dents" (KeiV)]. — Verse 5 [4]. Then the presi-
dents .... sought to find occasion against
j Daniel concerning the kingdom, i.e., they
i sought to assail his official character ; and only
I after frequent proofs that their efforts in this
direction were futile, did they direct their atten-
tion to his religious standpoint (v. 6 et seq.).* —
But they could find none occasion nor fault.
i"iS", as before, is an " occasion, opportunity,
pretext," upon which the accusation might be
based ["as ahia, John xviii. 38; Matt, xxvii.
37, an occation for impeachment" (Keil)]. This
more general term may be co-ordinated with
nri"'rTr, " wickedness," because it is conceived
concretely or objectively ; and hence also with
the following ib'J, " fault, inadvertence " (from
nb'.r, the probable primitive form for r!3",13 ; cf.
in the Gr. fju/.u- and /'oj'i). Fidelity is the lead-
ing political virtue of the sei-vant or officer of a
government (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 2). in like manner as
justice and mercy should be the ornament of
rulers (chap. iv. 34).

Verses 6-10 [5-9]. The procuring of a gotem-
mental edict pertaining to religiein, directed against
Daniel.\ We shall not .... against this
Daniel, excepttve find it against him concern-
ing the law of hJs God. ri~b?« P^, the law of
Daniel's God. is the theocratic law, considered
as the rule of his religious life, and especially of
his devotional exercises. Cf. HT in Ezra vii. 0,
13, 14, 31, 35, 36 ; and supra, chap. ii. 9. — Verse
7. Then these presidents (princes) and princes
(satraps) assembled together to the king ;
rather (as marg. ), "ran in stormy haste."
" These princes and satraps " (cf. " these men,"
V. 6 [a]) were not, of course, aU ot them, with-
out exception, but only those who envied and
sought to calumniate Daniel, since only such are
here concerned ; cf. v 35 [34]. The idea that
all the satraps participated is the more improba-
ble, in view of the fact that the possible presence
of all in the metropolis is nowhere indicate i (nf t

* [" Such a model of excellence. Ro far surp.issiog and feo
nncomfort'ibly eclipsing themselves, was lieerl.v cutting to
these corrupt officers, and aroused their bitterest hostility."
— Coicie'i.]

t [*' With Satanic cunning the princes shaped tius proposed
law to tike with the king by a bait for his low vanity, and
to entrap Daniel through his known decision liiid firmness
in the worsiiip of his God. It was the best compUmcnt they
could pay to Ilaniel that they assumed so conlideiitly that be
would pray to God none the less for this monstrous law. It
was the keenest reproach to their king that they should an-
ticipate hie rendy assent to such a law under the impulses
of his excessive vanity. Uarius was a weak and vain king,
eUu he would have asked. What can be the motive of the8€
men iii proposing such a law ? Tlainly the appended e,xcei>
tion, * Save of thee, O king,^ was so .grateful to hi* vanitj
that it blinded his dull eye to the monstrous nature &rd po«
Bible b'urings of this law." — Cowieti.^



CHAP. VI. l-2y.



141



BTen in V. 8 LTD- — On -•■'31Si "to rush any-
where in stormy haste, to rush anywhere fre-
quently '' [rather, tumultuously] (Luther, '■ came
often "), cf. the German "jema/iden die Thure
fiturmeu'^ ("to storm somebody's door"); see
infra, vs. 13 [11] and 16 [15].— Verse 8. AU the
presidents (princes) of the kingdom, the gov-
ernors, and th9 princes (satrap.s), the counsel-
lors, and the captains ipraifects) have consulted
together ; rather, ' ' have considered it advisa-
ble." 1"r~? seems here to be employed in a
more extended sense than heretofore (vs. 3 [3] ,
5 [4], and T [(!]). where it designates the chief -
prasfects who were placed over the satraps ; *
for the four classes of officials which follow — the
same as in chap iii. 37, but in a different order
— are evidentlj- intended to specialize the pre-
fixed general idea of "princes" or '" pnefects"
(thus Chr. B. Michaelis correctly, against Hitzig
and others, who in this place also reg.ard the
Sarekin as the chief praefects who were Daniel's
colleagues) In like manner the term Chaldse-
ans was found to be employed above, at one
time to designate a special class of wise men,
and at another to denote the whole order of
magians (see on chap. ii. 3).f — In relation to
^?r"^^, "to determine or agree among them-
selves," compare the term ^?'^, "a counsellor,"
coiuiliarius, as designating one of the principal
officers of the Persian king, Ezra vii. 14, 15. —
To establish a royal statute ; rather, "that the
king should establish a statute." In view of the
accentuation, 8*2;^ is not to be construed with
D"p as a genitive (" to establish a royal statute,"

