6'eVctyou Tral? (Cyaxares) ToS' f^yoi/ ^t/u(re TpiTos S'dn avTov Kvpos^ ev8mpti)ViivT}pj etc., unti
by Abydenus, in Euseb., Prwp. Evang., IX. 14, where the prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar concern-
ing the fall of Babylon as quoted above (Note 1), declares with reference to Cyrus, tliat " the
Mede, the pride of the Assyrians, should be his helper " (m Sq (rwoiTios earai MqSijs, to 'A(T(Tvpiiav
aijxrjpa), and in addition, by Josephus {Ant., X. 11,4), wlio states that the Greeks gave " another
name " to the son of Astyages — the Darius of Daniel — which was doubtless Kun|dpi;t, as trans-
mitted by Xenophon. Nor can the circumstance that Herodotus does not mention this Cyaxares,
and makes Cyrus the immediate successor of his grandfather Astyages, reflect doul^t on the exist-
ence of this intervening king, since the remark of Gesenius {Thesaur., p. 330) holds good of
Herodotus as a writer of the earlier Assyrio-Babyloniau and Medo-Persian history: '^ Solere
Herodotum j)rmtennissis mediocribus hominibus ex longa rerum sorie nonnisi unum alterumve
inemorare reliquis emirientiorem, ut aliuwie constat et ipsa Babyloniai historia docet, ex qua
Uhius Nitocris reginm mentionem injicit, reliquos rcges usque ad Labynetum, ne Nehuchadnezare
quidem excepto, silentio transit." The only real ditSculty connected with the identification of
the Median king in chap. vi. and the Cyaxares of the Cyropmlia consists in the name Darius
(^^'^"1'^) given to the former. It is to be oljscrved, however, in relation to this circumstance :
(1.) In general, the hearing of two names is no more remarkable among the Ancient Median
and Persian kings, than among the Assyrio-Babylonian ; for the two-fold language and litera-
ture which all these nations employed promoted the use of various names to designate one
and the same person, as did also the custom of coimecting honorable appellatives with the
proper names of kings and other eminent persons ; cf . note 3.
(2.) The names Ol"nT = old Persic Ddrjawus, and Kva^dpr]s = the Pers. or Med. Unakshi-
Uira. appear to be related in one sense, inasmuch as the former seems to be synonymous with
'• liolder, or governor" {ep^eiris, sceptrum tenens), and the latter with "direct," or "actual
ruler," and the one to be of Persian origin, tlie other of Median (Delitzsch, p. 278).
(3.) Both names, and especially the latter, appear to have been stereotyped royal honorary
titles, and, accordingly, to have been conferred on various persons ; for
(a.) Cyaxares I., the father of Astyages and ally of Nabopolassar and conqueror of Nineveh
(639-604), bore this name.
(b.) Consequently it must have descended to Astyages himself ; for, according to Dan. ix
1, the father of Darius the Mede was named Ahasuerus, the Hebrew fomi of which, Ei"n™n»'
"I — ;»
is analogous in sound with the Persian Uvaksfuttara, and also with the Greek Kva^iipris. But
further
{c.) Cyrus himself appears occasionally to have borne the name of Cyaxares or Uvakshatara
as an lionorary title; for, according to Holtzmann {Deutsch-morgenl. Zeitschrift, as above), an
old Persian cuneiform inscription contains tlie names Cyrus {Qurus) and Uvakshatara in
immediate consecution : " Ego Cyrus CyriMii'es," wliich may l)e synonymous with " Ego Cyrus
imperator^' (cf. Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. und Bib., p. 214, note 4), but can scarcely be rendered
by ''Ego Cyrus Cyaxeres, se.jUius," as Holtzmann suggests. Finally,
(d. ) The name Cyaxares corresponds also to Xerxes, as is indicated by the Pers. form
Kslijdrcha or KshjArsha, an abbreviation or contraction of Uvakshatara ; also by the Hebrew
foregoing discussion. The hypotliesis has far le^ to recommend it than the identltication of Belshazzar with Naboaadllu*f
»CD — Bfilsaruzur of the Ascriptions. See foot-note at the end of No. i above.]
56 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DANIEL.
