Daniel 1 - Pulpit Commentary vs Calvin John

Daniel 1

Daniel 1:1

Verse 1. - In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim King of Judah. After the defeat and death of Josiah, the people of the land put on the throne Jehoahaz, or Shallum (Jeremiah 22:11),

Daniel 1:2

Verse 2. - And the Lord gave Jehoiakim King of Judah into his hand, with part of the vessels of the house of God: which he carried into the land of Shinar to the house of his god; and he brought the vessels into the treasure-house of his god. The Greek versions of this verse agree with each other and with the Msssoretic text, save that the Septuagint has Κυρίου instead of Θεοῦ in the end of the first clause, and omits οἴκου. The Syriac Version omits the statement that it was "part" of the vessels of the house of God that was taken. It is to be observed that our translators have not printed the word "Lord" in capitals, but in ordinary type, to indicate that the word in the original is not the sacred covenant name usually written in English "Jehovah," but Adonai. That the Lord gave Jehoiakim into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar does not prove that Jerusalem was captured by him. Far from it, the natural deduction is rather that he did not capture the city, although he captured the king. Thus in 2 Kings 17:4 we are told that Shalmaneser shut up Hoshea "and bound him in prison;" in the following verse we are informed that the King of Assyria "besieged Samaria three years." That is to say, after Shalmaneser had captured Hoshea the king, he had still to besiege the city. A similar event occurred earlier in the history of Judah and Israel. When Joash of Israel defeated Amaziah and took him prisoner, he proceeded then to Jerusalem. The city opened its gates to the conqueror, and he carried off all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king's house, and all the vessels of the house of the Lord, and a large number of hostages, and then returned north. Something like this seems to have occurred now. The king was taken by the Babylonians, and the city submitted and ransomed the king by handing over a portion of the vessels of the house of the Lord. The city, however, was not taken by assault. Miqtzath, "part of," occurs also in Nehemiah 7:70 in this sense: we have it three times later in this chapter- vers. 5, 15, and 18; but in these cases it means "end." A word consonantally the same occurs in the sense before us in Judges 18:2, translated "coasts." Gesenius would write the word miqq tzath, and regard mi as representing the partitive preposition min. He would therefore translate, "He took some from the numbtr of the vessels." Kranichfeld objects to Hitzig's assertion that קאת means "a part," and is followed by Keil and Zockler in regarding it, as a short form of the phrase, "from end to end," equivalent to the whole, thus making miqtzath mean "a portion from the whole." The omission from the Syriac of the words which indicate that the vessels taken were only a portion of those in the house of the Lord, shows how natural it was to imagine that the deportation was total, and therefore we may lay the more emphasis on its presence as proving that the temple was not plundered, but these vessels were the ransom paid for the freedom of the king. Several times had the treasures of the house of God been taken away. In the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:26) Shishak, acting probably as the ally of Jeroboam, took away all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and of the king's house, "he even took away all." It may be doubted whether Jerusalem was captured (2 Chronicles 12:7); certainly the name of Jerusalem has not been identified in the list of captured towns on the wall of the temple at Karnak. We have referred to the case of Joash and Amaziah. The succession of the phrases," Jehoiakim King of Judah," and "part of the vessels of the house of God," is remarked by Ewald as being abrupt, and he would insert," together with the noblest of the land." There is, however, no trace of any such omission to be found in the versions. It is possible that this chapter may be the work of the early collector and editor, and that he condensed this portion as well as, not unlikely, translated it from Aramaic into Hebrew. Captives certainly were taken as well as booty, as is implied by the rest of the narrative. Which he carried into the land of Shinar to, the house of his god. There is no word in the Hebrew corresponding to" which." The literal rendering is, "And he carried them," etc. It has been the subject of discussion whether we are to maintain that it is asserted here that Jeboiakim, along with the vessels and unmentioned captives, were carried to Babylon. Professor Bevan admits that it is doubtful. Were we dependent merely on grammar, certainly the probability, though not the certainty, would be that the plural suffix was intended to cover Jehoi-skim, but the conclusion forced on us by logic is different. He "carried them (יְבִיאֵם) to the house of his god." This seems to imply that only the vessels are spoken cf. So strongly is this felt by Hitzig ('Das Buch Daniel,' 5) that he would regard the phrase, "the house of his god," as in apposition to "the land of Shinar,' and refers to two passages in Hosea (Hosea 8:1; Hosea 9:15) in which "house" is, he alleges, used for "land." Irrespective of the fact that these two instances occur in highly wrought poetical passages, and that to argue from the sense of a word in poetry to its sense in plain prose is unsafe, there is no great plausibility in his interpretation of these passages. He regards the last clause as contrasted with the earlier: while the captives were brought "into the land of Shinar," the vessels were brought into "the treasure-house of his god" - an argument in which there is plausibility were there not the extreme awkwardness of using בית, "house," first in the extended sense of "country," and then in the restricted sense of "temple." The last clause is rather to be looked upon as rhetorical climax. The land of Shinar is used for Babylonia four times in the Book of Genesis, twice in the portion set apart as Jehovist by Canon Driver; the remaining instances are in ch. 14, both as the kingdom of Amraphel, which Canon Driver relegates to a special source. In the first instance (Genesis 10:10) it is the laud in which Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh were. In the next instance (ch. 11.) it is the place in which the Tower of Babel is built. The name is applied to Babylonia in Isaiah 11. and Zechariah 5:11. One of the titles which the kings of Babylon assumed regularly was "King of Sumir and Accad." From the connection of Shinar and Accad in Genesis 10:20 we may deduce that "Shinar" is the Hebrew equivalent for "Sumir." It is not further removed from its original than is "Florence" from "Firenze," or "Leghorn" from "Livorno," or, to take a French instance, "Londres" from "London." The ingenious derivation of "Shiner" from שני, "two," and אר, "a river," which, however, implies the identification of ע and א, may have occasioned the modification, the more so as it was descriptive of Babylonia; hence the name "Aram-Naharaim," and its translation "Mesopotamia," applied to the tract between the Euphrates and the Tigris, north of Babylonia. In the Greek versions it becomes Σεναάρ. It is omitted by Paulus Tellensis. The treasure-house of his god. The word rendered "god" here is the plural form, which is usually restricted to the true God, otherwise it is usually translated as "gods" To quote a few from many instances, Jephtha uses the word in the plural form of Chemosh (Judges 11:24), Elijah applies it to Baal (1 Kings 18:27), it is used of Nisroch (2 Kings 19:37) In Ezra 1:7 we have this same word translated plural in regard to the place in which Nebuchadnezzar had deposited the vessels of the house of God. In translating the verse before us, the Peshitta renders path-coroh, "his idol" This suits the translation of the LXX. εἰδωλείῳ. Paulus Tellensis renders it in the plural, "idols." The god in whose treasure-house the vessels of the house of God in Jerusalem were placed would necessarily be Merodach, whom Nebuchadnezzar worshipped, almost to the exclusion of any other. The treasure-house of his god. Temples had not many precious gifts bestowed upon them by their worshippers which were not taken by needy monarchs; nevertheless, the treasures of kingdoms were often deposited in a temple, to be under the protection of its god. The temple of Bel-Merodach in Babylon was a structure of great magnificence. Herodotus (1:181) gives a description, which is in the main confirmed by Strabe (16:5): "In the midst of the sacred area is a strong tower built a stadium in length and breadth; upon this tower is another raised, and another upon it, till there are eight towers. There is a winding ascent made about all the towers. In the middle of the ascent there is a resting-place, where are seats on which those ascending may sit and rest. In the last tower is a spacious shrine, and in it a huge couch beautifully bespread, and by its side is placed a table of gold. No statue has been set up here, nor does any mortal pass the night here." There are still remains of a structure which suits to some extent the description here given, but investigators are divided whether to regard Birs Nimroud or Babil as most properly representing this famous temple of Bel-Merodach. In the "Standard Inscription" Nebuchadnezzar appears to refer to this temple, which he calls E-temen-ana-ki," the house of heaven and earth." He says, among other matters concerning it, that he "stored up inside it silver and gold and precious stones, and placed there the treasure-house of his kingdom." This amply explains why the vessels of the house of God were taken to the temple of Bel-Merodach. The fact is mentioned that the vessels of the house of God were carried to Babylon, and, as a climax, "and he placed them in the treasure-house of his god." We know what befell the statue of Dagon when the ark of God was placed in its presence, and the Jew, remembering this, relates awestruck the fact that these sacred vessels were placed in the temple of Bel. If no such disaster befell Bel-Merodach as befell Dagon, yet still the handwriting on the wall which appeared when these vessels were used to add to the splendour of the royal banquet, and which told the doom of the Chaldean monarchy, may be looked upon as the sequel to this act of what would necessarily appear to a Jew supreme sacrilege.

