LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 Class 
 
A SHORT COMMENTARY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BOOK OF DANIEL 
 
ottDem: C. J. CLAY AND SONS, 
 
 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE 
 
 AVE MARIA LANE. 
 
 DEIGHTON, BELL AND CO. 
 Eeipjtfl : F. A. BROCKHAUS. 
 $orfc: MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
?L- 
 
 V 
 
 A SHORT COMMENTABY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BOOK OF DANIEL 
 
 FOR THE USE OF STUDENTS 
 
 BY 
 
 A. A. SEVAN, M.A. 
 
 FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 CAMBRIDGE: 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS 
 
 1892 
 
Kat fJLOL SoKCl //.eyiO-nyV OfOV TOLS dvOpMTTOlS 77 
 
 at TT^V AX^aeiav Kat yueyi'crr^v avry TrpocrOtLvaL 
 
 yovv avnjv Karaywvt^o/xcvwv evtorc Kat Tracrwv TWV 
 7n6avoTi]T<j)v //.era TOV i^evSovs raTTO/xei/wi/, ov/c oT8' OTTWS turn; 
 St' avTi^? ets ras if/v^as cto-Sverat TWV af^pwTrwi/, Kai TTOTC 
 jnev 7rapa^p^/xa SZLKVVO-I rrjv avrfjs Svva/xiv, TTOTC 8c /cat 
 TroAw ^povoi/ 67rt(TKOTt(r^eta'a reXos avr^ 8t' eavr^? 
 /cat Karaywvt^eTat TO i^evSog. 
 
 POLYBIUS, Fragm. of Bk. xui. 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 THE main object of this work is to assist those who are 
 entering upon the study of the language and text of the 
 Book of Daniel, by affording them such philological information 
 as they are most likely to need. Since however philology can 
 never be separated from history, I have found it necessary to 
 devote considerable space to the treatment of historical ques- 
 tions. In the history of religion the Book of Daniel occupies 
 a very important, perhaps a unique, position, but the working 
 out of this subject belongs rather to the historian than to the 
 commentator. Hence the relation in which this Book stands 
 to the Prophets on the one hand and to the later Apocalypses 
 on the other could not here be examined at any great length. 
 Discussions upon speculative theology or philosophy I have 
 studiously avoided, as I cannot but think that when introduced 
 into exegetical works they serve rather to obscure than to 
 elucidate the real matters at issue. 
 
 It is scarcely necessary to say that this work contains very 
 little that is new. As to the character and general meaning of 
 the Book of Daniel all sober critics have long been agreed, and 
 I have therefore, in the great majority of cases, contented my- 
 self with stating, as concisely as possible, the views of former 
 investigators. It has been my endeavour to collect, not only 
 from Commentaries but from all other sources accessible to me, 
 whatever appeared to be of real value for the purpose of 
 interpretation. In a book intended for ordinary students an 
 
 13 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 exhaustive treatment of the subject is, of course, out of the 
 question. Hence it did not seem to me desirable to fill my 
 pages with bibliographical details interesting only to the curious. 
 It would indeed have been easy to supply much fuller lists of 
 names and references, but had I attempted to give anything 
 like a history of the interpretation of each passage, my book 
 would have been swelled to many times its present bulk. Only 
 now and then have I thought it worth while to say something 
 about the views of the Rabbins and of the Christian Fathers. 
 In citing modern writers I have generally confined myself to 
 mentioning those whose works are the fruit of original research, 
 passing over in silence the crowd of imitators and imitators of 
 imitators. I ought here to state that I have unfortunately not 
 been able to consult the essay of J. W. van Lennep, De 70 
 jaarweken van Daniel (Utrecht, 1888). Still more have I rea- 
 son to regret that Prof. Driver's Introduction to the Literature 
 of the Old Testament did not appear till my book was in the 
 press, and has thus been used only to a very limited extent. 
 Some persons may perhaps think that I have not examined at 
 sufficient length the arguments brought forward by Hengsten- 
 berg and English writers who belong to the same school. But 
 the fact is that in a great number of cases these arguments are 
 based upon assumptions which all scholars now agree in reject- 
 ing. Of what use would it be, for example, to refute such 
 arguments of Hengstenberg as rest upon the theory that the 
 First Book of the Maccabees was originally written in Greek, 
 or to point out the numerous statements of Pusey, respect- 
 ing Aramaic philology, which are now universally regarded as 
 erroneous ? 
 
 On many questions, as might have been expected, I have 
 found it impossible to form a definite opinion. Though the 
 Book of Daniel is by no means one of the more difficult books 
 of the Old Testament, it nevertheless contains a considerable 
 number of passages of which the meaning is still uncertain, and 
 some which will perhaps remain for ever unintelligible. Where 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 doubt or obscurity exists I have never sought to disguise the 
 fact, and in offering explanations of my own I have been care- 
 ful to indicate that they are mere suggestions to be accepted or 
 rejected by the reader as he thinks fit. One principal cause of 
 difficulty seems to me to be the corruption of the text. During 
 the last fifty years the opinion that the text of the Old Testa- 
 ment is well-nigh faultless, has been constantly losing ground. 
 The common maxim that the difficulty of readings raises a pre- 
 sumption in favour of their genuineness, is true only if under- 
 stood to mean that no scribe consciously substitutes a difficult 
 reading for an easy one. But when readings owe their origin 
 to carelessness or to the external damaging of a manuscript, 
 the above maxim is obviously inapplicable. In very many 
 cases the text of the Old Testament can be explained only by 
 means of conjecture, and our task consists in deciding which of 
 several conjectures is the most probable. When I have pro- 
 posed conjectural emendations I have done so in the full 
 consciousness of the fact that very few emendations have any 
 claim to be regarded as certain. The Hebrew of Daniel, as 
 compared with that of other Old Testament writings, has 
 so many marked peculiarities that it would be altogether a 
 mistake to ascribe every anomaly to textual corruption. The 
 business of the true textual critic is to distinguish those 
 anomalies which are characteristic of the author's style from 
 those which are not, in other words to distinguish linguistic 
 peculiarities from linguistic impossibilities. The practice of 
 rash and arbitrary emendation cannot of course be condemned 
 too severely, but the old-fashioned school, who tortured gram- 
 mar and syntax in order to extract a meaning from obscure 
 passages, must appear equally unscientific. 
 
 In all that relates to Aramaic philology I have been guided 
 chiefly by the works of Professor Noldeke, of Strassburg, in 
 particular by his Mandiiische Grammatik (Halle, 1875), and his 
 "Beitrage zur Kenntniss der aramaischen Dialecte" in the 
 Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, Vols. 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 xxi. xxii. and xxiv. By far the best work on Biblical Aramaic is 
 Prof. Kautzsch's Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramdischen (Leipzig, 
 1884). If I have occasionally ventured to express disagreement 
 with Prof. Kautzsch, this has been done solely from the con- 
 viction that his work is likely long to remain a standard book 
 of reference, so that it is particularly necessary to point out 
 those statements in it which are open to criticism. The older 
 Grammars are very untrustworthy, since they were written at a 
 time when a scientific classification of the Aramaic dialects had 
 not yet been made, and when Biblical Aramaic (or, as it used 
 to be called, Chaldee) was commonly believed to be a dialect 
 learnt by the Jews in Babylonia during the Exile. That it is, 
 on the contrary, a West- Aramaic dialect, has now been conclu- 
 sively proved. I have endeavoured throughout to call attention 
 to the close resemblance between the Aramaic of the Bible and 
 the dialects afterwards spoken in Palestine and the neighbour- 
 ing countries. In order the better to illustrate that resemblance 
 I have published, in an Appendix, some specimens of the 
 Palmyrene inscriptions, which have hitherto been practically 
 inaccessible to most English students. Very similar is the 
 dialect represented by the Nabatean inscriptions, which may 
 best be studied in Prof. Eu ting's Nabatdische Inschriften aits 
 Arabien (Berlin, 1885). The dialect of the Palestinian Christ- 
 ians is known chiefly from the Lectionary published at Verona 
 in 1861 1864 by the Count Francesco Miniscalchi Erizzo, 
 under the title of Evangeliarium Hierosolymitanum. In re- 
 ferring to the Samaritan dialect I have always quoted from 
 Nutt's Fragments of a Samaritan Targum (London, 1874), of 
 which the text is generally admitted to be more correct than 
 that contained in the Polyglot Bibles. 
 
 Of Assyriology I possess no independent knowledge. My 
 principal authority is Prof. Schrader's work The Cuneiform 
 Inscriptions and the Old Testament, which I have used in the 
 English translation (published by Williams and Norgate, 1885 
 1888), since it contains the latest corrections by the author. 
 
PREFACE. IX 
 
 In iny citations I have followed the paging of the German 
 edition, which is given in the margin of the English text, so 
 that possessors of either work will be able without difficulty to 
 verify my references. 
 
 The transcription of Oriental words is notoriously a matter 
 about which scholars still differ, and here I have found it 
 impossible to be strictly consistent. Quotations from Phoeni- 
 cian and Aramaic inscriptions, from the Samaritan Targum 
 and from the Christian Palestinian Lectionary have been printed 
 in ordinary Hebrew letters. Syriac has usually been printed 
 in the Old Syriac character, without vowel points, but when 
 it was necessary to indicate the vocalization, I have, for the 
 convenience of those who do not read Syriac, followed the 
 method of transcription adopted by the late Prof. Wright in 
 his article "Syriac Literature" (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th 
 ed.) a method which in spite of some disadvantages is perhaps 
 the best that has yet been proposed. Assyrian and Babylonian 
 words are generally spelt as in Prof. Schrader's work, but for 
 s, which is liable to perplex English readers, I have written 
 sh, and the guttural which corresponds to the Arabic L has 
 been represented by kh. It is perhaps not superfluous to add 
 that the real pronunciation of the Assyrio-Babylonian language 
 is still very uncertain, since even on points so important as 
 the number of the vowels Assyriologists are not yet agreed, 
 some maintaining and others denying that e and i are distin- 
 guished in the cuneiform character. 
 
 In a work compiled from so many scattered sources and 
 touching upon so many different subjects, errors will naturally 
 be found. Some of these have, I hope, been rectified in the 
 ''Addenda et Corrigenda", but others no doubt remain. If 
 in any place I have failed, through inadvertence, to acknow- 
 ledge obligations to previous writers, I beg to offer them my 
 sincere apologies. It remains for me to express my thanks 
 to those personal friends who have aided me in the revising 
 of this book. Prof. Robertson Smith has been so good as to 
 
X PREFACE. 
 
 read through the greater part of it, either in manuscript or 
 in proof, and to him I owe many valuable suggestions. I 
 am also greatly indebted to Mr E. A. Wallis Budge, of the 
 British Museum, who has on several occasions supplied me with 
 information on Assyriological matters. 
 
 TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, 
 Dec. 1891. 
 
 ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. 
 
 Page 3 That the original Peshitta did not contain the apocryphal 
 additions to Daniel may be inferred from the fact that Poly- 
 chronius, who lived early in the 5th century, says with reference 
 to the Song of the Three Children, EtSeVat Se Set oJs ouros o v/xi/os 
 ov Ketrat i/ rots 'E/fyatKois r? eV rots ^vpiaKot? /?i/2Aiots. 
 
 p. 9 Since the above was written, a posthumous edition of Prof. 
 Delitzsch's Messianic Prophecies has appeared. 
 
 p. 17, line 30 For Nabundid read Nabundid ; the same mistake 
 occurs again on p. 18 and in the note 011 p. 19. 
 
 p. 36 The suffix Dil "their" appears frequently in Nabatean in- 
 scriptions, most of which are post-Christian. 
 
 p. 37 As specimens of the Passive formed by internal vowel-change 
 may be mentioned the word nTOtf " was made " in a Nabatean 
 inscription of the year 39A.D. found at Madabah (see the Zeit- 
 schriftfiir Assyriologie, Vol. v. p. 290), and the Palmyrene U3 
 "has been taxed" (cf. ^ Dan. ii. 19, 30) in the Fiscal Inscription, 
 where it is said pfej H pJIVB NyniN 1 ? rta DJJ ND^3 H Dip pyt3 
 *2J ND3D, u a cart-load of whatsoever kind has been taxed as 
 much as four camel -loads." 
 
 p. 39, line 19 For 'tilayk read 'dlaik. 
 
ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. XI 
 
 p. 41, note 2 It should be noticed that in this passage of Poly bins 
 the Kcpdrior corresponds to the wip of Dan. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15. 
 The reading *epa/Atov is evidently a mistake. 
 
 p. 70 With regard to the phrase H Ip-D "because", I should 
 have cited the remarks of Luzzatto in his EUmenti grammati- 
 cali del Caldeo biblico, p. 52, " La voce 7D non ha qui alcun 
 valore, e sembra che le due voci '3i? : '? formassero primitiva- 
 mente una sola voce '?'?..?? egnale al Rabbinico "*???, ^v??. Da 
 ^Sjrba sembra nato il corrispondente n^y~73 di Koheleth ". 
 This explanation appears to me decidedly preferable to the 
 ordinary one. 
 
 p f 74 On Atf "behold ! " see Prof. Driver's note (Introduction to the 
 Literature of tlie Old Testament, Addenda, p. xxv), where the 
 word An in an Aramaic inscription of Egypt (Corpus Inscr. 
 8em. Pt. 2, N. 137) is explained as being probably a variant 
 of AS. 
 
 p. 83, last line For Lehnwdrter read Fretndworter. 
 
 p. 86, line 16 For (and ^ chap. v. 16) read (and fel? chap. v. 16, 
 Kerl). 
 
 p. 120, line 17 For C/tald. Worterb. read Wdrterb. ilber die Targu- 
 mim. 
 
 p. 146 The method of interpreting Scripture by the artificial coni- 
 bimition of different passages is so strikingly set forth in a 
 fragment of Origen's Commentary on the Psalms that it may be 
 worth while to quote it. " In entering upon the interpretation 
 of the Psalms, let me first cite a tradition of singular beauty 
 which has been handed down to me by my Hebrew teacher as 
 applying generally to all Holy Scripture. This Hebrew used 
 to say that all divinely-inspired Scripture, by reason of its un- 
 certain import, might be compared to a number of chambers in 
 a single building, all locked. At the door of each chamber 
 there is a key, but not the key which fits it ; and thus the keys 
 have been scattered over the chambers, none being adapted to 
 the chamber where it is found. Hence it is a work of enormous 
 difficulty to find the keys and to fit them to the chambers which 
 they are capable of opening. The Scriptures then can be ex- 
 plained only when they receive one from another the first hints 
 towards their explanation, since they contain in themselves 
 
Xll ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. 
 
 scattered up and down the principles of their exegesis ". (See 
 Delarue's edition, Vol. n. pp. 526, 527.) For this reference I 
 am indebted to the kindness of the Rev. J. A. Robinson of 
 Christ's College. 
 
 p. 148, line 5 The date 588 B.C., for the destruction of Jerusalem, 
 is that given by Schiirer (Gesch. d. jiid. Volkes, n. p. 616) and 
 by Driver (in the Chronological Table at the beginning of his 
 Isaiah, his life and times). But the latter scholar has since 
 adopted the view that Jerusalem was destroyed in 586 B.C. (In- 
 troduction, pp. 232, 233). 
 
 p. 183, line 21 It is possible that D^OH nil is a corruption of 
 D*B03 irQI, i.e. "and he shall (jive him his daughter to wife" 
 etc. The phrase DHM3 "to wife", "in marriage", does not 
 seem to occur elsewhere in Hebrew or Jewish Aramaic, but 
 r^JC-la often has this meaning in Syriac ; cf. The Chronicle of 
 Joshua the titylite, ed. Wright, p. 10 of the Syriac text, line 8 
 lrj cnX cnoxraon* "she gave her to him in marriage". 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 General Introduction PAGE 
 
 The text and the oldest Versions 1 
 
 Ancient and medieval interpreters 4 
 
 Modern interpreters ......... 5 
 
 Origin and Purpose of the Book of Daniel 11 
 
 Linguistic character of Daniel ........ 26 
 
 The Hebrew of Daniel 28 
 
 The Aramaic of Daniel 33 
 
 Foreign Words in Daniel 40 
 
 The Septuagint Version ......... 43 
 
 COMMENTARY. 
 
 Chapter 1 57 
 
 Chapter II 64 
 
 Chapter III. (verses 130) 78 
 
 Chapter IV. (iii. 31 iv. 34) 86 
 
 Chapter V. (v. 1 vi. 1) 98 
 
 Chapter VI. (verses 229) 107 
 
 Chapter VII 113 
 
 Chapter VIII 127 
 
 Chapter IX 141 
 
 Chapters X XII 162 
 
 Appendix I. The Palmyrene Dialect . . . . . .211 
 
 Appendix II. Chronological Tables 225 
 
 Index of Words and Roots 229 
 
 N.B. Citations from the Old Testament are always made according to the 
 chapters and verses of the Hebrew Bible. 
 
PROLEGOMENA. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The Text and the oldest Versions. 
 
 THE Palestinian Jews, as is well known, divided their 
 Scriptures into three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the 
 Hagiographa (Heb. D*Mn?). The Book of Daniel was never, 
 so far as we know, included among the Prophetical Books, but 
 occupied a place in the Hagiographa. In our present Hebrew 
 Bibles, Daniel stands between Esther and Ezra; in ancient 
 times, however, the order of the books in the Hagiographa was 
 not rigidly fixed. 
 
 The received Jewish or Masoretic text of Daniel is written 
 partly in Hebrew (chaps, i. ii. 4 a, viii. xii.), partly in the 
 Aramaic dialect spoken by the Jews of Palestine (chaps, 
 ii. 4b vii.). At what time this text assumed its final shape, 
 cannot be positively stated, but it is now agreed that the 
 present Jewish Bible, leaving out of account the vowel-points, 
 accents etc., is virtually identical with that which was used in 
 the latter half of the second century after Christ. Many 
 scholars believe the Masoretic text to have been fixed much 
 earlier, though few would venture to go further back than 
 about the beginning of the first century the date assigned by 
 Noldeke (Die alttestamentliche Litteratur, p. 241). It is in 
 itself probable that the text of some books was fixed earlier 
 than that of others. Since the Book of Daniel, like most of 
 the writings included in the Hagiographa, does not appear to 
 have been used in the public services of the Synagogue, it was 
 presumably one of the latest books to assume a stereotyped 
 form. 
 
 Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah are the only books of the Old 
 B. D. 1 
 
2 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Testament which are lacking in the collection of Aramaic 
 versions or paraphrases known as the Targums. Whether this 
 be due to the fact that parts of the books in question are 
 already written in Aramaic, is uncertain. In the Mishnah 
 (Yadayim IV. 5) the Aramaic portions of Ezra and Daniel are 
 called Targum, but they are expressly distinguished from other 
 Targums, since they always " defile the hands " (i.e. they are 
 of Canonical dignity). 
 
 The so-called Septuagint version of Daniel is generally 
 believed to have been made rather more than a century before 
 the Christian era. An examination of this version reveals 
 at once two facts, firstly that the text used by the translator, 
 or translators, differed in numerous details from the Masoretic 
 text, secondly that the version contains an unusual quantity of 
 later additions and alterations. To this work a separate chapter 
 will be devoted. 
 
 The Greek versions of Aquila and Symmachus have been 
 preserved only in fragments, as in the case of other Old 
 Testament writings. On the other hand, Theodotion's version 
 has been handed down to us entire. According to some 
 Theodotion was a Jew, according to others an Ebionite Chris- 
 tian. It was formerly supposed that he lived about the middle 
 or end of the second century after Christ, but Schurer has 
 lately brought forward arguments to prove that his date may be 
 somewhat earlier (Geschichte des judischen Volkes, II. p t 709). 
 Theodotion's version of Daniel is to be regarded as a revision 
 of the Septuagint for the purpose of making it agree more 
 closely with the Masoretic text, or at least with a text differing 
 from the Masoretic only in a very small number of minute 
 details. The apocryphal additions (Susanna, the Song of the 
 Three Children, Bel and the Dragon) were retained by Theodo- 
 tion, though with some changes. 
 
 Whether Theodotion's translations were ever used among 
 Greek-speaking Jews, is not known ; but in the Christian 
 Church his translation of Daniel rapidly became so popular as 
 almost entirely to displace the old Septuagint version. Yet, as 
 might have been expected, reminiscences of the Septuagint 
 soon found their way into Theodotion's text, while the Septua- 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 gint in its turn became interpolated from Theodotion. One 
 striking proof of the popularity of Theodotion's Daniel and 
 of the obscurity into which the Septuagint text fell, is that 
 Porphyry, writing about 270 A.D., based his criticism of the 
 Book of Daniel upon Theodotion's version, which he believed 
 to be the original 1 . In the time of Jerome this version alone 
 was in official use among Greek -speaking Christians, and so 
 long had the Septuagint been set aside that the reason of the 
 change had been forgotten (Praef. in Vers. Dan.). 
 
 The Coptic version published, with a Latin translation, by 
 Tattam in his Prophetae Majores (Oxford, 1852), is evidently 
 based upon Theodotion 2 , though it contains occasional interpo- 
 lations from the Septuagint. It may be remarked in passing 
 that the Coptic text has a long additional chapter which was 
 composed centuries after the Mohammedan conquests, probably 
 in the reign of the Fatimite Caliph Al-Hakim (996 1020 A.D.). 
 It is a naif attempt to bring the prophecies of Daniel down to 
 date. The author, like most other apocalyptic writers, displays 
 great ignorance of the remote past, while as he approaches his 
 own time his descriptions gradually become more minute and 
 more accurate. 
 
 The Old Syriac Version, the so-called Peshittd, almost 
 invariably follows the present Jewish text the apparent 
 divergences being generally due to the paraphrastic style of the 
 translator or to later corruption. Only in a very small number 
 of cases does it appear at all probable that the text used by the 
 translator differed from the Masoretic. The apocryphal pieces 
 are found even in the oldest MSS. of the Peshltta, but seem 
 not to have belonged to it in its original form. 
 
 1 That Porphyry believed the Greek statuam, et compulisse Judaeos ut ei 
 
 text to be the original is expressly victimas immolarent, id est, deo Mo- 
 
 affirmed by Jerome (Prol. Comm. in din." 
 
 Dan.), and that the Greek text used 2 The same would seem to be the 
 
 by Porphyry was Theodotion's appears case with the Coptic text edited by 
 
 from Jerome's commentary on Dan. Joseph Bardelli (Pisa, 1849), as far as 
 
 xi. 38, " Deum MAOZIM ridicule For- can be gathered from the Latin preface, 
 
 phyrius interpretatus est, ut diceret for my ignorance of the Coptic lan- 
 
 invico Modin, undefuit Mathathias et guage makes it impossible for me to 
 
 filii ejus, Antiochi duces Jovis posuisse speak from personal investigation. 
 
 12 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ancient and medieval interpreters. 
 
 The ancient Jewish interpretation of the Book of Daniel is 
 known but imperfectly, since it was not till the Middle Ages 
 that the Jews began to compile systematic commentaries, and 
 we have therefore to gather our information from stray allusions 
 in the Talmud, the Midrashim, and other works. The state- 
 ments of Josephus on this subject are of little value, as his 
 acquaintance with the book was very superficial 1 . Much 
 Jewish tradition as to the book of Daniel may be found em- 
 bedded in the works of the Christian Fathers. Among the 
 writers who are of most value in this respect may be mentioned 
 the Persian Christian Aphraates (who lived in the middle of the 
 4th century, and whose Homilies have been edited, in the 
 original Syriac, by Prof. Wright), Aphrem of Nisibis (commonly 
 known as Ephraim Syrus), of whose Commentary on Daniel 
 excerpts have been published in the Roman edition of his 
 works, and, above all, Jerome. 
 
 One writer, who was neither a Jew nor a Christian, the 
 Neo-Platonic philosopher Porphyry (233 304 A.D.), a native of 
 Tyre, occupies a prominent place in the history of the inter- 
 pretation of Daniel. He wrote a Treatise against the Christ- 
 ians, in 15 books, of which the 12th was intended to prove 
 that the Book of Daniel had been composed by a Palestinian 
 Jew in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, that the supposed 
 prophecies of Daniel relate the history correctly as far as the 
 time of the real author, and that beyond that point they are 
 mere guesses 2 . For the purpose of his work Porphyry had 
 studied various Greek historians, among whom were several 
 
 1 See Antiq. x. 11. 7, where the quodam qui temporibus Antiochi, qui 
 vision in Dan. viii. is confused with appellatus est Epiphanes, fuerit in 
 other parts of the book in a manner Judaea, et non tarn Danielem ventura 
 which shews that Josephus was writing dixisse quam ilium narrasse praeterita. 
 from vague recollection. Denique quidquid usque ad Antiochum 
 
 2 "Contra Prophetam Danielem duo- dixerit veram historiam continere, si 
 decimum librum scripsit Porphyrius, quid autem ultra opinatus sit, quia 
 nolens eum ab ipso cujus inscriptus futura nescierit, esse mentitum." Je- 
 est nomine esse compositum, sed a rome, Prol. Comm, in Dan. 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. D 
 
 now lost 1 . His treatise has, of course, perished, but consider- 
 able fragments are cited by Jerome and other writers. 
 
 The theory of Porphyry, as may well be imagined, met 
 with no favour. It was " refuted," before the time of Jerome, 
 by Methodius, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Apollinarius, and 
 appeared to have been swept away for ever. But it was to be 
 heard of again. 
 
 In the 9th century the Jews, influenced by the Moham- 
 medan schools of learning, began to give the exegesis of the 
 Old Testament a scientific form. Of the medieval Jewish 
 commentaries on Daniel one of the earliest was the work of 
 Saadia (892 942 A.D.), the Gaon, or head of the academy, of 
 Sura in Babylonia. This work is quoted by Ben-Ezra, and a 
 fragmentary copy of it exists in the Bodleian (see Neubauer's 
 Catalogue, No. 2486); the commentary which appears in the 
 Rabbinic Bibles under the name of Saadia is the work of a 
 much later author 2 . Shelomoh ben Yishak (commonly known 
 as Rashi, 1040 1105), and Abraham ben Melr ben Ezra 
 (commonly known as Ben-Ezra or Abenezra, 1090 1168), are 
 the most important of the medieval commentators. Ben-Ezra 
 is incomparably superior to Rashi in acuteness and originality, 
 but for that very reason less valuable as a depositary of Jewish 
 tradition. The Commentary of Yepheth ibn 'All, a Karaite 
 Jew, who wrote about 1000 A.D., has lately been edited in the 
 original Arabic, with an English translation, by Professor 
 Margoliouth. 
 
 Modern interpreters. 
 
 Modern Christian commentators on Daniel were, until the 
 latter part of the 18th century, almost entirely dependent on 
 Jewish and Patristic tradition. Occasionally doubts were ex- 
 pressed, for example by Spinoza and Hobbes, as to whether 
 
 1 " Ad intelligendas autem extremas et Porphyrius esse secutum se dicit. " 
 
 partes Danielis multiplex Graecorum Ibid. 
 
 historia necessaria est : Sutorii vide- 2 The statement on this subject in 
 
 licet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi, Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art. 
 
 Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii, Theonis, " Daniel," is incorrect, 
 et Andronici cognomento Alipii, quos 
 
6 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Daniel had actually put in writing the whole of the book 
 ascribed to him, but as a rule the authenticity and integrity 
 of the work were confidently assumed. Sir Isaac Newton gave 
 it as his opinion that "the last six chapters contain prophecies 
 written at several times by Daniel himself; the first six are 
 a collection of historical papers written by others" (Obser- 
 vations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of 
 St John, p. 10). This theory, however, was not intended to 
 call in question the absolute veracity of the book, and Newton 
 expressly declared that to reject Daniel's prophecies "is to re- 
 ject the Christian religion. For this religion is founded upon 
 his Prophecy concerning the Messiah " (p. 25). 
 
 Some approach to a critical examination of Daniel was 
 made by J. D. Michaelis, who had doubts as to the antiquity 
 of certain chapters (see his Deutsche Uebersetzung des Alien 
 Testaments, Vol. x., Anmerkungen zum Propheten Daniel, p. 
 22). The first modern writers who ventured to dispute the 
 authenticity of the whole, were Corrodi and Eichhorn. But 
 the commentary of Bertholdt, Daniel neu ubersetzt und erklart, 
 1806 1808, was the first serious attempt to grapple with this 
 historical problem. Bertholdt, however, adopted the unfortu- 
 nate hypothesis that Daniel is the work of nine distinct authors. 
 Gesenius clearly recognized that the whole book was written 
 under Antiochus Epiphanes, and protested against Bertholdt's 
 theory of a composite authorship (see the Allgemeine Litera- 
 turzeitung, 1816, No. 57, and also the Ergdnzungsbldtter of the 
 same, No. 80). Gesenius was followed by Bleek and De Wette, 
 who in the most important points agreed with him. 
 
 During the last sixty or seventy years almost all writers 
 unbiassed by dogmatic prejudices have maintained both the 
 literary unity of Daniel and the theory of its Maccabean 
 origin. Even as to the interpretation of details there has 
 been little disagreement. Of the commentaries the most 
 valuable are those of Von Lengerke (1835), Hitzig (1850), and 
 Ewald (in the 3rd Vol. of his Propheten des Alien Bundes, 2nd 
 ed. 1867 and 1868). 
 
 It was not to be expected that the critical theory of the 
 Book of Daniel would be accepted without a contest, for all 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 the partisans of ecclesiastical tradition, both Catholics and 
 Protestants, had an obvious .interest in withstanding it. The 
 history of the controversy is particularly instructive. At first 
 the so-called "defenders of Daniel" endeavoured to maintain 
 the traditional opinion in all its integrity. Of concession or 
 compromise they would hear nothing. They argued that if 
 the Christian religion be true, the book of Daniel must be 
 authentic, and consequently that all arguments urged against 
 its authenticity must be worthless. They spent enormous 
 labour in seeking to shew that the impugned statements in 
 Daniel were not only not disproved but were signally con- 
 firmed by the testimony of history, and they confidently pre- 
 dicted that further research would justify their position. Of 
 these apologists the most eminent were Hengstenberg (Die 
 Authentic des Daniel und die Inteyritdt des Sacharjah, 1831) 
 and Havernick (Commentar uber das Buck Daniel, 1832). 
 The apologetic works of Auberlen, Kliefoth, Keil, Pusey, and 
 others, are, in the main, reproductions of Hengstenberg and 
 Havernick ; as a specimen of the tone adopted by these 
 writers, the following extract may suffice. "The book of 
 Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-field between faith 
 and unbelief. It admits of no half-measures. It is either 
 Divine or an imposture. To write any book under the name 
 of another, and to give it out to be his, is, in any case, a 
 forgery, dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthi- 
 ness. But the case as to the book of Daniel, if it were not 
 his, would go far. beyond even this. The writer, were he not 
 Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale, ascribing to 
 God prophecies which were never uttered, and miracles which 
 are assumed never to have been wrought. In a word, the 
 whole book would be one lie in the Name of God." (Pusey, 
 Daniel the Prophet, p. 1.) 
 
 Of late years however a great change has taken place in the 
 policy of conservative theologians with respect to this book. 
 When the critical theory was still new, it was easy to denounce 
 it and to proclaim that it would soon be universally abandoned, 
 but when the theory, so far from being overthrown, was con- 
 firmed by a long and important series of discoveries, some of 
 
8 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the apologists began to suspect that they had slightly overstated 
 the absurdity of " half-measures." The "middle path," which, 
 as long as it was not needed, had appeared so contemptible, 
 now acquired a strange fascination. Accordingly there com- 
 menced a succession of attempts to reconcile the results of 
 criticism with orthodoxy. Concession after concession was 
 made. Instead of labouring to " defend Daniel " from begin- 
 ning to end, the apologists of the New School freely admitted 
 that many things related in the book were unhistorical. But 
 these things, it was explained, are interpolations, and do not 
 in any way interfere with the truth of the rest. Thus Leuor- 
 mant accepted the latter part of the book as genuine, but 
 thought that the earlier chapters had been garbled by the 
 scribes. The very first verse of Daniel contains, according to 
 Lenormant, " a gross error." M. Babelon, in the new edition ot 
 Histoire ancienne de I' Orient, expresses himself thus. "Au 
 reste, quand il s'agit des donnees historiques contenues dans le 
 livre de Daniel, il ne faut jarnais oublier ce fait capital que si ce 
 livre est parfaitement authentique et incontestablement ecrit a 
 Baby lone, nous n'en possedons plus le texte original dans un 
 etat intact, mais settlement un remaniement ecrit en partie en 
 syro-chaldaique, et fait vers le m e siecle avant 1'ere chrdtienne, 
 par un transcripteur assez ignorant de 1'histoire, qui a commis 
 des interpolations et plusieurs confusions manifestes dans les 
 noms des rois babyloniens" (Vol. IV. p. 438, note). Unfortu- 
 nately neither Lenormant nor any other apologist of the New 
 School has pointed out a criterion whereby to distinguish the 
 " undeniably authentic " portions of Daniel from the " interpo- 
 lations." Hence we find that scarcely any two of these apolo- 
 gists are agreed as- to which pieces should be " defended " and 
 which should be abandoned. The latter part of Daniel, which 
 Lenormant pronounced genuine, is, according to some conserva- 
 tive theologians, manifestly quite late (see the Handbuch der 
 theologischen Wissenschaften, herausgegeben von Otto Zockler, 
 2nd ed. 1885, Vol. I. pp. 171173). 
 
 Thus the " defenders of Daniel " have during the last few 
 years been employed chiefly in cutting Daniel to pieces. But 
 to pass all these theories in review is quite unnecessary, for the 
 
GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 discordance between them is a sufficient proof of their arbi- 
 trariness. 
 
 Of modern monographs on Daniel the following are the 
 most important : 
 
 BLEEK "Die messianischen Weissagungen im Buche Daniel, 
 mit besonderer Beziehung auf Auberlen's Schrift," in the 
 Jahrbilcher fur deutsche Theologie, 1860. 
 
 CHEYNE Art. " Daniel," in the 9th edition of the Encyclopaedia 
 Britannica. 
 
 CORNILL "Die Siebzig Jahrwochen Daniels," in Theologisclie 
 Studien wid Skizzen aus Ostpreassen, Vol. n. 1889. 
 
 FRANZ DELITZSCH Art. "Daniel," in Herzog's Real-Encyclo- 
 pddie, 2nd ed. 1878. [For Prof. Delitzsch's rejection of the 
 theory of the antiquity of Daniel, see his Messianic Prophe- 
 cies, translated by Curtiss, 1880, p. 90, and his Old Testa- 
 ment History of Redemption, 1881, p. 153.] 
 
 DE WETTE Art. "Daniel," in the Allgemeine Encyclopadie 
 von Ersch und Graber, 1832. 
 
 GRAETZ " Beitrage zur Sach- und Worterklarung des Buches 
 Daniel," in the Monatschrift fur Geschichte und Wissen- 
 schaft des Judenthums, 1871. 
 
 GRAF Art. "Daniel," in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, 1869. 
 
 HOFFMANN "Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, Konig von Syrien," 
 publ. by Alfred Lorentz, Leipzig, 1873. 
 
 KUENEN " Historisch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en 
 de verzameling van de Boeken des Ouden Verbonds," 2nd 
 ed. 18871889, Vol. n. pp. 446508. 
 
 LEXORMANT " La divination et la science des presages chez 
 les Chaldeens," 1875, pp. 169227. 
 
 NOLDEKE "Die alttestamentliche Litteratur," 1868, pp. 216 
 234. 
 
 REUSS "Die Geschichte der heiligen Schriften Alten Testa- 
 ments," 2nd ed., 1890, pp. 592604. 
 
10 GENERAL INTRODUCTION. 
 
 SCHRADER "Die Sage vora Wahnsinn Nebuchadnezar's," in 
 the Jahrbilcher fur Protestantische Theoloyie, 1881. 
 "Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament," 1885 
 1888, Vol. II. pp. 124136 [pp. 428438 in the German 
 edition]. 
 
 SCHURER " Gescliichte des judischen Volkes," 18861890, 
 Vol. II. pp. 613616. [Transl. in Clark's Foreign Theolo- 
 gical Library.] 
 
 Those who wish to see the controversy as to the date of 
 Daniel stated in a short and popular form may consult a Tract 
 entitled, " Notes on the Defence of the Book of Daniel, addressed 
 to the Clergy, by a Clergyman," London, Simpkin and Marshall, 
 
 1878. 
 
THE ORIGIN AND PURPOSE OF THE 
 BOOK OF DANIEL. 
 
 THE evidence as to the origin of the Book of Daniel is of 
 two kinds, external and internal. The external, as being the 
 less complicated, may first be considered. 
 
 It has already been mentioned that in the Hebrew Scrip- 
 tures Daniel has never occupied a place among the Prophetical 
 Books, but is included in the third collection of sacred writings, 
 called the Kethublm or Hagiographa. Of the history of the 
 Jewish Canon very little is known with certainty, but there is 
 every reason to believe that the collection of Prophetical Books, 
 from which lessons were read in the Synagogue, was definitely 
 closed some time before the Hagiographa, of which the greater 
 part had no place in the public services. That the collection 
 of Prophetical Books cannot have been completed till some 
 time after the Exile, is obvious, and on the supposition that 
 Daniel was then known to the Jews, the exclusion of this book 
 is wholly inexplicable 1 . The reasons assigned for it by the 
 later Rabbins are evidently mere guesses. Thus when Mairno- 
 nides tells us that there are eleven kinds of inspiration, and 
 that Daniel is placed in the Hagiographa because his inspira- 
 tion was inferior in quality to that of the Prophets, this is 
 nothing but a theory intended to account for the present 
 arrangement of the books. Hengstenberg and others have 
 
 1 In the prologue to Theodoret's writer inveighs fiercely against the 
 Commentary on Daniel there is a Jews for not including Daniel among 
 very curious passage in which that the prophets. 
 
12 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 maintained that Daniel was not a " professional " prophet, but 
 only a person possessed of the prophetic gift, and therefore 
 could not be classed among the Prophets properly so called. 
 This explanation, however, is refuted by the fact that Amos 
 emphatically disclaims being a professional prophet (Amos 
 vii. 14), yet his book was nevertheless placed among the pro- 
 phetical writings. Hence it must be admitted that the exclu- 
 sion of Daniel from the Prophetical collection is, to say the 
 least, not very easy to reconcile with the theory of the antiquity 
 of the book. 
 
 Still more important are the arguments which are drawn 
 from the allusions to Daniel in other writings. The prophet 
 Ezekiel, it is well known, speaks of a certain Daniel, who was 
 proverbial for wisdom and righteousness (Ezek. xiv. 14, 20, 
 xxviii. 3), but the phrase "Though Noah, Daniel and Job 
 were in it," certainly seems to imply that this Daniel was not a 
 contemporary of Ezekiel, just as the very similar phrase of 
 Jeremiah "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me" (Jer. 
 xv. 1) would naturally have suggested to our minds that 
 Samuel was not a contemporary of Jeremiah, even if we had 
 possessed no direct evidence on the subject. Ezekiel, like 
 other Old Testament writers (see, for example, 1 Kings v. 11), 
 occasionally alludes to traditions of which nothing is known to 
 us, and it is therefore impossible to decide who the Daniel was 
 to whom reference is here made. Presumably Ezekiel believed 
 him to be, like Noah and Job, a person of the remote past. 
 Ewald's dictum that the Daniel of Ezekiel must have lived in 
 the Assyrian captivity has found few, if any, adherents (Geschichte 
 des Volkes Israel, Vol. iv. p. 347, Propheten des Alien Bundes, 
 Vol. in. p. 313). Nor can we safely conclude, with Smend 
 (Der Prophet Ezechiel, p. 218), that the legend of Daniel was 
 one of those ancient myths which the Israelites had in common 
 with their heathen neighbours. Thus the passages in Ezekiel 
 afford no means whatsoever for fixing the date of the book of 
 Daniel. 
 
 On the supposition that the narrative in Daniel is historical, 
 it is marvellous that it should be passed over in utter silence by 
 all extant Jewish writers down to the latter half of the 2nd 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 13 
 
 century B.C., that it should have left no trace in any of the 
 later prophetical books, in Ezra, Chronicles, or Ecclesiasticus. 
 It is, of course, possible in each particular case to imagine 
 some reason for the omission of the subject, but the cumulative 
 evidence derived from such omissions is not so easily set aside. 
 Thus it has often been said that nothing can be concluded from 
 the silence of Ben-Sira in Ecclesiasticus xlix. But in order to 
 realize the true state of the case we should consider how easy 
 it would be to refute, from Jewish literature, any one who 
 asserted that the book of Isaiah or that of Jeremiah was com- 
 posed entirely in the Maccabean period. That the absence of 
 external testimony to Daniel has been felt to be a real difficulty 
 by the apologists themselves is shewn by their desperate efforts 
 to discover " traces of Daniel " in pre-Maccabean literature. 
 But Hengstenberg is obliged to confess (Authentic, p. 277) that 
 of these "traces" none is really conclusive 1 . 
 
 An attempt has often been made to compensate for the lack 
 of external testimony, by arguing that if Daniel had really 
 been composed in the Maccabean period, it could not possibly 
 have been received into the Jewish Canon. But this is a mere 
 begging of the question. For the theory that the Jewish Canon 
 was closed before the Maccabean period rests upon no evidence 
 whatsoever. 
 
 The earliest passage which can, with any probability, be 
 regarded as an allusion to the book of Daniel, is found in the 
 collection of Sibylline Verses in. 388 ff. 
 
 "Hfet ical TTOT [aVfoV et?] 'A<r<7/So? ciXftiov oiJSa? 
 dvrjp TTOptyvperjv XWTTTJV eTrieLfjuevos co/xot? 
 
 aXXoS/Vty?, <f>\oyo6L<?' rjyeipe yap avrov 
 Kepavvos ^>wra' /ca/cov 8' 'Acr/?; vyov e^ei 
 iro\vv Be ^Oa)v Trierai <j)6vov ofjL^prjdelo-a. 
 d\\d KOI 0)9 TravaldTov arravT 'At'lB?/? Oepairevcrei. 
 wv $rf irep yeverjv auro? 0eXet 
 eK TWV Srj <yVij<; /ceivov yevos 
 
 1 That Ecclesiasticus xvii. 17 is not which many apologists have attributed 
 
 an allusion to Daniel, but a quotation to this passage is a sufficient proof of 
 
 from Deut.xxxii. 9 (see the LXX.), hardly the straits to which they were reduced. 
 requires to be stated. The importance 
 
14 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 pL^av lav ye SiSovs, r)v KOI /co^r 
 etc SeKa Srj Kepdrwv, Trapa Se <f)vrbv a\\o 
 Kotyei Troptyvperjs <yevei)s yeverfjpa /jLa^rjr 
 KCIVTOS <' vlwv, wv e? b^o^pova alaiov 
 
 C Kal rare &} Trapafyvofjievov /cepas ap^ei. 
 
 It is impossible here to enter upon an examination of this 
 obscure passage, especially as it is more than probable that the 
 text is in part corrupt. But it would appear that the piece in 
 question dates from about 140 B.C., and that it contains allu- 
 sions to Antiochus Epiphanes and to the " ten horns " of Dan. 
 vii. 7, 20, 24. See Schurer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes II. 797799. 
 
 The next allusion occurs in I. Mace. ii. 59, 60, where the 
 dying priest Mattathias is represented as mentioning, among 
 several other instances of the triumphs of righteous men, how 
 Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael were saved from the fire, and 
 Daniel from the mouth of the lions (Dan. iii. vi.) To urge, as 
 has often been done, that these words were actually uttered by 
 Mattathias, is of course illegitimate, for with the historians of 
 antiquity, both Greek and Oriental, it was a regular practice to 
 invent speeches for their characters or at least to amplify and 
 embellish the meagre reports of speeches handed down by 
 tradition. That this was the practice of the author of I. Macca- 
 bees, is unquestionable, for to suppose that such speeches as 
 that in chap. ii. 7 13 (to cite no others) are reported verbatim, 
 would be the height of absurdity. But the reference to Daniel 
 no doubt proves that the book existed in the time of the author 
 of I. Maccabees (i.e. about 100 B.C.), and also that it was generally 
 believed. 
 
 Subsequent references are so numerous and varied that it 
 would be vain to specify them. One passage only, to which 
 apologists have frequently appealed, calls for special notice. 
 Josephus tells us (Antiq. xi. 8. 5) that Alexander the Great, after 
 the capture of Gaza, came to Jerusalem, and was shewn the 
 Book of Daniel by Yaddua the High Priest. From this no 
 deduction can be drawn excepting that Josephus believed the 
 book to be ancient. The whole account of Alexander's journey 
 to Jerusalem has long ago been recognized as a fiction. It has 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 15 
 
 been abundantly proved that as to the history of this period 
 Josephus was extremely ill-informed, and it is no less certain 
 that where genuine records failed him, he borrowed without 
 scruple from untrustworthy sources and even from his own 
 imagination. 
 
 In the New Testament, Daniel is mentioned once only, 
 Matt xxiv. 15, but the influence of the book is apparent almost 
 everywhere, particularly in the Apocalypse. Dr Westcott (in 
 Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art. "Daniel") has pronounced 
 that no writing in the Old Testament had so great a share in 
 the development of Christianity as the book of Daniel. The 
 common argument that the book must therefore be genuine, 
 may appear quite satisfactory to the dogmatic theologian, but 
 is not of a nature to convince students of history. For the 
 more we realize how vast and how profound was the influence 
 of Daniel in post-Maccabean times, the more difficult it is to 
 believe that the book existed previously for wellnigh four cen- 
 turies without exercising any perceptible influence whatsoever. 
 
 We now pass from the external to the internal evidence. I 
 shall of course confine myself, as far as possible, to those parts 
 of the book of which the meaning is clear, reserving obscure 
 details for the Commentary. 
 
 When we endeavour to confront the statements in Daniel 
 with the known facts of history, we cannot but be struck by the 
 extreme paucity of the allusions made in this book to the 
 political events of the period in which Daniel is represented as 
 living. Even occurrences which must have seemed most impor- 
 tant to a devout Israelite, such as the captivity of king Jehoia- 
 chin, the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and the 
 Return of the Exiles under Cyrus, are either passed over in 
 complete silence, or mentioned only in the vaguest terms 1 . 
 
 1 It is interesting to observe what Persian invasion : when Daniel fasts 
 
 ingenious attempts have been made to for three weeks, this was due to his dis- 
 
 discover in Daniel hidden allusions to tress about the intrigues which were 
 
 the politics of the time. Thus, when being carried on at the Persian court, 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar is troubled by his in order to hinder the rebuilding of 
 
 dream, this is because his mind had the Jewish Temple, etc., etc. 
 been preoccupied with the fear of a 
 
16 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 How different in this respect are the writings of Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel ! Nor is the silence to be explained by the hypothesis 
 that Daniel was a recluse or a man indifferent to the fate of his 
 people. On the contrary, he lives in the midst of the world, at 
 the courts of successive kings, and his zeal for " his people and 
 his holy city " is intense (see chap. ix.). 
 
 This would in itself be very surprising, but the difficulty is 
 greatly increased by the fact that of the small number of 
 allusions to the political events of the period, the majority can- 
 not be reconciled with known history. 
 
 At the very outset we are told that Nebuchadnezzar, king 
 of Babylon, besieged Jerusalem and plundered the Temple in 
 the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. Even if we suppose 
 Nebuchadnezzar to be here called king by anticipation for, 
 according to Jer. xxv. 1, his first year coincided with the fourth 
 year of Jehoiakim the difficulty remains that of a siege of 
 Jerusalem in Jehoiakim's third year, Jeremiah, a contemporary, 
 says nothing. It was not till after the defeat of the Egyptian 
 army at Carchemish on the Euphrates in the fourth year of 
 Jehoiakim (Jer. xlvi. 2) that there could be any question of 
 Nebuchadnezzar's invading Palestine, where for some years the 
 Egyptians had enjoyed undisputed supremacy. Hengstenberg 
 endeavours, as usual, to save the veracity of the book of Daniel 
 by forcing the meaning of the text. He maintains that the 
 statement "Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem in the third 
 year of Jehoiakim" means that Nebuchadnezzar set out on his 
 expedition in that year, and that he did not reach Jerusalem 
 till the year following, after the battle of Carchemish. Such 
 an interpretation is, of course, no less contrary to Hebrew than 
 to English usage. In order to prove that Nebuchadnezzar 
 invaded Judah in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, Hengstenberg 
 appeals to the authority of the Babylonian historian Berossus, 
 who lived soon after Alexander. Berossus, according to Heng- 
 stenberg, relates that Nabopalassar, on hearing that the governor 
 whom he had set over Syria and Phoenicia had fallen away to 
 the Egyptians, sent forth his son Nebuchadnezzar with an 
 army. "In this campaign," says Hengstenberg, "the Egyptians 
 were defeated at Carchemish, and Phoenicia and Syria came 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 17 
 
 under the dominion of the Babylonians ; the campaign was 
 ended by the news of Nabopalassar's death" (Authentic, p. 55). 
 Here Hengstenberg has been guilty of a serious misquotation. 
 What Berossus really says is that when Nebuchadnezzar's father 
 heard that the satrap who had been set over Egypt and the 
 regions of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, had rebelled against him, 
 he sent forth his son Nebuchadnezzar, etc. (Josephus, Antiq. 
 x. 11. 1 and Contra Ap. I. 19). Berossus here assumes that 
 Egypt, as well as Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, had already been 
 conquered by the Chaldeans before the death of Nabopalassar 
 and the battle of Carchemish a notion contrary to all evidence. 
 The passage is therefore altogether untrustworthy; in order 
 to conceal its unworthiness Hengstenberg misquotes it, and 
 then argues that it confirms the statement in Daniel. That 
 Jehoiakim was a vassal of the Chaldeans during the latter 
 part of his reign, is certain, but of a siege of Jerusalem and a 
 plundering of the Temple in the reign of Jehoiakim, neither 
 Jeremiah nor the book of Kings says a word, and in such a 
 case the argument from silence is very strong, if not absolutely 
 conclusive. The statement in II Chron. xxxvi. 6, 7 proves only 
 that the idea in question existed among the Jews when the 
 Chronicler wrote, Le. long after the Exile, and thus agrees 
 perfectly with the theory of the late origin of the book of 
 Daniel. 
 
 The only Babylonian kings mentioned in Daniel are Nebu- 
 chadnezzar and his "son" Belshazzar, upon whose death the 
 empire passes over to the Medes. As a matter of fact, Nebu- 
 chadnezzar was followed by Evil-Merodach (Amil-Maruduk) 
 in 561, Nergal-shar-usur in 559, Lakhabbashi-Maruduk 1 and 
 Nabiinald in 554. This last king, who was not a descendant of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, but belonged to a different family, reigned 
 until 539 or 538, when Babylon was taken by Cyrus 2 . There 
 is therefore no room for a king Belshazzar, who, according to 
 
 1 The name of this king, who reign- lonisch-Assyrische Geschichte, p. 424. 
 ed for a few months only, is very 2 xhe exact date is uncertain. Nol- 
 
 doubtful. He seems to be called Aa- deke places the surrender of Babylon 
 
 popo<roap5oxos by Berossus (Josephus, in the autumn of 539 ; see his Aiif- 
 
 Contra Ap. i. 20). See Tiele's Baby- satze ziir persisclien Geschichte, p. 22. 
 B. D. 2 
 
18 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 Daniel viii. 1, must have reigned considerably over a year, on 
 the most moderate computation. Recent "defenders of Daniel" 
 have accordingly identified Belshazzar with Bil-shar-usur, 
 Nabunaid's eldest son, who is mentioned in the inscriptions of 
 .his father, and who seems to have held a command in the 
 Babylonian army (Tiele, Gesch. p. 463. Schrader, Caneif. Inscr. 
 pp. 433, 434). It has been asserted that Bil-shar-usur ruled 
 conjointly with his father until the fall of Babylon, and in proof 
 of this certain Babylonian tablets, found in 1876, have been 
 confidently cited. Some of them are dated from the reign of 
 Maruduk-shar-usur, who, it is argued, was identical with Bil- 
 shar-usur. But Mr Boscawen, who carefully examined these 
 tablets, very soon discovered that the above theory was un- 
 tenable, since Maruduk-shar-usur, whoever he was, must have 
 reigned before Nabunaid \ Mr Boscawen therefore identifies 
 him with Nergal-shar-usur. Hence we have no proof that 
 Bil-shar-usur, son of Nabunaid, ever bore the title of king, 
 still less that he was supreme ruler. Cyrus, in his inscriptions, 
 speaks of Nabunaid alone as king at the time of the taking of 
 Babylon. But the Belshazzar of Daniel is evidently supreme 
 ruler, for documents are dated by the year of his accession 
 (Dan. vii. 1, viii. 1), which certainly does not agree with the 
 theory that his father was still alive and at the head of the state. 
 Many apologists have sought to evade this argument by urging 
 that in chap. v. Belshazzar offers the place of "third ruler in the 
 kingdom " to any one who will explain the inscription on the 
 wall. This, it is said, proves that Belshazzar was himself second 
 ruler, not first. But the word translated " third ruler " occurs 
 nowhere else, and its meaning is altogether uncertain. And 
 even if it meant "third ruler," the argument based upon it 
 
 1 Mr Boscawen's words are, "I at toire Ancienne de V 'Orient, Vol. iv. 
 
 first considered that Marduk-sar-uzur p. 438 (publ. in 1885), not only states 
 
 was Belshazzar. I have gone through in the most positive manner that Maru- 
 
 a great number of tablets and checked duk-shar-usur was identical with Bel- 
 
 them carefully, but I do not find that shazzar, but actually has the boldness 
 
 I can now hold to that idea." (Trans- to allege, as his authority, the very 
 
 actions of the Society of Biblical Ar- work in which Mr Boscawen has pro- 
 
 chaeology, Vol. vi. p. 108, publ. in nounced the identification to be impos- 
 
 1878.) Yet M. Babelon, in the His- sible ! ! 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 19 
 
 would be worthless. For a man who can of his own authority 
 make any one he pleases " third ruler in the kingdom " must 
 obviously be supreme in the state, not a mere heir apparent 
 ruling under his father 1 . 
 
 The above difficulties are sufficiently serious, and would in 
 the case of any ordinary book be thought decisive, but they 
 shrink into insignificance in comparison with the statements 
 as to "Darius the Mede." It need scarcely be said that of a 
 Median king Darius reigning over Babylon before the accession 
 of Cyrus, there is no trace whatsoever in history. Both Greek 
 and Oriental sources agree in testifying that Cyrus put an end 
 to the Median dynasty and annexed Media to his dominions 
 several years before the taking of Babylon. Accordingly the 
 " defenders of Daniel " are here reduced to the most desperate 
 expedients. Thus Hengstenberg, who is followed by Pusey and 
 others, brings forward a passage in the Greek lexicon of 
 Harpocration, compiled, it would seem, long after the Christian 
 era. Here it is said that "the daric was named not after 
 Darius the father of Xerxes, as most men suppose, but after 
 an older king." Later authors, for example the medieval lexi- 
 cographer Suidas, have borrowed the passage. But such in- 
 definite statements, made by late Greek writers and unsupported 
 by the citation of any ancient authority, have no historical 
 value. The "older king" of Harpocration is, in fact, a mere 
 shadow, nor would any one who had not a hopeless cause to 
 defend, think of invoking the aid of such a being. Equally 
 wild is the theory which identifies the Darius of Daniel with 
 Xenophon's Cyaxares the Second of whose existence there is 
 no proof, for the narrative in the Cyropaedia is obviously not 
 intended to be taken as history. In order to justify the 
 book of Daniel for bringing a king Darius upon the scene 
 immediately after the overthrow of the Babylonian Empire, 
 
 1 The older apologists, who lived equal confidence, maintained that he 
 
 before any one had heard of Bll-shar- was the Nabonnedus of Berossus (i.e. 
 
 usur, had no difficulty in identifying Nabunaid). It would be interesting to 
 
 the Belshazzar of Daniel. Some, as know who is destined to be the Bel- 
 
 for instance Ziindel, pronounced him shazzar of the apologists twenty years 
 
 to be Evil-Merodach ; others, with hence. 
 
 2 2 
 
20 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 apologists have taken refuge in the hypothesis that the Darius 
 of Daniel is not an independent sovereign, but a viceroy ap- 
 pointed by Cyrus. In support of this it is urged that Darius is 
 said to have " received the kingdom " (chap. vi. 1), and to have 
 been "made king" (ix. 1). But these phrases mean simply 
 that he was "made king" by God, and that he "came into 
 possession of the kingdom" 1 . To argue (as Hengstenberg, 
 Pusey, Keil and countless other apologists have done) that 
 Darius is here represented as a viceroy, is not only absurd in 
 itself but is flagrantly at variance with the rest of the book. 
 Thus, when Darius has signed the interdict, he is reminded 
 that " it is a law of the Medes and Persians that no interdict 
 nor statute which the king establisheth may be changed " (chap. 
 vi. 16). When Darius issues a command "to all the peoples, 
 nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth" (chap. vi. 26), 
 he is claiming precisely the same authority that is claimed on a 
 similar occasion by Nebuchadnezzar (chap. iii. 29). Finally, as 
 if to remove all possible doubt on the subject, we are told that 
 " Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of 
 Cyrus the Persian " (chap. vi. 29). 
 
 After this it is needless to enumerate minor difficulties, for 
 the above statements amply suffice to shew that the narrative 
 is unhistorical, and cannot have been composed in the period 
 of the Exile. 
 
 Innumerable attempts have been made to outweigh the 
 historical difficulties in Daniel by bringing forward proofs that 
 the author was minutely acquainted with the customs of ancient 
 Babylon ; but these proofs will be found, on examination, to be 
 either irrelevant or purely imaginary. 
 
 Thus Lenormant (La Divination, pp. 169, 188) lays special 
 stress upon Dan. ii., where Nebuchadnezzar consults the diviners 
 on the subject of his dream ; for this, we are informed, was a 
 
 1 The use of passive verbs, such as ^n-1D7D ?3J2 "he received the king- 
 
 ^J?n , with the implied notion of God dom, " it is enough to say that the very 
 
 as the agent, is especially common in same words are used by a Syriac writer 
 
 Daniel; thus it is said, in chap. v. 28, to describe the accession of the Emperor 
 
 "thy kingdom is divided and given Julian (see Hoffmann's Julianas der 
 
 to the Medes and Persians." As for Abtriinnige, p. 5, line 10). 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 21 
 
 Babylonian custom which could not have been known to n 
 later Palestinian writer. It is strange that Lenormant should 
 have forgotten what has often been remarked that the 
 custom in question, far from being peculiar to Babylon, appears 
 already in Gen. xli., a chapter which, in some respects, bears a 
 striking resemblance to Dan. ii. That the same custom con- 
 tinued in the East long after the Christian era, is well known. 
 
 Lenormant likewise claims for the author of Daniel great 
 knowledge as to the details of the organization of the learned 
 and sacerdotal caste (La Divination, p. 189). But in reality no 
 details are given. That diviners, magicians, etc., attend upon 
 Nebuchadnezzar, in the book of Daniel, is no matter for sur- 
 prise, since magicians formed part of the regular personnel of 
 an Oriental court, and the magic arts of Babylon, in particular, 
 were celebrated throughout the ancient world. The allusions 
 to these subjects in Daniel imply no special knowledge, but 
 rather the reverse. Thus the learned men of Babylon are in 
 Daniel repeatedly called " the Chaldeans," whereas in the cunei- 
 form inscriptions, as in the historical parts of the Old Testament, 
 this is the name of a nation, not of a learned caste 1 . And how 
 are we to explain the assertion that Daniel, a strict Jew, was 
 made chief of the heathen sages of Babylon (chaps, ii. 48, iv. 6)? 
 It is amusing to observe that while Pusey has proved to his 
 own satisfaction the credibility of this statement (Daniel, pp. 
 424 ff.), Lenormant, whose acquaintance with ancient Babylon 
 was unquestionably superior to Pusey 's, tells us that the position 
 here assigned to Daniel is evidently impossible, and he proceeds 
 to get over the difficulty by the usual expedient of supposing 
 that the passages in question are interpolations (La Divination, 
 p. 219). 
 
 It has also been stated that the presence of women at feasts 
 (Dan. v. 2) is a custom characteristic of Babylon. This may 
 be perfectly true, but it is a custom which survived for centuries 
 
 1 As to the term " Chaldeans " Prof. till after the faU of the Babylonian 
 
 Schrader observes, " The signification empire. This is in itself a clear indi- 
 
 wise men that we meet with in the cation of the post-exilic date of the 
 
 Book of Daniel, is foreign to Assyrio- Book of Daniel." Cuneif. Inscr. p. 
 
 Babylonian usage and did not arise 429. 
 
22 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 after the overthrow of the old Babylonian Empire, as is proved 
 by the testimony of Quintus Curtius (v. 1). And if the custom 
 was known to a Roman writer who probably lived under 
 Vespasian, why should it not have been known to a Palestinian 
 writer who lived centuries earlier ? 
 
 Another Babylonian practice mentioned in Daniel is the 
 punishment of burning alive (chap. iii.). But since, in Jer. 
 xxix. 22, Nebuchadnezzar is described as roasting offenders 
 in the fire, and since this very chapter is elsewhere quoted by 
 the author of Daniel (chap. ix. 2; cf. Jer. xxix. 10), there can 
 be no difficulty in explaining whence his knowledge was de- 
 rived. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that one proof after another breaks 
 down, and it would be a waste of time to discuss arguments still 
 more fanciful, of which a large and varied collection has been 
 made by Mr Fuller in the Speakers Commentary. 
 
 The result of this chapter has hitherto been mainly nega- 
 tive. We have seen that there is no external testimony to the 
 Book of Daniel before the middle of the 2nd century before 
 Christ, and that the narrative of Daniel is seriously at variance 
 with the history of the period in which Daniel is represented 
 as living. But it is fortunately possible for us to advance from 
 negative to positive conclusions. It can be shewn that external 
 evidence and internal evidence both point in the same direc- 
 tion, or in other words that the first half of the 2nd century 
 before Christ after which period the external testimony begins 
 is the only period which will explain the contents of the 
 book. 
 
 The Book of Daniel is divided into two parts; the first 
 consists of a series of narratives, the second of a series of 
 prophetical visions. In the narratives Daniel is always men- 
 tioned in the third person, whereas in the visions he is himself 
 the speaker. The narratives are evidently intended to be con- 
 secutive, in point of time, but they are very loosely connected 
 with each other. Their most marked feature is the didactic 
 purpose which appears throughout. In every one of these 
 stories we see the righteous rewarded or the wicked signally 
 punished, as the case may be. On the one hand Daniel and 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 23 
 
 his three friends, the servants of the True God, though appa- 
 rently helpless in the midst of the heathen, triumph over all 
 opposition, while on the other hand the mightiest Gentile 
 potentates are confounded and humbled to the dust. This 
 would in itself suffice to indicate that the book was intended 
 for the encouragement of the Jews at a time when they were 
 b^ing persecuted by Pagan rulers. And when we pass from 
 the narratives to the visions, we find that this view is con- 
 firmed. For in the visions the final victory of the "Saints" 
 over the Gentile powers is repeatedly insisted upon. Further 
 examination shews that this victory of the Saints is to take 
 place in the days of a Gentile king who will surpass all his 
 predecessors in wickedness. He will arise out of the Fourth 
 Gentile Empire, the Empire of the Greeks, and after cruelly 
 persecuting the Jews he will be destroyed by a divine judg- 
 ment. Thereupon God will set up an everlasting kingdom. It 
 is especially important to observe that in these visions very 
 little is said about the first three Gentile Empires, while the 
 history of the Fourth is described at great length, and with 
 increasing minuteness as we approach the time of "the king" 
 whose crimes are so vividly set before us. Thus everything 
 combines to shew that the Book of Daniel is, from beginning 
 to end, an exhortation addressed to the pious Israelites in 
 the days of the great religious struggle under Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes l . 
 
 It is however necessary to guard against a possible miscon- 
 ception. Though the author of Daniel has everywhere the 
 
 1 One of the latest commentators, in my opinion, completely refuted by 
 
 Prof. Meinhold, in the Kurzgefasster Budde in the Tlieologisclie Literatur- 
 
 Kommentar, has endeavoured to shew zeitung for 1888, No. 26 (see the review 
 
 that while chaps, i. and viii. xii. were of Meinhold's Beitrlige zur Erkldrung 
 
 composed in the time of Antiochus des Buches Daniel). Here it is enough 
 
 Epiphanes, chaps, ii. vi. are the work to say that Prof. Meinhold commits 
 
 of a Jew who lived about 300 B.C., and the fundamental error of assuming 
 
 have as their object the conversion of that a writer of the Maccabean age 
 
 the Gentiles to Judaism. Prof. Mein- would necessarily make the situation 
 
 hold discovers various " contradic- of Daniel and his companions similar 
 
 tions" between the two sets of chap- in every detail to the situation of the 
 
 ters, but his arguments are extremely Jews under Antiochus. 
 fanciful. His theory is examined and, 
 
24 ORIGIN AND PURPOSE 
 
 circumstances of his own time in view, we cannot regard Nebu- 
 chadnezzar and Belshazzar, still less Darius the Mede, simply as 
 portraits of Antiochus Epiphanes. The author is contending 
 not against Antiochus personally but against the heathenism 
 of which Antiochus was the champion. He justly considers the 
 struggle between Antiochus and the faithful Jews as a struggle 
 between opposing principles, and his object is to shew that 
 under all circumstances the power of God must prevail over 
 the powers of this world. 
 
 That the author does not address his contemporaries in his 
 own name, after the manner of the ancient prophets, but 
 clothes his teaching in the form of narratives and visions, is 
 perfectly in accordance with the spirit of later Judaism. The 
 belief that no more prophets were to be found among the 
 people of God seems gradually to have established itself during 
 those ages of Gentile oppression (Ps. Ixxiv. 9). Loathing the 
 present, the pious Jews naturally idealized the past. In their 
 grief and humiliation, their minds continually reverted to the 
 time when great signs and wonders had been wrought for 
 Israel, when God did not keep silence but spake to His people 
 by the mouth of His chosen messengers. In proportion as the 
 distress increased, it seemed more and more certain that the 
 long-promised deliverance must be close at hand, nor could it 
 be doubted that the prophets of old had foreseen how and when 
 that deliverance would be brought about. This idea is at the 
 basis of all the apocalyptic literature which played so important 
 a part in the history of Judaism and of which the Book of 
 Daniel is the earliest known example. The genesis of this 
 literature offers, it is true, a very difficult psychological prob- 
 lem. Some at least of the apocalyptic writers may have be- 
 lieved that they were inspired to reproduce lost revelations; 
 but however we may account for the fact, it is certain that age 
 after age men whose sincerity cannot be questioned put forth 
 writings in the name of ancient prophets and sages. This is 
 not the place to discuss apocalyptic literature in general ; it 
 may, however, be remarked that the production of these works 
 continued till far down into the Middle Ages. I have already 
 mentioned a Christian apocalypse of Daniel which apparently 
 
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 25 
 
 dates from the earlier part of the llth century (see p. 3). 
 There is also a Jewish apocalypse of Daniel, probably composed 
 in the 9th century. It has been preserved in a Persian trans- 
 lation, which Zotenberg has published in Merx's Archiv fur 
 die luissenschaftliche Erforscliung des Alien Testaments , Vol. I. 
 (1869). 
 
 With regard to the sources used by the author of Daniel 
 little can be known with certainty. The name Daniel was 
 probably suggested by the book of Ezekiel, and some details of 
 the story are unquestionably borrowed from the narrative of 
 Joseph in Genesis. Jewish and perhaps Babylonian traditions 
 may also have been employed to some extent. But it is 
 altogether a mistake to class the story of Daniel with popular 
 myths which grow up unconsciously in the course of ages. The 
 strongly marked didactic character of the book must make this 
 clear to all persons accustomed to historical investigation. 
 