• [" If we compare the list of the four official classes here
meDtioned with that of the great officers of state under Ne-
buchadnezzar, ch. iii. 2, the naming of the i<'?t;30 before

the S':E~Ti)n6« (»a«roi>», while inch. iii. 2 they are named
after them) shows that the K^IHO are here great officers
to whom the satraps were subordinate, and that only the
three ^''^"O could be meant to whom the satraps had to
render an account. Moreover, the list of four names is
divided by the copula T into two classes. To the first class
belong the K^Z30 and the satraps; to the second the

Vl^'^n, »tate counciUora, and the ^^r^^B, civil pra-
fectJl of tke provinces. Accordingly, we will scarcely err
If by S':30 we understand the member) of the highest

council of state^ by S^'niS^n the ministers or members

of the (lotcer) slate councU, and by the satmps and pec/ias
the milittiri/ and civil rulers of the provinces. This group-
ing of the names confirms, consequently, the general inter-
pretation of the 8<riiri^ 13ID ^3, for the four classes

named constitute the entire chief prefecture of the king-
dom. This interpretation is not made questionable by the
fact that the '^"'D^.O had in the kingdom of Darius a dif-

"erent position from that they held in the kingdom of
Nebuchadnezzar ; for in this respect each kingdom had its
own particular arrangement, which underwent manifold
changes according to the times." — Ketl.'\

t [" The whole connection of the narrative plainly shows
that the authors of the accusation deceived the king. The
council of state, or cliief court, to which all the satraps had
to render an acc-'unt, consisted of three men. of whom
Daniel was one. But Daniel certainly was not called to this
consultation; therefore their pretence that ail "presidents
of the kingdom' had consulted on the matter, was false.
Besides, they deceived the king in this, that they concealed
from him the intention of the decree, or misled him regard-
ing it." -A'e«.]



etc.), but must be regarded as the subject of the
Inf. r!"l"p*. so that the object -"I^ is placed
between tl e im'jiitive and its noun, as in Isa. v.
34 ; xix. 8 ; xx. 1 (thus correctly Rosenmiiller,
Hitzig, Kranichfeld, [Keil]. etc., against Theo-
dotion, Vulgate. Luther, Bertholdt, and a ma-
jority of modems). * — And make a firm inter-
dict (marg.). The '^'p, which the king was to
establish, is at the same time an "l^?*- ''inter-
dict ; " in the parallelism of the address it is at
first designated generally as a "statute," and
afterwards more especially as an "interdict.*'
On '"'".!<, "to bind," in the sense of "to pro-
hibit," see Num. xxx. 10, and also the X.-T.
Sim' as the opposite of >-ica'. Matt. xvi. 19 ;
xviii. 18.- — That whosoever shall ask a petition
.... for thirty days; i.e., during the thirty
days next ensuing, from that time until the
expiration of thirty days. Literally, "unto
thirty days." This number, the triplicate of
the ten days in chap. i. 13-15, is a round num-
ber, corresponding to the duration of a month,
and employed otherwise also as a general period,
during which an interdict was imposed on per-
sons ; e.g., by the vows of Xazarites. Acts xxi.
36 ; cf. Tract, yusir. I. 3 ; Joseph., de B. Jud.,
II. 15, 1. — The command (or interdict) to pray f
during one month only to the king was in this
instance specially aimed at Daniel, the pious
worshipper of Jehovah, for the purpose of en-
trapping him ; but it was suggested by a national
reUgious custom of older date among the Jled^s,
by which Divine honors were rendered to the
king. Herodotus. I. 199. refers to this custom,
when he remarks that Deioces had introduced
the Trepi iavrov geuvveiv for himself and his suc-
cessors, by removing his person from the obser-
vation of his subjects, in order to persuade them
that he was erf/io/oc (cf. also Xenophon, Cyrop. ,
I. 3, 18). The existence of this custom among
the Medes is further substantiated by the fact
that the Persians, who were intimately related
to the Medes, observed it, as did several others
of the Oriental nations of antiquity {e.g., the
Egyptians and Ethiopians, according to Diodor. ,
Sicut., 1. 90; III. 3, 5 1 — the former from the
peculiar reUgious reason that they considered
the king as the "offspring of the gods" (ficjoi'of
ijfiji) and the image of Ormuzd, and even ad-
dressed him directly as tftdr ; cf. .dJschylus,
Pers., 157, 855; Plutarch, Tkemist., 37; Cur-

