Neither Jeremiah nor the author of Kings knows anything about a capture of Jerusalem and deportation of Jehoiakim in 606 a.c. In 2 Chron. xxxvi, 6, however, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have deported Jehoiakim and carried away some of the sacred vessels to Babylon, though the year is not indicated. But Jer. xxxvi, 1 seems to preclude such a deportation in the third year of Jehoiakirn. Belshazzar (Bel-shar-uzzur) was not a son of Nebuchad nezzar, but of Nabunaid, and there is no evi dence that he was ever king of Babylon; but he is mentioned together with his father, corn manded an army and may have been killed defending a part of the city after Babylon had been delivered over to Cyrus. History knows nothing of a Darius the Mede. He was for many centuries identified with Cyaxares, son of Astyages, known only through Xenophon's ‘Cyropmdia.) Xenophon nowhere suggests that Cyaxares had the name of Darius, or was made king of Babylon. He speaks of the part taken by Gobryas in the occupation of Babylon, and this has been verified by the inscriptions (cp. Scheil, Revue d'assyriologie, p. 165, 1914). But he is not said to have been made king of Baby lon, or to have taken the name Darius, and he is distinctly declared to be a native Baby lonian. Winckler, 'Altorientalische Forschun genl (II, 214ff, 1899), assumed that Cam byses was Darius the Mede, and that he was made king of Babylon by his father in 538 P.c., and the suggestion has been carried out more fully by Boutflower (Journal of Theological Studies, 1915). But it is not yet certain whether i it was 538 or 530 that Cambyses was king of Babylon. Darius the Mede, son of Xerxes, seems to be a reflection of Darius Hystaspis, father of Xerxes, as was seen by Marianus Scotus in the 13th century. It has even been plausibly suggested by Lagrange (Revue bib lique, 1896) that his name may not have oc curred at all in the original text. In xi, 1, the Greek has Cyrus; ix, 1, looks like a late editorial superscription; and in v, 30, the Greek reads, "the kingdom was taken away from the Chal damns and given to the Medes and the Per sians.* It is not distinctly stated in xi, 2, that there would be only four Persian kings; from the biblical books the author is likely to have known of others, and it is not probable that vii, 6, refers to Persia. Of the four kingdoms there have been six leading interpretations. They have been held to be: I, Those of (1) Babylonia, (2) Media and Persia, (3) Alex ander and (4) the Seleucids (Porphyry and many modern scholars) ; II, those of (1) Babylonia, (2) Media, (3) Persia and (4) Alexander and his successors (Ephraim, the annotator of the Syriac text in the Paris polyglot, and many modern scholars) • III, those of (1) Babylonia, (2) Media and Persia, (3) Alexander and his successors and (4) Rome (Hippolytus, Jerome, Theodoret and many modern scholars) IV, those of (1) Babylonia, (2) Media and Persia, (3) Alexander and his successors, an• (4) Rome and Islam (Jephet the Karaite, Ibn Ezra, Saadia the Italian, Rashi and others) ; V, those of (1) Babylonia, (2) Media and Persia, (3) Alexander and his successors, and (4) Rome and the Papacy (Paulicians, Albigenses, Fratri celli, Luther and others); and VI, those of (1) Babylonians, (2) Medians and Persians, (3) Alexander and his successors, and (4) Rome and 10 kingdoms growing up within the Roman Empire (Mede, Rule, Auberlen and others). The first is most probable, but the second also recognizes Antiochus IV as the little horn. Against the third must be urged the impossibility of fitting the description to the career of Ves pasian, and the difficulty of removing ii from the earlier book and viii from the latter. It was clearly the desire to find references to contem porary events that caused a search for the Mos lem world power, the ecclesiastical empire of Rome, and the 10-kingdomed confederacy of European states. The one °like a son of man') was long understood as the Messiah. As in the explanation the place of the man-like figure is taken by the saints of the Most High, many interpreters have understood Israel to be meant. It is probable that the figure represents Michael, who stands for the Jewish people, as Schmidt has suggested, with the approval of Bertholet, Marti, Porter and Kent. In ix the 70 years are explained as 70 weeks of years. The oracle is evidently Jer. xxx, 18; the "anointed prince* in vs. 25, as was seen by Hippolytus, is Joshua ben Jozadak ; the cessation of the legitimate high priesthood in 171 s.c. seems to be intended in vs. 26; and the desecration of the temple by Antiochus IV in 168 by the erec tion of an altar and image of Baal Shamen (Zeus Olympius) is clearly meant in vs. 27. In Talmudic times Agrippa II was looked upon as the "anointed prince.' Christians naturally saw a reference to the death of Christ. Many students, counting backward from the death of Jesus, as sumed that the word went forth in 458 or 445 a.c., and that the last week extended from the Crucifixion to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Already Julius Hilarianus (397) objected to starting the 490-year period 100 years after Daniel and insisted upon the last week being seven years ending 164 B.C. Most modern
scholars divide the weeks of years into six from 586 to 537, 62 from 537 to 171, and 1 from 171 to 164. The second period should be 434 years, and is, therefore, 66 years too short. Lacking a fixed chronology before the Seleucid Era, both Demetrius and Josephus made this period several decades too long, as Scharer has pointed out des judischen Volkes,) IV, (1909). Cornill has suggested that the author may have counted 12 generations of high priests, giving each an average of 40 years.