 The literary form which the author has chosen is in every 
 way suited to his purpose. The division of the work into 
 sections more or less independent of each other a division 
 which gave rise in modern times to the false hypothesis of a 
 composite authorship is evidently intended to facilitate the 
 diffusion of the book. In those days it was by being read aloud 
 in public that books became known, and a series of separate 
 narratives and visions is obviously better adapted for reading 
 aloud than a continuous history. This explains also why the 
 author so often seems to ignore events already narrated. It 
 has been asked, for example, why in chap. ii. 2 and still more 
 in chap. iv. 3 Nebuchadnezzar summons the Chaldean sages, 
 instead of summoning Daniel whose superior wisdom had been 
 so clearly proved. The real answer is that in each case the 
 author constructs his narrative with a view to inculcating a 
 particular lesson, and does not care to make the narratives 
 strictly consistent. Bat the general spirit and tendency of the 
 book are everywhere the same. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 THE literary and historical unity of Daniel, which I have 
 endeavoured to set forth in the preceding chapter, appears at 
 first sight to be strangely at variance with the fact that the 
 book is written in two different languages. Nor is this all. 
 The author of a book may have some special reason for employ- 
 ing different languages according to the nature of his subject, 
 but no reason can be imagined for a writer abruptly passing 
 from one language to another in the midst of a narrative, as is 
 the case in Dan. ii. 4. The suddenness of the transition suffi- 
 ciently refutes the theory that the author intended the Hebrew 
 portions of the book for the learned, and the Aramaic portion 
 for the common people; for how could the common people 
 understand a narrative beginning in the middle of a dialogue ? 
 Nor can we admit that the author here introduces the Aramaic 
 language because he believed it to be the court language at 
 Babylon or the language of the Chaldean sages as distinguished 
 from Daniel and his friends 1 . If this were the case, the author 
 would surely not represent Nebuchadnezzar in chap. ii. 3 as 
 addressing the Chaldeans in Hebrew, and in v. 26 as address- 
 ing Daniel in Aramaic. Why moreover, on the above theory, 
 should Aramaic be the language in which Daniel records 
 the first of his visions a vision, be it observed, which he did 
 not promulgate to the world, but "kept in his heart" (vii. 28)? 
 Thus it will be seen that all attempts to explain the change of 
 language on internal grounds, prove to be failures. The answer 
 to the difficulty must be sought in the circumstances under 
 which the book was produced and transmitted to us. 
 
 1 The word JVD"^ "in Aramaic," polation; see the Commentary on this 
 in Dan. ii. 4, appears to be an inter- passage. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 27 
 
 All that we know of post-exilic Judaism favours the assump- 
 tion that a Palestinian Jew of the Maccabean period, writing 
 in the name of an ancient seer, would naturally employ the 
 Hebrew language. That the Book of Enoch was originally 
 written in Hebrew is at least probable; that the somewhat later 
 Book of Jubilees was so, is quite certain. The same may be 
 said even of works which made no claim to antiquity, such as 
 the Book of Ben-Sira. and the so-called Psalter of Solomon. 
 Hence the hypothesis that Daniel was originally written in 
 Hebrew throughout, is quite in accordance with analogy. At 
 the same time we have to remember that the author lived in a 
 time of intense excitement, and his book was evidently meant, 
 not for a small circle, but for all "the holy people" (see especially 
 xi. 33, xii. 3). His object was to produce an immediate and a 
 powerful effect. Since however the Hebrew language was then 
 unintelligible to the vulgar, or very imperfectly understood by 
 them, the need of a translation would at once be felt. We 
 cannot therefore regard it as improbable that the author him- 
 self, or one of his associates, issued an Aramaic version of the 
 book, or at least of some parts of it. In any case the style of 
 the Hebrew and of the Aramaic portions is so similar that we 
 may confidently pronounce them to be products of the same 
 school, if not of the same pen. But if the book was originally 
 written throughout in Hebrew, why, it may be asked, has it 
 reached us in its present form? The most plausible supposition 
 is that a portion of the Hebrew text having been lost, a scribe 
 filled up the gap by borrowing from the Aramaic version. This 
 view, which is that of Lenormant, is strengthened by a con- 
 sideration of the fact that under Antiochus Epiphanes a syste- 
 matic attempt was made to destroy copies of the Pentateuch 
 an attempt which would almost necessarily entail the destruc- 
 tion of vast numbers of other Jewish writings, for no one can 
 suppose that the Syrian soldiery employed in the work of 
 extirpation were careful to distinguish copies of the Torah (of 
 which they could not read a line) from other manuscripts found 
 in the possession of Jews. Thus at the time when the book of 
 Daniel was still new, when it existed only in a few copies, 
 within the limits of a single district, it was exposed to peculiar 
 
28 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 perils. Its author and those who had first propagated it may 
 have "fallen by sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil," 
 within a very few weeks of its completion, and shortly after- 
 wards none but fragmentary copies may have been procurable. 
 Out of these, it would seem, our present text was constructed. 
 But no critic has been able to bring forward a satisfactory 
 reason for believing the substance of the book to have under- 
 gone any extensive change, either by mutilation, displacement, 
 or the introduction of extraneous matter. The Septuagint 
 translator, at all events, had before him a manuscript in which 
 the Aramaic portion began and ended precisely where it begins 
 and ends in the Masoretic Text. This certainly appears to 
 prove that the arrangement of our present text took place at a 
 very early period. The mistakes of later copyists, in matters 
 of detail, have, of course, nothing to do with this question. 
 
 The Hebrew of Daniel. 
 
 The history of the Hebrew language, as exhibited in the 
 Old Testament, falls into two principal divisions the period 
 during which the language was in full vigour, and the period 
 of decline. As long as there was a national kingdom the 
 language remained comparatively free from foreign influence, 
 but when Israel ceased to be a nation and became a religious 
 community surrounded by peoples of alien speech 3 the pure 
 Hebrew began, after a generation or two, to undergo change. 
 Finally, about the 4th century B.C., Hebrew was superseded, in 
 ordinary life, by Aramaic, and thenceforth survived only as the 
 language of literature and religion. It must however be con- 
 stantly kept in mind that all the post-exilic writers were more 
 or less familiar with the ancient literature and often strove 
 to imitate it. But since some were much more successful 
 imitators than others, the later writings in the Old Testament 
 vary greatly with respect to purity of style. Hence in assign- 
 ing a date to Hebrew works, we have to remember that while 
 the presence of late phrases is always an argument in favour 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 29 
 
 of a late, date, the absence of such phrases is no proof what- 
 soever of antiquity. 
 
 That the Hebrew of Daniel is, in its main features of style, 
 quite unlike that of pre-exilic times, requires no demonstration. 
 Nor does it bear any real resemblance to the language of Ezekiel 
 or of the post-exilic prophets, as may be seen by comparing the 
 visions of Daniel with those of Zechariah in spite of the simi- 
 larity of subject the difference of language is most marked. 
 With Esther, of which the date is unknown, but which can 
 scarcely have been written before the 3rd century B.C., Daniel 
 has some peculiarities in common ; nowhere in the Old Testa- 
 ment excepting in these two books do we find the Persian word 
 D'DJ-na (Dan. i. 3. Esth. i. 3. vi. 9) and the Aramaic lgfi (Dan. 
 xi. 17. Esth. ix. 29. x. 2). But of all the Old Testament writ- 
 ings that which has most linguistic affinity with Daniel, is 
 without doubt the Book of Chronicles a work which was pro- 
 bably compiled about the middle or end of the 3rd century B.C. 
 The resemblance in point of language is the more noteworthy 
 because the matter and the plan of the two books are wholly 
 different. The following are among the distinctive phrases 
 which are found in both : 
 
 n'3 ivy (to have power, be able), 3 times in Daniel and 4 in 
 Chronicles Dan. x. 8, 16. xi. 6. I Chr. xxix. 14. II Chr. 
 ii. 5. xiii. 20. xxii. 9. 
 
 TH (how?) Dan. x. 17. I Chr. xiii. 12 1 . 
 
 (to help) Dan. x. 21. I Chr. xi. 10. II Chr. xvi. 9. 
 
 1 The word is doubtless borrowed written "|n, e.g. p. 339, "MDK HK "|i11 
 
 from the Aramaic dialect of Palestine, &OK f? y-ptf, And how sayest thou, 
 
 and bears the same relation to the He- Sheic its the Father ? p. 433 *].! 
 
 brew 1p8 that the Bibl. Aram. }H (if) j^nn w ^ ^ jlpnyn, How shall ye 
 
 bears to the Hebr. D (Syr. en, Arab. flee f rom the judgment of Gehenna ? See 
 
 in). ^H appears frequently in the also t h e Palestinian Targum (so-called 
 
 Christian Palestinian Leetionary (see Pseudo-Jonathan) Gen. iii. 9. 7m 
 
 below), e.g. page 331 tfJV p 7PI wp p mDD*ft6 *pb 11D IUK 
 
 KUrO, How then should the Scrip- And how thinkest thou in thy heart to 
 
 tures be fulfilled? p. 437 pBK Til ude thyself from my presence? The 
 
 Tm Pro in KITBW wnSD, How commoner form in this Targum is 
 do the scribes say that the Messiah is 
 the Son of David ? Sometimes it is 
 
30 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 jn (to associate oneself) Dan. xi. 6, 23. II Chr. xx. 35, 37. 
 Tin vjw rja Dan. xi. 21, cf. rviJpp Yin V?y fpn I Chr. 
 xxix. 25. 
 3 (any god, with a negative) Dan. xi. 37. II Chr. xxxii. 15. 
 
 The Hebrew of Daniel contains moreover a certain number 
 of words or roots which occur nowhere else in the Old Testa- 
 ment, but which are used more or less frequently in the later 
 Jewish literature. The principal of them are 
 
 /*! (age, generation) Dan. i. 10. 
 3*n (to render guilty, condemn) Dan. i. 10. 
 D^irjt (herbs) Dan. i. 16. 
 'iEJjn (to be moved with anger) Dan. viii. 7 ; xi. 11. 
 
 (to be decreed) Dan. ix. 24. 
 Dpi (to write) Dan. x. 21. 
 
 (hidden things, treasures) Dan. xi. 43. This word, which 
 occurs only in Daniel, is from a root unknown in 
 Biblical Hebrew, but common in Aramaic and in the 
 Hebrew of the Rabbins. 
 
 (palace) Dan. xi. 45. 
 
 To these may be added one or two grammatical peculiari- 
 ties, e.g. the form rn*5?8 Dan. viii. 22. It is well known that 
 though abstract nouns in uth are common in the Old Testament, 
 especially in the later books, they never have plurals of this 
 form 1 . In Rabbinical Hebrew, on the contrary, we find not 
 only nvate from note but niny from rvny, nrbj from 
 and some others. I may mention also the construction wn\ 
 (instead of the usual "intf &^i?), which occurs twice in Dan. viii. 
 13. For this there is no analogy in Biblical Hebrew, but in 
 the Mishnah we occasionally find such phrases as T nnND Peah 
 iii. 3; see also Geiger's Lehrbuch zur Sprache der Mischnah, 
 p. 53. 
 
 
 , or according to some edd. exception to this rule. Whatever the 
 q, in Jer. xxxvii. 16, is too obscure word may mean, it can scarcely be the 
 
 and uncertain to be regarded as an P lural of an abstract noun ' The LXX 
 
 reads 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 31 
 
 Another feature which is characteristic of Rabbinical He- 
 brew and which appears in the Book of Daniel, is the using of 
 Old Testament words in new and peculiar senses a very 
 natural thing at a time when the Hebrew language had ceased 
 to be spoken and when the meaning of many uncommon words 
 was therefore no longer distinctly remembered. The author of 
 Daniel, like some of the later Rabbins, often inserts into his 
 prose rare or exclusively poetical phrases borrowed from the 
 ancient literature. Sometimes he gives them a meaning of his 
 own, and it may be remarked that in a considerable proportion 
 of such cases the expression seems to have been suggested by 
 the story of Joseph in Genesis an indirect but significant cor- 
 roboration of the theory that the narrative of Daniel was to 
 a certain extent modelled upon that of Joseph. The following 
 are the terms which should specially be noted. It will be 
 observed that most of them occur more than once in Daniel ; 
 they must therefore be regarded as characteristic. 
 
 Dan. i. 4 ; ii. 2 in all other Old Testament writings this 
 is the name of the Chaldean nation. The author of 
 Daniel uses it also for "wise men" or "members of the 
 priestly caste." See p. 21, note. 
 
 Dan. i. 10. Gen. xl. 6 (nowhere else in the Old Testa- 
 ment). In Genesis the word means "sad, troubled in 
 mind." The author of Daniel applies it to physical 
 unhealthiness produced by insufficient food. 
 
 LTin Dan. i. 20; ii. 2. Gen. xli. 8, 24. Exod. vii. 11, 22; viii. 
 3, 14, 15; ix. 11. The word is believed to be of Egyp- 
 tian origin, and in the Pentateuch is used only of the 
 magicians of Egypt. In Daniel it means magicians in 
 general. 
 
 te Dan. viii. 25 ; xi. 21, 24. The substantive m^ (Sing. 
 and Plural) occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament 
 but in Jer. xxii. 21. Ezek. xvi. 49. Ps. cxxii. 7. Prov. i. 
 32 ; xvii. 1, where it means " peace," " security." In 
 Daniel ni^? is "unawares," like the Syriac men 
 slielya. 
 
32 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 Dan. xi. 20, 21, 38, cf. ^r>8 Gen. xl. 13 and ^r Gen. 
 xli. 13. In Genesis the phrase is used of restoration 
 to a former status or position ; in Daniel it must be taken 
 in the vaguer sense " instead of him," as chap. xi. 38 
 proves. 
 
 q Dan. xi. 21, 34. In Jer. xxiii. 12 and Ps. xxxv. 6, the 
 only other passages where it occurs, this word means 
 " slippery, dangerous places." In Daniel it is applied to 
 " guile," " treachery." 
 
 Dan. viii. 11, 13 ; xi. 31 ; xii. 11. Other Biblical writers 
 call the daily burnt-offering TpFin nbiy (Num. xxviii. 
 10 if. Neh. x. 34), but in Daniel the simple vpnn is 
 used instead so also in the Mishnah (e.g. Ta'amth iv. 6). 
 
 Dan. xii. 5, 6, 7 ; cf. Gen. xli. 1, 2, 3. It is well known that 
 in old Hebrew "ifcj, Bnty always refer to the Nile and its 
 streams, either literally or as a figure of rhetoric (Is. 
 xxxiii. 21. Job xxviii. 10). Nowhere but in Daniel is 
 any other river called "fcj. This general use of the word 
 appears again in Kabbinical literature. 
 
 In conclusion therefore it may be said that the Hebrew 
 style of Daniel differs widely from that of exilic and pre-exilic 
 times, and agrees, in its main features, with the latest historical 
 prose in the Old Testament, while in some important details 
 it approximates to the Hebrew of the Mishnah and the 
 Talmud. At the same time the author borrows many isolated 
 words and phrases from the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and 
 this is precisely what we might expect to find in a book 
 written by a Jew of the Maccabean age in the name of an 
 ancient seer. It was natural that the work should appear in 
 an antique garb, in " the holy language," but the idea of closely 
 imitating the style of the prophetical writings would by no 
 means necessarily occur to the author. He avoids indeed the 
 wholesale introduction of modern words, such as we find in 
 the Mishnah, but is far from being a purist. In fact among 
 the Jews of those times a delicate perception of the differences 
 of Hebrew style was not to be expected. The belief, for 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 33 
 
 example, that Ecclesiastes was a genuine work of king Solo- 
 mon could have arisen only among a people incapable of 
 distinguishing between the infancy and the decrepitude of the 
 Hebrew tongue. 
 
 The Aramaic of Daniel. 
 
 The Aramaic language, one of the principal branches of the 
 Semitic stock, includes a multitude of dialects, which have at 
 various times been spoken in Syria, Mesopotamia, Babylonia, 
 and some of the adjacent provinces. The Aramaic dialects 
 are divided into two principal groups, the Eastern (including 
 the dialects of Mesopotamia and Babylonia, i.e. Syriac, the 
 Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud, and Mandaitic) and the 
 Western (including Biblical Aramaic, as also the dialects of the 
 Jewish Targums, of the Samaritan Targums, of the Christian 
 Palestinian Lectionary, of the Palestinian Talmud, and of the 
 Palmyrene inscriptions). This distinction between the Eastern 
 and Western dialects corresponds entirely to the geographical 
 features and political history of the countries in question. 
 Western Syria, intersected by numerous chains of hills, has 
 from time immemorial been a land of small independent states, 
 nor has it ever been politically united excepting when sub- 
 jugated by some foreign power. On the other hand the 
 countries upon the Euphrates and the Tigris were marked 
 out by nature to be the seat of great centralized empires ; 
 intercourse with non-Semitic peoples was here unavoidable, 
 and it is therefore not surprising that the Eastern dialects are, 
 on the whole, less primitive than the Western. 
 
 The distinctive feature of the Eastern Aramaic dialects is 
 that in the Imperfect Tense they form the 3rd pers. sing, 
 masc. and the 3rd pers. plur. of both genders by prefixing n 
 or I, whereas the West-Arameans, like all other Semites, here 
 prefix y. The formation with n is universal in classical Syriac 
 (i.e. the ancient dialect of Edessa in Western Mesopotamia) 
 and is usual in Mandaitic, a dialect which was spoken, some 
 12 or 13 centuries ago, in Lower Babylonia. The Aramaic 
 of the Babylonian Talmud sometimes uses /?, but more com- 
 
 B. D. 3 
 
34 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 monly I, which appears to have arisen out of n by phonetic 
 corruption 1 . Now when we consider the vast geographical 
 separation between the dialect of Edessa and that of Lower 
 Babylonia, and furthermore the impossibility of one dialect 
 having borrowed from another its inflexions of the Imperfect, 
 we can hardly doubt that this peculiar grammatical formation 
 with n must have originated at a very early period, in any 
 case many centuries before the Christian era, though the 
 West- Aramaic formation with y is certainly older still. 
 
 Of West- Aramaic the most ancient documents, of any con- 
 siderable extent, are the Aramaic portions in Ezra and Daniel. 
 As to the date of the Aramaic portions of Ezra there is some 
 difference of opinion, but that they do not all date from the 
 time of Ezra himself is certain. According to Prof. Noldeke, 
 some of these pieces may perhaps have been composed in the 
 Persian period, though in that case they were doubtless re- 
 modelled by later scribes (Die Semitischen Spradien, p. 30). 
 Thus the Aramaic in Ezra may be taken as representing, in 
 the main, the dialect spoken by the Jews of Palestine in 
 the 3rd century B.C. 2 This Jewish Aramaic cannot have 
 differed greatly from the contemporaneous dialects of heathen 
 Syria, for the Palmyrene inscriptions (the oldest of which date 
 from about the Christian era) bear a striking resemblance to 
 the Aramaic of the Bible. 
 
 The language of the Jewish Targums is a slightly modern- 
 ized form of Biblical Aramaic ; more modern still is the Aramaic 
 of the Palestinian Talmud, commonly called the Talmud of 
 Jerusalem. The Samaritan dialect (represented by the Sama- 
 ritan Targums) and the Christian Palestinian dialect (repre- 
 sented by the Palestinian Lectionary) are also very nearly akin 
 to Biblical Aramaic, though they are both decidedly less pri- 
 mitive 3 . 
 
 1 It is, of course, conceivable that 2 The once popular notion that the 
 
 the n may here have arisen out of I, Jews of Palestine derived their Ara- 
 
 but this is very unlikely, since the I inaic dialect from Babylonia, is now 
 
 appears only in the Babylonian dia- wholly abandoned. See Prof. Wright's 
 
 lects, which in the matter of phonetics Comparative Grammar, p. 16. 
 
 are certainly less primitive than a Neither the Samaritan Targums 
 
 classical Syriac. nor the Palestinian Lectionary can be 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 35 
 
 Between the Aramaic in Ezra and that in Daniel the differ- 
 ence is very slight, much slighter than the difference which 
 often exists between the language of authors living in the same 
 age and country. This similarity may be due, in part at least, 
 to corrections made by scribes, but such corrections, though 
 they may seriously have affected certain details, cannot have 
 altered the fundamental character of the dialect. The constant 
 variations in orthography and the use of different grammatical 
 forms with precisely the same meaning are in themselves a 
 guarantee that there has been no general and systematic modi- 
 fication of the language. In one point only does a considerable 
 change appear to have been made. It is well known that both 
 in Ezra and Daniel the verb Kin (njq) invariably forms the 
 Imperfect Kir6 (in Dan. iv. 22 mr6), pi. pni, pr6, according 
 to the Babylonian fashion, whereas every other verb uses the 
 West- Aramaic prefix '. It is impossible to believe that this 
 anomaly really existed in the spoken language, the more so 
 as we have positive proof that the other West-Aramaic dia- 
 lects, Jewish, Christian, and Pagan, employed the prefix in 
 the Imperfect of Kiq, just as in other verbs 1 . As the forms 
 Nin 1 ? etc. are found both in Ezra and Daniel we cannot ascribe 
 them to a caprice on the part of the author. Nor are they due 
 to the carelessness of scribes, since in that case the forms with 
 I and those with y would occur promiscuously, as the prefixes n 
 and I are used in Mandaitic and the Babylonian Talmud. The 
 only remaining supposition is that the Jewish teachers delibe- 
 rately altered the old forms Kin 11 , firv, and pn, into forms with 
 h. Why they did so cannot be discovered with certainty, but it 
 
 dated with certainty. They seem to m. |1iT (Lev. xxv. 44, 45); pi. f. f,T 
 
 have originated between the beginning (Lev. xxvi. 33. Num. xxxv. 29 ; xxxvi. 
 
 of the 4th and the end of the 6th cen- 4). The Palestinian Lectionary has 
 
 tury after Christ. KliV or KiV; pi. m. pliT or pn; pi. 
 
 1 The Targum of Onkelos usually f. ppp or }iV. The Palmyrene inscrip- 
 
 has n* (Gen. ix. 11, 25 ; xvi. 12), much tions have KliT (Fiscal Inscr. i. 10, 
 
 more rarely the full form ^liV (Gen. 11); pi. m. pn* (id. n. 3rd column, 24). 
 
 xviii. 18) ; pi. masc. pn* (Gen. i 29 ; The very rare use of ''in^ in the Pales- 
 
 ix. 15; xv. 5, 13) ; pi. fern, ppp (Gen. tinian Targum (e.g. Exod. xxii. 24) is 
 
 xli. 36 ; xlix. 26. Exod. xxii. 23). The either a corruption or else a mere imi- 
 
 Samaritan Targum has Tl* (Lev. xxv. tation of Biblical Aramaic. 
 28, 40; xxvii. 12, 15, 21, 25); pi. 
 
 32 
 
36 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 may be guessed. It is known with what awe the later Jews 
 regarded the Divine Name mrp ; not only did they avoid pro- 
 nouncing it, but even the number 15 must be written ID, not 
 rp, because rp is an abbreviation of mn. Now the pronuncia- 
 tion of the Imperfect of N )L! was probably very similar to the 
 Divine Name. It is therefore not impossible that the Aramaic 
 portions of the Old Testament were revised in later times for 
 the purpose of changing Nin> (nin*) into the harmless Babylonian 
 form wrb (ninS). In the course of such a revision the plurals 
 prp and prp might easily have been altered likewise. 
 
 The differences between Ezra and Daniel appear mostly in 
 the pronouns ; the chief variations may be seen from the fol- 
 lowing table 
 
 
 Forms common 
 to both 
 
 Only in Ezra 
 
 Only in Daniel 
 
 They 
 
 1 J-13K Ezra v. 4. 
 J Dan. vii. 17 
 
 ten once, v. 11. 
 
 
 
 ( Ktohto. 
 
 
 
 them (after 
 a verb) 
 
 
 ten 
 
 ( jten 
 
 | J-13N once, vi. 25. 
 
 this, masc. 
 
 np| 
 
 
 
 this, fern. 
 
 
 
 N<! 1 
 
 these 
 
 
 
 ftK or r/?K 
 
 that, masc. 
 that, /em. 
 
 
 tl 
 
 I fSH for both genders. 
 
 those 
 
 to 
 
 
 (-13N once, ii. 44. 
 
 Another grammatical difference is that in Daniel the suffixes 
 of the 2nd and 3rd persons plural are always jto and jin re- 
 spectively, whereas in Ezra these forms interchange with the 
 older Db and D*n. But from these phenomena no certain con- 
 clusion can be drawn as to date, for, not to mention the possi- 
 bility of alteration by later scribes, it frequently happens that 
 when two equivalent grammatical forms are in use at the same 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 37 
 
 time, some writers employ one only, while others employ both 
 indifferently. Still less is it allowable to found arguments, as 
 to the priority of Ezra or of Daniel, upon any of those Baby- 
 lonian or Persian words which happen to occur in the one but 
 not in the other. 
 
 The principal points in which Biblical Aramaic differs from 
 the Aramaic of the Targums are these 
 
 1. The Causative and Reflexive conjugations of the verb 
 (Haphel, Hithpeel, Hithpaal) have n instead of the later N. 
 There is one exception in Ezra (nn$ chap. v. 15), and nine in 
 Daniel (chaps, ii. 45; iii. 1, 19; iv. 11, 16; v. 12; vi. 8; vii. 8, 
 15). In the Targums some forms with n occur, but forms 
 with N are very much commoner. 
 
 2. Passives are sometimes formed by internal vowel change, 
 both from the Peal (e.g. 3^ : , Wi;, tt'ii;), and from the Haphel 
 (e.g. nrgn, bgri, JWjn, &yn). Similar Passives were still used in 
 Syria in the 2nd century after Christ, as appears from the 
 Fiscal Inscription of Palmyra 1 . 
 
 3. Some common particles have other forms, e.g. ID if 
 (Targ. p) ; W there is (Targ. JVN) ; nan there, only in Ezra 
 (Targ. l?n, as in Syriac) ; \rh but, except, after a negation (Targ. 
 
 4. The Imperfect is sometimes used in describing the past, 
 e.g. Dan. iv. 2, 17, 33; v. 6; vi. 20; vii. 16. Similar cases 
 appear in Hebrew, but the usage in Daniel is not necessarily a 
 Hebraism, for we find the same thing in Arabic, mostly in 
 writings of the early period. That the later Jewish Aramaic 
 did not employ the Imperfect in this sense may, I think, 
 be concluded from the fact that the Targums, though generally 
 inclined to imitate the Hebrew closely, render an Imperfect by 
 a Perfect or a Participle, where it is obviously a question of 
 the past, e.g. Exod. xv. 1, 5 ; Deut. xxxii. 10 ff. ; 1 Kings x. 16 ; 
 2 Kings iii. 25. 
 
 1 With respect to the use of the an- the passive has, in general, been sup- 
 
 cient passive forms, Biblical Aramaic planted by the reflexive (see Spitta, 
 
 very nearly resembles the modern Ara- Grammatik des arabischen Vulgdrdia- 
 
 bic, in which isolated passive forms lectes von Aegypten, p. 193). 
 are still sometimes employed, although 
 
38 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 5. There is a considerable difference in the vocabulary. 
 We must however be careful not to draw hasty conclusions 
 from this fact, for it is obvious that the Aramaic parts of the 
 Bible, owing to their limited extent, contain only a small 
 proportion of the words in use at the time of the authors. 
 The same thing is true, in a less degree, of the Targums, 
 for though the Targums are very much more voluminous, 
 they are written in a peculiarly stiff and artificial style, and 
 moreover seem to have undergone later revisions. A single 
 instance will shew what caution is here necessary. The particle 
 JV appears once only in Biblical Aramaic (linflj Dan. iii. 12), 
 whereas in the Targums it is extremely common, both with 
 and without pronominal suffixes. But we have no right to 
 argue from this fact that JV was very much more usual in later 
 times than at the period when Daniel was written. Its rarity 
 in Biblical Aramaic may be accidental, while its frequent 
 occurrence in the Targums is doubtless due to a pedantic 
 imitation of the Hebrew use of DK. In this case the "differ- 
 ence" between Biblical Aramaic and the Targums is illusive, 
 and proves nothing as to the relative antiquity of the writings 
 in question. Hence it is clear that lists of the particles, 
 pronouns etc., which happen to appear in Biblical Aramaic 
 but not in the Targums, and vice versa, would give a very false 
 impression if taken as a criterion of the changes which the 
 language actually underwent. 
 
 If we leave out of account those peculiarities of the Targums 
 which belong, not to the language, but to the method adopted 
 by the translators, we shall find that in reality the difference 
 between the Aramaic of the Bible and that of the Targums 
 is certainly not greater than the difference between the English 
 of Shakespeare and that of Pope, or between the French of 
 Calvin and that of Bossuet; yet in these cases the interval 
 of time amounts to little more than a century. 
 
 A very difficult and much debated question is how far 
 Biblical Aramaic was influenced by Hebrew. As a rule, philo- 
 logists were formerly inclined to go very far in assuming the 
 existence of Hebraisms, but many of the linguistic phenomena 
 which were so regarded have been proved by recent discoveries 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 39 
 
 to be genuine Aramaic. Thus the distinction between '& and D 
 is regularly kept up in Palmyrene, as in Biblical Aramaic, and 
 though this does not necessarily prove that the two letters 
 were still distinguished in pronunciation, it certainly proves 
 that the use of b in Biblical Aramaic is not due to Hebrew 
 influence, as Prof. Kautzsch has maintained (Gramm. p. 24). 
 There remain, however, some undeniable Hebraisms, e.g. ?3V 
 Dan. ii. 10 (contrast ^>! iii. 29), Dpnp iv. 34, nptfnrjn v. 23. 
 The following words also seem to be of Hebrew origin 
 Dan. ii. 12, nq ii. 29, nmp ii. 46, rtfro ibid., naaq iii. 2, 
 iii. 29, pin iv. 1, nitq v. 20, KJJINB v. 27, njj vi. 11, pji vii. 
 14 ? nno^n v ii. 26. Whether the interrogative prefix D is a 
 Hebraism appears doubtful, and the same may be said of the 
 prohibitive ^N. 
 
 When and by whom the present vocalization was introduced 
 into the Aramaic parts of the Bible, cannot of course be known. 
 But it is evident that in many cases the Kethlb represents 
 a much more primitive pronunciation than the Keri, e.g. nnJN 
 (anta), KZri $8 ifw ('alayk or 'alayikh), KVri ^B Kwtoi, 
 Kerl NNrv6jp. Sometimes grammatical inaccuracies which pro- 
 bably were found already in the primitive text, have been cor- 
 rected by the later vocalizers; thus pn, the suffix of the 3rd 
 pers. pi., was used indifferently for the masc. and for the fern., 
 but has been marked with the vowel e whenever it refers to 
 a feminine noun. Similarly, in the 3rd pers. pi. of the Perfect 
 of the verb, the termination 1 is used for both genders, but has 
 been treated as ci by the vocalizers, when the subject is femi- 
 nine. In many other respects the pronunciation represented by 
 the vowel-points may differ from that of the authors them- 
 selves. One phenomenon which deserves special notice is that 
 in several cases an originally long a is expressed by Pathah, in 
 a closed or half-closed syllable (e.g. riEP, ^1^), whereas the 
 word |D who?, which certainly had a short vowel, is vocalized 
 |O. Hence we may plausibly conjecture that at the time 
 when the vocalization was finally settled, the Jews, like the 
 modern Nestorians, pronounced a short in closed and half- 
 closed syllables, and therefore in such syllables were liable 
 to interchange Kdmes and Pathah. Similar confusions are 
 
40 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 found in Nestorian manuscripts (Noldeke, Syr. Gramm. 
 p. 28). 
 
 Foreign Words in Daniel. 
 
 Both the Hebrew and Aramaic portions of Daniel contain 
 a considerable number of words which are undoubtedly neither 
 Hebrew nor Aramaic. These foreign words have been held by 
 some writers to be a strong argument in favour of the antiquity 
 of the book, by others they are regarded as proving that the 
 author cannot have lived before the rise of the Macedonian 
 Empire. The subject is in any case worthy of careful exa- 
 mination. 
 
 If the book, or any considerable part of it, were really com- 
 posed at Babylon in the 6th century B.C., we might reasonably 
 expect that a large proportion of the foreign words employed 
 would be borrowed from the language of Babylonia, which, as is 
 well known, was a dialect closely resembling Assyrian. But, as 
 a matter of fact, Babylonian words are extremely rare in Daniel. 
 Besides a few proper names (one of which, -iKK>t^2, the author 
 evidently misunderstood), we find the words N*23P (rulers), 
 Nrnn.a (governors), HT3 (citadel, royal residence), W (brightness), 
 SPG? (to deliver), and *\&$ or *)>N (magician) 1 . Of these the 
 first three occur repeatedly in some of the later books of the 
 Old Testament, H and 3pB> are used in the Targums, and *)>N 
 appears, with a slight variation of form (ashopha), in Syriac 
 writings composed centuries after the Christian era. In no 
 case therefore do the Assyrio-Baby Ionian words in Daniel in- 
 dicate that the author had any personal knowledge of ancient 
 Babylon. 
 
 Much larger is the number of words derived from the Per- 
 sian. It is remarkable that these are employed, not with any 
 special reference to Persian affairs, but quite promiscuously. 
 
 1 Two or three words, of which the date, for some old Babylonian names 
 
 Babylonian origin is uncertain, are were still in use a century before the 
 
 here omitted. The Babylonian proper Christian era ; see the Zeitschrift fiir 
 
 names in Daniel prove nothing as to Assyriologie, Vol. in. pp. 129 ff. 
 
THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 41 
 
 Thus in the list of king Nebuchadnezzar's officials (chap. iii. 2) 
 we find two undoubtedly Persian titles. It must of course 
 appear in itself highly improbable that Persian titles were then 
 used at the Babylonian court. On the other hand, the long 
 domination of the Achaemenidae introduced Persian words into 
 all the Aramaic-speaking countries and not least into Palestine. 
 Of these words many must have continued in use during the 
 ages after Alexander, though as time went on and as inter- 
 course with the remote East became less frequent, some of them 
 fell into desuetude. The numerous Persian words which we 
 find in Syriac writers, were likewise, no doubt, borrowed mostly 
 during the Achaemenian period. More than half of the Per- 
 sian words in Daniel are common in Syriac also, although the 
 oldest extant Syriac works are later, by some three centuries, 
 than the time of the Maccabees. 
 
 That Daniel contains Greek words has long been recognized, 
 even by orthodox commentators. In order to reconcile this fact 
 with the theory of the antiquity of the book, it has been main- 
 tained that the names of the musical instruments D"irvp (K id apis), 
 pnjDB (tya\Ttipiov), and maoiD (o-vfKfxovia) may have been 
 borrowed from the Greeks by the Babylonians as early as the 
 6th century B.C. Such a supposition, if not absolutely impos- 
 sible, is at least extremely precarious and wholly unsupported 
 by the evidence of the cuneiform inscriptions 1 . Even if this 
 negative argument be set aside, there remain the positive con- 
 siderations that one of the terms in question, viz. o-ty/,</>om'a, as 
 the name of an instrument of music, is peculiar to late Greek, 
 and that the trvpfanrta is specially mentioned by Polybius 
 as a favourite instrument with Antiochus Epiphanes 2 . This 
 is an "undesigned coincidence" which may be recommended 
 to the attention of apologists. 
 
 Some of the foreign words in Daniel are of unknown, or at 
 
 1 " The musical instruments that are 2 ""Ore 5 TUV veurtpuv af<r0otr6 ru/as 
 
 here mentioned," says Prof. Schrader, ffwevuxovfj^vovs, ovSe/j-iav t/juf>a<riv TroL-fj- 
 
 ' ' are Greek, and hence their names eras iraprfv e7rt/Kw/iafajj> /iera Kepariov Kal 
 
 are looked for in vain among cuneiform </u0wvfos, wore TOI>S iro\\ofc 5teb rb 
 
 documents." (Schrader, Cuneiform ira.pd6oova.viffTa./jLtvovs<t>etiyeiv"Fra.gm. 
 
 Inscr. p. 431.) of Bk. xxvi. p. 1151, ed. Hultsch. 
 
42 THE LINGUISTIC CHARACTER OF DANIEL. 
 
 least of very uncertain, origin, e.g. ^v 
 of such words, however, the majority are probably Persian. 
 That they are unintelligible to us may be due partly to our 
 imperfect knowledge of the ancient Persian language, and 
 partly to the phonetic corruption which they underwent before 
 they reached the author of Daniel. In a few cases, moreover, 
 the spelling may have been altered by later scribes. 
 
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 IT is usually admitted that the so-called Septuagint Version 
 of the Old Testament, being the work of various translators 
 and of several successive generations, is by no means of equal 
 value throughout for purposes of textual criticism. It is there- 
 fore necessary, before entering upon the discussion of particular 
 passages, to investigate the general character and history of the 
 text in question. 
 
 In the study of the Septuagint text of Daniel we are met at 
 once by the difficulty that this version has reached us in one 
 manuscript only, the Codex Chisianus, which cannot be older 
 than the 9th century, and is perhaps very much later. The 
 best edition is that of Cozza, in his Sacrorum Bibliorum vetus- 
 tissima fragmenta graeca et latina, Pars Tertia (Rome. 1877). 
 Besides this direct witness, we have the Syriac Hexaplaric 
 Version (a slavishly literal rendering of Origen's Hexaplaric 
 text) made at Alexandria, in the years 616 and 617, by Paul, 
 the Monophysite Bishop of Tella-dhe-Mauzelath, who is com- 
 monly called Paul of Telia. A great part of this Syriac version 
 of the Old Testament has been preserved in a MS. now at 
 Milan; according to Ceriani, it probably dates from the 8th 
 century (Codex Syro-Hexaplaris Ambrosianus photolithogra- 
 pkice editus, 1874, see p. 140). A separate edition of Daniel, 
 according to this Codex, was published, with a Latin translation, 
 by Bugati in 1788. 
 
 In comparing the Greek with the Syriac text, we are imme- 
 diately struck by their close resemblance to one another. This 
 is most apparent in hopelessly corrupt passages, such as ix. 
 24 27, where they agree almost to a word. Even if we ignore 
 
44 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 the slighter clerical errors of the Codex Chisianus (such as 
 e^ijOij(76(70 for e/j,{3*\.'r]0ijcr(r0e in. 15 errrjicovcre for errr^ovae 
 vi. 21 dva Xa? for dvaro\a<$ viii. 4), there can be no doubt 
 that on the whole the Syriac text is the purer of the two. 
 Firstly, a small number of the additions, borrowed chiefly from 
 Theodotion's version, which have crept into the text of the 
 Chisianus, are not found in the Syriac. Such are, et? 
 ^evadp i. 2 /cal ov SI\LTTOV ol e//,/3aAAoz'Te? avrovs v 
 rov /Sao^Xeco? /caiovres rrjv tcdynvov lii. 46 en rov \6yov ev TOO 
 o-royLtart rov /3acrtXe&)9 ovros iv. 28. On the other hand, there 
 seems to be no certain case in which one of Theodotion's ren- 
 derings is found in the Syriac text but not in the Chisianus. 
 
 Secondly, the Syriac has preserved several words and 
 phrases, which have been omitted in the Chisianus through 
 mere inadvertence. E.g. 
 
 ii. 28, 29. rdz.i.1 
 
 . *cnct&ur^ nilim 
 
 . vvaAJCJsa 
 
 K'ocaSnX i.l\.l 
 ii- 41. Kfccnl rdi\ia,.T 
 
 iv - 15. 
 
 18. 
 
 (that is, the Chisianus has eo>? TOV aiavos rwv aloovcov, 
 instead of ea><? rov alwvos /cal eW rov alwvos rwv 
 
 K'ocn 
 
 xi. 16. 
 
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 45 
 
 On the other hand, there are but very few cases in which 
 words wrongly omitted in the Syriac have been retained in the 
 Chisianus ; e.g. ev avra) &K.QVV KOI e'(&mbz> Tracrav Trjv >yf)v 
 iv. 8 (9) ol SiaXoyicrfjLOt, pov vii. 15. 
 
 Thirdly, when variations of other kinds occur, the Syriac 
 generally retains the older reading. E.g. 
 
 vii. 27. K^sa*V^3.1 (i- e - v^la-rov), Chisianus u-^rtVrw. 
 
 xi. 10. Ay\; 1% (i.e. Karaa-vpwv}, Chisianus Kara avpcov. 
 
 Exceptions are very rare, e.g. 
 
 iii. 3. -T- KOI e(7T7]o-av ol Trpoyeypajju/jLevot, /carevavri rr;? el/covos 
 The Syriac adds the gloss in the wrong place, 
 
 Lastly, the critical signs introduced by Origen into the text 
 namely the asterisk % to mark words wanting in the LXX. 
 and supplied from the later versions (chiefly that of Theodo- 
 tion), the obelus -T- to mark words wanting in the Hebrew text, 
 and the metobelus y to mark the end of a phrase belonging to 
 one of the two aforesaid categories have, as a rule, been faith- 
 fully reproduced in the Syriac, whereas in the Chisianus they 
 are often misplaced or altogether omitted. 
 
 By the comparison of these two Codices it is doubtless pos- 
 sible to recover, at least with tolerable accuracy, the source 
 from which both are derived, that is, the text of Origen. But 
 between Origen and the author, or authors, of the Greek trans- 
 lation there lies a period of some three centuries, and it is but 
 too evident that during this time the text underwent manifold 
 changes. 
 
 In order to reduce the Greek text, as far as possible, to 
 its primitive form, we have first to eliminate the stories of 
 Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon, which appear to have 
 circulated independently before they were incorporated with the 
 book of Daniel. But even when these stories have been set 
 aside, there remains a great deal which cannot have belonged to 
 the original Greek text. It is obvious, at a glance, that the 
 
46 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 interpolations are not evenly distributed throughout the book, 
 but are most numerous and extensive in chapters iii to vi. 
 The other chapters (i, ii and vii to xii) contain, it is true, many 
 small additions and differ from the Masoretic text in innu- 
 merable details, but they may still be said to run parallel with 
 it, so that the variations, when they occur, admit of being 
 definitely classified. In chapters iii to vi, on the contrary, the 
 original thread of the narrative is often lost in a chaos of accre- 
 tions, alterations, and displacements. 
 
 That such a text mast have had a very complicated history, 
 can hardly be questioned. The existing phenomena are per- 
 haps most satisfactorily explained by supposing that chapters 
 iii to vi were translated, or rather paraphrased, into Greek, 
 before the rest of the book, and that after the text had under- 
 gone many changes, a subsequent translator added the remain- 
 ing chapters at the beginning and end. This hypothesis is 
 further supported by the consideration that, for the Egyptian 
 Jews, some parts of the book of Daniel must have possessed 
 a very much greater interest than others. The narratives in 
 chapters iii to vi turn precisely upon those topics which are 
 most prominent in the literature of Hellenistic Judaism the 
 folly of idolatry, the impotence of human strength and. wisdom 
 (represented by Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, the Chaldean 
 sages etc.) as compared with the divine wisdom made known to 
 Israel (represented by Daniel and his friends). The visions, on 
 the contrary, with their manifold allusions to special circum- 
 stances, must have been to a great extent unintelligible, and the 
 motive for translating and circulating them would consequently 
 not be very strong. 
 
 If the above hypothesis be admitted, it is not, of course, 
 necessary to suppose that any great interval elapsed between 
 the first translator and the second, for popular stories, copied 
 upon cheap and perishable materials and passing frequently 
 from hand to hand, are liable to very rapid textual corruption, 
 and that the afore-mentioned chapters (iii to vi) were trans- 
 lated, not for the learned, but for the entertainment and edi- 
 fication of the people is obvious. Only on such an assumption 
 is the extremely free handling of the text conceivable. 
 
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 47 
 
 That the translation of chapters i, ii and vii xii is the 
 work of one hand cannot indeed be proved with certainty, but 
 is highly probable, for throughout these eight chapters the 
 mode of rendering is substantially the same. As nearly all the 
 passages in which the Masoretic text appears to be corrupt, 
 occur in these chapters, I shall henceforth confine my remarks 
 to them. 
 
 Even when full allowance has been made for alterations of 
 the Greek text, it cannot be denied that the translator was both 
 ignorant and careless, and in many passages, no doubt, the 
 Greek Version was from the beginning mere nonsense. 
 
 Our object being to recover, as far as possible, the Hebrew 
 and Aramaic text used by the translator, we must class the 
 variations, here as elsewhere, under three headings, viz. 
 
 1. Variations due to corruption of the Greek text. 
 
 2. Variations which possibly or probably originated with 
 the translator. 
 
 3. Variations due to real differences of reading in the text 
 from which the translation was made. 
 
 I will now give classified lists of passages in which the 
 Greek text differs from the Masoretic not aiming, of course, 
 at completeness, but at exhibiting specimens of as many kinds 
 of variation as possible. 
 
 The following are, I think, to be regarded as Greek cor- 
 ruptions 
 
 i. 19. r)Gav for earrja-av, cf. ii. 2. 
 
 vii. 19. rov SiafyOeipovros Trdvra for rov Sia<f>povro<; Trapd 
 
 Trdvra, cf. verses 3, 23. 
 viii. 26. rjvpeOrj for eppeOrj. 
 ix. 24. aTraviacu for o-(f)payl(rai. 
 
 X. 1. TTpCOTO) for 
 
 x. 14. a)pa for o 
 
 xi. 17. ireLa-erai for arrjcrerai. 
 
 xi. 32. eV (ric\r)pa) \a<p for ev /c\r]po&ocrla, cf. vv. 21, 34. 
 
48 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 xii. 1. %wpav for wpav Bugati conjectures (with great im- 
 probability, it seems to me) that the translator read 
 -in for ny. 
 
 v^a)07J(7TaL for GKo-wOrjcreTai or some other compound 
 of 
 
 Under this heading also must be placed those parallel ren- 
 derings which have been inserted into the text, e.g. 
 viii. 16. KOI 6fCfi\(T6 Kal eiTrev, Ta{3pir)\, avverio-ov eicelvov 
 
 Tr\v r 6pa<riv. 
 xi. 13. 7r avrov. 
 xii. 2. Kal ala"xyvr)v. 
 
 Also words wrongly repeated, as 
 vii. 8. ev ro?9 icepaa-iv avrov, taken from v. 7. 
 
 Finally, some passages, especially viii. 11, 12 and ix. 25 27, 
 where the text is in great, if not inextricable, confusion. 
 
 II. 
 
 The variations possibly due to the translator necessarily fall 
 into many subdivisions. First, there may be cases in which he 
 intentionally altered the sense, but unhappily we are here on 
 very uncertain ground, since it may generally be questioned at 
 what stage in the process of transmission any such alteration 
 was made. Thus, for instance, there can be little doubt that 
 the substitution of rrjv 7ro\iv ^iwv for -jenp "PJJ, in ix. 24, is 
 intentional, for it seemed inappropriate to speak of the holy 
 city of Daniel. But though the removal of this stumbling- 
 block is probably due to the translator, it may perhaps have 
 taken place before or after him. 
 
 The same thing applies to glosses and expansions of the 
 text, which are very numerous, e.g. 
 
 i. 21. ea>9 TOV TTpcorov eVou? [r^9 /3a<7tXe/a9] K.vpov /SaaiXecos 
 
 [Hep <r &5 1/]. 
 
 vii. 1. rore [Acm?}A,] TO opa/jua [o etSez>] 
 vii. 24. Bioio-ei [/ca/cofr]. 
 vii. 25. real TrapaSoOrjorerai 
 
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 49 
 
 viii. 3. Kpiov eva [peyav]. 
 
 viii. 4. [?rpo? ai/aroXa? /cat] TT/OO? ftoppav teal 777309 Svcr/ids 
 
 real fj^earujL^piav. 
 
 viii. 8. reao-apa [fcepara], as also in v. 22. 
 viii. 27. 77/xepa? [TroXXa?]. 
 ix. 7. TO) [Xao3] 'I<7paij\. 
 ix. 10. evwTTiov [M&)o-?7 /cat] rj^wv. 
 ix. 19. eVt rr)z/ TTO\LV &ov [2tw^] /cat eVt roz/ Xaoz/ croi; 
 
 x. 12. Ivavriov [tcvplov] rov 6eov aov. 
 
 x. 20. yitera roi) G-Tparijyov [/3a<rtA,6a>?] rc5z/ 
 
 xi. 15. /cat ou/c eo-rat [aura)] tcr^i)? et? TO avriar^rai 
 
 xii. 8. /cat ou Sievorjdrjv \irap avrov rov Kaipov}. 
 
 Omissions are, as might be expected, much less frequent 
 than additions, and they are generally of still more uncertain 
 origin, e.g. 
 
 i. 17. ...Dr6 |n: [onjmx n'pN 
 
 /cal rot? veavivKOis 
 
 v. . 
 
 et TrpocrwTrov rrs 7779. 
 
 viii. 27. TT^mi [*n 
 /cat eyw 
 
 ix. 18, 19. nnp n [nyo riK : omn] 
 
 aXXa S^a TO o~oy eXeo? /cvpi crv l\cnev(TOv. 
 
 xi. 41. [>yn] ^5 
 
 et? T?}^ -%wpav /JLOV. 
 
 xii. 9, 10. D*ai [T??1] wa^nn < n-)3o> [:p ny] iy 
 
 ea)? ay Treipacrdwa-i /cat dyiaaQaxri, TTO\\OL. 
 Changes in the order of words are rare, e.g. 
 vii. 8 ............. prvyn np'po rrvyr nnx pp 
 
 aXXo ev tcepas ave<j)vr] dvd /j,ecrov avroov fJUKpov (where 
 a'XXo and ev are perhaps doublets, the latter point- 
 ing to a reading mn cf. viii. 9). 
 B. D. 4 
 
50 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 vii. 21. 3Ti? 
 
 vii. 24. 'j 
 
 //.era TOVTOVS 
 
 viii. 4. njiBVi no* 
 
 irpbs fioppav KOI TT/JO? 
 
 xi. 36. niN^B3 131* 
 
 \a\tjcrei. 
 
 Of free renderings, and passages in which the translator evi- 
 dently guessed at the sense, almost every other verse supplies 
 examples. Only a few characteristic instances can be given 
 
 i. 10. 
 
 vii. 28. ^33? V*f3 
 eWracret 
 
 X. 21. DDlb' ^K3*0 
 M^a^X o f 
 
 xi. 2. n niDte nK ten 
 
 xi. 5. 
 
 and so, throughout the chapter, ^ is rendered by 
 xi. 30. 
 
 (cf. the Targums on Numb. xxiv. 24). 
 
 Sometimes a personal pronoun in the genitive is inserted 
 where there is no suffix in the original, e.g. 
 
 viii. 23. T&V dpapruuv avroov DW3H. 
 ix. 21. ev TTJ Trpoa-evxfj fiov n?B^3. 
 xi. 7. eVt rrjv SvvafJLiv avrov ^nn'7N. 
 
 Sometimes a suffix is ignored, e.g. 
 vii. 20. CTTI r 
 
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 51 
 
 vii. 26. rrfv e%ov<riav 
 viii. 18. 7 
 
 In the use of the Article a like freedom prevails, e.g. 
 i. 16. diro TWV ocnrpiwv O'Sni. 
 x. 1. TO 7r\r/0o<; TO Icr^ypov '"HJ 
 x. 3. 
 
 xii. 11. TO pSeXvypa TTJS eprj/jLcoa-eox; DDE^ 
 
 Conversely 
 
 viii. 27. frsn nDK^lp n Parried. 
 xi. 31. DOB'O ppE^n j3Se\vyfj,a e 
 xii. 13. PP*^ Vi5? et? avvre\eLai> rjf 
 
 The Singular is sometimes put for the Plural, e.g. 
 viii. 20. D-fil HD ^P /Sao-tXei)? M^a)^ /cat ttepvwv. 
 xi. 13. D^B? D^rirn fjT? /taT a-WT&eiav Kaipov eviavrov. 
 xi. 17. D^3rrn2 Ovyarepa avOpwirov. 
 xi. 24. DHV1D Tfjv TroXiv rrjv Icr^vpav. 
 
 xi. 25. nb^qp Sidvoia (Syro-Hex. r<\3i4jL2a=3 i.e. &ia- 
 vola). 
 
 xi. 39. D"2n3 D7*B^pril /cat KaraKvpievaeL avrov ejri TTO\V 
 
 (Syro-Hex. 
 xi. 44. 
 
 And sometimes, but more rarely, the Plural for the Sin- 
 gular, e.g. 
 
 ix. 12. rffl) n 
 
 xi. 8. &PJ air aid ova iv. 
 
 xi. 32. *p3C! 
 
 Mistakes on the part of the translator are numerous, e.g. 
 
 i. 11. D'DnDfl "ib H3D IS^K TW dvaSe^OevrL dpxievvovxa) (i.e. 
 pronouncing ^|P). 
 
 42 
 
52 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 vii. 8. npynK e 
 
 viii. 3, 4 ..... W? :nri_n*o nVy nnb|rn : Ka l TO v 
 
 avefSaive' per a Be ravra elSov .... 
 ix. 6. f3$ ^^3 '9 travrl eOvei eirl rfjs 7179. 
 xi. 3*3. BT1< ^3* wvr]<TQVGiv els TroXXou?. 
 
 xi. 45. BHJ3 *3V in rov opou? r^? ^eX^eft)? rou dyiov (con- 
 necting >nv with the Aramaic verb 
 
 III. 
 
 I now pass on to those cases in which the Greek translation 
 presupposes a Hebrew or Aramaic reading different from that 
 in the Masoretic text. Great caution is here necessary, for 
 after all the proofs we have seen of the carelessness and incom- 
 petence of the translator, it must appear highly probable that 
 he sometimes mis-read the text before him. Thus, for example, 
 in xi. 17 we find TO epyov avrov corresponding to irVD? but 
 it would be very rash to conclude that irDl6tD actually stood in 
 the MS. from which the translation was made ; it is much more 
 likely that the translator erred. Of such cases a long list might 
 easily be drawn up, but there remain many passages in which 
 we are obliged to assume a variant in the Hebrew, e.g. 
 
 i. 3. T:DK>K 'A/3tecrS/H (Syro-Hex. 11 Si-nK*), or, according 
 
 to some patristic citations, A/3pie<rSpi, 
 viii. 8. nim erepa (i.e. nnn). 
 viii. 9. 1TV Kal eTrara^ev ("|m). 
 
 id. 'nvn fioppav (|1BVn). 
 ix. 17. i)1$ yfch eve/cev TWV 8ov\cov aov 
 
 x. 17. nny Tja-Oevrjaa ('JVTO cf. Ps. xviii. 37). 
 
 xi. 1. HDy elirev (*IOK). 
 
 xii. 3. D^nn *pnVD ol Karia-xyovres roi/s Xoyou? 
 
THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 53 
 
 The intrinsic merits of these readings cannot be here dis- 
 cussed, but most people will be disposed to admit that the 
 above passages point to real variants in the Hebrew. 
 
 Since therefore the text which lay before the translator 
 was not identical with the Masoretic, the question necessarily 
 arises, What was the relation between these two texts ? Is one 
 to be regarded simply as a corrupt form of the other, or is each 
 an independent witness? Unfortunately the question of the 
 independence of the texts has frequently been confounded with 
 the totally different question of their relative merit. The fact 
 that in numberless cases the Hebrew reading on which the 
 LXX. is based, is manifestly inferior to the reading in the 
 Masoretic text, has led many people to conclude that all the 
 variants of the LXX. are to be explained as corruptions. That 
 this is not so can be proved by several passages, of which the 
 following is perhaps the most conclusive. In viii. 24, 25 the 
 Masoretic text has 
 
 1T2 none n^vm tat? ^n : D'tnp DJN o^ioivy jvnpm 
 
 a passage quite impossible to translate grammatically. In the 
 LXX. we read teal fyOepel Swcurra? /ecu 8f)/j,ov ayla>v /cat, eVt 
 rot? dyiovs TO Siavo'rjfjLa CIVTOV KOI eva)Srj0rjo-6Tai TO ^euSo? ev 
 rat? x e P avTov i.e. reading ta^ D^'Hp ^>yi D'Jnp DJH in- 
 stead of feu* ^>yi D'tnp oyi. It is scarcely possible to doubt 
 that the LXX. reading is here more primitive than the Maso- 
 retic, but it does not follow that it is the original. The most 
 probable supposition is that D'Enp DJtt and D'EHp byi are doub- 
 lets, the latter being the true reading, for it is necessary to the 
 sense, whereas the omission of o^enp Dyi produces no syntactical 
 difficulty. 
 
 If once it is admitted that the Hebrew text on which the 
 LXX. is based, is independent of the Masoretic, it must always 
 appear possible that a passage which has been corrupted in the 
 one, may in the other have been preserved in a purer form 
 that is to say, each case must be decided on its own merits. 
 The very fact that the Greek translator often missed the sense 
 where it is perfectly plain to us, and where his text evidently 
 agreed with the Masoretic, renders it highly improbable that he 
 
54 THE SEPTUAGINT VERSION. 
 
 was capable of making plausible emendations. Where there- 
 fore the reading at the basis of the LXX. appears, upon careful 
 examination, to be superior to the Masoretic text, we cannot 
 but conclude that here an older reading has survived. 
 
COMMENTARY. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 THIS Chapter not only serves as an introduction to the 
 book, but also teaches several practical lessons. The conduct of 
 Daniel and his friends, given up into the power of the Gentiles 
 but strictly faithful to the religion of Israel, is evidently in- 
 tended as an example. In dealing with the heathen world the 
 most minute attention to the Divine Law is necessary, and will 
 always meet with a reward. How well this teaching accords 
 with the circumstances of the Maccabean period is at once 
 apparent. It may seem strange that the point on which special 
 stress is here laid is precisely that part of Judaism which 
 moderns consider least essential and least valuable in a reli- 
 gious sense the law of clean and unclean meats. But under 
 Antiochus Epiphanes this was a vital matter. To the pious 
 Jews of that time the eating of unlawful food seemed a crime 
 as heinous as idolatry itself (I Mace. i. 62, 63). This feeling is 
 of course something altogether different from the asceticism 
 of medieval Christianity. "The king's food" is refused by 
 Daniel, not because it is pleasant, but because it may contain 
 unclean ingredients, whereas "herbs" offer no such danger 1 . 
 
 The statement in v. 1 that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jeru- 
 salem in the third year of Jehoiakim seems to be due to a com- 
 bination of II Kings xxiv. 1, 2 with II Chron. xxxvi. 6. In 
 Kings the " three years" are not of course the first three years 
 of Jehoiakim's reign, nor is there any mention of a siege. The 
 idea that Jerusalem was captured under Jehoiakim appears 
 first in Chronicles, but no date is given. The author of Daniel 
 
 1 Similarly Josephus tells us that not forget their duty to God, aud lived 
 certain Jewish priests of his acquaint- upon figs and nuts" (Vita Jos. 3). 
 ance, who had been sent to Home, " did 
 
58 I. 13 
 
 follows the account in Chronicles, at the same time assuming 
 that the "three years" in Kings date from the beginning of 
 Jehoiakim's reign, and that " the bands of the Chaldeans" were 
 a regular army commanded by Nebuchadnezzar. 
 
 1, 2. " In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of 
 Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and 
 besieged it" Elsewhere in Daniel the name Nebuchadnezzar 
 is always written without N ; the older form -iVKVDU: (or 
 ilSNVDnJ Jer. xlix. 28 Kethlb) which is usual in Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel and corresponds to the Nabu-kudurri-usur of the in- 
 scriptions and to the Na{3ov/co$p6o-opo<; of Abydenus, never 
 occurs in this book. In v. 2, as in Chronicles, it is not clearly 
 stated whether Jehoiakim was taken to Babylon, for the refer- 
 ence of the suffix in D8VW is uncertain ; Hitzig makes the 
 suffix apply both to Jehoiakim and to the vessels, and renders 
 rr6g IV3 "to the land of his god," citing Hos. ix. 3, 15. Accord- 
 ing to Von Lengerke the suffix refers to the vessels only. 
 Ewald supposes some words to have fallen out and wishes to 
 read, "Jehoiakim king of Judah, together with the noblest men 
 of the land" etc. It must be admitted that the present con- 
 struction of the sentence is awkward, for, if Hitzig be right, the 
 word TV3 is used first in one sense and immediately afterwards 
 in another, whereas if we adopt the view of Von Lengerke, the 
 repetition D*?3iTTlKi : is altogether superfluous. In any case the 
 transportation of captives as well as of vessels, is presupposed 
 in v. 3. n?pp is for nvjpp, as in Neh. vii. 70. The form nyj? is 
 contracted, in Aramaic fashion, from an original k&s&wat, as 
 rop from m&nayfiit. riyj? from meaning "limit" (see v. 5) 
 comes to mean "totality"; hence riypp is "part of the whole," 
 i.e. "some," cf. ?-13| "frontier," hence "territory" (Exod. x. 14). 
 The name ^W is an archaism ; it occurs nowhere else but Gen. 
 x. 10; xi. 2; xiv. 1, 9. Josh. vii. 21. Is. xi. 11. Zech. v. 11. 
 Writers of the exilic period speak of Babylonia as ^M pK (Jer. 
 li. 29), nnfco pK (Ezek. xii. 13), or on'BO simply (Is. xlviii. 20. 
 Jer. 1. 10). It has been supposed that "iw^ is a corruption 
 of Shumer, the name given to South Babylonia in the inscrip- 
 tions (see Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. p. 118). 
 
 3 5. Of ttBfc^K no satisfactory interpretation has hitherto 
 
I. 3, 4. 59 
 
 been given. The LXX. has 'A/3ieaSpl according to the Codex 
 Chisianus (Syro-Hex. iv^-*=>r<). Lenormant thinks that these 
 forms are corruptions of 1M2^K, which he explains as meaning 
 " the goddess has formed the seed" (La Divination, p. 182). 
 The vono m must of course be identical with the D^onon ? of 
 vv. 7 11, since m is the Aramaic equivalent of x>. The 
 phrase *?*$?! V??P is understood by most commentators as in- 
 cluding both the following classes, the members of the royal 
 family and the nobles. But it is equally permissible to suppose 
 that the "Israelites" here form a class by themselves, and that 
 by the royal family and the Dma are meant the family of 
 Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nobility. Verse 6 certainly 
 implies that some of the youths in question were at least not 
 Judaeans. The word D^ori" which occurs only here and in 
 Esther, is probably the Persian fratama " first 1 ." Symmachus 
 and the Peshitta translate " Parthians," a view which might 
 easily suggest itself at a time when the Parthians were the 
 dominant race in Iran 8 . For mKD instead of D-1O cf. Job xxxi. 
 7. D^a'^D is here "intelligent" ^3t?n and P3i are used in 
 Daniel both for "understand" and "teach," cf. the French ap- 
 prendre. i^P, found only in Daniel, Chronicles, and Ecclesi- 
 astes, is doubtless borrowed from the Aramaic ; the corresponding 
 Hebrew form is inb, which however has acquired the second- 
 ary meaning of "friend" (Prov. vii. 4). n'3 is "capacity" 
 generally, both physical and mental. D"J??-1 depends upon 
 "iBN'l in the preceding verse. D^3 jiK^-1 "IDD "literature and 
 the tongue of the Chaldeans," according to the Masoretic accen- 
 tuation; Hitzig prefers to connect "P closely with what fol- 
 lows, so that the whole phrase would be equivalent to ")Bp 
 DiV^-l D^3. By "the Chaldeans" we are to understand the 
 learned caste (cf. chap. ii. 1, 4), and their "tongue" must there- 
 fore be the language of their sacred books. It is, of course, 
 vain to inquire what particular language the author has in 
 view, e.g. whether he means to refer to Accadian as distin- 
 
 1 The phrase martiy a fratama "fore- garde, Hagiographa Chaldaice, p. 202, 
 most men " occurs several times in the line 8) renders D^mD by 'WimD 
 Achaemenian inscriptions. which seems to be a corruption of 
 
 2 The Targurn on Esth. i. 3 (De La- WimQ " Parthians." 
 
60 I. 46. 
 
 guished from the ordinary Assyrio-Babylonian. The existence 
 of a learned or priestly language was a feature common to 
 most, if not every one, of the great oriental monarchies. H3D 
 " assign," " appoint," is properly a poetical term (Ps. Ixi. 8. Job 
 vii. 3), and, like many such terms, passed into the later prose ; 
 for "appointing" a person to an office it is used in v. 11, also in 
 I Chron. ix. 29 and frequently in the Palestinian Talmud (cf. 
 the Aramaic *35 Dan. ii. 24, 49; iii. 12). :ana was evidently 
 supposed by the Masoretes to be connected with the Heb. ri3 
 " morsel," for which reason it is written wriB. But the term 
 is no doubt Persian, and exists in Syriac in the form patbdghd. 
 According to the historian Demon, who lived in the middle of 
 the 4th century, B.C., iroriQafys was the name given to a repast 
 of cakes and wine, such as was prepared for the kings of Persia 1 . 
 The Persian word was probably patibdga (Sanscrit, pratibkaga) 
 "portion", and TroTlftafys seems to represent a pronunciation in 
 which the g was sounded like the modern Persian . (see De 
 Lagarde, Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 73). VJR^p is Singular, 
 cf. 1W I Sam. xix. 4. C?^?-! is connected somewhat loosely 
 with what precedes, " and (it was intended) to rear them" etc. ; 
 compare chap. ii. 16. Bnvpp "at the end of them," lit. "from 
 the time when they should end." The suffix dm here refers to 
 a feminine noun, 0*3^, as is often the case (cf. DH chap. viii. 
 9). For the Imperf. -npir "they were to stand," see Driver, 
 Hebrew Tenses, 2nd ed. p. 51. 
 
 6, 7. The name Daniel (i.e. God is my judge) is written 
 in Ezek. xiv. 14, 20 ; xxviii. 3. In the form ^K^ it appears 
 as the name of a son of David (I Chron. iii. 1), and as the name 
 of a contemporary of Ezra (Ezra viii. 2. Neh. x. 7). The names 
 iT^q, 7^-9, and nnn? also appear among the contemporaries of 
 Ezra (Neh. viii. 4 ; x. 3, 24), but this is probably accidental, 
 since all three occur elsewhere, and we therefore have no proof 
 that the author of Daniel intended to identify Hananiah, 
 Mishael, and Azariah, with their namesakes in Nehemiah. 
 is usually explained as meaning "Who is what God is?", 
 
 1 See Athenaeus, Bk. xi. p. 503: ptvos owrbs KO.I KVTrapi<r<rov 
 
 ev rplrq HepcriKuv <$>t]<jiv OVTW olvos KKpafji.fros ev (pip xp vff( ? 
 Se TrorfjQafts dpros Kpldwos /cat TTV- /3a<riXei)s TrtVet. 
 
I. 610. 61 
 
 the V being the relative particle. Hitzig takes it as a contrac- 
 tion of iw^P " Who is equal to God ?", the middle element 
 being the verb m^, cf. Is. xl. 25. It is true that n$> (Kal) is 
 never construed as transitive, but in proper names the use of 
 the verbal conjugations is often peculiar, e.g. -injlpzS, and pro- 
 bably yvfyg, -in$B>*. The change of name upon entering a new 
 state of life was common in antiquity (Gen. xli. 45. II Kings 
 xxiii. 34; xxiv. 17). For the phrase nto DnS Dfcl cf. chap, 
 v. 12. In chap. iv. 5 Daniel is said to have been called iVKBt&S 
 after the name of the god of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. after 93 (Is. 
 xlvi. 1), and the Masoretic vocalization follows this etymology. 
 But in reality iVNP'B'pa is the Babylonian Baldtsu-usur or Ba- 
 Idtashu-usur (i.e. "protect thou his life"). Through what channel 
 this name reached the author of Daniel it is of course impos- 
 sible to say. The LXX. uses Ea\rdcrap both for 1K5?BS3 and 
 for WOta. "pit? and "|fcw are of uncertain origin; the former is 
 explained by Friedr. Delitzsch as Shudur-Aku (i.e. "command of 
 Aku," the Moon-deity), and Schrader thinks this probable. for^W. 
 has long ago been recognized as a corruption of I33~l3y " servant 
 of Nebo," which is found in a bilingual (Assyrio-Aramaic) 
 inscription (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. p. 429). Long after the 
 Christian era the name 13313JJ was borne by heathen Syrians 
 (see Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents, p. 14 of the Syriac text, 
 line 5). In the Palmyrene inscriptions also we find such names 
 as 13133, Kipl33, 13T133, and U313 (De Vogue, N 08 . 24, 67, 73). 
 