Daniel 1:3

Verses 3, 4. - And the king spoke unto Ash-penaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. The version of the LXX. here becomes important: "And the king spoke to Abiesdri, his own chief eunuch (τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ἀρχιευνούχῳ), to lead to him from the sons of the nobles of Israel, and from the seed royal, and from the choice ones, four young men, without blemish, of goodly appearance, and understanding in all wisdom, and educated, and prudent, and wise, and strong, so that they may be in the house of the king, and may be taught the letters and tongue of the Chaldees." The version of Theodotion is in closer accordance with the Massoretic text, only it inserts "captivity" where the LXX. had "nobles," and reads, "from the sons of the captivity of Israel." In this version the name of the chief of the eunuchs is the same as the Massoretic; the word rendered "princes" in the Authorized Version is transliterated φορθομμίν. The rendering, "the seed of the kingdom," is more literal than that of the Authorized, "the king's seed" The Peshitta is in close agreement with the Massoretic text, save that, instead of "Ashpenaz," the name of the chief of the eunuchs is written "Aspaz," and the word translated "princes" (parte-mira) is transliterated Parthouia, which means literally "Parthians." Symmachus reads Παρθῶν. The king spake unto Ashpenaz. There is assumed here that there were a large number of Israelitish hostages who would be reckoned captives whenever the conquered state gave cause of suspicion to the regnant power in whose hands the hostages were, and they were possibly eunuchized. It is possible that Nebuchadnezzar wished to use these hostages about the court, in order that, having tasted the pleasure and dignities of the magnificent court of Babylon, their influence would be exercised on their relatives to maintain them in fidelity. The phrase, "spake unto," has. in later Hebrew, the force of "command," especially when followed by an infinitive, as Esther 1:17. As translated in the Authorized Version. the impression conveyed is that of consultation. The name "Ash-penaz" has caused much discussion. As it stands, it is not Assyrian or Babylonian. The form it has suggests a Persian etymology, and on this fact, along with other similar alleged facts, an argument against the authenticity of Daniel has been based. One derivation would make it ashpa, "a horse;" nasa, "a nose," "horse nose" - by no means an impossible personal name for a Persian or Median. In one or two cuneiform inscriptions of the Persian period the name occurs. Nothing can be built on this, as in the Septuagint the name is given as Ἀβιεσδρὶ: in the Peshitta it becomes "Ash-paz," as we have mentioned above. It would be easily possible to derive" Ashpaz" from "Ashpenaz," or vice versa; but there seems no relation between Abiesdri and either. By some, as Hitzig, the name has been identified with "Ashkenaz" (Genesis 10:3), and that again derived from אֶשֶׁד, "the cord of the testicle," and has, a Sanskrit root, "to destroy," and therefore the name would simply be "eunuch." Over and above the general improbability that is always present in regard to etymologies which imply the word in question to be a hybrid word, there is the improbability that one eunuch would receive a name applicable to the whole class of which he was a member. The name, as it appears in the Septuagint, is, as we have said, totally unconnected with that in the Massoretic text, but both may have sprung from some common source. Thus the French word eveque has not a single letter in common with "bishop," yet both words are derived from ἐπίσκοπος. The changes that a name might undergo in passing from any language, even a cognate one, into Hebrew wine very great; thus Assur-bani-pal became "Asnapper." Lenormant has endeavoured to recover the name in the present case. The process he has followed is the somewhat mechanical one of combining the two names, as if we were to strive to reach Asshur-bani-pal item a combination of "Asnapper" and "Sar-danapalus." He arrives at the name Ash-ben-azur, which is a possible Babylonian name. Professor Fuller has suggested Aba-(i)-istar, "the astronomer of the goddess Ishtar." The main objection to this is that it is drawn solely from the Septuagint Version. If we look at the tendency exhibited by the Hebrew equivalents of Babylonian names, we find that shortening was one that was nearly invariably present, as Asshur-akhi-iddin na became Esarhaddon, and Sin-akhi-irba became Sanherib. The only exception to this shortening process which occurs to us is Brodach for Marduk, and even it is scarcely an exception. Next there is a tendency, which Hebrew shares with other languages, of suiting a foreign word to the genius of the language. Hence we find "Ashpenaz" has such a close resemblance to "Ashkenaz" of Genesis 10:3, and that "Abiesdri" is identical with the form "Abiezer" - the name of the father of Gideon - assumes in the Septuagint. Judging from "Asnapper," the name might even begin with Asshur, only that, as Asshur was the national god of the Ninevites, names which contained the name of that divinity are rare in Babylon. The first element in the word might not impossibly be ablu, "son." The final element seems certainly to have been ezer or utzur. As to the office he tided in the court of Nebuchadnezzar, "the master of eunuchs," the name of the office in the text is Rab-Sarisim, which occurs in a slightly different form in 2 Kings 18:17, along with Rab-Shakeh, as if it were a proper name. From the fact that persons thus mutilated were employed in Eastern courts, the word became equivalent to "officer;" hence we find Petiphar is called saris, or "eunuch;" yet he had a wife. It therefore may be doubted whether Daniel and his companions are to be understood as placed in that condition. The title here given - Rab-Sarisim - becomes Sar-Sarisim in vers. 7 and 10, Sat being the Hebrew equivalent of the more Babylonian Rab. It is also Aramaic. That