Ci'^'irnK ; aud since a Persian king is designated, in Ezra iv. 6, by the latter name, who can
hardly be any other than Cambyses, in view of the chronology ; and further, since the Ahasu-
erus of tlie book of Esther is the same as Artaxerxes I. Longimanus (instead of Xerxes, ag
most moderns since Scaliger hold), according to the opinion which prevails in the Stptuagint,
Josephus. and the ancients generally, and wliich lias not l)een refuted,* we may regard the
name Cyaxares-Xerxes as being in fact a standing title, which descended from the last Median
kings to all the Achaemenians. Similarly, the early Median kings seem generally to have
borne the name Ajis-Dahaha or Ashdah/ik (i.e., di-agon) since both Deioces, who founded
Ecliatana about 700 (Herod. I. 102), and Cyaxares I., who, according to Bero.sus and Abydenus,
w-as also called Astyages {i.e.. Ashdahak), and also Astyages, the father of Cyaxares XL, were
designated Ijy this title. The descent of names to others also finds its parallel among the
rulers of other ancient Oriental kingdoms, e.g.. of Armenia, Cappadocia, Pontus, and even
among the Egyptians after Ptolemy (cf. Niebuhr, as above, pp. 32, 44, etc.). It might possi-
bly l)e shown that the name Darius (Darjawus) belongs to this class of standing royal titles
among tlie Persians, from the designation of the golden coins of that kingdom as Darics.
This designation dates back, indeed, to Darius Hystaspis, according to Herodotus, IV. 166, but
according to Suidas, Harpocration, and the scholiast on Aristophanes' Ecdesiaz., it traces its
origin " to an older king of that name " — who, however, is not necessarily the same as Daniel's
Darius-Cyaxares (as also the reference in the Chron. Armen. of Eusebius, p. 58: "Darius rex
d-e regionc dfpiilit aliquantulum,^' need not be applied to the Darius of this book). But in any
case, it is clear from what has been stated, that the difference between the names Cyaxares and
Darius does not compel us to assume a difference between the persons who are thus designated
by Xenophon and Daniel, and that all other views become superfluous in proportion as the
identity of the two becomes j)robable. Of such we mention that of M. v. Niebuhr (pp. 91,
223), which identifies Darius, Dan vi. 1 et seq., with the last Median king Astyages, who is
said to have subjugated Babylon after the death of Belshazzar or Evil-merodach, and to have
been deprived of his Median kingdom in the follomng year by Cyrus, so that Babylon again
Ijecame independent ; that of Kleinert (in the Dm'}). Beitriige), which assumes that Darius the
Mede was a natural son of Cyaxares I., and younger brother to Astyages, while Cyaxares II.
was his nephew and shared in his government ; and that of Schiilze {Cyrus der Ch-osse, in the
Stud. u. IlI-U., as above, p. 68.5), which is also favored by Zundel (p. 36 et seq.), by which
Cyaxares IL, who is held to be identical with Darius the Mede, was not the sou, but a younger
brother of Astyages, and therefore a son of Cyaxares I. (Ahasuerus, Dan. ix. 1), whom Xeno-
phon erroneously transformed from a Cyaxarides into an Astyagides, by which error the great-
uncle of Cyrus was converted into his uncle. The correct view is advocated Ijy Josephus
(supra), .Jerome on Dan. vi. 1, and among modems, Offerhaus {Spicilegia histor.-chrunolog., lib.
ni., Gron., 1739, p. 20.5 ss.), Jehring (Bihliotheka Bremensis, VIII. 580 ss.), Gesenius ( jf'tea'.;?'.,
L 349 et seq.). Winer {Reaho., I. 250), Hengstenberg (p. 48 et seq.), Havemick {Comm., p. 203
et seq. ; Nene Irit. Untersa., j). 74 et seq.), Keil (p. 457), Delitzsch (p. 278), Krauichfeld (p. 39
ct seq.), Auberlen (pp. 16, 212), Fliller (p. 141), and Kliefoth (p. 160 et seq.).t In relation to
the passage, chap. vi. 2 (tlie 120 satraps of Darius), which apparently conflicts with the view
advocated above, see the exegetical remarks on that place, where also the effort of Ebrard
[Die Offeiih. Johannes erHart, p. 55 et seq.), and several others, to identify Darius with the
N"abonidus of Berosus will be sufficiently considered.
§ 9. Authenticity op the Book (Concluded).
e. Examination of the inteun-^l reasons against its genuirteiuss, which are hased, on its
sim.^CLES and prophecies.
The narration of miracles and prophecies by Daniel is no more irreconcilable with the view
that the book originated with him than are the historico-chronological difficulties which are
asserted to be insuperable ; for
(1.) The miracles recorded in the first part, and particularly the preservation of the three
men in the flames of the fiery furnace (chap, iii.), the appearance of the mysterious hand upon
the wall (chap. v. 5), and the deliverance of Daniel from the den of lions (chap, vi.), present
no features whatever whicli fundamentally distinguish them from other miracles of the Old-
Testament stage of revelation, or which mark them as the invention of a lati;r period. On
• [But this identification of the Ahasuerus of EHther with Arta-ter-xes Longimanus instead of Xerxea is beset with so
many <lifficulties that it is now almost universally rejected.]
t [On the ^ound of the superior authority, however, of the other Greek hisforians over the single testimony of the
romance of Xenophon. this identiticatiun of " Darius the Mede" with Cyaxares II., or even the existence of the latter, i*
still strongly coutested by many writers on classical history, who do not seem to allow the passage in Daniel sufficient
weight in the discussion.]
AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 31
the contrary, the principal periods of Old- Testament development in its eariier stages, and
especially the Mosaic period and that of Elijah and Elisha, that is to say, the primitive stages
of the legal and prophetic periods, abound with incidents of a still more extraordinary cliar-
ftcter, e.g., the passages through the Red Sea and the Jordan; the pillar of cloud and of
fire; the writing of the law on tables by the liand of God (Ex. xxxi. 18 ; xxxii. 10) ; the con-
suming of Nadab and Abihu by fire from the Lord (Lev. x. 1) ; the feeding of Elijah at the
brook Cherith by ravens (1 Kings xvii. 4); the destruction of Ahaziali's captain and his fifty
in the presence of Elijah (2 Kings i. 10 et seq.); EUsha's raising of the dead and providing
of food ; the floating iron in the Jordan, etc. If the Divine economy of revelation required
such miracles for the founding of tlie theocracy, for the attestation of its principal I)earers
and supportere, and for the inauguration of the prophetic institution, why sliould it not
require them at this juncture, when the continuation of the theocracy was endangered by an
oppressive heathendom, wliich was to be feared tlie more, because of its sensual, luxurious,
and syncretistic character, and when a large portion of the people had yielded to these evil
influences to an extent that threatened the utter absorption of the worship of Jehovah by the
conglomerate religions of Babylonia and MedoPersia ? The critical epoch at the close of tlie
captivity required — with an urgency almost equal to tliat which existed in the opening period
of the Old Covenant — that Jehovah should display his power in the face of tlie proud world-
kingdoms and tlieir scornful rulers, who laid claim to Divine honors and even to deification,
and that He sliould thus at once confirm the tottering faith of His followers by appearing as
the same faithful and living God of the covenant, and crush the insolent daring and silly
superstition of tliose tyrants, by demonstrating His right to rank as the King of all kings, and
as the Lord of heaven and earth. Wonders of a similar character, although not so striking
and extraordinary as those in Daniel, had been wrought by the principal rei)resentative of the
prophetic otBce, as early as the age of Isaiah and Hezekiah, while Shalmaneser and Sennach-
erib were bringing like oppression and temptations to bear on the faithful ones among the
people of God (e.g., the retrogression of the shadow on the dial of Ahaz ; the healing of
Hezekiah, etc.). Toward the close of the exile such Divine self-attestations were repeated,
but in increased measure ; and the agent was again the leading prophet of the time, wlio thus
became the analogue and successor of Isaiah. These facts will be the less surprising when we
reflect that it was now important to make a profound impression, not only on the mcmbeis of
the theocracy, but likewise on their oppressors, the heathen rulers ; an impression such as the
miracles of Moses were designed to produce on Pharaoh, and such as actually was produced
in the case of the ChaldsEan and Medo-Persian antitypes of Pharaoh — unless, indeed, the
statements relating to repeated acts of homage rendered to Daniel's God by Nebuchadnez-
zar and Darius (Dan. ii. 46 et seq. ; iii. 28 et seq. ; iv. 31 et seq. ; vi. 29 et seq.), and also
that concerning the public recognition of the supreme divinity of Israel's God l>y Cyrus in
the edict of liberation (Ezra i. 1-4), which is supported by other historical authorities, are to
be remanded to the realm of myths and fables — a conclusion which, in the latter instance,
only the most radical hyper-criticism could reach. This comparison with the Mosaic period
affords the only valid basis on which to form a proper estimate of the age of Daniel, with its
peculiar national conditions and its miracles, since the sufferings and trials of that period,
which assailed the faith of God's children and threatened the further existence of the theo-
cratic community, were met, like those of the captivity, on foreign, soil, in the liouse of bond-
age and the land of misery. The sufferings, together with the inducements to idolatry, of the
time of the Judges, were experienced by Israel on its own domestic soil ; the afllictions of the
period subsequent to the exile, e.g., in the times of Ezra and of the Maccabees, likewise befell
God's people while dwelling in the land of their fathers, and for that very reason were less
dangerous to their religious and national life, than were the sufferings during either of those
seasons of tribulation and persecution, which were undergone in " a strange land " (Psa.