 816. For the phrase te^fi ^H Db>! c f. Is. Ivii. 1, 11. 
 The root ^>JO "defile" occurs in old Hebrew poetry (Zeph. iii. 1. 
 Is. lix. 3, perhaps also Job iii. 5) ; as a ritual term it appears 
 first in post-exilic writings (e.g. Mai. i. 7, 12) for the idea of 
 ceremonial uncleanness the Pentateuch and Ezekiel employ 
 KOB. Verse 9 explains the reason of the mild answer that 
 follows. For n*n? n$ TBfc ( v . 10) "lest he should see," cf. 
 K.15& n$ j "lest there should be," Ezra vii. 23 ; dalma in this 
 sense is common in Syriac. On D'gyt see p. 31, and on ^3 and 
 3>n p. 30. These two latter words are borrowed from the 
 Aramaic. In old Hebrew the root 3in is unknown 1 . The i> 
 
 1 In Ezek. xviii. 7 3in seems to be has suggested, or else a mere ditto- 
 either a corruption of 3'lK>, as Cornill graphy, the first two letters of 
 
62 I. 1016. 
 
 in tti} does not mean " before," but is connected with the idea 
 of a forfeit or debt (Aram, sin) owed to some . one ; hence we 
 may render, " and lest ye make my head a forfeit to the king!' 
 "*5P$d (v. 11), which occurs nowhere but in this chapter, is very 
 obscure. That it is not a proper name but a title preceded by 
 the definite article, is now generally admitted. The derivation 
 from the Persian, according to which it means " wine-head" 
 (i.e. keeper of the cellar), appears highly improbable, partly 
 because the nvbo is appointed by the chief of the eunuchs to 
 have charge of Daniel, and supplies food as well as wine, partly 
 because the Persian s in sara "head" could scarcely be repre- 
 sented by v. Schrader and Friedr. Delitzsch think that the 
 word may possibly be the Assyrian massaru " guardian," from 
 the root TO. In v. 12 1 Djh.t obviously has the same meaning 
 as D^Vlt in v. 16 ; the latter form occurs in the Talmud, whereas 
 D'Vl? is found here only, unless we regard it as merely a pho- 
 netic variation of DWHT (Lev. xi. 37. Is. Ixi. 11). It is of course 
 possible that D^hj may be a scribe's mistake for D^Vlt, but since 
 in Daniel different grammatical forms are so often used in the 
 same context without distinction of meaning, we have no right 
 to assume a corruption 2 . Perhaps we may compare with DUh.T 
 and D^Vlt the forms ^i^J? Is. xxxiv. 13 and D^ipi? Prov. xxiv. 31 
 also a kind of plant. tt'BOP in v. 13 (see also v. 15) must be 
 a Singular. The verb nfcnfl has the Aramaic vocalization, cf. 
 Gen. xxvi. 29. Josh. vii. 9. II Sam. xiii. 12. In v. 15 
 is a construct ad sensum, referring to the suffix in 
 (so Ha vernick) ; for the phrase cf. T? nfcn? Gen. xli. 2, 
 18. On the construction in v. 16 Nfeo T\}\ "so he was wont 
 to take away," see Driver, Tenses, p. 199. 
 
 having been repeated, and a 1 inserted l I cannot forego the pleasure of 
 
 s - quoting Jerome's remark on this verse. 
 
 afterwards. The Arabic <-?^- or Incredibilis fidei magnitude non solum 
 
 j c x sibi corpulentiam polliceri esu vilioris 
 
 LJ4S- "sin" (Koran iv. 2) is doubt- cibi sed et tempus statuere ! 
 
 less a loan-word from the Jewish Ara- 2 Cf - for example DJJBnm ii. 1 and 
 
 maic, the genuine Arabic equivalent of DXNDfll " 3 , nj"lyn and nJIOJP viii. 
 
 i . 22, wytnn ix. 5 and \3$vn ix. 15, 
 
 the Aramaic root being C^U - to ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 fail< " xi. 21, 34 and DIp^T! xi. 32. 
 
I. 1721. 63 
 
 17_20. "fp- 1 ?;? "in all kinds of books" fitrn?? "in all 
 kinds of visions," cf. HT^9 Gen. ii. 9. The mention of visions 
 and dreams has special reference to the following chapter and 
 to the latter half of the book. In v. 18 nsp? 1 ? has precisely the 
 same meaning as n^PP (see v. 5). "So they stood before the 
 king" (v. 19), i.e. they became his personal attendants. With 
 niT TEW (v. 20) compare rin Et?n Gen. xliii. 34 ; for the com- 
 parative use of ?y see chap. xi. 5 and Eccles. i. 16. The absence 
 of the conjunction in D^BBten D^p"?nn is in accordance with 
 chap. v. 15. D'tpin (see p. 31) is probably an Egyptian word, 
 but its etymology is uncertain. It occurs only in the Penta- 
 teuch, where it always stands in the plural, and in the book of 
 Daniel 1 . D'B^g (with the Aramaic forms *|tf$, |W(J, J8?T$) 
 is found nowhere in the Old Testament but in Daniel; the 
 word was originally derived from the Assyrian. It may here be 
 remarked that in Daniel the various words used for diviners, 
 magicians, etc., are nowhere distinguished from one another. 
 When such persons appear, as in chaps, ii. 2 ; iv. 4 ; v. 7, they 
 appear all together, so that we cannot say whether the author 
 meant each term to stand for a separate class or whether he 
 employed these terms indiscriminately. In ancient Babylon, as 
 among the heathen Semites generally, there were many distinct 
 kinds of divination and of magic. But the later Jews, like the 
 Christians, regarding all such practices as sinful, seldom distin- 
 guished them accurately. The attempt of Lenormant to dis- 
 cover in Daniel allusions to the existence of five principal kinds 
 of divination and magic, must be pronounced, by an impartial 
 reader, altogether fanciful. 
 
 21. This short verse has given rise to much controversy. 
 If W_ means "he remained alive" (Bertholdt, Noldeke), this 
 involves a contradiction to chap. x. 1. In order to avoid the 
 difficulty, Hengstenberg explains, " he lived to see the first year 
 of Cyrus," i.e. he did not die till after the Return of the Exiles. 
 But if the author of the book attached such importance to the 
 Restoration in the first year of Cyrus, it must appear somewhat 
 
 1 Whether Cornill be right in reading D'OBIPJ for DinD"^D in Ezek. xxviii. 
 3 cannot here be discussed. 
 
64 
 
 strange that he never alludes to the event, except indirectly 
 in ix. 25. Kirmss and Hitzig substitute *n;i for Vi?5. Ewald 
 thinks that some words have fallen out, and reads " So Daniel 
 was at the king's court until the first year of king Cyrus." 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 This piece is partly a narrative, partly an apocalypse. The 
 narrative, as has often been observed, bears considerable resem- 
 blance to Gen. xli., and in a few places the verbal agreement is 
 so close as to make it quite certain that the author of Daniel 
 had in his mind the story of Joseph. In both stories, a heathen 
 king has a dream which terrifies him ; he sends for the magi- 
 cians, but they are helpless, and at length the true interpre- 
 tation is given by a foreign captive, who is at once raised 
 to high honours. In matters of detail there are, of course, 
 great differences, but this is merely what might have been 
 expected 1 . 
 
 The meaning of Nebuchadnezzar's dream is of great import- 
 ance for the right understanding of the book. That the four 
 Gentile Empires represented by the image are identical with 
 the Four Empires in chap, vii., is acknowledged by almost all 
 interpreters both ancient and modern. But as to which Em- 
 pires are meant there has been much disagreement. 
 
 In ancient times, two interpretations were current. The one 
 is represented by Ephraim Syrus, who doubtless derived it, as 
 he derived so much else, from Jewish tradition. According to 
 this view, the Four Empires are (1) the Babylonian, (2) the 
 Median, (3) the Persian, (4) the Greek or Macedonian. But 
 the immense majority of the later Jews and of the Christian 
 
 1 Compare the story related in Ibn historical, and appears to have been 
 
 Hisham's Life of Mohammed, ed. Wiis- borrowed in part from Daniel while 
 
 tenfold, p. 9 ff., about Rabi'a ibnNasr, in other respects it diverges, 
 king of Yemen. It is obviously un- 
 
CHAP. II. 65 
 
 Fathers held the Empires to be (1) the Babylonian, (2) the 
 Medo-Persian, (3) the Greek, (4) the Roman 1 . 
 
 In the Middle Ages the second interpretation was usually 
 accepted both by Christians and Jews. But it was not univer- 
 sal, for by this time a third interpretation had arisen, according 
 to which the Fourth Empire is not the Roman, but the Moham- 
 medan. Those who adopted this last theory, contrived to 
 retain the number 4 by amalgamating two of the preceding 
 Empires. Thus in the additional chapter which is found in the 
 Coptic version of Daniel, the Four Empires are said to be (1) 
 the Persian, (2) the Roman, (3) the Greek, (4) the Ishmaelite. 
 Here the Babylonian Empire has been completely swallowed up 
 by the Persian, and the Greek and Roman Empires are trans- 
 posed. Again, Ben-Ezra tells us in his commentary on Daniel 
 that Rabbi Saadia the Gaon explained the " iron" as the Roman 
 Empire and the "clay" mingled with the iron as the Ishmael- 
 ite. But this, Ben Ezra argues, is impossible, for how can the 
 Roman and Ishmaelite Empires be treated as parts of the same 
 Empire ? Accordingly he concludes that the Third Empire 
 comprises both the Greek and the Roman, and that the Fourth 
 Empire is the Ishmaelite. 
 
 In modern times, the controversy as to the Four Empires 
 has generally turned on the question whether the Fourth 
 Empire is the Greek or the Roman. That it is the Greek has 
 been maintained by almost all those who deny the antiquity of 
 Daniel and by some of the most learned supporters of the tra- 
 ditional date, such as Dr Westcott. But most of the " defenders 
 of Daniel" have thought it necessary to believe that the Fourth 
 Empire is the Roman. 
 
 In order to explain the Four Empires rightly, we must 
 be guided by the statements contained in the book of Daniel 
 
 1 As a specimen of the ingenious lizes the eloquence of the Greek lan- 
 arguments by which the Christian guage. The view of Porphyry, accord- 
 Fathers supported their theory of the ing to whom the Third Empire is that 
 Four Empires, it may be mentioned of Alexander and the Fourth that of 
 that Jerome regards the "brass" in Alexander's successors (see Jerome on 
 Dan. ii. as representing the Greek Dan. vii. 7), does not seem to rest on 
 Empire, because brass is the most re- any tradition. 
 sounding of metals, and thus symbo- 
 
 B. D. 5 
 
66 CHAP. II. 
 
 itself. That the First Empire is the Babylonian appears clearly 
 from chap. ii. 37, 38, where Daniel, addressing Nebuchadnezzar 
 as the representative of the Babylonian monarchy, declares, 
 "Thou art the head of gold 1 ". The Second Empire is not 
 named either in chap. ii. or chap. vii. But since we are told 
 that at the death of Belshazzar the Empire came into the hands 
 of the Median king Darius (v. 30 ; vi. 1 ; ix. 1), there can be no 
 doubt that the Second Empire is the Median. In chap. vi. 29 
 Darius the Mede is followed by Cyrus the Persian ; hence the 
 Third Empire is the Persian. The Fourth Empire can be no 
 other than that of Alexander and his successors. 
 
 This view is fully confirmed by the visions in chaps, viii. 
 and xi. The he-goat of chap. viii. is expressly stated to be the 
 Greek Empire (v. 21), and this evidently corresponds to the 
 Fourth Empire of chaps, ii. and vii. firstly in that it is a 
 "divided" empire (compare ii. 41 with viii. 22), secondly in that 
 it ends with the rise and overthrow of a certain king sym- 
 bolized by a "little horn" (compare vii. 8, 24 with viii. 9, 23). 
 That the Greek Empire is to be the last of the Gentile Empires 
 appears from chap. viii. 17, where the vision is said to refer to 
 "the time of the end". Moreover in the last vision of all 
 (chaps, x xii), the rise and progress of the Greek Empire are 
 related with many details, but nothing whatever is said of any 
 subsequent Gentile Empire. Thus to introduce the Roman 
 Empire into the book of Daniel is to set at nought the plainest 
 rules of exegesis. That most of the later Jews and of the 
 Christian Fathers believed the Fourth Empire to be the Roman, 
 proves nothing as to its real meaning, for the belief was the 
 natural result of their circumstances, and, as we have seen, 
 when the Mohammedan Empire had to be accounted for, there 
 were interpreters who declared the Fourth Empire to be the 
 Mohammedan. In both cases the object in view was to justify 
 the book of Daniel, not to explain it. 
 
 The objections which have been urged against the above 
 interpretation are mainly as follows. It is alleged that in 
 
 1 Strangely enough, Hitzig concludes chadnezzar, and the Second Empire 
 from this verse that the First Empire the reign of Belshazzar. 
 of Dan. ii. is merely the reign of Nebu- 
 
II. 1. 67 
 
 Daniel the Median Empire is not distinguished from the Per- 
 sian, since the ram in chap. viii. represents " the kings of Media 
 and Persia". But the two Empires are not hereby identified, 
 they are merely classed together, the difference between them 
 being sufficiently indicated by the fact that one of the ram's 
 horns comes up after the other (v. 3). It is indeed stated that 
 the he-goat (i.e. the Greek Empire) breaks both the horns of 
 the ram (i.e. Media and Persia), but this does not imply that 
 the Median and Persian Empires terminate together, any more 
 than the breaking up of the whole image at once (ch. ii. 35) 
 implies that all the four Gentile Empires terminate together. 
 
 Again it is urged that in chap. vi. 9, 13, 16 we read of "the 
 law of the Medes and Persians", not "the law of the Medes". 
 This objection is based upon a misunderstanding of the term 
 " Empire". In Daniel the existence of a nation is something 
 quite different from its Empire or supremacy (19^), as may be 
 seen by the fact that in chap. vii. 12, the first three beasts are 
 deprived of their Empire, but are suffered to live. That the 
 Medes and Persians had much in common was well known in 
 antiquity, and it is therefore not surprising that they should be 
 represented in Daniel and in Esther (chap. i. 19) as being 
 governed by the same laws. But this does not by any means 
 prove that the Median supremacy and the Persian supremacy 
 are contemporaneous. 
 
 1 3. The events here related are said to have taken place 
 in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. In order to reconcile 
 this statement with chap. i. 5, 18, various arbitrary hypotheses 
 have been invented. Thus Rashi explains the second year of 
 Nebuchadnezzar to mean " the second year after the destruction 
 of the Temple", while many modern writers (Hengstenberg, 
 Havernick, Zockler and others) have taken refuge in the as- 
 sumption that in chap. i. 1 and Jer. xxv. 1 Nebuchadnezzar is 
 reigning conjointly with his father Nabopalassar and that "the 
 second year" is the second year after Nabopalassar's death. 
 Others, as Ewald and Lenormant, emend the text, and read 
 " the twelfth year". For the use of the plural HID^D where 
 a Singular is meant, cf. *B*r? Mjn chap. iv. 3 and n$&H ^.tn vii. 1. 
 
 52 
 
68 II. 15. 
 
 The phrases inn DVQnni (v. 1) and Tin Dysni (v. 3) are evidently 
 suggested by Gen. xli. 8. 1^>y n tyW iro^-1 is the Hebrew equi- 
 valent of 'Ci'Ar rnj FiflfSh (chap. vi. 19). nW has here the 
 secondary sense of being "past" or "over"; with this use of 
 V^ cf. 4f chap. x. 8, also Jer. viii. 18. Hos. xi. 8. Jon. ii. 8. 
 That in v. 2 the D^pin stand first in the list is certainly not 
 accidental, but is due to Gen. xli. 8. The term W*39, which 
 was used among the Hebrews from a very early period (cf. Exod. 
 xxii. 17), is commonly supposed to mean a " reciter of charms or 
 incantations". Prof. Robertson Smith argues, in the Cambridge 
 Journal of Philology, N. 27, pp. 125, 126, that the root PjBb 
 properly means "to cut" and that D'BB>? are "herbs or other 
 drugs shredded into a magic brew". Hence *|B>39 (or *|^3 Jer. 
 xxvii. 9) would be primarily a preparer of magical drugs. 
 
 4 6. On the sudden transition from Hebrew to Aramaic, 
 see p. 26. The word JVCHK "in Aramaic" is probably a gloss 
 intended to warn the reader that what follows is in Aramaic 1 . 
 With the phrase " king, live for ever", compare I Kings i. 31. 
 Neh. ii. 3. In much later times the Sasanian kings were ad- 
 dressed with the formula anoshak buwedh " be immortal !" 
 (Noldeke, Tabarl, p. 366 note). In 7*ny (Kerl fliy) from a 
 form 'abadaik, the Shewd, which replaces &, is vocal (cf. P?p v. 
 21 and N*3^ v. 37). The old termination aik or ayikh has 
 been changed by the Masoretes into dkh, as usual 2 . On KHBO 
 (Kerl >8f?>3) see Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 28. The word fc^JK (w. 
 5, 8), for which Baer reads N"J?N, was understood by most of the 
 older commentators as another form of &OJN " going" ; so Theo- 
 dotion renders aTreo-Tij. But NITK is no doubt the Persian azda 
 "certain", "sure", as Noldeke has shewn (see Schrader, Cunei- 
 form Inscr. p. 430). Hence we must render, " The word (which 
 has gone forth) from me is sure". j-VWflFl PP^n lit. "ye shall 
 be made into (separate) limbs ", i.e. " ye shall be cut limb from 
 
 1 This is the view of Lenormant, 2 So also JOTPtf (pron. ithaina), 
 
 who points out that a precisely similar chap. iii. 18, has been changed into 
 
 gloss occurs in Ezra iv. 7, where we &OJVK ; but on the other hand we find 
 
 should read, "The writing of the ^ (in g()me 
 letter was in Aramaic, and accompanied 
 
 by a translation [AEAMAIC] Rehum 1V " 12 ' 18 ' V< 17 ' 
 the chancellor" etc. 
 
II. 58. 69 
 
 limb" ; thus the Peshitta translates /Mi<v><\AA* laion ^o.ico. 
 
 cnn is from the Persian ; the Zend form is handama, mod. 
 Pers. andam, "limb". Instead of j-nijirjpri (Hithpeel) less cor- 
 rect editions have flWflJU (Hithpaal). MD^W <>u fowl and 
 yow houses shall be made a dunghill", cf. Ezra vi. 11, where for 
 ty we find A)5 ; both forms are abstracts from the verb 7-U " to 
 defile, disgrace", common in later Jewish Aramaic. As to the 
 custom in question, see II Kings x. 27. ^EJPJrP. (cf. DbJ|* Ezra 
 iv. 21. DbTO Ezra v. 8) is a Hithpeel. " The doubling of the 
 t" t says Prof. Wright (Comparative Grammar, p. 254), " may be 
 an attempt to compensate for the radical which has disappeared 
 by contraction, and so to give the word something of the out- 
 ward form of the normal *?Pi?Dn ; or it may be merely imitated 
 from the Ethtaf'al (Ittaf'al)". In v. 6 jiqn? (Haphel) is exactly 
 equivalent in sense to the Pael (cf. v. 4). nap} ( c f. "nn^n? chap, 
 v. 17) is doubtless a foreign word, probably Persian; whether 
 Haug be right in deriving it from a hypothetical form nibajva 
 "gift" is uncertain (see Ewald's Jahrbucher der bibl. Wissensch. 
 1853, p. 160 1 ). The particle \^> is here translated "therefore" 
 by most commentators, as also in v. 9 and chap. iv. 24 ; else- 
 where jn 1 ? means " but", " only", in Biblical Aramaic, and Ewald 
 thinks that here and in the two other passages cited the word 
 has its ordinary sense. He therefore renders " only declare to 
 me the dream and its interpretation" 
 
 7 11. n-l^fl "a second time" is properly an abstract noun 
 formed from $fl "second"; substantives and adjectives used as 
 adverbs not unfrequently have the form of a construct state, 
 though in reality they stand in the absolute (see Noldeke, Man- 
 daische Grammatik, p. 201). The meaning of v. 8 seems to be, 
 " / know of a surety tJuit ye are gaining time, because ye have 
 seen that certain is the word which 1 have spoken", i.e. perceiving 
 that I will take no direct refusal, ye seek to escape by delay. 
 Instead of 3 V >T1P we also find NTS? chap. iii. 24; for this 
 adverbial use of IP cf. DPPT9 v. 47. The phrase fcony pr " to buy 
 the time", does not occur elsewhere ; it is variously explained as 
 
 1 The word appears again in the Temple", but in Jer. xl. 5 the Targum, 
 Palestinian Targum, Deut. xxiii. 24, as edited by De Lagarde, has 
 "gifts for the 
 
70 II. 810. 
 
 meaning "to gain time" (Gesenius, De Wette, Von Lengerke), 
 and " to profit by favourable opportunities" (Havernick, Hitzig), 
 after the analogy of rbv Kaipov egayopa^o/juevoi Epb. v. 16. Col. 
 iv. 5. The former of these interpretations is supported by the 
 Peshltta which has fc _o^uK' ^Arclx. ocn Kli=3\ "ye ask for 
 time"; that the Syriac translator read pm for pit, as Graetz 
 supposes, is very improbable, prvtn H ^Qp-'pD is rendered by 
 Hitzig " although ye have seen" (cf. chap. v. 22), but the ordi- 
 nary meaning "because" is not inappropriate in this verse 1 . 
 The form ?3j3, properly meaning " before" (cf. 73j? chaps, iii. 3 ; 
 v. 1, 5, 10) seems to be an old diminutive, corresponding to the 
 Arabic hibaila'''; with suffixes another form is used, ^\^? v. 31 
 (Syr. lekubhlakh, Arab, kablaka). In v. 9 fOJVj ^ n lt? can 
 scarcely mean " your purpose is one and the same'' (Von Len- 
 gerke, Hitzig), but rather " there is but one sentence (i.e. punish- 
 ment) for you" (Ewald) cf. nj?D3 xrrn in v. 13. rn "judicial 
 sentence" and hence "law", is the Old Persian data (so also in 
 Zend), mod. Pers. dad "justice". In Biblical Aramaic ^ is 
 treated as feminine on account of the final n . The clause 
 'W .12*15 n?P-1 does not stand in any very close logical connection 
 with what precedes, " and (moreover) lying words and mischief 
 have ye prepared " etc. For the Haphel jin:DTn the Kerl sub- 
 stitutes the Hithpaal, "ye have prepared yourselves to utter" 
 etc. With y^K, for JW, cf. K^TO v. 21, JHtfi v. 30, \^ff. 
 chap. iv. 14. This insertion of Nun as a substitute for the 
 doubling of a consonant is not rare in Biblical Aramaic and 
 occurs sometimes in the later Targums (e.g. jn: 4 Eccles. viii. 5. 
 py-n* Ps. ix. 21. Ky-n Ps. xix. 3) in Syriac it is almost un- 
 known, but is very common in the Mandaitic dialect 3 . In v. 10 
 
 1 Cf. njn in H ?"}p? "because he as characteristic of any particular 
 built", in an Aramaic inscription of period. The probability is that both 
 the Hauran (De Vogue", N. 3). pronunciations long continued in use 
 
 o -n -, % % , ,, side by side. Thus we find that 
 
 2 Perhaps Syr. du_jj& " under", 
 
 several Arabic words borrowed from 
 
 which is never used with suffixes, may the ^^^ are written som etimes 
 also be a diminutive form, answering with n> sometimes with the doubling, 
 to tuhaita. e ^ . n j ar Qr { jj- r roof (Svr> eggara } f 
 
 3 It would of course be a mistake to injdna or ijjilna "basin" (Syr. ag- 
 regard the forms with the inserted n garni). 
 
II. 1014. 71 
 
 W (less correctly 0K), with suffixes WJVK (Ktrt W chap, 
 iii. 18), TIVK (Kerl W$ chap. ii. 26), ttoWK (chap. iii. 14, 15), 
 'mrvx (chap. ii. 11), corresponds to Hebr. ?; the original form 
 of the word was probably ytthai (Noldeke, Hand. Gram p. 293) 
 in 'DN the initial has lost its consonantal sound, but the ori- 
 ginal ending has been retained. On the form W* see p. 39. 
 " Seeing that no great and mighty king hath asked" etc. " Great 
 king" was a title borne by the kings of Assyria (II Kings xviii. 
 28), and afterwards by the kings of Persia. Whether such 
 forms as ^ (cf. |3N y. 34, DJ* chap. iii. 5, D^n iv. 2, r$> vii. 8) 
 are to be regarded as Hebraisms, is doubtful, see Kautzsch, 
 (_;,' i mm. p. 92 1 . With l}n "other" (v. 11) cf. r in the Tar- 
 gums (Onk. Num. xxiii. 13, see Merx, Chrestomathia Targu- 
 mica, p. 25 the pronunciation PH-1N is incorrect), and the 
 Samaritan piy (= pin), Lev. xxvii. 20. Num. xxiii. 27 ; the 
 Christian Palestinian seems to weaken the a of the last syllable 
 to e, pin or pin, so also the Syriac ^^MT^ (East-Syriac 'hren, 
 West-Syriac 'hrm). The expression "gods whose dwelling is not 
 (i.'ith flesh (i.e. with mankind)" scarcely refers to any distinct 
 class of deities, but is simply a confession of impotence on the 
 part of the Chaldeans no mortal man, only beings of a higher 
 sphere, can perform the king's request. 
 
 12 16. The wise men of Babylon having been condemned 
 to death, Daniel and his friends, who seem not to have been 
 present during the interview with the king, are sought out for 
 slaughter. This shews that the "wise men" form a guild or 
 association of which Daniel and his friends are members, but as 
 to the precise nature of that association nothing is told us. 
 With the phrase D^P-1 KOI? 3 s nn " returned answer with counsel 
 and prudence" (v. 14) cf. D|Hp 3'B>p Prov. xxvi. 17. The word 
 
 S' 
 
 Kpr (from an older form 'Ittit, Arab. <Siie) is one of the rare 
 
 x- 
 
 instances, in Aramaic, of a verbal noun in which the first radical 
 is dropt ; similar cases are NED (chap. iii. 13) or KDq (id. v. 19) 
 from the root on*, and nn^ (ch. vi. 19) from |E. Why the first 
 
 1 In the Christian Palestinian dia- in the Peshltta urah (from primitive 
 lect we find "jETD (pron. 1\&D or t\WD) urh), Ezra viii. 21. See Noldeke in 
 " skin", I^JD " counsel". ' Similarly tlie z - D - M. G. xxn. 475. 
 
72 II. 1422. 
 
 vowel has been lengthened in Ntpy and not in Ni?D, N>?n, it is im- 
 possible to say. The chief of the executioners is here named 
 "nins which Schrader and Friedr. Delitzsch take to be the Baby- 
 lonian Iri-Aku or Eri-Aku (i.e. servant of the Moon-god). The 
 author of Daniel probably borrowed the name from Gen. xiv. 1. 
 " Why is the decree so harsh on the part of the king?" (v. 15). 
 flEVtinp, contracted i"i?Vn (chap. iii. 22), is the Haphel parti- 
 ciple of pjVn, a root which denotes " stiffness", " hardness", or 
 " shamelessness" (Le. hardness of face) 1 . In v. 16, |Pf (for which 
 some editions wrongly have jpt), stat. emphat. K3PT (chap. iii. 
 7), is derived from the Old Persian zarvan, cf. the late Hebr. 
 !&t (Neh. ii. 6) and Arab, zaman or zaman\ the Syr. zebhan 
 (stat. emphat. zabhna), which occurs also in Palmyrene, comes 
 nearer to the original Persian form. With ^"IW c f. |Wn Ezra 
 vii. 20. This verb, like the corresponding Syriac form nettel, 
 appears only in the Imperfect and in the Infinitive ffljH? (Syr. 
 mettal)\ in the Targums the n is assimilated, \W Inf. |flp. The 
 phrase n ^QP? K^pP* is elliptical, " and (this was) in order that 
 he might tell" etc., cf. also v. 18 and chap. i. 5. 
 
 17 23. " The God of heaven" (v. 18), which occurs already 
 in Gen. xxiv. 7, was a favourite expression among the post- 
 exilic Jews (Ezra v. 11 ; vi. 9, 10 ; vii. 12, 21, 23. Neh. i. 4, 5 ; 
 ii. 4, 20). H "secret" is a Persian word, in common use down 
 to modern times ; in Syriac also it is frequently employed, espe- 
 cially for "mystery" in the ecclesiastical sense. In v. 19 ^ is 
 not the passive participle, which would be n^ or $*?.}, but an 
 instance of the old Perfect Passive, corresponding to Arab. 
 juliya ; in v. 30 this same word is written ty, f- ^i : Ezra iv. 18, 
 23 and the plural form VP1 Dan. iii. 21; vii. 9 (see Wright, 
 Gomp. Gramm. p. 225). &O> n$i> KTroi " and the light dwelleth 
 with Him" (v. 22); for N-vru (Syr. nahhlra "light") the Kerl 
 substitutes ^in?, which is the common form in later Jewish 
 Aramaic in chap. v. 11, 14, we find -wro with the abstract 
 ending. KT^ is not a Perfect, but a Participle, passive in form 
 
 1 Hence, in the Targums and Tal- in judgment", "prudent". The idea 
 
 mud, the Adj. ^Vn "shameless". On that this root expresses "haste" is 
 
 the other hand the Arab, liaslf is used due to the loose renderings of some 
 
 in a good sense viz. "firm", "solid ancient Versions in Dan. iii. 22. 
 
II. 2227. V c \k-X 73 
 
 though not in meaning; this use of the passive participle is 
 frequent in Syriac, e.g. kene "having obtained", "possessed of", 
 as contrasted with kdne "obtaining" similar is Hebr. Bto? 
 "having put on", "clothed with", and T-iriN "having grasped", 
 "holding" (Cant. iii. S) 1 . In v. 23 Baer reads >nrq with He- 
 braized ending, but W?*? is better attested. With flM'., short- 
 ened from n?'T, compare ^154! chap. iv. 32 and ^?S^n v. 22. 
 The longer form is however commoner in Biblical Aramaic, and 
 there can be little doubt that, at the time of the writers, the 
 final a was always pronounced (see nnjiq chap. ii. 41 bis). In- 
 stead of the WJW'fin of the ordinary editions, Baer has NJFUnifi, 
 which Kautzsch (Gramm. p. 60) regards as a pausal form of 
 fcOFijnin, cf. aorviaPB/? chap. iii. 17 2 . 
 
 24 28. In *3?rn (so Baer, not *OTn) the suffix is added to 
 the Imperative in the same manner as in the Targums (e.g. 
 wn Onk. Gen. xxvii. 34, 38. Win Exod. xxxiii. 13), that is, 
 without the intervening ai which here appears in Syriac. On 
 ?l^n (v. 25) for ?#n see what has been said on jnjK in v. 9. In 
 nnap'n, "I have found", the tone is thrown back (as in rnjlJpn 
 v. 34, for J"D?IJ>"J) and instead of the usual e, the last syllable 
 takes #, owing to the guttural n 3 . "Hfi*, in the place of the old 
 Hebrew rn-irp. is probably, as Hitzig observes, a secondary for- 
 mation from n-in* ; so, in Arabic, yahud "Jews" is the collective 
 of yahudl "a Jew". ?H3 "able" (v. 26) is evidently synony- 
 mous with ^ (chaps, iii. 17 ; iv. 34) ; both roots may be 
 variations of ^13, and the formation of Snn would then be ac- 
 cording to the analogy of Aram. Bm Hebr. pi, Aram, nm Hebr. 
 Bha. pTJ ( Vf 27) "prognosticates", properly "those who de- 
 
 1 See Noldeke, Syr. Gramm. p. 194, PL is always -ana, never -ana, both in 
 Maud. Gramm. p. 380. The frequency verbs and nouns (Merx, Chrest. Targ. 
 of this usage in Syriac may perhaps be p. 12). It will be remembered that in 
 due in part to Persian influence, since the Babylonian vocalization no differ- 
 in Persian the past participle of all ence is made between Pathah and 
 active verbs may be used either in an Segol. 
 
 active or in a passive sense, e.g. karda 3 Prof. Kautzsch's explanation of 
 
 "having done" or "done". n?^n as being a Peal, not a Haphel 
 
 2 In those MSS. of the Targums (Gramm. p. 174), is certainly erroneous, 
 which have the so-called Babylonian See Noldeke in the Gottingische ge- 
 vocalization, the suffix of the 1st pers. lelirte Anzeigen, 1884, p. 1019. 
 
74 II. 2734. 
 
 terminc (what is doubtful)"; IM is originally "to cut" (see v. 
 34), and in the Semitic languages, as is well known, the ideas 
 of "cutting" and "determining" are closely allied. In v. 28 the 
 words " He hath made known to king Nebuchadnezzar what shall 
 be in the latter days' (cf. also vv. 29, 45) seem to have been sug- 
 gested by Gen. xli. 25. 
 
 29 35. The king, while lying awake, was meditating as 
 to the future, and the dream was afterwards sent by God for the 
 purpose of enlightening him. With n nTJT/U (v. 30) "in order 
 that", cf. Eccles. iii. 18; vii. 14; viii. 2. r urfln "they should 
 make known", i.e. "that it (the interpretation) should be made 
 known" ; this vague use of the Plural, which is common in 
 Daniel (e.g. iii. 4 ; iv. 13, 22, 29 ; v. 20, 29), is likewise a favour- 
 ite construction in the Mishnah. For Afc$ (v. 31) "behold!", 
 which occurs again in chaps, iv. 7, 10 ; vii. 8, we find also -ITS 
 chap. vii. 2, 5, 6, 7, 13 ; both words are probably phonetic varia- 
 tions of the same interjection, but which is the more primitive 
 is uncertain. That -1"^ is for Wi. "see !" appears highly impro- 
 bable. |9^, "that", is formed from Til by the addition of the 
 demonstrative n (Wright, Comp. Gramm. p. Ill); cf. the Biblical 
 Aramaic HER "there" (Arab. tJiamma) with the later JE? (Nol- 
 deke, Gott. gel. Anz. 1884, p. 1020). VT "brightness", and 
 hence in the Plural " cheerful appearance" (chap. v. 6, 9) is pro- 
 bably an Assyrio-Babylonian word (see Friedr. Delitzsch, Pro- 
 leg, eines neuen Heb. und Aram. Worterb. p. 152, and Noldeke 
 in the Z.D.M.G. XL. p. 732). n.n "his appearance", which 
 occurs again in chap. iii. 25, is the only certain trace in Aramaic 
 of a root corresponding to Hebr. n&O ; the word is found also in 
 the Targums (e.g. in m'BJ? KnrPN " a woman of beautiful ap- 
 pearance", Onk. Deut. xxi. II) 1 . That "H is not borrowed from 
 the Hebrew is shewn by its form, which is contracted from 1JO 
 (exactly resembling the synonymous im in Him Dan. vii. 20); 
 the disappearance of the radical K is after the analogy of NflP 
 for Nnxo, N.TE for N.TgP. In v. 34 the stone is described as 
 striking the image " upon its feet", thus implying that the 
 
 1 From the Aramaic 1") the Persian ru, "face", for which there is no 
 Aryan etymology, seems to be derived. 
 
II. 3439. 75 
 
 Gentile powers represented by the image are not contempora- 
 neous but follow one upon another the destruction of the 
 Fourth Empire involves the complete overthrow of the Gentile 
 supremacy. On nnp (so Baer), instead of nnp see p. 39. The 
 form )\>1 (v. 35) is difficult to explain. Elsewhere in Daniel the 
 verb ppT is used in the Haphel only, and -IP^, if correctly 
 pointed, must be from a root pn or pH equivalent to ppl. But 
 whether Ipn be meant as transitive, like \WJ\n\ in v. 30, or as 
 intransitive "they fell to pieces", we cannot say. rnq3 "all 
 together" is used also in the Targums (e.g. Kiro p-anrv Ps. ii. 2), 
 cf. the Hebr. nn$? Ezra ii. 64, and Syr. K'rwx^a (for r^.Tu pa) 
 "at once". ^TJN is from a Sing. TJK emphat. ^7^, which is 
 common in later Jewish Aramaic, and appears in Syriac as 
 edderd, In form this word resembles emmerd (cf. P1PK Ezra vi. 
 9) and sepperci (cf. P"!iV Dan. iv. 30), but whether it is ori- 
 ginally Aramaic may be doubted 1 . In J"lX?p we have a relic of 
 the old form, J"I^>P } in which the K was a consonant. 
 
 36 45. For the general meaning of w. 36, 37, compare 
 Jer. xxvii. 5, 6. Instead of the older p&n (pron. P^l) the 
 Kerl has p)X which is the ordinary form in Syriac, cf. also 
 PDKP (Kerl PPJj?) chap. iii. 3, pyw (K. P9JJ) v. 19, and pain (K. 
 pJH) Ezra vii. 25 ; but in the stat. einphat. of the Plural the N 
 is allowed to stand (K>P$i? T Dan. vii. 16). In v. 39 nn, stat. 
 ubsol. fern, of HCI^i corresponds to the 'TTHK of the Targums 
 (Onk. Gen. xxvi. 21, 22), to the Samaritan nin (Num. xiv. 24), 
 and to the Christian Palestinian nin (stat. emphat. Nnnin). 
 ^p XSHK " lower than thou" for the stat. emphat. NJHK the Kerl 
 has the absol. JT!^ (cf. the Targum, I Esth. i. 2, WD jns) ; both 
 forms are substantival ("the ground", i.e. lowness), though they 
 are used in the place of an adjective, and so the Hebrew D'nip 
 "height" is used for "high" (Ps. x. 5; xcii. 9). That the 
 Median Empire should be described as "lower", i.e. less power- 
 
 1 In Arabic we find the forms andar, (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 10) sug- 
 
 from Aram. TIN or "H^N with dissi- gests that TIJ* is an Iranian word, 
 
 milation, and baidar, from m 3 wnich is of course quite possiblej 
 
 (= Nn^X n^2) ; see the note by Flei- tbough the ^bic forms prove nothing 
 
 scher in Levy's Worterb. iiber die Tar- in favour of the hypothesis. 
 yumiin, i. 417, b. Prof. De Lagarde 
 
76 II. 3943. 
 
 ful, than the Babylonian, is natural, for of the Median Empire 
 next to nothing was known in the time of the author, whereas 
 the greatness of Babylon was well remembered. Of the Persian 
 Empire we are told that it bears rule " over all the earth". Of. 
 Ezra i. 2, and the book of Esther passim. As in chap, vii., the 
 author dismisses the first three Empires very briefly and hastens 
 on to describe the Fourth, the only one which had a practical 
 interest for himself and his readers. In both chapters great 
 stress is laid upon the conquering power of the Fourth Empire, 
 which is to "crush" all opposition (cf. v. 40 with chap. vii. 23). 
 But here much fewer details are given than in chap. vii. ; no 
 mention is made of Antiochus, and the last days of Gentile 
 supremacy are depicted only in general terms the Gentile 
 Empire will be divided, some parts being stronger than others. 
 In v. 40 H '3i?~'? is rendered "even as" by Gesenius, Von Len- 
 gerke, Ewald, and Hitzig, but it seems more natural to take the 
 phrase in its usual sense the author gives the reason of the 
 foregoing comparison, " And there shall be a Fourth Empire, 
 strong as iron, forasmuch as iron crusheth and breaketh all" etc. 
 At the beginning of w. 41 and 43, H is used as in chap. iv. 20, 
 
 23 *, i.e. " (the fact) that thou sawest (signifies that) it shall 
 
 be a divided Empire, and (a portion) of the firmness of the iron 
 shall be in it, forasmuch as thou saivest the iron mixed with the 
 miry clay". That ^n3V^ is "firmness" (cf. 3'?! "sure") seems 
 more probable than that it means "nature", from 3J "to plant". 
 With KptoVe nyirip (v. 42) "part of the Empire", cf. nypp chap, 
 i. 2. At the beginning of v. 43 the Kerl has HI, for % which 
 is in accordance with chap. iv. 23. " They shall be mingling 
 themselves by marriage alliances" this, the traditional Jewish 
 interpretation, doubtless gives the real meaning 2 ; the refer- 
 ence is to the marriages between the Ptolemies and the Seleu- 
 cidae (chap. xi. 6, 17); for the expression NK08 int. cf. Jer. xxxi. 
 
 1 Compare the Syriac construction corruption is taken away from me " 
 K* i..V &\JSq ru.lO (Wright, Apocryphal Acts, p. .1 m 
 
 ^<\V** bottom). 
 
 2 So Kashi translates, though he 
 and that I ma k es a wron g application 1 
 am not veiled (is) because the veil of .JTlDINn ")N^ Dy VIT 1 
 
II. 4347. 77 
 
 26. *15"n "like as", exactly corresponds to the Palmyrene 
 HDTI (De Vogue, N. 71 raro H3n "according as I have 
 written"). In w. 44 and 45 the Divine Kingdom is portrayed. 
 It is to be set up " in the days of those kings", that is, when 
 the Greek Empire is in a state of division, and it will last for 
 ever. Of a personal king nothing is said, but the eternal 
 sovereignty of Israel is put prominently forward "the kingdom 
 shall not be left to another people". Instead of D s i?% which 
 occurs again in chap. iv. 14, we find also DNVi' : v. 21; vi. 16. The 
 first part of v. 45 should probably be connected with v. 44 (so 
 Von Lengerke, Ewald), "it shall crush and destroy all these 
 kingdoms, but as for it, it shall abide for ever, forasmuch as thou 
 sawest tit at from the mountain a stone was cut" etc. In v. 45 the 
 word KSpn certainly does not stand where we should have 
 expected it, but whether Ewald be justified in altering the text 
 according to the LXX., so as to place NQpn at the head of the 
 list, may be doubted 1 . The verse ends with a solemn state- 
 ment of the truth of the revelation " A great God hath made 
 known to the king what shall be hereafter, and certain is the 
 dream and sure its interpretation". ]P'DP (Syr. mehaiman), which 
 occurs again in chap. vi. 5, is the passive participle of JPTI 
 (chap. vi. 25), a verb which seems to be borrowed from the 
 Hebr. |n?gg. 
 
 46 49. The interpretation ended, Nebuchadnezzar falls 
 down before Daniel and honours him as a god. We need not 
 stop to inquire whether a strict monotheist would suffer himself 
 to be thus worshipped, for the whole description is evidently 
 ideal Nebuchadnezzar at the feet of Daniel represents the 
 Gentile power humbled before Israel (cf. Is. xlix. 23 ; Ix. 14). 
 The king's homage, though ostensibly paid to Daniel, is in 
 reality paid to Daniel's God (v. 47). Very similar is the fabu- 
 lous story in Josephus (Antiq. xi. 8. 5), where Alexander pros- 
 trates himself before the Jewish High Priest. In v. 46 npDJ, 
 which properly means " to pour" drink-offerings (Hebr. ^DJ cf. 
 flfV3p3 Ezra vii. 17), seems to be used of oblations generally. In 
 v. 47 ^ DBTriP is elliptical, " (/ know) of a truth that" etc. 
 
 Compare the different arrangement of the metals in chap. v. 4 and 23. 
 
78 
 
 for which some MSS. read &*"!) as in ch. v. 23, has the vocaliza- 
 tion of a Participle Peal. The form WD "my lord" (ch. iv. 16, 
 21, Kethlb) shews that in the time of the author the K retained 
 its consonantal sound 1 . In v. 48 the words P33P T]\ depend 
 upon np^n, i.e. "he made him rule over all the province of 
 Babylon, and (appointed him) chief governor" etc. P33P (Hebr. 
 D*OJp), which never occurs in the Singular in the Old Testament, 
 is from the Babylonian shaknu "governor" (shakanu, "to place", 
 "to appoint", see Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. p. 411). Daniel, 
 it would seem, wishing to remain " at the king's court", requests 
 that his three friends be entrusted with the business (NFiTSi?) 
 of the government (v. 49). This verse is obviously written in 
 view of the following narrative. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 (Verses 130.) 
 
 The general purpose of this Chapter is perfectly clear 
 from beginning to end it is a polemic against the heathen wor- 
 ship and in particular against idolatry. The Israelite who has 
 to choose between idolatry and death, should unhesitatingly 
 prefer the latter. Even when there appears no hope of deliver- 
 ance, the God of Israel is able to succour those who persevere 
 in obedience to Him. 
 
 I have already pointed out that the idea of punishment by 
 burning was probably suggested to the author by Jer. xxix. 22. 
 Other passages may have contributed something, particularly 
 Is. xliii. 2, for that sharp distinction which we are accustomed 
 to draw between the literal and the metaphorical was not 
 always recognized in antiquity. It has often been asked why in 
 this chapter there is no mention of Daniel. The reason seems 
 
 1 Cf. Arab, al-mar^u "the man"; in becomes \ sometimes is treated as a 
 
 the Syriac forms, emphat. mcirya or mere vowel-sign, and sometimes dis- 
 
 mdrd, eonstr. mare, with suffixes mareh, appears altogether. 
 mtirhon etc., the final tf sometimes 
 
III. 1, 2. 79 
 
 to be that he could not have been introduced without marring 
 the effect. To represent him as being cast with his friends 
 into the furnace would have involved too gross and startling an 
 inconsistency, after the scene at the close of chap. ii. On the 
 other hand, if Daniel had intervened to save his friends, there 
 would have been no opportunity for the display of the divine 
 power, preserving them unhurt amidst the flames of the fur- 
 nace. On these grounds the non-mention of Daniel is perfectly 
 natural. 
 
 1_6. On the form nj?S see p. 37. tb? D'pX " to set up a 
 statue, or idol", is the usual phrase iu the heathen inscriptions 
 of Palmyra and the Hauran. The " plain" or " valley" of Dura 
 has not been identified with certainty ; according to Schrader 
 there were in Babylonia several localities bearing the name 
 of Daru (Cuneiform Inscr. p. 430). Very important is the 
 list of officials, in vv. 2 and 3, who are summoned by the 
 king to the dedication of the image. It need hardly be said 
 that in these foreign words the Masoretic vocalization is entitled 
 to very little respect and may safely be ignored. fcWBTiETiK (cf. 
 Ezra viii. 36. Esth. iii. 12) are "satraps", from the Old Persian 
 khsJiatrd-pdwan lit. " warden of the realm". On fcTjJD see chap. 
 ii. 48. Knina (Sing. nn| Ezra v. 14, cons tr. nns) "governors", 
 from the Assyrian pakhafa (Schrader, Cuneiform Inscr. p. 577). 
 The word NHTJTIK has often been explained as a compound of 
 TIN and "iT3, but it is probably the Persian endarzgar "counsel- 
 lor", a title which was still in use under the Sasanians (Nb'ldeke, 
 Tubarl, p. 462 note), and the resemblance with ptt (chap. ii. 
 27) is therefore accidental. Nna*U is commonly taken to be 
 a variation of Nnaja " treasurers" (Ezra vii. 21), from the Persian 
 ganjabara ', but the analogy of v. 27 and chap. vi. 8 favours the 
 hypothesis of Graetz and others that wmj is a mere scribal 
 error for Knain. Knam "judges" is from the Old Persian 
 dritabara, in Pahlawl ddtobar, and in mod. Persian ddivar. The 
 meaning of aonan is altogether obscure ; that it signifies "coun- 
 sellors" and is connected with the Arabic aftd "to advise" (of 
 which Mufti is the participle) appears very improbable, since 
 the root in question has this meaning in Arabic only, nor would 
 the grammatical form of the word, with prefixed n, admit of 
 
80 III. 25. 
 
 any easy explanation. Still less likely is Graetz's view that 
 fcOnan is a mistake for NTlBn, from Greek vTraroi,. Possibly 
 the word may be a mutilated form of some Persian title ending 
 in pat "chief", cf. Pah law! magupat "chief priest", spahpat 
 "general", etc. On the form jnDKp (v. 3) see ch. ii. 38. Njha 
 (v. 4) "herald", common in Syriac also, is probably not bor- 
 rowed directly from the Greek Krjpvg, but is formed, after the 
 usual Aramaic fashion, from the verbal root PO, which however 
 does not appear in the Peal (see chap. v. 29). The Plural N*&ptf 
 (Syr. 'amVme), from Sing. N2, is a relic of the old plural form 
 in which the second radical had the vowel a (see Nb'ldeke, Syr. 
 Gramm. p. 58). The Singular of KJSK occurs in Biblical Ara- 
 maic in the stat. absol. only, riBN v. 29 ; this word is common to 
 Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic, and of course originally means 
 " the offspring of one mother", thus presupposing the so-called 
 matriarchal condition of society. Of the six musical instru- 
 ments enumerated in w. 5, 7, 10 and 15, two, viz. KJTJ2 "the 
 horn" and Nrrp'h^p " the pipe", have Semitic names, and three 
 are Greek, viz. DlJVp " lute", Kerl D'lJpp (as in the Targums, e.g. 
 Is. v. 12), Gr. icMapK or iciOdpa prUDB "harp" (for which v. 7 
 has ptMDB), Gr. -^a\rrjpiov rMBDID "bag-pipe" (omitted in 
 v. 7: in v. 10 Ketlrib PWB'D, a popular mispronunciation) Gr. 
 o-vfjL(f>a)vla, see p. 41. K??fe>, probably a kind of harp, is of 
 doubtful origin; that it is identical with Gr. aa^jBvKrj cannot 
 be questioned, but whether the Greeks borrowed the word from 
 the Arameans, or the Arameans from the Greeks, or whether 
 both nations borrowed it from some third language, is uncertain. 
 That it is from the root "pb> " to interlace" appears very impro- 
 bable. The statement in Athenaeus (Bk iv. p. 175) that the 
 o-a/jufiv/cr) was invented by the Syrians, does not of course prove 
 the word to be Aramaic. Besides the above-named instruments 
 there are others which the author sums up in the phrase 
 &n?pt ^r^l " and all manner of music". MT, of which the Sin- 
 gular occurs in Syriac (emphat. zend, constr. zan or zen) and 
 perhaps in Hebrew (Ps. cxliv. 13), but not in Biblical Aramaic, 
 seems to be from a Persian word zan, the etymological equiva- 
 lent of Gr. 76^09 (see De Lagarde, Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici, 
 graece, p. xxviii). The Persian origin of this word is admitted 
 
III. 513. 81 
 
 also by Noldeke (Syr. Gramm. p. 83). The Masoretic vocaliza- 
 tion of j*p (v. 6), which is the best attested reading (cf. also vv. 
 11, 15 and Ezra v. 3, 9), is certainly erroneous, for not only do 
 we find man in Syriac 1 , but also in the Targums with Baby- 
 lonian vocalization this word has a short vowel (see p. 39). 
 Kflfitf ( for *^W> S y r - sha'Vtha, cf. stat. abs. nirc> chap. iv. 16) 
 means in Biblical Aramaic an indefinite space of time, as sd'a 
 often does in Arabic ; hence is derived the signification " hour" 2 . 
 f-inN "furnace" occurs also in Syriac and Arabic; its derivation 
 is unknown. 
 
 718. n? "when" (cf. chaps, v. 20; vi. 11, 15) is found 
 likewise in Palmyrene (De Vogue, N. 15). In vv. 810 the 
 denunciation of the Jews by the Chaldeans bears a great resem- 
 blance to the denunciation of Daniel by the other officials in 
 chap. vi. 13, 14. In both cases the object of the author is the 
 same, viz. to encourage those Jews who, for refusing to abandon 
 their religion, were accused by their enemies of "setting the 
 king at nought" (iii. 12; vi. 14). pT3$ (emphat. n?| v . 12) 
 stands for p?l, which is the Syriac form ; the change of a to u 
 is due to the following labial, as in the Christian Palestinian 
 Kn3lB> (pron. shubbethd) "Sabbath", Syr. shabbethd. The sin- 
 gular phrase prvtf"?!? -1^5^ "they ate their pieces", i.e. "they ac- 
 cused them" (cf. chap. vi. 25), is common also in Syriac; as to 
 the precise origin of the metaphor some doubt prevails. The 
 different use of the expression D#P Db> in vv. 10 and 12 is re- 
 markable. On finjv (v. 12) see p. 38. tn (v. 13) is vocalized 
 according to the analogy of such forms as *)P9, although the 
 original vowel is not & but ti, as appears from KHVi in the Tar- 
 gums see also ?D? chap. v. 5. Instead of NH we find also Kn 
 (v. 19), cf. what has been said on Ntptf chap. ii. 14. Very pecu- 
 liar is the form VJVn which seems to have a passive sense, " they 
 were brought" (cf. JVJVn chap. vi. 18 and fcWP, K%rl '#, Ezra 
 vi. 15), whereas VJtfn (chap. v. 3) is "they brought". It has 
 been suggested that these passives are formed after the analogy 
 
 1 The Syriac man is "what?", con- Hebrew seems to be borrowed from the 
 tracted from md den (Noldeke, Syr. Aramaic, for otherwise it would natu- 
 Gramm. p. 44). rally have in the first syllable. 
 
 2 The word HIT^ in post-Biblical 
 
 B. D. 6 
 
82 III. 1317. 
 
 of the passive participle *IVP " brought" (see the latest editions 
 of Gesenius' Handworterbuch, s. v. nn^). If this be thought un- 
 satisfactory, there appears no way out of the difficulty but to 
 suppose that -WD is wrongly pointed, and that for rvrvn and 
 WV we should read ln;n and 1T# . The meaning of N^VH (v. 
 14) is very obscure. It is commonly rendered, " Is it of set 
 purpose?" the n being the interrogative particle, and XIV a 
 noun equivalent to Hebr. nnv (Num. xxxv. 20, 22). That K^Vn 
 is connected with the Targumic ^VS "to mock" (Gesenius' 
 Handworterbuch, llth ed. s. v. Kl) is very unlikely, since the 
 form would be without analogy. Possibly we should read tnjKn 
 "is it certain?" (cf. chap. ii. 5, 8); the Pe'shitta has bekusktd 
 "in truth", and Theod. et aXyOws. In v. 15 the construction is 
 of course elliptical, the apodosis being omitted in the first part, 
 cf. Exod. xxxii. 32. The verb W (Syr. shauzebh) is derived 
 from the Assyrio-Babylonian shuzub " to rescue", the Causative 
 of izibu "to go away" (Hebr. 3tr, Arab, 'azaba)-, the Syriac 
 form seems to come nearer to the original. In v. 16 the Maso- 
 retic punctuation makes "WJ"!^ to be a Vocative, but it is 
 more natural to take it as standing in apposition to N?fe (so 
 Hitzig). " We have no need to answer thee a word concerning 
 this", i.e. concerning the question asked by Nebuchadnezzar at 
 the end of v. 15. With the construction "qn-nnnb DJris cf. I Kings 
 xii. 6, 9, 16. D309 is found also in Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes 
 and the Targums; that Wrte, not D|flB, is the correct form, 
 appears from the Syr. petheghdmd with aspirated g. The word 
 is derived from the Old Persian patigdma (in mod. Persian 
 paighdm or paigham), properly, "motion towards" something, 
 hence "message", "word" 1 . Verse 17, according to the Maso- 
 retic punctuation, can mean only, " If our God, whom we serve, 
 be able to deliver us, He will deliver (us) from the furnace of 
 burning fire and out of thy hand, king", i.e. if our God be able 
 to deliver at all, we shall be harmed neither by the fire nor by 
 
 1 The Old Persian form is hypothe- correct, as the Sanscrit prati occurs 
 
 tical whether the vowel of the paenul- nowhere in Old Persian. Paitigama 
 
 tima was long does not appear quite (Delitzsch, Hoheslied und Koheleth, p. 
 
 certain. In any case the form prati- 340) would be Zend. 
 gama, which is sometimes given, is in- 
 
III. 1721. 83 
 
 any other punishment which thou mayest inflict. Von Len- 
 gerke unnecessarily alters the punctuation, so as to make the 
 protasis end with KJjni?.* ; he is accordingly obliged to render the 
 
 I of ijT-p-l by "then" (Germ. "so"). Ewald translates 10 "be- 
 hold !" a sense which it never bears in Biblical Aramaic. As 
 to the vocalization of wn^g and *$&$&}, see what has been 
 said on NJn;nin chap. ii. 23. With ^?J (where the primitive $ is 
 retained) compare nn: chap. iv. 10, P?3 vi. 3, P^n vii. 9. Verse 18, 
 " And if not, be it known" etc., does not of course imply any real 
 doubt as to the divine power ; the idea simply is that the deci- 
 sion of the speakers cannot be altered, come what may. The 
 expression " thy gods" (see also v. 12) is evidently introduced 
 for the purpose of assimilating the situation of Shadrach, 
 Meshach, and Abednego to that of the faithful Jews who 
 refused to worship the "gods" of Antiochus. 
 
 1925. The plural form un$?K (pron. mvXKm ^Pi^N, 
 Singular) agrees with *niS38 ; compare the construction in 
 
 II Sam. x. 9. With NTO from KJ&? (which occurs in the Tar- 
 gums) cf. Nrip v. 2. In the form with Suffix, rWE, the restora- 
 tion of the primitive ' accords with Syriac usage, cf. a^VP chap, 
 iv. 32. For a parallel to the phrase nr?^ in " sevenfold", see 
 the Peshitta, Exod. xvi. 5, . A V^ po.xsa A ^ ^aiii i t 
 ^acul^a "twice as much as they gather every day", ntri 
 " fitting", " proper", is common in the later Jewish Aramaic (in 
 the Targums *Tfl so also *Dn from the synonymous verb Nn). 
 The late Hebrew use of *-Wi in this sense is doubtless an imita- 
 tion of the Aramaic. For the transition of meaning, compare 
 Arab, ma'ruf " known", hence "equitable". In v. 20 KEHP^ 
 depends upon the preceding nnsp^. As to the passive Perfects 
 1TVS? (v. 21) and Vip"}, see what has been said on vl chap. ii. 19. 
 In v. 21 Theod., Aquila, Symm., and the Peshitta 1 , render 
 pn'92')p by "their trousers" with which Von Lengerke, Hitzig, 
 and Ewald agree. De Lagarde (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, p. 
 206) and Fraenkel (Aramdische Lehmvorter, p. 48) derive the 
 
 1 Theod. civ TO?S cropajSapots avruv chus avat-vpidas interpretatus est, Aquila 
 Pesh. ^^jCVctlA^aH-X^a; Jerome et Theodotio saraballa dixerunt, et 
 remarks, "Pro fcraccw, quas SjTBma- non ' ut corru P te le g itur ' ^abara'\ 
 
 62 
 
84 III. 2123. 
 
 word from Gr. arapd^a\\a (o-apaftapa), which is probably Per- 
 sian (in mod. Persian shalwar\ like the Syr. shdrbdld and the 
 Arab, sirwal. Others translate " their tunics", cf. N?2"ip " tunic" 
 in the Talmud, Arab, sirbal ; the origin of this term is unknown 
 it seems to have no connection with the above-mentioned 
 words for " trousers", in spite of the close phonetic resemblance. 
 (Kerl fiiW^S with Daghesh dirimens), in the Peshitta 
 . Theod. ridpaw, is very obscure. The later Jews 
 and Syrians evidently had no certain tradition as to the mean- 
 ing of this term, which they explained sometimes as "trousers", 
 sometimes as "tunic". The latter view is adopted by Gesenius, 
 Von Lengerke, and Hitzig, but it can scarcely be said to rest on 
 any real evidence. Bertholdt's identification of K^BB with the 
 Greek Treracro? "broad-brimmed hat" is improbable on account 
 of the ty 1 . That jinr6?"p means "their mantles" may be argued 
 from the phrase pto !?W3 ^Dp I Chr. xv. 27, but the connec- 
 tion of this word with the root ^2D "to fasten" is very doubtful 2 . 
 fiiW-'Q? "their garments" is added for the purpose of including 
 all their other articles of apparel. In v. 22 the passive par- 
 ticiple n.TN is for ntN. On nay^D see chap. ii. 15. K3'3S> (cf. 
 Vir^ m& chap. vii. 9 and ifcte 3'3f> Job xviii. 5) is not neces- 
 sarily akin to the Syr. shabh "to burn", still less to the Arab. 
 shabba (since / corresponds etymologically to Aram. '&, D), 
 but seems to mean primarily a "streak" or "tongue" (cf. Syr. 
 shVbhibha "cord", Arab, sabib "wisp of hair", and sablba 
 "streak of blood"); hence 1*3^ requires to be specified by the 
 addition of a word for " fire". In v. 23 pn^jyi (so Baer rightly 
 reads, according to the Masora, not prvn^Jj!) exactly corresponds 
 to the Syr. telataihon, which appears to have been formed on 
 
 1 From a passage in the PID^ BTMD ferent origin. But this word gave rise 
 (cited by Levy in his Neuheb. u. Cliald. to the Kabbinical notion that in 
 Worterbuch, s.v. CJ^DB) it might appear Daniel |inil!?3"O signifies " their head- 
 that in Jewish Aramaic t^DB meant coverings " ; hence the English Autho- 
 some thing worn on the feet, i.e. a kind rized Version renders "their hats". 
 of "shoe". But from this passage no It may be remembered that George 
 conclusion can be drawn, as the read- Fox the Quaker deduced from this pas- 
 ing is uncertain. sage the celebrated doctrine that men 
 
 2 The later Jewish Aramaic NrAlTG ought not to take off their hats to 
 " comb of a cock" probably has a dif- royalty. 
 
III. 2327. 85 
 
 the analogy of titraihon "they two", though this would still 
 leave unexplained the hardening of the t. In v. 24 occurs a 
 very strange word, 'nr^nn, which is peculiar to Daniel and 
 always appears in the Plural (v. 27 ; iv, 33 ; vi. 8). In each 
 case the context shews that Nnmn is a term referring to the 
 personal attendants of the king, but the origin of the word is 
 unknown. The notion, formerly held by Gesenius, that it means 
 "leaders", "guides", from the Semitic root ITI, and that the 
 initial n is the Hebrew article, may be dismissed at once. 
 Several attempts have been made to explain the word from the 
 Persian, but none are satisfactory. All that can be said is that 
 we probably have here some Persian title ending in bara (cf. 
 am, 13TJ), and that the beginning of the word may have been 
 distorted in pronunciation 1 . In v. 25, as in chap. iv. 34, we 
 should certainly expect the Pael PP^P, as some MSS. actually 
 read, instead of the Haphel P??!i9 (cf. Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 58). 
 The term piT^g ")?, as applied to an angel or other heavenly 
 being, is in accordance with Gen. vi. 2. Job i. 6. It is, of 
 course, absurd to argue that this expression implies any par- 
 ticular acquaintance with Babylonian mythology. 
 
 26 30. Nebuchadnezzar, on seeing the three Jews un- 
 harmed and accompanied by an angelic figure, draws near to the 
 door of the furnace. The exact nature of the furnace here men- 
 tioned is not clear, but it would seem that there was an opening 
 above from which the men were thrown (v. 20), and at the side 
 a door through which they could come out. In the phrase 
 K"vi: o^N? (v. 27) the subst. K">U is construed as masc. (cf. 
 P7";! 1-13 chap. vii. 9), whereas it is usually fern., as in Syriac 2 . On 
 the other hand fT?? seems to agree in gender with To, according 
 to the construction in v. 19, since nn is never fern. For the 
 
 1 That "Qin comes from a Persian judges conjointly" with somebody else, 
 
 word hamdtiwar, is an unfortunate but "one who has the same judge" 
 
 speculation of Von Bohlen, which has as somebody else, cf. in Old Persian 
 
 been adopted in the recent editions of hamapita "born of the same father", 
 
 Gesenius' Handworterbuch. The Per- and the numerous modern Persian 
 
 sian daicar, "judge", is a modern con- words with the prefix ham. 
 
 traction (see vv. 2 and 3 of this chap- 2 Similarly the Arab, nar is fern, in 
 
 ter), and liamddwar, if it meant any- most cases, rarely masc. 
 thing, would mean, not " one who 
 
86 
 
 plur. prpJDtW, the Kerl unnecessarily substitutes the Singular. 
 Why the "trousers" (assuming this to be the meaning of 
 prP72"]p) are specially mentioned, is not obvious at first, but 
 probably this article of apparel was made, as in parts of the 
 modern East, of some light and consequently inflammable mate- 
 rial. 'W &6 "had not changed (in colour)", cf. chap. v. 9. The 
 suffix in pn? presumably refers to "$ Kn3! % . In v. 29 the 
 decree issued by the king is of a very strange character, inas- 
 much as he threatens "nations" with a punishment possible 
 only in the case of individuals (cf. chap. ii. 5. Ezra vi. 11) ; the 
 word FIBJ3, "his house", shews that the author is here using a 
 current phrase, rhw is taken by the Masoretes and by most 
 modern commentators as a scribal error for *b$ "carelessness" 
 (chap. vi. 5. Ezra iv. 22 ; vi. 9), hence " any thing amiss". But 
 probably Hitzig is right in reading rhv "word" (for n^>N>, cf. 
 chap. iv. 14. I Sam. i. 17). With ^ (and ^ chap. v. 16) 
 compare the ^ of the Targums ; in the Christian Palestinian 
 dialect also, verbs ">S often take o in the second syllable of the 
 Imperfect (Z.D.M.G. xxn. 500). n^? "thus", cf. Ezra v. 7; 
 much less natural is the rendering of Von Lengerke and Hitzig 
 "like this (God)". 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 (III. 31 IV. 34.) 
 
 The last three verses of Chapter iii. evidently belong to 
 what follows, and in the modern versions they accordingly are 
 joined to Chapter iv. This piece is a narrative in the form of 
 an epistle purporting to be addressed by king Nebuchadnezzar 
 to " all the peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the 
 earth". But that this epistle is really by the same author who 
 wrote the preceding and the following chapters must be ad- 
 mitted by everybody, or there is an end of all argument based 
 on internal evidence. One peculiarity which cannot fail to 
 
CHAP. IV. 87 
 
 strike the reader, is that in the middle of the narrative (chap, 
 iv. 25 30) the author, forgetting for the moment that he is 
 writing in the name of Nebuchadnezzar, speaks of the king in 
 the third person, but afterwards returns to the first (vv. 31 
 -34). 
 
 The purpose of this piece is different from that of the pre- 
 ceding. It is not a warning against the Gentile religion, but a 
 demonstration of the real helplessness of the Gentile power 
 in the presence of the True God. To the Jewish subjects of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes the king's power might well seem irre- 
 sistible'; accordingly the author here teaches, for the encourage- 
 ment of his despairing brethren, that the mightiest of men has 
 no more strength against God than the meanest, that by the 
 divine decree a great king may in a moment be degraded not 
 merely to the level of a beggar but to that of a brute. In 
 order to heighten the effect of this moral lesson, Nebuchad- 
 nezzar himself, the subject of the story, is introduced as the 
 narrator. 
 
 The question whether the narrative is based upon any his- 
 torical event or tradition, has often been discussed. The 
 Christian Fathers, who defended its truth against Porphyry, 
 evidently knew of no external testimony that confirmed it, 
 nor have the discoveries of modern Assyriologists thrown the 
 smallest light upon the subject. Hengstenberg and others have 
 appealed with great confidence to a fragment of Berossus, where 
 it is said that Nebuchadnezzar " fell ill and died" (e^-jreawv efc 
 appwcrriav /j,eTij\\dgaTo rov /Siov, see Josephus, Contra Ap. I. 
 20). But to argue from this that Nebuchadnezzar's illness 
 must have been of a very extraordinary nature, is absurd, for 
 Berossus uses almost the same words in speaking of the death 
 of Nebuchadnezzar's father (ibid. I. 19). 
 