It is assumed by many scholars that the author of the stories derived his material partly from biblical sources, partly from legends of foreign origin. The figure of Daniel, extant in post-exilic tradition, seems to have been en riched by reminiscences of Joseph, who also was carried away to a strange land, falsely ac cused, distinguished as an interpreter of dreams and exalted to be a ruler of the country; of Moses, who was educated at a foreign court, excelled the native magicians and uttered prophecies of doom against a powerful king; of Jeremiah, who was rescued from certain death in a den; of Nehemiah, who held a high position at the Persian court, and possibly of Mordecai, who was exalted by Xerxes. The tale of Achikar, supposed to have been a vizier of several Assyrian kings, was read by the Jews of Elephantine in the 5th century, and may have been known in Palestine. Stories of huge idols, of religious festivals, of Belshazzar's death at the time of a feast, of the devices of astrologers, of punishment by fire, and of lions kept for the hunt in cages or enclosures, may have become a part of Palestinian folk-lore. The conception of successive ages, represented by different metals, as in Hesiod, the use as symbols of various animals and monsters so frequently found among the sculptures and paintings of the pagan world, the adaptation of myths like that of Marduk and Tiamat and other con flicts of heavenly beings, and even speculation on significant numbers, may have been due to foreign contact.
The stories were eminently suited to inspire endurance and hope in the midst of a terrible persecution, while the visions created a keen expectation of the immediate end of the foreign and the founding of an imperishable ewish kingdom. In every later crisis the book as tended to foster the same eschatological mood. The succession of four empires to be followed by the kingdom of heaven became a deeply rooted idea. It dominated the conception of history until the 16th century when the division into ancient, mediaeval and modern history be gan to be advocated. The faith that surveyed the passing of empires and looked with intense longing for the kingdom of heaven on earth gave to this book a power which it still possesses to kindle fresh hopes for the overthrowing of oppressive world-powers and the establish ment of a nobler order of things.
Bibliography,. Commentaries by Hippol ytus, Ephraim, Jerome, Theodoret, Albertus Magnus, Thomas Anglia (c. 1310, wrongly ascribed to Thomas Aquinas), Nicolaus Ly ranus ; Abu Ali Japhet, Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Saadia the Italian (c. 1190, wrongly ascribed to Saadia Gaon) ; Melanchthon, CEcolampadius, Calvin; Pererius, Junius, Polanus, Piscator, Maldonatus, Sanctius, Alcazar, Grotius, Calmet, Mede, Wintle; Bertholdt, Rosenmiiller, Havernick, Hitzig, Pusey, Ewald, Keil, Auberlen, Reuss, Vickler, Trochon, Knabenbauer, Meinhold, Bevan, Behrmann, Stave, Thompson, Farrar, Prince, Driver, Marti, Porter, Buhl and Charles. Introductions by Eichhorn, Jahn, De Wette, Bleek, Glaire, Herbst, Kuenen, Vatke, Riehm, Strack, Wildeboer, Cornely, Kaulen, Cornill, Baudissin, Sellin, Gautier, • Gigot, Bennett, Moore, McFadyen, Creelman, Hengstenberg, E. W.1 'Die Authentic des Daniel) (1831) ; Gratz, H., in Frankel's Monatschrift des Judenthums (1871) ' • Lenormant, F., 'La divination et la science des presages chez les Chaldiens' (1875) Hebberlynck, A., 'De auctoritate libri Danielis> (1887) ; Cornill, C. H., in Theologische Studien and Skizzen aus Ostpreussen (1889) ; Bludau, A., 'Die alexandrinische Uebersetzung des Buches Daniel) (1892) ; Trieber, A., in 'Her mes) (1892) ; Gall, A., 'Die Einheitlichkeit des Buches Daniel' (1895) ; Barton G. A., in Journal of Biblical Literature (1898) ; Schmidt, N., (ib. 1900) ; Riessler, P., Was Buch Daniel) (1904) ; Jahn, G., Was Buch Daniel nach der LXX> (1904) ; Wright, C. H. H., 'Daniel and His Critics' (1906) ; id., 'Daniel and His Prophecies) (1906) ; Bertholet, A., 'Daniel and die griechische Gefahr> (1907) ' - Hertlein, Ed., 'Der Daniel der Romerzeit) (1908) ; id., 'Die Menschensohnf rage' (1911) ; Torrey, C. C., in Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences (1909) ; Kent, C. F., 'The Old Testament Student) (1910) ; Wilson, R. D., 'Studies in Daniel) (1917) ; Buttenwieser, M., in Journal of Biblical Literature (1917).