ing time, it evidently expresses the idea of an
integral part, a considerable part, like the Chal-
dee r^p y^ in chap. ii. 42, and like riSp":

* ["Dnniel ib cnxefiil to say (with historical Accuracy)
that at this time the king of Babylun took away only a part
of the vessels of the t<-mple. ilany more were taken ilnriiig
the ..horl rei'jn of Jeconiah (see '2 Kings xxiv. l-*!), and yet
tocQe were left behind even then, to be taken at the final de-
etniction of the city in the reign of Zedekiab ( Jer. xxrii.
■lt-ii)."—CowUf.}



in Neh. vii. 70. In explaining this meaning it
is not necessary to assume (with llitzig) that
~^p may here be equivalent to '"a part," for
the word bears this sense iu no other instance.
The word, rather, indicates that the store iu
question, from end to end, has contributed a
share, and throughout its extent some portion
has been taken away. Hence ''from the end of
the vessels of the temple " signifies merely a
portion of all its vessels. Cf. Kranichf eld on this
passage ; Gesen. -Dietrich 8. v. ~^?. [Furst,
however (Heb. Lex. s. v.), adopts the simple ex-
planation that '^^p'3 is merely an alternative
form of r^^p, and this is certainly corroborated
by the form P2p^i^, chap. i. 18, where two pre-
positions cannot be tolerated.] This view is also
essentially established by 3 Chron. xxxvi. 7 :

Which he carried into the land of Shinar ;

rather, " And he caused them to be brought to
the land of Shinar," — to Babylonia, which pro-
vince is here called by the ancient name that
occurs outside of Genesis (see Gen. x. 10; xi.
2 ; xiv. 1), only in the elevated language of the
prophets, e.g., in Isa. xi. 11; Zech. v. 11. — The
suffix in CS^;^] "and he caused them to be
taken away," can hardly be taken (as do Hiivem.
and others) as referring exclusively to the
sacred vessels, the mention of which immedi-
ately precedes this sentence ; for the following
words refer to them again, and tHus distinguish
them as a particular of the collective object of
the verb stn^.n. * We are not obliged, however,
to include the king Jehoiakim among those who
were carried away with the sacred utensils ; for
while the narrative in its progress postulates the
presence in Babylon of Jewish youths belong-
ing to llje royal and to noble families, it never
implies the presence of the king himself (cf. vs.
3, G ; also v. 13) ; and while it is related in 2
Chron. xxxvi. B, that Nebuchadnezzar bound
Jehoiakim " in fetters, to cany him to Babylon,"
it is not expressly stated that he executed that
purpose. The Sept. {kiu tojjotv airui ii \a'/\(ii^
irahu: nai ai-fiyayei^avTov t'lr Ba0v''.(',tva) first imposed
this sense on the passage, because they felt com-
pelled to assume an actual deportation of Jehoi-
akim. followed by his return to Jerusalem at
a later period — an opinion which w;,'is shared by
the writer of the 3d Book of Esdras and the
Vulgate, and by several rabbins of the Jliddle
Ages, e.g., Ibn-Ezra. WhOe the passage before
us does not directly contradict this assumption,
which represents the fate of Jehoiakim as very
similar to that of Manasseh (3 Chron. xixiii. 13),
it does not necessarily compel its adoption.



* [Stuart, on the contrarj*, insists that the following clause
compels us to understand the same object of Si'^Znin both
cases; but he overstrains the particle PX by the ren-
dering *' tfte ftaitie." The English Auth. Version interprets
in a similar manner. But the latter clause certainly implies
a distinction lietween the objects carried away, some of which
were deposited in a prtrticuLir s(iot. The author is, there-
fore, correct in understanding the usfuK'iaits of the king to
be included generally under the mention of hi= name, bat
I not himself particularly ; he is inconsistent, however, a little
I farther on, as we shall see, in destroying the whole founda,
I tion of this distinction, in the interpretation of the laat
clause of t^e vetEe.]