he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes. It may be doubted at first sight whether these may not be separate classes - a view that seems to have been taken by most of the old translators, or whether the first class, "the children of Israel," does not include the two classes that follow. The rendering part'mim, as "Parthians," adopted by Symmachus and the Peshitta, would make a contrast between "the children of Israel" and "the Parthians." That, however, is utterly unlikely. Were that translation the true one, a strong argument could be advanced for the late origin of Daniel. The fact that the text before Symmachus and the Peshitta translator admitted of that translation shows how far the tendency to modify the text into suitability with the knowledge of the scribe had gone, and therefore how little weight ought to be given to lateness of individual words. According to the LXX. and Theodotion, there is a word awanting in the first clause; the Septuagint translator would supply "nobles" (μεγιστάνων) "from the nobles of Israel." Theodotion renders, "from the sons of the Captivity of Israel." If the sentence ran בני שרי ישראל, one might understand how it could be read בני שבי ישראל; the natural phrase for this is בני גלותי ישראל, but that would not explain the LXX. rendering. The name "Israel" is the covenant name of the whole nation, equally applicable to the southern and to the northern kingdoms. All the more so that the captivity of Judah contained members of three other tribes besides that of Judah, namely, those of Benjamin and Simeon an l Levi. Further, Josiah seems to have extended the bounds of the Davidic kingdom to embrace the remnant of the ten tribes (2 Chronicles 34:6, 9), therefore his sons would claim the same boundaries, and therefore hostages might be taken by Nebuchadnezzar from them to Babylon. And of the king's seed and of the princes. The two "ands" might be rendered "both... and," or "alike ... and." The king's seed means, literally, "the seed of the kingdom," as it is translated by Theodotion. The phrase, "children of the kingdom," is applied by our Lord (Matthew 8:12) to all the Jews, and in Matthew 13:38 to the members of the true Israel - perhaps with a latent reference to the children of the true King thus in captivity to the beggarly elements of this world, compelled to stand as servants in the court of Mammon, of which Nebuchadnezzar may well be the type. The word partemim is one which has caused difficulty; it only occurs here, and twice in Esther (Esther 1:3; Esther 6:9). In these passages it is rendered by the Peshitta as here, Parthouia, "Parthians." It would seem that the Septuagint translator had before him, not partemin, but bahureem, connecting it with yeladeem," children" (youths), the opening word of the succeeding vers,., In Esther the word part°mim is applied to a special class of nobles among the Persians, and certainly was not applied to the princes of Judah. Theodotion does not understand what it means, and so transliterates it φορθομμίν. Symmachus and the Peshitta make it "Parthians;" the Targum on Esther makes the same blunder. The LXX. Version of Esther renders it ἔνδοξοι, as if it were connected with פְאֵר and תום. It certainly has Zend (frathema) and Pehlevi (pardun) congeners, so it may have come over from Aryan sources into the Babylonian. Equally certainly it has disappeared from Aramaic Eastern and Western. If partemim is to be held as part of the original text, it must belong to a period before the Greek domination, as the meaning of the word had disappeared by that time. It might, on the other hand, have been a word in the Babylonian court, or, again, a copyist might have inserted it as a more known word than that originally in the text. This latter, we think, is the probable solution. If the division of the verses had in the Massoretic become deranged, then bahureem would be unintelligible, standing, as it would, at the end of the verse. In Egypt this derangement did not take place, and hence bahureem was retained. Children in whom was no blemish. There is no limit to the age implied in yeled, the word the plural of which is translated "children;" thus to young counsellors who had been brought up with Rehoboam are called yeladeem. As they had been brought up with Rehoboam, they were of the same age with him, yet he was forty-one years old when he ascended the throne. Joseph is called yeled when he was at least seventeen, and Ishmael when he was probably sixteen. Benjamin is called yeled when he was nearly, if not quite, thirty years old; it is said of him immediately before he went down to Egypt, and then he was the father of ten sons. It is used also of new-born infants (Exodus 1:17). When we look at the various qualifications they were to possess - skilful in all wisdom, cunning in knowledge, understanding science - sixteen to eighteen seems the lowest limit we can set. Aben Ezra comes to the conclusion that they were fourteen when they came to Babylon; that, however, even when all allowance is made for the precocity of warm climates, seems too low. On the whole, we may say that Daniel, when he was taken to Babylon, was the same age as Joseph when he went down into Egypt. The Septuagint rendering (νεανίσκους) supports our view. We may note that this command to Ashpenaz was in all likelihood given at Jerusalem. In whom was no blemish, but well-secured. If we may judge of the taste of the Babylonians and Assyrians from the sculptures that have come down to us, they had a high standard of personal appearance - especially fine in appearance are the eunuchs that stand before the king. The word moom, "blemish," is used of the priesthood; presence of a "blemish" excluded from the priesthood (Leviticus 21:17). It is used of Absalom (2 Samuel 14:25); it is equivalent in meaning to μῶμος, which not impossibly was derived from some early form of this word; tovay mar'eh," goodly in appearance," almost identical with our colloquial "good-looking." Skilful in all wisdom. The word "wisdom" has, in general, a somewhat technical meaning