and his kingdom — in contrast witli the apocryphal literature of the period after the captivity,
from which Messianic ideas and hopes are almost entirely wanting — is intimately related to
the predictions of the older prophets, and especially of Isaiali (cf. Isa. ix. 4 et seq. with Dan.
vii. 13 sq.). The relation between the expected founding of Messiah's kingdom and the gen-
AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DAXIEL. 27
eral resurrection of the dead, â– which he indicates in chap. xii. 2 et seq., corresponds to tka
older prophetic descriptions in Isa. xxiv. ; Ixvi. 22-24 ; Ezek. xxxvii., but finds no analogy in
the later apocryphal literature, unless we except 2 Mace. vii. 9 et seq , which passage, however,
is probably based on Dan. xii. as its model. Nor does the angelology of the book present
any specific feature which points to a period later than the exile ; much less does it indicate
that its teachings result from the influence of the religious thought of Persia on Judaism.
Rather, they are closely related, on the one hand, to the angelology of Ezekiel and Zechariab
fcf., e.g., Ezek. ix. 10 ; also i. 26, and Zech. i.-vi.), and, on the other, they are rooted in the
much older views and experiences of the time before the exile ; e.g., the idea of protecting
spirits of single states is founded in Isa. xxiv. 21 ; that concerning princes of the angels
(chap. X. 13, 20 ; xii. 1), doubtless in the familiar account in the book of Joshua respecting
the "captain of the Lord's host" (Josh. 14). Therefore, in this direction also, the literary
character of the book reveals nothing that indicates an anti-Daniel or a pseudo-Daniel (cf.
note 3).
Note 1. — Delitzsch observes, p. 274, on the relationship of the Hebrew of Daniel to that of
Ezekiel, that '•the Hebrew of this book is closely related especially to that of Ezekiel, whose
book may b;'. and doubtless is, included among the D^-tO in chajj. ix. 2 ; and it is a surpris-
ing accident that it conforms somewhat to Habakkuk also, whom tradition associates with
Daniel."' The following expressions are adduced in support of the former correspondence, Ijy
Haveinick {N. Irit. Vnterss., p. 97 et seq.) and Keil {Eiul., p. 446) : the vocative n^N 1?, chap,
viii. 17 ; ~nt, brightness, xii. 3, cf. Ezek. viii. 2; -^n, to render liable to penalty, i. 10, and
2in, debt, Ezek. xviii. 7 ; 3r3 for IpO, x. 21, cf. Ezek. xiii. 9 ; C'^'^S =12b, s. 5, cf. Ezek. ix
8, 3; 3?~S, royal food, i. 5, and 33, food, Ezek. xxv. 27; bio, polished, x. 6, cf. Ezek. i. 7,
etc. With reference to the relation of the Aramaic of Daniel to that of Ezra, and to the
Chaldee of the Targums of a later age, consult Havernick and Keil, as above, and cf. supra,
§ 1, note 3. It is the peculiar merit of Pusey to have established, in his profoundly learned
commentary, tlie high antiquity of the Chaldaism of Daniel, in compari.son with that of the
Targums and the rabbins, by his examination of numerous individual forms, and especially
of the many asserted Hebraisms of this book.
Note 2. — On the question whetlier the musical instruments of the Greeks may have been
known to the Babylonians, and even to the Assyrian;?, consult Delitzsch, p. 274 ; Auberlen,
p. 12 et seq. ; Kranielifeld, p. 48 et seq., and the passage cited by the two former from Joh.
Brandis, JJiher den filstur. Gewinii ana der EnUifferung der assyrischen Inschriften, 1856, p. 1
et seq., where the observation is made, in relation to the commercial intercourse of the ancient
Greeks, that " the extended commerce of the Greek colonies would frequently lead their mer-
chants to Assyrian countries, since they penetrated even to the inhospitable steppes ou the
Dnieper and the Don. Their niost important enterprises were probably connected with the
Assyrian provinces of Asia Minor, and above all with the countries on the coasts of Pontus
and alung the Jlediterranean Sea, doubtless including Lydia also, where the Assyrian .suprem-
acy seems to have been maintained during more than five hundred years, and almost to the
close of the eighth century B. C. These nations must also have met in Cyprus, where the
Greeks traded at an early period, and where the Assyrians had firmly established themselves.