cxxxvii. 4). It is, therefore, decidedly impertinent and unhistorical to allege, as do the oppo-
nents of the genuineness of this book, that it owes its origin solely to a sujjposed analogy
between the periods of the captivity and of the Asmonseans, and to ascribe to this invented
Daniel the design of exhibiting the humiliations experienced by Nebuchadnezzar and Darius
38 EfTEODUCTION TO THE PROPHET DAJJIEL.
Medus, in consequence of the Divine miracles and of the gracious strength and unyielding
firmness of the theocratic witnesses to the truth, as a warning to Antiochus Epiphancs, the
imitator of the religious tyranny of those monarchs. A certain typical analogy between
Nebuchadnezzar and Antiochus may readily be granted ; but the fundamental difference, or
rather contrast, between these two peiiods of persecution, that Israel suffered during the one
while in captivity, and during the other while domiciled on its native soil, is none the less
apj)arent. The inaljility of Israel to resist the oppressoi-s with armed force, and also the
necessity for God to interfere with his wonder-working power, resulted inmiediately from the
conditions of the foiTuer instance; while in the latter case the nation could struggle for its
country, its sanctuary, and its faith, and therefore required no other miracles than those of
warlike enterprise and of devoted courage that even courted martyrdom, such as are described
in the Maccabosan books (see note 1).
(2.) Nor can the prophecies contained in this book be made to serve as witnesses against its
geuuineness ; for, despite their visional form throughout (which, however, they bear in com-
mon with the former half of Zechariah, with numerous portions of Ezekiel, and even with
extended sections of older prophetic books, e.g., Amos, Isaiah, etc.), they exhibit the general
characteristic features of Old-Testament prophecy everywhere, since they relate to the condi-
tions and requirements of the time, are steadily possessed with the idea of the triumjA of
God's kingdom in its conflict with the world-powers, and develop this conflict in harmony
with its growing intensity down to the time of the final Messianic triumph and judgment, in
descriptions that become moi-e and more minute as they progress. Tlie book dcscriljes this
Messianic period during which the Deliverer is to appear, as immediately connected with the
resurrection of the just and the unjust to their final judgment (chap. xii. 1-3) ; and it assigns
that event to a time that follows closely on the death of a raging Antichrist, whose descrip-
tion seems to be largely met in many traits belonging to Antiochus Epiphanes (see chap. xi.
21-45). But it does not follow from this that its author was a contemporary of that king,
who described the historical events from the captivity to his time in the style of prophecy ;
since tliis feature is merely another illustration of the general law of prophetic visional per-
spective. At tlie farthest, certain of the more detailed predictions of the section (chap. x. and
xi.) relating to the develo))ment of the world-powers after the fall of the Persian kingdom,
might, as has already been observed (§ 1, note 3, and § 9), be regarded as the later additions
of an apocaljjjtist living in the time of Antiochus, who sought to give a more definite form
to tlie propliecy of Daniel. Aside from these external and unessential singularities, there is
included in the |)rophetic contents of the book nothing connected with the development of
the world-kingdoms until the advent of the Messiah, that might not have been foreseen and
predicted l^y a Divinely-enlightened seer in the closing period of the captivity. Although
such a seer had witnessed the su2)planting of but one great world-kingdom by another, and
although the extended range of observation which he enjoyed might leveal in the more dis-
tant political horizon liut a single additional power in the progress of develo] mtnt ; still
nothing is easier to conceive than that, by the enlightening influence of the Holy Spirit, a
long succession of world-monarchies, previous to Messiah's kingdom, should open to his
vision, and that he should symbolically represent this succession of jjowers by certain figures
taken from the ]jroducts of Babylonian and Medo-Persian culture and art, as in the visions of
chap, vii.-x. Nor do the attempts to reach a more exact chronological exposition of the
development represented by the succession of these kingdoms, which are found more especially
in the last four chapters of the book, involve any feature that does not suggest a parallel,
on the oue hand in the earlier prophets (e.g., Isa. vii. 8 ; xxiii. 15 ; Jer. xxv. 11 et seq. ; xxix.
10), and on the other, in the mathematical studies of Babylonian astronomers, and the
attempted application of these to (astrological) calculations of the future. Tlie inclefinite
character which probably attached to these symbolico-chronological descriptions of the future
in their oiiginal form, did not correspond to the historical succession of events as such, and
may have been now and then removed by the hand of the later reviser in order to give place
to features harmonizing more exactly with the facts. But, upon the whole, even these chap-
ters contain far more prophecy of an ideally descriptive character than of detailed historical
AUTHENTICITr OP THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 39
prediction, calculated to excite the suspicion of a composition subsequent to the event; aud
the book, therefore, bears the character of a work whose origin during the captivity, and whose
inspired i^rophetic nature are decidedly more probable than itg forged and simulated compo-
sition in the Maccabjean age. Especially is the mention by Peter of an anxious looking for
the period in which the Messiah should appear (1 Pet. i. 10-13), as a characteristic of the
inspired prophets of the Old Covenant, more directly applicable to this work than to any
other prophetical book in the canon (see notes 3 and 3).