in Hebrew, "skill in interpreting riddles and framing proverbs." It became widened in meaning in certain cases, as we see in the description of wisdom in the beginning of Proverbs and Job 28. Yet wider is the sphere given to it in Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Wisdom. The word translated "skilful," maskileem, means, in the first instance, "attending to;" then, the result of this attention, especially when followed by the preposition בְ, "in," The LXX. suits this, "skilled in all wisdom." Theodotion renders, "understanding (συνιέντας) in all wisdom." Professor Bevan would render maskil, "intelligent;" Hitzig adopts Luther's einsichtig in allerlei Wissenschaft, "intelligent in every kind of science," adding, "that is, they would be were they placed in suitable circumstances." He objects to De Wette rendering "experienced," as unsuitable to boys. Cunning in knowledge; literally, knowing knowledge. The distinction is here between the faculty of intelligence and the actual acquirements. It might be rendered "intelligent and well-educated" - a view that is supported by the Septuagint rendering (γραμματικοὺς). Understanding science; "discriminating knowledge," as it is rendered in Theodotion. The Septuagint translator had another text before him; instead of reading mebine madda, he had before him mebinim yod'eem, that is to say, he divided the letters differently, so that he read it along with mebine, and had a yod inserted after it, not as connected, but as separate. The word madda is late, found in Chronicles and Ecclesiastes, and as Aramaic well known; the change in the Septuagint must have been due to a different reading. The fact that madda is late, and was not in the Septuagint text, throws a suspicion on all the late words in Daniel, as all of them may be due to the same modernizing tendency. The phrase, according to the Septuagint reading, may be rendered, "having good powers of discrimination and acquisition." And such as had the ability in them to stand in the king's palace. The word used for "ability" (koh) usually means "physical strength," as of Samson (Judges 16:6), applied to animals as of the unicorn (wild ox) (Job 39:11). Here, however, it refers rather to mental capacity. The idea is that those should be chosen who showed signs of future ability, and therefore afforded a probability that they would be of use in the royal council-chamber. The translator of the Septuagint Version puts a point after ἰσχύοντας, and unites the two following clauses under it. And whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans. The LXX. renders, "to teach them letters and the Chaldean dialect." There were three tongues used in Babylon. There was the Aramaic of ordinary business and diplomacy, called in 2 Kings 18:26 "the Syrian language," and in this book (ch. Daniel 2:4) "Syriack." This was commonly understood, as is shown by the fact that tablets have been found inscribed in Assyrian, but having a docquet behind in Aramaic, telling the contents. Next there was the Assyrian, a Shemitic tongue, cognate with Hebrew, though further removed from it than Aramaic is. This is the language of historic and legal documents, much as Norman French was for long the language of our Acts of Parliament, while the people spoke a tongue not far removed from our modern English. The system of writing was cumbrous in the highest degree, the same sign standing for several different words, and the same word represented by several different signs. As a spoken language — if it ever were a spoken tongue — it was cumbrous also. It was eminently a monumental tongue. Lastly, there was Accadian, the sacred tongue, a language belonging to a different class from the Aramaic and Assyrian. In it the great bulk of the magical formulae and ritual directions of Babylon and Nineveh were written. In the huge library of Asshurbanipal, now in the British Museum, a large portion is composed of translations of those Accadian texts. A number of syllabaries have also been found, which enable scholars to investigate this antique tongue. It seems not impossible that Accadian was meant by the learning (סֶפֶר, sepher, "book") and tongue of the Chaldeans. Their learning involved some astronomy, a great deal of astrology, and not a little magic, incantations, interpretations of dreams and omens. We ourselves, though so far removed both geographically and chronologically from them, feel the effects of their ideas, and enjoy some of the results of their knowledge. We cannot tell whether the Babylonians were the earliest to fix the course of the sun, moon, and planets. At all events, they made observations on the basis of these discoveries; and our week, with its Sunday and Monday, conveys to us still the fact that the Babylonians believed the planets to be seven; the planets strictly so called were associated with deities similar in attributes to those associated with them by the Latin and Teutonic peoples, and the same days were sacred to them in Babylonia and Germany. The Chaldeans, כַשְׂדִים, Kasdeem, of the Bible, do not seem to have been originally inhabitants of Babylon. They formed a cluster of clans to the south-west of Babylon, who invaded Babylonia, and occasionally secured the supremacy in the city. The Assyrians had frequent encounters with them, and carried on against them many prolonged wars. The name in the Assyrian monuments is most frequently Kaldu, from which the Greek Ξαλδαῖοι comes. It is doubtful whether there is a form Kassatu to explain the Hebrew term. In the days of Nabo-polassar, the Chaldeans being supreme in Babylonia, all the inhabitants of that province may have been called Chaldeans. Latterly there was a restricted use of the term, due to the great attention paid in Babylonia to astrology. It is doubtful whether this restricted use of the word occurred in the genuine Daniel, from which our canonical Daniel has sprung. Certainly Daniel, and those hostages selected with him, were to be educated so as to become member's of this sacred college of augurs and astrologers.