We aie obliged to be content with a supposition that Greeks came as far as Assyria proper, in
the capacity of merchants ; but Greek soldiers certainly accompanied Esar-haddon, the first
among the Assyrian rulers to form a corps of mercenaries (Abydenus inEuseb., Chron. Armen.,
ed. Aucher I., p. .53). on his marches tlirough Asia," etc. Comijare also the interesting work
by Brandis, Z*!!* Hum-, Mass- vnd Gewichtsweaen in Vorderasun his mif Aleinndfr d. Gr., 1867.
Respecting the Greeks as the musicians kut' (^•ix'i'' iu the world, see Auberlen, as above :
" Attention may also be directed to the fact that the Greeks, as the patrons of art, occu-
pied a position in the ancient world similar to that conceded to the Italians in the modem;
and how many are the musical terms which we Germans have adopted from the Italians !
Poetry and music flourished at fir.st precisely among the Greeks of Asia Minor, and prior to
the nintli century B. C, about the middle of which Homer lived there, according to the not
improbable statement of Herodotus (II. .53). Greek artists were employed by the Lydians.
among whom music was likewise cultivated, so that the Greeks adopted the Lydian key from
them. But Lydia was not merely dependent on Assyria to a greater or less extent, down to
the close of the eighth century, but afterward maintained intimate relations with Babylon," etc.
Concerning the \//iiXt^()ioi' or Pesantrrin. com'pare, in addition, tlie remark of Kranielifeld : " It
may be oliserved. iu relation to the oljjection that the \j/iiATr')/ii..i/ is mentioned only by latei
writers among the Greeks, that tho argumcntum cr silentio raised, on tliat ground, against the
earlier existence of that instrument, is sutficiently met by the probable representation of a
28 INTRODUCTION TO THE PEOPHET DANIEL.
yj/nXrrjpioi' on the monuments of Sennacherib, cf. Layard, Nineveh and Bahylon, c. 20, p. 454,
The persons who there welcome tlie Assyrian leaders with dances, songs, and plays, are pre-
ceded by five musicians, three of whom carry harps â– with many strings, a fourth has a double
flute, and the fifth is furnished with an instrument which Layard comjjares to the Santer oi
Egypt = p^riJDD (Gresenius, Thes., p. 1116). It consists of a number of strings which are
stretched on a resonant frame, and corresponds to the description of the psalterium f urnisbed
by Augustine (on Psa. xxxii.)."
Note 3. — -With reference to the feasibility of reconciling the religious-ethical representations
of this book with the hypothesis of its origin during the captivity, see Heugstenberg, p. 137
et seq. ; Hiivernick, Neiie l-rit. Unterss., p. 32 et seq. ; and Oehler in Tholuck's Litfrarischer
Ameiger, 1843, Nos. 49 and 50, and particularly p. 888 et seq. The dependence of Daniel's
angelology on that of Zoroaster has been frequently asserted, since it was first stated by
Gesenius, Bertholdt, Winer, and others ; but Martin Haug, of Bombay, decidedly advocates
the opinion, in his Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Jieligioti of ths Parsces (Bom-
bay, 1862), that the religious development of Judaism was independent of that of Parseeism,
without, on that account, attempting to deny to them a common source, as an explanation of
their manifold analogies (compare Ausland, 1862, p. 937 ; 1865, p. 1079 et seq.). The simple
circumstance that a scholar so thoroughly acquainted with the Zend religion and literature,
should hold to this opinion, may serve as a warning to receive with caution such views of
their relations as are al>ove referred to. The opinion of Max JluUer, as expressed in his