58



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



Jehoiakim may be included among the trans-
ported Jews who are designated by the plural
suffix in cs«"~"'1 ; but, on the other hand, the
suffix may, in addition to the temple-vessels,
simply designate a band of noble Jews, whom
the conqueror carried away as hostages, and to
which the youth referred to in v. 3 et seq. be-
longed — hence those D"'"I1iT^, whose presence
may be gathered from the coUective singular
m^n^, to which reference has already been
made (Kranichfeld ; cf. Ibn-Ezra, Maldonat,
Geier, and others ; also Bertheau in Kurzge-
fasatcs exig. HandbucJi zur Chronik,^. 4^7). —
To the house of his god — rather " to the dwel-
ling-place of his gods." l^ribs'tTia is probably
to be regarded as in opposition with T"!*?
"^".2 ; for the sacred vessels of the temple at
Jerusalem, as has been shown, formed only a
part of the object in CS^:";! ; and, besides, if
n"nb!< r^a in this place were iutended to desig-
nate the temple of Nebuchadnezzar's god (or
gods), usage would require the particle J^
in order to manifest the object towards which
the motion is directed (see Gen. xxxi. 4 ; Isa.
xxxvii. 33 ; Zech. xi. 13). The correct view is
stated by Hitzig and Kranichfeld. who refer to
Hos. viii. 1 ; ix. 15 ; Ex. xxix. 45 ; Num. xxxv.
3, etc.. in support of the tropical signification,
which takes j-^2 iu the sense of "land or dwel-
ling-place." [Keil, however, shows the inaccu-
racy of this criticism, on grammatical grounds.
Moreover, in this way the distmction evidently
intended between the different classes of objects
tran.sported, is wholly taken away ; the persons
were merely removed to Babylon, but the uten-
sils were lodged in a heathen temple, as they
before had belonged to Jehovah's. The parallel
history. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, 7, states all this
explicitly. Daniel here merely rehearses the
facts in a general way, but is nevertheless care-
ful to mention the disposal, both of the captives,
of whom he was himself one (chap. ii. 25),
and the vessels, which afterwards became so
important in his narrative (chap. v. 2, 23).]
Whether the genitive l^H-^ be translated "of
his gods" (cf. chap. ii. 47; iii. 29 ; iv. 6, 15) or
"of his god," is unimportant. In the lat-
ter case, the reference is to Bel, the chief
divinity of the Babylonians ; cf. Isa. xlvi. 1 ;
Jer. 1. 2; Ii. 44. — And he brought the ves-
sels into the treasure-house i i his gods (or
"his god," viz.: Bel). On ^:f i!< ri-":!, treasure-
house yn^nipvAaKtnv^ compare Mai. iii. 10; Neh.
xiii. 5, 12, 13, where the treasury of the second
temple is the subject of remark. There is no
contradiction between this passage and chap. v.
2 et seq. where the sacred vessels are profaned
by Belshazzar, and thus appear to have been
stored in his palace. Belshazzar was not Nebu-
chadnezzar, and it is conceivable that the son
could trample in the mire what his father and
predecessor had valued and reserved (cf. Ephr.
Syr. on this passage). Nor is there a contradic;
tiou of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7 ; the statement in that
passage: "And he put them in his palace"



act than the one before us ; [or rather, perhaps,
iS'^n is then used La its frequent signification ol
temple, as all the older versions render, and the
suffix " /ijs " designates it as that of his favorite
deity].