Daniel 1:4

Daniel 1:5

Verse 5. - And the king appointed them a daily provision of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank: so nourishing them three years, that at the end thereof they might stand before the king. The only thing to be noticed in the LXX. Version of this verse is the fact that מָנָה is taken to mean "give a portion" - a meaning which seems to be implied in מָנות (Nehemiah 8:10), hence the translation δίδοσθαι... ἐκθέσιν. Further, the translator must have had חַמּ מֵ אֵת as in 2 Kings 25:29. The mysterious פַּת־בַג (path-bag), translated "meat," has caused differences of rendering. The Syriac Peshitta transfers it. Professor Bevan speaks as if it were common in Syriac, but Castell gives no reference beyond Daniel. (Brockei-mann adds, Ephrem Syrus, Isaac Antiochenus, Bar Hebraeus). It is to be observed that the Syriac form of the word has teth, not tan, for the second radical. This is a change that would not likely take place had the Hebrew form been the original, whereas from the fact that path means in Hebrew "a portion," if the Hebrew were derived from the Syriac the change would be intelligible. It is confounded in Daniel 11:26 with פָתוּרָא (pathura), "a table." It seems not improbable that both the LXX. and Theodotion read pathura. The word path-bag does not seem to have been known in Palestine; it does not occur in Chaldee, but does in Syriac. This is intelligible if the chapter before us is condensation from a Syriac original rendered into Hebrew: the word path-bag, being unintelligible, is transferred. The etymology of the word is alleged to be Persian, but on this assumption it is a matter of dispute what that etymology is. One derivation is from pad or fad, "father" or "prince," or pat or fat, idol,' and bag (φαγῶ), food; another is from pati-bhagu, "a portion." The question is complicated by the fact that in Ezekiel 25:7 we have in the K'tbib בַג (bag), meaning "food." In that case path-bag would mean "a portion of food." The reading of the K'thib is not supported by the versions. In Daniel the word simply means "food," such as was supplied to the king's table. We see in the slabs from the palace of Kou-youn-jik the nature of a royal feast. Animal food predominated. We cannot avoid referring to a singular argumentative axiom implied in all the discussions on Daniel. Critics seem to think that when they prove that certain words in Daniel are Persian, they thus prove Daniel was written nearly a couple of centuries after the Persian domination had disappeared. Of the wine which he drank. It is to be noted that there is a restriction. The wine supplied was the wine which the king drank - wine of which an oblation had been offered to idols. In thus bringing up hostages at his own table, Nebuchadnezzar was following a practice which has continued down to our own day. The son of Theodore of Magdala was brought up at the court of our queen. It was the regular practice, as we know, in Imperial Rome. Sennacherib speaks of Belibus, whom he made deputy-king in Babylon, as brought up "as a little dog at his table" (Bellino Cylinder, Sehrader, vol. 2. p. 32, Engl, trans.). So nourishing them three years. This was the period during which the education of a Persian youth was continued. It is probable, as we have seen, that these youths were about sixteen or seventeen. At the end of three years they would still be very young. The grammatical connection of the word legaddelam is somewhat singular. The Septuagint reading probably had the first word in this verse in the infinitive also. This is more grammatical, as it brings the whole under the regimen of the opening clause of ver. 3. The force of the word before us is represented in "bringing up." The verb in its simple form means "to be strong," "to be great," hence in the intensive form before us, "to make great," "to bring up." That at the end thereof they might stand before the king. "Standing before the king" means usually becoming members of the council of the monarch, but in the present instance this does not seem to be the meaning. They were to be presented before the king, and in his presence they were to be examined. They were, then, possibly to be admitted into the college of astrologers and soothsayers, but only in lowly grade. Irrespective of the fact that they would at the latest be twenty or twenty-one when this season of education was over, an(t, even making all allowance for Eastern precocity, this is too young an age for being a member of a royal privy council. But the next chapter relates an event which appears to be the occasion when they stood before the king, for they were not summoned with the wise men to the king's presence to interpret his dream.