philosophical meditations on religion {Chips from a German Worlshop, London, 1867),
agrees fully with tliat of Haug ; while E. Renan {De V Origine du Language, p. 230 ; Vie de
Jesus', p. 15 s.) and Fr. Spiegel (Genesis und A-oesta, in Ausland, 1868, No. 12 et seq.) assert a
direct adoption from the religious writings of the ancient Persians of many theological and
angelological conceptions by the later Judaism after the time of the Achremenidoe. Ililgen-
feld also (Das Judenthxim im persischen Zeitalter in the Zeitschrift/ur icissenschaftl. Theologie,
1866, No. 4, p. 398 et seq.) and Alex. Kohut, JJeher die jiidische Angelologie und Ddmoiwlogie
in ihrer Ahhiingigheit vom Parsismus (taken from the Zeitschrift der deutsrh-mvrgenl. Gesellsch.,
Vol. IV., No. 3) Leipsic, 1866, advocate the same view. But the sober investigations of men
of the most diverse tendencies agree in reaching substantially the same result, namely, proving
that at most a few names of angels remain to a profounder and more unprejudiced criticism,
as elements of the Jewish angelology which are really derived from Parseeism, and that even
these names are not chiefly of Aryan, but of Shemitic and even genuinely Heljrew origin — as
is especially true of those found in Daniel (Michael and Gabriel). Compare Heuss (Histoire
de la theologie Chretienne au Sieel-e apostolique, I., 93 et seq.), Dillmann (Jahrhh. fiir de.utsche
Theologie, 1858, p. 419 et seq.), Hiivernick (Vorll. iiher die Theologie des A. Ts., 2d ed., pub-
lished by H. Schultz, p. 92 et seq. ; 118 et seq.) ; Hofmann (Schri/theweis, I. 281, 291 et seq.) ;
A. Kohler (A'achexilische P-opf<eten, II. 2'd et seq.); Haneberg (in Reusch, Theol. Literaturhl.,
1867, No. 3, p. 72). See the exegetical notes on chap. viii. 10, 15, and compare the instructive
treatise of Erich Haupt, UeJier die Beriihrungen des A. Ts. mit der Religion Zarathustra''s
(Treptow on the Rhine, 1867), which argues positively against the adoption from Parseeism of
any religious conceptions whatever in the canonical portions of the O. T.
§ 8. AtJTHENTiciTT OF THE BooK (Continued),
d. Examination of the internal evidences against its genuineness, iased on HiSTORiCAIi
DIFFICULTIES.
The charges raised against the book of Daniel, on the ground of asserted contradictions of
the accounts of extra-biblical history respecting the Babylonian and Medo-Persian kingdoms,
are either Uistorico-social in their nature, or politico-historical. They relate either to the
antiquities of those kingdoms, or to their chronological relations and changes of dynasties.
1. The former class of difiiculties, namely those affecting the social progress and customs of
the times, lie within the domain of the history of civilization and morals. They arise from the
deportment of Neb\ichadnezzar and Belshazzar toward the oneirocritical magicians on the one
hand, and toward Daniel on the other (chaps, ii. and v.) ; further, from the colossal size and
ugliness of the image which was to be worshipped, and from the cruelty of the punishment
im))osed on the friends of Daniel, because of their refusal to obey the decree which required
such worship (chap, iii.) ; from the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar, as not substantiated by
extra- biblical historians (chap, iv.) ; from the alleged incredibility of the statement that king
Darius issued a decree ordaining that divine honors should be paid exclusively to him ; and
from the assumed funnel-like shape of the lion's den into which Daniel was thrown (cliap. vi.)