 Very much more worthy of notice is a fragment of the his- 
 torian Abydenus, which Eusebius has preserved (Praep. Evang. 
 IX. 41). The passage is as follows : " This also have I found 
 concerning Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Abydenus On the 
 Assyrians. Megasthenes relates that Nebuchadrezzar became 
 mightier than Herakles and made war upon Libya and Iberia ; 
 having conquered these countries he transported some of their 
 
88 CHAP. IV. 
 
 inhabitants to the eastern shore of the Sea. Afterwards, as the 
 Chaldean story goes, when he had ascended the roof of his 
 palace, he was inspired by some god or other, and cried aloud, 
 ' men of Babylon, lo I Nebuchadrezzar announce to you the 
 future calamity, which neither Bel my ancestor nor our queen 
 Beltis can persuade the Fates to avert. There shall come a 
 Persian, a mule, who shall have your own gods as his allies, and 
 he shall make you slaves. Moreover he who shall help to bring 
 this about shall be [the son] of a Median woman, the boast of 
 the Assyrians 1 . Would that, before his countrymen perish 2 , 
 some whirlpool or flood might seize him and destroy him 
 utterly ! or else would that he might betake himself to some 
 other place, and might be driven through the desert, where is 
 no city nor track of men, where wild beasts seek their food and 
 birds fly hither and thither, would that among rocks and moun- 
 tain clefts he might wander alone! And as for me, may I, 
 before he imagines this, meet with some happier end !' When 
 he had thus prophesied, he suddenly vanished" 3 . 
 
 Obscure as this passage is in some of its details, one fact 
 may be regarded as certain, viz. that we have here a popular 
 legend of Babylonian origin, coloured, of course, by the Greek 
 medium through which it has passed. The prophecy put into 
 the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar evidently refers to the overthrow 
 of the Babylonian Empire by Cyrus, " the mule". The " son of 
 a Median woman" (assuming this to be the original reading) is 
 the last Babylonian king, Nabunaid, who is represented as 
 having a share in the ruin of his country 4 . 
 
 1 Instead of ov 5?) ffwainos forcu MrJ- who had a Median wife (Berossus, ap. 
 775, r6'A(T</)ioi'a#xw ta Von Gutschmid Jos. Contra Ap. i. 19). Hence arose 
 proposes to read ou drj vwalTios vibs the notion, which we find in Herodo- 
 &TTCU M^5>;s, rb 'Aa-o-vplwv avx^/J-a. tus (Bk i. 188), that the last Baby- 
 
 2 Instead of dovvai Toup proposes Ionian king, Labynetus II. (i.e. Nabii- 
 Swcu. naid) was a son of Labynetus I. (i.e. 
 
 3 For a minute discussion of this Nebuchadnezzar). In Daniel likewise, 
 passage see Prof. Schrader's essay in Nebuchadnezzar's son (Belshazzar) is 
 the Jahrbiicher fur Protestantische the last Babylonian king. Thus Da- 
 Tlieologie for the year 1881. niel agrees with the Babylonian legend 
 
 4 It would appear that the popular and with Herodotus in a point where 
 Babylonian legend made the last Baby- both are opposed to historical truth. 
 Ionian king a son of Nebuchadnezzar, Abydenus who relates the legend was, 
 
III. 31 IV. 3. 89 
 
 The resemblances between the narrative in Daniel and the 
 Babylonian legend in Abydenus can scarcely be accidental. 
 But to suppose that either story has been directly borrowed 
 from the other is impossible. It would appear that of the two 
 stories that in Abydenus is on the whole the more primitive. 
 Its local character is strongly marked, and it shews no signs of 
 having been deliberately altered to serve a didactic purpose. In 
 Daniel, on the other hand, we find a narrative which contains 
 scarcely anything specifically Babylonian, but which is obviously 
 intended to teach a moral lesson. It is therefore probable that 
 some Babylonian legend on the subject of Nebuchadnezzar had, 
 perhaps in a very distorted form, reached the ears of the author 
 of Daniel, who modified the story in order to make it a vehicle 
 of religious instruction. That this may have been the case will 
 hardly be denied by any one who considers that, in the second 
 century before Christ, many thousands of Jews were settled 
 in Babylonia and kept up constant communication with their 
 co-religionists in Palestine. 
 
 Chap. iii. 3133. The Prologue of the Epistle. On the 
 form p&n see chap. ii. 38. Instead of the formula *W? f 13 *^ 
 (cf. chap. vi. 26) we find also, at the beginning of epistles, 
 K^b Ncfe> (Ezra v. 7), and in Syriac usually the simple sheldm. 
 For the temporal sense of Di> in TJJ TDI; ( 33) cf. $$ or 
 chap. vii. 2, the Hebrew &$ or Ps. Ixxii. 5, and the Arabic 
 ma'a d-dahr "with time", i.e. "as long as time lasts" 1 . 
 
 Chap. iv. 1 6. The narrative now begins, rbp "restful", 
 "secure", and hence "prosperous", is an adj. of the same form 
 as x\?) chap. vii. 9. |3in, probably borrowed from the Hebrew, 
 does not occur elsewhere in Aramaic ; for the metaphor see Ps. 
 xcii. 15. >3 % SJ is usually supposed to be identical with the 
 Assyrio- Babylonian ikallu "palace"; in any case this word, 
 whatever its origin, must have been very widely diffused, since 
 it is found already in Amos viii. 3 and many centuries later was 
 employed both in the Aramaic dialects and in Arabic. For the 
 use of the Imperfect in v. 2, see p. 37. Instead of n^n (v. 3) 
 
 like Berossus, perfectly aware that in and that the former was not the father 
 
 reality there reigned several kings be- of the latter. 
 
 tweeri Nebuchadnezzar and Nabunaid, * See Elfachri, ed. Ahlwardt, p. 117. 
 
90 IV. 38. 
 
 we also find n^n chap. v. 7. In v. 4 j%> (Kerl \hy, which 
 agrees with the Syriac form) is from a Singular ??y or 7?tf (not 
 ^KV as in Syriac), used in the Targums, in Christian Palestinian, 
 and in Palmyrene (see Z. D. M. G. xxxvn. 566) cf. also chap. 
 v. 8. pn lift (v. 5) is usually taken to mean "and (so it was) 
 till at last" etc. Gesenius believed pn (Kerl pn^, not HW as 
 most editions read) to be an adj. in the Singular, used adver- 
 bially. According to Hitzig it refers to Daniel, "and (so they 
 came) till, as last man, Daniel entered" etc. ; Havernick and Von 
 Lengerke explain it as a plural form. But nowhere else does 
 pn or priN mean " last" or " at last", and it is therefore pro- 
 bable that we should read ftnx n'Vj "and yet another entered" 
 etc., as J. D. Michaelis renders. The Kethlb pnK represents 
 another pronunciation of nC!9 the a being weakened to e, cf. 
 the Christian Palestinian pin "another". In D> ( c f. Ezra v. 1, 
 in the Targums D-1>), the primitive # has been changed to u 
 through the influence of the following labial ; see what has been 
 said on p?3 chap. iii. 8. As to the name "ttNCt^O cf. chap. i. 7. 
 The phrase nn p^|3 pofctfri ^ seems to be imitated from Gen. 
 xli. 38 to D'n^K n-n -TK : BK. " The holy gods" was, in all pro- 
 bability, an expression commonly used by the heathens of 
 Syria, since it occurs in Phoenician inscriptions (DBHpn Q&ttft, 
 in the Inscription of Eshmun-'azar). In v. 6 Daniel is described 
 as " chief of the magicians", referring to chap. ii. 48. D:K is 
 apparently " reduces to straits" ; in Esth. i. 8 (the only other 
 passage in the Old Testament where this verb occurs) it means 
 " to compel", as it does in the Talmud. 
 
 7 15. The imagery in the dream which Nebuchadnezzar 
 now relates is obviously borrowed in great part from Ezek. xxxi. 
 3 14 "And as for the visions of my head upon my bed, I 
 looked and behold" etc. The king first perceives a great tree, 
 and afterwards, in v. 8, sees it become yet greater and stronger ; 
 for the sequence of the tenses in v. 8, cf. vv. 2, 31. an'nq " the 
 sight thereof", is, if correctly pointed, from a form similar to 
 Syr. selotha " prayer", mehothd " blow", but perhaps we should 
 pronounce nn-ITH (cf. chap. viii. 5, and Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 115). 
 Theodotion has TO KVTOS avrov " its expanse", which is probably 
 a mere guess. In any case we have no right to assume, with 
 
IV. 812. 91 
 
 Hitzig and Ewald, that rwn means "breadth", and to connect 
 it with the Arab, hauza or the Hebr. nm " breast". With fTr 
 (v. 9) " the foliage thereof, cf. D^ar (for Dsi?) p s . civ. 12. On 
 aa^K for H3N, see what has been said on JH3tf chap. ii. 9. fito, 
 like the corresponding Syr. mazona, has a long vowel in the 
 first syllable. Noldeke is inclined to regard this ma as a very 
 ancient form of the prefix (Hand. Gramm. p. 130). In y?pn 
 (as contrasted with P^n chap, ii. 40, 44) we have one of the very 
 rare instances, in Aramaic, of a geminate verb un contracted in 
 the Haphel, cf. Hebr. wrp, P1, PJTB. For jnT (i.e. J-1VP) the 
 .KeH substitutes the fern, form P7.! (cf. v. 18) ; in the Targums 
 the substantive 1BV or "JS*V (of which the Sing, does not happen 
 to occur in Biblical Aramaic) is, like the Hebr. "n3V, usually 
 feminine. In v. 10 the angel who descends from heaven is 
 described as "a watcher and a holy one". Here for the first 
 time in Jewish literature we find this peculiar use of "Vtf 
 " watcher" ; in the Book of Enoch the term is extremely com- 
 mon, as also in the Syriac Fathers. There is no reason to 
 suppose that in Daniel the word "watcher" refers, as it does in 
 some patristic writings, to a particular class of angels ; in Enoch 
 it is used, sometimes at least, for angels generally (see Dill- 
 mann, Das Buck Henoch ubersetzt und erkldrt, pp. 104, 105). 
 With B^-ij?, as applied to an angel, cf. Hebr. DWij? in Zech. xiv. 
 5. Ps. Ixxxix. 6. Job xv. 15 ; the last passage clearly shews 
 that when angels are called "holy", this conveys no idea of 
 moral purity or goodness, but expresses the awfulness and mys- 
 teriousness of their nature 1 . It is therefore quite fanciful to 
 assume, with Von Lengerke and others, that this angel is desig- 
 nated as "holy" in order to distinguish him from the fallen 
 angels ; ^li?) "Vy is merely a collocation after the fashion of 
 3^in] 13 Gen. xxiii. 4 etc. On the vocalization of nnj, see ^^ 
 chap. iii. 17. To whom the angel is speaking in vv. 11 and 12 
 we are not told. Possibly this vagueness is intentional, indi- 
 cating that the judgment upon the king is to be brought about 
 by wholly inscrutable means. " Nevertheless leave ye the stump 
 
 1 On the phrase " a watcher and a ptrbv TWO. wapa iravTas TOI)S 
 holy one " the Christian Father Poly- KCKT^^VOV 
 chronius remarks, 0,7101' /caXet olov ecu- 
 
92 IV. 1214. 
 
 of its roots in the earth" (v. 12) evidently means that the punish- 
 ment does not involve total destruction a hope of restoration 
 still remains (Job xiv. 7 9). But the following words, "and 
 with a band of iron and brass in the grass of the field", are cer- 
 tainly obscure. It is very far-fetched to refer this to "the 
 chains with which madmen are bound" (Jerome), or to " the 
 bands of iron put round a tree to prevent it from cracking" 
 (Von Lengerke). Hitzig and Ewald take the phrase as meta- 
 phorical, though neither makes it quite clear. Perhaps the 
 most natural supposition is that since "iron" and "brass" are 
 familiar types of firmness and unflinching severity (Deut. xxviii. 
 48. Jer. i. 18. Micah iv. 13), "the band of iron and brass" is a 
 figure of speech for the stern and crushing sentence under 
 which the king is to lie (see v. 14). T?y is, of course, for TW, 
 the second vowel being primitively long, as in >\n "white" 
 (chap. vii. 9) ; see Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 109. The last clause of 
 v. 12 is rendered by Von Lengerke "and with the beasts let him 
 share the herbs of the ground" according to which interpreta- 
 tion the author here drops the metaphor of a tree and speaks 
 of Nebuchadnezzar in literal terms (cf. v. 30). That such is the 
 case in v. 13 is obvious "Let his heart be changed from mans" ; 
 Nt?UN (Keri N^S) is scarcely a Hebraism, since BMJK occurs in 
 Nabatean (Euting, Nab. Inschr. N. 9). KB>UK-|O is equivalent 
 to B>UK ai^-fO (cf. chap. i. 10), and the use of IP is like that in 
 I Sam. xv. 23. I Kings xv. 13. Less probable is the view of 
 Von Lengerke, who translates " away from men", i.e. the king's 
 heart is to be changed so that he will be driven from human 
 society (w. 22, 30). Here the "heart" is, as usual, the intelli- 
 gence. By "seven times" are meant, it would seem, seven years 
 (see chap. vii. 25); so at least the phrase is interpreted by 
 Josephus (Antiq. x. 10. 6), by Rashi, by Ben-Ezra, and by most 
 modern commentators. With PTV FO.t?? " by the decree of the 
 watchers" (v. 14) compare what has been said on pt| chap. ii. 
 27. Wjfr^, properly " the petition", is here a synonym of Np^3 
 "the word", cf. Arab, haja, properly "want", hence sometimes 
 " affair", " business" see also chap. iii. 29. That in this pas- 
 sage the " watchers" are identical with the " holy ones" is 
 shewn by v. 10. The use of PT? and p<r*|j2 instead of N?r and 
 
IV. 1420. 93 
 
 i? is i n imitation of the poetical style (cf. D'hj?t? Job v. 1). 
 r is perhaps a mistake for ro^-Stf (chap. ii. 30). With 
 ai? "the meanest of men", compare D"]K ^P? Prov. xv. 20. 
 C'!":, D'Dta (chap. vii. 10, Ktthlb), and D??D (Ezra iv. 13) are 
 the only examples, in Biblical Aramaic, of the plural in lm\ 
 Kautzsch regards the two first as scribal errors (Gramm. p. 85). 
 In v. 15 the KVrl unnecessarily substitutes nn^D for &WQ, 
 cf. also v. 16. 
 
 16 24. On hearing the vision Daniel " was astonied as it 
 were for a moment". Dpifl^N is a hybrid form, based upon the 
 Hebr. QBiJ'CT ( c ^ D ' in 'fJ cna P- viii. 27), with change of the n to 
 N after the analogy of the later Jewish Aramaic (see p. 37) ; here 
 only do we find Segol in the prefix. Hitzig renders rnq nre>? 
 " about an hour's time" (wohl eine Stunde lang). But the D does 
 not necessarily imply that what follows is a fixed measure (cf. 
 y_:n Drrp? Is. xxvi. 20), and rnp corresponds merely to our inde- 
 finite article (cf. "inx chap. viii. 13). In ifrqa? the suffix is added 
 to the simple form of the Imperfect (i.e. without the usual 
 insertion of in, as in "Hl??^. chap. vi. 17), after the fashion of the 
 East- Aramaic dialects. It is possible that we should read 
 "H^n?? (Jussive, as in the parallel passage, chap. v. 10), since the 
 syntax here admits either of a singular or a plural verb. As to 
 the form K"ttD (Kerl '")>) see what has been said on rnD chap. ii. 
 47. Before interpreting the dream Daniel repeats it, with some 
 variations. This repetition greatly increases the rhetorical 
 effect of the announcement fcote son nn^K "it is thou, king" 
 (v. 19). Instead of the K&titib n*m (i.e. n;:n " thou hast grown") 
 the Masoretes, for no apparent reason, read rni, which would 
 be 3rd pers. fern. The form "nn-ni (with Shewa in the first syl- 
 lable, cf. also -U") v. 33 and xn-ni v. 18 ; vii. 24 1 ) is very peculiar, 
 for the analogy of Syriac would lead us to expect t nn-13T "thy 
 greatness", the abstract noun from 3*5, N3"! "great". Perhaps 
 the following verb rQ"} may have suggested to the Masoretes 
 that the clause meant " thy growth has grown", which would 
 lead to the pronunciation ^Wl, and this passage may have 
 influenced the others. For the construction of v. 20 see chap. 
 
 1 So also in the Targums with Babylonian vocalization, see Merx, Chrestom. 
 Targ. Glossary. 
 
94 IV. 2024. 
 
 ii. 41, 43. In v. 21 that which before has been termed " the 
 decree of the watchers" (v. 14) is called " the decree of the Most 
 High". The Kethlb JVBO (Kerl noo), instead of which most 
 editions have ro?, is either a mere blunder, as Kautzsch sup- 
 poses (Gramm. p. 79), or else may have arisen out of another 
 reading n'BO (participle). Verse 23, " And that they commanded 
 (i.e. it was commanded) to leave the stump of the roots of the 
 tree (signifieth that) thy kingdom (shall be) secure to thee from 
 the time when thou shalt recognize that the heavens rule". Very 
 remarkable is the use of Kplp, " the heavens", for " God". This 
 is without analogy in the Old Testament, but exactly agrees 
 with the use of DJOB> in the Mishnah (cf. ?? ftaai\ela rrav ovpa- 
 vv in the New Testament). On the meaning of jnS (v. 24) see 
 chap. ii. 6. 7Bn (Kerl "H^OD with K for the consonantal , as in 
 n$r for x??v) is probably for Ton, i.e. a Plural of *oq, Syr. 
 h$taha (so Hitzig). Kautzsch regards the word as a Singular 
 (Gramm. p. 104). That njrjy (stat. absol. fern., without the 
 change of V into t which this root exhibits in Syriac) is not 
 a Hebraism but genuine Aramaic, appears from the occurrence 
 of Knp~J " the due" in the Inscription of Tairna 1 . This proves 
 also that long before the book of Daniel was written the word 
 had acquired the special sense of a " payment for religious pur- 
 poses", so that Theodotion is possibly right in rendering njrjv? 
 ev eKevjfjuMrfoais "by alms-giving" ; nj?"jV often has this meaning 
 in the Talmud, and quite similar is the Syr. zedhketha. Von 
 Lengerke, Ewald and others, prefer to translate " by righteous- 
 ness". P"}9 (Theod. \vTpa>(Tai,, Vulg. redime) is rendered " re- 
 deem" by Hitzig and Ewald. But though P"ia, both in Hebrew 
 (Ps. cxxxvi. 24) and Syriac, may mean to " redeem" persons, it 
 never signifies to "expiate" offences, for jjoi-S^ which the 
 Peshitta here employs, proves nothing as to native Syriac 
 usage. More probably we should translate, with Von Lengerke, 
 "break off," "cast away"; the metaphor is taken from the 
 breaking of a yoke (cf. I^V Vpo % np^-l Gen. xxvii. 40, as 
 also in the Mishnah min biy WOO pUDn ^D " every man who 
 casts off the yoke of the Law", Aboth in. 9). TO$ (in the less 
 
 1 See Noldeke's article, " Altara- Sitzicngsberichte der konigl. preuss. 
 maische Inschriften aus Teima," in the Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1884. 
 
IV. 2430. 95 
 
 correct editions TOU?) presupposes a singular NJVW stat. absol. 
 (see the Targum, Ps. li. 4, 7) ; to derive it from a Singular 
 ? (Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 102) is contrary to analogy, since 
 the 'Plural would then be K^Jfi. With |!?8 |TO? c f. D^y tfnp 
 (#67% D'lM ') Prov. xiv. 21. $2 (not |.yfi, as most editions 
 have) is for p?}fi, from ^ which may have been formed, after a 
 false analogy, in imitation of Hebr. 'Jy. " If haply there may be 
 a lengthening of thy prosperity" for \\\ in this sense cf. Ezra v. 
 17 ; Von Lengerke points out the similarity of this clause to 
 Acts viii. 22, "repent ...... if haply (el apa) the thought of thy 
 
 heart may be forgiven thee". Hitzig renders, " If thy prosperity 
 is to be lasting", taking in as simply conditional. n5"jK (pointed 
 as if from a primitive form arakat) has the same meaning here 
 as in chap. vii. 12 (cf. Ezek. xii. 22), and "^w seems to be an 
 abstract noun corresponding to the adj. nj$? in v. 1. The 
 Peshitta renders this clause "until He removes thy sins far 
 from thee", pronouncing "np-P^ or TO?K>, instead of ^riw. So 
 also Ewald interprets, and, substituting rnTO " healing" (Is. Ivii. 
 8) for HD")K, he translates " If haply thy folly may be healed". 
 
 25 34. In N^3, "all this", the emphatic termination has 
 the force of a demonstrative, ^n ^ Kpwte ( ?D>n hy (v. 26) " on 
 (the roof of) the royal palace at Babylon", cf. II Sam. xi. 2. In 
 v. 27 nrvn is far better attested than nnjj?, but is altogether 
 anomalous. In the Old Testament " to build a city" often 
 means nothing more than to fortify it or erect buildings within 
 it (II Chron. xi. 5, 6). <> W& "/or a royal residence", cf. 
 npSpp JV3 Amos vii. 13. Instead of *|i?fl2L we should rather 
 expect PIP^? (as some editions read, though on insufficient au- 
 thority), or else ^5^3, after the analogy of T3"), ?n|. Perhaps the 
 vocalization &lj?fl3 may have arisen from an attempt to assi- 
 milate this word to the following ~$b. In v. 30 the effect of 
 the sentence upon Nebuchadnezzar is described since "the 
 heart of a brute" (v. 13) has been given him, he becomes gra- 
 dually changed in outward appearance. The last part of the 
 verse is of course elliptical P^| "like (the feathers of) eagles, 
 py? like (the claws of) birds", cf. KPUK-p in v. 13. The com- 
 paring of hair to plumage is not unnatural, as Meinhold sup- 
 poses, nor is there any reason to doubt the accuracy of the text ; 
 
96 IV. 3032. 
 
 the special mention of "eagles" is due to the length of their 
 feathers (Ezek. xvii. 3). The Aramaic 1DD (Syr. tephrd), like 
 
 Jo- 
 
 its Arabic equivalent j&, applies equally to the nails of human 
 beings, the claws of birds, and the hoofs of quadrupeds (cf. chap, 
 vii. 19). In v. 31 "the days" are the seven years before men- 
 tioned (w. 13, 22, 29). That Nebuchadnezzar recovers his reason 
 on looking heavenwards offers a curious parallel with Euripides, 
 Bacchae 1265 ff., where the same thing happens to the frenzied 
 Agaue. The resemblance is the more remarkable because 
 the Bacchants, like Nebuchadnezzar, are in some sort assimi- 
 lated to animals they not only wear the skins of beasts but 
 also suckle young fawns and wolves (Bacchae, 699). Both in 
 Daniel and in Euripides the looking heavenwards indicates 
 a return to humanity. This conception is perhaps based upon 
 some popular superstition. With ND?p ^n cf. D^tyri *0 chap. xii. 
 7. The latter part of v. 31 and the whole of v. 32 form a paren- 
 thesis ; in v. 33 the author takes up the narrative again by 
 repeating the statement in v. 31 that Nebuchadnezzar recovered 
 his reason, and the effects of the change are then described. It 
 is quite unnecessary to suppose, with Hitzig, that v. 31 and 
 v. 33 refer to separate events. Verse 32 is in part suggested by 
 Is. xl. 17. PWO nj?? is usually rendered "are counted as 
 nought" (Theod. w? ovSev eXoyiaOrjo-av so also the Peshitta). 
 According to this interpretation n^ (elsewhere written *h) is 
 here used as a substantive, " nothingness". But for this there 
 is no analogy either in Aramaic or Hebrew, for from Job vi. 21 
 no safe conclusion can be drawn. The Talmud, Yoma 20 b , 
 explains that rb here means KJnn "mote" which is, of course, 
 a mere fancy. Perhaps we should take p38?n rb as a single 
 conception, "persons of no account", cf. in Hebrew DnV tfb "that 
 which is not bread", Is. Iv. 2, and the Targum, Is. liii. 3, pTD3 
 p:wn a&l "despised and not respected". KJ^ ^n "the host of 
 heaven", is a phrase used both of the angels and of the stars, for 
 the latter, as is well known, were often regarded as living 
 beings 1 . " There is none who can reprove Him, and say to Him, 
 
 1 Such passages as Is. xl. 26 and mere poetical metaphors, but more 
 Job xxxviii. 7 admit of being taken as than this must be meant in the Book 
 
IV. 3234. 97 
 
 What hast Thou done?" cf. Job ix. 12. Eccles. viii. 4. The 
 phrase " to strike on the hand", i.e. to reprove, interfere with, is 
 found in the Hebrew of the Mishnah (Pesahim IV. 8, DT3 IITD 
 " they reproved them") and elsewhere in later Jewish literature. 
 In v. 33 the words ty 3-in; *W\ ni : n TV-D^D -\\A\ are omitted in 
 the Peshitta but this is a mere blunder, due to the homoio- 
 teleuton *by 2irv. Von Lengerke renders, "And moreover to the 
 renoiun of my kingdom, of my majesty, and of my splendour, 
 it (i.e. VTO " my reason") returned to me". Hitzig and others 
 take h as introducing the subject of the clause, " and also the 
 glory of my kingdom, my majesty and my splendour returned to 
 me" but the passages cited by Hitzig in support of this are 
 not conclusive. Rosenmiiller takes *vn mn alone as the subject, 
 " And to the glory of my kingdom my majesty and my splendour 
 returned to me", and explains ^niD^D TpA as meaning "ut guber- 
 natio mea et regni administratio debito gauderet aestimio civi- 
 busque proficua esset". Instead of tto (so Baer, in most 
 editions pyT) we should expect |iy?*, since the Pael of this verb 
 is not employed elsewhere. For ru|?rn "/ was established" 
 most MSS. have TOfln which, if intended for the 1st pers., is 
 quite anomalous. On the use of the Hophal in Biblical Ara- 
 maic, see p. 37, and compare, besides nap-in in this verse, chaps, 
 v. 13, 15, 20; vi. 24; vii. 4, 11. The verb pn "to be straight" 
 occurs in Biblical Hebrew in the Kal and Piel only (Eccles. i. 
 15 ; vii. 13 ; xii. 9), but in the Targums, as in Syriac, the Aphel 
 |pnx is found 1 . In v. 34, DDTWD is, of course, borrowed from the 
 Hebrew; the verb Don "to exalt" occurs again in the Targums 
 and in Christian Palestinian, which shews that it had really 
 passed into common use. On P??no see chap. iii. 25. In this 
 last verse the author sums up the teaching which the chapter 
 is intended to convey. 
 
 of Enoch (xviii. 1416), where we nection with the Arabic ydkina " to be 
 
 read of a prison "for the stars of sure", since this latter is derived, 
 
 heaven and the host of heaven ". through the Aramaic, from Gr. tiibv ; 
 
 These stars, we are told, are fallen see Fraenkel, Aramtiische Fremdworter, 
 
 angels. See also Rev. ix. 1. p. 273. 
 1 The root |pn probably has no con- 
 
 B. D. 
 
98 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 (V. 1 VI. 1.) 
 
 The Fifth Chapter of IJaniel relates events which are said 
 to have taken place at the end of the reign of the Chaldean 
 king Belshazzar (v. 30), son of Nebuchadnezzar (vv. 2, 11, 13, 
 18, 22). The question whether king Belshazzar ever existed, 
 has already been discussed (p. 18). We have seen that Nabii- 
 naid, the last Babylonian king, really had a son named Bll- 
 shar-usur. As to the end of this prince nothing is known, for 
 Prof. Schrader's suggestion that he may have been slain in 
 battle at the time of the fall of Babylon (Cuneif. Inscr. p. 435), 
 seerns to be a mere hypothesis. That the name Belshazzar is 
 of Babylonian origin cannot be doubted, but what legends con- 
 nected with the name may have reached the author of Daniel, 
 it is impossible to say. 
 
 The general teaching of this chapter has considerable 
 affinity with that of the preceding one. In both we see the 
 representative of the heathen power exalting himself in utter 
 forgetfulness of the True God, and smitten forthwith by a sud- 
 den and mysterious judgment. But in this chapter the author 
 makes far more obvious allusions to the circumstances of his 
 own time than in chap. iv. The offence of Nebuchadnezzar is 
 simply pride, whereas Belshazzar commits the more heinous 
 crime of profaning the vessels taken from the Temple at Jeru- 
 salem and of bestowing upon idols the worship due to the True 
 God only (v. 23). So far Belshazzar answers exactly to Antio- 
 chus Epiphanes. But here, as elsewhere, the author of Daniel 
 introduces into the narrative elements which are purely ideal. 
 Thus the honour which Belshazzar pays to Daniel cannot have 
 been suggested by anything in the conduct of Antiochus, but 
 serves to shew how the Gentile power must in the end be 
 brought to reverence the representatives of the God of Israel. 
 
 1 5. iVNB^a, less correctly "iSB^l (v. 30; vii. 1 ; viii. 1), 
 
V. 15. 99 
 
 is, as we have seen, a corruption of Bll-shar-usur, i.e. " Bel, 
 preserve thou the king!" With Dn^ ^i; "he made a feast" cf. 
 the corresponding Hebrew phrase DnS D'b'y Eccles. x. 19. The 
 words "and in the presence of the thousand he was drinking iirine" 
 are added for a special reason, since in the ancient East kings 
 usually feasted in an apartment by themselves or with a few 
 persons only (Athenaeus, Bk iv. p. 145). Nnpn Dirt?? (v. 2) " as 
 they tasted the wine", i.e. in the midst of the revel ; here only in 
 Biblical Aramaic is D^P used in its literal sense the Hebr. DtfB 
 also may be either literal (Num. xi. 8) or metaphorical (Prov. 
 xi. 22). The mention of the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar 
 brought from the Temple at Jerusalem evidently refers back to 
 chap. i. 2, N*3NJp being exactly equivalent in meaning to the 
 Hebr. DTO. l^ (which happens not to occur in the Singular in 
 Bibl. Aram.) can, of course, have no connection with 19 "what ?" 
 (as is suggested in the llth ed. of Gesenius' Handworterbuch, 
 s.v. jtfD), but is a noun with prefixed ID, akin to the Hebr. n:K 
 " ship" and the Arabic ina "vessel" (see Noldeke, Hand. Gramm. 
 p. 129). t'W?) "that they might drink", cf. mm "that I may 
 know", chap. ii. 9. The women who attend the feast are dis- 
 tinguished as the " wives" and the " concubines" of the king. 
 The term ^t? was applied by the Jews, and perhaps by the 
 Arameans also, to the wife of the Persian king (Neh. ii. 6). 
 Whether the title was restricted to one wife we cannot say 
 among the old Hebrews a royal court might include many rri^P 
 (Cant. vi. 8, 9), so that there is nothing surprising in the use of 
 the plural nrte>. The word Kn:r6 "concubine", which the 
 Targums employ both in the Sing, and the PL, is peculiar to 
 West- Aramaic, the corresponding Syriac term being derukhta. 
 The primary meaning of Krurfc is unknown ; Fleischer supposes 
 it to have been originally a term of abuse, akin to Arab. 
 lakhnau. With 1pS3 (Kerl n|5B5), in v. 5, compare npynx chap, 
 vii. 8 and iSaa id. 20. In all these cases the Kethlb is probably 
 the original reading, and the Kerl a correction for the purpose 
 of making the verb agree with the feminine subject (see 
 Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 46). The use of IpSJ etc. for both genders 
 alike is not necessarily a Hebraism but may be due merely 
 to grammatical laxity, for the same phenomenon appears 
 
 72 
 
100 V. 5, 6. 
 
 in Nabatean (Euting, Nab. Inschr. N os - 3, 8) and modern 
 Arabic 1 . Njnph:u "lamp", in Syriac nabhreshta, is a foreign 
 word of unknown origin. NTS "chalk" (cf. "0 Is. xxvii. 9) is not 
 found in Syriac, but is common in later Jewish Aramaic and 
 appears also in Arabic. With brp (PI. emphat. K'tflJ Ezra v. 8) 
 cf. TJ"! chap. iii. 13. " And the king saw the hollow of the hand 
 which wrote" we must suppose the hand to have appeared 
 above the place where the king was reclining. DS (stat. emphat. 
 KDS v. 24) answers to the Rabbinical Hebrew DS, sometimes in 
 the fern, form HDS, and to the Syriac passeth a, which, like Hebr. 
 *13, may mean both the "palm" of the hand and the "sole" of 
 the foot 2 . 
 
 6 12. On WT see chap. ii. 31. *ni3g> is usually explained 
 as meaning "was changed for him", but this use of the suffix is 
 very doubtful. We should probably read either *HPfi r.W ( acc - 
 to v. 9), as Kautzsch proposes (Gramm. p. 156) ; or else simply 
 top. Fi-HD V?Pi? "the joints (lit. fastenings) of his loins"; for the 
 phrase, cf. Ps. Ixix. 24. NVTi, prop, "the lower part of the 
 back", is the common form in later Jewish Aramaic; in Syriac 
 we find hassa, with assimilation, but in Mandaitic NtfS.xn (pron. 
 halsa), agreeing with Hebr. D??n. The Arab, khasr sides 
 with Jewish Aramaic in having r, but transposes the last two 
 consonants ; whether the primitive Semitic form had r or I is 
 
 1 The old fern. plur. of the Perfect, which is of course identical with Syr. 
 with the ending <7, is common in the parsethd and Hebr. rip^lS "hoof". 
 Targums; in Christian Palestinian the [i n n Kings ix. 35 the Targum, as 
 a seems to have been weakened to e edited by De Lagarde, has fcOT nD~lQ, 
 (e.g. WK "they went", 'J3T "they but the Bomberg editions read TlD'B 
 bought", TDB\X "they found", in the n -jv] e since the existence of a root 
 Lectionary, p. 33). This final ' is not DDD ig very doubtful, the idea natu- 
 to be confounded with the final %- rally suggests itself that DD may have 
 which appears in the corresponding been formed from D1S, with assimila- 
 Syriac forms, according to the so- tion of the "I ; but the objection to this 
 called Western orthography, since in hypothesis is that the forms with "I 
 the latter case, the -i is a mere con- still continued to be used, though with 
 ventional sign introduced by scribes in a difference of meaning. The Phoeni- 
 order to distinguish the fern. pi. from cian DQ "tablet" is probably meta- 
 the masc. sing. phorical, from the resemblance of the 
 
 2 The Targums use NnDQ for object to the "flat" of the hand, 
 "palm", but for "sole" 
 
V. 6, 7. 101 
 
 therefore uncertain. Instead of W^PQ (Hithpaal) we should 
 expect rather IVW'P (Hithpeel), since in Bibl. Aram., as in 
 Syriac, the Pael 'T^ (Ezra v. 2) means "to begin", not "to 
 loosen" for from *WP (v. 12) no conclusion can be drawn. The 
 Targum however uses *"KJ> (which, if the text be correct, must 
 be a participle Pael) for "looseneth", in Job xii. 18. nn3D")X 
 (so Baer, in accordance with the best MSS.) "his knees", is 
 a form with prosthetic X, and occurs also in the Targums 
 (Eccles. xii. 3), side by side with the more primitive N*3to"), 
 Nnn-131 (cf. Arab, rukba). The doubling of the n in the Biblical 
 form is probably a late change (Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 31). 
 The promise made by Belshazzar in v. 7 seems to be in part 
 suggested by Gen. xii. 42, where Pharaoh arrays Joseph in fine 
 linen and places a chain of gold about his neck. !"6rn stands 
 for ha"ala (or, with dissimilation, nSwn chap. iv. 3), according 
 to the rule in Hebrew that when a guttural has Kames, a 
 Pathah immediately preceding becomes Segol or Kames. 
 W}|")N, "purple", is here spelt with 1, as in the other Aramaic 
 dialects ; from the Aramaic is derived the Arabic urjuwan and 
 probably also the Persian arghaiuan. The Assyrian form is 
 given as argamannu, (Schrader, Cuneif. Inscr. p. 155), but whe- 
 ther it was really pronounced with m, like the Hebr. 19|")8, or 
 with w, is uncertain, since m and w are not distinguished in the 
 cuneiform character. wunx and |:n.x are commonly supposed 
 to be of Indian origin ; to this, however, there are two objec- 
 tions, firstly that the red purple dye was produced, not in India, 
 but on the Mediterranean coasts, secondly that |O3")X occurs 
 already in Judges viii. 26. aojnDn (Kerl frO^pn the forms 
 iOJion, N3l3On are erroneous), "necklace", appears in later Jewish 
 Aramaic as N?^P, in Syriac as hammkha or hemnikha, and in 
 Greek as fULVLd/crjs. That the word is originally neither Ara- 
 maic nor Greek appears certain. Possibly it may be from the 
 Persian himyan, "girdle" (which has passed both into Syriac 
 and Arabic) with the diminutive ending ak ; this hypothesis 
 would account for the Kethlb ND3'n, but the change of meaning 
 involves some difficulty, vte (in w. 16, 29, Nflpfl) is ordinarily 
 translated "third" (Theod. rpiro^), i.e. " a# third ruler". In 
 this case, however, the grammatical form remains wholly inex- 
 
102 V. 710. 
 
 plicable, for the ordinal is *$Y (chap. ii. 39), never *fl?& Gese- 
 nius regarded NPpfi as stat. emphat. of a form rb$ " third rank", 
 while Kautzsch takes it to be an " abnormal" stat. emphat. of 
 'flte (Gramm. p. 121). Such a form as rfl, NPi^jR, "third rank", 
 is not only unknown in Aramaic but is wholly unsupported by 
 the analogy of the other Semitic dialects not to mention the 
 difficulty of supposing that in v. 16 NPpn is equivalent to W?W 
 NJf^n in v. 29. Still more improbable is the explanation of 
 Kautzsch, for it involves two irregularities, the use of W6 
 instead of *p^$, and the disappearance of the long I in the em- 
 phatic state. The LXX., the Peshltta, and Josephus (Antiq. X. 
 11. 2) translate "a third part", which in the Targums is Nnp-in. 
 This interpretation might perhaps suit v. 29, but in vv. 7 and 
 16 it is inadmissible, since the verb W never governs a direct 
 object. That *J^n and Kri^O are mere mistakes for 'JV^Jji is 
 scarcely probable, for why should so well-known a word as the 
 latter have been thus strangely distorted, and that three times 
 over in the same chapter ? In view of these difficulties I would 
 suggest, as a possible solution, that Nfipfl may be the Aramaic 
 equivalent of the Arabic ath-thilth (with which it almost exactly 
 agrees in form) "every third day", i.e. "every other day" (cf. 
 D^p; n^tp? Amos iv. 4). In this case Tbr\ in v. 7 would be a 
 mistake due to a scribe who, not understanding NnSn, read the 
 word as *$? " third". The proclamation that the interpreter 
 of the writing on the wall should reign over the kingdom on 
 alternate days with the king himself, may seem extravagant, 
 but it is certainly less extravagant than the decree of Darius in 
 chap. vi. 8 10. On j^y, in v. 8, see chap. iv. 4. It is some- 
 what strange that v. 8 should describe the wise men as " enter- 
 ing", since in the latter half of v. 7 they are already present. 
 Whether their inability to read the inscription was due to 
 its being written in a strange character or, as the medieval 
 Rabbins imagined, to some peculiar arrangement of the letters, 
 we are not told. r^-pfl^P (v. 9) is not merely " were perplexed", 
 but "were thrown into confusion' (Hitzig). The queen who 
 appears in v. 10 is regarded by almost all modern commentators 
 as the mother of Belshazzar, not as his wife. This view is 
 based partly on the fact that she is distinguished from the 
 
V. 1012. 103 
 
 king's wives (v. 3), partly on the manner in which she speaks 
 of what had taken place in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (v. 11). 
 Many writers have maintained that the queen here mentioned 
 is a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, but there is nothing in the 
 text to favour this assumption, and the phrase "thy father" 
 which she uses in addressing her son (v. 11) certainly appears 
 to indicate that she is speaking rather of her husband than of 
 her father. N3^p ^p hyb is rendered either " because of that 
 which had happened to the king" (Bertholdt, Von Lengerke), ac- 
 cording to the use of n^p in chap. ii. 23, or else " because of the 
 words of the king" (Hitzig, Ewald), which agrees better with 
 the context. The Kethlb rthy (i.e. nfe, Kerl nb, according to 
 the later usage) is analogous to p^/y in v. 8. Instead of the 
 forms "JjAnT and ianp* we might have expected "^pHS* and 
 liariy* 1 , but the accuracy of the Masoretic text is here confirmed 
 by the Aramaic inscription of Taima, in which we find 
 " may they expel him !" Hence it follows that "pSni* and 
 are relics of the old Jussive form of the Imperfect a form 
 which in classical Arabic is clearly distinguished from the ordi- 
 nary Imperfect (the so-called Indicative). Verse 12, as it stands 
 in the Masoretic text, is quite contrary to syntax, for to take 
 UJTOb 1 as a stat. constr., with Rosenmiiller and Von Lengerke, is 
 manifestly inadmissible. Accordingly there is little doubt that 
 we should read "K?5p for l ; ?P and xr&Q for N^, according to 
 the Vulgate and most recent interpreters (see Kautzsch, Gramm. 
 p. 65, note) i.e. " Because an excellent spirit and knowledge and 
 understanding, the interpreting of dreams and the explaining 
 of riddles and the loosing of spells (lit. knots), were found in 
 Daniel, whose name the king changed to Belteshazzar now let 
 Daniel be called, and he will declare the interpretation", rnqx 
 is stat. constr. of the Infinitive of 1D (= *iqn), cf. nj?nn Ezra 
 iv. 22. rrvn^ iqx would be the exact equivalent of the Hebr. 
 nTn -ran (cf. Judg. xiv. 1214). nTng, Syr. uhdethd or uha- 
 dhethd, is properly "a thing closed in, concealed", from the verb 
 (Hebr. Tnx). De Lagarde very plausibly suggests that the 
 
 1 The only other cases of the absence Imperfect are the doubtful forms 
 of the final n in the 3rd pers. pi. of the Ezra iv. 12 and V135O Jer. x. 11. 
 
104 V. 1220 
 
 Hebr. HTH is borrowed from the Aramaic (Anmerkungen zur 
 griechischen Uebersetzung der Proverbien, p. 73), in which case 
 the verb 1-in (Judg. xiv. 12) would be merely a denominative, 
 ptpp, "knots", is usually explained to mean "difficult questions", 
 but it is much more probable that there is here a reference to 
 the well-known superstitions about magic knots which it re- 
 quired special skill to untie 1 . The verb rinp^n agrees in 
 gender and number with -Uni??^ (cf. v. 14), the intervening 
 words being an explanatory parenthesis. 
 
 13 vi. 1. Daniel, on entering, appears to be personally 
 unknown to Belshazzar, although, according to chap. viii. 27, he 
 had been employed in the king's service. In v. 15 the words 
 ^runin^ nT^S-l are, of course, a continuation of the preceding 
 clause, ^D.inin^ being equivalent to ^Sirprp.. On the form ^Din 
 (Kerl ^13fl), in v. 16, see chaps, ii. 10 ; iii. 29. The general 
 term p'? is here substituted for the more special TP^n in the 
 parallel passage, v. 12. Instead of TOI1?? (so Baer), in v. 17, 
 some editions have ^JV?p} the formation of the Plural, with 
 an additional , is anomalous on H3Tn; see chap. ii. 6. In v. 
 18, nnJK is a Nominativus pendens, and is taken up by the suffix 
 in "n-12^ (cf. the somewhat less bold construction in chap. ii. 29) ; 
 the general sense therefore is " Thou, king, art the son of 
 that Nebuchadnezzar to whom" etc. For NHD (v. 19), partic. 
 Haphel of rvq, some MSS. and editions wrongly read Nnp 
 " striking" (Theod. ervTrrev). In v. 20, D") can hardly be taken 
 as a passive partic., but is rather a Perfect with intransitive 
 vocalization, exactly similar to Syr. mlth (Hebr. np). NP"}?, 
 stat. constr. of ^p"i3 (see chap. vii. 9), is from an older form 
 kursai (cf. Syr. kurseya, stat. constr. kursai). It is commonly 
 supposed that here the 1 is inserted to compensate for the loss 
 of the doubling which appears in Hebr. ND3, Assyr. kussu\ but 
 
 1 Among the Syrians the katmi hiding it in a well. The prophet, at 
 
 ketre, "tiers of knots", were a species the suggestion of the angel Gabriel, 
 
 of enchanters (see Sancti Ephraem sent for the cord and recited over it 
 
 Syri Hymni et Sermones, ed. Lamy, n. verses of the Koran; at each verse a 
 
 p. 419, and Kayser, Die Canones Ja- knot came undone, whereupon the 
 
 cob's von Edessa, p. 130). It is related spell was dissolved (Al-Baidawi on the 
 
 that a Jew cast a spell upon Moham- Koran, cxui. 4). 
 med by tying knots in a cord and 
 
V. 2025. 105 
 
 possibly the form with t may be the more primitive, since in 
 Phoenician also we find D'OiD "thrones" (where the is neces- 
 sarily consonantal, as in the Aramaic forms) the Arab, kursl, 
 "chair", of course proves nothing either way, since it is bor- 
 rowed from the Aramaic. This word can scarcely be connected 
 with nD3 "to cover", or with ND3 "full moon", but is very 
 probably of non-Semitic origin 1 . Instead of rnj^i we should 
 perhaps read "Til?*! (according to the Peshitta) with Rosenmuller 
 and Hitzig. With Vnrn, for vwn cf. Wpfln chap. vii. 22. In 
 v. 21 we find X&}$ r?3 substituted for the simple *tt?J of chap. 
 iv. 22, 29, 30. The Kethlb '1B> can be explained only as another 
 form of Kit? "it was equal", a verb common in the Targums and 
 in Syriac (cf. Syr. K'.-u* or -:u , "to rejoice", K'a-i or ^oi "to 
 be intoxicated "), but the KVri V& " ihey placed" is preferable, 
 the omission of the 1 being due to the 1 following; the Syr. 
 sheive "equal" would of course be ni^ or N.1^ in Bibl. Aramaic, 
 not "!^. Accordingly VW KnvrrDy H3^\ is "and his heart (i.e. 
 mind) they placed (on a level) with (the heart of) the wild 
 beasts'. The ellipse Nnrn or, for snvn a^-or is exactly simi- 
 lar to that in chap. iv. 13. "The wild asses", N*T^> are here 
 mentioned as a type of savagery (cf. Job xxxix. 5 8). On 
 n 73i7~?3 (v. 22) see chap. ii. 8, and on the Hebrew form 
 npphfln (v. 23) see Dpnp chap. iv. 34. With W? " thy ways", 
 i.e. "thy destinies" cf. Jer. x. 23. In v. 25 the inscription 
 on the wall is read, in w. 26 28 it is explained, but the 
 divergence between the reading and the explanation has always 
 perplexed commentators 2 . In v. 25 Daniel reads bpn WO aoo 
 I'DiBl ; in the explanation no account is taken of the repetition 
 of 5OD, and Dta is substituted for J'DISI. If the vocalization be 
 correct, ^i?lji and Di? cannot signify " weighed" and "divided", as 
 the interpretation in vv. 27, 28 seems to require; the form pD"isi 
 
 1 That the Hebr. ND3 may be from (e.g. f^n Lev. xiv. 43, ofe Deut. 
 
 is the view of Olshausen (Lehrb. xxxii. 35). According to Schrader 
 
 der heir. Sprache, p. 347). The form (Cuneiform Inscr. p. 383) the word is 
 
 of ND3 would in itself suggest a foreign Akkadian. 
 
 origin, since this nominal form is 2 Tlie anc i en t Versions, with the ex- 
 
 found only in adjectives (1W, Knn ception of the Peshitta, avoid the diffi- 
 
 etc. ) and in a few abstract verbal nouns culty by altering the text of v. 25. 
 
106 V. 2527. 
 
 likewise has no apparent sense. We may therefore assume 
 that the phrase pDlBl ^pn too aoo was not arbitrarily invented 
 by the author, but was borrowed from some other source, the 
 interpretation in w. 26 28 being an attempt to extract from 
 the words, in spite of grammar, a meaning suitable to the occa- 
 sion. An examination of the passage was published in the 
 Journal Asiatique for 1886 by M. Clermont-Ganneau, who 
 points out that the mysterious inscription consists in reality of 
 names of weights (see also Noldeke in the Zeitschrift fur Assy- 
 riologie, Vol. I. pp. 414 418). JOP (stat. absol.) is the exact 
 Aramaic equivalent of the Hebr. fHO (Ezek. xlv. 12 ; Ezra ii. 69 
 and in the Mishnah), which the Greeks, borrowing from the 
 Phoenicians, made into pva, Lat. mina. In Syriac the word 
 seems not to occur in the stat. absol. of the Singular; the stat. 
 emphat. is many a. ^i?.Jji is stat. absol. of fcOp'n (Targum Onk., 
 Exod. xxxviii. 26), Hebr. fe>. PP^B might be taken as a plural 
 of Dl? in v. 28 (according to the analogy of brh stat. emphat. 
 NOflb), but whether the vocalization is here correct may be 
 doubted. In the Mishnah and other Jewish writings the half- 
 mina is called cn$ (lit. " division" of the mina), and an Assyrian 
 weight in the British Museum bears the inscription KHD (in the 
 Aramaic character), which Noldeke explains as being probably 
 equivalent to DIB, since the Assyrians appear to have inter- 
 changed & and D in pronunciation. In Daniel therefore we 
 must either regard D}? and pp^s as mistakes for D"i? and TP"??, 
 or else suppose that the forms D*J? and Dn?> were synonymous. 
 Thus the inscription is A MINA, A MINA, A SHEKEL, AND HALF- 
 MINAS. Why these words are here introduced, whether they 
 have any special reference to the situation of Belshazzar or to 
 the times of the author of Daniel, remains altogether obscure. 
 Verses 26 28 are plays upon the words of the inscription ; in 
 v. 28 the play is a double one. " MINA God hath NUMBERED 
 thy kingdom and finished it. SHEKEL thou hast been WEIGHED 
 in the balance and hast been found wanting. HALF-MINA thy 
 kingdom hath been DIVIDED and given to the Medes and PER- 
 SIANS". Instead of the NJ2TNO (v. 27) of the ordinary editions, 
 Norzi and Baer have the doubtful singular form fcWINO. 
 Kautzsch suggests that this form may be due to the pedantry 
 
107 
 
 of the scribes, who reflected that the object weighed must be in 
 one scale of the balance (G^ramm. p. 85). l ?lfefi irprn. (y. 29) 
 
 "and they proclaimed concerning him ". P?D, Syr. akhrez, 
 
 is probably taken from some form of the Greek Kypvo-aeiv, cf. 
 Ntha "herald" chap. iii. 4 1 . The story closes with the summary 
 mention of the murder of Belshazzar by whom he was slain 
 we are not told and of the accession of Darius the Mede. 
 That chap. vi. 1 properly belongs to what precedes and refers to 
 what took place immediately upon Belshazzar's death, is obvious. 
 As to Darius the Mede, and as to the meaning of the phrase 
 "he received the kingdom", see p. 20 and the introduction to the 
 next chapter. The statement that Darius was about 62 years 
 old when he came to the throne, is probably based upon some 
 chronological calculation of the author, but what data he had 
 before him we have no means of knowing. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 (Verses 229.) 
 
 This chapter, which closes the first half of the book, is occu- 
 pied with the history of Daniel during the reign of Darius the 
 Mede, and describes in particular how Daniel, in consequence 
 of his strict adherence to the usages of the Jewish religion, was 
 sentenced to death, but miraculously delivered. The general 
 
 1 Kautzsch supposes (Grainm. pp. POD * s shewn by the Syr. peyusd 
 58, 119) that from Kypfoo-eiv the Ara- ''persuasion", which is formed as if 
 
 means coined a verb n? , whence f rom a p^ though the verb is apis, 
 
 NTil3 would be regularly derived, and Gr. Tr^cu. De Vogue has argued from 
 
 that the Haphel Vpn is merely a de- the inscription TO^ on a seal of un- 
 
 nominative from NTi"Q . But of the certain date (though from the writing 
 
 existence of a Peal n? there is no jt would appear to be very ancient) 
 
 proof for in the Peshltta^Acts xv. 36 that the Aramaic root T"O has no con- 
 
 the true reading is ^jiAK'.i - nection with Greek (see the Corpus 
 
 and that KT'na may be formed from Inter. Sent. Pt. 2, N- 86). 
 
108 CHAP. VI. 
 
 aim of the chapter is therefore much the same as that of chap- 
 ter iii., and in a few places the verbal resemblance between the 
 two narratives must strike every reader (iii. 12 ; vi. 14 iii. 25 ; 
 vi. 24 iii. 28 ; vi. 23). The main difference is that chapter iii. 
 insists upon the negative duty of abstention from idolatry, 
 while chapter vi. dwells upon the positive side of Judaism. 
 This difference naturally affects the form of both stories. Since 
 the author purposes, in chapter vi., to represent an Israelite 
 condemned to death for refusing to abandon the practices of his 
 religion, and since during the Exile the religion of Israel con- 
 sisted merely in acts of private devotion, it was necessary that 
 Daniel should be placed in a situation which made even the 
 private worship of God a capital offence. The task was not an 
 easy one, and this amply accounts for the startling means which 
 the author here adopts. The story taken in itself is of the 
 strangest character, but on examination it will be seen that the 
 features which most astonish us are essential for the attainment 
 of the didactic purpose. It would therefore be a waste of time 
 to inquire how any ruler not completely insane could issue 
 an edict forbidding his subjects to ask petitions of god or man, 
 himself excepted, for the space of thirty days why Darius 
 adopts the singular proposal made to him without first consult- 
 ing Daniel, who is his chief minister why the enemies of 
 Daniel are at one time represented as coercing the king, and at 
 last are condemned to death en masse, together with their wives 
 and children. Nothing can be more unfortunate than the 
 attempts of apologists to make these things appear probable. 
 Thus Hengstenberg and very many others have maintained 
 that the edict of Darius was merely a claim to divine honours 
 such as were paid to the ancient kings of Persia as if under 
 the kings of Persia it had ever been forbidden, on pain of 
 death, to ask petitions of god or man ! But when we consider 
 the account of the edict in question as a literary device 
 whereby the faithfulness of Daniel is conspicuously shewn 
 forth, for the edification of Israelites persecuted on account 
 of their religion, the difficulties are at once removed. 
 
 That this narrative is based on a historical tradition cannot 
 be argued with any show of reason, for, as we have seen (p. 19), 
 
VI. 26. 109 
 
 Darius the Mede is unknown to history. It has often been 
 supposed that the Darius of ^Daniel is a confused reminiscence 
 of the historical Darius Hystaspis, but this is scarcely probable. 
 The author of Daniel knew of four Persian kings (chap. xi. 2), 
 of whom the first is Cyrus and the last doubtless Xerxes. The 
 ntlii-r two are presumably Darius and Artaxerxes. But the 
 name Xerxes (SPniBTW) appears in Daniel as the name of the 
 father of Darius the Mede (chap. ix. 1). Thus it would seem 
 that the author, knowing that there had existed a Median 
 Empire before the Persian supremacy began, but not knowing 
 any real Median names, gave Persian names to his Median 
 kings. If it be asked why a Median king, not Cyrus the Per- 
 sian, is represented as taking possession of the Chaldean Empire, 
 the answer is found in the Old Testament itself. For in several 
 passages written during the Exile (Is. xiii. 17 ; Jer. li. 11, 28) 
 it is predicted that the Medes will conquer Babylon. This the 
 author of Daniel, who knew something of the prophetical books, 
 supposes actually to have taken place. 
 
 2 10. For the word 8O:B"ntrnx see chap. iii. 2. In this 
 chapter the 120 "satraps" are evidently not satraps in the real 
 sense of the word, for in the time of Darius Hystaspis the whole 
 Persian Empire contained only 20 satrapies (Herod, ill. 89) \ 
 Perhaps the 120 satrapies may be merely a variation of the 127 
 provinces into which, according to Esth. i. 1, the Persian Empire 
 was divided. IP fc&l? (v. 3) "higher than", "above", does not 
 occur again in Biblical Aramaic ; its opposite is |P KXTiX (chap, 
 ii. 39, Ketltlb). P?19, which is found also in the Targums, 
 seems to be from a Persian word sarak "chief" (formed from 
 sar "head"), cf. Syr. reli^.K'i from reLx-r^i. In v. 4 
 is usually taken as a Perfect, with scriptio plena, for Ttify or 
 but according to Noldeke it is a participle, passive in form 
 though in meaning merely intransitive, i.e. "the king (was) 
 minded' 1 etc. (see the Getting, gel. Anzeigen, 1884, p. 1019). 
 After the verb KJCWi? ( v - 6) we must of course understand n^r ; 
 for the use of the Perfect referring to the future after \?b 
 
 1 Similarly the title marzban, which trap ", is sometimes used by later 
 under the Sasanian dynasty corre- Arabic writers for Persian officials 
 sponded in meaning to the older " sa- generally. 
 
110 VI. 68. 
 
 " except", cf. the Hebr. construction ^nrnirDtf 3 ^r^ *6 Gen. 
 xxxii. 27. -IGWnn (v. 7) properly "made a tumult", hence "came 
 tumultuously" , cf. the Targum, Ruth i. 19, where Tyirbs Dhni 
 jykfi is rendered pm^y Kmp UJV ^3 lEWM. In v. 8 the Maso- 
 retic accentuation separates D^i? from N3^D, so that the sense 
 would be " that the king should establish a statute", cf. in Hebrew 
 nv'"in ms$ D.J? Numb. xxxv. 6. This rendering is adopted by 
 Rosenmiiller and Hitzig, whereas Von Lengerke, Ewald, and 
 most moderns, discarding the accents, make E*i? a construct 
 state, " to establish a royal statute" (Theod. rov crrrjo-ai orno-ei 
 paaiXi/cf)), which view is favoured by K3^9 *iDg v. 13 ; the 
 objection of Hitzig that the statute must be established not by 
 the ministers but by the king, is inconclusive, for niojj??, though 
 grammatically active, may be virtually equivalent to a passive 
 "that a statute should be established" so also the Infinitive is 
 used in v. 9 ('TOf rr> vfy j), and in Biblical Hebrew (nispS Jer. 
 xxv. 34, 3-^rr} Esth. viii. 8). ID* na^-l " and to make a strong 
 interdict"; the Aramaic root fjpn (Arab. L_QA*) according to 
 Gesenius means originally "to strike", "come upon", but per- 
 haps the more primitive sense is "to be straight, upright", 
 whence we may derive that of "being strong", "prevailing 
 over", "seizing" (Koran II. 187). The Hebr. verb fpn (Job xiv. 
 20 ; xv. 24) is probably borrowed from the Aramaic. ">D^ " in- 
 terdict" corresponds to the Biblical Hebr. "1D (Num. xxx. 3) 
 and to the post-Biblical Hebr. "ViDX. -tys is not necessarily a 
 "prayer", but any "petition", as is shewn by the common 
 Syriac phrase bebha'u mennakh " I entreat thee". 3i, in v. 13 
 written 313, stat. emphat. N33 v. 17, is properly a "pit", cf. Arab. 
 jubb "well". KTOTK, pi- of n 1^ (chap. vii. 4), formed like |}P73 
 (chap. vii. 9) from Np")3, exactly agrees with the Syriac form as 
 vocalized by the East-Syrians (Nestorians) ; the West-Syrians 
 pronounce aryawatha with short a in the second syllable. This 
 verse refers to the custom, which existed already among the 
 Assyrians and from them was passed on to the Persians, of 
 keeping lions for the chase. According to v. 18, the "pit" 
 must have had a narrow mouth which could be closed with a 
 stone ; that lions were really confined in pits of this description 
 
VI. 915. Ill 
 
 appears at least improbable. With v. 9 compare Esth. i. 19. 
 " The writing and the interdict", in v. 10, means, of course, the 
 writing which contained the interdict (cf. Dnzpjn-nx} rtaprrnx 
 Jer. xxxvi. 27). 
 
 1118. The clause "1:1 |n*n? ^51 is parenthetical, " now he 
 had in his upper chamber luindows opened toward Jerusalem". 
 |*-)3 would be in the Sing, n^?, stat. emphat. Nn-?3, which is the 
 Syriac form. ^3 Niq (so Baer) "he was wont to kneel", for 
 which most editions have T)3 N-in. The practice of praying 
 three times in the day appears also in Ps. Iv. 18, unless we 
 understand that verse as a mere poetical figure ; the turning 
 towards Jerusalem in prayer is a custom which seems to have 
 originated among the Jews during the Babylonian Exile (see 
 I Kings viii. 38, 48, a passage probably composed at that 
 period), and which continued for many centuries afterwards 1 . 
 The last words of v. 11 are usually translated "as he had been 
 ivont to do aforetime", see chap. ii. 40 ; but perhaps here also 
 *=! ?35P9 may be taken in its ordinary sense, i.e. "forasmuch as 
 lie had been wont to do (it) aforetime". With rm np*]j? jp cf. 
 n:^ np-pp Ezra v. 11. In v. 13 Ntf?* is used absolutely, i.e. 
 without the addition of -lya as in v. 8. ^3 "mind", "thought" 
 (v. 15) does not seem to occur elsewhere in Jewish Aramaic, but 
 is common both in Syriac and Arabic ; its original sense is alto- 
 gether obscure 2 . Instead of vi?P (as Baer reads, following the 
 Masora) some MSS. have ^yp and others tyo, which last is no 
 doubt the correct pronunciation (see Noldeke, Gott. gel. Anz. 
 1884, p. 1020); ^rp, from the root M>y, is for ^?yp, like nton 
 chap. v. 7 for iron, and corresponds to the Syr. ma"alai (in the 
 phrase r^-r iL^irD II Kings xi. 5 Pesh.). Thus NEW ^yp 
 is equivalent to the Hebr. Wn atop " the entering in, i.e. the 
 setting, of the sun". "nFi^p mn "he was bestirring himself"; 
 this verb appears as ^09(& in later Jewish Aramaic, and as 
 
 1 As is well known, Mohammed at 2 The Arabic phrase hi ubdll, "I do 
 
 first commanded his disciples to follow not care ", of course throws no light 
 
 the Jewish custom of praying towards upon the meaning of biil, for if ubnU 
 
 Jerusalem, but afterwards, when he be connected with ba I, as the Arabic 
 
 broke with the Jews, altered the kibla grammarians suppose, it is merely a 
 
 (i.e. facing-point) to Mecca. denominative verb, 
 
112 VI. 1520. 
 
 #0 in the Mishnah (Aboth u. 5 ; IV. 18). The original mean- 
 ing of the root TIP or blP seems to be that of " setting in 
 motion", hence "innP'K "commotion", "rebellion", Ezra iv. 15, 
 Syr. shaddar "to send", Jewish Aram. ^.P "to persuade", prop. 
 "to incite", "urge on", and Arab, sadara or sadala "to let 
 loose", applied to hair, garments, etc. 1 N^ID? "continually" 
 (v. 17) is in the Targums usually an'"?? ; the word is derived by 
 Gesenius, no doubt correctly, from in " to revolve" that it can 
 have anything to do with TIP (Kautzsch, Gramm. p. 112) is 
 impossible. On rPJVH (v. 18) see chap. iii. 13. The form HEP 
 " was placed" is very peculiar, since the analogy both of Biblical 
 Aramaic and of Arabic would lead us to expect n&P, np^'p, as 
 Kautzsch proposes to read (Gramm. p. 74). Instead of the 
 npj^n of the ordinary editions, Baer has npfln ; for nj??y3-l he 
 reads njWfl (plur. constr.), following the best MSS. " That 
 nothing might be changed concerning Daniel", i.e. that nothing 
 might be done to rescue him. -UV prop, "purpose", "inten- 
 tion", is here used, as in Syriac, in a perfectly vague sense. 
 
 19 29. nip "in a state of fasting" (from t&wayat} is pro- 
 perly a fern, substantive in the absolute state, used adverbially 
 (cf. Hebr. rnnp "quickly"). The meaning of jirn is unknown. 
 Theodotion and the Peshltta render it by "food", the medieval 
 Jewish commentators by "instruments of music", while most 
 moderns take it as " concubines", in accordance with a significa- 
 tion which the Arabic verb daha sometimes conveys ; in Ara- 
 maic and Hebrew, however, the root Nm, rim, always means 
 " to thrust away", "overthrow" it is only in Arabic that it has 
 acquired the sense of "spreading out" like a carpet (Koran 
 LXXIX. 30), whence its metaphorical application is derived. Ro- 
 senmiiller compares the Arab, dukhan " smoke", and explains 
 Dq?. as "incense", "odours". With the clause *nftj? JTM aflfP'l cf. 
 chap. ii. 1. nn|P is written with Ddghesh forte, according to the 
 analogy of such words as NJ^P, although the root is not pP but 
 \W (cf. Syr. shennetha, constr. shennath). " Then the king rose at 
 dawn, as soon as it was light" (v. 20) N^BP', which is used in 
 
 1 See Noldeke in the Z. D. M. G, XL. p. 735 Jimt- is there, of course, a 
 misprint for 
 
113 
 
 the Targums also, has almost exactly the same sense as 
 in Syriac and Arabic we find the simple forms, shaphra and 
 safar respectively. The phrase 1'VI? S?} " with a lamentable 
 voice" (v. 21) occurs again in the Palestinian Targum, Exod. xii. 
 31. ^yi? is from nvy "to bind", a root common to Syriac and 
 Arabic, the ideas of "tightness" and "pain" being closely con- 
 nected in the Semitic languages 1 . In v. 22 the verb ^P "he 
 spake" is construed with Dtf, as often happens in Syriac even 
 when the meaning is simply "to speak to", not "to hold a con- 
 versation with"-. In v. 24 the Perfect 3NP (Syr. te'elh) seems 
 to have been formed on the analogy of E*N? (see v. 15), since in 
 the former word the N does not properly belong to the root, as 
 the Hebrew and Arabic forms shew. With ni5D: : n for nDn cf. 
 n?r;n chap. iv. 3 ; on jP^n see chap. ii. 45. JVinx (v. 25) is 
 formed from jn&? (chap. ii. 39) as in Hebrew JVflnri " the lowest 
 part" (Exod. xix. 17) from nnn. The decree of Darius in w. 26 
 28 is mostly composed of phrases used in chaps, ii. 44 ; iii. 
 3133 ; v. 19. Before priori &6-^ (v. 27) we must, of course, 
 understand Ow. Verse 29, as contrasted with the correspond- 
 ing passage, chap. iii. 30, uses rfcvn in the intransitive sense. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 We now enter upon the second part of the book, describing 
 four visions seen by Daniel. These pieces purport to have 
 been written by Daniel himself, for in chap. vii. 1 we are told 
 that he " wrote the dream ", and from that point to the end of 
 the book he speaks in the first person, the sole exception being 
 the heading of chap. x. Though Daniel is never actually desig- 
 nated as a prophet, the literary form of the visions is, to a large 
 
 s ' S( " Hebrew this root is used only in the 
 
 1 Cf. in Arabic t_^-ac ^ "a derived sense (I Kings i. 6. Is. Ixiii. 
 painful day" (Koran xi. 79); Al-Bai- 10); H-Stf "to fashion" (Job x. 8) is 
 
 quite different and probably corre- 
 dawl explains the word i^^^t* as 
 
 spends to Arab, t^^^^e. "to cut". 
 
 
 
 \3\ <U^c ^yo JOjJj. In 2 Exactly similar is the modern Per- 
 
 ^ * ***, " sian use of bd with guftan. 
 
 B. D. 8 
 
114 CHAP. VII. 
 
 extent, borrowed from the prophetical writings. Thus, in chaps, 
 vii. and viii., Daniel, like Zechariah, is shewn visible objects of 
 which the symbolical meaning is forthwith explained to him by 
 angels. Other details were doubtless suggested by the book of 
 Ezekiel. The aiithor of Daniel likewise follows the prophets in 
 prefixing dates to the visions. This custom was, among the 
 ancient prophets, a perfectly reasonable one, for as their visions 
 referred primarily to the circumstances of the moment, it was 
 desirable, for the right understanding of the piece, that the 
 reader should be informed of its date. But in the visions of 
 Daniel the real subject is always " the time of the end", not the 
 time in which Daniel lived, so that the prefixing of a date 
 is unessential. 
 