Note 1. — In relation to the miracles of the time of Daniel, as demanded by the oppressed
condition of Israel ("see § 1, note 1), and especially the remarks of Havemick there quoted,
compare further, Havemick, Neue krit. Unterss., p. 8.5: "Without such a revelation of
Jehovah, the theocracy would have been involved in heathendom, or absorbed by it. Jeho-
vah's signs and wonders showed, despite the presence of the powerful world-kingdoms, that
He stillwas the King of kings, and through them the question of the continued existence of
the theocracy was really decided." See ibid., p. 87, for the fact that the Asmona;au period, on
the contrary, was diaracterized by an ahsence of miracles : " In the Maccalisean period the for-
saking of tiie nation by God was manifested precisely in a manner that excluded miracles.
The dead form remained to the people in petrified traditions ; Init the freshness and life of
the old theocratic and prophetic spirit was wanting. This consciousness (that the ancient,
prophetism with its miraculous power must first be revived) fiAds expression in the monuments
of that time with sufHcient clearness. The fii-st Ijook of Maccabees has not a single reference
to miracles ; the disheartened age cannot even expect them," etc. See, further, Kranichfeld,
who observes, in correspondence with the parallelism above establ'shed between tlie miracles
of Daniel and those of Moses and Elijah, " Precisely the periods oi an especially hopeless con-
dition of tlie theocracy are found to present suitable conditions for the intervention of the
Scriptural miracle, designed, as it is, to strengtlien the theocratic consciousness." The asser-
tion of Hitzig, that a susceptihiUty of the human mind and disposition for tlie usual influence
of especially wonderful events, i.e., a faith in them, could not have been developed during
the ' night of the exile," is without either historical or psychological support. If tlierc was
ever a night of discouragement for Israel, it was in tht circumstances of the Egyptian period,
as descril)ed in Exod. vi. 9, 12 ; yet that period contained the germ of a far-reaching exalta-
tion of faitli and trust, such as is frequently found in intimate connection witli resignation and
a gloomy sense of both outward and siiiritual oppression. The 137th Psalm, as an example
of the actual current of theocratic thought, may serve to indicate, that during the " niglit of
the exile" as well, complaints and tears might consist with an iutenuii profound and glowing
excitation which longs for the Divine Deliverer. It has already been renuirked tliat the
descriptions relating to the circumstances of the captivity, in the second part of Isaiah's pro-
phecies, represent an a])i)arently hopeless demoralization of the religious and national spirit as
coexistent with the strengthening and elevation of the theocratic consciousness by means of
miracles. The extent to which the i)rophetic office of Ezekiel — the prophet of tlie opening
period of the captivity — corresponds, in view of the conditions of the time, and of his per-
sonal traits, with that of Daniel, the j)ropliet of the closing period, and also the significant
contrast lietween them, are remarked by Havernick, as cited above : " While the duty of influ-
encing the captives during the exile through the ward is devolved mainly on Ezekiel, everything
in the position of Daniel unfolds a different field of activity, viz. : to defend the rights of the
people of dod in their relations to the lieatlien. This peculiar duty constituted a man of
action (like Moses, Elijah, etc.), who opposed the superior Divine wisdom to the confused
wisdom of men, and Ijrought the deeds of victorious kings into contrast with tlie more pow-
erful energy of God. His relation to Ezekiel is therefore complementary, and thus becomes
a truly glorious testimony to the grace of God," etc. Keil, pp. 459, 4G1, shows the injustica
of the charge occasionally raised against the author {e.g., by 'V'on Lengerke, Dati.. p. LXII.),
that he is guilty of a " useless expenditure " or " needle.ss accumulation " of miracles. As
the really miraculous is confined to the three wondera mentioned in chapters iii., v., and vi.,
there can be no reason for tlie assertion of such an accumulation of wonders or rage for mira-
cles on the part of the author, especially wlien compared with the far greater numl^er of the
miracles of Moses or Elisha. But it has already been observed in § 4, note 3, as a character-
istic peculiarity of Daniel's method of narration, that he does not avoid the recognition of the
Divine power and grace, as displayed in miracles, but rather avails himself of every oppor-