Verses 8, 4. The selection of youthful Jews of
noble rank for sercice at the royal court. And
the king spake unto (commanded) Ashpenaz,
the master of his eunuchs, 'r?''?^, a name,
whose formation is very similar to that of
T:3'i'X, Gen. x. 3, but not to be identified with
it on that account (as Hitzig suggests) without
further inquiry. It appears to be of Indo-Ger-
manic origin, and, according to Rodiger, is com-
pounded of the Sanscrit oqea, "horse," and
nasa, "nose." It is, therefore, equivalent to
"horse-nose."— n"'C'i"iD ai_, the chief of the
eunuchs (Sept. apxievvovxnc, ; Vulgate, prcepon-
tus eunuchorum), an important and influential
officer of the palace at Oriental courts, as may be
shown from the position of the Kislar-Aga at
the Turkish court in our day. However, neither
he nor his subordinates are to be regarded as
actual eunuchs, but rather as ordinary chamber-
lains (Luther: " oberster Kammerer"). Com-
pare Gen. xxxvii. 3U ; xxxix. 1, 7, where
Joseph's master at the court of Pharaoh
is called n''~C, although he was married;
also 1 Sam. viii. 15; 1 Kings xxii. 9; xxv. 19,
etc., in all of which the rendering of O^^O
by "chamberlain" or court-official is adequate.
However, the subordinates of Ashpenaz, men-
tioned in the passage under consideration, may
be regarded as actual evmuchs (as also those in
Esth. i. 10, 12, 15; ii. 3, 14; iv. 5), without
necessitating the conclusion that Daniel and his
associates also became eunuchs, on their being
placed under his super\ ision. Only a grossly
carnal conception of the facts narrated in this
chapter, and of Isaiah's prophecy, Isa. xxxix.
7 (where ciO likewise means [or may mean]
an official generally) could lead to this opinion,
which is entertained by a number of Jewish and
older Christian commentators, e.g., Josephus,
Antiguit., X. 11 ; the Targum, on Esther iv. 5;
Rashi, on Dan. i. 21 ; Origen Ilinnil. iv. on Ezek. ;
Jerome, ailr. Jovin. i. 1 ; and Job. Damascenus,
Ve fide orthod. iv. 25.* It is not even possibla
to argue from the relations of Daniel to the
master of the eunuchs, as indicated in this pas-
sage, that the prophet always remained un-
maiTied (as Pseudo-Epiphanius i'c I'j't. prrophet.,
c. 10, Cornelius a Lapide, Huetius, and others,
suggest). See the Introd. , g 2. — 1 hat he should
bring certain of the children of Israel — i. e. , to
choose of the children of Israel, viz. : of the
Jews, who had been carried to Babylon as hos-
tages, cf. V. 2. The more comprehensive phrase,
"the children of Israel," is justified by the fact
that the theocratic state under Jehoiakim in-
cluded all of the tribes of Benjamin and Levi,
and at least fragments of several other tribes,
especially of Simeon (2 Chron. xv. 9), in addi-

* [Rather, a strictly literal interpretation of Isa. .xxxix, 7. a3
well as all the probabilities and analogies of the case, requii eg
this view, which the majority of cummentatora have accord-
ingly taken. The case of Joseph's master afford.s no diffi-
culty, for eunuchs of high rank are often ii-arried (cf . Kcclus,
XX. 4; xxv. 20); indeed the Fupposition of hlB impoteno*
affords some explanation of his wife's solicitation of Joseph.)



CHAP. I. 1-21.



59



tion to the leading tribe of Judah. — And of the
king's seed, and ol the princes— rather, "of

the royal seed, as well as of the number of
nobles." Instead of this correlative view of the
two "'s — the only correct view — which is found
in Von Lengerke, and in Hitzig, and others,
Bertholdt. without reason, adopts the designa-
tive (eit/ur—or), while a majority, including
Havemick, take the first 1 (before y^l, which,
however, is wanting in several of Kennicott's
and De Rossi's manuscripts. — but the authen-
ticity of which is not, on that account, to be
questioned) in the sense of "and indeed,"
"namely," — hence as marking the use of an
emphatic apposition. Our view is supported by
parallel passages, such as chap, vii 20; viii 13,
etc. — The term S^':ri"^Sn, "nobles," "mag-
nates." which occurs only here and in Esth. i.
3 ; vi M, seems to be borrowed from the Persian,
and to be equivalent to the Pehlevi pardom,
"the first." "the noble;" cf. the Sanscrit
pi-athrniui, Zend frnthema, Greek -/lurcf. Its
derivation from the Greek -jionuoi, essayed by
Bertholdt, as well as the opinion which pre-
vailed among older expositors, that the word is
of Hebrew origin, and perhaps related to mc,
invalidt, are to be decisively rejected. The cor-
'esponding term in Hebrew is DiJ"'!^, the strong
or powerful ones: Ex. xv. 15; Ezek. xvii. 13 >
2 Kings xxiv. 1.5. — Verse 4. Children in
whcm was no blemish, i.e., no physical fault ;
bence. of faultless beauty ; compare 2 Sam.
liv. 25. (Cf. the form -rs'a in the Kethib in
this place with Job xxxi. 7.) Corporeal sound-
ness and a handsome form were considered in-
•lispensible among the ancient Orientals (cf.
Ourtius. vi. 5, 29), for those who were destined
ifor court service, — a view which is still shared
»)y the Turks; see Ricaut IJegcnitdrt. Zustaiid