 The vision in chap. vii. differs from the rest in that it takes 
 the form of a dream, based upon the same idea as the dream 
 of Nebuchadnezzar in chap. ii. In both chapters we read of 
 Four Gentile Empires, in both the Fourth Empire is dwelt upon 
 at much greater length than the first three, and in both it 
 is predicted that the Fourth Empire will be overthrown by a 
 divine interposition, in order that an everlasting kingdom may 
 be set up. Here the resemblance between the two visions 
 ceases. In chap. ii. 41 43 much stress is laid upon the divi- 
 sions of the Fourth Empire, but chap. vii. passes them over in 
 silence. Moreover in chap. ii. 34, 35, 44, all the Four Empires 
 perish alike, whereas in chap. vii. 11, 12 the Fourth Beast only 
 is destroyed, the other Beasts being suffered to live, though 
 they are deprived of their dominion. But what especially dis- 
 tinguishes chap. vii. is the prominence which it gives to the 
 last king of the Fourth Empire, who is represented by " a little 
 horn", and who "wages war against the Saints". 
 
 To argue from these divergences that the Four Empires 
 of chap. ii. are not the same as those of chap, vii., or that the 
 two chapters are the work of different authors, is altogether 
 unreasonable. We have no right to expect in an apocalyptic 
 writing that strict consistency which we naturally demand of a 
 historian. We must also make allowance for the different 
 frame-work of the two chapters. Chap. ii. describes a revela- 
 tion sent to Nebuchadnezzar (see vv. 29, 30, 45), whereas chap. 
 
CHAP. VII. 115 
 
 vii. is a revelation sent to Daniel, the representative of the true 
 Israel. Hence it is only in the second case that the sufferings 
 of the Saints in the last days can be appropriately mentioned 1 . 
 
 We may therefore assume, with the great majority of 
 modern interpreters, that the Empires in chap, vii., as in chap, 
 ii., are (1) the Babylonian, (2) the Median, (3) the Persian, 
 (4) the Greek or Macedonian. It is also clear that the " little 
 horn" is Antiochus Epiphanes. This was distinctly recognized 
 by Porphyry, and must also have been known to the Jews of 
 the 4th century after Christ, since it is the interpretation given 
 by Ephraim Syrus, who was quite incapable of inventing it. At 
 the present day it is so generally admitted as not to require 
 demonstration. But there are two questions which deserve to 
 be more particularly examined, namely (1) What are the "ten 
 horns" of the Fourth Beast? and (2) What is meant by the 
 One like a son of man who comes with the clouds of heaven ? 
 
 As to the former question, there can at least be no doubt 
 that the " ten horns" represent ten individual kings (see v. 24), 
 not ten kingdoms, as is the case with the "four horns" of chap, 
 viii. 8. This appears from the fact that in chap. vii. 8 the 
 "little horn" rises among the ten horns, which is explained, in 
 v. 24, to mean that after ten kings have arisen, another king 
 will arise. In chap. viii. 9, on the contrary, the "little horn" 
 rises out of one of the four horns. If therefore the Fourth 
 Beast of chap. vii. is the Greek Empire and the little horn is 
 Antiochus, it follows that the ten horns must be ten predeces- 
 sors of Antiochus. So far most interpreters are agreed, but as 
 to the identification of these ten predecessors there is great dif- 
 ference of opinion. According to Bertholdt and Von Lengerke, 
 the ten kings are (1) Seleucus Nicator, (2) Antiochus Soter, (3) 
 Antiochus Theos, (4) Seleucus Callinicus, (5) Seleucus Cerau- 
 
 1 This obvious consideration is over- hence argues that the author of chap, 
 
 looked by Meinhold, who says, in dis- ii. cannot have written the latter part 
 
 cussing chap, ii., "Was c. 7. 8. 11 of the book. I may here mention that 
 
 besonders betont ist, dass in der End- De Lagarde, in the Gott. gel. Anzeigen 
 
 zeit Israel hart bedriickt sein, aber aus for 1891, pp. 497 520, has endeavoured 
 
 der aussersten Not von Gott befreit to prove that Dan. vii. was composed 
 
 werde, fehlt hier gerade" (Kurzgefass- in the year 69 after Christ. 
 ter Continental', 8te Abt. p. 274), and 
 
 82 
 
116 CHAP. VII. 
 
 nus, (6) Antiochus the Great, (7) Seleucus Philopator, (8) Helio- 
 dorus, (9) Ptolemy Philometor, (10) Demetrius Soter. Others, 
 as Hitzig, Cornill, and Kuenen, begin with Alexander the 
 Great. This is decidedly more natural, for if the Fourth Beast 
 represents the Greek supremacy, why should Alexander be 
 omitted ? It is true that in chap. viii. a distinction is made 
 between u the great horn" (Alexander) and the horn out of 
 which "the little horn" rises, but this is because the "four 
 horns" of chap. viii. are contemporaneous kingdoms, not a series 
 of successive kings. In chap. vii. nothing is said about the 
 divisions of the Macedonian Empire we have only a series of 
 kings ; hence Alexander must head the list. We have also to 
 consider that the ten kings are mentioned, not on their own 
 account, but because they lead up to the eleventh (Antiochus 
 Epiphanes), i.e. the number 10 is introduced only in order that 
 the readers may the more clearly recognize who is meant by 
 the "little horn". Accordingly Hitzig and Cornill believe the 
 ten kings to be (1) Alexander the Great, (2) Seleucus Nicator, 
 (3) Antiochus Soter, (4) Antiochus Theos, (5) Seleucus Calli- 
 nicus, (6) Seleucus Ceraunus, (7) Antiochus the Great, (8) 
 Seleucus Philopator, (9) Heliodorus, (10) Demetrius Soter. 
 
 Of the ten horns, we are told in v. 8, three are " plucked 
 up" on the appearance of the eleventh horn which signifies 
 that the last king will "humble" three of the former kings (v. 
 24). Porphyry made these three kings to be (1) Ptolemy Phi- 
 lometor, (2) Ptolemy Euergetes II., his brother, and (3) Artaxias, 
 king of Armenia, whom Antiochus Epiphanes defeated and took 
 prisoner. In order to refute this interpretation Jerome strangely 
 asserts that Ptolemy Philometor and Ptolemy Euergetes " died 
 long before the birth of Antiochus" 1 . In reality they both 
 
 1 "Frustra Porphyrius cornu par- Contra Artaxiam vero dimicasse qui- 
 
 vulum quod post decem cornua ortum dem Antiochum novimus : sed ilium 
 
 est, Epiphanem Antiochum suspicatur, in regno pristine permansisse". Je- 
 
 et de decem cornibus tria evulsa cor- rome, Comm. in Dan. vn. 8. Appian 
 
 nua, sextum Ptolemaeum cognomento says of Antiochus Epiphanes 'Eor/aa- 
 
 Philometorem, septimum Ptolemaeum revere d ical CTTI 'Apra^iav rbv ' 
 
 Euergetem, et Artaxiam regem Arme- jSatriXla, Kal avrbv eXcbv 
 
 niae, quorum priores multo antequam K.T.\. (Syr. 45). 
 Antiochus nasceretur, mortui sunt, 
 
CHAP. VII. 117 
 
 survived him. But we may rightly urge against Porphyry's 
 theory that these three kings were in no sense predecessors 
 of Antiochus Epiphanes. That Ptolemy Philometor attempted 
 to seize the throne of Syria on the death of Seleucus Philopator 
 is a notion which rests on the sole authority of Porphyry him- 
 self (see Jerome on Dan. xi. 21), and it is highly probable that 
 here, as in some other cases, Porphyry's statements are not 
 derived from an independent historical source but are simply 
 deductions drawn from Daniel. According to Von Lengerke, 
 the three kings are (1) Heliodorus, (2) Ptolemy Philometor, and 
 (3) Demetrius Soter. This interpretation is in part open to the 
 same objections as the former one. It appears therefore much 
 more reasonable to explain the three kings, with Hitzig and 
 Cornill, as (1) Seleucus Philopator, (2) Heliodorus, and (3) De- 
 metrius Soter. Seleucus Philopator, son of Antiochus the Great, 
 died in 175 B.C. According to some historians he was murdered 
 by his minister Heliodorus. In any case Heliodorus placed 
 himself at the head of the state, but was very soon dispossessed 
 by the brother of Seleucus Philopator, Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 who had secured the help of Eumenes king of Pergamum. 
 Meanwhile Demetrius Soter, son of Seleucus Philopator and 
 rightful heir to the throne, was living as a hostage at Rome, 
 whither he had been sent shortly before his father's death 1 . It 
 would seem, from this chapter of Daniel, that some persons at 
 least attributed the death of Seleucus Philopator to the insti- 
 gation of Antiochus Epiphanes that the pious Jews should 
 have believed their persecutor to be capable of any crime, was 
 quite natural. Hence there is no difficulty in regarding Seleu- 
 
 1 "'J25e fj.ev 'Pw/xcuot dieOfvro TO, dopi- opxV P<.a-6fj.evov eK/3aXXov<rt, xal TOV 
 
 KTtjra, 'AVTLOXOV ' vffrepov TOV fj.eyd\ov 'Avrioxov es avTr/f Karayovinv, eTaipio- 
 
 /ScKTiX^ws reXe 1/7-770- euros ylyveTOii ZeXeu- /j.evoi TOV dvdpa ' dirb yap TIVUV Trpocncpov- 
 
 KOS o uibs dtddoxos. Kal TOV d8e\(f>bi> ode P.O.TWV 77577 Kal o'ioe 'Pwfj.aiovs u?re/3Xe- 
 
 'Avrioxov eeXixre TTJS virb 'Pw/xcu'ois O/AT;- TTOVTO. ourw plv 'Avrioxos 6 'Avrioxov 
 
 peias, wndovs TOV CO.VTOU iratda A?;^?;- TOV fMeyaXov 2u/?tas eireKpa.T-r)aev any 
 
 Tpiov. 'AvTioxov 5' etraviovTOS e/c TTJS wapa TUV Zvpuv iir^vv^ov rjv eiri<j>avr)s, 
 
 ai OVTOS $TI TTcpt 'Atf^ay, 6 p*v QTI TT,S Ap X ^ apira^o^vrj^ VTTO dXXoTpiuv 
 
 e| firi^ovXrjs 'R\io8upov TWOS /SaatXeus oketos w0^7/". Appian, Syr. 
 
 rO)v Trepl Tr,v avXrjv diro0i>ri<rKi, TOV 5' 45. See also Livy XLI. 19. 
 /cat "ArraXos cs T-TJV 
 
118 CHAP. VII. 
 
 cus Philopator and Heliodorus as two of the horns " plucked 
 up" before Antiochus. But whether the last of the three horns 
 is Demetrius Soter, appears more doubtful. The latter was not 
 actually king, but merely heir to the kingdom. Could he there- 
 fore be considered as one of the three kings whom Antiochus 
 "humbled"? The thing in itself is not unlikely. Von Gut- 
 schtnid, however, has suggested (Kleine Scliriften, Vol. n. pp. 
 175- 179) that by the last of the three horns is meant, not 
 Demetrius, but a brother of his, who, according to a fragment 
 of John of Antioch, was put to death by Antiochus (see Miiller, 
 Fragm. liist. graec. IV. p. 558). This view Kuenen is inclined 
 to adopt. 
 
 Much more important is the question as to the One like 
 a son of man (vv. 13, 14). On this subject two opposite inter- 
 pretations have existed from a very early period down to the 
 present day. According to some, the One like a son of man 
 represents the coming king, i.e. the Messiah ; according to 
 others he represents the kingdom of the Saints. The former 
 view cannot be proved to have been known in pre-Christian 
 times, for chaps, xlv Ivii of the Book of Enoch are of uncertain 
 date, nor is it even settled whether they are the work of a Jew 
 or of a Christian. But in the New Testament this view is con- 
 stantly assumed, nor can there be any doubt that the term " the 
 Son of man", so frequent in the Gospels, contains an allusion to 
 Dan. vii. 13. The Messianic interpretation seems to have been 
 almost universal in the early Christian Church (see especially 
 Justin's Dialogue with Tryplio, chap, xxxi), and is found like- 
 wise in the Babylonian Talmud (Sank. 98 a ). In the Middle 
 Ages it was maintained by Rashi and by most Jewish commen- 
 tators. In modern times it has been defended by critics so 
 impartial as Von Lengerke, Bleek, and Ewald. 
 
 Yet this view, popular as it has been, presents insuperable 
 difficulties. In the first place the interpretation contained in 
 this chapter of Daniel says not a word about a personal Messiah, 
 but states expressly that the kingdom is to be given to the 
 people of the Saints (vv. 18, 22, 27). If the Being who comes 
 in the clouds represents a person, that person must surely be of 
 immense importance. Why therefore does the angelic inter- 
 
CHAP. VII. 119 
 
 preter pass him over in complete silence, and speak of " the 
 Saints " instead ? Nor is it legitimate to argue that the de- 
 scription of this Being, in w. 13 and 14, so clearly proves him to 
 be personal as to render a special explanation unnecessary. The 
 One like a son of man, that is, One in human form, obviously 
 stands in contrast with the Four Beasts. Since the Four Beasts 
 represent Four Empires, not four individual kings, it is reason- 
 able to suppose that the One like a son of man also represents 
 an Empire. The human form, as opposed to the bestial, teaches 
 that the last kingdom will not be, like the Gentile kingdoms, a 
 supremacy of brute force, but a supremacy essentially spiritual. 
 As the Gentile Empires rise out of the sea (v. 3), so the last 
 Empire comes with the clouds of heaven. The former state- 
 ment is manifestly figurative, why therefore should the latter 
 be taken literally ? The rising out of the sea expresses the 
 fact that the Gentile Empires are of this world (see v. 17) ; the 
 coming with the clouds shews that the last Empire will be 
 ushered in by the power of God. Thus in the chapter itself 
 there is nothing which suggests the idea of a personal Messiah, 
 and it is particularly important to observe that the rest of the 
 book bears out this conclusion, for wherever the author speaks 
 of the future kingdom he maintains the same significant silence 
 as to a future king (chaps, ii. 44 ; xii. 3). Everything therefore 
 tends to shew that the Being introduced in chap. vii. 13 repre- 
 sents the kingdom of the Israelite Saints. This interpretation 
 was evidently known to Ephraim Syrus, and is accepted by 
 Ben-Ezra. Such is also the view of Hitzig, Noldeke, Schurer 
 (Gesch. d.jiid. Volkes, n. p. 426), and most recent writers. 
 
 It has sometimes been objected that the idea of a future 
 kingdom necessarily implied a personal king. But this is by 
 no means borne out by facts. It is notorious that in several of 
 the post-Biblical Jewish writings the future kingdom is con- 
 ceived simply as a reign of Israel over the Gentiles, without any 
 reference to a personal Messiah 1 . This is the case, for example, 
 in the Assumptio Mosis and in the Book of Jubilees, both of which 
 probably date from about the beginning of the Christian era. 
 
 1 On the whole of this question see tlie Christian Messiah" (1886), espe- 
 Prof. Stanton's work, " The Jewish and cially pp. 109 118. 
 
120 VII. 14. 
 
 1 6. In dating this vision from the first year of Belshaz- 
 
 zar, whose death has been ahead}' related (chap. v. 30), the 
 
 author purposely abandons the chronological order which he has 
 
 hitherto followed, that is to say, the visions are not a continua- 
 
 tion of the narratives but form a series by themselves. The 
 
 words ni?f p-te a^n \1|m : are added as a further specification of 
 
 D^n, cf. *opK} N3n? chap. vi. 10. " Then he wrote the dream" ; 
 
 at the beginning of this new portion of the book it was im- 
 
 portant to state that Daniel, like other seers, put his revelation 
 
 in writing ; in the case of the remaining visions this is not 
 
 actually said but is everywhere assumed (see chap. xii. 4). 
 
 ppp fc^&o " the sum of the matters", that is, the essential import 
 
 of the revelation, cf. Tiyi B>K"i Ps. cxix. 160. On the interjection 
 
 Tig (v. 2), see chap. ii. 31. |rW is usually taken as intransitive, 
 
 "breaking forth upon the great sea" } according to Judg. xx. 33 ; 
 
 but in this case we should expect K$T^J or _'?. It therefore 
 
 appears more natural to translate, with Levy (Chald. Worterb. 
 
 s.v. DN 1 ), ' stirring up the great sea" ; the phrase K3"ip PMK " to 
 
 go to war", lit. "to cause war to burst forth", is extremely 
 
 common in the Targums. " The great sea" is usually the Medi- 
 
 terranean (Josh. ix. 1). Here the sea represents the nations of 
 
 the earth (cf. Is. xvii. 12), and accordingly, in v. 17, it is ex- 
 
 plained by Kins "the earth" 1 . In v. 3 the Four Beasts are 
 
 described as "different one from the other", because they sym- 
 
 bolize different Empires. The first (v. 4) is the Babylonian. It 
 
 appears as a lion with eagle's wings ; since it is the earliest of 
 
 the great Empires, it is here compared to the noblest of beasts 
 
 and the noblest of birds, just as in chap. ii. it is represented by 
 
 the most precious of metals, psj "wings" is, as Noldeke has 
 
 shewn in the Gott. gel. Anz. for 1884, p. 1019, from the root *pJ, 
 
 cf. Arab, jadafa, "to fly", "to row". In Syriac also we find 
 
 1 Prof. Eobertson Smith suggests nave been born * K ToC Ko\7rt'a 
 
 that the imagery in Dan. vii. 2 is bor- Kal ywaiicos atrov Edav (i.e. Hebr. -IPIS). 
 
 rowed from the ideas of cosmogony Here the wind Kolpia seems to be 
 
 which were current in the ancient n$$"7| DTI "the wind from every 
 
 East. According to Philo of Byblus quarter ". For other explanations see 
 
 (quoted by Eusebius, Pracp. Evang. i. Von Baudissin's Studien zur scmi- 
 
 chap. 10), the Phoenicians believed the tischen Relic/ ionsgeschichte, 1876, i. p. 
 
 world (Ai'wp), personified as a man, to 13. 
 
VII. 46. 121 
 
 f/eppa "wing", but in the Targums the more primitive form 
 NS"H occurs. " / looked until its wings were stript off, and it was 
 lifted up from the earth and made to stand on two feet as a man, 
 and a man's heart was given to it". Von Lengerke explains 
 these words as referring to the decline of the Babylonian 
 Empire the wings, the symbols of swiftness, are taken away, 
 and it is reduced to the condition of an ordinary human being. 
 But on this hypothesis the last clause would be meaningless, 
 for "a man's heart" evidently implies superior intelligence, not 
 loss of power. Accordingly Hitzig and Ewald see here an allu- 
 sion to the experiences of Nebuchadnezzar in chap. iv. As in 
 chap. ii. 38, Nebuchadnezzar and his Empire are treated as 
 identical. The Babylonian Empire, on its first appearance, has 
 a purely animal, i.e. heathen, character, but after a while the 
 animal attributes disappear, the Empire is, as it were, human- 
 ized in the person of its representative. The passive Perfect 
 nip*i?n clearly shews, by its second vowel, that it is not a 
 Hebraism ; the form exactly corresponds to the Arab, uklmat, 
 excepting that the initial n has been retained. Verse 5 intro- 
 duces the Median Empire, in the form of a bear. It is " raised 
 up on one side", i.e. half crouching, cf. chap. ii. 39 where the 
 Median Empire is described as " lower" than the Babylonian. 
 *W " side" is in the Targums "ip stat. emphat. &OPP ; some edi- 
 tions wrongly read "IO"TOp?V The vocalization nD?n } in some 
 editions np^ipn, assumes that the verb is transitive, "it raised 
 one side", but probably we should read nj?n or no'j?n s) as in 
 v. 4. The meaning of the " three ribs in its mouth between its 
 teeth" is very obscure. Most commentators refer this to three 
 countries (Ewald), or three cities (Hitzig), which were con- 
 quered by the Medes. According to Von Lengerke, the author 
 intends merely to represent the Median Empire as a ravenous 
 beast devouring the remains of some slain enemy, the "three" 
 being a round number. At all events the following words, 
 " And thus they spake to it, Arise, devour much flesh", seem 
 to shew that the Medes are here regarded as a power whose 
 chief characteristic is destruction an idea suggested by those 
 passages of the prophets in which the Medes are summoned to 
 ravage Babylon (Is. xiii, 17. Jer. Ii. 11, 28). The leopard (v. 6), 
 
122 VII. 68. 
 
 representing the Persian Empire, has four wings (i.e. its power 
 extends in all directions, towards the four quarters of the earth), 
 and four heads, by which are meant the four Persian kings (see 
 chap. xi. 2). rrarty (Kerl niir^y) is usually translated " on its 
 back", but the plural form favours the rendering "on its sides" 
 (cf. Syr. gabbd "side", from the root 333). The clause, "and 
 dominion was given to it", is added in order to emphasize the 
 vastness of the Persian Empire, cf. chap. ii. 39 where this 
 Empire is described as "ruling over all the earth". 
 
 7, 8. The Fourth Beast, i.e. the Greek Empire, is too fear- 
 ful to be likened to any known creature ; both in strength and 
 fierceness it far surpasses its predecessors. We are so accus- 
 tomed to consider the Graeco-Macedonian power as a civilizing 
 agency that this description seems at first singularly inappro- 
 priate. We should however remember that the work of Alex- 
 ander must have appeared to Orientals in a light very different 
 from that in which we usually regard it. The former Empires 
 had generally involved nothing more than conquest, and had 
 left local customs untouched ; the Macedonian Empire was, in 
 the fullest sense, "different from all Empires" (v. 23), since it 
 produced a radical transformation of the old oriental world. 
 Moreover the atrocious massacres, at Tyre and elsewhere, by 
 which Alexander endeavoured to strike terror into the con- 
 quered races, were not easily forgotten, and amply suffice to 
 explain the image here employed that of a monster " devour- 
 ing, crushing, and stamping the residue under foot", ^np 1 ^ 
 "terrible" is the fern. stat. absol. of l^p^, which occurs in the 
 Targums; in Syriac, adjectives in -than form their fern. stat. 
 absol. in -thdnya, not -thani. The reading ^P^, found in some 
 editions, is erroneous. Besides the "iron teeth", v. 19 mentions 
 "claws of brass", but Ewald is scarcely justified in inserting 
 these words into v. 7, in order to assimilate the two passages ; it 
 would be equally reasonable to insert ^.21 after v. 8. On the 
 "ten horns", see the Introduction to the chapter. With v.' 8 
 compare the parallel passage, chap. viii. 9. Antiochus Epiphanes 
 is represented by a "little horn" because he at first appeared 
 feeble and seized the throne by "treachery" (chap. xi. 21). TtfT 
 is doubtless an old diminutive form, from zu'air. Instead of 
 
VII. 810. 123 
 
 the normal nP, the Masora prescribes HgW?. On lipynx (Kerl 
 rnpi;]^) see ipDJ chap. v. 5. The "eyes like the eyes of a man' 
 are the symbol of intelligence, cf. viii. 23 where Antiochus is 
 designated as niTn f?E. The "mouth speaking great things" is 
 an allusion to his pride and especially to his blasphemies against 
 the God of Israel (chap. xi. 36). 
 
 9 14. The Divine judgment upon the Gentile power is 
 now executed. The scene described is obviously intended to be 
 figurative, since those who are judged are primarily Empires, 
 not individuals ; cf. Joel iv. 1, 2, a passage which the author of 
 Daniel may have had in his mind. The forensic imagery is 
 here consistently carried out. Thrones for the heavenly powers 
 are set up, God Himself appears in the likeness of an aged man 
 seated among flames, which, according to the well-known con- 
 ception of the ancient Hebrews, are the accompaniment of the 
 Deity (Ps. xviii. 9), and the books, recording the crimes of the 
 Gentile potentates, are opened 1 . On the form nD"]3 see chaps. 
 v. 20; vi. 8. With VP1 " were placed" compare the Syriac use 
 of re me " thrown" for " lying", and the Hebr. *JV1J Gen. xxxi. 51. 
 Here, as in chap. iv. 14, the heavenly powers are associated 
 with God Himself in judgment. With |W p'jjw "one ancient of 
 days" cf. the Hebr. D>r?J3 N3 Gen. xxiv. 1 etc. "His raiment 
 was like pure snow and the hair of His head like spotless wool" ; 
 most commentators, discarding the Masoretic accentuation, 
 render, "His raiment was white like snow". On P33!p see chap. 
 iii. 22. That the throne has "wheels" is in accordance with 
 Ezek. i. and x. In v. 10 pWI 133 seems to mean " was advancing 
 and coming forth", 133 being used in its primitive sense (cf. 
 Hebr. 133 "in front"). For the imagery, cf. ^tf'n V3E& Btt Ps. 1. 
 3. On D'S&K (Kerl Plfe*), see D>E>3K chap. iv. 14. For the 
 genuine Aramaic |U1 (pron. |)?1) the Kerl substitutes the He- 
 braized form |3?i, as if from a Sing, nn?") corresponding to 
 Hebr. n:D"). nn| to^ f( the judgment sate" N^i here means 
 
 1 The same metaphor is used by the that He knoweth ; it is reserved, laid 
 
 "heathen" Arabic poet Zuhair, "Hide up in writing, and kept in store against 
 
 not from God that which ye devise, the day of reckoning, or else requited 
 
 hoping that it will be concealed, for speedily." (xvi. 26, 27 Ahlw.) 
 whatever men seek to hide from God 
 
124 VII. 1017. 
 
 "those who judge", compare the use of "liD "deliberation" for 
 "persons who deliberate" (Jer. xxiii. 18. Ps. Ixxxix. 8). In 
 v. 11 the Greek Empire is finally destroyed on account of the 
 blasphemies of Antiochus Epiphanes, the idea being that in 
 him the guilt of the Empire reached its height (cf. D^sn Dnn? 
 chap. viii. 23). The other Beasts (v. 12) are humbled, though 
 not destroyed, i.e. Gentile kingdoms are still to exist for a while, 
 but they are to acknowledge the supremacy of the Saints (cf. 
 vv. 14, 27. Is. Ix. 10, 12). It may seem illogical that the 
 Beasts, who represent Empires, should be said to lose their 
 Empire ; what the author means is that the nations once domi- 
 nant are to survive the loss of their dominion. On HD^X, see 
 chap. iv. 24. In v. 14 the eternal sovereignty of the Saints is 
 described in terms applied elsewhere to the sovereignty of God 
 Himself (chaps, iii. 33 ; iv. 31 ; vi. 27). 
 
 15 28. In vv. 15 if. the narration of the dream continues. 
 The author, in order the more clearly to explain his meaning, 
 represents Daniel as being troubled by what he had seen and 
 as questioning "one of those that stood by", i.e. one of the 
 attendant angels mentioned in v. 10. The angel first gives 
 a brief and general answer (vv. 17, 18), and afterwards, when 
 Daniel desires more special information as to the Fourth Beast, 
 supplies further details (vv. 23 27). rn?flK (instead of the 
 more primitive ithkaryath, which would correspond to the 
 Syriac form) is, if correctly pointed, taken from the masc. '"PflK 
 (cf. vP^n chap. iii. 19), with doubling of the in order to preserve 
 the preceding vowel (cf. Hebr. fins from primitive pariyat). For 
 the idea, cf. inn Dtfarn c h. ii. 1. The construction i>N3n m$ 
 is the same as KppKfyiHS rm >3D Ezra vii. 21. Instead of 
 (so Baer) most editions have nrp. The word occurs again in 
 I Chr. xxi. 27 (rOnj " its sheath"), and appears in the Targums 
 both as &O1J and fcO"6 ; it is no doubt derived from the Persian 
 nidana (in Sanscrit nidhdna) " vessel", " receptacle". In Daniel 
 therefore the correct pronunciation is probably nn^ "its sheath" 
 (see Noldeke in the Gott. gel. Anz. for 1884, p. 1022 nj)?, in 
 the note, is of course a misprint). The "sheath" of the soul is 
 the body; for the image cf. Job xxvii. 8. In v. 17 the Kerl sub- 
 stitutes the fern. !*|K (Syr. enmn) for j-13$ (Syr. ennon), which is 
 
VII. 1723. 125 
 
 properly masc. (cf. chap. vi. 25). P3? n ?l^ "four kings'', i.e 
 four heathen Empires. NH^,?*? P??i2*. (v. 18) " they shall receive 
 the kingdom', i.e. they shall come into possession of supreme 
 power (cf. chap. vi. 1). The Israelite Saints, who are also called 
 simply pt^S (vv. 21, 22) are here, as in vv. 22, 25, 27, described 
 as r$ty Wlp- (LXX. and Theod. ajtot V^LO-TOV, Pesh. rdx-.iia 
 r^si*VS3.i). Since B^3 is used especially of angels (see chap. 
 iv. 10), there can be no doubt that the author has selected the 
 phrase P^Y^ ^Hj? in order to express the heavenly character of 
 Israel as contrasted with the nations of the earth, ji^tf " the 
 Most High", as a name of God, is the Hebrew equivalent of 
 fc^y, HN^r (Dan. iv. 14, 21) ; the use of the Plur. pMtt is pro- 
 bably to be explained, with Hitzig, as due to the Plural pre- 
 ceding so also we find D^3 ^ used as the Plural of vt?3 TV3 
 (Is. xlii. 7, 22). Others take r$ty as. a Plural of majesty, but 
 in the case of an Adjective this hypothesis is precarious. JV3V 
 aos?!? (v. 19) "/ desired to have certain knowledge"] the verb 3-X! 
 bears somewhat the same relation to the Adj. T-V! (see v. 16) 
 that the Arab, aikana "to be sure" bears to yakln "sure". 
 Verse 20 is mainly a repetition from vv. 7 and 8, but it adds, 
 respecting the eleventh horn, the words nrrprrjp nn mjrn. " and 
 its appearance was greater than (that of) the rest". This in no 
 wise contradicts the expression " a little horn" (v. 8), as is 
 shewn by chap. viii. 9, where the "little horn" rapidly grows to 
 a portentous size. Verses 21 and 22 are a parenthesis, in which 
 Daniel recapitulates what he has witnessed, at the same time 
 adding fresh details ; that the horn in question waged war 
 against the Saints had not been mentioned previously, and 
 indeed it is difficult to imagine how Daniel could "see" such a 
 war taking place. 3n? &o^ (v. 22) is usually explained as "jus- 
 tice was done", i.e. the judicial sentence was pronounced in 
 favour of the Saints. But perhaps Ewald may be right in 
 reading 3ri? [Mftp^J 3flV| anj "and the judgment sate and the 
 sovereignty was given" etc., cf. vv. 14, 26, 27. NBP fcOpn "and 
 the time came", i.e. the time fixed by God as the limit of the 
 heathen domination. When the angel states, in v. 23, that the 
 Fourth Empire is to " devour the whole earth", this must, of 
 
126 VII. 2327. 
 
 course, be taken in a rhetorical sense ; similarly in chap. ii. 39 
 the Third Empire, i.e. the Persian, "bears rule over all the 
 earth". In v. 25, "W-" against" has much the same meaning as 
 "JJ^> in chap. x. 13 ; the parallel passage, chap. xi. 36, uses ?y. 
 K^3? seems to mean "he shall afflict", cf. I Chr. xvii. 9 where 
 iri^> is substituted for the iniai^ of II Sam. vii. 10 ; elsewhere 
 the Hebr. n?3 takes an impersonal object (Is. Ixv. 22. Job xxi. 
 13. Lam. iii. 4 from the corrupt passage Ps. xlix. 15 no con- 
 clusion can be drawn). " And he shall think to change seasons 
 and law, and they shall be given into his hand for a time and 
 times and half a time". The primary reference is to the 
 attempt of Antiochus to suppress the Jewish religion ; perhaps 
 other acts of the king may also be alluded to, for according to 
 I Mace. i. 41, 42, which can scarcely be a pure fiction, he appears 
 to have interfered even with heathen cults (see chap. xi. 37). 
 By pjjpj are meant, not only the great religious feasts, but all 
 religious observances which take place at fixed times (cf. Numb, 
 xxviii. 2). rn is used, as in chap. vi. 6, for " the code of reli- 
 gious precepts" (Hebr. n^'in); in Rabbinical Hebrew rn often 
 means "religion" generally. With pw A^-l p.nin. fttf cf. chap, 
 xii. 7. Almost all commentators recognize that "a time" is "a 
 year" and that PW has a Dual sense (cf. pj?i? v. 8) 1 . Thus the 
 Jewish cult is to be "given into the hand" of Antiochus, i.e. 
 abolished by him, for three years and a half (see the Introduc- 
 tion to chap. viii). In v. 26 21V is, of course, the ordinary 
 Imperfect Peal of W and corresponds to Syr. nettebh ; Baer 
 absurdly takes it to be a contraction of snjfl*. The object of 
 N-ninS rnp^rrp i s np.pfe understood. saiD-ir "finally", i.e. for 
 ever (cf. chap. vi. 27). In K?H?3 nin^i nttfe (v. 27) the words 
 KJPp"^| rnnfl are treated as a substantive, i.e. " the majesty of 
 the kingdoms of (the regions) under the whole heaven " ; so in 
 Syriac r<*V*v- VA=D "between the eyes" is used for "forehead" 
 (Pesh. Ezek. iii. 7, 8). rn^n; "shall have been given" for this 
 use of the Perfect to express certainty cf. nnbgj chap. xi. 36. 
 The suffixes in nn-I^D and ai? refer to O& ( c f. vrr% ^f D chap. 
 
 1 In Syriac, as is well known, the old always becomes In and is thus indis- 
 Pual termination ain, ayin, almost tinguishable from the Plural, 
 
127 
 
 xi. 32). In v. 28 Daniel closes the account of the vision " So 
 far is the end (i.e. limit) of the matter". Np^P includes the 
 whole revelation, both the things seen by Daniel and the things 
 spoken by the angel, cf. "V|nn chap. x. 1. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 As to the general sense of this chapter there has been com- 
 paratively little difference of opinion. In w. 20 25 the author 
 gives so clear an explanation of the vision that even the 
 Christian Fathers could not wholly fail to grasp its meaning. 
 Some details, however, still remain obscure, which is probably 
 due in part to corruptions of the text. 
 
 The vision is dated from the third year of Belshazzar but it 
 contains no reference to the Babylonian Empire. Its main sub- 
 ject is the rise and the conclusion of the Greek Empire, which, 
 as we have seen, is the Fourth Empire of chaps, ii. and vii. 
 The author therefore passes as rapidly as possible over the pre- 
 Greek period, and after mentioning the conquests of Alexander 
 hastens on to relate the history of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is 
 represented, as in chap, vii., by a "little horn". Jerome and 
 nearly all modern apologists, while denying that Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes is the " little horn" of chap, vii., fully admit that he is 
 the " little horn" of chap, viii., and many fanciful attempts have 
 been made to shew that the two descriptions cannot possibly 
 refer to the same person. But to an impartial reader no real 
 contradiction will appear to exist, 
 
 The principal difficulty in this chapter is the statement that 
 the suspension of the daily sacrifice, in the reign of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, will last 2300 evenings and mornings (v. 14), i.e. 
 1150 days. How is this to be reconciled with chaps, vii. 25 ; ix. 
 27 ; xii. 7, 11, 12 ? The question is confessedly obscure, and 
 any explanation should be offered with diffidence. It must first 
 be remarked that these five passages agree at least in making 
 the final distress last during three years and a fraction the 
 only difference lies in the magnitude of the fraction. Chaps. 
 
128 CHAP. VIII. 
 
 vii. 25 ; ix. 27 ; xii. 7 offer comparatively little difficulty, for it 
 might be supposed that the " times, time and half a time", and 
 the "half of the week", are mere rough computations. But 
 where the days are counted, no such vagueness can be admitted. 
 The question therefore is, Do the 1150 days begin at the same 
 moment as the 1290 days of chap. xii. 11 ? The mention of the 
 abolition of the daily sacrifice in both passages certainly appears 
 to indicate that this is the case. Accordingly a period of 140 
 days must elapse between the end of the 1150 days and that of 
 ,the 1290 days. Perhaps the most probable hypothesis is that 
 the author of Daniel, like most of the later Jews, regarded the 
 future redemption of Israel, not as a single momentary act, but 
 rather as a series of events, which might be separated by inter- 
 vals of some months. After 1150 days from the abolition of 
 the daily sacrifice (i.e. near the beginning of the year 164 B.C. 1 ) 
 the Jewish worship in the Temple was to be restored, but the 
 time of affliction was to last for 140 days longer, and after 45 
 more days the period of complete rest was to set in (chap. xii. 
 11,12). It is noteworthy that the author of Zechariah xii xiv. 
 represents the final deliverance of Israel as about to take place 
 at a time when Jerusalem is being besieged by the heathen (Zech. 
 xiv. 2 4). If, as is in itself highly probable, the author of 
 Daniel shared this belief, we can understand why the cleansing 
 of the sanctuary precedes, by some months, the final consum- 
 mation, for in order that the nations may be " gathered against 
 Jerusalem to battle", it is necessary that the city should first 
 have been restored to Israel. By what means the restoration of 
 the city is to be brought about, we are not told. 
 
 Cornill, who believes the book of Daniel to have been 
 written soon after the Purification of the Temple (which took 
 place near the end of the year 165 B.C.), supposes that this 
 event forms the conclusion of the 1150 days; since the desecra- 
 tion of the Temple lasted only three years, he is obliged to make 
 the 1150 days begin, not with the cessation of the daily sacri- 
 
 1 I here follow Schtirer in supposing But some scholars, e.g. Kuenen (His- 
 
 that the desecration of the Temple torisch-critisch Onderzoek, 2nd ed. 11. 
 
 took place near the end of the year 455), place it a year later. 
 168 B.C. (Gesch, d. jild. Voltes, i. 155). 
 
VIII. 1, 2. 129 
 
 fice, but with the publication of the edict against Judaism 
 (I Mace. i. 41 if.), which he, places at the end of October 168 
 B.C. This theory involves a considerable straining of the text, 
 for why should the daily sacrifice be mentioned in Dan. viii. 13, 
 if in reality the starting-point of the 1150 days has no connec- 
 tion with it ? Moreover it is hardly credible that chaps, ix, xi 
 and xii were composed after the Purification of the Temple, for 
 in chap. ix. 17 the sanctuary is still "desolate", and the last 
 vision recorded, which distinctly mentions the cessation of the 
 daily sacrifice (xi. 31; xii. 11), says nothing about its restora- 
 tion. Thus we are forced to conclude that when the book was 
 finished, the restoration of the daily sacrifice was still future. 
 
 14. For the construction b^in ^ >bx c f. chap. vii. 15, 
 and for the vocalization of ""i^n, where the article is taken by 
 the Masoretes as equivalent to the relative, cf. I Kings xi. 9. Is. 
 Ivi. 3. !"6nj-o is not "in the beginning" but "previously", and 
 refers of course to chap. vii. (cf. chap. ix. 21. Gen. xliii. 18, 20). 
 In v. 2 the seer finds himself carried in a vision to Shushan, as 
 Ezekiel was carried to Jerusalem (Ezek. xl. 1 3). Shushan 
 (Susa), the capital of Susiana, was one of the principal resi- 
 dences of the Achaemenid kings (Neh. i. 1), and appears from 
 the book of Esther to have been regarded by the later Jews as 
 the seat of the Persian Empire 1 . Hence it is chosen to be the 
 scene of this vision which describes the overthrow of the Medes 
 and Persians by Alexander. n"V2 "fortress", "citadel", seems 
 to be the Assy rio- Baby Ionian blrtu (Friedr. Delitzsch, Assyr. 
 Gramm., Glossary), and occurs first in Nehemiah 2 . The fortress 
 of Susa was celebrated in antiquity (Herod. V. 49. Polyb. V. 
 48). The author speaks of Susa as being "in the province 
 Elam" (i.e. Elymai's). Elam is here used in its wider sense and 
 includes Susiana, from which it is distinguished in Ezra iv. 9. 
 7I1-1N "stream", which occurs here only, seems to be a mere pho- 
 netic variation of ^-V (Jer. xvii. 8). Ulai has long ago been 
 identified with the Eulaeus, the river on which, according to 
 Pliny and Arrian, Susa was situated. Herodotus, on the other 
 
 1 In much later times the tomb of Shush (Noldeke, Tabarl, p. 58). 
 the prophet Daniel was shewn at Susa 2 Ezra vi. 2 is probably of later date, 
 or, as it was called by the Persians, 
 
 B. D. 9 
 
130 VIII. 25. 
 
 hand, places Susa on the Choaspes, and it is not clear whether 
 both names belonged to the same river or whether different 
 rivers are meant 1 . The Eulaeus seems to be identical with the 
 modern Karun. In v. 3 the empires of the Medes and Persians 
 (see v. 20) appear to Daniel in the form of a ram a well-known 
 symbol of power and dominion (Ezek. xxxix. 18) 2 . That a single 
 animal represents both the Median and the Persian Empires is 
 due to the fact that the two nations are regarded as being akin 
 to one another ; but in order to shew that the period of Median 
 supremacy and the period of Persian supremacy are distinct, 
 the author tells us that the higher horn of the ram rose last. 
 ^nxn VJE& " opposite the stream", cf. Kn^M ^>3i$ chap. v. 5. D^p 
 and VJip (v. 7) are Duals, but, for some reason which it is im- 
 possible to guess, the first part of the word is vocalized accord- 
 ing to the analogy of Plurals; similar cases are Wyi Prov. 
 xxviii. 6, 18 and WJft, if this be from rta. nruxn is here used 
 for njfefelPi, in opposition to nwo, cf. Gen. i. 5, 8; ii. 11, 13. 
 The ram pushes westward, northward, and southward, but not 
 eastward, for the eastern conquests of the Achaemenidae, which 
 extended as far as India, are of no interest from the point 
 of view of the Jews. In v. 4 /^Jfl, as in v. 8, does not mean 
 "became great", but "did great things" (Ewald). 
 
 58. Tip "observing", cf. Is. Ivii. 1. TSV or DW T>V 
 occurs also in Ezra viii. 35. II Chron. xxix. 21; in Biblical 
 Aramaic likewise we find HI? n'BV Ezra vi. 17, in Syriac 
 sephrayd. Perhaps the word may have been borrowed from the 
 Aramaic in older Hebrew a he-goat is usually "W or D V W Ty'^. 
 The original meaning of TD^ is obscure ; that it is connected 
 
 with the Arab. k*a "to leap" is improbable, since the cases in 
 which Arab. ^ seems to correspond to Aramaic p are extremely 
 few (see Wright, Comp. Gramm. pp. 62, 63), and perhaps not 
 one of them is certain. With the phrase ptfrra *39"/5 "over 
 the face of all the earth" Von Lengerke rightly compares I Mace. 
 i. 3, where it is said of Alexander t,f)\6ev ea>? aicpnv -7-179 7779. 
 That the he-goat moves without touching the earth signifies 
 
 1 On this question see Nb'ldeke's ar- 2 So also in Arabic kabsh "ram" 
 tide Ulai in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon. often means "a chief", "a warrior". 
 
VIII. 59. 131 
 
 the incredible rapidity of the Greek conquests the invaders 
 seemed rather to fly than to march. JQN3 rtf: pN} should pro- 
 bably be taken as equivalent to 1$1 W.' w ^3^1 the suffix being 
 understood as in v. 27. rwn \"$. "a conspicuous horn", called in 
 w. 8 and 21 "the great horn", ins noq? ( v . 6) "in the fury of 
 his might"', non is originally "heat", and may express the 
 ''impetuosity" of an onset, just as elsewhere it expresses the 
 "virulence" of a poison (Deut. xxxii. 24. Ps. Iviii. 5). In v. 7 
 'K must be taken as indicating closer proximity than "W in 
 v. 6. For vbx "i")lji "and he was angered against him", see 
 p. 30 ; ^s is here used for ^y. V3")N rwn (v. 8) is usually ren- 
 dered "four conspicuous horns" (Von Lengerke, Hitzig), or, " as 
 it were four horns" (Ewald). Both interpretations, however, 
 are extremely forced, and there can be little doubt that Graetz 
 is right in reading nhn$ for rwn, according to the LXX. /cal 
 dvefirj erepa riaaapa (Cod. Chis. Teacraa-a) tcepara K.T.\., cf. 
 also the parallel passage in chap. xi. 4. The corruption is easily 
 explained from v. 5. The sense of v. 8 therefore is "And the 
 he-goat did exceeding great things, and when he had become 
 strong the great horn was broken, and there arose others, (even) 
 four, in its place, toward the four winds of heaven". 
 
 9 12. With * before a feminine subject, cf. I Sam. xxv. 
 27. I Kings xxii. 36. nwyp is generally supposed to mean 
 "from smallness" or ; 'out of smallness", hence "small" (Von 
 Lengerke). Hitzig considers the IP " redundant", but none of 
 the passages which he quotes in support of this (II Sam. xiv. 
 11. Ps. xlix. 15. Ruth ii. 20) is conclusive. Ewald wishes to 
 read rn'ryo " shewing smallness" i.e. " appearing small". Graetz 
 emends the passage by simply striking out the D, but it is 
 perhaps more probable that we should read nnwy n^fJB |Tg in 
 accordance with chap. vii. 8 nTift nqx |Tj5. The corruption 
 may be due to the DHD nnn almost immediately preceding. 
 For in; the LXX. has KOI eVarafez/ (i.e. "H^l), which at first 
 sight might seem preferable, but the Masoretic reading is con- 
 firmed by Is. Ivi. 12; hence the ordinary translation "exceed- 
 ingly" must be retained, cf. nTJV chap. vii. 7, 19 and Syr. yattlr. 
 The little horn waxes great " towards the South, and towards the 
 East, and towards the Glory". By " the South" is meant Egypt 
 
 92 
 
132 VIII. 911. 
 
 (see chap. xi. 25), by " the East" Media and Persia, and by 
 " the Glory", Jerusalem and the Temple, cf. avn pK chap. xi. 
 16, 41, Bnp 3 in xi. 45, and also Ezek. xx. 6. Instead of 3*n 
 the LXX. has pssn, which Graetz adopts, but it has all the 
 appearance of a corruption, since the preceding words might 
 easily lead a scribe to substitute fiQvn for 3n, whereas the 
 contrary process would be inexplicable. This verse refers not 
 merely to the foreign conquests of Antiochus, but to the exten- 
 sion of his influence and to the success of his intrigues, cf. chap, 
 xi. 22 24. In v. 10 the relation of Antiochus to the Jews is 
 more clearly denned. Here, as in chap, vii., the heavenly cha- 
 racter of Israel, as distinguished from the nations of the earth, 
 is specially emphasized. The " host of heaven" represents the 
 people of God ; but the term K3 is here used in a double 
 sense and contains an allusion to the "service" in the Jewish 
 Temple (Numb. iv. 23), as appears from v. 13. The "stars" 
 are not distinguished from "the host of heaven"; the 1 in 
 D*3Di3rr|-i is explicative, as in Zech. ix. 9 (Hitzig). By the 
 casting down of some of the stars are meant the cruelties per- 
 petrated at Jerusalem by Antiochus and his agents (I Mace. i. 
 24, 30), and perhaps there may be a special reference to the 
 deposition and subsequent murder of the high-priest Onias III. 
 (see chap. xi. 22). Verses 11 and 12 are among the most diffi- 
 cult in the whole book, as is shewn by the great disagreement 
 between the commentators. That the text is here very corrupt 
 can scarcely be doubted. The transition from the feminine 
 gender to the masculine (^Jfl v. 11) would not in itself present 
 any great difficulty, for it might be supposed that the author 
 here drops the metaphor of a horn and speaks of Antiochus in 
 direct terms, but in the second half of v. 12 the feminine gender 
 reappears, although the horn has not again been mentioned 
 so that the above hypothesis must be abandoned. The idea 
 naturally suggests itself that v. 11 and the first half of v. 12 
 may be an interpolation, but this notion is contradicted by v. 13. 
 Nor can any help be derived from the LXX., which is here 
 hopelessly confused. Even after we have struck out the ob- 
 viously interpolated words Kal eppi^rj %<x/zal 77 Sitcaioo-vvr) real 
 eirolrjae Kal evwSwOr}, we cannot recover with any degree of 
 
VIII. 11-13. 133 
 
 certainty the original text of the translation, still less the 
 Hebrew text which lay before the translator. The following 
 are the principal modern interpretations of the passage. Von 
 Lengerke renders "Even unto the Prince of the host it exalted 
 itself and took away from him the continual offering^ and the 
 place of his sanctuary was given up to destruction, and an host is 
 delivered over together with the continual offering on account 
 of iniquity, and it casteth the truth to the ground and will under- 
 take and cawy out with success". It is scarcely necessary to 
 point out the difficulties of this translation the construing of 
 &oy as feminine 1 , the rendering of *?9 "together with", etc. 
 Hitzig agrees with Von Lengerke as to v. 11, excepting that he 
 reads "sfc^ni. (historic Infinitive) instead of "H^ni.. In v. 12 he 
 substitutes "^ipfll for "SRljpTi], and translates, "And a warfare 
 was undertaken against the daily sacrifice with iniquity (Und zu 
 Felde gezogen ward wider das tagliche Opfer mit Frevel), and 
 the truth was cast down to the ground, and it (i.e. the horn) 
 accomplished this, and made it to prosper". Ewald in v. 11 
 follows the Kerl, i.e. "from him the daily sacrifice was taken 
 away". In v. 12 he has, " And armed force is imposed upon the 
 daily sacrifice through iniquity (Und Heerzwang wird auf das 
 Tagtagliche durch Frevel gelegt)" etc. It will be observed that 
 Hitzig and Ewald agree in attributing to N2 in v. 12 a sense 
 altogether different from that which it bears in v. 11. Thus it 
 appears that the passage, in its present form does not admit of 
 a satisfactory rendering, and since no plausible emendation has, 
 so far as I am aware, been suggested, we can conclude only, 
 from what follows, that w. 11 and 12 contained some allusion to 
 the cessation of the daily sacrifice and to the pollution of the 
 Temple with heathen rites. Beyond this all is mere conjecture. 
 13, 14. The vision properly so called is followed by a 
 dialogue between two angels. Daniel has already seen that the 
 daily sacrifice is to be suspended, and he naturally desires to 
 
 1 Isaiah xl. 2 proves nothing as to nS?O, evidently understood the words 
 the gender of K3X, for n&O n&& as ' she is fiUed with her host" 
 probably means "she hath finished her t h e Targum has 
 warfare" (i.e. fl$P, cf. Gen. xxix. 27, 
 28). The Masoretes, who pronounced 
 
134 VIII. 13. 
 
 know how long the period of desolation will last. The question 
 however is not uttered by Daniel himself but by an angel an 
 idea which was possibly suggested to the author by Zech. i. 12. 
 With nroetej (in some MSS. nr^o) c f. nj?$N I Kings xix. 20 
 and nyb>9K Is. xxvii. 4 ; Olshausen regards these forms as scribal 
 errors, for in each case the original vowel of the second syllable 
 must have been a (Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache, p. 122). 
 On the phrase vn~i\> inx see p. 30, and for the repetition of ^ 
 in the sense of <f one" and " other" see Exod. xvii. 12. Jer. xxiv. 
 2. The LXX. presupposes "intf both in the former and the 
 latter clause but this is no doubt an error. "^iDpS is abso- 
 lutely unknown elsewhere, and is taken by all moderns as a 
 contraction of ^b?N ^7$. So Symmachus has TLVL TTOTC, whereas 
 the LXX., Theodotion and the Peshitta, not understanding the 
 word, simply transcribe it, as though it were a proper name. 
 The intentionally vague phrase " some one or other who spake" 
 seems to be used in order to indicate that the angel was invi- 
 sible to Daniel. What the first speaker said is not told us ; the 
 second asks a question which in the Masoretic text presents 
 great difficulties. Von Lengerke translates, "For hoiv long is 
 the vision the continual offering and the desolating iniquity 
 the treading down both of the sanctuary and the host?" Not to 
 mention the wholly unparalleled construction DCHD N2V1 Bnpi nn 1 
 (which, as the accents shew, was intended by the Masoretes), 
 Von Lengerke's rendering is open to the objection that, if the 
 question refers, as doubtless it does, to the suspension of the 
 daily sacrifice, the speaker is here made to express himself in as 
 awkward and obscure a manner as can be imagined. Hitzig 
 prefers to connect nn with what precedes, and translates " For 
 how long is the vision of the daily sacrifice to leave unchecked the 
 horrible iniquity and to trample down sanctuary and host ? (Bis 
 wie lange das Gesicht vom taglichen Opfer ? den entsetzlichen 
 Frevel gewahren zu lassen, und Heiligthum und Heer zer- 
 treten ?)" Whether this interpretation removes the difficulty 
 may well be doubted, for not only is the placing of nn after its 
 object without analogy, but the meaning "gewahren lassen" is 
 
 1 Havernick endeavours to defend this by citing Ps. Ixxvi. 7 and Jer. xxxii. 
 20, but neither passage is conclusive. 
 
VIII. 13. 135 
 
 altogether unproved. Under these circumstances it is impos- 
 sible to believe the text to be correct. On the whole, the least 
 improbable solution may perhaps be as follows. The LXX. has, 
 f 'Eo>9 TtVo? TO opa/Jia (TTr)(7TCU Kal r) QvGia r) dpOelaa Kal rj 
 d/jLapria epij/jiwaea)^ r) SoOela-a, Kal rd ayta eprj/jbtoBijo-erat, et? 
 /caTa7rdT7}[j,a ; here arr^crerai was probably added as a gloss by 
 the translator or by a later copyist, but the words 77 dpOelaa, as 
 Graetz observes, cannot be so explained and imply some addi- 
 tional word in the Hebrew. Graetz suggests Cn-in ; it is how- 
 ever more natural to postulate Q'J-IO, for the presence of a 
 participle after Tpnn would account for the rendering of nri by 
 rj 8o0ei(ra. To the article in tf dpOelva and 77 SoOela-a no im- 
 portance can be attached, for it has been already shewn that the 
 translator added the article in a perfectly arbitrary fashion (p. 
 51). For JOV1 he appears to have read &QS\ as also in v. 12 
 [11] but this is no doubt an error. The Hebrew basis of the 
 LXX. may therefore have been 
 
 which may be read 
 
 : DD")D *osi cnp innp Db y^anj DTIO Tnn ptnn n *iy 
 
 i.e. " For how long is the vision to be, while the daily sacrifice is 
 taken away, and the Iniquity set up -from the time when he shall 
 tread down the sanctuary and the service?" In this case Tonn 
 Db ytrani D*n is a circumstantial clause descriptive of the period 
 which begins with the treading down of the sanctuary. The 
 angel asks how long this period will continue. The "iniquity" 
 which stands in opposition to the daily sacrifice must be identi- 
 cal with the "abomination" of chaps, xi. 31; xii. 11. For the 
 Passive Participle DT, see Num. xxiv. 21. Obad. 4. The verb 
 D-lb is the very word used of the setting up of heathen altars in 
 Jer. xi. 13, cf. also Jer. vii. 30 ; xxxii. 34. In chaps, xi. 31; xii. 
 11 the author of Daniel uses the verb fro in this connection, but 
 D-lb and fro are often employed interchangeably by Old Tes- 
 tament writers, even in the same context (Deut. vii. 15. Is. xii. 
 19; xliii. 16, 19. Jer. vi. 8; ix. 10. Ezek. xxv. 13; xxxv. 4). 
 That in these passages of Daniel the verb should vary, would 
 be no more astonishing than that we find W^ in one passage 
 
136 VIII. 1316. 
 
 and p-W in the two others. In this verse both the Masoretes 
 and the LXX. translator have been guided by the desire of 
 assimilating the expression to that used in chaps, xi. 31; xii. 11, 
 but in both cases the assimilation has involved a syntactical 
 anomaly. Verse 14 contains the answer to the angel's question, 
 and k$ is therefore altogether inappropriate. The LXX., Theo- 
 dotion, and the Peshitta all read lyK, which Ewald, Hitzig, arid 
 most modern commentators accept as correct. The phrase 
 "ijja 3*Ttf must be explained according to v. 26. Consequently it 
 is not, as Von Lengerke and others have supposed, a period of 
 24 hours (Gr. vv^Oij/jiepov), but is equivalent to ")pDl 2"iy " suc- 
 cessive evenings and mornings" (so Ewald, Hitzig, Kuenen, and 
 Cornill), cf. Gen. viii. 22. Since it is a question of the suspen- 
 sion of the daily sacrifice, the verse alludes, no doubt, to the 
 evening oblation (chap. ix. 21) and the morning oblation (Exod. 
 xxix. 41). KHp P'iJV? 1 ! "and then the sanctuary shall be justified" \ 
 the Niphal P^V?, which is used nowhere else, seems to mean 
 properly "to prove oneself just" and hence " to be manifested as 
 just", cf. BnpJ "to shew oneself as holy" (Lev. xxii. 32. Ezek. 
 xx. 41). The justification of the sanctuary is the vindication of 
 its cause, for as long as it is polluted it lies under condemna- 
 tion. The vagueness of the words ^OP PiiV^I certainly appears to 
 confirm the view of those who hold that when the author wrote 
 the event had not taken place. 
 
 15 18. As in chap, vii., an interpretation of the vision is 
 supplied by an angel, n^n n^pnfcO does not necessarily imply a 
 prayer to God, but is equivalent to na-V^ JV3V (chap. vii. 19). 
 The word "Qj is evidently used with reference to the name 
 ^xnna. D-JK Vip (v. 16) "a human voice", i.e. a voice speaking in 
 human language. v-1N ^2 " between (the two banks of the) Ulai" 
 a somewhat strange ellipse ; for the idea cf. chap. xii. 6. ?KH5a 
 (Man of God), who among the later Jews was reckoned one of the 
 archangels, appears here for the first time. It is well known 
 that no names of angels are mentioned in any Jewish writing 
 older than the book of Daniel 1 , whereas works of the period 
 
 1 The ancient Israelites, as Ewald 283), assumed as a matter of course 
 observes (Lehre der Bibel von Gott, n. that an angel had no individual name, 
 
VIII. 1619. 137 
 
 immediately following, above all the book of Enoch, contain 
 a highly developed angelolpgy. To what influences this was 
 due cannot, of course, be here discussed. t?n, the shortened 
 form of nj^n (which occurs only in Gen. xxiv. 65 ; xxxvii. 19), 
 is the etymological equivalent of the Arabic relative pronoun 
 
 ^*>s "&' . 
 
 jJl, shortened from the far commoner ^jJl. Elsewhere t?n, 
 
 njn, and the feminine Mn (Ezek. xxxvi. 35) are always ap- 
 pended to a determined noun (as is the case with njn, K-inn 
 etc.), except in I Sam. xiv. 1, where T?n has the adverbial 
 sense "there". For the construction of i?n with b cf. chap. xi. 
 33. The terror with which Daniel is seized at the approach of 
 Gabriel (v. 17) seems at first inconsistent with chap. vii. 16, but 
 may be ascribed to the fact that Gabriel is no ordinary angel. 
 Daniel is addressed as D!*?"!?, a phrase presumably suggested by 
 the book of Ezekiel ; he is bidden to mark well, "for the vision 
 is for the time of the end", i.e. it refers to the final crisis of the 
 world's history, and is therefore worthy of peculiar attention. 
 Unless we are prepared to deny that the chapter refers to the 
 time of Antiochus Epiphanes, this verse clearly shews that to 
 the author the time of Antiochus was " the time of the end", or, 
 in other words, that the Divine Kingdom was then to be esta- 
 blished 1 . In v. 18 Daniel, who was already prostrate, loses 
 consciousness on hearing the angelic voice, cf. the parallel 
 passage chap. x. 9. The phrase iDy by (cf. chap. x. 11) after 
 the verb ly is peculiar to the post-exilic style (Neh. xiii. 11. 
 II Chron. xxx. 16 ; xxxiv. 31 etc.) ; an older writer would here 
 use *$TO (cf. I Sam. xiv. 9). 
 
 19 25. The interpretation of the vision is now given. 
 The angel informs Daniel of what will take place "in the last 
 days of wrath", i.e. at the end of the heathen domination, for 
 the period of the subjection of Israel to the Gentiles is the 
 period of the divine wrath (chap. xi. 36). \\>. ^ffio? *? " because 
 
 i.e. he was merely one of a class (Gen. Antiochus, endeavours to save his 
 
 xxxii. 30), or else that his name was theory of the book of Daniel by ex- 
 
 unutterable (Judges xiii. 18). plaining that "the time of the end" 
 
 1 Havernick, who is forced to admit means only " one of the most import- 
 
 that " the little horn " of chap. viii. is ant periods in the history of Israel" ! 
 
138 VIII. 1923. 
 
 (it is) for the time of the end" ; cf. w. 17, 26, and chap. x. 14. 
 pjrrw and f j?. itfio are identical terms, since T\v bears much the 
 same relation to niflB that fQG? bears to 2^iE (cf. Ps. Ixviii. 17 ; 
 cxxxii. 13) 1 . Verse 20 explains that the ram represents the 
 "kings", i.e. the empires, of the Medes and Persians, cf. chap, 
 vii. 17 where the Four Empires are called " four kings". In 
 v. 21 " king" is used in both senses ; the he-goat is the " empire" 
 of the Greeks, and the great horn is the first " king", "iwn is 
 scarcely an epithet (" hairy"), but a synonym of "V^n, added by 
 way of explanation, rna^n (v. 22) is a Nominations pendens, 
 " and as for the horn that was broken, so that four arose in its 
 place" etc. On the peculiar form ril^p see p. 30. Instead of 
 *i-ip we should perhaps read i^P, with Graetz, though the read- 
 ing of the LXX. rov eOvovs avrov proves very little ; the con- 
 jecture is supported by what follows, inb} &6l : , where the suffix 
 obviously refers to Alexander (cf. ch. xi. 4). The form n3"]bg! is 
 rather to be regarded as an Aramaism than as a survival of 
 primitive Hebrew inflection the only cases apparently analo- 
 gous are Gen. xxx. 38. I Sam. vi. 12. The "four kingdoms", 
 which in v. 8 and chap. xi. 4 correspond to the four winds, are, 
 according to Porphyry, Macedonia, Syria, Asia, and Egypt 
 according to Von Lengerke, Hitzig and others, Thrace (North), 
 Egypt (South), Syria (East), and Macedonia (West). But since 
 in chap. xi. the Seleucidae are called kings of the North, not 
 kings of the East, it is perhaps more probable that chap. viii. 22 
 refers to Syria, Egypt, Parthia, and Macedonia ; of the two latter, 
 with which the Palestinian Jews never came directly in contact, 
 the author may have had but a vague knowledge, so that we 
 need find no difficulty in the fact that the Parthian kingdom 
 was formed long after the other three. In v. 23 the phrase Dnn? 
 Dwpan is rendered by Von Lengerke and Hitzig, " when the 
 sinners fill up their measure". By "the sinners" are meant the 
 heathen oppressors. The LXX., Theodotion, and the Peshitta 
 read "the sins" (DWK>n), and this has been accepted by Ewald, 
 on account of chap. ix. 24. But if the author had meant " when 
 
 1 I here assume that Delitzsch is Others have derived fiU from iTI!? or 
 right in connecting T\V with ly. even from DM. 
 
VIII. 23, 24. 139 
 
 the sins have come to the full", he would presumably have said 
 DWBn on? (cf. Is. xviii. 5). The objection which has sometimes 
 been raised (e.g. by Meinhold) that the full measure of sin was 
 not reached until after Antiochus had arisen, is hardly cogent, 
 for the reign of Antiochus is obviously included in the nnqs 
 Dn-ID^O, and all that the author intends, by inserting the words 
 DWsn Dnro, is to designate the latter days of Greek supremacy 
 as the worst. " A king insolent and skilled in double-dealing'' 
 JTTPn has here a more general sense than "dark sayings", and 
 means much the same as rnj^jpSq in chap. xi. 21. Verse 24 
 contains several difficulties, inb} fc6l signifies, according to 
 Havernick and others, " not by his own power, but by the per- 
 mission of God". Von Lengerke more naturally explains "not 
 by his strength, but by his intrigues" (cf. chap. xi. 23 DV1H nplrt, 
 *i3-tti;p3), nb being used in a double sense. Very improbable is 
 Ewald's interpretation, according to which the suffix in inb 
 refers to Alexander the Great. Perhaps inb? &6] in v. 24 has 
 been wrongly introduced from v. 22 ; in any case, if we strike 
 out these words the sense is in no wise impaired, rrn^! rnN?BJ\ 
 is rendered by almost all commentators, " and he shall destroy 
 wonderfully" ; in support of this Job xxxvii. 5 is quoted, but 
 from such a passage no safe conclusion can be drawn. Graetz 
 admits that nw is suspicious, but suggests no emendation. I 
 venture to propose nnb) nix^B3i. or rpfc? rn&&Bp} "and he shall 
 utter monstrous things'' (cf. niJ>BJ I3n; chap. xi. 36). The verb 
 nfy is almost entirely confined to the poetical style, but the 
 borrowing of poetical words is, as we have seen, characteristic of 
 Daniel. The latter part of v. 24 must be discussed in connection 
 with v. 25, which is usually translated " and through his cunning 
 he shall cause fraud to prosper in his hand" etc. contrary to 
 all syntax. Graetz, following the LXX., reads 'A?b D*Knj? brj 
 which we may safely accept. It has already been suggested 
 (p. 53), in discussing the LXX. text of this passage, that the 
 last words of v. 24 D*Knj? Dri. are an interpolation occasioned by 
 the beginning of v, 25. This view is confirmed by an examina- 
 tion of the context. We should scarcely be told first that 
 Antiochus " destroyed the people of the saints", and afterwards 
 that " his mind was against them". Accordingly it appears that 
 
140 VIII. 2427. 
 
 by the "many" (D'-liy in v. 24 we are to understand, not the 
 Jews, but the political enemies of Antiochus, who, being a 
 usurper, naturally had many opponents among the upper 
 classes (see chap. xi. 22 24). It was not until he had firmly 
 established himself on the throne that his hatred of the Jewish 
 religion began to shew itself. Thus the author, having described 
 in v. 24 the political successes of Antiochus, passes on, in v. 25, 
 to describe the king's contest against Judaism, and fittingly 
 introduces the subject with the words 'A?'^ D'Bnp ?y\ "and 
 against the Saints shall his mind be", cf. Bnp nn^w tan^-l chap, 
 xi. 28. 7*J ton?? is usually explained as " he shall be proud", 
 but it is rather, " he shall devise great things" ; the Hiphil ex- 
 presses the idea of producing something great, whether in the 
 way of deeds or thoughts. The destroying of many " unawares" 
 perhaps refers to the treacherous attack upon Jerusalem de- 
 scribed in I Mace. i. 30 ; for the phrase njpB^ see p. 31. The 
 "Prince of princes" is God, cf. chap. ii. 47. " Without hand" 
 means, of course, " not by human means, but by a special divine 
 intervention", cf. chap. ii. 34. 
 
 26, 27. The angel ends his speech with a solemn assertion 
 of the truth of " the vision concerning the evening and the morn- 
 ing", i.e. concerning the daily sacrifice (v. 14). Here for the 
 first time Daniel is commanded "to hide the vision", see chap, 
 xii. 4 ; the author of the book evidently intends by these words 
 to explain how the revelation made to Daniel had remained 
 hidden until the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. The ellipse in 
 D:n Dn? ? is precisely like that in v. 19. In v. 27 W.HJ and 
 the following i are ignored by the LXX. ; if the Masoretic text 
 be correct, WW means "I carne to an end" (cf. chap. ii. 1), i.e. 
 "I was exhausted", but it must be admitted that nowhere else 
 is n;ru so used. The Pgshitta has z&eth "I trembled" evi- 
 dently a guess. The words T?P P81 " and there was none who 
 understood", do not, of course, imply that Daniel communicated 
 the vision to others, but the phrase must be taken as signifying 
 "and (I was) no understander (thereof)"; see what has been 
 said on 1$3 JW. in v. 5, and for the idea cf. chap. xii. 8. 
 
141 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The two last visions of Daniel (chaps, ix xii) differ from 
 the preceding ones in that the events of history are no longer 
 exhibited in the symbolical form of beasts, horns, etc., but 
 are communicated to Daniel in direct terms. The vision in 
 chap. ix. is dated from the first year of Darius, and is introduced 
 by a long preface. The text of v. 2, interpreted in its most 
 obvious sense, informs us that Daniel " understood by the Scrip- 
 tures" the prediction of the prophet Jeremiah, according to 
 which the desolation of Jerusalem was to last 70 years. There- 
 upon Daniel confesses before God the sins of Israel, acknow- 
 ledges the justice of their punishment, and implores mercy. 
 Whilst he is praying, the angel Gabriel appears with the 
 announcement that 70 weeks are decreed for Israel, and that at 
 the end of that period the sins of Daniel's people will be par- 
 doned for ever. 
 
