraann,  regard  the  deposition  of  Onias,  the  date  of  which  can- 
 not be  accurately  fixed,  but  which,  2  Mace.  iv.  7  ff.,  is  brought 
 into  connection  with  the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus, 
 and  which  probably  took  place  before  the  year  142,  as  the  date  of 
 the  commencement  of  the  2300  days,  although  the  laying  waste  of 
 the  sanctuary  may  be  dated  from  it ;  since  Jason  by  royal  autho- 
 rity set  up  a  heathen  <yvixvdaiov  with  an  e^T^/Qeioy,  and  by  the 
 wickedness  of  the  profane  and  uupriestly  conduct  of  this  man 
 Greek  customs  and  the  adoption  of  heathenish  manners  so  pre- 
 vailed, that  the  priests  ceased  to  concern  themselves  about  the 
 service  of  the  altar,  but,  despising  the  temple  and  forgetting  the 
 sacrifice,  they  hastened  to  witness  the  spectacles  in  the  palaestra, 
 which  were  contrary  to  the  law  ;  cf.  2  Mace.  iv.  13  ff.  with  1  Mace, 
 i.  11-15.  The  2300  days  are  thus,  as  well  as  the  1150  days,  his- 
 torically authenticated. 
 
 But  it  is  on  the  whole  questionable  whether  the  number  given 
 by  the  angel  is  to  be  reckoned  as  an  historico-chronological  period  of 
 time,  or  is  not  rather  to  be  interpreted  as  symbolical.  The  analogy 
 of  the  other  prophetic  numbers  speaks  decidedly  for  the  symbolical 
 interpretation.  The  2300  cannot,  it  is  true,  be  directly  a  sym- 
 bolical number,  such  as  7,  10,  40,  70,  and  other  numbers  are, 
 but  yet  it  can  stand  in  such  a  relation  to  the  number  seven  as  to 
 receive  a  symbolical  meaning.  The  longer  periods  of  time  are 
 usually  reckoned  not  by  days,  but  by  weeks,  months,  or  years  ;  if, 
 therefore,  as  to  the  question  of  the  duration  of  the  2300  days,  we 
 reduce  the  days  to  weeks,  months,  and  years,  we  shall  find  six 
 years,  three  or  four  months,  and  some  days,  and  discover  that  the 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  1-14.  307 
 
 oppression  of  the  people  by  the  h'ttle  horn  was  to  continue  not 
 f  ally  a  period  of  seven  years.  But  the  times  of  God's  visitations, 
 trials,  and  judgments  are  so  often  measured  by  the  number  seven, 
 that  this  number  came  to  bear  stamped  on  it  this  signification  ;  see 
 under  ch.  iv.  13,  vii.  25.  The  number  of  seven  years  is  used  in 
 the  symbolical  meaning  when,  not  to  mention  the  cases  in  Gen. 
 xxix.  18,  27,  xli.  26  f.,  and  Judg.  vi.  1,  seven  years'  famine  were 
 laid  upon  the  land  as  a  punishment  for  David's  sin  in  numbering 
 the  people  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  13),  and  when  in  Elisha's  time  Israel  was 
 visited  with  seven  years'  famine  (2  Kings  viii.  1).  Thus  the 
 answer  of  the  angel  has  this  meaning :  The  time  of  the  predicted 
 oppression  of  Israel,  and  of  the  desolation  of  the  sanctuary  by 
 Antiochus,  the  little  horn,  shall  not  reach  the  full  duration  of  a 
 period  of  divine  judgment,  shall  not  last  so  long  as  the  severe 
 oppression  of  Israel  by  the  Midianites,  Judg.  vi.  1,  or  as  the 
 famine  which  fell  upon  Israel  in  the  time  of  Elisha,  and  shall  not 
 reach  to  a  tenth  part  of  the  time  of  trial  and  of  sorrow  endured 
 by  the  exiles,  and  under  the  weight  of  which  Israel  then  mourned. 
 
 But  if  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  angel's  message,  why  does 
 not  the  divine  messenger  use  a  pure  symbolical  expression,  such 
 as  "  not  full  seven  times'?"  and  why  does  he  not  simply  say,  "  not 
 quite  seven  years'?"  As  to  the  first  of  these  questions,  we  answer 
 that  the  expression  *' times"  is  too  indefinite;  for  the  duration 
 of  this  period  of  sorrow  must  be  given  more  minutely.  As  to 
 the  second  question,  we  know  no  other  answer  that  can  be  given 
 than  this,  that,  on  the  one  side,  only  the  positive  determination  of 
 the  length  of  time,  measured  by  days,  can  afford  full  confidence 
 that  the  domination  and  the  tyranny  of  the  oppressor  shall  not 
 continue  one  day  longer  than  God  has  before  fixed  ;  but,  on  the 
 other  side,  by  the  measuring  of  this  period  by  a  number  defined 
 accordino;  to  thousands  and  hundreds,  both  the  lone;  duration  of 
 the  affliction  is  shown,  and  the  symbolical  character  of  the  period 
 named  is  indicated.  While  by  the  period  '' evening-morning " 
 every  ambiguity  of  the  expression,  and  every  uncertainty  thence 
 arisinfif  recrardins;  the  actual  lenMh  of  the  time  of  afiliction,  is  ex- 
 eluded,  yet  tlie  number  2300  shows  that  the  period  must  be  defined 
 in  round  numbers,  measuring  only  nearly  the  actual  time,  in  con- 
 formity with  all  genuine  prophecy,  which  never  passes  over  into 
 the  mantic  prediction  of  historico-chronological  data. 
 
 If  we  compare  with  this  the  designation  of  time  in  ch.  vii.  25, 
 instead  of  the  general  idea  there  expressed,  of  "  time,  times,  and 
 
308  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 half  a  time,"  which  is  not  to  be  computed  as  to  its  duration,  we 
 have  here  a  very  definite  space  of  time  mentioned.  This  difference 
 corresponds  to  the  contents  of  the  two  prophecies.  The  oppression 
 prophesied  of  in  this  chapter  would  visit  the  people  of  Israel  at 
 not  too  distant  a  time ;  and  its  commencement  as  well  as  its  termi- 
 nation, announced  by  God  beforehand,  was  fitted  to  strengthen 
 believers  in  the  faith  of  the  truth  and  fidelity  of  God  for  the  time 
 of  the  great  tribulation  of  the  end,  the  duration  of  which  God 
 the  Lord  indeed  determined  accurately  and  firmly  beforehand, 
 but  according  to  a  measure  of  time  whose  extent  men  cannot  cal- 
 culate in  advance.  In  this  respect  the  designation  of  the  time  of 
 the  affliction  which  the  horn  growing  up  out  of  the  third  world-king- 
 dom will  bring  upon  God's  people,  becomes  a  type  for  the  duration 
 of  the  oppression  of  the  last  enemy  of  the  church  of  the  Lord  at 
 the  end  of  the  days. 
 
 Vers.  15-27.  The  interpretation  of  the  vision. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  Daniel's  vision,  as  given  by  the  angel, 
 falls  within  the  vision  itself.  When  Daniel  sought  to  understand 
 the  vision,  viz.  in  his  mind,  not  by  prayer  or  by  asking  a  question, 
 he  saw  before  him,  according  to  ver.  17,  one  standing  at  some  dis- 
 tance, who  had  the  appearance  of  a  man,  but  was  not  a  man,  but 
 a  supernatural  being  in  human  likeness.  This  person  resembling 
 a  man  is  (ver.  16)  named  by  the  angel,  Gabriel,  i.e.  man  of  God. 
 The  voice  of  another,  whom  Daniel  did  not  see,  hearing  only  a 
 human  voice  proceeding  from  the  Ulai,  commanded  this  person  to 
 explain  the  vision  to  the  prophet  Q\'??,  i.e.  to  Daniel).  Nothing 
 further  is  indicated  of  the  person  from  whom  the  voice  proceeded 
 than  what  may  be  conjectured  from  v=ix  ]''3  {between  the  Ulai), 
 whence  the  voice  sounded.  These  words  do  not  mean  "  hither 
 from  Ulai"  (Bertholdt),  but  "  between  the  two  banks  of  the 
 Ulai"  (Chr.  B.  Mich.,  Hiiv.,  etc.)  ;  according  to  which,  the  being 
 whose  voice  Daniel  heard  appears  as  if  hovering  over  the  waters 
 of  the  river  Ulai.  This  conjecture  is  confirmed  by  ch.  xii.  6,  7, 
 where  Daniel  sees  a  man  hoverino;  over  the  waters  of  the  river  of 
 Ulai,  who  by  the  majesty  of  his  appearance  and  his  words  shows 
 himself  to  be  a  divine  being,  and  is  more  minutely  described 
 according  to  the  majesty  of  his  appearance  in  ch.  x.  5  ff.  The 
 question,  who  this  man  might  be,  is  first  answered  in  ch.  x.  5  ff. 
 Gabriel  is  not  a  nomen  proprium  but  appellativum.  The  angel 
 who  was  described  as  in  appearance  like  a  "i23  (jnan)  is  named,  for 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  15-27.  309 
 
 Daniel,  Gabriel  ("  man  of  God"),  that  on  subsequent  occasions 
 (e.g.  ch.  ix.  21)  he  might  recognise  him  again  as  the  same 
 (Hgst.,  Hofm.,  KHefoth).  As  to  his  relation  to  other  angels  and 
 archangels,  the  Scripture  gives  no  information.  If  Lengerke 
 and  Maurer  regard  him,  after  the  book  of  Enoch,  along  with 
 Michael,  and  Kaphael,  and  Uriel  whose  name  does  not  occur  in 
 Scripture,  as  one  of  the  four  angels  that  stand  before  the  throne  of 
 God,  the  Scripture  affords  no  support  for  it ;  nor  does  it  counte- 
 nance the  supposition  of  Hitzig,  that  the  two  angels  in  vers.  15 
 and  16  are  identical  with  those  in  vers.  13  and  14 — that  Gabriel 
 who  spake,  and  the  unknown  angel,  was  the  angel  of  the  "  rivers 
 and  fountains  of  waters,"  Rev.  xvi.  4.^ 
 
 Ver.  16.  As  commanded,  the  angel  goes  to  the  place  where 
 Daniel  stands.  On  his  approach  Daniel  is  so  filled  with  terror 
 that  he  falls  on  his  face,  because  as  a  sinful  and  mortal  man  he 
 could  not  bear  the  holiness  of  God  which  appeared  before  him  in 
 the  pure  heavenly  being.  At  the  appearance  of  God  he  fears  that 
 he  must  die.  Cf.  remarks  at  Gen.  xvi.  13  and  Ex.  xxxiii.  20.  But 
 the  angel,  in  order  to  mitigate  his  alarm,  calls  him  to  take  heed, 
 for  the  vision  relates  to  the  time  of  the  end.  The  address  (ver.  17), 
 "  son  of  man,"  stands  in  contrast  to  "  man  of  God"  (=:  Gabriel), 
 and  is  designed  to  remind  Daniel  of  his  human  weakness  (cf.  Ps. 
 viii.  5),  not  that  he  may  be  humbled  (Havernick),  without  any 
 
 1  Altogether  groundless,  also,  is  the  identification  of  them  with  the  Persian 
 Amschaspands,  since  neither  the  doctrine  of  angels  nor  the  names  of  angels  of 
 the  0.  T.  are  derived  from  Parsism.  The  most  recent  attempt  by  Dr.  Al.  Kohut, 
 in  his  researches  regarding  Jewish  angelology  and  demonology  in  their  de- 
 pendence on  Parsism  (Abhand.  fur  die  Kunde  des  Morgen.  iv.  Bd.,  Nr.  3),  to 
 establish  this  connection,  is  extremely  poor  and  superficial.  The  proof  adduced 
 in  the  first  ten  pages  of  his  treatise  is  confined  to  these  points :  that  in  the 
 writings  of  the  0.  T.  after  the  Exile  or  during  the  Exile  the  appearance  of  the 
 angels  is  altogether  different  from  that  presented  in  the  portions  written  before 
 the  Exile.  It  is  said  that,  as  a  rule,  the  angels  in  the  period  first  named  take 
 the  human  form,  and  bear  names  corresponding  to  their  properties — Michael, 
 Dan.  X.  13,  21,  xii.  1  ;  Gabriel,  viii.  16,  ix.  21 ;  and  in  the  book  of  Tobit,  xii. 
 15,  not  much  later  in  date  (?),  Raphael ; — now  also,  in  contrast  to  the  period  be- 
 fore the  Exile,  there  is  an  order  in  rank  among  the  angels  ;  Michael,  Dan.  x.  12, 
 is  designated  as  one  of  the  first  angel-princes,  and,  ch.  xii.  1,  as  the  greatest 
 angel-prince ;  moreover,  the  number  of  D''1K'  (angel-princes)  is  spoken  of  as 
 seven,  corresponding  to  the  Persian  Amesha-Qpentas  (Tob.  xii.  15,  and  Book  of 
 Enoch  xc.  21).  But  does  this  distinction  between  the  pre-exilian  and  post- 
 exilian  doctrine  of  angels,  even  though  it  were  allowed  to  be  as  great  as  Kohut 
 supposes,  furnish  a  proof  for  the  derivation  of  the  latter  from  Parsism  ?  or  does 
 this  derivation  follow  from  the  fact  that  the  Jews  in  exile  came  into  intercourse 
 
310  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 occasion  for  that,  but  to  inform  him  that,  notwithstandincj  this,  he 
 was  deemed  worthy  of  receiving  high  divine  revelations  (KHefoth). 
 The  foundation  of  the  summons  to  give  heed,  "  for  the  vision 
 relates  to  the  time  of  the  end,"  is  variously  interpreted.  Auberlen 
 (p.  87)  and  Ziindel  (p.  105  ff.)  understand  VP^nv  not  of  the  time 
 of  the  end  of  all  history,  but  of  a  nearer  relative  end  of  the  pro- 
 phecy. "  Time  of  the  end "  is  the  general  prophetic  expression 
 for  the  time  which,  as  the  period  of  fulfilment,  lies  at  the  end  of 
 the  existing  prophetic  horizon — in  the  present  case  the  time  of 
 Antiochus.  Bleek  [Jahrb.  f.  D.  Theol.  v.  p.  57)  remarks,  on  the 
 contrary,  that  if  the  seer  was  exhorted  to  special  attention 
 because  the  vision  related  to  the  time  of  the  end,  then  Ti?.  here,  as 
 in  ver.  19,  ch.  xi.  35,  40,  xii.  4,  also  ch.  ix.  26,  without  doubt  is  to 
 be  interpreted  of  the  end  of  the  time  of  trial  and  sorrow  of  the 
 people,  and  at  the  same  time  of  the  beginning  of  the  new  time  of 
 deliverance  vouchsafed  by  God  to  His  people ;  and  herein  lay  the 
 intimation,  "  that  the  beginning  of  the  deliverance  destined  by 
 God  for  Ilis  people  (i.e.  the  Messianic  time)  would  connect  itself 
 immediately  with  the  cessation  of  the  suppression  of  the  worship 
 of  Jehovah  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  with  the  destruction  of 
 that  ruler."  From  the  passages  referred  to,  ch.  xi.  40  and  xii.  4, 
 it  is  certainly  proved  that  Tirl'^V  denotes  the  tiriae  of  all  suffering, 
 and  the  completion  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  Messiah.    It  does 
 
 •with  the  Persians  and  the  Medes,  and  that  about  this  time  the  Zend  worship 
 flourished  ?  And  do  the  angels  in  the  post-exilian  writings  for  the  first  time 
 indeed  assume  the  human  form  ?  Kohut  seems  to  know  nothing  of  the  appear- 
 ance of  angels  in  Gen.  xix.  1  ff.,  Judg.  vi.  11  ff.,  xiii.  9  ff.  Then  does  the  agree- 
 ment, not  of  the  doctrine  of  the  O.  T.,  but  of  the  later  Jewish  apocryphal 
 writings,  Tobit  and  the  Book  of  Enoch,  with  regard  to  the  number  of  angel- 
 princes  and  of  the  Amesha-^pentas,  furnish  a  sufficient  proof  of  this  derivation  ? 
 Dr.  Kohut  does  not  himself  appear  to  think  so,  since  he  regards  it  as  necessary, 
 in  addition  to  this,  which  is  "  perhaps  purely  accidental,"  to  furnish  an  etymo- 
 logical argument.  Amesha-qpenta  means  "  non  comiivens  sancius=  the  holy  one 
 not  sleeping  ;"  "  thus,"  he  says,  "  it  is  a  mere  Chaldee  rendering  of  the  word 
 AmesJia-qpeiUa,  when  in  Dan.  iv.  10,  14,  20,  viii.  13,  the  Jewish  angel-princes 
 are  called  p:^"np  piiy  =  holy  watchers."  But  was,  then,  the  Chaldean  king 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  to  Avhom  in  a  dream  a  "  holy  Avatcher"  appeared,  a  Jew  ?  and 
 in  what  edition  of  the  Bible  has  Dr.  Kohut  found  in  Dan.  viii.  13  the  angel 
 name  T^y  ?  Nor  is  it  any  better  proof  that  the  demonology  of  the  0.  T.  is  a 
 foreign  production,  resulting  from  the  contact  of  the  Jews  with  the  Persians 
 and  Medes  during  the  Exile,  because  in  Zech.  iii.  1  f.,  Ps.  xlviii.  49,  1  Chron. 
 xxi.  1,  and  especially  in  Job  i.  6  f.,  ii.  1,  Satan  "  is  depicted  as  a  plague-spirit, 
 altogether  corresponding  to  the  Persian  Agromainjus,  the  killing  spirit."  Such 
 silly  talk  needs  no  refutation. 
 
CHAP.  Viri.  15-27.  fill 
 
 not,  however,  follow,  either  that  these  words  "  are  to  be  understood 
 of  the  absolute  end  of  all  things,  of  the  time  when  the  Messiah  will 
 come  to  set  up  His  regnum  glorice,  and  of  the  time  of  the  last  tribu- 
 lation going  before  this  coming  of  the  Lord"  (Klief.) ;  or  that  the 
 prophet  cherished  the  idea,  that  immediately  after  the  downfall  of 
 Antiochus,  thus  at  the  close  of  the  2300  days,  the  Messiah  would 
 appear,  bring  the  world  to  an  end,  and  erect  the  kingdom  of  eter- 
 nity (v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  Maur.,  etc.).  The  latter  conclusion  is  not, 
 it  is  true,  refuted  by  the  remark,  that  the  words  do  not  say  that 
 the  vision  has  the  time  of  the  end  directly  for  its  subject,  that  the 
 prophecy  will  find  its  fulfilment  in  the  time  of  the  end,  but  only  that 
 the  vision  has  a  relation,  a  reference,  to  the  time  of  the  end,  that 
 there  is  a  parallelism  between  the  time  of  Antiochus  and  the  time  of 
 Antichrist,  that  "  that  which  will  happen  to  Javan  and  Antiochus 
 shall  repeat  itself  in,  shall  be  a  type  of,  that  which  will  happen  in 
 the  time  of  the  end  with  the  last  world-kingdom  and  the  Antichrist 
 arising  out  of  it"  (Kliefoth).  For  this  idea  does  not  lie  in  the  words. 
 That  is  shown  by  the  parallel  passage,  ch.  x.  14,  which  Kliefoth 
 thus  understands — "  The  vision  extends  to  the  days  which  are 
 before  named  C^*!!}  JT'nnsi  {latter  days)  ;  it  goes  over  the  same 
 events  which  will  then  happen."  Accordingly  the  angel  can  also 
 here  (ch.  viii.  17)  only  say,  "  Give  heed,  for  the  vision  relates  to 
 the  end-time ;  it  gives  information  of  that  which  shall  happen  in 
 the  end  of  time." 
 
 Ver.  19.  The  justice  of  this  exposition  is  placed  beyond  a 
 doubt  by  this  verse.  Here  the  angel  says  in  distinct  words,  "I 
 will  show  thee  what  will  happen  Oy-TH  nnnszi  [in  the  last  time  of 
 the  indignation),  for  it  relates  to  the  appointed  time  of  the  end." 
 Kliefoth  indeed  thinks  that  what  the  angel,  ver.  19,  says  to  the 
 prophet  for  his  comfort  is  not  the  same  that  he  had  said  to  him  in 
 ver.  17,  and  which  cast  him  down,  and  that  ver.  19  does  not  con- 
 tain anything  so  weighty  and  so  overwhelming  as  ver.  17,  but 
 something  more  cheering  and  consoling ;  that  it  gives  to  the  vision 
 another  aspect,  which  relieves  Daniel  of  the  sorrow  which  it  had 
 brought  upon  him  on  account  of  its  import  with  reference  to  the 
 end.  From  this  view  of  the  contents  of  ver.  19  Kliefoth  concludes 
 that  Daniel,  after  he  had  recovered  from  his  terror  in  the  presence 
 of  the  heavenly  messenger,  and  had  turned  his  mind  to  the  contents 
 of  the  vision,  was  thrown  to  the  ground  by  the  thought  presented 
 to  him  by  the  angel,  that  the  vision  had  reference  to  the  end  of  all 
 things,  and  that,  in  order  to  raise  him  up,  the  angel  said  something 
 
312  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 else  to  him  more  conifortin£f  of  the  vision.  But  this  conclusion 
 has  no  foundation  in  the  text.  The  circumstance  that  Daniel  was 
 not  again  cast  to  the  ground  by  the  communication  of  the  angel 
 in  ver.  19,  is  not  to  be  accounted  for  by  supposing  that  the  angel 
 now  made  known  to  him  something  more  consoling ;  but  it  has  its 
 foundation  in  this,  that  the  angel  touched  the  prophet,  who  had 
 fallen  dismayed  to  the  earth,  and  placed  him  again  on  his  feet  (ver. 
 18),  and  by  means  of  this  touch  communicated  to  him  the  strength 
 to  hoar  his  words.  But  the  explanation  which  Kliefoth  gives  of 
 ver.  19  the  words  do  not  bear.  "The  last  end  of  the  indigna- 
 tion '*  must  denote  the  time  which  will  follow  after  the  expiration 
 of  the  Dl'T,  i.e.  the  period  of  anger  of  the  Babylonian  Exile.  But 
 n''"inx  means,  when  space  is  spoken  of,  that  which  is  farthest  (cf. 
 Ps.  cxxxix.  9),  and  when  time  is  spoken  of,  the  last,  the  end,  the 
 opposite  of  'T'^'K'!,  the  end  over  against  the  beginning.  If  Jl^i.ns* 
 D''pjn  does  not  denote  such  a  time  as  follows  an  otherwise  fixed 
 termination,  but  the  last  time,  the  end-time  (see  under  ch.  ii.  28), 
 so  also,  since  QVI  is  here  the  time  of  the  revelation  of  the  divine 
 wrath,  Di'in  JT'inx  can  only  denote  the  last  time,  or  the  end-time, 
 of  the  revelation  of  the  divine  wrath.  This  explanation  of  the 
 words,  the  only  one  which  the  terms  admit  of,  is  also  required  by 
 the  closing  words  of  ver.  19,  Ti?.  "^V)"?  ''?  {for  at  the  time  appointed 
 the  end).  According  to  the  example  of  the  Vulg.,  quoniam  habet 
 tempus  jinem  suum,  and  Luther's  version,  "  for  the  end  has  its 
 appointed  time,"  Kliefoth  translates  the  words,  "  for  the  firmly- 
 ordained,  definite  time  has  its  end,"  and  refers  this  to  the  time  of 
 the  Babylonish  Exile,  which  indeed,  as  Daniel  knew  (ch.  ix.  2), 
 was  fixed  by  God  to  seventy  years.  But  that  the  Babylonish  Exile 
 will  have  its  fixed  end,  will  come  to  an  end  with  the  seventy  years, 
 the  angel  needed  not  to  announce  to  the  prophet,  for  he  did  not 
 doubt  it,  and  the  putting  him  in  remembrance  of  that  fact  would 
 have  afforded  him  but  very  poor  consolation  regarding  the  time  of 
 the  future  wrath.  This  conception  of  the  words  depends  on  the 
 inaccurate  interpretation  of  the  words  Dyin  n"'")nx,  and  will  conse- 
 quently fall  to  the  ground  along  with  it.  If  ^Vi^^  {to  the  appoint- 
 ment) were  separated  from  )-*P,  and  were  to  be  taken  by  itself,  and 
 to  be  understood  of  the  time  of  the  DVr,  then  it  ought  to  have  the 
 article,  as  in  ch.  xi.  27,  35.  Without  the  article,  as  here,  it  must 
 be  connected  with  Y?,  and  then,  with  ptnn  supplied  as  the  subject 
 from  the  context  (ver.  17),  is  to  be  translated,  as  it  is  by  almost  all 
 modern  interpreters :  for  the  vision  relates  to  the  appointed  time  of 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  15-27.  313 
 
 the  end.  But  I'l^'W,  the  time  of  the  end,  and  Kir!  '^'^'^j  the  appointed 
 time  of  the  end,  is  not  the  absolute  end  of  all  things,  the  time  of 
 the  setting  up  of  the  regnum  gloricB,  and  the  time  of  the  tribulation 
 preceding  the  return  of  our  Lord;  but  the  time  of  the  judgment  of 
 the  world-kingdom  and  the  setting  up  of  the  everlasting  kingdom 
 of  God  by  the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,  the  end  of  alojv  ovto<; 
 and  the  commencement  of  the  alooi^  fieWcov,  the  time  of  the  IT'ins 
 D''0^n  (ch.  X.  14),  which  the  apostle  calls  (1  Cor.  x.  11)  ra  tc/Vt?  twi/ 
 aloivwv,  and  speaks  of  as  having  then  already  come. 
 
 Ver.  20.  Since,  from  the  explanation  given  by  the  angel  in  this 
 verse,  the  vision  relates  to  the  Medo-Persian  and  the  Javanic  world- 
 kingdoms,  and  to  the  persecuting  kingdom  of  Antiochus  which 
 arose  out  of  the  latter,  so  it  cannot  be  disputed  that  here,  in  pro- 
 phetic perspective,  the  time  of  the  end  is  seen  together  with  the 
 period  of  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  by  Antiochus,  and 
 the  first  appearance  of  the  ]\Iessiah  with  His  return  in  glory  to  the 
 final  judgment,  as  the  latter  is  the  case  also  in  ch.  ii.  34  f.,  44  f., 
 "and  vii.  13,  26  f.  If  Kliefoth  objects  :  The  coming  of  the  Messiah 
 may  certainly  be  conceived  of  as  bound  up  with  the  end  of  all 
 things,  and  this  is  done,  since  both  events  stand  in  intimate  causal 
 relation  to  each  other,  not  seldom  in  those  O.  T.  prophets  who  yet 
 do  not  distinguish  the  times  ;  but  they  also  know  well  that  this  inti- 
 mate causal  connection  does  not  include  contemporaneousness,  that 
 the  coming  of  the  Messiah  in  the  flesh  will  certainly  bring  about 
 the  end  of  all  things,  but  not  as  an  immediate  consequence,  but 
 after  a  somewhat  lengthened  intervening  space,  that  thus,  after  the 
 coming  of  the  Messiah,  a  course  of  historical  events  will  further 
 unfold  themselves  before  the  end  comes  (which  Daniel  also  knew, 
 as  ch.  ix.  shows),  and  where  the  supposition  is  this,  as  in  Daniel, 
 there  the  time  before  the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesh  cannot 
 be  called  the  time  of  the  end : — then  the  inference  drawn  in  these 
 last  passages  is  not  confirmed  by  the  contents  of  the  book  of 
 Daniel.  For  in  the  last  vision  (ch.  x.-xii.)  which  Daniel  saw, 
 not  only  the  time  of  oppression  of  Antiochus  and  that  of  the  last 
 enemy  are  contemplated  together  as  one,  but  also  the  whole  con- 
 tents of  this  one  vision  are,  ch.  x.  14,  transferred  to  the  "  end  of 
 the  days;"  for  the  divine  messenger  says  to  Daniel,  "I  am  come  to 
 make  thee  understand  what  shall  befall  thy  people  in  the  end  of 
 the  days,  for  the  vision  yet  relates  to  the  days."  And  not  only 
 this,  but  also  in  ch.  xi.  35  it  is  said  of  the  tribulation  brought 
 upon  the  people  of  God  by  Antiochus,  that  in  it  many  would  fall, 
 
s) 
 
 314  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 to  cleanse  them  and  to  purify  them  to  the  time  of  the  end,  for  it  is 
 yet  for  the  appointed  time.  Here,  beyond  doubt,  the  time  of  the 
 persecution  by  Antiochus  is  placed  in  intimate  union  with  the  time 
 of  the  end,  but,  as  is  to  be  particularly  observed,  not  so  that  the  two 
 are  spoken  of  as  synchronous.  This  point  is  of  importance  for  the 
 right  exposition  of  the  verse  before  us.  If,  in  ch.  xi.  35,  40,  it  is 
 twice  said  "'li'i'^?  I'i?  '^^i'  "■?  {the  end  is  yet  for  the  appointed  time),  and 
 thus  does  not  begin  with  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  by 
 Antiochus,  so  we  may  not  conclude  from  these  verses — and  in  this 
 Kliefoth  is  perfectly  justified — that  Daniel  expected  the  erection 
 of  the  Messianic  kingdom  and  the  end  of  all  history  with  the 
 overthrow  of  Antiochus.  If,  however,  on  the  whole,  the  intimate 
 causal  connection  of  the  two  periods  of  tribulation  placed  together 
 in  ch.  xi.  in  one  vision  neither  demands  nor  even  permits  us  to 
 regard  the  two  as  synchronous,  so  this  erroneous  conclusion  drawn 
 from  these  verses  before  us,  in  connection  with  an  incorrect  inter- 
 pretation of  ch.  xi.  36-45,  is  sufficiently  obviated,  both  by  ch.  ii. 
 and  vii.,  according  to  which  the  fourth  world-kingdom  shall  precede 
 the  erection  of  the  everlasting;  kino;dom  of  God  and  the  manifesta- 
 tion  of  the  Son  of  man,  as  also  by  ch.  ix.  24-27,  where — as  our 
 exposition  will  show — the  coming  of  the  Messiah  and  the  perfecting 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the  overthrow  of  the  last  enemy  are 
 dependent  on  one  another  in  point  of  time — the  coming  of  the 
 Messiah  after  seven  weeks,  the  perfecting  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 will  follow,  but  not  till  after  the  lapse  of  seventy  weeks. 
 
 This  passage  is  to  be  understood  according  to  these  distinct 
 revelations  and  statements,  and  not  that  because  in  them,  according 
 to  prophetic  perspective,  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  the  saints 
 by  Antiochus,  the  little  horn,  is  seen  in  one  vision  with  the  tribu- 
 lation of  the  end-time,  therefore  the  synchronism  or  identity  of  the 
 two  is  to  be  concluded,  and  the  erection  of  the  o'egnum  glorice  and 
 the  end  of  the  world  to  be  placed  at  the  destruction  of  this  little 
 horn.  The  words,  "  the  vision  relates  to  the  time  of  the  end,"  thus 
 only  declare  that  the  prophecy  has  a  reference  to  Messianic  times. 
 As  to  the  nature  of  this  reference,  the  angel  gives  some  intimation 
 when,  having  touched  the  prophet,  who  had  fallen  in  amazement 
 to  the  ground,  he  raised  him  up  and  enabled  him  to  listen  to  his 
 words  (ver.  18),  the  intimation  that  he  would  make  known  to  him 
 what  would  happen  in  the  last  time  of  violence  (ver.  19).  0V-]\}  is 
 the  xorath  of  God  against  Israel,  the  punishment  which  God 
 hung  over  them  on  account  of  their  sins,  as  in  Isa.  x.  5,  Jer.  xxv. 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  15-27,  31  5 
 
 11,  Ezek.  xxii.  24,  etc.,  and  here  the  sufferings  of  punishment 
 and  discipline  which  the  httle  horn  shall  bring  over  Israel.  The 
 time  of  this  reveL^tion  of  divine  wrath  is  called  ^''■|^^?  because  it 
 belongs  to  the  Q^'P'^)  ^''IlI^',  prepares  the  Messianic  future,  and  with 
 its  conclusion  begins  the  last  age  of  the  world,  of  which,  however, 
 nothing  more  particular  is  here  said,  for  the  prophecy  breaks  off 
 with  the  destruction  of  the  little  horn.  The  vision  of  the  eleventh 
 chapter  first  supplies  more  particular  disclosures  on  this  point.  In 
 that  chapter  the  great  enemy  of  the  saints  of  God,  arising  out  of 
 the  third  world-kingdom,  is  set  forth  and  represented  as  the  pre- 
 figuration  or  type  of  their  last  enemy  at  the  end  of  the  days. 
 Under  the  words  n\"i';  ir'wS  (xohich  shall  he)  the  angel  understands 
 all  that  the  vision  of  this  chapter  contains,  from  the  rising  up  of 
 the  Medo-Persian  world-kingdom  to  the  time  of  the  destruction  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  as  vers.  20-25  show.  But  when  he  adds 
 Dy;tri  nnnx^  he  immediately  makes  prominent  that  which  is  the 
 most  important  matter  in  the  whole  vision,  the  severe  oppression 
 which  awaits  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  future  for  their  purifica- 
 tion, and  repeats,  in  justification  of  that  which  is  said,  the  con- 
 clusion from  ver.  17,  in  which  he  only  exchanges  ny  for  lyio. 
 ny  denotes  time  in  the  sense  of  a  definite  point  of  time,  while  *^yi^ 
 is  the  definite  time  in  its  duration ;  fi?.  I^io  thus  denotes  the  end- 
 time  as  to  its  duration.  This  expression  is  here  chosen  with  regard 
 to  the  circumstance  that  in  ver.  14  the  end  of  the  oppression  was 
 accurately  defined  by  the  declaration  of  its  continuance.  The 
 object  of  these  words  also  is  variously  viewed  by  interpreters.  The 
 meaninrr  is  not  that  the  anajel  wished  to  console  Daniel  with  the 
 thought  that  the  judgment  of  the  vision  was  not  yet  so  near  at 
 hand  (Ziindel)  ;  for,  according  to  ver.  17,  Daniel  was  not  terrified 
 by  the  contents  of  the  vision,  but  by  the  approach  of  the  heavenly 
 being ;  and  if,  according  to  ver.  18,  the  words  of  the  angel  so 
 increased  his  terror  that  he  fell  down  confounded  to  the  earth,  and 
 the  angel  had  to  raise  him  by  touching  him,  yet  it  is  not  at  the 
 same  time  said  that  the  words  of  the  angel  of  the  end-time  had  so 
 confounded  him,  and  that  the  subsequent  fuller  explanation  was 
 somewhat  less  overwhelming  than  the  words,  ver.  17,  something 
 lighter  or  more  comforting.  Even  though  the  statement  about 
 the  time  of  the  end  contributed  to  the  increase  of  the  terror,  yet  the 
 contents  of  ver.  19  were  notfiitted  to  raise  up  the  prophet,  but  the 
 whole  discourse  of  the  angel  was  for  Daniel  so  oppressive  that, 
 after  hearing  it,  he  was  for  some  days  sick,  ver.  27.     From  Daniel's 
 
31 G  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 astonishment  we  are  not  to  conclude  that  the  angel  in  ver.  17 
 spoke  of  the  absolute  end  of  all  things,  and  in  ver.  19,  on  the 
 contrary,  of  the  end  of  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  Israel  by 
 Antiochus.  By  the  words,  "  the  vision  relates  to  the  appointed 
 end-time,"  the  angel  wished  only  to  point  to  the  importance  of  his 
 announcement,  and  to  add  emphasis  to  his  call  to  the  prophet  to 
 give  heed. 
 
 Vers.  22-26.  After  the  introductory  xoords,  xoe  have  noio  in  these 
 verses  the  explanation  of  the  chief  points  of  the  vision. 
 
 Vers.  20-22  explain  vers.  3-8.  "  The  kings  of  Media  and 
 Persia  "  are  the  whole  number  of  the  Medo-Persian  kings  as  they 
 succeed  each  other,  i.e.  the  Medo-Persian  monarchy  in  the  whole 
 of  its  historical  development.  To  "i''2^*lI  the  epithet  "iWi^,  hairy, 
 shaggy,  is  added  to  characterize  the  animal  as  an  he-goat.  The  king 
 of  Javan  (Greece)  is  the  founder  and  representative  of  the  Macedo- 
 Grecian  world-kingdom,  or  rather  the  royalty  of  this  kingdom, 
 since  the  great  horn  of  the  ram  is  forthwith  interpreted  of  Alexander 
 the  Great,  the  first  kinfj  of  this  kin2;dom.  The  words  ma'J'ini  to 
 n''nnri  (ver.  22)  form  an  absolute  subject-sentence,  in  which,  how- 
 ever, npbyni  is  not  to  be  taken  eK^art/cco?,  it  broke  in  pieces,  so  that 
 .  .  .  (Kran.)  ;  for  "  the  statement  of  the  principal  passage  may  not 
 appear  here  in  the  subordinate  relative  passage  "  (Hitzig)  ;  but  to 
 the  statement  beginning  with  the  participle  the  further  definition  in 
 the  verb.  fin.  with  1  consec.  is  added,  without  the  relative  "it^'X,  as  is 
 frequently  the  case  (cf.  Ewald's  Lehr.  §  351),  which  we  cannot  give 
 with  so  much  brevity,  but  must  express  thus  :  "  as  concerning  the 
 horn,  that  it  was  broken  in  pieces,  and  then  four  stood  up  in  its  place, 
 (this  signifies)  that  four  kingdoms  shall  arise  from  the  people." 
 ^iao  without  the  article  does  not  signify  from  the  people  of  Javan, 
 for  in  this  case  the  article  would  not  have  been  omitted ;  nor  does 
 it  signify  from  the  heathen  world,  because  a  direct  contrast  to 
 Israel  does  not  lie  before  us ;  but  indefinitely,  from  the  territory  of 
 the  people,  or  the  world  of  the  people,  since  the  prophecy  conceives 
 of  the  whole  world  of  the  people  (Volkerwelt)  as  united  under 
 the  sceptre  of  the  king  of  Javan.  i^Jlt^V!  is  a  revived  archaism ; 
 cf.  Gen.  XXX.  38,  1  Sam.  vi.  12  ;  Ewald,  §  191 ;  Gesen.  Gramm. 
 §  47.— ini33  NPI,  but  not  in  his  power,  not  armed  with  the  strength 
 of  the  first  king,  cf.  ch.  xi.  4. 
 
 Vers.  23-26  give  the  interpretation  of  the  vision  of  the  little 
 horn  (vers.  9-12),  with  a  more  special  definition  of  certain  elements 
 not  made  prominent  in  the  vision.     The  horn  signifies  a  king  who 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  15-27.  317 
 
 will  arise  "  in  the  last  time  of  their  kingdom."  The  suffix  to  cnia^O 
 {of  their  Hngdom)  relates  to  the  idea  contained  in  Hiopo  (Idngs). 
 D''j?C'sn  Dnn3^  when  the  transgressors  have  made  full,  scil.  the  trans- 
 gression or  measure  of  the  sins.  The  object  wanting  to  onn  is  seen 
 from  the  conception  of  the  subject.  D"'i'^'2n,  the  rebellious,  are  not 
 the  heathen,  for  T^'S  denotes  the  apostasy  from  God  which  is  only  said 
 of  the  Israelites,  but  not  of  the  heathen  ;  and  the  word  points  back 
 to  y?;'23  in  ver.  12.  The  king  that  rises  up  is  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 (cf.  1  Mace.  i.  10  ff.)  2^3Si-Ty,  hard  of  countenance,  i.e.  impudent, 
 unashamed  in  trampling  down,  without  fear  of  God  or  man ;  cf. 
 Deut.  xxviii.  50.  niT'n  p2p,  understanding  mysteries ;  here  sensu 
 mala,  concealing  his  purpose  behind  ambiguous  words,  using  dissimu- 
 lation, forming  an  artifice,  interpreted  in  ver.  25  by  n»"iO,  cf.  ch.  xi. 
 21.  The  unfolding  of  these  qualities  is  presented  in  vers.  24,  25  ; 
 in  ver.  24  of  the  D^J3"Ty.  By  virtue  of  the  audacity  of  his  conduct 
 his  power  will  be  strengthened,  inbn  N7"),  hut  not  by  his  own  might. 
 The  contrast  here  is  not :  by  the  power  or  permission  of  God  (Ephr., 
 Theodrt.,  Hav,,  Hitz.,  Kran.),  reference  being  made  to  insn  (was 
 given)  in  ver.  12,  and  to  nri  (to  give)  in  ver.  13.  This  contrast  is 
 foreio-n  to  the  passage.  The  context  much  rather  relates  to  the 
 audacity  and  the  cunning  by  which,  more  than  by  his  power, 
 Antiochus  raised  himself  to  might.  The  strengthening  of  the 
 power  is  limited  neither  to  his  I'eaching  the  throne  by  the  over- 
 throw of  other  pretenders  to  it  (Berth,  and  others),  nor  to  the 
 conquest  of  Palestine,  but  relates  to  the  power  which,  according 
 to  the  following  statements,  he  developed  as  king  against  Israel,  as 
 well  as  against  other  kingdoms.  niX7S3  (wonderful  works)  is  used 
 adverbially,  as  in  Job  xxxvii.  5 :  in  an  astonishing,  loonderful  way, 
 he  will  work  destruction.  But  from  this  word  it  does  not  follow  that 
 the  expression  inbn  vb\  is  to  be  referred  to  the  power  of  God,  for  it 
 does  not  necessarily  mean  deeds  or  things  supernaturally  originating 
 from  God ;  and  even  though  it  had  only  this  meaning,  yet  here  they 
 could  not  be  thought  of  as  deeds  accomplished  in  God's  strength, 
 but  only  as  deeds  performed  by  demoniacal  strength,  because  rT'nK'^ 
 (shall  destroy)  cannot  be  predicated  of  God  in  the  sense  determined 
 by  the  context.  This  destructive  work  he  shall  direct  against  the 
 mighty  and  against  the  people  of  the  saints.  D^Oi^'y  does  not  here 
 signify  many,  numerous,  many  individual  Israelites  (v.  Leng., 
 Maur.,  Kliefoth),  partly  because  in  ver.  25  D''2"i  stands  for  that, 
 partly  because  of  the  D^np  Dy,  by  which  we  are  to  understand  the 
 people  of  Israel,  not  merely  the  insignificant  and  weak,  or  pious 
 
318  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 (Kran.).  Hence  ^''^I^V  cannot  mean  the  elders  of  Israel,  much  less 
 merely  foreign  kings  (Berth.,  Dereser),  but  the  mighty  generally, 
 under  which  perhaps  we  are  specially  to  think  of  heathen  rulers. 
 
 In  ver.  25  the  cunning  and  craftiness  of  his  action  and  de- 
 meanour are  depicted,  v^'l^  bv  (through  his  craft)  is  placed  first. 
 ?^'^,  sagaciti/,  here  sensit  malo,  cunning.  On  the  ground  of  this 
 cunning  his  deceit  will  be  successful,  noin  without  the  article 
 means  "  all  kinds  of  deceit  which  he  designs"  (Hitzig).  On  that 
 account  his  heart  is  raised  in  haughtiness,  so  that  not  only  does 
 he  destroy  many  unexpectedly,  but  also  raises  himself  against  God. 
 In  the  D^^l  (inany)  are  comprehended  "  the  mighty  and  the  holy 
 people "  (ver.  24).  nipc'ii  does  not  mean  in  deep  peace,  but  in 
 careless  security,  and  thus  unexpectedly.  An  historical  proof  of 
 this  is  found  in  1  Mace.  i.  10.  Q''"!^  "ity  {Prince  of  princes)  corre- 
 sponds with  2''p^?i^  V."^>?  (Lord  of  lords)  in  Ps.  cxxxvi.  3.  It  is 
 God;  cf.  ver.  11.  But  the  angel  adds,  "  he  shall  be  destroyed 
 without  hands,"  i.e.  he  shall  be  destroyed  not  by  the  hand  of  man, 
 but  by  God. 
 
 In  ver.  26  there  follows,  in  conclusion,  the  confirmation  of  the 
 truth  of  what  is  said  of  the  duration  of  this  oppression  for  the 
 people  of  God.  Because  the  time  of  it  was  not  seen  by  Daniel, 
 but  was  revealed  to  him  in  words,  "i^^'5  "''^'^:  ^^  ^^^'^  ^^^^  "^  refer- 
 ence to  that  which  was,  or  of  which  it  was,  said.  But  we  need  not 
 connect  this  relative  sentence  with  the  genitive  ipSOl  ^"?.V'7  {^^^^ 
 evening  and  the  morning),  although  this  were  admissible,  but  can 
 make  it  depend  on  nxno  (vision),  since  the  word-revelation  of  the 
 evenings  and  mornings  forms  an  integral  part  of  the  "  vision." 
 "ipani  anyn  are  to  be  taken  collectively.  The  confirmation  of  the 
 truth  of  this  revelation  does  not  betray  the  purpose  to  make  the 
 book  falsely  appear  as  if  it  were  old  (v.  Leng.,  Hitzig)  ;  it  much 
 more  is  fitted  to  serve  the  purpose  of  strengthening  the  weakness 
 of  the  faithful,  and  giving  them  consolation  in  the  hour  of  trial. 
 For  in  the  statement  of  the  duration  of  the  afflictions  lies  not  only 
 the  fact  that  they  will  come  to  an  end,  but  at  the  same  time  also 
 that  this  end  is  determined  beforehand  by  God  ;  cf.  ch.  xii.  7.  In 
 other  places  this  confirmation  serves  only  to  meet  doubts,  arising 
 from  the  weakness  of  the  flesh,  as  to  the  realization  of  revelations 
 of  such  weighty  import;  cf.  ch.  x.  1,  xii.  1,  Rev.  xix.  9,  xxi.  5, 
 xxii.  6. 
 
 But  Daniel  must  close  the  prophecy,  because  it  extends  into  a 
 long  time.     DHD  is  not  equivalent  to  cnn,  to  seal  up,  but  it  means 
 
CHAP.  VIII.  15-27.  319 
 
 to  stop,  to  conclude,  to  hide  (cf.  2  Kings  iii.  19,  Ezek.  xxviii.  3), 
 but  not  in  the  sense  of  keeping  secret,  or  because  it  would  be  in- 
 comprehensible for  the  nearest  times  ;  for  to  seal  or  to  shut  up  has 
 nothing  in  common  with  incomprehensibility,  but  is  used  in  the 
 sense  of  keeping.  "  A  document  is  sealed  up  in  the  original  text, 
 and  laid  up  in  archives  (shut  up),  that  it  may  remain  preserved 
 for  remote  times,  but  not  that  it  may  remain  secret,  while  copies 
 of  it  remain  in  public  use "  (Kliefoth).  The  meaning  of  the 
 command,  then,  is  simply  this:  "Preserve  the  revelation,  not  be- 
 cause it  is  not  yet  to  be  understood,  also  not  for  the  purpose  of 
 keeping  it  secret,  but  that  it  may  remain  preserved  for  distant 
 times"  (Kliefoth),  The  reason  assigned  for  the  command  only 
 agrees  with  this  interpretation.  Q''3"!  cpv  (to  many  days)  is  not 
 to  be  identified  with  ]'p."^^?  in  ver.  17,  but  designates  only  a  long 
 time;  and  this  indefinite  expression  is  here  used  because  it  was  not 
 intended  to  give  exactly  again  the  termination  according  to  vers. 
 17  and  19,  but  only  to  say  that  the  time  of  the  end  was  not  near. 
 
 In  ver.  27  the  influence  of  this  vision  on  Daniel  is  mentioned 
 (cf.  ch.  vii.  28).  It  so  deeply  agitated  the  prophet  that  he  was 
 sick  certain  days,  and  not  till  after  he  had  recovered  from  this 
 sickness  could  he  attend  to  the  king's  business.  The  contents  of 
 the  vision  remained  fixed  in  his  mind ;  the  scene  filled  him  with 
 amazement,  and  no  one  understood  it.  Maurer,  Hitzig,  and 
 Kranichfeld  interpret  P^p  P^?  /  understood  it  not,  supplying  the 
 pronoun  of  the  first  person  from  the  connection.  But  even 
 though  the  construction  of  the  words  should  admit  of  this  supple- 
 ment, for  which  a  valid  proof  is  not  adduced,  yet  it  would  be  here 
 unsuitable,  and  is  derived  merely  from  giving  to  DriD  (ver.  26)  the 
 false  interpretation  of  to  conceal.  If  Daniel  had  been  required  to 
 keep  the  prophecy  secret  according  to  the  command  in  ver.  26, 
 then  the  remark  "  no  one  understood  it "  would  have  been  alto- 
 gether superfluous.  But  if  he  was  required  only  to  preserve  the 
 prophecy,  and  it  deeply  moved  him,  then  those  around  him  must 
 have  had  knowledge  of  it,  and  the  amazement  of  Daniel  would 
 become  the  greater  when  not  only  he  but  all  others  failed  to 
 understand  it.  To  refer  p^O  px  only  to  Daniel  is  forbidden  by  the 
 comparison  with  P3S  vh\  in  ch.  xii.  8.  The  fulfilment  of  this 
 vision  can  alone  lead  to  its  full  understanding. 
 
320  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 CHAP.  IX.   THE  SEVENTY  WEEKS. 
 
 In  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Median,  Daniel,  by  a  dihVent 
 study  of  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  as  to  the  number  of  years 
 during  which  Jerusalem  must  lie  desolate  (vers.  1,  2),  was  led  to 
 pour  forth  a  penitential  prayer,  in  which  he  acknowledges  the 
 justice  of  the  divine  chastisement  which  hung  over  Israel  on 
 account  of  their  sins,  and  entreats  the  mercy  of  God  in  behalf  of 
 his  people  (vers.  3-19).  In  consequence  of  this  prayer,  the  angel 
 Gabriel  (vers.  20-23)  appeared,  and  announced  to  him  that  seventy 
 weeks  (vers.  24-27)  must  pass  over  his  people  and  the  holy  city 
 before  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 
 Vers.  1  and  2  mention  the  occasion  on  which  the  penitential 
 prayer  (vers.  3-19)  was  offered,  and  the  divine  revelation  following 
 thereupon  regarding  the  time  and  the  course  of  the  oppression  of 
 the  people  of  God  by  the  world-power  till  the  completion  of  God's 
 plan  of  salvation. 
 
 Regarding  Darius,  the  son  of  Ahasverosch,  of  the  race  of  the 
 Medes,  see  under  ch.  vi.  1.  In  the  word  ^F'pn  the  Hophal  is  to  be 
 noticed :  o^ex  constitutus,  /actus  est.  It  shows  that  Darius  did  not 
 become  king  over  the  Chaldean  kingdom  by  virtue  of  a  hereditary 
 right  to  it,  nor  that  he  gained  the  kingdom  by  means  of  conquest, 
 but  that  he  received  it  (?3i?,  ch.  vi.  1)  from  the  conqueror  of  Baby- 
 lon, Cyrus,  the  general  of  the  army.  The  first  year  of  the  reign  of 
 Darius  the  Mede  over  the  Chaldean  kingdom  is  the  year  538  B.C., 
 since  Babylon  was  taken  by  the  Medes  and  Persians  under  Cyrus 
 in  the  year  539-538  B.C.  According  to  Ptolemy,  Cyrus  the  Per- 
 sian reigned  nine  years  after  Nabonadius.  But  the  death  of  Cyrus, 
 as  is  acknowledged,  occurred  in  the  year  529  B.C.  From  the  nine 
 years  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  according  to  our  exposition  (p.  198), 
 two  years  are  to  be  deducted  for  Darius  the  Mede,  so  that  the 
 reign  of  Cyrus  by  himself  over  the  kingdom  which  he  founded 
 begins  in  the  year  536,  in  which  year  the  seventy  years  of  the 
 Babylonish  exile  of  the  Jews  were  completed ;  cf .  the  exposition 
 under  ch.  i.  1  (p.  66  ff.)  with  the  chronological  survey  in  the  Cora, 
 on  the  Books  of  the  Kings  (p.  140  ff.). 
 
 The  statement  as  to  the  time,  ver.  1,  is  again  repeated  in  the 
 beginning  of  ver.  2,  on  account  of  the  relative  sentence  coming 
 between,  so  as  to  connect  that  which  follows  with  it.  We  translate 
 (in  ver.  2),  with  Ilgstb.,  ]\Iaur.,  Hitzig,  "  I  marked,  or  gave  heed, 
 in  the  Scriptures  to  the  number  of  the  years,"  so  that  i2pD  (imm- 
 
CHAP.  IX.  1,  2,  321 
 
 lev)  forms  the  object  to  "T}':"'^  (I  understood)',  cf.  Prov.  vii.  7. 
 Neither  the  placing  of  Q''1?B3  (%  books)  first  nor  the  Atnach  under 
 this  word  controvert  this  view ;  for  the  object  is  placed  after  "  by 
 books"  because  a  further  definition  is  annexed  to  it;  and  the  separa- 
 tion of  the  object  from  the  verb  by  the  Atnach  is  justified  by  this 
 consideration,  that  the  passage  contains  two  statements,  viz.  that 
 Daniel  studied  the  Scriptures,  and  that  his  study  was  directed  to 
 the  number  of  the  years,  etc.  CinDD3,  with  the  definite  article, 
 does  not  denote  a  collection  of  known  sacred  writings  in  which 
 the  writings  of  Jeremiah  were  included,  so  that,  seeing  the  collec- 
 tion of  the  prophets  cannot  be  thought  of  without  the  Pentateuch, 
 by  this  word  we  are  to  understand  (with  Bleek,  Gesenius,  v.  Leng., 
 Hitzicr)  the  reco£i;nised  collection  of  the  O.  T.  writings,  the  Law 
 and  the  Prophets.  For  ^''"iSQn,  ra  ^i/BXtd,  is  not  synonymous  with 
 D''3in3nj  ai  <^/pa(f)ai,  but  denotes  only  writings  in  the  plural,  but  does 
 not  say  that  these  writings  formed  already  a  recognised  collection ; 
 so  that  from  this  expression  nothing  can  be  concluded  regarding  the 
 formation  of  the  O.  T.  canon.  As  little  can  Onacpa  refer,  with  Hiiv. 
 and  Kran.,  to  the  letter  of  Jeremiah  to  the  exiles  (Jer.  xxix.),  for 
 this  reason,  that  not  in  Jer.  xxix.,  but  in  Jer.  xxv.  11  f.,  the  seventy 
 j-ears  of  the  desolation  of  the  land  of  Judah,  and  impKc.  of  Jeru- 
 salem, are  mentioned.  The  plur.  D''13D  also  can  be  understood  of  a 
 single  letter,  only  if  the  context  demands  or  makes  appropriate  this 
 narrower  application  of  the  word,  as  e.g.  2  Kings  xix.  14.  But 
 here  this  is  not  the  case,  since  Jeremiah  in  two  separate  prophecies 
 speaks  of  the  seventy  years,  and  not  in  the  letter  of  ch.  xxix.,  but 
 only  in  ch.  xxv.,  has  he  spoken  of  the  seventy  years'  desolation  of 
 the  land.  In  D'lSE?  lies  nothing  further  than  that  writings  existed, 
 among  which  were  to  be  found  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiah ;  and 
 the  article,  tJie  writings,  is  used,  because  in  the  following  passage 
 something  definite  is  said  of  these  writings. 
 
 In  these  writings  Daniel  considered  the  number  of  the  years  of 
 which  Jeremiah  had  prophesied.  "I'^N*,  as  ch.  viii.  26,  with  respect 
 to  which,  relates  not  to  D"'?f'n,  but  to  C'^^n  ""SpD  (number  of  the 
 years).  It  is  no  objection  against  this  that  the  repetition  of  the 
 words  "seventy  years"  stands  opposed  to  this  connection  (Klief.), 
 for  this  repetition  does  not  exist,  since  "i??'?  does  not  declare  the 
 number  of  the  years.  With  nspop  (to  fulfil)  the  contents  of  the 
 word  of  Jehovah,  as  given  by  Jeremiah,  are  introduced.  J^^^^^: 
 does  not  stand  for  the  accusative :  to  cause  to  be  complete  the 
 desolation  of  Jerusalem  (Hitzig),  but  ^  signifies  in  respect  of,  with 
 
 X 
 
322  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 regard  to.  This  expression  does  not  lean  on  Jer.  xxix.  10  (Kran.\ 
 but  on  Jer.  xxv.  12  ("when  seventy  years  are  accomplished"). 
 ni3"in,  properly,  desolated  places,  ruins,  here  a  desolated  condition. 
 Jerusalem  did  not  certainly  lie  in  ruins  for  seventy  years ;  the 
 word  is  not  thus  to  be  interpreted,  but  is  chosen  partly  with  regard 
 to  the  existing  state  of  Jerusalem,  and  partly  with  reference  to  the 
 words  of  Jer.  xxv.  9,  11.  Yet  the  desolation  began  with  the  first 
 taking  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  deportation  of  Daniel  and  his  com- 
 panions and  a  part  of  the  sacred  vessels  of  the  temple,  in  the  fourth 
 year  of  Jehoiakim^  (606  B.C.). 
 
 Consequently,  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  Darius  the  Mede 
 over  the  kingdom  of  the  Chaldeans  the  seventy  years  prophesied 
 of  by  Jeremiah  were  now  full,  the  period  of  the  desolation  of  Jeru- 
 salem determined  by  God  was  almost  expired.  What  was  it  that 
 moved  Daniel  at  this  time  to  pour  forth  a  penitential  prayer  in 
 behalf  of  Jerusalem  and  the  desolated  sanctuary?  Did  he  doubt 
 the  truth  of  the  promise,  that  God,  after  seventy  years  of  exile 
 in  Babylon,  would  visit  His  people  and  fulfil  the  good  word 
 He  had  spoken,  that  He  would  again  bring  back  His  people  to 
 Judea  (Jer.  xxix.  10)?  Certainly  not,  since  neither  the  matter  of 
 his  prayer,  nor  the  divine  revelation  which  was  vouchsafed  to  him 
 in  answer  to  his  prayer,  indicated  any  doubt  on  his  part  regarding 
 the  divine  promise. 
 
 According  to  the  opinion  of  Bleek  and  Ewald,  it  was  Daniel's 
 uncertainty  regarding  the  termination  of  the  seventy  years  which 
 moved  him  to  prayer.  Bleek  {Jahrhh.  f.  D.  Theol.  v.  p.  71)  thus 
 expresses  himself  on  the  subject :  "  This  prophecy  of  Jeremiah 
 might  be  regarded  as  fulfilled  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Babylonian 
 kingdom  and  the  termination  of  the  Exile,  when  the  Jews  obtained 
 from  Cyrus  permission  to  return  to  their  native  land  and  to  rebuild 
 their  city  and  temple,  but  yet  not  perfectly,  so  far  as  with  the  hope 
 of  the  return  of  the  people  from  exile  there  was  united  the  ex- 
 
 ^  Thus  also  the  seventy  years  of  the  Exile  are  reckoned  in  2  Chron.  xxxvi. 
 21-23,  Ezra  i.  1  flf.  This  Ewald  also  recognises  {Proph.  iii.  p.  430),  but  thinks 
 that  it  is  not  an  exact  reckoning  of  the  times,  but  rather,  according  to  Zech. 
 i.  12  and  Dan.  ix.  25,  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  forms  the  date  of  the 
 commencement  of  the  desolation  and  of  the  seventy  years.  But  Dan.  ix.  25 
 contains  no  expression,  or  even  intimation,  regarding  the  commencement  of  the 
 Exile  ;  and  in  the  words  of  Zech.  i.  12,  "against  -which  Thou  hast  had  indigna- 
 tion these  threescore  and  ten  years,"  there  does  not  lie  the  idea  that  the 
 seventy  years  prophesied  of  by  Jeremiah  came  to  an  end  in  the  second  year  of 
 Darius  liystaspes.     See  imder  this  passage. 
 
CHAP.  IX.  1,  2.  323 
 
 pectation  that  they  would  then  turn  in  truth  to  their  God,  and 
 that  Jehovah  would  fulfil  all  His  good  promises  to  them  to  make 
 them  partakers  of  the  Messianic  redemption  (cf .  Jer.  xxix.  10  ff., 
 also  other  prophecies  of  Jeremiah  and  of  other  prophets  regarding 
 the  return  of  the  people  from  exile,  such  as  Isa.  xl.  ff.) ;  but  this 
 result  was  not  connected  in  such  extent  and  fulness  with  the  return 
 of  the  people  and  the  restoration  of  the  state."  On  the  supposition 
 of  the  absolute  inspiration  of  the  prophets,  it  appeared  therefore 
 appropriate  "  to  regard  Jeremiah's  prophecy  of  the  seventy  years, 
 after  the  expiry  of  which  God  will  fulfil  His  good  promises  to  His 
 people,  as  stretching  out  into  a  later  period  beyond  that  to  which 
 the  seventy  years  would  extend,  and  on  that  account  to  inquire 
 how  it  was  to  be  properly  interpreted."  Ewald  (Proph.  iii.  p. 
 421  ff.)  is  of  opinion  that  these  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  did 
 not  pass  by  without  the  fulfilment  of  his  prophecy,  that  the  ruins  of 
 Jerusalem  would  not  continue  for  ever.  Already  forty-nine  years 
 after  its  destruction  a  new  city  of  Jerusalem  took  the  place  of  the 
 old  as  the  centre  of  the  congregation  of  the  true  religion,  but  the 
 stronger  hopes  regarding  the  Messianic  consummation  which  con- 
 nected itself  herewith  were  neither  then,  nor  in  all  the  long  times 
 following,  down  to  that  moment  in  which  our  author  (in  the  age  of 
 the  Maccabees)  lived  and  wrote,  ever  fulfilled.  Then  the  faithful 
 were  everywhere  again  exposed  to  the  severest  sufferings,  such  as 
 they  had  not  experienced  since  the  old  days  of  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem.  Therefore  the  anxious  question  as  to  the  duration  of 
 such  persecution  and  the  actual  beginning  of  the  Messianic  time, 
 which  Daniel,  on  the  ground  of  the  mysterious  intimation  in  ch. 
 vii.  12,  25  and  viii.  13  ff.,  regarding  the  period  of  the  sufferings  of 
 the  time  of  the  end,  sought  here  to  solve,  is  agitated  anew ;  for  he 
 shows  how  the  number  of  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah,  which 
 had  long  ago  become  sacred,  yet  accorded  with  these  late  times 
 without  losing  its  original  truth.     Thus  Ewald  argues. 
 
 These  two  critics  in  their  reasoning  proceed  on  the  dogmatic 
 ground,  which  they  regard  as  firmly  established,  that  the  book  of 
 Daniel  is  a  product  of  the  age  of  the  Maccabees.  All  who  oppose 
 the  genuineness  of  this  book  agree  with  them  in  the  view  that  this 
 chapter  contains  an  attempt,  clothed  in  the  form  of  a  divine  reve- 
 lation communicated  to  the  prophet  in  answer  to  his  prayer,  to  solve 
 the  mystery  how  Jeremiah's  prophecy  of  the  beginning  of  the 
 Messianic  salvation  after  the  seventy  years  of  exile  is  to  be  har- 
 monized with  the  fact  that  this  salvation,  centuries  after  the  fall  of 
 
321  THE  BOOK  OF  DA^rIEL, 
 
 the  Babylonish  kingdom  and  the  return  of  tlie  Jews  from  tlie 
 Babylonisli  exile,  had  not  yet  come,  but  that  instead  of  it,  under 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  a  time  of  the  severest  oppression  had  come. 
 How  does  this  opinion  stand  related  to  the  matter  of  this  chapter, 
 leaving  out  of  view  all  other  grounds  for  the  genuineness  of  the 
 book  of  Daniel  ?  Does  the  prayer  of  Daniel,  or  the  divine  revelation 
 communicated  to  him  by  means  of  Gabriel  regarding  the  seventy 
 weeks,  contain  elements  which  attest  its  correctness  or  probability? 
 
 The  prayer  of  Daniel  goes  forth  in  the  earnest  entreaty  that 
 the  Lord  would  turn  away  His  anger  from  the  city  Jerusalem  and 
 His  holy  mountain,  and  cause  His  face  to  shine  on  the  desolation 
 and  on  the  city  that  was  called  by  His  name  (vers.  15-18).  If  this 
 jn'ayer  is  connected  with  the  statement  in  ver.  2,  that  Daniel  was 
 moved  thereto  by  the  consideration  of  the  words  of  Jeremiah  re- 
 garding the  desolation  of  Jerusalem,  we  can  understand  by  the 
 ruins,  for  the  removal  of  which  Daniel  prayed,  only  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  and  the  temple  which  was  brought  about  by 
 the  Chaldeans.  Consequently  the  prayer  indicates  that  the  deso- 
 lation of  Jerusalem  predicted  by  Jeremiah  and  accomplished  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar  still  continued,  and  that  the  city  and  the  temple 
 had  not  yet  been  rebuilt.  This,  therefore,  must  have  been  in  the 
 time  of  the  Exile,  and  not  in  the  time  of  Antiochus,  who,  it  is  true, 
 desolated  the  sanctuary  by  putting  an  end  to  the  worship  of 
 Jehovah  and  establishing  the  worship  of  idols,  but  did  not  lay  in 
 ruins  either  the  temple  or  the  city. 
 
 In  his  message  (vers.  24-27)  the  angel  speaks  only  of  the  going 
 forth  of  the  word  to  restore  and  rebuild  Jerusalem,  and  presents 
 the  2;oin2;  forth  of  this  word  as  the  beiiinnino;  of  the  seventy  weeks 
 of  Daniel  determined  upon  the  people  and  the  holy  city  within 
 which  Jerusalem  must  be  built,  and  thus  distinguishes  the  seventy 
 weeks  as  distinctly  as  possible  from  Jeremiah's  seventy  years 
 during  which  Jerusalem  and  Judah  should  lie  desolate.  Thus  is  set 
 aside  the  opinion  that  the  author  of  this  chapter  sought  to  inter- 
 pret the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  by  the  seventy  weeks  ;  and  it 
 shows  itself  to  be  only  the  pure  product  of  the  dogmatic  supposi- 
 tion, that  this  book  does  not  contain  prophecies  of  the  prophet 
 Daniel  living  in  the  time  of  the  Exile,  but  only  apocalyptic  dreams 
 of  a  Maccabean  Jew.^ 
 
 ^  The  supposition  thai  the  seventy  weeks,  ver.  21,  are  an  interpretation  of 
 the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah,  is  the  basis  on  ^yhich  Hitzig  rests  the  assertion 
 that  the  passage  does  not  well  adjust  itself  to  the  standpoint  of  the  j)reteudcd 
 
CHAP.  IX.  1,  2.  325 
 
 Moreover,  it  is  certainly  true  that  in  the  Exile  the  expectation 
 that  the  perfection  and  glory  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the 
 Messiah  would  appear  along  with  the  liberation  of  the  Jews  from 
 Babylon  was  founded  on  the  predictions  of  the  earlier  prophets, 
 but  that  Daniel  shared  tins  expectation  the  book  presents  no  trace 
 whatever.  Jeremiah  also,  neither  in  ch.  xxv.  nor  in  ch.  xxix., 
 where  he  speaks  of  the  seventy  years  of  the  domination  of  Baby- 
 lon, announces  that  the  Messianic  salvation  would  begin  imme- 
 diately with  the  downfall  of  the  Babylonian  kingdom.  In  ch.  xxv. 
 he  treats  only  of  the  judgment,  first  over  Judah,  and  then  over 
 Babylon  and  all  the  kingdoms  around ;  and  in  ch.  xxix.  he  speaks, 
 it  is  true,  of  the  fulfilling  of  the  good  word  of  the  return  of  the 
 Jews  to  their  fatherland  when  seventy  years  shall  be  fulfilled  for 
 Babylon  (ver.  10),  and  of  the  counsel  of  Jehovah,  which  is  formed 
 not  for  the  destruction  but  for  the  salvation  of  His  people,  of  the 
 restoration  of  the  gracious  relation  betw^een  Jehovah  and  His  people, 
 and  the  gathering  together  and  the  bringing  back  of  the  prisoners 
 from  among  all  nations  whither  they  had  been  scattered  (vers. 
 11-14),  but  he  says  not  a  word  to  lead  to  the  idea  that  all  this  would 
 take  place  immediately  after  these  seventy  years. 
 
 Now  if  Daniel,  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  the  Mede,  i.e.  in  the 
 sixty-ninth  year  of  the  Exile,  prayed  thus  earnestly  for  the  restora- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  and  the  sanctuary,  he  must  have  been  led  to  do 
 so  from  a  contemplation  of  the  then  existing  state  of  things.  The 
 political  aspect  of  the  world-kingdom  could  scarcely  have  furnished 
 to  him  such  a  motive.  The  circumstance  that  Darius  did  not 
 immediately  after  the  fall  of  Babylon  grant  permission  to  the  Jews 
 to  return  to  their  fatherland  and  rebuild  Jerusalem  and  the  temple, 
 could  not  make  him  doubt  the  certainty  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
 word  of  the  Lord  spoken  by  Jeremiah  regarding  the  duration  of 
 
 Daniel,  but  is  in  harmony  with  the  time  of  the  Maccabees.  The  other  argu- 
 ments which  Hitzig  and  others  bring  forth  against  this  chapter  as  the  produc- 
 tion of  Daniel,  consist  partly  in  vain  historical  or  dogmatic  assertions,  such  as 
 that  there  are  doubts  regarding  the  existence  of  Darius  of  Media, — partly  in 
 misinterpretations,  such  as  that  Daniel  wholly  distinguishes  himself,  vers.  6,  10, 
 from  the  prophets,  and  presents  himself  as  a  reader  of  their  writings  (Hitz.), — 
 opinions  which  are  no  better  founded  than  the  conclusions  of  Berth.,  v.  Leng., 
 and  Staeh.,  drawn  from  the  mention  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  ver.  7, 
 and  of  the  holy  city,  ver.  2-i,  that  Jerusalem  was  then  stUl  inhabited  and  the 
 temple  still  standing.  To  this  it  is  added,  that  the  prayer  of  Daniel  is  an 
 imitation  of  the  prayers  of  Ezra  ix.  and  Neh.  ix.,  or,  as  Ewald  thinks,  an  ex- 
 tiact  from  the  prayer  of  Baruch  (Bar.  ch.  i.  and  ii.). 
 
326  THE  BOOK  OF  DAJTIEL. 
 
 the  Exile,  since  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah,  ch.  xliv.  28,  that  Coresch 
 (Cyrus)  should  build  Jerusalem  and  lay  the  foundation  of  the 
 temple  was  beyond  question  known  to  him,  and  Darius  had  in  a 
 certain  sense  reached  the  sovereignty  over  the  Chaldean  kingdom, 
 and  was  of  such  an  age  (ch.  vi.  1)  that  now  his  reign  must  be 
 near  its  end,  and  Cyrus  would  soon  mount  his  throne  as  his  suc- 
 cessor. That  which  moved  Daniel  to  prayer  was  rather  the  reli- 
 gious condition  of  his  own  people,  among  whom  the  chastisement 
 of  the  Exile  had  not  produced  the  expected  fruits  of  repentance ; 
 so  that,  though  he  did  not  doubt  regarding  the  speedy  liberation  of 
 his  people  from  Babylonish  exile,  he  might  still  hope  for  the  early 
 fulfilment  of  the  deliverance  prophesied  of  after  the  destruction 
 of  Babylon  and  the  return  of  the  Jews  to  Canaan.  This  appears 
 from  the  contents  of  the  prayer.  From  the  beginning  to  the  close 
 it  is  pervaded  by  sorrow  on  account  of  the  great  sinfulness  of  the 
 people,  among  whom  also  there  were  no  signs  of  repentance.  The 
 prayer  for  the  turning  away  of  the  divine  wrath  Daniel  grounds 
 solely  on  the  mercy  of  God,  and  upon  that  which  the  Lord  had 
 already  done  for  His  people  by  virtue  of  His  covenant  faithful- 
 ness, the  nip'iy  (^righteousness)  of  the  Lord,  not  the  "  righteousness" 
 of  the  people.  This  confession  of  sin,  and  this  entreaty  for  mercy, 
 show  that  the  people,  as  a  whole,  were  not  yet  in  that  spiritual 
 condition  in  which  they  might  expect  the  fulfilment  of  that  pro- 
 mise of  the  Lord  spoken  by  Jeremiah  (ch.  xxix.  12  ff.)  :  "  Ye 
 shall  seek  me  and  find  me,  when  ye  shall  search  for  me  with  all 
 your  heart ;  and  I  will  be  found  of  you,  and  will  turn  away  your 
 captivity,"  etc. 
 
 With  this  view  of  the  contents  of  the  prayer  corresponds  the 
 divine  answer  which  Gabriel  brings  to  the  prophet,  the  substance 
 of  which  is  to  this  effect,  that  till  the  accomplishment  of  God's  plan 
 of  salvation  in  behalf  of  His  people,  yet  seventy  weeks  are  ap- 
 pointed, and  that  during  this  time  great  and  severe  tribulations 
 would  fall  upon  the  people  and  the  city. 
 
 Vers.  3-19.  DanieV s  prayer. 
 
 This  prayer  has  been  judged  very  severely  by  modern  critics. 
 According  to  Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitzig,  Staeh.,  and  Ewald,  its  matter 
 and  its  whole  design  are  constructed  according  to  older  patterns,  in 
 particular  according  to  the  prayers  of  Neh.  ix.  and  Ezra  ix.,  since 
 ver.  4  is  borrowed  from  Neh.  i.  5,  ix.  32  ;  ver.  8  from  Neh.  ix.  34 ; 
 ver.  14  from  Neh.  ix.  33;  ver.  15  from  Neh.  i.  10,  ix.  10;  and, 
 
CHAP.  IX.  3-ia.  327 
 
 finally,  vers.  7  and  8  from  Ezra  ix.  7.  But  if  we  consider  this 
 dependence  more  closely,  Ave  sliall,  it  is  true,  find  the  expression 
 CiSn  nf^3  (confusion  of  faces,  vers.  7  and  8)  in  Ezra  ix.  7,  but 
 we  also  find  it  in  2  Chron.  xxxii.  21,  Jer.  vii.  19,  and  also  in  Ps. 
 xliv.  16;  ninpp  (^forgivenesses,  ver.  9)  we  find  in  Neh.  ix.  17,  but 
 also  in  Ps.  cxxx.  4;  and  ?y  ^Ji"ii  (is  poured  upon,  spoken  of  the  anger 
 of  God,  ver.  11)  is  found  not  only  in  2  Chron.  xii.  7,  xxxiv.  21,  25, 
 but  also  Jer.  xlii.  18,  xliv.  6,  and  Nah.  i.  6.  We  have  only  to 
 examine  the  other  parallel  common  thoughts  and  words  adduced 
 in  order  at  once  to  perceive  that,  without  exception,  they  all  have 
 their  roots  in  the  Pentateuch,  and  afford  not  the  slightest  proof  of 
 the  dependence  of  this  chapter  on  Neh.  ix. 
 
 The  thought,  "  great  and  dreadful  God,  keeping  the  covenant 
 and  mercy,"  etc.,  which  is  found  in  ver.  4  and  in  Neh.  i.  5,  has  its 
 roots  in  Deut.  vii.  21  and  9,  cf.  Ex.  xx.  6,  xxxiv.  7,  and  in  the  form 
 found  in  Neh.  ix.  32,  in  Deut.  x.  17;  the  expression  (ver.  15), 
 "  Thou  hast  brought  Thy  people  forth  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt 
 with  a  mighty  hand,"  has  its  origin  in  Deut.  vii.  8,  ix.  26,  etc. 
 But  in  those  verses  where  single  thoughts  or  words  of  this  prayer 
 so  accord  with  Neh.  ix.  or  Ezra  ix.  as  to  show  a  dependence,  a 
 closer  comparison  will  prove,  not  that  Daniel  borrows  from  Ezra  or 
 Nehemiah,  but  that  they  borrow  from  Daniel.  This  is  put  beyond 
 a  doubt  by  placing  together  the  phrases  :  "  our  kings,  our  princes, 
 our  fathers"  (Dan.  vers.  5  and  8),  compared  with  these:  "  our  kings, 
 our  princes,  our  priests,  and  our  fathers"  (Neh.  ix.  34,  32),  and 
 "our  kings  and  our  priests"  (Ezra  ix.  7).  For  here  the  naming- 
 of  the  "priests"  along  with  the  "kings  and  princes"  is  just  as 
 characteristic  of  the  age  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  as  the  omission 
 of  the  "priests"  is  of  the  time  of  the  Exile,  in  which,  in  conse- 
 quence'of  the  cessation  of  worship,  the  office  of  the  priest  was 
 suspended.  This  circumstance  tends  to  refute  the  argument  of 
 Stahelin  (Einl.  p.  349),  that  since  the  prayers  in  Chron.,  Ezra,  and 
 Nehem.  greatly  resemble  each  other,  and  probably  proceed  from 
 one  author,  it  is  more  likely  that  the  author  of  Dan.  ix.  depended 
 on  the  most  recent  historical  writings,  than  that  Dan.  ix.  was  always 
 before  the  eyes  of  the  author  of  Chron. — a  supposition  the  proba- 
 bility of  which  is  not  manfest. 
 
 If,  without  any  preconceived  opinion  that  this  book  is  a  product 
 of  the  times  of  the  Maccabees,  the  contents  and  the  course  of 
 thought  found  in  the  prayer,  Dan.  ix.,  are  compared  with  the 
 prayers  in  Ezra  ix.  and  Neh.  ix.,  we  will  not  easily  suppose  it 
 
328  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 possible  tliat  Daniel  depends  on  Ezra  and  Nehemiali.  The  prayer 
 of  Ezra  ix.  6-15  is  a  confession  of  the  sins  of  the  congregation  from 
 the  days  of  the  fathers  down  to  the  time  of  Ezra,  in  which  Ezra 
 scarcely  ventures  to  raise  his  countenance  to  God,  because  as  a 
 member  of  the  congregation  he  is  borne  down  by  tlie  thought  of 
 their  guilt ;  and  therefore  he  does  not  prny  for  pardon,  because  his 
 design  is  only  "  to  show  to  the  congregation  how  greatly  they  had 
 gone  astray,  and  to  induce  them  on  their  part  to  do  all  to  atone 
 for  their  guilt,  and  to  turn  away  the  anger  of  God"  (Bertheau). 
 
 The  prayer,  Neh.  ix.  6-37,  is,  after  the  manner  of  Ps.  cv.  and 
 cvi.,  an  extended  offering  of  praise  for  all  the  good  which  the  Lord 
 had  manifested  toward  His  people,  notwithstanding  that  they  had 
 continually  hardened  their  necks  and  revolted  from  Him  from  the 
 time  of  the  call  of  Abraham  down  to  the  time  of  the  Exile,  ex- 
 pressing itself  in  the  confession,  "  God  is  righteous,  but  we  are 
 guilty,"  never  rising  to  a  prayer  for  deliverance  from  bondage, 
 under  which  the  people  even  then  languished. 
 
 The  prayer  of  Dan.  ix.,  on  the  contrary,  by  its  contents  and 
 form,  not  only  creates  the  impression  "  of  a  fresh  production 
 adapted  to  the  occasion,"  and  also  of  great  depth  of  thought  and 
 of  earnest  power  in  prayer,  but  it  presents  itself  specially  as  the 
 prayer  of  a  man,  a  prophet,  standing  in  a  near  relation  to  God,  so 
 that  we  perceive  that  the  suppliant  probably  utters  the  confession 
 of  sin  and  of  ^uilt  in  the  name  of  the  conirrefration  in  which  he  is 
 included ;  but  in  the  prayer  for  the  turning  away  of  God's  anger 
 his  special  relation  to  the  Lord  is  seen,  and  is  pleaded  as  a  reason 
 for  his  being  heard,  in  the  words,  "  Hear  the  prayer  of  Thij  servant 
 and  his  supplication  (ver.  17);  O  my  God,  incline  Thine  ear" 
 <ver.  18).^ 
 
 The  prayer  is  divided  into  two  parts.  Vers.  4-14  contain  the 
 confession  of  sin  and  guilt;  vers.  15-19  the  supplication  for  mercy, 
 and  the  restoration  of  the  holy  city  and  its  sanctuary  lying  in 
 ruins. 
 
 ^  After  the  above  remarks,  Ewald's  opinion,  tliat  this  prayer  is  only  an 
 epitome  of  the  prayer  of  Baruch  (oh.  i.  15-iii.  8),  scarcely  needs  any  special 
 refutation.  It  is  open  before  our  eyes,  and  has  been  long  known,  that  the 
 prayer  of  Baruch  in  the  whole  course  of  its  thoughts,  and  in  many  of  the 
 expressions  found  in  it,  fits  closely  to  the  prayer  of  Daniel ;  but  also  all  inter- 
 preters not  blinded  by  pri'judice  have  long  ago  acknowledged  that  from  tho 
 resemblances  of  this  apocryphal  product  not  merely  to  Dan.  ix.,  but  also  much 
 more  to  Jeremiah,  nothing  further  follows  than  that  the  author  of  this  lato 
 copy  of  ancient  prophetic  writings  knew  and  usetl  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  was 
 
CHAP.  IX.  3-19,  329 
 
 The  confession  of  sin  divides  itself  into  two  stroplies.  Vers. 
 4-10  state  the  transgression  and  the  guilt,  while  vers.  11-14  refer 
 to  the  punishment  from  God  for  this  guilt.  Ver.  3  forms  the  in- 
 troduction. The  words,  "  Tlien  I  directed  my  face  to  the  Lord," 
 are  commonly  understood,  after  ch.  vi.  11,  as  meaning  that  Daniel 
 turned  his  face  toward  the  place  of  the  temple,  toward  Jerusalem. 
 This  is  possible.  The  words  themselves,  however,  only  say  that  he 
 turned  his  face  to  God  the  Lord  in  heaven,  to  '^'i?'^'!^  ''^"'^j  the 
 Lord  of  the  whole  world,  the  true  God,  not  to  nirTi^  although  he 
 meant  the  covenant  God.  "  To  seek  prayer  in  (with)  fasting," 
 etc.  '•'  Fasting  in  sackcloth  (penitential  garment  made  of  hair) 
 and  ashes,"  i.e.  sprinkling  the  head  with  ashes  as  an  outward  sign 
 of  true  humility  and  penitence,  comes  into  consideration  as  a  means 
 of  preparation  for  prayer,  in  order  that  one  might  place  himself  in 
 the  right  frame  of  mind  for  prayer,  which  is  an  indispensable 
 condition  for  the  hearing  of  it — a  result  which  is  the  aim  in  the 
 seekino;.  In  reo;ard  to  this  matter  Jerome  makes  these  excellent 
 remarks :  "  In  cinere  igitur  et  sacco  postulat  impleri  quod  Deus 
 promiserat,  non  quod  esset  incredulus  futurorum^  sed  ne  securitas 
 negligentiam  et  negligentia  pareret  offensamT  ^^r^  and  C^'i^nri  = 
 nsnn,  cf.  1  Kings  viii.  38,  45,  49,  2  Chron.  vi'.  29,  35.  nkn  is 
 prayer  in  general;  D'^Jl^nri,  prayer  for  mercy  and  compassion,  as 
 also  a  petition  for  something,  such  as  the  turning  away  of  misfor- 
 tune or  evil  {deprecari).  Tlie  design  of  the  prayer  lying  before  us 
 is  to  entreat  God  that  He  would  look  with  pity  on  the  desolation 
 of  the  holy  city  and  the  temple,  and  fulfil  His  promise  of  their 
 restoration.     This  prayer  is  found  in  vers.  15-19. 
 
 Ver.  4.  Since  the  desolation  of  the  holy  land  and  the  exile  of 
 the  people  was  a  well-deserved  punishment  for  their  sins,  and  a 
 removal  of  the  punishment  could  not  be  hoped  for  without  genuine 
 humiliation  under  the  righteous  judgment  of  God,  Daniel  begins 
 with  a  confession  of  the  great  transgression  of  the  people,  and  of 
 
 familiar  with  tlie  writings  of  Daniel  and  JeremiaL,  and  of  other  prophets,  so 
 that  he  imitated  them.  This  statement,  that  the  pseudo-Baruch  in  ch.  i.  15- 
 iii.  8  presents  an  extended  imitation  of  Daniel's  prayer,  Ewald  has  not  refuted, 
 and  he  has  brought  forward  nothing  more  in  support  of  his  view  than  the  as- 
 sertion, resting  on  the  groundless  supposition  that  the  mention  of  the  "judges" 
 in  Dan.  ix.  12  is  derived  from  Bar.  ii.  1,  and  on  the  remark  that  the  author  of 
 the  book  of  Baruch  would  have  nothing  at  all  peculiar  if  he  had  formed  that 
 long  prayer  out  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  or  had  only  wrought  after  this  pattern 
 — a  remark  which  bears  witness,  indeed,  cf  a  compassionate  concern  for  his 
 protege,  but  manifestly  says  nothing  for  the  critic. 
 
330  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  righteousness  of  the  divine  deahngs  with  them,  that  on  the 
 ground  of  this  confession  he  might  entreat  of  the  divine  compas- 
 sion the  fulfilment  of  the  promised  restoration  of  Jerusalem  and 
 Israel.  He  prays  to  Jehovah  ''^y^,,  my  God.  If  we  wish  our 
 prayers  to  be  heard,  then  God,  to  whom  we  pray,  must  become 
 our  God.  To  H'linx  (/  made  confession)  M.  Geier  applies  Augus- 
 tine's beautiful  remark  on  Ps.  xxix. :  "  Confessio  gemina  est,  aut 
 peccati  ant  laiidis.  Quando  nobis  male  est  in  irihulaiionihus,  confite- 
 amur  peccata  nostra ;  quando  nobis  bene  est  in  exultatione  justitice, 
 conjiteamxir  laudem  Deo :  sine  confessione  tamen  non  siiniis.'"  The 
 address,  "  Thou  great  and  dreadful  God,  who  keepest  the  cove- 
 nant," etc.,  points  in  its  first  part  to  the  mighty  acts  of  God  in 
 destroying  His  enemies  (cf.  Deut.  vii.  21),  and  in  the  second  part 
 to  the  faithfulness  of  God  toward  those  that  fear  Him  in  fulfillino; 
 His  promises  (cf.  Deut.  vii.  9).  While  the  greatness  and  the  ter- 
 ribleness  of  God,  which  Israel  had  now  experienced,  wrought 
 repentance  and  sorrow,  the  reference  to  the  covenant  faithfulness 
 of  God  served  to  awaken  and  strengthen  their  confidence  in  the 
 help  of  the  Almighty. 
 
 Ver.  5.  God  is  righteous  and  faithful,  but  Israel  is  unrighteous 
 and  faithless.  The  confession  of  the  great  guilt  of  Israel  in  ver. 
 5  connects  itself  with  the  praise  of  God.  This  guilt  Daniel  con- 
 fesses in  the  strongest  words.  Ntpn^  to  make  a  false  step,  designates 
 sin  as  an  erring  from  the  right ;  i^]Vj  to  be  perverse,  as  unrighteous- 
 ness ;  V'^1,  to  do  wrong,  as  a  passionate  rebellion  against  God.  To 
 these  three  words,  which  Solomon  (1  Kings  viii.  47)  had  already 
 used  as  an  exhaustive  expression  of  a  consciousness  of  sin  and 
 jTuilt,  and  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  c\a.  6)  had  repeated  as  the  confession 
 of  the  people  in  exile,  Daniel  yet  further  adds  the  expression  ''^''.l^) 
 we  have  rebelled  against  God,  and  niD,  are  departed,  fallen  away 
 from  His  commandments  ;  this  latter  word  being  in  the  inf.  absol., 
 thereby  denotes  that  the  action  is  presented  with  emphasis. 
 
 Ver.  6.  The  guilt  becomes  the  greater  from  the  fact  that  God 
 failed  not  to  warn  them,  and  that  Israel  would  not  hear  the  words 
 of  the  prophets,  who  in  His  name  spoke  to  high  and  low, — to  kings 
 and  princes,  i.e.  the  heads  of  tribes  and  families,  and  to  the  great 
 men  of  the  kingdom  and  to  the  fathers,  i.e.  to  their  ancestors,  in 
 this  connection  with  the  exclusion  of  kings  and  chiefs  of  the 
 people,  who  are  specially  named,  as  Jer.  xliv.  17,  cf.  Neh.  ix. 
 32,  34  ;  not  perhaps  the  elders,  heads  of  families  (Cocceius,  J.  D. 
 Michaelis,  and  others),  or  merely  teachers  (Ewald).     To  illustrate 
 
CHAP.  IX.  3-19.  331 
 
 the  meaning,  there  is  added  the  expression  "  the  whole  people  of 
 the  land,"  not  merely  the  common  people,  so  that  no  one  might 
 regard  himself  as  exempted.  Compare  '^'fi'"''?,  Neh.  ix.  32.  This 
 expression,  comprehending  all,  is  omitted  when  the  thought  is 
 repeated  in  ver.  8. 
 