lies turk. Rtklies, i. 13. — The indefinite Q"'7f".
does not admit of a definite conclusion respect-
tog the age of the j'ouths, and particularly of
Daniel. The remark in Plato, Alcib. i. g 37,
.however, according to which the training of the
Persian youth by the -ai('in)uyn\ Sam'/.cim began
irith the 14th year, has a certain importance for
speculations on this question, which is enhanced
Dy the statement of Xenophon, Ci/n>j). i. 2, that
Qone of the io'/Jm might enter the service of
the king before they attained their 17th year.
What is said in v. 5 concerning a period of
three years during which Daniel was in training,
corresponds remarkably with these statements.
— bMlfuI in all \risdom. The intellectual
qualifications are immediately connected with
the physical. Havemick, Hitzig, and others,
are correct in taking fi'SC?? in the sense of
" discerning, understanding," rather than
"versed, or experienced," — as denoting apti-
tude rather than habitus. " mzZTl, as ^~ mdi-
cates, is the objective wisdom, which is dis-
played in the various fields of knowledge, and,
according to v. 17, is contained in books"
(Hitzig) — hence scientific, as distinguished from
the purely practical wisdom, which elsewhere is
generally referred to. — Cunning in knov/ledge,
and understanding; literally " knowing know-
ledge" (tlJ~ ''f,'^.'') and "understanding



thought" (''7'? TrD- On J"!)? "thought"
(elsewhere "knowledge"), compare Eccles. x.
20, and on both phrases compare chap. ii. 21 ;
Neh. X. 29. — And such as had ability in them
to stand in the king's palace, literally "who
had power (Hs, here [perhaps] abilUy, talent ;
compare viii. 7 ; xi. 15) to stand in the king's
palace " (^ban i2^n2 -;>:_'':,— for which "i?.?

n: is not to be substituted^. " To stand in
the king's palace " is the same as "to stand be-
ford the king" (cf. Gen. xviii. 8 ; xli. 40 ; Deut.
i. 38, etc.), i.e., to await his commands, to serve
him. See below, v. 17, and compare the absolute
C^I^J"", tlte servant.^, in Zech. iii. 7 ; also Esth.
V. 2. — And whom they might teach the learn-
ing and the tongue of the Chaldaeans ; liter-
ally, "and to teach them the learning," etc.
2~12,ri depends on the verb I^S'] v. 3, and
is co-ordinate with St'^ni in the same verse, as
the preceding athndch indicates — - ied, "writ-
ing," does not in this place denote the art
of writing, but the learning of the Chaldaeans ;
compare "lEB-^S v. 17, which can only be equi-
valent to aS teor/w'7!^, "all literary knowledge."
Further, f ~C3 "ilTj can hardly signify the
Aramaean idiom which begins with chap. ii. 4,
but designates the original Chaldee, which was
of Japhetic origin, or tinctured with Japhetic
elements — as Michaelis, Bertholdt, Winer, Hii-
vemick, Lengerke, Hengsteuberg, and others,
hold.* Tliat the noble Jewish youths should
be compelled to learn the Aramsean dialect,
which, according to 2 Kings xviii. 20 et seq.
(Isa. xxxvi. 11). was the oflScial language both at
the Assyrian and the Babylonian courts, admits,
indeed, of an easy explanation ; since the Jews
of that time were but slightly acquainted with
that dialect (cf. 2 Kings, in the above mentioned
place), and since youth especially, of whatever
rank, could not have been instructed in this
language, which was indeed related to the
Hebrew, but was nevertheless a foreign tongue.
The view which identifies the " tongue of the
Chaldaeans" with the official Aramsan of the
court, is untenable because of the circumstance
that the latter is introduced in chap. ii. 4 by the
term ~~?p~St (cf. Isa. xxxvi. 11; Ezra iv. 7),
and is thus clearly distinguished from the ordi-
nary language of the C'l'^'S. (See notes on
that passage, and compare Introd. § 1 , note 3. )
Verse 5. The prcmitioii for tlie selected youth,
and their training. And the king appointed
them a daily, etc. "Them," i.e., those who
should be selected, but whom the king did not
yet know. n'Q, to ordain, appoint, a.':iiignare,
compare v. 10.— i'3'i''3 Bi^ 131, literally,
"matter of the day in its day," i.e., a daily
sujyply, or ration. Compare Jer. Iii, 34, where
the same expression is used with reference to
the daily food of the captive Jehoiachin ; also
Ex. V. 13, 19 ; Lev. xxiii 7, etc.— Of the king's
meat, — of which, according to Oriental custom.