• [But this construction is extremely harsh, and, as Len-
gerke remarks, opposed to the usage of 5t3*?2 ""OK in r.

1.3. Even Rosenmiiller renders (apparently by inadvertence,
however) decreto regto. The pas,sages adduced by the au-
thor from Isaiah (lix. 8 is not correct) are not altogether in
point, as the preposition there is not ^, but "2 or 2, Had
the writer intended such a construction he would naturailj
have used ^T with the fut. The Masoretic iLttrpuno-
tion, however, undeniably favors it.]
t [The term " ^73 is here not any kind of request or

supplication, bat prayer, as the phrase, ver. 14 (13), K^S'
nri^rS. directing his prayer, shows. The word ^IKT

does not prove the contrary, for the heathen prayed also u
men (cf. ch. ii. 4(i). 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 agamtf
Daniel." — Keil.



142



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



tins, VIII. 5, 11 ; Isocrates, Panegyr.. in Brisso-
nius, de Fersar. princ, p. 17, and generally,
Hengstenberg, Anthentie des Daniel, etc., p. 127
et seq. ; Delitzsch, Art. Daniel in Herzog's Beal-
Encykl., p. 378 et seq. See the Ethico-fuud. prin-
ciples, etc. , against the assumption of the modem
psendo-Daniel tendency-criticism, on which the
edict of Darius in question is a cunningly in-
vented prototype, and at the same time an ex-
aggerated caricature of the course of Antiochus
Epiphanes as described in 1 Mace. i. 41 et seq. ;
2 Mace. vi. 1 et seq. — Verse 9 [8]. Now, O
king, establish the decree and sign the writ-
ing ; rather, "and record the writing," for c"i"1
always signifies to record, and not to sign ; and
moreover, the Persian edicts received their offi-
cial stamp as laws from the royal seal, instead
of the royal signature ; * cf. Esth. iii. 10 et seq. ;
viii. 8. — Thai it be not changed, according to
the law of the Medes and Persians, i.e.. accord-
ing to that law of the united Medo-Persian
realm, as is somewhat more fully described in v.
16 [15], by which every official edict from the
king, issued with certain formalities, should pos-
sess enduring force as law, hence, "should not
be changed " (IT^Drrii H^, cf. Winer, Gramm. ,

§ 46, 3) ; cf. Estk; i. 19 ; viii. 8. Against the
opinion of Von Lengerke, that the writer here
was guilty of an anachronism, since the phrase
" the law of the Medes and Persians " must have
originated subsequently to the time of Cjtus, cf .
supra. Hitzig also rejects this position of Von
Lengerke. inasmuch as he denies, for telling
reasons, the presumption on which it rests, that
TT in that formula designates the whole body of
laws of the kingdom. — [Verse 10 (9). " The king
carried out the proposal. '*'^,9-'!^1 i^ exphcative :
the writing, namely, the prohibition (spoken of);
for this was the chief matter, therefore '''39?^
alone is here mentioned, and not also D"p (edict),
ver. 8(7)."— /tVa]

Verses 11, 12 [10, 11]. DanieFs protest, t>y his
conduct, against the royal decree.^ And, his
windows being open in his chamber toward
Jerusalem; rather, "but he [itfl had open
windows," etc. The upper chamber, or attic,
receives consideration as being more removed
and less liable to be disturbed, hence as being
particularly adapted to purposes of devotion ; cf.