 Ver.  7.  Thus  to  God  belongeth  righteousness,  but  to  the  sin- 
 ful people  only  shame,  nj^l^n  ^p  does  not  mean :  Thine  was  the 
 righteous  cause  (Hitzig).  The  interpolation  of  the  zoas  is  arbitrary, 
 and  '"'i^'^V  predicated  of  God  is  not  righteous  cause,  but  righteous- 
 ness as  a  perfection  which  is  manifested  in  His  operations  on  the 
 earth,  or  specially  in  His  dealings  toward  Israel.  Q"'?2[i  ^^^,  shame 
 which  reflects  itself  in  the  countenance,  not  because  of  disgraceful 
 circumstances,  Ezra  ix.  7  (Kranichfeld),  but  in  the  consciousness 
 of  well-deserved  suffering,  i^'jj]  Qi"?  does  not  mean  :  at  this  time, 
 to-day,  now  (Hav.,  v.  Leng.,  and  others)  ;  the  interpretation  of  3 
 in  the  sense  of  circa  stands  opposed  to  the  definite  nitn.  In  the 
 formula  >^^J}  Di'3  the  3  has  always  the  meaning  of  a  comparison  ; 
 also  in  Jer.  xliv.  6,  22,  23,  1  Sam.  xxii.  8,  and  everywhere  the 
 expression  has  this  meaning :  as  it  happened  this  day,  as  experience 
 has  now  shown  or  shows.  See  under  Deut.  ii.  30.  Here  it  relates 
 merely  to  'sn  nc'l  ^iJ?  (fo  us  shame,  etc.),  not  also  to  the  first  part 
 of  the  verse.  The  1J?  is  particularized  by  the  words,  "  the  men  of 
 Judah  "  (ti'^s?  collectively,  since  the  plur.  D''K^''K  in  this  connection 
 cannot  be  used ;  it  occurs  only  three  times  in  the  O.  T.),  "  and 
 tlie  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem."  Both  together  are  the  citizens  of 
 the  kingdom  of  Judah.  ?^?"J^'!,  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  Israel,  the 
 members  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes.  To  both  of  these  the 
 further  definition  relates  :  "  those  that  are  near,  and  those  that  are 
 far  off,  etc."  With  '^  "lt^^?  C^y/??  (because  of  their  trespass  which," 
 etc.),  cf.  Lev.  xxvi.  40. 
 
 Ver.  8.  In  this  verse  Daniel  repeats  the  thoughts  of  ver.  7a 
 in  order  to  place  the  sin  and  shame  of  the  people  opposite  to  the 
 divine  compassion,  and  then  to  pass  from  confession  of  sin  to  sup- 
 plication for  the  sin-forgiving  grace  of  the  covenant-keeping  God. 
 
 Ver.  9.  Compassion  and  forgiveness  are  with  the  Lord  our 
 God  ;  and  these  we  need,  for  we  have  rebelled  against  Him.  This 
 thought  is  expanded  in  vers.  10-14.  The  rebellion  against  God, 
 the  refusing  to  hear  the  voice  of  the  Lord  through  the  prophets, 
 the  transgression  of  His  law,  of  which  all  Israel  of  the  twelve 
 tribes  were  guilty,  has  brought  the  punishment  on  the  whole 
 people  which  the  law  of  Moses  threatened  against  transgressors. 
 
332  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ver.  11.  ^^J^).  with  ^coiisec:  therefore  has  the  curse  poured 
 itself  out,  and  the  oath,  i.e.  the  curse  strengthened  ^Yith  an  oath. 
 Tinj,  to  pour  forth,  of  storms  of  rain  and  hail  (Ex.  ix.  33),  but 
 especially  of  the  destroying  fire-rain  of  the  divine  wrath,  cf.  Nah. 
 i.  6  Avith  Gen.  xix.  24,  and  Jer.  vii.  20,  xlii.  18,  xliv.  G.     ^^i^^  is 
 
 '  7  7  T    T    T 
 
 used,  Deut.  xxix.  18  f.,  of  the  threaten ings  against  the  transgressors 
 of  the  law  iu  Lev.  xxvi.  14  ff.,  Deut.  xxviii.  15  ff.,  to  which  Daniel 
 here  makes  i-eference.  To  strengthen  the  expression,  he  has  adiled 
 nviun  (and  the  oath)  to  n^sn,  after  Num.  v.  21 ;  cf.  also  Neh. 
 X.  30. 
 
 Ver.  12.  In  this  verse  the  Kethiv  1''19"^,  in  harmony  with  the 
 ancient  versions,  is  to  be  maintained,  and  the  Keri  only  as  an  ex- 
 planation inferred  from  the  thought  of  a  definite  curse.  "  Our 
 judges"  is  an  expression  comprehending  the  chiefs  of  the  people, 
 kings  and  princes,  as  in  Ps.  ii.  10,  cxlviii.  11. 
 
 Ver.  13.  The  thought  of  ver.  11  is  again  taken  up  once  more 
 to  declare  that  God,  by  virtue  of  Ills  righteousness,  must  carry 
 out  against  the  people  the  threatening  contained  in  His  law.  ns 
 before  ny"iri"?D  is  not,  with  Kranichfeld,  to  be  explained  from  the 
 construction  of  the  passive  ^^3  with  the  accusative,  for  it  does 
 not  depend  on  ^^^3^  but  serves  to  introduce  the  subject  absolutely 
 stated:  as  concerns  all  this  evil,  thus  it  has  come  upon  us,  as 
 Ezek.  xliv.  3,  Jer.  xlv.  4;  cf.  Ewald's  Lelirh.  §  "illd.  Regarding 
 '■•  "'P.3T1X  ^rpn  (we  entreated  the  face,  etc.),  cf.  Zech.  vii.  2,  viii.  21. 
 ^ri?0X3  ^''Sb'Or  is  not  to  be  translated :  to  comprehend  Thy  faith- 
 fulness (Hitzig),  for  the  construction  with  3  does  not  agree  w'itli 
 this,  and  then  HDX  does  not  mean  faithfulness  (Treue),  but  truth 
 (Wavheit).  The  truth  of  God  is  His  plan  of  salvation  revealed  in 
 His  word,  according  to  which  the  sinner  can  only  attain  to  happi- 
 ness and  salvation  by  turning  to  God  and  obeying  His  commanils. 
 
 Ver.  14.  Because  Israel  did  not  do  this,  therefore  the  Lord 
 watched  upon  the  evil,  i.e.  continually  thought  thereon — an  idea 
 very  frequently  found  in  Jeremiah;  cf.  Jer.  i.  12,  xxxi.  28,  xliv. 
 27.  P'^'l-f  with  ?y  following,  righteous  on  the  ground  of  all  His 
 works — a  testimony  from  experience ;  cf.  Neh.  ix.  33  (Kranich- 
 feld). 
 
 Vers.  15-19.  After  this  confession,  there  now  follows  the 
 prayer  for  the  turning  away  of  the  wrath  (vers.  15  and  16)  of 
 God,  and  for  the  manifestation  of  His  grace  toward  His  suppliant 
 people  (vers.  17-19). 
 
 Ver.  15.  This  prayer  Daniel  founds  on  the  great  fact  of  the 
 
CHAP.  IX.  3-19.  333 
 
 deliverance  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt,  by  which  the  Lord  made  for 
 Himself  a  name  among  the  nations.  Jerome  has  here  rightly 
 remarked,  not  exhausting  the  thought  however:  "  memor  est  anti- 
 qui  benejficii,  ut  ad  similein  Del  demeniiam  provocet.^^  For  Daniel 
 does  not  view  the  deliverance  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt  merely  as  a 
 good  deed,  but  as  an  act  of  salvation  by  which  God  fulfilled  His 
 promise  He  had  given  to  the  patriarchs,  ratified  the  covenant 
 He  made  with  Abraham,  and  by  the  miracles  accompanying  the 
 exodus  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  from  the  land  of  Egypt,  glorified  His 
 name  before  all  nations  (cf.  Isa.  Ixiii.  32,  13),  so  that  Moses  could 
 appeal  to  this  glorious  revelation  of  God  among  the  heathen  as  an 
 argument,  in  his  prayer  for  pardon  to  Israel,  to  mitigate  the  anger 
 of  God  which  burned  against  the  apostasy  and  the  rebellion  of  the 
 people,  and  to  turn  away  the  threatened  destruction,  Ex.  xxxii. 
 11  ff.,  Num.  xiv.  13.  Jeremiah,  and  also  Isaiah,  in  like  manner 
 ground  their  prayer  for  mercy  to  Israel  on  the  name  of  the 
 Lord,  Jer.  xxxii.  20  f.,  Isa.  Ixiii.  11-15.  Nehemiah  (ch.  i.  10 
 and  ix.  10)  in  this  agrees  with  Jeremiah  and  Daniel.  i^)J]  Di'3, 
 in  the  same  connection  in  Jer.  1.,  does  not  mean,  then,  at  that 
 time,  but,  as  this  day  still :  (hast  gotten  Thee)  a  name  as  Thou 
 hast  it  still.  In  order  to  rest  the  prayer  alone  on  the  honour 
 of  the  Lord,  on  the  honour  of  His  name,  Daniel  again  repeats 
 the  confession,  we  have  sinned,  ive  have  done  ivichedly ;  cf.  ver.  5. 
 
 Vcr.  16.  The  prayer  for  the  turning  away  of  God's  anger  fol- 
 lows, and  is  introduced  by  a  repetition  of  the  address,  "  O  Lord," 
 and  by  a  brief  condensation  of  the  motive  developed  in  ver.  15,  by 
 the  words  T'n'p'lwili.  ^lip^^f  does  not  mean  in  a  gracious  manner, 
 and  p'lV  is  not  grace,  but  proofs  of  the  divine  righteousness.  The 
 meaning  of  the  words  T]''rip"|>'~733  is  not :  as  all  proofs  of  Thy  right- 
 eousness have  hitherto  been  always  intimately  connected  with  a 
 return  of  Thy  grace,  so  may  it  also  now  be  (Kran.)  ;  but,  according 
 to  all  the  "proofs  of  Thy  righteousness,  i.e.  to  all  that  Thou  hitherto, 
 by  virtue  of  Thy  covenant  faithfulness,  hast  done  for  Israel.  HiplV 
 means  the  great  deeds  done  by  the  Lord  for  His  people,  among 
 which  the  signs  and  wonders  accompanying  their  exodus  from 
 Egypt  take  the  first  place,  so  far  as  therein  Jehovah  gave  proof  of 
 the  righteousness  of  His  covenant  promise.  According  to  these, 
 may  God  also  now  turn  away  His  anger  from  His  city  of  Jerusalem ! 
 The  words  in  apposition,  "  Thy  holy  mountain,"  refer  especially  to 
 the  temple  mountain,  or  Mount  Zion,  as  the  centre  of  the  kingdom 
 of  God.     The  prayer  is  enforced  not  only  by  T'^PIV"-'?}  but  also 
 
334  TUE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 by  the  plea  that  Jerusalem  is  the  city  of  God  {Thy  city).  Compare 
 Ps.  Ixxix.  4  and  xliv.  14. 
 
 Ver.  17.  In  this  verse  the  prayer  is  repeated  in  more  earnest 
 words.  With  T'^3  ixn  {cause  Tliy  face  to  shhie)  compare  Ps.  Ixxx. 
 4  and  Num.  vi.  25.  ""p^  IV???,  because  Thou  art  Lord,  is  stronger 
 than  l^yo^.  As  tlie  Lord  kut  €^o^i]v,  God  cannot  let  the  deso- 
 lation of  His  sanctuary  continue  without  doing  injury  to  liis 
 honour;  cf.  Isa.  xlviii.  11. 
 
 Ver.  18.  The  argument  by  which  the  prayer  is  urged,  derived 
 from  a  reference  to  the  desolations,  is  strengthened  by  the  words 
 in  apposition  :  and  the  city  over  which  Thy  name  is  named  ;  i.e. 
 not  which  is  named  after  Thy  name,  by  which  the  meaning  of  this 
 form  of  expression  is  enfeebled.  The  name  of  God  is  the  revela- 
 tion of  His  being.  It  is  named  over  Jerusalem  in  so  far  as 
 Jehovah  gloriously  revealed  Himself  in  it ;  He  has  raised  it,  by 
 choosing  it  as  the  place  of  His  throne  in  Israel,  to  the  glory  of  a 
 city  of  God  ;  cf.  Ps.  xlviii.  2  ff.,  and  regarding  this  form  of  ex- 
 pression, the  remarks  under  Deut.  xxviii.  10. 
 
 The  expression  :  and  laying  down  my  supplication  before  God 
 (cf.  ver.  20),  is  derived  from  the  custom  of  falling  down  before 
 God  in  prayer,  and  is  often  met  with  in  Jeremiah ;  cf.  ch.  xxxviii. 
 26,  xlii.  9,  and  xxxvi.  7.  The  Keildv  nrij^Q  (ver.  18,  open)  is  to  be 
 preferred  to  the  Keri  nipS),  because  it  is  conformed  to  the  imperative 
 forms  in  ver.  19,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  energy  of  the 
 prayer.  This  energy  shows  itself  in  the  number  of  w^ords  used  in 
 vers.  18  and  19.  Chr.  B.  Mich.,  under  ver.  19,  has  well  re- 
 marked :  "  Fervorem  precantis  cognoscere  licet  cum  ex  anaphora,  seu 
 terna  et  mysterii  p)lena  nominis  Adonai  repetitione,  turn  ex  eo,  quod 
 singulis  hisce  imperativis  He  paragogicum  ad  intensiorem  adfectum 
 signijicandum  superaddidit,  turn  ex  congerie  ilia  verborum :  Audi, 
 Condona,  Attende,  reliqua." 
 
 Vers.  20-23.  The  granting  of  the  prayer. — "While  Daniel  was 
 yet  engaged  in  prayer  ('P  "in  bv,  on  account  of  the  holy  mountain, 
 i.e.  for  it,  see  under  ver.  16),  an  answer  was  already  communi- 
 cated to  him ;  for  the  angel  Gabriel  came  to  him,  and  brought 
 to  him  an  explanation  of  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah,  i.e.  not 
 as  to  their  expuy,  but  what  would  happen  after  their  completion 
 for  the  city  and  the  people  of  God.  'i  K^'^^n,  the  man  Gabriel, 
 refers,  by  the  use  of  the  definite  article,  back  to  ch.  viii.  15, 
 where  Gabriel  appeared  to  him  in  the  form  of  a  man.     This  is 
 
CHAP,  IX.  20-23.  335 
 
 expressly  observed  in  the  relative  clause,  "  whom  I  saw,"  etc. 
 Regarding  n^nri2  (at  the  first,  ver.  21)  see  under  ch.  viii.  1.  The 
 differently  interpreted  words,  ^T"^  ^VD,  belong,  from  their  position, 
 to  the  relative  clause,  or  specially  to  ''^''^1  (/  had  seen),  not  to  V)}, 
 since  no  ground  can  be  perceived  for  the  placing  of  the  adverbial 
 idea  before  the  verb.  The  translation  of  ^T"^  ^V^  ^7  '^^X^''  'P^po- 
 fievo^  (LXX.),  irerofjbevo'i  (Theodot.),  cito  volans  (Vulg.),  from 
 which  the  church  fathers  concluded  that  the  angels  were  winged, 
 notwithstanding  the  fact  that  rabbis,  as  e.g.  Jos.  Jacchiades,  and 
 modern  interpreters  (Hav.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.)  maintain  it,  is  without 
 any  foundation  in  the  words,  and  was  probably  derived  by  the  old 
 translators  from  a  confounding  of  ^yj  with  fjiy.  ^V^  means  only 
 icearied,  to  become  tired,  to  weary  oneself  by  exertion,  in  certain 
 places,  as  e.g.  Jer.  ii.  24,  by  a  long  journey  or  course,  but  nowhere 
 to  run  or  to  flee.  ^V''.,  loeariness — wearied  in  weariness,  i.e.  very 
 wearied  or  tired.  According  to  this  interpretation,  which  the  words 
 alone  admit  of,  the  expression  is  applicable,  not  to  the  angel,  whom, 
 as  an  unearthly  being,  we  cannot  speak  of  as  being  wearied,  although, 
 with  Kranichfeld,  one  may  think  of  the  way  from  the  dwelling- 
 place  of  God,  removed  far  from  His  sinful  people,  to  this  earth  as 
 very  long.  On  the  contrary,  the  words  perfectly  agree  with  the 
 condition  of  Daniel  described  in  ch.  viii.  17  f.,  27,  and  Daniel  men- 
 tions this  circumstance,  because  Gabriel,  at  his  former  coming  to 
 him,  not  only  helped  to  strengthen  him,  but  also  gave  him  under- 
 standing of  the  vision,  which  was  to  him  hidden  in  darkness,  so 
 that  his  appearing  again  at  once  awakened  joyful  hope.  vt<  Vi}^ 
 not  he  touched  me,  but  he  reached  me,  came  forward  to  me.  For 
 this  meaning  of  W3  cf .  2  Sam.  v.  8,  Jonah  iii.  6.  "  About  the  time 
 of  the  evening  sacrifice."  '"'O?'?,  properly  the  meat-offering,  here 
 comprehending  the  sacrifice,  as  is  often  its  meaning  in  the  later 
 Scriptures;  cf.  Mai.  i.  13,  ii.  13,  iii.  4.  The  time  of  the  evening 
 oblation  was  the  time  of  evening  prayer  for  the  congregation. 
 
 Ver.  22.  |3*1,  he  gave  understanding,  insight,  as  ch.  viii.  16.  The 
 words  point  back  to  ver.  2.  First  of  all  Gabriel  speaks  of  the 
 design  and  the  circumstances  of  his  coming.  '"^X^^*  nrij/j  now.  Viz. 
 in  consequence  of  thy  morning  prayer,  /  am  come,  sc.  from  the 
 throne  of  God.  nrn  ^P''3bnp,  to  instruct  thee  in  knowledge.  This  is 
 more  particularly  declared  in  ver.  23.  At  the  beginning  of  Daniel's 
 prayer  a  word,  i.e.  a  communication  from  God,  came  forth,  which 
 he  brought.  13^^  not  a  commandment,  or  the  divine  command- 
 ment to  Gabriel  to  go  to  Daniel,  but  a  word  of  God,  and  particu- 
 
336  THE  BOOK  OF  DAXIEL. 
 
 larly  the  word  wliicli  he  announced  to  Daniel,  vers.  24-27.  The 
 sentence,  "  for  thou  art  a  man  greatly  beloved"  (nniDn_nin^on  k^'K^ 
 ch.  X.  11,  19,  vir  desideriorum,  desideratisshnus),  does  not  contain 
 the  reason  for  Gabriel's  coming  in  haste,  but  for  the  principal 
 thought  of  the  verse,  the  going  forth  of  the  word  of  God  imme- 
 diately at  the  beginning  of  DanieFs  prayer.  >^^yp']  stands  not 
 for  revelation,  but  is  the  visio^i,  the  appearance  of  the  angel  by 
 whom  the  word  of  God  was  communicated  to  the  prophet,  i^^?')'? 
 is  accordingly  not  the  contents  of  the  word  spoken,  but  the  form 
 for  its  communication  to  Daniel.  To  both — the  word  and  the  form 
 of  its  revelation — Daniel  must  give  heed.  This  revelation  was, 
 moreover,  not  communicated  to  him  in  a  vision,  but  while  in  the 
 state  of  natural  consciousness. 
 
 Vers.  24-27.  The  divine  revelation  regarding  the  seventy  xoeehs. 
 — This  message  of  the  angel  relates  to  the  most  important  revela- 
 tions regarding  the  future  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 From  the  brevity  and  measured  form  of  the  expression,  which 
 Auberlen  designates  "the  lapidary  style  of  the  upper  sanctuary," 
 and  from  the  difficulty  of  calculating  the  period  named,  this  verse 
 has  been  very  variously  interpreted.  The  interpretations  may  be 
 divided  into  three  principal  classes.  1.  Most  of  the  church  fathers 
 k^id  the  older  orthodox  interpreters  find  prophesied  here  the  appear- 
 ance of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  His  death,  and  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem by  the  Romans.  2.  The  majority  of  the  modern  interpreters, 
 on  the  other  hand,  refer  the  whole  passage  to  the  time  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes.  3.  Finally,  some  of  the  church  fathers  and  several 
 modern  theologians  have  interpreted  the  prophecy  eschatologically, 
 as  an  announcement  of  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 from  the  end  of  the  Exile  on  to  the  perfecting  of  the  kingdom  by 
 the  second  coming  of  Christ  at  the  end  of  the  days.^ 
 
 1  The  first  of  these  views  is  in  our  time  fully  and  at  length  defended  by 
 Htivernick  {Connn.),  Ilcngstenberg  {Chrlstol.  iii.  1,  p.  19  ff.,  2d  ed.),  and  Auber- 
 len {Der  Proph.  Daniel,  u.s.w.,  p.  103  ff.,  3d  cd.),  and  is  adopted  also  by  the 
 Catholic  theologian  Laur.  Reiuke  {die  mcsxiau.  Wcissag.  lei  den  gr.  \i.  kl.  Proph. 
 des  A.  T.  iv.  1,  p.  206  ff.),  and  by  Dr.  Pusey  of  England.  The  second  view- 
 presents  itself  in  the  Alexandrine  translation  of  tlic  prophecy,  more  distinctly 
 in  Julius  Hilarianus  (about  A.D.  400)  {Chronologia  s.  lihellus  de  mnndi  duratione, 
 in  Migne's  Biblioth.  der.  univ.  t.  13,  1098),  and  in  several  rabbinical  inter- 
 preters, but  was  first  brought  into  special  notice  by  the  rationalistic  interpreters 
 Eichhorn,  Bertholdt,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  the  mediating  theo- 
 logians Bleek,  Wicselor  (JJie  70  Woclicn  u.  die  03  Jahnvochen  c'cs  Proph.  Daniel, 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  337 
 
 In  the  great  multiplicity  of  opinions,  in  order  to  give  clearness 
 to  the  interpretation,  we  shall  endeavour  first  of  all  to  ascertain 
 the  meaning  of  the  words  of  each  clause  and  verse,  and  then,  after 
 determining  exegetically  the  import  of  the  words,  take  into  con- 
 sideration the  historical  references  and  calculations  of  the  periods 
 of  time  named,  and  thus  further  to  establish  our  view. 
 
 The  revelation  begins,  ver.  24,  with  a  general  exhibition  of  the 
 divine  counsel  regarding  the  city  and  the  people  of  God  ;  and  then 
 there  follows,  vers.  25-27,  the  further  unfolding  of  the  execution 
 of  this  counsel  in  its  principal  parts.  On  this  all  interpreters  are 
 agreed,  that  the  seventy  weeks  which  are  determined  upon  the 
 people  and  the  city  are  in  vers.  25-27  divided  into  three  periods,  and 
 are  closely  defined  according  to  their  duration  and  their  contents. 
 
 Gbtt.  1839,  with  which  compare  the  Retractation  in  the  Gottinger  gel.  Anzeigen, 
 1846,  p.  113  ff.),  who  are  followed  by  Liicke,  Hilgenfeld,  Kranichfeld,  and 
 others.  This  view  has  also  been  defended  by  Hofmann  (die  70  JaJire  des  Jer. 
 u.  die  70  Jahrwochen  des  Daniel,  Niirnb.  1836,  and  Weissag.  u.  Erfidlung,  as 
 also  in  the  Schriftbew.),  Delitzsch  (Art.  Daniel  in  Herz.'s  Realenc.  Bd.  iii.),  and 
 Ziindel  (in  the  Kritischen  Unterss.),  but  with  this  essential  modification,  that 
 Hofmann  and  Delitzsch  have  united  an  eschatological  reference  with  the  primary 
 historical  reference  of  vers.  25-27  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  in  consequence  of 
 which  the  prophecy  will  be  perfectly  accomplished  only  in  the  appearance  of 
 Antichrist  and  the  final  completion  of  the  kingdom  of  God  at  the  end  of  the 
 days.  Of  the  thij-d  view  we  have  the  first  germs  in  Hippolytus  and  Apollinaris 
 of  Laodicea,  who,  having  regard  to  the  prophecy  of  Antichrist,  ch.  vii.  25,  refer 
 the  statement  of  ver.  27  of  this  chapter,  regarding  the  last  week,  to  the  end  of 
 the  world  ;  and  the  first  half  of  this  week  they  regard  as  the  time  of  the  return 
 of  Elias,  the  second  half  as  the  time  of  Antichrist.  This  view  is  for  the  first 
 time  definitely  stated  in  the  Berlehurg  Bible.  But  Eliefoth,  in  his  Comm.  on 
 Daniel,  was  the  first  who  sought  to  investigate  and  establish  this  opinion 
 exegetically,  and  Leyrer  (in  Herz.'s  Realenc.  xviii.  p.  383)  has  thus  briefly 
 stated  it: — "  The  seventy  D''y2tt',  i.e.  the  Konpol  of  Daniel  (ch,  ix.  24 ff.)  mea- 
 sured by  sevens,  within  which  the  whole  of  God's  plan  of  salvation  in  the  world 
 will  be  completed,  are  a  symbolical  period  with  reference  to  the  seventy  years 
 of  exile  prophesied  by  Jeremiah,  and  with  the  accessory  notion  of  oecumenicity. 
 The  70  is  again  divided  into  three  periods:  into  7  (till  Christ),  62  (till  the 
 apostasy  of  Antichrist),  and  one  ]}^y*},  the  last  world-l^ra,  divided  into  2x3^ 
 times,  the  rise  and  the  fall  of  Antichrist." 
 
 For  the  history  of  the  interpretation,  compare  for  the  patristic  period  the 
 treatise  of  Professor  Reusch  of  Bonn,  entitled  "-Die  Patrist.  Btrechniuig  der  70 
 Jahrwochen  Daniels,"  in  the  Tub.  theol.  Quart.  1868,  p.  535  ff. ;  for  the  period 
 of  the  middle  ages  and  of  more  modern  times,  Abr.  Calovii  E^frejo-/?  theologica 
 de  septiiaginta  seplimanis  Danielis,  in  the  Biblia  illustr.  ad  Dan.  ix.,  and  Haver- 
 nick's  History  of  the  Interpretation  in  his  Comm.  p.  386  ff. ;  and  for  the  most 
 recent  period,  R.  Baxmann  on  the  Book  of  Daniel  in  the  Tkeolog.  Studien  u. 
 Kritiken,  1863,  iii.  p.  497  ff. 
 
 Y 
 
338  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ver.  24.  Seventy  weeh  are  determined. — Q''V3K'  from  Vr^'^f,  pro- 
 perly, the  time  divided  into  sevenths,  signifies  commonly  the  period 
 of  seven  days,  the  week,  as  Gen.  xxix.  27  f.  (in  the  sing.))  and  Dan. 
 X.  2,  3,  in  the  plur.,  which  is  usually  in  the  form  riij?2B' ;  cf.  Deut. 
 xvi.  9  f.,  Ex.  xxxiv.  22,  etc.  In  the  form  2'*i?3"^  there  thus  lies  no 
 intimation  that  it  is  not  common  weeks  that  are  meant.  As  little 
 does  it  lie  in  the  numeral  being  placed  after  it,  for  it  also  some- 
 times is  found  before  it,  where,  as  here,  the  noun  as  the  weightier 
 idea  must  be  emphasized,  and  that  not  by  later  authors  merely, 
 but  also  in  Gen.  xxxii.  15  f.,  1  Kings  viii.  63 ;  cf.  Gesen.  Lehrgeb. 
 p.  698.  What  period  of  time  is  here  denoted  by  C)''J?T^  can  be 
 determined  neither  from  the  word  itself  and  its  form,  nor  from 
 the  comparison  with  D'D^^  Ci'^VTii',  ch.  x.  2,  3,  since  C^pj  is  in  these 
 verses  added  to  ^''V?'^,  not  for  the  purpose  of  designating  these  as 
 day-weeks,  but  simply  as  full  weeks  (three  weeks  long).  The 
 reasons  for  the  opinion  that  common  (i.e.  seven-day)  weeks  are 
 not  intended,  lie  partly  in  the  contents  of  vers.  25  and  27,  which 
 undoubtedly  teach  that  that  which  came  to  pass  in  the  sixty-two 
 weeks  and  in  the  one  week  could  not  take  place  in  common  weeks, 
 partly  in  the  reference  of  the  seventy  ^^^^'f  to  the  seventy  years  of 
 Jeremiah,  ver.  2.  According  to  a  prophecy  of  Jeremiah — so  e.g. 
 Hitzig  reasons — Jerusalem  must  lie  desolate  for  seventy  years,  and 
 now,  in  the  sixty-ninth  year,  the  city  and  the  temple  are  as  yet 
 lying  waste  (ver.  17  f.),  and  as  yet  nowhere  are  there  symptoms 
 of  any  change.  Then,  in  answer  to  his  supplication,  Daniel  received 
 the  answer,  seventy  Ci"'J?Iiti'  must  pass  before  the  full  working  out  of 
 the  deliverance.  "  If  the  deliverance  was  not  yet  in  seventy  years, 
 then  still  less  was  it  in  seventy  weeks.  With  seventy  times  seven 
 months  we  are  also  still  inside  of  seventy  years,  and  we  are  directed 
 therefore  to  year-weeks,  so  that  each  week  shall  consist  of  seven 
 years.  The  special  account  of  the  contents  of  the  weeks  can  be 
 adjusted  with  the  year-weeks  alone;  and  the  half-week,  ver.  27, 
 particularly  appears  to  be  identical  in  actual  time  with  these  three 
 and  a  halt'  times  (years),  ch.  vii.  25."  This  latter  element  is  by 
 others  much  more  definitely  affirmed.  Thus  e.g.  Kranichfeld  says 
 that  Daniel  had  no  doubt  about  the  definite  extent  of  the  expres- 
 sion V^^K',  but  gave  an  altogether  unambiguous  interpretation  of  it 
 when  he  combined  the  last  half-week  essentially  with  the  known 
 and  definite  three  and  a  half  years  of  the  time  of  the  end.  But — 
 we  must,  on  the  contrary,  ask — where  does  Daniel  speak  of  the 
 three  and  a  half  years  of  the  time  of  the  eudi     He  does  not  use 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  .  339 
 
 tlie  word  year  in  any  of  the  passages  that  fall  to  be  here  con- 
 sidered, but  only  I'ny  or  '^VS'O^  time,  definite  time.  That  by  this 
 word  common  years  are  to  be  understood,  is  indeed  taken  for 
 granted  by  many  interpreters,  but  a  satisfactory  proof  of  such  a 
 meaning  has  not  been  adduced.  Moreover,  in  favour  of  year- 
 weeks  (periods  of  seven  years)  it  has  been  argued  that  such  an 
 interpretation  was  very  natural,  since  they  hold  so  prominent  a 
 place  in  the  law  of  Moses ;  and  the  Exile  had  brought  them  anew 
 very  distinctly  into  remembrance,  inasmuch  as  the  seventy  years' 
 desolation  of  the  land  was  viewed  as  a  punishment  for  the  inter- 
 rupted festival  of  the  sabbatical  year :  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21  (Hgstb., 
 Kran.,  and  others).  But  since  these  periods  of  seven  years,  as 
 Hengstenberg  himself  confesses,  are  not  called  in  the  law  C^W^ 
 or  ^'^Vy^,  therefore,  from  the  repeated  designation  of  the  seventh 
 year  as  that  of  the  great  Sabbath  merely  (Lev.  xxv.  2,  4,  5,  xxvi. 
 34,  35,  43 ;  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  21),  the  idea  of  year-weeks  in  no  way 
 follows.  The  law  makes  mention  not  only  of  the  Sabbath-year,  but 
 also  of  periods  of  seven  times  seven  years,  after  the  expiry  of  which 
 a  year  of  jubilee  was  always  to  be  celebrated  (Lev.  xxv.  8  ff.). 
 These,  as  well  as  the  Sabbath-years,  might  be  called  ^''J'?^.  Thus 
 the  idea  of  year-weeks  has  no  exegetical  foundation.  Hofmann 
 and  Kliefoth  are  in  the  right  when  they  remark  that  ^''V'^^  does 
 not  necessarily  mean  year-weeks,  but  an  intentionally  indefinite 
 designation  of  a  period  of  time  measured  by  the  number  seven, 
 whose  chronological  duration  must  be  determined  on  other  grounds. 
 Tile  air.  Xey.  '^rin  means  in  Chald.  to  cut  off,  to  cut  up  into  pieces, 
 then  to  decide,  to  determine  closely,  e.g.  Targ.  Esth.  iv.  5 ;  cf. 
 Buxtorf,  Lex.  talm.,  and  Levy,  Chald.  Worterb.  s.v.  The  meaning 
 for  ^^iin-!,  abbreviaice  sunt  {Vulg.  for  eKoXo^coOijaav,  Matt.  xxiv.  22), 
 which  Wieseler  has  brought  forward,  is  not  proved,  and  it  is  un- 
 suitable, because  if  one  cuts  off  a  piece  from  a  whole,  the  whole  is 
 diminished  on  account  of  the  piece  cut  off,  but  not  the  piece  itself. 
 For  the  explanation  of  the  sing.  ^^^^_  we  need  neither  the  supposi- 
 tion that  a  definite  noun,  as  ny  (tvne),  was  before  the  prophet's 
 mind  (Hgstb.),  nor  the  appeal  to  the  inexact  manner  of  writing  of 
 the  later  authors  (Ewald).  The  sing,  is  simply  explained  by  this, 
 that  ^yy^  ^''V??'  ^s  conceived  of  as  the  absolute  idea,  and  then  is 
 taken  up  by  the  passive  verb  impersonal,  to  mark  that  the  seventy 
 sevenths  are  to  be  viewed  as  a  whole,  as  a  continued  period  of 
 seventy  seven  times  following  each  other. 
 
 Ujjon  thy  people  and  upon  thy  holy  city.      In  the  bv  there 
 
340  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 does  not  lie  the  conception  of  tliat  which  is  bnrdensome,  or  that  this 
 period  would  be  a  time  of  suffering  like  the  seventy  years  of  exile 
 (v.  Lengerke).     The  word  only  indicates  that  such  a  period  of 
 time  was  determined  upon  the  people.     The  people  and  the  city 
 of  Daniel   are   called  the  people   and  the   city  of   God,  because 
 Daniel  has  just  represented  them  before  God  as  His  (Hiivernick, 
 V.  Lengerke,  Kliefoth).     But  Jerusalem,  even  when  in  ruins,  is 
 called  the  holy  city  by  virtue  of  its  past  and  its  future  history  ;  cf. 
 ver.  20.     This  predicate  does  not  point,  as  Wieseler  and  Hitzig 
 have  rightly  acknowledged,  to  a  time  when  the  temple  stood,  as 
 Sfahelin  and  v.  Lengerke  suppose.     Only  this  lies  in  it,  Kliefoth 
 has  justly  added, — not,  however,  in  the  predicate  of  holiness,  but 
 rather  in  the  whole  expression, — that  the  people  and  city  of  God 
 shall  not  remain  in  the  state  of  desolation  in  which  they  then 
 were,  but  shall  at  some  time  be  again  restored,  and  shall  continue 
 during  the  time  mentioned.     One  must  not,  however,  at  once  con- 
 clude that  this  promise  of  continuance  referred  only  to  the  people 
 of  the  Jews  and  their  earthly  Jerusalem.     Certainly  it  refers  first 
 to  Israel  after  the  flesh,  and  to  the  geogi'aphical  Jerusalem,  be- 
 cause these  were  then  the  people  and  the  city  of  God ;  but  these 
 ideas  are  not  exhausted  in  this  reference,  but  at  the  same  time 
 embrace  the  New  Testament  church  and  the  church  of  God  on 
 earth. 
 
 The  following  infinitive  clauses  present  the  object  for  which  the 
 seventy  weeks  are  determined,  i.e.  they  intimate  what  shall  happen 
 till,  or  with  the  expiry  of,  the  time  determined.  Although  ?  before 
 the  infinitive  does  not  mean  till  or  during,  yet  it  is  also  not  correct 
 to  say  that  /  can  point  out  only  the  issue  which  the  period  of  time 
 finally  reaches,  only  its  result.  Whether  that  which  is  stated 
 in  the  infinitive  clauses  shall  for  the  first  time  take  place  after  the 
 expiry  of,  or  at  the  end  of  the  time  named,  or  shall  develope  itself 
 gradually  in  the  course  of  it,  and  only  be  completed  at  the  end  of 
 it,  cannot  be  concluded  from  the  final  p,  but  only  from  the  material 
 contents  of  the  final  clauses.  The  six  statements  are  divided  by 
 Maurer,  Hitzig,  Kranichfeld,  and  others  into  three  passages  of 
 two  members  each,  thus  :  After  the  expiry  of  seventy  weeks, 
 there  shall  (1)  be  completed  the  measure  of  sin;  (2)  the  sin  shall 
 be  covered  and  righteousness  brought  in  ;  (3)  the  prophecy  shall 
 be  fulfilled,  and  the  temple,  which  was  desecrated  by  Antiochus, 
 shall  be  again  consecrated.  The  Masoretes  seem,  however,  to  have 
 already  conceived  of  this  threefold  division  by  placing  the  Atnach 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  341 
 
 under  COPy  pT^'  (the  fourth  clause)  ;  but  it  rests  on  a  false  con- 
 struction of  the  individual  members  especially  of  the  first  two 
 passages.  Rather  we  have  two  three-membered  sentences  before 
 us.  This  appears  evident  from  the  arrangement  of  the  six  state- 
 ments ;  i.e.  that  the  first  three  statements  treat  of  the  taking  away 
 of  sin,  and  thus  of  the  negative  side  of  the  deliverance ;  the  three 
 last  treat  of  the  brincrinff  in  of  everlasting  rio-hteousness  with  its 
 consequences,  and  thus  of  the  positive  deliverance,  and  in  such  a 
 manner  that  in  both  classes  the  three  members  stand  in  reciprocal 
 relation  to  each  other :  the  fourth  statement  corresponds  to  the 
 first,  the  fifth  to  the  second,  the  sixth  to  the  third — the  second  and 
 the  fifth  present  even  the  same  verb  Onn. 
 
 In  the  first  and  second  statements  the  reading  is  doubtful. 
 Instead  of  Cii^np  (KetJi.),  to  seal,  the  Keri  has  cnnp,  to  end  (R. 
 O^J^,  to  complete).  In  5<?2p  a  double  reading  is  combined,  for  the 
 vowel-points  do  not  belong  to  the  Ketli.,  which  rather  has  ^^y?^ 
 since  ^03  is  nowhere  found  in  the  P'lel,  but  to  the  Keri,  for  the 
 Masoretes  hold  N?3  to  be  of  the  same  meaning  as  np3,  to  he  ended. 
 Thus  the  ancient  translators  interpreted  it :  LXX.,  ra?  dSiKia<; 
 airavicrai ;  Theod.,  crvvTeXeaOrjvaL,  al.  avvrekeaai ;  Aquil.,  avvreXe- 
 aai  Ti]V  aOealav ;  Vulg.,  ut  consummetur  prcevaricatio.  Bertholdt, 
 Rosenmliller,  Gesenius,  Winer,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Maurer,  have  fol- 
 lowed them  in  supposing  a  passing  of  n  into  N.  But  since 
 n?3  occurs  frequently  in  Daniel,  always  with  n  (cf.  ver.  27,  ch. 
 ch.  xi.  36,  xii.  7),  and  generally  the  roots  with  n  take  the  form  of 
 those  with  X  much  seldomer  than  the  reverse,  on  these  grounds 
 the  reading  Nvip  thus  deserves  the  preference,  apart  from  the 
 consideration  that  almost  all  the  Keris  are  valueless  emendations 
 of  the  Masoretes ;  and  the  parallel  onnp,  decidedly  erroneous,  is 
 obviously  derived  from  ch.  viii.  23.  Thus  the  Keri  does  not  give 
 in  the  two  passages  a  suitable  meaning.  The  explanation  :  to 
 finish  the  transgression  and  to  make  full  the  measure  of  sin, 
 does  not  accord  with  what  follows :  to  pardon  the  iniquity ;  and 
 the  thought  that  the  Jews  would  fill  up  the  measure  of  their 
 transgression  in  the  seventy  year-weeks,  and  that  as  a  punish- 
 ment they  would  pass  through  a  period  of  suffering  from  Anti- 
 ochus  and  afterwards  be  pardoned,  is  untenable,  because  the 
 punishment  by  Antiochus  for  their  sins  brought  to  their  full 
 measure  is  arbitrarily  interpolated  ;  but  without  this  interpolation 
 the  pardon  of  the  sins  stands  in  contradiction  to  the  filling  up  of 
 their  measure.     Besides,  this  explanation  is  further  opposed  by  the 
 
342  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 fact,  that  in  the  first  two  statements  there  must  he  a  different 
 subject  from  that  which  is  in  the  third.  For  to  fill  up  the  measure 
 of  sin  is  the  work  of  men  ;  to  pardon  or  forgive  sin,  on  the  other 
 hand,  is  the  work  of  God.  Accordingly  the  Kethiv  alone  is  to  be 
 adopted  as  correct,  and  the  fii"st  passage  to  be  translated  thus  :  to 
 shut  up  the  transgression.  vh3  means  to  hold  back,  to  hold  in,  to 
 arrest,  to  hold  in  prison,  to  shut  in  or  shut  up  ;  hence  i^/3,  a  prison, 
 jail.  To  arrest  the  wickedness  or  shut  it  up  does  not  mean  to 
 pardon  it,  but  to  hem  it  in,  to  hinder  it  so  that  it  can  no  longer 
 spread  about  (Hofm.)  ;  of.  Zech.  v.  8  and  Rev.  xx.  3. 
 
 In  the  second  passage,  "  to  seal  up  sin"  the  ^li^^t3^  are  the 
 several  proofs  of  the  transgression.  Onn,  to  seal,  does  not  denote 
 the  finishing  or  ending  of  the  sins  (Theodrt.  and  others).     Like 
 
 the  Arab.  *J^£5-,  it  may  occur  in  the  sense  of  ''  to  end,"  and  this 
 
 meaning  may  have  originated  from  the  circumstance  that  one  is 
 wont  at  the  end  of  a  letter  or  document  to  affix  the  impress  of  a 
 seal ;  yet  this  meaning  is  nowhere  found  in  Hebr. :  see  under  Ex. 
 xxviii.  12.  The  figure  of  the  sealing  stands  here  in  connection 
 with  the  shutting  up  in  prison.  Cf.  ch.  vi.  18,  the  king  for  greater 
 security  sealed  up  the  den  into  which  Daniel  was  cast.  Thus 
 also  God  seals  the  hand  of  man  that  it  cannot  move,  Job  xxxvii.  7, 
 and  the  stars  that  they  cannot  give  light,  Job  ix.  7.  But  in  this 
 figure  to  seal  is  not  =  to  take  away,  according  to  which  Hgstb. 
 and  many  others  explain  it  thus  :  the  sins  are  here  described  as 
 sealed,  because  they  are  altogether  removed  out  of  the  sight  of 
 God,  altogether  set  aside  ;  for  "  that  which  is  shut  up  and  sealed 
 is  not  merely  taken  away,  entirely  set  aside,  but  guarded,  held 
 under  lock  and  seal "  (Kliefoth).  HenCe  more  correctly  Hof- 
 mann  and  Kliefoth  say,  ''  If  the  sins  are  sealed,  they  are  on  the 
 one  side  laid  under  custody,  so  that  they  cannot  any  more  be 
 active  or  increase,  but  that  they  may  thus  be  guarded  and  held, 
 so  that  they  can  no  longer  be  pardoned  and  blotted  out ;  "  cf .  Rev. 
 XX.  3. 
 
 The  third  statement  is,  "  to  make  reconciliation  for  iniquity.^* 
 "132  is  terminus  techn.,  to  pardon,  to  blot  out  by  means  of  a  sin- 
 offering,  i.e.  to  forgive. 
 
 These  three  passages  thus  treat  of  the  setting  aside  of  sin  and 
 its  blotting  out ;  but  they  neither  form  a  climax  nor  a  mere  avva- 
 6poia-fx6<;,  a  multiplying  of  synonymous  expressions  for  the  pardon- 
 ing of  sins,  ut  tola  peccatorum  humani  generis  colluvies  eo  melius 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  343 
 
 comprehenderetur  (M.  Geier).  Against  the  idea  of  a  climax  it  is 
 justly  objected,  that  in  that  case  the  strongest  designation  of  sin, 
 yK'arij  which  designates  sin  as  a  falling  away  from  God,  a  rebelling 
 against  Him,  should  stand  last,  whereas  it  occurs  in  the  first  sen- 
 tence. Against  the  idea  of  a  avvadpota/M6<i  it  is  objected,  that  the 
 words  "to  shut  up"  and  "to  seal"  are  not  synonymous  with  "  to 
 make  reconciliation  for,"  i.e.  "  to  forgive."  The  three  expressions, 
 it  is  true,  all  treat  alike  of  the  setting  aside  of  sin,  but  in  different 
 ways.  The  first  presents  the  general  thought,  that  the  falling 
 away  shall  be  shut  up,  the  progress  and  the  spreading  of  the  sin 
 shall  be  prevented.  The  other  two  expressions  define  more  closely 
 how  the  source  whence  arises  the  apostasy  shall  be  shut  up,  the 
 going  forth  and  the  continued  operation  of  the  sin  prevented.  This 
 happens  in  one  way  with  unbelievers,  and  in  a  different  way  with 
 believers.  The  sins  of  unbelievers  are  sealed,  are  guarded  securely 
 under  a  seal,  so  that  they  may  no  more  spread  about  and  increase, 
 nor  any  longer  be  active  and  operative  ;  but  the  sins  of  believers 
 are  forgiven  through  a  reconciliation.  The  former  idea  is  stated 
 in  the  second  member,  and  the  latter  in  the  third,  as  Hofmann 
 and  Kliefoth  have  rightly  remarked. 
 
 There  follows  the  second  group  of  three  statements,  which  treat 
 of  the  positive  unfolding  of  salvation  accompanying  the  taking 
 away  and  the  setting  aside  of  sin.  The  first  expression  of  this 
 group,  or  the  fourth  in  the  whole  number,  is  "  to  bring  in  ever- 
 lasting righteousness.^^  After  the  entire  setting  aside  of  sin  must 
 come  a  righteousness  which  shall  never  cease.  That  P^^  does  not 
 mean  "happiness  of  the  olden  time"  (Bertholdt,  Rosch),  nor 
 "innocence  of  the  former  better  times"  (J.  D.  Michaelis),  but 
 "righteousness,"  requires  at  present  no  further  proof.  Rigliteous- 
 ness  comes  from  heaven  as  the  gift  of  God  (Ps.  Ixxxv.  11-14;  Isa. 
 li.  5-8),  rises  as  a  sun  upon  them  that  fear  God  (Mai.  iii.  20), 
 and  is  here  called  everlasting,  corresponding  to  the  eternity  of  the 
 Messianic  kingdom  (cf.  ii.  44,  vii.  18,  27).  P^.V  comprehends  the 
 internal  and  the  external  righteousness  of  the  new  heavens  and  the 
 new  earth,  2  Pet.  iii.  13.  This  fourth  expression  forms  the  posi- 
 tive supplement  of  the  first :  in  the  place  of  the  absolutely  removed 
 transgression  is  the  perfected  righteousness. 
 
 In  the  fifth  passage,  to  seal  up  the  vision  and  prophecy^  the 
 word  onrij  used  in  the  second  passage  of  sin,  is  here  used  of  right- 
 eousness. The  figure  of  sealing  is  regarded  by  many  interpreters 
 in  the  sense  of  confirming,  and  that  by  filling  up,  with  reference 
 
344  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEI« 
 
 to  the  custom  of  impressing  a  seal  on  a  writing  for  the  confirma- 
 tion of  its  contents;  and  in  illustration  these  references  are  given  : 
 1  Kings  xxi.  8,  and  Jer.  xxxii.  10,  11,  44  (Havernick,  v.  Lengerke, 
 Ewald,  Hitzig,  and  others).  But  for  this  figurative  use  of  the  word 
 to  seal,  no  proof-passages  are  adduced  from  the  O.  T.  Add  to 
 this  that  the  word  cannot  he  used  here  in  a  different  sense  from 
 that  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  second  passage.  The  sealing  of  the 
 prophecy  corresponds  to  the  sealing  of  the  transgression,  and  must 
 be  similarly  understood.  The  prophecy  is  sealed  when  it  is  laid 
 under  a  seal,  so  that  it  can  no  longer  actively  show  itself. 
 
 The  interpretation  of  the  object  ^^"'^Jl  pin  is  also  disputed. 
 Berth.,  Ros.,  Bleek,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Wieseler,  refer  it  to  the  pro- 
 phecy of  the  seventy  weeks  (Jer.  xxv.  and  xxix.),  mentioned  in 
 ver.  2.  But  against  this  view  stands  the  fact  of  the  absence  of 
 the  article  ;  for  if  by  ptn  that  prophecy  is  intended,  an  intimation 
 of  this  would  have  been  expected  at  least  by  the  definite  article, 
 and  here  particularly  would  have  been  altogether  indispensable. 
 It  is  also  condemned  by  the  word  i<^3:  added,  wdiich  shows  that  both 
 words  are  used  in  comprehensive  generality  for  all  existing  pro- 
 phecies and  prophets.  Not  only  the  prophecy,  but  the  prophet  who 
 gives  it,  i.e.  not  merely  the  prophecy,  but  also  the  calling  of  the 
 prophet,  must  be  sealed.  Prophecies  and  prophets  are  sealed,  when 
 by  the  full  realization  of  all  prophecies  prophecy  ceases,  no  prophets 
 any  more  appear.  The  extinction  of  prophecy  in  consequence  of 
 its  fulfilment  is  not,  however  (with  Hengstenberg),  to  be  sought 
 in  the  time  of  the  manifestation  of  Christ  in  the  flesh  ;  for  then 
 only  the  prophecy  of  the  Old  Covenant  reached  its  end  (cf.  Matt. 
 xi.  13,  Luke  xxii.  37,  John  i.  46),  and  its  place  is  occupied  by  the 
 prophecy  of  the  N.  T.,  the  fulfilling  of  which  is  still  in  the  future, 
 and  which  will  not  come  to  an  end  and  terminate  {Karapy^jd/j- 
 a-erai,  1  Cor.  xiii.  8)  till  the  kingdom  of  God  is  perfected  in  glory 
 at  the  termination  of  the  present  course  of  the  world's  history,  at 
 the  same  time  with  the  full  conclusive  fulfilment  of  the  O.  T. 
 prophecy  ;  cf.  Acts.  iii.  21.  This  fifth  member  stands  over  against 
 the  second,  as  the  fourth  does  over  against  the  first.  "  When 
 the  sins  are  sealed,  the  prophecy  is  also  sealed,  for  prophecy  is 
 needed  in  the  war  against  sin  ;  when  sin  is  thus  so  placed  that  it 
 can  no  longer  operate,  then  prophecy  also  may  come  to  a  state  of 
 rest ;  when  sin  comes  to  an  end  in  its  place,  prophecy  can  come  to 
 an  end  also  by  its  fulfilment,  there  being  no  place  for  it  after  the 
 setting  aside  of  sin.     And  when  the  apostasy  is  shut  up,  so  that  it 
 
CHAP.  IX.  2i-27.  345 
 
 can  no  more  spread  about,  then  righteousness  will  be  brought,  that 
 it  may  possess  the  earth,  now  freed  from  sin,  shut  up  in  its  own 
 place"  (Kliefoth). 
 
 The  sixth  and  last  clause,  to  anoint  a  most  holy,  is  very  diffe- 
 rently interpreted.  Those  interpreters  who  seek  the  fulfilment  of 
 this  word  of  revelation  in  the  time  following  nearest  the  close  of 
 the  Exile,  or  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees,  refer  this  clause  either 
 to  the  consecration  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  (VVieseler),  which 
 was  restored  by  Zerubbabel  and  Joshua  (Ezra  iii.  2  ff,),  or  to  the 
 consecration  of  the  temple  of  Zerubbabel  (J.  D.  Michaelis,  Jahn, 
 Steudel),  or  to  the  consecration  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  which 
 was  desecrated  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  1  Mace.  iv.  54  (Hitzig, 
 Kranichfeld,  and  others).  But  none  of  these  interpretations  can 
 be  justified.  It  is  opposed  by  the  actual  fact^  that  neither  in  the 
 consecration  of  Zerubbabel's  temple,  nor  at  the  re-consecration  of 
 the  altar  of  burnt-offering  desecrated  by  Antiochus,  is  mention 
 made  of  any  anointing.  According  to  the  definite,  uniform  tradi- 
 tion of  the  Jews,  the  holy  anointing  oil  did  not  exist  during  the 
 time  of  the  second  temple.  Only  the  Mosaic  sanctuary  of  the 
 tabernacle,  with  its  altars  and  vessels,  were  consecrated  by  anoint- 
 ing. Ex.  XXX.  22  ff.,  xl.  1-16  ;  Lev.  viii.  10  ff.  There  is  no  men- 
 tion of  anointing  even  at  the  consecration  of  Solomon's  temple, 
 1  Kings  viii.  and  2  Chron.  v.-vii.,  because  that  temple  only  raised 
 the  tabernacle  to  a  fixed  dwelling,  and  the  ark  of  the  covenant  as 
 the  throne  of  God,  which  was  the  most  holy  furniture  thereof,  was 
 brought  from  the  tabernacle  to  the  temple.  Even  the  altar  of  burnt- 
 offering  of  the  new  temple  (Ezek.  xliii.  20,  26)  was  not  consecrated 
 by  anointing,  but  only  by  the  offering  of  blood.  Then  the  special 
 fact  of  the  consecration  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  or  of  the 
 temple,  does  not  accord  with  the  general  expressions  of  the  other 
 members  of  this  verse,  and  was  on  the  whole  not  so  significant 
 and  important  an  event  as  that  one  might  expect  it  to  be  noticed 
 after  the  foregoing  expressions.  What  Kranichfeld  says  in  confir- 
 mation of  this  interpretation  is  very  far-fetched  and  weak.  He 
 remarks,  that  "  as  in  this  verse  the  prophetic  statements  relate  to 
 a  taking  away  and  123  of  sins,  in  the  place  of  which  righteousness 
 is  restored,  accordingly  the  anointing  will  also  stand  in  relation  to 
 this  sacred  action  of  the  "isa,  which  primarily  and  above  all  con- 
 ducts to  the  significance  of  the  altar  of  Israel,  that,  viz.,  which 
 stood  in  the  outer  court."  But,  even  granting  this  to  be  correct, 
 it  proves  nothing  as  to  the  anointing  even  of  the  altar  of  burnt- 
 
346  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 offering.  For  the  preceding  clnnses  speak  not  only  of  the  "iS3  of 
 transgression,  but  also  of  the  taking  away  (closing  and  sealing)  of 
 the  apostasy  and  of  sin,  and  thus  of  a  setting  aside  of  sin,  which 
 did  not  take  place  by  means  of  a  sacrifice.  The  fullest  expiation 
 also  for  the  sins  of  Israel  which  the  O.  T.  knew,  viz.  that  on  the 
 great  day  of  atonement,  was  not  made  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offer- 
 ing, but  by  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  the  offering  on  the  ark 
 of  the  covenant  in  the  holy  of  holies,  and  on  the  altar  of  incense 
 in  the  most  holy  place.  If  riB'D  is  to  be  explained  after  the  133, 
 then  by  "  holy  of  holies"  we  would  have  to  understand  not 
 "  primarily"  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  but  above  all  the  holy 
 vessels  of  the  inner  sanctuary,  because  here  it  is  not  an  atonement 
 needing  to  be  repeated  that  is  spoken  of,  but  one  that  avails  for  ever. 
 
 In  addition  to  this,  there  is  the  verbal  argument  that  the  words 
 D"'B''ii5  c^ip  are  not  used  of  a  single  holy  vessel  which  alone  could  be 
 thought  of.  Not  only  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  is  so  named,  Ex. 
 xxix.  37,  xl.  10,  but  also  the  altar  of  incense,  Ex.  xxx.  10,  and  the 
 two  altars  with  all  the  vessels  of  the  sanctuary,  the  ark  of  the 
 covenant,  shew-bread,  candlesticks,  basins,  and  the  other  vessels 
 belonging  thereto,  Ex.  xxx.  29,  also  the  holy  material  for  incense, 
 Ex.  xxx.  36,  the  shew-bread,  Lev.  xxiv.  9,  the  meat-offering.  Lev. 
 ii.  3,  10,  vi.  10,  X.  12,  the  flesh  of  the  sin-offering  and  of  the 
 expiatory  sacrifice,  Lev.  vi.  10,  18,  x.  17,  vii.  1,  6,  xiv.  13,  Num. 
 xviii.  9,  and  that  which  was  sanctified  to  the  Lord,  Lev.  xxvii.  28. 
 Finally,  the  whole  surroundings  of  the  hill  on  which  the  temple 
 stood,  Ezek.  xliii.  12,  and  the  whole  new  temple,  Ezek.  xlv.  3,  is 
 named  a  "  most  holy ;  "  and  according  to  1  Chron.  xxiii.  13,  Aaron 
 and  his  sons  are  sanctified  as  ^"'C'Tp^  ^'1p. 
 
 Thus  there  is  no  good  ground  for  referring  this  expression  to 
 the  consecration  of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  Such  a  reference 
 is  wholly  excluded  by  the  fact  that  the  consecration  of  Zerubbabel's 
 temple  and  altar,  as  well  as  of  that  which  was  desecrated  by 
 Antiochus,  was  a  work  of  man,  while  the  anointing  of  a  "  most 
 holy  "in  the  verse  before  us  must  be  regarded  as  a  divine  act, 
 because  the  three  preceding  expressions  beyond  controversy  an- 
 nounce divine  actions.  Every  anointing,  indeed,  of  persons  or  of 
 things  was  performed  by  men,  but  it  becomes  a  Avork  of  God  when 
 it  is  performed  with  the  divinely  ordained  holy  anointing  oil  by 
 priests  or  prophets  according  to  God's  command,  and  then  it  is  the 
 means  and  the  symbol  of  the  endowment  or  equipment  with  the 
 Spirit  of  God.   When  Saul  was  anointed  by  Samuel,  the  Spirit  of 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24  27.  347 
 
 the  Lord  came  upon  him,  1  Sam.  x.  9  ff.  The  same  thing  was 
 denoted  by  the  anointing  of  David,  1  Sam.  xvi.  13  f.  The  anoint- 
 ing also  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  vessels  served  the  same  object, 
 consecrating  them  as  the  place  and  the  means  of  carrying  on  the 
 gracious  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  As  an  evidence  of  this, 
 the  glory  of  the  Lord  filled  the  tabernacle  after  it  was  set  up  and 
 consecrated.  At  the  dedication  of  the  sanctuary  after  the  Exile, 
 under  Zerubbabel  and  in  the  Maccabean  age,  the  anointing  was 
 wanting,  and  there  was  no  entrance  into  it  also  of  the  glory  of 
 the  Lord.  Therefore  these  consecrations  cannot  be  designated  as 
 anointings  and  as  the  works  of  God,  and  the  angel  cannot  mean 
 these  works  of  men  by  the  "  anointing  of  a  most  holy." 
 
 ^luch  older,  more  general,  and  also  nearer  the  truth,  is  the 
 explanation  which  refers  these  words  to  the  anointing  of  the 
 Messiah,  an  explanation  which  is  established  by  various  argu- 
 ments. The  translation  of  the  LXX.,  koX  eix^pdvai  ar^iov  a'^Loau^ 
 and  of  Theod.,  tov  '^plaat  aytov  ajLWv,  the  meaning  of  which  is 
 controverted,  is  generally  understood  by  the  church  Fathers  as 
 referring  to  the  Messiah.  Theodoret  sets  it  forth  as  undoubtedly 
 correct,  and  as  accepted  even  by  the  Jews;  and  the  old  Syriac  trans- 
 lator has  introduced  into  the  text  the  words,  "  till  the  Messiah,  the 
 Most  Holy."-^  But  this  interpretation  is  set  aside  by  the  absence 
 of  the  article.  Without  taking  into  view  1  Chron.  xxiii.  13,  the 
 words  2''^'7(^  ^"P  are  nowhere  used  of  persons,  but  only  of  things. 
 This  meaning  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  passage  in  the  book 
 of  Chronicles  referred  to,  "  that  he  should  sanctify  a  ^'''^'JP  *^'7.P, 
 anoint  him  (Aaron)  to  be  a  most  holy  thing."  Following  Haver- 
 nick,  therefore,  Hengstenberg  (2d  ed.  of  his  ChristoL  iii.  p.  54) 
 seeks  to  make  this  meaning  applicable  also  for  the  Messianic 
 interpretation,  for  he  thinks  that  Christ  is  here  designated  as  a 
 most  holy  thing.  But  neither  in  the  fact  that  the  high  priest 
 bore  on  his  brow  the  inscription  nirfp  ^Ip^  nor  in  the  declaration 
 I'egarding  Jehovah,  "  He  shall  be  5J''npp?,"  Isa.  viii.  14,  cf.  Ezek.  xi. 
 16,  is  there  any  gi'ound  for  the  conclusion  that  the  Messiah  could 
 simply  be  designated  as  a  most  holy  thing.  In  Luke  i.  35  Christ 
 is  spoken  of   by  the  simple  neuter  ayiov,  but  not  by  the  word 
 
 ^  Eusebius,  Demonstr.  Ev.  viii.  2,  p.  887,  ed.  Colon.,  opposes  the  opinion  that 
 the  translation  of  Aquila,  Kcti  d'Xu-^pu.i  '/jyioi,uukvov  viyixafAivuv,  may  be  understood 
 of  the  Jewish  high  priest.  Cf.  Raymundis  Martini,  Piigio  Jidei,  p.  285,  ed. 
 Carpz.,  and  Edzard  ad  Abodah  Sara,  p.  246  sq.,  for  evidences  of  the  diffusion 
 of  this  interpretation  among  the  Jews. 
 
348  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 "  object ;  "  and  the  passages  in  which  Jesus  is  described  as  6  uyio^j 
 Acts  iii.  14,  iv.  30,  1  John  ii.  20,  Rev,  iii.  7,  prove  nothing  what- 
 ever as  to  this  use  of  t^Yp  of  Christ.  Nothing  to  the  purpose 
 also  can  be  gathered  from  the  connection  of  the  sentence.  If 
 in  what  follows  the  person  of  the  Messiah  comes  forward  to  view, 
 it  cannot  be  thence  concluded  that  He  must  also  be  mentioned  in 
 this  verse. 
 
 Much  more  satisfactory  is  the  thought,  that  in  the  words  "  to 
 anoint  a  D''u^'^p  C'lp  "  the  reference  is  to  the  anointing  of  a  new 
 sanctuary,  temple,  or  most  holy  place.  The  absence  of  the  article 
 forbids  us,  indeed,  from  thinking  of  the  most  holy  place  of  the 
 earthly  temple  which  was  rebuilt  by  Zerubbabel,  since  the  most 
 holy  place  of  the  tabernacle  as  well  as  of  the  temple  is  constantly 
 called  D'^tj'npn  ^ip.  But  it  is  not  this  definite  holy  of  holies  that  is 
 intended,  but  a  new  holy  of  holies  which  should  be  in  the  place  of 
 the  holy  of  holies  of  the  tabernacle  and  the  temple  of  Solomon. 
 Now,  since  the  new  temple  of  the  future  seen  by  Ezekiel,  with  all 
 its  surroundings,  is  called  (Ezek.  xlv.  3)  ^'''^''JP^  '^Ip,  Hofmann 
 (de  70  Jahre,  p.  65)  thinks  that  the  holy  of  holies  is  the  whole 
 temple,  and  its  anointing  with  oil  a  figure  of  the  sanctification 
 of  the  church  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  that  this  shall  not  be  in 
 the  conspicuousness  in  which  it  is  here  represented  till  the  time 
 of  the  end,  when  the  perfected  church  shall  possess  the  conspicu- 
 ousness of  a  visible  sanctuary.  But,  on  the  contrary,  Kliefoth 
 (p.  307)  has  with  perfect  justice  replied,  that  "  the  most  holy,  and 
 the  temple,  so  far  as  it  has  a  most  Jioly  place,  is  not  the  place 
 of  the  congregation  where  it  comes  to  God  and  is  with  God,  but, 
 on  the  contrary,  is  the  place  where  God  is  present  for  the  con- 
 gregation, and  manifests  Himself  to  it."  The  words  under  ex- 
 amination say  nothing  of  the  people  and  the  congregation  which 
 God  will  gather  around  the  place  of  His  gracious  presence,  but  of 
 the  objective  place  where  God  seeks  to  dwell  among  His  people 
 and  reveal  Himself  to  them.  The  anointing  is  the  act  by  which 
 the  place  is  consecrated  to  be  a  holy  place  of  the  gracious  presence 
 and  revelation  of  God.  If  thus  the  anointing  of  a  most  holy 
 is  here  announced,  then  by  it  there  is  given  the  promise,  not  of 
 the  renewal  of  the  place  already  existing  from  of  old,  but  of  tlie 
 appointment  of  a  new  place  of  God's  gracious  presence  among  His 
 people,  a  new  sanctuary.  This,  as  Kliefoth  further  justly  observes, 
 apart  from  the  connection,  might  refer  to  the  work  of  redemption 
 perfected  by  the  coming  of  Christ,  which  has  indeed  created  in 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  349 
 
 Him  a  new  place  of  the  gracious  presence  of  God,  a  new  way  of 
 God's  dwelling  among  men.  But  since  this  statement  is  closely 
 connected  with  those  going  before,  and  they  speak  of  the  perfect 
 setting  aside  of  transgression  and  of  sin,  of  the  appearance  of  ever- 
 lasting righteousness,  and  the  shutting  up  of  all  prophecy  by  its 
 fulfilment,  thus  of  things  for  which  the  "work  of  redemption  com- 
 pleted by  the  first  appearance  of  Christ  has,  it  is  true,  laid  the 
 everlasting  foundation,  but  which  first  reach  their  completion  in 
 the  full  carrying  through  of  this  work  of  salvation  in  the  return  of 
 the  Lord  by  the  final  judgment,  and  the  establishment  of  the 
 kingdom  of  glory  under  the  new  heavens  and  on  the  new  earth, — 
 since  this  is  the  case,  we  must  refer  this  sixth  statement  also  to  that 
 time  of  the  consummation,  and  understand  it  of  the  establishment 
 of  the  new  holy  of  holies  which  was  shown  to  the  holy  seer  on 
 Patmos  as  77  aKr]vr]  rod  ©eov  [xera  rojv  dvOpcoircov,  in  which  God 
 will  dwell  with  them,  and  they  shall  become  His  people,  and  He 
 shall  be  their  God  with  t-hem  (Rev.  xxi.  1-3).  In  this  holy  city 
 there  will  be  no  temple,  for  the  Lord,  the  Almighty  God,  and  the 
 Lamb  is  its  temple,  and  the  glory  of  God  will  lighten  it  (vers.  22, 
 23).  Into  it  nothing  shall  enter  that  defileth  or  worketh  abomina- 
 tion (ver.  27),  for  sin  shall  then  be  closed  and  sealed  up ;  there 
 shall  righteousness  dwell  (2  Pet.  iii.  13),  and  prophecy  shall  cease 
 (1  Cor.  xiii.  8)  by  its  fulfilment. 
 
 From  the  contents  of  these  six  statements  it  thus  appears  that 
 the  termination  of  the  seventy  weeks  coincides  with  the  end  of  the 
 present  course  of  the  world.  But  ver.  24  says  nothing  as  to  the 
 commencement  of  this  period.  Nor  can  this  be  determined,  as 
 many  interpreters  think,  from  the  relation  in  which  the  revelation 
 of  the  seventy  weeks  stands  to  the  prayer  of  Daniel,  occasioned  by 
 Jeremiah's  prophecy  of  the  seventy  years  of  the  desolation  of  Jeru- 
 salem. If  Daniel,  in  the  sixty-ninth  year  of  the  desolation,  made 
 supplication  to  the  Lord  for  mercy  in  behalf  of  Jerusalem  and 
 Israel,  and  on  the  occasion  of  this  prayer  God  caused  Gabriel  to 
 lay  open  to  him  that  seventy  weeks  were  determined  upon  the  city 
 and  the  people  of  God,  it  by  no  means  thence  follows  that  seventy 
 year-weeks  must  be  substituted  in  place  of  the  seventy  years  pro- 
 phesied of,  that  both  commence  simultaneously,  and  thus  that 
 the  seventy  years  of  the  Exile  shall  be  prolonged  to  a  period  of 
 oppression  for  Israel  lasting  for  seventy  year-weeks.  Such  a  sup- 
 position is  warranted  neither  by  the  contents  of  the  prophecy  of 
 Jeremiah,  nor  by  the  message  of  the  angel  to  Daniel.   Jeremiah,  it 
 
350  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 is  true,  prophesied  not  merely  of  seventy  years  of  tlie  desolation  of 
 Jerusalem  and  Judah,  but  also  of  the  judgment  upon  Babylon  after 
 the  expiry  of  these  years,  and  the  collecting  together  and  bringing 
 back  of  Israel  from  all  the  countries  whither  they  were  scattered 
 into  their  own  laud  (ch.  xxv.  10-12,  xxix.  10-14) ;  but  In  his  sup- 
 plication Daniel  had  in  his  eye  only  the  desolation  of  the  land  of 
 Jeremiah's  prophecy,  and  prayed  for  the  turning  away  of  the  divine 
 anger  from  Jerusalem,  and  for  the  pardon  of  Israel's  sins.  Now 
 if  the  words  of  the  angel  had  been,  "  not  seventy  years,  but  seventy 
 year-weeks,  are  determined  over  Israel,"  this  would  have  been  no 
 answer  to  Daniel's  supplication,  at  least  no  comforting  answer,  to 
 brino-  which  to  him  the  ancel  was  commanded  to  go  forth  in  haste. 
 Then  the  angel  announces  in  ver.  24  much  more  than  the  return 
 of  Israel  from  the  Exile  to  their  own  land.  But  this  is  decided  by 
 the  contents  of  the  following  verses,  in  which  the  space  of  seventy 
 weeks  is  divided  into  three  periods,  and  at  the  same  time  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  period  Is  determined  in  a  way  which  excludes  its 
 connection  with  the  beginning  of  the  seventy  years  of  the  Exile. 
 
 Ver.  25.  The  detaited  statement  of  the  70  QW  in  7  +  62  +  1 
 (vers.  25,  26,  27),  with  the  fuller  description  of  that  which  was  to 
 happen  In  the  course  of  these  three  periods  of  time,  incontrovertibly 
 shows  that  these  three  verses  are  a  further  explication  of  the  con- 
 tents of  ver.  24.  This  explication  is  Introduced  by  the  words: 
 "  Know  therefore,  and  understand,"  which  do  not  announce  a  new 
 prophecy,  as  Wleseler  and  Hofmann  suppose,  but  only  point  to  the 
 importance  of  the  further  opening  up  of  the  contents  of  ver.  24, 
 since  ^3i-"n"i  (and  thou  wilt  understand)  stands  In  distinct  relation  to 
 nra  ^^aiJ'n^  (to  give  thee  sJdll  and  understanding,  ver.  22).  The  two 
 parts  of  ver.  25  contain  the  statements  regarding  the  first  two 
 portions  of  the  whole  period,  the  seven  and  the  sixty-two  D'^Vfl^'j 
 and  are  rightly  separated  by  the  Masoretes  by  placing  the  Atnach 
 under  ^V'^^.  The  first  statement  is :  ^^  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
 command  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem  unto  a  Messiah  (Gesalb- 
 ten),  a  prince^  shall  he  seven  weeks''  1^7  i<P  (from  the  going  forth 
 of  the  commandment)  formally  corresponds,  indeed,  to  131  XV^  (the 
 commandment  came  forth),  ver.  23,  emphatically  expressing  a  de- 
 cision on  the  part  of  God,  but  the  two  expressions  are  not  actually 
 to  be  identified;  for  the  commandment,  ver.  23,  is  the  divine 
 revelation  communicated  In  vers.  24-27,  which  the  angel  brings 
 to  Daniel ;  the  commandment  in  ver.  25  is,  on  the  contrary,  more 
 fully  determined  by  the  words,  to  restore  and  to  build,  etc.     ^^^f 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  351 
 
 is  not  to  be  joined  adverbially  with  *^^^i?]  so  as  to  form  one  idea : 
 to  build  agai?i;  for,  though  215^'  may  be  thus  used  adverbially  in  Kal, 
 yet  the  Hiphil  y^'[}  is  not  so  used.  y^'\]  means  to  lead  back,  to 
 bring  again,  then  to  restore ;  cf.  for  this  last  meaning  Isa.  i.  26,  Ps. 
 Ixxx.  4,  8,  20.  The  object  to  ^""'^Q?  follows  immediately  after  the 
 word  J^i^^pl,  namely,  Jerusalem.  The  supplementing  of  W,  people 
 (Wieseler,  Kliefoth,  and  others),  is  arbitrary,  and  is  not  warranted 
 by  Jer.  xxix.  10.  To  bring  back,  to  restore  a  city,  means  to  raise 
 it  to  its  former  state;  denotes  the  restitutio,  but  not  necessarily  the 
 full  restitutio  in  integrum  (against  Hengstenberg).  Here  riija^  is 
 added,  as  in  the  second  half  of  the  verse  to  3l!J'ri,  yet  not  so  as  to 
 make  one  idea  with  it,  restoring  to  build,  or  building  to  restore,  i.e. 
 to  build  up  again  to  the  old  extent.  '"133  as  distinguished  from 
 Zl^k^'^  denotes  the  building  after  restoring,  and  includes  the  constant 
 preservation  in  good  building  condition,  as  well  as  the  carrying 
 forward  of  the  edifice  beyond  its  former  state. 
 
 But  if  we  ask  when  this  commandment  went  forth,  in  order 
 that  we  may  thereby  determine  the  beginning  of  the  seven  weeks, 
 and,  since  they  form  the  first  period  of  the  seventy,  at  the  same 
 time  determine  the  beginning  of  the  seventy  weeks,  the  words  and 
 the  context  only  supply  this  much,  that  by  the  "  commandment  "  is 
 meant  neither  the  word  of  God  which  is  mentioned  in  ver.  23,  nor 
 that  mentioned  in  ver.  2.  It  is  not  that  which  is  mentioned  in  ver. 
 23,  because  it  says  nothing  about  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem,  but 
 speaks  only  of  the  whole  message  of  the  angel.  Nor  yet  is  it  the 
 word  of  God  which  is  mentioned  in  ver.  2,  the  prophecies  given  in 
 Jer.  XXV.  and  xxix.,  as  Hitzig,  Kranichfeld,  and  others  suppose. 
 For  although  from  these  prophecies  it  conclusively  follows,  that 
 after  the  expiry  of  the  seventy  years  with  the  return  of  Israel  into 
 their  own  land,  Jerusalem  shall  again  be  built  up,  yet  they  do 
 not  speak  of  that  which  shall  happen  after  the  seventy  years,  but 
 only  of  that  which  shall  happen  within  that  period,  namely,  that 
 Jerusalem  shall  for  so  long  a  time  lie  desolate,  as  ver.  2  expressly 
 affirms.  The  prophecy  of  the  seventy  years'  duration  of  the  deso- 
 lation of  Jerusalem  (ver.  2)  cannot  possibly  be  regarded  as  the 
 commandment  (in  ver.  25)  to  restore  Jerusalem  (Kliefoth).  As 
 little  can  we,  with  Hitzig,  think  on  Jer.  xxx.  and  xxxi.,  because 
 this  prophecy  contains  nothing  whatever  of  a  period  of  time,  and 
 in  this  verse  before  us  there  is  no  reference  to  this  prophecy.  The 
 restoration  of  Israel  and  of  Jerusalem  has  indeed  been  prophesied 
 of  in  general,  not  merely  by  Jeremiah,  but  also  long  before  him 
 
352  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 by  Isaiah  (ch.  xl.-lxvi.).  With  as  much  justice  may  we  think  on 
 Isa.  xl.  £f.  as  on  Jer.  xxx.  and  xxxi. ;  but  all  such  references  are 
 excluded  by  this  fact,  that  the  angel  names  the  commandment  for 
 the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  as  the  terminus  a  quo  for  the  seventy 
 weeks,  and  thus  could  mean  only  a  word  of  God  whose  going  forth 
 was  somewhere  determined,  or  could  be  determined,  just  as  the 
 appearance  of  the  T'J^  n'''^0  is  named  as  the  termination  of  the 
 seven  weeks.  Accordingly  "  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment 
 to  restore,"  etc.,  must  be  a  factum  coming  into  visibility,  the  time 
 of  which  could  without  difficulty  be  known — a  word  from  God 
 regarding  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  which  went  forth  by  means 
 of  a  man  at  a  definite  time,  and  received  an  observable  historical 
 execution. 
 
 Now,  with  Calvin,  OEcolampadius,  Kleinert,  Niigelsbach,  Ebrard, 
 and  Kliefoth,  we  can  think  of  nothing  more  appropriate  than  the 
 edict  of  Cyrus  (Ezra  i.)  which  permitted  the  Jews  to  return,  from 
 which  the  termination  of  the  Exile  is  constantly  dated,  and  from 
 the  time  of  which  this  return,  together  with  the  building  up  of 
 Jerusalem,  began,  and  was  carried  forward,  though  slowly  (Klief.). 
 The  prophecy  of  Isa.  xliv.  28,  that  God  would  by  means  of  Cyrus 
 speak  to  cause  Jerusalem  to  be  built,  and  the  foundation  of  the 
 temple  to  be  laid,  directs  us  to  this  edict.  With  reference  to  this 
 prophecy,  it  is  said  in  Ezra  vi.  14,  "  They  builded  according  to 
 the  commandment  of  the  God  of  Israel,  and  according  to  the  com- 
 mandment of  the  king  of  Persia."  This  is  acknowledged  even  by 
 Hengstenberg,  who  yet  opposes  this  reference ;  for  he  remarks 
 (Christol.  iii.  p.  142),  "  If  the  statement  were  merely  of  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  building,  then  they  would  undoubtedly  be 
 justified  who  place  the  starting-point  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus. 
 Isaiah  (ch.  xlv.  13)  commends  Cyrus  as  the  builder  of  the  city  ; 
 and  all  the  sacred  writings  which  relate  to  the  period  from  the  time 
 of  Cyrus  to  Nehemiah  distinctly  state  the  actual  existence  of  a 
 Jerusalem  during  this  period."  But  according  to  his  explanation, 
 the  words  of  the  ancjel  do  not  announce  the  beginning  of  the 
 building  of  the  city,  but  much  rather  the  beginning  of  its  "  com- 
 pleted restoration  according  to  its  ancient  extent  and  its  ancient 
 glory."  But  that  this  is  not  contained  in  the  words  r\\:y?)  3"'l^'^7 
 we  have  already  remarked,  to  which  is  to  be  added,  that  the  placing 
 in  opposition  the  commencement  of  the  building  and  the  com- 
 mencement of  its  completed  restoration  is  quite  arbitrary  and  vain, 
 since  certainly  the  commencement  of  the  restoration  at  the  same 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  353 
 
 time  includes  in  it  the  commencement  of  the  completed  restora- 
 tion. In  favour  of  interpreting  ^''ti'n?  of  the  completed  restoration, 
 Hengstenberg  remarks  that  "  in  the  announcement  the  temple  is 
 named  along  with  the  city  in  ver.  26  as  well  as  in  ver.  27.  That 
 with  the  announcement  of  the  building  the  temple  is  not  named 
 here,  that  mention  is  made  only  of  the  building  of  the  streets  of 
 the  city,  presupposes  the  sanctuary  as  already  built  up  at  the  com- 
 mencement of  the  building  which  is  here  spoken  of ;  and  the 
 existence  of  the  temple  again  requires  that  a  commencement  of 
 the  rebuilding  of  the  city  had  also  been  already  made,  since  it  is 
 not  probable  that  the  angel  should  have  omitted  just  that  Avhich 
 was  the  weightiest  matter,  that  for  which  Daniel  was  most  grieved, 
 and  about  which  he  had  prayed  (cf.  vers.  17,  20)  with  the  greatest 
 solicitude."  But  the  validity  of  this  conclusion  is  not  obvious. 
 In  ver.  26  the  naming  of  the  temple  along  with  the  city  is  required 
 by  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  this  verse  treats  of  what  shall  happen 
 after  the  sixty-two  weeks.  How,  then,  shall  it  be  thence  inferred 
 that  the  temple  should  also  be  mentioned  along  w'ith  the  city  in 
 ver.  25,  where  the  subject  is  that  which  forms  the  beginning  of 
 the  seven  or  of  the  seventy  weeks,  and  that,  since  this  was  not 
 done,  the  temple  must  have  been  then  already  built  ?  The  non- 
 mention  of  the  temple  in  ver.  24,  as  in  ver.  25,  is  fully  and  simply 
 explained  by  this,  that  the  word  of  the  angel  stands  in  definite 
 relation  to  the  prayer  of  Daniel,  but  that  Daniel  was  moved  by 
 Jeremiah's  prophecy  of  the  seventy  years'  duration  of  the  nnin  of 
 Jerusalem  to  pray  for  the  turning  away  of  the  divine  w^ath  from 
 the  city.  As  Jeremiah,  in  the  announcement  of  the  seventy  years' 
 desolation  of  the  land,  did  not  specially  mention  the  destruction  of 
 the  temple,  so  also  the  angel,  in  the  decree  regarding  the  seventy 
 weeks  which  are  determined  upon  the  people  of  Israel  and  the  holy 
 city,  makes  no  special  mention  of  the  temple  ;  as,  however,  in 
 Jeremiah's  prophecy  regarding  the  desolation  of  the  land,  the  de- 
 struction not  only  of  Jerusalem,  but  also  of  the  temple,  is  included, 
 so  also  in  the  building  of  the  holy  city  is  included  that  of  the 
 temple,  by  which  Jerusalem  was  made  a  holy  city.  Although  thus 
 the  angel,  in  the  passage  before  us,  does  not  expressly  speak  of  the 
 building  of  the  temple,  but  only  of  the  holy  city,  we  can  maintain 
 the  reference  of  the  "iST  N)'b  to  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  which  consti- 
 tuted an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Israel,  and  consider  this  edict  as 
 the  beginning  of  the  termination  of  the  seven  resp.  seventy 
 weeks. 
 
 z 
 
354  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 The  words  *i''33  n''^"9  "^V  show  the  termination  of  the  seven  weeks. 
 The  words  "1^33  rfK^b  are  not  to  be  translated  a7i  anointed  prince 
 (Bertholdt)  ;  for  n''t^'o  cannot  be  an  adjective  to  'l"'J3,  because  in 
 Hebr.  the  adjective  is  always  placed  after  the  substantive,  with 
 few  exceptions,  which  are  inapplicable  to  this  case ;  cf.  Ewald's 
 Lelirh.  §  2936.  Nor  can  n''*j'0  be  a  participle  :  till  a  jMnce  is 
 anointed  (Steudel),  but  it  is  a  noun,  and  T'^J  is  connected  with  it 
 by  apposition  :  an  anointed  one,  ivho  at  the  same  time  is  a  prince. 
 According  to  the  O.  T.,  kings  and  priests,  and  only  these,  were 
 anointed.  Since,  then,  n'^^D  is  brought  forward  as  the  principal 
 designation,  we  may  not  by  TJJ  think  of  a  priest-prince,  but  only 
 of  a  prince  of  the  people,  nor  by  n"'^'o  of  a  king,  but  only  of  a 
 priest ;  and  by  'T'33  ryv}r^  we  must  understand  a  person  who  first  and 
 specially  is  a  priest,  and  in  addition  is  a  prince  of  the  people,  a 
 king.  The  separation  of  the  two  words  in  ver.  26,  where  T^J?  is 
 acknowledged  as  meaning  a  prince  of  the  people,  leads  to  the 
 same  conclusion.  This  priest-king  can  neither  be  Zerubbabel 
 (according  to  many  old  interpreters),  nor  Ezra  (Steudel),  nor 
 Onias  III.  (Wieseler)  ;  for  Zerubbabel  the  prince  was  not  anointed, 
 and  the  priest  Ezra  and  the  high  priest  Onias  were  not  princes 
 of  the  people.  Nor  can  Cyrus  be  meant  here,  as  Saad.,  Gaon., 
 Bertholdt,  v.  Lengerke,  Maurer,  Ewald,  Hitzig,  Kranichfeld,  and 
 others  think,  by  a  reference  to  Isa.  xlv.  1  ;  for,  supposing  it  to  be 
 the  case  that  Daniel  had  reason  from  Isa.  xlv.  1  to  call  Cyrus  n"'K'b — 
 which  is  to  be  doubted,  since  from  this  epithet  ^^''^•0^  His  (Jehovah's) 
 anointed,  which  Isaiah  uses  of  Cyrus,  it  does  not  follow  as  of  course 
 that  he  should  be  named  n"'iJ'n — the  title  ought  at  least  to  have 
 been  ^"'t^'b  n*J3j  the  Tyv^)2  being  an  adjective  following  1"'JJ,  because 
 there  is  no  evident  reason  for  the  express  precedence  of  the  adjec- 
 tival definition.^ 
 
 The  O.  T.  knows  only  One  who  shall  be  both  priest  and  king  in 
 one  person  (Ps.  ex.  4 ;  Zech.  vi.  13),  Christ,  the  Messias  (John  iv. 
 
 ^  "  It  is  an  unjustifiable  assertion  that  every  heathen  king  may  also  bear  the 
 name  n^tJ'O,  anointed.  In  all  the  books  of  the  0.  T.  there  is  but  a  single 
 heathen  king,  Cyrus,  who  is  named  rT'lJ'O  (Isa.  xlv.  1),  and  he  not  simply  as 
 such,  but  because  of  the  remarkable  and  altogether  singular  relation  in  which 
 he  stood  to  the  church,  because  of  the  gifts  with  which  God  endowed  him  for 
 her  deliverance,  .  .  .  and  because  of  the  typical  relation  in  which  he  stood  to 
 the  author  of  the  higher  deliverance,  the  Messiah.  Cyrus  could  in  a  certain 
 measure  be  regarded  as  a  theocratic  ruler,  aud  as  such  he  is  described  by 
 Isaiah." — Hexgstenbekg. 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  355 
 
 25),  whom,  with  Havernick,  Hengstenberg,  Hofmann,  Auberlen, 
 Delitzsch,  and  Kliefoth,  we  here  understand  by  the  "l^ij  n''^0,  be- 
 cause in  Him  the  two  essential  requisites  of  the  theocratic  king, 
 the  anointing  and  the  appointment  to  be  the  T'JJ  of  the  people  of 
 God  (cf.  1  Sam.  x.  1,  xiii.  14,  xvi.  13,  xxv.  30  ;  2  Sam.  ii.  4,  v.  2  f.), 
 are  found  in  the  most  perfect  manner.  These  requisites  are  here 
 attributed  to  Him  as  predicates,  and  in  such  a  manner  that  the 
 being  anointed  goes  before  the  being  a  prince,  in  order  to  make 
 prominent  the  spiritual,  priestly  character  of  His  royalty,  and  to 
 designate  Him,  on  the  ground  of  the  prophecies,  Isa.  Ixi.  1-3  and 
 Iv.  4,  as  the  person  by  whom  "  the  sure  mercies  of  David  "  (Isa.  Iv. 
 3)  shall  be  realized  by  the  covenant  people.^  The  absence  of  the 
 definite  article  is  not  to  be  explained  by  saying  that  n''^'»,  some- 
 what as  HDV,  Zech.  iii.  8,  vi.  12,  is  used  kut  e'|.  as  a  nomen  propr. 
 of  tlie  Messiah,  the  Anointed  ;  for  in  this  case  I^JJ  ought  to  have 
 the  article,  since  in  Hebrew  we  cannot  say  "^yo  1^"=i,  but  only 
 !]^)3n  in.  Much  rather  the  article  is  wanting,  because  it  shall  not 
 be  said  :  till  the  Messiah,  luho  is  pinnce,  but  only  :  till  one  comes  loho 
 is  anointed  and  at  the  same  time  prince,  because  He  that  is  to  come 
 is  not  definitely  designated  as  the  expected  Messiah,  but  must  be 
 made  prominent  by  the  predicates  ascribed  to  Him  only  as  a  per- 
 sonage altogether  singular. 
 
