[103] _Keilinschr._, p. 429; Meinhold, p. 28.
[104] Isa. xxiii. 13; Jer. xxv. 12; Ezek. xii. 13; Hab. i. 6.
[105] Jos., _Antt._, XI. viii. 5.
[106] Isa. xlix. 23.
[107] Isa. lx. 14.
[108] Acts xii. 22, 23.
[109] Acts xiv. 11, 12, xxviii. 6.
[110] See Jer. xxxix. 3. And if he held this position, how could he be absent in chap. iii.?
[111] Namely, the words for "satraps," "governors," "counsellors," and "judges," as well as the courtiers in iii. 24. Bleek thinks that to enhance the stateliness of the occasion the writer introduced as many official names as he knew.
[112] _Supra_, p. 23.
[113] Athen., _Deipnos._, iv. 175.
[114] The Persian titles in iii. 24 alone suffice to indicate that this could not be Nebuchadrezzar's actual decree. See further, Meinhold, pp. 30, 31. We are evidently dealing with a writer who introduces many Persian words, with no consciousness that they could not have been used by Babylonian kings.
[115] The writer of Daniel was evidently acquainted with the Book of Ezekiel. See Delitzsch in Herzog, _s.v._ "Daniel," and Driver, p. 476.
[116] See iv. 16, 25-30.
[117] Preserved by Jos.: comp. _Ap._, I. 20.
[118] The phrase is common enough: _e.g._, in Jos., _Antt._, X. xi. 1 (comp. _c. Ap._, I. 19); and a similar phrase, ἐμπεσὼν εἰς ἀῤῥωστίαν, _is used of Antiochus Epiphanes_ in 1 Macc. vi. 8.
[119] _Præp. Ev._, ix. 41. Schrader (_K. A. T._, ii. 432) thinks that Berossus and the Book of Daniel may both point to the same tradition; but the Chaldee tradition quoted by the late writer Abydenus errs likewise in only recognising _two_ Babylonish kings instead of _four_, exclusive of Belshazzar. See, too, Schrader, _Jahrb. für Prot. Theol._, 1881, p. 618.
[120] Dan. v. 11. The emphasis seems to show that "son" is really meant--not grandson. This is a little strange, for Jeremiah (xxvii. 7) had said that the nations should serve Nebuchadrezzar, "and his son, _and his son's son_"; and in no case was Belshazzar Nebuchadrezzar's _son's son_, for his father Nabunaid was an usurping son of a Rab-mag.
[121] Schrader, p. 434 ff.; and in Riehm, _Handwörterb._, ii. 163; Pinches, in Smith's _Bibl. Dict._, i. 388, 2nd edn. The contraction into Belshazzar from _Bel-sar-utsur_ seems to show a late date.
[122] That the author of Daniel should have fallen into these errors is the more remarkable because Evil-merodach is mentioned in 2 Kings xxv. 27; and Jeremiah in his round number of seventy years includes _three_ generations (Jer. xxvii. 7). Herodotus and Abydenus made the same mistake. See Kamphausen, pp. 30, 31.
[123] Herod., i. 191. See Rawlinson, _Herod._, i. 434.
[124] Xen., _Cyrop._, VII. v. 3.
[125] _Antt._, X. xi. 2. In _c. Ap._, I. 20, he calls him Nabonnedus.
[126] This is now supposed to mean "grandson by marriage," by inventing the hypothesis that Nabunaid married a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. But this does not accord with Dan. v. 2, 11, 22; and so in Baruch i. 11, 12.
[127] 2 Kings xxv. 27.
[128] Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_, p. 527.
[129] I need not enter here upon the confusion of the Manda with the Medes, on which see Sayce, _Higher Criticism and Monuments_, p. 519 ff.
[130] Winer, _Realwörterb._, _s.v._ "Darius."
[131] So Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, Auberlen. It is decidedly rejected by Schrader (Riehm, _Handwörterb._, i. 259). Even Cicero said, "Cyrus ille a Xenophonte non ad historiæ fidem scriptus est" (_Ad Quint. Fratr._, Ep. i. 3). Niebuhr called the _Cyropædia_ "einen _elenden_ und läppischen Roman" (_Alt. Gesch._, i. 116). He classes it with _Télémaque_ or _Rasselas_. Xenophon was probably the ultimate authority for the statement of Josephus (_Antt._, X. xi. 4), which has no weight. Herodotus and Ktesias know nothing of the existence of any Cyaxares II., nor does the Second Isaiah (xlv.), who evidently contemplates Cyrus as the conqueror and the first king of Babylon. Are we to set a professed romancer like Xenophon, and a late compiler like Josephus, against these authorities?