* [This distinction is ratiier ovev-nice; for it was not the
engrosHinij of the edict, surely, that the magnates desired.
and this of conrse would not have been done by the royal
hand, but his official approval and sanction, such as a signa-
ture — whether by writing or stamping the name — only could
confer.)

t [*' The satraps did not wait long for Daniel's expected
disregard of the kinpr's prohibition. . . . He continued
this custom (of prayer) even aft«r the issuing of the edict ;
for a discontinuance of it on account of that law would have
been a denying of the f.Mth and a sinning against God. On
this his enemies had reckoned. They secretly watched him,
and immediately reported his disregard of the k ng's com-
mand. In ver. 11 (10). the place where he was wont to
pray is more particularly described in order that it might be
shown how they could ob^rve him." — Keii.']

t [" nb does not refer to Daniel ('he had opened win-
dows '), but to nn"^3 J, his house had open windown. If
ni referred to Daniel, then the K^.1 following would be
mpernuo IS." — Keil. The same remark of course ^viU apply

io nn'brs fouowug.]



2 Sam. xix. 1 ; 1 Kings xvii. 20; Acts i. 13; x.
9. — "Opened windows," I^Tr V'!?, are the
opposite of such as are covered with lattice-wora
(l?airiy p^S, Ezek. xl IG) by which the view is

ob'Sitructed. These open w-indows were required
to be " toward Jerusalem," because according
to ancient custom the face of the worshipper
must be turned towards the temple in that city ;
for as in Jerusalem the supplicant turned to-
ward the sanctuary (Psa. v. 8 ; xxviii. 2 etc.),
so he turned when abroad towards the " holy
city" (Matt. iv. 5) as the site of the temple.
This was the case long prior to the captivity ;
see 1 Kings viii. 33, 35, 38, 44, 48 ; 2 Chron.
vi. 29, 34, 38. The corresponding custom
among the Mahommedans (Kibla) with refer-
ence to Mecca, appears thus to be the imitation
of a custom developed on the primitive soil of
Bible lands ; and for the e.irliest followers of
Islam Jerusalem itself was Kibla. On the other
hand, the ancient Jewish and the most ancient
Christian custom prohibited, on the ground of
Ezek. viii. 16, 17, the turning of the face in
prayer towards the east, i.e.. towards the sun
(cf. Clement, Strom. VII. 724 ; Origen. Hnmil.
V. in Num. ; Tertull. Apol. e. 16). whUe the
later church, standing on the ground of MaL
iiL 20; Luke i. 78 et seq., zealously recom-
mended that supplicants and houses for prayer
should face towards the east, and introduced it
into geueral use. Cf. Bingham, Origines, V.
275 ss. — He kneeled upon his knees three
limes a day. Kneeling is mentioned as the
characteristic posture of supplicants in 1 Kings
viii. 54 ; 3 Chron. vi. 13 ; Ezra ix. o ; Luke
xxii. 41 ; Acts vii. 59 ; ix. 40 ; xxi. 5 ; Eph.
iii. 14 ; (ilem. Rom. 1 Cor. 48 ; Hernias, Pas-
t«r. Vis. I. 1, etc. Cf. O. A. Hubnenis, de gen-
vflexione (Halle, 1741) ; Z'jckler. Krit. Geschichte
der Askese (Frankf. and Erlangen, 1863), p. 350
et seq. — ["Daniel offered prayers not to make
an outward show, for only secret spies could ob
serve him when so engaged. ''" ;|:p";S does
not mean altogether so as (Rosenmiiller, Von
Leng. , Maurer, Hitzig), but, as always, on this
account that, because. Because he always did
thus, so now he continues to do it" — {Keil).]*
The custom of praying three times in a day,
which is attested for the first time in this pas-
sage, and which, according to the Tahnudic tra-
dition was first brought into general use among
the Jews by the " men of the great synagogue,"
appears to have taken shape during the Baby-
lonian captivity as a usage observed by pious in-
dividuals among the Israelites. The fundamental
general idea of this custom is already expressed
in Psa. Iv. 18; but the desire to find a regular
substitute for the morning and evening sacri-
fices, which were now iuteirupted, doulitlesa
contributed towards originating the custom,
since the Jews were accustomed, from an early
period, to regard prayer as in itself a sacrifice
with which God is pleased ( Hos. xiv. 3 ; Psa,
li 1 7 ; cxvi. 17, etc. ), and especially since they
associated it in their minds with the evening
sacrifice (Psa. cxli. 3 ; 1 Kings xviii. 36 et seq.;



*['' Blessed man ! How quietly, how calmly, how p^aoe-
fully did thy heart repose on the cniiuriop love and faith
fulness of the never-failing power of thy fathers' Gol 1 *
— Cuicles,]



CHAP. VI. 1-39.