 Thus  the  first  half  of  ver.  25  states  that  the  first  seven  of  the 
 seventy  weeks  begin  with  the  edict  (of  Cyrus)  permitting  the 
 return  of  Israel  from  exile  and  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem,  and 
 extend  from  that  time  till  the  appearance  of  an  anointed  one  who 
 at  the  same  time  is  prince,  i.e.  till  Christ.  With  that  view  the 
 supposition  that  D''i;3^  are  year-weeks,  periods  of  seven  years,  is 
 irreconcilable.  Therefore  most  interpreters  who  understand  Christ 
 as  the  T'J^  0''^'?j  have  referred  the  following  number,  and  sixty-tioo 
 vjeeks,  to  the  first  clause — "  from  the  going  forth  of  the  command 
 ....  seven  loeeks  and  sixty-two  iveeksJ"  Thus  Theodotion  :  ea)9 
 XpKTTOv  Tjyovfiivov  e/SSofidBe^  kirra  Kal  e/SSo/iaSe?  i^rjKovraSvo  ;  and 
 the  Vulgate  :  usqve  ad  Christian  diicem  hebdomades  septem  et  hehdo- 
 mades  sexaginta  duce  erunt.     The  text  of  the  LXX.  is  here,  hovv- 
 
 1  In  the  1^33  IT'ti'lO  it  is  natural  to  suppose  there  is  a  reference  to  the  pas- 
 sages in  Isaiah  referred  to ;  yet  one  must  not,  with  Hofmann  and  Auberlen, 
 hence  conclude  that  Christ  is  as  King  of  Israel  named  n"'JJ'D,  and  as  King  of 
 the  heathen  lijj,  for  in  the  frequent  use  of  the  word  Tij^  of  the  king  of  Israel 
 in  the  books  of  Samuel  it  is  much  more  natural  to  regard  it  as  the  reference  to 
 David. 
 
356  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 ever,  completely  in  error,  and  is  useless.  Tliis  Interpretation,  in 
 recent  times,  Hiivernick,  Hengstenberg,  and  Auberlen  have  sought 
 to  justify  in  different  ways,  but  without  having  succeeded  in  in- 
 validating the  reasons  which  stand  opposite  to  them.  First  of  all 
 the  Atnach  forbids  this  interpretation,  for  by  it  the  seven  Cy^B^ 
 are  separated  from  the  sixty-two.  This  circumstance,  however,  in 
 and  of  itself  decides  nothing,  since  the  Atnach  does  not  always 
 separate  clauses,  but  frequently  also  shows  only  the  point  of  rest 
 within  a  clause  ;  besides,  it  first  was  adopted  by  the  Masoretes,  and 
 only  shows  the  interpretation  of  these  men,  without  at  all  furnish- 
 ing any  guarantee  for  its  correctness.  But  yet  this  view  is  not  to 
 be  overlooked,  as  Hgstb.  himself  acknowledges  in  the  remark : 
 "  Here  the  separation  of  the  two  periods  of  time  was  of  great  con- 
 sequence, in  order  to  show  that  the  seven  and  the  sixty-two  weeks 
 are  not  a  mere  arbitrary  dividing  into  two  of  one  whole  period,  but 
 that  to  each  of  these  two  periods  its  own  characteristic  mark 
 belongs."  With  this  remark,  Hiivernick's  assertion,  that  the 
 dividing  of  the  sixty-nine  W^V^^  into  seven  and  sixty-two  is  made 
 only  on  account  of  the  solemnity  of  the  whole  passage,  is  set  aside 
 as  altogether  vain,  and  the  question  as  to  the  ground  of  the  division 
 presses  itself  on  our  earnest  attention.  If  this  division  must  in- 
 dicate that  to  each  of  the  two  periods  its  own  distinctive  character- 
 istic belongs,  an  unprejudiced  consideration  of  the  words  shows  that 
 the  characteristic  mark  of  the  "  seven  weeks  "  lies  in  this,  that  this 
 period  extends  from  the  going  forth  of  the  word  to  restore  Jeru- 
 salem till  the  appearance  of  an  Anointed  one,  a  Prince,  thus 
 terminating  with  the  appearance  of  this  Prince,  and  that  the 
 characteristic  mark  for  the  ^'  sixty-two  weeks "  consists  in  that 
 which  the  words  immediately  connected  therewith  affirm,  3^t;'ri 
 '1J1  nn323"i,  and  thus  that  the  "  sixty-two  weeks  "  belong  indeed  to  the 
 followincr  clause.  But  accordinij  to  Henfrstenbero;  the  words  ou£jht 
 not  to  be  so  understood, but  thus:  "sixty-nine  weeks  must  pass  away, 
 seven  till  the  completed  restoration  of  the  city,  sixty-two  from  that 
 time  till  the  Anointed,  the  Prince."  But  it  is  clearly  impossible  to 
 find  this  meaning  in  the  words  of  the  text,  and  it  is  quite  super- 
 fluous to  use  any  further  words  in  proof  of  this.^     By  the  remark, 
 
 '  Hengstenberg,  as  Kliefoth  has  remarked,  has  taken  as  the  first  terminus  ad 
 quern  the  words  "  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem,"  till  the  rebuilding  of 
 Jerusalem,  till  its  completed  rebuilding,  till  that  Jerusalem  is  again  built ;  and 
 then  the  further  words,  "  unto  the  Messiah  the  Prince,"  as  the  second  terminus 
 ad  quern;  and,  finally,  he  assigns  the  seven  weeks  to  the  first  terminus  ad  quem^ 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  357 
 
 *'  If  the  second  designation  of  time  is  attributed  to  that  which 
 follows,  then  we  cannot  otherwise  explain  it  than  that  during 
 sixty-two  weeks  the  streets  will  be  restored  and  built  up  ;  but  this 
 presents  a  very  inappropriate  meaning," — by  this  remark  the  in- 
 terpretation in  question  is  neither  shown  to  be  possible,  nor  is  it 
 made  evident.  For  the  meaning  would  be  inappropriate  only  if 
 by  the  building  up  of  Jerusalem  we  were  to  understand  merely  the 
 rebuilding  of  the  city  which  was  laid  in  ruins  by  the  Chaldeans. 
 If  we  attribute  the  expression  "  and  sixty-two  weeks  "  to  the  first 
 half  of  the  verse,  then  the  division  of  the  sixty-nine  weeks  into 
 seven  weeks  and  sixty-two  weeks  is  unaccountable;  for  in  ver.  26 
 we  must  then  read,  "  after  sixty-nine  weeks,"  and  not,  as  we  find  it 
 in  the  text,  "  after  sixty-two  weeks."  The  substitution,  again  [in 
 ver.  26],  of  only  this  second  designation  of  time  (sixty- two  weeks)  is 
 also  intelligible  only  if  the  sixty-two  weeks  in  ver.  25  belong  to  the 
 second  half  of  the  verse,  and  are  to  be  separated  from  the  seven 
 weeks.  The  bringing  together  of  the  seven  and  of  the  sixty-two 
 weeks  stands  thus  opposed  to  the  context,  and  is  maintained  merely 
 on  the  supposition  that  the  0''^?*^  are  year-weeks,  or  periods  of  time 
 consisting  of  seven  years,  in  order  that  sixty-nine  year-weeks,  i.e. 
 483  years,  might  be  gained  for  the  time  from  the  rebuilding  of 
 Jerusalem  to  Christ.  But  since  there  is  in  the  word  itself  no 
 foundation  for  attaching  to  it  this  meaning,  we  have  no  right 
 to  distort  the  language  of  the  text  according  to  it,  but  it  is  our 
 duty  to  let  this  interpretation  fall  aside  as  untenable,  in  order  that 
 we  may  do  justice  to  the  words  of  the  prophecy.  The  words  here 
 used  demand  that  we  connect  the  period  "  and  sixty-two  weeks  " 
 with  the  second  half  of  the  verse,  "  and  during  sixty-two  weeks 
 shall  the  street  be  built  again,"  etc.  The  "sixty-two  weeks"  are 
 not  united  antithetically  to  the  "  seven  weeks  "  by  the  copula  i,  as 
 Hofmann  would  have  it,  but  are  connected  simply  as  following 
 the  seven  ;  so  that  that  which  is  named  as  the  contents  of  the 
 "  sixty-two  weeks  "  is  to  be  interpreted  as  happening  first  after 
 the  appearance  of  the  Maschiack  Nagid^  or,  more  distinctly,  that 
 the  appearance  of  the  Messias  forming  the  terminus  ad  quern  of 
 the  seven  weeks,  forms  at  the  same  time  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the 
 sixty-two  weeks.     That  event  which  brings  the  close  of  the  sixty- 
 
 and  the  sixty-two  weeks  is  the  second ;  as  if  the  text  comprehended  two  clauses, 
 and  declared  that  from  the  going  forth  of  the  commandment  till  that  Jerusalem 
 was  rebuilt  are  seven  hepiades,  and  from  that  time  till  a  Messiah,  a  Prince,  are 
 sixty-two  heptades. 
 
358  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 two  weeks  is  spoken  of  in  ver.  26  in  the  words  n^ti^'o  nns'',  Messiah 
 shall  he  cut  off.  The  words  "  and  sixty-two  Q^V??' "  may  be  taken 
 grammatically  either  as  the  absolute  nominative  or  as  the  accusa- 
 tive of  duration.  The  words  nnja:"!  2WT\  refer  undoubtedly  to  the 
 expression  riiJDpi  3''K'np  (to  restore  and  to  build) ^  according  to  which 
 licn  is  not  to  be  joined  adverbially  to  f^n^^Ji  (according  to  Haver- 
 nick,  Hofmann,  and  Wieseler),  but  is  to  be  rendered  intransitively, 
 corresponding  to  3''^n :  shall  be  restored,  as  Ezek.  xvi.  55,  1  Kings 
 xiii.  6,  2  Kings  v.  10,  14,  Ex.  iv.  7.  The  subject  to  both  verbs  is 
 not  (Rosenmiiller,  Gesenius,  v.  Leng.,  Hgstb.)  Sini,  but  Jeru- 
 salem, as  is  manifest  from  the  circumstance  that  the  verbs  refer  to 
 the  restoration  and  the  building  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  placed  beyond 
 a  doubt  by  this,  that  in  Zech.  viii.  5  3"im  is  construed  as  masculine  ; 
 and  the  opinion  that  it  is  rjeneris  fcem.  rests  only  on  this  passage 
 before  us.  There  is  no  substantial  reason  for  interpreting  (with 
 Klief.)  the  verbs  impersonally. 
 
 The  words  p"ini  nim  are  difficult,  and  many  interpretations 
 have  been  given  of  them.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  they 
 contain  together  one  definition,  and  that  2irn  is  to  be  taken  as  the 
 adverbial  accusative.  3im  means  the  street  and  the  wide  space 
 before  the  gate  of  the  temple.  Accordingly,  to  pin  have  been 
 given  the  meanings  ditch,  wall,  aqueduct  (Ges.,  Steud.,  Ziind., 
 etc.),  pond  (Ewald),  confined  space  (Hofmann),  court  (Hitzig) ; 
 but  all  these  meanings  are  only  hit  upon  from  the  connection,  as 
 are  also  the  renderings  of  the  LXX.  et?  ifKaro^  /cal  fii^Ko^;,  of 
 Theod.  TrXaTeia  koI  Tel')(o^,  and  of  the  Vulg.  platea  et  muri.  Vl^ 
 means  to  cut,  then  to  decide,  to  determine,  to  conclude  irrevocably; 
 hence  Y^"^^,  decision,  judgment,  Joel  iv.  14.  This  meaning  is  main- 
 tained by  Hav.,  Hgstb.,  v.  Leng.,  Wies.,  and  Kran.,  and  pini  is 
 interpreted  as  a  participle :  "  and  it  is  determined."  This  shall 
 form  a  contrast  to  the  words,  "  but  in  the  oppression  of  the  times  '* 
 — and  it  is  determined,  namely,  that  Jerusalem  shall  be  built  in  its 
 streets,  but  the  building  shall  be  accomplished  in  troublous  times. 
 But  although  this  interpretation  be  well  founded  as  regards  the 
 words  themselves,  it  does  not  harmonize  with  the  connection.  The 
 words  P'^ni  2im  plainly  go  together,  as  the  old  translators  have 
 interpreted  them.  Now  3in"i  does  not  mean  properly  street,  but  a 
 wide,  free  space,  as  Ezra  x.  9,  the  open  place  before  the  temple, 
 and  is  applied  to  streets  only  in  so  far  as  they  are  free,  unoccupied 
 spaces  in  cities,  pin^  that  which  is  cut  off,  limited,  forms  a  con- 
 trast to  this,  not,  however,  as  that  we  may  interpret  the  words,  as 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  359 
 
 Hofm.  does,  in  the  sense  of  widtli,  and  space  cut  off,  not  capable 
 of  extension,  or  free  space  and  limited  quarter  (Hitzig),  an  inter- 
 pretation \Yhich  is  too  far  removed  from  the  primary  import  of  the 
 two  words.  It  is  better  to  interpret  them,  with  Kliefoth,  as  "  wide 
 space,  and  yet  also  limited,"  according  to  which  we  have  the 
 meaning,  "  Jerusalem  shall  be  built  so  that  the  city  takes  in  a 
 •wide  space,  has  wide,  free  places,  but  not,  however,  unlimited  in 
 width,  but  such  that  their  compass  is  measured  off,  is  fixed  and 
 bounded." 
 
 The  last  words,  D"'riVn  piWI,  point  to  the  circumstances  under 
 which  the  building  proceeds :  in  the  diffi^culty,  the  oppression  of  the 
 times.  The  book  of  Nehemiah,  iii.  33,  iv.  1  ff.,  vi.  1  ff.,  ix.  36,  37, 
 furnishes  a  historical  exposition  of  them,  although  the  words  do 
 not  refer  to  the  building  of  the  walls  and  bulwarks  of  the  earthly 
 Jerusalem  which  was  accomplished  by  Nehemiah,  but  are  to  be 
 understood,  according  to  Ps.  li.  20,  of  the  spiritual  building  of  the 
 City  of  God. 
 
 Ver.  26.  After  the  threescore  and  tioo  weehs,  i.e.  in  the  seventieth 
 VI^K',  shall  the  Messiah  he  cut  off. — From  the  "•"inK  {after)  it  does 
 not  with  certainty  follow  that  the  "  cutting  off  "  of  the  Maschiach 
 falls  wholly  in  the  beginning  of  the  seventieth  week,  but  only  that 
 the  "  cutting  off  "  shall  constitute  the  first  great  event  of  this  week, 
 and  that  those  things  which  are  mentioned  in  the  remaining  part 
 of  the  verse  shall  then  follow.  The  complete  designation  of  the 
 time  of  the  ''  cutting  off"  can  only  be  found  from  the  whole  con- 
 tents of  vers.  26  and  27.  n"i33,  from  rnjD,  to  hew  down,  to  fell,  to 
 cut  to  pieces,  signifies  to  he  rooted  up,  destroyed,  annihilated,  and 
 denotes  generally  a  violent  kind  of  death,  though  not  always,  but 
 only  the  uprooting  from  among  the  living,  or  from  the  congrega- 
 tion, and  is  therefore  the  usual  expression  for  the  destruction  of 
 the  ungodly — e.g.  Ps.  xxxvii.  9,  Prov.  ii.  22 — without  particularly 
 designating  the  manner  in  which  this  is  done.  From  ri"i3^  it 
 cannot  thus  be  strictly  proved  that  this  part  of  the  verse  announces 
 the  putting  to  death  of  an  anointed  one,  or  of  the  Messiah.  Of 
 the  word  Maschiach  three  possible  interpretations  have  been  given  : 
 1.  That  the  Maschiach  Nagid  of  ver.  25,  the  Maschiach  of  ver.  26, 
 and  the  Nagid  of  ver.  266,  are  three  different  persons;  2.  that 
 all  the  three  expressions  denote  one  and  the  same  person ;  and  3. 
 that  the  Maschiach  Nagid  of  ver.  25  and  the  Maschiach  of  ver.  26 
 are  the  same  person,  and  that  the  Nagid  of  ver.  266  is  another  and 
 a  different  person.    The  first  of  these  has  been  maintained  by  J.  D. 
 
360  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL, 
 
 Micliaelis,  Jalin.  Ebrard  understands  by  all  the  three  expressions 
 the  Messiah,  and  supposes  that  he  is  styled  fully  Maschiach  Nagid 
 in  ver,  25  in  order  that  His  calling  and  His  dignity  (O''?'?)?  as  well 
 as  His  power  and  strength  i^^Vi),  might  be  designated  ;  in  ver.  26(7, 
 n''*C'D,  the  anointed,  where  mention  is  made  of  His  sufferings  and  His 
 rejection ;  in  ver.  26i,  'T'^^j  the  prince,  where  reference  is  made  to 
 the  judgment  which  He  sends  (by  the  Romans  on  apostate  Jeru- 
 salem). But  this  view  is  refuted  by  the  circumstance  that  Nsn 
 (that  is  to  come)  follows  T'J3j  whereby  the  prince  is  represented  as 
 first  coming,  as  well  as  by  the  circumstance  that  t^sn  T^J^^  who 
 destroys  the  city  and  the  sanctuary,  whose  end  shall  be  with  a 
 flood,  consequently  cannot  be  the  Messiah,  but  is  the  enemy  of  the 
 people  and  kingdom  of  God,  who  shall  arise  (ch.  vii.  24,  25)  in  the 
 last  time.  But  if  in  ver.  26  the  Nagid  is  different  from  the  Ma- 
 schiach, then  both  also  appear  to  be  different  from  the  Maschiach 
 Nagid  of  ver.  25.  The  circumstance  that  in  ver.  26  ^^^^  has  neither 
 the  article  nor  the  addition  T'J^  following  it,  appears  to  be  in  favour 
 of  this  opinion.  The  absence  of  the  one  as  well  as  of  the  other 
 denotes  that  O^e'9)  after  that  which  is  said  of  Him,  in  consideration 
 of  the  connection  of  the  words,  needs  no  more  special  description. 
 If  we  observe  that  the  destruction  of  the  city  and  the  sanctuary 
 is  so  connected  with  the  Maschiach  that  we  must  consider  this  as 
 the  immediate  or  first  consequence  of  the  cutting  off  of  the  Maschi- 
 ach, and  that  the  destruction  shall  be  brought  about  by  a  Nagid, 
 then  by  Maschiach  we  can  understand  neither  a  secular  prince  or 
 king  nor  simply  a  high  priest,  but  only  an  anointed* one  who  stands 
 in  such  a  relation  to  the  city  and  sanctuary,  that  with  his  being 
 "  cut  off  "  the  city  and  the  sanctuary  lose  not  only  their  protection 
 and  their  protector,  but  the  sanctuary  also  loses,  at  the  same  time, 
 its  character  as  the  sanctuary,  which  the  Maschiach  had  given  to  it. 
 This  is  suitable  to  no  Jewish  high  priest,  but  only  to  the  Messias 
 whom  Jehovah  anointed  to  be  a  Priest-King  after  the  order  of 
 Melchizedek,  and  placed  as  Lord  over  Zion,  His  holy  hill.  We 
 agree  therefore  with  Havernick,  Hengstenberg,  Auberlen,  and 
 Kliefoth,  who  regard  the  Maschiach  of  this  verse  as  identical  with 
 the  Maschiach  Nagid  of  ver.  25,  as  Christ,  who  in  the  fullest  sense 
 of  the  word  is  the  Anointed ;  and  we  hope  to  establish  this  view 
 more  fully  in  the  following  exposition  of  the  historical  reference 
 of  this  word  of  the  angel. 
 
 But  by  this  explanation  of  the  n"':fQ  we  are  not  authorized 
 to  regard  the  word  n'ls^  as  necessarily  pointing  to  the  death  of 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  361 
 
 tlie  Messias,  the  crucifixion  of  Christ,  since  ri"i3^,  as  above  shown, 
 does  not  necessarily  denote  a  violent  death.  The  right  interpreta- 
 tion of  this  word  depends  on  the  explanation  of  the  words  i?  pi^^ 
 which  follow  —  words  which  are  very  differently  interpreted  by 
 critics.  The  supposition  is  grammatically  inadmissible  that  v  pS 
 =  ^srx  (Michaelis,  Hitzig),  although  the  LXX.  in  the  Codex 
 Chisianus  have  translated  them  by  /cat  ovk  'iaraL ;  and  in  general 
 all  those  interpretations  which  identify  px  with  N?,  as  e.g.  et  non 
 sibiy  and  not  for  himself  (Vitringa,  Rosenmiiller,  Havernick,  and 
 others).  For  P5<  is  never  interchanged  with  n^,  but  is  so  distin- 
 guished from  it  that  n^,  non,  is  negation  purely,  while  P^?,  "  it  is 
 not,"  denies  the  existence  of  the  thing ;  cf .  Hengstenberg's  Christol. 
 iii.  p.  81  f.,  where  all  the  passages  which  Gesenius  refers  to  as 
 exemplifying  this  exchange  are  examined  and  rightly  explained, 
 proving  that  p»<  is  never  used  in  the  sense  of  k^.  Still  less  is  Sh  to 
 be  taken  in  the  sense  of  r?  "i^'w^,  ''  there  shall  not  then  be  one  who 
 (belongs)  to  him  ;"  for  although  t\\Q  pronomen  relat.  may  be  want- 
 ing in  short  sentences,  yet  that  can  be  only  in  such  as  contain  a 
 subject  to  which  it  can  refer.  But  in  the  px  no  subject  is  con- 
 tained, but  only  the  non-existence  is  declared ;  it  cannot  be  said : 
 no  one  is,  or  nothing  is.  In  all  passages  where  it  is  thus  rightly 
 translated  a  participle  follows,  in  which  the  personal  or  actual 
 subject  is  contained,  of  which  the  non-existence  is  predicated. 
 ^b  px  without  anything  following  is  elliptical,  and  the  subject 
 which  is  not,  which  will  not  be,  is  to  be  learned  from  the  context 
 or  from  the  matter  itself.  The  missing  subject  here  cannot  be 
 n''tl^9>  because  S?  points  back  to  n''LJ'D;  nor  can  it  be  '^V,  people 
 (Vulg.,  Grotius),  or  a  descendant  (Wieseler),  or  2i  follower  (Auber- 
 len),  because  all  these  words  are  destitute  of  any  support  from  the 
 context,  and  are  brought  forward  arbitrarily.  Since  that  which 
 "  is  not  to  Him  "  is  not  named,  we  must  thus  read  the  expression  in 
 its  undefined  universality  :  it  is  not  to  Him,  viz.  that  which  He  must 
 have,  to  be  the  Maschiach.  We  are  not  by  this  to  think  merely  of 
 dominion,  people,  sanctuary,  but  generally  of  the  place  which  He 
 as  Mascldach  has  had,  or  should  have,  among  His  people  and  in  the 
 sanctuary,  but,  by  His  being  "  cut  off,"  is  lost.  This  interpretation 
 is  of  great  importance  in  guiding  to  a  correct  rendering  of  n"i3'' ;  for 
 it  shows  that  n"i2^  does  not  denote  the  putting  to  death,  or  cutting 
 off  of  existence,  but  only  the  annihilation  of  His  place  as  Ma- 
 schiach among  His  people  and  in  His  kingdom.  For  if  after  His 
 "  cutting  off  "  He  has  not  what  He  should  have,  it  is  clear  that 
 
362  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 annihilation  does  not  apply  to  Him  personally,  but  only  that  He 
 has  lost  His  place  and  function  as  the  Maschiacli} 
 
 In  consequence  of  the  cutting  off  of  the  n'^K'D  destruction  falls 
 upon  the  city  and  the  sanctuary.  This  proceeds  from  the  people 
 of  the  prince  who  comes.  ri''nir";|^  to  destroy,  to  ruin,  is  used,  it  is 
 true,  of  the  desolating  of  countries,  but  predicated  of  a  city  and 
 sanctuary  it  means  to  overthrow;  cf.  e.g.  Gen.  xix.  ]3f.,  where  it 
 is  used  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom ;  and  even  in  the  case  of  countries 
 the  JT'HK'n  consists  in  the  destruction  of  men  and  cattle ;  cf.  Jer. 
 xxxvi.  29. 
 
 The  meaning  of  N2n  Tp^  Dy  depends  chiefly  on  the  interpre- 
 tation of  the  N2n.  This  we  cannot,  with  Ebrard,  refer  to  oy. 
 Naturally  it  is  connected  with  1*^2^,  not  only  according  to  the  order 
 of  the  words,  but  in  reality,  since  in  the  following  verse  (ver.  27) 
 the  people  are  no  longer  spoken  of,  but  only  the  actions  and  pro- 
 ceedings of  the  prince  are  described.  N^l]  does  not  mean  qui 
 succedit  (Roesch,  Maurer),  but  is  frequently  used  by  Daniel  of  a 
 hostile  coming  ;  cf.  ch.  i.  1,  xi.  10,  13,  15.  But  in  this  sense  N3n 
 appears  to  be  superfluous,  since  it  is  self-evident  that  the  prince, 
 if  he  will  destroy  Jerusalem,  must  come  or  draw  near.  One  also 
 must  not  say  that  i^sn  designates  the  prince  as  one  who  was  to  come 
 (ip-^o/xevci),  since  from  the  expression  "  coming  days,"  as  meaning 
 "  future  days,"  it  does  not  follow  that  a  "  coming  prince"  is  a 
 "  future  prince."  The  N3ri  with  the  article  :  "  he  who  comes,  or 
 will  come,"  denotes  much  rather  the  'T'^3  (which  is  without  the 
 article)  as  such  an  one  whose  coming  is  known,  of  whom  Daniel 
 has  heard  that  he  will  come  to  destroy  the  people  of  God.  But  in 
 the  earlier  revelations  Daniel  heard  of  two  princes  who  shall  bring 
 destruction  on  his  people  :  in  ch.  vii.  8,  24  ff.,  of  Antichrist ;  and 
 in  ch.  viii.  9  ff.,  23  ff.,  of  Antiochus.  To  one  of  these  the  N3n 
 points.  Which  of  the  two  is  meant  must  be  gathered  from  the 
 connection,  and  this  excludes  the  reference  to  Antiochus,  and  neces- 
 sitates our  thinking  of  the  Antichrist. 
 
 In  the  following  clause  :  "  and  his  end  xoith  the  flood, ^''  the  suffix 
 
 1  Kranichfeld  quite  appropriately  compares  the  strong  expression  n")3''  'with 
 "  the  equally  strong  ^y  (shall  wear  out)  in  ch.  vii.  25,  spoken  of  that  which 
 shall  befall  the  saints  on  the  part  of  the  enemy  of  God  in  the  last  great  war. 
 As  by  this  latter  expression  destruction  in  the  sense  of  complete  annihilation 
 cannot  be  meant,  since  the  saints  personally  exist  after  the  catastrophe  (cf. 
 vers.  27,  22,  18),  so  also  by  this  expression  here  (n"i3'')  'we  are  not  to  under- 
 stand anuihilatiou." 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  363 
 
 refers  simply  to  the  hostile  Nagicl,  whose  end  is  here  emphatically 
 placed  over  against  his  coming  (Kran.,  Hofm.,  Kliefoth).  Pre- 
 conceived views  as  to  the  historical  interpretation  of  the  prophecy 
 lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  other  references.  The  Messianic  inter- 
 preters, who  find  in  the  words  a  prophecy  of  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  and  thus  understand  by  the  Nagid 
 Titus,  cannot  apply  the  suffix  to  Nagid.  M.  Geier,  Havernick, 
 and  others,  therefore,  refer  it  (the  suffix)  to  the  city  and  the  sanc- 
 tuary ;  but  that  is  grammatically  inadmissible,  since  l''VO  (^^^^  ciiy) 
 is  gen.  fcem.  Aub.  and  others  refer  it,  therefore,  merely  to  the  sanc- 
 tuary ;  but  the  separation  of  the  city  from  the  sanctuary  is  quite 
 arbitrary.  Vitringa,  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Hgstb.,  interpret  the  suffix  as 
 neuter,  and  refer  it  to  T[''r\^\  (shall  destroy),  or,  more  correctly,  to 
 the  idea  of  destroying  comprehended  in  it,  for  they  understand 
 ^^^  of  a  warlike  overflowing  flood  :  "  and  the  end  of  it  shall  be 
 (or  :  it  shall  end)  in  the  flood."  On  the  other  hand,  v.  Lengerke 
 and  Kliefoth  have  rightly  objected  to  this  view.  "  This  reference 
 of  the  suffix,"  they  say,  "  is  in  admissibly  harsh  ;  the  author  must 
 have  written  erroneously,  since  he  suggested  the  reference  of  the 
 suffix  to  Dy  or  to  T'JJ.  One  cannot  think  of  what  is  meant  by  the 
 end  of  the  destruction,  since  the  destruction  itself  is  the  end  ;  a 
 flood  may,  it  is  true,,  be  an  emblem  of  a  warlike  invasion  of  a 
 country,  but  it  never  signifies  the  warlike  march,  the  expedition." 
 There  thus  remains  nothing  else  than  to  apply  the  suffix  to  the 
 Nagid,  the  prince.  Y[>_  can  accordingly  only  denote  the  destruction 
 of  the  prince.  Hitzig's  interpretation,  that  iSfi?  is  the  result  of  his 
 coming,  refutes  itself. 
 
 In  ^tOE'a  the  article  is  to  be  observed,  by  which  alone  such 
 interpretations  as  "  in  an  overflowing"  (Ros.,  Roed.,  and  others), 
 "  vi  quadam  ineluctahili  oppressiis^^  (Steudel,  Maurer),  "  like  an 
 overflowing,"  and  the  like,  are  proved  to  be  verbally  inadmissible. 
 The  article  shows  that  a  definite  and  well-known  overflowing  is 
 meant.  ^^^,  "  overflowing,"  may  be  the  emblem  of  an  army 
 spreading  itself  over  the  land,  as  in  ch.  xi.  10,  22,  26,  Isa.  viii.  8, 
 or  the  emblem  of  a  judgment  desolating  or  destroying  a  city, 
 country,  or  people  ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxii.  6,  Nah.  i.  8,  Prov.  xxvii.  4,  Ps. 
 xc.  5.  The  first  of  these  interpretations  would  give  this  meaning : 
 The  prince  shall  find  his  end  in  his  warlike  expedition ;  and  the 
 article  in  ^^^^  would  refer  back  to  N3n.  This  interpretation  is  in- 
 deed quite  possible,  but  not  very  probable,  because  ^'of  would  then 
 be  the  overflowing  which  was  caused  by  the  hostile  prince  or  his 
 
364  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL, 
 
 coming,  and  tlie  thought  would  be  this,  that  he  should  perish  in  it. 
 But  this  agrees  neither  with  the  following  clause,  that  war  should 
 be  to  the  end,  nor  with  ch.  vii.  21,  26,  according  to  which  the 
 enemy  of  God  holds  the  superiority  till  he  is  destroyed  by  the 
 judgment  of  God.  Accordingly,  we  agree  with  Wieseler,  Hof- 
 mann,  Kranichfeld,  and  Kliefoth  in  adopting  the  other  interpre- 
 tation of  ^9'^'j  fl(>od,  as  the  figure  of  the  desolating  judgment  of 
 God,  and  explain  the  article  as  an  allusion  to  the  flood  which  over- 
 whelmed Pharaoh  and  his  host.  Besides,  the  whole  passao-e  is, 
 with  Maurer  and  Klief.,  to  be  regarded  as  a  relative  clause,  and 
 to  be  connected  with  NZin :  the  people  of  a  prince  who  shall  come 
 and  find  his  destruction  in  the  flood. 
 
 This  verse  (ver.  26)  contains  a  third  statement,  which  adds  a 
 new  element  to  the  preceding.  Rosenmiiller,  Ewald,  Hofm.,  and 
 others  connect  these  into  one  passage,  thus  :  and  to  the  end  of  the 
 war  a  decree  of  desolations  continues.  But  although  Y\>,^  gram- 
 matically considered,  is  the  stat.  constr.,  and  might  be  connected 
 with  nron^O  (zmr),  yet  this  is  opposed  by  the  circumstance,  that 
 in  the  preceding  sentence  no  mention  is  expressly  made  of  war ; 
 and  that  if  the  war  which  consisted  in  the  destruction  of  the  city 
 should  be  meant,  then  n?^npp  ought  to  have  the  article.  From  these 
 reasons  we  agree  with  the  majority  of  interpreters  in  regarding 
 n^npo  as  the  predicate  of  the  passage  :  "  and  to  the  end  is  war ;  " 
 but  we  cannot  refer  )'i?.,  with  Wieseler,  to  the  end  of  the  prince,  or, 
 with  Hiiv.  and  Aub.,  to  the  end  of  the  city,  because  I'i^  has  neither 
 a  suffix  nor  an  article.  According  to  the  just  remark  of  Hitzig, 
 Ki?  without  any  limitation  is  the  eiid  generally,  the  end  of  the 
 period  in  progress,  the  seventy  ^''i'?'^?  and  corresponds  to  K2iD  ny 
 in  ch.  vii.  26,  to  the  end  of  all  things,  ch.  xii.  13  (Klief.).  To 
 the  end  war  shall  be  =  war  shall  continue  during  the  whole  of  the 
 last  J!^3E^. 
 
 The  remaining  words,  ni»?;}b'  nvinj,  form  an  apposition  to 
 n»npD,  notwithstanding  the  objection  by  Kliefoth,  that  since  deso- 
 lations are  a  consequence  of  the  war,  the  words  cannot  be  regarded 
 as  in  apposition.  For  we  do  not  understand  why  in  abbreviated 
 statements  the  effect  cannot  be  placed  in  the  form  of  an  apposition 
 to  the  cause.  The  objection  also  overlooks  the  word  ^^.^.Q?.'  H 
 desolations  are  tlie  effect  of  the  war,  yet  not  the  decree  of  the 
 desolations,  which  can  go  before  the  war  or  can  be  formed  during 
 the  war.  riiODb'  denotes  desolation  not  in  an  active,  but  in  a  pas- 
 sive sense  :  laid  waste,  desolated,  cf.  ver.  27.     '^^'7.™.,  that  which  is 
 
CHAP.  IX.  21-27.  365 
 
 determined^  the  irrevocably  decreed;  therefore  used  of  divine  decrees, 
 and  that  of  decrees  with  reference  to  the  infliction  of  punishment ; 
 cf.  ver.  27,  ch.  xi.  36,  Isa.  x.  23,  xxviii.  22.  Ewald  is  quite  in 
 error  when  he  says  that  it  means  "  the  decision  regarding  the 
 fearful  deeds,  the  divine  decision  as  it  embodies  itself  in  the  judg- 
 ments (ch.  vii.  11  f.)  on  the  world  on  account  of  such  fearful 
 actions  and  desolations,"  because  nioob'  has  not  the  active  mean- 
 ing. Auberlen  weakens  its  force  when  he  renders  it  "  decreed 
 desolations."  "  That  which  is  decreed  of  desolations"  is  also  not  a 
 fixed,  limited,  measured  degree  of  desolations  (Hofm.,  Klief.)  ;  for 
 in  the  word  there  does  not  lie  so  much  the  idea  of  limitation  to  a 
 definite  degree,  as  much  rather  the  idea  of  the  absolute  decision, 
 as  the  connection  with  n73  in  ver.  27,  as  well  as  in  the  two  pas- 
 sages from  Isaiah  above  referred  to,  shows.  The  thought  is  there-  [^ 
 fore  this  :  "  Till  the  end  war  will  be,  for  desolations  are  irrevocably 
 determined  by  God."  Since  riiDOb'  has  nothing  qualifying  it,  we 
 may  not  limit  the  "  decree  of  desolations"  to  the  laying  waste  of 
 the  city  and  the  sanctuary,  but  under  it  there  are  to  be  included 
 the  desolations  which  the  fall  of  the  prince  who  destroys  the  city 
 and  the  sanctuary  shall  bring  along  with  it. 
 
 Ver.  27.  This  verse  contains  four  statements. 
 
 The  first  is :  "  He  shall  confirm  the  covenant  to  many  for  one 
 weehr  Following  the  example  of  Theodotion,  many  (Hav.,  Hgstb., 
 Aub,,  V.  Leng.,  Hitzig,  Hofm.)  regard  "inx  H^y^  as  the  subject :  one 
 week  shall  confirm  the  covenant  to  many.  But  this  poetic  mode  of 
 expression  is  only  admissible  where  the  subject  treated  of  in  the 
 statement  of  the  speaker  comes  after  the  action,  and  therefore  does 
 not  agree  with  JT'ia  "fajn,  where  the  confirming  of  the  covenant 
 is  not  the  work  of  time,  but  the  deed  of  a  definite  person.  To 
 this  is  to  be  added  the  circumstance  that  the  definitions  of  time  in 
 this  verse  are  connected  with  those  in  ver.  25,  and  are  analocrous  to 
 them,  and  must  therefore  be  alike  interpreted  in  both  passages. 
 But  if,  notwithstanding  these  considerations,  we  make  ^nx  yua^ 
 the  subject,  the  question  then  presses  itself  upon  us.  Who  effects 
 the  confirming  of  the  covenant  ?  Havernick,  Hencstenberfr,  and 
 Auberlen  regard  the  Messias  as  the  subject,  and  understand  by 
 the  confirming  of  the  covenant,  the  confirming  of  the  New 
 Covenant  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Ewald,  v.  Lengerke,  and 
 others  think  of  Antiochus  and  the  many  covenants  which,  accord- 
 ing to  1  Mace.  i.  12,  he  established  between  the  apostate  Jews  and 
 the  heathen  Greeks.     Hitzig  understands  by  the  "  covenant "  the 
 
366  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 O.  T.  Covenant,  and  gives  to  '^"'S^i?  the  meaning  to  make  gi'ievous : 
 The  one  week  shall  make  the  covenant  grievous  to  many,  for  they 
 shall  have  to  bear  oppression  on  account  of  their  faith.  On  the 
 other  hand,  Hofmann  (Schnftheiv.)  renders  it  :  The  one  week  shall 
 confirm  many  in  their  fidelity  to  the  faith.  But  none  of  these 
 interpretations  can  be  justified.  The  reasons  which  Hengstenberg 
 adduces  in  support  of  his  view  that  the  Messias  is  the  subject,  are 
 destitute  of  validity.  The  assertion  that  the  Messias  is  the  chief 
 person  spoken  of  in  the  whole  of  this  passage,  rests  on  the  supposition, 
 already  proved  to  be  untenable,  that  the  prince  who  was  to  come 
 (ver.  26)  was  the  instrument  of  the  Anointed,  and  on  the  passages 
 in  Isa.  liii.  11  and  xlii.  6,  which  are  not  parallel  to  that  under 
 consideration.  The  connection  much  more  indicates  that  Nagid 
 is  the  subject  to  "i"'??'?,  since  the  prince  who  was  to  come  is  named 
 last,  and  is  also  the  subject  in  the  suffix  of  isfp  (^Jus  end),  the  last 
 clause  of  ver.  26  having  only  the  significance  of  an  explanatory 
 subordinate  clause.  Also  "  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice 
 combines  itself  in  a  natural  way  with  the  destruction  (ver.  26)  of 
 the  city  and  the  temple  brought  about  by  the  i^^n  "i^J^ ;" — further, 
 "he  who  here  is  represented  as  '  causing  the  sacrifice  and  oblation 
 to  cease'  is  obviously  identical  with  him  who  changes  (ch.  vii.  25) 
 the  times  and  usages  of  worship  (more  correctly  :  times  and  law)  " 
 (Kran.).  "  The  reference  of  "i''?^'?  to  the  ungodly  leader  of  an  army, 
 is  therefore  according  to  the  context  and  the  parallel  passages  of 
 this  book  which  have  been  mentioned,  as  well  as  in  harmony  with 
 the  natural  grammatical  arrangement  of  the  passage,"  and  it  gives 
 also  a  congruous  sense,  although  by  the  Nagid  Titus  cannot  natu- 
 rally be  understood.  n"'in  T'Sin  means  to  strengthen  a  covenant, 
 i.e.  to  make  a  covenant  strong  (Hitzig  has  not  established  the 
 rendering  :  to  make  grievous).  "  Covenant  "  does  not  necessarily 
 mean  the  covenant  of  God  (Old  Testament  or  New  Testament 
 Covenant),  since  the  assertion  that  this  word  occurs  only  in  this 
 book  with  reference  to  the  covenant  of  God  with  Israel  (Hgstb.) 
 does  not  also  prove  that  it  must  here  have  this  meaning  ;  and  with 
 regard  particularly  to  ch.  xi.  22,  it  is  very  questionable.  The 
 expression  rin3  TSJii  with  ?  is  analogous  to  nnzi  mjp  \_icere  fcedus] 
 with  p;  and  the  construction  with  ?  signifies  that  as  in  the  forming  of 
 a  covenant,  so  in  the  confirming  of  a  covenant,  the  two  contracting 
 parties  are  not  viewed  as  standing  on  an  equality,  but  he  wdio  con- 
 cludes or  who  confirms  the  covenant  prevails,  and  imposes  or  forces 
 the  covenant  on  the  other  party.    The  reference  to  the  covenant  of 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  367 
 
 God  with  man  is  thus  indeed  suggested,  yet  it  is  not  rendered  neces- 
 sary, but  only  points  to  a  relation  analogous  to  the  concluding  of  a 
 covenant  emanating  from  God.  Q"'3"!P  with  the  article  signifies 
 the  many^  i.e.  the  great  mass  of  the  people  in  contrast  with  the  few, 
 who  remain  faithful  to  God ;  cf.  Matt.  xxiv.  12.  Therefore  the 
 thought  is  this  :  That  ungodly  prince  shall  impose  on  the  mass  of 
 the  people  a  strong  covenant  that  they  should  follow  him  and  give 
 themselves  to  him  as  their  God. 
 
 While  the  first  clause  of  this  verse  announces  what  shall  \ 
 happen  during  the  whole  of  the  last  week,  the  second  treats  only  I 
 of  the  half  of  this  period.  Vnt^n  '•yn  we  cannot  grammatically 
 otherwise  interpret  than  the  definition  of  time  mentioned  immedi- 
 ately before,  and  thus,  for  reasons  given  above,  cannot  take  it  as  the 
 subject  of  the  clause,  but  only  as  the  accusative  of  the  duration  of 
 time,  consequently  not  in  the  sense  of  the  ablative  :  in  the  midst 
 of  the  week.  The  controversy  whether  ''Vn  here  means  half,  or 
 midst,  has  no  bearing  on  the  matter,  and  acquires  significance  only 
 if  we  interpret  ''VQ,  in  opposition  to  the  context,  as  synonymous 
 with  ^ift]?,  or  with  Klief.,  which  is  equally  untenable  and  impos- 
 sible in  this  context,  regard  yui'n  ''yn  as  an  absolute  definition. 
 ''>*n  signifies  only  half,  not  midst.  Only  where  the  representation 
 of  an  extent  of  space  or  period  of  time  prevails  can  we  render  it, 
 without  a  change  of  its  meaning,  by  the  word  midst.  In  the  half 
 of  the  night  is  the  same  as  in  the  middle  of  the  night,  at 
 midnight,  Ex.  xii.  29 ;  in  the  half  of  the  firmament.  Josh.  x.  13, 
 is  the  same  as  in  the  middle  of  the  space  of  the  heavens  across 
 which  the  sun  moves  during  day ;  in  the  half  of  the  day  of  life  is 
 the  same  as  in  the  middle  of  the  period  of  life,  Ps.  cii.  25.  But 
 during  the  half  of  the  week  is  not  the  same  as  :  in  the  middle  of  the 
 week.  And  the  objection,  that  if  we  here  take  "'VH  in  the  sense  of 
 half,  then  the  heptad  or  cycle  of  seven  would  be  divided  into  two 
 halves  (Klief.),  and  yet  of  only  one  of  them  w'as  anything  said,  is 
 without  significance,  because  it  would  touch  also  the  explanation 
 "  and  in  the  midst  of  the  heptad,"  since  in  this  case  of  the  first, 
 before  the  middle  of  the  expiring  half  of  the  week,  nothing  also  is 
 said  of  what  shall  be  done  in  it.  If  Kliefoth  answers  this  objection 
 by  saying  that  we  must  conceive  of  this  from  the  connection, 
 namely,  that  which  brings  the  power  of  Antichrist  to  its  height, 
 then  we  shall  be  able  also,  in  the  verbally  correct  interpretation  of 
 J?i3U'ri  '"i'Hj  to  conceive  from  the  connection  what  shall  happen  in 
 the  remaining  period  of  the  V"^^^.    Yet  weaker  is  the  further  ob- 
 
oG8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 jection  :  "  that  which  is  mentioned  as  coming  to  pass  VlSti'n  ''^'n^ 
 the  causing  of  the  offering  of  sacrifice  to  cease,  is  something  wliich 
 takes  place  not  during  a  period  of  time,  but  at  a  terminus  " 
 (Kliefotli) ;  for  since  ri"'3^n  does  not  properly  mean  to  remove^ 
 but  to  make  to  rest^  to  make  quiet,  it  is  thus  not  conceivable  why 
 we  should  not  be  able  to  say :  The  sacrifice  shall  be  made  to  rest, 
 or  made  still,  during  half  a  week. 
 
 In  the  verbally  correct  interpretation  of  yi3^n  ''VD,  the  supposi- 
 tion that  the  second  half  of  the  heptad  is  meant  loses  its  support, 
 for  the  terminus  a  quo  of  this  half  remains  undefined  if  it  cannot 
 be  determined  from  the  subject  itself.  But  this  determination 
 depends  on  whether  the  taking  away  of  the  sacrifice  is  to  be 
 regarded  as  the  putting  a  complete  termination  to  it,  or  only  the 
 causing  of  a  temporary  cessation  to  the  service  of  sacrifice,  which 
 can  be  answered  only  by  our  first  determining  the  question  re- 
 garding the  historical  reference  of  this  divine  revelation,  nnr 
 nn:Di,  bloody  and  unbloody  sacrifice^  the  two  chief  parts  of  the 
 service  of  sacrifice,  represent  the  whole  of  worship  by  sacrifice. 
 The  expression  is  more  comprehensive  than  T'^J^'l',  ch.  viii.  11, 
 the  continuance  in  worship,  the  daily  morning  and  evening  sacri- 
 fice, the  cessation  of  which  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  putting 
 an  end  to  the  service  of  sacrifice. 
 
 The  third  clause  of  this  verse,  D^K^O  D^^p'^  ^133  Syi,  is  diffi- 
 cult, and  its  interpretation  has  been  disputed.  The  LXX.  have 
 rendered  it :  koX  irrl  to  lepov  fiSeXvyfia  rwv  iprjucocreioi^  earai. 
 Theodotion  has  given  the  same  rendering,  only  omitting  earai. 
 Tlie  Vulgate  has :  et  erit  in  templo  abominatio  desolationis.  The 
 church  interpreters  have  explained  the  words  in  accordance  with 
 these  translations,  understanding  by  D''V1i5K'  ^133  the  abomination  of 
 idols  in  the  temple,  or  the  temple  desecrated  by  the  abomination 
 of  idols.  Hiivernick  explains  the  words  of  the  extreme  height  of 
 abomination,  i.e.  of  the  highest  place  that  can  be  reached  where 
 the  abominations  would  be  committed,  i.e.  the  temple  as  the  highest 
 point  in  Jerusalem ;  Hengstenberg,  on  the  contrary,  regards  the 
 "  wing  of  the  abominations  "  as  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple  so  dese- 
 crated by  the  abomination  that  it  no  longer  deserved  the  name  of 
 a  temple  of  the  Lord,  but  the  name  of  an  idol-temple.  Auberlen 
 translates  it  "  on  account  of  the  desolating  summit  of  abominations," 
 and  understands  by  it  the  summit  of  the  abominations  committed  by 
 Israel,  which  draws  down  the  desolation,  because  it  is  the  desolation 
 itself,  and  which  reached  its  acme  in  the  desecration  of  the  temple 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  369 
 
 by  theS^alots  shortly  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.     But 
 .  no  on^'f  these  interpretations  is  justified  by  the  language  here 
 used,  beause'^JS  does  not  signify  summit,  highest  point.     This 
 word,  its  true,  is  often  used  figuratively  of  the  extremity  or  skirt 
 of  theJpper  garment  or  cloak  (1  Sam.  xv.  27,  xxiv.  5;  Hag.  ii. 
 12),  ofthe  uttermost  part,  end,  of  the  earth,  Isa.  xxiv.  16,  and  fre- 
 quency in  the  plur.  of  the  borders  of  the  earth,  in  the  rabbin,  also 
 of  tht  lobes  of  the  lungs,  but  demonstrably  never  of  the  summit  as 
 the  hghest  point  or  peak  of  an  object ;  and  thus  can  mean  neither 
 the  tmple  as  the  highest  point  in  Jerusalem,  nor  the  pinnacle  of 
 the  frmple  desecrated  by  the  abomination,  nor  the  summit  of  the 
 abomnation  committed  by  Israel.     "  It  is  used  indeed,"  as  Bleek 
 (Jahr^h.  v.  p.  93)  also  remarks,  "  of  the  extreme  point  of  an  object, 
 but  ody  of  that  which  is  extended  horizontally  (for  end,  or  ex- 
 tremiy),  but  never  of  that  which  is  extended  perpendicularly  (for 
 peak)"     The  use  of  it  in  the  latter  sense  cannot  also  be  proved 
 fron  the  irrepv'yLov  rod  lepov^  Matt.  iv.  5,  Luke  iv.  9.     Here  the 
 gen:tive  tov  lepovy  not  rov  vaov,  shows  that  not  the  pinnacle,  i.e. 
 the  summit  of  the  temple  itself,  is  meant,  but  a  wing  or  adjoining 
 building  of  the  sanctuary ;  and  if  Suidas  and  Hesychius  explain 
 -TTTepvyiov  by  aKpcoTTjpiov^  this  explanation  is  constructed  only  from 
 the  passages  of  the  N.  T.  referred  to,  and  is  not  confirmed  by  the 
 Greek  classics. 
 
 But  though  TTTepvyLov  may  have  the  meaning  of  summit,  yet 
 this  can  by  no  means  be  proved  to  be  the  meaning  of  ^^3.  Ac- 
 cordingly D"'i*^pkf'  P153  cannot  on  verbal  grounds  be  referred  to  the 
 temple.  This  argument  from  the  words  used  is  not  set  aside  by 
 other  arguments  which  Hengstenberg  brings  forward,  neither  by 
 the  remark  that  this  explanation  harmonizes  well  with  the  other 
 parts  of  the  prophecy,  especially  the  removal  of  the  sacrifice  and 
 the  destruction  of  the  temple,  nor  by  the  reference  to  the  testimony 
 of  tradition  and  to  the  authority  of  the  Lord.  For,  with  reference 
 to  that  remark,  we  have  already  shown  in  the  explanation  of  the 
 preceding  verses  that  they  do  not  refer  to  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem by  Titus,  and  thus  are  not  reconcilable  with  this  inter- 
 pretation of  D^:»*lpK'  S133.  But  the  testimony  of  tradition  for  this 
 interpretation  in  Josephus,  De  hello  Jud.  iv.  6.  3,  that  by  the 
 desecration  of  the  temple  on  the  part  of  the  Zealots  an  old  pro- 
 phecy regarding  the  destruction  of  the  temple  was  fulfilled,  itself 
 demonstrates  (under  the  supposition  that  no  other  passages  occur 
 in  the  book  of  Daniel  in  which  Josephus  would  be  able  to  find  the 
 
 2  A 
 
370  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 announcement  of  bloody  abomination  in  the  temple  wl^^ji  pro- 
 ceeded even  from  the  members  of  the  covenant  people^ jothing 
 further    than  that  Joscphus,  with    many  of   his    contenporaries, 
 found  such  a  prophecy  in  this  verse  in  the  Alexandrine  traislation, 
 but  it  does  not  warrant  the  correctness  of  this  interpretation  of 
 tlie  passage.    This  warrant  would  certainly  be  afforded  by  the  words 
 of  our  Lord  regarding  "the   abomination  of  desolation   sjoken 
 of  by  Daniel  the  prophet  standing  in  the   holy  place"   (Matt, 
 xxiv.  15  f . ;  Mark  xiii.  14),  if  it  were  decided  that  the  Lore  had 
 this  passage  (Dan.  ix.  27)  alone  before  His  mind,  and  thst  He 
 regarded  the  "  abomination  of  desolation "  as  a  sign  announcins 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.     But  neitlier  of 
 these  conditions  is  established.     The  expression  ^BeXvy/j-a  rfji  iprj- 
 IJi(o(Teco<;  is  found  not  only  in  Dan.  ix.  27  (where  the  LXX.  and 
 Theod.  have  the  plur.  eprjiiooaewv),  but  also  in  Dan.  xi.  3,,  (^8. 
 iprjficoaeoo^)  and  Dan.  xii.  11  (to  I3S.  tj}?  epT^/zwo-ew?),  and  thus  may 
 refer  to  one  of  these  passages.     The  possibility  of  this  reference  is 
 not  weakened  by  the  objection,  "  that  the  prophecy  Dan.  xi.  and 
 xii.  was  generally  regarded  as  fulfilled  in  the  Maccabean  times,  and 
 that  the  fulfilling  of  ch.  ix.  was  placed  forward  into  the  future  in 
 the  time  of  Christ"  (Hgstb.),  because  the  Lord  can  have  a  deeper 
 and  more  correct  apprehension  of  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  than  the 
 Jewish  writers  of  His  time ;  because,  moreover,  the  first  historical 
 fulfilling  of  Dan.  xi.  in  the  Maccabean  times  does  not  exclude  a 
 further  and  a  fuller  accomplishment  in  the  future,  and  the  rage 
 of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  against  the  Jewish  temple  and  the  wor- 
 ship of  God  can  be  a  type  of  the  assault  of  Antichrist  against  the 
 sanctuary  and  the  church  of  God  in  the  time  of  the  end.     Still 
 less  from  the  words,  "  whoso  readeth,  let  him  understand"  (Matt, 
 xxiv.  15),  can  it  be  proved  that  Christ  had  only  Dan.  ix.  27,  and 
 not  also  xi.  31  or  xii.  11,  before  His  view.     The  remark  that  these 
 words  refer  to  "I3'n2  pa  (iinderstand  the  matter),  Dan.  ix.  23,  and  to 
 psti'ril  yini  (know,  and  understand),  does  not  avail  for  this  purpose, 
 because  this  reference   is   not  certain,  and   "la'nnTiN;  pn   (and  he 
 understood  the  thing)  is  used  (ch.  x.  1)  also  of  the  prophecy  in  ch. 
 X.  and  xi.     But  though  it  were  beyond  a  doubt  that  Christ  had,  in 
 the  words  quoted,  only  Dan.  ix.  27  before  His  view,  yet  would  the 
 reference  of  this  prophecy  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
 Romans  not  be  thereby  proved,  because  in  His  discourse  Christ 
 spake  not  only  of  this  destruction  of  the  ancient  Jerusalem,  but 
 generally  of  His  Trapovaia  and  the  avvriXeia  rov  aldvo^;  (Matt. 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  371 
 
 xxiv.  3),  and  referred  the  words  of  Daniel  of  the  ^BiXvy/xa  t^9 
 ipr]fjb(i)(J€(o<i  to  the  irapovcTia  rov  vlov  rov  dvOpcoirov. 
 
 On  these  grounds  we  must  affirm  that  the  reference  of  the 
 words  under  consideration  to  the  desecration  of  the  temple  before    1/ 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  is  untenable. 
 
 But  also  the  reference  of  these  words,  as  maintained  by  other 
 interpreters,  to  the  desecration  of  the  temple  by  the  ^SeXvyfia 
 €pr]/xQ}a€0)<;  (1  Mace.  i.  54),  built  on  the  altar  of  burnt-offering  by 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes,  is  disproved  on  the  verbal  ground  that  ^33 
 cannot  designate  the  surface  of  the  altar.  In  favour  of  this  view 
 the  DOb'JO  pptJ'n,  Dan.  xi.  31  (the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate)^ 
 is  principally  relied  on,  in  order  to  establish  the  connection  of  Q^K'P 
 with  CVlpC' ;  but  that  passage  is  of  a  different  character,  and  the 
 difference  of  number  between  them  opposes  the  connecting  toge- 
 ther of  these  two  words.  The  singular  DDb^p  cannot  be  connected 
 as  an  adjective  with  D''iflpK^.  But  the  uniting  of  QDb^p  with  the 
 noun  ^33  gives  no  meaning,  and  besides  has  the  parallels  ch.  xi.  31 
 and  xii.  11  against  it.  In  this  passage  before  us  DOb'D  can  only 
 be  the  subject ;  and  the  clause  is  neither  to  be  connected  with  the 
 preceding  nor  with  the  following,  but  is  to  be  interpreted  as  con- 
 taining an  independent  statement.  Since  in  the  preceding  context 
 mention  is  made  of  a  Nagid  who  shall  make  desolate  the  city  and 
 the  sanctuary,  and  shall  take  away  the  bloody  and  the  unbloody 
 sacrifice,  it  is  natural  to  regard  the  Q^'tJ'P,  desolater,  as  the  Nagidy 
 and  to  identify  the  two.  The  circumstance  that  it  does  not  refer  to 
 it  by  the  article  (DOb'sn)  is  no  valid  objection,  because  the  article  is 
 in  no  way  necessary,  as  QOb^o  is  a  participle,  and  can  be  rendered  as 
 such :  "  on  the  wina;s  of  abomination  he  comes  desolating."     ^^3  bv 
 
 O  O  't  T        - 
 
 can,  without  ingenuity,  be  rendered  in  no  other  way  than  on  icings. 
 CifipC'  signifies  not  acts  of  abomination,  but  objects  of  abomina- 
 tion, things  causing  abomination,  and  is  constantly  used  of  the 
 heathen  gods,  idol-images,  sacrifices  to  the  gods,  and  other  heathen 
 abominations.  The  connection  of  D''yii3ti'  permits  us,  however,  with 
 Eeichel,  Ebrard,  Kliefoth,  and  Kranichfeld,  to  think  on  nothing 
 else  than  that  wings  (133)  are  attributed  to  the  D''if=ip^.  The  sing. 
 ^133  does  not  oppose  this,  since  it  is  often  used  collectively  in  a 
 peculiar  and  figurative  meaning;  cf.  e.g.  1^3  ?V'^,  Prov.  i.  17,  with 
 D"'a33  py3j  Eccles.  X.  20,  the  loinged^  the  bird;  and  H^^ri  f\y2  (from 
 the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth),  Isa.  xxiv.  16,  is  not  different  from 
 yri^C  ^^^^?j  Job  xxxvii.  3,  xxxviii.  13,  just  as  "TJ^SI,  loing,  plumage^ 
 Ps.  xci.  4,  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  is  found  for  J^i^^^  (wings),  Ps.  Ixviii. 
 
372  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 14.  But  from  such  passages  as  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  Ex.  xlx.  4,  and 
 Ps.  xviii.  11,  we  perceive  the  sense  in  which  wings  are  attributed 
 to  the  D^V^ipK^,  the  idolatrous  objects.^  In  the  first  of  these  passages 
 (Deut.  xxxii.  11),  wings,  the  wings  of  an  eagle,  are  attributed  to 
 God,  because  He  is  the  power  which  raises  up  Israel,  and  lifting 
 it  up,  and  carrying  it  throughout  its  history,  guides  it  over  the 
 earth.  In  Ps.  xviii.  wings  are  attributed  to  the  wind,  because  the 
 wind  is  contemplated  as  the  power  which  carries  out  the  will  of 
 God  throughout  the  kingdom  of  nature.  "  Thus  in  this  passage 
 wings  are  attributed  to  the  2''V^P^,  idol-objects,  and  to  idolatry  with 
 its  abominations,  because  that  shall  be  the  power  which  lifts  upwards 
 the  destroyer  and  desolater,  carries  him,  and  moves  with  him  over 
 the  earth  to  lay  waste  "  (Klief.)."^ 
 
 The  last  clause,  '1J1  np3"1j;i^  is  differently  construed,  according 
 as  the  subject  to  "^^J^,  which  is  wanting,  or  appears  to  be  wanting, 
 is  sought  to  be  supplied  from  the  context.  Against  the  supposi- 
 tion of  Hiivernick  and  Ebrard,  who  take  ^JjiJji  as  impersonal :  "it 
 pours  down,"  it  is  rightly  objected  that  this  word  is  never  so  found, 
 and  can  so  much  the  less  be  so  interpreted  here,  since  in  ver.  11 
 it  is  preceded  by  a  definite  subject.  Others  supply  a  subject,  such 
 as  anger  (Berth.),  or  curse  and  oath  from  ver.  11  ;  the  former 
 is  quite  arbitrary,  the  latter  is  too  far-fetched.  Others,  again 
 (Hengstenberg,  Maurer),  take  n^"jn31  >V3  {the  consummation  and 
 that  determined)  as  the  subject.  This  is  correct  according  to  the 
 matter.  We  cannot,  however,  so  justify  the  regarding  of  "IJ;"!  as  a 
 conjunction  :  till  that ;  for,  though  1J?  is  so  used,  *TJ?1  is  not ;  nor, 
 once  more,  can  we  justify  the  taking  of  '"'V'l!^?."!  '""^S  as  a  whole  as 
 the  subject  (Hofmann),  or  of  '"'i.nn;"!  alone  as  the  subject  (v.  Leng., 
 Hitzig,  Kliefoth),  since  "IJ/I  is  not  repeated  before  '^^'"^n-?"!  on  account 
 of  the  1  (with  v.  Leng),  nor  is  nv^njl  alone  supplied  (with  Hitz.), 
 nor  is  the  i  before  '^^*"jn?.  to  be  regarded  (with  Klief.)  as  a  sign  of 
 the  conclusion.    Where  i  introduces  the  conclusion,  as  e.g.  ch.  viii. 
 
 '  The  interpretation  of  J.  D.  Michaelis,  -wbich  has  been  revived  by  Hofmann, 
 needs  no  serious  refutation.  They  hold  that  D''^^^pJy  C]33  signifies  an  idol-bird, 
 and  denotes  the  eagle  of  Jupiter  or  Zeus.  Hofm.  repeats  this  interpretation 
 iu  his  Schriflbew.  ii.  2,  p.  592,  after  he  had  abandoned  it. 
 
 2  Similarly,  and  independently  of  Kliefoth,  Kranichfeld  also  explains  the 
 words:  "  The  powerful  heathen  enemy  of  God  is  here  conceived  of  as  carried 
 on  (^y)  these  wings  of  the  idol-abomination,  like  as  the  God  of  the  theocracy 
 is  borne  on  the  wings  of  the  clouds,  and  on  cherubim,  who  are  His  servants ; 
 cf.  Ps.  xviii.  11,  civ.  3." 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  373 
 
 14,  it  is  there  united  with  the  verb,  and  thus  the  expression  here 
 should  in  that  case  be  '^'^li)}.  '^^^]'  The  relative  interpretation  of 
 Tjriri  is  the  only  one  which  is  verbally  admissible,  whereby  the  words, 
 "  and  till  the  consummation  and  that  determined,"  are  epexegeti- 
 cally  connected  to  the  foregoing  clause  :  "  and  till  the  consum- 
 mation and  that  determined  which  shall  pour  down  upon  the 
 desolater."      The  words  n^"in:i  n73  remind  us  of  Isa.  x.  23  and 
 
 T  Tv:v:        T  T 
 
 xxviii.  22,  and  signify  that  which  is  completed  =  altogether  and 
 irrevocably  concluded,  i.e.  substantially  the  inflexibly  decreed  judg- 
 ment of  destruction.  The  words  have  here  this  meaning,  as  is 
 clear  from  the  circumstance  that  ^^10?  points  back  to  niDob'  riifim 
 (ver.  26,  desolations  are  determined),  and  nbs  IV  corresponds  to  }*i?.  ^^ 
 (ver.  26).  In  ch.  xi.  31  op^'P  is  not  in  a  similar  manner  to  be 
 identified  with  O^t^,  but  has  the  active  signification:  "laying 
 waste,"  while  Q'^b'  has  the  passive  :  "  laid  waste."  Both  words 
 refer  to  the  Nagid,  but  wath  this  difference,  that  this  ungodly 
 prince  who  comes  as  the  desolater  of  the  city  and  the  sanctuary 
 will  on  that  account  become  desolate,  that  the  destruction  irrevoc- 
 ably decreed  by  God  shall  pour  down  upon  him  as  a  flood. 
 
 Let  us  now,  after  explaining  the  separate  clauses,  present  briefly  ^ 
 the  substance  of  this  divine  revelation.  We  find  that  the  verses 
 25-27  contain  the  following  announcement :  From  the  croins;  forth 
 of  the  word  to  restore  and  build  Jerusalem  to  the  appearance  of 
 the  Messias  seven  weeks  shall  pass  away ;  after  that,  dui'ing  three- 
 score and  two  weeks  the  city  shall  be  restored  and  built  up  amid 
 the  oppressions  of  the  times ;  but  after  the  sixty-two  weeks  the 
 Messias  shall  be  cut  off,  so  that  to  Him  nothing  remains,  and  the 
 city,  together  with  the  sanctuary,  shall  be  destroyed  by  the  people 
 of  a  prince  who  shall  come,  who  shall  find  his  end  in  the  flood ; 
 but  the  war  shall  continue  to  the  end,  since  destruction  is  irrevo- 
 cably decreed.  That  prince  shall  force  a  strong  covenant  for  one 
 week  on  the  mass  of  the  people,  and  during  half  a  week  shall  take 
 away  the  service  of  sacrifice,  and,  borne  on  the  wings  of  idol-abomi- 
 nations, shall  carry  on  a  desolating  rule,  till  the  firmly  decreed 
 judgment  shall  pour  itself  upon  him  as  one  desolated. — According 
 to  this,  the  first  seven  weeks  are  determined  merely  according  to 
 their  beginning  and  their  end,  and  nothing  further  is  said  as  to 
 their  contents  than  may  be  concluded  from  the  definition  of  its 
 terminus  a  quo,  "  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem,"  namely,  that 
 the  restoring  and  the  building  of  this  city  shall  proceed  during 
 .  the  period  of  time  indicated.     The  sixty-two  weeks  which  follow 
 
374  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 these  seven  weeks,  ending  with  the  coming  of  the  Messias,  have 
 the  same  contents,  only  with  the  more  special  definition,  that  the 
 restoration  and  the  building  in  the  broad  open  place  and  in  the 
 limited  place  shall  be  carried  on  in  oppressive  times.  Hence  it  is 
 clear  that  this  restoration  and  buildinfj  cannot  denote  the  rebuildins 
 of  the  city  which  was  destroyed  by  the  Chaldeans,  but  refers  to 
 the  preservation  and  extension  of  Jerusalem  to  the  measure  and 
 compass  determined  by  God  in  the  Messianic  time,  or  under  the 
 dominion  of  the  Messias,  since  He  shall  come  at  the  end  of  the 
 seven  weeks,  and  after  the  expiry  of  the  sixty-two  weeks  connected 
 therewith  shall  be  cut  off,  so  that  nothing  remains  to  Him. 
 
 The  statements  of  the  angel  (vers.  26,  27)  regarding  the  one 
 week,  which,  because  of  the  connection,  can  only  be  the  seventieth, 
 or  the  last  of  the  seventy,  are  more  ample.  The  cutting  off  of 
 the  Messias  forms  the  beginning  of  this  week ;  then  follows  the 
 destruction  of  the  city  and  of  the  sanctuary  by  the  people  of  the 
 coming  prince,  who  shall  find  his  end  in  the  flood,  not  immediately 
 after  his  coming,  but  at  the  end  of  this  week ;  for  the  war  shall 
 continue  to  the  end,  and  the  prince  shall  take  away  the  service  of 
 sacrifice  during  half  a  week,  till  the  desolation  determined  as  a 
 flood  shall  pour  down  upon  him,  and  make  the  desolater  desolated. 
 If  we  compare  with  this  the  contents  of  ver.  24,  according  to  which 
 seventy  weeks  are  determined  to  restrain  transgression,  to  make  an 
 end  of  sin  and  iniquity,  partly  by  atonement  and  partly  by  shutting 
 up,  to  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,  to  seal  up  the  vision  and 
 prophecy,  and  to  consecrate  a  new  most  holy,  we  shall  find  that  the 
 reciprocal  statements  are  so  related  to  each  other,  that  vers.  25-27 
 present  what  shall  be  done  in  the  course  of  the  seventy  weeks,  which 
 are  divided  into  three  periods,  but  ver.  24  what  shall  be  the  result 
 of  all  these  things.  The  seventieth  week  ends,  accordino;  to  ver. 
 27,  with  the  judgment  on  the  destroyer  of  the  city  and  the  sanc- 
 tuary of  God  ;  but  with  this  judgment  shall  be  the  conclusion  of 
 the  divine  counsel  of  salvation,  or  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be 
 consummated.  This  was  revealed  to  the  prophet  in  ch.  vii.,  and 
 thus  does  not  need  to  be  here  expressly  repeated.  If  that  which, 
 according  to  ver.  24,  shall  happen  with  the  expiry  of  the  seventy  ap- 
 pointed weeks  stood  after  ver.  27,  then  would  the  connection  of  the 
 judgment  on  the  last  enemy  of  God  with  the  consummation  of  the 
 kingdom  of  God  appear  here  also  distinctly  to  view.  But  it  was  not 
 necessary  after  ch.  vii.  to  give  express  prominence  to  this  connec- 
 tion here  ;  and  Gabriel  here  first  mentions  the  positive  aim  and  end 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  375 
 
 of  the  divine  plan  of  salvation  with  Israel,  because  he  gives  to  the 
 prophet  a  comforting  answer  to  remove  his  deep  distress  on  account 
 of  his  own  sins,  and  the  sin  and  guilt  of  his  people,  and  therein 
 cannot  conceal  the  severe  affliction  which  the  future  would  bring, 
 because  he  will  announce  to  hlin  that  by  the  sins  of  the  people  the 
 working  out  of  the  deliverance  designed  by  God  for  them  shall 
 not  be  frustrated,  but  that  in  spite  of  the  great  guilt  of  Israel  the 
 kingdom  of  God  shall  be  perfected  in  glory,  sin  and  iniquity  blotted 
 out,  everlasting  righteousness  restored,  the  prophecy  of  the  judg- 
 ment and  of  salvation  completed,  and  the  sanctuary  where  God 
 shall  in  truth  dwell  among  His  people  erected.  In  order  to  estab- 
 lish this  promise,  so  rich  in  comfort,  and  firmly  to  ratify  it  to 
 Daniel,  he  unveils  to  him  (vers.  25-27),  in  its  great  outlines,  the 
 progress  of  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  first  from 
 the  end  of  the  Exile  to  the  coming  of  the  Messias  ;  then  from  the 
 appearance  of  Christ  to  the  time  far  in  the  future,  when  Christ  shall 
 be  cut  off,  so  that  nothing  remains  to  Him  ;  and  finally,  the  time  of 
 the  supremacy  and  of  the  victory  of  the  destroyer  of  the  church 
 of  God,  the  Antichrist,  and  the  destruction  of  this  enemy  by  the 
 irrevocably  determined  final  judgment.  If,  now,  in  this  he  says 
 nothing  particular  regarding  the  first  period  of  this  development, 
 regarding  the  time  from  the  Exile  to  Christ,  the  reason  is,  that  he 
 had  already  said  all  that  was  necessary  regarding  the  development 
 of  the  world-kingdom,  and  its  relation  to  the  kingdom  and  people 
 of  God,  in  the  preceding  revelation  in  ch.  viii.  It  is  the  same 
 angel  Gabriel  who  (ch.  viii.)  comforted  Daniel,  and  interpreted  to 
 him  the  vision  of  the  second  and  third  world-kingdom,  and  who 
 here  brings  to  him  further  revelations  in  answer  to  his  prayer 
 regarding  the  restoration  of  the  holy  city,  which  was  lying  in 
 ruins,  as  is  expressly  remarked  in  ver.  21. — Also  regarding  the 
 second  long  period  which  passes  from  the  appearance  of  the 
 Messias  to  His  annihilation  (^Vernic/dimg),  i.e.  the  destruction  of 
 His  kingdom  on  the  earth,  little  is  apparently  said,  but  in  reality 
 in  the  few  words  very  much  is  said :  that  during  this  whole  period 
 the  restoration  and  building  shall  proceed  amid  the  oppressions  of 
 the  times,  namely,  that  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  built  up  to 
 the  extent  determined  by  God  in  this  long  period,  although  amid 
 severe  persecution.  This  persecution  shall  during  the  last  week 
 mount  up  to  the  height  of  the  cutting  off  of  Christ  and  the 
 destruction  of  His  kingdom  on  the  earth ;  but  then  with  the  exter- 
 mination of  the  prince,  the  enemy  of  God,  it  shall  reach  its  end. 
 
376  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 But  if,  according  to  what  has  been  said,  tliis  revelation  presents 
 the  principal  outlines  of  the  development  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 from  the  time  of  Daniel  to  its  consummation  at  the  end  of  this 
 epoch  of  the  world,  the  seventy  O'V^t'  which  are  appointed  for  it 
 cannot  be  year-weeks,  or  cycles  of  seven  years,  but  only  symboli- 
 cally defined  periods  of  measured  duration.  This  result  of  our 
 exposition  contradicts,  however,  the  usual  interpretations  of  this 
 prophecy  so  completely,  that  in  order  to  confirm  our  exposition,  we 
 must  put  thoroughly  to  the  test  the  two  classes  of  opposing  inter- 
 pretations— which,  however,  agree  in  this,  that  the  definitions  of 
 time  are  to  be  understood  chronologically,  and  that  under  the  ^^V2W 
 year-weeks  are  to  be  understood — and  examine  whether  a  chrono- 
 logical reckoning  is  in  all  respects  tenable. 
 
 The  first  class  of  expositors  Avho  find  the  appearance  of  Christ 
 in  the  flesh  and  His  crucifixion,  as  well  as  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem by  the  Romans,  prophesied  of  in  this  passage,  adduce  in 
 support  of  their  view,  partly  the  agreement  of  the  chronological 
 periods,  partly  the  testimony  of  Christ,  who  referred  ver.  27  to 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  How  does  it  now 
 stand  with  these  two  arguments  ? 
 
 The  first  Hengstenberg  {Christol.  iii.  1,  p.  137)  introduces  with 
 the  remark,  ''  The  predominant  view  in  the  synagogue  and  in  the 
 church  has  always  been,  that  the  seventy  weeks,  as  well  as  the 
 shorter  periods  into  which  the  whole  period  is  divided,  are  closely 
 fixed  and  limited.  The  opposite  supposition  becomes  very  sus- 
 picious by  this,  that  it  is  maintained  only  by  such  as  come  into 
 conflict  with  the  chronology  by  their  hypotheses,  or  take  no  interest 
 in  chronological  investigations."  He  then  seeks  first  to  confute 
 the  arguments  brought  forward  in  favour  of  the  supposition  that 
 the  chronological  definitions  are  only  given  in  the  lump  {in  Bausch 
 und  Bogen),  and  then  to  present  the  positive  arguments  for  the 
 definiteness  of  the  chronological  statements.  But  he  has  in  this 
 identified  the  definiteness  of  the  prophecy  in  general  with  its 
 chronological  definiteness,  wiiile  there  is  between  these  two  ideas 
 a  noticeable  difference.  Of  the  positive  arguments  adduced, 
 the  first  is,  that  the  seventy  weeks  stand  in  closer  relation  to  the 
 seventy  years  of  Jeremiah,  in  so  far  as  regards-  chronological 
 definiteness,  when  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  are  understood 
 as  strictly  chronological  and  as  chronologically  fulfilled.  But 
 the  force  of  this  argument  is  neutralized  by  the  fact,  that  in 
 Jeremiah  a  chronologically  described  period,  "  years,"  is  in  this 
 
CHAP,  IX,  24-27.  377 
 
 prophecy,  on  the  contrary,  designated  by  a  name  the  meaning  of 
 which  is  disputed,  at  all  events  is  chronologically  indefinite,  since 
 weeks,  if  seven-day  periods  are  excluded  by  the  contents  of  the 
 prophecy,  can  as  well  signify  Sabbath  or  jubilee  periods,  seven- 
 year  or  seven  times  seven  -  year  epochs.  Still  weaker  is  the 
 second  argument,  that  all  the  other  designations  of  time  with 
 reference  to  the  future  in  the  book  of  Daniel  are  definite ;  for  this 
 is  applicable  only  to  the  designations  in  ch.  viii.  14  and  xii.  11, 
 12,  in  which  evening-mornings  and  days  are  named,  but  not  to 
 the  passages  ch.  vii.  25,  xii.  7,  and  iv.  13  (16),  where  the  chrono- 
 logically indefinite  expression,  timey  times,  occurs,  which  are  arbi- 
 trarily identified  with  years. 
 
 There  remains  thus,  for  the  determination  of  the  time  spoken 
 of  in  this  prophecy,  only  the  argument  from  its  fulfilment,  which 
 should  give  the  decision  for  the  chronological  definiteness.  But, 
 on  the  contrary,  there  arises  a  grave  doubt,  from  the  circumstance 
 that  among  the  advocates  of  the  so-called  "  church  Messianic 
 interpretation "  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  prophecy  is  disputed ; 
 for  some  of  these  interpreters  take  the  edict  of  Cyrus  (b.c.  536) 
 as  such,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  others  take  the  edict  w'hich 
 Artaxerxes  issued  on  the  return  of  Ezra  to  Jerusalem  for  the 
 restoration  of  the  service  of  God  according  to  the  law,  in  the 
 seventeenth  year  of  his  reign,  i.e.  in  the  year  B.C.  457,  and 
 others,  again,  among  whom  is  Hengstenberg,  take  the  journey  of 
 Nehemiah  to  Jerusalem  with  the  permission  to  rebuild  the  walls 
 of  Jerusalem,  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes,  i.e.  B.C.  445,  or 
 according  to  Hengstenberg,  B.C.  455,  as  the  terminus  a  quo  of 
 the  seventy  weeks — a  difference  of  eighty-one  years,  which  in 
 chronological  reckoning  is  very  noticeable. 
 
 In  our  interpretation  of  ver.  25,  we  have  given  our  decided 
 opinion  that  the  '1J1  y^'>J?  13"^,  from  the  going  forth  of  which 
 seventy  years  are  to  be  reckoned,  refers  to  the  edict  of  Cyrus 
 permitting  the  Jews  to  return  to  their  fatherland,  and  the  argu- 
 ments in  favour  of  that  opinion  are  given  in  p.  352.  Against 
 this  reference  to  the  edict  of  Cyrus,  Hiivernick,  Hengstenberg, 
 and  Auberlen  have  objected  that  in  that  edict  there  is  nothing 
 said  of  building  up  the  city,  and  that  under  Cyrus,  as  well  as 
 under  the  succeeding  kings,  Cambyses,  Darius  Hystaspes,  and 
 Xerxes,  nothino;  also  is  done  for  the  buildins;  of  the  city.  We  find 
 it  still  unbuilt  in  the  times  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  (Ezra  ix.  8, 
 X.  13;  Neh.  i.  3,  ii.  3,  v.  34,  iv.  1,  vii.  4).     Although  from  the 
 
378  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 nature  of  the  case  the  building  of  tlie  temple  supposes  the  exist- 
 ence also  of  houses  in  Jerusalem  (cf.  Hag.  i.  4),  yet  there  is  not  a 
 single  trace  of  any  royal  permission  for  the  restoration  of  the 
 people  and  the  rebuilding  of  the  city.  Much  rather  this  was 
 expressly  forbidden  (Ezra  iv.  7-23)  by  the  same  Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus  (who  at  a  later  period  gave  the  permission  however), 
 in  consequence  of  the  slanderous  reports  of  the  Samaritans. 
 "  There  was  granted  to  the  Jews  a  religious,  but  not  a  political 
 restoration."  For  the  first  time  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus  the  affairs  of  Israel  took  a  favourable  turn.  In  that 
 year  Artaxerxes  granted  to  Ezra  permission  to  go  to  Jerusalem, 
 entrusting  him  with  royal  letters  of  great  importance  (Ezra  vii. 
 11-26,  particularly  vers.  18,  25  f.);  in  his  twentieth  year  he  gave 
 to  Nehemiah  express  permission  to  rebuild  the  city  (Neh.  ii.). 
 Following  the  example  of  the  old  chronologist  Julius  Africanus 
 in  Jerome  and  many  others,  Hav.,  Hgstb.,  Reinke,  Reusch,  and 
 others  regard  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes,  while  Auberlen, 
 with  Calovius,  Newton,  M.  Geier,  Gaussen,  Pusey,  and  others, 
 regard  the  seventh  year,  as  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  seventy  weeks. 
 But  that  the  arguments  derived  from  the  absence  of  any  mention 
 being  made  in  the  edict  of  Cyrus  of  the  building  of  Jerusalem 
 against  the  reference  of  'li1  121  NVb  to  that  edict  are  not  very 
 strono-,  at  least  are  not  decisive,  is  manifest  from  what  Auberlen 
 has  advanced  for  tlie  seventh  and  against  the  twentieth  year.  Pro- 
 ceeding from  the  proposition,  correct  in  itself,  that  the  time  of 
 Ezra  and  that  of  Nehemiah  form  one  connected  period  of  blessing 
 for  Israel,  Auberlen  thence  shows  that  the  edict  relating  to  Nehe- 
 miah had  only  a  secondary  importance,  as  the  sacred  narrative 
 itself  indicates  by  the  circumstance  that  it  does  not  mention  the 
 edict  at  all  (Neh.  ii.  7,  8),  while  the  royal  letters  to  Ezra  (Ezra 
 vii.)  are  given  at  large.  Since  it  was  the  same  king  Artaxerxes 
 who  sent  away  Ezra  as  well  as  Nehemiah,  his  heart  must  have 
 been  favourably  inclined  toward  Israel  in  his  seventh  year.  "  Then 
 must  the  word  for  the  restoration  and  building  of  Jerusalem  have 
 gone  forth  from  God."  The  consciousness  of  this  is  expressed  by 
 Ezra  himself,  when,  after  recording  the  royal  edict  (ch.  vii.  27),  he 
 continues  :  "  Blessed  be  Jehovah,  the  God  of  our  fathers,  which 
 liath  put  such  a  thing  as  this  in  the  king's  heart,  to  beautify  the 
 house  of  the  Lord  which  is  in  Jerusalem ;  and  hath  extended  mercy 
 tome  before  the  king  and  his  counsellors,  and  before  all  the  king's 
 mighty  princes." 
 
 i 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  379 
 
 But,  we  must  reply,  wherein  does  the  mercy  extended  to  Ezra 
 before  the  king  consist  ?  Is  it  in  the  permission  to  build  up  Jeru- 
 salem ?  Certainly  not,  but  in  the  beautifying  of  the  house  of 
 Jehovah  in  Jerusalem.  And  to  that  alone  the  royal  authority 
 granted  to  Ezra  (Ezra  vii.)  refers.  Of  the  building  of  the  city  there 
 is  not  a  word  said.  Only  the  means,  as  it  appears,  of  restoring  the 
 temple-worship,  which  had  fallen  into  great  decay,  and  of  re-estab- 
 lishing the  law  of  God  corresponding  thereto,  were  granted  to  him 
 in  the  long  edict  issued  by  the  king.^    If  the  clause,  "from  the  going 
 
 '  Auberlen,  it  is  true,  remarks  (p.  138)  : — "  The  authority  given  to  Ezra  is 
 so  extensive  that  it  essentially  includes  the  rebuilding  of  the  city.  It  refers 
 certainly,  for  the  most  part  [rather  wholly'],  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary; 
 but  not  only  must  Ezra  set  up  judges  (ch.  vii.  25),  he  is  also  expressly  per- 
 mitted by  the  king  to  expend  as  it  seems  good  to  him  the  rest  of  tlie  silver 
 and  gold  (ch.  vii.  18).  How  he  then  understood  the  commission,  Ezra  him- 
 self says  clearly  and  distinctly  in  his  prayer  of  repentance  :  '  Our  Lord  hath 
 extended  mercy  unto  us  in  the  sight  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  to  give  us  a 
 reviving,  to  set  up  the  house  of  our  God,  and  to  repair  the  desolations  thereof 
 (of  our  God),  and  to  give  us  a  wall  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem.'  The  argument 
 from  this  passage  lies  not  merely  in  the  "na  (encircling  ivalV),  but  especially  in 
 this,  '  to  repair  the  desolations  thereof.'  This  could  not  be  the  desolations  of 
 the  temple,  which  had  been  long  before  this  rebuilt,  and  therefore  we  may 
 understand  by  it  the  desolations  of  Jerusalem."  But  the  strength  of  this 
 argumentation  rests  merely  on  a  verbally  free  rendering  of  the  verse  referred 
 to  (Ezra  ix.  9).  The  circumstance  that  Ezra  speaks  of  the  kings  (in  the  plur.) 
 of  Persia,  who  showed  favour  to  the  Jews,  indicates  that  he  meant  not  merely 
 that  which  Artaxerxes  had  done  and  would  yet  do  in  the  future,  but  that  he 
 refers  also  to  the  manifestation  of  favour  on  the  part  of  kings  Cyrus,  Darius 
 Hystaspes,  and  Artaxerxes ;  thus  also  the  expression,  "  to  give  us  a  wall,"  cannot 
 refer  to  the  permission  to  rebuild  the  walls  of  Jerusalem,  which  Artaxerxes 
 some  years  later  first  granted  to  Nehemiah.  Moreover,  the  expression,  "  to 
 give  us  a  "na  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem,"  shows  that  by  "na  cannot  be  under- 
 stood the  fortified  walls  of  Jerusalem ;  for  "iia  never  denotes  the  walls  of  a  city 
 or  fortress  as  such,  but  always  only  the  encompassing  wall  of  a  vineyard,  which 
 meaning  is  found  in  Mic.  vii.  11,  Ezek.  xiii.  5.  "na  is  therefore  to  be  under- 
 stood here  figuratively :  encompassing  wall  in  the  sense  of  divine  protection ; 
 and  the  meaning  is  not  this:  "  that  the  place  protected  by  the  wall  lies  in 
 Judah  and  Jerusalem ;  but  in  Judah  and  Jerusalem  the  Persian  kings  have 
 given  to  the  new  congregation  of  the  people  a  secure  dwelling-place,  because 
 the  power  of  the  Persian  kings  secured  to  the  Israelites  who  had  returned  from 
 captivity  the  undisturbed  and  continued  possession  of  their  land  "  (Bertheau). 
 The  objection  also,  that  VflhlPl  cannot  be  the  ruins  of  the  temple,  because  it 
 was  already  built,  is  set  aside  as  soon  as  we  express  the  infinitive  T>oyn7,  as  it 
 is  rightly  done,  by  the  prxterite,  whereby  this  word  refers  to  the  completed 
 building  of  the  temple.  Cf.  with  this  Hengstenberg's  extended  refutation  of 
 this  argument  of  Auberlen's  {Chrislol.  iii.  1,  p.  144). 
 