Daniel 1:6

Verse 6. - Now among these were of the children of Judah, Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The versions present no difficulty here, only the Septuagint adds a clause to bring this verse into harm(my with ver. 3: the Septuagint rendering is, "And there were of the race of the sons of Israel that came from Judaea, Daniel, Ananias, Mishael, and Azarias." That they were of "the children of Judah" seems to exclude the possibility of these four belonging to any other tribe, all the more that the whole children of Israel are spoken of in the third verse. The version which we find in the Septuagint leaves the matter tree. At the same time, the addition is one that is so naturally suggested by the third verse, that we cannot claim that the reading of the Septuagint is the more probable. The names of the four companions all occur elsewhere, and, as is usual with Hebrew names, all are significant. Daniel means either "Judge of God" or "God my Judge." As Hebrew grammar is now, the latter is the meaning; but there was an older form of the construct state, which appears in proper names like "Gabriel," which makes it probable that "Judge of God" or "Divine Judge" is the meaning intended to be conveyed. This meaning is in,plied in the story of Susanna and the eiders. David's son by Abigail the Carmelitess is called Daniel in 1 Chronicles 3:1. In the case of the son of David, the name would probably indicate the confidence in God which his father felt, rather than any description of the son. In Ezra 8:2 a Daniel is mentioned who seems to be a son of Ithamar. We say "seems to be," because it is evident that there is an omission somewhere of a name; if the omission has taken place before m'bne Phinhas, then Daniel becomes the representative of the sons of David, and Hattush the representative of the sons of Pabath. In Nehemiah 10:6 in the number of the priests who sealed the covenant, is a "Daniel" named, who may be the same as the preceding. In the LXX. version of the apocryphal additions to Daniel, the prophet is identified with the priest. The first verse in the story of Bel and the Dragon is, "There was a certain man, a priest, whose name was Daniel, the son of Abal, the familiar friend of the King of Babylon." There is nothing to make it certain, it we do not take the phrase here in its absolute sense, that Daniel did not belong to the family of Aaron; if we take the phrase in its restricted sense, then the balance of probability is that he was a member of the Davidic family. Hananiah (Hananyah; Greek, Ἀνανίας: the Hebrew form, as in the case of other names with the same termination, is sometimes lengthened to Hananyahu). The name means "The Lord Jehovah is gracious." This name is one of the most common in the Bible. Sometimes it is reversed, and becomes Jehohanan or Johanan, and hence "John." The earliest is the head of the sixteenth of the twenty-four courses into which David divided the Hemanites (2 Chronicles 25:4). In the reign of Uzziah there appears one as a chief captain (2 Chronicles 26:11). In Jeremiah there are three; most prominent, however, is the false prophet who declared that Jeconiah and all his fellow-captives would be brought back in the space of two years (Jeremiah 28:15). One of the ancestors of our Lord, called in Luke (Luke 3:27) Joanna, the son of Rhess, grandson of Zerubbabel, is called in 1 Chronicles 3:19 Hananiah, and reckoned a son of Zerubbabel. In the Book of Nehemiah there are several persons spoken of as bearing this name, not impossibly as many as six. In New Testament times it was still common: Ananias the husband of Sapphira (Acts 5:1); the devout Jew of Damascus, sent to Paul (Acts 9:10); the high priest in the time of Paul (Acts 23:2). Unlike Hananiah, Mishael is one of the rarer names It occurs as the name of one of the sons of Uzziel, the uncle of Moses and Aaron (Exodus 6:22; Leviticus 10:4), and again as one who stood at Ezra's left hand when he read the Law (Nehemiah 8:4). There is some question as to the meaning of the name. Two interpretations have been suggested; the simplest and most direct is, "Who is what God is;" the other is, "Who is like God." The objection to the first is that the contracted relative is employed, which does not elsewhere appear in this book. This, however, is not insuperable, as the contracted form of the relative was in common use in the northern kingdom, and might, therefore, appear in a name; the objection to the second is that a letter is omitted, but such omissions continually occur. Hitzig refers to ימים, from יום, as a case in point. Azariah, "Jehovah is Helper," is, like Hananiah, a very common name throughout Jewish history It is the name by which Uzziah is called in 2 Kings 14:21: 15:1, 7, 8, 17 (called Uzziah in vers. 13, 30, as also in 2 Chronicles 27.) It is the name of four high priests:

(1) one (1 Chronicles 6:10)during the reign of Solomon, the grandson of Zadok;

(2) the high priest during the reign of Jehoshaphat (1 Chronicles 6:11);

(3) high priest during the reign of his namesake Azariah or Uzziah King of Judah (2 Chronicles 26:17-20);

(4) high priest in the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 31:10-14). There is also a prophet of this name (2 Chronicles 15:1) in the days of Asa King of Judah. While this name is so common before the Captivity, it is not so common after it, though there is a captain of the army of Judas Maccabteus called "Azarias." While all the names contain the name of God, either in the covenant form "Jehovah" or the common form "el," yet there is nothing in the names to suggest the history before us. Jewish tradition made them out to be of the royal family; of this there is no certainty. In the time of Jerome it was held they were eunuchs, and thus the prophecy in Isaiah (Isaiah 39:7) was fulfilled. Others have held that Isaiah 56:3, "Let not the eunuch say, I am a dry tree," had a reference to those captives. So far, however, as we know, eunuchs might be attendants of Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs might bear the state umbrella over their heads, might give the cup to them, might arrange their couch for them, or announce their approach to the harem, but were not their councillors or warriors. That was left for the days of the Byzantine Empire, when the eunuch Narses retained Italy for the empire.