 This vision has been a subject of controversy, from a very 
 early time, both among Jews and Christians. Ecclesiastical 
 writers of the 3rd century differ widely from one another on the 
 subject, and even so late as the time of Jerome there was no 
 interpretation generally accepted in the Church. Similar dis- 
 agreement prevailed among the medieval Rabbins, and in 
 modern times the methods devised for solving the problem 
 have been innumerable. To pass in review all the rival in- 
 terpretations is therefore impossible ; the utmost that can be 
 attempted is to make a general classification, giving specimens 
 of the principal types. 
 
 The main points to be discussed are (1) What is meant by 
 a week ? and (2) What events form the starting-point and the 
 conclusion of the series ? 
 
 As to the first of these questions, the great majority of 
 interpreters, whether Jewish or Christian, ancient or modern, 
 have held that a " week" is a period of seven years. Some early 
 
142 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Christians, however, according to Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. 
 viii.), explained the last week as a period of seventy years, while 
 admitting that the other sixty-nine weeks were periods of seven 
 years only. To this very arbitrary assumption they were led 
 solely by the desire of making the 70th week cover the time 
 between the Crucifixion of Christ and the reign of Trajan. A 
 notion still more extravagant has in modern times been defended 
 by Kliefoth, Keil, and others. According to these writers the 
 "weeks" are "symbolical" "heavenly" or in plain language 
 unknown periods, and Keil proceeds to assure us that the incom- 
 prehensibility of the revelation is a striking proof of its divine 
 origin 1 . Every other interpretation, it seems, does violence to 
 the text ; this alone satisfies all the conditions of the problem. 
 But in reality, this theory is more obviously at variance with 
 the text than any other that has been proposed. Verses 22, 23, 
 and 25, certainly imply that the duration of the weeks was 
 definitely known ; indeed, save upon this assumption, the speech 
 of the angel would be, from beginning to end, a piece of ela- 
 borate mockery. 
 
 Very much greater is the difference of opinion as to the 
 beginning and end of the 70 weeks. On this subject no pre- 
 Christian interpretation has been handed down to us, for to 
 argue, with Hitzig and others, that the LXX. translator regarded 
 the 70 weeks as coming to an end in the time of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes, is unsafe, owing to the confused state of the Greek 
 text in this passage. According to Jerome, the Jews of his age 
 made the 70 weeks to begin with the date of the vision, i.e. the 
 first year of Darius the Mede, and to end with the destruction 
 of Jerusalem by Hadrian. The medieval Jews, on the other 
 hand, usually reckoned the weeks from the destruction of the 
 First Temple to the destruction of the Second, under Titus, the 
 
 1 Lest it should be suspected that chronologischen Zeitmaassen voraus- 
 
 I have here exaggerated the absurdity verkiindigt, nicht das Geringste von 
 
 of Keil's theory, I will cite his own ihrem Offenbaruugscharakter, sondern 
 
 words. "Die Weissagung verliert da- erweist dadurch erst recht ihren gott- 
 
 durch, dass sie die Entwicklungs- lichen iiber menschliches Meinen und 
 
 zeiten der zukiinftigen Vollendung Denken erhabenen Ursprung". Keil, 
 
 des Gottesreichs und dieser Welt Commentar, p. 332. 
 nach symbolischen nicht nach irdisch- 
 
CHAP. IX. 143 
 
 first 7 weeks being the period of the Exile and the " Anointed 
 One" of v. 25 being Cyrus 1 , But Ben Ezra, while admitting 
 that the 70 weeks end with Titus, makes them to begin with 
 the date of the vision, the first seven weeks extending as far as 
 Nehemiah, who is the "Anointed One". 
 
 Early Christian theologians naturally endeavoured to find 
 in the passage a prediction of Christ, but the great discordance 
 between them sufficiently proves the difficulty of the task which 
 they undertook. 
 
 According to Julius Africanus (ap. Euseb.), the 70 weeks 
 begin with the decree of Artaxerxes, in the 20th year of his 
 reign (Neh. ii. 1 9), and end with the Crucifixion of Christ in 
 the 15th year of Tiberius. But as this amounts to 475 years 
 only, instead of 490, which is the number required, Julius Afri- 
 canus attempts to get over the difficulty by saying that we are 
 to count by lunar, not by solar, years. 
 
 Hippolytus differs from Julius Africanus in that he recog- 
 nizes a meaning in the division of the 70 weeks into 7 + 62 + 1. 
 He makes the 7 weeks to extend from the date of Daniel's 
 vision to the Return of the Exiles uncler Joshua the high-priest, 
 Ezra, and Zerubbabel (sic), and the 62 weeks from the Return 
 of the Exiles to the birth of Christ. The 70th and last week 
 Hippolytus severs from the rest, and places at the end of the 
 world, in the time of the Antichrist (see the fragments of Hip- 
 polytus' Commentary on Daniel, in Migne's Patrologia Qraeco- 
 Latina, Vol. x, and also Das neu entdeckte vierte Buch des 
 Daniel-Kommentars von Hippolytus, ed. Bratke, Bonn, 1891). 
 
 Eusebius (Demonstr. Evang. vm.) dates the 7 weeks from 
 the Return of the Exiles in the 1st year of Cyrus to the com- 
 pletion of the Temple and the surrounding buildings in the 9th 
 year of Darius Hystaspis*. The 62 weeks he makes to extend 
 from the time of Darius to the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, 
 in 63 B.C. He explains the "Anointed One" as a collective 
 term, referring to the Jewish high-priests from Joshua son of 
 
 1 So Saadia the Gaon (cited by Ben of 49 years, whereas it amounted in 
 Ezra), and Rashi. reality to 26 only (from 538 to 512 
 
 - This Eusebius reckons as a period B.C.). 
 
144 CHAP. IX. 
 
 Jozadak to Alexander (Yannai), whose death (79 B.C.) he places 
 482 years after the accession of Cyrus 1 . Another view which 
 Eusebius admits to be possible, is that the 70 weeks begin with 
 the second year of Darius and that the 69th week ends with 
 the death of the high-priest Hyrcanus II. (30 B.C.). The 70th 
 week Eusebius, like Hippolytus, detaches from the others ; but 
 he does not regard it as still future. It extends, according to 
 him, from the beginning of Christ's public ministry to the 
 middle of the fourth year after the Crucifixion. The causing of 
 the sacrifice and offering to cease (Dan. ix. 27) refers to the fact 
 that upon the death of Christ the services in the Jewish Temple 
 ceased to be recognized by God 2 . 
 
 Apollinarius, according to Jerome, maintained that the 70 
 weeks did not begin till the birth of Christ ; in the last week 
 (from 483 to 490 A.D.) Elijah and the Antichrist were to appear. 
 On this theory Jerome sagely remarks, Periculose de incertis 
 profert sententiam: 
 
 It will be seen at once that the above patristic interpreta- 
 tions agree in nothing but in the attempt to establish a more or 
 less fanciful connection between the 70 weeks and the rise 
 of Christianity. Not one of them has any claim to be regarded 
 as the interpretation current among the Christians of the Apo- 
 stolic age, still less as an interpretation derived from a pre- 
 Christian source. Here, as in so many other cases, a " tradi- 
 tional" explanation does not exist. The explanations given by 
 the Rabbins and the Christian Fathers follow no definite system 
 whatsoever, but are merely the random guesses of individuals, 
 the gropings of men who lacked the clue to the book 8 . The 
 endeavour made by modern apologists to obscure the subject by 
 the introduction of dogmatic considerations is therefore alto- 
 
 1 Strictly speaking therefore the 62 any one who compares the two will, I 
 
 weeks (i.e. 434 years) should close at think, admit that the abstract I have 
 
 the death of the high-priest Alexander, given is, in the main, correct, 
 
 not at the taking of Jerusalem by 3 " Scio de hac quaestione db erudi- 
 
 Pompey 16 years later. tissimis viris varie disputatumetunum- 
 
 - Some of the details of Eusebius' quemque pro captu ingenii sui dixisse 
 
 theory are uncertain, as the Latin quod senserat". Jerome, Comm. in 
 
 translation by Jerome varies consider- Dan. cap. ix. 
 ably from the present Greek text, but 
 
CHAP. IX. 145 
 
 gether futile. If the question is to be decided at all, it must be 
 decided on scientific grounds alone. 
 
 The first principle to be laid down for the interpretation of 
 the vision is that it should be studied in close connection with 
 what precedes The prayer of Daniel and the revelation made 
 to him are indissolubly linked together (v. 23). What then is 
 the principal subject of Daniel's petition ? Verse 20 supplies 
 the answer he prays on behalf of the " holy mountain" of God, 
 that is, Jerusalem and the Temple. Accordingly we have a 
 right to assume that Jerusalem and the Temple are also the 
 subjects of the revelation ; any interpretation which makes the 
 speech of Gabriel to turn upon some different topic, must be 
 unhesitatingly rejected. The 70 weeks, we are expressly told, 
 concern, not the world in general, but the people and the holy 
 city of Daniel (v. 24). 
 
 Another point to which special notice must be called is that 
 the revelation sent to Daniel is intended " to give him clear 
 understanding" (v. 22), he is to "understand and know" its 
 contents (v. 25). We are therefore bound to suppose that the 
 author of the chapter knew what was meant by a week, and 
 knew from what point the 70 weeks were to be reckoned. 
 
 The 70 weeks obviously stand in connection with the 70 
 years of v. 2. Elsewhere in the Bible the word " week" always 
 means a week of days (Dan. x. 2), but that this cannot be the 
 case here is evident, and the idea of weeks of years therefore 
 naturally presents itself. The institution of the sabbatical year 
 proves that the notion of a week of years was quite familiar to 
 the ancient Jews the word Sabbath being applied indifferently 
 to the 7th day and to the 7th year (Lev. xxv. 2, 4). It has 
 often been noticed that, according to the author of the book of 
 Chronicles, the 70 years of captivity foretold by Jeremiah corre- 
 sponded to 70 sabbatical years (II Chron. xxxvi. 21 as compared 
 with Lev. xxvi. 34, 35). Moreover if we believe the book of 
 Daniel to have been composed in the Maccabean period, there 
 is yet another reason for the connection between the 70 years 
 and the 70 weeks of years. For, as I have before pointed out, 
 the 2nd verse of this chapter states that the author understood 
 by reading the Scriptures the number of the years fixed for the 
 B. D. 10 
 
146 CHAP. IX. 
 
 desolation of Jerusalem according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, 
 i.e. he discovered in the Scriptures something which enabled 
 him rightly to understand Jeremiah's prediction. But to what 
 passage of Scripture does he here refer ? Some light is thrown 
 on the question by vv. 11 and 13, where the punishment that 
 has corne upon Israel is said to be " written in the law of Moses". 
 All commentators are agreed that Lev. xxvi. 14 ff. is at least one 
 of the passages which the author had in mind. But no one, so 
 far as I am aware, has noticed that the special allusion is to 
 Lev. xxvi. 18, 21, 24, 28, where it is emphatically declared that 
 the Israelites are to be punished seven times for their sins. The 
 70 weeks become intelligible if we suppose that the author of 
 Daniel combined Jer. xxv. 11; xxix. 10 with Lev. xxvi. 18 ff. 
 The motive is obvious. Since he firmly believed in the infalli- 
 bility of Jeremiah's prediction, and was at the same time pain- 
 fully conscious that the prediction, in its literal sense, had 
 received but a very partial fulfilment, it became necessary to 
 seek for some new interpretation. This was supplied by the 
 passage in Leviticus. The 70 years of Jeremiah were to be 
 repeated 7 times, and at the end of the 490th year the long- 
 promised deliverance might be confidently expected. In the 
 exegesis of the later Jews such deductions, formed by artifi- 
 cially combining different passages of Scripture, were extremely 
 common. 
 
 If therefore the 70 weeks are merely the 70 years of Jere- 
 miah multiplied by 7, it is clear that the 70 weeks must begin 
 in the time of Jeremiah. The question has often been discussed 
 whether the terminus a quo is the date of Jeremiah's prediction, 
 as is maintained by Hitzig, or the destruction of Jerusalem by 
 Nebuchadnezzar, as is maintained by Yon Lengerke, Ewald, 
 and Schurer. It is probable, as Graetz remarks, that the author 
 of Daniel did not separate these two events in his mind but 
 regarded them as contemporaneous. To the post-exilic Jews 
 what seemed important was the fact that Jeremiah, the pro- 
 phet of the last days of the Judaean kingdom, had foretold 70 
 years of desolation. The precise date of the prophecy was im- 
 material. Accordingly in II Chron. xxxvi. 21 the 70 years 
 are represented as beginning with the destruction of Jeru- 
 
CHAP. IX. 147 
 
 salem 1 , and there is every reason to suppose that the author of 
 Daniel took the same view.^ 
 
 On the other hand, those modern interpreters who connect 
 the 70 weeks with the coming of Christ naturally endeavour to 
 place the terminus a quo much later. For this purpose two 
 principal theories have been proposed: that of Hengstenberg 
 who dates the 70 weeks from the 20th year of Artaxerxes I., 
 and that of Auberlen who dates them from the 7th year of the 
 same king. In order to make the 490 years end at the time 
 required, Hengstenberg has recourse to the extraordinary as- 
 sumption that Artaxerxes I. came to the throne in 474 B.C. (so 
 that his 20th year would begin in 455), and discovers, as we 
 might have expected, many wonderful confirmations of this idea, 
 But since it is now admitted by every one that Artaxerxes I. 
 began to reign in 465 or 464 B.C., Hengstenberg's theory has 
 been generally abandoned. With regard to the theory of 
 Auberlen, it is sufficient to remark that it contradicts the text, 
 for how could Daniel be said to "understand the vision", if the 
 terminus a quo, upon which the whole matter depended, were an 
 event that took place some 70 or 80 years after his death ? 
 Are we to suppose that on some previous occasion, of which 
 nothing is recorded, the history of the reign of Artaxerxes had 
 been supernaturally revealed to him ? 
 
 Since therefore the 70 weeks begin with the destruction of 
 Jerusalem, we may proceed to examine the division into 
 7 + 62 + 1. Great as are the obscurities of the text in some 
 matters of detail, the following facts stand out clearly. The 
 first 7 weeks date from " the going forth of the word " for the 
 building of Jerusalem, and end with the appearance of an 
 Anointed One, a Prince. The 62 weeks end with the cutting 
 off of an Anointed One. The one remaining week is divided into 
 halves during the latter half " sacrifice and oblation " are sus- 
 pended. All critical interpreters identify the second half of the 
 last week with the " time, times, and half a time " of chap. 
 
 1 This is quite compatible with the (II Chron. xxxvi. 22). Zechariah, 
 
 fact that the Chronicler seems to re- writing circa 519 B.C., evidently thought 
 
 gard the Eeturu of the Exiles under that the 70 years were only just coming 
 
 Cyrus as the close of the 70 years to an end (Zech. i. 12). 
 
 102 
 
148 CHAP. IX. 
 
 vii. 25, so that the middle of this week must coincide with the 
 cessation of the daily sacrifice, by the order of Antiochus, near 
 the close of the year 168 B.C. (see p. 128, note), and the 70th 
 week therefore ends in 164. But here a difficulty arises. From 
 588 B.C. (the probable date of the destruction of Jerusalem) to 
 164 there are only 424 years. Of this fact various explanations 
 have been suggested. Ewald imagines that the full sum of 
 490 years was diminished, owing to an afterthought of the 
 writer, and even goes so far as to maintain that a passage, in 
 which this was stated, has fallen out at the end of the chapter. 
 The theory has, it need hardly be said, found few adherents. 
 Von Lengerke and Hitzig make the 7 weeks to run parallel 
 with the first 7 weeks in the next series (i.e. the 62 weeks), 
 instead of preceding them. But this interpretation, if less fan- 
 tastic than Ewald's, is at least highly artificial and scarcely 
 reconcileable with the text. Finally, Graf, Noldeke, and Cor- 
 nill have given it as their opinion that the author of Daniel, 
 who lived amongst a people very imperfectly acquainted with 
 the chronology of remote ages, followed an incorrect computa- 
 tion. Schiirer agrees with this view, and shews that a pre- 
 cisely similar error is found in other Jewish writers ; thus 
 Josephus places the reign of Cyrus some 40 or 50 years too 
 early (compare Bell. Jud. vi. 4, 8. Antiq, xiu. 11, 1 ; xx. 10), 
 while Demetrius, an Egyptian Jew who composed a work on 
 chronology about the end of the 3rd century B.C., places the 
 fall of Samaria (722 B.C.) 573 years before the accession of 
 Ptolemy IV. (222 B.C.) 1 . We cannot suppose that either Deme- 
 trius or Josephus was exceptionally ignorant of chronology, and 
 if professed historians could fall into such mistakes, it is absurd 
 to expect superior accuracy in an apocalyptic work such as 
 Daniel. The difficulty of calculating dates in the ancient 
 world was much greater than is usually imagined 2 . Until the 
 establishment of the Seleucid era, in 312 B.C., the Jews had no 
 fixed era whatsoever. Hence the length of the period between 
 
 1 See Schiirer, Gesch. d. jud. Volkes, the Sasanian kings, reckoned only 266 
 ii. p. 616. years from Alexander the Great to the 
 
 2 A curious instance of this is seen overthrow of the Parthian dynasty 
 in the fact that the Persians, under (228 A.D.). 
 
IX. 1, 2. 149 
 
 Cyrus and Alexander could be discovered only by summing up 
 the reigns of the Persian kings, and it may be doubted whether, 
 in the Maccabean age, one Jew in ten thousand was acquainted 
 even with the names and order of these kings, not to mention 
 the length of their reigns, for the study of non-Biblical history 
 was never a part of Jewish education. 
 
 It has sometimes been objected that since the author of 
 Daniel recognizes only 4 Persian kings (see chap. xi. 2), and 
 since the existence of the Seleucid era must have enabled him 
 to compute approximately the date of Alexander, he cannot 
 have made the interval between Cyrus and Alexander so great 
 as the above interpretation would require. But this objection 
 proceeds upon the unfounded assumption that all those chrono- 
 logical difficulties which occur to us must have occurred to the 
 author of Daniel. 
 
 1 3. On Darius, son of Ahasuerus, see the Introduction 
 to chap. vi. The name ^niBTiX was possibly borrowed by the 
 author from Ezra or from Esther, in both of which books it is 
 spelt as in Daniel. But the form originally in use among the 
 Jews was no doubt Kn^nx (pron. Ahashyarsh or Ahshayarsh), 
 for the native Persian form is Khshayarsha, and on an Aramaic 
 stele found in Egypt and now preserved at Berlin, the name is 
 written KHN^n (see the Corpus Inscr. Sem. Pt. 2, N. 122). With 
 ni)'a (v. 2) compare rrian Job xxxiii. 13. These forms were re- 
 garded by Ewald as shortened from 'rwaq and rriann, but 
 Noldeke has shewn, in the Z. D. M. G. xxxvil. p. 525 ff., that 
 the dropping of the n of the Hiphil, where there is no prefix, is 
 impossible in Hebrew 1 . Accordingly *ro*a is either a Kal, in- 
 flected according to the analogy of the Hiphil and of such forms 
 as 'niaD, or else a mere scribal error for ^a, cf. njjija Ps. cxxxix. 
 2. Dnatpa wa is rendered by Von Lengerke "I sought to 
 understand the Scriptures", and by Hitzig "/ marked in the 
 Scriptures the number of the years " etc. But if the view sug- 
 gested on p. 146 be correct, the sense must be "/ understood by 
 the Scriptures " etc. the Scriptures being here the Pentateuch. 
 With the form rn&6 cf. rn*6p Jer. xxv. 12 and n&6p Jer. xxix. 
 
 1 See also Wright, Comp. Gmmm. p. 244, where the same view is taken. 
 
150 IX. 2-12. 
 
 10. Such forms are combinations of the vulgar pronunciation 
 rri?9, nfe, with the etymologically correct &6p, N?E ; see again 
 chap. x. 3. In v. 3 " to seek prayer and supplication " is, of 
 course, to apply oneself to them, cf. Zeph. ii. 3. 
 
 4 9. This prayer bears a striking resemblance to those 
 in Neh. i. 5 ff. ; ix. 6 ff., and to that in the Book of Baruch i. 
 loff. 1 It is commonly supposed that the author of Daniel 
 copied from Nehemiah. But it is also possible that both writers 
 were merely using current formulae, for the language of devo- 
 tion is peculiarly liable to flow in traditional grooves, and how 
 often must prayers such as these have been offered up by the 
 devout Israelites during the long ages of Gentile oppression ! 
 Daniel here speaks as the representative of his people, and it is 
 remarkable that in the whole prayer there is not a single verse 
 which does not apply at least as well to the days of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes as to the days of the Babylonian Exile. Nowhere 
 does the speaker even hint that he is at a distance from Pales- 
 tine ; in v. 7 the phrase " all Israel, those who are near and 
 those who are afar of in all the lands whither Thou hast driven 
 them", can scarcely mean anything but "those Jews who are in 
 Palestine and those who are in foreign countries", the speaker 
 himself belonging to the former of these classes. The expres- 
 sion " our kings", in v. 8, does not, of course, assume the exist- 
 ence of a Jewish king at the moment, any more than it does in 
 Neh. ix. 32. The speaker is here looking back upon the history 
 of Israel, and he confesses that from of old his people have been 
 transgressors. 
 
 10 14. For TO! see v. 27 and Jer. xlii. 18; xliv. 6. 
 II Chron. xii. 7 ; the same metaphor occurs again in Ps. Ixxix. 6 
 and Rev. xvi. " The curse and the oath which is written in the 
 law of Moses" refers back to v, 2 and, as has before been said, 
 to Lev. xx vi. 18 ff. In v. 12 "judges" is apparently a general 
 term for "rulers" (Amos ii. 3: Ps. ii. 10). Ewald, believing 
 that the author of Daniel copied from Baruch, considers this 
 verse an abbreviated form of Bar. ii. 1, where the word "judges" 
 
 1 Compare especially Dan. ix. 4 with 15 17 ; Dan. ix. 12, 13 with Bar. ii. 
 Neh. i. 5 (which again is based upon 1, 2 ; Dan. ix. 14 with Neh. ix. 33. 
 Deut. vii. 9) ; Dan. ix. 7, 8 with Bar. i. Bar. ii. 9; Dan. ix. 15 with Neh. ix. 10. 
 
IX. 1217. 151 
 
 is evidently used in its special historical sense. For "10? " so 
 that", in nn^rp6 i^, see I Kings iii. 12. Is. Ixv. 16. To the 
 pious Jews the outrages committed by Antiochus at Jerusalem 
 appeared altogether unparalleled, as we can see from the terms, 
 doubtless somewhat hyperbolical, which are employed in I Mace. 
 i. 39, 40 ; ii. 712. In v. 13 the nK in n^n nrjn'b n is pro- 
 bably due to the preceding passive, 2-in3, cf. Num. xxxii. 5. 
 I Kings ii. 21. ^P^5 ^3J?u? is rendered by Von Lengerke "to 
 become wise through Thy truth", and by Hitzig "to have insight 
 into Thy faithfulness (einzusehen deine Treue)", i.e. to realize 
 that God fulfils His threats ; the original meaning of the root 
 
 is, of course, " to gaze", " to contemplate". With the phrase 
 mn ipf?} (v. 14) cf. Jer. i. 12. 
 
 15 19. Upon the confession of sin now follows the prayer 
 for deliverance. " And so Thou gattest to Thyself renown as at 
 this day", i.e. the memory of Thy deeds is still living among us, 
 cf. Ps. xliv. 1 ff. That the recollection of God's acts in the 
 remote past and, above all, of the Exodus from Egypt, contri- 
 buted greatly to rouse the enthusiasm of the Jews in the Mac- 
 cabean age, appears from many indications. In v. 16 inp"l 
 (with defective spelling, according to Baer) "Thy righteous acts", 
 are the works which God has wrought for His people, cf. Judg. 
 v. 11. I Sam. xii. 7. The words "Jerusalem and Thy people 
 are a reproach to all that are round about us" exactly express 
 the position of the faithful Jews under Antiochus, since in addi- 
 tion to the tyranny of the king they had to endure the taunts 
 of their heathen neighbours, the Edomites, the Ammonites, etc. 
 The word DP^ (v. 17) is chosen with special reference to f-W 
 DJpir (chap. xii. 11), i.e. the heathen altar set up in the Temple. 
 Instead of 'fig |tfO^ the LXX. has eveicev rwv &ov\(0v crov 
 Seo-TTora, i.e. ^1K "pay JVD 1 ?, which gives a decidedly better 
 sense. For though in this prayer the speaker several times 
 passes from the second to the third person without any appa- 
 rent reason, the words ^IK U^, following immediately upon a 
 petition, would be very harsh. Nor can it be objected that 
 "V~oy j^E? is inconsistent with the confession of the utter un- 
 vvorthiness of Israel, for the same phrase occurs in Is. Ixiii. 17, 
 a passage of very similar import. The opening words of 
 
152 IX. 1823. 
 
 v. 18 are almost identical with II Kings xix. 16. Is. xxxvii. 
 17. 
 
 20 23. Though Daniel had already understood the mean- 
 ing of Jeremiah's prophecy (v. 2), Gabriel appears, before the 
 prayer is ended, to give him fuller and more explicit informa- 
 tion. With B$n "the man", as applied to Gabriel, cf. ruyp? 
 "O3 chap. viii. 15 and also Acts i. 10. For n^ru^O "previously" 
 see chap. viii. 1. The peculiar phrase *$>% *|tf is rendered by 
 Havernick and Von Lengerke "being caused to hasten with 
 haste", sjifljp being taken as a participle Hophal from *|J, a verb 
 which elsewhere is used only in the Kal, and which, it must be 
 admitted, never means " to hasten" but "to be weary". ^ is 
 a noun of the same form as "Jj?J. Theodotion, the Peshitta, and 
 the Vulgate have here "flying", according to which interpreta- 
 tion s$O would be from spy; but to this there are two objections, 
 firstly that *|1P? would then become inexplicable, and secondly 
 that nowhere in the Old Testament are angels represented as 
 flying 1 . Meinhold takes *$*? *$& as referring to Daniel, and 
 translates the clause, " whom I had seen previously, when I was 
 exhausted", cf. chap. viii. 17, 18. vtf 1$ "approaching me", cf. 
 Jon. iii. 6. Job iv. 5. "About the time of the evening oblation", 
 see Acts iii. 1. The mention of the oblation doubtless refers to 
 the suspension of the daily sacrifice Daniel is praying for the 
 holy mountain of his God at the hour when, in the usual course 
 of things, the evening oblation would be offered. For ]l*\ (v. 22) 
 "and he instructed (me)", the LXX. and the Peshitta read NT1 
 "and he came". The phrase n:*3 ^ptffftff apparently signifies, 
 not "to cause thee to understand the meaning of the prophecy" 
 (Von Lengerke), but rather " to give thee clear understanding " 
 n:>3 being used adverbially, cf. nron^p D2 l^n h$ Deut. ii. 9, 24 ; 
 phrases of this kind form the transition from the use of the 
 abstract verbal noun as the object of the verb (as in Era "H!! 
 nVn; H3D I Sam. xix. 8) to the so-called accusative of manner 
 (as in ^SpD) njn DDpN Wfi Jer. iii. 15). nyj V: (v. 23) " a word 
 went forth", i.e. the divine sentence, which now follows, was 
 uttered. With the term nil-ion, applied to Daniel, we must 
 
 1 Jacob's dream, in Gen. xxviii. 12, obviously assumes that angels are 
 wingless. 
 
IX. 23, 24. 153 
 
 compare nnoq &$ in chap. x. 11, 19; the expression is a pecu- 
 liar one, for elsewhere n'non is used of things, never of persons 
 (see Dan. x. 3 ; xi. 38, 43) ; the only passage in which the verb 
 lt>n has God as its subject is Ps. Ixviii. 17, the object being 
 impersonal. The LXX. has here on, eXeeii/os et, and av 
 ekeeivos in chap. x. 11, 19, i.e. the translator read nnDn 
 instead of nnon, for eXeo? is the most usual rendering of 
 In favour of this reading it might be urged that niTDn 
 "men of piety" actually occurs in the Palestinian Talmud 
 (Sotdh ix., near the end). But, on the whole, the Masoretic 
 text is here to be preferred, for singular as the expression "K 
 n'npn appears, it may have been suggested by some such phrase 
 as D'lMiri^ -A; Jer. xxxi. 19. With the use of the fern, plural 
 nn-lDQ as "an object of affection", cf. nto"}? "an object of bless- 
 ings" Ps. xxi. 7. ni33 13115 -Q-12 pn-i "therefore heed the word, 
 and give heed to the vision" ; pa is here the Imperat. Kal, of the 
 same form as D" 1 ^' (see what has been said on *J1J*3 v. 2), and 
 apparently does not differ in meaning from pn, cf. HW?n v. 15 
 and ?TO v . 5. 
 
 24. This verse lays down the fundamental principle, which 
 is afterwards explained in detail. The 70 years foretold by 
 Jeremiah are to be understood as 70 weeks of years, and by the 
 end of this period the redemption of Israel will be complete. 
 It has already been remarked that elsewhere in the Old Testa- 
 ment VW? always means " a week of days ", here only " a week 
 of years"; in this latter sense it is sometimes used in post- 
 Biblical Hebrew, e.g. in the Mishnah, Sank. v. 1. Instead of 
 the PI. B^k?, which occurs 6 times in Daniel, other Biblical 
 writers employ riling (e.g. Exod. xxxiv. 22. Deut. xvi. 9. 
 II Chron. viii. 13). On "^nj " have been decreed", see p. 30 ; for 
 the use of the singular form of the verb with a plural subject, 
 cf. Gen. xxxv. 26. Job xxii. 9, in both of which cases the verb 
 has, as here, a passive meaning. The expression "thy people 
 and thy holy city" does not imply, as Jerome imagines, that 
 Israel and Jerusalem are no longer recognized by God, but is 
 used because Daniel represents the true Israel, cf. ^ chap, 
 xii. 1 and the phrase urnx^rn MEn.j5 )V3 Is. Ixiv. 10. Von Len- 
 gerke rightly observes that the Infinitives which now follow 
 
154 IX. 24. 
 
 refer, not to the events which take place during the course of 
 the 70 weeks, but to the blessings with which the 70 weeks 
 conclude. N^ stands for fife 1 ?, as in Jer. xxxviii. 4 Ngnp 
 stands for ngnp, owing to the confusion (doubtless the result of 
 Aramaic influence) between roots with final K and those with 
 final \ Von Lengerke chooses to read N???, which he renders 
 "to shut in" (einschliessen); but such a. metaphor is very forced. 
 In niNBn Dnrbl the word Dnrfo is no doubt a mistake for onn!?.l 
 (Ke'rl), due to the Dnr6l almost immediately following. Von 
 Lengerke, however, prefers the Kffihib " to seal ", although " to 
 seal up sin " elsewhere signifies " to reserve it for punishment " 
 (Job xiv. 17, cf. Deut. xxxii. 34), which cannot be the sense 
 here. Instead of the Kethlb niNton the Masoretes read nxttn, 
 for the sake of the parallelism, but this is unnecessary (see 
 Micah i. 5). Hitzig translates this passage " to complete the 
 transgression and to fill up the measure of sin" ("zu vollenden 
 den Abfall und zu fiillen das Siindenmaass"); it is however more 
 in accordance with the context to understand N7D and Dnn in 
 the negative sense, i.e. "to make an end of", "to abolish" (cf. 
 Num. xxv. 11. Ezek. xxii. 15). The versions read as follows 
 LXX. crvvTe\cr6rivai TYJV dfjuapriav fcal rds dBiictas (nravlcrai 
 (read crcfrpayla'ai) Theod. TOV avvTe\ecr0f)vai d/juapTiav KOI TOV 
 o-<f)pa<yl(Ta<, d^apria^ Aquila, TOV crtwreXecrat rrjv dOecriav real 
 rov Tekei&aai d^apTiav Pesh. USfc^^ttACV rtlraCXjj )olxJt*lA 
 r^cri^A*. The next clause fitf "igD>1 is, according to the accents, 
 connected with what precedes, but it should rather be coupled 
 with Dwy pnx ^^n?-1, for the six acts here enumerated natu- 
 rally fall into three pairs. The words ^95 and P^.? are both 
 legal terms, by the " atoning of sin " and the " bringing in of 
 everlasting righteousness" is meant the termination of that 
 controversy or suit (2n) which God has with His people (see 
 Is. xxvii. 9). " To seal vision and prophet " is " to confirm " the 
 predictions of the prophets (Von Lengerke, Hitzig), cf., in the 
 New Testament, John iii. 33 ; vi. 27. The metaphor is taken 
 from the affixing of a seal to a document in order to attest its 
 genuineness (I Kings xxi. 8). The last act is "to anoint the 
 most holy thing" i.e. to consecrate the Altar in the Temple, 
 
IX. 24, 25. 155 
 
 which, when the author wrote, was given up to the heathen 
 worship. Some early Christians and some medieval Jews dis- 
 covered an allusion to the Messiah in this passage (see the 
 Peshltta and Ben-Ezra), but the phrase D*Bnj? BHp, which occurs 
 more than forty times in the Old Testament, never refers to 
 persons, always to things, and is used especially of the Altar of 
 sacrifice (Exod. xxix. 36, 37 ; xxx. 29 ; xl. 10). 
 
 25 27. ^3*^01 5HD1 is rightly pointed as indicating a com- 
 mand, " and so thou art to know and to understand". The 
 " word" ("Q" 1 !) is of course the divine promise uttered by Jere- 
 miah ; for the phrase, cf. v. 23 and Is. Iv. 11. That the expres- 
 sions niJ27l TE?r6 and nn3331 llt^n are meant to correspond to 
 one another, is evident. Yet most commentators translate 
 the former ( 'to restore and to build", and the latter "shall be 
 built again", taking the verb first in a literal and afterwards in 
 a derived sense (so Ewald). Von Lengerke and Hitzig endea- 
 vour to avoid the difficulty by translating 31B71 "shall be re- 
 stored". But it appears much more probable that we should 
 read rfo^) T^ to people and to build", and nn^p) zm " shall 
 be peopled and built" cf. Isaiah xliv. 26. Jer. xxx. 18. Ezek. 
 xxxvi. 10, 11, 33. If it be asked why the author says "to 
 people and to build" rather than "to build and to people", the 
 obvious answer is that the repopulation of Jerusalem necessarily 
 preceded the rebuilding, and as a matter of fact we know from 
 Nehemiah that nearly a century after the First Return most of 
 the city was still in ruins (Neh. vii. 4). By the 1*33 iTK^p most 
 modern interpreters (Von Lengerke, Hitzig, Schiirer, Cornill) 
 understand Cyrus, on account of Is. xlv. 1. Graetz however, 
 agreeing with Eusebius, explains it as referring to the line of 
 Jewish high-priests. This view appears to be supported by the 
 following considerations. Firstly in v. 26 and in ch. xi. 22 the 
 words rpBip and T33 certainly seem to designate the High-Priest. 
 Secondly, if the author were referring to Cyrus, he would surely 
 not content himself with saying "till an Anointed One, a 
 Prince", but would add something to indicate that this Anointed 
 One was the liberator of the Jewish exiles. That the term 
 rv^Jp may be applied to the High Priest is shewn by Lev. iv. 3, 
 5, 16 ; vi. 15, and with regard to T33 Graetz has observed that it 
 
156 IX. 25. 
 
 exactly corresponds to Trpoo-rarij^, Trpo <TT acrid, used of the High 
 Priest in his civil capacity (Ecclesiasticus xlv. 24. Josephus, 
 Antiq. XII. 4. 2) 1 . It appears therefore that the first 7 weeks 
 end with the reestablishment of the Jewish worship under 
 Joshua son of Jozadak (Ezra iii. 2), who bore the title of High 
 Priest even before the completion of the new Temple (Haggai 
 i. 1. Zech. iii. 1). From that time till the reign of Antiochus 
 Epiphanes there was always a T3J rwip at Jerusalem, and the 
 city continued to be " peopled and builded". But what is meant 
 by pin) SilT} ? Von Lengerke disconnects these two words and 
 considers lirn to be the subject of the preceding verbs ; he 
 therefore renders, "And as for 62 weeks the street (or, public 
 place) shall be restored and built" etc. Others, following the 
 Masoretic accentuation, take P"irn. nilY) as a single phrase, and 
 suppose that the subject of the preceding verbs is Jerusalem (so 
 Hitzig). pin is explained by Vori Lengerke as " that which is 
 determined", on account of nyinj in vv. 26, 27 ; his rendering 
 "and it is determined, but in distress of times" is, however, 
 quite impossible. Most recent interpreters (Ewald, Cornill and 
 others) make pin to mean "trench" or "rnoat", and in proof of 
 this the term pin is cited, which occurs in the Mishnah (e.g. 
 Kil'ayim n. 8 ; v. 3) and the Talmud. But it there seems to 
 be used only of "ditches" (in fields or gardens), never of 
 "trenches" for purposes of fortification. And why should 
 " trenches" be mentioned here, for elsewhere we read of " walls" 
 or "towers" as the bulwarks of Jerusalem? A city built on 
 such uneven ground can be but very imperfectly defended by 
 moats. Moreover the coupling together of pim 3im "public 
 places and trenches" would be very strange. Hitzig translates 
 " nach Strasse und Hof", but for this rendering of pin there is 
 no authority. The renderings of the LXX. (et? TrXdros KOI 
 fjbrJKos) and of Theodotion (ifkareia teal ret^o?) seem to be mere 
 guesses. Graetz proposes pni lini "with public places and 
 walls", and thinks that this was the reading which lay before 
 Theodotion. But neither in Ezek. xiii. 10, the only other pas- 
 
 1 TJ3 may also be compared to the tual leaders, but especially to the 
 Arabic imam (cf. 7ti = amama), which latter, 
 is applied both to temporal and spiri- 
 
IX. 25, 26. 157 
 
 sage in the Old Testament where the word occurs, nor yet in. 
 post-Biblical Hebrew, so far as Graetz has shewn, does f?n 
 signify the wall of a city, as the context would here require. 
 Perhaps we should read f-im nim. " with public places and streets", 
 Pesh. oo^cx^i^a co^Bccx*, cf. Jer. v. 1. For the construction 
 of V-im nirn as an adverbial phrase, cf. n-nj D'nr -ITjpfln D.^pf m. 
 I Kings xviii. 45. Instead of D>nyn pivni the LXX. has *<u 
 Kara avvre\eiav Kaipwv and the Peshitta r*ll=3\ ^olajsX, i.e. 
 DWH ft-l. That the Peshitta has here been influenced by the 
 LXX. is improbable. The difficulties of the Masoretic reading 
 are obvious, for, not to mention the fact that pi occurs noAvhere 
 else, the notion of " troublous times" would surely be expressed, 
 as Graetz remarks, by " times of trouble" not " trouble of times" 
 (cf. rm ny chap. xii. 1, fn-ya ninr Ps. ix. 10 ; x. 1 and similar 
 expressions). Such a phrase as DWn pl is altogether without 
 analogy. Moreover the 1 before p12 seems to indicate that here 
 a fresh clause begins ; the rendering " even in troublous times" 
 is extremely forced the Peshitta, feeling this difficulty, ignores 
 the 1 altogether. I therefore venture to think, with Graetz, 
 that the words in question should be connected with what fol- 
 lows. Whether we should strike out the 1 in VlD^I. (v. 26), as 
 Graetz proposes, or whether we should regard the words nQ$\ 
 D?3L MJ i D^*B' D^iosrn as an interpolated gloss, is doubtful ; in either 
 case the sense remains the same. WE rn^. (i an Anointed One 
 shall be cut off", refers, according to Von Lengerke, to the death 
 of Seleucus Philopator (175 B.C.). Hitzig and others explain it 
 as an allusion to the deposition of the High Priest Onias III., 
 which took place early in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 This latter view appears decidedly the more probable (see chap, 
 xi. 22). The words which follow, i? j^l, are very uncertain. 
 The renderings which have been proposed "but not for him- 
 self", "and he shall have nothing (or no one)", "and he shall 
 cease to be" all present grave syntactical difficulties. The 
 idea naturally suggests itself that we should read -133W. " and he 
 shall be no longer", but it is more likely that some word or 
 words have fallen out. Graetz wishes to read i? "itfy |*N1 : as in 
 chap. xi. 45 ; since however the latter passage refers to the 
 
158 IX. 26. 
 
 death of Antiochus, not to the death of Onias TIL, the emenda- 
 tion is hardly probable. The latter half of v. 26 and the whole 
 of v. 27 are involved in such extraordinary difficulties that hardly 
 any two interpreters take the same view. Any attempt to con- 
 strue or emend the passage must be regarded as purely conjec- 
 tural. As it is impossible to discuss the innumerable suggestions 
 that have been made, I must confine myself to points of special 
 importance. Von Lengerke, following the Masoretic text, trans- 
 lates, " and the city and the sanctuary shall be devastated by 
 the people of a prince, who cometh and in the flood (shall be) his 
 end, and till the end (shall be} war and a decree of desolations" 
 ("und die Stadt und das Heiligthum wird verwiisten Yolk 
 eines Fiirsten, welcher kommt und in der Fluth sein Ende, und 
 bis aufs Ende Krieg und Beschluss der Wusten"). The "prince", 
 according to Von Lengerke, is Antiochus Epiphanes ; after his 
 "people" (i.e. his armies) have ravaged Jerusalem, he is to 
 "come" into Persia, and then "his end" will overtake him in 
 the midst of a "flood" (i.e. an armed multitude). Hitzig and 
 Ewald also make this "prince" to be Antiochus, whereas Graetz 
 identifies him with the "Anointed One" who is "cut off", i.e. 
 the High Priest Onias III. Instead of Dy Graetz reads Dtf 
 (according to the LXX., Theod. and the Pesh.), and he explains 
 the sentence as meaning that the city and sanctuary are to 
 share in the ruin of Onias. For the words VtfjTi. N3n, Graetz 
 substitutes vvp &O-1 (with the LXX.) "and his end shall come". 
 That the "prince" is Antiochus seems improbable from chap. xi. 
 22, but it is likewise unsafe to identify him with the " Anointed 
 One", for in that case the author would presumably have said 
 TJsn DP. I would therefore suggest, though with the greatest 
 diffidence, that we should read K|n Tiror nnB" ^j?nj -Mm, '< and 
 the city and the sanctuary shall go to ruin, together with the 
 prince that shall come (after Onias)". If TJJ does not refer to a 
 person previously mentioned, the omission of the article is pos- 
 sible (cf. Gen. i. 31. Ps. civ. 18). The " prince" would seem to 
 be Jason, the brother and successor of Onias III., and to him 
 therefore we may refer the suffix in Vtfj? ; his miserable end is 
 described in II Mace. v. 7 10. Since the latter half of v. 26 
 anticipates the events of the 70th week, as is shewn by the 
 
IX. 26, 27. 159 
 
 phrase v ilfl., we need find no difficulty in the fact that the 
 final overthrow of Jason took place about 170 B.C., i.e. after the 
 70th week had begun. The metaphor of a "flood", for "de- 
 struction", appears again in chap. xi. 22. " And until the end 
 shall be war (and) a sentence of desolations" f E here means the 
 end of the time of affliction (cf. chap. viii. 17, 19), and the "war" 
 is that which is being waged by Antiochus against the Saints 
 (chap. vii. 21). nvnna is stat. constr. of nynnj (v. 27 and chap. xi. 
 36), properly that which is "cut", " decided". For the present 
 "a sentence of desolations" is being executed upon Jerusalem, 
 but the time of deliverance is near. Verse 27 describes the 
 last week, i.e. the period beginning in the year 171 B.C. Von 
 Lengerke translates, " A week shall make a firm covenant with 
 the many, and during half the week he shall abolish sacrifice and 
 oblation, and over the edge of abominations (cometh) the deso- 
 lator ; and (this shall be) till the consummation and (till) the 
 sentence shall be poured out upon the desolator". According to 
 this interpretation, the "covenant" is the conspiracy of the 
 apostate Jews against the religion of Israel ; the " edge of abo- 
 minations" is the Temple defiled by heathen rites, and the 
 "desolator" is Antiochus. Hitzig agrees with Von Lengerke in 
 taking ipK r-ini^ to be the subject of the first clause, but he 
 explains "V2}n as "make burdensome", and nn? as the cove- 
 nant of God with Israel, i.e. for a week those who adhere to the 
 covenant are to be persecuted. Each of these interpretations is 
 open to serious objection. In the first place, to speak of a period 
 of time as " making a covenant", or " rendering a covenant bur- 
 densome" would be quite without analogy. Secondly, the mean- 
 ings here ascribed to "V33n cannot be proved ; in the only other 
 passage where the Hiphil of this verb occurs (Ps. xii. 5) it has a 
 totally different sense. Ewald agrees with Von Lengerke as to 
 the meaning of TSijn, though he makes Antiochus, not the week, 
 to be the subject of the verb. Graetz substitutes "i*3gni : for 
 "Vajni, and thinks that the sense is either, " And he (i.e. Antio- 
 chus) shall abolish the covenant for the many", or else "And he 
 shall cause the many to transgress the covenant". Whether the 
 words will admit of this latter rendering is extremely doubtful, 
 and, in any case, if Graetz be right in supposing that hitherto 
 
160 IX. 27. 
 
 Antiochus has not been mentioned, it is very unlikely that the 
 verb here refers to him. Perhaps the author may have written 
 D'QT' rp"O "iD-irrj " and the covenant shall be annulled/or the many", 
 i.e. there is to be a period of general apostasy ; cf. Jer. xxxiii. 
 21. The use of a masculine verb with a feminine subject is 
 particularly common when the verb is passive (Judges xvi. 11. 
 Is. xxi. 2. Jer. xxix. 22). The " many" are, of course, the majo- 
 rity of the Jewish people (cf. chap. xi. 33). In the latter half 
 of the verse, the article of 8&?D shews that it is still a question 
 of the 70th week, not of a subsequent period ; thus we are to 
 understand that during the latter half of the 70th week (from 
 168 to 164 B.C.) "sacrifice and oblation" cease. As it is impos- 
 sible to discover a subject for the transitive JV3* (unless we 
 take the "prince" of v. 26 to be Antiochus), we should perhaps 
 read na#. Of the clause DBI^p D"V^ eg? hv\ innumerable in- 
 terpretations have been proposed, besides that of Von Lengerke 
 quoted above, but none of them is even plausible 1 . If the text 
 be sound, it is clear that DD1K>p (so Baer reads, not Dttb ; p) must 
 be taken as an epithet of D'VW (see chaps, xi. 31; xii. 11), 
 according to the very rare construction n^j? B'o'ix Is. xix. 4. 
 This at once disposes of all those renderings which make Dp'l^P 
 by itself to be the subject of the clause. For *|J? h&\ it has been 
 proposed to read '133 ?V\ " and instead thereof" (cf. chap. xi. 20, 
 21, 38) an emendation which appears welmigh certain (see 
 Kuenen, Historisch-critisch Onderzoek, n. p. 472). In this case, 
 the suffix in '133 refers to the nmp-1 PDT, which, as they together 
 form the daily sacrifice, may be construed as a singular. DDIK'D 
 may be a corruption of D*pb> or D^pbp "set up", from D-lb, of 
 which the Hophal perhaps occurs in Gen. xxiv. 33 see what 
 has been said on chap. viii. 13. In the last clause of v. 27 the 
 phrase n V?p.jn >"i< 3 "ruin and sentence (of judgment)" is quoted 
 from Is. x. 23 ; xxviii. 22. If nVIQJA r6| be, as seems natural, 
 the subject of the verb ^ftfl, we are almost obliged to read "i'V1 
 (with Bleek), for when "W introduces a verbal clause, the verb 
 takes precedence of the subject (Gen. xxxviii. 11. Josh. ii. 22. 
 II Sam. x. 5. Prov. vii. 23) ; a well-known case in which n'y has 
 
 1 "Die Ausleger", says Hitzig, "sind hier selbst mit allerhand 
 die Wochen gekommen". 
 
IX. 27. 161 
 
 been wrongly pointed as iy is Job i. 18. Dpic?, according to 
 Von Lengerke and Ewald, refers to Antiochus, on whom a divine 
 judgment is to be poured out. But to this there are two objec- 
 tions firstly, that in chap. xii. 11 DDE* refers to the PR?, not to 
 Antiochus ; secondly, that neither DplK> nor Dpi>p ever means 
 a "desolator". It is also remarkable, though the difficulty is 
 not an insuperable one, that Dpifc? has no article. I would ven- 
 ture to propose that for Dpi^~?r we should read DOBOtf " upon 
 him that set them up" (according to the analogy of ''Pi? etc.), 
 the suffix referring to the D^V-W ; cf. again chap. viii. 13. 
 
 For the convenience of the reader, I here repeat the last 
 four verses of the chapter, emended and translated according to 
 the suggestions made above. 
 
 24. Seventy weeks are decreed for thy people and for thy 
 holy city, to make an end of transgression and to do away with 
 sins, to atone for iniquity and to bring in everlasting righteous- 
 ness, to seal vision and prophet and to anoint the most holy thing. 
 
 25. Know therefore and understand (that) from the going 
 forth of the promise to people and to build Jerusalem until an 
 Anointed One, a Prince, (there are) seven weeks, and for sixty 
 and two weeks it (i.e. Jerusalem) shall be peopled and built, 
 (with) public places and streets : 
 
 26. And in the end of the times [after the sixty and two 
 lueeks] an Anointed One shall be cut off and shall have no ...... 
 
 and the city and the sanctuary shall go to ruin together with the 
 Prince that shall come (after him), and his end (shall be) in 
 a flood (of destruction), and until the end (shall be) war, a sen- 
 tence of desolations. 
 
 27. And the covenant shall be annulled for the many during 
 one week, and during half the week sacrifice and oblation shall 
 cease, and instead thereof (there shall be) abominations set up, 
 and afterwards ruin and a sentence (of judgment) shall be poured 
 out upon him that set them up. 
 
 B. D. 11 
 
162 
 
 CHAPTERS X XII. 
 
 The fourth of Daniel's visions is, from a historical point of 
 view, by far the most important of all. The whole of chap, x., 
 it is true, is little more than a prologue, but in chap. xi. we find 
 a complete survey of the history from the beginning of the 
 Persian period down to the time of the author. Here, even 
 more than in the earlier visions, we are able to perceive how 
 the account gradually becomes more definite as it approaches 
 the latter part of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes and how it 
 then passes suddenly from the domain of historical facts to that 
 of ideal expectations. Accordingly those interpreters who en- 
 deavour to find in the vision allusions to historical events later 
 than the Maccabean period, have had to contend against the 
 greatest difficulties. As it was impossible to deny that the 
 description up to chap. xi. 21 referred to the predecessors of 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, most of the Christian Fathers took refuge 
 in the hypothesis that between ?;. 20 and v. 21 there is an 
 interval of several centuries, although the opening words of 
 v. 21, "And there shall arise in his place a contemptible man," 
 clearly shew that in the mind of the author there was no in- 
 terval whatever 1 . Nor have modern apologists been more 
 fortunate. Kliefoth takes the liberty of assuming, without a 
 shadow of proof, that a few thousand years elapse between chap, 
 xi. 35 and what follows. Havernick asks us to believe that 
 chap. xi. 45 refers to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, and 
 that the next verse (which begins, "At that time shall Michael 
 stand up ") refers to a period still future. 
 
 In order to understand the vision it is of the utmost im- 
 portance to determine, as nearly as possible, the date of its 
 
 1 On chap. xi. 21 Jerome remarks pretatur super persona Antiochi qui 
 
 " Hucusque ordo historiae sequitur, et cognominatus est Epiphanes. . . Nostri 
 
 inter Porphyrium ac nostros nulla con- autem haec omnia de Antichristo pro- 
 
 teutio est. Caetera quae sequuntur phetari arbitrantur qui ultimo tempore 
 
 usque ad finem voluminis, ille inter- futurus est". 
 
CHAPS. X XII. 163 
 
 composition, or in other words to discover the exact point at 
 which the description ceases to be historical and becomes ideal. 
 Von Lengerke thinks that the piece was written directly after 
 the death of Antiochus, and that with chap. xii. 1 the author 
 begins to describe his expectations. But there seems reason 
 for believing that the transition takes place earlier, namely in 
 chap. xi. 40. The arguments are briefly as follows. Although 
 it is not certain how many times Antiochus invaded Egypt, one 
 thing is tolerably clear that in Daniel xi. three invasions only 
 are mentioned, i.e. those in vv. 25 28, in v. 29, and in vv. 40 
 43. To suppose, with Hitzig and others, that vv. 22 25 refer 
 to an invasion of Egypt, has been shewn by Hoffmann to be 
 altogether illegitimate (Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, pp. 94 96). 
 Both Hoffmann and Schiirer (Gesch. d. jud. Volkes, I. p. 130) 
 are of opinion that the first Egyptian campaign took place in 
 the summer of 170 B.C. This is no doubt the campaign de- 
 scribed in Dan. xi. 25 28 and I Mace. i. 17 19 1 . Antiochus 
 seems to have invaded Egypt again in 169 B.C., but the fact is 
 not mentioned in Daniel, for the invasion spoken of in chap, 
 xi. 29 must be that of the year 168 B.C. After this, it would 
 appear, Antiochus never attacked Egypt again. We are thus 
 led, with Cornill, to regard the invasion described in Dan. xi. 
 40 43 as one which the author expected but which never 
 actually took place. The hypothesis of Von Lengerke and 
 Hitzig that in v. 40 the author suddenly goes back to describe 
 events anterior to 168 B.C., does violence to the plain sense of 
 the text. But a difficulty still remains. Porphyry, quoted by 
 Jerome, states that in the llth year of his reign (i.e. in 165 B.C.) 
 Antiochus again made war upon Egypt, and explains Dan. xi. 
 40 43 as referring to this campaign 2 . Several modern inter- 
 preters, e.g. Havernick and Hoffmann, have accepted Porphyry's 
 explanation. It is, however, quite incredible that the author 
 of Daniel is here describing facts. A conquest of Egypt such 
 as we read of in this passage, could not have been passed over 
 
 1 In II Mace. v. 1 this campaign is " Et haec Porphyrius ad Antiochum 
 
 called "the second", but the state- refert: quod undecimo amio regni sui 
 
 ment is probably erroneous. rursus contra sororis filium Ptole- 
 
 - On Dan. xi. 40, 41, Jerome says, maeura Philomctorem dimicaverit". 
 
 112 
 
164 CHAPS. X XII. 
 
 in silence by all the historians, for Egypt was at that time 
 under Roman protection and an attack upon the country must 
 therefore have at once produced a war with Rome. Nor can 
 we suppose the campaign here described to have been so short 
 that the Romans had no time to interfere. The text implies 
 that it is of considerable duration, for not only is all Egypt at 
 the feet of Antiochus but even the more distant Libyans and 
 Ethiopians make their submission to him. It is a still more 
 fatal objection to Porphyry's interpretation that it entirely con- 
 tradicts what we know about Antiochus himself at this period. 
 Nothing is more certain than that this king at the end of his 
 reign far from "having power over the treasures of gold and 
 silver and all the riches of Egypt" was reduced to great 
 financial distress. We are therefore forced to conclude that 
 Porphyry was here in error. Whether the mention of the 
 "eleventh year" is due simply to the fact that Antiochus 
 reigned eleven years, so that any event which was believed to 
 have occurred at the end of his reign would naturally be placed 
 in his eleventh year, or whether Porphyry has confounded the 
 eleventh year of Antiochus with the eleventh year of Ptolemy 
 Philometor (i.e. 170 B.C.), I do not venture to determine. In 
 any case no historical argument can be built upon Porphyry's 
 treatment of this passage, for it is evident (as Meinhold has 
 observed) that when he describes Antiochus as pitching his 
 tent " in the place called Apedno between the Tigris and the 
 Euphrates", the narrative is based upon nothing but a false 
 interpretation of Dan. xi. 45. 
 
 If the above reasoning be valid, these three chapters must 
 have been composed before the death of Antiochus. Indeed it 
 appears well-nigh certain that they were composed more than 
 a year before his death, for they mention neither the great 
 victories of Judas Maccabaeus nor the recovery and reconsecra- 
 tion of the Temple. The deliverance predicted in chap. xii. 
 1 3 is not to be brought about by human valour or policy but 
 is of a wholly supernatural kind. It is therefore legitimate to 
 conclude that the book of Daniel was finished at the time when 
 the armed opposition of the Jews to Antiochus was in its earliest 
 stage, and had as yet met with little success (chap. xi. 34). 
 
X. 1, 2. 165 
 
 x. 1 3. The third year of Cyrus is the latest date given 
 in Daniel's life ; on the difficulty of reconciling this date with 
 chap. i. 21 see p. 63. Some commentators have spent much 
 time in discussing why Daniel remained in Babylonia until the 
 third year of Cyrus instead of availing himself of the oppor- 
 tunity to return to Palestine. If we regarded the narrative of 
 Daniel as historical it might be worth while to seek for an 
 explanation of the fact, but for those who believe Daniel to be 
 an ideal figure no explanation is needed. In v. 1 we find the 
 incorrect spelling iV^N^a (so Baer) instead of n^x^D^a. The 
 latter half of the verse is rendered by Von Lengerke "And 
 truth is the revelation and (the) distress is great: and understand 
 thou the revelation, and understand it in the vision". Both pi 
 and nn he explains as Imperatives; the author, he supposes, 
 is here addressing the reader, and the suffix in i^> refers to "i^n. 
 Much more probable is Hitzig's interpretation " And the word 
 is truth, and great distress; and he heeded the word and gave 
 heed to the vision ". But the meaning of Niy is here very un- 
 certain. The proper sense of the word is "military service", 
 hence it is applied metaphorically to toil and sorrow (Is. xl. 2. 
 Job vii. 1) ; since however in Dan. viii. 13 N2V seems to mean 
 the " service " in the Temple, it is possible that here some such 
 thought may be present, namely that of an "obligation" or 
 " charge " laid upon Daniel. According to Hitzig, pi is a Per- 
 fect Hiphil, with dropping of the initial n (see what has been 
 said on *ru*3 chap. ix. 2), and nj'3 is an abstract noun, with the 
 accent thrown back, as in &on n^jj Ezek. xix. 14. Havernick 
 makes p3 to be an Infinitive used substantially, a view which 
 is certainly not favoured by the construction of the sentence. 
 Olshausen regards the word as a perfect Kal (Lehrb. d. hebr. 
 Sprache, p. 486). There remain two possibilities pi may be 
 either a mistake for jl (Perfect), as J. D. Michaelis supposed, or 
 it may be an Infinitive used in the place of a Perfect (cf. "liD 
 chap. ix. 11). Instead of pll both the LXX. and Aquila read 
 pi', which is doubtless an error. In v. 2 we are not told for 
 what reason Daniel mourned, but from v. 12 we may conclude 
 that it was from anxiety as to the fate of Israel. For the phrase 
 "three full weeks" cf. Gen. xli. 1. Deut. xxi. 13. 
 
16(5 X. 36. 
 
 r " dainty bread " (v. 3) is, as Havernick remarks, the 
 opposite of w. on? (Dent. xvi. 8). 
 
 4 8. The vision which now follows took place on the 
 24th day of the 1st month (i.e. Abib or, as it was called by the 
 post-exilic Jews, Nisan), the month of the Passover; Daniel, 
 with some companions, was by the fen (Tigris), a river which 
 is mentioned nowhere else in the Old Testament excepting in 
 Gen. ii. 14. The form 'ij?.^ is peculiar, for the Tigris is in 
 Syriac Deklath, in Arabic Dijla, and in Assyrio-Babylonian 
 usually Diglat] but according to Schrader a form Idiglat is 
 also found. Schrader supposes that the Hebrew and Syriac 
 forms, with p, follow the Assyrian pronunciation, whereas the 
 Arabic Dijla is based upon the more primitive Babylonian form, 
 with g (Guneif. Inscr. p. 33). In v. 5 the description of the 
 angel is probably taken from Ezek. ix. 2 ; he is " clothed with 
 linen " like a Jewish priest (Lev. vi. 3), and his girdle is of the 
 gold of Uphaz. This district, mentioned nowhere else but in 
 Jer. x. 9, has never been identified. Evvald and others have 
 suggested that taix is either a mistake for "VBIN (Ps. xlv. 10), or 
 a phonetic variation of the same name. In v. G wyhft (cf. Exod. 
 xxviii. 20. Ezek. i. 16; xxviii. 13) is usually supposed to be 
 the chrysolith or topaz. 1*0V?f]0 means, according to Von 
 Lengerke, " the place where his feet rested ", according to Hitzig 
 " his feet " simply ; the latter interpretation agrees better with 
 the context, cf. Rev. i. 15 where this passage is imitated. The 
 phrase 7?i? nsTiJ |^| is borrowed from Ezek. i. 7, and is com- 
 monly rendered " like the appearance of polished brass ". But 
 although the use of the masc. form ^j5 with nBTij would in 
 itself offer no difficulty (see I Kings vii. 45. Ezra viii. 27), the 
 text of Ezek. i. 7 is very suspicious ; Cornill suggests that we 
 should there read nifej? Dnel nfinj py.? according to the LXX. 
 The corruption, if it exists, must of course be older than the 
 book of Daniel ; what meaning the author attached to ty\> it is 
 impossible to say. That 77J5 has anything to do with S^i? " to 
 shake" (Ezek. xxi. 26. Eccles. x. 10) appears extremely im- 
 probable. |ton Tip? inzn Vipl. " and the sound of his words ivas 
 as the sound of a deep murmur" ; since fion is quite a general 
 term, applying to any deep sound, it is unnecessary to limit its 
 
X. 613. 167 
 
 meaning here to a "multitude" or the "sea". In v. 7 
 seems to mean "seeking to hide themselves", lit. "in the act of 
 hiding themselves" we should rather have expected 
 (cf. I Kings xxii. 25). The phrase (v. 8) m$oi? 
 "a?zrf my comeliness was turned in me to condition" is the 
 Hebrew equivalent of ^ faB'f? ln chap. vii. 28 (cf. also v. 9) ; 
 somewhat similar is the language in which Habakkuk describes 
 the effect of a divine revelation (Hab. iii. 16). For the use of 
 rrrupp i n the abstract sense cf. Ezek. xxi. 36. II Chron. xx. 23 ; 
 xxii. 4. On rp WW see p. 29. 
 
 9 11. As in chap. viii. 18, Daniel becomes unconscious; 
 "131 0*513 Wn : si " after I had fallen into a slumber " etc., seems 
 to be a circumstantial clause inserted parenthetically, the apo- 
 dosis beginning with v. 10. It has been much discussed whether 
 the being who touches Daniel in v. 10 and who speaks in the 
 following verses, is identical with the being described in vv. 5 
 and 6. Von Lengerke regards them as distinct, and supposes 
 that the angel of w. 10 ff. is Gabriel. Hitzig, on the other 
 hand, identifies the angel of vv. 5 and 6 with that of vv. 10 ff., 
 but denies that Gabriel is intended. The question is fortunately 
 not of any great importance, as it concerns the form only, not 
 the substance, of the vision, "nj niB3) ^72 "^ W3fll is usually 
 explained as a construct praegnans, i.e. "and caused me to 
 tremble upon my knees and the palms of my hands ", meaning 
 '' and set me upon my knees and hands which were trembling ". 
 On niion wx ( v . H) see chap. ix. 23, and on "Tlpir^ ibg chap. 
 viii. 18. 1TP is here intransitive, as in Ezra x. 9. 
 
 12 14. The angel now proceeds to reveal what has been 
 passing in heaven. From the beginning of the three weeks, 
 when Daniel set himself " to attain to understanding " (as to the 
 destiny of Israel) and to humble himself before God, his peti- 
 tion had been accepted. Tl?1? TM1 Of**! " and I am come by 
 reason of thy words", cf. Timm (Kerl T?? T 1?-1) I Kings xviii. 36. 
 The coming of the angel was delayed for a while (v. 13) by the 
 opposition of " the prince of the kingdom of Persia", i.e. the 
 guardian angel of the Persian Empire not Cyrus, as Havernick 
 and others have imagined. The belief in the guardian angels 
 of nations is perhaps assumed in Is. xxiv. 21 and Ps. Ixxxii. ; 
 
168 X. 13. 
 
 since however both passages are not only very obscure but of 
 unknown date, we have no means of discovering at what period 
 the idea arose among the Jews. The fact that in Dan. x. this 
 belief is rather presupposed than definitely stated shews that 
 the author is here dealing with a conception already familiar to 
 his readers, and hence nothing can be more absurd than to 
 argue from Ecclesiasticus xvii. 17 that Ben-Sira must have 
 borrowed the idea from Daniel. The guardian angel of the 
 Jews is Michael (see chap. xii. 1), who is here described as one 
 of " the chief princes ", i.e. the archangels, and who comes to the 
 aid of the speaker, 'rntfo is variously explained as "I obtained 
 the precedence" (Gesenius, Havernick, Von Lengerke), "/ re- 
 mained", i.e. I was delayed (Hitzig), and "/ was superfluous" 
 (Ewald). But nowhere else does the verb bear any one of these 
 meanings. Graetz proposes to read 'flin'in in'NI. "and him I 
 left ", alleging the authority of the LXX. and Theodotion. But 
 the words /cal avrbv e/cel KareXiirov are probably a mere guess, 
 and do not presuppose any variant, for the insertion of avrov 
 and the substitution of a transitive for an intransitive verb are 
 quite in the manner of the LXX. translator. Perhaps, retaining 
 the traditional text, we may take "131 *rnnto "0^1 as a circumstan- 
 tial clause describing the previous situation of the speaker, 
 "whereas I had been left (alone) there, (contending) with the 
 kings of Persia", cf. Jer. ii. 21; xxiii. 32. Ezek. xiii. 7. ^o 
 D^Q " the kings of Persia " seems to be an intentionally vague 
 phrase for " the Persian dynasty " or " the power of the Persian 
 Empire ". It is quite unnecessary to suppose, with Bertholdt, 
 that the word "fe> has fallen out before *rffO, for the rendering of 
 the LXX. (fjLerd TOV o-Tparrjyov TOV /3acrtA,ea)? Hepo-a)v) is pro- 
 bably an expansion of the original, just as in v. 20 Dn3 "fe> Dtf is 
 translated perd TOV oTpaTrjyov /BacriXecos TWV Hepaoijv. It is of 
 course impossible to say what was the author's conception as to 
 the nature of the contest between this angel and the angel of 
 the Persian Empire. Yon Lengerke suggests that the passage 
 refers to some change in the policy of the Persian government 
 towards the Jews, but this is to import into the book ideas 
 which are nowhere expressed in it, for Daniel's solicitude on 
 behalf of his people is described in perfectly general terms, 
 
X. 1417. 169 
 
 without any hint that his anxiety was due to special circum- 
 stances. With Wlif? 'nxn-l (v. 14) compare the parallel passage 
 in chap. ix. 23 Tan 1 ? <nx3 ^x\ ; the following words were appa- 
 rently suggested by Gen. xlix. 1 DjpK KTpnSfe riK DD^ irp\W 
 D'9n nnqx?. The Masoretes read nnp, instead of rnj^, in order 
 to assimilate the two passages. The phrase D*p j-itn "ity '3 is 
 rendered by Von Lengerke " since the vision is still for these 
 days", i.e. for the aforesaid D'n nnqx; but if this were the 
 meaning, we should expect fitnn DVp Tiy 3. Hitzig substitutes 
 D'p;^ for D', on account of D*?1 D 1 ?^ '? in chap. viii. 26. It 
 is perhaps more natural to translate, retaining the Masoretic 
 vocalization, "since there is yet a vision for the days", i.e. there 
 is one vision more, relating to the days before mentioned. 
 
