The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 230

onco more to ho offered? 'fho fact thflt he.a nothing to support it. A much mora ho ie nleo onllcd Artnxerxee in the LXX., ple.ueible theory has been devi•erl by Mo.rcus nntl tho further fact that in the LXX. von Niebuhr, in his 'Geschichte A••nr. 11 . Version of BcJ and tho Dragon tho nnme Babils.' He mninte.ined that Bclsha,zzar is omitted, aro eignifloant. Tho no.me we.s Evil-Merodach, &nd that he held Lbo must be lnid nsido as being of no evidential blasphemous feast narrated in Daniel, an,] ,·11.lue. If now we look at the men-when that he was overthrown by a conspiracy as- we compe.ro Darius, as presented to ue by sisted by the l,clp of Astyagee the Mede, an,l tho ne.rre.tive hero, with Cyrus, the skilfnl, that Nergaleharezar (Ncrigliesar) rei,.,.ncd self-contained conqueror, who he.d broken the in Babylon a.a bis subject-king. We know power of Asytagee, had built up a monarchy now that Astye.ges was not a Mede, but from tho sme.11 cantons of the region east of the King of the Manda. We know further the Tigris, nnd increased that monarchy to that there is no trace in the contract an empire-we see a vast, irreconcilnble tables of the conquest of the city, so that difforcuco. Cyrus must have been at the there should be a foreign overlord. Thie, maturity of hie power when he gained however, might not be notified in fixing the possession of Baby Ion. Darius, we a.re told, dates on the contracts. But if Astyages was was sixty-two years of flge. Yet once more, for a year actual king in Babylon, then that he "received" bis kingdom. Cyrus did not fact would appear in the tables, and this claim e.s inheriting from Ne.bunahicl We is part of Baron van Niebuhr's hypothesis. must, then, definitely decido against Cyrus Further, Astyagea does not retain his over- being Darius. lordahip in Babylon so far as we can judge The theory that has received the largest from the proclamation of Nabunahid. We amount of support among those who main• must, therefore, abandon this supposition tain the ancient date of Daniel is that also. Darius the Mede is Cyn.xe.res II. This is The followers of the critical method, which a personage introduced by Xenophon into assumes that there must be something out- his historical novel, the 'Cyropmdin..' If rageously wrong, take for granted that the his existence could have been proved, the Darius here is the well-known Darius Hy- cho.ro.cter suited the position admirably. staspis. The only point in him that suits 'fhe weaknesses e.nd fussiness with which Darius tho Mede is that he is called Darius. Xcnophon endows him does not contradict It is true that Darius Hyataspis, after it anything we see of Darius here. Only had :rebelled against him, took Babylon; Xenophon nowhere so.ye that Cyrus ma.de there is nothing said of Darius the Mede his uncle king in Babylon. We are in & doing anything of the sort, n.lthongh it may very different position in regard to many of be implied. Darius in Daniel is a iHede, these events now, the.n we were forty years Darius Hystaspis was a Persian; the Bib- ago. We know now that Aatye.gea was not lical Darius is the son of A.J;,ashverosh the son of Cyo.xares I., the King of the Medes. (Ahasuerus), the other D:i..rins is the son of He was King of the Manda. or Umman- Hystaspes; the Biblical Darins is an old Mn.uda, who overthrew the Median Em- man when he aacends the throne, Darius pire. In Cyrus'a revolts against Astyages Hystaspis is young. Further, if we assume wo have no word of any relationship sub- the writer of the lifth a.nu. sixth chapters of sisting between him and his opponent, still Daniel wrote also the eleventh, then he knew less that he was his granrlson. There is, of Darius Hystaspis and of hill son Xer:i.es, further, no reference to o.ny son of Astye.ges e.s well as of Cyrus and his son Cambyses. being regarded aa monarch under whom If these critics maintain the author of Cyrus fought. Yet this must be e.cknow• Daniel to be under the erroneous idea that ledged that, though Xenophon is at sea as Darius preceded Cyrus, how do they explain to the cn.pture of Babylon, ho knew that his knowledge that Darins reigned after Gobryas took e. principal she.re in it. He Cyrus? We need not appeal merely tu the associates with him a certain Gade.tea, which eleventh chapter of Daniel. We are told seems to be a word me.de from " Guti," the to remark the fact that the names Daniel, 11roviuce from;which Gobrye.s came. Herodo- He.naniah, Azariah, and Misha.al all occur ·tus, though he knows of a Gobrye.s who joined in Ezra and Nehemiah, ae ne.mea of those with Darius in conspiring age.inst Smerdis, who he.d returned from captivity, and we knows nothing of a Gobryas who took a a.re expected to believe that from this source principal pn.rt in the capture of Babylon. these came. If this writer stndicu Ezra so Wo o.re obliged, then, to dismiss Cyaxe.res II. carefully a.a to pick out names to suit bis n.s non-existent. purpose, how did he fail to see that Darius On the foith of n passage in Herodotus came not only after Cyrus, but after his (i. 125) it hus been supposed that Cyrus two immediate successors, Cnm bvscs nnd preserved Astyngcs, n.nd may have set him Smcrdis? 'l'he critics nrc very ·,eo.,ly to a, rice-king- onr Babylon. '!'his, hewcvcr, show UH tl,o sources of D:cnicl's k.nowle,lge; 108 THE BOOK OF DANIEL. [en. vr. 1-28,