elsewhere Nabonnedus, Nabonnadus, Nabannidochus, Naboandelus, Labynetus. These names are more corrupt and agree less with other properly Chaldaic words than Belshazzar. Megasthenes in EUSEBIUS, ubi sup. does not deny that Nabannidochus was of the family of Nebuchadnezzar, but only says that he was not like his predecessor Labassoarascus in cruelty. The context shows that this is the meaning of προσηκοντα οι εδεν.- -Although in v. 17. ss. Daniel addresses Belshazzar almost as a prophet would have addressed a Jewish king under the theocracy, it should be considered that Daniel was at that time a venerable old man of almost eighty-five years, much celebrated for piety, wisdom, and divine revelations, and that he was speaking a short time before the city was taken, to a king terrified by the writing which had suddenly appeared on the wall.—But why such a miracle as this in the last moments of the Chaldean monarchy ? In order that an occasion might be afforded Daniel of again demonstrating his divine mission, and that thus he might acquire the favour of the victorious Medes and Persians, and particularly of Cyrus, from whom he was to obtain the release of the Hebrews.

§ 153. Arguments against the second part of Daniel.

To the prophecies of Daniel which are contained in the last six chapters, it is objected that the events predicted are remote, and that as they are announced with so much accuracy and do not extend beyond the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, they appear to be prophecies written in the time of that king respecting events which had already taken place. But the accuracy of these prophecies is scarcely greater than of certain others which predict remote events, as Jer 1. li. Ezek. xxvii. xxviii. Zech. ix. 1-8. ix. 11-x. 12; and if Daniel's representations of future events are somewhat more accurate, this is to be accounted for from his character as a man accustomed to political affairs who would therefore take a more particular view of what was disclosed to him. The Jews of the age of Epiphanes were well acquainted with the form of prophecies, and if the book of Daniel had first made its appearance in that age and widely differing from that form, they would have rejected it, or at least they would not have unanimously received it every where without any opposition as

a genuine production. But indeed if the perspicuity were as great as is pretended, interpretations so exceedingly diverse would never have arisen. That the predictions do not extend beyond the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, is not correct, comp. vii. 13. ss. ix. 25. ss.; and if predictions of this latter kind are attended with greater obscurity than the rest it is from a reason already often mentioned, namely, that the more remote events may be, the more obscurely they are predicted *If the a gels introduced in the book of Daniel are just such as those described by the Rabbins, these writers, who draw from the Bible, which however they do not always correctly explain, may be considered as having taken their representations from Daniel. The same remark affords a reply to the objection, that the book is in this respect like the modern apocryphal book of Ezra. But these spirits in Daniel, borrowed from the doctrine of the Magians, are symbols similar to those which occur in writings of a more ancient period as the angel of the pestilence, II Sam. xxiv. 16. I Chron. xxi. 14-18., the spirit of lying, I Kings xxii. 19-22, and the Seraphim, Isa. vi. 1-10.—If the Messiah of Daniel is similar to the Messiah of the Rabbins; these have derived their ideas from the prophet.—If c. xii. 2, 3, 13. speaks of the general resurrection of the dead, both virtuous and vicious, it is well known that this was a doctrine held by the Magians. The figure in Ezek. xxxvi. is borrowed from it, and the truth of the doctrine may have been confirmed to the Jews in consequence of its being thus announced by Daniel, from whom it was obtained by the Rabbins. If, in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, a book just published had exhibited this as a new doctrine, it would on this account alone have been rejected. Lastly, the book is not silent, as has been said respecting the return from captivity; for this subject is introduced in c. ix, and in the twenty-fourth verse the consecration of a new temple is promised. A more modern writer would have said more on this subject.

Bertholdt contends that the book contains things which are more modern than the age of Daniel. But any one who will examine them with impartiality, will find that this is not the case. The expression, son of God, in iii. 25 is used of angels in Job xxxviii. 7. i. 6. ii. 1., and it is known that the sons of kings have been styled

* [See § 80, 81. of this part. Tr.]

sons of God, or of the gods; the practice of praying three times a day may be traced in Ps. lv. 18. (17.); that of turning the face towards Jerusalem while worshipping, in I Kings viii. 38, 44, 48. Comp. Dan. vi. 11. (10)—It is true that Shushan was first made the royal residence under the Persian monarchs, but Herodotus and Strabo both declare that it was a very ancient city, belonging originally to the kingdom of the Chaldeans, so that Daniel might have gone there for some cause, viii 2.- But to examine all the objections of this kind which have been offered is inconsistent with the limits of this work.