Daniel 1:7

Verse 7. - Unto whom the prince of the eunuchs gave names; for he gave unto Daniel the name of Belteshazzar; and to Hananiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego. The only thing to be noted in regard to the versions is that, with the exception of the Peshitta, all of them identify the name of Daniel with that of the last King of Babylon. Both are called Baltasar or Baltassar in the Vulgate, the LXX., and Theodotion. The difference made in the Peshitta is not the same as that in the Hebrew; the prophet is called Beletshazzar, and the king Belit-shazzar. This would indicate something wrong. The Greek versions render Abed-nego Ἀβδεναγώ, which also the Vulgate has. This habit of changing the names of those who entered their service prevailed among Eastern potentates. Joseph became Zaph-nath-paaneah (Genesis 41:45). Not only did those about the court receive new names, but, not infrequently, subject monarchs, as token of subjection, were newly named, as Jehoiakim, who had formerly been Eliakim. Professor Fuller mentions the case of the Egyptian monarch Psammetik II., whose name as subject of Asshur-bani-pal was Nabo-sezib-ani. Not only so, but monarchs of their own will changed their names with changed circumstances; thus Pal in Babylon is Tiglath-pileser in Nineveh. Still in modern times this is continued in the head of Roman Catholic Christendom, who has for the last twelve centuries always assumed another than his original name on ascending the papalthrone. With members of a monarch's court this is easily intelligible. The desire was to have names of good omen; a foreign name might either be meaningless or suggest anything but thoughts full of good omen. In considering these names, there are certain preliminary facts we must bear in mind. In the first place, there is a great probability that all the names had a Divine element in them, that is, contained as an element the name of a Babylonian god. The great mass of the names of Baby-Ionian and Assyrian officials had this. Next, it is by no means improbable that, at the hands of the Jewish scribes, the names have sustained some considerable change, more especially as regards the Divine element. The Jewish scribe had few scruples as to altering a name when there was anything in it to hurt his sensibilities. It is horrible to him that Jonathan, the son of Gershom, the son of Moses the great lawgiver, should be the originator of the false temple at Dan, and so he inserts a nun, and changes Moshe, "Moses," into "Manasseh." The scribe that copied out 2 Samuel, coming to the name of Jerubbaal, cannot endure to chronicle the fact that a judge in Israel ever bore the name of the abomination of the Zidonians as part of his name, and altered it to Jerubesheth. So we have in the same book Ishbosheth for Ethbaal, and Mephibosheth for Meribbaal. With a foreign potentate it is different; but in the case of a Jew there always was a tendency to blink such an awkward fact as bearing a name with heathen elements, by a slight change. The name given to Daniel is, in the Massoretic text, Belteshazzar. From the fact that in the Septuagint, Theodotion, and the Vulgate, we have the king Belshazzar and Daniel, as Babylonian magician, called by the same name," Baltasar," and when in the Peshitta, the difference is very slight, and not always maintained, we, for our part, are strongly inclined to believe both names to have been the same. Professor Bevan ('The Book of Daniel,' 40) is quite sure that the author did not understand the meaning of the name given to Daniel. He (Professor Bevan) derives the name from Balat-zu-utzur, "Protect thou his life." Professor Fuller, with as great plausibility, makes it Bilat-sarra-utzur, "Beltis protects the crown." If that be the true derivation, then Nebuchadnezzar could quite correctly say that he was called after the name of his god. Still more accurate would this statement be if the name were Belshazzar. But an uneasy suspicion crosses our mind. Does the author of Daniel ever attribute to Nebuchadnezzar the words on which Professor Bevan grounds his charge? The words are not in the Septuagint. Thus Professor Bevan - never admitting the possibility of the name Belteshazzar having been modified from something else, although the evidence of the versions points most distinctly to that, and although he candidly admits it to have taken place in regard to Abed-nego - assumes an etymology for it, as if it were the only possible one, which it is not; and on the ground of this etymology, and on the assumption that certain words were in the original text of Daniel, which are yet not in the Septuagint, he concludes that the author of Daniel did not know the meaning of the name he had given to his hero. Surely this is special pleading. If there has been any tampering with the name or modification of it, then Professor Bevan's assumption falls to the ground, and his argument with it; but there seems every probability that there has been such modification, and the effect of such modification would be to deface the name of the heathen divinity in the name if there were such. Further, if Professor Fuller's etymology may be maintained, again Professor Bevan's assumption falls to the ground. These two arguments do not conflict. A Jewish scribe, ignorant of ancient Assyrian, might easily introduce a modification which, despite his intention, did not remove all heathen divinity from the name, only changed the divinity. If the original text of Daniel did not contain the phrase in the fourth chapter, "according to the name of my god," then again Professor Bevan's assumption is proved groundless, and his argument without value. The phrase in question is not in the Septuagint, and therefore it is, to say the least, suspicious. It has no such intimate connection with the context as to show it part of the text; it is just such a phrase as would be put on the margin as a gloss, and get into the text by blunder of a copyist. It may be observed that Professor Bevan merely follows Schrader, alike in his derivation and deduction; but he, not Schrader, had before him continually the Septuagint version of Daniel, and he, not Schrader, is commentator on Daniel. And to Hananiah of Shadrach. This name is explained by Dr. Delitzsch as being a modified transliteration of Shudur-aku, "the command of Aku" (the moon-deity). With this Schrader agrees. There is always the possibility of the name having undergone a change. On the other hand, as the name of the deity, Aku, does not appear in Scripture, the Puritanic scribe might be unaware of its presence here. And to Mishael of Meshach. This name has caused great difficulty; it is consonantally identical with מֶשֶׁך, "Hesheeh," the name of one of the sons of Japhet. Dr. Delitzsch would render it Me-sa-aku, "Who is as Aku." Schrader's objections to this are, that in the first place the Babylonian form would be Mamm-ki-Aku. And next, that there would not likely be a simple translation of the Hebrew name into Assyrian, but rather the giving a new name altogether. This second objection is valueless, for Pharaoh-Necho did not wholly change the name of Eliakim when he set him on the throne; since Jehovah may be regarded as the equivalent of El. The fact that "Meshach" is so like "Mcshech" points to intentional modification, and, therefore, to the presence in the name of the designation of a Babylonian god likely to be known to the Jews, such as Merodach, whose name was known to the Jews by its occurrence in the names Evil-Merodach and Merodach-Baladan, and actually as a divinity in Jeremiah 50:2. Such is Lenormant's hypothesis ('La Divination,' p. 178). which would render it Misa-Mero-dash, "Who is as Merodach" - a suggestion certainly open to Schrader's first objection. And to Azariah of Abed-nego. It has long been recognized that this name is a modification of Abed-Nebo. This identification is rendered all the more probable, that in New Hebrew and Aramaic Naga meant the planet "Venus," that is, "Nebo" The consonants are correct for this, but the vocalization is purposely wrong, in order to avoid the heathen name. If the author of Daniel was an obscure Jew, living in Palestine during the days of Epiphanes, whoa the influence of Babylon had disappeared, and its language had ceased to be studied, is it not strange that he should devise names which so accurately represent those that were in Babylon? One has only to read the Book of Judith, in all likelihood the product of the Epiphanes period (Konig, 'Einlcitung,' 480), to see the wild work that Palestinian Jews of that time made of Babylonian names.