All of these difficulties are merely such in appearance. An observer who understands the
AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 29
spirit of the aucient as ivell as the niodeni Oriental despotism (of w.iich the case of Theodore
o.f Abyssinia, with his whims and fluctuating views, may serve as a late example), and esp&
cially who at the same time remembers the tendency of the Babylonian and Medo- Persian
rulers to syncretistic arbitrariness and mingling of religions, will not deem it strange that
Neljuchadnezzar should address to his magicians the unreasonable demand, not merely to
interpret his dream, but even to recall its contents, which wore forgotten by him, and that ha
should condemn them to death when they failed to satisfy his demands, while he rewarded
Daniel, who accomplished the task, with the highest honors and emoluments. Such an obser-
ver will not be surprised to find the king, in chap, iii., directing a monstrous idolatrous
demonstration against the God of Daniel and his friends, and consigning the latter to so
glorious a martyrdom; nor to behold, in chap, v., the striking contrast between the blas-
phemous insults and excesses of Belshazzar at the first, and the favor afterward bestowed by
him on Daniel ; nor yet, in chap, vi., the similar change in the disposition of Darius as
revealed in his conduct. That, Ijy Divine retribution, the arbitrary and passionate temper of
Nebuchadnezzar should develop into madness, and result in the infliction, during several
years, of a mental disorder of the most terrible nature, is no more surjirising than are any of
tlie various cases of lycanthropy recorded in the annals of psychiatry, among whicli that of
the Armenian king, Tiridates III., is the most familiar and historically important. Traces of
this awful episode in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, although not found in other historians of
aucient times, may yet l)e shown with sufficient clearness in the Babylonian Berosus and in
Abydenus (see note 1). With regard to the less important details which have e.xcited criti-
cism, as being legendary or at least suspicious, it may be observed that the description of the
idol in the plain of Dura (chap. iii. 1 et seq.), which reached a height of sixty cubits, cor-
responds substantially with the descriptions transmitted through other channels of uncoutli
colossal images, such as the coarse and excessively fanciful art of ancient Oriental heathendom
was accustomed to erect to the honor of its gods. The non-appearance of Daniel and the
other magians before Belshazzar (chap. v. 7) is sufficiently explained by the Oriental custom
of removing the priests from oflice with every change of rulers. The decree of Darius, limit-
ing the ascription of divine honors during an entire month to himself (chap. vi. 8 et seq.)
agrees fully witli the statements of Herodotus, Xenophon, and Plutarch, respecting the deify-
ing of kings among the ancient Medes and Persians. And finally, the designation of the lion's
den by 313 or Sail (chap. vi. 8, 18) does not necessitate the view that it was "a funnel-shaped
cavern or cistern," since the term in question is applied in the Syriac, not merely to dungeons,
but also especially to the dens or cages of wild beasts (cf. the exegetical remarks on the
several passages cited in tliis connection).
2. The following difficulties and alleged contradictions or anachronisms belong to the
domain of political history and chronology :
(1.) According to the statement in chap. i. 1, that "In the third year of Jehoiakim came
(SI) Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, unto Jerusalem and besieged it," our book seems to
place the first siege and cajiture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar as early as the third year of
Jehnidlcim. This contradicts Jer. xxv. 1, 9 (cf. xlvi. 2; xxxvi. 9), where the arrival of
Nebuchadnezzar before Jerusalem appears to be placed in the fourth or even the fifth year of
Jehoiakim's reign ; and it also conflicts with Dan. ii. 1, where the second year of Neljuchad-
nezzar is given as the time in which Daniel interpreted the monarch's dream, and thus
attained to great distinction, whereas the conquest of Juda-a and the transportation of Daniel
and his friends, together with other prisoners, to Babylon, and the instruction of the Hebrew
youth (according to chap. i. 5, 18) during three years in the wisdom of the C'haldteans, all
transpired several years before. The only adequate solution of this two-fold difficulty is
found in the hypothesis, that Dan. i. 1 does not relate the arrival of Nebucliadnezzar before
Jerusalem, Init merely his departure for that place, or the beginning of his march (^Tg as in
Jon. i. 3; cf. Gen. xiv. .5; xlv. 7; Dan. xi. 13, 17, 38); and also that the designation of
Nebucliadnezzar as king, in chap. i. 1, 3, 5, is to be regarded as proleptical, his position at
that time l)eing that of a military leader and representative of his father Nabopolassar, while
his accession to the throne was delayed about two years later. From this hypothesis result*
30 IXTEODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.
an mterval of more than three years between the removal of Daniel to Babylon, and hil
elevation to the headship of the magian caste (see note 2).