§ 154. Origin and Condition of the Book of Daniel.

The book of Daniel is a collection of writings which had been at first composed and published separately. The first six chapters contain besides the exordium, four documents c. v. being closely connected with c. vi. The last six contain also four pieces, for c. x. xi. and xii. present only one vision -The assertion of the Talmudists in Baba Bathra, c. i, that the men of the great synagogue wrote (an) Ezekiel, the twelve minor prophets, Daniel, and the book of Esther, undoubtedly means no more than that they reduced these writings into order, which is evident from the twelve prophets; nor must it be omitted, that the Talmudists reckon even Daniel himself among the members of this synagogue.The Alexandrine version varies constantly from our Hebrew and Chaldee text. This is the case not only in c. iii-vi. but even as early as i. 20. an addition is found in that version and in ix. 25, 27, several omissions, transpositions, and alterations, are observable yet the disagreement is more frequent in iii-vi., and in iii. iv. it is exceedingly great. Some writers have observed in iii-vi. a difference in the method of translating, which, however, I cannot discover. This discrepancy of the Alexandrine version is thought by some to show, that these different parts were written on separate rolls, whence a twofold recension of some would have arisen, the one purer, contained in the Hebrew Bible, and the other altered and interpolated, used by the Alexandrine translator of iii-vi. whom they suppose to have been a different person from the translator of the other parts of Daniel. But

some of the discrepancies may with more probability be ascribed to the translator, as the omission of the officers in iii. 3.* whose names had been previously introduced in v. 2, of the musical instruments in v. 15, which had already been mentioned twice, v. 5 and 7; also the omission of iv. 3-6 and the transposition of the 8th verse, are undoubtedly to be ascribed to the translator. Other varieties which disturb the order or the sense proceed from negligence in the transcribers of the Alexandrine version, as when in c. v. v. 1, 4, and 5, occur first, then the words written on the wall, and at length the first five verses are repeated. A similar instance occurs in v. 6., when, after the account of the terrified king it is added, that the lords vaunted themselves; and also in the version of iii. 21, which is entirely destitute of meaning. Comp. iv 32, 34. The discrepancies of the 4th chapter from the Chaldee text, and the prolix additions in iii. and iv. cannot be satisfactorily explained by tracing them to transcribers or to some other account of the same subject, because the rest of that part agrees even verbally with the Chaldee text. They seem rather to have come down from the translator, who like the Chaldee paraphrasts, took liberties with the text, and perhaps even added the designation of time in iii. 1. and iv. 1.[a]

[a) Whether there were two recensions of the original text of Daniel, I do not venture to determine, but I must confess that it does not appear to me to be probable, since we have similar additions in the Alexandrine translation of Esther and of Job, which have never existed in Hebrew, but are certainly of Greek original. It seems most probable, that the old Greek Jews introduced such additions into their translation, as afterwards the Hebrew Jews made similar additions in their Targums.]

* [See Daniel, p. 12. ubi sup. § 147, p. 405. Tr.]

CHAPTER V.

OF THE PROPHETS WHO LIVED AFTER THE CAPTIVITY.

§ 155.

Time of Haggai.

Haggai, 'an, Ayyoos, prophesied during the reign of Darius Hystaspes, who mounted the Persian throne in 521, B. C. The Hebrews had already in the year 536, B. C. returned from captivity, and had rebuilt Jerusalem, and had begun to build the temple in the year 535, B. C. but had been prevented from finishing it by the Samaritans, who obtained an edict from the Pseudo-Smerdis, forbidding them to proceed. In the mean time they built splendid houses, and pretended that the time for rebuilding the temple had not arrived supposing the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah to apply to the temple also, from the time of the destruction of which it was then the 68th year. As on the death of the Pseudo-Smerdis, and the consequent termination of his interdict, they still continued to wait for the end of the 70 years, Haggai began to prophesy in the second year of Darius, 520, B. C.

§ 156. Contents of the Book of Haggai.

The book comprises four discourses, of which in all probability we have only an epitome.* 1. The prophet exhorts the Jews to prosecute the building of the temple, which is done, c. i. Comp. Ezra v. i.vi. 15.- −2) The old men who in their youth had seen the temple of Solomon, and were now expressing their grief at the great inferiority of the new building, are comforted by the promise that after a remarkable revolution of affairs, (under Alexander) this temple would

[So EICHHORN, Einleit. § 598.-Tr.]