380  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 forth  of  the  commandment,"  etc.,  cannot  refer  to  the  edict  of  Cyrus, 
 because  in  it  there  is  no  express  mention  made  of  the  rebuilding 
 of  Jerusalem,  so  also,  for  the  same  reason,  it  cannot  refer  to  that 
 which  was  issued  by  Artaxerxes  in  favour  of  Ezra.  Auberlen's 
 remark,  however,  is  correct,  when  he  says  that  the  edict  relating 
 to  Nehemiah  is  of  secondary  importance  when  compared  with  that 
 relating  to  Ezra.  Strictly  speaking,  there  is  no  mention  made 
 of  an  edict  relating  to  Nehemiah.  Nehemiah,  as  cup-bearer  of 
 Artaxerxes,  entreated  of  the  king  the  favour  of  being  sent  to 
 Judah,  to  the  city  of  his  fathers'  sepulchres,  that  he  might  build 
 it;  and  the  king  (the  queen  also  sitting  by  him)  granted  him  this 
 request,  and  gave  him  letters  to  all  the  governors  on  this  side  the 
 Euphrates,  that  they  should  permit  him  undisturbed  to  prosecute 
 his  journey,  and  to  the  overseers  of  the  royal  forests,  that  they 
 should  give  him  wood  "  for  the  gates  of  the  palace  which  apper- 
 tained to  the  house,  and  for  the  wall  of  the  city  "  (Neh.  ii.  4-8). 
 However  important  this  royal  favour  was  in  its  consequences  for 
 Jerusalem, — for  Nehemiah  built  the  walls  of  the  city,  and  thereby 
 raised  Jerusalem  to  a  fortified  city  guarded  against  hostile  assaults, 
 — yet  the  royal  favour  for  this  undertaking  was  not  such  as  to 
 entitle  it  to  be  designated  as  '131  "i^"i  N^'b^  a  going  forth  of  a  com- 
 mandment of  God.  But  if,  in  favour  of  the  reference  of  13"I  Nifb 
 to  the  edict  of  Ezra,  Auberlen  (p.  128  ff.)  attaches  special  import- 
 ance to  the  circumstance  that  in  the  books  of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah 
 are  recorded  two  periods  of  post-exilian  history,  the  first  of  which — 
 namely,  the  time  of  Zerubbabel  and  of  the  high  priest  Joshua 
 under  Cyrus  and  Darius  Hystaspes — we  may  designate  the  period 
 of  the  building  of  the  temple,  the  second — namely,  the  time  of 
 Ezra  the  priest,  and  Nehemiah  the  Tirshatha,  under  Artaxerxes 
 Longimanus — we  may  designate  the  period  of  the  restoration  of 
 the  people  and  the  building  of  the  city, — the  former  the  time  of  the 
 religious,  and  the  latter  that  of  the  political  restoration  ;  and,  in 
 seeking  to  establish  this  view,  he  interprets  the  first  part  of  the 
 book  of  Ezra  as  a  whole  in  itself,  and  the  second  as  a  whole  taken 
 in  combination  with  the  book  of  Nehemiah  ; — if  this  is  his  position, 
 then  Hengstenberg  has  already  (^Christol.  iii.  p.  149)  shown  the 
 incorrectness  of  this  division  of  the  book  of  Ezra,  and  well  remarks 
 that  the  whole  book  of  Ezra  has  the  temple  as  its  central-point,  and 
 views  with  reference  to  it  the  mission  of  Ezra  as  well  as  that  of 
 Zerubbabel  and  Joshua.  There  is  certainly  an  inner  connection 
 of  the  mission  of  Ezra  with  that  of  Nehemiah,  but  it  consists  only 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  381 
 
 in  this,  that  Ezra's  religious  reformation  was  secured  by  Nehe- 
 miah's  political  reform.  From  the  special  design  of  the  work  of 
 Ezra,  to  describe  the  restoration  of  the  temple  and  of  the  service 
 of  God,  we  must  also  explain  the  circumstance  that  nothing  is  said 
 in  it  of  the  building  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem.  Besides,  this  build- 
 ing, before  Nehemiah's  arrival  in  Judah,  had  not  further  advanced 
 than  to  the  re-erection  of  houses  for  the  returned  exiles  who  had 
 settled  in  Jerusalem.  Every  attempt  to  restore  the  walls  was 
 hindered  and  frustrated  by  the  enemies  of  Judah,  so  that  the  gates 
 and  the  walls  were  yet  lying  burnt  and  in  ruins  on  Nehemiah's 
 arrival  (Neli.  i.  3,  ii.  3,  5).  Therefore  neither  the  absence  of  any 
 mention  in  the  decree  of  Cyrus  of  the  building  of  the  city,  nor 
 the  fact  that  the  rebuilding  of  the  city  walls  was  first  effected  by 
 Nehemiah,  forms  a  decisive  argument  against  the  reference  of  i^^b 
 '131  lai  to  this  edict ;  and  we  must  maintain  this  reference  as  the 
 only  correct  one,  because  this  edict  only,  but  not  that  which  gave 
 permission  to  Ezra  or  that  which  gave  authority  to  Nehemiah  to 
 build  the  city  walls,  formed  an  epoch  marking  a  crisis  in  the  develop- 
 ment of  the  theocracy,  as  this  is  connected  in  the  announcement  of 
 Gabriel  with  the  going  forth  of  the  word  to  restore  Jerusalem. 
 
 Not  less  doubtful  is  the  matter  of  the  definition  of  the  terminus 
 ad  quern  of  the  seventy  0''^?*^,  and  of  the  chronological  reckoning 
 of  the  whole  period.  As  for  the  terminus  ad  quern,  a  sharply  de- 
 fined/aciu?7i  must  form  the  conclusion  of  the  sixty-ninth  week;  for 
 at  this  point  the  public  appearance  of  Christ,  His  being  anointed 
 with  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  named  as  the  end  of  the  prophecy.  If 
 this  factum  occurred,  according  to  Luke  iii.  1,  in  the  year  of  Rome 
 782,  the  tw'entieth  year  of  Artaxerxes — i.e.  the  year  455  B.C.,  ac- 
 cording to  the  usual  chronology — would  be  the  year  299  A.u.c. ;  if 
 we  add  to  that  sixty-nine  weeks  =  483  years,  then  it  gives  the  year 
 782  A.u.c.  In  the  middle  of  this  last  week,  becrinnino;  with  the 
 appearance  of  the  Anointed,  occurred  His  death,  wdiile  the  con- 
 firming of  the  covenant  extends  through  the  whole  of  it.  With 
 reference  to  the  death  of  Christ,  the  prophecy  and  its  fulfilment 
 closely  agree,  since  that  event  took  place  three  and  a  half  years 
 after  His  baptism.  But  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  confirming 
 of  the  covenant,  as  one  more  or  less  moveable,  is  capable  of  no 
 definite  chronological  determination.  It  is  sufficient  to  remark, 
 that  in  the  first  years  after  the  death  of  Christ  the  e/cA.07?)  of  the 
 Old  Covenant  people  was  gathered  together,  and  then  the  message 
 of  Christ  was  brought  also  to  the  heathen,  so  that  the  prophet 
 
382  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 might  rightly  represent  the  salvation  as  both  subjectively  and  ob- 
 jectively consummated  at  the  end  of  the  seventy  weeks  for  the 
 covenant  people,  of  whom  alone  he  speaks  (Hgst.  pp.  163  f.,  180). 
 Thus  also  Auberlen,  who,  however,  places  the  end  of  the  seventy 
 weeks  in  the  factum  of  the  stoning  of  Stephen,  with  which  the 
 Jews  pressed,  shook  down,  and  made  full  to  the  overflowing  the 
 measure  of  their  sins,  already  filled  by  the  murder  of  the  Messias : 
 so  that  now  the  period  of  grace  yet  given  to  them  after  the 
 work  of  Christ  had  come  to  an  end,  and  the  judgment  fell  upon 
 Israel. 
 
 We  will  not  urge  against  the  precise  accuracy  of  the  fulfilment 
 arrived  at  by  this  calculation,  that  the  terminus  a  quo  adopted  by 
 Hengstenberg,  viz.  the  twentieth  year  of  Artaxerxes,  coincides  with 
 the  455th  year  B.C.  only  on  the  supposition  that  Xerxes  reigned 
 but  eleven  years,  and  that  Artaxerxes  came  to  the  throne  ten 
 years  earlier  than  the  common  reckoning,  according  to  which 
 Xerxes  reigned  twenty-one  years,  and  that  the  correctness  of  this 
 view  is  opposed  by  Hofm.,  Kleinert,  Wieseler,  and  others,  because 
 the  arguments  for  and  against  it  are  evenly  balanced ;  but  with 
 Preiswerk,  whose  words  Auberlen  (p.  144)  quotes  with  approba- 
 tion, considering  the  uncertainty  of  ancient  chronology  on  many 
 points,  we  shall  not  lay  much  stress  on  calculating  the  exact  year, 
 but  shall  regard  the  approximate  coincidence  of  the  prophetical 
 with  the  historical  time  as  a  sufficient  proof  that  there  may  pos- 
 sibly have  been  an  exact  correspondence  in  the  number  of  years, 
 and  that  no  one,  at  all  events,  can  prove  the  contrary.  But  we 
 must  attach  importance  to  this,  that  in  this  calculation  a  part  of 
 the  communication  of  the  angel  is  left  wholly  out  of  view.  The 
 angel  announces  not  merely  the  cutting  off  of  the  Messias  after 
 seven  and  sixty-two  weeks,  but  also  the  coming  of  the  people  of  a 
 prince  who  shall  lay  waste  the  city  and  the  sanctuary,  which  all 
 interpreters  who  understand  n''K'0  rn^\  of  the  death  of  Christ  refer 
 to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  of  the  temple  by  the  Eomans ; 
 he  also  says  that  this  war  shall  last  till  the  end  of  the  seventy 
 weeks.  The  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Eomans  followed 
 the  death  of  Christ,  not  after  an  interval  of  only  three  and  a  half 
 years,  but  of  thirty  years.  Accordingly,  the  seventy  weeks  must 
 extend  to  the  year  70  a.d.,  whereby  the  whole  calculation  is  shown 
 to  be  inaccurate.  If  we  yet  further  remark,  that  the  advocates  of 
 this  exposition  of  the  prophecy  are  in  a  position  to  give  no  suffi- 
 cient reason  for  the  dividing  of  the  sixty-nine  weeks  into  seven 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  383 
 
 and  sixty-two,  anJ  that  their  reference  of  the  seven  weeks  to  the 
 time  of  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  under  Nehemiah,  and  of  the 
 sixty-two  weeks  to  the  period  from  the  completion  of  this  building 
 to  the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  stands  in  open  contradiction 
 to  the  words  of  the  text ;  finally,  that  the  placing  of  the  twentieth 
 year  of  Artaxerxes  as  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  reckoning  of  the 
 "I3T  N\'b  cannot  be  correct, — then  may  we  also  regard  the  much 
 commended  exact  concord  of  the  prophecy  with  the  actual  events 
 of  history  derived  from  this  interpretation  of  the  verse  as  only  an 
 illusion,  since  from  the  "  going  forth  of  the  word "  to  restore 
 Jerusalem  to  the  destruction  of  that  city  by  Titus,  not  seventy 
 weeks  or  490  years  elapsed,  but,  according  as  we  date  the  going 
 forth  of  this  word  in  the  year  536  or  455  B.C.,  606  or  525  years, 
 i.e.  more  than  eighty-six,  or  at  least  seventy-five,  year-weeks,  passed. 
 This  great  gulf,  which  thus  shows  itself  in  the  calculation  of  the 
 D''i/'3i^  as  year-weeks,  between  the  prophecy  and  its  chronological 
 fulfilment,  is  not  bridged  over  by  the  remark  with  which  Auberlen 
 (p.  141)  has  sought  to  justify  his  supposition  that  Ezra's  return  to 
 Judah  in  the  year  457  B.C.  formed  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  seventy 
 weeks,  while  yet  the  word  of  the  angel  announcing  the  restoration 
 and  the  building  up  of  Jerusalem  first  finds  its  actual  accomplish- 
 ment in  the  building  of  the  city  walls  on  Nehemiah's  return — the 
 remark,  namely,  that  the  external  building  up  of  the  city  had  the 
 same  relation  to  the  terminus  a  quo  of  Daniel's  seventy  year-weeks 
 as  the  external  destruction  of  Jerusalem  to  that  of  Jeremiah's 
 seventy  years.  ''  The  latter  begin  as  early  as  the  year  606  B.C., 
 and  therefore  eighteen  years  before  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem, 
 for  at  that  time  the  kingdom  of  Judah  ceased  to  exist  as  an  inde- 
 pendent theocracy;  the  former  begin  thirteen  years  before  the 
 rebuilding  of  the  city,  because  then  the  re-establishment  of  the 
 theocracy  began."  We  find  a  repetition  of  the  same  phenomenon 
 at  the  end  of  the  seventy  weeks.  "  These  extend  to  the  year  33 
 A.D.  From  this  date  Israel  was  at  an  end,  though  the  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  did  not  take  place  till  the  year  70  a.d." 
 For  Jeremiah  did  not  prophesy  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 should  last  for  seventy  years,  but  only  that  the  land  of  Judah  would 
 be  desolate  seventy  years,  and  that  for  so  long  a  time  its  inhabitants 
 w^ould  serve  the  king  of  Babylon.  The  desolating  of  the  land  and 
 Judah's  subjugation  to  the  king  of  Babylon  did  not  begin  with  the 
 destruction  of  Jerusalem,  but  with  the  first  siege  of  the  city  by 
 Nebuchadnezzar  in  the  fourth  year  of  Jehoiakim,  i.e.  in  the  year 
 
384  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 606  B.C.,  and  continued  till  the  liberation  of  the  Jews  from  Baby- 
 lonian bondage  by  Cyrus  in  the  first  year  of  his  reign,  in  the  year 
 536  B.C.,  and  thus  after  seventy  years  were  fully  accomplished. 
 Jeremiah's  chronologically  definite  prophecy  is  thus  accurately 
 fulfilled ;  but  Daniel's  prophecy  of  the  seventy  weeks  is  neither 
 chronologically  defined  by  years,  nor  has  it  been  altogether  so  ful- 
 filled as  that  the  70,  7,  62,  and  1  week  can  be  reckoned  by  year- 
 weeks. 
 
 The  New  Testament  also  does  not  necessitate  our  seeking  the 
 end  of  the  seventy  weeks  in  the  judgment  the  Romans  were  the 
 means  of  executing  against  the  ancient  Jerusalem,  which  had 
 rejected  and  crucified  the  Saviour.  Nowhere  in  the  N.  T.  is  this 
 prophecy,  particularly  the  n''K'0  Tr}'D\^  referred  to  the  crucifixion  of 
 our  Lord ;  nor  has  Christ  or  the  apostles  interpreted  these  verses, 
 26,  27  of  this  chapter,  of  the  desolation  and  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  However  general  the  opinion  may  be 
 that  Christ,  in  speaking  of  His  jrapovala,  Matt,  xxiv.,  Mark  xiii., 
 and  Luke  xxi.,  in  the  words  orav  'iSrjTe  to  ^SeXvy/xa  t^9  ipr]/x(t}creo)<; 
 TO  prjOev  Blo,  Aaviifk  tov  Trpocj^i'jTov,  k.t.X.  (Matt.  xxiv.  15,  cf.  Mark 
 xiii.  14),  had  before  His  eyes  this  prophecy  (Dan.  ix.  26,  27),  yet 
 that  opinion  is  without  foundation,  and  is  not  established  by  the 
 arguments  which  Hiivernick  (^Dan.  p.  383  f.),  Wieseler  {die  70 
 Wochertj  p.  173  ff.),  Hengstenberg  {Beitr.  i.  p.  258  ff.,  and  Christol. 
 iii.  1,  p.  113  ff.),  and  Auberlen  {Ban.  p.  120  f.)  have  brought 
 forward  for  that  purpose.  We  have  already,  in  explaining  the 
 words  CV'ip?'  ^5?  ''V,  ver.  27,  p.  370,  shown  that  the  /SSeXvy/xa  t?}? 
 ep7]fxoocre(o<;,  found  in  the  discourse  of  Christ,  is  not  derived  from 
 Dan.  ix.  27,  but  from  Dan.  xi.  31  or  xii.  11,  where  the  LXX. 
 have  rendered  D^t^'P  PP?'  by  to  (3Be\vy/ia  t?)?  eprjixwaewi.  For 
 the  further  confirmation  of  the  arguments  in  behalf  of  this  view 
 there  presented,  we  wish  to  add  the  following  considerations.  The 
 appeal  to  the  fact  that  Josephus,  in  the  words  {Antt.  x.  11.  7) 
 AavirjXo<i  Kol  irepl  r^?  tcov  'Pco/j-amv  rjye/LLOVLa';  aveypayjre,  Kol  OTt 
 vir  avTwv  eprnxwOi'jaeTaL^  referred  to  the  prophecy  Dan.  ix.,  and 
 gave  this  interpretation  not  only  as  a  private  view  of  his  own,  but 
 as  (cf.  Be  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  6.  3)  iraXaLo'i  \6yo<;  dvSpwv,  i.e.  repre- 
 sented the  view  of  his  people,  as  commonly  received,  even  by  the 
 Zealots, — this  would  form  a  valid  proof  that  Dan.  ix.  was  at  that 
 time  commonly  referred  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the 
 Romans,  only,  however,  if  besides  this  no  other  prophecy  of  the 
 book  of  Daniel  could  be  apparently  referred  to  the  destruction  of 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  385 
 
 the  Jewish  state  by  the  Romans.  But  this  is  not  the  case. 
 Josephus  and  his  cotemporaries  could  find  such  a  prophecy  in 
 that  of  the  great  enemy  (Dan.  vii.  25)  who  would  arise  out  of  the 
 fourth  or  Roman  world-kuigdom,  and  would  persecute  and  destroy 
 the  saints  of  the  Most  High.  What  Josephus  adduces  as  the 
 contents  of  the  '7ra\aLo<i  \0709  avSpoJv,  namely,  rore  rrjv  itoXlv 
 aXwcreadai  koI  Karacp^eyrja-eadaL  ra  ayta  v6[X(d  iroXe/jiov,  occurs 
 neither  in  ch.  ix,  nor  in  any  other  part  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  and 
 was  not  so  defined  till  after  the  historical  fulfilment.  Wieseler, 
 indeed,  thinks  (p.  154)  that  the  words  ttjv  ttoXlv  Kara^Xeyijaeadai, 
 K.T.X.,  perfectly  correspond  with  the  words  of  Daniel,  ^'}p'})  '^'^V^\ 
 n'^HK'^j  ch.  ix.  26  (shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary,  E.  V.)  ; 
 but  he  also  concedes  that  Josephus  interpreted  the  kind  of  desola- 
 tion, perhaps  with  reference  to  Dan.  xi.  33  Q  31),  after  the  result, 
 as  a  total  desolation.  It  is  thus  granted  that  not  only  in  ch.  ix.,  but 
 also  in  ch.  xi.,  Daniel  predicted  a  desolation  of  the  city  and  the 
 sanctuary  which  could  be  interpreted  of  their  destruction  by  the 
 Romans,  and  the  opinion,  that  besides  ch.  ix.  no  other  part  of 
 Daniel  can  be  found,  is  abandoned  as  incorrect.  But  the  other  cir- 
 cumstances which  Josephus  brings  forward  in  the  passage  quoted, 
 particularly  that  the  Zealots  by  the  desecration  of  the  temple  con- 
 tributed to  the  fulfilling  of  that  TraXaio'i  Xoyo'i,  are  much  more 
 distinctly  contained  in  Dan.  xi.  31  than  in  ch.  ix.  26,  where  we 
 must  first  introduce  this  sense  in  the  words  (ver.  27)  ^33  blJ 
 Wg'^D  D''^'^p^  (o7i  the  wing  of  ahominations  one  causing  desolation"). 
 Similarly  the  other  passages  are  constituted  in  which  Josephus 
 speaks  of  ancient  prophecies  which  have  been  fulfilled  in  the 
 destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans.  No  one  specially  points 
 to  Dan.  ix. 
 
 But  if  the  proof  from  Josephus  could  be  made  more  valid  than 
 has  yet  been  done,  that  the  Jews  of  his  time  referred  Dan.  ix.  to 
 the  overthrow  of  the  Jewish  commonwealth  by  the  Romans,  yet 
 thereby  it  would  not  be  proved  that  Christ  also  shared  this  Jewish 
 opinion,  and  set  it  forth  in  His  discourse.  Matt,  xxiv.,  as  an  un- 
 doubted truth.  In  favour  of  this  view  it  has  indeed  been  argued, 
 "  that  the  ev  totto)  aylo)  fully  corresponds  to  eVi  to  lepov  ^SeXvy/ia 
 Toiv  iprj/xcoa-ecov  earai  (LXX.,  Dan.  ix.  27)  :"  Hengstenberg, 
 Christol.  p.  117.  But  it  is  still  more  inconsistent  with  the  proof 
 from  the  Alexandrian  translation  of  the  verses  before  us  than  it 
 is  with  that  from  Josephus.  In  the  form  of  the  LXX.  text 
 that  has  come  down  to  us  there  are  undoubtedly  two  different 
 
 2B 
 
386  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 paraphrases  or  interpretations  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  vers.  26  and 
 27  penetrating  each  other,  and  therein  the  obscure  words  of  Daniel 
 (after  ch.  xi.  31  and  xii.  11)  are  so  interpreted  that  they  contain  a 
 reference  to  the  desolation  of  the  sanctuary  by  Antiochus.^  The 
 CV^pL^  ^133  7V,  incomprehensible  to  the  translators,  they  inter- 
 preted after  the  ti''^i?^n  v?n,  ch.  xi.  31,  and  derived  from  it  the  eVt 
 TO  lepov.  But  Christ  derived  the  expression  to  ^SeXvy/ia  t?}? 
 iprj/xoocreco<;  as  well  as  the  e<7T0t)9  iv  tottco  ajLO)  from  ch.  xi.  31,  cf. 
 with  ch.  xii.  11,  but  not  from  ch.  ix.  27,  where  neither  the  original 
 text,  "  on  the  wings  of  abomination  shall  the  desolater  come,"  nor 
 the  LXX.  translation,  eVt  to  lepov  /SSiXvyfia  twv  iprj/xaxrecov 
 eaTUi — "  over  the  sanctuary  shall  the  abomination  of  the  desolations 
 come,"  leads  to  the  idea  of  a  "  standing,"  or  a  "  being  placed,"  of 
 the  abomination  of  desolation.  The  standing  (eaTW'i)  without 
 doubt  supposes  the  placing,  which  corresponds  to  the  l^riJ"!  {Zwaovai, 
 LXX.)  and  the  riri7"i  (eToifiaa-drj  BodP]vai,  LXX.),  and  the  iv  tottw 
 dyup  points  to  t^^iP'sn,  ch.  xi.  31,  since  by  the  setting  up  of  the 
 abomination  of  desolation,  the  sanctuary,  or  the  holy  place  of  the 
 temple,  was  indeed  desecrated. 
 
 The  prophecy  in  Dan.  xi.  treats,  as  is  acknowledged,  of  the 
 desolation  of  the  sanctuary  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  If  thus  the 
 Lord,  in  His  discourse,  had  spoken  of  the  ^SiXvy/xa  tt)?  ip.  ecrrco? 
 iv  TOTTco  dylo)  as  a  sign  of  the  approaching  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 by  Titus,  it  would  not  remotely  follow  that  He  referred  this  pro- 
 phecy (ch.  ix.)  to  that  catastrophe.  Much  more  would  He  then, 
 as  Kliefoth  (p.  412)  has  well  remarked,  "  represent  that  which 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  did  against  Jerusalem  as  an  historical  type  of 
 that  which  the  Romans  would  do."     He  would  only  say,  "  As  once 
 
 ^  That  the  Septuagint  version  (ch.  xi.  31,  xii.  11,  ix.  24-27)  is  not  in  reality 
 a  translation,  but  rather  an  explanation  of  the  passage  as  the  LXX.  under- 
 stood it,  is  manifest.  "  They  regard,"  as  Klief.  rightly  judges,  "  ver.  2-4  and 
 the  first  half  of  ver.  25  as  teaching  that  it  was  prophesied  to  Daniel  that 
 Israel  would  soon  return  from  exile,  that  Daniel  also  would  return,  and  Jeru- 
 salem be  built.  The  rest  they  treat  very  freely.  They  take  the  second  half 
 of  ver.  25  out  of  its  place,  and  insert  it  after  the  first  clause  of  ver.  27  ;  they 
 also  take  the  closing  words  of  ver.  2G  out  of  their  place,  and  insert  them  after 
 the  second  clause  of  ver.  27.  The  passage  thus  arranged  they  then  interpret 
 of  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  They  add  together  all  the  numbers  they  find  in  the 
 text  (70  +  7  +  62  =  139),  and  understand  by  them  years,  the  years  of  the 
 Seleucidan  aera,  so  that  they  descend  to  the  second  year  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes. 
 Then  they  interpret  all  the  separate  statements  of  the  times  and  actions  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  a  similar  manner  as  do  the  modern  interpreters. 
 Cf.  Wieseler,  p.  200  ff." 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  387 
 
 was  done  to  Jerusalem  by  Antiochus,  according  to  the  word  of 
 Daniel,  so  shall  it  again  soon  be  done ;  and  therefore,  if  ye  see 
 repeating  themselves  the  events  which  occurred  under  Antiochus 
 in  the  fulfilment  of  Daniel's  word,  then  know  ye  that  it  is  the  time 
 for  flight."  But  regarding  the  meaning  which  Christ  found  in  Dan. 
 ix.  26  and  27,  not  the  least  intimation  would  follow  therefrom. 
 
 But  in  the  discourse  in  question  the  Lord  prophesied  nothing 
 whatever  primarily  or  immediately  of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
 by  the  Romans,  but  treated  in  it,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  p. 
 370,  generally  of  His  irapovaia  and  the  avvTeXeia  rov  al(ovo<;,  which 
 He  places  only  in  connection  with  the  destruction  of  the  temple. 
 The  occasion  of  the  discourse,  as  well  as  its  contents,  show  this. 
 After  He  had  left  the  temple,  never  to  enter  it  again,  shortly  before 
 His  last  sufferings,  while  standing  on  the  Mount  of  Olives,  He 
 announces  to  His  disciples,  who  pointed  to  the  temple,  the  entire 
 destruction  of  that  building ;  whereupon  they  say  to  Him,  "  Tell 
 us  TTore  Tavra  earat  koL  tl  to  ari/jbetov  t^?  o"j}9  irapovaim  koX 
 avvTe\eLa<;  rov  al(avo<;  1 "  for  they  believe  that  this  destruction  and 
 His  irapovala  take  place  together  at  the  end  of  the  world.  This 
 question  the  Lord  replies  to  in  a  long  discourse,  in  which  He  gives 
 them  the  wished-for  information  regarding  the  sign  (aTjfielov,  Matt, 
 xxiv.  4-31),  and  regarding  the  time  (ttotg)  of  His  Trapova-ca  and 
 the  end  of  the  world  (vers.  32-34).  The  information  concerning 
 the  sign  begins  with  a  warning  to  take  heed  and  beware  of  being 
 deceived  ;  for  that  false  messiahs  would  appear,  and  wars  and 
 tumults  of  nations  rising  up  one  against  another,  and  other  plagues, 
 would  come  (vers.  4-7).  All  this  would  be  only  the  beginning  of 
 the  woes,  i.e.  of  the  afflictions  which  then  would  come  upon  the 
 confessors  of  His  name ;  but  the  end  would  not  come  till  the  gospel 
 was  first  preached  in  all  the  w^orld  as  a  testimony  to  all  nations 
 (vers.  8-14).  Then  He  speaks  of  the  signs  which  immediately 
 precede  the  end,  namely,  of  the  abomination  of  desolation  in  the 
 holy  place  of  which  Daniel  prophesied.  With  this  a  period  of 
 tribulation  would  commence  such  as  never  yet  had  been,  so  that 
 if  these  days  should  not  be  shortened  for  the  elect's  sake,  no  one 
 would  be  saved  (vers.  15-28).  To  this  He  adds,  in  conclusion, 
 the  description  of  His  own  •irapovaia,  which  would  immediately 
 (ey^e'w?)  follow  this  great  tribulation  (vers.  29-31).  He  connects 
 with  the  description  of  His  return  (ver.  32  f.)  a  similitude,  with 
 which  He  answers  the  question  concerning  its  time,  and  thus 
 continues  :  "  When  ye  see  all  these  things,  know  that  it  is  near, 
 
388  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 even  at  the  doors.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  this  ryeved  shall  not  pass 
 till  all  these  thingshe  fulfilled.  But  of  that  day  and  hour  knoweth 
 no  man,  no,  not  the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only"  (vers. 
 33,  34,  36). 
 
 From  this  brief  sketch  of  the  course  of  the  thought  it  clearly 
 appears  that  the  Lord  speaks  expressly  neither  of  the  destruction 
 of  Jerusalem,  nor  yet  of  the  time  of  that  event.  AVhat  is  to  be 
 understood  by  ^BeXvyfxa  t.  ip.  He  supposes  to  be  known  to  the 
 disciples  from  the  book  of  Daniel,  and  only  says  to  them  that  they 
 must  flee  when  they  see  this  standing  in  the  holy  place,  so  that 
 they  may  escape  destruction  (ver.  15  ff.).  Only  in  Luke  is  there 
 distinct  reference  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  ;  for  there  we 
 find,  instead  of  the  reference  to  the  abomination  of  desolation,  the 
 words,  "  And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem  compassed  with  armies, 
 then  know  that  its  iprj/x(o(Ti<;  is  nigh"  (Luke  xxi.  20).  According 
 to  the  record  of  all  the  three  evangelists,  however,  the  Lord  not 
 o;Qly  connects  in  the  closest  manner  the  tribulation  commencing 
 with  the  appearance  of  the  ^SeXvyfxa  r.  e'/j.,  or  with  the  siege  of 
 Jerusalem,  with  the  last  great  tribulation  which  opens  the  way 
 for  His  return,  but  He  also  expressly  says,  that  immediately  after 
 the  tribulation  of  those  days  (Matt.  xxiv.  29),  or  in  those  days  of 
 that  tribulation  (Mark  xiii.  24),  or  then  (rore,  Luke  xxi.  27),  the 
 Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  clouds  in  great  power  and  glory. 
 From  this  close  connection  of  His  visible  irapovcrla  with  the  deso- 
 lation of  the  holy  place  or  the  siege  of  Jerusalem,  it  does  not,  it 
 is  true,  follow  that  "  by  the  oppression  of  Jerusalem  connected 
 with  the  Trapovaca,  and  placed  immediately  before  it,  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans  cannot  possibly  be  meant ; " 
 much  rather  that  the  discourse  is  "  of  a  desecration  and  an  op- 
 pression by  Antichrist  which  would  come  upon  the  totto?  ayio<i 
 and  Jerusalem  in  the  then  future  time,  immediately  before  the 
 return  of  the  Lord,  in  the  days  of  the  6Xl\ln<;  fxeyaXr}'^  (Kliefoth). 
 But  just  as  little  does  it  follow  from  that  close  connection — as  the 
 eschatological  discourse,  Matt,  xxiv.,  is  understood  by  most  inter- 
 preters— that  the  Lord  Himself,  as  well  as  His  disciples,  regarded 
 as  contemporaneous  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans 
 and  His  visible  return  in  the  last  days,  or  saw  as  in  prophetic 
 perspective  His  Trapovata  behind  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
 the  Romans,  and  thus,  without  regard  to  the  sequence  of  time, 
 spoke  first  of  the  one  event  and  then  of  the  other.  The  first  con- 
 clusion is  inadmissible  for  this  reason,  that  the  disciples  had  made 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  389 
 
 inquiry  regarding  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the  temple  then 
 visibly  before  them.  If  the  Lord,  in  His  answer  to  this  ques- 
 tion, by  making  mention  of  the  ^BeXvyfxa  r.  ip.  ecrra)?  iv  tottw 
 dyi<p,  had  no  thought  of  this  temple,  but  only  of  the  r6'7ro<;  ayio<i 
 of  the  future,  the  temple  of  the  Christian  church,  then  by  the  use 
 of  words  which  the  disciples  could  not  otherwise  understand  than 
 of  the  laying  waste  and  the  desolation  of  the  earthly  sanctuary 
 He  would  have  confirmed  them  in  their  error.  The  second  con- 
 clusion is  out  of  harmony  with  the  whole  course  of  thought  in  the 
 discoui'se.  Besides,  both  of  them  are  decidedly  opposed  by  this, 
 that  the  Lord,  after  setting  forth  all  the  events  which  precede  and 
 open  the  way  for  His  Trapovala  and  the  end  of  the  world,  says  to 
 the  disciples,  "  When  ye  see  all  these  tilings^  know  that  it  is  near, 
 even  at  the  doors"  (Matt.  xxiv.  33),  and  solemnly  adds,  ''  This 
 reeved"  i.e.  the  generation  then  living,  "  shall  not  pass  till  all  these 
 things  be  fulfilled"  (ver.  34).  Since  the  iravTa  ravra  in  ver.  33 
 comprehends  all  that  goes  before  the  irapovala,  all  the  events  men- 
 tioned in  vers.  15-28,  or  rather  in  vers.  5-28,  it  must  be  taken 
 also  in  the  same  sense  in  ver.  34.  If,  therefore,  the  contempo- 
 raries of  Jesus  and  His  disciples — for  we  can  understand  nothing 
 else  by  i)  jevea  avTrj — must  live  to  see  all  these  events,  then  must 
 they  have  had  a  commencement  before  the  destruction  of  Jeru- 
 salem, and  though  not  perfectly,  yet  in  the  small  beginnings,  which- 
 like  a  germ  comprehended  in  them  the  completion.  Hence  it  is 
 beyond  a  doubt  that  the  Lord  speaks  of  the  judgment  upon  Jeru- 
 salem and  the  Jewish  temple  as  the  beginning  of  His  irapovala 
 and  of  the  avvTekeia  rod  aioivo^y  not  merely  as  a  pre-intimatiou 
 of  them,  but  as  an  actual  commencement  of  His  coming  to  judg- 
 ment, which  continues  during  the  centuries  of  the  spread  of  the 
 gospel  over  the  earth  ;  and  when  the  gospel  shall  be  preached  to 
 all  nations,  then  the  season  and  the  hour  kept  in  His  own  power 
 by  the  Father  shall  reach  its  completion  in  the  cTricjiavela  t?}? 
 irapovala';  avTov  (2  Thess.  ii.  8)  to  judge  the  world.^     According 
 
 1  This  view  of  the  parousia  of  Christ  has  been  controverted  by  Dr.  A. 
 Christiani  in  his  Bemerkungen  zur  Aiislegung  der  Apocalypse  mit  besonderer  Riick- 
 sicht  aiif  die  chiliastische  Frage  (Riga  1868,  p.  21), — only,  however,  thus,  that 
 notwithstanding  the  remark,  "  Since  the  words  1:0.^0.  t«St«,  Matt,  xxiv,  34, 
 plainly  refer  back  to  ver.  33,  they  cannot  in  the  one  place  signify  more  than 
 in  the  other,"  he  yet  refers  these  words  in  ver.  34  to  the  event  of  the  destruc- 
 tion of  Jerusalem,  because  the  contemporaries  of  Jesus  in  reality  lived  to  see 
 it ;  thus  giving  to  them,  as  they  occur  in  ver.  34,  a  much  more  limited  sense 
 tlian  that  which  they  have  in  ver.  33. 
 
390  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 to  tills  view,  Christ,  in  His  discourse,  interpreted  the  prophecy  of 
 Daniel,  ch.  xi.,  of  the  abomination  of  desolation  which  sliould 
 come,  and  had  come,  upon  Jerusalem  and  Judah  by  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  as  a  type  of  the  desolation  of  the  sanctuary  and  of 
 the  people  of  God  in  the  last  time,  wholly  in  the  sense  of  the 
 prophecy,  which  in  ver.  36  passes  over  from  the  typical  enemy 
 of  the  saints  to  the  enemy  of  the  people  of  God  in  the  time  of 
 the  end. 
 
 Thus  the  supposition  that  Christ  referred  Dan.  i.\.  26  and 
 27  to  the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Bomans  loses  all  sup- 
 ]iort ;  and  for  the  chronological  reckoning  of  the  seventy  weeks  of 
 Daniel,  no  help  is  obtained  from  the  New  Testament. 
 
 We  have  now  to  take  into  consideration  the  second  view  re- 
 garding the  historical  reference  of  the  seventy  weeks  prevailing 
 in  our  time.  The  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of 
 Daniel  generally  are  agreed  in  this  (resting  on  the  supposition 
 that  the  prophecies  of  Daniel  do  not  extend  beyond  the  death  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes),  that  the  destruction  of  this  enemy  of  the 
 Jews  (Ant.  Ep.),  or  the  purification  of  the  temple  occurring  a  few 
 years  earlier,  forms  the  terminus  ad  quern  of  the  seventy  weeks,  and 
 that  their  duration  is  to  be  reckoned  from  the  year  168  or  172 
 B.C.  back  either  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Chaldeans, 
 or  to  the  beginning  of  the  Exile.  Since  now  the  seventy  year- 
 weeks  or  490  years,  reckoned  from  the  year  168  or  172  B.C.,  would 
 bring  us  to  the  year  658  or  662  B.C.,  i.e.  fifty-two  or  fifty-six  years 
 before  the  commencement  of  the  Exile,  and  the  terminus  a  quo 
 of  Jeremiah's  prophecy  of  seventy  years,  a  date  from  which  cannot 
 be  reckoned  any  commencing  period,  they  have  for  this  reason 
 sought  to  shorten  the  seventy  weeks.  Hitzig,  Ewald,  Wieseler,  and 
 others  suppose  that  the  first  seven  year-weeks  (  =  forty-nine  years) 
 are  not  to  be  taken  into  the  reckoning  along  with  the  sixty-two 
 weeks,  and  that  only  sixty-two  weeks  =  434  years  are  to  be  counted 
 to  the  year  175  (Ewald),  or  172  (Hitzig),  as  the  beginning  of  the 
 last  week  filled  up  by  the  assault  of  Antiochus  against  Judaism. 
 But  this  reckoning  also  brings  us  to  the  year  609  or  606  B.C.,  the 
 beginning  of  the  Exile,  or  three  years  further  back.  To  date  the 
 sixty-two  year-weeks  from  the  commencement  of  the  Exile,  agrees 
 altogether  too  little  with  the  announcement  that  from  the  going 
 forth  of  the  commandment  to  restore  and  to  build  Jerusalem 
 during  sixty-two  weeks  it  shall  be  built,  so  that,  of  the  most  recent 
 representatives  of  this  view,  no  one  any  longer  consents  to  hold 
 
CHAP.  IX.  21-27.  391 
 
 the  seventy  years  of  the  exile  for  a  time  of  the  restoring  and  the 
 building  of  Jerusalem.  Thus  Hitzig  and  Ewald  openly  declare 
 that  the  reckoning  is  not  correct,  that  the  pseudo-Daniel  has  erred, 
 and  has  assumed  ten  weeks,  i.e.  seventy  years,  too  many,  either 
 from  ignorance  of  chronology,  "or  from  a  defect  in  thought,  from 
 an  interpretation  of  a  word  of  sacred  Scripture,  springing  from  cer- 
 tain conditions  received  as  holy  and  necessary,  but  not  otherwise 
 demonstrable"  (Ewald,  p.  425).  By  this  change  of  the  sixty-two 
 weeks  =  434  years  into  fifty-two  weeks  or  364  years,  they  reach 
 from  the  year  174  to  538  B.C.,  the  year  of  the  overthrow  of  Baby- 
 lon by  Cyrus,  by  whom  the  word  "  to  restore  Jerusalem  "  was 
 promulgated.  To  this  the  seven  weeks  (  =  forty-nine  years)  are 
 again  added  in  order  to  reach  the  year  588  or  587  B.C.,  the  year 
 of  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  Nebuchadnezzar,  from  which 
 the  year-weeks,  shortened  from  seventy  to  sixty,  are  to  be  reckoned. 
 
 This  hypothesis  needs  no  serious  refutation.  For  a  reckoning 
 which  places  the  first  7  weeks  =  49  years  aside,  and  then  shortens 
 the  62  weeks  by  10  in  order  afterwards  again  to  bring  in  the  7 
 weeks,  can  make  no  pretence  to  the  name  of  a  "scientific  explan- 
 ation." When  Hitzig  remarks  (p.  170)  "  that  the  7  weeks  form 
 the  TrpooTov  ylrevBo^  in  the  (Daniel's)  reckoning,  which  the  author 
 must  bring  in  ;  the  whole  theory  of  the  70  year- weeks  demands 
 the  earlier  commencement  in  the  year  606  B.C." — we  may,  indeed, 
 with  greater  accuracy  say  that  the  irpoorov  yJrevSo^  of  the  modern 
 interpretation,  which  needs  such  exegetical  art  and  critical  violence 
 in  order  to  change  the  70  and  the  62  weeks  into  60  and  52,  arises 
 out  of  the  dogmatic  supposition  that  the  70  weeks  must  end  with 
 tlie  consecration  of  the  temple  under  Antiochus,  or  with  the  death 
 of  this  enemy  of  God. 
 
 Among  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book  this  sup- 
 position is  a  dogmatic  axiom,  to  the  force  of  which  the  words  of 
 Scripture  must  yield.  But  this  supposition  is  adopted  also  by  in- 
 terpreters such  as  Hofmann,  Eeichel  (die  70  Jahreswochen  Dan. 
 ix.  24-27,  in  the  TheoL  Stud.  u.  Krit.  1858,  p.  735  ff.),  Fries,  and 
 others,  who  recognise  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of  Daniel,  and 
 hold  the  announcement  of  the  angel  in  these  verses  to  be  a  divine 
 revelation.  These  interpreters  have  adopted  this  view  for  this 
 reason,  that  in  the  description  of  the  hostile  prince  who  shall  per- 
 secute Israel  and  desecrate  the  sanctuary,  and  then  come  to  his 
 end  with  terror  (vers.  26  and  27),  they  believe  that  they  recognise 
 again  the  image  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  whose  enmity  against 
 
392  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  people  and  the  sanctuary  of  God  Is  described,  ch.  vili.  9  if., 
 23  f.  It  cannot,  it  is  true,  be  denied  that  there  is  a  certain  degree 
 of  similarity  between  the  two.  If  in  vers.  26  and  27  it  is  said  of 
 the  hostile  prince  that  he  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary, 
 and  put  an  end  to  the  sacrifice  and  the  meat-offering  for  half  a 
 week,  then  it  is  natural  to  think  of  the  enemy  of  whom  it  is  said  : 
 he  "shall  destroy  the  mighty  and  the  holy  people"  (E.  V.  ch.  viii. 
 24),  "and  by  him  the  daily  sacrifice  was  taken  away"  (ch.  viii. 
 11),  "and  he  shall  take  away  the  daily  sacrifice"  (ch.  xi.  31), 
 especially  if,  with  Hofmann,  we  adopt  the  view  (Schriftbew.  ii.  2, 
 p.  592)  that  between  the  expressions  "  take  away  the  daily  sacri- 
 fice" ("l"''?'!^'!!  lP^^[},  remove]  ^''"1'!]),  and  "  he  shall  cause  the  sacrifice 
 and  the  oblation  to  cease"  ('1^3^=1  nnt  JT'^'ki'^),  there  "is  no  par- 
 ticular distinction."^  But  the  predicate  ^^ particular"  shows  that 
 Hofmann  does  not  reject  everij  distinction ;  and,  indeed,  there 
 exists  a  not  inconsiderable  distinction  ;  for,  as  we  have  already 
 remarked,  *l'''?J^'!i  denotes  only  that  which  is  ^:)^nna?2eni  in  worship, 
 as  e.g.  the  daily  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  ;  while,  on  the 
 other  hand,  i^n^Di  nnt  denotes  the  whole  series  of  sacrifices  together. 
 The  making  to  cease  of  the  bloody  and  the  unbloody  sacrifices  ex- 
 presses an  altogether  greater  wickedness  than  the  taking  away  of 
 the  daily  sacrifice.  This  distinction  is  not  set  aside  by  a  refer- 
 ence to  the  clause  Cinb'O  a'ly^p^"  ei33  bv]  (ver.  27)  compared  with 
 Dpb'D  pp^n  !i3n3l  (ch.  xi.  31).  For  the  assertion  that  the  article  in 
 npb'a  Y^pm  (cii.'xi.  31,  "the  abomination  that  maketh  desolate") 
 denotes  something  of  which  Daniel  had  before  this  already  heard, 
 supplies  no  proof  of  this;  but  the  article  is  simply  to  be  accounted 
 for  from  the  placing  over  against  one  another  of  T'^J^i']  and 
 I'ipti'n.  Moreover  the  Cipb^p  ppti'ri  is  very  different  from  the 
 DOb'p  D'^y^pC'  5)33  7y.  The  being  carried  on  the  wings  of  idol- 
 abominations  is  a  much  more  comprehensive  expression  for  the 
 might  and  dominion  of  idol-abominations  than  the  setting  up  of 
 an  idol-altar  on  Jehovah's  altar  of  burnt-offering. 
 
 As  little  can  we  (with  Hofm.,  p.  590)  perceive  in  the  ii^\}, 
 closely  connecting  itself  with  ^Pf?  i^ipi.  (ver.  26),  a  reference  to 
 the  divine  judgment  described  in  ch.  viii.,  because  the  reference 
 
 ^  We  confine  ourselves  here  to  what  Hofra.  in  his  Schriftbciv.  has  brought 
 forward  in  favour  of  this  view,  without  going  into  the  points  which  he  has 
 stated  in  his  die  70  Wochen,  u.  s.  w.  p.  97,  but  has  omitted  in  the  Schrl/their.., 
 and  can  with  reference  to  that  earlier  argunicutatiou  only  refer  for  its  refuta- 
 tion to  Kliefoth's  Daniel,  p.  417  ff. 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  893 
 
 to  the  enemy  of  God  spoken  of  in  ch.  vii.  8  and  24  Is  as  natural, 
 yea,  even  more  so,  when  we  observe  that  the  enemy  of  God  in 
 ch.  vii.  is  destroyed  by  a  solemn  judgment  of  God — a  circum- 
 stance which  harmonizes  much  more  with  ^^f'?  iSfi?  than  with 
 13'G'^  1*  DSSB,  which  is  said  of  the  enemy  described  in  ch.  viii.  Add 
 to  this  that  the  half-week  during  which  the  adversary  shall  (ch. 
 ix.  27)  carry  on  his  work  corresponds  not  to  the  2300  evening- 
 mornings  (ch  viii.  13),  but,  as  Delitzsch  acknowledges,  to  the  3-g 
 times,  ch.  vii.  25  and  xii.  7,  which  3^  times,  however,  refer  not  to 
 the  period  of  persecution  under  Antiochus,  but  to  that  of  Anti- 
 christ. 
 
 From  all  this  it  therefore  follows,  not  that  the  prince  who  shall 
 come,  whose  people  shall  destroy  the  city  and  the  sanctuary,  and 
 who  shall  cause  the  sacrifice  to  cease,  is  Antiochus,  who  shall 
 raise  himself  against  the  people  of  the  saints,  take  away  the  "  con- 
 tinuance "  (  =  daily  sacrifice)^  and  cast  down  the  place  of  the 
 sanctuary  (ch.  viii.  11),  but  only  that  this  wickedness  of  Antiochus 
 shall  constitute  a  type  for  the  abomination  of  desolation  which  the 
 hostile  prince  mentioned  in  this  prophecy  shall  set  up,  till,  like 
 Pharaoh,  he  find  his  overthrow  in  the  flood,  and  the  desolation 
 which  he  causes  shall  pour  itself  upon  him  like  a  flood. 
 
 This  interpretation  of  vers.  26  and  27  is  not  made  doubtful  also 
 by  referring  to  the  words  of  1  Mace.  i.  54,  (pKoh6[xr}aav  ^BiXv>yfj.a 
 €pr}ficocrea)<;  eVl  to  dvaiaa-Trjpiov,  as  an  evidence  that  at  that  time 
 Dan.  ix.  27  was  regarded  as  a  prophecy  of  the  events  then  taking 
 place  (Hofm.  Weiss,  i.  p.  309).  For  these  words  refer  not  to 
 Dan.  ix.  27,  where  the  LXX.  have  /3SeXvy/j,a  iprj/moJcrecov,  but  to 
 Dan.  xi.  11,  where  the  singular  ^SeXvy/na  epTjfxcoaeco'i  stands  with 
 the  verb  koL  Sooaovai  (LXX.  for  ^^^^^l),  to  which  the  wKoSo/jiija-eTai 
 visibly  refers. 
 
 If,  therefore,  the  reference  of  vers.  26,  27  to  the  period  of 
 Antiochus'  persecution  is  exegetically  untenable,  then  also,  finally, 
 it  is  completely  disproved  in  the  chronological  reckoning  of  the  70 
 weeks.  Proceeding  from  the  right  supposition,  that  after  the  70 
 weeks,  the  fulfilling  of  all  that  was  promised,  the  expiating  and 
 putting  away  of  sin,  and,  along  with  that,  the  perfect  working  out 
 of  the  divine  plan  of  salvation  for  eternity,  shall  begin, — thus,  that 
 in  ver.  24  the  perfecting  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  glory  is  pro- 
 phesied of, — Hofmann  and  his  followers  do  not  interpret  the  7,  62, 
 and  1  week  which  are  mentioned  in  vers.  25-27  as  a  division  of 
 the  70  weeks,  but  they  misplace  the  first-mentioned  7  weeks  at  the 
 
394  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 end  of  the  period  consisting  of  70  such  weeks,  and  the  following 
 62  -|-  1  ill  the  time  reaching  from  the  beginning  of  the  Chaldean 
 supremacy  in  the  year  605  to  the  death  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 in  the  year  IGi,  which  makes  441  years  =  63  year- weeks;  according 
 to  whichj  not  only  the  end  of  the  62  +  1  weeks  does  not  coincide 
 w'itli  the  end  of  the  70  weeks,  but  also  the  7  -|-  62  +  1  are  to  be 
 refiarded  neither  as  identical  with  the  70  nor  as  followinjr  one 
 another  continuously  in  their  order, — much  more  between  the  63 
 and  the  7  weeks  a  wide  blank  space,  which  before  the  coming  of 
 the  end  cannot  be  measured,  must  lie,  which  is  not  even  properly 
 covered  up,  much  less  filled  up,  by  the  remark  that  "  the  unfolding 
 of  the  70  proceeds  backwards."  For  by  this  reckoning  7  +  62  +  1 
 are  not  an  unfolding  of  the  70,  and  are  not  equal  to  70,  but  would 
 be  equal  to  62  +  1  +  some  unknown  intervening  period  +  7  weeks. 
 This  were  an  impossibility  which  the  representatives  of  this  inter- 
 pretation of  the  angel's  communication  do  not,  it  is  true,  accept, 
 but  seek  to  set  aside,  by  explaining  the  7  weeks  as  periods  formed 
 of  7  times  7,  or  jubilee-year  periods,  and,  on  the  contrary,  the 
 62  +  1  of  seven-year  times  or  Sabbath-periods. 
 
 This  strange  interpretation  of  the  angel's  words,  according  to 
 which  not  only  must  the  succession  of  the  periods  given  in  the  text 
 be  transposed,  the  first  7  weeks  being  placed  last,  but  also  the  word 
 D''y3tt^  in  the  passages  immediately  following  one  another  must  first 
 denote  jubilee  (49  year)  periods,  then  also  Sabbath-year  (7  year) 
 periods,  is  not  made  plain  by  saying  that  "  the  end  of  the  62  +  1 
 week  is  the  judgment  of  wrath  against  the  persecutor,  thus  only 
 the  remote  making  possible  the  salvation  ;  but  the  end  of  the  70 
 weeks  is,  according  to  ver.  24,  the  final  salvation,  and  fulfilling  of 
 the  prophecy  and  consecration  of  the  Most  Holy — thus  the  end  of 
 the  62  +  1  and  of  the  70  does  not  take  place  at  the  same  time;" 
 and — "  if  the  end  of  the  two  took  place  at  the  same  time,  what  kind 
 of  miserable  consolation  would  this  be  for  Daniel,  in  answer  to  his 
 prayer,  to  be  told  that  Jerusalem  within  the  70  weeks  would  in 
 troublous  times  again  arise,  thus  only  arise  amid  destitution!"  (Del. 
 p.  284).  For  the  prophecy  would  furnish  but  miserable  consolation 
 only  in  this  case,  if  it  consisted  merely  of  the  contents  of  vers.  25b, 
 26,  and  27, — if  it  said  nothing  more  than  this,  that  Jerusalem  should 
 be  built  again  within  the  70  weeks  in  troublous  times,  and  then 
 finally  would  again  be  laid  waste.  But  the  other  remark,  that  the 
 judgment  of  wrath  against  the  destroyer  forms  only  the  remote 
 making  possible  of  the  salvation,  and  is  separated  from  the  final 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  395 
 
 deliverance  or  the  completion  of  salvation  by  a  long  intervening 
 period,  stands  in  contradiction  to  the  prophecy  in  ch.  vii.  and  to 
 the  whole  teaching  of  Scripture,  according  to  which  the  destruction 
 of  the  arch-enemy  (Antichrist)  and  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom 
 of  glory  are  brought  about  by  one  act  of  judgment. 
 
 In  the  most  recent  discussion  of  this  prophecy,  Hofmann 
 (Schriftbeiv.  ii.  2,  p.  585  ff.,  2  Aufl.)  has  presented  the  following 
 positive  arguments  for  the  interpretation  and  reckoning  of  the 
 period  of  time  in  question.  The  message  of  the  angel  in  vers. 
 25-27  consists  of  three  parts:  (1)  A  statement  of  how  many  hep- 
 tades  shall  be  between  the  going  forth  of  the  command  to  rebuild 
 Jerusalem  and  a  Mascliiach  Nagid;  (2)  the  mentioning  of  that 
 which  constitutes  the  contents  of  sixty-two  of  these  periods ;  (3)  the 
 prediction  of  what  shall  happen  with  the  close  of  the  latter  of  these 
 times.  In  the  first  of  these  parts,  "i^T  with  the  following  infinitive, 
 which  denotes  a  human  action,  is  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  com- 
 mandment^ as  that  word  of  Cyrus  prophesied  of  Isa.  xliv.  28, 
 and  the  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  is  to  be  interpreted  as  in  this 
 passage  of  Isaiah,  or  in  Jeremiah's  prophecy  to  the  same  import, 
 and  not  as  if  afterwards  a  second  rebuilding  of  Jerusalem  amid  the 
 difficulty  and  oppression  of  the  times  is  predicted ;  then  will  the 
 sixty-two  heptades  remain  separated  from  the  seven,  and  not  sixty- 
 nine  of  these,  but  only  seven,  be  reckoned  between  the  going  forth 
 of  the  command  to  build  Jerusalem  again  and  the  Mascliiach  Nagid, 
 iince  in  ver.  26  mention  is  made  not  of  that  which  is  to  be  expected 
 on  the  other  side  of  the  sixty-nine,  but  of  the  sixty-two  times ; 
 finally,  the  contents  of  the  seven  times  are  sufficiently  denoted  by 
 their  commencement  and  their  termination,  and  will  remain  without 
 being  confounded  with  the  building  up  of  Jerusalem  in  troublous 
 times,  afterwards  described. 
 
 All  these  statements  of  Hofmann  are  correct,  and  they  agree 
 with  our  interpretation  of  these  verses,  but  they  contain  no  proof 
 that  the  sixty-two  weeks  are  to  be  placed  after  the  seven,  and  that 
 they  are  of  a  different  extent  from  these.  The  proof  for  this  is 
 first  presented  in  the  conclusion  derived  from  these  statements  (on 
 the  ground  of  the  correct  supposition  that  by  Mascliiach  Nagid  not 
 Cyrus,  but  the  Messias,  is  to  be  understood),  that  because  the  first 
 of  these  passages  (ver.  25a)  does  not  say  of  a  part  of  these  times 
 what  may  be  its  contents,  but  much  rather  points  out  which  part 
 of  them  lies  between  the  two  events  in  the  great  future  of  Israel, 
 and  consequently  separates  them  from  one  another,  that  on  this 
 
396  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 account  these  events  belong  to  the  end  of  the  present  course  of  the 
 world,  in  which  Israel  hoped,  and  obviously  the  seven  times  shall 
 constitute  the  end  of  the  period  consisting  of  seven  such  times. 
 This  argument  thus  founds  itself  on  the  circumstance  that  the 
 appearing  of  the  Maschiach  Nagid  ■which  concludes  the  seven 
 weeks,  and  separates  them  from  the  sixty-two  weeks  which  follow, 
 is  not  to  be  understood  of  the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesli, 
 but  of  His  return  in  glory  for  the  completion  of  the  kingdom 
 which  was  hoped  for  in  consequence  of  the  restoration  of  Jeru- 
 salem, prophesied  of  by  Isaiah  {e.g.  ch.  Iv.  3,  4)  and  Jeremiah  (e.g. 
 eh.  XXX.  9).  But  we  could  speak  of  these  deductions  as  valid  only 
 if  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah  had  prophesied  only  of  the  appearance  of 
 the  Messias  in  glory,  with  the  exclusion  of  His  coming  in  the  flesh. 
 But  since  this  is  not  the  case — much  rather,  on  the  one  side,  Hof- 
 mann  himself  says  the  'li1  ^''t^'^P  "i3T  may  be  taken  for  a  prediction, 
 as  that  Isa.  xliv.  28,  of  Cyrus — but  Cyrus  shall  not  build  the  Jeru- 
 salem of  the  millennial  kingdom,  but  the  Jerusalem  Avith  its  temple 
 which  was  destroyed  by  the  Chaldeans — and,  on  the  other  hand, 
 here  first,  if  not  alone,  in  the  prophecies  ch.  xxv.  and  xxix.,  by 
 which  Daniel  was  led  to  pray,  Jeremiah  has  predicted  the  return 
 of  Israel  from  exile  after  the  expiry  of  the  seventy  years  as  the 
 beginning  of  the  working  out  of  the  divine  counsel  of  salvation 
 towards  Israel, — therefore  Daniel  also  could  not  understand  the 
 '1J1  ^''C'np  "I3T  otherwise  than  of  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  after 
 the  seventy  years  of  the  Babylonish  exile.  The  remark  also,  that 
 nothing  is  said  of  the  contents  of  the  seven  weeks,  warrants  us 
 in  no  respect  to  seek  their  contents  in  the  time  of  the  millennial 
 kingdom.  The  absence  of  any  mention  of  the  contents  of  the 
 seven  weeks  is  simply  and  sufficiently  accounted  for  from  the 
 circumstance,  as-  we  have  already  (p.  375)  shown,  that  Daniel  had 
 already  given  the  needed  information  (ch.  viii.)  regarding  this  time, 
 regarding  the  time  from  the  end  of  the  Exile  to  the  appearance  of 
 Christ.  Still  less  can  the  conclusion  be  drawn,  from  the  circum- 
 stance that  the  building  in  the  sixty-two  weeks  is  designated  as  one 
 falling  in  troublous  times,  that  the  restoration  and  the  building  of 
 Jerusalem  in  the  seven  weeks  shall  be  a  building  in  glory.  The 
 r\):jh)  3''C'np  (^0  restore  and  to  build,  ver.  25a)  does  not  form  a  contrast 
 to  the  D'J^yn  pi^fi  nri333]  l^^'n  (=  E.V.  shall  be  built  again,  and  the 
 wall  even  in  troublous  times,  ver.  25^),  but  it  is  only  more  indefinite, 
 for  the  circumstances  of  the  building  are  not  particularly  stated. 
 Finally,  the  circumstance  also,  that  after  the  sixty-two  heptades  a 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  397 
 
 new  devastation  of  the  holy  city  is  placed  in  view,  cannot  influence 
 us  to  escape  from  the  idea  of  the  second  coming  of  Christ  in  the 
 last  time  along  with  the  building  of  Jerusalem  during  the  seven 
 lieptades]  since  it  was  even  revealed  to  the  prophet  that  not  merely 
 would  a  cruel  enemy  of  the  saints  of  God  (in  Antiochus  Epiphanes) 
 arise  out  of  the  third  world-kingdom,  but  also  that  a  yet  greater 
 enemy  would  arise  out  of  the  fourth,  an  enemy  who  would  perish 
 in  the  burning  fire  (ch.  vii.  12,  26  f.)  in  the  judgment  of  the  world 
 immediately  before  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  glory. 
 
 Thus  neither  the  placing  of  the  contents  of  the  seven  weeks  in 
 the  eschatological  future,  nor  yet  the  placing  of  these  weeks  at  the 
 beginning  instead  of  at  the  end  of  the  three  periods  of  time  which 
 are  distinguished  in  vers.  25-27,  is  established  by  these  arguments. 
 This  Fries  (Jalirh.  f.  deutsche  Theol.  iv.  p.  254  ff.)  has  observed, 
 and  rightly  remarked,  that  the  effort  to  interpret  the  events  an- 
 nounced in  ver.  26  f.  of  the  tyranny  of  Antiochus,  and  to  make 
 this  epoch  coincide  with  the  close  of  the  sixty-two  year-weeks  in 
 the  chronological  reckoning,  cannot  but  lead  to  the  mistake  of  in- 
 cluding the  years  of  Babylon  in  the  seventy  year-weeks — a  mistake 
 which  is  met  by  three  rocks,  against  which  every  attempt  of  this 
 kind  must  be  shattered.  (1)  There  is  the  objection  that  it  is  im- 
 possible that  the  times  of  the  destruction  and  the  desolation  of 
 Jerusalem  could  be  conceived  of  under  the  same  character  as  the 
 times  of  its  restoration,  and  be  represented  from  the  same  point  of 
 view ;  (2)  the  inexplicable  inconsequence  which  immediately  arises, 
 if  in  the  seventy  year-weeks,  including  the  last  restoration  of  Israel, 
 the  Babylonish  but  not  also  the  Romish  exile  were  comprehended ; 
 (3)  the  scarcely  credible  supposition  that  the  message  of  the  angel 
 sent  to  Daniel  was  to  correct  that  earlier  divine  word  which  was 
 given  by  Jeremiah,  and  to  make  known  that  not  simply  seventy 
 years,  but  rather  seventy  year-weeks,  are  meant.  Of  this  latter 
 supposition  we  have  already  (p.  323)  shown  that  it  has  not  a  single 
 point  of  support  in  the  text. 
 
 In  order  to  avoid  these  three  rocks.  Fries  advances  the  opinion 
 that  the  three  portions  into  which  the  seventy  year-weeks  are 
 divided,  are  each  by  itself  separately  to  be  reckoned  chronologically, 
 and  that  they  form  a  connected  whole,  not  in  a  chronological,  but 
 in  a  historico-pragmatical  sense,  "  as  the  whole  of  all  the  times  of 
 the  positive  continuance  of  the  theocracy  in  the  Holy  Land  lying 
 between  the  liberation  from  Babylonish  exile  and  the  completion 
 of  the  historical  kingdom  of  Israel "  (p.  258) ;  and,  indeed,  so  that 
 
398  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  seven  year-weeks,  ver.  25a,  form  the  last  part  of  the  seventy 
 year-^Yeeks,  or,  what  is  the  same,  the  jubilee-period  of  the  millen- 
 nial kingdom,  and  the  sixty-two  year-weeks,  ver.  26a,  represent  the 
 period  of  the  restoration  of  Israel  after  its  liberation  from  Babylon 
 and  before  its  overthrow  by  the  Romans — reckoned  according  to 
 the  average  of  the  points  of  commencement  and  termination, 
 according  to  which,  from  the  reckoning  536  (edict  of  Cyrus), 
 457  (return  of  Ezra),  and  410  (termination  by  the  restoration), 
 we  obtain  for  the  epoch  of  the  restoration  the  mean  year  467 
 B.C. ;  and  for  the  crisis  of  subjection  to  the  Roman  power  a.u.c. 
 691  (the  overthrow  of  Jerusalem  by  Pompey),  714  (the  appoint- 
 ment of  Herod  as  king  of  the  Jews),  and  759  (the  first  Roman 
 procurator  in  Palestine),  we  obtain  the  mean  year  721  A.u.c.  = 
 33  B.C.,  and  the  difference  of  these  mean  numbers,  467  and  33, 
 amounts  exactly  to  434  years  =  62  year-weeks.  The  period  de- 
 scribed in  ver.  26  thus  reaches  from  the  beginnings  of  the  sub- 
 jection of  Israel  under  the  Roman  world-kingdom  to  the  expiry  of 
 the  time  of  the  diaspora  of  Israel,  and  the  separate  year-week, 
 ver.  27,  comprehends  the  period  of  the  final  trial  of  the  people  of 
 God,  and  reaches  from  the  bringing  back  of,  Israel  to  the  de- 
 struction of  Antichrist  (pp.  261-266). 
 
 Against  this  new  attempt  to  solve  the  mystery  of  the  seventy 
 weeks,  liofmann,  in  Schriftbeiv.  ii.  2,  p.  594,  raises  the  objection, 
 "  that  in  ver.  26  a  period  must  be  described  which  belongs  to  the 
 past,  and  in  ver.  27,  on  the  contrary,  another  which  belongs  to 
 the  time  of  the  end  ;  this  makes  the  indissoluble  connection  which 
 exists  between  the  contents  of  the  two  verses  absolutely  impossible." 
 In  this  he  is  perfectly  right.  The  close  connection  between  these 
 two  verses  makes  it  certainly  impossible  to  interpose  an  empty 
 space  of  time  between  the  cutting  off  of  the  Anointed,  by  which 
 Pries  understands  the  dispersion  of  Israel  among  the  heathen  in 
 the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by  the  Romans,  and  the  coming  of 
 Antichrist,  a  space  which  would  amount  to  1800  years.  But  in 
 opposition  to  this  hypothesis  we  must  also  further  remark,  (1)  that 
 Pries  has  not  justified  the  placing  of  the  first  portion  of  the 
 seventy  year-weeks  (i.e.  the  seven  weeks)  at  the  end, — he  has  not 
 removed  the  obstacles  standing  against  this  arbitrary  supposition, 
 for  his  interpretation  of  the  words  "^'i^  n^i^'b  nv,  "  till  Messias  the 
 prince  shall  be,"  is  verbally  impossible,  since,  if  Nagid  is  a  predi- 
 cate, then  the  verb  ^"^JT.  could  not  be  wanting  ;  (2)  that  the  inter- 
 pretation of  the  n'C'b  r\-}'3\  of  the  abolition  of  the  old  theocracy,  and 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  399 
 
 of  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews  abandoned  by  God  among  the 
 heathen,  needs  no  serious  refutation,  but  with  this  interpretation 
 tlie  whole  hypothesis  stands  or  falls.  Finally,  (3)  the  supposition 
 requires  that  the  sixty-two  weeks  must  be  chronologically  reckoned 
 as  year-weeks ;  the  seven  weeks,  on  the  contrary,  must  be  inter- 
 preted mystically  as  jubilee-periods,  and  the  one  week  as  a  period 
 of  time  of  indefinite  duration  ;  a  freak  of  arbitrariness  exceeding 
 all  measure,  which  can  no  longer  be  spoken  of  as  scripture 
 interpretation. 
 
 Over  against  such  arbitrary  hypotheses,  we  can  regard  it  as 
 only  an  advance  on  the  way  toward  a  right  understanding  of  this 
 prophecy,  that  Hofmann  (p.  594)  closes  his  most  recent  investi- 
 gations into  this  question  with  the  following  remarks  : — "  On  the 
 contrary,  I  always  find  that  the  indefiniteness  of  the  expression 
 V}yf,  which  denotes  a  period  in  some  way  divided  into  sevens, 
 leaves  room  for  the  possibility  of  comprehending  together  the 
 sixty-three  and  the  seven  weeks  in  one  period  of  seventy,  as  its 
 beginning  and  its  end.  .  .  .  What  was  the  extent  of  the  units  of 
 which  the  seventy  times  consist,  the  expression  yi3^  did  not  inform 
 Daniel :  he  could  only  conjecture  it."  This  facilitates  the  adoption 
 of  the  symbolical  interpretation  of  the  numbers,  which,  after  the 
 example  of  Leyrer  and  Kliefoth,  we  regard  as  the  only  possible 
 one,  because  it  does  not  necessitate  our  changing  the  seventy  years 
 of  the  exile  into  years  of  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem,  and  placing 
 the  seven  weeks,  which  the  text  presents  as  the  first  period  of  the 
 seventy  weeks,  last. 
 
 The  symbolical  interpretation  of  the  seventy  Ci^^^'  and  their 
 divisions  is  supported  by  the  following  considerations : — (1)  By  the 
 double  circumstance,  that  on  the  one  side  all  the  explanations  of 
 them  as  year-weeks  necessitate  an  explanation  of  the  angel's  mes- 
 sage which  is  justified  neither  by  the  words  nor  by  the  succession 
 of  the  statements,  and  do  violence  to  the  text,  without  obtaining 
 a  natural  progress  of  thought,  and  on  the  other  side  all  attempts 
 to  reckon  these  year-weeks  chronologically  show  themselves  to  be 
 insufficient  and  impossible.  (2)  The  same  conclusion  is  sustained 
 by  the  choice  of  the  word  V'^yy  for  the  definition  of  the  whole 
 epoch  and  its  separate  periods ;  for  this  word  only  denotes  a  space 
 of  time  measured  by  sevens,  but  indicates  nothing  as  to  the  dura- 
 tion of  these  sevens.  Since  Daniel  in  ch.  viii.  14  and  xii.  11 
 uses  a  chronologically  definite  measure  of  time  (evening-mornings, 
 days),  we  must  conclude  from  the  choice  of  the  expressions,  seven, 
 
400  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 seven  times  (as  in  ch.  vii.  25  and  xii.  7  of  the  like  expression, 
 times),  which  cannot  be  reckoned  chronologically,  that  the  period 
 for  the  perfecting  of  the  people  and  the  kingdom  of  God  was  not 
 to  be  chronologically  defined,  but  only  noted  as  a  divinely  appointed 
 period  measured  by  sevens.  "  They  are  sevens,  of  that  there  is  no 
 doubt ;  but  the  measure  of  the  unit  is  not  given  : "  thus  Liimmert 
 remarks  {Zur  Revision  der  hihl.  Zaldensymh.  in  den  Jahrhh.  f.  D, 
 Theol.  ix.  1).  He  further  says  :  "If  the  great  difficulty  of  taking 
 these  numbers  chronologically  does  not  of  itself  urge  to  their 
 symbolical  interpretation,  then  we  should  be  led  to  this  by  the 
 disagreement  existing  between  Gabriel's  answer  (ver.  22)  and 
 Daniel's  question  (ver.  2).  To  his  human  inquiries  regarding  the 
 end  of  the  Babylonish  exile,  Daniel  receives  not  a  human  but  a 
 divine  answer,  in  which  the  seventy  years  of  Jeremiah  are  reckoned 
 as  sevens,  and  it  is  indicated  that  the  full  close  of  the  history  of 
 redemption  shall  only  be  reached  after  a  long  succession  of  periods 
 of  development." 
 
 By  the  definition  of  these  periods  according  to  a  symbolical 
 measure  of  time,  the  reckoning  of  the  actual  duration  of  the 
 periods  named  is  withdrawn  beyond  the  reach  'of  our  human  re- 
 search, and  the  definition  of  the  days  and  hours  of  the  develop- 
 ment of  the  kingdom  of  God  down  to  its  consummation  is  reserved 
 for  God,  the  Governor  of  the  world  and  the  Ruler  of  human 
 history ;  yet  by  the  announcement  of  the  development  in  its 
 principal  stadia,  according  to  a  measure  fixed  by  God,  the  strong 
 consolation  is  afforded  of  knowing  that  the  fortunes  of  His 
 people  are  in  His  hands,  and  that  no  hostile  power  will  rule  over 
 them  one  hour  longer  than  God  the  Lord  thinks  fit  to  afford  time 
 and  space,  in  regard  to  the  enemy  for  his  unfolding  and  ripening 
 for  the  judgment,  and  in  regard  to  the  saints  for  the  purifying  and 
 the  confirmation  of  their  faith  for  the  eternal  life  in  His  kingdom 
 according  to  His  wisdom  and  righteousness. 
 
 The  prophecy,  in  that  it  thus  announces  the  times  of  the  de- 
 velopment of  the  future  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God 
 and  of  this  world  according  to  a  measure  that  is  symbolical  and 
 not  chronological,  does  not  in  the  least  degree  lose  its  character  as 
 a  revelation,  but  thereby  first  rightly  proves  its  high  origin  as 
 divine,  and  beyond  the  reach  of  human  thought.  For,  as  Leyrer 
 (Herz.'s  Healenc.  xviii.  p.  387)  rightly  remarks,  ''  should  not  He 
 who  as  Creator  has  ordained  all  things  according  to  measure  and 
 number,  also  as  Governor  of  the  world  set  higher  measures  and 
 
CHAP.  IX.  24-27.  401 
 
 bounds  to  the  developments  of  history  ?  which  are  to  be  taken  at 
 one  time  as  identical  with  earthly  measures  of  time,  which  indeed 
 the  eventus  often  first  teaches  (^e.g.  the  seventy  years  of  the  Baby- 
 lonish exile,  Dan.  ix.  2),  but  at  another  time  as  symbolical,  but 
 yet  so  that  the  historical  course  holds  and  moves  itself  within  the 
 divinely  measured  sphere,  as  with  the  seventy  weeks  of  Daniel, 
 wherein,  for  the  establishing  of  the  faith  of  individuals  and  of 
 the  church,  there  lies  the  consolation,  that  all  events  even  to  the 
 minutest,  particularly  also  the  times  of  war  and  of  oppression, 
 are  graciously  measured  by  God  (Jer.  v.  22;  Job  xxxviii.  11; 
 Ps.  xciii.  3  f .)."  ' 
 
 To  give  this  consolation  to  the  faithful  is  the  object  of  this 
 revelation,  and  that  object  it  fully  accomplishes.  For  the  time 
 and  the  hour  of  the  consummation  of  the  kino;dom  of  God  it 
 belongs  not  to  us  to  know.  What  the  Lord  said  to  His  disciples 
 (Acts  i.  7)  before  His  ascension,  in  answer  to  their  question  as  to 
 the  time  of  the  setting  up  of  the  kingdom  of  Israel — "  It  belongs 
 not  to  you  to  know  '^povov^  rj  Kaipom  ov<i  6  rrarrjp  Wero  iv  rfj  ISia 
 i^ovala^ — that  He  says  not  only  to  the  twelve  apostles,  but  to  the 
 whole  Christian  world.  That  the  reason  for  this  answer  is  to  be 
 sought  not  merely  in  the  existing  condition  of  the  disciples  at  the 
 time  He  uttered  it,  but  in  this,  that  the  time  and  the  hour  of  the 
 appearance  of  the  Lord  for  the  judgment  of  the  world  and  the 
 completion  of  His  kingdom  in  glory  are  not  to  be  announced 
 beforehand  to  men,  is  clear  from  the  circumstance  that  Christ  in 
 the  eschatological  discourse  (Matt.  xxiv.  36  ;  Mark  xiii.  32)  der 
 clares  generally,  "  Of  that  day  and  hour  kuoweth  no  man,  no,  not 
 the  angels  of  heaven,  but  my  Father  only."  According  to  this, 
 God,  the  Creator  and  Kuler  of  the  world,  has  kept  in  His  own 
 power  the  determination  of  the  time  and  the  hour  of  the  consum- 
 mation of  the  world,  so  that  we  may  not  expect  an  announcement 
 of  it  beforehand  in  the  Scripture.     What  has  been  advanced  in 
 
 ^  Auberlen,  notwithstanding  that  he  interprets  the  seventy  D"'y3t^  chrono- 
 logically as  year-weeks,  does  not  yet  altogether  misapprehend  the  symbolical 
 character  of  this  definition  of  time,  but  rightly  remarks  (p.  133  f.),  "The 
 history  of  redemption  is  governed  by  these  sacred  numbers  ;  they  are  like  the 
 simple  foundation  of  the  building,  the  skeleton  in  its  organism.  These  are  not 
 only  outward  indications  of  time,  but  also  indications  of  nature  and  essence." 
 What  he  indeed  says  regarding  the  symbolical  meaning  of  the  seventy  weeks 
 and  their  divisions,  depends  on  his  erroneous  interpretation  of  the  prophecy  of 
 the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesh,  and  is  not  consistent  with  itself. 
 
 20 
 
402  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 opposition  to  this  view  for  the  justifying  of  the  chronological 
 interpretation  of  Daniel's  prophecy  of  seventy  weeks,  and  similar 
 prophecies  (cf.  e.g.  Hengstb.  Christol.  iii.  1,  p.  202  ff.),  cannot  be 
 regarded  as  valid  proof.  If  Bengel,  in  Ordo  Temporiun,  p.  259, 
 2d  ed.,  remarks  with  reference  to  Mark  xiii.  32  :  "  Negatur  prcevia 
 scientia,  pro  ipso  chintaxat  prcesenti  sermonis  temjjore,  ante  pias- 
 sionem  et  glorijicationem  Jesu.  Non  dixit,  nemo  sciet,  sed:  nemo 
 scit.  Ipse  jam,  jamque,  sciturus  end:  et  quiim  scientiam  diei  et 
 hora  nactus  fuit,  ipsius  erat,  scientiam  dare,  ciii  vellet  et  gnando 
 vellet," — so  no  one  can  certainly  dispute  a  priori  the  conclusion 
 ^'- Ipse  jam,^''  etc.,  drawn  from  the  correct  statements  preceding, 
 but  also  every  one  will  confess  that  the  statement  "  Ipsius  erat," 
 etc.,  cannot  prove  it  to  be  a  fact  that  Jesus,  after  His  glorification, 
 revealed  to  John  in  Patmos  the  time  and  the  hour  of  His  return 
 for  the  final  judgment.  Bengel's  attempt  to  interpret  the  pro- 
 phetical numbers  of  the  Apocalypse  chronologically,  and  accord- 
 incly  to  reckon  the  year  of  the  coming  again  of  our  Lord,  has 
 altogether  failed,  as  all  modern  scientific  interpreters  have  acknow- 
 ledged. So  also  fails  the  attempt  which  has  been  made  to  conclude 
 from  what  Christ  has  said  regarding  the  day  of  His  Trapovaia,  that 
 the  Scripture  can  have  no  chronologically  defined  prophecies,  while 
 yet  Christ  Himself  prophesied  His  resurrection  after  three  days. 
 
 CHAP.  X.-XII.  THE  REVELATION  EEGAEDING  THE  AFFLICTION  OF 
 THE  PEOPLE  OF  GOD  ON  THE  PART  OF  THE  RULERS  OF  THE 
 WORLD  TILL  THE  CONSUMMATION  OF  THE  KINGDOM  OF  GOD. 
 
 In  the  third  year  of  the  reign  of  Cyrus,  Daniel  received  the 
 last  revelation  regarding  the  future  of  his  people,  which  gives  a 
 fuller  unfolding  of  the  hostile  attitude  of  the  world-power  toward 
 the  people  and  the  kingdom  of  God  from  the  time  of  the  Persian 
 dominion  to  the  end  of  the  days,  as  well  as  regarding  the  powerful 
 protection  which  the  covenant  people  shall  experience  amid  the 
 severe  oppressions  they  would  be  exposed  to  for  their  purification. 
 This  revelation  connects  itself,  both  as  to  its  contents  and  form,  so 
 closely  with  ch.  viii.,  that  it  is  to  be  viewed  as  a  further  unfolding 
 of  that  prophecy,  and  serves  for  the  illustration  and  confirmation 
 of  that  which  was  announced  to  the  prophet  shortly  before  the 
 destruction  of  the  Chaldean  world-kingdom  regarding  the  world- 
 kingdoms  that  were  to  follow,  and  their  relation  to  the  theocracy. 
 It  consists  of  three  parts: — (1.)  There  is  the  description  of  the 
 
CHAP.  X.-XII.  403 
 
 appearance  of  God  as  to  its  nature,  the  impression  it  produced  on 
 the  prophet,  and  its  object  (ch.  x.  1-xi.  2a).  (2.)  The  unveihng 
 of  the  future,  in  brief  statements  regarding  the  relation  of  the 
 Persian  and  the  Javanic  world-kingdoms  to  Israel,  and  in  more 
 comprehensive  descriptions  of  the  wars  of  the  kings  of  the  north 
 and  the  south  for  the  supremacy,  with  the  hostilities  thence  arising 
 asainst  the  kingdom  of  God — hostilities  which  aim  at  its  destruc- 
 tion,  but  which,  because  of  the  powerful  succour  which  is  rendered 
 ♦o  Israel  by  Michael  the  angel-prince,  shall  come  to  an  end  in  the 
 destruction  of  the  enemy  of  God  and  the  final  salvation  of  the 
 people  of  God  (ch.  xi.  26-xii.  3).  (3.)  This  revelation  concludes 
 with  the  definition  of  the  duration  of  the  time  of  oppression,  and 
 with  the  command  given  to  Daniel  to  seal  up  the  words,  together 
 with  the  prophecy,  till  the  time  of  the  end,  and  to  rest  till  the  end 
 come :  "  For  thou  shalt  rest  and  stand  in  thy  lot  at  the  end  of  the 
 days"  (ch.  xii.  4-13). 
 
 If  we  attentively  examine  first  of  all  the  form  of  this  revela- 
 tion, namely,  the  manifestation  of  God,  by  which  there  is  given  to 
 Daniel  the  understanding  of  the  events  of  the  future  (ch.  x.  14, 
 cf.  ch.  xi.  and  xii.),  this  revelation  will  be  found  to  be  distin- 
 guished from  all  the  others  in  this,  that  it  is  communicated  partly 
 by  supernatural  illumination  for  the  interpretation  of  the  dream- 
 vision,  partly  by  visions,  partly  by  the  appearance  of  angels. 
 Auberleu  (cL  Proph.  Dan.  p.  91  f.)  has  already  referred  to  this 
 distinction,  and  therein  has  found  a  beautiful  and  noteworthy  pro- 
 gression, namely,  that  the  one  revelation  always  prepares  the  way, 
 in  a  material  and  formal  respect,  for  that  which  follows,  from 
 which  we  may  see  how  God  gradually  prepared  the  prophet  for 
 the  reception  of  still  more  definite  disclosures.  "  First  Nebu- 
 chadnezzar dreams,  and  Daniel  simply  interprets  (ch.  ii.  and  iv.)  ; 
 afterwards  Daniel  himself  has  a  dream,  but  as  yet  it  is  only  as  a 
 vision  in  a  dream  of  the  night  (ch.  vii.  1,  2)  ;  then  follows  a  vision 
 in  a  waking  state  (ch.  viii.  1-3)  ;  and  finally,  in  the  last  two  revela- 
 tions (ch.  ix.  and  x.-xii.),  when  Daniel,  now  a  feeble,  trembling  (?) 
 old  man  (ch.  x.  8  ff.),  is  already  almost  transplanted  out  of  this 
 world — now  the  ecstatic  state  seems  to  be  no  longer  necessary  for 
 him.  Now  in  his  usual  state  he  sees  and  hears  angels  speak  like 
 men,  while  his  companions  do  not  see  the  appearances  from  the 
 higher  world,  and  are  only  overwhelmed  with  terror,  like  those  who 
 accompanied  Paul  to  Damascus  (ch.  ix.  20  ff.,  x.  4  ff.,  cf.  Acts  of 
 Ap.  ix.  7)."     It  is  true,  indeed,  that,  as  Aub.  remarks,  there  is  a 
 
404  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 progression  from  interpreting  of  dreams  to  tlie  receiving  of  visions 
 in  dreams  and  in  tlie  waking  state,  but  by  tliis  reference  neither 
 are  the  actual  contents  of  the  revelation  given  in  different  forms 
 perfectly  comprehended,  nor  still  less  is  the  meaning  of  the  differ- 
 ence made  clear.  Auberlen,  in  thus  representing  the  distinction, 
 has  left  out  of  view  the  circumstance,  tiiat  the  visions  in  ch.  vii. 
 and  viii.  are  also  interpreted  to  Daniel  by  an  angel ;  moreover, 
 that  the  revelation  in  ch.  viii.  does  not  merely  consist  of  a  vision, 
 in  which  Daniel  sees  the  destruction  of  the  Persian  v/orld-kincc- 
 dom  by  the  Javanic  under  the  figure  of  a  he-goat  casting  down 
 the  ram,  but  that  Daniel,  after  this  vision,  also  hears  an  angel 
 speak,  and  a  voice  comes  to  him  from  above  the  waters  of  the  Ulai 
 which  commands  the  angel  Gabriel  to  explain  the  vision  to  the 
 seer  (ch.  viii.  13  ff.),  and  that  this  second  part  of  that  revelation 
 has  a  great  likeness  to  that  in  ch.  x.-xii. ;  finally,  that  the  same 
 angel  Gabriel  again  appears  in  ch.  ix.,  and  brings  to  Daniel  the 
 revelation  regarding  the  seventy  weeks  (ch.  ix.  24-27).  But  as  to 
 the  interpretation  of  these  revelations  given  in  different  forms, 
 this  difference  is  conditioned  partly  by  the  subjective  relations 
 sustained  by  the  recipients  to  God,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
 form  is  in  the  most  intimate  manner  connected  with  the  contents 
 of  the  revelation,  and  indeed  in  a  way  wholly  different  and  much 
 deeper  than  Auberlen  thinks,  if  he  therein  sees  only  the  material 
 progression  to  greater  speciality  in  the  prophecy. 
 
 To  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  divine  revelation  in  ch. 
 x.-xii.,  we  must  examine  more  closely  the  resemblance  which  it 
 presents  to  ch.  viii.  13-19.  As  in  the  vision  oh.  viii.,  which  points 
 to  the  oppression  of  the  time  of  the  end  (ch.  viii.  17,  19),  Daniel 
 heard  a  voice  from  the  Ulai  (ch.  viii.  16),  so  in  ch.  x.  and  xii.  the 
 personage  from  whom  that  voice  proceeded  appears  within  the 
 circle  of  Daniel's  vision,  and  announces  to  him  what  shall  happen 
 to  his  people  Ci''0*n  JT'nnxa  (ch.  x.  14).  This  celestial  person  ap- 
 pears to  him  in  such  awful  divine  majesty,  that  he  falls  to  the 
 ground  on  hearing  his  voice,  as  already  in  ch.  viii.  17  ff.  on  hearing 
 his  voice  and  message,  so  that  he  feared  he  should  perish ;  and  it 
 was  only  by  repeated  supernatural  consolation  and  strengthening 
 that  he  was  able  to  stand  erect  again,  and  was  made  capable  of 
 hearing  the  revelation.  The  heavenly  being  who  appears  to  him 
 resembles  in  appearance  the  glory  of  Jehovah  which  Ezckiel  had 
 seen  by  the  river  Chaboras  (Chebar)  ;  and  this  appearance  of  the 
 man  clothed  in  linen  prepared  the  contents  of  his  revelation,  for 
 
CHAP.  X.  1-3.  405 
 
 God  so  manifested  Himself  to  Daniel  (as  He  will  approve  Him- 
 self to  His  people  in  the  times  of  the  future  great  tribulation)  as 
 He  who  in  judgment  and  in  righteousness  rules  the  affairs  of  the 
 world-kingdoms  and  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  conducts  them 
 to  the  issues  foreseen  ;  so  that  the  effect  of  His  appearance  on 
 Daniel  formed  a  pre-intimation  and  a  pledge  of  that  which  would 
 happen  to  the  people  of  Daniel  in  the  future.  As  Daniel  was 
 thrown  to  the  ground  by  the  divine  majesty  of  the  man  clothed  in 
 linen,  but  was  raised  up  again  by  a  supernatural  hand,  so  shall 
 the  people  of  God  be  thrown  to  the  ground  by  the  fearful  judg- 
 ments that  shall  pass  over  them,  but  shall  again  be  raised  up  by 
 the  all-powerful  help  of  their  God  and  His  angel-prince  ^Michael, 
 and  shall  be  streno-thened  to  endure  the  tribulation.  Accordins;  to 
 this,  the  very  appearance  of  God  has  prophetic  significance ;  and 
 the  reason  why  this  last  vision  is  communicated  to  Daniel  neither 
 by  a  vision  nor  by  angels,  but  by  a  majestic  "Theophany,  does  not 
 lie  in  the  more  definite  disclosures  which  should  be  given  to  him 
 regarding  the  future,  but  only  in  this,  that  the  revelation,  as  is 
 mentioned  in  the  superscription,  eh.  x.  Ij  places  in  view  the  nox 
 bnj  sa^'l  (ch.  X.  1). 
 
 Of  this  oppression,  that  spoken  of  in  ch.  viii.,  which  should 
 come  upon  the  people  of  God  from  the  fierce  and  cunning  king 
 seen  as  a  little  horn,  forms  a  type;  therefore  Daniel  hears  the  voice 
 from  the  waters  of  the  Ulai.  That  which  is  there  briefly  indicated, 
 is  in  ch.  x.— xii.  further  extended  and  completed.  In  regard  to  the 
 definiteness  of  the  prediction,  the  revelation  in  ch.  x.-xii.  does  not 
 go  beyond  that  in  ch.  viii. ;  but  it  does  so  with  respect  to  the  de- 
 tailed description  found  in  it  of  the  wars  of  the  world-rulers  against 
 one  another  and  against  the  people  of  God,  as  well  as  in  this,  that 
 it  opens  a  glimpse  into  the  spirit-world,  and  gives  disclosures  re- 
 garding the  unseen  spiritual  powers  who  mingle  in  the  history  of 
 nations.  But  over  these  powers  God  the  Lord  exercises  dominion, 
 and  helps  His  people  to  obtain  a  victory  over  all  their  enemies. 
 To  reveal  this,  -and  in  actual  fact  to  attest  it  to  the  prophet,  and 
 through  him  to  the  church  of  God  of  all  times,  is  the  object  of  the 
 Theophany,  which  is  circumstantially  described  in  ch.  x.  for  the 
 sake  of  its  prophetical  character. 
 
 Chap,  x.-xi.  2a.  The  Theophany. 
 