♦[others, however, miiintaill that it was of Hainitic affia
ity. The subject of the origin of the C^TTS is very diJB
cult. See the note u\ Keil ad loc.]



GO



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



not only noble guests (cf. Jer. as cited above), but
also all the servants and officials were accustomed
to partake, compare 1 Kings v. 2, 3 ; and con-
cerning the custom in question at the Persian
court, see Athenajus, iv. 10, p. 09; Plutarch,
frobl. vii. 4. — ^^r? "meat," really delicacies,
luxurious food, is of Persian origin, — a com-
posite word formed out cf brig, " tribute " (cf.
Sanscrit b/uign, "allowance," "ration"), and
the preposition paiti, "towards, to," ( = Sans-
crit })riiti, Greek irporl, 77/jor)— and hence is
equivalent to " apportioned food," which sense
is also expressed by the Sanscrit pratiihaga,
which designates the daily proportion of fruits,
flowers, etc., required by the rajah in his house-
hold. Cf. GUdemeister in the Zeitschrift fur
Kunde ffe« Morgenl-andts. iv. 214. — And of the
wine which he drank, properly "of the wine
of his drinking," his banquet. I'P^'? is to be
taken in the singular in this place, as well as in
vs. 8 and 10. — So nourishing them three years,
rather, "and (commanded) to instruct them
three years" — properly "educate," "bring up"
[but literally, " to make great "—perhaps refer-
ring primarily to their physical culture] . The
infinitive cb^3i^ with a copulative i certainly
does not depend on "i^S'T in v. 3; but rather
is to be regarded as governed by ^1?'p., from
whose signification the idea of commandiyig,
(rrdaining, is zeugmatically derived. Compare
~}n in V. 11; also Jonah ii. 1.— That at the
end thereof they might stand before the king,
i.e., after the three years had expired. "To
stand before the king" is "to serve him," cf. v.
3. ['• SUindiiig was the position of waiters in
readiness to do their master's wUl." — Stvart.]

Verses 6, 7. T/ie names of Danid and his
associates, and their changing. — Now among
these we: e of the children of Judah, hence,
belonging to the most prominent tribe, after
which the entire nation was usually called, even
at that early period. The four youths are here
shown to be Jewish =^^ri~Q (v. 3) ; but it does
not follow from this passage that all of them,
and Daniel in particular, were, in addition, of
royal family (n:^;^- :?-ira. V. 3).* The royal
descent of Daniel can only be conjectured; that
Zedekiah was his father, as is stated by Jose-
phus, is a mere supposition. Compare Introd. g
2, where the names Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael,
and Azariah have been sufficiently considered
(cf . also not.- 1 to that g). Verse 7. Unto whom
the prince of the eunuchs gave (other) names,
rather, " and the prince . . . gave them." The
changing of names as a sign of entrance into
the condition of subjection to a ruler, is a fre-
quently attested custom of Oriental and classical
antiquity. Compare Gen. xli. 45 (Joseph); 2
Kings xxiii. 34 (Eliakim); 2 Kings xxiv. 17
(Matthaniah = Zedekiah); the re-naming of pupils



•[Mnch IcBs does it follow " that the other youths of noble
descent, who had been carried nwiiy along with them, be-
longed to other tribes" (Keil ad loc.), for ras the some com-
mentator immediately adds ). "the names of Daniel and his
three companions only are mentioned, because their history
recorded in this book brings them specially under our
not ice.'l



