THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
S5U
terial. The name Daniel occurs elsewhere (Ezra viii. 2); in Ezekiel it is placed between Noah and Job (Ezek. xiv. 14, xxviii. 3). Comparing Eusebius's Prceparatio evangelica, ix. 41 with Dan. iv. one may conclude that the author of Daniel used here a Babylonian legend. The same may be true for chap, v., since he did not get the names of Belshazzar and Darius from the Bible; the latter personality he undoubtedly found in Darius Hystaspis, but why he saw in this Persian king a Mede is unknown. (F. Buhl.)
VI. Critical Objections Answered: None of the liistoric statements of Daniel can be invalidated. Alleged errors are as follows: (1) No secular historian names Belshazzar, therefore Belshazzar never existed. But in 1854 Belshazzar was found in the monuments. (2) Daniel calls Nebuchadrezzar king before Nabopolassar died. But so does Jer. xxvii. 6; Nebuchadrezzar was admitted to cosovereignty. (3) Daniel terms a gild of wise men
" Chaldeans," a use unknown till four 1. Major centuries after the exile. But Herod- Objections, otus (i. 181, 185) in the same century
with Daniel uses the same term. (4) Belshazzar was not king, nor was he the son or grandson of Nebuchadrezzar. But somebody was left in command at Babylon when Nabonidus led out the army to Sippar. Who but his oldest and favorite son? Exercising royal authority, Belshazzar was king as much as was Nebuchadrezzar in similar circumstances. The queen mother (Dan. v 11) said Nebuchadrezzar was Belshazzar's father (or grandfather). Probabilities sustain her truthfulness, thus: Eril-Merodach, Nebuchadrezzar's son, succeeded his father, and was succeeded by Neriglissar because he had married a daughter of the great king, the legitimate successor being Neriglissar's son . The son of Neriglissar dying, how came Nabonidus to occupy the throne in turbulent Babylon, unchallenged for seventeen years? If he had married another daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, then his son Belshazzar was grandson of Nebuchadrezzar, and legitimate heir, and the prophecy of Jer. xxvii. 6-7, " Nebuchadrezzar, his son, and son's son," was fulfilled. (5) Dan. i. 1, " third year," is inconsistent with Jer. xxxvi. 9, xlvi. 2, " fourth or fifth year." This, if true, would eliminate the conjectured Maccabean fabricator, for a fabricator with Jeremiah before him (Dan. ix. 2) would not contradict Jeremiah in the first sentence of his romance. But there is no inconsistency. (6) The annalistic tablet of Cyrus intimates that Babylon was taken easily. This agrees with Daniel (v. 30, 31 ) , but there must have been some struggle, for the taljlet says " the king's son died," and Daniel says " that night Belshazzar was slain." The tablet says further that the city yielded to Gobryas — CjTus not appearing for several weeks — and that Goljryas was made governor and appointed other go^■erno^.s; all of which corresponds to Darius the Mede who " received " the kingdom and appointed satraps, etc. (Dan. v. 30, vi. 1). Cyrus had other conquests to make, and left a subordinate king in Ikibylon, wisely appointing a Mode. Abydenus and .iEschylus say that the first ruler of the city wnp, a Mede, and the scholiast of Aristophanes men-
tions a Darius who reigned before Darius Hystaspis. (7) There are three Greek words in Dan. iii. 5. They are the names of musical instrxmients, and these carry their native names with them. (8) Part of the Book of Daniel is in Aramaic, ii. 4vii. But so is Ezra iv. 8-vi. 18. Ezra too was brought up in Babylon. His Aramaic is " all but identical " (Driver) with Daniel's. Aramaic was the vernacular. Each writer drops into it upon slight suggestion, Ezra upon quoting an Aramaic letter; Daniel upon quoting the frightened Chaldeans. The tablets from Nippur in course of decipherment by Professor Clay are in point; the business contracts are written in Babylonian cuneiform, the labels or dockets on the back are in Aramaic, for quick reference by the clerks in the office.
As to the other " historic inaccuracies," as Daniel's being too young for Ezekiel to have known — he was forty, possibly fifty years old when Ezekiel wrote of him; as to his not knowing how to spell
the name Nebuchadrezzar — he spells 2. Minor it as Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra do Objections, and as Jeremiah does half the time.
On the other hand, there was a Daniel, eminent, wise, and godly enough to be linked with Noah and Job (Ezek. xiv. 14, 20). There is no Daniel but the man whose book is under consideration and whom Jesus called a prophet (Matt. xxiv. 15). The incident narrated by Josephus {Ant., XI. viii. 5), that Alexander saw Daniel's mention of himself, is confirmed by the fact that, while Alexander destroyed every city in Syria friendly to Persia, he spared and greatly favored Jerusalem. He consulted the shrines at Gordium and Amon. Why not Jerusalem? The only shadow of a shade upon the historicity of Daniel is the omission of his name in Ecclesiasticus (200 B.C.). But other names are omitted and Daniel, the person, certainly existed prior to or contemporaneously with Ezekiel. The Book Ecclesiasticus is itself a witness to the antiquity of the Book of Daniel; though it presented the dominant type of Jewish thought at the time the canon was forming, it was not admitted to the canon because it was not ancient enough. Daniel was admitted. Daniel is not listed in the division called the " Prophets " (see Canon, I., 1, § 4). The reason probably was to satisfy the scruples of those rabbis who objected to prophecy delivered outside the Holy Land. Ezekiel was admitted, says Rabbi Jarchi, because his first prophecy (Ezek. xvii.) was delivered in Jerusalem. The Aramaic version interpolates " in the land of Israel " in pursuance of this scruple (Ezek. i. 3). There is no mention of Nebuchadrezzar's madness (Dan. iv.) in secular history. Nebuchadrezzar recovered, which accounts for the prudent silence of court historiographers; but Nebuchadrezzar himself in his Standard Inscription, after the usual royal boasts, records: "Four years the seat of my kingdom in the city which did not rejoice my heart. In all my dominions I did not build a high place of power; treasures I did not lay up. In Babylon buildings for myself and my kingdom I did not lay out. In the worship of Merodach, my lord, I did not sing praises. I did not furnish his altars, nor clear canals." To those