 Ch.  X.  1—3.  TJie  introduction  to  the  following  manifestation  of  God. 
 Ver.  1.  This  verse  is  to  be  regarded  as  an  inscription  or  general 
 
406  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 statement  of  tlie  substance  of  it.  Therefore  Daniel  speaks  of 
 himself  in  the  third  person,  as  in  ch.  vii.  1,  and  in  the  historical 
 portions  ch.  i.-vi.  The  definition  of  the  time,  "  In  the  first  year 
 of  Cores  (Cyrus)  king  of  Persia,"  refers  us  back  to  ch.  i.  21,  but 
 it  does  not,  as  has  been  there  already  remarked,  stand  in  contra- 
 diction to  the  first  year  of  Cyrus  named  there.  "I3"n  is  the  following 
 revelation,  which  was  communicated  to  the  prophet  not  by  a  vision 
 {?^^),  but  by  a  manifestation  of  God  (nN"iD)j  and  was  given  in  the 
 form  of  simple  human  discourse.  The  remark  regarding  Daniel, 
 "  whose  name  was  Belteshazzar,"  is  designed  only  to  make  it  obvious 
 that  tlie  Daniel  of  the  third  year  of  Cyrus  was  the  same  who  was 
 carried  to  Babylon  in  the  first  year  of  Nebuchadnezzar  (seventy- 
 two  years  before).  To  the  question  why  Daniel  did  not  return  to 
 his  native  land  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  which  Hitzig  has  thus 
 formulated  for  the  purpose  of  framing  an  argument  against  the 
 genuineness  of  this  prophecy — "  How  could  he,  who  was  a  pattern 
 of  piety  (ch.  i.  8,  Ezek.  xiv.  14),  so  disregard  the  opportunity  that 
 was  offered  and  the  summons  of  Isaiah  (ch.  xlviii.  20,  Hi.  11  ff.)  as 
 if  he  stood  on  the  side  of  those  who  forgot  tlie  holy  mountain?" 
 (Isa.  Ixv.  11) — the  supposition  of  his  advanced  old  age  (Hiiv.)  is  no 
 sufficient  answer.  Foi',  on  the  contrary,  Hitzig  has  rightly  replied 
 that  old  men  also,  such  as  had  even  seen  the  former  temple,  had 
 returned  home  (Ezra  iii.  12),  and  Daniel  was  not  so  infirm  as  to 
 be  unable  for  the  journey.  The  correct  answer  is  rather  this, 
 that  Daniel,  because  divine  revelations  had  been  communicated  to 
 him,  had  obtained  a  position  at  the  court  of  the  world-rulers  in 
 which  he  was  able  to  do  much  for  the  good  of  his  people,  and 
 might  not,  without  a  special  divine  injunction,  leave  this  place; 
 that  he  thus,  not  from  indifference  toward  the  holy  mountain  or 
 from  neglect  of  the  injunctions  to  flee  from  Babylon  (Isa.  xlviii.  20, 
 Iii.  11  ff.),  but  from  obedience  to  God,  and  for  the  furtherance  of 
 the  cause  of  Plis  kingdom,  remained  at  his  post  till  the  Lord  His 
 God  should  call  him  away  from  it. 
 
 In  the  second  hemistich  the  contents  of  this  new  divine  reve- 
 lation are  characterized.  "iS'nn  with  the  article  points  back  to 
 "i^T  in  the  first  half  of  the  verse.  Of  this  "  word  "  Daniel  says 
 that  it  contains  n^x  and  hSli  N3S.  In  the  statement  that  "  tiie 
 thing  was  true,"  Hitzig  finds  an  intimation  that  thereby  the  author 
 betrays  his  standpoint,  namely,  the  time  when  "the  thing"  was 
 realized,  for  Daniel  could  not  say  this  before  it  happened.  But 
 this  objection  supposes  that  the  author  was  a  lying  prophet,  who 
 
CHAP.  X.  1-3.  407 
 
 spoke  from  his  own  heart  (Jer.  xxix.  8,  15).  But  if  Daniel  had 
 actually  received  a  "word"  from  God,  he  could  before  its  fulfil- 
 ment testify  its  truth.  The  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  word 
 here  indicates,  as  it  does  in  ch.  viii.  26  in  the  mouth  of  the  ange], 
 that  the  word  of  God  now  communicated  to  the  prophet  contained 
 things  which  it  would  be  difficult  for  the  human  heart  to  believe. 
 The  second  predicate  ^'H^  N3y  shows  in  what  respect  this  is  so.  For 
 that  these  words  do  not,  with  the  LXX.  and  Aquil.,  refer  to  what 
 follows  is  obvious,  as  is  acknowledged  by  all  modern  interpreters. 
 t^^Vj  icarfare,  military  service,  then  the  difficulty  of  this  service,  and 
 figuratively  diffi.culty,  afflictions  of  life,  Job  vii.  1,  x.  17,  and  also 
 here.  "  The  word  is,  i.e.  concerns,  has  as  its  contents,  great  afflic- 
 tions "  [E.V.  "  the  time  appointed  was  long  "]. 
 
 In  the  last  clause  of  this  verse  pa  and  nj''3  are  not  the  impera- 
 tive (v.  Lengerke),  because  a  summons  to  give  heed,  or  understand, 
 would  not  be  here  in  place,  nya  is  a  substantive,  and  the  throw- 
 ing of  the  accent  on  the  penultima  is  occasioned  by  the  accented  Sh 
 which  follows.  P?  is  the  od  j'^ers.  per/.,  not  the  infinitive  (Hiiv.). 
 Understanding  was  to  him  n^"-??,  by  that  which  was  seen,  i.e.  by 
 the  appearance  described  in  vers.  5  ff.  i^?;'"!'??  cannot  at  all  be 
 referred  (Klief.)  to  the  earlier  prophecies  of  ch.  viii.  7,  9.  The 
 statement  in  these  two  passages  serves  for  the  confirmation  of  that 
 which  was  said  regarding  the  contents  of  the  word  from  God,  and 
 stands  in  relation  to  ch.  viii.  27,  where  Daniel  was  troubled  because 
 no  one  understood  the  vision.  He  was  helped  out  of  this  state  of 
 non-understanding  by  the  following  revelation,  cf.  ver.  14.  But 
 the  objection  that  it  cannot  be  here  said  that  Daniel  understood 
 the  word,  because  he  himself,  ch.  xii.  8,  says  that  he  did  not  under- 
 stand it,  has  been  disposed  of  by  Kliefoth,  who  justly  remarks  that 
 the  non-understanding  in  ch.  xii.  8  regards  a  single  point,  namely, 
 the  duration  of  the  affliction,  regarding  which,  however,  disclosures 
 are  given  to  the  prophet  in  ch.  xii.  10  f.  The  translation :  "  he 
 heard  the  word,  and  understood  the  vision "  (Kran.),  is  set  aside 
 by  this  circumstance,  that  it  takes  P?  in  a  different  sense  from  nj''3j 
 contrary  to  the  parallelism  of  the  passages. 
 
 Vers.  2,  3  introduce  the  following  revelation  by  a  statement  of 
 the  occasion  of  it.  Onn  D''p>3  refers  back  to  the  date  named  in  ver. 
 1.  The  D^p^  after  CJ'^J?!!^  does  not  serve  to  designate  the  three  weeks 
 as  common  day-weeks,  in  contrast  to  the  cyiiK^  of  ch.  ix.  24  ff.,  but 
 is  an  accusative  subordinated  to  the  definition  of  time  which  ex- 
 presses the  idea  of  continuance :  three  weeks  long,  or  three  whole 
 
408  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 weeks,  as  Gen.  xli.  1;  cf.  Gesen.  Gramm.  §  118,  3.  For  three 
 weeks  Daniel  mourned  and  fasted,  i.e.  abstained  from  the  usual 
 food,  ninnn  Dnp,  precious  foody  delicacies;  but  Hiiv.,  a-.  Leng., 
 Maur.,  Plitz.,  and  Kran.  interpret  it  of  leavened  bread,  so  called 
 in  contrast  to  the  unleavened  paschal  bread,  the  bread  of  affliction 
 (Deut.  xvi.  3).  But  this  contrast  is  not  well  founded,  for  the  niSfO 
 {unleavened  cakes)  of  the  passover  was  not  (notwithstanding  Deut. 
 xvi.  3)  bread  of  sorrow,  but  pure,  holy  bread,  which  Daniel  did  not 
 eat,  in  opposition  to  the  law,  for  three  weeks.  Onp  is  not  to  be 
 limited  to  bread  in  its  narrower  sense,  but  denotes  food  generally. 
 Flesh  and  wine  are  festival  food,  Isa.  xxii.  13,  Gen.  xxvii.  25,  which 
 is  not  had  every  day.  The  anointing  with  oil  was  the  sign  of  joy 
 and  of  a  joyous  frame  of  mind,  as  with  guests  at  a  banquet,  Amos 
 vi.  6,  and  was  intermitted  in  the  time  of  sorrow;  cf.  2  Sam.  xiv.  2. 
 Fasting,  as  an  abstaining  from  the  better  sustenance  of  common 
 life,  was  the  outward  sign  of  sorrow  of  soul. 
 
 According  to  ver.  4,  Daniel  mourned  and  fasted  in  the  first 
 month  of  the  year,  the  month  in  the  middle  of  which  the  paschal 
 feast  was  kept,  in  which  Israel  celebrated  their  deliverance  from 
 their  state  of  slavery  in  Egypt  and  their  advancement  to  be  the 
 people  of  God,  and  were  joyful  before  their  God.  On  the  24th 
 day  of  this  month  occurred  the  Theophany  (ver.  4  ff.),  with  which, 
 however,  his  fasting  came  to  an  end.  According  to  this,  it  appears 
 that  he  fasted  from  the  third  to  the  twenty-third  of  the  month 
 Nisan ;  thus  it  began  immediately  after  the  feast  of  the  new  moon, 
 which  was  kept  for  two  days  (cf.  1  Sam.  xx.  18  f.,  27,  34  with  vi. 
 29,  ii.  19).  Thus  Hiiv.  and  Plitzig  conclude;  while  v.  Leng.  and 
 Maurer  Argue,  from  ver.  13,  that  between  the  time  of  fasting  and 
 the  appearance  of  the  angel  an  interval  elapsed,  consequently  that 
 Daniel  fasted  from  the  first  to  the  twenty-first  of  the  month  Nisan. 
 But  from  ver.  13  nothing  further  follows  than  that  the  angel  was 
 detained  twenty-one  days ;  so  that  the  question  as  to  the  beginning 
 and  the  end  of  the  fast  is  not  certainly  answered  from  the  text,  and, 
 as  being  irrelevant  to  the  matter,  it  can  remain  undecided.  More 
 important  is  the  question  as  to  the  cause  of  such  long-continued 
 great  sorrow,  which  is  not  answered  by  the  remark  that  he  was  thus 
 prepared  for  receiving  a  divine  revelation.  According  to  ver.  12, 
 Daniel  sought  r?';,  i-e.  understanding  as  to  the  state  of  the  matter, 
 or  regarding  the  future  of  his  people,  which  filled  him  w^ith  concern. 
 The  word  about  the  restoration  of  Jerusalem  which  he  had  received 
 through  the  angel  Gabriel  in  the  first  year  of  Darius  (ch.  ix.)  had 
 
CHAP.  X.  4-6.  409 
 
 come  to  pass  since  that  revelation  in  the  first  year  of  Cyrus,  but 
 had  had  only  little  effect  on  the  religious  lukewarmness  of  the 
 majority  of  the  people.  Of  the  whole  people  only  a  very  small 
 portion  had  returned  to  the  land  of  their  fathers,  and  had  begun, 
 after  restoring  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  to  build  the  house  of 
 God  in  Jerusalem.  But  while  the  foundation  of  the  new  temple 
 was  laid,  there  mingled  with  the  joyful  shoutings  of  the  people  also 
 the  loud  wailings  of  the  old  men  who  had  seen  the  former  temple 
 in  its  glory,  when  they  beheld  this  building  undertaken  amid  cir- 
 cumstances so  depressing  and  sorrowful  (Ezra  iii.).  In  addition  to 
 this,  the  Samaritans  immediately,  when  the  Jewish  rulers  refused 
 for  conscience  sake  to  permit  them  to  take  part  with  them  in  the 
 building,  sought,  by  means  of  influences  used  at  the  Persian  court, 
 to  prevent  the  carrying  on  of  the  building  (Ezra  iv.  1-5).  This 
 sad  state  of  matters  could  not  but,  at  the  beginning  of  the  new  year, 
 fill  the  heart  of  Daniel  with  deep  sorrow,  and  move  him  at  the  re- 
 turn of  the  time  of  the  passover  to  mourn  in  fasting  and  prayer 
 over  the  delay  of  the  salvation  promised  to  his  people,  and  to  sup- 
 plicate in  behalf  of  Israel  the  pardon  of  their  sins,  and  their 
 deliverance  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies.  Therefore  he 
 mourned  and  fasted  before  and  during  the  paschal  days  for  three 
 weeks,  until  on  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  the  month  he  received  a 
 revelation  from  God. 
 
 Vers.  4-6.  The  Theophany. — On  the  day  named  Daniel  found 
 himself  on  the  side  (banks)  of  the  river  Hiddekel,  i.e.  the  Tigris 
 (see  under  Gen.  ii.  14),  along  with  some  who  accompanied  him 
 (ver.  7)  ;  thus  he  was  there  in  reality,  and  not  merely  in  vision  as 
 at  the  Ulai,  ch.  viii.  2.  For  what  purpose  he  was  there  is  not  said. 
 Here  he  saw  a  celestial  being,  whose  form  is  described,  vers.  5,  6. 
 It  was  a  man  (^O^j  one,  not  several)  clothed  in  Ci''"n3j  i.e.  in  a  talar 
 of  shining  white  linen  (regarding  D"'^?,  see  under  Ezek.  ix.  2),  and 
 his  loins  girt  about  with  gold  of  Uphaz.  T21S  occurs  nowhere  else, 
 except  in  Jer.  x.  9 :  gold  of  Uphaz  and  silver  of  Tarshish,  from 
 which  we  must  conclude  that  Uphaz  is  the  name  of  a  region,  a 
 country,  probably  only  a  dialectically  different  form  for  T'SiiN ;  the 
 combination  with  the  Sanscr.  vipdga  =  Hyphasis  is,  on  the  other 
 hand,  very  far-fetched. 
 
 Ver.  6.  His  body  shone  like  5J'''K'"iri,  i.e.  the  chrysolite  of  the 
 Old  and  the  topaz  of  the  New  Testament  (see  under  Ezek.  i.  16) ; 
 his  countenance  had  the  appearance  of  lightning,  his  eyes  as  lamps 
 
410  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 of  fire,  his  arms  and  the  place  of  his  feet  like  the  sight  of  polislied 
 brass  (''^i^,  see  under  Ezek.  i.  7).  riippD,  2'>lO'Ce  of  the  feet,  does 
 not  stand  tor  feet,  but  denotes  that  part  of  the  human  frame  where 
 the  feet  are ;  and  the  word  indicates  that  not  the  feet  alone,  but 
 the  under  parts  of  the  body  shone  like  burnished  brass.  The 
 voice  of  his  words,  i.e.  the  sound  of  his  speaking,  was  like  jion  7ip, 
 for  whicli  in  Ezek.  i.  24  npon  bip  (the  voice  of  noise),  and  by 
 "?.C.'?  ^^P  (Ezek.  i.  24)  the  noise  of  a  host  is  denoted. 
 
 This  heavenly  form  has  thus,  it  is  true,  tlie  shining  wliite  talar 
 common  to  the  angel,  Ezek.  ix.  9,  but  all  the  other  features,  as 
 here  described — the  shining  of  his  body,  the  brightness  of  his 
 countenance,  his  eyes  like  a  lamp  of  fire,  arms  and  feet  like 
 glistering  brass,  the  sound  of  his  speaking — all  these  point  to  the 
 revelation  of  the  nin^_  *li33,  the  glorious  appearance  of  the  Lord, 
 Ezek.  i.,  and  teach  us  that  the  ti^X  seen  by  Daniel  was  no  common 
 angel-prince,  but  a  manifestation  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  the  Logos.  This 
 is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  a  comparison  with  Rev.  i.  13-15, 
 where  the  form  of  the  Son  of  man  whom  John  saw  walking  in 
 the  midst  of  the  seven  golden  candlesticks  is  described  like  the 
 glorious  appearance  seen  by  Ezekiel  and  Daniel. 
 
 The  place  where  this  heavenly  being  was,  is  not  here  specially 
 stated.  In  ch,  xii.  6  he  appears  hovering  over  the  waters  of  the  river, 
 the  Tigris.  This  agrees  also  with  the  verse  before  us,  according  to 
 which  Daniel,  while  standing  on  the  banks  of  the  river,  on  lifting  up 
 his  eyes  beheld  the  vision.  Hence  it  further  follows,  that  the  ^''i^ 
 seen  here  by  Daniel  is  the  same  heavenly  being  whose  voice  he  heard, 
 ch.  viii.  16,  from  the  waters  of  the  Ulai,  without  seeing  his  form. 
 
 When  now  he  whose  voice  Daniel  heard  from  thence  presents 
 himself  before  him  here  on  the  Tigris  in  a  majesty  which  human 
 nature  is  not  able  to  endure,  and  announces  to  him  the  future, 
 and  finally,  ch.  xii.  6  ff.,  with  a  solemn  oath  attests  the  comple- 
 tion of  the  divine  counsel,  he  thereby  shows  himself,  as  C.  B. 
 Michaelis  ad  Dan.  p.  372,  Schmieder  in  Gerlach's  Bihelw.,  and 
 Oeliler  (Art.  Messias  in  Herz.'s  Realenc.  ix.  p.  417)  have  acknow- 
 ledged, to  be  the  Angel  of  Jehovah  Kar  e^oxv^j  as  the  "  Angel  of 
 His  presence."  The  combination  of  this  angel  with  that  in  the 
 form  of  a  son  of  man  appearing  in  the  clouds  (ch.  vii.  13)  is 
 natural ;  and  this  combination  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  the 
 comparison  with  Rev.  i.  13,  where  John  sees  the  glorified  Christ, 
 who  is  described  by  a  name  definitely  referring  to  Dan.  vii.  13,  as 
 Ofjioiov  vlai  avdpoiTTOv. 
 
CHAP.  X.  4-6.  411 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  the  opinion  maintained  to  some  extent 
 among  the  Rabbis,  which  even  Hengstenberg  has  in  modern  times 
 advocated  (Beitr.  i.  p.  165  ff. ;  Christol.  iii.  2,  p.  50  ff.),  namely, 
 that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  who  here  appears  to  Daniel  in  divine 
 majesty  is  identical  with  the  angel-prince  Michael,  has  no  support 
 in  Scripture,  and  stands  in  contradiction  to  vers.  13  and  21,  where 
 he  who  speaks  is  certainly  distinguished  from  Michael,  for  here 
 there  is  ascribed  to  Michael  a  position  with  reference  to  the  people 
 of  God  which  is  not  appropriate  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  or  the 
 Logos.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Hengstenberg  holds,  with  many 
 old  interpreters,  that  he  who  speaks  with  Daniel,  ver.  11,  and 
 reveals  to  him  the  future,  is  different  from  him  who  appears  to 
 him,  vers.  5  and  6,  and  is  identical  with  the  angel  Gabriel.  But 
 the  reasons  advanced  in  support  of  this  are  not  sufficient.  The 
 latter  supposition  is  grounded  partly  on  the  similarity  of  the 
 address  to  Daniel,  nhnn  K^''X,  vers.  11  and  19,  cf.  with  ch.  ix.  23, 
 partly  on  the  similarity  of  the  circumstances,  ch.  viii.  17,  18,  cf. 
 with  ver.  10  and  ch.  xii.  5.  But  the  address  to  Daniel  nn^n  {i'''X 
 proves  nothing,  because  it  does  not  express  to  Daniel  the  relation 
 of  the  angel  to  him,  but  of  the  Lord  who  sent  the  angel ;  and 
 Gabriel  in  ch.  ix.  23  does  not  address  the  prophet  thus,  but  only 
 says  that  he  is  niipn,  i.e.  a  man  greatly  beloved  of  God.  The 
 similarity  of  circumstances  with  ch.  viii.  17,  18  proves  nothing 
 further  than  that  he  who  appeared  was  a  heavenly  being.  More 
 noticeable  is  the  similarity  of  ch.  viii.  13  with  ch.  xii.  5,  so  far  as 
 in  both  cases  two  angels  appear  along  with  him  who  hovers  over  the 
 waters,  and  the  voice  from  above  the  waters  in  ch.  viii.  16  directs 
 the  angel  Gabriel  to  explain  the  vision  to  the  prophet.  But  from 
 the  circumstance  that  in  ch.  viii.  and  also  in  ch.  ix.  Gabriel  gives 
 to  the  prophet  disclosures  regarding  the  future,  it  by  no  means 
 follows,  even  on  the  supposition  that  he  who  is  represented  in  the 
 chapter  before  us  as  speaking  is  different  from  him  who  appears 
 in  vers.  5  and  6,  that  the  angel  who  speaks  is  Gabriel.  If  he  were 
 Gabriel,  he  would  have  been  named  here,  according  to  the  analogy 
 of  vers.  9,  21. 
 
 To  this  is  to  be  added,  that  the  assumed  difference  between 
 him  who  speaks,  ver.  11,  and  him  who  appears,  vers.  5,  6,  is  not 
 made  out,  nor  yet  is  it  on  the  whole  demonstrable.  It  is  true  that 
 in  favour  of  this  difference,  he  who  speaks  is  on  the  banks  of  the 
 river  where  Daniel  stands,  while  he  who  appears,  vers.  5,  6,  and  also 
 at  the  end  of  the  vision,  ch.  xii.,  is  in  the  midst  of  the  Tigris,  and 
 
412  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 in  ver.  5  of  this  chapter  (ch.  xii.)  two  other  persons  are  standing 
 on  the  two  banks  of  the  river,  one  of  whom  asks  him  who  is 
 clothed  with  linen,  as  if  in  the  name  of  Daniel,  when  the  things 
 announced  shall  happen.  Now  if  we  assume  that  he  who  is 
 clothed  in  linen  is  no  other  than  he  who  speaks  to  Daniel,  ver.  11, 
 then  one  of  these  two  persons  becomes  a  kw^ov  Trpoamirov,  and  it 
 cannot  be  at  all  seen  for  what  purpose  he  appears.  If,  on  the 
 contrary,  the  difference  of  the  two  is  assumed,  then  each  has  his 
 own  function.  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  is  present  in  silent  majesty, 
 and  only  by  a  brief  sentence  confirms  the  words  of  his  messenger 
 (ch.  xii.  7).  The  one  of  those  standing  on  the  banks  is  he  who, 
 as  the  messenger  and  interpreter  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  had 
 communicated  all  disclosures  regarding  the  future  to  Daniel  as  he 
 stood  by  the  banks.  The  third,  the  angel  standing  on  the  farther 
 bank,  directs  the  question  regarding  the  duration  of  the  time  to 
 the  Angel  of  the  Lord.  Thus  Hengstenberg  is  in  harmony  with 
 C.  B.  Michaelis  and  others. 
 
 But  however  important  these  reasons  for  the  difference  appears, 
 yet  we  cannot  regard  them  as  conclusive.  From  the  circumstance 
 that,  ch.  X.  10,  a  hand  touched  Daniel  as  he  was  sinking  down  in 
 weakness  and  set  him  on  his  knees,  it  does  not  with  certainty 
 follow  that  this  was  the  hand  of  the  angel  (Gabriel)  who  stood  by 
 Daniel,  who  spoke  to  him,  ver.  11.  The  words  of  the  text,  "  a 
 hand  touched  me,"  leave  the  person  whose  hand  it  was  altogether 
 undefined;  and  also  in  vers.  16  and  18,  w^iere  Daniel  is  again 
 touched,  so  that  he  was  able  to  open  his  mouth  and  was  made  capable 
 of  hearing  the  words  that  were  addressed  to  him,  the  person  from 
 whom  the  touch  proceeded  is  altogether  indefinite.  The  desig- 
 nations, Cii^  v.?  '^'''■^I?,  like  the  similitude  of  the  sons  of  men,  ver.  16, 
 and  ^)■^^5  nx"iD3j  like  the  appearance  of  a  man,  ver.  18,  do  not  point 
 to  a  definite  angel  who  appears  speaking  in  the  sequel.  But  the 
 circumstance  that  in  ch.  xii.,  besides  the  form  that  hovered  over  the 
 water,  other  two  angels  appear  on  the  banks,  does  not  warrant  us  to 
 assume  that  these  two  angels  were  already  present  or  visible  in  ch. 
 X.  5  ff.  The  words,  "  Then  I  looked  and  saw  other  two,  the  one," 
 etc.,  ch.  xii.  5,  much  rather  indicate  that  the  scene  was  changed,  that 
 Daniel  now  for  the  first  time  saw  the  two  angels  on  the  banks.  In 
 ch.  X.  he  only  sees  him  who  is  clothed  with  linen,  and  was  so 
 terrified  by  this  "  great  sight  "  that  he  fell  powerless  to  the  ground 
 on  hearing  his  voice,  and  was  only  able  to  stand  up  after  a  hand 
 had  touched  him  and  a  comforting  word  had  been  spoken  to  him. 
 
CHAP.  X.  4-6.  413 
 
 Nothing  is  here,  as  in  ch.  viii.  15,  said  of  the  coming  of  the  angel. 
 If  thus,  after  mention  being  made  of  the  hand  which  by  touching 
 liini  set  him  on  his  knees,  it  is  further  said,  "  and  he  spake  to 
 me.  ..."  (ver.  11),  the  context  only  leads  to  this  conclusion,  that  he 
 who  spake  to  him  was  the  man  whose  appearance  and  words  had  so 
 overwhelmed  him.  To  suppose  another  person,  or  an  angel  dif- 
 ferent from  the  one  who  was  clothed  with  linen,  as  speaking,  could 
 only  be  justified  if  the  contents  of  that  which  was  spoken  de- 
 manded such  a  supposition. 
 
 He  who  spake  said,  among  other  things,  that  he  was  sent  to 
 Daniel  (vers.  11)  ;  that  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia  had 
 withstood  him  one  and  twenty  days  ;  and  that  Michael,  one  of  the 
 chief  angel-princes,  had  come  to  his  help  (vers.  13  and  21).  These 
 statements  do  not  indicate  that  he  was  an  inferior  angel,  but  they 
 are  suitable  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord ;  for  he  also  says  (Zech.  ii. 
 13,  15,  iv.  9)  that  he  is  sent  by  Jehovah;  cf.  also  Isa.  xlviii.  16 
 and  Ixi.  1.  The  coming  to  his  help  by  the  angel-prince  Michael, 
 also,  does  not  denote  that  he  who  speaks  was  an  angel  subordinated 
 to  the  archangel  Michael.  In  Zech.  i.  15  ITV  denotes  help  which 
 men  render  to  God;  and  in  1  Chron.  xii.  21  f.  it  is  related  that 
 Israelites  of  different  tribes  came  to  David  to  help  him  against  his 
 enemies,  i.e.  under  his  leadership  to  fight  for  him.  Similarly  we 
 may  suppose  that  the  angel  Michael  gave  help  to  the  Angel  of  the 
 Lord  against  the  prince  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia. 
 
 There  thus  remains  only  the  objection,  that  if  we  take  the 
 angel  clothed  with  linen  and  him  who  speaks  as  the  same,  then  in 
 ch.  xii.  5  one  of  the  angels  who  stood  on  the  two  banks  of  the 
 Tigris  becomes  a  Kcocfiou  Trpoa-cnTrov ;  but  if  we  are  not  able  to 
 declare  the  object  for  which  two  angels  appear  there,  yet  the  one 
 of  those  two  angels  cannot  certainly  be  the  same  as  he  who  an- 
 nounced, ch.  x.  and  xi.,  the  future  to  the  prophet,  because  these 
 angels  are  expressly  designated  as  tioo  others  (D''"'.D^  ^"A'^),  and  the 
 C^nx  excludes  the  identifying  of  these  with  angels  that  previously 
 appeared  to  Daniel.  This  argument  is  not  set  aside  by  the  reply 
 that  the  angels  standing  on  the  two  banks  of  the  river  are  spoken 
 of  as  Q"'inx  with  reference  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  ver.  6,  for  the 
 reference  of  the  i2"'"iris  to  that  which  follows  is  inconsistent  with 
 the  context  ;•  see  under  ch.  xii.  5. 
 
 Thus  every  argument  utterly  fails  that  has  been  adduced  in 
 favour  of  the  supposition  that  he  who  speaks,  ver.  11,  is  different 
 from  him  who  is  clothed  in  linen  ;  and  we  are  warranted  to  abide 
 
414  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 by  the  words  of  the  narrative,  which  in  ch.  x.  names  no  other  angel 
 than  the  man  clothed  with  linen,  who  must  on  that  account  be  the 
 same  as  he  who  speaks  and  announces  the  future  to  the  prophet. 
 The  hand  which  again  set  him  up  by  touching  him,  is,  it  is  true, 
 to  be  thought  of  as  proceeding  from  an  angel ;  but  it  is  not  more 
 definitely  described,  because  this  angel  is  not  further  noticed.  But 
 after  the  man  clothed  with  linen  has  announced  the  future  to  the 
 prophet,  the  scene  changes  (ch.  xii.  5),  Daniel  sees  the  same  angels 
 over  the  waters  of  the  Tigris,  and  standing  on  the  two  banks  of 
 the  river.  Where  he  who  was  clothed  in  linen  stands,  is  left  in- 
 definite in  the  narrative.  If  from  the  first  it  is  he  wdio  hovers 
 over  the  water  of  the  river,  he  could  yet  talk  with  the  prophet 
 standing  on  its  banks.  But  it  is  also  possible  that  at  first  he  was 
 visible  close  beside  the  banks. 
 
 Yer.  7.  According  to  this  verse,  the  form  described  in  vers.  5 
 and  6  was  visible  to  Daniel  alone.  His  companions  saw  not  the 
 appearance,  but  they  were  so  alarmed  by  the  invisible  nearness  of 
 the  heavenly  being  that  they  fled  and  hid  themselves.  What  is 
 here  said  resembles  Acts  ix.  3  &.,  where  Christ,  after  His  exalta- 
 tion, appeared  to  Paul  and  spoke  to  him  —  Paul's  companions 
 hearing  only  the  voice,  but  seeing  no  one.  In  order  to  account 
 for  the  flight  of  Daniel's  companions,  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
 the  existence  of  thunder  and  lightning,  of  which  the  text  makes  no 
 mention.  The  supposition  also  of  Tiieodor.  and  Hitzig,  that  the 
 men  indeed  saw  not  the  angel,  but  that  they  heard  his  voice,  is 
 incorrect ;  for  the  voice  was  not  heard  till  after  his  companions 
 had  fled.  '"'^1'?'],  pointed  as  fem.,  that  ivhich  ivas  seen,  the  appear- 
 ance, seems  to  be  a  more  limited  conception  than  n??')^,  visio. 
 N3nri3  iniT  :  they  fled,  for  they  hid  themselves;  so  that  the  hiding  is 
 not  to  be  regarded  as  the  object  of  the  fleeing,  but  the  fleeing  is 
 made  known  in  their  hiding  themselves. 
 
 Ver.  8.  Daniel  here  calls  the  appearance  great  with  reference 
 to  the  majesty  displayed,  such  as  had  never  hitherto  been  known 
 to  him.  Its  influence  upon  him  is,  therefore,  also  greater  than 
 that  of  the  appearance  of  Gabriel,  ch.  viii.  17.  There  remained  in 
 him  no  strength,  i.e.  he  felt  himself  overwhelmed,  and  as  if  about 
 to  perish.  His  lin,  splendour — the  same  as  the  Cliald.  VI,  ch.  vii. 
 28,  V.  6,  9 — i.e.  the  fresh  colour  of  life  which  marked  his  counte- 
 nance, was  changed  n^ni^'op,  properly,  to  destruction,  to  entire  dis- 
 figurement, to  corruption.  The  last  clause,  "  and  I  retained  no 
 strength,"  gives  greater  force  to  the  preceding  statement. 
 
CHAP.  X.  9-12.  415 
 
 Vers.  9,  10.  When  Daniel  heard  the  voice,  which  according 
 to  ver.  6  was  hke  the  noise  of  a  multitude,  he  was  stunned,  and 
 fell  on  his  face  to  the  ground,  as  ch.  viii.  17.  Yet  the  expression 
 here,  Ci'^i.3  '•n^'^n,  is  stronger  than  ''^i'33,  ch.  viii.  17.  Ver.  10  shows 
 how  great  was  his  amazement  in  the  further  description  it  gives. 
 The  touching  of  him  by  an  unseen  hand  raised  him  up  and 
 caused  him  to  reel  on  his  knees  and  hands  (V?/''^'!')  vacillare  me 
 fecit),  but  did  not  enable  him  to  stand  erect.  This  he  was  first 
 able  to  do  after  he  heard  the  comfortable  words,  and  was  directed 
 to  mark  the  communication  of  the  heavenly  messenger.  Regard- 
 ing nil^n  c^'N  see  under  ch.  ix.  23,  and  for  T[pV  bv  icy  see  at  ch. 
 viii.  18.  He  now  raises  himself  up,  but  still  trembling  (*J"'y"ip). 
 The  nrij?j  now  am  1  sent  to  thee,  points  to  the  delay  of  his  coming 
 spoken  of  in  ver.  12, 
 
 Ver.  12.  According  to  this  verse,  the  words  of  Daniel,  i.e.  his 
 prayer  from  the  first  day  of  his  seeking  to  understand  the  future, 
 and  of  his  self-mortification  in  sorrow  and  fasting  (vers.  2,  3), 
 was  heard  of  God,  and  the  angel  was  immediately  sent  forth  by 
 God  to  convey  to  him  revelations.  And,  he  adds,  T'l^l?  '^^??  I 
 am  come  for  thy  words,  i.e.  in  consequence  of  thy  prayer,  according 
 to  it.  The  ''^^^3  most  interpreters  understand  of  the  coming  to 
 Daniel ;  Hofmann  (ScJiriftbew.  i.  p.  331)  and  Kliefoth,  on  the 
 contrary,  understand  it  of  the  coming  of  the  angel  to  Persia  (ver. 
 13).  According  to  the  matter,  both  views  are  correct,  but  in  the 
 form  in  which  they  are  presented  they  are  incorrect.  Against 
 the  latter  stands  the  adversative  i  in  it^l.  (but  the  prince),  ver.  13, 
 by  which  the  contents  of  ver.  13  are  introduced  ;  for,  according  to 
 this,  ver.  13  cannot  represent  the  object  of  the  coming.  Against 
 the  former  stands  the  fact,  that  the  angel  does  not  come  to  Daniel 
 immediately,  but  only  after  having  gained  a  victory  over  the  prince 
 of  the  kingdom.  The  ""0X3  is  again  taken  up  in  ver.  14a,  and  must 
 have  here  the  same  meaning  that  it  has  there.  But  in  ver.  14a  it 
 is  connected  with  '^3"'3npj  "  I  am  come  to  bring  thee  understand- 
 ing," in  ver.  12  with  T'"^.^'!?,  which  only  denotes  that  the  "  coming" 
 corresponded  to  Daniel's  prayer,  but  not  that  he  came  immediately 
 to  him.  Daniel  had,  without  doubt,  prayed  for  the  accomplish- 
 ment of  the  salvation  promised  to  his  people,  and  eo  ipso  for  the 
 removal  of  all  the  hindrances  that  stood  in  the  way  of  that  accom- 
 plishment. The  hearing  of  his  prayer  may  be  regarded,  therefore, 
 as  containing  in  it  not  merely  the  fact  that  God  directed  an  angel 
 to  convey  to  him  disclosures  regarding  the  future  fortunes  of  his 
 
416  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 people,  but  also  at  the  same  time  as  implying  that  on  the  side  of 
 God  steps  were  taken  for  the  removal  of  these  hindrances. 
 
 The  thirteenth  verse  speaks  of  this,  not  as  denoting  that  the 
 angel  came  to  Persia  for  the  purpose  of  working  for  Israel,  but 
 much  rather  as  announcing  the  reason  of  the  twenty-one  days'  delay 
 in  the  coming  of  the  angel  to  Daniel,  in  the  form  of  a  parenthetical 
 clause.  His  coming  to  Daniel  was  hindered  by  this,  that  the  prince 
 of  the  kingdom  of  Persia  withstood  him  twenty-one  days.  The 
 twenty-one  days  are  those  three  weeks  of  Daniel's  fasting  and  prayer, 
 ver.  2.  Hence  we  see  that  the  comins;  of  the  angel  had  its  refer- 
 ence  to  Daniel,  for  he  came  to  bring  him  a  comforting  answer 
 from  God ;  but  in  order  that  he  might  be  able  to  do  this,  he  must 
 first,  according  to  ver.  13,  enter  into  war  with  and  overcome  the 
 spirit  of  the  king  of  Persia,  hostile  to  the  people  of  God.  The  con- 
 tents of  ver.  13  are  hence  not  to  be  understood  as  showing  that  the 
 ancel  went  to  Persia  in  order  that  he  miiiht  there  arrange  the  cause 
 of  Israel  with  the  king ;  the  verse  much  rather  speaks  of  a  war  in 
 the  kingdom  of  supernatural  spirits,  which  could  not  relate  to  the 
 court  of  the  king  of  Persia.  The  prince  p'^*)  of  the  kingdom  of 
 Persia,  briefly  designated  in  ver.  21  "  the  prince  of  Persia,"  is  not 
 king  Cyrus,  or  the  coUectivwn  of  the  kings  of  Persia,  as  Hliv.  and 
 Kran.,  with  Calvin  and  most  of  the  Reformers,  think,  but  the 
 guardian  spirit  or  the  protecting  genius  of  the  Persian  kingdom, 
 as  the  Rabbis  and  most  of  the  Christian  interpreters  have  rightly 
 acknowledged.  For  the  angel  that  appeared  to  Daniel  did  not 
 fight  with  the  kings  of  Persia,  but  with  a  spiritual  intelligence  of 
 a  like  nature,  for  the  victory,  or  precedence  with  the  kings  of 
 Persia.  This  spirit  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia,  whom,  after  the 
 example  of  Jerome,  almost  all  interpreters  call  the  guardian  angel 
 of  this  kingdom,  is  as  little  the  nature-power  of  this  kingdom  as 
 Michael  is  the  nature-power  of  Israel,  but  is  a  spirit-being ;  yet 
 not  the  heathen  national  god  of  the  Persians,  but,  according  to  the 
 view  of  Scripture  (1  Cor.  x.  20  f.),  the  Bai/x6vtov  of  the  Persian 
 kingdom,  i.e.  the  supernatural  spiritual  power  standing  behind  the 
 national  gods,  which  we  may  properly  call  the  guardian  spirit  of 
 this  kingdom.  In  the  ^"^^ip  Tpy  lies,  according  to  the  excellent 
 remark  of  Kliefoth,  the  idea,  that  "  the  lb*  of  the  kingdom  of 
 Persia  stood  beside  the  kings  of  the  Persians  to  influence  them 
 against  Israel,  and  to  direct  against  Israel  the  power  lying  in 
 Persian  heathendom,  so  as  to  support  the  insinuations  of  the  Sama- 
 ritans ;  that  the  angel,  ver,  5,  came  on  account  of  Daniel's  prayer 
 
CHAP.  X.  13.  417 
 
 to  dislodge  this  *  prince '  from  his  position  and  deprive  him  of  his 
 influence,  but  he  kept  his  place  for  twenty-one  days,  till  Michael 
 came  to  his  help ;  then  he  so  gained  the  mastery  over  him,  that  he 
 now  stood  in  his  place  beside  the  kings  of  Persia,  so  as  henceforth 
 to  influence  them  in  favour  of  Israel."  He  who  appeared  to  Daniel, 
 ver.  5,  and  spake  with  him,  ver.  11,  is  not  "the  angel  who  had  his 
 dominion  among  the  nations  of  the  world,"  or  "  his  sphere  of  action 
 in  the  embodiments  of  the  heathen  world-power,  to  which  the  Jewish 
 people  were  now  in  subjection,  to  promote  therein  the  working  out 
 of  God's  plan  of  salvation"  (Hofm.  Schriftbeio.  i.  p.  334).  This 
 supposition  is  destitute  of  support  from  the  Scriptures.  It  is  rather 
 the  Angel  of  the  Lord  who  carries  out  God's  plans  in  the  world, 
 and  for  their  accomplishment  and  execution  makes  war  against  the 
 hostile  spirit  of  the  heathen  world-power.  The  subjugation  of  this 
 spirit  supposes  a  particular  angel  ruling  in  the  heathen  world  just 
 as  little  as  Jehovah's  contending  against  the  heathen  nations  that 
 oppress  and  persecute  His  kingdom  and  people. 
 
 In  the  war  against  the  hostile  spirit  of  the  kingdom  of  Persia, 
 the  archangel  Michael  came  to  the  help  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord. 
 The  name  -'^^''P,  who  is  as  God,  comes  into  view,  as  does  the  name 
 Gabriel,  only  according  to  the  appellative  signification  of  the  word, 
 and  expresses,  after  the  analogy  of  Ex.  xv.  11,  Ps.  Ixxxix.  7  f.,  the 
 idea  of  God's  unparalleled  helping  power.  Michaelh  thus  the  angel 
 possessing  the  unparalleled  power  of  God.  He  is  here  said  to  be 
 "  one  of  the  chief  princes,"  i.e.  of  the  highest  angel-princes, — ver. 
 21,  "  your  prince,"  i.e.  the  prince  who  contends  for  Israel,  who 
 conducts  the  cause  of  Israel.  The  first  title  points  undoubtedly 
 to  an  arrangement  of  orders  and  degrees  amono;  the  angels,  desig- 
 nating  Michael  as  one  of  the  most  distinguished  of  the  angel-princes; 
 hence  called  in  Jude  9  apx^^yyeXo^,  also  in  Rev.  xii.  7,  where  he 
 is  represented  as  contending  with  his  angels  against  the  dragon. 
 The  opinion  that  Michael  is  called  "  one  of  the  chief  princes,"  not 
 as  in  contrast  with  the  angels,  but  only  with  the  demons  of  the 
 heathen  gods  (Kliefoth),  is  opposed  by  the  words  themselves  and 
 by  the  context.  From  the  circumstance  that  the  guardian  spirit 
 of  Persia  is  called  "'K'  it  does  not  follow  that  0''"!^'  is  not  a  desig- 
 nation of  the  angels  generally,  but  only  of  the  princes  of  the 
 people,  who  are  the  spirits  ruling  in  the  social  affairs  of  nations  and 
 kingdoms  (Hofmann,  p.  337)  ;  and  even  though  this  conclusion 
 may  be  granted,  this  meaning  for  DnU'n  with  the  article  and  the 
 predicate  D"'j'^iS"}n  is   undemonstrable.      For   the   Scripture   does 
 
 2  D 
 
418  THE  BOOK  OF  DAKIEL. 
 
 not  place  the  demon-powers  of  heathendom  so  on  a  line  with  the 
 angels  that  both  are  designated  as  DVc'^^l  Q'Tf .  The  D^3bw  D^E' 
 can  only  be  the  princes,  chiefs,  of  the  good  angels  remaining  in 
 communion  with  God,  and  working  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 Though  what  is  said  by  the  angel  Michael,  for  the  sake  of  the 
 Israelitish  people,  among  whom  he  has  the  sphere  of  his  activity, 
 may  be  said  for  their  comfort,  yet  it  does  not  follow  therefrom 
 that  that  which  is  said  "  cannot  give  disclosures  refrardinrj  the 
 relation  within  the  angel-world,  but  only  regarding  the  relation 
 to  the  great  historical  nations  and  powers  of  the  world"  (Hofm. 
 p.  338).  For  as  regards  the  statement  adduced  in  support  of  this 
 opinion — "  the  greatness  and  importance  of  the  work  entrusted  to 
 him  makes  him  one  of  the  D''Jb'S'i,  not  that  the  work  is  entrusted 
 to  him  because  he  is  so" — just  the  contrary  is  true.  To  a  subordi- 
 nate spirit  God  will  not  entrust  a  work  demanding  special  power 
 and  greatness  ;  much  rather  the  being  entrusted  with  a  great  and 
 important  work  supposes  a  man  exalted  above  the  common  mass. 
 And  for  the  comforting  of  Israel  the  words,  "  Michael,  one  of  the 
 foremost  princes,  came  to  my  help,"  affirm  that  Israel  is  under  very 
 powerful  protection,  because  its  guardian  spirit  is  one  of  the  fore- 
 most of  the  angel-princes,  whereby  implic.  it  is  said  at  the  same 
 time  that  the  people,  though  they  be  little  esteemed  before  the 
 world,  yet  cannot  be  destroyed  by  the  nations  of  the  world.  This 
 thouo-ht  follows  as  a  conclusion  from  what  is  said  refrardinsj  the 
 dignity  of  their  guardian  angel,  but  it  does  not  form  the  contents  of 
 the  saying  regarding  Michael  and  his  place  among  the  heavenly 
 spirits. 
 
 But  we  learn  from  ver.  21  the  reason  why  the  archangel 
 Michael,  and  no  other  angel,  came  to  the  help  of  him  who  was 
 clothed  with  linen.  It  was  because  Michael  was  the  prince  of 
 Israel,  i.e.  "  the  high  angel-prince  who  had  to  maintain  the  cause 
 of  the  people  of  God  in  the  invisible  spirit-world  against  opposing 
 powers"  (Auberlen,  p.  289) ;  and  as  such  he  appears  also  in  Jude  9 
 and  Rev.  xii.  7.  The  coming  of  Michael  to  give  help  does  not 
 include  in  it  this,  that  he  was  superior  in  might  or  in  position  to 
 the  angel  that  spake,  and  thus  supplies  no  proof  that  the  angel 
 that  spake  was  Gabriel,  or  an  angel  different  from  him  who  was 
 clothed  with  linen.  For  even  a  subordinate  servant  can  bring 
 help  to  his  master,  and  in  a  conflict  render  him  aid  in  gaining  the 
 victory.  Against  the  idea  of  the  subjection  of  Michael  to  the 
 angel  that  spake,  or  the  man  clothed  with  linen,  stands  the  further 
 
CHAP.  X.  14.  419 
 
 nnfolding  of  the  angel's  message,  the  statement  in  ver.  21  and  ch. 
 xi.  1,  according  to  which  the  angel  that  spake  gave  strength  and 
 help  to  Michael  in  the  first  year  of  the  Median  Darius,  from  which 
 we  have  more  reason  to  conclude  that  the  angel  who  spake  stood 
 above  the  angel  Michael ;  see  under  ch.  xi.  1. 
 
 In  consequence  of  the  assistance  on  the  part  of  Michael,  the 
 Angel  of  the  Lord  obtained  the  place  of  superiority  by  the  side 
 of  the  king  of  Persia,  "ini:  has  not  here  the  usual  meaning,  to 
 he  over  and  above,  to  remain,  but  is  to  be  translated  after  "I'T'^'"', 
 Gen.  xlix.  4,  to  have  the  pre-eminence,  to  excel,  in  the  passive  sig- 
 nification of  the  Hiphil :  "  to  he  provided  luith  the  prefereJice,  to 
 gain  the  superiority^  The  translation,  "  I  have  maintained  the 
 place"  (Hofm.),  cannot  be  proved.  ?VSj  at  the  side  of,  near,  is 
 explained  from  the  idea  of  the  protecting  spirit  standing  by  the 
 side  of  his  protege.  The  plural,  "  kings  of  Persia,"  neither  refers 
 to  Cyrus  and  Cambyses,  nor  to  Cyrus  and  the  conquered  kings 
 living  with  him  (Croesus,  etc.),  nor  to  Cyrus  and  the  prince,  i.e, 
 his  guardian  spirit  (Hitzig).  The  plural  denotes,  that  by  the  sub- 
 jugation of  the  demon  of  the  Persian  kingdom,  his  influence  not 
 merely  over  Cyrus,  but  over  all  the  following  kings  of  Persia,  was 
 brought  to  an  end,  so  that  the  whole  of  the  Persian  kings  became 
 accessible  to  the  influence  of  the  spirit  proceeding  from  God  and 
 advancing  the  welfare  of  Israel. 
 
 Ver.  14.  With  this  joyful  message  the  angel  comes  to  Daniel, 
 to  open  up  to  him  what  would  befall  his  people  in  the  last  time. 
 The  punctuation  of  nii^l  (^shall  befall)  is  according  to  ^']\^\  (Gen. 
 xlix.  1)  ;  the  Kethiv  nnpl  has  the  correct  form.  Cp'n  nnnsn  as 
 ch.  ii.  28,  the  Messianic  world-time,  in  ch.  viii.  17  is  called  the 
 time  of  the  end.  "  For,"  the  angel  adds,  "  the  vision  refers,  or 
 stretches  itself  out,  to  the  days."  ^'">^'^%  with  the  article,  are  the 
 days  of  the  JT'insi  {the  latter  time),  the  Messianic  world-time.  \'^^i} 
 is  the  revelation  which  in  ver.  1  is  called  "t^T  and  nsio,  the  follow- 
 ing revelation  in  ch.  xi.  Kliefoth  is  incorrect  in  thinking  on  the 
 revelations  already  given,  ch.  vii.,  viii.,  ix.,  to  Daniel,  regarding 
 which  the  angel  now  seeks  to  bring  to  him  further  understanding. 
 For  although  those  revelations  stretch  out  to  the  last  time,  and  the 
 revelations  in  ch.  xi.  only  give  further  disclosures  regarding  it, 
 yet  neither  does  the  angel  who  speaks  to  Daniel  here  thus  repre- 
 sent the  matter,  nor  does  the  form  of  the  revelation  ch.  x.-xii., 
 namely,  the  majestic  appearance  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  not  a 
 common  angel-revelation,  correspond  with  this  supposition.     Tin 
 
420  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 also  cannot,  without  further  definition,  refer  to  those  earlier  reve- 
 lations ;  and  the  opinion  that  \''^^  denotes  the  understandinir,  as 
 distinguished  from  the  revelation  or  proclamation,  does  not  accord 
 with  the  usual  style  of  Daniel's  language.  Tr''^  denotes  here,  as  in 
 ch.  viii.  16,  the  interpretation  of  the  vision,  which  in  both  cases 
 contains  the  things  which  shall  befall  the  people  of  God  in  the 
 future.  Cf.  ch.  ix.  22,  where  T^^  is  used  of  the  announcement  of 
 the  revelation  of  God  regarding  the  seventy  weeks. 
 
 Vers.  15-19.  In  these  verses  it  is  further  related  how  Daniel 
 was  gradually  raised  up  and  made  capable  of  receiving  the  reve- 
 lation of  God.  The  communication  of  the  angel  hitherto  had  not 
 fully  gained  this  object.  Daniel  "  stood  trembling,"  but  he  could 
 not  yet  speak.  With  his  face  bent  towards  the  earth  he  was  as  yet 
 speechless.  Then  one  having  the  likeness  of  a  man  touched  his 
 lips,  whereby  he  received  the  powder  of  speech,  and  could  address 
 him  who  stood  before  him,  and  utter  the  complaint :  "  By  the 
 vision  anguish,  i.e.  violent  terror,  has  fallen  upon  me :  woes  are 
 turned  upon  me."  For  this  style  of  speech  cf.  1  Sam.  iv.  19,  and 
 for  the  matter  itself,  cf.  Isa.  xxi.  3,  xiii.  8.  For  the  following  NpI 
 nb  "'ri"i>'y  (and  I  have  no  strength,  ver.  16),  cf.  ver.  8. 
 
 Ver.  17.  Therefore  he  may  not  talk  with  this  Lord,  i.e.  with 
 Him  w'ho  appeared  before  him  in  such  dread  majesty ;  and  he  is 
 yet  in  such  a  state,  since  all  strength  has  departed  from  him  and 
 his  breath  has  gone,  that  he  fears  he  must  die  ;  cf.  1  Kings  xvii. 
 17.  Then  once  more  one  like  the  appearance  of  a  man  touched 
 him.  Dnx  nN-103  is  in  reality  =  D*]X  ^2  mjona  :  both  forms  of  ex- 
 pression leave  the  person  of  him  who  touched  him  undefined,  and 
 only  state  that  the  touching  proceeded  from  some  one  who  w^as 
 like  a  man,  or  that  it  was  such  as  proceeds  from  men,  and  are  like 
 the  expression  used  in  ver.  10,  "  a  hand  touched  me."  From  this 
 it  does  not  follow  that  he  who  spoke  to  him  touched  him,  but  only 
 that  it  was  a  spiritual  being,  who  appeared  like  to  a  man.  After 
 thus  being  touched  for  the  third  time  (ver.  18),  the  encouragement 
 of  the  angel  that  talked  with  him  imparted  to  him  full  strength, 
 so  that  he  could  calmly  listen  to  and  observe  his  communication. 
 
 Ver.  20-ch.  xi.  1.  But  before  he  communicated  to  Daniel  what 
 would  befall  his  people  in  the  "latter  days"  (ver.  14),  he  gives 
 to  him  yet  further  disclosures  regarding  the  proceedings  in  the 
 spirit-kingdom  which  determine  the  fate  of  nations,  and  contain 
 fur  Israel,  in  the  times  of  persecution  awaiting  them,  the  comfort- 
 ing certainty  that  thqy  had  in  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  and  in  the 
 
CHAP.  X.  20-XI.  1.  421 
 
 guardian  angel  Michael  a  strong  protection  against  the  enmities  of 
 the  heathen  world.  Kliefoth  supposes  that  the  angel  who  speaks 
 in  ver.  20-ch.  xi.  1  gives  a  brief  reswnS  of  the  contents  of  his  pre- 
 vious statement  (vers.  12-14).  But  it  is  not  so.  These  verses, 
 20-ch.  xi.  1,  contain  new  disclosures  not  yet  made  known  in  vers. 
 12-19,  although  resembling  the  contents  of  ver.  13.  Of  the  coming 
 of  the  prince  of  Javan  (ver.  205),  and  the  help  which  the  angel- 
 prince  renders  to  Darius  (ch.  xi.  1),  nothing  is  said  in  ver.  13 ; 
 also  what  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  ver.  20,  says  regarding  the  con- 
 flict with  the  prince  of  Persia  is  different  from  that  which  is  said 
 in  ver.  13.  In  ver.  13  he  speaks  of  that  which  he  has  done  before 
 his  coming  to  Daniel ;  in  ver.  20,  of  that  which  he  will  now  do. 
 To  the  question,  "  Knowest  thou  wherefore  I  come  unto  thee?" 
 no  answer  follows ;  it  has,  however,  an  affirmative  sense,  and  i& 
 only  an  animated  mode  of  address  to  remind  Daniel  of  that  which 
 is  said  in  vers.  12-14,  and  to  impress  it  upon  him  as  weighty  and 
 worthy  of  consideration.  Then  follows  the  new  communication : 
 "  and  now  will  I  return  to  fight  with  the  prince  of  Persia,"  i.e.  to 
 carry  forward  and  bring  to  an  end  the  victory  gained  for  thee 
 before  my  arrival  over  the  demon  of  Persia,  the  spirit  of  the  Per- 
 sian kingdom. 
 
 The  words  which  follow,  'iJl  nam  Nvr  ^3S1  (ver.  206,  and  tcJien  I 
 am  gone  forth,  lo,  etc.),  present  some  difficulty.  The  ''^^?!!  in  com- 
 parison with  nvc'S  (tvill  I  return)  points  to  a  contrast,  and  nani 
 plainly  indicates  that  which  shall  begin  with  the  s*);i"'  ''^^?.  By 
 this,  the  union  of  the  N^if^^  ^^^.!1  w'ith  that  which  goes  before  and 
 the  adversative  interpretation  of  nsni  (v.  Leng.)  is  excluded.  But 
 N^V  is  interpreted  differently.  Havernick,  Maurer,  and  others 
 understand  it  of  going  forth  to  war ;  only  we  must  not  then  think 
 (with  Maurer)  of  the  war  against  the  prince  of  Persia.  ''  For 
 lie  will  do  that  even  now  (in  the  third  year  of  Cyrus),  and  at  this 
 time  the  corning  of  the  prince  of  Grecia  has  no  meaning"  (Hitzig). 
 Hofmann  and  Hitzig  understand,  therefore,  t^^ifi'',  in  contrast  to  NZi, 
 of  a  going  forth  from  the  conflict,  as  in  2  Kings  xi.  7  "  they  shall 
 go  forth  on  the  Sabbath  "  is  placed  over  against  "  that  enter  in  on 
 the  Sabbath  "  in  ver.  5 ;  but  in  an  entirely  different  sense.  Hitzig 
 thus  renders  the  clause  :  "  when  I  have  done  with  the  Persians,  and 
 am  on  the  point  of  departing,  then  shall  the  king  of  Grecia  rise 
 up  against  me."  ]]l  must  then  be  the  Seleucidan  kingdom,  and 
 the  "1^  the  guardian  spirit  of  Egypt — suppositions  which  need  no 
 refutation,  while  the  interpretation  of  the  words  themselves  fails 
 
422  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 by  the  arbitrary  interpolation  "  against  me  "  after  N3.  According 
 to  Hofmann,  the  angel  says  that  "  he  had  to  return  and  contend 
 further  with  the  prince  of  the  people  of  Persia ;  and  that  wlien  he 
 has  retired  from  this  conflict,  then  shall  the  prince  of  the  Grecian 
 people  come,  compelling  him  to  enter  on  a  new  war."  This  last 
 clause  Hofmann  thus  more  fully  illustrates  :  "  Into  the  conflict 
 with  the  prince  of  the  people  of  Persia,  which  the  angel  retires 
 from,  the  prince  of  the  Grecian  people  enters,  and  against  him  he 
 resumes  it  after  that  the  Persian  kingdom  has  fallen,  and  is  then 
 also  helped  by  Michael,  the  prince  of  the  Jewish  people,  in  this  war 
 against  the  prince  of  Grecia,  as  he  had  been  in  the  war  against  the 
 prince  of  Persia"  (Schriftbew.  i.  pp.  333,  334  f.).  But  Hitzig  and 
 Kliefoth  have,  in  opposition  to  this,  referred  to  the  incongruity 
 which  lies  in  the  thought  that  the  prince  of  Javan  shall  enter  into 
 the  war  of  the  angel  against  the  Persians,  and  assume  and  carry  it 
 forward.  The  angel  fights  against  the  demon  of  Persia,  not  to 
 destroy  the  Persians,  but  to  influence  the  Persian  king  in  favour 
 of  the  people  of  God ;  on  the  contrary,  the  prince  of  Javan  comes 
 to  destroy  the  Persian  king.  According  to  this,  we  cannot  say  that 
 the  prince  of  Javan  enters  into  the  place  of  the  angel  in  the  war. 
 "The  Grecians  and  the  Persians  much  rather  stand,"  as  Hitzig 
 rightly  remarks,  "  on  one  side,  and  are  adversaries  of  Michael  and 
 our  IK',"  i.e.  of  the  angel  who  spake  to  Daniel.  Add  to  this,  that 
 although  t5VJj  to  go  out^  means  also  to  go  aicay,  to  go  off,  yet  the 
 meaning  to  go  away  from  the  conflict,  to  abandon  it,  is  not  con- 
 firmed :  much  rather  t<^^,  sensu  militari,  always  denotes  only  "  to 
 go  out,  forth,  Into  the  conflict;"  cf.  1  Sam.  viii.  20,  xxiil.  15;  1 
 Chron.  XX.  1 ;  Job  xxxix.  21,  etc.  We  have  to  take  the  word  in 
 this  signification  here  (with  C.  B.  MIchaelis,  Klief.,  and  Kran.), 
 only  we  must  not,  wuth  Kranichfeld,  supply  the  clause,  "  to  another 
 more  extensive  conflict,"  because  this  supplement  is  arbitrary,  but 
 rather,  with  Kliefoth,  Interpret  the  word  generally  as  It  stands  of 
 the  going  out  of  the  angel  to  fight  for  the  people  of  God,  without 
 excluding  the  war  with  the  prince  of  Persia,  or  limiting  it  to  this 
 war.  Thus  the  following  will  be  the  meaning  of  the  passage : 
 Now  shall  I  return  to  resume  and  continue  the  war  with  the 
 prince  of  Persia,  to  maintain  the  position  gained  (ver.  13)  beside 
 the  kings  of  Persia ;  but  when  (while)  I  thus  go  forth  to  war,  i.e. 
 while  I  carry  on  this  conflict,  lo,  the  prince  of  Javan  shall  come 
 (n^n  \vith  the  partic.  N3  of  the  future) — then  shall  there  be  a  new 
 conflict.     This  last  thought  is  not,  it  is  true,  expressly  uttered,  but 
 
CHAP.  X.  20-XI.  1.  423 
 
 it  appears  from  ver.  21.  The  warring  with  the  prince,  i.e.  the 
 spirit  of  Persia  hostile  to  Israel,  refers  to  the  oppositions  which  the 
 Jews  would  encounter  in  the  hindrances  put  in  the  way  of  their 
 building  the  temple  from  the  time  of  Cyrus  to  the  time  of  Darius 
 Hystaspes,  and  further  under  Xerxes  and  Artaxerxes  till  the  re- 
 building of  the  walls  of  Jerusalem  by  Nehemiah,  as  well  as  at  a 
 later  time  on  the  side  of  the  Persian  world-power,  in  the  midst  of 
 all  which  difficulties  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  promises  to  guide  the 
 affairs  of  His  people.  IJJ  i?'  is  the  spirit  of  the  Macedonian  world- 
 kingdom,  which  would  arise  and  show  as  great  hostility  as  did  the 
 spirit  of  Persia  against  the  people  of  God. 
 
 Ver.  21.  This  verse  is  antithetically  connected  with  the  pre- 
 ceding by  ''^^?,  hut  yet.  The  contrast,  however,  does  not  refer  to 
 the  fears  for  the  theocracy  (Kranichfeld)  arising  out  of  the  last- 
 named  circumstance  (ver.  20U),  according  to  which  the  angel 
 seeks  to  inform  Daniel  that  under  these  circumstances  the  pro- 
 phecy can  only  contain  calamity.  For  "  the  prophecy  by  no 
 means  contains  only  calamity,  but  war  and  victory  and  everlast- 
 ing victory  added  thereto"  (Klief.).  C.  B.  Michaelis  has  more 
 correctly  interpreted  the  connection  thus :  Veriim  ne  forte  et  sic, 
 quod  'principem  Grcecice  Persarum  principi  successurum  intellexistij 
 animum  despondeas,  audi  ergo,  quod  tibi  tuisque  solatio  esse  potest, 
 ego  indicaho  tibi,  quod,  etc.  "  The  Scripture  of  truth"  is  the  book 
 in  which  God  has  designated  beforehand,  according  to  truth,  the 
 history  of  the  world  as  it  shall  certainly  be  unfolded ;  cf.  Mai.  iii. 
 16,  Ps.  cxxxix.  16,  Eev.  v.  1.  The  following  clause,  ^nx  pNI^  is 
 not  connected  adversatively  with  the  preceding :  "  there  is  yet  no 
 one  .  .  ."  (Hofmann  and  others),  but  illustratively,  for  the  angel 
 states  more  minutely  the  nature  of  the  war  which  he  has  to  carry 
 on.  He  has  no  one  who  fights  with  him  against  these  enemies  (7V 
 '^?^)  against  the  evil  spirits  of  Persia  and  Greece)  but  Michael  the 
 angel-prince  of  Israel,  who  strongly  shows  himself  with  him,  i.e.  as 
 an  ally  in  the  conflict  (Pifnnp  as  1  Sam.  iv.  9,  2  Sam.  x.  12),  i.e. 
 renders  to  him  powerful  aid,  as  he  himself  in  the  first  year  of 
 Darius  the  Mede  had  been  a  strong  helper  and  protection  to 
 Michael. 
 
 Ch.  xi.  1.  The  first  verse  of  the  eleventh  chapter  belongs  to 
 ch.  X.  21 ;  the  ''^^?1  (also  I)  is  emphatically  placed  over  against  the 
 mention  of  Michael,  whereby  the  connection  of  this  verse  with  ch. 
 X.  21  is  placed  beyond  a  doubt,  and  at  the  same  time  the  reference 
 of  17  (ch.  xi.  lb)  to  ''^!^''P  (ch.  x.  21b)  is  decided.     Hengstenberg 
 
424  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 indeed  thinks  (Christol.  iii.  2,  p.  53)  that  the  reference  of  the  1^5  to 
 Michael  is  "  against  all  that  is  already  spoken  in  relation  to 
 Michael,  and  particularly  against  that  which  immediately  goes 
 before,"  under  a  reference  to  Hitzig.  But  Hitzig  only  says  that 
 in  ver.  21  Michael  is  of  one  lineage  with  the  speaker;  but,  on  the 
 contrary,  the  expressions  P'ln^)'  {to  confirm)  and  ny»^  {to  strengthen) 
 are  so  strong,  that  in  i?  we  must  think  on  one  inferior,  a  man. 
 Moreover,  Hitzig  can  think  of  nothing  done  by  Michael  under 
 Darius,  since  the  transference  of  the  kingdom  to  the  Medes  changed 
 nothing  in  the  fortune  of  the  Jews.  This  was  first  effected  by 
 Cyrus.  But  Hengstenberg  himself  does  not  recognise  this  last 
 reason,  but  remarks  that  ch.  xi.  1  relates  to  the  transference  of 
 the  sovereignty  from  the  Chaldeans  to  the  Persians,  whereby  a 
 way  was  opened  for  the  return  of  Israel,  and  rightly,  with  Hav., 
 thus  determines  the  meaning  of  the  verse  in  general :  "  As  at  that 
 time  the  Lord  made  the  change  of  the  monarchy  a  cause  of  blessing 
 to  the  covenant  people,  so  in  all  the  troubles  that  may  arise  to  them 
 in  the  heathen  monarchies  He  will  show  Himself  to  be  the  same 
 true  and  gracious  God."  The  other  reason,  namely,  that  the  strong 
 expressions,  "  to  confirm  and  strengthen,"  necessitate  us  to  think 
 of  one  inferior  as  referred  to  in  )h,  affects  only  the  view  already 
 refuted  above,  that  the  speaker  is  either  Gabriel  or  another  inferior 
 angel.  If,  on  the  contrary,  the  speaker  is  one  person  with  him  who 
 is  clothed  in  linen,  i.e.  with  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  who  is  like  unto 
 God,  then  this  person  can  also  say  of  himself  that  he  was  a  help 
 and  protection  to  the  angel-prince  Micliael,  because  he  stands 
 higher  than  Michael ;  and  the  reference  of  the  )b  to  Michael,  which 
 the  "also  I"  in  contrast  to  "  Michael  your  prince"  demands,  cor- 
 responds wholly  with  that  which  is  said  of  Michael.  Besides,  the 
 reference  of  V  to  Darius  (Hiiv.,  Hengstb.)  is  excluded  by  this,  that 
 the  name  of  Darius  the  Mede  is  not  at  all  the  object  of  the  state- 
 ments of  the  verse  to  which  )b  could  refer,  but  occurs  only  in  a 
 subordinate  or  secondary  determination  of  time.  The  thought  of 
 the  verse  is  accordingly  the  following  :  "  In  the  first  year  of  Darius 
 the  Mede,  Michael  effected  this,  that  Babylon,  which  was  hostile  to 
 the  people  of  God,  was  overthrown  by  the  power  of  Medo-Persia, 
 in  doing  which  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  rendered  to  him  powerful 
 help."  To  this  follows  in  order  in  ver.  2  the  announcement  of  the 
 future,  which  is  introduced  by  the  formula  'U^  nnyi  resumed  from 
 ch.  x.  21. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-XII.  3.  425 
 
 Chap.  si.  2-xii.  3.   The  Revelation  of  the  Future. 
 
 Proceeding  from  the  present,  the  angel  reveals  in  great  general 
 outlines  the  career  of  the  Persian  world-kingdom,  and  the  establish- 
 ment and  destruction,  which  immediately  followed,  of  the  kingdom 
 which  was  founded  by  the  valiant  king  of  Javan,  which  would  not 
 descend  to  his  posterity,  but  would  fall  to  others  (vers.  2-4).  Then 
 there  follows  a  detailed  description  of  the  wars  of  the  kings  of  the 
 south  and  the  north  for  the  supremacy,  wherein  first  the  king  of 
 the  south  prevails  (vers.  5-9) ;  the  decisive  conflicts  between  the 
 two  (vers.  10-12),  wherein  the  south  is  subjugated;  and  the  at- 
 tempts of  the  kings  of  the  north  to  extend  their  power  more  widely, 
 wherein  they  perish  (vers.  13-20)  ;  finally,  the  coming  of  a  "  vile 
 person,"  who  rises  suddenly  to  power  by  cunning  and  intrigue, 
 humbles  the  king  of  the  south,  has  "  indignation  against  the  holy 
 covenant,"  desolates  the  sanctuary  of  God,  and  brings  severe  afflic- 
 tion upon  the  people  of  God,  "  to  purge  and  to  make  them  white 
 to  the  time  of  the  end"  (vers,  21-35).  At  the  time  of  the  end  this 
 hostile  king  shall  raise  himself  above  all  gods,  and  above  every 
 human  ordinance,  and  make  the  "god  of  fortresses"  his  god, 
 "  whom  he  will  acknowledge  and  increase  with  glory"  (vers.  36-39). 
 But  in  the  time  of  the  end  he  shall  pass  through  the  countries  with 
 his  army  as  a  flood,  enter  into  the  glorious  land,  and  take  possession 
 of  Egypt  with  its  treasures ;  but,  troubled  by  tidings  out  of  the  east 
 and  the  north,  shall  go  forth  in  great  fury  utterly  to  destroy  many, 
 and  shall  come  to  his  end  on  the  holy  mountain  (vers.  40-45).  At 
 this  time  of  greatest  tribulation  shall  the  angel-prince  Michael  con- 
 tend for  the  people  of  Daniel.  Every  one  that  shall  be  found 
 written  in  the  book  shall  be  saved,  and  the  dead  shall  rise  again, 
 some  to  everlasting  life,  some  to  everlasting  shame  (ch.  xii.  1-3). 
 
 This  prophecy  is  so  rich  in  special  features  which  in  part  have 
 been  literally  fulfilled,  that  believing  interpreters  from  Jerome  to 
 Kliefoth  have  found  in  it  predictions  which  extend  far  beyond  the 
 measure  of  prophetic  revelation,  while  rationalistic  and  naturalistic 
 interpreters,  following  the  example  of  Porphyry,  from  the  speciality 
 of  the  predictions,  conclude  that  the  chapter  does  not  contain  a  pro- 
 phetic revelation  of  the  future,  but  only  an  apocalyptic  description 
 of  the  past  and  of  the  present  of  the  Maccabean  pseudo-Daniel. 
 Against  both  views  Kranichfeld  has  decidedly  declared  himself, 
 and  sought  to  show  that  in  these  prophetic  representations  "  the 
 prediction  does  not  press  itself  into  the  place  of  historical  develop- 
 
426  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 ment,  i.e.  that  it  does  not  concern  itself  with  such  future  dates  as 
 do  not  connect  themselves  with  the  historical  present  of  the  pro- 
 phetic author  (Daniel),  as  the  unfolding  of  religious  moral  thought 
 animated  by  divine  influence."  This  is  on  the  whole  correct.  Here 
 also  the  prophecy  does  not  become  the  prediction  of  historical  dates 
 which  do  not  stand  in  inner  connection  with  the  fundamental  idea  of 
 the  book,  which  is  to  announce  the  unfolding  of  the  heathen  world- 
 power  over  against  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  vision,  also,  as  to 
 its  contents  and  form,  is  accounted  for  from  the  circumstances  of 
 time  stated  in  ch.  x.  1,  and  contains  much  which  a  supposed  Macca- 
 bean  origin  makes  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  and  directly 
 contradicts.  First,  it  is  "  against  the  nature  of  a  fictitious  produc- 
 tion which  should  be  written  in  the  time  of  the  greatest  national 
 commotion,  that  the  great  repeated  victories  of  the  people  over  the 
 Syrian  power  should  have  been  so  slightingly  spoken  of  as  is  the 
 case  here  (ch.  xi.  34),"  i.e.  should  be  designated  only  as  "  a  little 
 help."  Then  the  prophetic  representation  over  against  the  his- 
 torical facts  of  the  case  is  full  of  inaccuracies ;  and  these  historical 
 inconveniences  are  found  not  only  in  the  description  which  had 
 reference  to  the  history  of  the  times  preceding  the  author,  but  also, 
 above  all,  in  the  history  of  the  times  of  the  Maccabees  themselves. 
 Thus,  e.g.,  in  ch.  xi.  40-45  an  Egyptian  expedition  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  shortly  before  his  death  is  prophesied,  for  which,  be- 
 sides Porphyry,  no  voucher  and,  in  general,  no  historical  probability 
 exists  (Kran.). 
 
 Kranichfeld,  however,  goes  too  far  when  he  holds  all  the  special 
 features  of  the  prophetic  revelation  to  be  only  individualizing  paint- 
 ings for  the  purpose  of  the  contemplation,  and  therein  seeks  to  find 
 further  developed  only  the  fundamental  thoughts  of  the  great  inner 
 incurable  enmity  of  the  heathen  ungodly  kingdom  already  stated 
 in  ch.  ii.  41-43,  vii.  8,  20,  24,  viii.  8,  22,  24.  The  truth  lies  in  the 
 middle  between  these  two  extremes. 
 
 This  chapter  contains  neither  mere  individualizing  paintings  of 
 general  prophetic  thoughts,  nor  predictions  of  historical  dates  in- 
 consistent with  the  nature  of  prophecy,  but  prophetic  descriptions 
 of  the  development  of  the  heathen  world-power  from  the  days  of 
 Cyrus  to  the  fall  of  the  Javanic  world-kingdom,  as  well  as  of  the 
 position  which  the  two  kingdoms  (arising  out  of  this  kingdom)  of 
 the  north  and  south,  between  which  the  holy  land  lay,  assumed 
 toward  each  other  and  toward  the  theocracy ;  for  by  the  war  of 
 these   two   kingdoms  for  the  sovereignty,  not  merely  were  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-XII.  3,  427 
 
 covenant  land  and  the  covenant  people  brought  in  general  into 
 a  sorrowful  condition,  but  they  also  were  the  special  object  of  a 
 war  which  typically  characterizes  and  portrays  the  relation  of  the 
 world-kingdom  to  the  kingdom  of  God.  This  war  arose  under  the 
 Seleucidan  Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  such  a  height,  that  it  formed  a 
 prelude  of  the  war  of  the  time  of  the  end.  The  undertaking  of 
 this  king  to  root  out  the  worship  of  the  living  God  and  destroy 
 the  Jewish  religion,  shows  in  type  the  great  war  which  the  woi'ld- 
 povver  in  the  last  phasis  of  its  development  shall  undertake  against 
 the  kingdom  of  God,  by  exalting  itself  above  every  god,  to  hasten 
 on  its  own  destruction  and  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of 
 God. 
 
 The  description  of  this  war  as  to  its  origin,  character,  and  issue 
 forms  the  principal  subject  of  this  prophecy.  It  is  set  forth  in 
 the  revelation  of  the  angel  from  ch.  xi.  21  to  the  end  (ch.  xii.  3), 
 while  the  preceding  description,  as  well  of  the  course  of  the  Persian 
 and  Javanic  world-kingdoms  as  of  the  wars  of  the  kino;s  of  the 
 north  and  the  south  (ch.  xi.  2-20),  prepares  for  it.  But  this  pre- 
 paratory description  is  not  merely  individualizing  pictures  of  the 
 idea  of  the  incurable  hostility  of  the  heathen  ungodly  kingdom, 
 but  a  prophetic  delineation  of  the  chief  lines  of  the  process  which 
 the  heathen  world-power  shall  pass  through  till  it  shall  advance  to 
 the  attempt  to  destroy  the  kingdom  of  God.  These  chief  lines  are 
 so  distinctly  laid  down,  that  they  contain  their  concrete  fulfilment 
 in  the  historical  development  of  the  world-power.  In  like  manner 
 are  so  described  the  appearance  and  the  wars  of  the  enemy  of  God, 
 who  desolates  the  sanctuary  of  God  and  takes  away  the  daily  sacri- 
 fice, that  we  can  recognise  in  the  assault  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes 
 against  the  temple  and  the  worship  of  the  people  of  Israel  a  ful- 
 filling of  this  prophecy.  Yet  here  the  foretelling  [Weissagung) 
 does  not  renounce  the  character  of  prophecy  (Prophetie) :  it  does 
 not  pass  over  into  prediction  {Prcediction)  of  historical  facts  and 
 events,  but  so  places  in  the  light  of  the  divine  foresight  and  pre- 
 determination the  image  of  this  enemy  of  God,  and  his  wickedness 
 against  the  sanctuary  and  the  people  of  God,  that  it  brings  under 
 contemplation,  and  places  under  the  point  of  view  of  the  purifica- 
 tion of  the  covenant  people  for  the  time  of  the  end  (ch.  xi.  35),  the 
 gradual  progress  of  his  enmity  against  God  till  he  exalts  himself 
 above  all  divine  and  human  relations. 
 
 From  the  typical  relation  in  which  Antiochus,  the  O.  T.  enemy 
 of  God,  stands  to  Antichrist,  the  N.  T.  enemy,  is  explained  the 
 
428  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 connection  of  the  end,  the  final  salvation  of  tlie  people  of  God, 
 and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  with  the  destruction  of  this 
 enemy,  witliout  any  express  mention  being  made  of  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom  and  of  the  last  enemy  arising  out  of  it ;  from  which 
 the  modern  critics  have  drawn  the  erroneous  conclusion,  that  the 
 Maccabean  pseudo-Daniel  expected  the  setting  up  of  the  Messianic 
 kingdom  in  glory  along  with  the  overthrow  of  Antlochus  Epi- 
 phanes.  At  the  foundation  of  this  conclusion  there  lies  an  entire 
 misapprehension  of  the  contents  and  object  of  this  prophecy, 
 namely,  the  idea  that  the  prophecy  seeks  to  furnish  a  historical 
 sketch,  clothed  in  an  apocalyptic  form,  of  the  development  of  the 
 world-kingdoms  from  Cyrus  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes.  In  support 
 of  this  error,  it  is  true  that  the  church  interpretation  given  by 
 Jerome  is  so  far  valid,  in  that  it  interprets  the  prophecy  partially 
 considered  under  the  point  of  view  of  the  very  special  predictions 
 of  historical  persons  and  events,  and  from  this  view  concludes  that 
 vers.  21-35  treat  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  vers.  36-45  of 
 Antichrist ;  according  to  which  there  would  be  in  ver.  36  an 
 immediate  passing  from  Antiochus  to  the  Antichrist,  or  in  ch. 
 xii.  1  a  sudden  transition  from  the  death  of  Antiochus  to  the  time 
 of  the  end  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.  But  the  prophecy 
 does  not  at  all  correspond  to  this  representation.  The  Angel  of 
 the  Lord  will  reveal  to  Daniel,  not  what  shall  happen  from  the 
 third  year  of  Cyrus  to  the  time  of  Antiochus,  and  further  to  the 
 resurrection  of  the  dead,  but,  according  to  the  express  declaration 
 of  ch.  X.  14,  what  shall  happen  to  his  people  D''D'n  nnnxa,  i.e.  in 
 the  Messianic  future,  because  the  prophecy  relates  to  this  time. 
 In  the  Q''^J']  nnnx  takes  place  the  destruction  of  the  world-power, 
 and  the  setting  up  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  at  the  end  of  the 
 present  world-eeon.  All  that  the  angel  says  regarding  the  Persian 
 and  the  Javanic  world-kingdoms,  and  the  wars  of  the  kings  of  the 
 north  and  the  south,  has  its  aim  to  the  end-time,  serves  only  briefly 
 to  indicate  the  chief  elements  of  the  development  of  the  world- 
 kinrrdoms  till  the  time  when  the  war  that  brings  in  the  end  shall 
 burst  forth,  and  to  show  how,  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Javanic 
 world-kingdom,  neither  the  kings  of  the  north  nor  those  of  the 
 south  shall  gain  the  possession  of  the  dominion  of  the  world. 
 Neither  by  the  violence  of  war,  nor  by  covenants  which  they  will 
 ratify  by  political  marriages,  shall  they  succeed  in  establishing  a 
 lasting  power.  They  shall  not  prosper,  because  (ch.  xi,  27)  the  end 
 goes  yet  to  the  time  appointed  (by  God).     A  new  attempt  of  the 
 
CHAP,  XI.  2-XII.  3.  429 
 
 king  of  the  north  to  subjugate  the  kingdom  of  the  south  shall  be 
 defeated  by  the  intervention  of  the  ships  of  Chittim  ;  and  the  anger 
 awakaned  in  him  by  this  frustration  of  his  plans  shall  break  forth 
 acrainst  the  holy  covenant,  only  for  the  purifying  of  the  people  of 
 God  for  the  time  of  the  end,  because  the  end  goes  yet  to  the 
 appointed  time  (ch.  xi.  35).  At  the  time  of  the  end  his  power 
 will  greatly  increase,  because  that  which  was  determined  by  God 
 shall  prosper  till  the  end  of  the  indignation  (ch.  xi.  36)  ;  but  in 
 the  time  of  the  end  he  shall  suddenly  fall  from  the  summit  of  his 
 power  and  come  to  his  end  (ch.  xi.  45),  but  the  people  of  God 
 shall  be  saved,  and  the  wise  shall  shine  in  heavenly  glory  (ch. 
 xii.  1-3). 
 
 Accordingly  the  revelation  has  this  as  its  object,  to  show  how  the 
 heathen  world-kingdoms  shall  not  attain  to  an  enduring  stability, 
 and  by  their  persecution  of  the  people  of  God  shall  only  accom- 
 plish their  purification,  and  bring  on  the  end,  in  which,  through 
 their  destruction,  the  people  of  God  shall  be  delivered  from  all 
 oppression  and  be  transfigured.  In  order  to  reveal  this  to  him  (that 
 it  must  be  carried  forward  to  completion  by  severe  tribulation),  it 
 was  not  necessary  that  he  should  receive  a  complete  account  of  the 
 different  events  which  shall  take  place  in  the  heathen  world-power 
 in  the  course  of  time,  nor  have  it  especially  made  prominent 
 that  their  enmity  shall  first  come  to  a  completed  manifestation 
 under  the  last  king  who  should  arise  out  of  the  fourth  world-king- 
 dom. For  that  the  Javanic  world-kingdom  shall  not  form  the  last 
 embodiment  of  the  world-power,  but  that  after  it  a  fourth  more 
 powerful  kingdom  shall  arise — this  was  already  revealed  to  Daniel 
 in  ch.  vii.  Moreover,  in  ch.  viii.  the  violent  enemy  of  the  people  of 
 Israel  who  would  arise  fix)m  the  Diadoch-kincrdoms  of  the  Javanic 
 world-monarchy,  was  already  designated  as  the  type  of  the  last 
 enemy  who  would  arise  out  of  the  ten  kingdoms  of  the  fourth 
 world-kingdom.  After  these  preceding  revelations,  the  announce- 
 ment of  the  great  tribulation  that  would  come  upon  the  people  of 
 God  from  these  two  enemies  could  be  presented  in  one  compre- 
 hensive painting,  wherein  the  assault  made  by  the  prefigurative 
 enemy  against  the  covenant  people  shall  form  the  foreground  of 
 the  picture  for  a  representation  of  the  daring  of  the  antitypical 
 enemy,  proceeding  even  to  the  extent  of  abolishing  all  divine  and 
 human  ordinances,  who  shall  bring  the  last  and  severest  tribula- 
 tion on  the  church  of  God,  at  the  end  of  the  days,  for  its  puri- 
 fication and  preparation  for  eternity. 
 
430  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ch.  xi.  2-20.   Tlie  events  of  the  nearest  future. 
 
 Ver.  2.  The  revelation  passes  quickly  from  Persia  (ver.  2b)  and 
 the  kingdom  of  Alexander  (vers.  3  and  4),  to  the  description  of  the 
 \Yars  of  the  kingdoms  of  the  south  and  the  north,  arising  out  of 
 the  latter,  in  which  wars  the  Holy  Land,  lying  between  the  two, 
 was  implicated.  Regarding  Persia  it  is  only  said  that  yet  three 
 kings  shall  arise,  and  that  the  fourth,  havinrr  reached  to  jireat 
 power  by  his  riches,  shall  stir  up  all  against  the  kingdom  of  Javan. 
 Since  this  prophecy  originates  in  the  third  year  of  the  Persian  king 
 Cyrus  (ch.  x.  1),  then  the  three  kings  who  shall  j'et  (*iiy)  arise  are 
 the  three  successors  of  Cyrus,  viz.  Cambyses,  the  pseudo-Smerdis, 
 and  Darius  Hystaspes  ;  the  fourth  is  then  Xerxes,  with  whom  all 
 that  is  said  regarding  the  fourth  perfectly  agrees.  Thus  Havernick, 
 Ebrard,  Delitzsch,  Auberlen,  and  Kliefoth  interpret ;  on  the  con- 
 trary, V.  Lengerke,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  and  Kranichfeld  will  make 
 the  fourth  the  third,  so  as  thereby  to  justify  the  erroneous  inter, 
 pretatiou  of  the  four  wings  and  the  four  heads  of  the  leopard  (ch. 
 vii.  6)  of  the  first  four  kings  of  the  Persian  monarchy,  because, 
 as  they  say,  the  article  in  ''V''?"?'[^  necessarily  requires  that  the  fourth 
 is  already  mentioned  in  the  immediately  preceding  statements.  But 
 the  validity  of  this  conclusion  is  not  to  be  conceived ;  and  the 
 assertion  that  the  O.  T.  knows  only  of  four  kings  of  Persia 
 (Hitzig)  cannot  be  established  from  Ezra  iv.  5-7,  nor  from  any 
 other  passage.  From  the  naming  of  only  four  kings  of  Persia  in 
 the  book  of  Ezra,  since  from  the  end  of  the  Exile  to  Ezra  and 
 Nehemiah  four  kings  had  reigned,  it  in  no  way  follows  that  the 
 book  of  Daniel  and  the  O.  T.  generally  know  of  only  four. 
 Moreover,  this  assertion  is  not  at  all  correct ;  for  in  Neh.  xii.  22, 
 besides  those  four  there  is  mention  made  also  of  a  Darius,  and  to 
 the  Jews  in  the  age  of  the  Maccabees  there  was  well  known, 
 according  to  1  Mace.  i.  1,  also  the  name  of  the  last  Persian  king, 
 Darius,  who  was  put  to  death  by  Alexander.  If  the  last  named, 
 the  king  who  by  great  riches  (ver.  2)  reached  to  a  higher  power, 
 is  included  among  the  three  previously  named,  then  he  should  have 
 been  here  designated  "  the  third."  The  verb  ipV,  to  place  one- 
 self, then  to  stand,  is  used  here  and  frequently  in  the  following 
 passages,  as  in  ch.  viii.  23,  in  the  sense  of  to  stand  xip  (=  Dip),  with 
 reference  to  the  coming  of  a  new  ruler.  The  gathering  together 
 of  greater  riches  than  all  (his  predecessors),  agrees  specially  with 
 Xerxes ;  cf.  Herodot.  iii.  96,  vi.  27-29,  and  Justini  Ilistor.  ii.  2. 
 The  latter  says  of  him  :  ''  JJivitias,  non  ducem  laudes,  qiiarum  tanta 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-20.  431 
 
 copia  in  regno  ejus  fuit,  nt,  cum  fiumina  midtitudine  consumerentur, 
 opes  tamen  regies  superessent." 
 
 irii^Tn  is  the  infinit.  or  nomen  actionis^  the  hecoming  strong ;  cf , 
 2  Cliron.  xii.  1  with  2  Kings  xiv.  5  and  Isa.  viii.  11.  ii^'if?  is  not 
 in  apposition  to  it,  "  according  to  his  riches  "  (Hav.) ;  but  it  gives 
 the  means  by  which  he  became  strong.  "  Xerxes  expended  his 
 treasures  for  the  raising  and  arming  of  an  immense  host,  so  as  by 
 such  P}p  (cf.  Amos  vi.  13)  to  conquer  Greece"  (Hitzig).  rilDp^  ns 
 ]]l  is  not  in  apposition  to  ^S^^,  all,  namely,  the  kingdom  of  Javan 
 (Maurer,  Kranichfeld).  This  does  not  furnish  a  suitable  sense ; 
 for  the  thought  that  ?3ri^  "  they  all,"  designates  the  divided  states 
 of  Greece,  and  the  apposition,  "  the  kingdom  of  Javan,"  denotes 
 that  they  were  brought  by  the  war  with  Xerxes  to  form  them- 
 selves into  the  unity  of  the  Macedonian  kingdom,  could  not  pos- 
 sibly be  so  expressed.  Moreover,  the  reference  to  the  circumstances 
 of  the  Grecian  states  is  quite  foreign  to  the  context.  ^^'^  '^  ns  is 
 much  rather  a  second,  more  remote  object,  and  nx  is  to  be  inter- 
 preted, with  Havernick,  either  as  the  preposition  with,  so  far  as 
 "i"'V^  involves  the  idea  of  war,  conflict,  or  simply,  with  Hitzig,  as 
 the  accusative  of  the  object  of  the  movement  (cf.  Ex.  ix.  29,  33), 
 to  stir  up,  to  rouse,  after  the  kingdom  of  Javan,  properly  to  make, 
 to  cause,  that  all  (?3[)  =  every  one,  cf.  Ps.  xiv.  3)  set  out  towards. 
 Daniel  calls  Greece  nin^o.  after  the  analogy  of  the  Oriental  states, 
 as  a  united  historical  power,  without  respect  to  the  political  consti- 
 tution of  the  Grecian  states,  not  suitable  to  prophecy  (Kliefoth). 
 
