IV. In ii. 2 the king summons four classes of hierophants to disclose his dream and its interpretation. They are the magicians (_Chartummîm_), the enchanters (_Ashshaphîm_), the sorcerers (_Mechashsh'phîm_), and the Chaldeans (_Kasdîm_).[101] The _Chartummîm_ occur in Gen. xli. 8 (which seems to be in the writer's mind); and the _Mechashsh'phîm_ occur in Exod. vii. 11, xxii. 18; but the mention of _Kasdîm_, "Chaldeans," is, so far as we know, an immense anachronism. In much later ages the name was used, as it was among the Roman writers, for wandering astrologers and quacks.[102] But this degenerate sense of the word was, so far as we can judge, wholly unknown to the age of Daniel. It never once occurs in this sense on any of the monuments. Unknown to the Assyrian-Babylonian language, and only acquired long after the end of the Babylonian Empire, such a usage of the word is, as Schrader says, "an indication of the post-exilic composition of the Book."[103] In the days of Daniel "Chaldeans" had no meaning resembling that of "magicians" or "astrologers." In every other writer of the Old Testament, and in all contemporary records, _Kasdîm_ simply means the Chaldean nation, and _never_ a learned caste.[104] This single circumstance has decisive weight in proving the late age of the Book of Daniel.
V. Again, we find in ii. 14, "Arioch, the chief of the executioners." Schrader precariously derives the name from _Eri-aku_, "servant of the moon-god"; but, however that may be, we already find the name as that of a king Ellasar in Gen. xiv. 1, and we find it again for a king of the Elymæans in Judith i. 6. In ver. 16 Daniel "went in and desired of the king" a little respite; but in ver. 25 Arioch tells the king, as though it were a sudden discovery of his own, "I have found a man of the captives of Judah, that will make known unto the king the interpretation." This was a surprising form of introduction, after we have been told that the king himself had, by personal examination, found that Daniel and his young companions were "_ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm_." It seems, however, as if each of these chapters was intended to be recited as a separate _Haggada_.
VI. In ii. 46, after the interpretation of the dream, "_the King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him_." This is another of the immense surprises of the Book. It is exactly the kind of incident in which the haughty theocratic sentiment of the Jews found delight, and we find a similar spirit in the many Talmudic inventions in which Roman emperors, or other potentates, are represented as paying extravagant adulation to Rabbinic sages. There is (as we shall see) a similar story narrated by Josephus of Alexander the Great prostrating himself before the high priest Jaddua, but it has long been relegated to the realm of fable as an outcome of Jewish self-esteem.[105] It is probably meant as a concrete illustration of the glowing promises of Isaiah, that "kings and queens shall bow down to thee with their faces towards the earth, and lick up the dust of thy feet";[106] and "the sons of them that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet."[107]
VII. We further ask in astonishment whether Daniel could have accepted without indignant protest the offering of "an oblation and sweet odours." To say that they were only offered to God in the person of Daniel is the idle pretence of all idolatry. They are expressly said to be offered "to Daniel." A Herod could accept blasphemous adulations;[108] but a Paul and a Barnabas deprecate such devotions with intense disapproval.[109]
VIII. In ii. 48 Nebuchadrezzar appoints Daniel, as a reward for his wisdom, to rule over the whole province of Babylon, and to be _Rab-signîn_, "chief ruler," and to be over all the wise men (_Khakamim_) of Babylon. Lenormant treats this statement as an interpolation, because he regards it as "_evidently_ impossible." We know that in the Babylonian priesthood, and especially among the sacred caste, there was a passionate religious intolerance. It is inconceivable that they should have accepted as their religious superior a monotheist who was the avowed and uncompromising enemy to their whole system of idolatry. It is equally inconceivable that Daniel should have accepted the position of a hierophant in a polytheistic cult. In the next three chapters there is no allusion to Daniel's tenure of these strange and exalted offices, either civil or religious.[110]