II. THE HrsTOBICAL BAcKGBOlTh"D OF THE Boon:, The historical background of the Book of Daniel must embrace a narmtive of the events, actual or assamed, that form the setting of those related in the book itself. It must also contain the fulfilment of those portions which are, or at all events purport to be, prophecies. .As these are connected with each other, there is necessitated a sketch of the history of the Eastern world from the fall of Nineveh till, if not the fall 0f Rome, at least the fall of Jerusalem. Part of this history has been long well known, bnt part of it has only recently emerged into history in any true sense. Few portions of history of which we previously knew anything at all have undergone such a revo- lution as the ocginning of the pe1iod before us. The actual events were lost to us by contradictory romances which it would be misleading to call legends or traditions, We had certain fragments of troth in Berosus and Abydenus, but what was truth and what falschocd we had no means of determining. The discoveries of Botta, Layard, and Rawlinson, followed up by Smith, Oppert, Schrader, Delitzsch, Pinches, and others, ha~e opened tons a new world. Formerly it was imagined that Babylonia wns the country of the Chaldeans, and Babylon their capital. Now we find that the Cha.ldcans were freebooting tribes that had intruded themselves from the desert into the fertile and cultivated territories of nrn BOOK OF DANIEf,. Xl7
Mcsopot(lmla and Babylonia, mainly the latter. They were Semites, and therefore to ,.. degree the kinsmen of the Babylonians, yet by habits and history they were quite disUnct from them. When they penetrated into Babylonia., they gradually sprea,\ themselves through the land, erecting fortified strongholds in which to shelter their predatory bands. These were generally known by the name of the chid that ha,\ originally led them into the land, prefixed by the word bie, or " house of." From these centres they oppressed the unwarlike Babylonians, who were only preserved from unnihilation by the walls that surrounded their cities. The Chaldeans first come distinctly into history with the campaigns ofShalmaneser II. against Babylonia. In his eighth and ninth years (B.c. 851 and 850) he marched into that province to interfere in o question of succession in one of these small Chaldee states that had gained o position of supremacy over the others. State after state submitter\ to the conqueror. Although presents were brought from these states to after Ninevit& monarchs, none of them for nearly a century seem to have made as great conquests in Babylonia as Shalmaneser till Tiglath-pileser III. This latter monarch came as the protector of the oppressed Babylonians. These little Chaldean ltinglets were always endeavouring, in the first place, to secure a position of superiority over their fellows, and then, as the sign and result of this, to secure possession of Babylon. This city once in their hands, they could rule all Chaldea with a strong hand. Shalmaneser placed on the throne of Babylon a subject-king, Nabonassar. He was succeeded by others in the same capacity. A Chaldean monarch seized the throne. He was overthrown and taken prisoner. Thereafter Tiglath-pileser became King of Babylon in his own person, and reigned there by the name Pul. During the reigns of Sargon and Sennacherib there was a constant struggle with another Chaldean prince, Merodach-Baladan, for the possession of the sacred city of Babylon. Esarhaddon, installed King of Babylon before his father's assassination, reigned a portion of every year in the southern city, and thus retained possession of Babylonia without much opposition. During the greater part of his reign AMhurbanipal seems to have been free of serious difficulties with the Chaldees. His struggle was with Elam, which he claims to have completely subdued. For the latter years of his reign, and for the reigns of his successors, we have no monumental evidence. We simply know nothing for certain of the fall of Nineveh, save that it did fall, and that Nabopolassar, the Chaldean monarch of Babylon, had to do with the result. The Assyrian Empire, under Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal, had possession of Egypt. Necho, the grandfather of the Pharaoh-Necho of Scripture, was governor of a portion of Egypt under these monarchs. His grandson seems to have secured the supremacy over all Egypt, but probably was reckoned, as his father and grandfather had been, satraps of the King of Assyria. Nabopolassar, if we follow Abydenus and explain him, seems to have occupied a similar position in Babylon-nominal satrap of the great king, the King of Assyria, yet practically independent. When he gained possession of Nineveh, Nabopolassar seems to have claimed the empire of which that city had been the capital, and regarded Necho, and probably all the other monarchs who had made themselves independent, as his satraps. Possibly it might be the expression of this claim that led to the march of Necho to the Euphrates. This is described by Berosus as the rebellion of the satrap whom he, Nabopolassar, "had set over Egypt, CClllo-Syria, and PhCBnicia." Not impossibly Nabopolassar may have given events this colour in his proclamations, that his people might imagine that Necbo, with. bis connivance as his satrap, had seized Palestine and Syria iu addition to Egypt. Then, when he felt strong enough, he sent his son Nebuchadnezzar against N echo. The Babylonian and the Egyptian armies encountered each other at Carchemish, the fortress INTRODUCTION TO