 From  the  conflict  of  Persia  with  Greece,  the  angel  (ver.  3) 
 passes  immediately  over  to  the  founder  of  the  Grecian  (Mace- 
 donian) world-kingdom ;  for  the  prophecy  proceeds  not  to  the 
 prediction  of  historical  details,  but  mentions  only  the  elements 
 and  factors  which  constitute  the  historical  development.  The 
 expedition  of  Xerxes  against  Greece  brings  to  the  foreground 
 the  world-historical  conflict  between  Persia  and  Greece,  which  led 
 to  the  destruction  of  the  Persian  kingdom  by  Alexander  the  Great. 
 The  reply  of  Alexander  to  Darius  Codomannus  (Arrian,  Exped 
 A  lex.  ii.  14.  4)  supplies  a  historical  document,  in  which  Alexander 
 justifies  his  expedition  against  Persia  by  saying  that  Macedonia 
 and  the  rest  of  Hellas  were  assailed  in  war  by  the  Persians  without 
 any  cause  {ovBev  TJ-porjSLKrjfxivot),  and  that  therefore  he  had  resolved 
 to  punish  the  Persians.  A  deeper  reason  for  this  lies  in  this,  that 
 the  prophecy  closes  the  list  of  Persian  kings  with  Xerxes,  but  not 
 in  this,  that  under  Xerxes  the  Persian  monarchy  reached  its  climax. 
 
432  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 and  partly  already  under  liim,  and  yet  more  after  his  reign,  the  fall 
 of  the  kingdom  had  begun  (Hiivernick,  Auberlen);  still  less  in  the 
 opinion,  proved  to  be  erroneous,  that  the  Maccabean  Jew  knew  no 
 other  Persian  kings,  and  confounded  Xerxes  with  Darius  Codo- 
 mannus  (v.  Lengerke,  Maurer,  Hitzig). 
 
 Vers.  3  and  4.  But  only  brief  notices,  characterizing  its  nature, 
 were  given  regarding  the  Macedonian  kingdom,  which  agree  with 
 the  prophecies  ch.  vii.  6  and  viii.  5-8,  21,  22,  without  adding  new 
 elements.  The  founder  of  the  kingdom  is  called  "liaa  !]70j  "  brave 
 king,"  "hero-king,"  and  his  kingdom  "a  great  dominion."  Of  his 
 government  it  is  said  i3iif"i3  riK^Vj  he  does,  rules,  according  to  his  will 
 (cf.  ch.  viii.  4),  so  that  his  power  might  be  characterized  as  irre- 
 sistible and  boundless  self-will.  Similarly  Curtius  writes  of  him 
 (x.  5.  35)  :  Fatendwn  esf^  cum  plurimum  virtiUi  dehuerit,  plus  de- 
 buisse  fortunce,  quam  solus  omnium  mortalium  in  potestafe  liabuit. 
 Hujus  siquidem  benejicio  agere  videhatur  gentibus  quidquid  placehat. 
 By  the  3  in  iipy?  the  coming  of  the  king  and  the  destruction  of 
 his  kingdom  are  stated  as  synchronous,  so  as  to  express  with  great 
 force  the  shortness  of  its  duration.  n?py  is  not  to  be  otherwise 
 interpreted  than  IDV  in  ver.  3,  and  is  thus  not  to  be  translated : 
 "  when  he  thus  stands  up,"  sc.  in  the  regal  power  described  in  ver. 
 3  (Kran.),  or  :  "on  the  pinnacle  of  his  might"  (Hav.),  but :  "  when 
 (or  as)  he  has  made  his  appearance,  his  kingdom  shall  be  broken." 
 In  the  words,  also,  there  does  not  lie  the  idea  "  that  he  himself  in 
 his  life-time  is  deprived  of  his  throne  and  his  kingdom  by  a  violent 
 catastrophe"  (Kran.)  ;  for  the  destruction  of  the  kingdom  does  not 
 necessarily  include  in  it  the  putting  to  death  of  the  ruler.  The 
 thought  is  only  this :  "  when  he  has  ajipeared  and  founded  a  great 
 dominion,  his  kingdom  shall  be  immediately  broken."  "i?5i^'n  (sliall 
 he  broken)  is  chosen  with  reference  to  ch.  viii.  8,  "  toward  the  four 
 winds  of  heaven."  We  may  neither  supply  Y>^T\  (^shall  be  divided) 
 to  ijT'in^?  ^'^1  {and  not  to  his  posterity),  nor  is  this  latter  expres- 
 sion "  connected  with  ^nri  in  pregnant  construction  ;"  for  KQ^,  from 
 n^'n,  signifies  to  divide^  from  which  we  are  not  to  assume  the  idea  of 
 to  allot,  assign.  We  have  simply  to  supply  i<''n  in  the  sense  of  the 
 verb,  subst.,  shall  be,  as  well  here  as  in  the  following  clause,  Nvl 
 i!5U'bD.  The  nnnx  sin-nifies  here  as  little  as  in  Amos  iv.  2,  ix.  1, 
 posterity  =  y^T,  but  remnant,  that  which  is  left  behind,  the  sur- 
 vivors of  the  king,  by  which  we  are  to  understand  not  merely  his 
 sons,  but  all  the  members  of  his  family.  i^V"^?  ^\  "  a"d  it  shall 
 not  be  according  to  the  dominion  which  he  ruled."     This  thought, 
 
CHAP.  xr.  2-20.  433 
 
 corresponding  to  inb3  iib]  In  ch.  viii.  22,  is  the  natural  conclusion 
 from  the  idea  of  division  to  all  the  four  winds,  which  the  falling 
 asunder  into  several  or  many  small  kingdoms  involves,  ti'nsn^  "shall 
 be  plucked  up"  (of  plants  from  the  earth),  denotes  the  rooting  up 
 of  that  which  is  stable,  the  destroying  and  dissolving  of  the  king- 
 dom into  portions.  In  this  division  it  shall  pass  to  others  npX'^npp, 
 *'  with  the  exclusion  of  those  "  (the  ri"'"ijnx),  the  surviving  members 
 of  the  family  of  Alexander.  To  £3''"!i!!'^^"!  {and  for  others)  supply 
 n^nn  {shall  be). 
 
 In  ver.  4,  accordingly,  the  prophetic  thought  is  expressed,  that 
 the  Javanic  kingdom,  as  soon  as  the  brave  king  has  founded  a  great 
 dominion,  shall  be  broken  to  pieces  and  divided  toward  the  four 
 winds  of  heaven,  so  that  its  separate  parts,  without  reaching  to  the 
 might  of  the  broken  kingdom,  shall  be  given  not  to  the  survivors  of 
 the  family  of  the  founder,  but  to  strangers.  This  was  historically 
 fulfilled  in  the  fact,  that  after  the  sudden  death  of  Alexander  his 
 son  Hercules  was  not  recognised  by  his  generals  as  successor  on 
 the  throne,  but  was  afterwards  murdered  by  Polysperchon  ;  his  son 
 also  born  by  Roxana,  along  with  his  guardian  Philip  Arideus, 
 met  the  same  fate ;  but  the  generals,  after  they  had  at  first  divided 
 the  kingdom  into  more  than  thirty  parts  (see  above,  p.  256),  soon 
 began  to  war  with  each  other,  the  result  of  which  was,  that  at  last 
 four  larger  kingdoms  were  firmly  established  (see  above,  p.  294). 
 Cf .  Diod.  Sic.  XX.  28,  xix.  105 ;  Pausan.  ix.  7 ;  Justini  hist.  xv.  2, 
 and  Appiani  Syr.  c.  51. 
 
 Vers.  5  and  6.  From  the  5th  verse  the  prophecy  passes  to  the 
 wars  of  the  kings  of  the  south  and  the  north  for  the  supremacy 
 and  for  the  dominion  over  the  Holy  Land,  which  lay  between  the 
 two.  Ver.  5  describes  the  growing  strength  of  these  two  kings, 
 and  ver.  6  an  attempt  made  by  them  to  join  themselves  together, 
 ptn,  to  become  strong.  The  king  of  the  south  is  the  ruler  of  Egypt ; 
 this  appears  from  the  context,  and  is  confirmed  by  ver.  8.  V"!^  j?pi 
 is  differently  interpreted ;  }??,  however,  is  unanimously  regarded  as 
 a  partitive :  "  one  of  his  princes,"  as  e.g.  Neh.  xiii.  28,  Gen.  xxviii. 
 11,  Ex.  vi.  25.  The  suffix  to  V'iJi'  (Jds  princes)  does  not  (with 
 C.  B.  jMichaelis,  Bertholdt,  Rosenmiiller,  and  Kranichfeld)  refer 
 to  "lis?  'n?^,  ver.  3,  because  this  noun  is  too  far  removed,  and  then 
 also  Ivy  must  be  referred  to  it ;  but  thereby  the  statement  in  ver. 
 56,  that  one  of  the  princes  of  the  king  of  Javan  would  gain  greater 
 power  and  dominion  than  the  valiant  king  had,  would  contradict 
 the  statement  in  ver.  4,  that  no  one  of  the  Diadochs  would  attain 
 
 2  E 
 
434  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 to  the  dominion  of  Alexander.^  The  suffix  to  Vl'b  can  only  be 
 referred  to  the  immediately  preceding  3?.3n  '^2''>.  "one  of  the  princes 
 of  the  king  of  the  south."  But  then  "i  in  ipi  cannot  be  explicative, 
 but  is  only  the  simple  copula.  This  interpretation  also  is  not  op- 
 posed by  the  Atnach  under  vntr.  for  this  accent  is  added  to  the  sub- 
 ject because  it  stands  before  separately,  and  is  again  resumed  in 
 Pl^^.y  by  the  copula  1,  as  e.g.  Ezek.  xxxiv.  19.  The  thought  is  this : 
 one  of  the  princes  of  the  king  of  the  south  shall  attain  to  greater 
 power  than  this  king,  and  shall  found  a  great  dominion.  That 
 this  prince  is  the  king  of  the  north,  or  founds  a  dominion  in 
 the  north,  is  not  expressly  said,  but  is  gathered  from  ver.  6,  where 
 the  king  of  the  south  enters  into  a  league  with  the  king  of  the 
 north. 
 
 Ver.  6.  D^^B^  J'ipp,  "  in  the  end  of  years,"  i.e.  after  the  expiry  of 
 a  course  of  years ;  cf .  2  Chron.  xviii.  2.  The  subject  to  'ii^nn'  (join 
 themselves,  2  Chron.  xx.  35)  cannot,  it  is  evident,  be  C^nx,  ver.  4 
 (Kran.),  but  only  the  king  of  the  south  and  his  prince  who  founded 
 a  great  dominion,  since  the  covenant,  according  to  the  following 
 clause,  is  brought  about  by  the  daughter  of  the  king  of  the  south 
 being  given  in  marriage  (7^f  Nia^  to  come  to,  as  Josh.  xv.  18,  Judg. 
 i.  14)  to  the  king  of  the  north,  to  make  ^''T^^O,  to  effect  an  agree- 
 ment. Q''"lt|^"^,  rectitudes,  synonj^mous  with  righteousness  and  right, 
 Prov.  i.  3,  here  designates  the  rectitude  of  the  relation  of  the  two 
 rulers  to  each  other  in  regard  to  the  intrigues  and  deceits  they  had 
 previously  practised  toward  each  other ;  thus  not  union,  but  sincerity 
 in  keeping  the  covenant  that  had  been  concluded.  "  But  she 
 shall  not  retain  the  power  of  the  arm."  ni3  "IVV  ^s  x.  8,  16,  and 
 yii-jn?  the  arm  as  a  figure  of  help,  assistance.  The  meaning  is  : 
 she  will  not  retain  the  power  to  render  the  help  which  her  mar- 
 riage should  secure ;  she  shall  not  be  able  to  bring  about  and  to 
 preserve  the  sincerity  of  the  covenant ;  and  thus  the  king  of  the 
 south  shall  not  be  preserved  with  this  his  help,  but  shall  become 
 subject  to  the  more  powerful  king  of  the  north.     The  following 
 
 ^  This  contradiction  is  not  set  aside,  but  only  strengthened,  by  translating 
 V^y  pTT*  "he  overcame  him"  (Kran.),  according  to  which  the  king  of  Javan 
 must  be  thought  of  as  overcome  by  one  of  his  princes,  the  king  of  the  south. 
 For  the  thought  that  the  king  of  Javan  survived  the  destruction  of  his  king- 
 dom, and  that,  after  one  of  his  princes  had  become  the  king  of  the  south  and 
 had  founded  a  great  dominion,  he  was  overcome  by  him,  contradicts  too  strongly 
 the  statement  of  ver.  6,  that  the  kingdom  of  the  valiant  king  of  Javan  would 
 be  destroyed,  and  that  it  would  not  fall  to  his  survivors,  but  to  others  with 
 the  exception  of  those,  for  one  to  be  able  to  interpret  the  words  in  this  sense. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-20.  435 
 
 passages  state  this.  The  subject  to  "^'W^.  k?  is  the  333  "^^^  ',  and  his, 
 i.e.  this  king's,  help  is  his  own  daughter,  who  should  establish  Q^"'.K'''0 
 by  her  marriage  with  the  king  of  the  north,  i^ip  is  a  second 
 subject  subordinated  or  co-ordinated  to  the  subject  lying  in  the 
 verb :  he  together  with  his  help.  We  may  not  explain  the  pas- 
 sage :  neither  he  nor  his  help,  because  in  this  case  Kin  could  not  be 
 wanting,  particularly  in  comparison  with  the  following  i<"'i7.  The 
 "  not  standing "  is  further  positively  defined  by  J^^ni,  to  be  de- 
 livered up,  to  perish.  The  plur.  '^"'^<''^^  is  the  plur.  of  the  category  : 
 who  brought  her,  i.e.  who  brought  her  into  the  marriage  (^<*'3^  to 
 be  explained  after  Ni3),  without  reference  to  the  number  of  those 
 who  were  engaged  in  doing  so ;  cf.  the  similar  plur.  in  particip. 
 Lev.  xix.  8,  Num.  xxiv.  9,  and  in  the  noun,  Gen.  xxi.  7.  "^^r'"], 
 particip.  with  the  suffix,  wherein  the  article  represents  the  relative 
 '^^^.-  P"'?n'?)  in  the  same  meaning  as  ver.  1,  the  support,  the  helper. 
 The  sense  is :  not  only  she,  but  all  who  brought  about  the  estab- 
 lishment of  this  marriage,  and  the  object  aimed  at  by  it.  D''riy3 
 has  the  article :  in  the  times  determined  for  each  of  these  persons. 
 Vers.  7-9.  A  violent  war  shall  then  break  out,  in  which  the 
 king  of  the  north  shall  be  overcome.  One  of  the  offspring  of  her 
 roots  shall  appear,  p  in  *i>*3»  is  partitive,  as  ver.  5,  and  i)f?.  is  used 
 collectively.  The  figure  reminds  us  of  Isa.  xi.  1.  The  suffix  to 
 n^Ji'iK^  refers  to  the  kind's  dauo-hter,  ver.  6.     Her  roots  are  her 
 
 T       V       T  jT  O  O  y 
 
 parents,  and  the  offspring  of  her  roots  a  brother  of  the  king's 
 daughter,  but  not  a  descendant  of  his  daughter,  as  Kranichfeld 
 by  losing  sight  of  "i^7  supposes.  133  is  the  accusative  of  direction, 
 for  which,  in  vers.  20,  21,  38,  i33  7i;  stands  more  distinctly;  the  suffix 
 refers  to  the  king  of  the  south,  who  was  also  the  subject  in  '^''OT^ 
 ver.  6b.  ^]^'J'~^^  ^^^  does  not  mean  :  he  will  go  to  the  (to  his) 
 army  (Michaelis,  Berth.,  v.  Leng.,  Hitz.,  Klief.)  ;  this  would  be  a 
 very  heavy  remark  within  the  very  characteristic,  significant  de- 
 scription here  given  (Kran.,  Hav.)  ;  nor  does  it  mean  :  he  attained 
 to  might  (Hav.)  ;  but :  he  shall  come  to  the  army,  i.e.  against  the 
 host  of  the  enemy,  i.e.  the  king  of  the  north  (Kran.).  ?^  Ni3, 
 as  Gen.  xxxii.  9,  Isa.  xxxvii.  33,  is  used  of  a  hostile  approach 
 against  a  camp,  a  city,  so  as  to  take  it,  in  contradistinction  to  the 
 following  Tiy»3  N3J :  to  penetrate  into  the  fortress.  Tij?D  has  a  col- 
 lective signification,  as  Dn3  referring  to  it  shows.  3  nb^y,  to  act 
 against  or  with  any  one,  cf.  Jer.  xviii.  23  ("  deal  with  them  "),  ad 
 lihidinem  agere  (Maurer),  essentially  corresponding  to  i3i^")3  in  vers. 
 33,  36.    P'l.Qil',  to  show  power,  i.e.  to  demonstrate  his  superior  power. 
 
436  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ver.  8.  To  bring  tlie  subjugated  kingdom  wholly  under  liis 
 power,  he  shall  carry  away  its  gods  along  with  all  the  precious 
 treasures  into  Egypt.  The  carrying  away  of  the  images  of  the  gods 
 was  a  usual  custom  with  conquerors  ;  cf.  Isa.  xlvi.  1  f .,  Jer.  xlviii.  7, 
 xlix.  3.  In  the  images  the  gods  themselves  were  carried  away ; 
 therefore  they  are  called  "  their  gods."  D'T-???  signifies  here  not 
 drink-offerinirs,  but  molten  imarjes  ;  the  form  is  analocous  to  the 
 plur.  Qv^'pS,  formed  from  ?C)3  ;  on  the  contrary,  Q^^P^  Uhationesy 
 Deut.  xxxii.  38,  stands  for  Dn^3D3,  Isa.  xli.  29.  The  suffix  is  not 
 to  be  referred  to  2^n7N,  but,  like  the  suffix  in  Cin'nSsi,  to  the  in- 
 habitants of  the  conquered  country,  snp  ^iDa  are  in  apposition 
 to  orn'on  •'?3j  not  the  genitive  of  the  subject  (Kran.),  because  an 
 attributive  genitive  cannot  follow  a  noun  determined  by  a  suffix. 
 Hiiv.,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  Ilitzig,  Ewald,  and  Klief.  translate  ^<1^1 
 'l3l  nby;;  W"}^ :  he  shall  during  (some)  years  stand  off  from  the 
 king  of  the  north.  Literally  this  translation  may  perhaps  be  justi- 
 fied, for  loy,  c.  i^.  Gen.  xxix.  35,  has  the  meaning  of  "  to  leave  off," 
 and  the  expression  "  to  stand  off  from  war  "  mav  be  used  concisely 
 for  "  to  desist  from  making  war  "  upon  one.  But  this  interpreta- 
 tion does  not  accord  with  the  connection.  First,  it  is  opposed  by 
 the  expressive  N^ni^  which  cannot  be  understood,  if  nothing  further 
 should  be  said  than  that  the  king  of  the  south,  after  he  had  over- 
 thrown the  fortresses  of  the  enemies'  country,  and  had  carried 
 away  their  gods  and  their  treasures,  abstained  from  war  for  some 
 years.  The  Nini  much  rather  leads  us  to  this,  that  the  passage 
 introduced  by  it  states  some  new  important  matter  which  does  not 
 of  itself  appear  from  the  subjugation  of  the  enemy  and  his  king- 
 dom. To  this  is  to  be  added,  that  the  contents  of  ver.  9,  where 
 the  subject  to  i<3  can  only  be  the  king  of  the  north,  do  not  accord 
 with  the  abstaining  of  the  king  of  the  south  from  warring  against 
 the  king  of  the  north.  By  Ewald's  remark,  "  With  such  miser- 
 able marchings  to  and  fro  they  mutually  weaken  themselves,"  the 
 matter  is  not  made  intelligible.  For  the  penetrating  of  the  king 
 of  the  south  into  the  fortresses  of  his  enemy,  and  the  carrj'ing 
 away  of  his  gods  and  his  treasures,  was  not  a  miserable,  useless 
 expedition  ;  but  then  we  do  not  understand  how  the  completely 
 liumbled  king  of  the  north,  after  his  conqueror  abstained  from 
 war,  was  in  the  condition  to  penetrate  into  his  kingdom  and 
 then  to  return  to  his  own  land.  Would  his  conqueror  have 
 suffered  him  to  do  this  ?  We  must,  therefore,  with  Kranich- 
 fekl,  Gesenius,  de  Wette,  and  Winer,  after  the  example  of  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-20.  437 
 
 Sjriac  and  the  Vulgate,  take  IP  nbj?^  in  the  sense  of  :  to  stand  out 
 before,  10  in  the  sense  of  ""JSO,  contra^  as  in  Ps.  xliii.  1  it  is  con- 
 strued with  y\  which  is  supported  by  the  circumstance  that 
 ipy  in  vers.  6,  15,  17,  and  25,  has  this  meaning.  By  this  not 
 only  is  N^ni  rightly  translated:  and  he,  the  same  who  penetrated 
 into  the  fortresses  of  his  adversary  and  carried  away  his  gods, 
 shall  also  take  his  stand  against  him,  assert  his  supremacy  for 
 years  ;  but  also  ver.  9  contains  a  suitable  addition,  for  it  shows  how 
 he  kept  his  ground.  The  king  of  the  north  shall  after  some  time 
 invade  the  kinijdom  of  the  kintj  of  the  south,  but  shall  return  to 
 his  own  land,  namely,  because  he  can  effect  nothing.  Kran.  takes 
 the  king  of  the  south  as  the  subject  to  i^3i,  ver.  9 ;  but  this  is 
 impossible,  for  then  the  word  must  be  irii3?03,  particularly  in 
 parallelism  with  inonx.  As  the  words  stand,  3i.^.n  '^^^  can  only  be 
 the  genitive  to  niD^DS  ;  thus  the  supposition  that  "  the  king  of  the 
 south  is  the  subject"  is  excluded,  because  the  expression,  "the 
 king  of  the  south  comes  into  the  kingdom  of  the  south  and  returns 
 to  his  own  land,"  has  no  meaning  when,  according  to  the  context, 
 the  south  denotes  Egypt.  "With  the  t^3i  there  also  begins  a  change 
 of  the  subject,  which,  though  it  appears  contrary  to  the  idiom 
 of  the  German  [and  English]  language,  is  frequently  found  in 
 Hebrew ;  e.g.  in  vers.  11a  and  9a.  By  the  mention  of  an  expedi- 
 tion of  the  king  of  the  north  into  the  kingdom  of  the  king  of 
 the  south,  from  which  he  again  returned  without  having  effected 
 anything,  the  way  is  opened  for  passing  to  the  following  descrip- 
 tion of  the  supremacy  of  the  king  of  the  north  over  the  king  of 
 the  south. 
 
 Vers.  10-12.  The  decisive  loars. 
 
 Ver.  10.  Here  the  suffix  in  133  refers  to  the  king  of  the  north, 
 who  in  ver.  9  was  the  person  acting.  Thus  all  interpreters  with 
 the  exception  of  Kranichfeld,  who  understands  132  of  the  son  of  the 
 Egyptian  prince,  according  to  which  this  verse  ought  to  speak  of 
 the  hostilities  sought,  in  the  wantonness  of  his  own  mind,  of  the 
 king  of  the  south  against  the  king  of  the  north.  But  this  inter- 
 pretation of  Kranichfeld  is  shattered,  not  to  speak  of  other  verbal 
 reasons  which  oppose  it,  against  the  contents  of  ver.  11.  The  rage 
 of  the  king  of  the  south,  and  his  going  to  war  against  the  king  of 
 the  north,  supposes  that  the  latter  had  given  rise  to  this  rage  by  an 
 assault.  Besides,  the  description  given  in  ver.  10  is  much  too 
 grand  to  be  capable  of  being  referred  to  hostility  exercised  in  mere 
 wantonness.     For  such  conflicts  we  do  not  assemble  a  multitude 
 
438  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 of  powerful  armies,  and,  when  these  powerful  hosts  penetrate  into 
 the  fortresses  of  the  enemy's  country,  then  find  tliat  for  the  vic- 
 torious invaders  there  is  wanting  the  occasion  of  becoming  exaspe- 
 rated for  new  warfare.  The  Kethiv  133  is  rightly  interpreted  by 
 the  Masoretes  as  plur.,  which  the  following  verbs  demand,  while 
 the  singulars  I3yi  flDtri  N3n  (shall  come,  and  overflow,  and  pass 
 through)  are  explained  from  the  circumstance  that  the  hosts  are 
 viewed  unitedly  in  P^n  {inidtitude).  Ni3  i<2  expresses  the  unre- 
 strained coming  or  pressing  forward,  while  the  verbs  131J"!  ^^'^, 
 reminding  us  of  Isa.  viii.  8,  describe  pictorially  the  overflowing  of 
 the  land  by  the  masses  of  the  hostile  army.  2b^^"i  (jussive,  denoting 
 the  divine  guidance),  and  shall  return,  expresses  the  repetition  of 
 the  deluge  of  the  land  by  the  hosts  marching  back  out  of  it  after 
 the  I3y,  the  march  through  the  land, — not  the  new  arming  for 
 war  (Hav.),  but  renewed  entrance  into  the  region  of  the  enemy, 
 whereby  they  carry  on  the  war  n'lyo  ny^  to  the  fortress  of  the  king 
 of  the  south,  corresponding  with  the  f^^^'^J}  ^?^  Tiy^a  in  ver.  7  {to 
 the  fortress  of  the  king  of  the  north),  ^lari''  signifies  properly  to  stir 
 up  to  war,  i.e.  to  arm,  then  to  engage  in  war.  In  the  first  member 
 of  the  verse  it  has  the  former,  and  in  the  last  the  latter  meaning. 
 The  violent  pressing  forward  of  the  adversary  will  greatly  embitter 
 the  king  of  the  south,  fill  him  with  the  greatest  anger,  so  that  he 
 will  go  out  to  make  war  with  him.  The  adversary  marshals  a 
 great  multitude  of  combatants  ;  but  these  shall  be  given  into  his 
 hand,  into  the  hand  of  the  king  of  the  south.  3"i  pon  T'Oyn  (Jig 
 raised  up  a  great  multitude)  the  context  requires  us  to  refer  to 
 the  king  of  the  north.  iT3  }ni,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  and  Hitzig 
 understand  of  the  acceptance  of  the  command  over  the  army — 
 contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  words,  which  mean,  to  give  into  the 
 hand  =  to  deliver  up,  of.  1  Kings  xx.  28,  Dan.  i.  2,  viii.  12,  13, 
 and  is  contrary  also  to  the  context.  The  marshalling  of  the  host 
 supposes  certainly  the  power  to  direct  it,  so  that  it  needs  not  then 
 for  the  first  time  to  be  given  into  the  power  of  him  who  marslialled 
 it.  The  expression  also,  "  to  give  into  his  hand,"  as  meaning 
 "  to  place  under  his  command,"  is  not  found  in  Scripture.  To 
 this  is  to  be  added,  that  the  article  in  P^i^"!}  refers  back  to  3"i  'f\,'OT\, 
 But  if  P^i^n  is  the  host  assembled  by  the  king  of  the  north,  then 
 it  can  only  be  given  up  into  the  hand  of  the  enemy,  i.e.  the  king 
 of  the  south,  and  thus  the  suffix  in  i1^3  can  only  refer  to  him. 
 The  statements  in  ver.  12  are  in  harmony  with  this,  so  far  as  they 
 confessedly  speak  of  the  king  of  the  south. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-20.  439 
 
 Ver.  12.  This  verse  illustrates  the  last  clause  of  ver.  11,  i.e. 
 explains  more  fully  how  the  great  multitude  of  the  enemy  are 
 given  into  his  hand.  The  first  two  clauses  of  ver.  12  stand  in 
 correlation  to  each  other,  as  the  change  of  the  time  and  the  absence 
 of  the  copula  before  D^i^  show  (the  Ke7'i  D"i"!  proceeds  from  a  mis- 
 understanding). The  meaning  is  this  :  "  As  the  multitude  rises 
 up,  so  his  heart  is  lifted  up."  P^'^l!!',  with  the  article,  can  only  be 
 the  host  of  tlie  king  of  the  north  mentioned  in  ver.  12.  The 
 supposition  that  the  Egyptian  army  is  meant,  is  the  result  of  the 
 difficulty  arising  out  of  the  misapprehension  of  the  right  relation 
 in  which  the  perfect  ^^ip?1  (hath  lifted  up  raised)  stands  to  the 
 imperfect  D^l\  ^^i^3  as  in  Isa.  xxxiii.  10  :  they  raise  themselves  to 
 the  conflict.  337  Dn^  the  lifting  up  of  the  heart,  commonly  in  the 
 sense  of  pride  ;  here  the  increase  of  courage,  but  so  that  pride  is 
 not  altogether  to  be  excluded.  The  subject  to  QliJ  is  the  king  of 
 the  south,  to  whom  the  suffix  to  11^3,  ver.  11,  points.  With 
 excited  courage  he  overthrows  myriads,  namely,  the  powerful  mul- 
 titude of  the  enemies,  but  he  yet  does  not  reach  to  power,  he  does 
 not  attain  to  the  supremacy  over  the  king  of  the  north  and  over 
 his  kingdom  which  he  is  striving  after.  The  Vulgate,  without 
 however  fully  expressing  the  meaning,  has  rendered  TiJ?^  N-'l  by  sed 
 non  prcevalebit. 
 
 Vers.  13-15.  This  thought  is  expanded  and  proved  in  these 
 verses. — Ver.  13.  The  king  of  the  north  returns  to  his  own  land, 
 gathers  a  host  together  more  numerous  than  before,  and  shall 
 then,  at  the  end  of  the  times  of  years,  come  again  with  a  more 
 powerful  army  and  with  a  great  train,  ^^"^.j  that  which  is  acquired^ 
 the  goodsj  is  the  train  necessary  for  the  suitable  equipment  of  the 
 army — "  the  condition  to  a  successful  warlike  expedition"  (Kran.). 
 The  definition  of  time  corresponding  to  the  C'^V?  in  ver.  6  is 
 specially  to  be  observed  :  D^^^  ^''riyn  yjr?  (at  the  end  oftimes^  years), 
 in  which  Ci'':k'  is  to  be  interpreted  (as  D'PJ  with  ^''V?^?  ch.  x.  3,  4, 
 and  other  designations  of  time)  as  denoting  that  the  2''riy  stretch 
 over  years,  are  times  lasting  during  years.  Q'^JiiV'^,  with  the  definite 
 article,  are  in  prophetic  discourse  the  times  determined  hy  God. 
 
 Ver.  14.  In  those  times  shall  many  rise  up  against  the  king  of 
 the  south  (?V  n»y  as  ch.  viii.  20)  ;  also  ^BV  >:na  ^33,  the  violent 
 people  of  the  nation  (of  the  Jews),  shall  raise  themselves  against 
 him.  DTI?  v.?  are  such  as  belong  to  the  classes  of  violent  men 
 who  break  through  the  barriers  of  the  divine  law  (Ezek.  xviii.  10). 
 These  shall  raise  themselves  |iin  '^''^'^jf?^  to  establish  the  prophecy, 
 
440  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 i.e.  to  bring  it  to  an  accomplishment.  ^''^VJ^  =  ^%  Ezek.  xiii.  6,  as 
 *i»y  =  Dip  in  Daniel,  and  generally  in  the  later  Hebrew.  Almost 
 all  interpreters  since  Jerome  have  referred  this  to  Daniel's  vision 
 of  the  oppression  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  ch.  viii.  9-14,  ver. 
 23.  This  is  so  far  right,  as  the  apostasy  of  one  party  among  the 
 Jews  from  the  law  of  their  fathers,  and  their  adoption  of  heathen 
 customs,  contributed  to  bring  about  that  oppression  with  which  the 
 theocracy  was  visited  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes ;  but  the  limiting 
 of  the  pfn  to  those  definite  prophecies  is  too  narrow.  Jitn  without 
 the  article  is  prophecy  in  undefined  generality,  and  is  to  be  ex- 
 tended to  all  the  prophecies  which  threatened  the  people  of  Israel 
 with  severe  chastisements  and  sufferings  on  account  of  their  fall  ins: 
 away  from  the  law  and  their  apostasy  from  their  God.  ^''"^231, 
 thei/  shall  stumble,  fall.  "  The  falling  away  shall  bring  to  them 
 no  gain,  but  only  the  sufferings  and  tribulation  prophesied  of" 
 (Kliefoth). 
 
 Ver.  15.  In  this  verse,  with  N3''l  the  Ki3  Ki3\  ver.  13,  is  arjain 
 assumed,  and  the  consequence  of  the  war  announced.  '1?^1D  ^?^, 
 to  heap  %ip  an  entrenchment ;  cf.  Ezek.  iv.  2,  2  Kings  xix.  32.  "l^V 
 ni"iy30,  city  of  fortifications,  without  the  article,  also  collectively  of 
 the  fortresses  of  the  kingdom  of  the  south  generally.  Before  such 
 power  the  army,  i.e.  the  war-strength,  of  the  south  shall  not  main- 
 tain its  ground ;  even  his  chosen  people  shall  not  possess  strength 
 necessary  for  this. 
 
 Vers.  16-19.   The  further  undertaJcings  of  the  Icing  of  the  north. 
 
 Ver.  16.  Having  penetrated  into  the  kingdom  of  the  south,  he 
 shall  act  there  according  to  his  own  pleasure,  without  any  one  being 
 able  to  withstand  him ;  just  as  before  this  the  king  of  the  south 
 did  in  the  kingdom  of  the  north  (ver.  7).  With  t'Tl  the  jussive 
 appears  instead  of  the  future — cf.  U^W  ]J!}\  (ver.  17),  ^^l  (vers.  18 
 and  19) — to  show  that  the  further  actions  and  undertakings  of  the 
 king  of  the  north  are  carried  on  under  the  divine  decree.    ivS  Nan 
 
 D  T  "  T    - 
 
 is  he  that  comes  into  the  land  of  the  south,  the  king  of  the  north 
 (vers.  14  and  15).  Having  reached  the  height  of  victory,  he  falls 
 under  the  dominion  of  pride  and  haughtiness,  by  which  he  hastens 
 on  his  ruin  and  overthrow.  After  he  has  subdued  the  kingdom  of 
 the  southern  king,  he  will  go  into  the  land  of  beauty,  i.e.  into  the 
 Holy  Land  (with  reference  to  ''3yn  p^,  ch.  viii.  9).  n)3  nb"i,  and 
 destruction  is  in  his  hand  (an  explanatory  clause),  n?3  being  here 
 not  a  verb,  but  a  substantive.  Only  this  meaning  of  '"i?3  js  verbally 
 established,  see  under  ch.  ix.  27,  but  not  the  meaning  attributed  to 
 
CHAP,  XI.  2-20.  441 
 
 tlie  word,  from  the  unsuitable  introduction  of  historical  events, 
 accomplishing,  perfecdo,  according  to  which  Hav.,  v.  Leng.,  Maur., 
 and  KHefoth  translate  the  clause :  ajid  it  (the  Holy  Land)  is  wholly 
 given  into  his  hand.  '"i^S  means  finishing,  conclusion,  only  in  the 
 sense  of  destruction,  also  in  2  Chron.  xii.  2  and  Ezek.  xiii.  13. 
 For  the  use  of  n^3  of  spiritual  things  which  one  intends  or  aims 
 at,  cf.  Job  xi.  14,  Isa.  xliv.  20.  The  destruction,  however,  refers 
 not  to  the  Egyptians  (Hitzig),  but  to  the  Holy  Land,  in  which 
 violent  (rapacious)  people  (ver.  14)  make  common  cause  with  the 
 heathen  king,  and  thereby  put  arms  into  his  hands  by  which  he 
 may  destroy  the  land. 
 
 Ver.  17.  This  verse  has  been  very  differently  expounded. 
 According  to  the  example  of  Jerome,  who  translates  it :  et  ponet 
 faciem  suam  ut  veniat  ad  tenendum  universum  regnum  ejus,  and 
 adds  to  this  the  explanatory  remark :  ut  evertat  ilium  h.  e.  Ptole- 
 mceum,  sive  illud,  h.  e.  regnum  ejus,  many  translate  the  words  NH? 
 \X\  ^iPhli  by  to  come  in  or  against  the  strength  of  his  whole  (Egyp- 
 tian) kingdom  (C.  B.  Michaelis,  Venema,  Havernick,  v.  Lengerke, 
 Maurer),  i.e.  to  obtain  the  superiority  over  the  Egyptian  kingdom 
 (Kliefoth).  But  this  last  interpretation  is  decidedly  opposed  by  the 
 circumstance  that  ^pn  means  strength  not  in  the  active  sense  = 
 power  over  something,  but  only  in  the  intransitive  or  passive  sense, 
 strength  as  the  property  of  any  one.  Moreover,  both  of  these  ex- 
 planations are  opposed  by  the  verbal  use  of  xi3  c.  3  ret,  which  does 
 not  signify :  to  come  in  or  against  a  matter,  but :  to  come  with — cf. 
 7]n2  Nia,  to  come  with  power,  ver.  13,  also  Isa.  xl.  10,  Ps.  Ixxi.  16 
 — as  well  as  by  the  context,  for  of  the  completely  subjugated 
 south  (according  to  vers.  15  and  16)  it  cannot  yet  be  said  ^i?.n 
 ini370.  Correctly,  Theodot.  translates  :  elcrekdeiv  iv  la^vi  Trao-T^? 
 T^9  ^aaiXeLa<;  avrov ;  Luther :  "  to  come  with  the  strength  of  his 
 whole  kingdom."  Similarly  M.  Geier,  Hitzig,  and  Kran.  The 
 king  of  the  north  intends  thus  to  come  with  the  force  of  his  whole 
 kingdom  to  obtain  full  possession  of  the  kingdom  of  the  south. 
 S'&V  Q''T^''l  is  an  explanatory  clause  defining  the  manner  in  which 
 he  seeks  to  gain  his  object.  ^Tf  "I,  plur.  of  the  adjective  "i^^,  in  a  sub- 
 stantive signification,  that  which  is  straight,  recta,  as  Prov.  xvi.  13, 
 proha  (Ewald's  Gram.  §  172 ;  while  in  his  commentary  he  trans- 
 lates the  word  by  agreement^  i'sy,  xoith  him,  i.e.  having  in  intention. 
 The  sense  of  the  passage  is  determined  according  to  ^''T^'''?  ^^^y.?, 
 ver.  6 :  with  the  intention  of  establishing  a  direct,  right  relation, 
 namely,  by  means  of  a  political  marriage  to  bring  to  himself  the 
 
442  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 kingdom  of  the  south.  ^>'>^^'V]  forms  a  clause  by  itself :  he  shall  do 
 it,  cany  it  out ;  there  is  therefore  no  need  for  Hitzig's  arbitrary 
 change  of  the  text  into  nb^y^. 
 
 The  second  half  of  this  verse  (ver.  17)  describes  how  he  carries 
 out  this  intention,  but  yet  does  not  reach  his  end.  "  He  shall  give 
 him  the  daughter  of  women."  C'^^n^  of  women,  the  plur.  of  the 
 class,  as  riV'iX  T'ES,  Judg.  xiv.  5,  a  young  lion  (of  lionesses) ; 
 niihs  |3j  Zech.  ix.  9,  the  foal  of  an  ass  (of  she-asses).  The  suffix 
 to  '^n'^n'^np  (corrupting  her,  E.V.)  is  referred  by  many  to  iniabo  (his 
 kingdom)  ;  but  this  reference  fails  along  with  the  incorrect  inter- 
 pretation of  the  nphn  as  the  end  of  the  coming.  Since  in  the  first 
 half  of  the  verse  the  object  of  his  undertaking  is  not  named,  but 
 in  ver.  16  is  denoted  by  IvSij  the  suffix  in  question  can  only  be 
 referred  to  D'^t^^n  n3.  Thus  J.  D.  Michaelis,  Bertholdt,  Rosen- 
 miiller ;  the  former,  however,  gives  to  the  word  '^ri''n^n7  the  ver- 
 bally untenable  meaning :  "  to  seduce  her  into  a  morally  corrupt 
 course  of  conduct;"  but  Hitzig  changes  the  text,  strikes  out  the 
 suffix,  and  translates :  "  to  accomplish  vileness."  JT'n^rn  means  only 
 to  destroy,  to  ruin,  hence  "  to  destroy  her"  (Kran.).  This,  it  is  true, 
 was  not  the  object  of  the  marriage,  but  only  its  consequence ; 
 but  the  consequence  is  set  forth  as  had  in  view,  so  as  forcibly 
 to  express  the  thought  that  the  marriage  could  lead,  according 
 to  a  higher  direction,  only  to  the  destruction  of  the  daughter. 
 
 The  last  clauses  of  the  verse  express  the  failure  of  the  measure 
 adopted.  The  verbs  are  fem.,  not  neut. ;  thus  the  meaning  is  not : 
 "  it  shall  neither  stand,  nor  succeed  to  him  "  (v.  Leng.,  Maurer, 
 Hitzig),  but :  "  she  (the  daughter)  shall  not  stand,"  not  be  able  to 
 carry  out  the  plan  contemplated  by  her  father.  The  words  v"N?1 
 nvin  do  not  stand  for  i?  n\nn  npi  :  "  she  shall  not  be  to  him "  or 
 "  for  him."  In  this  case  N^  must  be  connected  with  the  verb. 
 According  to  the  text,  ib'N?  forms  one  idea,  as  nia  N7j  impotent  (cf. 
 Ewald,  §  270)  :  "she  shall  be  a  not  for  him'^  (ein  Nichtihm),  i.e.  he 
 shall  have  nothing  at  all  from  her. 
 
 Vers.  18  and  19.  His  fate  further  drives  him  to  make  an  assault 
 on  the  islands  and  maritime  coasts  of  the  west  (2''''5)>  many  of  which 
 he  takes.  2'^y'')_  is  not,  after  the  Keri,  to  be  changed  into  ^^1] ;  for 
 turning  himself  from  Egypt  to  the  islands,  he  turns  back  his  face 
 toward  his  own  land  in  the  north.  The  two  following  clauses  are 
 explained  by  most  interpreters  thus  :  "  but  a  captain  shall  stop  his 
 scorn  (bring  it  to  silence),  and  moreover  shall  give  back  (recom- 
 pense) scorn  to  him  in  return."     This  is  then,  according  to  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-20.  443 
 
 example  of  Jerome,  referred  to  the  expedition  of  Antioclius  Epi- 
 phanes  against  the  Grecian  islands  which  were  under  the  protection 
 of  Rome,  for  which  he  was  assailed  and  overcome  by  the  consul 
 Lucius  Scipio  (Asiaticus)  in  a  battle  fought  at  Magnesia  ad  Sipy- 
 lum  in  Lydia.  But  the  translation  in  question  affords  a  tolerable 
 sense  only  when  we  take  '^^?^  in  the  meaning  moreover^  in  addition 
 to ;  a  meaning  which  it  has  not,  and  cannot  have  according  to  its 
 etymology.  In  all  places  where  it  is  so  rendered  a  negative  sen- 
 tence goes  before  it,  cf.  Gen.  xliii.  3,  xlvii.  18,  Judg.  vii.  14,  or  a 
 sentence  asking  a  question  with  a  negative  sense,  as  Amos  iii.  3,  4 ; 
 according  to  which,  N^  must  here  stand  before  n''3t:'n  if  we  would 
 translate  it  by  besides  that  or  only.  Wii  has  the  idea  of  exception^ 
 and  can  only  be  rendered  after  an  affirmative  statement  by  however ^ 
 for  the  passage  introduced  by  it  limits  the  statement  going  before. 
 Thus  Theodot.  rightly  :  Karairavaei,  ap'^ovra<;  oveiSia/jLov  avTcav, 
 7r\7]v  o  6veLSia/jio<i  avrov  eViCTpei^et  avroJ ;  and  in  close  connection 
 with  this,  Jerome  has :  et  cessare  faciei  priiicipem  opprohrii  sui  et 
 opprobrium  ejus  convertetur  in  eum.  In  like  manner  the  Peshito. 
 This  rendering  we  must,  with  Kranichfeld,  accede  to,  and  accord- 
 ingly understand  Iii  JT'SC^'ni  of  the  king  of  the  north,  and  interpret 
 the  indefinite  TVi^  (leader,  chief)  in  undefined  generality  or  collec- 
 tively, and  i^Qin  (^his  reproach)  as  the  second  object  subordinated 
 to  rVi^,  and  refer  ii?  as  the  dative  to  PVi^.  Thus  the  second  inann 
 gains  expressiveness  corresponding  to  its  place  before  the  verb  as 
 the  contrast  to  i?  i^S"!D  '•  "  however  his  reproach,"  i.e.  the  dishonour 
 he  did  to  the  chiefs,  "  shall  they  recompense  to  him."  The  subject 
 to  y^l  is  the  collective  PVi^.  The  statement  of  the  last  clause  in- 
 troduces us  to  the  announcement,  mentioned  in  ver.  19,  of  the 
 overthrow  of  the  king  of  the  north,  who  wished  to  spread  his  power 
 also  over  the  west.  Since  the  chiefs  (princes)  of  the  islands  rendered 
 back  to  him  his  reproach,  i.e.  requited  to  him  his  attack  against 
 them,  he  was  under  the  necessity  of  returning  to  the  fortresses 
 of  his  own  land.  With  that  begins  his  fall,  which  ends  with  his 
 complete  destruction. 
 
 Ver.  20.  Another  stands  up  in  his  place,  who  causeth  '^^ii  to 
 pass  over,  through  his  eagerness  for  riches.  b':i3  most  understand 
 as  a  collector  of  tribute,  referring  for  this  to  2  Kings  xxiii.  35,  and 
 mspo  inn  as  the  Holy  Land,  and  then  think  on  Heiiodorus,  whom 
 Seleucus  Nicator  sent  to  Jerusalem  to  seize  the  temple  treasure. 
 But  this  interpretation  of  the  words  is  too  limited.  fc'i3  denotes, 
 no  doubt  (2  Kings  xxiii.  35),  to  collect  gold  and  silver ;  but  it  does 
 
444  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 not  thence  follow  that  '^'^)i,  when  silver  and  gold  are  not  spoken 
 of,  means  to  collect  tribute.  The  word  in  general  designates  tlie 
 taskmaster  who  urges  on  the  people  to  severe  labour,  afflicts  and 
 oppresses  them  as  cattle.  niiSo  -\ir\  is  not  synonymous  with  pK 
 "•a^'rij  ver.  16,  but  stands  much  nearer  to  HIS^D  nin^  ver.  21,  and 
 designates  the  glory  of  the  kingdom.  The  glory  of  the  kingdom 
 was  brought  down  by  ti'JiJ,  and  "I'^yn  refers  to  the  Avhole  kingdom 
 of  the  king  spoken  of,  not  merely  to  the  Holy  Land,  which  formed 
 but  a  part  of  his  kingdom.  By  these  oppressions  of  his  kingdom  he 
 prepared  himself  in  a  short  time  for  destruction.  0"'"Tns;  n^p^  (days 
 feiv),  as  in  Gen.  xxvii.  44,  xxix.  20,  the  designation  of  a  very  short 
 time.  The  reference  of  these  words,  "  in  days  few,"  to  the  time  after 
 the  pillage  of  the  temple  of  Jerusalem  by  Heliodorus  is  not  only 
 an  arbitrary  proceeding,  but  is  also  contrary  to  the  import  of  the 
 words,  since  3  in  ^'^^\^  does  not  mean  post.  D'S^'^  N^l,  in  contradis- 
 tinction and  contrast  to  nonpon  i6]^  can  only  denote  private  enmity 
 or  private  revenge.  "  Neither  by  anger  (i.e.  private  revenge)  nor 
 by  war"  points  to  an  immediate  divine  judgment. 
 
 If  we  now,  before  proceeding  further  in  our  exposition,  atten- 
 tively consider  the  contents  of  the  revelation  of  vers.  5-20,  so  as 
 to  have  a  clear  view  of  its  relation  to  the  historical  fulfilment, 
 we  shall  find  the  following  to  be  the  course  of  the  thoughts  ex- 
 hibited : — After  the  fall  of  the  Javanic  world-kingdom  (ver.  4) 
 the  king  of  the  south  shall  attain  to  great  power,  and  one  of  his 
 princes  shall  found  (ver.  5)  a  yet  greater  dominion  in  the  north. 
 After  a  course  of  years  they  shall  enter  into  an  agreement,  for  the 
 king  of  the  south  shall  give  his  daughter  in  marriage  to  the  king 
 of  the  north  so  as  to  establish  a  right  relationship  between  them  ; 
 but  this  agreement  shall  bring  about  the  destruction  of  the 
 daughter,  as  well  as  of  her  father  and  all  who  co-operated  for  the 
 effecting  of  this  marriage  (ver.  6).  Hereupon  a  descendant  of 
 that  king  of  the  south  shall  undertake  a  war  against  the  king  of 
 the  north,  victoriously  invade  the  country  of  the  adversary,  gather 
 together  great  spoil  and  carry  it  away  to  Egypt,  and  for  years 
 hold  the  supremacy.  The  king  of  the  north  shall,  it  is  true, 
 penetrate  into  his  kingdom,  but  he  shall  again  return  home  without 
 effecting  anything  (vers.  7-9).  His  sons  also  shall  pass  over  the 
 kingdom  of  the  south  with  a  multitude  of  hosts,  but  the  multitude 
 shall  be  given  into  the  hand  of  the  king,  who  shall  not  come  to 
 power  by  casting  down  myriads.  The  king  of  the  north  shall 
 return  with  a  host  yet  more  numerous ;   against  the  king  of  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  2-20.  445 
 
 south  many,  also  faithless  members  of  the  Jewish  nation,  shall 
 rise  up,  and  the  king  of  the  north  shall  take  the  fortified  cities, 
 without  the  king  of  the  south  having  the  power  to  offer  him 
 resistance  (vers.  10-15).  The  conqueror  shall  now  rule  in  the 
 conquered  lands  after  his  own  pleasure,  and  set  his  foot  on  the 
 Holy  Land  with  the  intention  of  destroying  it.  Thereupon  he 
 shall  come  with  the  whole  might  of  his  kingdom  against  the  king 
 of  the  south,  and  by  the  marriage  of  his  daughter  seek  to  estab- 
 lish a  right  relationship  with  him,  but  he  shall  only  thereby  bring 
 about  the  destruction  of  his  daughter.  Finally,  he  shall  make  an 
 assault  against  the  islands  and  the  maritime  countries  of  the  west ; 
 but  he  shall  be  smitten  by  his  chiefs,  and  be  compelled  to  return  to 
 the  fortresses  of  his  own  land,  and  shall  fall  (vers.  16-19).  But  his 
 successor,  who  shall  send  taskmasters  through  the  most  glorious 
 regions  of  the  kingdom,  shall  be  destroyed  in  a  short  time  (ver.  20). 
 
 Thus  the  revelation  depicts  how,  in  the  war  of  the  kings  of 
 the  south  and  of  the  north,  first  the  king  of  the  south  subdued 
 the  north,  but  when  at  the  summit  of  his  conquest  he  sank  under 
 the  power  of  his  adversary  through  the  insurrections  and  the 
 revolt  of  an  apostate  party  of  the  Jews ;  whereupon,  by  an  assault 
 upon  the  west  in  his  endeavour  after  a  firmer  establishment  and 
 a  wider  extension  of  his  power,  he  brings  about  his  own  overthrow, 
 and  his  successor,  in  consequence  of  the  oppression  of  his  king- 
 dom, comes  to  his  end  in  a  few  days. 
 
 Now,  since  the  king  who  comes  into  his  place  (ver.  21  ff.)  after 
 he  has  become  strong  raises  himself  up  against  the  holy  covenant, 
 takes  away  the  daily  worship  in  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  etc.,  is, 
 according  to  the  historical  evidence  found  in  the  books  of  the 
 Maccabees,  the  Seleucidan  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  so  the  prophetic 
 announcement,  vers.  5-20,  stretches  itself  over  the  period  from 
 the  division  of  the  monarchy  of  Alexander  among  his  generals  to 
 the  commencement  of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  in  the 
 year  175  B.C.,  during  which  there  reigned  seven  Syrian  and  six 
 Egyptian  kings,  viz. — 
 
 Syrian  Kings.  Egyptian  Kings. 
 
 Seleucus  Nicator,    .     .  from  B.C.  310  Ptolemy  Lagus,      .     .  from  B.C.  323 
 
 Antiochus  Sidetes,       ....  280  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,     .     .     .  284 
 
 Antiochus  Theus, 2G0  Ptolemy  Euergetes,     ....  246 
 
 Seleucus  Callinicus,     ....  24.5  Ptolemy  Philopator,  .     .     .  221 
 
 Seleucus  Ceraunus,     ....  225  Ptolemy  Epiphanes,    ....  204 
 
 Antiochus  the  Great,  ....  223  Ptolemy  Philometor,  .     ,     .  ISO 
 
 Seleucus  Philopator,  ....  186 
 
446  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 But  in  the  prophetic  revelation  there  is  mention  made  of  only 
 four  kings  of  the  north  (one  in  vers.  5-9  ;  his  sons,  vers.  10-12  ;  a 
 third,  vers.  13-19;  and  the  fourth,  ver.  20)  and  three  kings  of  the 
 south  (the  first,  vers.  5  and  6 ;  the  "  branch,"  vers.  7-9  ;  and  the 
 king,  vers.  10-15),  distinctly  different,  whereby  of  the  former,  the 
 relation  of  the  sons  (ver.  10)  to  the  king  indefinitely  mentioned 
 in  ver.  11,  is  admitted,  and  of  the  latter  the  kings  of  the  south,  it 
 remains  doubtful  whether  he  who  is  spoken  of  in  vers.  9-15  is  dif- 
 ferent from  or  is  identical  with  "  the  branch  of  her  roots"  (ver.  7). 
 This  circumstance  shows  that  the  prophecy  does  not  treat  of  in- 
 dividual historical  personages,  but  only  places  in  view  the  kino-  of 
 the  south  and  the  king  of  the  north  as  representatives  of  the 
 power  of  these  two  kingdoms.  Of  these  kings  special  deeds  and 
 undertakings  are  indeed  mentioned,  which  point  to  definite  persons ; 
 e.g.  of  the  king  of  the  north,  that  he  was  one  of  the  princes  of  the 
 king  of  the  south,  and  founded  a  greater  dominion  than  his 
 (ver.  5) ;  the  marriage  of  the  daughter  of  the  king  of  the  south 
 to  the  king  of  the  north  (ver.  6)  ;  afterwards  the  marriage  also  of 
 the  daughter  of  the  king  of  the  north  (ver.  17),  and  other  special 
 circumstances  in  the  wars  between  the  two,  which  are  to  be 
 regarded  not  merely  as  individualizing  portraitures,  but  denote 
 concrete  facts  which  have  verified  themselves  in  history.  But  yet 
 all  these  specialities  do  not  establish  the  view  that  the  prophecy 
 consists  of  a  series  of  predictions  of  historical  facta,  because  even 
 these  features  of  the  prophecy  which  find  their  actual  fulfilments 
 in  history  do  not  coincide  with  the  historical  reality. 
 
 Thus  all  interpreters  regard  the  king  of  the  south,  ver.  5,  as 
 Ptolemy  Lagus,  and  that  one  of  his  princes  (V'lb'ip)  who  founded 
 a  greater  dominion  as  Seleucus  Nicator,  or  the  "  Conqueror,"  who, 
 in  the  division  of  the  countries  which  the  conquerors  made  after 
 the  overthrow  and  death  of  Antiochus,  obtained,  according  to 
 Appian,  Sijr.  e.  55,  Syria  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  !Mediter- 
 ranean  Sea  and  Phrygia;  then  by  using  every  opportunity  of 
 enlarging  his  kingdom,  he  obtained  also  Mesopotamia,  Armenia, 
 and  a  part  of  Cappadocia,  and  besides  subjugated  the  Persians, 
 Parthians,  Bactrians,  Arabians,  and  other  nations  as  far  as  the 
 Indus,  which  Alexander  had  conquered;  so  that,  after  Alexander, 
 no  one  had  more  nations  of  Asia  under  his  sway  than  Seleucus, 
 for  from  the  borders  of  Phrvgia  to  the  Indus  all  owned  his 
 sway.  While  this  extension  of  his  kingdom  quite  harmonizes 
 with  the  prophecy  of  the  greatness  of  his  sovereignty,  yet  the  de- 
 
CHAP.  XL  2-20.  447 
 
 signation  "  one  of  his  princes  "  does  not  accord  with  the  position  of 
 Ptolemy  Lagus.  Both  of  these  were  certainly  at  the  beginning 
 generals  of  Alexander.  Seleucus,  afterwards  vicegerent  of  the 
 Babylonians,  found  himself,  however,  from  fear  of  Antigonus,  who 
 sought  to  put  him  to  death,  under  the  necessity  of  fleeing  to  Egypt 
 to  Ptolemy,  by  whom  he  was  hospitably  received,  and  with  whom 
 and  other  viceojerents  he  entered  into  a  league  aoiainst  Antigonus, 
 and  when  war  arose,  led  an  Egyptian  fleet  against  Antigonus 
 (Died.  Sic.  xix.  55-62).  He  was  accordingly  not  one  of  Ptolemy's 
 generals. 
 
 Moreover,  the  marriage  of  the  king's  daughter,  ver.  6,  is  thus 
 explained  by  Jerome,  and  all  interpreters  who  follow  him : — Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus  made  peace  with  Antiochus  Theus,  after  many  years' 
 war,  on  the  condition  that  Antiochus  should  put  away  his  own  wife 
 Laodice,  who  was  at  the  same  time  his  half-sister,  and  disinherit 
 her  son,  and  should  marry  Berenice,  the  daughter  of  Ptolemy, 
 and  should  appoint  her  first-born  son  as  his  successor  on  the  throne 
 of  the  kingdom  (Appian,  Syr.  c.  Q^,  and  Jerome).  This  factum 
 can  be  regarded  as  a  fulfilling  of  the  prophecy,  ver.  6  ;  but  the 
 consequences  which  resulted  from  this  political  marriage  do  not 
 correspond  with  the  consequences  prophesied  of.  According  to 
 the  testimony  of  history,  Ptolemy  died  two  years  after  this  mar- 
 riage, whereupon  Antiochus  set  aside  Berenice,  and  took  to  himself 
 again  his  former  wife  Laodice,  along  with  her  children.  But  she 
 effected  the  death  of  her  husband  by  poison,  as  she  feared  his 
 fickleness,  and  then  her  son  Seleucus  Callinicus  ascended  the 
 throne.  Berenice  fled  with  her  son  to  the  asylum  of  Daphne,  but 
 she  was  there  murdered  along  with  him.  The  prophecy,  according 
 to  this,  differs  from  the  historical  facts,  not  merely  in  regard  to  the 
 consequences  of  the  events,  but  also  in  regard  to  the  matter  itself ; 
 for  it  speaks  not  only  of  the  daughter,  but  also  of  her  father  being 
 given  up  to  death,  while  the  natural  death  of  her  father  is  in  no 
 respect  connected  with  that  marriage,  and  not  till  after  his  death 
 did  the  consequences  fatal  to  his  daughter  and  her  child  develop 
 themselves. 
 
 Further,  as  to  the  contents  of  vers.  7-9,  history  furnishes  the 
 following  confirmations : — In  order  to  save  his  sister,  who  was  put 
 aside  by  Antiochus  Theus,  her  brother,  Ptolemy  Euergetes,  in- 
 vaded the  Syrian  kingdom,  in  which  Seleucus  Callinicus  had  suc- 
 ceeded his  father  on  the  throne,  in  alliance  with  the  armies  of  the 
 Asiatic  cities,  and  put  to  death  his  mother  Laodice,  since  he  had 
 
448  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 come  too  late  to  save  his  sister,  in  revenge  for  her  murder,  over- 
 threw all  the  Syrian  fortresses  from  Cilicia  to  the  Tigris  and 
 Babylonia,  and  would  have  conquered  the  whole  of  the  Syrian 
 kingdom,  if  an  insurrection  which  had  broken  out  in  Egypt  had 
 not  caused  him  to  return  thither,  carrying  with  him  many  images 
 of  the  gods,  and  immense  treasure,  which  he  had  taken  from  the 
 vanquished  cities.  Then,  while  engaged  in  Egypt,  Callinicus 
 recovered  the  cities  of  Asia  Minor,  but  failed  to  conquer  the  mari- 
 time countries,  because  his  fleet  was  wrecked  in  a  storm  ;  and  when 
 he  thereupon  undertook  a  land  expedition  against  Egypt,  he  was 
 totally  defeated,  so  that  he  returned  to  Antioch  with  only  a  few 
 followers  :  cf.  Justin,  Hist,  xxvii.  1,2;  Polyb.  v.  58  ;  and  Appian, 
 Syr.  c.  65.  On  the  other  hand,  the  announcement  of  the  war  of 
 his  sons  with  many  hosts  overflowing  the  land,  ver.  10,  is  not  con- 
 firmed by  history.  After  the  death  of  Callinicus  in  captivity, 
 his  son  Seleucus  Ceraunus  succeeded  to  the  government,  a  very 
 incompetent  man,  who  after  two  years  was  poisoned  by  his  generals 
 in  the  war  with  Attains,  without  having  undertaken  anything 
 against  Egypt.  His  brother  Antiochus,  surnamed  the  Great,  suc- 
 ceeded him,  who,  in  order  to  recover  Coele-Syria  and  Phoenicia, 
 renewed  the  war  against  the  king  of  Egypt  (not  till  about  t\yo 
 years  after  he  ascended  the  throne,  however,  did  Ptolemy  Philo- 
 pator  begin  to  reign),  in  which  he  penetrated  twice  to  Dura,  two 
 (German)  miles  north  from  C^sarea  (Polyb.  x.  49),  then  concluded 
 a  four  months'  truce,  and  led  his  host  back  to  the  Orontes  (Polyb. 
 v.  66 ;  Justin,  xxx.  1).  After  the  renewal  of  hostilities  he  drove 
 the  Egyptian  army  back  to  Sidon,  conquered  Gilead  and  Samaria, 
 and  took  up  his  winter-quarters  in  Ptolemais  (Polyb.  v.  63-71). 
 In  the  beginning  of  the  following  year,  however,  he  was  defeated 
 by  the  Egyptians  at  Paphia,  not  far  from  Gaza,  and  was  com- 
 pelled, with  great  loss  in  dead  and  prisoners,  to  return  as  quickly 
 as  possible  to  Antioch,  and  to  leave  Coele-Syria,  Phoenicia,  and 
 Palestine  to  the  Egyptians  (Polyb.  v.  79,  80,  82-86).  Vers.  11 
 and  12  refer  to  this  war.  Thirteen  or  fourteen  years  after  this, 
 Antiochus,  in  league  with  Philip  iii.  of  Macedon,  renewed  the 
 war  against  the  Egyptians,  when,  after  Philopator's  death,  Ptolemy 
 Epiphanes,  being  five  years  old,  had  ascended  the  throne,  retook 
 the  three  above-named  countries  (Coele-Syria,  Phoenicia,  and 
 Palestine),  vanquished  the  Egyptian  host  led  by  Scopas  near 
 Paneas,  and  compelled  the  fortress  of  Sidon,  into  which  the 
 Egyptians  had  fled,  to  surrender  after  a  lengthened  siege,  and 
 
CHAP.  Xr.  2-20,  449 
 
 then  concluded  a  peace  with  Ptolemy  on  the  condition  that  he 
 took  to  wife  the  daughter  of  Antiochus,  Cleopatra,  wlio  should 
 bring  with  her,  as  her  dowry,  Coele-Syria,  Phoenicia,  and  Palestine 
 (Polyb.  XV.  20,  xxviii.  17  ;  App.  Si/)',  c.  i. ;  Liv.  xxxiii.  19  ;  and 
 Joseph.  Antt.  xii.  4.  1).  Since  the  time  of  Jerome,  the  prophecy 
 vers.  13-17  has  been  referred  to  this  last  war.  But  also  here  the 
 historical  events  fall  far  behind  the  contents  of  the  prophecy.  Tlie 
 prophecy  points  to  the  complete  subjugation  of  the  king  of  the 
 south,  while  this  war  was  carried  on  only  for  the  possession  of  the 
 Asiatic  provinces  of  the  Egyptian  kingdom.  Also  the  rising  up 
 of  many  (Q"'?"!,  ver.  14)  against  the  king  of  the  south  is  not  his- 
 torically verified  ;  and  even  the  relation  spoken  of  by  Josephus 
 (Antt.  xii.  3.  3)  in  which  the  Jews  stood  to  Antiochus  the  Great 
 was  not  of  such  a  kind  as  to  be  capable  of  being  regarded  as  a 
 fulfilling  of  the  "  exalting  themselves"  of  the  QTI?  ''■??)  ver.  14. 
 Still  less  does  the  statement  of  ver.  16,  that  the  king  of  the  north 
 would  stand  in  the  glorious  land,  agree  with  nps  interpreted  of 
 conduct  of  Antiochus  the  Great  toward  the  Jews ;  for  according 
 to  Josephus,  Antt.  I.e.,  he  treated  the  Jews  round  about  Jerusalem 
 favourably,  because  of  their  own  accord  they  had  submitted  to 
 him  and  had  supported  his  army,  and  granted  to  them  not  only 
 indulfrence  in  regard  to  the  observance  of  their  religious  ordi- 
 nances,  but  also  afforded  them  protection. 
 
 Moreover,  ver.  18,  containing  the  prophecy  of  the  undertaking 
 of  the  king  of  the  north  against  the  islands,  has  not  its  historical 
 fulfihnent  in  the  expedition  of  Antiochus  the  Great  against  the 
 coasts  and  islands  of  Asia  Minor  and  the  Hellespont ;  but  ver.  19, 
 that  which  is  said  ren-ardincj  his  return  to  the  fortresses  of  his  own 
 land  and  his  overthrow,  does  not  so  correspond  with  the  historical 
 issue  of  the  reign  of  this  king  that  one  would  be  able  to  recognise 
 therein  a  prediction  of  it.  Finally,  of  his  successor,  Seleucus 
 Philopator,  to  whom  ver.  20  must  refer,  if  the  foregoing  verses 
 treat  of  Antiochus  the  Great,  nothing  further  is  communicated, 
 than  that  he  quum  paternis  cladibus  fractas  admodum  Syrice  opes 
 accepisset,  post  otiosiim,  nullisque  admodum  rebus  gestis  nobilitatum 
 annorum  duodeciin  regnum,  was  put  to  death  through  the  treachery 
 of  Heliodorus,  tmius  ex purpuratis  (Liv.  xii.  19,  cf.  App.  Syr.  c.  45), 
 and  the  mission  of  Heliodorus  to  Jerusalem  to  seize  the  treasures 
 of  the  temple,  which  is  fabulously  described  in  2  Mace.  iii.  4  ff. 
 The  13K^'^  {shall  be  destroyed)  of  this  king  Ci^in^?  Q'^^?  {within  few 
 days)  does  not  harmonize  with  the  fact  of  his  twelve  years'  reign. 
 
 2F 
 
4j0  the  book  of  DANIEL. 
 
 From  tliis  comparison  this  much  follows,  that  the  prophecy  does 
 not  furnish  a  prediction  of  the  historical  wars  of  the  Seleucidae  and 
 the  Ptolemies,  but  an  ideal  description  of  the  war  of  the  kings  of 
 the  north  and  the  south  in  its  general  outlines,  whereby,  it  is  true, 
 diverse  special  elements  of  the  prophetical  announcement  have 
 historically  been  fulfilled,  but  the  historical  reality  does  not  cor- 
 respond with  the  contents  of  the  prophecy  in  anything  like  an 
 exhaustive  manner.  This  ideal  character  of  the  prophecy  comes 
 yet  more  prominently  forward  to  view  in  the  following  prophetic 
 description. 
 
 Chap.  xi.  21-xii.  3.  The  further  unveiling  of  the  future. 
 
 In  this  section  we  have  (ver.  21)  first  the  description  of  the 
 prince  who,  in  striving  after  supremacy,  uses  all  the  means  that 
 cunning  and  power  can  contrive,  and  in  his  enmity  against  the 
 holy  covenant  knows  no  bounds.  This  description  is  divided  into 
 two  parts — (1)  vers.  21-35,  and  (2)  vers.  36-ch.  xii.  3 — which  de- 
 signate the  two  stadia  of  his  proceedings.  In  the  first  part  are 
 described,  (1)  his  gradual  rising  to  power,  vers.  21-24;  (2)  his 
 war  with  the  king  of  the  south  for  the  supremacy,  vers.  25-27 ; 
 
 (3)  his  rising  up  against  the  covenant  people,  even  to  the  dese- 
 cration of  the  sanctuary  by  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice 
 and  the  setting  up  of  the  abomination  of  desolation,  vers.  28-32 ; 
 
 (4)  the  effect  and  consequence  of  this  for  the  people  of  God,  vers. 
 32-35.  This  prince  is  the  enemy  of  the  holy  God  who  is  pro- 
 phesied of  in  ch.  viii.  9-13,  23-25,  under  the  figure  of  the  little 
 horn,  and  is  typically  represented  in  the  rising  up  of  the  Syrian 
 king  Antiochus  Epiphanes  against  the  covenant  people  and  their 
 worship  of  God. 
 
 Vers.  21-24.  The  prince  s  advancement  to  power. — He  appears 
 as  np3j  one  despised,  i.e.  not  such  an  one  as  by  reason  of  birth  has 
 any  just  claim  to  the  throne,  and  therefore  as  an  intruder,  also  one 
 who  finds  no  recognition  (Kranichfeld)  ;  which  Hitzig  has  more 
 definitely  explained  by  mentioning  that  not  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
 but  his  nephew  Demetrius,  the  son  of  the  murdered  Seleucus 
 Philopator,  was  the  true  heir,  but  was  of  such  a  character  that 
 he  was  not  esteemed  worthy  of  the  throne.  HD:,  is  despised,  not 
 =  had,  unworthy,  but  yet  supposes  unworthiness.  There  was  not 
 laid  on  him  the  honour  or  majesty  of  the  kingdom.  The  dignity 
 of  the  kingdom  requires  ^i^,  splendour,  majesty,  such  as  God  lays 
 upon  the  king  of  Israel,  Ps.  xxi.  6  (5),  1  Chron.  xxix.  25.     But 
 
CHAP,  XI.  21-24.  451 
 
 here  the  subject  spoken  of  is  the  honour  which  men  give  to  the 
 king,  and  which  was  denied  to  the  "  despised  one "  on  account  of 
 his  character.  He  comes  nPK'3j  in  security,  i.e.  unexpectedly  (cf. 
 eh.  viii.  25),  and  takes  possession  of  tlie  kingdom.  P''?(]'^,  to  grasp, 
 here  to  draw  violently  to  himself.  nip?i?^D?,  properly,  by  smooth- 
 nesses, intrigues  and  cunning,  not  merely  flatteries  or  smooth 
 words,  but  generally  hypocritical  behaviour  in  word  and  deed ; 
 cf.  ver.  34. 
 
 Ver.  22.  The  kingdom  he  seized  he  also  knew  how  to  hold  fast 
 with  great  power,  ^^^fn  T\\)r\\,  arms  (i.e.  warlike  strength)  of  an 
 inundation,  i.e.  armies  overflowing  the  land  are  swept  away  before 
 him,  destroyed  by  yet  stronger  military  forces.  It  is  not  merely 
 the  enemy,  but  also  the  "  prince  of  the  covenant,"  whom  he  de- 
 stroys, nnn  n^JJ  is  analogous  to  nnn  'hv^^  Gen.  xiv.  13,  and  ^ti'JK 
 JT'i^,  Obad.  7,  cf.  Mai.  ii.  14,  and,  as  the  absence  of  the  article 
 shows,  is  to  be  taken  in  a  general  sense.  The  interpretation  of 
 n''"i3  T'33  of  the  high  priest  Onias  ill.,  who  at  the  commencement 
 of  the  reign  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  was  driven  from  his  office  by 
 his  brother,  and  afterwards,  at  the  instigation  of  Menelaus,  was  mur- 
 dered by  the  Syrian  governor  Andronicus  at  Daphne  near  Antioch, 
 2  Mace.  iv.  1  ff.,  33  ff.  (Rosenmiiller,  Hitzig,  etc.) — this  interpre- 
 tation is  not  warranted  by  the  facts  of  history.  This  murder  does 
 not  at  all  relate  to  the  matter  before  us,  not  only  because  the  eJewish 
 high  priest  at  Antioch  did  not  sustain  the  relation  of  a  "  prince  of 
 the  covenant,"  but  also  because  the  murder  was  perpetrated  with- 
 out tlie  previous  knowledge  of  Antiochus,  and  when  the  matter  was 
 reported  to  him,  the  murderer  was  put  to  death  by  his  command 
 (2  Mace.  iv.  36-38).  Thus  also  it  stands  in  no  connection  with 
 the  war  of  Antiochus  against  Egypt.  The  words  cannot  also  (with 
 Havernick,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  Ebrard,  Kliefoth)  be  referred  to  the 
 Egyptian  king  Ptolemy  Philometor,  because  history  knows  nothing 
 of  a  covenant  entered  into  between  this  king  and  Antiochus  Epi- 
 phanes, but  only  that  soon  after  the  commencement  of  the  reign 
 of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  the  guardians  of  the  young  Philometor 
 demanded  Coele-Syria  from  Antiochus,  which  Antiochus  the  Great 
 had  promised  (see  above,  p.  448)  as  a  dowry  to  his  daughter  Cleo- 
 patra, who  was  betrothed  to  Ptolemy  Philometor,  but  Antiochus 
 did  not  deliver  it  up,  and  hence  a  war  arose  between  them.  To 
 this  is  to  be  added,  that,  as  Dereser,  v.  Lengerke,  Maurer,  and 
 Kranichfeld  have  rightly  remarked,  the  description  in  vers.  22-24 
 bears  an  altogether  general  character,  so  that  v.  Leng.  and  Maurer 
 
4j2  the  book  of  DANIEL. 
 
 find  therein  references  to  all  the  three  expeditions  of  Antlochns, 
 and  in  vers.  25-27  find  more  fully  foretold  what  is  only  briefly 
 hinted  at  in  vers.  22-24.  The  undertaking  of  the  king  against 
 Egypt  is  first  described  in  ver.  24.  We  must  therefore,  with 
 Kranichfeld,  understand  nna  *1^J3  in  undefined  generality  of  cove- 
 nant princes  in  general,  in  the  sense  already  given. 
 
 Vers.  23  and  24.  In  these  verses  there  is  a  fuller  statement  of 
 the  manner  in  which  he  treats  the  princes  of  the  covenant  and 
 takes  possession  of  their  territory.  The  1  at  the  beginning  of  ver. 
 23  is  explicative,  and  the  suffix  in  IvX,  pointing  back  to  '3  T'JJj  is 
 also  to  be  interpreted  collectively.  Vpx  nn2nnn"(Dj  literally,  "  from 
 the  confederating  himself  with  them"  (rmannn  is  infin.  formed  in 
 the  Syriac  manner),  i.e.  from  the  time  when  he  had  made  a  cove- 
 nant with  them,  he  practised  deceit.  This  was  done  by  his  coming 
 (n?y  of  a  warlike  coming)  and  gaining  strength  with  a  few  people, 
 namely  (ver.  24),  by  his  coming  unexpectedly  into  the  fattest  and 
 richest  places  of  the  province,  and  there  doing  unheard-of  things — 
 things  which  no  previous  king,  no  one  of  his  predecessors,  had  ever 
 done,  scattering  among  them  (his  followers)  spoil  and  prey  and 
 riches.  Thus  rightly,  after  the  Syriac  and  the  Vulgate  (dissipahit), 
 Rosenmiiller,  Kranichfeld,  and  Ewald ;  while,  on  the  contrary,  v. 
 Leng.,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  and  Kliefoth  interpret  1T3  in  the  sense  of  to 
 distribute,  and  refer  the  words  to  the  circumstance  that  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes  squandered  money  lavishly,  and  made  presents  to  his 
 inferiors  often  without  any  occasion.  But  to  distribute  money  and 
 spoil  is  nothing  unheard  of,  and  in  no  way  does  it  agree  with  the 
 "  fattest  provinces."  The  context  decidedly  refers  to  conduct  which 
 injured  the  fat  provinces.  This  can  only  consist  in  squandering 
 and  dissipating  the  wealth  of  this  province  which  he  had  plundered 
 to  its  injury  (p[0  ^to  the7n~\,  dativ.  incommodi).  An  historical  con- 
 firmation is  found  in  1  Mace.  iii.  29-31.  To  bring  the  provinces 
 wholly  under  his  power,  he  devises  plans  against  the  fortresses  that 
 he  might  subdue  them.  ^T'^V\  and  indeed  (he  did  this)  even  for 
 a  time.  We  cannot,  with  Klief.,  refer  this  merely  to  the  last  pre- 
 ceding passage,  that  his  assaults  against  the  fortresses  succeeded 
 only  partly  and  for  a  time.  The  addition  ("and  that  for  a  time") 
 denotes  a  period  determined  by  a  higher  power  (cf.  ver.  35  and 
 ch.  xii.  4,  6),  and  relates  to  the  whole  proceedings  of  this  prince 
 hitherto  described;  as  C.  B.  Michaelis  has  already  rightly  explained: 
 nee  enim  semper  et  in  perpetuum  dolus  ei  succedet  et  terminus  suus  ei 
 tandem  erit. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  25-27.  4do 
 
 Vers.  25-27.  These  verses  describe  the  victorious  war  of  the 
 king  who  had  come  to  power  against  the  king  of  the  south,  the 
 war  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  against  king  Ptolemy  Philometor, 
 which  is  described  in  1  Mace.  i.  16-19,  with  manifest  reference  to 
 this  prophecy.  "^V)]  (he  shall  stir  up)  is  potentialis  in  the  sense  of 
 divine  decree  :  "  he  shall  stir  up  his  power  and  his  heart."  nb  is 
 not  warlike  power,  which  is  mentioned  in  -'i'll'^'ins  (ver.  25),  but 
 the  power  which  consists  in  the  bringing  of  a  great  army  under 
 his  command ;  33p,  the  mental  energy  for  the  carrying  out  of  his 
 plans.  For  Iby^,  Nv,  cf.  ch.  viii.  4.  The  subject  is  the  last-named 
 king  of  the  south,  who,  notwithstanding  his  very  great  and  powerful 
 army,  shall  not  stand  in  battle,  but  shall  give  way,  because  devices 
 are  contrived  against  him.  The  subject  to  13K'n^  is  not  the  enemy, 
 the  king  of  the  north,  with  his  army,  but,  according  to  ver.  26,  his 
 table-companions. 
 
 Ver.  26.  Here  it  is  more  definitely  stated  w^hy  he  cannot  stand. 
 iJIina  73X,  who  eat  his  food  (^?ri?,  see  under  ch.  i.  5),  i.e.  his  table- 
 companions  (cf.  Ps.  xli.  10  [9]),  persons  about  him.  =ini"izit^'^,  shall 
 break  him,  i.e.  cast  him  to  the  ground.  His  army  shall  therefore 
 overflow,  but  shall  execute  nothing,  only  many  shall  fall  down 
 slain.  The  first  member  of  the  verse  points  to  treachery,  whereby 
 the  battle  was  lost  and  the  war  was  fruitless.  Hitzig  incorrectly 
 interprets  ^i^t^''!  rushes  away,  i.e.  is  disorganized  and  takes  to  flight. 
 But  ^^f  cannot  have  this  meaning. 
 
 Ver.  27.  Here  then  is  described  how  the  two  kings  seek 
 through  feigned  friendship  to  destroy  one  another.  The  two  kings 
 are  of  course  the  two  kings  of  the  north  and  the  south  previously 
 named.  Of  a  third,  namely,  of  two  kings  of  Egypt,  Philometor 
 and  Physkon,  Daniel  knows  nothing.  The  third,  Physkon,  is 
 introduced  from  history ;  and  hence  Hitzig,  v.  Lengerke,  and 
 others  understand  by  the  "  tioo  kings^  the  two  kings  Antiochus 
 and  Philometor  confederated  against  the  king  of  the  south,  but 
 Kliefoth,  on  the  contrary,  thinks  of  Antiochus  and  Physkon,  the 
 latter  of  whom  he  regards  as  the  king  of  the  south,  ver.  25.  All 
 this  is  arbitrary.  Jerome  has  already  rejected  the  historical  evidence 
 for  this,  and  remarks  :  verum  ex  eo,  quia  scriptura  nunc  dicit :  duos 
 fidsse  reges,  quorum  cor  fuerit  fraudidentum  .  .  .  hoe  secundum 
 historiam  demonstrari  non  potest.  VJ^?  D23^  Hitzig  translates  : 
 "  their  heart  belongs  to  wickedness,"  contrary  to  the  context,  p 
 denotes  also  here  only  the  direction  :  "  their  heart  goes  toward 
 wicked  deeds,"  is  directed  thereto.     Vyp  (from  VV^),  formed  after 
 
454  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 "•V^-?  (cf.  Ewald,  §  160a),  tlie  evil-doing,  consists  in  tin's,  that  the  one 
 seeks  to  overtlirow  and  destroy  tlie  other  under  the  cloak  of  feigned 
 friendship ;  for  they  eat  as  friends  at  one  table,  and  "  speak  lies" — 
 the  one  tells  lies  to  the  other,  professing  friendship.  But  their 
 design  shall  not  succeed.  All  interpretations  of  these  words  which 
 are  determined  by  historical  facta  are  arbitrary.  The  history  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  furnishes  no  illustrations  for  this.  In  the 
 sense  of  the  prophecy  npyri  N?  has  only  this  meaning  :  the  design 
 of  the  king  of  the  north  to  destroy  the  king  of  the  south,  and  to 
 make  himself  master  both  of  the  north  and  the  south,  shall  not 
 succeed,  and  the  king  of  the  south  will  not  fulfil  what  he  promises 
 to  his  deceitful  adversary.  For  yet  the  end  shall  be  at  the  time 
 appointed.  These  words  state  the  reason  why  the  VI'O  shall  not 
 succeed.  Hitzig  incorrectly  translates :  "  but  the  end  holds  on- 
 wards to  the  appointed  time ;"  for  ^3  cannot  in  this  connection  be 
 rendered  by  but,  and  p  cannot  express  the  idea  of  holding  to  any- 
 thing. ?  denotes  here,  as  generally,  the  direction  toward  the  end, 
 as  ver.  35,  and  ch.  viii.  17,  19.  The  end  goes  yet  on  to  the  time 
 appointed  by  God.  That  this  l^io  (^appointment  of  time)  does  not 
 lie  in  the  present,  but  in  the  future,  is  denoted  by  liy,  although 
 we  do  not,  with  Havernick,  interpret  liy  by  "  for  the  end  lies  yet 
 further  out,"  nor,  with  v.  Lengerke  and  Maurer,  may  we  supply 
 the  verb  "  withdraws  itself,  is  reserved."  liy  stands  before  YP 
 because  on  it  the  emphasis  lies.  Ti?  is,  however,  not  the  end  of 
 the  war  between  Antiochus  and  Egypt  (v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitzig), 
 but  cannot  be  otherwise  taken  than  YP_  riy,  vers.  35,  40,  and  ch. 
 xii.  4.  But  in  the  latter  passage  Y\>  riy  is  the  time  of  the  resurrec- 
 tion of  the  dead,  thus  the  end  of  the  present  course  of  the  world, 
 with  which  all  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  ceases.  Ac- 
 cordingly YP  in  the  verse  before  us,  as  in  vers.  35  and  40,  is  the 
 time  in  which  the  conduct  of  the  kings  previously  described,  in 
 their  rising  up  and  in  their  hostility  against  the  people  of  God, 
 reaches  its  end  (ver.  45)  ;  and  with  the  overthrow  of  these  enemies 
 the  period  of  oppression  also  comes  to  an  end.  This  end  comes 
 only  *iyi'2?,  at  the  time  which  God  has  determined  for  the  purifying 
 of  His  people  (ver.  35).  So  long  may  the  kings  of  the  north  and 
 the  south  prosecute  their  aims  ;  so  long  shall  they  strive  for  the 
 possession  of  the  kingdom  without  succeeding  in  their  plans. 
 nyitsp  has  here  and  in  ver.  35  the  definite  article,  because  in  both 
 verses  the  language  refers  not  to  any  definite  time,  but  to  the  time 
 determined  by  God  for  the  consummation  of  His  kingdom.     The 
 
CHAP.  XI.  28-02.  455 
 
 placino;  of  the  article  in  this  word  in  the  verse  before  us  is  not, 
 with  Kliefoth,  to  be  explained  from  a  reference  to  ch.  viii.  17,  19. 
 The  two  revelations  are  separated  from  each  other  by  too  long  a 
 space  of  time  for  this  one  to  refer  back  to  that  earlier  one  by  the 
 mere  use  of  the  article,  although  both  treat  of  the  same  subject. 
 The  ^Vil^r'  occurs  besides  in  ver.  29,  where  it  is  natural  to  suppose 
 that  it  has  the  same  meaning  as  here  ;  but  the  contents  of  that 
 verse  oppose  such  a  conclusion.  Ver.  29  treats,  it  is  true,  of  a 
 renewed  warlike  expedition  against  the  south,  which,  however, 
 brings  neither  the  final  decidino;  of  the  war  with  the  south  (cf. 
 ver.  40),  nor  yet  the  end  of  the  oppression  of  the  people  of  God  ; 
 nyian  is  thus  only  the  time  determined  for  the  second  aggression 
 against  the  south,  not  the  time  of  the  end. 
 
 Vers.  28-32.  The  rising  up  against  the  holy  covenant. 
 
 Ver.  28.  The  success  gained  by  the  crafty  king  of  the  north 
 in  his  war  against  the  king  of  the  south  (ver.  25  f.)  increases  his 
 endeavours  after  the  enlarging  of  his  dominions.  Returning  from 
 Egypt  with  great  riches,  i.e.  with  rich  spoil,  he  raises  his  heart 
 against  the  holy  covenant.  By  the  potentialis  y^]  (he  shall  return) 
 this  new  undertaking  is  placed  in  the  point  of  view  of  a  divine 
 decree,  to  denote  that  he  thereby  brings  about  his  own  destruction. 
 B'l'?  n''"i3  signifies  not  the  holy  people  in  covenant  with  God  (v. 
 Lengerke,  Maurer,  and  many  older  interpreters),  but  the  divine 
 institution  of  the  Old  Covenant,  the  Jewish  Theocracy.  The 
 Jews  are  only  members  of  this  covenant,  cf.  ver.  30.  Calvin  is 
 right  when  he  says  :  Mihi  simplicior  sensus  prohatur,  quod  scilicet 
 bellum  gerat  adversus  Deum.  The  holy  covenant  is  named  instead 
 of  the  covenant  people  to  represent  the  undertaking  as  an  outrage 
 against  the  kingdom  of  God,  which  was  founded  in  Israel.  ntJ'yi 
 and  he  shall  do,  perform,  that  which  his  heart  thinks,  or  that 
 which  he  has  in  his  mind  against  the  holy  covenant.  The  his- 
 torical fulfilment  is  narrated  in  1  Mace.  i.  22-29.  i^^xj^  2m  re- 
 sumes 1^'i.N  2^)^  and  teaches  us  that  Antiochus  undertook  the 
 first  assault  against  the  holy  covenant  on  his  return  from  Egypt 
 into  his  kingdom  (to  Antioch),  as  is  expressly  stated  in  1  Mace, 
 i.  20. 
 