(2.) According to chap, v., Belshazzar seems to be the successor, or, at least, one of the
successors, of liis father Nebuchadnezzar on the throne of Babylon, while ver. 30 represents
liim as the last ruler before the introduction of the Medo-Persian dynasty. The extra-biblical
authorities, however, mention four kings of his family who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar (Evil-
nierodach, Neriglissar, Laborasoarchad, and Nabonidus), none of whom bears the name of
Belshazzar. Of the two methods possible for the solution of this difficulty, the one identifies
Belshazzar with Evil-merodach, and the other with Nabonidus. The former is the more
probable one, because the relation of chap. vi. 1, to v. 30 by no means requires that the sub-
jection of Babylon to the Medo-Persians should have iminediattly followed on the death of
Belshazzar ; and further, because Nebucliadnezzar is mentioned as the father of Belshazzar in
chap, vii., while the profane sources call Evil-merodach a son of Nebuchadnezzar, but not
Nabonidus, the last Chaldsean king (see note 3). Moreover, the two years of the reign of
Evil-merodach, mentioned in Jer. lii. 31, may be easily reconciled with the statement in Dan.
viii. 1, that a vision was seen by Daniel "in the third year of Belshazzar; " for it might be
said that Belshazzar-Evil-merodach reigned two years even if he lived until about the middle
of his " third year." *
(S.) It is said that chap. vi. 1 implies that the monarch who overthrew the Chaldsan
dynasty, and established the Medo-Persian rule in Babylon, was not Cyrus, but '• Darius the
Mede." But since, according to chap. \\. 29 (cf. i. 21), the author had knowledge of Cyrus
as the successor of this Darius, there can be no doubt that by the latter name he designates
the Cyaxeres II. of Xenophon, who was the son of Astyages and uncle of Cyrus, and conse-
quently the sovereign whose reign, according to ^schylus, Xenophon, Abydenus, and Jose-
phus, intervened between the last Jlcdian king Astyages and the founding of the Persian
AcViaemenideau dynasty by Cyrus. It follows, that the narrative of Herodotus, which relates
that Cyrus defeated his Median grandfather Astyages near Pasargarda;, and became his imme-
diate successor, has its source in an inexact or incomplete tradition, from whence the father of
history derived his facts in relation to the Persian as well as the Babylonian kingdom (see
note 4).
Note 1. — With reference to the mention of diseases and the actual occurrence of lycan-
thro|iy. compare generally Bartholinus, De morJiis hiblicis, c. 13 ; Rich. 3Iead, Mfdica sacra,
c. 7; J. n. Miiller, Diss, de Nihiichndnfznris fjeTatiofxpoiaft ad Dan., c. iv.. Lips.. 1747; Freind,
Historia tucJic, p. 380 (where the imjjortant testimony of Oriljasius, physician to the emperor
Julian, is given, showing the occurrtnce of this disease in his time) ; Forcstus, Obserrationes
• [A better Polution of the difficult}- is proposed by R^iwlinson {Herodotus, i. 494, Am. ed.), as being suggested by the
recently discovered inscriptions on the Babylonian monuments. "According to Berosus, Nabonadius was not in Babylon,
but at Borsippa, at the time when Babylon was taken, having fled to that comparatively unimportivnt city when his .army
was defeated in the field (ajnid Joseph,. Contra Apinji, i. 211. He seems, however, to have left in Babylon a repre.senta-
tive in the person of his son. whom a few years previously he had as.sociated with him in the government. This prince,
whose n.'ime is read as BU-shnr-uzur, and who may be identified as the Belshazzar of Daniel, appears to have taken the
command in the city when Xabonadius throw himself for some unexplained reason into Borsippa. which was undoubtedly
n strong fortress, and was also one of the chief seats of Chaldiean learning, but which a.ssuredly coulti not compare, either
for macnificence or for strength, with Babylon, and Belshazzar, who was probably a mere youth, left to enjoy the supreme
power without check or control, neglected the duty of w-atching the enemy, and gave himself up to enjoyment." '"Two
difficulties stand in the way of this identification, which (if accepted) solve one of the most intricate problems of ancient
history. The first is the relationship in which the Belshazzar of Scripture stands to Nebuchadnezzar, which is throughout
represented as that of son (verses *?, 11. 13, 18. etc.) : the second is the accession immediately of ' Darius the Mede.' With
respect to the first of these, it may be remarked that although Nabonadius was not a descendant, or indeed any relative of
Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar may have been, and very probably w-as. Nabu-nahit. on seizing the supreme power, would
naturally seek to strengthen his position by marriage with a daughter of the great k;ng, w-hose son, son-in-law-, and grand-
Ron had successively held the throne. He may have taken to wife Neriglissar's widow, or he may have married pome other
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. Belshazzar may thus have been grandson of Nebuchadnezzar on the mothn-'s .fUle. It IB
Bome confirmation of these probabilities or possibilities to find that the name of Nebuchadnezzar w-as used as a family
name by Nahn-nahit. He must certainly have had a son to whom he gave that appellation, or it would not have been
4Psi:mod by two pretenders in succession, w-ho sought to personate the legitimate heir to the Babylonian throne." Th«
•ccond obje<-tion, respecting the immediate succession of " Darius the Mede." is elsewhere considered, and api'lies not par-
ticvlarlf to this identification.]