143



Eira ix. 5 ; cf. Dan. ix. 21). The Parsee custom
of rendering Divine honors to the three parts of
the day themselves, has. of course, nothing in
common with the habit of the Jews and prim-
itive Christians (Acts iii. 1 ; x. 9, 30 ; cf. Pusey,
Daniel, p. ooi) ; nor has the custom of the
Egyptian priests, who, according to Porphyry,
de ahitinent. IV. 8, sang daily four hymns of
praise to the sun ; nor yet the three daily sacri-
fices and hymns of the Pythagoreans, as men-
tioned by Jamblichus, Tit. Pythig. c. 149 ss.
Cf. generally, Zcickler, 1. c. p. 329 et seq.—
Verse 13 [11]. Then these men assembled
(rushed together), and found Daniel praying
and making supplication before his God. Here,
as in V. 7 [6J, Ti""?"]'"! is not a single rushing to-
gether, but a frequent* hasty gathering ; the
only difference is that in that passage the design
was to obtain the decree from the king, while
here it is to watch Daniel in order to denounce
him. According to v. 11, the open windows in
Daniel's upper chamber seem to have enabled
them to execute their plan of espionage with
success, either because they saw him while
engaged in prayer (perhaps from a still more
elevated room in the vicinity, cf. 3 Sam. xi 3),
or because they heard him from the street. At
any rate, a repeated [?] approach and observa-
tion in secret must be assumed, instead of a
single surprise; hence the question, " At which
of his daily prayers was he surprised ? " is in-
appropriate. — Concerning the thoroughly or-
ganized system of espionage and denunciation
in the Medo-Persian kingdom, of which this
passage affords a characteristic proof, see Max
Duncker, GeKChiclite des AWrthuiM, II. 648.

Verses 13-1.5 [12-14], The denunciation.
Then they came near and spake before
(" with ") the king, etc.. cf. chap. iii. 8, and for
what follows, iii. 24. — The thing is true, ac-
cording to the law of the Medes and Per-
sians ; rather, "the word is firm, according,
etc. 8*^1;^ S«:"'2^ does not affirm that the de-
cree was published, but indicates the certain
punishment of any who might transgress it. —
Verse 14 [13]. Daniel, which is of the children
of the captivity of Judah. Cf. chap. v. 13,
.ind observe that the accusers do not mention
the high oflfioial station of Daniel and his inti-
mate official relations with the king, but merely
refer to his foreign birth, (''in order that they
may thereby bring hus conduct under the sus-
picion of being a political act of rebellion against
the royal authority." (KeU.)] — Verse 1.5 [14].
Then the king .... ■wdiS sore displeased.
C«a is impersonal in "'Hibr 3S3, like 'I'] in
Gen. xxi. 12, and like 3!*p below, in v. 24 [23].
Literally, therefore, it reads, "Then the king,
when he heard the word — sorrow came on him"
(and similarly V. 24 [33], "Then . . . joy came
onhim").f — And set his heart on Ltaniel to

* [The idea of frequency insinted apoD by the author aa
refiidingin ■i^''3nn seems to have no good su port. The

sense is rather rushedfcmcard, made their way in a body
and eagerly,]

t ['• Tne Icing is chagrined and ashamed of himself that he
allowed himself to be caught in this snare. Now for the
Urst time he sees the enmity and mean spirit of his officers
obtaining from him that decree, and hites hie lips in
ue that he could have been so beguiled and eutrapped.



deliver him. 33, " heart," is not found in th«
later Chaldee, but occurs in the Syriac and
Arabic. Compare, however, the phrase J -3
S<3b, Targ. Prov. xxii. 17 —And he labored till
the going dow^n of the sun, etc. On the form
"'5?? i»'- constr. plur. of '*?^^, or also of thp
Inf. 3??), cf. Hitzig and Kranichfeld on this
passage. Instead of "lirips, " he labored '
(cf. ayun^eaiiai, Luke xiii. 24), the Targums
have i'^.Pr'?, which, however, has a different
meaning from that of "i'lrip!*.