 Ver.  29.  In  order  that  he  might  bring  Egypt  wholly  under 
 his  power,  he  undertook  a  new  expedition  thither  (i^^l  2W''^^  he 
 comes  again).  But  this  expedition,  like  the  first,  was  not  success- 
 ful (3 — 3,  as — so,  cf.  Josh.  xiv.  11,  Ezek.  xviii.  4).  For  the  ships 
 of  Chittim  come  against  him.      Cn?  C^.V,  shi^s  the  Chittcei,  for 
 
456  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 D^ri3  TO  D^>*,  Num.  xxiv.  24,  whence  the  expression  is  derived 
 DTi3  is  Cyprus  with  its  chief  city  Klttlov  (now  Chieti  or  Cliitti)  : 
 see  under  Gen.  x.  4.  Ships  coming  from  Cyprus  are  ships  which 
 come  from  the  west,  from  tlie  islands  and  coasts  of  the  Mediter- 
 ranean. In  1  Mace.  i.  1  and  viii.  5  ^''^3  is  interpreted  of  Mace- 
 donia, according  to  which  Bertholdt  and  Dereser  think  of  the 
 Macedonian  fleet  with  which  tlie  Roman  embassy  sailed  to  Alex- 
 andria. Tliis  much  is  historically  verified,  that  the  Roman  embassy, 
 led  by  Popillius,  appeared  with  a  fleet  in  Alexandria,  and  im- 
 periously commanded  Antiociius  to  desist  from  his  undei'taking 
 against  Egypt  and  to  return  to  his  own  land  (Liv.  xlv.  10-12). 
 The  LXX.  have  therefore  translated  these  words  by  :  koL  y^ovat 
 'PcoixatoL  Koi  i^cocrovatu  avrov  Kol  ^^^pifxrjaovrai  avTw,  and  cor- 
 rectly, so  far  as  the  prophecy  has  received  the  first  historical 
 accomplishment  in  that  factum.  nS331,  he  shall  lose  courage^  is 
 rightly  explained  by  Jerome  :  non  quod  inierierit^  sed  quod  omnem 
 arrogantice  loerdiderit  magniiudinem}  Di'TI  3U'lj  not :  he  was  again 
 enraged,  for  nothing  is  said  of  a  previous  ^V\.  yS"\,  and  he  turned 
 round  (back)  from  his  expedition  against  Egypt.  Since  he  was 
 not  able  to  accomplish  anything  against  the  3Jp  (the  south),  he 
 turns  his  indignation  against  Judah  to  destroy  the  covenant  people 
 (cf.  ver.  28).  The  3y'l  in  ver.  30Z»  resumes  the  ^'fl.  in  ver.  30a,  so 
 as  further  to  express  how  he  gave  vent  to  his  anger.  Hitzig's 
 interpretation  of  the  first  2*^1  of  the  return  to  Palestine,  of  the 
 second,  of  the  return  from  Palestine  to  Antioch,  is  not  justified. 
 \y],  he  shall  observe,  direct  his  attention  to  the  Jews  who  forsook 
 the  holy  covenant,  i.e.  the  apostate  Jews,  that  he  might  by  their 
 help  execute  his  plans  against  the  Mosaic  religion — partimomando 
 illos  honoribus,  ^^ar^im  illorum  studiis  ad  jjatinam  religionem  oblite- 
 randam  comparatis  obsecundando,  as  C.  13.  Michaelis  excellently 
 remarks;  cf.  1  Mace.  i.  11-lG  with  ii.  18. 
 
 ^  The  historical  facts  have  been  briefly  and  conclusively  brought  together 
 by  Hitzig  thus  :  "  On  the  complaint  of  the  Alexandrians  the  Roman  senate  sent 
 an  embassage,  at  the  head  of  which  was  C.  Popillius  Lsenas  (Polyb.  xxix.  1  ; 
 Liv.  xliv.  19).  After  being  detained  at  Delos  (Liv.  xliv.  29),  they  set  sail  to 
 Egypt  after  the  battle  at  Pydna  (Liv.  xlv.  10).  Here  he  met  Antiochus  four 
 Roman  miles  from  Alexandria,  and  presented  to  him  the  message  of  the  senate. 
 When  Antiochus  explained  that  he  wislied  to  lay  the  matter  before  his  counsel- 
 lors, Popillius  described  with  the  staff  he  carried  in  his  hand  a  circle  round  the 
 king,  and  commanded  liim  to  give  his  answer  before  he  left  this  circle.  Anti- 
 ochus, confounded  by  the  circumstance,  submitted  and  withdrew  from  Egypt 
 (Liv.  xlv.  12  ;  Polyb.  xxix.  11  ;  Appiau,  Syr.  c.  CG  ;  Justin,  xxxiv.  3)." 
 
CHAP.  XI.  28-32.  457 
 
 Ver.  31.  Here  is  stated  what  he  accomplished  by  the  help  of 
 the  apostate  Jews.  ^''V'^],  arms,  figuratively  for  help  (ver.  5),  are 
 warlike  forces,  as  vers.  15  and  22.  That  the  plur.  has  here  the 
 masculine  form,  while  in  those  verses  it  has  the  fern,  form,  furnishes 
 no  reason  for  a  difference  of  meaning,  since  J^iif  in  its  proper  sense 
 of  arm  occurs promiscue  with  both  endings  in  the  plur. ;  of.  for  i3"'y""iT 
 Gen.  xlix.  24,  Isa.  H.  5,  2  Kings  ix.  24.  t^  in  I3t3?p  is  not  partitive, 
 a  part  of  hinij  i.e.  the  host  as  a  part  of  the  king  (Hitzig),  but  out 
 from  him,  or  by  his  command.  ^^'i^V],  to  stand  up,  not  to  stand 
 still,  as  Hitzig,  on  the  ground  of  the  supposition  that  Antiochus 
 on  his  return  from  Egypt  placed  a  standing  army-corps  in  Jeru- 
 salem, would  interpret  it,  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  word,  since 
 'TOy  does  not  signify  to  stand  still  in  the  sense  of  to  remain  behind, 
 though  it  means  to  endure,  to  keep  the  ground  (vers.  6,  15).  It 
 is  disputed  whether  these  C^^?  denote  military  forces,  troops  of  the 
 hostile  king  (Havernick,  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitz.,  Klief.),  or  his 
 accomplices  of  the  apostate  party  of  the  Jews,  and  thus  essentially 
 identical  with  n''l3  ''^fV,  ver.  30  (Calvin,  Hengstb.  Christol.  iii.  1, 
 p.  110,  Kran.,  and  others).  In  favour  of  the  latter  view,  Kranich- 
 feld  argues  that  the  n''"]^  ''3Ty  {tlwse  that  forsake  the  covenant), 
 according  to  ver.  30,  come  under  consideration  as  a  support  to  the 
 king,  and  the  13^0  of  this  verse  before  us  evidently  refers  to  the 
 king's  own  army,  and  therefore  would  be  superfluous.  But  these 
 two  reasons  prove  nothing.  The  13G)D  is  not  superfluous,  even 
 though  it  were  used  of  the  king's  own  army.  Since  in  vers.  30 
 and  32  the  king  of  the  north  is  the  subject  of  the  clause,  it  was 
 necessary  in  Q^ynt  to  define  in  what  relation  they  stood  to  the  king. 
 But  the  other  remark,  that  the  nnn  "'Dfj?  come  into  view  as  a  sup- 
 port to  the  king,  does  not  prove  that  these  are  the  same  who 
 desecrate  the  sanctuary  and  set  up  the  abomination  of  desolation. 
 On  the  contrary,  if  'iSSD  denotes  the  causal  exit,  the  CVl!  cannot  be 
 the  apostate  Jews,  but  only  warlike  forces  which  the  king  leads 
 forth.  If  we  refer  D''i?"-|T  to  the  apostate  Jews,  then  we  must,  with 
 Hengstenberg  and  Gesenius,  take  ^3f3?p  in  the  sense  of  eo  jubente. 
 Moreover,  the  D''J''tt  manifestly  stand  in  contrast  to  the  ''V^K'irD 
 n''"i;i  of  ver.  32.  By  his  troops  (military  forces)  the  king  lays 
 waste  the  sanctuary,  and  he  makes  by  means  of  smooth  words 
 those  who  sin  against  the  covenant  heathen.  Kranichfeld  himself 
 recognises  this  contrast,  and  therefore  will  understand  as  the  sub- 
 ject to  vprri  not  merely  "  those  that  forsake  the  covenant "  (ver. 
 30),  but  these  along  with  and  including  the  warlike  power  of  the 
 
458  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 hostile  king.  An  expedient  which  the  difficulty  sngorested.  ^'^P^P'} 
 is  the  temple,  and  ry^n  (^the  strength)  is  in  apposition.  This  appo- 
 sition, liowever,  does  not  say  that  the  temple  was  fortified  (v.  Leng., 
 Hitzig,  Ewald),  but  it  points  out  the  temple  as  the  spiritual  fortress 
 of  Israel.  The  temple  is  the  "  Fesie  Burg  "  (firm  tower)  of  the  holy 
 covenant  (ver.  28),  as  the  dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  which  is  a 
 firm  fortress  to  His  people  ;  cf.  Ps.  xxxi.  4,  5  (3,  4)  ;  Isa.  xxv.  4 ; 
 Ps.  xviii.  3  (2).  '»n  ^^^n  is  essentially  identical  with  pp  "i]^^^ 
 iti^'iipjp,  ch.  viii.  11.  The  two  following  clauses  state  what  the  de- 
 secration consists  in  :  in  the  taking  away,  the  removal  of  the 
 stated  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  in  the  placing,  setting  up  of  the 
 abomination  of  desolation,  i.e.  of  the  idol-altar  on  Jehovah's  altar 
 of  burnt-offering;  see  under  ch.  viii.  11  (p.  297  f.).  Cp^P  is 
 not  the  genitive,  but  an  adjective  to  PP^l'  (without  the  article 
 after  the  definite  noun,  as  e.g.  ch.  viii.  13)  :  the  desolating  abomi- 
 nation, i.e.  the  abomination  which  effects  the  desolation.  With 
 reference  to  the  fulfilment,  cf.  1  Mace.  i.  37,  45,  54,  and  above, 
 p.  371. 
 
 Vers.  32-35.  The  consequences  to  the  people  of  Israel  ivhich  result 
 from  this  siji  against  the  holy  covenant. — The  ungodly  shall  become 
 heathen,  i.e.  shall  wholly  apostatize  from  the  true  God ;  but,  on  the 
 other  hand,  the  pious  shall  be  strengthened  in  their  confidence  in 
 the  Lord.  This  is  in  general  the  import  of  ver.  32,  the  first  half  of 
 which,  however,  has  been  very  differently  interpreted,  rina  ''y"'*^"!P 
 signifies  neither  ''those  who  sinfully  make  a  covenant"  (Hiivernick), 
 nor  "sinners  among  the  covenant  people"  (v.  Lengerke),  nor 
 "  those  who  condemn  the  covenant,"  i.e.  those  who  reject  the  sign 
 of  the  covenant,  circumcision  (Hitzig).  The  latter  meaning  is 
 altogether  arbitrary.  Against  the  second  is  the  fact  that  D''ycjn 
 is  in  use  for  sinners ;  against  the  first,  that  n^l?  VV")'?  could  only 
 mean  :  "  to  declare  the  covenant  punishable."  J?^K'"in  means  to  act 
 wickedly,  to  sin,  and  n^"]3  can  only  be  the  accusative  of  reference, 
 which  is  subordinated  to  the  participle  for  the  purpose  of  limitation 
 (Ewald,  §  288) ;  literally,  "  the  acting  wickedly  with  reference  to 
 the  covenant."  The  absence  of  the  article  in  rina  is  no  proof 
 against  the  reference  of  the  word  to  the  holy  covenant.  The 
 article  is  wanting  in  Daniel  where  otherwise  the  determination  is 
 found  from  the  connection,  e.g.  ch.  viii.  13.  Sinning  against  the 
 covenant  is,  it  is  true,  a  stronger  expression  than  JT*")?  3]y  (^to  forsake 
 the  covenant),  but  it  does  not  include  the  idea  of  the  entire  apostasy 
 from  God,  but  only  insolent  violation  of  the  covenant  law,  so  that 
 
CnAP.  XI.  32-35.  459 
 
 of  nnn  T*u'"!J?  it  can  very  well  be  predicated  ^""^T}].  ^"'^nn  does  not 
 mean  to  jjollute  (Kran.),  but  to  desecrate,  to  make  profane;  and 
 spoken  of  persons,  to  make  them  as  heathen,  as  frequently  in  the 
 Syriac.  J^ip?n,  flatteries,  here  deceitful  promises  of  earthly  advan- 
 tage ;  cf.  under  ver.  21.  For  the  subject  spoken  of  here,  see  1 
 Mace.  ii.  18.  1^17 a^  ''^"'^  ^^'®  ^^^®  *^'"®  confessors  of  the  Lord.  The 
 suffix  to  '^^<pi^.  is  neither  to  be  interpreted  distributively  nor  to  be 
 referred  to  Dy.  To  ^ip'^ID!  we  are  to  supply  n''"]2n  from  the  context : 
 "to  hold  fast  to  the  covenant."  ^t>V],  as  vers.'  17,  28,  30,  to  carry 
 out  the  design.  In  what  way  this  is  done  is  explained  in  vers.  33 
 and  34a. 
 
 Ver.  33.  v''3b'D  is  not  the  teachers,  but  intelligentes,  those  who 
 have  insight  or  understanding.  The  pious  are  meant  by  the  word, 
 those  who  know  their  God  (ver.  32).  This  is  seen  from  the  con- 
 trast DT^'ij  ch.  xii.  10.  According  to  the  O.  T.  view,  wisdom, 
 insight,  are  correlative  ideas  with  the  fear  of  God,  piety,  Ps.  xiv. 
 1,  Job  xxviii.  28  ;  and  2''?^!^  with  the  article,  the  many,  the  great 
 multitude  of  the  people  who  bring  themselves  forward  to  view  by 
 the  judicious  appearance  of  the  pious,  are  moved  to  hold  fast  by 
 the  law  of  the  Lord.  Yet  they  who  understand  shall  for  a  time 
 fall  by  the  sword,  etc.  The  subject  to  vZ'33  is  not  the  Q''3">,  or 
 those  with  the  teachers  (Hitzig),  but  the  DV  T?^*'?,  but  not  all, 
 but,  according  to  ver.  35,  a  number  of  them;  for  in  ver.  35  falling 
 is  not  first  specially  predicated  of  the  teachers,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  but 
 only  the  effect  which  that  would  have  on  the  whole  people.  The 
 words  point  to  a  warlike  rising  up  of  the  faithful  members  of  the 
 covenant  people  against  the  hostile  king,  and  have  had  their  first 
 historical  fulfilment  in  the  insurrection  of  the  Maccabees  against 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  ;  cf.  1  Mace.  ii.  ff.  In  1  Mace.  i.  57,  ii.  38, 
 iii.  41,  V.  13,  2  Mace.  vi.  11,  there  are  examples  of  this  falling  by 
 the  sword.  The  CS"}  after  D''^^  in  several  Codd.  is  a  worthless 
 gloss. 
 
 Ver.  34.  Through  the  fall  of  the  pious  in  war  little  help  shall 
 come  to  the  people  of  God.  loyo  (little)  is  not  "spoken  contemptu- 
 ously" (Hitzig),  but  the  help  is  so  named  in  comparison  with  the 
 great  deliverance  which  shall  come  to  the  people  of  God  in  the 
 time  of  the  end  by  the  complete  destruction  of  the  oppressor.  We 
 may  not  therefore,  with  Hitzig  and  others,  limit  this  expression  to 
 the  circumstance  that  with  the  victories  of  Judas  Maccabaeus  (1 
 Mace.  iii.  11  ff.,  23  ff.,  iv.  14,  etc.)  they  were  far  from  gaining  all, 
 for  they  also  met  with  a  defeat  (1  Mace.  v.  60  f.).     For  with  the 
 
460  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 overthrow  of  Antiochus  and  the  liberation  of  tlie  Jews  from  the 
 Syrian  yoke,  full  help  was  not  yet  rendered  to  the  people  of  God. 
 The  "  little  help  "  consists  in  this,  that  by  the  rising  up  and  the  wars 
 of  those  that  had  understanding  among  the  people  the  tlieocracy 
 was  preserved,  the  destruction  of  the  service  of  Jehovah  and  of  the 
 church  of  God,  which  was  aimed  at  by  the  hostile  king,  was  pre- 
 vented, and,  as  the  following  clauses  express,  the  purifying  of  the 
 people  of  God  is  brought  about.  This  purifying  is  the  design 
 and  the  fruit  of  the  oppression  which  God  brings  upon  His  people 
 by  means  of  the  hostile  king.  The  attaining  of  this  end  is  a  "little 
 help "  in  comparison  with  the  complete  victory  over  the  arch- 
 enemy of  the  time  of  the  end.  Many  shall  connect  themselves 
 with  the  D''p''2b'0  (intelligentes,  ver.  33a)  with  flatteries  (as  ver. 
 21).  "The  successes  of  Judas,  and  the  severity  with  which  he 
 and  Mattathias  treated  the  apostates  (1  Mace.  ii.  44,  iii.  5,  8), 
 had  the  result  of  causing  many  to  join  them  only  through  hypo- 
 crisy (1  Mace.  vii.  6 ;  2  Mace.  xiv.  6),  who  again  forsook  them  as 
 soon  as  opportunity  offered ;  1  Mace.  vi.  21  ff.,  ix.  23"  (Hitzig, 
 Kliefoth). 
 
 Ver.  35.  Such  has  been  the  experience  in  all  periods  of  the 
 church's  history.  Therefore  does  the  church  need  to  pass  through 
 the  purifying  process  of  affliction,  in  which  not  only  the  lukewarm 
 fall  away  in  the  time  of  conflict,  but  also  many  even  Dv"'!)'^^©!!")©. 
 IP  is  here  partitive.  w3";  (thei/  shall  fall)  is  to  be  understood  (cf. 
 ver.  33,  'n3  v'J'JJ)  not  merely  of  death  in  battle,  but  of  other  cala- 
 mities, such  as  being  imprisoned,  plundered,  etc.  Di^2  ^i^V^  to 
 melt,  i.e.  topurift/  by  them,  not  as  to  them  ;  for  3  does  not  represent 
 the  accusative,  as  Kranichfeld  thinks,  referring  in  confirmation  to 
 Ewald,  §  282.  Tiie  use  of  3  there  spoken  of  is  of  a  different 
 nature.  The  suffix  in  Dna  refers  neither  to  "  those  that  under- 
 stand" alone  (Hiiv.),  nor  to  the  "many,"  ver.  33  (v.  Leng.),  still 
 less  to  the  flatterers  in  ver.  34  (Maurer),  but  to  all  of  these  toge- 
 ther, or  to  the  whole  company  of  the  people  of  God  in  the  sum 
 of  their  individuals.  The  verbs  '\py\  ll^p  serve  to  strengthen  the 
 expression  (I???  for  P???  on  account  of  tlie  assonance).  )'p  ^T'^V 
 {to  the  time  of  the  end)  is  connected  with  W3^  the  cliief  idea  of 
 the  passage.  The  stumbling  and  falling  of  "  those  who  under- 
 stand" (the  pious)  shall  continue  to  the  time  of  the  end,  to 
 bring  about  the  purification  of  the  people  for  their  glorification 
 in  the  time  of  tlie  end.  For  the  end  stretches  itself  out  yet  to  the 
 time  appointed  (cf.  ver.  27)  ;  i.e.  it  does  not  come  in  with  the  "  little 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XII    3.  4G1 
 
 help  "  which  Israel  received  by  tlie  rising  up  of  "  those  who  under- 
 stand" against  the  hostile  king,  thus  not  with  the  afflictions  that 
 came  upon  them  by  Antiochus,  but  it  shall  come  afterwards  at  the 
 time  appointed  by  God.  The  assertion  that  "  the  end  is  connected 
 with  the  death  of  king  Antiochus  Epiphanes"  (Hitzig,  Bleek,  and 
 others)  is  founded  on  a  misunderstanding  of  the  following  section, 
 vers.  36-45.  On  the  contrary,  Kranichfeld  has  rightly  remarked, 
 that  "  the  statements  made  in  vers.  36  to  39  incl.  regardino;  the 
 king  of  the  north,  now  fall,  in  accordance  with  the  context,  into 
 the  period  which  shall  expire  at  that  time  of  the  end  (ver.  35,  cf. 
 ver.  40)."  From  ver.  40  the  events  of  the  time  of  the  end  are  then 
 to  be  prophesied. 
 
 Yer.  36-ch.  xii.  3.  The  second  and  last  stadium  in  the  dominion 
 of  the  enemy  of  God,  with  his  destruction,  and  the  deliverance  of  the 
 people  of  God. 
 
 This  part  of  the  prophecy  is  divided  into  three  sections :  (1) 
 Vers.  36-39  describe  the  rising  of  the  hostile  king  above  all  divine 
 and  human  ordinances;  (2)  vers.  40-45,  his  last  undertaking  against 
 the  king  of  the  south  for  the  gaining  of  the  dominion  of  the  world, 
 together  with  his  overthrow;  (3)  ch.  xii.  1-3,  the  deliverance  of 
 the  people  of  God  from  the  last  tribulation. 
 
 Regardinor  the  king  whose  course  to  its  end  is  described  in  vers. 
 36-45,  the  views  of  interpreters  differ.  Following  the  example  of 
 Porphyry,  Ephrem  Syrus,  and  Grotius,  almost  all  modern  inter- 
 preters find  predicted  here  only  a  description  of  the  conduct  of 
 Antiochus  Epiphanes  to  the  time  of  his  destruction  ;  believing  inter- 
 preters, such  as  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Havernick,  and  others,  regarding 
 the  whole  as  having  a  typical  reference  to  Antichrist.  On  the 
 contrary,  Jerome,  Theodoret,  Luther,  Oecolampadius,  Osiander, 
 Calovius,  Geier,  and  at  length  Kliefoth,  interpret  this  section  as  a 
 direct  prophecy  of  Antichrist ;  according  to  which,  "H^^'?,  ver.  36, 
 representing  not  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  but  the  prince,  i.e.  the 
 Antichrist,  who  is  prophesied  of  under  the  figure  of  the  little  horn 
 growing  up  among  the  ten  kingdoms  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom, 
 and  described  in  ch.  ix.  26  as  N3n  T'J3,  must  be  introduced  as  a 
 new  subject  in  ver.  36.  The  rabbinical  interpreters  have  also 
 adopted  the  idea  of  a  change  of  subject  in  ver.  36,  for  Aben  Ezra, 
 Jacchiades,  and  Abarbanel  take  Constantine  the  Great,  while 
 R.  Solomon  takes  the  Roman  empire  generally,  as  the  subject. 
 Essentially  the  reference  of  the  section  to  the  Antichrist  is  correct ; 
 but  the  supposition  of  a  change  of  subject  in  the  prophetic  repre- 
 
402  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 sentation  is  not  established.  If  in  the  words,  "  the  fall  of  those 
 who  understand,  to  purify  and  make  white,  shall  continue  to  the 
 time  of  the  end"  (ver.  35),  it  is  also  said  that  the  end  does  not 
 yet  come  with  the  proceedings  of  the  enemy  of  God  prophesied  of 
 in  vers.  28-34,  but  lies  beyond  that;  so  also,  in  the  verses  referred 
 to,  the  destruction  of  this  enemy  (Antiochus)  is  neither  directly  nor 
 indirectly  so  spoken  of  as  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  "  the  words 
 '  to  purify  and  make  white,'  etc.,  extend  beyond  his  time."  If  the 
 contents  of  vers.  36-45  lie  beyond  the  end  of  the  enemy  who  has 
 been  hitherto  spoken  of,  then  ought  his  destruction  to  have  been 
 mentioned,  especially  since  with  the  words,  "  to  the  time  of  the 
 end,  because  yet  for  a  time  appointed,"  ver.  35,  the  words  of  ver. 
 27,  "  for  yet  the  end  of  the  time  appointed,"  are  resumed.  All 
 attempts  to  give  to  the  former  of  these  expressions  in  ver.  35 
 a  different  meaning  from  that  contained  in  the  latter,  ver.  27 
 (Calovius,  Geier,  Kliefoth),  amount  to  verbally  impossible  inter- 
 pretations. The  non-mention  also  of  the  destruction  of  this  enemy 
 (Antiochus)  in  vers.  32-35  is  not  justified  by  the  remark  that 
 this  was  already  known  to  Daniel  from  ch.  viii.,  and  that  in  vers. 
 36-45  the  duration  of  Antichrist  is  also  omitted  (Klief.).  For  the 
 verses  do  not  treat  of  the  duration  of  the  proceedings  of  the  enemy 
 of  God,  but  of  his  end  or  his  destruction.  The  destruction  of  the 
 enemy  at  the  time  of  the  end  is,  however,  expressly  declared,  ver. 
 45.  This  would  also  have  been  stated  in  vers.  32-34  if  the  king 
 in  ver.  36  had  been  a  different  person  from  the  one  previously 
 described.  ^?.i2n  with  the  definite  article  undeniably  points  back 
 to  the  king  whose  appearance  and  conduct  are  described  in  vers. 
 21-33.  The  definite  article  neither  denotes  that  the  Antichrist  of 
 ch.  vii.  and  ix.  26  f.  was  known  to  Daniel  (Klief.),  nor  is  it  to  be 
 emphatically  interpreted  in  the  sense  of  the  king  simply  (Geier). 
 This  is  only  so  far  right,  that  that  which  is  said  regarding  this 
 king,  vers.  36-39,  partly  goes  far  beyond  what  Antiochus  did, 
 partly  does  not  harmonize  with  what  is  known  of  Antiochus,  and, 
 finally,  partly  is  referred  in  the  N.  T.  expressly  to  the  Antichrist ; 
 cf.  ver.  36  with  2  Thess.  ii.  4,  and  ch.  xii.  1  with  Matt.  xxiv.  21. 
 These  circumstances  also  are  not  satisfactorily  explained  by  the 
 remark  that  the  prophecy  regarding  Antiochus  glances  forward  to 
 the  Antichrist,  or  that  the  image  of  the  type  (Antiochus)  hovers  in 
 the  image  of  the  antitype  (Antichrist) ;  they  much  rather  show 
 that  in  the  prophetic  contemplation  there  is  comprehended  in  the 
 image  of  one  king  what  has  been  historically  fuliillod  in  its  begin- 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XII.  3.  463 
 
 nings  by  Antioclius  Epiphanes,  but  shall  only  meet  its  complete 
 fulfilment  by  the  Antichrist  in  the  time  of  the  end. 
 
 Vers.  36-39.  The  hostile  king  exalting  himself  above  all  divine 
 and  human  ordinances  at  the  time  of  the  end. 
 
 Ver.  36.  This  exaltation  of  the  king  is  here  introduced  by  the 
 formula  i2"'i:i3  '"""f  i'"!,  which  expresses  the  self-will  and  the  irresistible 
 might  of  his  proceeding;  cf.  ch.  iii.  16  and  viii.  4, — "  a  feature 
 common  to  Antiochus  and  Antichrist"  (Klief.).  He  shall  raise 
 himself  above  every  god,  not  merely  "  subjectively  in  his  lofty 
 imagination"  (Hitzig),  but  also  by  his  actions.  •'^"''7',  every  god, 
 not  merely  the  God  of  Israel,  but  also  the  gods  of  the  heathen. 
 This  does  not  agree  with  Antiochus.  The  laodea  (^povelv  inrepT)- 
 (jiavcb'i  which  is  said  of  him,  2  j\Iacc.  ix.  12,  is  not  an  exalting  of 
 himself  above  every  god.  "  Antiochus  was  not  an  a6eo<; ;  he  even 
 wished  to  render  the  worship  of  Zeus  universal ;  and  that  he  once 
 spoiled  the  temple  does  not  imply  his  raising  himself  above  every 
 god"  (Klief.).  Of  Antiochus  much  rather,  as  is  said  by  Livy 
 (xli.  20),  in  duahiis  tamen  magnis  honestisque  rebus  fere  regius 
 sral  animus,  in  urbium  donis  et  deorum  cultu.  On  the  contrary, 
 these  words  before  us  are  expressly  referred  to  Antichrist,  2 
 Thess.  ii.  4. 
 
 Yet  further,  in  his  arrogance  he  shall  speak  riis?3j,  wonderful, 
 i.e.  impious  and  astonishing  things,  against  the  God  of  gods,  i.e.  the 
 true  God.  This  clause  expounds  and  strengthens  the  |3"!3"}  ??0 
 {speaking  great  things),  which  is  said  of  the  enemy  at  the  time  of 
 the  end,  ch.  vii.  8,  11,  20.  In  this  he  will  prosper,  but  only  till 
 the  anger  of  God  against  His  people  (QJ-'T  as  ch.  viii.  19)  shall  be 
 accomplished.  Regarding  n73  see  at  ch.  ix.  27.  This  anger  of 
 God  is  irrevocably  determined  (•^y^nj),  that  His  people  may  be 
 wholly  purified  for  the  consummation  of  His  kingdom  in  glory. 
 The  ^9fr/.  '^^^'V.l  does  not  stand  for  the  imperf.  because  it  is 
 decreed,  but  in  its  proper  meaning,  according  to  which  it  repre- 
 sents the  matter  as  finished,  settled.  Here  it  accordingly  means  : 
 "  for  that  which  is  irrevocably  decreed  is  accomplished,  is  not  to 
 be  recalled,  but  must  be  done." 
 
 Ver.  37.  The  exalting  of  himself  above  all  on  the  part  of  the 
 king  is  further  described.  "  He  shall  not  regard  the  gods  of  his 
 fathers,"  i.e.  shall  cast  aside  the  worship  of  the  gods  transmitted  to 
 him  from  his  fathers.  This  again  does  not  accord  with  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  regarding  whom  it  is  true  that  history  records  that  he 
 wished  to  suppress  the  worship  practised  by  the  Jews,  but  it  knows 
 
464  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 nothing^  of  attempts  made  by  him  to  destroy  the  gods  and  the 
 worship  of  other  nations.  The  words  which  follow,  D^^'3  ri"=i?Dn~by, 
 the  old  interpreters  understood  of  the  love  of  women,  or  of  con- 
 jugal love  ;  the  modern,  after  the  example  of  J.  D.  Michaelis  and 
 Gesenius,  on  the  contrary,  understand  them  of  the  goddess  Ana'itis 
 or  Mylitta,  the  Assyrian  Venus,  and  refer  them  specially  to  the 
 spoiling  of  the  temple  of  this  goddess  in  Elymais  (1  Mace.  vi.  1, 
 cf.  2  Mace.  i.  13).  Ewald  finally  would  understand  by  the  ex- 
 pression "  the  desire  of  women,"  the  Syrian  deity  Tammuz- Adonis. 
 The  connection  requires  us  to  think  on  a  deity,  because  these  words 
 are  placed  between  two  expressions  which  refer  to  the  gods.  But 
 the  connection  is  not  altogether  decisive  ;  rather  the  ?2  7^  in  the 
 clause  at  the  end  of  the  verse  denotes  that  the  subject  spoken  of 
 is  not  merely  the  king's  raising  himself  above  the  gods,  but  also 
 above  other  objects  of  pious  veneration.  A  verbal  proof  that  n"non 
 D^K'3  denotes  the  Anaitis  or  Adonis  as  the  favourite  deity  of  women 
 has  not  been  adduced.  For  these  words,  desiderium  mnlierumy 
 denote  not  that  which  women  desire,  but  that  which  women  possess 
 which  is  desirable  ;  cf.  under  1  Sam.  ix.  20.  But  it  is  impossible 
 that  this  can  be  Anaitis  or  Adonis,  but  it  is  a  possession  or  precious 
 treasure  of  women.  This  desirable  possession  of  women  is  without 
 doubt  love ;  so  that,  as  C.  B.  Michaelis  has  remarked,  the  ex- 
 pression is  not  materially  different  from  D'''^3  n^ns,  the  love  of 
 women,  2  Sam.  i.  26.     The  thought :  "  he  shall  not  regard  the 
 
 ^  The  statement  in  1  Mace.  i.  41  ff.,  "  Moreover  king  Antiochus  wrote  to 
 his  whole  kingdom  that  all  should  be  one  people,  and  every  one  should  have 
 his  laws  :  so  all  the  heathen  agreed  according  to  the  commandment  of  the 
 king,"  does  not  amount  to  a  proof  of  this.  "  For,"  as  Grimm  rightly  remarks, 
 "  the  account  of  such  a  decree  of  Antiochus  to  all  (not  Hellenic)  peoples  of  his 
 kingdom  is  very  doubtful.  No  profane  historian  records  anything  about  it, 
 neither  does  Josephus,  nor  the  author  of  the  second  book  of  the  Maccabees  in 
 the  parallel  passages.  It  is  true  that  Antiochus,  according  to  Livy,  xli,  20, 
 put  great  honour  upon  Jupiter  by  building  a  splendid  temple  to  Tages,  and 
 according  to  Folybius,  xxvi.  10,  11,  he  excelled  all  kings  who  preceded  him 
 in  expensive  sacrilices  and  gifts  in  honour  of  the  gods  ;  but  this  is  no  proof  of 
 a  prosehjtizhui  fanaticism."  The  contrary  rather  appears  from  Josephus,  Antt. 
 xii.  5.  5,  where  the  Samaritans,  in  a  letter  to  Antiochus,  declare,  contrary  to 
 the  opinion  entertained  regarding  them  by  their  governor,  that  by  descent 
 and  custom  they  were  not  Jews.  Their  letter  rests  on  the  supposition  that  the 
 royal  decree  was  directed  only  against  the  Jews.  Cf.  Flathe,  G'esch.  Mace- 
 doniens,  ii.  p.  596.  Diodorus  also  (xxxiv.  1),  to  whom  Hitzig  refers,  only  states 
 that  Antiochus  wished  to  dissolve  res  v6(/.ii/.a.  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  to 
 compel  the  Jews  to  abandon  their  manner  of  life  (t«j  iyuyois  fUTud-adxi). 
 
CHAP,  XI.  36-XII.  3.  465 
 
 desire  of  women,  or  the  love  of  women,"  agrees  perfectly  with  the 
 connection.  After  it  has  been  said  in  the  first  clause  :  he  shall  set 
 himself  free  from  all  religious  reverence  transmitted  from  his 
 fathers,  from  all  piety  toward  the  gods  in  which  he  had  been 
 trained,  it  is  then  added  in  the  second  clause  :  not  merely  so,  but 
 generally  from  all  piety  toward  men  and  God,  from  all  the  tender 
 affections  of  the  love  of  men  and  of  God.  The  "  love  of  women" 
 is  named  as  an  example  selected  from  the  sphere  of  human  piety, 
 as  that  affection  of  human  love  and  attachment  for  which  even  the 
 most  selfish  and  most  savasje  of  men  feel  some  sensibility.  Alono- 
 with  this  he  shall  set  himself  free  from  iiii''.i!^"''3,  from  all  "piety  or  reve- 
 rence toward  God  or  toward  that  which  is  divine  (Klief.).  This 
 thought  is  then  established  by  the  last  clause  :  "  for  he  shall  mas- 
 nify  himself  above  all."  To  -'S  PJ?  we  may  not  supply  ^vX  ;  for 
 this  clause  not  only  presents  the  reason  for  the  foregoing  clause, 
 'ijl  riipS"i'2  bv,  but  for  both  of  the  foregoing  clauses.  Hitzig  and 
 Kliefoth  are  right  in  their  interpretation  :  "  above  everything,  or 
 all,  gods  and  men,"  he  shall  magnify  himself,  raise  himself  up  in 
 arrogance. 
 
 Ver.  38.  On  the  other  hand,  he  will  honour  the  god  of  for- 
 tresses. That  ^''•?J"?  is  not,  with  Theodotion,  the  Vulgate,  Luther, 
 and  others,  to  be  regarded  as  the  proper  name  of  a  god,  is  now 
 generally  acknowledged.  But  as  to  which  god  is  to  be  understood 
 by  the  "  god  of  fortresses,"  there  is  very  great  diversity  of  opinion. 
 Grotius,  C.  B.  Michaelis,  Gesenius,  and  others  think  on  ]\Iars,  the 
 god  of  war,  as  the  one  intended ;  Havernick,  v.  Lengerke,  Maurer, 
 and  Ewald  regard  Jupiter  Capitolinus,  to  whom  Antiochus  pur- 
 posed to  erect  a  temple  in  Antioch  (Livy,  xli.  20)  ;  others, 
 Jupiter  Olympius  ;  while  Hitzig,  by  changing  C-jyo  into  D^  tyo, 
 fortress  of  the  sea,  thinks  that  Melkart,  or  the  Phoenician  Her- 
 cules, is  referred  to.  But  according  to  the  following  passage,  this 
 god  was  not  known  to  his  fathers.  That  could  not  be  said  either 
 of  Mars,  or  Jupiter,  or  Melkart.  Add  to  this,  "  that  if  the  state- 
 ment here  refers  to  the  honouring  of  Hercules,  or  Mars,  or  Zeus, 
 or  Jupiter,  then  therewith  all  would  be  denied  that  was  previously- 
 said  of  the  king's  being  destitute  of  all  religion"  (Klief.).  The 
 words  thus  in  no  respect  agree  with  Antiochus,  and  do  not  permit  us 
 to  think  on  any  definite  heathen  deity.  133  7V  does  not  signify  07i 
 his  foundation,  jJedestal  (Hav.,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Ewald), 
 because  the  remark  that  he  honoured  God  on  his  pedestal  would 
 be  quite  inappropriate,  unless  it  had  been  also  said  that  he  had 
 
 2  G 
 
4(36  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 erected  a  statue  to  him.  i33  7V  has  here  the  same  meaninrr  as  in 
 vers.  20,  21,  and  7 :  "in  his  place  or  stead"  (Gesenius,  de  Wette, 
 KUefoth,  and  otliers).  But  tlie  suffix  is  not,  Nvith  Klief.,  to  be 
 referred  to  ?3  bv  :  in  the  place  of  all  that,  which  he  did  not  regard, 
 but  it  refers  to  'i?i''.^"''3  :  in  the  place  of  every  god  ;  wliich  is  not 
 overthrown  by  the  objection  that  in  that  case  the  suffix  should 
 have  been  plur.,  because  the  suffix  is  connected  with  the  singular 
 ni^X.  The  "  god  of  fortresses"  is  the  personification  of  war,  and 
 the  thought  is  this  :  he  will  regard  no  other  god,  but  only  war ;  the 
 taking  of  fortresses  he  will  make  his  god ;  and  he  will  worship  this 
 god  above  all  as  the  means  of  his  gaining  the  world-power.  Of 
 this  god,  war  as  the  object  of  deification,  it  might  be  said  that  his 
 fathers  knew  nothing,  because  no  other  king  had  made  war  his 
 religion,  his  god  to  whom  he  offered  up  in  sacrifice  all,  gold,  silver, 
 precious  stones,  jewels. 
 
 Ver.  39.  With  the  help  of  this  god,  who  was  unknown  to  his 
 fathers,  he  w\\\  so  proceed  against  the  strong  fortresses  that  he 
 rewards  with  honour,  might,  and  wealth  those  who  acknowledge 
 him.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the  verse,  which  has  been  very  dif- 
 ferently rendered.  The  majority  of  modern  interpreters  separate 
 the  two  parts  of  the  verse  from  each  other,  for  they  refer  the  first 
 hemistich  to  the  preceding,  and  in  the  second  they  find  a  new 
 thought  expressed.  Havernick  and  v.  Lengerke  supply  a  demon- 
 strative nb,  thus :  —  thus  shall  he  do  to  the  armed  fortresses 
 together  wath  the  strange  gods,  i.e.  fill  the  fortified  temples  with 
 treasures,  and  promote  their  worship.  But  the  supplement  nb 
 is  here  just  as  arbitrary  as  is  the  interpreting  of  the  armed 
 fortresses  of  temples.  Hitzig  misses  the  object  to  ^'^'V,  and  seeks 
 it  by  changing  DV  into  W :  he  prepares  for  the  armed  fortresses 
 a  people  of  a  strange  god  ;  but  apart  from  the  fact  that  the 
 change  of  the  text  is  arbitrary,  the  use  of  the  expression  "  people 
 of  a  strange  god  "  for  colonists  is  most  singular.  Ewald  translates 
 the  expression  thus :  "  he  proceeds  with  the  strong  fortresses  as 
 with  the  strange  god,"  and  explains  :  "  he  loves  the  fortresses  only 
 just  as  a  god ; "  but  he  has  given  no  proof  that  p  nby  means  to 
 love.  The  n\issing  object  to  nbj;i  follows  in  the  second  hemistich, 
 just  as  in  Dent.  xxxi.  4,  Josh.  viii.  2,  Isa.  x.  11.  nb'y  means 
 simply  to  do  anything  to  one  (Kran.,  Klief.).  "13?.  JiiV'S  Dy,  with 
 the  help  of  the  strange  god  (DV  of  assistance,  as  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  45), 
 not:  in  the  mind  of  the  strange  god  (Klief oth).  D'?J?9  nvnp, y'or^(/i«c/, 
 i.e.  strong  fortresses,  are  not  the  fortified  walls  and  houses,  but  the 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XII.  3.  467 
 
 inhabitants  of  the  fortified  cities.  With  these  he  does  according 
 to  his  will  with  the  help  of  his  god,  i.e.  of  war,  namely  in  this,  that 
 he  rewards  with  honour  and  power  only  those  who  acknowledge 
 him.  "T'3'}  "i'^'^<,  loho  acknoivledges,  so.  him,  the  king  who  made 
 war  his  god.  Hitzig  has  incorrectly  interpreted :  whom  he 
 acknowledges.  The  Keri  "i"'?!  for  the  Kethio  T'^n  is  an  unneces- 
 sary emendation  here,  as  in  Isa.  xxviii.  15  with  i?^.  The  verb 
 "i"'3n  is  chosen  to  reflect  upon  the  word  ~i3?..  It  means  to  recognise, 
 properly  to  acknowledge  him  as  what  he  is  or  wishes  to  be ;  cf. 
 Deut.  xxi.  17.  Such  an  one  he  shall  increase  with  honour, 
 confer  upon  him  sovereignty  over  many,  and  divide  the  land. 
 T'ntpn  is  not  for  payment,  for  recompense,  as  the  contrast  to  D3n 
 (gratuitously)  (Kran.).  That  is  not  a  suitable  rendering  here. 
 The  word  rather  means  pro  prccmio,  as  a  reward  (Maur.,  Klief.), 
 as  a  reward  for  the  recog-nition  accorded  to  him.  The  Vulgate 
 renders  it  rightly  according  to  the  sense,  gratuito.  In  this  most 
 modern  interpreters  find  a  reference  to  the  circumstance  that 
 Antiochus  occupied  the  Jewish  fortresses  with  heathen  garrisons, 
 and  rewarded  his  adherents  with  places  of  honour  and  with  pos- 
 sessions of  land  (2  Mace.  iv.  10,  24,  v.  15).  But  this  is  what  all 
 conquerors  do,  and  it  was  not  peculiar  to  Antiochus,  so  that  it 
 could  be  mentioned  as  characteristic  of  him.  The  words  contain 
 the  alto£jether  common  thought  that  the  king  will  bestow  honour, 
 power,  and  possessions  on  those  who  acknowledge  him  and  con- 
 duct themselves  according  to  his  will,  and  they  accord  with  the 
 character  of  Antichrist  in  a  yet  higher  degree  than  with  that  of 
 Antiochus. 
 
 Vers.  40-43.  The  last  undertakings  of  the  hostile  king,  and  his 
 end. 
 
 By  the  words  Ti?.  rii'S,  which  introduce  these  verses,  the  follow- 
 ing events  are  placed  in  the  time  of  the  end.  Proceeding  from 
 the  view  that  the  whole  of  the  second  half  of  this  chapter  (vers. 
 21-45)  treats  of  Antiochus  and  his  undertakings,  most  modern 
 interpreters  find  in  the  verses  the  prophecy  of  a  last  expedition  of 
 this  Syrian  king  against  Egypt,  and  quote  in  support  of  this  view 
 the  words  of  Jerome  :  Et  hcec  Porphyrins  ad  Antiochum  refert, 
 g^iod  undecimo  anno  regni  sui  rursus  contra  sororis  Jilium,  Ptolem. 
 Pliilometorcm  dimicaverit^  qui  audiens  venire  Antiochum  congregaverit 
 rtiulta  populorum  viillia,  sed  Antiochus  quasi  tempestas  valida  in 
 currihus  et  in  equitibus  et  in  classe  magna  ingressus  sit  terras  jiluri- 
 mas   et   transeundo  universa  vastaverit,  venerit^ue  ad  Judceam  et 
 
4G8  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 arcem  munierit  de  iniinis  mnronim  civitatis  et  sic  perrexerit  in 
 ^^gypturn.  But  regarding  this  expedition  not  only  are  historians 
 silent,  but  the  supposition  of  such  a  thing  stands  in  irrecon- 
 cilable contradiction  to  the  historical  facts  regarding  the  last 
 undertakings  of  Antiochus.  According  to  1  Mace.  iii.  27  ff., 
 Antiochus,  on  receiving  tidings  of  the  successful  insurrection  of 
 the  ^Maccabees,  and  of  the  victory  which  Judas  had  won,  since  he 
 found  that  money  was  wanting  to  him  to  carry  on  the  war,  re- 
 solved to  return  to  Persia,  "  there  to  collect  the  tribute  of  the 
 countries"  (1  Mace.  iii.  31);  and  after  he  had  made  Lysias 
 governor,  he  delivered  to  him  the  one  half  of  his  army,  that  he 
 might  with  it  "  destroy  and  root  out  the  strength  of  Israel,"  and 
 with  the  other  half  departed  from  Antioch  and  crossed  the 
 Euphrates  into  the  high  countries,  i.e.  the  high-lying  countries 
 on  the  farther  side  of  the  Euplirates  (1  Mace.  iii.  33-37).  There 
 he  heard  of  the  great  treasures  of  a  rich  city  in  Persia,  and  re- 
 solved to  fall  upon  this  city  and  to  take  its  treasures  ;  but  as  the 
 inhabitants  received  notice  of  the  king's  intention,  he  w^as  driven 
 back  and  compelled  to  return  to  Babylon,  having  accomplished 
 nothing.  On  his  return  he  heard  in  Persia  the  tidings  of  the 
 overthrow  of  Lysias  in  a  battle  with  the  Maccabees,  and  of  the 
 re-erection  of  the  altar  of  Jehovah  at  Jerusalem ;  whereupon  he 
 was  so  overcome  with  teri'or  and  dismay,  that  he  fell  sick  and 
 died  (1  Mace.  vi.  1-16).  The  historical  truth  of  this  report  is 
 confirmed  by  Polybius,  who  mentions  {Fragm.  xxxi.  11)  that 
 Antiochus,  being  in  difficulty  for  want  of  money,  sought  to  spoil 
 the  temple  of  Artemis  in  Elymais,  and  in  consequence  of  the 
 failure  of  his  design  he  fell  ill  at  Tabae  in  Persia,  and  there  died. 
 By  these  well-established  facts  the  supposition  of  an  invasion  of 
 Egypt  by  Antiochus  in  the  eleventh,  i.e.  the  last  year  of  his  reign, 
 is  excluded.  The  Romans  also,  after  they  had  already  by  their 
 intervention  frustrated  his  design  against  Egypt,  would  certainly 
 have  prevented  a  new  war,  least  of  all  would  they  have  permitted 
 an  entire  subjugation  of  Egypt  and  the  south,  which  we  must 
 accept  after  vers.  42  and  43.  Besides,  the  statement  made  by 
 Porphyry  shows  itself  to  be  destitute  of  historical  validity  by  this, 
 that  according  to  it,  Antiochus  must  have  made  the  assault  against 
 Egypt,  while  on  the  contrary,  according  to  the  prophecy,  ver.  40, 
 the  kin£T  of  the  south  bec;ins  the  war  an;ainst  thekin^of  the  north, 
 and  the  latter,  in  consequence  of  this  attack,  passes  through  the 
 lands  with  a  powerful  host  and  subdues  Egypt. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XlI.  3.  4G9 
 
 For  these  reasons,  therefore,  v.  Lengerke,  Maurer,  and  Hitzig 
 have  abandoned  the  statement  of  Porphyry  as  unhistorical,  and 
 limited  themselves  to  the  supposition  that  the  section  (vers.  40-45) 
 is  only  a  comprehensive  repetition  of  that  which  has  already  been 
 said  regarding  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  according  to  which  "the 
 time  of  the  end"  (ver.  40)  denotes  not  the  near  time  of  the 
 death  of  Antiochus,  but  generally  the  whole  period  of  this  king. 
 But  this  is,  when  compared  with  vers.  27  and  35,  impossible.  If 
 thus,  according  to  ver.  35,  the  tribulation  with  which  the  people 
 of  God  shall  be  visited  by  the  hostile  king  for  their  purification 
 shall  last  till  the  time  of  the  end,  then  the  time  of  the  end  to 
 which  the  prophecies  of  vers.  40-45  fall  cannot  designate  the 
 whole  duration  of  the  conduct  of  this  enemy,  but  only  the  end  of 
 his  reign  and  of  his  persecutions,  in  which  he  perishes  (ver.  40). 
 On  the  contrary,  the  reference  to  ch.  viii.  17  avails  nothing,  be- 
 cause there  also  Ti?  W  has  the  same  meaning  as  here,  i.e.  it  denotes 
 the  termination  of  the  epoch  referred  to,  iind  is  there  only  made 
 a  more  general  expression  by  means  of  riyp  than  here,  where  by 
 r\V2  and  the  connection  with  ver.  35  the  end  is  more  sharply 
 defined.  To  this  is  to  be  added,  that  the  contents  of  vers.  40-45 
 are  irreconcilable  with  the  supposition  that  in  them  is  repeated  in 
 a  comprehensive  form  what  has  already  been  said  of  Antiochus, 
 for  here  something  new  is  announced,  something  of  which  nothing 
 has  been  said  before.  This  even  Maurer  and  Hitzig  have  not 
 been  able  to  deny,  but  have  sought  to  conceal  as  much  as  possible, — 
 Maurer  by  the  remark  :  res  a  scriptore  iterum  ac  smpius periractatas 
 esse,  extremam  vero  manum  operi  defuisse ;  and  Hitzig  by  various 
 turnings — "  as  it  seems,"  "  but  is  not  more  precisely  acknowledged," 
 "the  fact  is  not  elsewhere  communicated" — which  are  obviously 
 mere  make-shifts. 
 
 Thus  vers.  40-45  do  not  apply  to  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  but, 
 with  most  ancient  interpreters,  they  refer  only  to  the  final  enemy 
 of  the  people  of  God,  the  Antichrist.  This  reference  has  been 
 rightly  vindicated  by  Kliefoth.  We  cannot,  however,  agree  with 
 him  in  distinguishing  this  enemy  in  ver.  40  from  the  king  of 
 the  south  and  of  the  north,  and  in  understanding  this  verse  as 
 denoting  "  that  at  the  time  of  this  hostile  king,  which  shall  be  the 
 time  of  the  end,  the  kings  of  the  south  as  well  as  of  the  north 
 shall  attack  him,  but  that  he  shall  penetrate  into  their  lands  and 
 overthrow  them."  Without  taking  into  account  the  connection, 
 this  interpretation  is  not  merely  possible,  but  it  is  even  very  natural 
 
470  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 to  refer  the  suffix  in  ivy  and  in  ifsy  to  one  and  the  same  person, 
 namely,  to  the  king  who  has  hitherto  been  spoken  of,  and  who 
 continues  in  vers.  40-45  to  be  the  chief  subject.  But  the  con- 
 nection makes  this  reference  impossible.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
 the  suffix  in  i'SV  refers  without  doubt  to  this  king,  but  the  suffix  in 
 IvJ?  can  be  referred  only  to  the  king  of  the  south  named  immedi- 
 ately before,  who  pushes  at  him,  because  the  king  against  whom 
 the  king  of  the  south  pushes,  and  of  whom  mention  is  made  vers. 
 21-39,  is  not  only  distinctly  designated  as  the  king  of  the  nortli 
 (vers.  13-21),  but  also,  according  to  vers.  40-43,  he  advances  from 
 the  north  against  the  Holy  Land  and  against  Egypt;  thus  also,  ac- 
 cording to  vers.  406-43,  must  be  identical  with  the  king  of  the  north. 
 In  vers.  40-43  we  do  not  read  of  a  war  of  the  hostile  king  against 
 the  king  of  the  south  and  the  king  of  the  north.  The  words  in  which 
 Kliefoth  finds  indications  of  this  kind  are  otherwise  to  be  understood. 
 
 Ver.  40.  If  we  now  more  closely  look  into  particulars,  we  find 
 that  f*i?  ^J^  is  not  the  end  of  the  hostile  king,  but,  as  in  vers.  27  and 
 35,  the  end  of  the  present  world-period,  in  which  also,  it  is  true, 
 occurs  the  end  of  this  king  (iJ^pj  ver.  45).  For  the  figurative  ex- 
 pression n^Jni  (s/m//  jjush),  cf.  ch.  viii.  4.  In  the  word  there  lies 
 the  idea  that  the  king  of  the  south  commences  the  war,  makes  an 
 acTjrression  acainst  the  hostile  kino;.  In  the  second  clause  the  sub- 
 ject  is  more  precisely  defined  by  "  the  king  of  the  north"  for  the 
 sake  of  distinctness,  or  to  avoid  ambiguity,  from  which  it  thence 
 follows  that  the  suffix  in  Ivi?  refers  to  the  king  of  the  south.  If 
 the  subject  were  not  named,  then  "  the  king  of  the  south"  might 
 have  been  taken  for  it  in  this  clause.  The  words,  "  with  chariots, 
 and  with  horsemen,  and  with  many  ships,"  are  an  oratorical  ex- 
 emplification of  the  powerful  war-host  which  the  king  of  the  north 
 displayed ;  for  the  further  statement,  "  he  presses  into  the  countries, 
 overflows  and  passes  over"  ("i^yi  fjU'i^  as  ver.  10),  does  not  agree 
 with  the  idea  of  a  fleet,  but  refers  to  land  forces.  The  plur.  riii,nX3 
 {into  the  countries)  does  not  at  all  agree  with  the  expedition  of  a 
 Syrian  king  against  Egypt,  since  between  Syria  and  Egypt  there 
 lay  one  land,  Palestine ;  but  it  also  does  not  prove  that  "  the  south- 
 land and  the  north-land,  the  lands  of  the  kings  of  the  south  and  of 
 the  north,  are  meant"  (Klief.),  but  it  is  to  be  explained  from  this, 
 that  the  north,  from  which  the  angry  king  comes  in  his  fury  against 
 the  king  of  the  south,  reached  far  beyond  Syria.  .  The  king  of  the 
 north  is  thought  of  as  the  ruler  of  the  distant  north. 
 
 Ver.  41.  Penetrating  into  the  countries  and  overflowing  them 
 
CHAP.  XI.  3G-XII.  3.  471 
 
 with  his  host,  he  comes  into  the  glorious  land,  i.e.  Palestine,  the  land 
 of  the  people  of  God.  See  at  ver.  16  and  ch.  viii.  9.  "And  many 
 shall  be  overthrown."  riinn  is  not  neuter,  but  refers  to  ni^fix,  ver. 
 40.  For  "that  the  whole  lands  are  meant,  represented  by  their 
 inhabitants  (cf.  the  verb  masc.  ^^'^^\  [shall  be  overthrowii\)^  proceeds 
 from  the  exceptions  of  which  the  second  half  of  the  verse  makes 
 mention"  (Kran.).  The  three  peoples,  Edomites,  Moabites,  and 
 Ammonites,  are  represented  as  altogether  spared,  because,  as 
 Jerome  has  remarked,  they  lay  in  the  interior,  out  of  the  way  of 
 the  line  of  march  of  Antiochus  to  Egypt  (v.  Leng.,  Hitzig,  and 
 others).  This  opinion  Hitzig  with  justice  speaks  of  as  altogether 
 superficial,  since  Antiochus  would  not  have  omitted  to  make  war 
 against  them,  as  e.rj.  his  father  overcame  the  Ammonites  in  war 
 (Polyb.  V.  71),  if  they  had  not  given  indubitable  proofs  of  their 
 submission  to  him.  Besides,  it  is  a  historical  fact  that  the  Edomites 
 and  Ammonites  supported  Antiochus  in  his  operations  against  the 
 Jews  (1  Mace.  v.  3-8,  iv.  61) ;  therefore  Maui'er  remarks,  under 
 VLh'\^\  {they  shall  escape^  :  eorum  enim  in  oppremendis  Judccis  An- 
 tiochus vsus  est  auxilio.  But  since  the  king  here  spoken  of  is 
 not  Antiochus,  this  historizing  interpretation  falls  of  itself  to  the 
 ground.  There  is  further  with  justice  objected  against  it,  that  at 
 the  time  of  Antiochus  the  nation  of  Moab  no  longer  existed.  After 
 the  Exile  the  Moabites  no  longer  appear  as  a  nation.  They  are 
 only  named  (Neh.  xiii.  1  and  Ezra  ix.  1),  in  a  passage  cited  from 
 tlie  Pentateuch,  along  with  the  Philistines  and  the  Hittites,  to 
 characterize  the  relations  of  the  present  after  the  relations  of  the 
 time  of  Moses.  Edom,  Moab,  and  Ammon,  related  with  Israel  by 
 descent,  are  the  old  hereditary  and  chief  enemies  of  this  people, 
 who  have  become  by  name  representatives  of  all  the  hereditary 
 and  chief  enemies  of  the  people  of  God.  These  enemies  escape 
 the  overthrow  when  the  other  nations  sink  under  the  power  of  the 
 Antichrist.  liBV  ''J3  JT'ii'xn,  "  the  firstling  of  the  sons  of  Ammon," 
 i.e.  that  which  was  most  valued  or  distinguished  of  the  Ammonites 
 as  a  first-fruit,  by  which  Kranichfeld  understands  the  chief  city  of 
 the  Ammonites.  More  simply  others  understand  by  the  expres- 
 sion, "the  flower  of  the  people,  the  very  kernel  of  the  nation;"  cf. 
 Num.  xxiv.  20,  Amos  vi.  1,  Jer.  xlix.  35.  The  expression  is  so 
 far  altogether  suitable  as  in  the  flower  of  the  people  the  character 
 of  the  nation  shows  itself,  the  enmity  against  the  people  of  God  is 
 most  distinctly  revealed  ;  but  in  this  enmity  lies  the  reason  for  this 
 people's  being  spared  by  the  enemy  of  God. 
 
472  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Ver.  42.  The  stretching  forth  of  his  hand  upon  the  countries 
 is  a  sign  expressive  of  his  seizing  them,  taking  possession  of  them, 
 for  which  he  falls  upon  them.  ni^'"iS2  are  not  other  countries  be- 
 sides those  which,  according  to  ver.  40,  he  overflowed  (Klief.),  but 
 the  same.  Of  tliese  lands  Egypt  is  specially  noticed  in  ver.  42  as 
 the  most  powerful,  which  had  hitherto  successfully  withstood  the 
 assaults  of  the  king  of  the  north,  but  which  in  the  time  of  the 
 end  shall  also  be  overthrown.  Egypt,  as  the  chief  power  of  the 
 south,  represents  the  mightiest  kingdoms  of  the  earth.  n''nn  iO 
 riD^Dp  (^and  there  shall  not  be  for  an  esccq^e),  expressive  of  complete 
 overthrow,  cf.  Joel  ii.  3,  Jer.  1.  29. 
 
 Ver.  43.  Along  with  the  countries  all  their  treasures  fall  into 
 the  possession  of  the  conqueror,  and  also  all  the  allies  of  the  fallen 
 kingdom  shall  be  compelled  to  submit  to  him.  The  genitive  DHV*? 
 belongs  not  merely  to  riHon  (jjrecious  thinf/s),  but  to  all  the  before- 
 named  objects,  vnyypii  (ai  his  steps)  =  1''^^"!?,  Judg.  iv.  10,  denotes 
 the  camp-followers,  but  not  as  mercenary  soldiers  (v.  Leng.,  Ilitz.). 
 The  Lyhians  and  Cushites  represent  all  the  allies  of  the  Egyptians 
 (cf.  Ezek.  XXX.  5,  Nah.  iii.  9),  the  most  southern  nations  of  the 
 earth. 
 
 Vers.  44,  45.   The  end  of  the  hostile  king. 
 
 As  has  been  already  seen,  the  expressions  in  vers.  40-43  regard- 
 ing this  king  do  not  agree  with  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  so  also  the 
 statements  regarding  his  end  are  in  contradiction  to  the  historical 
 facts  reirardinc;  the  end  of  the  Syrian  king.  When  the  hostile 
 king  took  possession  of  Egypt  and  its  treasures,  and  made  the 
 Lybians  and  Cushites  subject  to  him,  tidings  from  tlie  east  and 
 the  north  overwhelm  him  with  terror.  The  masc.  'I'^Pi]?'!  stands  ad 
 sensuni  related  to  the  persons  who  occasion  the  reports.  The  re- 
 ports excited  his  anger,  so  that  he  goes  forth  to  destroy  many. 
 We  have  to  think  thus  on  the  reports  of  revolt  and  insurrections 
 in  the  east  and  the  north  of  his  kingdom,  which  came  to  his  ears 
 in  Egypt.  On  this  ground  Ilitzig,  with  other  interpreters,  refuses 
 to  refer  the  statement  in  ver.  44  to  the  expedition  of  Antiochus 
 against  the  Parthians  and  Armenians  (Tacit,  hist.  v.  8,  and  App. 
 Si/r.  c.  45,  46 ;  1  ]\Iacc.  iii.  37),  because  Antiochus  did  not  under- 
 take this  expedition  from  Egypt ;  and  rather,  in  regard  to  the  east, 
 thinks  on  the  tidings  from  Jerusalem  of  the  rebellion  of  Judea  (2 
 Mace.  V.  11  ff. ;  1  Mace.  i.  24),  and  in  regard  to  the  north,  on 
 the  very  problematical  expedition  against  the  Aradiasi,  without  ob- 
 serving, however,  that  no  Scripture  writer  designates  Jerusalem  as 
 
CHAP.  XL  36-XII.  3.  473 
 
 lying  in  the  east  of  Egypt.  But  besides,  Antioclius,  since  he  was 
 occupied  for  some  years  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and  tliere  met  with 
 his  death,  could  not  shortly  before  his  end  lead  an  expedition  out 
 of  Egypt  against  Aradus.  What  Porphyry  says^  (in  Jerome  under 
 ver.  44)  regarding  an  expedition  of  Antiochus  undertaken  from 
 Egypt  and  Lybia  against  the  Aradieei  and  the  Armenian  king 
 Artaxias,  he  has  gathered  only  from  this  verse  and  from  notices 
 regarding  the  wars  of  Antiochus  against  the  Aradisei  and  king 
 Artaxias  (after  whose  imprisonment,  according  to  App.  S>/7\  c.  46, 
 he  died),  without  having  any  historical  evidence  for  it.  But  even 
 though  the  statement  of  Porphyry  were  better  established,  yet  it 
 would  not  agree  with  ver.  45 ;  for  when  the  king  goes  forth,  in 
 consequence  of  the  report  brought  to  him,  to  destroy  many,  he 
 plants,  according  to  ver.  45,  his  palace-tent  near  to  the  holy  mount, 
 and  here  comes  to  his  end ;  thus  meeting  with  his  destruction  in 
 the  Holy  Land  not  far  from  Jerusalem,  while  Antiochus,  according 
 to  Polybius  and  Porphyry,  died  in  the  Persian  city  of  Tabae  on  his 
 return  from  Persia  to  Babylon. 
 
 Ver.  45.  i'P^  of  planting  a  tent,  only  here  instead  of  the  usual 
 word  nD3j  to  spread  out,  to  set  up,  probably  with  reference  to  the 
 great  palace-like  tent  of  the  oriental  ruler,  whose  poles  must  be 
 struck  very  deep  into  the  earth.  Cf.  the  description  of  the  tent  of 
 Alexander  the  Great,  which  was  erected  after  the  oriental  type,  in 
 Polyeen.  Sirateg.  iv.  3.  24,  and  of  the  tent  of  Nadir-Schah  in 
 Rosenmiiller,  A.  u.  'N.  Morgl.  iv.  p.  364  f.  These  tents  were 
 surrounded  by  a  multitude  of  smaller  tents  for  the  guards  and 
 servants,  a  circumstance  which  explains  the  use  of  the  plur.  vHX 
 is  incorrectly  taken  by  Theodotion,  Porphyry,  Jerome,  and  others 
 for  a  nomen  propr.,  meaning  in  Syriac,  palace  or  tower.  ^0?  P? 
 =  r?^  r?,  Gen.  i.  6,  Joel  ii.  17,  of  a  space  between  two  other 
 places  or  objects,  ti^ip"''^^  "in,  the  holy  hill  of  the  delight,  i.e.  of 
 Palestine  (cf.  ch.  viii.  9),  is  without  doubt  the  mountain  on  which 
 stood  the  temple  of  Jerusalem,  as  v.  Leng.,  Maur.,  Hitzig,  and 
 Ewald  acknowledge.  The  interpretation  of  the  mountain  of  the 
 temple  of  Anaitis  in  Elyma'is  (Dereser,  Havernick)  needs  no  refu- 
 tation. According  to  this,  ^''^\  cannot  designate  the  Mediterranean 
 and  the  Dead  Sea,  as  Kliefoth  supposes,  but  it  is  only  the  poetic 
 
 ^  The  words  are :  Pugnans  contra  jEfjyptios  et  Lyblas,  ^tJiiopiasqite  ])ertran- 
 siens,  audiet  sihi  ab  aquilone  et  oriente  prselia  concitari,  wide  et  regrediens  capit 
 Aradios  resistentes  et  omnem  in  liltore  Phoenicis  vasfavit  provinciam ;  conjestimque 
 pergit  ad  Artaxiam  regem  Armenise,  qui  de  orientis  partihus  movehatur. 
 
474  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 plnr.  of  fulness,  as  a  sign  of  the  great  Mediterranean  Sea.  Since 
 now  this  scene  where  the  great  enemy  of  the  people  of  God  comes 
 to  his  end,  i.e.  perishes,  in  no  respect  agrees  with  the  place  where 
 Antiochus  died,  then  according  to  Hitzig  the  pseudo-Daniel  does 
 not  here  accurately  distinguish  the  separate  expeditions  from  one 
 another,  and  must  have  omitted  between  the  first  and  the  second 
 half  of  the  verse  the  interval  between  the  return  of  Antiochus 
 from  Egypt  and  his  death,  because  Antiochus  never  again  trod  the 
 soil  of  Palestine.  Such  expedients  condemn  themselves.  With  "  he 
 shall  come  to  his  end,"  cf.  ch.  viii.  25,  where  the  end  of  this  enemy 
 of  God  is  described  as  a  being  "  broken  without  the  hand  of  man." 
 Here  the  expression  "  and  none  shall  help  him"  is  added  to  desig- 
 nate the  hopelessness  of  his  overthrow. 
 
 The  placing  of  the  overthrow  of  this  enemy  with  his  host  near 
 the  temple-mountain  agrees  with  the  other  prophecies  of  the  O.  T., 
 which  place  the  decisive  destruction  of  the  hostile  world-power  by 
 the  appearance  of  the  Lord  for  the  consummation  of  His  king- 
 dom upon  the  mountains  of  Israel  (Ezek.  xxxix.  4),  or  in  the  valley 
 of  Jehoshaphat  at  Jerusalem,  or  at  Jerusalem  (Joel  iv.  2  [ill.  2], 
 12  f. ;  Zech.xiv.  2),  and  confirms  the  result  of  our  exposition,  that 
 the  hostile  king,  the  last  enemy  of  the  world-power,  is  the  Anti- 
 christ.    With  this  also  the  conclusion,  ch.  xii.  1-3,  is  in  harmony. 
 
 Ch.  xii.  1-3.  T lie  final  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  last  tribu- 
 lation^ and  their  consummation. 
 
 Ver.  1.  ^'r}r\  nyai  points  back  to  J*?.  J^^^  (ch.  xi.  40).  At  the 
 time  of  the  end,  in  which  the  hostile  persecutor  rises  up  to  subdue 
 the  whole  world,  and  sets  up  his  camp  in  the  Holy  Land  to  destroy 
 many  in  great  anger  and  to  strike  them  with  the  ban  (2"'"!nL',  ch. 
 xi.  44),  i.e.  totally  to  outroot  them  (ch.  xi.  40-45),  the  great  angel- 
 prince  Michael  shall  come  forth  and  fight  for  the  people  of  God 
 against  their  oppressor.  Regarding  Michael,  see  under  ch.  x.  13, 
 p.  417.  "Who  stands  over  the  sons  of  thy  people,"  i.e.  stands 
 near,  protecting  them  (cf.  for  t^V  I'^V  in  the  sense  of  coming  to 
 protect,  Esth.  viii.  11,  ix.  16),  describes  Michael,  who  carries  on  his 
 work  as  Israel's  lb'  (ch.  x.  21).  That  Michael,  fighting  for  Daniel's 
 people,  goes  forth  against  the  hostile  king  (ch.  xi.  45),  is,  it  is  true, 
 not  said  expressis  verbis^  but  it  lies  in  the  context,  especially  in  the 
 •^rsy  \:h)^\  {tlnj  people  shall  be  delivered)  of  the  second  half  of  the 
 verse,  as  well  as  in  the  expressions  regarding  Michael,  ch.  x.  13 
 and  21. 
 
 But  the  people  of  God  need  such  powerful  help   for  their 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XII.  3.  475 
 
 deliverance,  because  that  time  shall  be  one  of  oppression  without 
 any  parallel.  The  description  of  this  oppression  seems  to  be  based 
 on  Jer.  xxx.  7  (C.  B.  Michaelis,  Hengstenberg)  ;  but  that  which 
 is  there  said  is  here  heightened  by  the  relative  clause  (cf.  Joel  ii. 
 2),  which  enlarges  the  thought,  Ex.  ix.  18,  24.  This  ni^*  ny  {time 
 of  distress)  is  the  climax  of  the  oppression  which  the  hostile  king 
 shall  bring  upon  Israel,  and  occurs  at  the  same  time  as  the  expiry 
 of  the  last  (the  seventieth)  week,  ch.  ix.  26.  "  The  salvation  of 
 Israel  ('^^'^O,  which  is  here  thought  of  as  brought  about  under  the 
 direction  of  Michael,  coincides  essentially  with  the  description,  ch. 
 vii.  18,  26  f.,  14,  ix.  24."  Thus  Kranichfeld  rightly  remarks.  He 
 also  rightly  identifies  the  continued  victorious  deliverance  of  Israel 
 from  the  oppression  (ver.  1)  with  the  setting  up  of  the  Messianic 
 kingdom,  described  in  ch.  vii.  2,  9,  and  finds  in  this  verse  (ch.  xii. 
 1)  the  Messianic  kingdom  dissolving  the  world-kingdoms. 
 
 AYitli  this  the  opposers  of  the  genuineness  of  the  book  of 
 Daniel  also  agree,  and  deduce  therefrom  the  conclusion,  that  the 
 pseudo-Daniel  expected,  along  with  the  overthrow  of  Antiochus 
 Epiphanes,  the  appearance  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  of  glory. 
 This  conclusion  would  be  indisputable  if  the  premises  from  which  it 
 is  drawn,  that  ^''^'^  T\V2  (at  that  time)  is  the  time  of  Antiochus,  were 
 well  founded.  All  attempts  of  believing  intei*preters,  who,  with 
 Porphyry,  Grotius,  Bleek,  v.  Lengerke,  Hitzig,  and  others,  find  the 
 death  of  Antiochus  prophesied  in  ch.  xi.  45,  to  dismiss  this  con- 
 clusion, appear  on  close  inspection  to  be  untenable.  According  to 
 Havernick,  with  X'^nn  nyni  {and  at  that  time)  a  new  period  following 
 that  going  before  is  introduced,  and  that  i^'^^  nyn  means  at  some 
 future  time.  The  appearance  of  ]\Iichael  for  his  people  denotes 
 the  appearance  of  the  Messiah ;  and  the  sufferings  and  oppressions 
 connected  with  his  appearance  denote  the  sufferings  which  the 
 people  of  Israel  shall  endure  at  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  by 
 the  Romans,  but  which  shall  be  most  fully  realized  only  at  the 
 second  coming  of  the  Lord,  Matt.  xxiv.  21,  22.  But  this  expla- 
 nation is  shattered  against  the  ^^^^'^  ^V.^j  which  never  has  the 
 meaning  "  at  some  time,"  i.e.  in  the  further  future,  and  is  refuted 
 by  the  following  remark  of  Hitzig  : — "  Not  once,"  says  he,  with 
 good  ground,  "  can  the  words  ii'^^\}  Di'?  be  proved  by  such  passages 
 as  2  Kings  iii.  6,  Isa.  xxviii.  5,  Gen.  xxxix.  11,  to  have  the  mean- 
 ing of  at  that  day ;  in  N\nn  nyn  we  may  not  by  any  means  seek  such 
 a  meaning,  and  the  copula  here  puts  a  complete  barrier  in  the 
 way  of  such  arbitrariness.     Moreover,  if  the  epoch  of  Antiochus 
 
476  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 Epiphanes  was  indeed  a  time  of  oppression,  how  could  a  reader 
 then  not  refer  this  N\"in  to  the  time  of  that  king  described  in  the 
 foregoing  chapter  1 "  Finally,  Dv^BiJ^O  (intelligentes),  ver.  3,  refers 
 back  to  the  DV  \?''?^'^  who  helped  many  to  knowledge,  and  who  lost 
 their  lives  in  the  persecution  (ch.  xi.  33,  3-i),  and  now  are  raised 
 to  eternal  life.^ 
 
 Havernick,  however,  was  riglit,  in  opposing  those  who  refer 
 ver.  1  to  the  period  of  persecution  under  Antioclius,  in  arguing 
 that  the  statement  of  the  unheard-of  greatness  of  the  affliction  is 
 far  too  strong  for  such  a  period,  and  at  the  same  time  that  the 
 promise  of  the  deliverance  of  those  that  shall  be  found  written  in 
 the  book  does  not  accord  with  that  Syrian  oppression,  although  he 
 is  in  error  when  he  interprets  the  appearance  of  Michael  of  the 
 first  appearance  of  Christ.  This  interpretation  receives  no  sup- 
 port either  from  ch.  ix.  26  or  from  Mutt.  xxiv.  21,  22,  because 
 both  passages  treat  of  the  coming  of  Christ  in  glory.  But  if  the 
 reference  of  this  verse  to  the  appearance  of  Christ  in  the  flesh  is 
 inconsistent  with  the  words,  still  more  so  is  its  reference  to  the 
 period  of  Antiochus.  Tliose  interpreters  who  advance  this  view 
 are  under  the  necessity  of  violently  separating  ver.  1  from  vers.  2 
 and  3,  which  undoubtedly  treat  of  the  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
 
 According  to  Auberlen,  who  has  rightly  conceived  that  the 
 D^b^3b'?o,  ch.  xii.  3,  allude  to  the  2'^'3b'?^,  ch.  xi.  33  and  34,  the 
 U'^nrj  ^7;^V0  to  the  n'2-]b  ^:nj,  ch.  xi.  33,  vers.  2  and  3  do  not  inti- 
 mate any  progress  in  the  development  of  the  history,  but  by  men- 
 tioning the  resurrection  only,  are  referred  to  the  eternal  retribution 
 which  awaits  the  Israelites  according  to  their  conduct  during  the 
 time  of  great  persecution  under  Antiochus,  because,  as  C.  B. 
 Michaelis  has  said,  ejus  (i.e.  of  the  resurrection)  consideralio  magnam 
 vim  hahet  ad  conjirmandum  animum  sub  tribidationihus.  As  to  the 
 period  between  the  time  of  trial  and  the  resurrection,  nothing 
 whatever  is  said  ;  for  in  vers.  2  and  3  every  designation  of  time  is 
 wanting,  while  in  ver.  1  the  expression  "  at  this  time "  twice 
 occurs.  Thus  Hengstenberg  (Chrisiol.  iii.  1,  p.  6)  has  remarked, 
 "  Whether  there  be  a  lon<jer  or  a  shorter  time  between  the  tribu- 
 lation  of  the  Maccabean  era  and  the  resurrection,  the  consolation 
 from  the  fact  of  the  resurrection  remains  equally  powerful.  There- 
 fore it  is  so  connected  with  the  deliverance  from  the  persecution 
 
 ^  These  arguments  extend  also  to  the  overtlirow  of  Ebrard's  view,  that  the 
 expression  "  to  this  time  "  refers  to  the  time  after  Antiochus  Epiphaues  shall 
 have  died. 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XII.  3.  477 
 
 as  if  the  one  immediately  followed  the  other."  But  with  this  it  is 
 conceded  that  the  I'esurrection  from  the  dead  is  so  associated  with 
 the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  tyranny  of  Antiochus  as  if  it 
 came  immediately  after  it,  as  the  opponents  of  the  genuineness 
 of  the  book  affirm.  But  this  interpretation  is  obviously  a  mere 
 make-shift. 
 
 Vers.  2,  3.  These  verses  do  not  at  all  present  the  form  of  a 
 parenetic  reference  to  the  retribution  commencing  with  the  resur- 
 rection. Ver.  2  is  by  the  copula  1  connected  with  ver.  1,  and 
 thereby  designates  the  continuance  of  the  thought  of  the  second 
 half  of  ver.  1,  i.e.  the  further  representation  of  the  deliverance  of 
 God's  people,  namely,  of  all  those  who  are  written  in  the  book  of 
 life.  Since  many  of  the  D''i5''3b'»  who  know  their  God  (ch.  xi.  33) 
 lose  their  life  in  the  persecution,  so  in  the  promise  of  deliverance 
 a  disclosure  of  the  lot  awaiting  those  who  sealed  with  their  blood 
 their  fidelity  to  God  was  not  to  be  avoided,  if  the  prophecy  shall 
 wholly  gain  its  end,  i.e.  if  the  promise  of  the  deliverance  of  all 
 tile  pious  shall  afford  to  the  people  of  God  in  the  times  of  oppres- 
 sion strength  and  joy  in  their  enduring  fidelity  to  God.  The 
 appeal  to  the  fact  that  vers.  2  and  3  contain  no  designation  of  time 
 proves  nothing  at  all,  for  this  simple  reason,  that  the  verses  con- 
 nected by  "  and"  are  by  this  copula  placed  under  ver.  1,  which 
 contains  a  designation  of  time,  and  only  further  show  how  this  de- 
 liverance shall  ensue,  namely  thus,  that  a  part  of  the  people  shall 
 outlive  the  tribulation,  but  those  who  lose  their  lives  in  the  per- 
 secution shall  rise  again  from  the  dead. 
 
 To  this  is  to  be  added  that  the  contents  of  ver.  1  do  not  aofree 
 with  the  period  of  persecution  under  Antiochus.  That  which  is 
 said  regarding  the  greatness  of  the  persecution  is  much  too  strong 
 for  it.  The  words,  ''  There  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble  such  as 
 never  was  ''12  nvno^  since  there  was  a  nation  or  nations,"  desio-- 
 nate  it  as  such  as  never  was  before  on  the  earth.  Theodoret 
 interprets  thus  :  o'la  ov  yeyovev,  a(j)  ou  'ye'yevrjraL  eOvo<i  iirl  t?}?  7^? 
 ea)9  Tov  Kuipov  eiceivov.  With  reference  to  these  words  our  Lord 
 says  :  oXa  ov  <ye'yovev  air  apj(fi^  Koajxov  eco'^  rov  vvv,  ovS'  ou  fir] 
 fyivrjTai,  Matt.  xxiv.  21.  Though  the  oppression  which  Antiochus 
 brought  upon  Israel  may  have  been  most  severe,  yet  it  could  not 
 be  said  of  it  without  exaggeration,  that  it  was  such  a  tribulation 
 as  never  had  been  from  the  beginning  of  the  world.  Antiochus, 
 it  is  true,  sought  to  outroot  Judaism  root  and  branch,  but 
 Pharaoh  also  wished  to  do  the  same  by  his  command  to  destroy  all 
 
478  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 the  Hebrew  male  children  at  their  birtli  ;  and  as  Antiochus  wished 
 to  make  the  worship  of  the  Grecian  Zeus,  so  also  Jezebel  the  wor- 
 ship of  the  Phoenician  Hercules,  in  the  place  of  the  worship  of 
 Jehovah,  the  national  religion  in  Israel. 
 
 Still  less  does  the  second  hemistich  of  ver.  1  refer  to  the  de- 
 liverance of  the  people  from  the  power  of  Antiochus.  Under  the 
 words,  "  every  one  that  shall  be  found  written  in  the  book,"  Hitzig 
 remarks  that  they  point  back  to  Isa.  iv.  3,  and  that  the  book  is 
 thus  the  book  of  life,  and  corrects  the  vain  interpretation  of  v. 
 Lengerke,  that  "  to  be  written  in  the  book  "  means  in  an  earthly 
 sense  to  live,  to  be  appointed  to  life,  by  the  more  accurate  explana- 
 tion, "  The  book  of  life  is  thus  the  record  of  those  who  shall  live, 
 it  is  the  list  of  the  citizens  of  the  Messianic  kingdom  (Phil.  iv.  3), 
 and  in  Isaiah  contains  the  names  of  those  who  reach  it  living,  in 
 Daniel  also  of  those  who  must  first  be  raised  from  the  dead  for  it." 
 Cf.  regarding  the  book  of  life,  under  Ex.  xxxii.  32. 
 
 Accordingly  N''nri  nj?3  extends  into  the  Messianic  time.  This 
 is  so  far  acknowledged  by  Hofmann  {Weiss,  ti.  Erf.  i.  p.  313,  and 
 Scliriftbew.  ii.  2,  p.  697),  in  that  he  finds  in  ver.  1,  from  "  and 
 there  shall  be  a  time,"  and  in  vers.  2  and  3,  the  prophecy  of  the 
 final  close  of  the  history  of  nations,  the  time  of  the  great  tribulation 
 at  the  termination  of  the  present  course  of  the  world,  the  complete 
 salvation  of  Israel  in  it,  and  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  at  the 
 end  of  the  world.  Since,  however,  Hofmann  likewise  refers  the 
 last  verses  of  the  preceding  chapter  to  the  time  of  Antiochus  and 
 his  destruction,  and  can  only  refer  the  N"'']!!'  ^V.'^'^  at  the  beginning 
 of  ch.  xii.,  from  its  close  connection  with  the  last  words  of  ch.  xi., 
 to  the  time  which  has  hitherto  been  spoken  of,  so  he  supposes  that 
 in  the  first  clause  of  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter  (xii.)  there 
 cannot  be  a  passing  over  to  another  time,  but  that  this  transition 
 is  first  made  by  nn^ni.  This  transition  he  seeks  indeed,  in  the  2d 
 ed.  of  his  Schriftbeio.  I.e.,  to  cover  by  the  remark :  that  we  may 
 not  explain  the  words  of  the  angel,  'lJ1  rij?  nn^ni,  as  if  they  meant : 
 that  time  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble  such  as  has  not  been  till  now ; 
 but  much  rather  that  they  are  to  be  translated  :  "  and  there  shall 
 arise  a  time  of  trouble  such  as  never  was  to  that  time."  But  this 
 separation  of  the  words  in  question  from  those  going  before  by  the 
 translation  of  ^^'J}]  "  and  there  shall  arise,"  is  rendered  impossible 
 by  the  words  following,  N''nri  nyn  IV ;  for  these  so  distinctly  point 
 back  to  the  words  with  which  the  verse  commences,  that  we  may 
 not  empty  them  of  their  definite  contents  by  the  ambiguous  "  till 
 
CHAP.  XI.  36-XIL  3.  479 
 
 that  time."  If  the  angel  says,  There  shall  arise  a  time  of  oppres- 
 sion such  as  has  never  been  since  there  were  nations  till  that  time 
 when  Michael  shall  appear  for  his  people,  or,  as  Hofmann  trans- 
 lates it,  shall  "  hold  fast  his  place,"  then  to  every  unprejudiced 
 reader  it  is  clear  that  this  tribulation  such  as  has  never  been  before 
 shall  arise  not  for  the  first  time  centuries  after  the  appearance  of 
 Michael  or  of  his  "  holding  fast  his  place,"  but  in  the  time  of  the 
 war  of  the  angel-prince  for  the  people  of  God.  In  this  same  time 
 the  angel  further  places  the  salvation  of  the  people  of  Daniel  and 
 the  resurrection  of  the  dead.^ 
 
 The  failure  of  all  attempts  to  gain  a  space  of  time  between  cli. 
 xi.  45  and  xii.  1  or  2  incontrovertibly  shows  that  the  assertions  of 
 those  who  dispute  the  genuineness  of  the  book,  that  the  pseudo- 
 Daniel  expected  along  with  the  death  of  Antiochus  the  commence- 
 ment of  the  Messianic  kingdom  and  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
 would  have  a  foundation  if  the  last  verses  of  ch.  xi.  treated  of  the 
 last  undertakings  of  this  Syrian  king  against  the  theocracy.  This 
 if\  it  has,  however,  been  seen  from  ch.  xi.,  is  not  established.  In 
 ch.  xi.  40-45  the  statements  do  not  refer  to  Antiochus,  but  to  the 
 time  of  the  end,  of  the  last  enemy  of  the  holy  God,  and  of  his 
 destruction.  With  that  is  connected,  without  any  intervening  space, 
 in  ch.  xii.  1  the  description  of  the  last  oppression  of  the  people  of 
 God  and  their  salvation  to  everlasting  life.  The  prophecy  of  that 
 unheard-of  great  tribulation  Christ  has  in  Matt.  xxiv.  21  referred, 
 wholly  in  the  sense  of  the  prophetic  announcement,  to  the  yet  future 
 6XL\ln<i  fxeyaXij  which  shall  precede  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
 in  the  clouds  of  heaven  to  judge  the  world  and  to  bring  to  a  con- 
 summation the  kingdom  of  God.  That  this  tribulation  shall  come 
 only  upon  Israel,  the  people  of  God,  is  not  said ;  the  ''12  ni^'^p 
 refers  much  more  to  a  tribulation  that  shall  come  upon  the  whole 
 
 ^  Hofmann's  explanation  of  the  words  would  only  be  valid  if  the  definition 
 of  time  KTin  nyn  """inx  stood  after  nriMI  in  the  text,  which  Hofm.  in  his  most 
 recent  attempts  at  its  exposition  has  interpolated  inadvertently,  while  in  his 
 earlier  exposition  {Weiss,  u.  Erf.  i.  p.  314)  he  has  openly  said:  "  These  last 
 things  connect  themselves  with  the  prospect  of  the  end  of  that  oppressor  of 
 Israel,  not  otherwise  than  as  when  Isaiah  spoke  of  the  approaching  assault  of 
 the  Assyrians  on  Jerusalem  as  of  the  last  affliction  of  the  city,  or  as  in  Jeremiah 
 the  end  of  those  seventy  years  is  also  the  end  of  all  the  sufferings  of  his  people. 
 There  remains  therefore  a  want  of  clearness  in  this  prospect,"  etc.  This  want  of 
 clearness  he  has,  in  his  most  recent  exposition  in  the  Schrifthew.,  not  set  aside, 
 but  increased,  by  the  supposition  of  an  immediate  transition  from  the  time  of 
 Antiochus  to  the  time  of  the  end. 
 
480  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 of  liumanity.  In  it  shall  the  angel-prince  Michael  help  the  people 
 of  Daniel,  i.e.  the  people  of  God.  That  he  shall  destroy  the  hostile 
 king,  the  Antichrist,  is  not  said.  His  influence  extends  only  to  the 
 assistance  which  he  shall  render  to  the  people  of  God  for  their 
 salvation,  so  that  all  who  are  written  in  the  book  of  life  shall  be 
 saved.  Christ,  in  His  eschatological  discourse,  ]\Iatt.  xxiv.,  does 
 not  make  mention  of  this  assistance,  but  only  says  that  for  the 
 elect's  sake  the  days  of  the  oppression  shall  be  shortened,  otherwise 
 that  no  one  would  be  saved  {iacodr],  Matt.  xxiv.  22).  AVherein  the 
 help  of  Michael  consists,  is  seen  partly  from  that  which  is  said  in 
 ch.  X.  13  and  21  regarding  him,  that  he  helped  the  Angel  of  the 
 Lord  in  the  war  against  the  hostile  spirit  of  the  Persian  and  the 
 Javanic  world-kingdom,  partly  from  the  war  of  Michael  against 
 the  dragon  described  in  Rev.  xii.  7  ff.  From  these  indications  it  is 
 clear  that  we  may  not  limit  the  help  on  the  part  of  Michael  to 
 the  help  which  he  renders  to  the  saints  of  God  in  the  last  war  and 
 struggle,  but  that  he  stands  by  them  in  all  wars  against  the  world- 
 power  and  its  princes,  and  helps  them  to  victory. 
 
 But  the  salvation  which  the  people  of  God  shall  experience  in 
 the  time  of  the  unparalleled  great  oppression  is  essentially  different 
 from  the  help  which  was  imparted  to  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  time 
 of  the  Maccabees.  This  is  called  "  a  little  help,"  ch.  xi.  34.  So 
 also  is  the  oppression  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  dif- 
 ferent from  the  oppression  in  the  end  of  the  time,  as  to  its  object 
 and  consequences.  The  former  oppression  shall,  according  to  ch. 
 xi.  33-35,  serve  to  purify  the  people  and  to  make  them  white  to 
 the  time  of  the  end ;  the  oppression  at  the  time  of  the  end,  on  the 
 contrary,  according  to  ch.  xii.  1-3,  shall  effect  the  salvation  (^^'|i'7) 
 of  the  people,  i.e.  prepare  the  people  for  the  everlasting  life,  and 
 bring  about  the  separation  of  the  righteous  from  the  wicked  for 
 eternity.  These  clearly  stated  distinctions  confirm  the  result 
 already  reached,  that  ch.  xii.  1-3  do  not  treat  of  the  time  of 
 Antiochus  and  the  ]\Iaccabees. 
 