 15 xi. 1. ny~|X 3Q ^iro "/ bent my face towards the earth" 
 does not imply that Daniel again fell prostrate. The " one like 
 the sons of men" (v. 16), who touches Daniel's lips, must be the 
 angel who has spoken previously. When at length Daniel 
 speaks, he seeks to excuse his confusion, " My lord, by reason of 
 the vision my pangs came upon me, and I retained no strength ; 
 and how should a servant of my lord speak with my lord . ? " The 
 expression ty TV ^?$? is a metaphor borrowed from child- 
 birth (I Sam. iv. 19) ; such comparisons are used elsewhere to 
 describe the prophetic excitement (Is. xxi. 3). On the Aramaic 
 form TH see p. 29, note. In v. 17 nj is a demonstrative particle 
 added by way of emphasis (cf. Gen. xxvii. 21), and corresponds 
 in meaning to the German da] in English we have no exact 
 equivalent. The latter half of v. 17, if the Masoretic text be 
 correct, must be a continuation of Daniel's speech "and as for 
 me henceforth there remains in me no strength, nor is any breath 
 left in me". Von Lengerke takes these words as part of the 
 narrative, but though in German we may say " von nun an" in 
 speaking of the past, the Hebrew HPirp always refers to the pre- 
 sent. Von Lengerke's objection that since Daniel has already 
 said nb 'Jinvy & in v. 16, it is needless for him to make a similar 
 statement in v. 17, proves very little, for terror and perplexity 
 may naturally lead to repetitions. But however we take the 
 passage, it must be owned that nnro is very strange in this con- 
 nection the Peshitta omits the word, and the LXX. has rf 
 
170 X. 17 XI. 1. 
 
 vrjaa (i.e. ^"Ufl?, cf. Ps. xviii. 37). Possibly nnrp may be a cor- 
 ruption of nnr^p "from terror", cf. W3J chap. viii. 17; the root 
 HID is applied specially to supernatural alarm or panic (Is. xxi. 
 4. Job vi. 4; xviii. 11 etc.). In v. 18 the expression DIN nx^p? 
 " one who wore a human form" is the subject of the preceding 
 verbs, cf. DIN ^ n-ioi? in v. 1C. For PJD1 PID (v. 19) the LXX. 
 has dvSpi&v KOL Ivyye, the Peshitta ^Ek.&K'a Axjj^K', appa- 
 rently reading piO pm (Detit. xxxi. 7, 23. Josh. i. G, 7, 9, 18. 
 I Chr. xxii. 12 ; xxviii. 20). pirn pm is at least exceptional, for 
 when the Imperative is repeated, the conjunction is not used 
 (Judg. v. 12. II Sam. xvi. 7. Is. li. 9 ; lii. 1, 11; Ivii. 14. Ezek. 
 xxxiii. 11. Ps. cxxxvii. 7). Instead of i"i?"!5-1, which is found in 
 the ordinary printed texts, the best MSS. have Vi?W. The 
 first clause of v. 20 is an affirmation put into the form of a ques- 
 tion, for Daniel has already been informed as to the reason 
 of the angel's coming (v. 14), cf. I Sam. ii. 27. Ezek. xx. 4. The 
 train of thought in vv. 20 and 21 may appear at first sight to 
 proceed " in a zig-zag" (Hitzig), but the connection is probably 
 as follows " I am come to bring thee a revelation, but cannot 
 linger, for I must return at once (nrjy) to contend against the 
 enemies of Israel ; I will however ('?8) stay long enough to 
 unveil the future to thee, although during my absence from the 
 strife there is no one but Michael to defend the right cause". 
 NVV '3X.1 is explained by Von Lengerke, " and I go forth (to fight 
 with the angel of Persia)" ; Bertholdt and Hitzig more natu- 
 rally interpret " and as soon as I come forth (from the contest 
 with the angel of Persia), the angel of Greece will appear (to 
 oppose me)" i.e. as soon as the Persian supremacy is over, 
 another enemy will arise. The " writing of truth" is the book 
 of divine decrees, cf. Ps. cxxxix. 16. On the phrase 'Btf pjriijup 
 " helping me", see p. 29. n^Pfc "against these" refers doubtless 
 to the angel of Persia and the other hostile powers. The first 
 verse of chap. xi. must be examined in connection with what 
 precedes. As the text stands, it presents great difficulties, and 
 those difficulties are further complicated by the wide disagree- 
 ment between the ancient versions. Von Lengerke renders, 
 " But I also, in the first year of Darius the Mede, stood by Mm as 
 helper and defender". He explains the verse as alluding to the 
 
XI. 1, 2. 171 
 
 conquest of Babylon, and makes the suffix in '^ refer to Michael. 
 Others, e.g. Havernick, refer the suffix to Darius. But the 
 statement that the speaker had helped Michael, or Darius, some 
 years earlier, has nothing to do either with the verse preceding 
 or with the verse following. Moreover the use of HP^, "my 
 standing", in the place of WOy is scarcely justified by such 
 a passage as Job ix. 27. The LXX. reads Kal ev TW eviav-rw 
 TW Trpwra) Kvpov rov /3a(Ti\ea)<; elirkv poi evicr^vcrai, teal dvSpi- 
 %<r6ai. There is here no trace of "0&?, and even the KOI does 
 not necessarily presuppose a conjunction in the Hebrew 1 . Thus 
 the Hebrew basis of the LXX. appears to have been nnN JW3[l] 
 'h nycta p[']mD*? -ix ["|tan] \tncb. Here IOK is presumably a 
 corruption of ifty. The Peshitta comes nearer to the Masoretic 
 text, but attaches ^N1 to chap. x. 21, and reads IDy for Hy and 
 *b for A. Hence the reading ^ is supported by the combined 
 testimony of the LXX. and of the Peshitta, and the Masoretic 
 reading Hoy is supported by neither. Prof. Robertson Smith 
 has suggested that the words HOH BwA nnx nJ5?3 are a frag- 
 ment of a heading which was wrongly introduced here by a 
 scribe (cf. the headings in chaps, vii. 1; viii. 1; ix. 1; x. 1). 
 After the words had been incorporated with the text, ^N1 may 
 have been added in order to make sense. This hypothesis 
 would account for the absence of >J&0 in the LXX. If we read 
 noy for HDy, and ^ for I 1 ?, the latter part of the verse may 
 be understood as a continuation of chap. x. 21, pmnD inx ftf! 
 b nyD^i pnrd? npy DDT.? Sxr^o DK ^ r6tf :>y oy,i.e. "there is none 
 that helpeth me against these, save that Michael your prince 
 standeth as a strengthener and a defence to me". 
 
 2 4. The revelation properly speaking now begins. There 
 are to be three more Persian kings after Cyrus, and the fourth 
 Persian king, that is, the last of the three above-mentioned, will 
 be richer than all his predecessors. In this last king all com- 
 mentators recognize Xerxes, the two preceding kings being pro- 
 bably Darius and Artaxerxes. Nor is it any valid objection to 
 this interpretation that in reality there were many more than 
 four Persian kings after Cyrus, and that the first Artaxerxes 
 
 1 Cf. chap. vii. 19 FVJ8? /cat t'5oi> 01 65cWes O.VTOV ; ix. 19 
 Xpoi/ij 0-775. 
 
172 XI. 24. 
 
 reigned after, not before, Xerxes. For in the Old Testament, 
 which was doubtless the principal source of information accessi- 
 ble to the author of Daniel, only four names of Persian kings 
 happen to occur, viz. Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes and Artaxerxes, and 
 as to the order in which the last two reigned nothing is posi- 
 tively stated. That the Darius mentioned in Neh. xii. 22 is a 
 different person from the Darius mentioned elsewhere, may 
 easily have escaped the notice of readers in the 2nd century B.C. 
 iTfy:? inf^rp-l " and when he shall have grown strong by reason of 
 his wealth" (so Hitzig), cf. II Chr. xii. 1; xxvi. 16; ngjn is here 
 a verbal noun like HNT. The phrase 1 T V rvirfe HK fen TIP is very 
 obscure. Von Lengerke renders " he will stir up all, (even) the 
 kingdom of Greece" ; but if the clause refers, as it apparently 
 does, to the war of Xerxes against Greece, such an expression 
 would be meaningless. More natural is the interpretation of 
 the Vulgate, which is followed by Bertholdt and De Wette, " et 
 concitabit omnes adversum regnum Graeciae". It is true that, as 
 Von Lengerke objects, ns nowhere else means "against" ex- 
 cepting where some such word as Dn>: or non^o precedes (Gen. 
 xiv. 9. I Chr. xx. 5) but since Dl> is so used (Ps. xciv. 16), the 
 thing cannot be pronounced absolutely impossible. Hitzig 
 explains HK as indicating motion "towards". Perhaps nx fen TV 
 may be a corruption of HNfip] 1 ? TTJP, " he shall array (his armies) 
 against the kingdom of Greece", cf. I Sam. iv. 2. II Sam. x. 9, 
 10, 17. The expression "the kingdom of Greece" shews, as 
 Hitzig remarks, that the author imagined Greece to have been 
 a monarchy, like the Oriental states. The " mighty, or warlike, 
 king", who appears in v. 3, is doubtless Alexander the Great. 
 The beginning of v. 4 is usually translated, " and when he has 
 stood up", but probably we should read, with Graetz, toyy?-1 " and 
 when he has become strong", according to the parallel passage, 
 chap. viii. 8. The corruption may easily be explained by the 
 "ipjn. of v. 3. Much less plausible is Hitzig's interpretation, " and 
 when he dies" (taking npy as equivalent to 'n?r), for the verb *Mtf 
 "to die", though common in Syriac, is unknown in Jewish 
 Aramaic, as well as in Hebrew. With irvo^p -QB>n " his king- 
 dom shall be broken up", cf. n$n|n ry?n nn?p. chap. viii. 8. The 
 form fnfll, l( and it shall be divided", is peculiar, for we should 
 
XI. 4, 5. 173 
 
 expect nvnni : , since the Imperfect is here used in the sense of a 
 simple Future; similar ai;e K'l1 in v. 16, D^JI (not D*"^) inv. 17, 
 3&71 (not 3-1B*l) in v. 28, etc. Prof. Driver supposes that in all 
 these cases the apocopated form is used incorrectly "without 
 any recollection of its distinctive signification" (Tenses, p. 247). 
 The latter half of v. 4 seems to mean, " and (it shall) not (belong) 
 to his posterity, nor (shall it be) according to the rule which he 
 had ruled, for his Empire shall be overthrown and (shall belong) 
 to others, besides these". After innqKj &\ and after Dnn$} we 
 must understand &on or nviri, cf. chap. viii. 19, 26, as well as Ps. 
 xvi. 8. The rule of Alexander's successors is to be feebler than 
 that of Alexander himself (cf. inb? &6l : chap. viii. 22). To whom 
 n^s? refers is not clear. Von Lengerke, following Jerome, makes 
 it apply to the first successors of Alexander, i.e. his empire was 
 first to be divided among his generals, and afterwards was to be 
 still further broken up. According to this view, the D^ID^ 
 would be the dynasties which arose in Cappadocia, Armenia, 
 and other countries, during the century and a half that folr 
 lowed upon the death of Alexander. Hitzig, on the other 
 hand, translates "to others, to the exclusion of these", referring 
 Dnn^ to the first successors of Alexander, and n?x to his poste- 
 rity (innqtf), i.e. his two sons who were murdered in their 
 infancy; but "i?^P elsewhere means "in addition to", not "to 
 the exclusion of", which would rather be nnjn (Gen. iv. 25. 
 I Kings xx. 24). 
 
 5, 6. From this point onwards the history is confined to 
 the kingdoms of the South and the North, i.e. the kingdom of 
 the Ptolemies and that of the Seleucidae. These two dynasties 
 successively dominated Palestine, and therefore occupy the 
 attention of the author. During the greater part of the 3rd 
 century B.C. the country was under the Ptolemies, but about 
 the end of that century it was permanently incorporated with 
 the Seleucid empire. The king of the South, in v. 5, is Ptolemy 
 Soter, son of Lagus, who having long been master of Egypt, 
 assumed the title of king in 306 B.C. The verse is usually ren- 
 dered, " And the king of the South shall be strong, and one of his 
 captains (shall be strong likewise), but he (i.e. the latter) shall 
 become stronger than he (i.e. the former), and shall ride, a great 
 
174 XI. 5, 6. 
 
 domain shall be his dominion". Probably, however, the Maso- 
 retic accentuation is here erroneous, and the words 1^~JP-1 
 should be taken, as Hitzig proposes, with what follows, so that 
 the sense will be, "And the king of the South shall be strong; 
 but as for one of his captains he shall become stronger than he" 
 etc. It is unnecessary to read pTIT for pTfTI, with Meinhold, since 
 the construction is the same as in chap. vii. 20 ^ 1^1. 13"i. xr$\. 
 For the omission of "JHN "one", before IP, cf. Exod. vi. 25. Neh. 
 xiii. 28. The suffix in V"rb refers to Ptolemy Soter ; the captain 
 in question is Seleucus Nicator, who served in the army of 
 Ptolemy and afterwards, in 306 B.C., became independent sove- 
 reign of Northern Syria, Babylonia, and the other eastern pro- 
 vinces of Alexander's empire. Seleucus' son and successor, 
 Antiochus Soter, is here passed over in silence. Verse G 
 describes the relations between Ptolemy II. (Philadelphus) and 
 Antiochus Theos, son of Antiochus Soter. About 250 B.C. 
 Ptolemy Philadelphus gave his daughter Berenice in marriage 
 to Antiochus Theos, on condition that the latter should divorce 
 his former wife Laodice and that the posterity of Berenice 
 should succeed to the throne of the Seleucidae. When after 
 two years Ptolemy died, Antiochus took back his former wife 
 and divorced Berenice. Laodice, however, fearing that her hus- 
 band might change his mind, poisoned him. Berenice and her 
 infant son were soon afterwards murdered near Antioch. Yon 
 Lengerke translates, " And at the end of some years they shall 
 make an alliance together, and the daughter of the king of the 
 South shall come to the king of the North, to establish an agree- 
 ment. But she will not retain any power of support, and neither 
 he will abide nor his support, and she shall be given up, and those 
 who have made her a bride, and he who begat her, and he who 
 obtained possession of her in those times". For the phrase 
 D'JP fj cf. II Chr. xviii. 2. The verb n^Ott refers, of course, 
 to the king of the South and the king of the North ; the author 
 however, considers it unnecessary to state that the kings in this 
 verse are not the same individuals as those mentioned in v. 5. 
 nnt^p elsewhere means that which is "right" or "fitting", 
 hence it is used for "an equitable arrangement"; Hitzig com- 
 pares the use of Sfaaia in I Mace. vii. 12, As ri"it is employed 
 
XI. 6. 175 
 
 metaphorically in vv. 15, 22, 31, we may take it so here ; since 
 however the notion of an "army" is inappropriate in this verse, 
 irnjn may signify the political "support" which Berenice gave 
 to her father Ptolemy. But Von Lengerke's rendering of N?1 
 riijn nte "ityn, "aber sie wird Kraft des Beistandes nicht be- 
 haupten", is syntactically open to objection. Wherever else the 
 phrase ro ")JJ occurs, f"D is in the absolute state, and, as Graetz 
 has noticed, the analogy of II Chr. xiii. 20 is certainly in favour 
 of regarding mtn as the subject of the clause. iin.M nbj *6i : is 
 understood by Von Lengerke as meaning " neither Ptolemy will 
 abide, nor his support Berenice". But if the preceding ?VTtn 
 refers to the support afforded by Berenice, it is very unlikely 
 that lint refers to Berenice herself. More probably we should 
 read, with Hitzig, Hht ttpB! &\ (see vv. 15, 31), "nor shall his 
 arms abide". But the suffix in iiht can scarcely refer to the 
 feminine $"*}D, as Hitzig supposes it is far more natural to 
 explain it as referring to Ptolemy. Thus the sense of these two 
 clauses would seem to be, " neither shall that support (which is 
 afforded by Berenice) be of any avail, nor shall his (other) sup- 
 ports prove effectual". The remainder of this verse presents 
 such insuperable difficulties that there is every reason for be- 
 lieving the text to be corrupt. To interpret |D3n as " she shall 
 be given up to destruction" is to assign to the verb a sense 
 which it bears nowhere else, for in Is. li. 12 |na> Tyn need mean 
 no more than " which shall be made as grass" ; when |JU is con- 
 strued with h or T3, we may of course render it by "give up" or 
 "deliver over", but 1D^ by itself signifies only "she shall be 
 given", nx^np (so the best MSS. read, with defective spelling) 
 is referred by some, as Ewald, to "those who accompanied" 
 Berenice from Egypt to Syria, and by Von Lengerke to " those 
 who concluded her marriage", i.e. her father and her husband. 
 Hitzig understands it of her husband only, the Plural being 
 used for the Singular (cf. *ji?a Is. liv. 5). ^fffO, if correctly 
 pointed, must be Ptolemy ; for the use of the article before 
 a participle with suffix compare -inasn Is. ix. 12. a^ino is re- 
 ferred by Von Leugerke to Antiochus, the verb having the 
 same sense as in v. 21; Ewald and Hitzig explain nptrjio as "he 
 who strengthened her" or " he who upheld her", and refer the 
 
176 XI. G, 7. 
 
 word to Ptolemy. D'Jwa may perhaps be equivalent to DVW|i 
 EH? (v. 14), just as in chap. x. 14 D^P*? seems to mean " for those 
 days". But on the whole it is more probable that here some- 
 thing has fallen out. 
 
 7 9. The three verses which now follow describe the 
 reigns of Ptolemy III. (Euergetes) and of Seleucus Callinicus, 
 eldest son and successor of Antiochus Theos. Ptolemy Euer- 
 getes, at the beginning of his reign, avenged the murder of 
 Berenice by invading Syria and Babylonia, whence he carried 
 off an immense booty, iW"^ "ipp is usually explained as " one 
 of the offshoots of her roots ", the JP being partitive, as in v. 5, 
 and ")$) being a collective noun. Possibly however we should 
 read nnsh^P -iyj (LXX. <f>vrbv e/e rfc pl&s avrov), see Is. xi. 1. 
 133 evidently has the same meaning as iar^tf w. 20, 21, i.e. 
 "instead of him". With 133 used thus abverbially, cf. the Arab. 
 makdmahu ; the indiscriminate use of VS'^y and i33 is like the 
 indiscriminate use of D*f6gn JV33 (II Chr. iv. 11 ; xxii. 12) and 
 D'rfrgP} n3 (I Chr. ix. 26 ; II Chr. iv. 19) "in the house of God". 
 The suffix in rpBHV' obviously refers to Berenice, and the suffix in 
 i33 to Ptolemy Philadelphus. Thus there is to arise in the place 
 of Ptolemy Philadelphus an offshoot of the roots whence Bere- 
 nice had sprung, i.e. her brother, Ptolemy Euergetes, will 
 succeed to the throne of Egypt, ^nrrta son is explained by 
 Von Lengerke, Ewald, and Hitzig, as " and he shall come to the 
 army", i.e. he shall place himself at the head of his army in 
 order to invade Syria. But it is not easy to see why the king 
 should be described as coming to his army rather than with it 
 (see v. 13). Havernick's rendering "and he shall come into 
 power" is wholly unsupported by usage. Perhaps we should 
 read 7?0 [B]n:>^ N^I. " and he shall bring an army against them", 
 i.e. against the Syrians ; for the use of hx instead of ^y, see chap. 
 viii. 7. Hitzig is probably right in making Tiyo in this verse 
 refer to the fortified city of Seleucia, on the Mediterranean 
 coast. According to Polybius (v. 58), Seleucia was taken by 
 Ptolemy during this war and remained for many years after- 
 wards in the power of Egypt, pnnm DQ1 rwy\ (< and he shall do 
 as he wills with them and act valiantly" (cf. WV\ -Iptq! v. 32, also 
 Neh. ix. 24) the suffix in Drn refers to the Syrians, as do also 
 
XI. 810. 177 
 
 the suffixes in D-vnfe.x and the following words (v. 8). Dn^pp 
 certainly means " their molten images", and unless it be merely 
 a mistake for Dn*2P3, is from a Singular TP2 synonymous with 
 ^03 (Is. xlviii. 5); similarly we find D9'p? "graven images" used 
 as a virtual plural of ?D3. Jerome relates, presumably on the 
 authority of Porphyry, that among the spoils which Ptolemy 
 brought away with him were the statues of Egyptian gods 
 carried off by Cambyses some 280 years earlier. Hence, it is 
 said, the Egyptians gave to Ptolemy the title of Euergetes. 
 With Drnpn ? " their costly things" cf. II Chr. xxxii. 27 ; xxxvL 
 10. The words 3HT1 5]D3 can scarcely stand in apposition to 
 nrnpn 75, for in that case we should expect srtfni. *]D3n, the 
 preceding nouns being defined by the suffix. It is better to 
 take 2nt] 5|D| as a term of specification (Arab, tamylz), "in silver 
 and gold"; cf. 3riT DU-n?n I Chr. xxviii. 18. The last clause of 
 v. 8 is interpreted by Von Lengerke, Hitzig, and Ewald, " and 
 for some years he will refrain from (attacking) the king of the 
 North" ; see Gen. xxix. 35. II Kings iv. 6. Others explain, 
 " and he shall continue alive some years longer than the king of 
 the North". In v. 9 the verbs &O and 2& must refer to the king 
 of the North. Some years after Ptolemy's invasion of Syria, 
 Seleucus Callinicus made an expedition against Egypt. He 
 was totally defeated, and returned with a small remnant of his 
 army to Antioch. 
 
 10 12. The next ten verses are occupied with the times of 
 Antiochus III., known as Antiochus the Great. Seleucus Cal- 
 linicus left two sons, Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus. The 
 former was killed, after a reign of two years, during a campaign 
 in Asia Minor. Antiochus, who succeeded to the throne, soon 
 afterwards made war upon Ptolemy Philopator, son and suc- 
 cessor of Ptolemy Euergetes, and conquered Syria as far as Gaza. 
 Thereupon Ptolemy marched from Egypt and defeated him 
 with severe loss at Raphia, about twenty miles to the south 
 west of Gaza. Antiochus having retreated northward, Palestine 
 was again annexed to the empire of Ptolemy. In v. 10 1^ " his 
 sons" refers to Seleucus Ceraunus and Antiochus. Von Len- 
 gerke has observed that though Seleucus Ceraunus never 
 actually made war upon Egypt, his expedition into Asia Minor 
 B. D. 12 
 
178 XI. 10. 
 
 may be regarded as a prelude to an intended attack upon the 
 Ptolemaic Empire. Hence it may be said of him and of his 
 brother, " they shall war and gather together a multitude of great 
 forces" but the following words must describe events subse- 
 quent to the death of Seleucus 1 . For the placing of the Infini- 
 tive absolute K'n after the Perfect, see Num. xxiii. 11; xxiv. 10. 
 The words "Oyi *\V$\ Kta N3-1 are referred by Von Lengerke and 
 Hitzig to Antiochus ; Ewald more naturally refers them to the 
 multitude (pon) mentioned before. Thus we may render, " and 
 it (i.e. the army of Antiochus) shall come onward and shall 
 sweep away (all before it) and overflow (the land) ; then it shall 
 return again (to the attack), and they shall war even to his strong- 
 hold". The word 3B>J seems to allude to the fact that after the 
 conquest of part of Coele-Syria, the army of Antiochus retired 
 northward to winter in the neighbourhood of Seleucia, garrisons 
 having been left in the conquered cities (Polybius v. 66) ; in 
 the following spring the army "returned again" to complete the 
 conquest. For the Plural nJJV the Kerl substitutes the easier 
 rn|fl. Von Lengerke refers 113JV to Antiochus and Ptolemy 
 Philopator. Since however the next verse represents Ptolemy 
 as "coming forth" to fight, it is more natural to suppose that 
 nJJV (assuming it to be the original reading) refers to the army 
 of Antiochus, which may be treated either as a Singular or a 
 Plural. The word njtf " his stronghold" is explained by Von 
 Lengerke as meaning the stronghold of Ptolemy, viz. Raphia ; 
 Hitzig interprets it as the stronghold of Antiochus, viz. Gaza. 
 This latter view may at first appear irreconcileable with v. V, 
 where fiB-VD ^P ^M? seems to designate Seleucia; but since in 
 v. 19 we read of i>s v nyp, there is no reason why several places 
 should not be called by this title. That Pelusium (PP), described 
 by Ezekiel as DHVP tiV9 (Ezek. xxx. 15), cannot here be meant, 
 is obvious, for Antiochus never advanced so far during this cam- 
 
 1 The words of Jerome "Post fu- lemaeumPhilopatoremarmacorripiunt" 
 
 gam et mortem Seleuci Gallinici, duo are apparently nothing but a deduc- 
 
 filii ejus Seleucus cognomento Ceraunus tion drawn from this passage of Daniel, 
 
 et Antiochus qui appellatus est Magnus, for in reality Seleucus Ceraunus died 
 
 provocati spe victoriae et ultione paren- before the accession of Ptolemy Philo- 
 
 tiSj exercitu congregate adversus Pto- pator. 
 
XI. 11, 12. 179 
 
 paign. In v. 11 Ptolemy appears upon the scene. At first he 
 made no attempt to arrest the progress of Antiochus, but was at 
 length induced by his ministers to advance with a large force. 
 For TfflOtt see chap. viii. 7, and also p. 30. The latter half of 
 v. 11 means, according to Yon Lengerke, " And he (i.e. Ptolemy) 
 shall raise a great army, and the army shall be placed under his 
 command". So also Hitzig, excepting that he prefers to read 
 jru] " and he shall place", rather than fro). But in either case it 
 is extremely doubtful whether the text will bear the above 
 sense ; the passages cited by Hitzig (II Kings xviii. 23. Ps. x. 
 14) are far from conclusive. It is certainly more in accordance 
 with Hebrew usage to translate "the multitude shall be given 
 into his hand" (i.e. it shall be defeated by him), cf. I Kings xx. 
 28. But since tiorin must refer to the 3*1 flon immediately pre- 
 ceding, it becomes necessary to take the verb "i*9gp1 as having 
 Antiochus for its subject. Hence we may interpret, " And he 
 (i.e. Antiochus) shall raise a great multitude, but the multitude 
 shall be given into his (i.e. Ptolemy's) hand". This view is con- 
 firmed by v. 13, where the " multitude greater than the former 
 one" evidently means the army of Antiochus. Verse 12 is 
 interpreted both by Von Lengerke and Hitzig, " And the multi- 
 tude shall stand up (to fight), their courage being raised, and he 
 (i.e. Ptolemy) shall cast down myriads, but he shall not shew 
 himself strong". According to this explanation, K&o has the 
 same sense as in Is. xxxiii. 10, and 13^ ^"C is a circumstantial 
 clause. But if, as has been before suggested, the flon of v. 11 is 
 the army of Antiochus, the |ion of v. 12 must refer to the same 
 thing. Accordingly the first half of v. 12 appears to mean, 
 " And the multitude shall be swept away (i.e. routed), and his 
 (i.e. Ptolemy's) heart shall be puffed up with pride" (reading Dni. 
 according to the Kerl). For this use of Kb: see chap. ii. 35 and 
 Is. xl. 24 ; xli. 16 ; Ivii. 13. The term niK3") " myriads" must be 
 understood in a rhetorical sense. According to Polybius (v. 86), 
 the losses of Antiochus at Kaphia amounted to nearly 10000 
 infantry and 300 cavalry, besides 4000 taken prisoners. TJJ* &6j 
 "but he shall not shew himself strong" , accurately describes the 
 conduct of Ptolemy on this occasion. Instead of following up 
 his success, he contented himself with the acquisition of Coele- 
 
 122 
 
180 XI. 1214. 
 
 Syria, and made peace with Antiochus as soon as possible (Poly- 
 bius v. 87). 
 
 13 16. About 12 years after the battle of Raphia, Ptolemy 
 Philopator died leaving an infant son, who succeeded to the 
 crown and is known as Ptolemy Epiphanes. Antiochus soon 
 took the opportunity of again attacking the Ptolemaic Empire. 
 In v. 13, 3&\ is adverbial, "And again the king of the North shall 
 raise a multitude, greater than the former one...". In the latter 
 half of this verse, &W is explained by Von Lengerke as being 
 in apposition to DWPI, i.e. "at the end of the time (consisting of) 
 some years " in which case the presence of DWn is altogether 
 unnecessary and even disturbing to the sense. Ewald trans- 
 lates, "At the end of the times he will come repeatedly (Nta Nin*) 
 during some years;" but for this we should expect n3B>3 rw (see 
 Neh. x. 36) rather than Dje>. Perhaps D'JBJ may have been 
 added by a scribe in order to explain the vague term D^yn, in 
 accordance with D^ fi?.?- 1 ) in v. 6. For the placing of the Infini- 
 tive Absolute K11 after the Imperfect, cf. II Kings v. 11. BD1 
 which here seems to mean " implements of war " (so Hitzig, 
 Ewald) and which in v. 24 means " possessions " in general, is a 
 word peculiar to the Pentateuch and to post-exilic writings. In 
 v. 14, the " many " who " stand up against the king of the 
 South " may be taken as a reference to Philip, king of Macedon, 
 the ally of Antiochus, and to the rebellions which at this time 
 broke out in the provinces subject to Ptolemy. The rest of the 
 verse evidently alludes to events which took place in Palestine. 
 According to the usual interpretation, the 1$1? ^"^ ^-?> " ^ ie 
 sons of the violent among thy people " are those Jews who took 
 part with Antiochus. The author, it is supposed, hating the 
 Syrian rule, here expresses his disapprobation of those who 
 helped to bring Palestine under the Seleucidae. Before dis- 
 cussing this theory, it is necessary to examine the words which 
 follow, fttn IWD?, which are commonly rendered, "so as (there- 
 by) to fulfil the prophecy ", i.e. the conduct of the Jews who sided 
 with Antiochus, though in itself blameworthy, was necessary for 
 the fulfilment of the Divine predictions. Against this it may 
 fairly be urged that the author cannot here be speaking of an 
 attempt which succeeded, but rather of an attempt which failed 
 
XI. 14, 15. 181 
 
 Accordingly Graetz wishes to render fitn Tpi?n^> "to 
 cause the Law to totter " ^(um das Gesetz wankend zu machen), 
 cf. Ezek. xxix. 7. He explains the verse as referring to an 
 attempt on the part of the Hellenizing faction among the Jews 
 to abolish the Mosaic law. That such attempts were made at 
 the period in question is quite possible, but ptn means " vision ", 
 " prediction ", and is never used as an equivalent of rnin or nn?. 
 Hence there seems to be no choice but to take |ltn "ppjjn? in its 
 literal and obvious sense the author speaks of persons who 
 " lift themselves up for the purpose of fulfilling prophecy", but 
 the attempt fails, " they are overthrown " (1?^?J1 : ). But who are 
 the ipy sna ja ? The phrase, as it stands, is very singular, for 
 " the violent among thy people " would surely be expressed by 
 152 rp ^ns or D'ynBn ^y ^?. We can no more say D'yns -^ 
 for " violent persons " than we could say D^IV *J33 for " right- 
 eous persons". Perhaps we should read 192 *30S \?2 "those who 
 build up the Reaches of thy people", cf. Amos ix. 11 and the 
 somewhat analogous phrase ^i?."!? ^tqp Ezek. xxvii. 9. Our 
 total ignorance as to the internal history of the Jews at this 
 period makes it impossible to say what event the author of 
 Daniel has here in view, but it may be suggested as at least 
 not improbable that at the time when the Ptolemaic dynasty 
 was losing its hold upon Judaea some of those who aimed at a 
 restoration of Israel may have entertained hopes of throwing off 
 the foreign yoke altogether and thereby of fulfilling the predic- 
 tions of the prophets 1 . Such hopes were of course doomed to 
 disappointment. The opening clause of v. 15, "And the king of 
 the North shall come", is understood by Von Lengerke as a 
 mere repetition of the statement in v. 13, since v. 14 is of the 
 nature of a parenthesis. Hitzig, on the contrary, refers v. 15 to 
 a campaign subsequent to that mentioned in v. 13. Although 
 the details of the war between Antiochus and Ptolemy Epiphanes 
 are obscure, there can be no doubt that it lasted several years. 
 
 1 It hardly requires to be said that ply to the whole nation. We have 
 
 the account given by Josephus (Antiq. also to remember that Josephus always 
 
 xn. 3. 3, 4) of the help which Antiochus does his best to conceal the hatred with 
 
 received from the Jews even if it be which the Jews regarded the Gentile 
 
 strictly true does not necessarily ap- rule. 
 
182 XI. 15, 16. 
 
 The fate of Palestine was virtually settled by the great victory 
 which Antiochus gained at Mount Panium, near the Baniyas 
 source of the Jordan, over Ptolemy's general Scopas (Polybius 
 XVI. 18; xxviii. 1). According to Jerome, Scopas afterwards 
 sought refuge, with an army of 10000 men, in the fortress of Sidon, 
 which Antiochus besieged and took 1 . To this there seems to 
 be an allusion here, " And he shall cast up earth-works and take 
 a fortified city". Instead of n'nvjlp we elsewhere find the Plural 
 Dnyijip, as in v. 24 Theod. and the Pesh. appear to have read 
 nm? nnr. The following words describe the total collapse of 
 the Egyptian power in Syria. " And the forces of the South shall 
 not withstand (Antiochus), nor (even) his (i.e. Ptolemy's) chosen 
 men, and there shall be no strength to withstand, (v. 16) And 
 he (i.e. Antiochus) who shall come against him (i.e. Ptolemy) 
 shall do as he wills, and none shall withstand him, and he shall 
 stand in the land of Glory, with destruction in his hand". niint :> 
 for which v. 31 has B^t, is a general term including not only 
 armies but all means of offence or defence, cf. ^n) in"!? Ezra 
 iv. 23. The phrase l^n^P D^ is peculiar, but may be compared 
 to rp-roqo '!?? II Chr. xxxvi. 19. Whether the suffixes in inrnp 
 and 1^N refer to Ptolemy or to "the South" is not quite clear; 
 the sense in either case is the same. On *5?n p, as a name 
 for Judaea, see chap. viii. 9. The rendering given above for 
 iT? rbty is that adopted by Hitzig. Von Lengerke and Ewald 
 translate, " and it (i.e. the land) shall be wholly in his hand", 
 taking !"6| as an adverb (Gen. xviii. 21). But, as Hitzig re- 
 marks, if this be the meaning we must at least read n^l, with 
 Bertholdt. Von Lengerke's objection that the idea of " destruc- 
 tion" is here out of place because the Jews were on the side of 
 Antiochus, has no weight, for even if the Jews sided with 
 Antiochus (as Josephus states), it is still possible that this 
 clause may refer to the " destruction " of the Egyptian armies. 
 
 1 " Antiochus enim volens Judaeam Ptolemaeus duces inclytos Eropum et 
 
 recuperate et Syriae urbes plurimas, Menoclem et Damoxenmn. Sed ob- 
 
 Scopam ducem Ptolemaei juxta fontes sidionem solvere non potuit: donee 
 
 Jordanis, ubi nunc Paneas condita est, fame superatus Scopas manus dedit 
 
 inito certamine fugavit, et cum decem et nudus cum sociis dimissus est". 
 
 millibus armatorum obsedit clausum Jerome, Comm. in Dan. xi. 15. 
 in Sidone. Ob quern liberandum misit 
 
XI. 17. 183 
 
 17 19. "And he shall set his face to come with the power 
 of his whole kingdom, but he shall make an agreement with him" 
 etc. Havernick and Von Lengerke refer the suffix in iJVG? to 
 Ptolemy, and accordingly explain, " He (i.e. Antiochus) shall set 
 his face to come against the power of his (i.e. Ptolemy's) whole 
 kingdom". But after the description of the utter defeat and 
 helplessness of Ptolemy (vv. 15, 16) it would be very unnatural 
 to speak of " the power of his whole kingdom". Ewald's trans- 
 lation, "to come into possession of his kingdom", assumes for the 
 word Sjijn a sense which it bears nowhere else. It is therefore 
 much more probable that the suffix in irnr^p refers to Antio- 
 chus (so Hitzig). The author seems to mean that after the 
 conquest of all Syria, Antiochus determined to apply his strength 
 to the conquest of Egypt itself, but thought it advisable, for the 
 moment, to come to terms with Ptolemy. Instead of n^yi we 
 should no doubt read fiBlC (so Hitzig and others), according to 
 the LXX. teal o-vvOjjfcas /-ter' at/rod iro^aerai,. DHtp* is either 
 a mistake for D'T?"P (see v. 6) or else a word of exactly the same 
 meaning; in the latter case it would be a Plural of "UJ*. The 
 suffix in toy must refer to Ptolemy. The latter half of v. 17 is 
 obscure. " The daughter of women" seems to be Cleopatra, 
 daughter of Antiochus, whom he betrothed and some years 
 afterwards married to Ptolemy. With the singular phrase r\2 
 D^an Hitzig compares ntonfcria Zech. ix. 9. The LXX. has 
 Ouyarepa dvOpwTrov, the Pesh. rt'JLJK' >ira, but whether this 
 proves the existence of a reading D'SMX ni may be doubted. The 
 suffix in njvn^n^ is referred by De Wette, Havernick, and Von 
 Lengerke, to frH37P, i.e. "and he shall give to him (i.e. Ptolemy) 
 the daughter of women, to destroy it (i.e. the Empire of Egypt)". 
 Von Lengerke supposes that the object of Antiochus, in giving 
 his daughter in marriage, was to excite against Ptolemy the 
 resentment of the Romans. But if in-ID^p means the kingdom 
 of Antiochus, the suffix in njvn^n? must refer to Cleopatra her- 
 self, i.e. he will give her in marriage " to her ruin". Perhaps, 
 however, we should read JVn^n^ (with Hitzig), i.e. " in order to 
 work ruin". The verbs "ibfiE and n;.~in should probably be taken 
 impersonally (see Is. vii. 7), " but it shall not avail, nor shall he 
 
184 XI. 18. 
 
 attain it (i.e. his object)". In v. 18 the Kethlb 3K1 is preferable 
 to the Kerl t&\\ (LXX. fcal Sma-ei) since it is a question, not of 
 a purpose (as in v. 17), but of actual motion (as in v. 19). " And 
 he shall turn his face towards the isles and shall take many" etc. 
 0**t*, as elsewhere, has the general sense of "lands by the sea". 
 In the year 197 B.C. Antiochus made an expedition, by sea and 
 land, against Asia Minor. For a while he met with great 
 success ; at length, in 190 B.C., he was severely defeated by the 
 Roman general Lucius Scipio near Magnesia, and made peace 
 on the most humiliating conditions. To this catastrophe the 
 latter half of v. 18 probably alludes. Von Lengerke translates, 
 " But a Commander shall put an end to his insults, nothing but 
 his insults shall he repay to him". The first l^ 5 Von Lengerke 
 explains as meaning " to his hurt" (cf. Jer. xlviii. 35. Ruth iv. 
 
 X X 
 
 14). The word TVi? seems to be derived from np (Ar. _*a3 " to 
 
 decide", "to pronounce a legal sentence"), in which case the 
 grammatical formation would be quite unique in Hebrew. As 
 TVi? is elsewhere used both of civil and military officials, it may 
 well be applied here to Scipio. But the latter part of the verse 
 presents great difficulties. Nowhere in the Old Testament does 
 'J-173 mean "only", "nothing but" (Von Lengerke, Hitzig), and 
 to appeal to Is. x. 4 is to elucidate the obscure by means of the 
 more obscure. Equally unproven is the meaning "and more- 
 over" (ausserdem dass), proposed by Havernick. Graetz's emen- 
 dation r6n, "on the cheek", is ingenious, but though u to smite 
 on the cheek" is a familiar Hebrew metaphor (Micah iv. 14. Ps. 
 iii. 8. Job xvi. 10), such a phrase as "to requite an insult upon 
 the cheek" is unknown. Perhaps some help may here be 
 derived from the LXX. which has KOI eTricrTpetyei opyyv 
 CT/JLOV avrwv ev op/cq) Kara rov ovei^io-^bv avrov 
 [avra)' Kal eTTio-TpeTJrei,] TO -rrpoo-coTrov avrov K.T.\. The words 
 in square brackets I have supplied from conjecture their omis- 
 sion is easily explained by the homoioteleuton. Instead of 
 f*p JVn^m the translator appears to have read ?)p nG5>m, but 
 here the Masoretic text is obviously preferable. In the words 
 immediately following there is a wide divergence between the 
 two texts. It is possible that the original reading may have 
 
XI. 1820. 185 
 
 been A 1W insrin DTO3> " fo shall requite his insults sevenfold", 
 cf. Ps. Ixxix. 12. This hypothesis at least will account both for 
 the present Masoretic text and for the variations of the LXX. 
 W3 I 1 ? may have arisen out of D'njOt?, since in some forms of 
 the older alphabet ^ and 1 are little more than vertical strokes. 
 On the other hand the LXX., in which the first iS is absent, 
 may have confused DTOlfc? with nyitp, ZpKos. Verse 19 " And 
 he shall turn his face towards the strongholds of his (own) land, 
 and shall be overthrown and fall and disappear'. After his 
 discomfiture Antiochus retreated to the lands east of the 
 Taurus, and was at length killed in the attempt to plunder 
 the temple of Bel in Elymais. 
 
 20. This verse describes in a few words the reign of Seleu- 
 cus Philopator, son of Antiochus the Great. The usual rendering 
 is, " and there shall arise in his place one who shall cause an 
 exactor to pass through the glory of the kingdom" etc., (so Von 
 Lengerke). This is supposed to refer to the mission of Helio- 
 dorus for the purpose of robbing the Jewish Temple (II Mace, 
 iii. 7), and by " the glory of the kingdom", the author, it is said, 
 means Judaea. With this view Hitzig substantially agrees, but 
 he renders "towards the glory of the kingdom", and explains 
 ntt?8 TJ n to be Jerusalem. In either case the usage of Hebrew 
 would require a preposition before Tin (cf. Zech. ix. 8). More- 
 over it would be very strange to call Judaea or Jerusalem the 
 glory of a heathen kingdom, and in v. 21 rVD^D Tin evidently 
 means "royal honour". Since Tin and ">7 n are so frequently 
 coupled together, we may assume that noVo "nn and n-13^? Tin 
 express much the same idea, Tin being a mere phonetic varia- 
 tion of Tin. For these reasons Graetz inserts v5 before Tin, 
 " there shall arise one who shall cause an exactor to pass (through 
 the land), without royal dignity" etc. But the words BMfo "W9, 
 without further specification, would be scarcely intelligible 
 not to mention the boldness of adding ^?. It appears to me 
 simpler and more satisfactory to read T-ayiD PJU instead of T-ziyo 
 CWH, i.e. " And there shall arise in his place an exactor who shall 
 cause the royal dignity to pass away" etc. For this use of Torn 
 see II Sam. xii. 13. Esth. viii. 3. The suffix in i33 naturally 
 refers to Antiochus the Great. By the "exactor" would be 
 
186 XI. 2022. 
 
 meant Seleucus, who made himself unpopular by his avarice ; 
 Livy speaks of this king's reign as " otiosum, nullis admodum 
 rebus gestis nobilitatum" (Bk. XLI. 19). Such a prince, following 
 immediately upon Antiochus the Great, might well be described 
 as "causing the royal dignity to pass away". "And in a few 
 days he shall be broken" ; for DHn^? D^pj cf. Gen. xxvii. 44 ; xxix. 
 20. "To be broken" is "to be ruined", not necessarily "to 
 be slain" (cf. v. 26). Those who find in the preceding words an 
 allusion to the mission of Heliodorus, generally explain the 
 " few days" as the time which elapsed between that mission 
 and the death of Seleucus. Rosenmuller thinks that the whole 
 reign of Seleucus, which lasted 12 years, is here called "a few 
 days", as contrasted with the much longer reign of Antiochus 
 the Great. Perhaps the author may mean no more than that 
 the fall of Seleucus will be sudden and unexpected. The last 
 words of the verse are usually translated " but not in wrath (i.e. 
 by open violence), nor in war". But for this we should expect 
 *|8? rather than D?BX?. Graetz plausibly suggests D'SJ^li "in 
 battle array", cf. Ezek. xvii. 21; xxxviii. 6, 9, etc. It has been 
 already mentioned, in the Introduction to Chap, vii., that 
 Seleucus Philopator is said to have been murdered, and that 
 the author of Daniel seems to have attributed the murder to 
 the intrigues of Antiochus Epiphanes, who at the time was on 
 his way back from Rome to the East. 
 
 21 24. "And there shall arise in his place a contemptible 
 man, upon whom they have not conferred royal dignity, but he 
 shall come in unawares and shall seize the kingdom by guile" 
 In the " contemptible man " all modern commentators recognize 
 Antiochus Epiphanes, younger son of Antiochus the Great. 
 The words n-pfe Tin v^y ru a6) are best understood as a rela- 
 tive clause, "^ being omitted ; cf. Ps. xxii. 30, where &6 iGJ>?3\ 
 njn stands for nn *6 1^93 "f^l. The subject of -una is "men" 
 in general (cf. I Kings i. 1, 2) ; for the phrase, see I Chr. xxix. 
 25. The meaning is that Antiochus Epiphanes had never been 
 treated as heir apparent to the throne. On ni?^ and nippipbn., 
 see pp. 31, 32. Verses 22 24, as we have seen, are understood 
 by many, from Porphyry onwards, to refer to the campaigns of 
 Antiochus against Egypt. This view is accepted by Von Len- 
 
XI. 22, 23. 187 
 
 gerke, who explains v. 22, as follows "And the overwhelming 
 forces (lit. the arms of the flood, viz. the forces of Egypt) shall 
 be overwhelmed from before him and shall be broken, and also 
 an allied prince" (viz. Ptolemy Philometor, son and successor 
 of Ptolemy Epiphanes). But since Egypt is nowhere expressly 
 mentioned until we come to v. 25, it seems much more probable 
 that vv. 22 24 describe events which took place in Syria 
 during the first five years of Antioehus' reign, i.e. between 175 
 and 170 B.C. Moreover the phrase ^B&pn nilhf would be a sin- 
 gularly inappropriate designation for the armies defeated by 
 Antiochus *\QW Bis^ (Is. xxviii. 15), which is cited as a parallel, 
 evidently describes a victorious army. Also the use of nn.} TJ} , 
 instead of inn? bvi (Gen. xiv. 13) or inn? B$ (Obad. 7), is 
 quite anomalous. I would therefore propose to read tfOfftt i n ~ 
 stead of ^B^n, and to render, "And forces shall be utterly over- 
 whelmed before him, and shall be broken, and likewise a Prince 
 of the Covenant ". The word nilhj may be used absolutely, like 
 D'ln? in v. 31, and in all probability refers to Heliodorus and 
 the other domestic enemies whom Antiochus had to overcome 
 at the beginning of his reign ; VJB^p corresponds to rpDIjrp in 
 the parallel passage, chap. vii. 8. The "Prince of the Covenant" 
 seems to be the Jewish High Priest Onias III. (so Hitzig), who 
 was deposed by Antiochus about 174 B.C., and some years after- 
 wards murdered near Antioch (II Mace. iv. 33 36) 1 . On the 
 term TJ3, as applied to the High Priest, see chap. ix. 25. nn? 
 (here, as in v. 32, without the Article) is the "covenant" of God 
 with Israel, and hence Israel itself as a religious community, cf. 
 Bnip nn? v. 30 ; similarly, in Syriac, keyama " covenant " or 
 keyania kaddlsha "holy covenant", is used for "the clergy" 
 (see Hoffmann's Julianos der Abtrunnige, p. 62, line 5, and 
 p. 63, line 25). Verse 23 "And from the time when they shall 
 ally themselves with him he shall practise fraud, and shall rise 
 and become strong with (but) few men". Thus all who ally 
 themselves with Antiochus are outwitted. IP is here used as 
 
 1 According to II Mace. iv. 7 10, who by bribing Antiochus obtained the 
 
 the deposition of Onias III. was due to High-Priesthood for himself. About 
 
 his brother Jason (named originally 171 B.C. Jason was deposed in favour 
 
 Jesus, see Josephus, Antiq. xn. 5. 1), of a certain Menelaus. 
 
188 XI. 23, 24. 
 
 in chap. ix. 25; the form rvnjnfln, in which the abstract ending 
 is added to the Infinitive, may be compared to n-IDp^n Ezek. 
 xxiv. 26, although in the latter case the vocalization is not 
 above suspicion. The subject of rvn?nj;in is unexpressed, cf. Ps. 
 xlii. 4 ^>K "ibfcO "when they say to me", for which v. 11 of the 
 psalm has ^8 D< ?0^|. ^ seems here to be used in the sense of 
 Dtf. The " few men " are the partisans of Antiochus, i.e. those 
 by whose help he was able to rise to power (05$) n^l) and over- 
 come his rivals. The word n$g>? (v. 24) Von Lengerke connects 
 with v. 23; nanp *3lpp he explains as referring to Lower Egypt, 
 invaded by Antiochus. Ewald, following the Masoretic text, 
 translates, "He shall come unawares even into the fattest 
 provinces" by which provinces Ewald understands Galilee. 
 But to describe Lower Egypt or Galilee as " the fattest parts 
 of a province " (n^1P Singular) would be a strange figure of 
 speech; the phrase ^7$ M'^?$ (I s - xxix. 19), which Hitzig here 
 cites, is no real parallel, since D^N is a collective and cannot 
 form a Plural. Graetz explains, "In peace and with the honour- 
 able men of the land he will present himself" taking V!ij?p 
 according to Is. x. 16. Ps. Ixxviii. 31. But even if we admit 
 such a use of n^lP, why should this connection between 
 Antiochus and " the honourable men " be specially mentioned ? 
 Perhaps we should read "W \3Dfp? mfe-l "And by stealth he 
 shall assail the mightiest men of (each) province' '. For ? &Q in the 
 sense of " to come against", "to attack", see v. 30. This agrees 
 moreover with chap. viii. 25, D3! IVIT$ m^-l. The '3WP 
 n?H are presumably included in the D^-Wi? of chap. viii. 24, 
 i.e. the *' many " foes whom Antiochus contrived to ruin. The 
 following words describe his marvellous success "And he shall 
 do what his fathers have not done, nor the fathers of his fathers; 
 spoil and plunder and riches shall he scatter among them, and 
 against strongholds shall he devise his devices, but (it shall be 
 only) for a time". The root "in appears nowhere else in the 
 Old Testament but Ps. Ixviii. 31. The suffix in Dr6 is referred 
 by Yon Lengerke, Hitzig, and Ewald to the runp \3>pp, i. e . to 
 the inhabitants of the regions in question, but if the njnp \3O^p 
 are the enemies of Antiochus, the suffix in Dr6 must refer to 
 his adherents ; this vague use of the Plural is particularly com- 
 
XI. 2427. 189 
 
 mon in Daniel (e.g. Dna v. 7, -13^! v. 25). By the "strongholds" 
 we should probably understand the frontier of Egypt ; it is 
 here a question, not of invasion, but merely of ambitious plot- 
 ting (cf. I Mace. i. 16 KOI V7re\a@6 ftaviXevaai rf)s AljvTTTOv). 
 This state of things, however, is to last only for a time. 
 
 25 28. These four verses describe the war of Antiochus 
 against Ptolemy Philometor in 170 B.C. "And he shall rouse his 
 might and his courage against the king of the South, with a great 
 army ; and the king of the South shall engage in the war with an 
 army great and numerous exceedingly, but he (i.e. Ptolemy) shall 
 not stand, for they shall devise devices against him". For this 
 use of -w; cf. Ps. Ixxviii. 38. The "king of the South" in this 
 verse is supposed by Hitzig to be Ptolemy Euergetes II. (com- 
 monly known by the nickname Qva/cav, younger brother of 
 Ptolemy Philometor), who in the course of this war was pro- 
 claimed king at Alexandria 1 . But since the " two kings" in v. 
 27 are certainly Antiochus and Ptolemy Philometor, it may be 
 assumed that also in vv. 25, 26, Ptolemy Philometor is meant 2 . 
 In spite of his great resources, Ptolemy could not maintain the 
 contest, owing to the treachery of his adherents (V^J ^'TO 
 niTJ'rjD). He was defeated by Antiochus near Pelusium, and at 
 length fell into the power of the Syrian king. This is further 
 explained in what follows (v. 26) " And those who eat of his 
 dainties shall ruin him, and his army shall be swept away, and 
 many shall fall down slain". By " those who eat of his dainties" 
 (cf. chap. i. 5) are meant the courtiers of Ptolemy, perhaps in 
 particular Eulaeus and Lenaeus, two men who, after the death 
 of his mother Cleopatra (about 174 B.C.), had complete influence 
 over him (see Polybius xxvin. 21, and Jerome on Dan. xi. 
 21 if.). Instead of sfiB we should probably read *!$?, accord- 
 ing to v. 22. In v. 27, Ptolemy is in the hands of Antiochus. 
 
 1 <(V A/>x et P-tv y&p o QiKofJLrjT&p 717)6- I. p. 162. 
 
 repos tT<ru> fvdeKa /-uSj/os. 'Avnoxov 8' 2 A commentary on this passage is 
 
 eTrtcrT/aareucrcu'Tos AfytfTrry /ecu irepieKbv- furnished by I Mace. i. 18, 19 the 
 
 ros avrov rb diddrjfji.a, oi 'AXeaj>5pets r$ author of I Mace, here speaks of one 
 
 veurtpt}) eireTpe\f/av TO. irpdyfj-ara, /ecu Ptolemy only (i.e. Philometor), ignor- 
 
 <5tuJaj>res 'Avrioxov cppfoaitTO TOV <J>i\o- ing Physcon altogether, which con- 
 
 /ji-rjTopa" K.T.\. Porphyry, quoted by firms the interpretation given above. 
 Eusebius in his Chronicle, ed. Schoene, 
 
190 XI. 2729. 
 
 "And as for the two kings, their minds (shall be bent) on mischief, 
 and at one table they shall speak lies, but it shall not avail, for 
 there is yet a limit (fixed) for the time". After the defeat of the 
 Egyptians, Antiochus allied himself with Ptolemy Philometor, 
 on the pretext of helping him against his younger brother (who, 
 as we have seen, was now reigning at Alexandria); but the 
 league was a hollow pretence while feasting together, each 
 was planning the ruin of the other, jn, pausal form of JHP, is 
 an abstract noun from the root yjn, cf. 2pp from 23D. The sub- 
 ject of nSyn is indefinite, cf. 1bl|0 and rvrin in v. 17. The 
 "time" ("JJjto) is the time during which Antiochus is suffered 
 to domineer over Egypt. Whether he was driven out or left of 
 his own accord, v. 28 does not tell us. " And he shall return to 
 his land with great riches, and his mind (shall be set) against the 
 Holy Covenant ; so he shall do (his will) and return to his land". 
 On his march northwards, Antiochus found Jerusalem in a state 
 of tumult. A report had gone forth that he was dead, in con- 
 sequence of which Jason, the deposed High Priest, had seized 
 the opportunity to reinstate himself by force, and had massacred 
 many of the partisans of his rival Menelaus (II Mace. v. 5). 
 Antiochus, not unnaturally, regarded this as a rebellion against 
 his royal authority, entered Jerusalem with his army, and put 
 great numbers of Jews to death. He then marched to Antioch, 
 carrying with him the spoils of the Temple (I Mace. i. 20-24. 
 II Mace. v. 11-21). 
 
 29, 30. "At the time appointed he shall return and enter 
 into the South, but it shall not be in the latter time as in the 
 former time. And there shall come against him ships from 
 Kittim, so shall he be cowed, and shall return and be wroth 
 against the Holy Covenant, and shall do (his will), and return 
 and have regard unto them who forsake the Holy Covenant". In 
 the spring of 168 B.C. Antiochus again invaded Egypt. Ptolemy 
 Philometor and his brother, who at this time were reigning 
 conjointly, had already despatched embassies to Achaia and to 
 Rome, to ask for help against the Syrians (Polybius xxix. 23. 
 Livy XLIV. 19 ; XLV. 11). On this occasion Antiochus fared 
 much worse than before the latter expedition was not as the 
 former one. For the construction r$T8p rn^iOD cf. Josh. xiv. 
 
XI. 30. 191 
 
 11. Ezek. xviii. 4. The phrase E^3 DVV, in which &R3 is, of 
 course, an adjective, seems to have been suggested by Numb. 
 xxiv. 24. Originally D'fl? meant the inhabitants of Cyprus, but 
 among the later Jews it was used for all the western maritime 
 countries (I Mace. i. 1 ; viii. 5. Josephus, Antiq. I. 6. 1). The 
 allusion here is to the Romans, who sent Caius Popilius Laenas 
 to Egypt, summarily demanding that Antiochus should quit the 
 country. The king, thoroughly humiliated, was forced to obey 1 . 
 The Niphal nio:i is from a root which occurs frequently in 
 Syriac, but which appears nowhere else in the Old Testament 
 except in Ps. cix. 16 and possibly in Ezek. xiii. 22. Job xxx. 8. 
 The double 36?l in v. 30 is taken by Von Lengerke in an adver- 
 bial sense, i.e. "and he shall again be wroth" "and he shall 
 again have regard" ; but, as Hitzig remarks, the first IV] pro- 
 bably refers to the march of Antiochus from Egypt towards 
 Judaea, the second 3&] to his march from Judaea towards 
 Antioch. Whether Antiochus, after leaving Egypt, came in 
 person to Jerusalem, is not clear, for I Mace. i. 29, which 
 describes the events of this time, speaks only of an official sent 
 by the king with an army. But it is certain that in the 
 autumn of 168 B.C. Jerusalem was plundered by the king's 
 order, many Jews were slain, and a systematic attempt was 
 begun to suppress the Jewish religion. For the use of nfew cf. 
 j n*?V nj chap. viii. 24. " He shall have regard unto them who 
 
 1 "On TOV 'AvTi6xov wpos UroXefjutlov yap irpb x et P^ v a.f*-Tre\ivr}v 
 
 TOV HijXovffiov /careurxetj/ cufiiKO- irepieypacpe TO; /cXiy/xart TOV 'AVT'IOXOV, ev 
 
 fj^vov, 6 HoTTtXtos 6 TUV 'Pw/Miiwv o~Tpa- Tovry T T$ yvpy TTJV aTTcxpaffiv e/ce'Xeutre 
 
 T-qybs,TOvfiaffi.\eusTrbppwdevaaira.$oijAvov dovvai irepl TUV yeypafj-fdvuv. 6 Se 
 
 SLCL Tys (puvTjs KOL TT)v Serial* jrpOTeivoi'Tos, /ScwiXeus ^ev iff dels r6 yivofjuevov KOI TTJV 
 
 irpbx^pov %x wv T0 Se\Tapiov } iv y r6 TTJS virepoxnv, ppaxvv xpofov evaTroprjaas tyrj 
 
 ffvyK\~f}Tov S6yfj.a Kararera/CTO, irpo^Tei- Troir]<reiv TTOLV TO wapaKaXovimevov virb 
 
 vev aury, nal roCr' eic^Xeue irpwTOv ava- 'Pw/xcuwv. ol 5e irepl rbv IloiriXiov Tore 
 
 yvuvcu TOV AVTIOXOV, ws fj.ev efjiol SOKCI, TTJV 8etav avTOv \ap.fia.vovTes a/j.a irdvTes 
 
 firj irporepov d|ta-<ras TO TTJS <pi\ias <rvv- -f)<rirdovTO (pi\o(f>p6va)s. rjv 5e TO. yeypafj.- 
 
 drjfjM Trote'iv irplv TJ TTJV irpoaipeffiv ^TTI- fjueva \tieiv ef CLVTTJS T&V -jrpbs ITroXeyttatoj' 
 
 yvuvai TOV 8eiov(dvov, irorepa 0t'Xtos 77 woXe/JiOV. 5to xal 5o0eiffuv OVT$ TO.KTWV 
 
 Tro\e/j.i6s fffriv. eirel 5' 6 /ScurtXei>s ava- i)^pu>v OVTOS fj.ev airrjye ras dvvdfji.ets ets 
 
 yvovs ((>TJ f3ov\adai fj.eTadovvai rots (pi- TT)V Zvpiav, fiapw6fj.evos pv KOA. ffT^vcov, 
 
 XoiS vTrep T<2v TTpoffireTrTUKOTdiv^ aKovcras eiKdw 5e TOLS /catpots /cara TO iraobv ". 
 
 6 IToTTiXtos tTToiTjae TrpayfM /Sapu fiev do- Polybius xxix. 27. The last words 
 
 KQVV elvai /cat rcXe'ws virepTj^avov f\wv strikingly correspond to Dan. xi. 30. 
 
192 XI. 30, 31. 
 
 forsake the Holy Covenant", i.e. he will henceforth fix his atten- 
 tion upon the apostate Jews, and in every way further their 
 designs (cf. v. 37, also Job xxxi. 1). 
 
 31. " And forces sent by him shall prevail, and they shall 
 desecrate the sanctuary, the stronghold, and abolish the daily sac- 
 rifice, and set up the abomination". -nplE is rendered by Von 
 Lengerke, " shall arise", i.e. shall be set on foot, and by Hitzig 
 "shall remain", i.e. shall be left to garrison the fortresses of 
 Judaea, after the departure of Antiochus. But the analogy of 
 w. 15, 25, is in favour of the meaning "shall prevail". The 
 desecration of the Temple was the work of the Syrian soldiery, 
 abetted by a party among the Jews. Tiyrsn is in apposition 
 to PnpBn both before and after this period the Temple at 
 Jerusalem appears to have had fortifications. As to the precise 
 date of the abolition of the daily sacrifice, I Maccabees tells us 
 nothing ; but we are informed that on the 15th of Chisleu, i.e. 
 near the end of December, 168 B.C., a heathen altar was built 
 upon the stone platform which in the post-exilic Temple served 
 as the place of sacrifice (I Mace. i. 54 ; cf. iv. 42-47). Ten 
 days later, i.e. on the 25th of Chisleu, sacrifices were offered on 
 the new altar. According to II Mace. vi. 2, the Temple was at 
 this time dedicated to the Olympian Zeus. Hence almost all 
 commentators are agreed in explaining "the abomination" 
 (flpPD) to be the heathen altar mentioned above. But as to 
 the term DpfeH? there has been considerable difference of opinion. 
 As it is impossible to draw any conclusion from the corrupt 
 passages viii. 13 and ix. 27, we must be guided chiefly by chap, 
 xii. 11, where we read of a Dpb> pW. The oldest exegetical 
 tradition on the subject is that contained in the LXX. which 
 has /3&e\vy/jia eprj/jLcaaeaxi (chap. xi. 31) and TO fle\v<yiia rfjs 
 eprj/jLoocreays (chap. xii. 11). The phrase f3$e\v<yfjba ep?7/AGJ<reft>9 is 
 used also in I Mace. i. 54, and seems to have been borrowed 
 from Daniel whether from chap. xi. 31 or chap. xii. 11 it is 
 impossible to say. This does not prove that DD^D and DEK> were 
 used as abstract nouns, but only that they were connected with 
 the idea of desolation. Most modern commentators translate 
 Dpbn? " desolating", and explain D>b> in chap. xii. 11 as an equi- 
 valent form. But a Poel Dfc> "to desolate" is not known to 
 
XI. 31, 32. 193 
 
 exist. Hitzig interprets both DOJPp and DO'^ as " an object of 
 horror", but without any valid proof. Great light seems to me 
 to have been thrown on this question by Nestle, in the Zeit- 
 schrift fur alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1883. He thinks 
 that Db> p-1j5K> is an intentional disfigurement of D?> 7tt2 (in 
 Phoenician inscriptions DDK> ?yn or DBB>JD, in Aramaic pP?5n 
 or tB>?jn), the Semitic equivalent of the Greek Zeife 1 . The 
 only objection which can be raised against Nestle's theory is 
 that in Daniel D'^ f-W means, not the god, but the altar of the 
 god. This however is of no great consequence, for when once 
 the phrase was formed it might easily be applied to everything 
 connected with the worship of Zeus, just as among the later 
 Jews rnj HTQy meant either "idolatry" or "an idol". If there- 
 fore D ; ^ p-lpl> is a term coined in order to connect the worship 
 of D!W 7r3 with the idea of " desolation" (ep^/Ltoxrt?), it must 
 appear very unlikely that the author of Daniel used DOC? and 
 DiDB'D indifferently. It is at least remarkable that in both pas- 
 sages where DDK^D (DBlBtD) occurs, it produces a syntactical con- 
 struction which, if not impossible, is at all events open to grave 
 suspicion, for in chap. ix. 27 we should expect D^ppicn? and in 
 chap. xi. 31 DOtttpn. On the whole the most probable hypo- 
 thesis is that in chap. ix. 27 Dpit^p is an error, and that in the 
 verse before us DD&J7D was inserted by a scribe who wished to 
 assimilate the two passages. 
 
 32 35. " And those who bring guilt upon the Covenant he 
 shall make apostates by treacherous means, but a company who 
 know their God shall be valiant and do exploits. And the 
 teachers of the people shall give understanding to the multitude, 
 and they shall fall by sword and by flame, by captivity and by 
 
 1 In addition to the proofs given by Au fAeyurru Kepawiu (see Z. D. M. G. 
 
 Nestle may be mentioned a passage xv. p. 16, and De Vogue 1 , Syne Cen- 
 
 of Philo of Byblus, cited by Eusebius trale, p. 50, note). How easily the 
 
 (Praep. Evang. i. 10. 7), "ToO-roif yap play upon the word D?P^ might occur 
 
 Qc&v evbfjL^ov pbvov ovpavov Ktpiov, BeeX- to a Jew is shewn by a passage in the 
 
 o-ct/xV KdXouj/res, o effTt irapa $olv& Nl"l JVS?N"Q (sect. 4, near the end), 
 
 /cfyios ovpavov, Zes 5 Trap' "EXXTjat". where the sky is said to be called D?pfc? 
 
 Moreover in a bilingual Palmyrene in- because people are astonished at it 
 
 scription of the year 134 A.D. the words (jiT^y D'ODintPB rnn3PIP). 
 N11D iDrtmS are rendered by 
 B. D. 13 
 
194 XI. 32, 33. 
 
 spoil (many) days. And when they are falling they shall be 
 holpen with a little help, and many shall join themselves unto 
 tliem treacherously. But (when) certain of the teachers shall 
 fall, (it shall be) in order to purge them and cleanse and make 
 white, until the time of the end, for it is yet for the time ap- 
 pointed". JV")? ^^HP is usually rendered " those that sin against 
 the Covenant" (Ewald). Von Lengerke translates " die Frevler 
 des Bundes", i.e. the sinners among the covenanted people, and 
 Hitzig " those who condemn (i.e. renounce) the Covenant". But 
 it is more natural to suppose that the TV"O WH, " those who 
 bring guilt upon the covenanted people", stand in opposition to 
 the D^nn '&! of chap. xii. 3. The subject of the verb *pq? is, 
 of course, Antiochus. Those Jews who already had leanings 
 towards heathenism he induced by specious promises (rrijr^q?) 
 openly to apostatize from the religion of Israel (see I Mace. ii. 
 18). Elsewhere in the Old Testament epnn is "to defile" the 
 earth with bloodshed etc. (Numb. xxxv. 33. Jer. iii. 2) ; here 
 the object is personal. nijArj evidently has the same meaning 
 as rnj9?jp?r) (w. 21, 34) ; if the pointing be correct, it is formed 
 like riteBi?, but elsewhere we find rnp^rj (Is. xxx. 10. Ps. xii. 3, 
 4). In contrast to the apostate Jews stand those " who know 
 their God", i.e. those who have a practical knowledge of His 
 ways (Jer. ix. 23). D is not in the construct state, but in appo- 
 sition to Vr6x rr, cf. Ps. xcv. 10. Ezek. iii. 5. The suffix in 
 Vr6 refers to DV (Jer. vii. 28). In v. 33 Dtf fy&Q is rendered by 
 some " the wise of the people" (so Von Lengerke), as also D^aferan 
 in v. 35 and chap. xii. 3, 10. Ewald and Hitzig translate by 
 "teachers", according to chap. ix. 22. The probability is that 
 the author uses DV^s'spD in a double sense, i.e. it includes both 
 the possession of wisdom and the imparting of it ; similarly W3* 
 is here active, " shall give understanding", whereas in the parallel 
 passage, chap. xii. 10, we have to render "shall understand". 
 In any case it is clear that a special class, or rather party, is 
 here meant, viz. the leaders of the anti-Hellenistic movement, 
 who were known as the "pious" (D*TPD, see I Mace. ii. 42; vii. 
 13. II Mace. xiv. 6). Around these enthusiasts gathered a 
 great multitude of their co-religionists, who till then had been 
 halting between two opinions. The subject of Alp?3 may be 
 
XI. 3336. 195 
 
 either the D'2n (Hitzig) or the Dtf styQ (Von Lengerke). The 
 latter is perhaps the more probable view, as those who "fall" in 
 v. 33 must be identical with those to whom " many join them- 
 selves" in v. 34. That the verb 1^?} does not imply the exter- 
 mination of the D^?'^D is obvious from what follows. The 
 " little help" (v. 34), in the midst of adversity, refers doubtless to 
 the first successes of the pious party, headed by Mattathias 
 (I Mace. ii. 42-48), before any of the great battles had been 
 fought. The ruthless severity which "the pious" displayed, 
 produced its natural effect many joined them from mere terror 
 and were ready at any moment to turn traitors. Verse 35 
 should probably be taken as an explanation of what precedes. 
 Drin fj'ny? is literally "to purge amongst them", i.e. to perform a 
 purifying process in their midst. The suffix in DH3, to judge by 
 chap. xii. 10, must refer to the people at large, not only to the 
 D'7'3^t? ; the meaning therefore seems to be that the death of 
 some of " the teachers" is no excuse for despair, but is necessary 
 in order that their adherents, " the many", may be duly tested. 
 ]372, if correctly pointed, is a contraction of |5?n?, which again 
 stands for j^n 1 ? (cf. ^npn Deut. xxxii. 8, for ^n?n) ; similar are 
 "E'^ Deut. xx vi. 12 and Tg^a Neh. x. 39. But more probably 
 we should read |3^>, with Hitzig. The Piel of pS does not 
 indeed occur in the Old Testament (for from Ps. ix. 1, to which 
 Hitzig appeals, no conclusion can be drawn), but is common in 
 post-Biblical Hebrew. 
 