Verses 16-18 [15-17] . The condemnation and
execution. On v. 16 cf, supra, on v. 9 b. — Verse

17 [16]. Then the king commanded, and they
brought Daniel, and cast him into the den of
lions; rather, "that they should bring Daniel
and cast," etc. The construction is the same aa
in chap, v, 29 [but in neither this nor that pas-
sage is this rendering justified by the force of
the text, Vr'?'!'! .... ^a'l]. According to
Oriental custom, the execution in this case, aa
in that under Belshazzar, chap. v. 39, and in
that under Nebuchadnezzar, chap. iii. 19 et seq.,
was to follow immediately on the sentence.
[" This does not. however, imply that it was on
the evening in which, at the ninth hour, he had
prayed, as Hitzig afiirms, in order that he may
thereby make the whole matter improbable."
(KeU). The season of prayer at which Daniel
was discovered would seem to have been at
noon. This will allow ample time for the pre-
paration of the edict the same morning, and the
execution the same evening. The accusers were
evidently in hot haste], — Thy God, whom thou
servest continually, he will deliver thee ;
rather, "may thy God .... deliver thee."
Pilate may have solaced himself with a simOar
confession of his own weakness and cowardice,
when he delivered the Saviour into the hands of
his mortal enemies (Matt, xxvii. 24 ; Luke xxiii.
25, etc. ) ; or Herod, when he commanded to
bring the head of the Baptist (Matt. xiv. 9).
Verse 19 [18] et seq. shows that the exclama-
tion was by no means intended to be ironical or
malicious, as those in Psa, xxii, 9 ; Matt, xxvii.
43 ; but on the other hand, Josephus probably
attributes too favorable a disposition to Darius,
when he observes : i/.~ioai; di u Aapnuc art
pvatTai Tu ^^lov aiiTov Kal oiideii py Trd^r/ otivoi'
ifKo Tuv ^fipiui\ £Ke/.£vaev ai'Tov €v^i'fiuj(; t^ipsiv rd
avfiSaivnvra (similarly also Jerome etal.). — Verse

18 [17]. And a stone was brought, and laid
upon the mouth of the den. tT^r"',-!^ a Hebra-
izing passive form of the Aphel ; cf. on chap.
iiL 13. ri?*', Hebraizing passive partic. Peal,
instead of n^-'O (cf. v. 27 [26]).— It is natural
to suppose that the stone was of sufficient size
to completely close the mouth of the den, and
that it was at hand for that purpose, instead of



No doubt he heartily esteemed Daniel, and probably loved
him, and felt iherefure the bitterest grief and shame that he
should be made unwillingly the author of his destniction,'"
— Cowltx. He also felt intensely an,xious for his fate, .ind
doubtless cast about in his mind 3ome method of extricating
him, and at the ,samo time o{ exposing and punishing hij
accuse rs,l



1+4



THE PROPHET DANIEL.



MBUming, with Hitzig, that it was necessary to
bring it from a distance. The den itself, cor-
responding to the sense of »ail (H313), which is
thoroughly identical with that of the Heb. nis,
must not be conceived of as a cistern or funnel-
shaped pit (Hitzig) ; but rather as having a
capacity sufficient to hol-.l several lions and per-
mit them to move freelj ibout (which involves i
no greater difficulty than that the s$;i3 in the
Targ Jer. xli. 7, 9 should have contained the
corpses of seventy slain persons ; cf. also the
Targ. Jer. xxxvii. 16; Isa. xvi. ISy In brief, '■
it may be supposed t<- have been an actual lions'
den, similar to those connected with the Roman 1
amphitheatres, from which it probaby differed 1
simply in having a horizontal opening in the flat
or arched roof, through which the ad bestkis
dnmnati were thrown to the lions, in addition to
the door at the side, by which the beasts were
introduced into the den or removed from it. Its
construction may therefore have been similar to
that of the fiery furnace, upon the whole (see