 The  promised  salvation  of  the  people  {"?'^\)  is  more  particularly 
 defined  by  the  addition  to  T^y :  "  every  one  who  shall  be  found 
 written  in  the  book,"  sc.oi  life  (see  above,  p.  478) ;  thus  every  one 
 whom  God  has  ordained  to  life,  all  the  genuine  members  of  the 
 people  of  God.  t^ptpj,  shall  be  saved,  sc.  out  of  the  tribulation,  so 
 that  they  do  not  perish  therein.  But  since,  according  to  ch.  xi. 
 33  ff.,  in  the  oppression,  which  passes  over  the  people  of  God  for 
 their  purification,  many  shall  lose  their  lives,  and  this  also  shall  be 
 
CHAP,  xr.  sG-xir.  3,  481 
 
 the  case  in  the  last  and  severest  oppression,  the  angel  gives  to  the 
 prophet,  in  ver.  2,  disclosures  also  regarding  the  dead,  namely,  that 
 they  shall  awaken  out  of  the  sleep  of  death.  By  the  connection  of 
 this  verse  with  the  preceding  by  "i,  without  any  further  designation 
 of  time,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  is  placed  as  synchronous  with 
 the  deliverance  of  the  people.  "  For  that  the  two  clauses,  '  thy 
 people  shall  be  delivered'  (ver.  1),  and  '  many  shall  awake,'  not 
 only  reciprocally  complete  each  other,  but  also  denote  contempo- 
 raneous facts,  we  only  deny  by  first  denying  that  the  former 
 declares  the  final  salvation  of  Israel"  (Hofm.  Sclirifthew.  ii.  2, 
 p.  598).  V^),  sleeping,  is  here  used,  as  in  Job  iii.  13,  Jer.  li.  39,  of 
 death  ;  cf.  KaOevSeiv,  Matt.  ix.  24,  1  Thess.  v.  10,  and  Koifiaadai, 
 1  Thess.  iv,  14.  I3y~n?p'tx,  occurring  only  here,  formed  after  Gen, 
 iii.  19,  means  not  the  dust  of  the  earth,  but  dusty  earth,  terra  pulveris^ 
 denoting  the  grave,  as  "isy,  Ps.  xxii.  30. 
 
 It  appears  surprising  that  0''r^1,  many,  shall  awake,  since  ac- 
 cording to  the  sequel,  where  the  rising  of  some  to  life  and  of  some 
 to  shame  is  spoken  of,  much  rather  the  word  all  might  have  been 
 expected.  This  difficulty  is  not  removed  by  the  remark  that  many 
 stands  for  all,  because  C^T  does  not  mean  all.  Concerning  the 
 opinion  that  many  stands  for  all,  Hofmann  remarks,  that  the  ex- 
 pression "  sleeping  in  the  dust  of  earth "  is  not  connected  with 
 the  word  many  (Q''?l),  but  with  the  verb  "  shall  awake "  (^^"'i?^)  : 
 *'  of  them  there  shall  be  many,  of  whom  those  who  sleep  in  the 
 earth  shall  arise"  (Hofm.).  So  also  C.  B.  Michaelis  interprets  the 
 words  by  reference  to  the  Masoretic  accentuation,  which  has  sepa- 
 rated Q''3T  from  "'J'^^'P  (sleeping),  only  that  he  takes  p  in  the  sense 
 of  stating  the  terminus  mutationis  a  quo.  But  by  this  very  artificial 
 interpretation  nothing  at  all  is  gained  ;  for  the  thought  still  remains 
 the  same,  that  of  those  who  sleep  in  the  dust  many  (not  all)  awake. 
 The  partitive  interpretation  of  IP  is  the  only  simple  and  natural 
 one,  and  therefore  with  most  interpreters  we  prefer  it.  The  D''3'i 
 can  only  be  rightly  interpreted  from  the  context.  The  angel  has 
 it  not  in  view  to  give  a  general  statement  regarding  the  resurrection 
 of  the  dead,  but  only  disclosures  on  this  point,  that  the  final  salva- 
 tion of  the  people  shall  not  be  limited  to  those  still  living  at  the 
 end  of  the  great  tribulation,  but  shall  include  also  those  who  have 
 lost  their  lives  during  the  period  of  the  tribulation. 
 
 In  ch.  xi.  33,  35,  the  angel  had  already  said,  that  of  "  those 
 that  understand  "  many  shall  fall  by  the  sword  and  by  flame,  etc. 
 When  the  tribulation  at  the  time  of  the  end  increases  to  an  un- 
 
 2H 
 
482  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 paralleled  extent  (ch.  xii.  1),  a  yet  greater  number  shall  perish,  so 
 that  when  salvation  comes,  only  a  remnant  of  the  people  shall  be 
 then  in  life.  To  this  survivino;  remnant  of  the  people  salvation  is 
 promised  ;  but  the  promise  is  Innited  yet  further  by  the  addition  : 
 "  every  one  that  is  found  written  in  the  book  ;"  not  all  that  are  then 
 living,  but  only  those  whose  names  are  recorded  in  the  book  of  life 
 shall  be  partakers  of  the  deliverance,  i.e.  of  the  Messianic  salva- 
 tion. But  many  (Q'^^'i)  of  those  that  sleep,  who  died  in  the  time 
 of  tribulation,  shall  awake  out  of  sleep,  some  to  everlasting  life, 
 and  some  to  everlasting  shame.  As  with  the  living,  so  also  with 
 the  dead,  not  all  attain  to  salvation.  Also  among  those  that  arise 
 there  shall  be  a  distinction,  in  which  the  reward  of  the  faithful  and 
 of  the  unfaithful  shall  be  made  known.  The  word  "many"  is 
 accordingly  used  only  with  reference  to  the  small  number  of  those 
 who  shall  then  be  living,  and  not  with  reference  either  to  the 
 universality  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  or  to  a  portion  only 
 of  the  dead,  but  merely  to  add  to  the  multitude  of  the  dead,  who 
 shall  then  have  part  with  the  living,  the  small  number  of  those  who 
 shall  experience  in  the  flesh  the  conclusion  of  the  matter. 
 
 If  we  consider  this  coui'se  of  thought,  then  we  shall  find  it 
 necessary  neither  to  obtrude  upon  D''3i  the  meaning  of  a//, — a 
 meaning  which  it  has  not  and  cannot  have,  for  the  universality  of 
 the  resurrection  is  removed  by  the  particle  IP,  which  makes  it 
 impossible  that  D^3"}  =  ^''^l'^,  ol  ttoWol  =  Trdvref;  (cf.  Rom.  v.  15 
 with  ver.  12), — nor  shall  we  need  to  adopt  the  conclusion  that  here 
 a  partial  resurrection  is  taught,  in  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of 
 the  N.  T.,  and  particularly  of  Christ,  who  has  quoted  this  passage 
 in  John  v.  24,  using  for  the  D''3'i  the  word  irdvre'i ;  for  this  con- 
 clusion can  only  be  drawn  from  the  misapprehension  of  the  course 
 of  thought  here  presented,  that  this  verse  contains  a  general  state- 
 ment of  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  an  idea  which 
 is  foreign  to  the  connection. 
 
 From  the  correct  interpretation  of  the  course  of  thought  arises 
 the  correct  answer  to  the  controverted  question,  whether  here  we 
 are  taught  concerning  the  resurrection  of  the  people  of  Israel,  or 
 concerning  the  resurrection  of  mankind  generally.  Neither  the 
 one  nor  the  other  of  these  things  is  taught  here.  The  prophetic 
 words  treat  of  the  people  of  Daniel,  by  which  we  are  to  understand 
 the  people  of  Israel.  But  the  Israel  of  the  time  of  the  end  con- 
 sists not  merely  of  Jews  or  of  Jewish  Christians,  but  embraces 
 all  peoples  who  belong  to  God's  kingdom  of  the  New  Covenant 
 
CHAP.  XI.  3C-XII.  3.  483 
 
 founded  by  Christ.  In  this  respect  the  resurrection  of  all  is  here 
 implicite  intimated,  and  Christ  has  explicitly  set  forth  the  thoughts 
 lying  implicite  in  this  verse  ;  for  in  John  v.  28  f.  He  teaches  the 
 awakening  from  sleep  of  all  the  dead,  and  speaks,  with  unmistake- 
 able  reference  to  this  passage  before  us,  of  an  ava.crraai<i  ^o)?}?  and 
 an  apd<TraaL<;  Kplaeo)<;.  For  in  the  O.  T.  our  verse  is  the  only 
 passage  in  which,  along  with  the  resurrection  to  everlasting  life, 
 there  is  mention  also  made  of  the  resurrection  to  everlasting  shame, 
 or  the  resurrection  of  the  righteous  and  of  the  wicked.  The  con- 
 ception of  D^iy  \'n,  ^&)r/  ala)Vio<i,  meets  us  here  for  the  first  time  in 
 the  O.  T.  ni''*n  denotes,  it  is  true,  frequently  the  true  life  with  God, 
 the  blessed  life  in  communion  with  God,  which  exists  after  this 
 life  ;  but  the  addition  Dpij?  does  not  generally  occur,  and  is  here 
 introduced  to  denote,  as  corresponding  to  the  eternal  duration  of 
 the  Messianic  kingdom  (ch.  ii.  44,  vii.  14,  27,  cf.  ch.  ix.  24),  the 
 life  of  the  righteous  in  this  kingdom  as  imperishable,  ^i^nnp 
 D^iy  Jii^-inS  forms  the  contrast  to  h'^iV  \^nb  ;  for  first  ni^^n,  shame 
 (a  plur.  of  intensive  fulness),  is  placed  over  against  the  \*n,  then  this 
 shame  is  designated  in  reference  to  Isa.  Ixvi.  24  as  li^^'J'^,  contempt, 
 an  object  of  aversion. 
 
 Ver.  3.  Then  shall  they  who  in  the  times  of  tribulation  have 
 led  many  to  the  knowledge  of  salvation  receive  the  glorious  reward 
 of  their  faithfulness.  With  this  thought  the  angel  closes  the  an- 
 nouncement of  the  future.  Dv''3t^'?^^l  refers  back  to  ch.  xi.  33-35, 
 and  is  here,  as  there,  not  limited  to  the  teachers,  but  denotes  the 
 intelligent  who,  by  instructing  their  contemporaries  by  means  of 
 word  and  deed,  have  awakened  them  to  stedfastness  and  fidelity  to 
 their  confession  in  the  times  of  tribulation  and  have  strengthened 
 their  faith,  and  some  of  whom  have  in  war  sealed  their  testimony 
 with  their  blood.  These  shall  shine  in  eternal  life  with  heavenly 
 splendour.  The  splendour  of  the  vault  of  heaven  (cf.  Ex.  xxiv. 
 10)  is  a  figure  of  the  glory  which  Christ  designates  as  a  light  like 
 the  sun  ("  The  righteous  shall  shine  forth  as  the  sun,"  Matt.  xiii. 
 43,  referring  to  the  passage  before  us).  Cf.  for  this  figure  also 
 Kev.  ii.  28  and  1  Cor.  xv.  40  ff.  By  the  expression  D^snn  >pn>;D 
 Kranichfeld  would  understand  such  as  take  away  the  sins  of  the 
 people  in  the  offering  up  of  sacrifice,  i.e.  the  priests  who  attend  to 
 the  offering  of  the  sacrifices,  because  the  expression  is  borrowed 
 from  Isa.  liii.  11,  "  where  it  is  predicated  of  the  Messianic  priest 
 KUT  i^o-^i]v,  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word,  what  is  said  here  of 
 the  common  priests."     But  this  interpretation  is  not  satisfactory. 
 
484  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 In  Isa.  liii.  11  the  Servant  of  Jeliovah  justifies  many,  not  by  tlie 
 sacrifice,  but  by  His  righteousness,  by  this,  that  He,  as  P'''^V  who 
 has  done  no  sin,  takes  upon  Himself  the  sins  of  the  people  and 
 gives  His  soul  an  offering  for  sin.  P^'^V'I'  is  neither  in  the  law  of 
 sacrifices  nor  anywhere  in  the  O.  T.  named  as  the  effect  of  the 
 sacrifice,  but  always  only  iiy  nxb'  (i<'^'3)  (^to  take  ?</?,  take  aivay 
 iniquity)  and  "1Q?,  and  in  the  expiatory  saciifices  with  the  con- 
 stant addition  'h  n^D3l ;  of.  Lev.  iv.  26,  31,  35,  v.  10,  16,  Ps. 
 xxxii.  1  if. 
 
 Nor  is  the  practice  of  offering  sacrifice  anywhere  described  as 
 a  P'^'^V'!'.  This  word  signifies  to  assist  in  obtaining,  or  to  lead  to, 
 righteousness,  and  is  here  to  be  read  in  this  general  interpretation, 
 and  not  to  be  identified  with  the  Pauline  BiKaiovaOai.  The  D''ip'''nyQ 
 are  those  who  by  their  i^i^"]V,  i-e.  by  their  fidelity  to  the  law,  led 
 others  to  '^i^'JV,  showed  them  by  their  example  and  teaching  the 
 way  to  righteousness. 
 
 The  salvation  of  the  people,  which  the  end  shall  bring  in,  con- 
 sists accordingly  in  the  consummation  of  t!ie  people  of  God  by  the 
 resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  judgment  dividing  the  pious 
 from  the  godless,  according  to  which  the  pious  shall  be  raised  to 
 eternal  life,  and  the  godless  shall  be  given  up  to  everlasting  shame 
 and  contempt.  But  the  leaders  of  the  people  who,  amid  the  wars 
 and  conflicts  of  this  life,  have  turned  many  to  righteousness,  shall 
 shine  in  the  imperishable  glory  of  heaven. 
 
 Chap.  xii.  4-13.   The  Close  of  the  Revelation  of  God  and  of  the 
 
 Book. 
 
 As  the  revelation  in  ch.  viii.  closes  with  the  direction,  "  Where- 
 fore shut  thou  up  the  vision"  (ver  26),  so  this  before  us  closes 
 with  the  command  (ver.  4),  "But  thou  Daniel  shut  up  these 
 words  ; "  and  as  in  the  former  case  |iinn  denotes  the  vision  in- 
 terpreted to  him  by  the  angel,  so  here  Q''"!^'^^'  can  only  be  the 
 announcements  of  the  angel,  ch.  xi.  2-xii.  3,  along  with  the 
 preceding  appearance,  ch.  x.  2-xi.  1,  thus  only  the  revelation  de- 
 signated as  13"^,  ch.  X.  1,  Accordingly,  also,  DriD  is  obviously  to  be 
 interpreted  in  the  meaning  illustrated  and  defended  under  ch.  viii. 
 26,  to  shut  tip  in  the  sense  of  guarding;  and  thus  also  Dnn,  to  seal 
 (see  p.  319).  Thus  all  the  objections  against  this  command  are  set 
 aside  which  Hitzig  has  derived  from  the  sealing,  which  he  under- 
 stands of  the  sealing  up  of  the  book,  so  that  he  may  thereby  cast 
 doubt  on  the  genuineness  of  the  book. 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  485 
 
 It  is  disputed  whether  'ISE^  is  only  the  last  revelation,  ch.  x.- 
 xii.  (Hiivernick,  v.  Leng.,  Maurer,  Kran.),  or  the  whole  book 
 (Bertholdt,  Hitzig,  Auberlcn,  Kliefoth).  That  "ISD  might  desig- 
 nate a  short  connected  portion,  a  single  prophecy,  is  placed  beyond 
 a  doubt  b}''  Nah.  i.  1,  Jer.  li.  63.  The  parallelism  of  the  mem- 
 bers of  the  passage  also  appears  to  favour  the  opinion  that  "issn 
 stands  in  the  same  meaning  as  Q''"!^1Ci.  But  this  appearance 
 amounts  to  a  valid  argument  only  under  the  supposition  that  the 
 last  revelation  stands  unconnected  wath  the  revelations  going 
 before.  But  since  this  is  not  the  case,  much  rather  the  revelation 
 of  these  chapters  is  not  only  in  point  of  time  the  last  which  Daniel 
 received,  but  also  forms  the  essential  conclusion  of  all  earlier 
 revelations,  then  the  expression  used  of  the  sealing  of  this  last 
 revelation  refers  plainly  to  the  sealing  of  the  whole  book.  This 
 supposition  is  unopposed.  That  the  writing  dow^n  of  the  prophecy 
 is  not  commanded  to  Daniel,  cannot  be  objected  against.  As  this 
 is  here  and  in  ch.  viii.  26  presupposed  as  a  matter  of  course,  for 
 the  receivino;  of  a  revelation  without  committino;  it  to  writing  is 
 not  practicable,  so  we  may  without  hesitation  suppose  that  Daniel 
 wrote  down  all  the  earlier  visions  and  revelations  as  soon  as  he 
 received  them,  so  that  with  the  writing  down  of  the  last  of  them 
 the  whole  book  was  completed.  For  these  reasons  we  understand  by 
 "iSDH  the  whole  book.  For,  as  Kliefoth  rightly  remarks,  the  angel 
 will  close,  ver.  4,  the  last  revelation,  and  along  with  it  the  whole 
 prophetical  work  of  Daniel,  and  dismiss  him  from  his  prophetical 
 office,  as  he  afterwards,  ver.  13,  does,  after  he  has  given  him,  vers. 
 5-12,  disclosures  regarding  the  periods  of  these  wonderful  things 
 that  w'ere  announced.  He  must  seal  the  book,  i.e.  guard  it  securely 
 from  disfigurement,  "till  the  time  of  the  end,"  because  its  contents 
 stretch  out  to  the  time  of  the  end.  Cf.  ch.  viii.  26,  where  the  reason 
 for  the  sealing  is  stated  in  the  words,  "  for  yet  it  shall  be  for  many 
 days."  Instead  of  such  a  statement  as  that,  the  time  of  the  end 
 is  here  briefly  named  as  the  terminus,  down  to  which  the  revelation 
 reaches,  in  harmony  with  the  contents  of  ch.  xi.  40-xii.  3,  which 
 comprehend  the  events  of  the  time  of  the  end. 
 
 The  two  clauses  of  ver.  46  are  differently  explained.  The 
 interpretation  of  J.  D.  ]\Iichaelis,  "  Many  shall  indeed  go  astray, 
 but  on  the  other  side  also  the  knowledge  shall  be  great,"  is  verbally 
 just  as  untenable  as  that  of  Havernick,  "  Many  shall  wander  about, 
 i.e.  in  the  consciousness  of  their  misery,  strive  after  salvation, 
 knowledge."     For  LD^tJ'  signifies  neither  to  go  astray  (errare)  nor 
 
486  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 to  ■wander  about,  but  only  to  go  to  and  fro,  to  pass  tlirough  a  land, 
 in  order  to  seek  out  or  search,  to  go  about  spying  (Zecli.  iv.  10,  of 
 the  eyes  of  God ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  8  and  26,  to  row).  From  these 
 renderings  there  arises  for  this  passage  before  us  the  meaning, 
 to  search  through,  to  examine,  a  book ;  not  merely  to  "  read  in- 
 dustriously "  (Plitzig,  Ewald),  but  thoroughly  to  search  into  it 
 (Gesenius).  The  words  do  not  supply  the  reason  for  the  command 
 to  seal,  but  they  state  the  object  of  the  sealing,  and  are  not  (with 
 many  interpreters)  to  be  referred  merely  to  the  time  of  the  end,  that 
 then  for  the  first  time  many  shall  search  therein  and  find  great 
 knowledge.  This  limiting  of  their  import  is  connected  with  the 
 inaccurate  interpretation  of  the  sealing  as  a  figure  either  of  the 
 incomprehensibility  of  the  prophecy  or  of  the  "secrecy  of  the 
 writing,  and  is  set  aside  with  the  correct  interpretation  of  this 
 figure.  If  Daniel,  therefore,  must  only  place  the  proj)hecy 
 securely  that  it  may  continue  to  the  time  of  the  end,  the  sealing 
 thus  does  not  exclude  the  use  of  it  in  transcriptions,  then  there 
 exists  no  reason  for  thinking  that  the  searching  into  it  will  take 
 place  only  for  the  first  time  in  the  end.  The  words  "iJI  CST  ^up':^'' 
 are  not  connected  with  the  preceding  by  any  particle  or  definition 
 of  time,  whereby  they  should  be  limited  to  Y?  ny.  To  this  is  to 
 be  added,  that  this  revelation,  according  to  the  express  explanation 
 of  the  angel  (ch.  x.  14),  refers  to  all  that  shall  be  experienced  by 
 the  people  of  Daniel  from  the  time  of  Cyrus  to  the  time  of  the 
 end.  If,  then,  it  must  remain  sealed  or  not  understood  till  the  time 
 of  the  end,  it  must  have  lain  unused  and  useless  for  centuries,  while 
 it  was  given  for  the  very  purpose  of  reflecting  light  on  the  ways 
 of  God  for  the  pious  in  all  times,  and  of  imparting  consolation 
 amid  their  tribulations  to  those  who  continued  stedfast  in  their 
 fidelity.  In  order  to  serve  these  purposes  it  must  be  accessible 
 at  all  times,  so  that  they  might  be  able  to  search  into  it,  to  judge 
 events  by  it  and  to  strengthen  their  faith.  Kliefoth  therefore  is 
 right  in  his  thus  interpreting  the  whole  passage  :  "  Daniel  must 
 place  in  security  the  prophecies  he  has  received  until  the  time  of 
 the  end,  so  that  through  all  times  many  men  may  be  able  to  read 
 them  and  gain  inidcrstanding  (better  :  obtain  knowledge)  from 
 them."  riiJ'in  is  the  knowledge  of  the  ways  of  the  Lord  with  Ilis 
 people,  which  confirms  them  in  their  fidelity  towards  God. 
 
 Vers.  5-7.  With  ver.  4  the  revelation  might  have  concluded, 
 as  that  in  ch.  viii.  ends  with  the  direction  to  shut  up  the  vision. 
 But  then  a  disclosure  regarding  the  times  of   the  events  pro- 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  487 
 
 phesied  of,  which  Daniel  might  have  expected  according  to  the 
 analogy  of  the  visions  in  ch.  viii.  and  ix.,  would  have  been 
 w^anting.  This  disclosure  is  given  to  him  in  vers.  5-12,  and 
 that  in  a  very  solemn,  impressive  way.  The  appearance  which 
 hitherto  he  has  seen  is  changed.  He  sees  two  other  angels 
 standing  on  the  banks  of  the  river,  the  one  on  this  side  and  the 
 other  on  that  side,  nani  .  ,  .  ''n"'N"i"i  {then  I  looked,  and  lo)  does 
 not,  it  is  true,  indicate  a  new  vision  so  much  as  a  new  scene  in  the 
 vision,  which  still  continued.  The  words  ^"'"inx  D^rii',  two  others^ 
 sc.  heavenly  beings  or  angels  (without  the  article),  show  that  they 
 now  for  the  first  time  became  visible,  and  were  different  from  the 
 one  who  was  hitherto  seen  by  him  and  had  spoken  with  him. 
 Therefore  the  supposition  that  the  one  of  these  two  angels  was 
 Gabriel,  who  had  communicated  to  him  the  revelation,  fails,  even 
 if,  which  is  according  to  our  exposition,  p.  412,  not  the  case,  the 
 speaker  in  ch.  xi.  and  xii.  were  this  angel. 
 
 Ver.  6.  Besides  these  two  now  first  seen  by  Daniel,  he  who 
 was  "clothed  in  linen"  is  named  as  standing  above  the  waters  of 
 the  river ;  but  when  we  take  into  view  the  whole  scene,  he  is  by  no 
 means  to  be  regarded  as  now  for  the  first  time  coming  into  view. 
 The  use  of  the  article  (^''^P),  and  the  clothing  that  characterized 
 him,  point  him  out  as  the  person  spoken  of  in  ch.  x.  5  f.  Hence 
 our  view  developed  in  p.  414  is  confirmed,  viz.  that  previously  the 
 man  clothed  in  linen  was  visible  to  Daniel  alone,  and  announced 
 to  him  the  future.  He  also  in  the  sequel  alone  speaks  with 
 Daniel.  One  of  the  other  two  makes  inquiry  regarding  the  end 
 of  the  wonderful  things,  so  as  to  give  occasion  to  him  (as  in  ch. 
 viii.  13  and  14)  to  furnish  an  answer.  With  this  the  question 
 presses  itself  upon  us,  For  what  purpose  do  the  two  angels  appear, 
 since  only  one  of  them  speaks — the  other  neither  does  anything 
 nor  speaks  ?  Leaving  out  of  view  the  opinion  of  Jerome,  Grotius, 
 Sliindlin,  and  Ewald,  that  the  two  angels  were  the  guardian  spirits 
 of  Persia  and  Greece,  and  other  conceits,  such  e.g.  as  that  they 
 represent  the  law  and  the  prophets  (after  a  gloss  in  the  Cod.  Chis.), 
 which  Geier  has  rejected  as  figmenta  hominum  textiis  auctoritate 
 destituta,  we  confine  ourselves  to  a  consideration  of  the  views  of 
 Hitzig  and  Kliefoth. 
 
 Hitzig  thinks  that  the  two  angels  appear  as  witnesses  of  the 
 oath,  and  that  for  that  reason  there  are  two;  cf.  Deut.  xix.  15 
 with  xxxi.  28.  But  these  passages  do  not  prove  that  for  the  rati- 
 fication of  an  oath  witnesses  are  necessarj'.     The  testimony  of  two 
 
488  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 or  three  witnesses  was  necessary  only  for  the  attestation  of  an  ac- 
 cusation laid  before  a  judge.  Add  to  this  also  that  in  ch.  viii.  13  f. 
 two  angels  appear  along  with  him  whose  voice  came  from  the  Ulai 
 (ch.  viii.  16),  without  any  oath  being  there  given.  It  is  true  that 
 there  the  two  angels  speak,  but  only  the  utterance  of  one  of  them 
 is  communicated.  Hence  the  conjecture  is  natural,  that  here  also 
 both  of  the  angels  spake,  the  one  calling  to  the  other  the  question 
 that  was  addressed  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  hovering  over  the 
 water,  as  Theodot.  and  Eplnem  Syrus  appear  to  have  thought, 
 and  as  Klief.  regards  as  probable.  In  any  case  the  appearance 
 of  the  angels  on  the  two  banks  of  the  river  stands  in  actual  con- 
 nection with  the  hovering  of  the  man  clothed  in  linen  above  the 
 waters  of  this  river,  in  which  the  circumstance  merits  consideration 
 that  the  river,  according  to  ch,  x.  4  the  Tigris,  is  here  called  "iN^., 
 as  besides  the  Nile  only  is  called  in  the  O.  T.  The  hovering  above 
 the  stream  can  represent  only  the  power  or  dominion  over  it.  But 
 Klief oth  is  inclined  to  regard  the  river  as  an  emblem  of  time  flow- 
 ing on  to  eternity;  but  there  is  no  support  in  Scripture  for  such 
 a  representation.  Besides,  by  this  the  appellation  IN';  is  not  taken 
 into  consideration,  by  which,  without  doubt,  the  river  over  which 
 the  Angel  of  the  Lord  hovers  is  designated  as  a  Nile ;  i.e.  it  is 
 indicated  that  as  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  once  smote  the  waters  of 
 the  Nile  to  ransom  his  people  out  of  Egypt,  so  in  the  future  shall 
 he  calm  and  suppress  the  waves  of  the  river  which  in  Daniel's  time 
 represented  the  might  of  the  world-kingdom.^  The  river  Iliddekel 
 (Tigris)  was  thus  a  figure  of  the  Persian  world-power,  through 
 whose  territory  it  flowed  (cf.  for  this  prophetic  type,  Isa.  viii.  G,  7, 
 Ps.  cxxiv.  3,  4),  and  the  designation  of  the  river  as  IN'',  A'^ile,  con- 
 tains an  allusion  to  the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  power  of 
 Egypt,  which  in  its  essence  shall  be  repeated  in  the  future.  Two 
 other  angels  stand  as  servants  by  the  side  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord, 
 the  ruler  over  the  Hiddekel,  prepared  to  execute  his  will.  Thus 
 interpreted,  all  the  features  of  the  vision  gain  an  interpretation 
 corresponding  with  the  contents  of  the  prophecy. 
 
 But  the  significance  of  the  whole  scene,  which  presents  itself  to 
 
 ^  C.  B.  Michaelis  lias  similarly  interpreted  the  standing  (or  hovering)  over 
 the  waters  of  the  river  as  symbulum  potestalis  atque  domiiiii  atipremi,  quo  non 
 solum  terrain  contincntem  et  aridam,  sed  etimn  aquas  pedibus  quasi  suis  suhjectas 
 hahet,  et  ea  qux  aquarum  instar  iumultuantur,  videlicet  gcntex,  advcrsus  ecclesiam 
 Dei  insanjenies  atque  frementes,  compescere  et  coercere  potest.  Only  he  has  not 
 in  this  regard  to  the  name  IX''- 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  489 
 
 the  prophet  after  he  received  the  announcement,  at  the  same  time 
 shows  that  the  vers.  5-12  form  no  mere  supplementary  communi- 
 cation, which  is  given  to  Daniel  before  he  is  wholly  dismissed 
 from  his  prophetical  office,  regarding  the  question  that  lay  upon 
 his  heart  as  to  the  duration  of  the  severe  tribulation  that  was 
 announced,  but  that  this  disclosure  constitutes  an  integral  part 
 of  the  foregoing  revelation,  and  is  placed  at  the  end  of  the  angel's 
 message  only  because  a  change  of  scene  was  necessary  for  the 
 giving  prominence  to  the  import  of  this  disclosure. 
 
 Thus,  to  give  the  prophet  the  firm  certainty  that  the  oppression 
 of  his  people  spoken  of,  on  the  part  of  the  ungodly  world-rulers, 
 when  it  has  gained  its  end,  viz.  the  purification  of  the  people,  shall 
 bring  about,  along  with  the  destruction  of  the  enemy  of  the  last 
 time,  the  salvation  of  those  who  are  truly  the  people  of  God  in 
 their  advancement  to  eternal  life  in  glorv,  the  Ano;el  of  the  Lord 
 standing  above  the  waters  of  the  river  presents  himself  to  view  as 
 the  guide  and  ruler  of  the  affairs  of  the  nations,  and  announces 
 with  a  solemn  oath  the  duration  and  the  end  of  the  time  of  tri- 
 bulation. This  announcement  is  introduced  by  the  question  of 
 the  angel  standing  by  the  river :  "  Till  when  the  end,  i.e.  how  long 
 continues  the  end,  of  these  wonderful  things'?"  not:  "When  shall 
 the  end  of  these  things  bet"  (Kran.)  nis?2ri  are,  according  to  the 
 context,  the  extraordinary  things  which  the  prophecy  had  declared, 
 particularly  the  unheard-of  oppressions  described  in  ch.  xi.  30  ff. ; 
 cf.  with  riiN73  the  synonym  riis?23,  ch.  xi.  36  and  viii.  24.  But 
 the  question  is  not :  "  How  long  shall  all  these  nits?3  themselves 
 continue?"  but:  "How  long  shall  niS7Sri  ^'p^  the  end  of  these 
 wonderful  things,  continue?"  The  end  of  these  things  is  the 
 time  of  the  end  prophesied  of  from  ch.  xi.  40  to  xii.  3,  with  all 
 that  shall  happen  in  it.  To  this  the  man  clothed  with  linen 
 answers  with  a  solemn  oath  for  the  confirmation  of  his  statement. 
 The  lifting  up  of  his  hands  to  heaven  indicates  the  solemnity  of  the 
 oath.  Commonly  he  who  swears  lifts  up  only  one  hand  ;  cf.  Deut. 
 xxxii.  40,  Ezek.  xx.  5,  and  the  remark  under  Ex.  vi.  8 ;  but  here 
 with  greater  solemnity  both  hands  are  lifted  up,  and  he  swears 
 D^iyn  '•nn,  by  Him  that  liveth  for  ever.  This  predicate  of  God, 
 which  we  have  already  heard  from  the  mouth  of  Nebuchadnezzar, 
 ch.  iv.  31,  here  points  back  to  Deut.  xxxii.  40,  where  God  swears, 
 "  I  lift  up  my  hand  to  heaven,  and  say,  I  live  for  ever,"  and  is 
 quoted  from  this  verse  before  us  in  Rev.  x.  6,  and  there  further 
 expanded.     This  solemn  form  of  swearing  shows  that  the  question 
 
490  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 and  answer  must  refer  not  to  the  duration  of  the  period  of  the  per- 
 secution under  Antiochus,  but  to  that  under  the  hist  enemy,  the 
 Antichrist.  The  definition  of  time  iiiven  in  the  answer  leads  us 
 also  to  this  conclusion  :  a  time,  two  times,  and  half  a  time ;  which 
 accurately  agrees  with  the  period  of  time  named  in  ch.  vii.  25  as 
 that  of  the  duration  of  the  actions  of  the  enemy  of  God  who  would 
 arise  out  of  the  fourth  world-kingdom.  The  ""S  serves,  as  ort  fre- 
 quently, only  for  the  introducing  of  the  statement  or  the  answer.  ? 
 before  '^V\^  does  not  signify  till  {—  "ly,  ch.  vii.  25),  but  to  or  i/jjon^ 
 at.  In  both  of  the  clauses  of  the  answer,  "space  of  time  and  point 
 of  time,  duration  and  final  end,  are  connected,  and  this  relation  is 
 indicated  by  an  interchange  of  the  prepos.  ?  and  3  "  (Hitzig).  In 
 '1J1  "ipic?  (for  a  time,  etc.)  is  given  the  space  of  time  on  or  over 
 which  the  nixpB  J'P  [the  end  of  these  loonders)  stretches  itself,  and 
 in  the  following  clause,  IJI  rii?33l  (and  when  lie  shall  have  accom- 
 jylished,  etc.),  the  point  of  time  in  which  the  wonderful  things 
 reach  their  end.  Thus  the  two  expressions  of  the  oath  are  related 
 to  one  another. 
 
 In  the  second  clause  '^l  Yr!^  are  differently  expounded.  Ancient 
 and  very  wide-spread  is  the  exposition  of  )*S3  by  to  scatter.  Theo- 
 dotion  has  translated  the  words  thus:  iv  tm  avvrekeaOrjvai  8iaaKop- 
 TTicr/jiov',  and  Jerome  (Vulg.)  :  ciun  completa  fuerit  dispersio  manus 
 popnli  sancti.  Hlivernick,  v.  Lengerke,  Gesenius,  de  Wette, 
 Hitzig:  when  at  the  end  the  dispersion  of  a  portion  of  the  holy 
 people,  which  Hiiv.,  v.  Leng.,  and  others  understand  of  the  dis- 
 persion of  Israel  into  the  different  countries  of  the  world,  which 
 dispersion  shall  be  brought  to  an  end,  according  to  the  prophetic 
 view,  at  the  time  of  the  Messianic  final  victory;  Joel  iii.  5  ff.  (ii. 
 32  ff.)  ;  Amos  ix.  11  ff.  Hitzig,  however,  refers  this  to  the  cir- 
 cumstance that  Simon  and  Judas  Maccabaeus  brought  back  their 
 people  to  Judea  who  were  living  scattered  among  the  heathen  in 
 Galilee  and  Gilead  (1  Mace.  v.  23,  45,  53,  54).  But  against  such 
 an  interpretation  of  the  word  r?^  Hofmann  (Weiss,  u.  Erf.  i.  p. 
 314)  has  with  justice  replied,  that  the  reference  to  the  reunion  of 
 Israel,  which  is  nowhere  else  presented  in  Daniel,  would  enter  very 
 unexpectedly  into  this  connection,  besides  that  r#?  does  not  agree 
 with  its  object  1^,  though  we  should  translate  this  by  "  might,"  or 
 altogether  improperly  by  "  part."  1^  has  not  the  meaning  "part," 
 which  is  attributed  to  it  only  on  the  ground  of  an  incorrect  inter- 
 pretation of  certain  passages.  1*23  signifies  to  heat  to  pieces^  to 
 shatter ;  cf.  Ps.  ii.  9,  exxxvii.  9,  and  in  the  Fa.  Isa.  xxvii.  9.     This 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  491 
 
 is  the  primary  meaning  of  the  word,  from  which  is  attempted  to  be 
 derived  the  meaning,  to  burst  asunder,  to  scatter.  This  primary- 
 meaning  of  the  word,  however,  Hengstenberg,  Maurer,  Auberlen, 
 Kranichfekl,  KHefoth,  and  Evvakl  have  rightly  maintained  in  this 
 place.  Only  we  may  not,  with  them,  translate  rii?3  by:  to  have  an 
 end,  for  then  the  answer  would  be  tautological,  since  the  breaking 
 to  pieces  of  the  might  of  the  people  is  identical  with  their  scatter- 
 ing, but  it  has  the  meaning  to  make  iperfect^  to  accomplish,  so  that 
 nothing  more  remains  to  be  done.  1J,  liand,  is  the  emblem  of 
 active  power;  the  shattering  of  the  hand  is  thus  the  complete  de- 
 struction of  power  to  work,  the  placing  in  a  helpless  and  powerless 
 condition,  such  as  Moses  has  described  in  the  words  1^  npTX  ''3  {for 
 the  hand  is  gone),  Deut.  xxxii.  36,  and  announced  that  when  this 
 state  of  things  shall  arise,  then  "  the  Lord  shall  judge  His  people, 
 and  repent  Himself  for  His  servants."  With  this  harmonizes  the 
 conclusion  of  the  oath :  then  all  these  things  shall  be  finished,  or 
 shall  complete  themselves.  '^^'^"''3  (all  these  things)  are  the  ^i^^^?, 
 ver.  6.  To  these  "  wonderful  things "  belong  not  merely  the 
 crushing  of  the  holy  people  in  the  tribulation  such  as  never  was 
 before,  but  also  their  deliverance  by  the  coming  of  the  angel-prince 
 Michael,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  the  eternal  separation  of 
 the  righteous  from  the  wucked  (ch.  xii.  1-3).  This  last  designation 
 of  the  period  of  time  goes  thus,  beyond  a  doubt,  to  the  end  of  all 
 things,  or  to  the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  by  the 
 resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the  final  judgment.  With  this  also 
 agrees  the  expression  ^'j'p  DV,  which  is  not  to  be  limited  to  the  con 
 verted  Jews.  The  circumstance  that  in  Daniel's  time  the  Israel 
 according  to  the  flesh  constituted  the  "  holy  people,"  does  not 
 necessitate  our  understanding  this  people  when  the  people  of  God 
 are  spoken  of  in  the  time  of  the  end,  since  then  the  faithful  from 
 among  all  nations  shall  be  the  holy  people  of  God. 
 
 But  by  the  majority  of  modern  interpreters  the  designation 
 of  time,  three  and  a  half  times,  is  referred  to  the  duration  of  the 
 oppression  of  the  Jews  under  Antiochus  Epiphanes ;  whence  Bleek, 
 V.  Lengerke,  Maurer,  Hitzig,  Ewald,  and  others  conclude  that 
 the  ]\Iaccabean  pseudo-Daniel  placed  together  as  synchronous  the 
 death  of  Antiochus  and  the  beginning  of  the  Messianic  salvation. 
 Havernick  finds  in  the  answer  two  different  designations  of  time, 
 but  has  said  nothing  as  to  the  relation  they  bear  to  each  other ; 
 Hofmann  ( Weiss,  u.  Erf.  i.  p.  314)  finds  an  obscurity  in  this,  that  the 
 end  of  all  things  is  simply  placed  in  connection  with  the  end  of  the 
 
492  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL 
 
 oppressor  Antioclius  (see  under  ver.  1,  p.  475).  But,  thus  Kliefotli 
 rightly  asks,  on  the  contrary,  "  How  is  it  only  possible  that  the 
 catastrophe  of  Antiochus,  belonging  to  the  middle  of  the  times,  and 
 the  time  of  the  end  lying  in  the  distant  future,  are  so  compre- 
 hended in  one  clause  in  an  answer  to  a  question  regarding  a  point 
 of  time?  How  was  it  possible  that  to  the  question,  How  long 
 continues  the  end  of  the  wonders?  it  could  be  answered:  For 
 three  and  a  half  years  shall  Antiochus  carry  on  his  work ;  and 
 when  it  comes  to  an  end  in  the  breaking  of  the  people,  then  all 
 shall  come  to  an  end?  Thus  the  last  only  would  be  an  answer  to 
 the  question,  and  the  first  an  addition  not  appertaining  to  it.  Or 
 how  were  it  possible  that  for  the  expression,  '  all  shall  be  ended,' 
 two  characteristics  were  given,  one  of  which  belonged  to  the  time  of 
 Antiochus  and  the  other  to  the  time  of  the  end?"  And,  we  must 
 further  ask,  are  we  necessitated  by  the  statement  to  make  such 
 an  unnatural  supposition?  Certainly  not.  The  two  clauses  do 
 not  give  two  different  definitions  of  time,  i.e.  refer  to  different 
 periods  of  time,  but  only  two  definitions  of  one  period  of  time,  the 
 first  of  which  describes  its  course  according  to  a  symbolical  measure 
 of  time,  the  second  its  termination  according  to  an  actual  charac- 
 teristic. None  of  these  definitions  of  time  has  any  reference  to  the 
 oppression  of  the  holy  people  by  Antiochus,  but  the  one  as  well  as 
 the  other  refers  to  the  tribulation  of  the  time  of  the  end.  The 
 measure  of  time :  time,  times,  and  half  a  time,  does  not  indeed 
 correspond  to  the  duration  of  the  dominion  of  the  little  horn  pro- 
 ceeding from  the  Javanic  world-kingdom  (spoken  of  in  ch.  viii.) 
 =  2300  evening-mornings  (ch.  viii.  14),  but  literally  (for  li^itD 
 corresponds  with  the  Chald.  p^V)  agrees  with  that  in  ch.  vii.  25, 
 for  the  dominion  of  the  hostile  king,  the  Antichrist,  rising  out  of 
 the  ten  kingdoms  of  the  fourth  or  last  world-kingdom.  }'!??  rii?33 
 T  also  refers  to  this  enemy;  for  of  him  it  is  said,  ch.  vii.  21,  25, 
 that  he  shall  prevail  against  and  destroy  the  saints  of  the  Most 
 High  (Nb;,  ver.  25). 
 
 The  reference  of  both  the  statements  in  the  oath  to  the  history 
 of  the  end,  or  the  time  of  Antichrist,  has  therefore  been  recognised 
 by  Auberlen  and  ZUndel,  although  the  latter  understands  also,  wifli 
 Hofmann,  ch.  xi.  36-45  of  the  oppression  of  Israel  by  Antiochus. 
 To  the  question,  how  long  the  end  of  the  terrible  things  prophesied 
 of  in  ch.  xi.  40-xii.  1  shall  continue,  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  hover- 
 ing over  the  waters  answered  with  a  solemn  oath  :  Three  and  a  half 
 times,  which,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  ch.  vii.  25  and  ix.  2G,  27, 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  493 
 
 are  given  for  the  fullest  unfolding  of  the  power  of  the  last  enemy 
 of  God  till  his  destruction ;  and  when  in  this  time  of  unparalleled 
 oppression  the  natural  strength  of  the  holy  people  shall  be  com- 
 pletely broken  to  pieces,  then  shall  these  terrible  things  have 
 reached  their  end.  Regarding  the  definition  of  time,  cf.  the  ex- 
 position under  ch.  vii.  25,  p.  241  f. 
 
 Ver.  8.  Daniel  heard  this  answer,  but  he  understood  it  not. 
 To  "^V^^,  as  to  r^S  N7,  the  object  is  wanting,  because  it  can  easily 
 be  supplied  from  the  connection,  namely,  the  meaning  of  the  answer 
 of  the  man  clothed  in  linen.  Grotius  has  incorrectly  supplied  quid 
 futurum  esset  from  the  following  question,  in  which  he  has  also 
 incorrectly  rendered  'i?x  rTiinx  by  post  illius  triennii  et  temporis 
 semestris  spatiwn.  Havernick  has  also  defined  the  object  too 
 narrowly,  for  he  has  referred  the  non- understanding  merely  to 
 the  mysterious  number  (a  time,  two  times,  etc.).  It  was,  besides, 
 not  mere!}'  the  double  designation  of  time  in  ver.  7  which  first  at 
 the  hour  of  his  receiving  it,  but  while  it  was  yet  unintelligible  to 
 the  hearer,  compelled  Daniel,  as  Hitzig  thinks,  to  put  the  further 
 question.  The  whole  answer  in  ver.  7  is  obscure.  It  gives  no 
 measure  for  the  "  times,"  and  thus  no  intelligible  disclosure  for  the 
 prophet  regarding  the  duration  of  the  end,  and  in  the  definition, 
 that  at  the  time  of  the  deepest  humiliation  of  the  people  the  end 
 shall  come,  leaves  wholly  undefined  token  this  shall  actually  take 
 place.^     Hence  his  desire  for  a  more  particular  disclosure. 
 
 The  question,  "  what  the  end  of  these  ?  "  is  very  differently 
 interpreted.  Following  the  example  of  Grotius,  Kliefoth  takes 
 n''"in!s;  in  the  sense  of  that  which  follows  something  which  is  either 
 clearly  seen  from  the  connection  or  is  expressly  stated,  and  explains 
 *V^  ^"'"in^  of  that  which  follows  or  comes  after  this.  But  nps  is 
 not,  with  most  interpreters,  to  be  taken  as  identical  with  '"i?^?"''3  of 
 ver.  7  ;  for  since  "  this  latter  phrase  includes  all  the  things  prophe- 
 sied of  down  to  the  consummation,  then  would  this  question  refer 
 to  what  must  come  after  the  absolute  consummation  of  all  things, 
 which  would  be  meaningless."  Besides,  the  answer,  vers.  11  and 
 12,  which  relates  to  the  things  of  Antiochus,  would  not  harmonize 
 
 ^  As  to  this  latter  circumstance  L'Empereur  remarks ;  Licet  Daniel  ex  ante- 
 cedentiJjus  certo  tempus  Jiniendarum  yravissimarum  calamitatum  cognoverit,  tamen 
 ilium  latuit,  quo  temporis  articulo  calamitas  inceptura  esset:  quod  icjiwrantiam 
 quondam  in  iota  prophetia  peperit,  cum  a  priori  termino  posterioris  exacta  scientia 
 dependcret.  Jnilium  qnidem  variis  circu7iistcmtiis  definitum  fuerat :  sed  quando 
 circumstantix  futurx  essent,  antequam  evenirent,  ignorahatur. 
 
494  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 with  such  a  question.  Much  more  are  we,  with  Auberlen  (p.  75  f.), 
 to  understand  n?X  of  the  present  things  and  circumstances,  things 
 then  in  progress  at  the  time  of  Daniel  and  the  going  forth  of  the 
 prophecy.  In  sujjport  of  this  interpretation  Auberlen  adds,  "  The 
 angel  with  heavenly  eye  sees  into  the  far  distant  end  of  all  ;  the 
 prophet,  with  Imnian  sympathies,  regards  the  more  immediate 
 future  of  his  people."  But  however  correct  the  remark,  that  n?x 
 is  not  identical  with  "^^^"-'3,  tJds  not  identical  with  all  tins,  there 
 is  no  warrant  for  the  conclusion  drawn  from  it,  that  Hps  desig- 
 nates the  present  things  and  circumstances  existing  under  Antio- 
 chus  at  the  time  of  Daniel.  n?Nl  must,  by  virtue  of  the  connection 
 in  vers.  7  and  8,  be  understood  of  the  same  things  and  circum- 
 stances, and  a  distinction  between  the  two  is  established  only  by  ^b. 
 If  we  consider  this  distinction,  then  the  question,  What  is  the  last  of 
 these  things?  contains  not  the  meaningless  thought,  that  yet  some- 
 thinor  must  follow  after  the  absolute  consummation,  but  the  alto- 
 gether  reasonable  thought,  Which  shall  be  the  last  of  the  riiN73 
 prophesied  of  ?  Thus  Daniel  could  ask  in  the  hope  of  receiving 
 an  answer  from  which  he  might  learn  the  end  of  all  these  riis?3 
 more  distinctly  than  from  the  answer  given  by  the  angel  in  ver.  7. 
 But  as  this  reference  of  n?X  to  the  present  things  and  circum- 
 stances is  excluded  by  the  connection,  so  also  is  the  signification 
 attributed  to  ri''"in«,  of  that  which  follows  something,  verbally  inad- 
 missible ;  see  under  ch.  viii.  19  (p.  312). 
 
 Most  other  interpreters  have  taken  JT'nriS  as  synonymous  with 
 yp,  which  Hiivernick  seeks  to  establish  by  a  reference  to  ch.  viii. 
 19  and  23,  and  Deut.  xi.  12.  But  none  of  these  passages  establishes 
 this  identity.  Vp,  is  always  thus  distinguished  from  JT"")!]':??  that  it 
 denotes  a  matter  after  its  conclusion,  while  n''"iriSl  denotes  the  last  or 
 the  uttermost  of  the  matter.  A  distinction  which,  it  is  true,  may  in 
 many  cases  become  irrelevant.  For  if  this  distinction  is  not  noticed 
 here,  we  would  be  under  the  necessity,  in  order  to  maintain  that 
 the  two  questions  in  vers.  6  and  8  ai'e  not  altogether  identical,  of 
 giving  to  n?3  the  meaning  qualis  (Maurer),  of  what  nature  (Hof- 
 mann,  v.  Lengerke,  and  others) ;  a  meaning  which  it  has  not,  and 
 which  docs  not  accord  with  the  literal  idea  of  nnnst.  "  Not  how  ? 
 but  what  ?  is  the  question  ;  HO  is  not  the  predicate,  but  the  subject, 
 the  thing  inquired  about."  Thus  Ilitzig,  who  is  altogether  correct 
 in  thus  stating  the  question  :  "  What,  i.e.  which  event  is  the  utter- 
 most, the  last  of  the  niX^D^  which  stands  before  the  end  ?  " 
 
 Ver.  9.  The  answer,    1  "ij?,  go  thi/  way,  Daniel,  is  quieting,  and 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  495 
 
 at  the  same  time  it  contains  a  I'ef  usal  to  answer ;  yet  it  is  not  wholly 
 a  refusal,  as  is  clear  from  vers.  11  and  12.  The  disclosure  regard- 
 ing the  end  which  is  given  to  him  in  these  verses  shows  distinctly 
 that  the  end  of  the  things  is  not  so  revealed  as  that  men  shall  be 
 able  to  know  it  beforehand  with  certainty.^  i]?  signifies  neither  go 
 hence,  i.e.  depart,  die  (Bertholdt,  Hiivernick),  nor  go  away,  instead 
 of  standing  waiting  for  an  answer  (Hitzig),  for  the  angel  does  give 
 him  an  answer ;  but  as  the  formula  dimittentis  ut  excitantis  ad 
 animi  tranquillitatem  (C.  B.  Michaelis),  it  has  the  meaning :  vade 
 Daniel,  h.  e.  mitte  hanc  jjrcesentem  tuam  curam.  "  Be  at  jjeace, 
 leave  this  matter  alone "  (Geier  and  others,  and  similarly  v.  Len- 
 gerke,  Kranichfeld,  Kliefoth).  The  clause  assigning  the  reason 
 for  the  command  'JIP,  'iJI  Ci''??np  ''3  (^for  the  loords  are  shut  up,  etc.), 
 is  chiefly  iuterpi'eted  as  referring  the  closing  and  sealing  up  to  the 
 incomprehensibihty  of  the  prophecy.  Thus  e.g.  Ewald  explains  it : 
 "  For  hidden  and  sealed  up  are  the  words,  all  the  things  contained 
 in  these  prophecies,  till  the  time  of  the  end  ;  then  shall  they  be 
 easily  unsealed  and  deciphered."  But  since,  according  to  ver.  4, 
 Daniel  himself  must  shut  up  and  seal  the  book,  the  participles  in 
 the  clause,  assigning  the  reason  for  the  command  "Hr?,  cannot  have 
 the  meaning  of  the  perfect,  but  only  state  what  is  or  shall  be  done : 
 shut  up — they  shall  be  (remain)  till  the  time  of  the  end  ;  thus  they 
 only  denote  the  shutting  up  and  sealing  which  must  be  accom- 
 plished by  Daniel.  But  Daniel  could  not  make  the  prophecy  un- 
 intelligible, since  (ver.  8)  he  himself  did  not  understand  it ;  nor 
 could  he  seal  it  up  till  the  time  of  the  end,  since  he  did  not  live  to 
 see  the  end.  The  shutting  up  and  sealing  which  was  commanded 
 to  the  prophet  can  therefore  only  consist  in  this,  that  the  book 
 should  be  preserved  in  security  against  any  defacement  of  its  con- 
 tents, so  that  it  might  be  capable  of  being  read  at  all  times  down 
 to  the  time  of  the  end,  and  might  be  used  by  God's  people  for  the 
 strengthening  of  their  faith  ;  cf.  ch.  viii.  26.  "  Thus  Daniel  is 
 calmed  in  regard  to  his  not  understanding  it  by  the  fact  that  this 
 whole  prophecy  (Q'''!^'^'']  as  in  ver.  4)  shall  be  guarded  and  placed 
 
 1  On  this  Calvin  has  well  remarked  :  Quamvis  Daniel  non  stulta  curiositate 
 .  inductus  quxsierit  ex  angelo  de  fine  mirabilium,  tameii  non  ohtinet,  quod  petebat, 
 quia  scilicet  voluit  Deits  ad  modum  aliquem  intelligi  qux  prxdixerat,  sed  tamen 
 aliquid  manere  occuUum  usque  dum  veniret  maturum  plense  revelationis  tempus. 
 Usee  igitur  ratio  est,  cur  avgelus  non  exaudiat  Danielem.  Pium  quidem  erat 
 ejus  votum  Qieque  enim  optat  quicquam  scire  plus  quam  jus  esset),  veruni  Deus 
 scit  quod  opus  sit,  idea  7ion  concessit  quod  optahat. 
 
496  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 in  safety,  and  sliall  continue  tlirough  all  times  down  to  the  end" 
 (Kliefotii).     For  the  use  of  it  in  all  times  is  supposed  in  ver.  10. 
 
 Ver.  10.  The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  interpreted  from  ch.xi. 
 35.  The  being  purified  is  effected  through  tribulation  and  afflic- 
 tion, which  the  people  shall  endure  to  the  end.  The  prophecy 
 shall  serve  for  the  gaining  of  this  object.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
 this  perfection  shall  not  be  attained  by  all ;  they  that  are  ungodly 
 shall  remain  ungodly  still,  and  therefore  they  do  not  come  to  the 
 understanding  of  the  words  which  all  the  wise  shall  gain.  ^3^3^ 
 and  ^^''y  ^v  stand  in  such  distinct  relation  to  the  )^3X  X^  (/  under- 
 stood not),  ver.  8,  that  they  must  be  taken  in  the  same  sense  in 
 both  places,  i.e.  not  to  have  insight  in  general,  but  by  supplying 
 D''"i2"nn  as  the  object  from  ver.  8,  to  have  understanding  of  the 
 prophecy.  This  is  denied  of  the  wicked  or  the  godless.  Only 
 the  wise  shall  gain  it.  Thus  the  angel  says  to  Daniel  for  the 
 purpose  of  calming  him  regarding  his  non-understanding  : — Calm 
 thyself,  Daniel,  if  thou  dost  not  understand  these  words.  The 
 prophecy  shall  be  preserved  for  all  times  to  the  end  of  the  days. 
 These  times  shall  bring  many  tribulations,  to  purify  thy  people  ; 
 and  though  by  these  afflictions  all  shall  not  be  converted,  but  the 
 wicked  shall  remain  wicked  still  and  shall  not  understand  the 
 prophecy,  yet  the  wise  shall  be  purified  and  made  white  by  the 
 afflictions,  and  the  longer  they  are  tried  the  better  shall  they  learn 
 to  understand  the  prophecy.  Thus,  though  thou  thyself  under- 
 standest  it  not,  yet  it  shall  be  a  source  of  great  blessing  to  the 
 people  of  God,  and  in  all  times,  even  unto  the  end,  they  shall 
 have  more  and  more  an  understanding  of  it. 
 
 Thus  has  Kliefoth  rightly  presented  the  meaning  of  both 
 verses,  and  in  confirmation  of  this  interpretation  has  referred  to 
 1  Pet.  i.  10,  12,  where,  with  reference  to  the  passage  before  us 
 (cf.  Hengstenberg,  Beitrar/.  i.  p.  273  f.),  it  is  said  that  the  prophets 
 received  the  prophecies  of  the  end  not  for  themselves  alone,  but 
 much  rather  for  "  us,''  for  those  who  come  after. 
 
 Vers.  11,  12.  The  angel  gives  to  the  prophet  yet  one  revelation 
 more  regarding  the  duration  of  the  time  of  tribulation  and  its  end, 
 which  should  help  him  to  understand  the  earlier  answer.  The 
 words,  "  from  the  time  that  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  taken  away, 
 and  the  abomination  of  the  desolation,"  so  distinctly  point  back 
 to  ch.  xi.  31,  that  they  must  here  be  referred,  as  there,  to  the 
 wickedness  of  Antiochus  in  his  desecrating  the  sanctuary  of  the 
 Lord.     The  circumstance  that  the  PJJ'B'  (iibomination)  is  here  de- 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  497 
 
 scribed  as  D^^;'  and  in  ch.  xi.  31  as  COb'Oj  indicates  no  material 
 distinction.  In  ch.  xi.  31,  where  the  subject  spoken  of  is  the 
 proceedings  of  the  enemy  of  God  causing  desolation,  the  abomina- 
 tion is  viewed  as  Q^i^'P,  bringing  desolation;  here,  with  reference 
 to  the  end  of  those  proceedings,  as  D^'SJ',  brought  to  desolation ; 
 cf.  under  ch.  ix.  27  (p.  372).  All  interpreters  therefore  have 
 found  in  these  two  verses  statements  reo-ardino;  the  duration  of  the 
 persecutions  carried  on  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  and  have  sought 
 to  compare  them  with  the  period  of  2300  evening-mornings  men- 
 tioned in  ch.  viii.  14,  in  order  thus  to  reckon  the  duration  of  the 
 time  during  which  this  enemy  of  God  shall  prosecute  his  wicked 
 designs. 
 
 But  as  the  opinions  regarding  the  reckoning  of  the  2300  even- 
 ing-mornings in  ch.  viii.  14  are  very  diverse  from  each  other  (see 
 p.  303  ff.),  so  also  are  they  here.  First  the  interpretation  of  riri?T 
 {and  set  up)  is  disputed.  Wieseler  is  decidedly  wrong  in  thinking 
 tliat  it  designates  the  terminus  ad  quern  to  "i  pin  nya  {from  the  time 
 shall  be  removed)^  as  is  generally  acknowledged.  Hitzig  thinks 
 that  with  T\T\7\  the  foregoing  Infin.  "iD^in  is  continued,  as  Eccles. 
 ix.  1,  Jer.  xvii.  10,  xix.  12,  and  therewith  a  second  terminus  a  quo 
 supposed.  This,  however,  is  only  admissible  if  this  second  terminus 
 stands  iu  union  with  the  first,  and  a  second  terminus  ad  quern  also 
 stands  over  against  it  as  the  parallel  to  the  later  terminus  ad 
 quern.  Both  here  denote  :  the  daily  sacrifice  shall  be  taken  away 
 forty-five  days  before  the  setting  up  of  the  /SBeXvyfxa  iprjfji(i)(T€(i}<;, 
 and  by  so  much  the  date  in  ver.  12  comes  below  that  of  ver.  ]1. 
 According  to  this,  both  verses  are  to  be  understood  thus  :  from  the 
 time  of  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice  are  1290  days,  and 
 from  the  time  of  the  setting  up  of  the  abomination  of  desolation 
 are  1335  days.  But  this  interpretation  is  utterly  destitute  of 
 support.  In  the  first  place,  Hitzig  has  laid  its  foundation,  that  the 
 setting  up  of  the  idol-abomination  is  separated  from  the  cessation 
 of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  by  forty-five  days,  only  by  a  process  of 
 reasoning  in  a  circle.  In  the  second  place,  the  "^snon  ''■^C'^>t  {blessed 
 is  he  that  waiteth),  ver.  12,  decidedly  opposes  the  combining  of 
 the  1335  days  with  the  setting  up  of  the  idol-abomination;  and 
 further,  the  grammatical  interpretation  of  riripi  is  not  justified. 
 The  passages  quoted  in  its  favour  are  all  of  a  different  character ; 
 there  a  clause  with  definite  time  always  goes  before,  on  which  the 
 infinitive  clause  depends.  Kranichfeld  seeks  therefore  to  take 
 "iDin  also  not  as  an  infinitive,  but  as  a  relative  asyndetical  connec- 
 
 2  I 
 
498  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 tlon  of  the  prceter.  proph.  to  riy,  by  which,  however,  no  better 
 resuh  is  gained.  For  with  the  relative  interpretation  of  "iDin :  the 
 time,  since  it  is  taken  away  .  .  .  rinpi  cannot  so  connect  itself  that 
 this  infinitive  yet  depends  on  riy.  The  clause  befrinninfi  with  nn?! 
 cannot  be  otherwise  interpreted  than  as  a  final  clause  dependent 
 on  'lil  "iDin  nya  ;  thus  here  and  in  ch.  ii.  16,  as  in  the  passages 
 quoted  by  Ilitzig,  in  the  sense :  to  set  (to  set  up)  the  abomination, 
 so  that  the  placing  of  the  abomination  of  desolation  is  viewed  as  the 
 object  of  the  taking  away  of  the  T'On  (^daily  sacrifice).  From  this 
 grammatically  correct  interpretation  of  the  two  clauses  it  does 
 not,  however,  follow  that  the  setting  up  of  the  idol-abomination 
 first  followed  later  than  the  removal  of  the  daily  sacrifice,  so  that 
 nri7l  signified  "  to  set  up  afterwards,"  as  Kliefoth  seeks  to  inter- 
 pret it  for  the  purpose  of  facilitating  the  reckoning  of  the  1290 
 days.  Both  can  be  done  at  the  same  time,  the  one  immediately 
 after  the  other. 
 
 A  terminus  ad  quern  is  not  named  in  both  of  the  definitions. 
 This  appears  from  the  words  "  blessed  is  he  that  waiteth  .  .  ." 
 By  this  it  is  said  that  after  the  1335  days  the  time  of  tribulation 
 shall  be  past.  Since  all  interpreters  rightly  understand  that  the 
 1290  and  the  1335  days  have  the  same  terminus  a  quo,  and  thus  that 
 the  1290  days  are  comprehended  in  the  1335,  the  latter  period 
 extending  beyond  the  former  by  only  forty-five  days  ;  then  the 
 oppression  cannot  properly  last  longer  than  1290  days,  if  he  who 
 reaches  to  the  1335  days  is  to  be  regarded  as  blessed. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  reckoning  of  these  two  periods  of  time,  we 
 have  already  shown  (p.  302)  that  neither  the  one  nor  the  other 
 accords  with  the  2300  evening-mornings,  and  that  there  is  no 
 ground  for  reckoning  those  2300  evening-mornings  for  the  sake 
 of  these  verses  before  us  as  1150  days.  Moreover,  we  have  there 
 already  shown  how  the  diversity  of  the  two  statements  is  explained 
 from  this,  that  in  ch.  viii.  14  a  different  terminus  a  quo  is  named 
 from  that  in  ch.  xii.  11  f . ;  and  besides  have  remarked,  that  ac- 
 cording to  1  Mace.  i.  54,  59,  cf.  with  iv.  52,  the  cessation  of  the 
 Mosaic  order  of  worship  by  sacrifice  lasted  for  a  period  of  only 
 three  years  and  ten  days.  Now  if  these  three  years  and  ten  days 
 are  reckoned  according  to  the  sun-year  at  365  days,  or  according 
 to  the  moon-year  at  354  days  with  the  addition  of  an  intercalary 
 month,  they  amount  to  1105  or  1102  days.  The  majority  of 
 modern  interpreters  identify,  it  is  true,  the  1290  days  with  the  3^ 
 times  (:=years),  and  these  two  statements  agree  so  far,  since  3^  years 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  499 
 
 make  either  1279  or  1285  days.  But  the  identifying  of  the  two 
 is  not  justified.  In  ver.  11  the  subject  plainly  is  the  taking  away 
 of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  the  setting  up  of  the  worship  of 
 idols  in  its  stead,  for  which  the  Maccabean  times  furnish  an  his- 
 torical fulfilment ;  in  ver.  7,  however,  the  angel  speaks  of  a  tribu- 
 lation which  extends  so  far  that  the  strength  of  the  holy  people  is 
 altogether  broken,  which  cannot  be  said  of  the  oppression  of  Israel 
 by  Antiochus,  since  a  stop  was  put  to  the  conduct  of  this  enemy 
 by  tlie  courageous  revolt  of  the  Maccabees,  and  the  power  of 
 valiant  men  put  an  end  to  the  abomination  of  the  desolation  of 
 the  sanctuary.  The  oppression  mentioned  in  ver.  7  corresponds 
 not  only  in  fact,  but  also  with  respect  to  its  duration,  with  the 
 tribulation  which  the  hostile  king  of  the  time  of  the  end,  who  shall 
 arise  from  the  fourth  world-kingdom,  shall  bring  upon  the  holy 
 people,  since,  as  already  remarked,  the  3^  times  literally  correspond 
 with  ch.  vii.  25.  But  vers.  11  and  12  treat  of  a  different,  namely, 
 an  earlier,  period  of  oppression  than  ver.  7,  so  the  1290  and  the 
 1335  days  are  not  reckoned  after  the  3^  times  (ver.  11  and  ch.  vii. 
 35) ;  and  for  the  Maccabean  period  of  tribulation  there  remain 
 only  the  2300  evening-mornings  (ch.  viii.  14)  for  comparison,  if  we 
 count  the  evening-mornings,  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  words 
 (see  p.  302),  as  half-days,  and  so  reduce  them  to  1150  days.  But 
 if  herewith  we  take  into  consideration  the  historical  evidence  of 
 the  duration  of  the  oppression  under  Antiochus,  the  1290  days 
 would  agree  with  it  only  if  we  either  fix  the  taking  away  of  the 
 legal  worship  from  185  to  188  days,  i.e.  six  months  and  five  or 
 eight  days,  before  the  setting  up  of  the  idol-altar  on  Jehovah's  altar 
 of  burnt-offering,  or,  if  these  two  facta  occurred  simultaneously, 
 extend  the  terminus  ad  quern  by  six  months  and  five  or  eight  days 
 beyond  the  day  of  the  re-consecration  of  the  altar.  For  both  sup- 
 positions historical  evidence  is  wanting.  The  former  is  perhaps  pro- 
 bable from  1  Mace.  iv.  45,  cf.  with  ver.  54;  but,  on  the  contrary,  for 
 the  second,  history  furnishes  no  epoch-making  event  of  such  signi- 
 ficance as  that  the  cessation  of  the  oppression  could  be  defined  by  it. 
 The  majority  of  modern  interpreters,  in  the  reckoning  of  the 
 1290  and  the  1335  days,  proceed  from  ch.  viii.  14,  and  with  them 
 Kliefoth  holds,  firstly,  that  the  2300  evening-mornings  are  1150 
 days,  the  termination  of  which  constitutes  the  epoch  of  the  re-con- 
 secration of  the  temple,  on  the  25th  of  the  month  Kisleu  of  the 
 year  148  of  the  Seleucidan  sera  {i.e.  164  B.C.)  ;  and  secondly,  he 
 su^Dposes  that  the  terminus  a  quo  of  the  2300  evening-mornings  (ch. 
 
500  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 viii.  14)  and  of  the  1290  or  1335  clays  is  the  same,  namely,  the 
 taking  of  Jerusalem  by  Apollonius  (1  Mace.  i.  29  ff.),  and  the 
 setting  aside  of  the  T'^^  which  followed  immediately  after  it  was 
 taken,  about  140  days  earlier  than  the  setting  up  of  the  idol-altar 
 As  the  terminus  ad  qiiem  of  the  2300  evening-mox'nings  the  re-con- 
 secration of  the  temple  is  taken,  with  which  the  power  of  Antiochus 
 over  Israel  was  broken,  and  the  beginning  of  the  restoration  made. 
 No  terminus  ad  quern  is  named  in  this  passage  before  us,  but  perhaps 
 it  lies  in  the  greater  number  of  the  days,  as  well  as  in  this,  that  this 
 passage  speaks  regarding  the  entire  setting  aside  of  the  power  of 
 Antiochus — an  evidence  and  a  clear  argument  for  this,  that  in  ch. 
 xii.  11  and  12  a  further  terminus  ad  quern,  reaching  beyond  the 
 purification  of  the  temple,  is  to  be  supposed.  This  terminus  is  the 
 death  of  Antiochus.  "  It  is  true,"  Kliefoth  further  argues,  "  we 
 cannot  establish  it  to  a  day  and  an  hour,  that  between  the  putting 
 away  of  the  daily  sacrifice  and  the  death  of  Antiochus  1290  days 
 intervened,  since  of  both  facta  we  do  not  know  the  date  of  the 
 day.  But  this  we  know  from  the  book  of  the  Maccabees,  that  the 
 consecration  of  the  temple  took  place  on  the  25th  day  of  the 
 month  Kisleu  in  the  148th  year  of  the  Seleucidan  aira,  and  that 
 Antiochus  died  in  the  149tli  year ;  and  if  we  now  add  the  140 
 days,  the  excess  of  2300  above  1290  after  the  consecration  of  the 
 temple,  we  certainly  come  into  the  year  149.  The  circumstance 
 also,  that  in  the  whole  connection  of  this  chapter  the  tendency  is 
 constantly  toward  the  end  of  Antiochus,  the  Antichrist,  induces  us 
 to  place  the  death  of  that  persecutor  as  the  terminus  ad  quern 
 of  the  1290  days.  Consequently  we  shall  not  err  if,  with  Bleek, 
 Kirmss,  Hitzig,  Delitzsch,  Hofmann,  Auberlen,  Ziindel,  we  sup- 
 pose, that  as  the  purifying  of  the  temple  is  the  end  of  the  2300 
 evening-mornings,  so  the  death  of  Antiochus  is  the  end  of  the 
 1290  days.  The  end  of  the  1335  days,  ver.  12,  must  then  be  an 
 event  which  lies  forty-five  days  beyond  the  death  of  Antiochus,  and 
 which  certainly  attests  the  termination  of  the  persecution  under 
 Antiochus  and  the  commencement  of  better  days,  and  which  at 
 least  bears  clear  evidence  of  the  introduction  of  a  better  time,  and 
 of  a  settled  and  secure  state  of  things.  We  are  not  able  to  adduce 
 proof  of  such  a  definite  event  which  took  place  exactly  forty-five 
 days  after  the  death  of  Antiochus,  simply  because  we  do  not  know 
 the  date  of  the  death  of  Antiochus.  The  circumstances,  however, 
 of  the  times  after  the  death  of  Antiochus  furnish  the  possibility 
 of  such  an  event.     The  successor  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes,  An- 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  501 
 
 tiochus  Eupator,  certainly  wrote  to  the  Jews,  after  tlicy  had  van- 
 quished his  host  under  Lysias,  asking  from  them  a  peace  ;  but  the 
 ahenation  between  them  continued  nevertheless,  and  did  not  abso- 
 lutely end  till  the  victory  over  Nicanor,  2  Mace,  xi.-xv.  Hence  there 
 was  opportunity  enough  for  an  event  of  the  kind  spoken  of,  though 
 we  may  not  be  able,  from  the  scantiness  and  the  chronological 
 uncertainty  of  the  records  of  these  times,  to  prove  it  positively." 
 Hereupon  Kliefoth  enters  upon  the  conjectures  advanced  by 
 Hitzig  regarding  the  unknown  joyful  event,  and  finds  that  nothing 
 important  can  be  brought  forward  in  opposition  to  this  especially, 
 that  the  termination  of  the  1335  days  may  be  the  point  of  time 
 when  the  tidings  of  the  death  of  Antioclius,  who  died  in  Babylonia, 
 reached  the  Jews  in  Palestine,  and  occasioned  their  rejoicing, 
 since  it  uiight  easily  require  forty-five  days  to  carry  the  tidings  of 
 that  event  to  Jerusalem  ;  and  finally  he  throws  out  the  question, 
 whether  on  the  whole  the  more  extended  period  of  1335  days  must 
 have  its  termination  in  a  single  definite  event,  whether  by  the 
 extension  of  the  1290  days  by  forty-five  days  the  meaning  may 
 not  be,  that  whoever  lives  beyond  this  period  of  1290  days,  i.e. 
 the  death  of  Antioclius,  in  patience  and  in  fidelity  to  the  truth, 
 is  to  be  esteemed  blessed.  "  The  forty-five  days  were  then  only 
 added  to  express  the  living  beyond  that  time,  and  the  form  of  this 
 expression  was  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  continuing  that  contained 
 in  ver.  11." 
 
 We  cannot,  however,  concur  in  this  view,  because  not  only  is 
 its  principal  position  without  foundation,  but  also  its  contents  are 
 irreconcilable  with  historical  facts.  To  change  the  2300  evening- 
 mornings  into  1150  days  cannot  be  exegetically  justified,  because 
 according  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  computation  evening  and  morning 
 do  not  constitute  a  half  but  a  whole  day.  But  if  the  2300  evening- 
 mornings  are  to  be  reckoned  as  so  many  days,  then  neither  their 
 terminus  a  quo  nor  tlieir  terminus  ad  quem  stands  in  a  definite  rela- 
 tion to  the  1290  days,  from  which  a  conclusion  may  be  drawn 
 regarding  the  terminus  ad  quem  of  the  latter.  Then  the  death 
 of  Antioclius  Epiphanes  does  not  furnish  a  turning-point  for 
 the  commencement  of  a  better  time.  According  to  1  Mace.  vi. 
 18-54,  the  war  against  the  Jews  was  carried  on  by  his  successor 
 Eupator  more  violently  than  before.  And  on  the  news  that 
 Philij)pus,  returning  from  Persia,  sought  to  deprive  him  of  the 
 government,  Lysias  advised  the  king  to  make  peace  with  the  Jews, 
 and  to  promise  to  them  that  they  would  be  permitted  to  live  accord- 
 
502  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 ing  to  their  own  laws.  On  this  the  .Tews  opened  the  citadel  of  ZIon; 
 but  the  king,  after  he  Imd  entered  into  it,  violated  his  oath,  and 
 ordered  its  walls  to  be  demolished.  It  was  not  till  two  years  after 
 the  death  of  Antioclms  Epiphancs  that  Judas  gained  a  decisive 
 victory  over  Nicanor,  which  was  celebrated  by  the  Jews  by  a  joyful 
 festival,  which  they  resolved  to  keep  every  year  in  memory  of  that 
 victory  (1  Mace.  vii.  26-50).  In  these  circumstances  it  is  wholly 
 impossible  to  suppose  an  event  forty-five  days  after  the  death  of 
 Antiochus  which  could  clearly  be  regarded  as  the  beginning  of  a 
 better  time,  and  of  a  settled  and  secure  state  of  things,  or  to  regard 
 the  reception  in  Palestine  of  the  news  of  the  death  of  Antiochus 
 as  an  event  so  joyful,  that  they  were  to  be  esteemed  as  blessed 
 who  should  live  to  hear  the  tidings. 
 
 After  all,  we  must  oppose  the  opinion  that  the  1290  and  the 
 1335  days  are  to  be  regarded  as  historical  and  to  be  reckoned  chro- 
 nologically, and  we  are  decidedly  of  opinion  that  these  numbers 
 are  to  be  interpreted  symbolically,  notwithstanding  that  days  as  a 
 measure  of  time  are  named.  This  much  seems  to  be  certain,  that 
 the  1290  days  denote  in  general  the  period  of  Israel's  sorest  afflic- 
 tion on  the  part  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes  by  the  taking  away  of 
 the  Mosaic  ordinance  of  worship  and  the  setting  up  of  the  worship 
 of  idols,  but  without  giving  a  statement  of  the  duration  of  this 
 oppression  which  can  be  chronologically  reckoned.  By  the  naming 
 of  "  days  "  instead  of  "  times  "  the  idea  of  an  immeasurable  dura- 
 tion of  the  tribulation  is  set  aside,  and  the  time  of  it  is  limited  to 
 a  period  of  moderate  duration  which  is  exactly  measured  out  by 
 God.  But  this  is  more  strictly  represented  by  the  second  defini- 
 tion, by  which  it  is  increased  by  45  days:  1335  days,  with  the  expiry 
 of  which  the  oppression  shall  so  wholly  cease,  that  every  one  shall 
 be  blessed  who  lives  till  these  days  come.  For  45  days  have  the 
 same  relation  to  1290  that  1^  have  to  43,  and  thus  designate  a 
 proportionally  very  brief  time.  But  as  to  this  relation,  the  two 
 numbers  themselves  show  nothing.  If  we  reduce  them  to  the 
 measure  of  time  usual  for  tiie  definition  of  longer  periods,  the 
 1290  days  amount  to  43  months,  or  3  years  and  7  months,  and  the 
 1335  days  to  44^  months,  or  3  years  and  8^  months,  since  gene- 
 rally, and  still  more  in  symbolical  definitions  of  time,  the  year  is 
 wont  to  be  reckoned  at  12  months,  and  the  months  at  30  days. 
 Each  of  the  two  periods  of  time  thus  amounts  to  a  little  more  than 
 3^  years;  the  first  exceeds  by  1  month  and  the  second  by  2^  months, 
 only  a  little  more  than  the  half  of  7  years, — a  period  occurring 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  503 
 
 several  times  in  the  O.  T.  as  tlie  period  of  divine  judgments  (see 
 p.  306).  By  the  reduction  of  the  days  to  years  and  parts  of  a 
 year  the  two  expressions  are  placed  in  a  distinct  relation  to  the 
 3^  times,  which  already  appears  natural  by  the  connection  of  the 
 two  questions  in  vers.  6  and  8.  On  the  one  hand,  by  the  circum- 
 stance that  the  1290  days  amount  to  somewhat  more  than  3^ 
 years,  the  idea  that  "  times  "  stands  for  years  is  set  aside  ;  but  on 
 the  other  hand,  by  the  use  of  "  days  "  as  a  measure  of  time,  the 
 obscurity  of  the  idea  :  time,  times,  and  half  a  time,  is  lessened, 
 and  Daniel's  inquiry  as  to  the  end  of  the  terrible  things  is 
 answered  in  a  way  which  might  help  him  to  the  understanding  of 
 the  first  answer,  which  was  to  him  wholly  unintelligible. 
 
 Such  an  answer  contains  the  two  definitions  of  time  under  the 
 supposition  that  the  hostile  undertakings  of  Antiochus  against 
 Judaism,  in  their  progress  and  their  issue,  form  a  type  of  the  per- 
 secution of  the  last  enemy  Antichrist  against  the  church  of  the 
 Lord,  or  that  the  taking  away  of  the  daily  sacrifice  and  the  setting 
 up  of  the  idol-abomination  by  Antiochus  Epiphanes  shows  in  a 
 figure  how  the  Antichrist  at  the  time  of  the  end  shall  take  away 
 the  worship  of  the  true  God,  renounce  the  God  of  his  fathers,  and 
 make  war  his  god,  and  thereby  bring  affliction  upon  the  church 
 of  God,  of  which  the  oppression  which  Antiochus  brought  upon 
 the  theocracy  furnished  a  historical  pattern.  But  this  typical 
 relation  of  the  two  periods  of  oppression  is  clearly  set  forth  in 
 ch.  xi.  21-xii.  3,  since  in  the  conduct  and  proceedings  of  the 
 hostile  king  two  stadia  are  distinguished,  which  so  correspond  to 
 each  other  in  all  essential  points  that  the  first,  ch.  xi.  21-35, 
 is  related  to  the  second,  ch.  xi.  36-xii.  3,  as  the  beginning 
 and  the  first  attempt  is  related  to  the  complete  accomplishment. 
 This  also  appears  in  the  wars  of  this  king  against  the  king  of 
 the  south  (ch.  xi.  25-29,  cf.  with  ch.  xi.  40-43),  and  in  the 
 consequences  which  this  war  had  for  his  relation  to  the  people 
 of  God.  On  his  return  from  the  first  victorious  war  against 
 the  south,  he  lifted  up  his  heart  against  the  holy  covenant 
 (ch.  xi.  28),  and  being  irritated  by  the  failure  of  the  renewed 
 war  against  the  south  and  against  the  holy  covenant,  he  deso- 
 lated tiie  sanctuary  (vers.  30  and  31)  ;  finally,  in  the  war  at  the 
 time  of  the  end,  when  Egypt  and  the  lands  fell  wholly  under 
 his  power,  and  when,  alarmed  by  tidings  from  the  east  and  the 
 nortli,  he  thought  to  destroy  many,  he  erected  his  palace-tent  in 
 the  Holy  Land,  so  that  he  might  here  aim  a  destructive  blow 
 
504  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 against  all  his  enemies — in  this  last  assault  he  came  to  his  end 
 (ch.  xi.  40-45). 
 
 Yet  more  distinctly  the  typical  relation  shows  itself  in  the  de- 
 scription of  the  undertakings  of  the  enemy  of  God  against  the  holy 
 covenant,  and  their  consequences  for  the  members  of  the  covenant 
 nation.  In  this  respect  the  first  stadium  of  his  enmity  against  the 
 God  of  Israel  culminates  in  the  taking  away  of  His  worship,  and 
 in  the  setting  up  of  the  abomination  of  desolation,  i.e.  the  worship 
 of  idols,  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  Ijord.  Against  this  abomination 
 the  wise  of  the  peo])le  of  God  raise  themselves  up,  and  they  bring 
 by  their  rising  up  "  a  little  help,"  and  accomplish  a  purification 
 of  the  people  (ch.  xi.  31-35).  In  the  second  stadium,  i.e.  at  the 
 time  of  the  end,  the  hostile  king  raises  himself  against  the  God  of 
 gods,  and  above  every  god  (ch.  xi.  37),  and  brings  upon  the  people 
 of  God  an  oppression  such  as  has  never  been  from  the  beginning 
 of  the  world  till  now ;  but  this  oppression  ends,  by  virtue  of  the 
 help  of  the  archangel  Michael,  with  the  deliverance  of  the  people 
 of  God  and  the  consummation  by  the  resurrection  of  the  dead, 
 of  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  of  some  to  everlasting  shame  (ch. 
 xii.  1-3). 
 
 If  thus  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  after  he  said  to  Daniel  that 
 he  mi<:rht  rest  as  to  the  non-understandino;  of  his  communication 
 regarding  the  end  of  the  wonderful  things  (ver.  7),  because  the 
 prophecy  shall  at  the  time  of  the  end  give  to  the  wise  know- 
 ledge for  the  purifying  of  many  through  the  tribulation,  so 
 answers  the  question  of  Daniel  as  to  the  npx  n"'"ini<  that  he 
 defines  in  symbolically  significant  numbers  the  duration  of  the 
 sufferings  from  the  removal  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  to  the 
 commencement  of  better  times,  with  which  all  oppression  shall 
 cease,  then  he  gave  therewith  a  measure  of  time,  according  to 
 which  all  those  who  have  understanding,  who  have  lived  through 
 this  time  of  oppression,  or  who  have  learned  regarding  it  from 
 history,  may  be  able  to  measure  the  duration  of  the  last  tribulation 
 and  its  end  so  far  beforehand,  as,  according  to  the  fatherly  and 
 wise  counsel  of  God,  it  is  permitted  to  us  to  know  the  times  of  the 
 end  and  of  our  consummation.  For,  from  the  comparison  of  this 
 passage  with  that  in  ch.  viii.  14  regarding  the  duration  of  the 
 crushing  under  feet  of  the  holy  people  by  the  enemy  rising  from 
 the  Javanic  world-kingdom,  it  is  clear  that  as  the  2300  evening- 
 mornings  do  not  contain  a  complete  heptad  of  ytais,  so  the  1290 
 days  contain  only  a  little  more  than  half  a  heptad.    \u  this  lies  the 
 
CHAP.  XII.  4-13.  505 
 
 comfort,  that  the  severest  time  of  oppression  shall  not  endure  much 
 longer  than  half  the  time  of  the  whole  period  of  oppression.  And 
 if  we  compare  with  this  the  testimony  of  history  regarding  the 
 persecutiou  of  the  Old  Covenant  people  under  Antiochus,  in  con- 
 sequence of  which  God  permitted  the  suppression  of  His  worship, 
 and  the  substitution  of  idol-worship  in  its  stead,  for  not  fully  3-g- 
 years,  but  only  for  3  years  and  10  days,  then  we  are  able  to 
 gather  the  assurance  that  He  shall  also  shorten,  for  the  sake  of 
 Plis  elect,  the  3^  times  of  the  last  tribulation.  We  should  rest  here, 
 that  His  grace  is  sufficient  for  us  (2  Cor.  xii.  9).  For  as  God 
 revealed  to  the  prophets,  who  prophesied  of  the  grace  that  should 
 come  unto  us,  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that  should 
 follow,  that  they  might  search  and  inquire  what  and  what  manner 
 of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  who  was  in  them  did  signify;  so  in  the 
 times  of  the  accomplishment,  we  who  are  living  are  not  exempted 
 from  searching  and  inquiring,  but  are  led  by  the  prophetic  word 
 to  consider  the  signs  of  the  times  in  the  light  of  this  word,  and 
 from  that  which  is  already  fulfilled,  as  well  as  from  the  nature 
 and  manner  of  the  fulfilment,  to  confirm  our  faith,  for  the  endu- 
 rance amid  the  tribulations  which  prophecy  has  made  known  to  us, 
 that  God,  according  to  His  eternal  gracious  counsel,  has  measured 
 them  according  to  their  beginning,  middle,  and  end,  that  thereby 
 we  shall  be  purified  and  guarded  for  the  eternal  life. 
 
 Ver.  13.  After  these  disclosures  regarding  the  time  of  the  end, 
 the  angel  of  the  Lord  dismisses  the  highly-favoured  prophet  from 
 liis  life's  work  with  the  comforting  assurance  that  he  shall  stand 
 in  his  own  lot  in  the  end  of  the  days.  J'ip?  ^?  evidently  does  not 
 mean  "go  to  the  end,  i.e.  go  thy  way"  (Hitzig),  nor  "go  hence 
 in  relation  to  the  end,"  as  Kranichfeld  translates  it,  because  Ki?.^ 
 with  the  article  points  back  to  KP.  ^V.,  ver.  9.  For  though  this 
 reference  were  placed  beyond  a  doubt,  yet  Ti^p  could  only  declare  the 
 end  of  the  going :  go  to  the  end,  and  the  meaning  could  then  with 
 Ewald  only  be  :  "  but  go  thou  into  the  grave  till  the  end."  But  it 
 is  more  simple,  with  Theodoret  and  most  interpreters,  to  understand 
 *f*i^^  of  the  end  of  Daniel's  life :  go  to  the  end  of  thy  life  (cf.  for 
 the  constr.  of  ^^n  with  ^,  1  Sam.  xxiii.  18).  "With  this  n^ni 
 simply  connects  itself  :  and  thou  shalt  rest,  namely,  in  the  grave, 
 and  rise  again.  "li^VJii  =  ^^P^,  to  rise  np^  sc.  from  the  rest  of  the 
 grave,  thus  to  rise  again.  '^?7T^VJ  "*  t^ty  lot.  ?")i3,  lot,  of  the  in- 
 heritance divided  to  the  Israelites  by  lot,  referred  to  the  inheritance 
 of  the  saints  in  light  (Col.  i.  12),  which  shall  be  possessed  by  the 
 
506  THE  BOOK  OF  DANIEL. 
 
 rl'T-hteous  after  tlie  resurrection  from  the  dead,  in  the  heavenly 
 Jerusalem.  D''p*n  Y\>b,  to  =  at^  the  end  of  the  days,  i.e.  not  = 
 D"'»»n  nnnt^lj  in  the  Messianic  time,  hut  in  the  last  da^-s,  when,  after 
 the  judgment  of  the  world,  the  kingdom  of  glory  shall  appear. 
 
 Well  shall  it  be  for  us  if  in  the  end  of  our  days  we  too  are 
 able  to  depart  hence  with  such  consolation  of  hope ! 
 
 THE    END. 
 
 MORRAT  AND  Cinn,  KDISBCROH, 
 FRIXTEUS  TO  UKU  MAJESll's  STATIOXEUV  OFFICR.