by their preceptors, e.g., 2 Sam. xii. 25 (Solo
mon = Jedediah); Mark iii 16 ( Simon = Peter) ;
and respecting this custom among the Greelu
and Romans, Theodoret, on our passage ; Chry-
sostom, 0pp. V. 286, etc. ["But whUe the
kings referred to only had their paternal names
changed for other Israelitish names, which were
given them by their conquerors. Daniel and his
friends received genuine heathen names in ex-
change for their own significant names, which
were associated with that of the true God." —
Keil.\ For he gave unto Daniel the name of
BelteshazzEr, etc. ; rather, " and he called
Daniel Belteshazzar." The four new names of
the youths doubtless contain, without excep-
tion, a reference to the divinities of Babylon.
This is apparent in the name "i?**!?^?? ('^f*
chap. iv. 5), — with which the royal name
ISXC'ba is probably identical— whether, as a
majority hold, we find the name of the god ;a
in it, and explain its composition perhaps by
Beli princeps (which the expression of Nebu-
chadnezzar himself in chap. iv. 5 seems to
endorse), or prefer Hitzig's more artificial in-
terpretation =:P«W tscMcara, " nourisher and
devourer," i^; "25 likewise (for which the
scriptio plena, chap, iii, 29, is S«i3: 5) is cer-
tainly equivalent to "adorer of Nego," which
divinity is probably not the same as Nebo ( Saadia,
Hitz., Kranichf., and others), but a reptile god,
and perhaps the familiar dragon of the apocryphal
book Bel and the Dragon — since the comparison of
the Sanscrit naga, serpent, with this name,
which was first essayed by Rodiger, affords a
more likely conception than the transmutation
of 2 into 3. But '^^"r\ which may be identical
with "^^in, Zech. ix. 1 (cf. Kohler, Sachnria, 2d
pt, p. 18) also seems to designate a divinity, and
possibly, in case it is based on the root -nn or
-ITn, "to move in a circle," the sun-god. "r""2
may be the same as the Sanscrit meschach,
" stag," and therefore denote a god likewise
belonging to the siderial domain ; whether th«
sun-god be again intended, as Hitzig supposes,
must remain doubtful (but see Hitzig on this
place).

Verses 8-10. Daniel's request, and the refusal
of the master of the eunuchs to entertain it. But
Daniel purposed in his heart. So the A. V
and Luther, Uterally, but less agreeable to the
sense of 13"? 3? ^'r-'l than " he was con-
cerned," as Bertholdt properly renders it. That
he would (better "should ") not defile himself
with the king's meat. The Sept. renders
5tOr" sb "ICS by o-^rur M n>ia:riin/; cf.
a'Ain}rifiaTa, Acts XV. 20. The reason for the
refusal of the Jirc, i-^-, the ordinary food of
the king, as weU as of the wine from his table
(cf. v. 5), by Daniel and his associates, arose
doubtless from the heathenish custom of conse-
crating each meal, by offermg a portion to the
gods.* In order to prevent their being involved

•[That the special reason for their abstinence was not
the Levitical distinction of "clean" and "unclean"
animals, is evident from their rejection of the wme like-
wise which the Mosaic law allowed. In addition to thf
reason assigned by our author, we suspect some samtarj



CHAP. I. 1-21.



GI



in idolatry by partaking of food which had been
thus dedicated to the gods (cf . 1 Cor. x. 18-20),
they avoided especially those kinds of food
which were commonly oifered to the gods, hence
those piepared from llesh, wine, or flour. The
Tegetables, such as pulse, cabbage, etc., of
which alone they were willing to partake, were
indeed also prejjared by the heathen cooks of
the king, and were even unclean in themselves,
as having been grown on heathen soil (Am. vii.
17 ; Hos. ix. 9, 4); but, since oflferings or liba-
tions were never taken from them, they were
not specially sacred to the gods, and hence,
might be used by pious Jews, without any
essential defilement of conscience, Compare
Havemick and Hitzig on this passage, and
against Vou Lengerke especially, who thought
to find here the v",""''"''/." 'pooii, 2 Maec. v. 27 ;
and, therefore, a proof of the composition of
the book in the time of the Maccabees ; see
Havemick. JV'ti/c krit. Unters., p. 47. ["Dan-
iel's resolution to refrain from such unclean food
flowed from fidelity to the law, and from stead-
fastness to the faith that • man liveth not by '
bread only, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of the Lord' (Deut. viii. 3)."
— Kril] Verse 9. Now God had brougijt
Daniel into iavor and tender love with the
prince of the eunuchs; literally, "and God !