AUTHENTICITY" OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 31
medic, X. 15 ; Welcker, AUgem. Zeitschrift fur Psychiairie, vol. EX., No. 1 ; Trusen, SitUn,
Get/rihtche, und Kranl-heite u der alien Hehrder, 1853; Reil, Ehapsodien iiber die Anwendang
df.r psydiischeii Kurmethode aiif Geisteszerritttungen, pp. 296, 336 et seq. Tlie last work con-
tains many iiiterestmg examples of insanit}', in which the patients believed themselves trans-
formed into d'ists. wolves, bears, cats, etc., and were able to imitate the calls of those animals
with surprising^ exactness. Important historical examples of this character are : Ljcaon
(Pausan., VIII. 2; Ovid, MeUim., I. 210); king Tiridates IIL of Armenia, the persecutor of
Greo-ory the illuminator about A. D. 300 (Moses of Chorene, Hist. Armetiiaca, 1. III., ed.
Whiston, p. 256 et seq. : M. Samueljan, Bekehrvng Armeniens durch Gregor. lUumhiatvr, nach
nationaJ-historischen Quellcn hmrb., Vienna, 1844 ; S. C. Malan, The Life and Times of S. Greg-
ory the lUuminatoi; the Fminder and Patron Saint of the Armenian Church, I'ran^at&lfrorn the
Armenian, London, 1868; — cf. the Basle Missions-Magasin, 1832, p. 530); Latronianus, a per-
secutor of Christians in the time of Diocletian, who was temporarily bestialized because of liia
cruelty (see the acts of the martyrs, s. vv., Epictetus and Astion_, in the Acta Sanct, Jul., T. IL
p. 538) ; Simon of Tournay. an Aristotelian philosopher in Paris about A. D. 1200 (who is
said to have received a roaring voice like a beast, in punishment of a blasphemy publicly
uttered against Christ, Moses, and Mohammed ;• see Qc\\i-'6ck\-i, Eirchengesch., vol. XXVI., p.
380) ; Simon Brown, an Englisli dissenting minister, 1733 (who, while in a melancholy state
of mind, believed liimself, during a considerable period, to be changed into a beast, although
in other respects he was rational and in the possession of his faculties : see Stiiudlin and
Tzschirner, Archiv, etc.. vol. III., p. 562 et seq.); a prince of Conde, who at times believed
himself transformed into a dog (Scliubert, Symholik des Traums, 3d ed., p. 166) ; an English
boy at Norwich, .about A. D. 1603, whose disease assumed the form of lycanthropy (Reitz,
Historic der Wiedergehorenen, II. 56 et seq.). Compare also the fabulous accounts of were-
wolves, i.e., persons who rage witli wolfish cruelty and rapacity against their fellow men, in
Gorres, Die Christ!. Mystik: vol. IV. 2. p. 472 et seq. ; also Waitz, Anthropologie der Natur-
Tolker, vol. II., p. 180, concerning the belief of the African nations in the disease maraflnus,