 36 39. " And the king shall do according to his own will, 
 and shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, and against 
 the God of gods shall he speak monstrous things ; so shall he 
 prosper until the wrath is over, for a sentence hath been executed. 
 And to the gods of his fathers he shall have no regard, nor to the 
 Desire of women, nor shall he have regard to any god, but shall 
 magnify himself above all". After describing the sufferings of 
 the faithful Israelites, the angel returns to the subject of Antio- 
 chus, who is called, not "the king of the North", but "the 
 king" simply. The portrait of Antiochus here given, as one 
 who "magnifies himself above every god", and who "has no 
 regard to the gods of his fathers", certainly does not appear at 
 first sight to agree with the accounts of the western historians ; 
 
 132 
 
196 XI. 36, 37. 
 
 both Polybius and Livy speak with admiration of the honour 
 which Antiochus paid to the gods. We must, however, remem- 
 ber that though he acquired a reputation for piety among the 
 Greeks by his splendid presents to temples etc., his conduct may 
 have produced a very different impression upon his Oriental 
 subjects, both heathens and Jews. Indeed Polybius himself 
 tells us that men differed greatly in their opinion of the king's 
 character some thinking him a good-natured easy-going man, 
 others a maniac (Fragm. of Bk. XXVI.). His waywardness and 
 his contempt for established customs were peculiarly calculated 
 to shock Oriental conservativism. When to this we add his 
 persecution of the Jews, it is not surprising that in Daniel he 
 should be represented as a marvel of impiety. " The God of 
 gods" (v. 36) is the God of Israel, cf. prAg n!?K chap. ii. 47. The 
 phrase DtfT n!?3 is borrowed from Is. x. 25. On nynm see chap, 
 ix. 26, 27. The Perfect nnbw expresses certainty, i.e. the sen- 
 tence of punishment must first have been executed before the 
 divine wrath (02!) is over. In v. 37, "the gods of his fathers" 
 are the deities whose worship was officially recognized in the 
 Seleucid Empire. In what manner Antiochus shewed his dis- 
 respect for " the gods of his fathers" we are not here told, but it 
 is by no means improbable that his attempts to centralize his 
 empire by the abolition of local usages (see I Mace. i. 41, 42) 
 may have spread the notion that he despised all established 
 religions. " The Desire of women" must, to judge by the con- 
 text, be some object of worship. Most modern interpreters, fol- 
 lowing Ephraim Syrus, explain this as a reference to the goddess 
 Nanaia, whose temple in Elymais the king endeavoured to 
 plunder shortly before his death 1 . But to this view there are 
 two objections. Firstly, the attack upon the temple of Nanaia 
 cannot have been heard of in Judaea till the year 164 B.C. 
 Secondly, there is no reason why Nanaia should be designated 
 as the Desire of women. Even if her worship was, as has 
 been supposed, of a voluptuous character, this would scarcely 
 give rise to such an appellation. It appears therefore much 
 more probable that Ewald is right in explaining the Desire 
 
 1 See Polybius xxxi. 11 where this Syr. 60, where she is identified with 
 goddess is called Artemis, and Appian, Aphrodite. 
 
XI. 3739. 197 
 
 of women as Tatnmuz (Adonis), whose cult had been popular in 
 Syria from time immemorial, especially amongst women (Ezek. 
 viii. 14). The meaning of v. 38 is doubtful. Von Lengerke in- 
 terprets, " But the god of strongholds shall he honour upon his 
 pedestal, and a god whom his fathers have not known shall he 
 honour with gold and with silver and with precious stones and 
 with costly things". The "god of strongholds" and the "god 
 whom his fathers have not known" Von Lengerke takes to be 
 designations of Jupiter Capitolinus, in whose honour Antiochus 
 began to erect a temple, profusely adorned with gold, at Antioch 
 (Livy XLI. 20). But why should it be mentioned that Antio- 
 chus honoured Jupiter " upon his pedestal" ? It is decidedly 
 preferable to translate i33"?r " instead thereof" (with Gesenius), 
 the suffix referring to Va in the preceding verse, cf. w. 20, 21 
 the meaning " instead " is the only one which will suit all three 
 passages. But as to D^yp rfeg there has been much difference 
 of opinion. The Peshitta has ^%.^ ^ K'couAr*' "a mighty 
 god". Some moderns (e.g. Keil) have thought that "the god 
 of strongholds" is War personified. Hitzig reads & WD instead 
 of D'jro, and interprets as follows "But the god of the strong- 
 hold of the sea (i.e. the Tyrian god Melkart, see Is. xxiii. 4, 
 where Dn tyo means Tyre) shall he honour in his place (i.e. in 
 his temple at Tyre)". But by "the god whom his fathers have 
 not known" Hitzig understands Jupiter Capitolinus. The ob- 
 scurity of this passage may be due to the fact that the author is 
 alluding to some report which was current among the Jews but 
 which perhaps had little real foundation. The beginning of 
 v. 39, as it stands in the Masoretic text, is quite unintelligible, 
 for to translate, " And he shall act towards the strong fortresses 
 as towards the strange god" (Ewald), or " And so shall he act 
 towards the strong fortresses, together with strange gods" (Von 
 Lengerke) is unnatural in the extreme. Probably we should 
 read Dtf instead of Dp, with Hitzig, so that the sense will be, 
 "And he shall procure for the strong fortresses the people of 
 a strange god", referring to the fact that Antiochus settled 
 heathen colonists in the fortified cities of Judaea, especially in 
 Jerusalem (I Mace. iii. 36, 45). For this use of new see II Sam. 
 xv. 1. I Kings i. 5, and with "123 ni^x or cf. trto? DT Numb. xxi. 
 
198 XI. 3941. 
 
 29. The following words are explained by Von Lengerke, 
 " Whosoever shews recognition (Anerkennung iibt), on him he 
 shall bestow great honour", the word Tan being used as in 
 II Sam. iii. 36. Ps. cxlii. 5. The passage, according to Von 
 Lengerke, refers to the apostate Jews. Somewhat fantastic is 
 the view of Ewald, who interprets " Whosoever recognizes the 
 fortresses as deities", etc. Hitzig more naturally takes "Van as 
 having Antiochus for its subject " Whomsoever he favours he 
 shall raise to great honour, and shall make them rule over the 
 many, and the land he shall portion out for gain", i.e. the 
 favourites of Antiochus are to be made rulers of the country, 
 and the lands of " the pious", who have been slain or ejected, 
 will be sold in order to fill the royal treasury. For the use of 
 "Van "to have regard", "to shew favour", see Deut. xvi. 19 ; xxi. 
 17 ; xxxiii. 9. Ruth ii. 10. For Tan the Keri substitutes "V?!, 
 but this correction is unnecessary, since the clause "Van T^K is 
 virtually hypothetical ("if he shall have favoured any one"), 
 and therefore may take the Perfect, while the verb of the apo- 
 dosis is in the Imperfect (cf. 'A'jfln T'^g niiT spnn i^N. Deut. 
 xv. 14). 
 
 40 45. With regard to these verses there are, as we have 
 seen, three rival hypotheses, viz. (1) that they relate historical 
 facts which took place after those already mentioned, i.e. after 
 the year 168 B.C., (2) that they give a general sketch of the 
 course of events from about 171 B.C. to the death of Antiochus, 
 (3) that they describe, not real facts, but merely the expecta- 
 tions of the author. A careful examination of the details will, 
 I think, shew that the third hypothesis alone is tenable. The 
 opening words of v. 40, "And at the time of the end ", indicate 
 that what follows is subsequent to the persecutions described in 
 v. 35, which are to last " until the time of the end ". The king 
 of the South, i.e. Ptolemy Philometor, will go to war (lit. will 
 exchange thrusts) with Antiochus ; for the metaphor, see chap, 
 viii. 4. Antiochus will come against him like a whirlwind, 
 with a vast armament. Verse 41 describes his march through 
 Palestine (UVn px cf. v. 16). ni3/i is taken by Hitzig as "many 
 lands", referring to niv>\; in the preceding verse. But the 
 analogy of v. 12 (niN':n 7*ni) is certainly in favour of reading 
 
XI. 4144. 199 
 
 n'i3~] "myriads of men", as De Wette proposes, cf. Neh. vii. 71. 
 That the EJomites and the chiefs of the Ammonites should not 
 be among the victims of Antiochus, is perfectly natural, for 
 both these peoples seem to have helped him against the Jews 
 (I Mace. iv. 61 ; v. 3 8). Why the Moabites, who had long 
 disappeared, should be specially mentioned, is not obvious. 
 Ewald supposes that Edom, Moab, and Ammon are not to be 
 understood literally, but are terms of reproach applied to the 
 apostate Israelites. More probably the mention of Moab is a 
 mere reminiscence of the older writings, in which Moab and 
 Ammon so frequently appear together 1 . In w. 42, 43, Antiochus 
 subjugates Egypt. The word D'OQSD, "hidden things", i.e. 
 "treasures", occurs here only. The Aramaic root f3 (in the 
 Targunis f3, in Syriac kemen\ whence is derived the late 
 Hebrew pp?n "to place in ambush" means, it is true, "to lie 
 in wait ", and is never actually used for " storing up ", but that 
 the same root may have both senses is shewn by the Hebr. |5V 
 (Prov. i. 18 ; ii. 7) 2 . The phrase " the Libyans and Ethiopians 
 shall be in his train " evidently implies that these peoples sub- 
 mit themselves to Antiochus. To suppose, with Hoffmann 
 (Antiochus IV. p. 103), that the passage refers merely to certain 
 Libyans and Ethiopians who happened to be in Egypt at the 
 time, is very far-fetched. The omission of the Article in D"O^ 
 D'V'31. is quite in accordance with analogy (cf. D\?TV Deut. iii. 9 ; 
 I Kings xi. 5). With VWV93 cf. the synonymous r$TO Judg. 
 iv. 10. The last two verses of the chapter close the story of 
 Antiochus. What the "tidings from the East and North" may 
 be, we can only guess, but since Antiochus is now in Egypt the 
 tidings presumably refer to events in Palestine. If, as has been 
 suggested in the Introduction to chap, viii., the author expected 
 the Temple service to be restored some months before the end 
 of the time of affliction, this passage may possibly mean that 
 the king, while in Egypt, will hear of the recovery of Jerusalem 
 by the Jews. That such news should move his bitterest resent- 
 
 1 Compare the list of hostile nations 2 The Arab, kamln "ambush" is bor- 
 
 in Ps. Ixxxiii., which very many com- rowed from the Aramaic (see Fraenkel, 
 
 mentators assign to the Maccabean Die aram. Fremdicorter, p. 243). 
 period. 
 
200 XI. 44 XII. 1. 
 
 ment, would be natural. He goes forth (from Egypt) to destroy 
 and to exterminate many. "And he shall plant his palace-tents 
 between the seas and the glorious holy mountain; so shall he 
 come to his end, and none shall help him". pSK, in Syriac 
 dphadhnd, is from the Old Persian apaddna "palace" 1 . "The 
 tents of his palace " are the tents which form his head-quarters. 
 D 1 ^ is here, as in Judg. v. 17, equivalent to D^n, i.e. the Medi- 
 terranean. Thus Antiochus will encamp between the sea and 
 Jerusalem (BHp *ay "in). The notion of some commentators, e.g. 
 Havernick, that by the " seas " are meant the Caspian Sea and 
 the Persian Gulf, and by the "glorious holy mountain" the 
 temple of Nanaia in Elymais, may be dismissed at once, for how 
 could a strict Jew designate a heathen temple as BHp 'ay ? Von 
 Lengerke and Hitzig, while fully admitting that the beginning 
 of v. 45 describes Antiochus as encamped in Palestine, suppose 
 that in the latter half of the verse the author suddenly passes 
 on (overleaping several years) to relate the death of Antiochus 
 in Persia; they therefore explain tojriJJ N3-1 as meaning, "And 
 he shall go (into Persia) to meet his end ". But by this hypo- 
 thesis the first half of the verse is deprived of all meaning. 
 What connection can there be between the fact that Antiochus 
 encamped in Palestine in 168 B.C. and the fact that he "came 
 to his end" in Persia four years later? It is much more reason- 
 able to assume that the author describes the king as encamping 
 in Palestine because it is in Palestine that he is to " come to 
 his end". That Palestine, the scene of his greatest crimes, 
 should also be the scene of his final overthrow, was, from the 
 point of view of the persecuted Jews, a very natural expectation. 
 No details are here given, but since in chap. viii. 25 we read 
 that Antiochus will " be broken without hand ", we must sup- 
 pose that the author looked forward to some divine intervention 
 by which the great enemy would perish "with none to help 
 him." 
 
 xii. 1 3. The opening words of v. 1, "And at that time", 
 
 1 The Arab, fadan is, of course, a murqffa'u, "a lofty palace which Naba- 
 
 loan-word. See Noldeke, Beitrdge zur teans encompass", i.e. such as Syrians 
 
 Kenntniss tier Poesie der alien Araber, inhabit, 
 p. 138 Fadanuu yutlfu bihi-n-Nabitu 
 
\8 
 OF THE 
 
 f UNIVERSITY 1 
 
 XII. 13. ^iUFOHJJi^ 201 
 
 clearly shew that what follows will take place at the time of the 
 overthrow of Antiochus. Michael, the guardian angel of Israel 
 (chap. x. 13), will arise to defend the Saints. The precise 
 nature of the coming time of affliction is left undetermined, 
 but, as has been before remarked, the author of Daniel probably 
 looked forward to a gathering together of the heathen nations 
 against Jerusalem (Zech. xiv. 2 ff.). The conception of a great 
 battle in which the assembled Gentile powers are to be de- 
 feated, appears elsewhere both in Jewish and Christian apoca- 
 lypses (Enoch xc. 16. Rev. xvi. 14; xix. 19). With the words, 
 "And there shall be a time of affliction" etc., cf. Jer. xxx. 7. 
 By W " thy people " is meant, of course, the true Israel, " all 
 who are found written in the book ". The metaphor of a "book", 
 in which the names of the righteous are inscribed, occurs also 
 in Exod. xxxii. 32. Ps. Ixix. 29. cf. Mai. iii. 16. Verse 2 intro- 
 duces the resurrection of the dead. To what extent this belief 
 existed among the Jews in pre-Maccabean times, cannot here 
 be discussed, but this is in any case the earliest passage where 
 the belief is unambiguously set forth. Here, however, the re- 
 surrection is far from being universal ; it includes " many ", not 
 all, of the dead. That only Israelites are raised is not expressly 
 stated, but appears probable from the context. The phrase 
 "ipr ncntf is very peculiar ; we should expect rather prori isy 1 . 
 Those who awake are divided into two classes, corresponding to 
 the division in chap. xi. 32. D^to V.n " everlasting life ", like the 
 ND^J? V.n of the Targums (Lev. xviii. 5. Ezek. xx. 13), evidently 
 means individual immortality, and is thus distinguished from 
 DTirrnr D^n Ps. cxxxiii. 3, which implies nothing more than the 
 perpetual existence of Israel (cf. Ecclesiasticus xxxvii. 25 ; 
 xliv. 13). The wicked who are raised will be objects of reproach 
 and abhorrence for ever. J1NT!> constr. of ti&n% seems to have 
 been suggested by Is. Ixvi. 24, the only other passage where the 
 word is found. As to D^a'^isn (v. 3) see what has been said on 
 chap. xi. 33. Here, as before, " the teachers " are distinguished 
 
 1 It has been suggested to me by or urtlm). If this were so, we might 
 
 Prof. Eobertson Smith that in Ps. xlix. read "IBtf nb")S in Daniel. But the 
 
 12 niDHN may be a corruption of word in question has not hitherto been 
 
 " cairns' (Arab, iram, PI. ardm found in Hebrew or Aramaic. 
 
202 XII. 3, 4. 
 
 from the rest of the faithful Israelites they not only live for 
 ever but are eternally glorified. ""^ " splendour " occurs also in 
 Ezek. viii. 2; the verb Trip to shine" is found nowhere else 
 in the Old Testament, but the root TU often has this sense in 
 the Aramaic dialects and in Arabic. Whether the Biblical Tntn 
 " to warn " comes from the same root, does not seem certain, 
 though it is generally assumed 1 . " Those that justify the multi- 
 tude " are apparently identical with " the teachers ". For the 
 phrase, see Is. liii. 11. As to the meaning of "justification" 
 cf. the Mishnah, Aboth v. 26, 27, "If a man makes the many 
 righteous, sin cannot prevail over him, but if a man makes the 
 many to sin, he is deprived of the power of repentance. Moses 
 was righteous and made the many righteous, and the righteous- 
 ness of the many depended upon him " (Dmn n&* TO'n nDT nt^D 
 11 iTi^n D^nn iron), etc. 
 
 4. As in chap. viii. 26, the vision ends with an express 
 command to "hide" the revelation. By "iSDH "the book" are 
 meant all the revelations that have been made to Daniel (so 
 Hitzig); see chap. vii. 1. It is quite gratuitous to suppose, with 
 Havernick and Von Lengerke, that " the book " includes only 
 the last vision, for no reason can be given why this vision should 
 be more carefully concealed than the others. It may indeed be 
 asked by what means Daniel could prevent the unsealing of the 
 book before " the time of the end ", but the difficulty, however 
 obvious to us, did not necessarily occur to the author's con- 
 temporaries. In their eyes the passage would satisfactorily 
 account for their previous unacquaintance with the work. The 
 latter half of the verse is extremely difficult. Of the word 
 IDpb" there are two common interpretations, " many shall wan- 
 der to and fro" (Von Lengerke), and "many shall peruse the 
 book" (Hitzig, Ewald). According to the former view, the 
 phrase refers to the difficulties of the prophecy; it was only 
 
 1 Possibly "VnTil " to warn " may be means "to divert" a person from a 
 
 ultimately connected with the root "lit path of danger (II Kings vi. 10. Ezek. 
 
 "to turn aside from the way", which iiig 18)> and the comm on icn.llr^ 
 
 is common to Hebrew and Arabic 
 
 *aj "to beware of", in Syriac. Hence 
 cf. the roots "V)3 and "IPI3, ,.<J and 
 
 JJ might be derived the more general 
 
 JbJ- This would explain why "YTlTn sense of "teaching" (Exod. xviii. 20). 
 
XII. 4. 203 
 
 after many generations had been perplexed by it that its true 
 sense would be understood (nirin nznni). According to the 
 latter view, which is the more popular, -1t3t?B* refers to the zeal 
 with which the book would be studied. But neither view 
 agrees with the other passages in which BBC? is used (Jer. v. 1. 
 Amos viii. 12. Zech. iv. 10. II Chr. xvi. 9). The verb seems 
 always to denote rapid motion, and especially motion hither 
 and thither. Everywhere else the motion is meant in a literal 
 sense, and it is therefore very bold to apply it to " mental per- 
 plexity " or the " perusal " of a book. And how do the above 
 interpretations agree with the beginning of the verse ? It is 
 natural to suppose that the clause which follows the words 
 " Seal the book till the time of the end" will explain the reason 
 of the command, just as in chap. viii. 26 the angel adds D 1 p ? 
 B*3"5. That in the present case the particle *? is omitted, proves 
 nothing to the contrary cf, for example, T^IK? "Ofc? JO^-px Is. 
 xli. 13 with the parallel passage T^N? '? NTrrta Is. xliii. 1. 
 But to say " Seal the book many are to peruse it ", or " Seal 
 the book many are to be perplexed by it", would be altogether 
 meaningless. The most probable solution of the difficulty is to 
 be found in the LXX., which instead of ninn mini has KOI 
 iT\7]<T6f) TJ yr) dSuclas, i.e. njnn nsini " and many shall be the 
 calamities ". For the use of the verb in the feminine singular 
 with the subject in the feminine plural, see Is. xxxiv. 13. Jer. 
 iv. 14. Zech. vi. 14. Neh. xiii. 10. This reading appears to be 
 signally confirmed by I Mace. i. 9, where it is said of the suc- 
 cessors of Alexander (i.e. with reference to the very period which 
 the author of Daniel has here in view) KOI eTrKi'iQvvav tcaica ev 
 -rfj yfj "and they multiplied evils in the earth" 1 . That the 
 author of I Maccabees elsewhere quotes the book of Daniel is 
 generally admitted, and even if we hesitate to regard I Mace, 
 i. 9 as a quotation, it shews at all events with what feelings the 
 
 1 Perhaps the original Hebrew text I Mace, there are several other pas- 
 
 of I Mace, had ninn ITY 1 !, which may sages which seem to be reminiscences 
 
 be read JJ5TV 1 /ecu e-n-^dwav but also of the latter part of Daniel, cf. v. 15 
 
 15nS, which would make the resem- with Dan. xi. 30, v. 17 with Dan. xi. 
 
 blance to Daniel even closer. It is 40, v. 18 with Dan. xi. 26. 
 remarkable that in the 1st chapter of 
 
204 XII. 47. 
 
 Jews looked back upon the period in question. The meaning 
 of the verse would therefore seem to be, "And do thou, Daniel, 
 hide the words and seal the book till the time of the end many 
 shall rush hither and thither, and many shall be the calamities ", 
 i.e. the revelation must remain concealed, because there is to 
 ensue a long period of commotion and distress. 
 
 5 7. The speech of the angel is now ended, and Daniel 
 perceives two figures, doubtless angels also, standing on opposite 
 banks of the Tigris, which is here called, not "in|H as in chap. x. 
 4, but "ifc?n (see p. 32). Why two angels are here introduced, is 
 explained by v. 7, since for an oath, as for any other fact, two 
 witnesses are necessary (Deut. xix. 15). In v. 6 it is very doubt- 
 ful who is the speaker. That "the man clothed in linen" is 
 identical with the being described in chap. x. 5, 6, cannot be 
 questioned. His position " above the waters of the river" agrees 
 with chap. viii. 16, where an angelic voice speaks from "between 
 (the banks of the) Ulai". Von Lengerke, as we have seen, 
 identifies with Gabriel the being who brings his speech to an 
 end in v. 4, and he supposes that Gabriel is also the speaker in 
 v. 6. The view of Hitzig, viz. that the angel who has been 
 speaking previously is "the man clothed with linen", and that 
 the speaker in v. 6 is one of the two angels mentioned in v. 5, 
 appears, upon the whole, more probable. We should indeed 
 have expected, in this case, Dno intf "ftttOl, or some such phrase, 
 instead of the simple "OS' 1 '), but the use of a verb or suffix with- 
 out any distinct indication of the person referred to is found 
 elsewhere in Daniel. The reading of the LXX. /cal el-ira, ">E'NJ, 
 has not the appearance of genuineness, for the analogy of chap, 
 viii. 13 favours the view that it is an angel, not Daniel, who 
 asks the question, " How long (will it be till) the end of the 
 marvels?" By n'l{O?n "the marvels" are meant the events 
 which have been foretold (cf. Is. xxix. 14), as is evident from 
 the oath which follows in v. 7. The lifting up of the hand 
 in swearing is mentioned in Gen. xiv. 22. Exod. vi. 8; here 
 both hands are lifted for the sake of greater emphasis. The 
 angel swears " by Him who liveth for ever" (cf. KD^r ^n chap. iv. 
 31) that the end will come "after a time, times, and half (a 
 time)", i.e. after three years and a half; see chap. vii. 25. In 
 
XII. 7. 205 
 
 the prep, h expresses the idea of limitation, cf. D'O*n 
 "after the seven days", Gen. vii. 10. The three years and a 
 half begin with the abolition of the daily sacrifice (see v. 11). 
 To the author of Daniel and to his readers the length of this 
 period was a matter of vital interest, and it is therefore not 
 without reason that the book closes with the most emphatic 
 statements on the subject. The last words of v. 7 are obviously 
 a further specification of what precedes, and cannot refer, as 
 Havernick imagines, to some period subsequent to the 3J years. 
 Von Lengerke renders, " And when the scattering of a portion of 
 the holy people should come to an end, all this should be ended". 
 So also Hitzig, except that he reads T?5 n<|(? T ) 5 < !, which is cer- 
 tainly more in accordance with Hebrew syntax. By the " por- 
 tion of the holy people" the writer, it is supposed, means the 
 Israelites in exile. But even if we admit as possible this use of 
 T, the difficulty remains that the verse, so construed, is tauto- 
 logical. It is surely unnecessary for the angel to assert in so 
 solemn a manner that all these visions are to be fulfilled " when 
 the Israelites are no longer dispersed". The final deliverance 
 of Israel, to which all the visions in Daniel lead up, naturally 
 includes the gathering together of the dispersed of the holy 
 people. Some other commentators, e.g. Ewald, render, "when 
 they shall cease to break in pieces (or scatter) the power of the 
 holy people". But this is no less tautological than the former 
 interpretation, not to mention the strangeness of the metaphor 
 T* }*S3. In view of these difficulties the correctness of the text 
 becomes very doubtful. The LXX. has on et? /caipbv /cal 
 Kcupovs /cal Tj/jLio-v Kaipov rj o-vvre\(,a " eL P v $e'<reo>9 XaoO 
 aylov /cal crvvre^eorOrjcreTai, iravra ravra 1 . Here the words rj 
 0-LwreXeta ^eipwv afyecrews are so totally meaningless that we 
 have every reason to regard them as a literal rendering, i.e. the 
 translator read fS3 T instead of T f>D3. The substitution of 
 the Plural ('^eipwv) for the Singular (T) is, of course, of no con- 
 sequence. If therefore we read Kn'p Dy ^Qb "P rn?531, the passage 
 
 1 That the Syro-Hexaplar has words to mean " the hands' releasing " 
 
 KLi.'UK'.l KLmCdX. does not and was obliged to invert the order, 
 
 prove* that Paul of Telia read d^Arew* ^ t0 the exi g encies of *? svn ' 
 but merely that he took the 
 
206 XII. 711. 
 
 will signify, "And when the power of the Shatterer of the holy 
 people should come to an end, all these things should be ended". 
 For this use of pa: cf. Judg. vii. 19. Jer. li. 20 ff. Ps. ii. 9, and 
 for T ryfoD cf. TiiD nib? Ps. Ixxi. 9, T&3 n'^5? Prov. y. 11, as 
 well as the common application of rbl to "failing" of the eyes. 
 This reading seems moreover to be supported by chap. vii. 25, 
 " they shall be given into his power (HT?) until a time, and 
 times, and half a time". By " the Shatterer of the holy people" 
 would be meant Antiochus Epiphanes, and, so understood, the 
 passage is no longer tautological, its object being to assure the 
 readers of the book (who naturally comprehended the allusion) 
 that this great oppressor was to be last oppressor of all when 
 his power ceased, the sufferings of the holy people would be 
 ended for ever. 
 
 8 13. That Daniel is represented as not understanding 
 the angel's words, shews that those words must contain a special 
 reference to the time of the author, for to suppose that v. 7 was 
 meant to be unintelligible to the readers would be absurd. On 
 Daniel's inquiry, " What is the end of these things ? " he is dis- 
 missed by the angel (v. 9), who reminds him that the words are 
 to be " hidden and sealed till the time of the end " * (see v. 4), 
 i.e. the revelations are really intended, not for Daniel himself, 
 but for readers in the distant future. In v. 10 the coming 
 time is briefly described it is to be a time in which "many" 
 (Israelites) are purified (by afflictions), while others will only 
 plunge themselves more deeply in guilt. The words -Wl* N7 
 Von Lengerke explains as "shall not understand the end of 
 these things" (see v. 8). But there appears no reason for this 
 limitation of the sense, and it is more natural to interpret, with 
 Hitzig, " but the wicked are all without understanding", i.e. they 
 are acting blindly, whereas "the teachers" possess true wisdom. 
 In vv. 11, 12 the limits of "the time of the end" are given. 
 " And from the time when the daily sacrifice is taken away and 
 the abomination of desolation is to be set up, are 1290 days. 
 Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to 1335 days". "iD-in i s 
 
 1 That people who believe "the time Daniel is one of the most singular ex- 
 of the end" to be still future should amples of the irony of history, 
 write commentaries on the Book of 
 
XII. 1113. 207 
 
 probably to be taken as a Perfect ; for the syntax cf. 
 T^ 'fliT! Jer. xxxvi. 2 and Ann n^-1 II Chr. xx. 22. The b 
 in Jirfc expresses a purpose (cf. chap. ii. 16). That the 1290 
 days and the 1335 days date from the same moment, is 
 generally agreed ; we have therefore here two events, one of 
 which is to happen 1290 after the desecration of the Temple, 
 and the other 45 days later. Haver nick and Von Lengerke 
 suppose that the 1290 days end with the re-consecration of the 
 Temple, and the 1335 with the death of Antiochus. Hitzig, on 
 the other hand, places the death of Antiochus at the end of the 
 1290 days. It is impossible here to discuss the chronological 
 difficulties to which these hypotheses lead. I have before en- 
 deavoured to shew that the book of Daniel was finished some 
 time before the re-consecration of the Temple, which, according 
 to I Mace. iv. 52, took place exactly three years after its pro- 
 fanation, i.e. near the end of the year 165 B.C. If this be so, the 
 end of the 1290 days, and a fortiori the end of the 1335 days, 
 must have been still future when the author wrote. It is there- 
 fore impossible for us to guess what particular events are here 
 contemplated, and why the numbers 1290 and 1335 are chosen 
 but it would appear from the context that at the end of the 
 1290 days some great deliverance is to be wrought, and that 
 at the end of the 1335 days the period of complete blessedness 
 is to begin. " And do thou depart to (await) the end, and so thou 
 shalt rest and stand up to (receive) thy portion, at the end of the 
 days". The last verse of Daniel is one of the most obscure. 
 That }* here means "the end of Daniel's life" (Von Lengerke) 
 is scarcely probable, for in that case we should expect ^$h (cf. 
 chap. xi. 45. Ps. xxxix. 5). Still more objectionable is Hitzig's 
 rendering, "go to the goal", i.e. go thy way; in Hab. ii. 3, to 
 which Hitzig appeals, ft?, does not refer to the "purpose" or 
 " goal" of a person, but to the "accomplishment" of a prediction. 
 Prof. Robertson Smith supposes that the first Y\& was wrongly 
 introduced by a scribe, whose eye, passing from the preceding 
 f?, caught the last letters of "frlA in the second half of the 
 verse. The sense would then be, " And do thou depart and take 
 thy rest", etc. Most commentators, e.g. Von Lengerke and 
 Evvald, explain "ibyni nwnj as meaning "and so thou shalt 
 
208 XII. 13. 
 
 rest (in thy grave) and rise (from the dead)", etc. To this 
 Hitzig objects that in no Semitic dialect does "ifcu mean " to 
 rise from the dead". But those who find here an allusion to 
 the resurrection can reply that if this belief were new in the 
 days of the author, a fixed technical term may have been want- 
 ing. Even in later times, when the resurrection was a familiar 
 idea, several quite distinct words were used for it the Rabbins 
 usually said D^n$n nn^, the Syrian Christians kfyamta or nuh- 
 hama, the Mohammedans kiyama, ba'th, or hashr. However 
 this may be, TP*D Y\>. can scarcely differ in meaning from nnqx 
 D^pjn chap. x. 14 ; it is contrary to all analogy to explain it, 
 with Hitzig, as " the end" of Daniel's earthly life. 
 
APPENDICES. 
 
 B. D. 14 
 
APPENDIX I. 
 
 THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 
 
 OF all the Aramaic dialects spoken by the heathens of Syria 
 that which has left the most considerable remains is the dialect 
 of Palmyra (in Greek HaX^vpa, in the Old Testament "iO"15, 
 II Chr. viii. 4, in the native inscriptions l1D"in or IDin 1 , and in 
 
 *t~fl;S' 
 
 Arabic .^jj). The Palmyrene inscriptions were mostly set up 
 during the first three centuries of the Christian era, and are of 
 various kinds, honorific, funereal, religious, etc. They are writ- 
 ten in a character which, like the present Hebrew character, is 
 a modification of the old Aramaic Alphabet 2 . Many Palmy- 
 rene inscriptions are accompanied by Greek translations. The 
 largest collection is that made by the Count De Vogue' in his 
 great work La tfyrie Centrale, Paris, 1868 1877. Most of the 
 Greek texts have been published by Waddington in his Inscrip- 
 tions grecques et latines de la Syrie, Paris, 1870. From these 
 works the following specimens have been taken, with the excep- 
 tion of No. III. and the Greek text of No. I. I have availed 
 myself also of Noldeke's "Beitrage zur Kenntniss der ara- 
 maischen Dialecte" in the Z.D.M.G. Vol. xxiv., and Mordt- 
 mann's " Neae Beitrage zur Kunde Palmyra's" in the Sitzungs- 
 bericlite der konigl. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 
 1875. 
 
 1 According to Josephus, Antiq. viii. for units up to 4 V for 5 ~? for 10 
 6. 1, the Syrian pronunciation was Ta- _3 for 2 Q. A number followed by "P 
 damor (QaSa^opa) ^ ^ 7>/// = 
 
 2 To express numbers the Palmyrenes 
 use the following signs Simple strokes 
 
 142 
 
212 APPENDIX I. 
 
 Words and letters which are uncertain or which have been 
 supplied conjecturally are enclosed in square brackets. 
 
 I 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 36 b, p. 41) 
 
 ni i> in n mi *oiin (i) 
 
 iy MUI 011 MUI 
 
 (Greek text, publ. by Mordtmann, " Neue Beitrage zur Kunde 
 Palmyra's", p. 27) 
 
 (1) MNHMEION AIONION TEPA2 HKOAO 
 
 (2) MHSEN IAMAIXOS MOKEIMOT TOT KAI 
 
 (3) [AK]KAAEI2[OT] TOT MAAXOT TOI2 TEK- 
 [NOI2] 
 
 (Translation of Palmyrene text) 
 
 (1) This memorial, which (is) a sepulchre of honour, was 
 built by Yamliku, son of Mokimu, who (was) called Akkallsh, 
 son of Maliku, son of Bel-'akab, 
 
 (2) the Palmyrene, to the honour of his sons and his sons' 
 sons, for ever. In the month Nisan (i.e. April), the year 394 
 (of the Seleucid era, i.e. 83 A.D.). 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (1) N3 < 3?'!J (according to the Syriac pronunciation) corresponds to 
 the Bibl. Aram, nfn^ (Ezra vi. 2), K^l (id. iv. 15) ; in Christian 
 Palestinian we find 1113 n (pron. I" 1 " 1 ? 11 !), and in a Hauran inscription 
 
THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 213 
 
 De Vogue, No. 2) 1 . K# n? 15; lit. "the honour of an eter- 
 nal abode" in Syiiac also f^2Ol^ ovxra means "sepulchre" (,4p0- 
 cryphal Acts, ed. Wright, p. COM), cf. iD^'y n3 in Eccles. xii. 5. 
 wbo* , like many other Arabic names in these inscriptions (e.g. l>pD, 
 13^0 etc.), has the Arabic termination u, which in classical Arabic is 
 the sign of the nominative case. The name 13^0 appears in Greek 
 either as MAAXO2 or MAAIXO2, and therefore seems to be the 
 
 S 
 
 common Arabic i_g_<3L . Ipyhl (Gr. BHAAKABO2) apparently 
 
 means "Bel has granted issue, posterity". The occurrence of the 
 Babylonian deities Bel and Nebo in Palmyrene names shews how 
 wide and how lasting an influence was exercised by Babylonia over 
 Syrian religion. 
 
 II. 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 123 a, I p. 73) 
 
 /y-?3333-?/// nw SiSx rwo] (i) 
 [nan NnSjn POT iDn (2) 
 n w&h inii nay] (3) 
 
 [pa H mij; in topnfc H (5) 
 
 ins (6) 
 (7) 
 
 (9) 
 
 (Translation) 
 
 (1) In the month Ilul (i.e. September), the year 396 (i.e. 
 85 A.D.), 
 
 (2) this Sun-pillar and this altar 
 
 1 In the llth ed. of Gesenius' Handworterbiich, s.v. pIDI, this form is 
 wrongly given as Palmyrene. 
 
214 APPENDIX I. 
 
 (3) were made and consecrated by Lishmash and Zeblda 
 
 (4) the sons of Maliku son of Yari'bel son of Nesha 
 
 (5) who (was) called son of 'Abdibel, who (was) of 
 
 (6) the clan of the Sons of to the Sun, 
 
 (7) the god of the house of their father, for his welfare 
 
 (8) and their welfare and the welfare of their brethren 
 
 (9) and their sons. 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (2) JED " Sun-pillar" is used in Biblical Hebrew in the Plural 
 only, unless fbnn in Is. i. 31 be a corruption of jDnn, as De Lagarde 
 has suggested. ^rpl? "altar" is common in Syriac. For the femi- 
 nine of "this" the Palmyrene dialect uses either rDT or m (=^ in 
 Daniel). 
 
 (3) Wbvh signifies "(consecrated) to the Sun", and KT3T 
 "given", "bestowed (by God)", cf. the Hebr. T13J I Kings iv. 5. 
 
 (4) The name ^3y>T is explained by De Yogiie (p. 59) as " quern 
 Bel gratum habebit", from the verb nyi; but this does not satisfac- 
 torily account for the form ]P"V. Perhaps SsyT 1 may mean "Bel 
 
 s ~* s 
 
 causes to thrive", from the Arabic verb Aj Imperf. _, . " to 
 thrive". 
 
 (6) ina is the Arabic j^jj lit. "thigh", hence "clan", as 
 sprung from a single ancestor. The word presupposes male kinship, 
 
 just as Uj (Hebr. !?), when used for "tribe", presupposes female 
 kinship. The name mJD is uncertain, since in this inscription T and 
 "I are not distinguished, as they usually are in Palmyrene, by the 
 diacritical point. 
 
 III. 
 
 (See De Vogue, " Inscriptions palmyreniennes", in the 
 Journal Asiatique for 1883, and Sachau " Ueber den palmy- 
 renischen No//,o? reXcovL/cos" in the Z. D. M. G. XXXVII. pp. 
 562 ff. Of this long inscription, which is grievously mutilated 
 in parts, only the beginning is here given.) 
 
THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 215 
 
 ///y~? DV [fD>a rrvn ^Sin n K&H (i) 
 nn win H KnmnSw ///Y33"P//// 
 
 H K>tD&i:n p'H *a win (2) 
 
 DOT1 Sin H 
 
 nin nn w nn Tnn wpa *a ^j; "in ma (3) 
 
 mfcw KDia^ p 
 
 nSnn nnnb n^nn 
 
 KTJ? p j^n^n^ iini ipox on (5) 
 
 nnnnD 
 
 nin DDI KTJDI xoi^^n ^n n^ nn D^D (6) 
 
 f? ninv Sy pe> 
 
 "inns x^on^ ^nS n:n ^^n nn jonno (7) 
 
 nnnn soi^n poa s n Dyn^ |pn^ n 
 
 nnn^i xmn 
 
 HDI ^7 p H 
 
 arm KTDSOI H Sn\n SnpS n (io> 
 [wi^jn pr prn pn 
 
 p 
 
216 APPENDIX I. 
 
 (Greek text) 
 
 (1) ETOTS HMT MHNOS HANAIKOT IS AOFMA 
 BOTAHS 
 
 (2) EHI BHNNEOTS BHNNEOTS TOT AIPANOT 
 IIPOEAPOT AAEEANAPOT TOT AAEHANAPOT TOT 
 
 (3) 3>IAOTIATOPO2 FPAMMATEftS BOTAHS KAI 
 AHMOT MAAIXOT OAAIOT2 KAI ZEBEIAOT NESA 
 APXONTON 
 
 (4) BOTAHS NOMIMOT AFOMENHS E^H<J>a@H 
 TA THOTETAPMENA EUETAH EN TOI2 HAAAI 
 XPONOIS 
 
 (5) EN TO TEAHNIKfl NOMfl HAEIXTA TON 
 TTIOTEAHN OTK ANEAHM^)H EnPASSETO AE 
 EK STNH6EIAS EN 
 
 (6) TPA^OMENOT TH MI2@n2EI TON TEAfi- 
 NOTNTA THN IIPAEIN nOIEl2AI AKOAOTflS 
 Til NOM11 KAI TH 
 
 (7) STNH0EIA 2TNEBAINEN AE nAEISTAKIS 
 HEPI TOTTOT ZHTH2EI2 TEINESBAI METAHT TUN 
 EMHOPHN 
 
 (8) IIPO2 TOTS TEAHNAS AEAOXBAI TOTS 
 ENE2TOTA2 APXONTAS KAI AEKAnPIlTOTS AIA- 
 KPEINONTAS 
 
 (9) TA MH ANEIAHMMENA TO NOMH ENFPA- 
 TH ENFISTA MISQOSET KAI THOTASAI EKA- 
 EIAEI TO EK 
 
 (10) STNHQEIAS TEAOS KAI EHEIAAN KTPOOH 
 MISeOTMENfl ENFPAOHNAI META TOT nPH- 
 
 TOT NO 
 
 (11) MOT EN STHAH AI0INH TH OT2H ANTI- 
 KPTS IEPOT AEFOMENOT PABA2EIPH EHIME- 
 AEIS@AI AE TOTS TTFXA 
 
THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 217 
 
 (12) NONTAX KATA KAIPON APXONTA2 KAI 
 AKKAHPIITOTS KAI 2TNAIKOT2 [TOT] MHAEN 
 TON MI20OTMENON. 
 
 (Translation of Palmy rene text) 
 
 (1) Decree of the Council, in the month Nisan, the 18th 
 day, the year 448 (i.e. 137 A.D.\ during the Presidency of Bonne 
 son of 
 
 (2) Bonne son of Hairan and (during) the Secretaryship of 
 Alexander son of Alexander son of Philopator, Secretary of the 
 Council and of the People and the Archons (being) 
 
 (3) Maliku son of Olai son of Moklmu, and Zebida son of 
 Nesha. When the Council had been assembled according to 
 law, it decreed 
 
 (4) what is written below Whereas in former times in 
 the law of taxation many articles subject to 
 
 (5) taxation were not included, and (so) they used to be 
 charged according to custom in (pursuance of) what was written 
 in the contract, (namely) that 
 
 (6) the tax-collector should charge according to law and 
 custom, and (whereas) in consequence of this many times upon 
 these subjects 
 
 (7) disputes arose between the merchants and the tax-col- 
 lectors it seemed good to the Council of these Archons and to 
 the Ten 
 
 (8) that they should examine whatever was not included 
 in the law, and (that) it should be written down in the new 
 document of contract, and (that) there should be written down 
 for each 
 
 (9) article its tax which (is) according to custom, and (that) 
 after it had been ratified by the contractor, it should be written, 
 together with the former law, on the stele 
 
218 APPENDIX I. 
 
 (10) which (is) opposite the Temple (called) Rabaslre, and 
 (that) care should be taken by the Archons who are (in office) 
 at any time, and (by) the Ten, 
 
 (11) and (by) the Syndics, that the contractor do not 
 demand any extra charge from any man. 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (1) tfnmrfe is the Greek TrpoeSpta, but with the Aramaic ter- 
 mination. 
 
 (3) rn^N lit. "certified", from the root vfi?. 
 
 (4) n, in Bibl. Aram, always ^ HO (Dan. ii. 28, etc.). ND?O 
 ''tax", as distinguished from ND?ID "tax-collector" in lines 6 and 7. 
 With H*?K compare M?T3i? Dan. ii. 49. Instead of pp (pron. t T W) 
 we find also ffcOJt? (pron. l^* 1 ^, De Vogue, No. 15) and even jjoJD 
 (ibid.), with the substitution of D for \y which substitution is 
 exceptional in Palmyrene, as in Biblical Hebrew. The syntactical 
 construction Np5 P*^> where the Adj. in the absol. state is made to 
 govern a direct object, occurs often in Syriac ; cf. the Hebr. D*J92 
 n-ID'b D\s6p Deut. vi. 11. 
 
 (5) ipDN (Causative of the verb p^o) may be read either as active 
 1pDX, or as passive -IpEHJ. 15H or NL] is properly masc. plur. but 
 is here used with a fern, subject. NTJJ pron. SO* 1 !?. DlHlp u some- 
 thing", "anything", is common in Jewish Aramaic; in Syriac it 
 becomes meddem. ^T^~ (/xiV^oxrts) is an abstract noun from the 
 verb "UN. 
 
 (6) K33 pron. $1) (Participle). ni| btsp "because of this" (cor- 
 responding to Hebr. 15"^) does not seem to occur in the other Ara- 
 maic dialects; in Jewish Aramaic rn? means "like", "as". P3?!, in 
 the sense of so many "times" (French, fois), is feminine, as usually 
 in Syriac. Nni3V (probably ?) is Plural of KpWV (see Dan. 
 vi. 18). 
 
 (7) p3lD pron. T^IP (so Sachau). N^n is shortened, as in 
 Syriac, from Nn|W ; similarly we find xabo for N*3^O "kings" (De 
 Vogiie, No. 28). It is possible that in the spoken language this 
 shortening was much commoner than would appear from the writing. 
 
 is stat. emphat. of K"^ "ten". 
 
THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 219 
 
 (8) |P5% for pP3*, from the verb K|. P5 (according to the 
 analogy of Hebrew and Arabic) or pS> (according to the Syriac) 1 is 
 the passive participle of the Causative conjugation. ^9?, Imperfect 
 passive of the Peal. KnJN is for JOIUK (see line 5). 
 
 (9) HE is here " when" (cVciSaV), like Syr. .-, ^^ . TB?K pron. 
 KFK, passive of "K^ (see line 3). siUN pron. N^. 
 
 (10) te? or S&3D lit. " made to be a care", pn pron. JIH PI. 
 of N.l.n "being", "existing". 
 
 IV. 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 1, p. 5) 
 
 prvnn fW ^x nny D^ni ^n (i) 
 
 pm nn tt^pD ni p'n "in *Kh'*yvh- ( 2 > 
 
 pnnna ^m W^K p*n^ (3) 
 
 iTn^i pnS ins^ nSnn (4) 
 
 p337>//// ros? po n^a pnnp^ (5) 
 
 (Greek text, see Waddington No. 2586) 
 
 (1) H BOTAH KAI O AHMO2 AAIAAME1N 
 AIPANOT 
 
 (2) TOT MOKIMOT TOT AIPANOT TOT MABBA 
 KAI 
 
 (3) AIPANHN TON IIATEPA ATTOT ET2EBEI2 
 KAI 
 
 (4) 4>IAOIIATP1AA2 KAI HANTI TPOHO 4>IAO 
 
 (5) TEIMH2 APE2ANTAS TH HATPIAI KAI 
 
 (6) TOI2 HATPIOI2 0EOIS TEIMH2 XAPIN 
 
 (7) ETOTS NT MHNO2 HANAIKOT 
 
 1 In Bibl. Aram, the participle of unless we reckon }D*np (Dan. ii. 45 ; 
 the Hophal does not happen to occur, vi. 5). 
 
220 APPENDIX I. 
 
 (Transl. of Palm, text) 
 
 (1) The Council and the People have made these statues, 
 both of them, 
 
 (2) to A'ailami son of Hairan son of Mokimu son of Hairan 
 (son of) Matta, 
 
 (3) and to Hairan his father, lovers of their city and 
 fearers of the gods, 
 
 (4) because they were pleasing to them and to their gods 
 in every respect 
 
 (5) to their honour, in the month Nisan, the year 450 (i.e. 
 139 A.D.). 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (1) ftn^'nri is a very peculiar form, instead of which we should 
 have expected pnnfl. 
 
 (2) Before KDD the word -Q is omitted, as often happens in 
 these inscriptions. 
 
 (3) Pron. jinflHp "Kyrn NryrjD, or Xn^lD, means "city" in 
 
 \ / * * 
 
 Palmy rene as in Syriac, not "province" as in Biblical Aramaic. 
 
 (4) rta US hll lit. " in every thing, the whole of it". 
 
 V. 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 123 a, II p. 74) 
 
 ttj&rni aofc aSj?S r\bv 71^ (i) 
 hy ttSfc *ii ^mni m jrrfc K-TIO (2) 
 
 (3) 
 (4) 
 
THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 221 
 
 (Translation) 
 
 (1) To Him whose name is blessed for ever, the Good and 
 the Merciful, 
 
 (2) Madyun gives thanks, the son of Zebad-bol, son of 
 Maliku, for 
 
 (3) his welfare and the welfare of his brethren. In the 
 month Tishri (i.e. October), 
 
 (4) the year 533 (i.e. 221 A.D.). 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (1) The formula JODmi KID KoSy 5 ? HDC' 7"Q^ is extremely 
 common in the religious inscriptions of Palmyra. KJlprn " the Mer- 
 ciful", as a name of God, is found also in Jewish writings, but there 
 is no proof that the Palmyrenes borrowed the term from the Jews, as 
 has often been asserted. 
 
 (3) *on is for V.H. 
 
 VI. 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 4, p. 8) 
 
 D>STIK D'Sv n nn xbv (i) 
 KTST -D wpo m fcn^r (2) 
 n fcn^n nS D^px n tn^ (3) 
 nnj; nm H (4) 
 (5) 
 (6) 
 
 , see Waddington, No. 2599) 
 
 (1) IOTAION ATPHAION ZEBEIAAN 
 
 (2) MOKIMOT TOT ZEBE1AOT 
 
222 APPENDIX I. 
 
 (3) ASenPOT BAIAA OI 2TN ATTH 
 
 (4) KATEAONTE2 EI2 OAOrESI 
 
 (5) AAA ENHOPOI ANE2TH2AN APE 
 
 (6) SANTA ATTOIS TEIMHS XAPIN 
 
 (7) SANAIKft TOT HN<J? ETOT2. 
 
 (TransL of Palm, text) 
 
 (1) This statue (is that) of Julius Aurelius 
 
 (2) Zebida son of Mokimu son of Zebida (son of) 'Ashtor 
 
 (3) (son of) Baida which was erected to him by the mer- 
 chants belonging to the caravan, 
 
 (4) who went down with him to Vologesias to his honour, 
 because 
 
 (5) he was pleasing to them. In the month Nisan, the 
 year 558 (i.e. 247 A.D.). 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (2) TiriK'JJ seems to be the masc. form of rnnt^y Gr. 'Ao-rapr?;. 
 
 (3) Dptf is for ID^pN ; it would appear that in Palmyrene, as in 
 Syriac, the final u was often dropt in pronunciation. For KFlYlp 
 "caravan", see the Pesliitta, Gen. xxxvii. 25. 
 
 (4) Vologesias is identified by Mordtmann ("Neue Beitrage", 
 p. 12) with the city known in Mohammedan times as Al-Kufa, in 
 Babylonia. 
 
 VII. 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 28, p. 28) 
 
 5D D^ (1) 
 
 rhs nna n winw (2) 
 
 (3) 
 
 //3333"?Y D^ H iK m*3 (5) 
 
THE PALMYRENE DIALECT. 223 
 
 (Translation) 
 
 (1) Statue of Septimius Odainat, king of kings, 
 
 (2) and stablisher of the city, all of it ; the Septimii, 
 
 (3) Zabda, chief general, and Zabbai, general 
 
 (4) of Palmyra, most noble persons, have erected (this) to 
 their lord, 
 
 (5) in the month Ab (i.e. August) of the year 582 (i.e. 
 
 271 A.D.). 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (1) Odainat (Gr. OAAINAOOS, see De Vogue, No. 21) was 
 king of Palmyra and husband of Zenobia. 
 
 (2) Pron. K^i??, from |i?n "to set in order". 
 
 (4) The Greek word KpartcrTot appears in Palmyrene either as 
 KDDLDp (with the Aramaic plural ending e), or as KIDDtJp (where K1 
 represents ot, pronounced in later times somewhat like the French u). 
 
 VIII. 
 
 (De Vogue, No. 29, p. 29) 
 
 ra K^SD nth* (i) 
 (2) 
 (3) 
 
 text, see Waddington No. 2611) 
 
 (1) SEHTIM1AN ZHNOBIAN THN AAM 
 
 (2) HPOTATHN ET^EBH BASIAIS^AN 
 
 (3) SEHTIMIOI ZABAAS O MEFAS STPA 
 
 (4) THAATHS KAI ZABBAIOS O EN0AAE 
 
 (5) STPATHAATHS OI KPATISTOI THN 
 
 (6) AESnOINAN ETOTS Bni MHNEI 
 
224 APPENDIX I. 
 
 (Transl. of Palm, text} 
 
 (1) Statue of Septimia, daughter of Zabbai, the illustrious 
 and the just (lady), 
 
 (2) the queen ; the Septimii, Zabda, chief general, 
 
 (3) and Zabbai, general of Palmyra, most noble persons, 
 
 (4) have erected (this) to their mistress, etc. 
 
 (Notes) 
 
 (1) nrf>, not D^, since the statue is that of a woman. At the 
 end of the line an N seems to have been effaced, as Noldeke has 
 remarked. Instead of KnpIT we should have expected Knp'HT (pron. 
 perhaps the I was pronounced short in the closed syllable. 
 
APPENDIX II. 
 
 CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 
 
 I. 
 THE EARLIER PTOLEMIES. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Ptolemy Soter 306 
 
 Philadelphia . .... 283 
 
 Euergetes I. ... 247 
 
 Philopator . 222 
 
 Epiphanes 204 
 
 ,, Philometor, sole king . . . . . . 181 
 
 Philometor and / 
 
 TT r reignvng conjointly . . . 170 
 ,, Euergetes II. j 
 
 ,, Philometor, sole king . . . . . 164 
 Euergetes II. . . 146117 
 
 II. 
 THE EARLIER SELEUCIDAE. 
 
 Seleucus 306 
 
 Antiochus Soter 281 
 
 Theos . 262 
 
 Seleucus Callinicus ........ 245 
 
 Ceraunus 226 
 
 Antiochus the Great 224 
 
 Seleucus Philopator . 187 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes ...... 175 164 
 
 B. D. 15 
 
226 APPENDIX II. 
 
 III. 
 
 THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN JEWISH HISTORY FROM 
 THE CAPTIVITY TO THE DEATH OF ANTIOCHUS 
 EPIPHANES. 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Captivity of Jehoiachin ...... circa 599 
 
 Captivity of Zedekiah, and destruction of Jerusalem . . 588 
 
 First Return of Exiles, under Cyrus 538 
 
 Completion of the Second Temple . . 516 
 
 Second Return of Exiles with Ezra ..... 458 
 
 First visit of Nehemiah to Jerusalem ..... 445 
 
 Second visit of Nehemiah ....... 432 
 
 Pollution of the Temple by the Persian general Bagoses circa 375 
 Conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great . . . 332 
 Seizure of Jerusalem by Ptolemy Soter, governor of Egypt . 320 
 Defeat of Antiochus the Great by Ptolemy Philopator at 
 
 Raphia 217 
 
 Conquest of Palestine by Antiochus the Great . . . 204 
 Antiochus Epiphanes deposes the Jewish high-priest Onias 
 
 III., and appoints in his stead his brother Jason . circa 174 
 Deposition of Jason in favour of Menelaus, and murder of 
 
 Onias III. near Antioch . . . . . . 171 
 
 Antiochus Epiphanes invades Egypt. Jason reinstates him- 
 self at Jerusalem by violence. Antiochus, returning 
 from Egypt, plunders the Jewish Temple and slaughters 
 many of the Jews. Jason is expelled . . . . 170 
 
 Antiochus, again invading Egypt, is forced to retire by 
 Popilius Laenas, the Roman legate. The king, on his 
 homeward march, orders the complete suppression of 
 the Jewish religion. Many inhabitants of Jerusalem 
 are slaughtered or driven into exile, and their place is 
 filled by heathen colonists. The daily sacrifice is 
 abolished. On the 15th of Chisleu (December) a hea- 
 then altar is set up in the Temple . . . . 168 
 
 Revolt of the Jews headed by Mattathias, a priest, and his 
 
 seven sons. Death of Mattathias . . . 167 166 
 Judas, son of Mattathias, defeats the Syrian generals Apol- 
 
 lonins, Seron, and Gorgias . . . . . . 166 
 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES. 227 
 
 B.C. 
 
 Another Syrian general, Lysias, is defeated by Judas at 
 Beth-sur. The Jewish insurgents take possession of 
 Jerusalem and cleanse the Temple, which is re-dedicated 
 on the 25th of Chisleu 165 
 
 Antiochus, in great lack of money, endeavours to plunder a 
 temple in Elymais, but is repulsed by the natives. He 
 soon after dies at Tabae in Persia 164 
 
INDEX 
 
 OF THE PRINCIPAL WORDS AND ROOTS 
 COMMENTED UPON. 
 
 The numbers refer to the pages. Roots are marked with the sign 
 
 K 
 
 nriK. 
 
 tm 
 
 m 
 
 (K. np), 
 
 201 
 
 79 
 
 75 
 
 129 
 
 166 
 
 see ^"- 
 
 68 
 
 73 
 
 103 
 
 103 
 
 75 
 
 90 
 
 71 
 
 79, 109 
 149 
 122 
 
 PBK, 
 
 DW, 
 
 rns, 
 
 see 7 tiN 
 74, see also Addenda 
 
 80 
 see ^nt?*K 
 
 91 
 
 70 
 124 
 
 92 
 
 93 
 110 
 200 
 186 
 101 
 101 
 
 74 
 110 
 
 72 
 
 ff. 
 
 (K. 
 ? (Aramaic), 
 
230 
 
 INDEX OF 
 
 "??*, 
 
 KJHK (K. VIS 
 
 , lest, 
 
 (K. 
 
 (K. 
 
 101 
 95 
 75 
 
 113 
 
 134 
 63 
 
 58, 59 
 61 
 
 112 
 93 
 83 
 81 
 71 
 
 124 
 99 
 
 153, 165 
 149 
 129 
 111 
 126 
 
 see 
 
 see 
 
 61 
 99 
 
 184 
 95 
 
 110 
 
 85 
 187 
 
 61 
 
 (K. 
 
 rw, 
 
 (K. 
 
 001, 
 
 v, 
 
 110 
 122 
 see TOT 
 136 
 81 
 79 
 120 
 
 M, 120 
 
 73, 74 
 
 100 
 
 72 
 
 see also Addenda p. x 
 120 
 
 75 
 
 75 
 112 
 112 
 
 123, 124 
 74 
 60 
 75 
 
 70, 126 
 79 
 
 77 
 159 
 
 85 
 
 69 
 185 
 
 73 
 206, 207 
 
 29 
 

 WORDS AND ROOTS. 231 
 
 b*, 
 
 89 
 
 ^.n, 166 
 
 Pro, 
 
 77 
 
 ^ am, 61,62 
 
 VJTH, rvjvn, 
 
 81, 82 
 
 Tin, 104 
 
 n?n, 
 
 107 
 
 ntq, proper, 83 
 
 $0, 
 
 137 
 
 nnitn, 90, 91 
 
 toron (K. K? 
 
 ^pn), 101 
 
 T^ n (K. ^PH), 94 
 
 in, 
 
 29 (note), 95 
 
 ."TlTl, 103, 104, 139 
 
 n^cgn, 
 
 113 
 
 D^D, 100 
 
 bsgjOj 
 
 73 
 
 nipfen, 194 
 
 n^VOi 
 
 101 
 
 nipSp^n, 32 
 
 &?3, 
 
 73 
 
 Kn, KDn, 71 
 
 *1*n, 
 
 82 
 
 n'noq, nh-ioq, 152, 153 
 
 fl*i?L) , flPP.n , 
 
 121 
 
 non, 131 
 
 no'j?n, 
 
 121 
 
 V^ n , 72 
 
 tfno, 
 
 110 
 
 E^pin, 31, 63 
 
 nnss^n 
 
 73 
 
 K^ID, 100 
 
 m?|j|tri 
 
 73 
 
 3^n, 96 
 
 n-niinnn , 
 
 188 
 
 
 p?n, njpnn, 
 
 97 
 
 & 
 
 nrpD'nrin, 
 
 105 
 
 2ND, 113 
 
 
 
 rnp, 112 
 
 
 T 
 
 Din?, 99 
 
 pyT (K. PIM) 
 
 , 75 
 
 xnap, 96 
 
 ^/pt, 
 
 69,70 
 
 
 \/" inT ) 
 
 202 
 
 1 
 
 VT, 
 
 74 
 
 1K% 32 
 
 lt, N?9T, 
 
 72 
 
 n-^qn), 103 
 
 IT, \JT : , 
 
 80 
 
 ^L]5% 93 
 
 "*}, 
 
 122 
 
 ^5!, see ^/ N71 
 
 DW, 
 
 31 
 
 fiyn^ jiyn;, 97 
 
 nijht, D^nr, 
 
 182 
 
 A/ VT 1 , see V:!?^ 
 
 D^'lt, D^Vlt, 
 
 62 
 
 ^n;, 73 
 
 
 
 V^", 73 
 
 
 n 
 
 ^r 86 
 
 n V?^ ^P, 
 
 83 
 
 NHp^, gee ^HO 
 
232 
 
 INDEX OF 
 
 72 
 138 
 152 
 125 
 
 see 
 
 183 
 
 103 
 
 38 
 
 126 
 
 see 
 
 69 
 
 H3, 
 nnn?, 
 
 191 
 73 
 
 111 
 
 73 
 
 75 
 
 see Addenda p. xi 
 
 154 
 
 199 
 
 32, 176, 197 
 104, 105 
 81 
 83 
 84 
 80 
 
 107 
 
 104 
 31 
 68 
 
 191 
 81, 100 
 
 n*. 
 
 &n^, feast, 
 
 .tP, a?.!, 
 
 n"Do (K. 
 
 (with OP), 
 
 73 
 
 see 
 
 124 
 
 96 
 
 35 
 
 69 
 
 99 
 
 99 
 
 195 
 
 126 
 
 106, 107 
 99 
 
 120 
 59 
 77 
 85 
 
 138 
 83 
 91 
 
 104 
 97 
 94 
 
 60, 61 
 61 
 
 174 
 
 see 
 
 68 
 149 
 
 30 
 113 
 
 62 
 
WORDS AND ROOTS. 
 
 233 
 
 to, IP, 
 o, 
 
 Bpiip . 
 VIP, 
 
 (K. 
 
 B. D. 
 
 81 
 
 105, 106 
 
 60 
 
 72 
 
 197 
 
 111 
 
 152 
 
 103 
 
 see nyp 
 
 77, 78 
 
 166 
 
 168 
 159 
 
 190 
 194 
 194 
 155 
 192 
 103 
 
 80 
 102 
 
 111, 112 
 101 
 
 69 
 
 58 
 
 see 
 
 fia (K. 
 
 ipw (K. niJW), 
 
 (Aramaic), 
 
 , watcher, 
 
 (K. 
 
 69, 104 rfey (K. n 
 
 100 
 123 
 
 155, 156 
 
 124 
 
 140 
 
 72 
 
 69 
 
 used of time 
 
 m, 
 
 i i 
 
 177 
 99 
 99 
 76 
 136 
 72 
 
 78 
 
 41, 80 
 
 83, 84, 86 
 
 109 
 
 61 
 
 126 
 
 94, 95 
 
 71 
 
 91 
 
 109 
 
 125 
 
 90 
 
 103 
 
 89 
 
 208 
 
 137 
 
 80 
 
 95 
 
 91 
 
 113 
 
 16 
 
234 
 
 INDEX OF 
 
 12V, 
 
 92 pPj?, 100, 104 
 
 ni4, 
 
 109 
 
 Dirvp (K. D'lnp.), 80 
 
 ny, 
 
 138, note 
 
 ^J3, 166 
 
 
 
 PVi?,- 184 
 
 fi 
 
 
 nyp, 58 
 
 nns, Nnjqs, 
 
 79 
 
 W1P, 80, see also Addenda p. xi 
 
 pnwsB (K. firr^i 
 
 39), 84 
 
 D?r?p, wp, 130 
 
 tfofo, 
 
 134 
 
 pn^ip., 81 
 
 DB, KD3, 
 
 100 
 
 
 pn:DB, pto:DB, 
 
 80 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^/DDB, 
 
 100, note 2 
 
 m, MTiri, 93 
 
 DIB, pp-fi, 
 
 105, 106 
 
 pm (K. p?i), 123 
 
 ncnB, Nnp-jB, 
 
 100, note 2 
 
 rn, 81 
 
 ^/p-lB, 
 
 94 
 
 ^ ^J"i, see ^"in 
 
 DW19, 
 
 59 
 
 n, 74 
 
 nna, 
 
 60 
 
 Don, 97 
 
 Dins, 
 
 82 
 
 n, 72 
 
 
 
 ^1, 180 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 VP1, 83, 123 
 
 nv, 132, 
 
 133 note, 165 
 
 
 ov, 
 
 112 
 
 ^ 
 
 uv, 
 
 132 
 
 N3?'^, 80 
 
 nv, 
 
 see "IV 1 ? 
 
 1Db>, 121 
 
 NIV, 
 
 see fcHVCl 
 
 ^/^b, 151 
 
 np r iv, 
 
 94 
 
 nob, 112 
 
 piv 
 
 157 
 
 
 D?^ 
 
 79 
 
 
 
 ^V, 
 
 130 
 
 Krfctfb, 92 
 
 piV, 
 
 91 
 
 s;P3^, 84 
 
 
 
 ^/bnb, see rbanbp 
 
 p 
 
 
 ^b, nn^b, 99 
 
 tnDKp (K. r^g), 
 
 75 
 
 ^, 112 
 
 ^1 
 
 70 
 
 V, 1H 112 
 
 B^, 
 
 90, 91 "nT!^, 61 
 
WORDS AXD ROOTS. 
 
 235 
 
 (K- 
 
 J 
 
 ; 
 
 nte (K. 
 
 105 
 
 202, 203 
 82 
 86 
 89 
 31 
 95 
 90 
 94 
 
 192 
 
 100 
 58 
 
 112 
 81 
 
 112, 113 
 72, 73 
 
 101 
 
 (K. !?*), 
 
 112 
 
 104 
 91 
 
 101, 102 
 84,85 
 74 
 32 
 74 
 69 
 
 79,80 
 
 105, 106 
 
 97 
 
 110 
 
 95 
 
 62 
 
 166 
 
 CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
'THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 OCT 9 
 
 
 LD 21-5m-6,'37