Daniel 1:8

Verse 8. - But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wins which he drank, therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. The Septuagint renders the first clause somewhat paraphrastically, "Daniel desired in his heart," led possibly to this by the more limited meaning assigned to "heart" in the psychology of ordinary Greek speech. Theodotion is, as usual, in close harmony with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta, instead of "heart," has r'ina, "mind." As before noticed, the G reek versions here render פּת־בג by δεῖπνον. Jerome renders it mensa In the Syriac the word is present, as we before said. We have above indicated that it is possible that the original word was not path-bag, but pathura. In regard to the Massoretic text as compared with the Greek and Latin versions, it seems certain that path-bag, if belonging to the text, was only understood in the East - a phenomenon that would be intelligible if this chapter be a condensation and translation of an original Aramaic text, especially if the Aramaic were Eastern, not Western. An ancient feast had always the nature of a sacrifice. It was the case with the Jews: thus in Deuteronomy 12:11, 12, directions are given for sacrificing in the place which the Lord should choose, and they and all their household rejoicing. But if the place chosen were too far, then permission was given them to eat flesh, only they were to be careful not to eat with the blood. It was the characteristic of the classic nations all through their whole history, that the feast should be consecrated by the offering of something of it to the Deity. The immense probability was that this was the case also among the Babylonians. It may be that this consecration of the feast arose from the same justifiable religious feeling which leads us to ask a blessing on our meals. The habit of the African Church to celebrate the Lord's Supper at every supper, was probably connected with this offering to God of what the guests were about to partake. This fact, that every feast had the character of a sacrifice, might easily make these Hebrew youths refuse the royal dainties. So far as animal food was concerned, the careful directions as to not eating with blood made partaking of the feasts of the Babylonian monarch peculiarly liable to bring on them defilement. The fact that Evil-Merodach provided Jeconiah with a portion from his table, and that Jeconiah did not refuse it, does not necessarily militate against the early date of Daniel. Jeconiah probably was not as conscientious as those youths, and, on the other hand, Daniel's influence by this time may have arranged some consideration for Jewish scruples. It is certain that in 2 Maccabees 5:27 Judas and his brethren are represented as living in the mountains on herbs, after the manner of beasts, that they might not be defiled; but as there is nothing parallel to this in 1 Maccabees, we may dismiss the statement as probably untrue. So the whole idea of this action on the part of Judas and his nine companions may have arisen from the case recorded before us. It has all the look of a rhetorical addition to the narrative, and the differences of the circumstances were not such as would strike a rhetorical scribe; but as this abstinence appeared to add to the sanctity of these four Hebrew youths, would it not add to the sanctity of Judas also? 'In the Assyrian feasts the guests do not seem to have sat at one long table or several long tables, as is usual with us. The guests were divided into sets of four, and had provisions served to them, and it is to be observed that the youths before us would have exactly occupied one of those tables. The word used for "defile" (ga'al) occurs in Isaiah, Lamentations, Zephaniah, Malachi, Ezra, and Nehemiah. It is an Exilic and post-Exilic word mainly; the old priestly word lama had not disappeared - it is used in Haggai. It is to be observed that there is nothing about defilement in the Peshitta; it is not impossible that the word is a later addition, only its presence both in Theodotion and the Septuagint renders the omission improbable. There is nothing in the passage here which makes it necessary for us to maintain that the principle of action followed by those youths was one which was generally acknowledged to be incumbent on all Jews. It may simply have been that, feeling the critical condition in which they were placed, it was well for them to erect a hedge about the Law. There may even have been an excess of scrupulosity which is in perfect dramatic suitability to the age of the youths. Such abstinence may well have occasioned the regular abstinence of the Essenes, but this state-merit concerning Daniel and his friends can scarcely have originated from the Essene dietary. It has been noted, as a proof of Daniel's courtesy and docility, that he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. But to have refused the food provided by the king might have been construed as an insult to the king, and anything of that sort had swift and severe punishment meted out to it. Daniel's request was simply due to the necessities of the situation.

Daniel 1:9

Verse 9. - Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. The word here translated "tender love" really means "bowels," and then "mercy" or "compassion." Hence the Apostle Paul (Philippians 2:1) combines the two meanings, "If there be any bowels and mercies." The Revised Version is here to be preferred, "favour and compassion,' as the Authorized exaggerates the affection the prince of the eunuchs had for Daniel. The versions in this verse do not afford any marked variations. The Septuagint has Κύριος, "Lord," usually employed to translate יהוה, Jehovah, instead of Θεός (אלהים). It is not impossible that the original reading may have been יהוה, though it is to be admitted not likely. Rahameem is translated χάριν," favour," in the Septuagint, which is a weak rendering; Theodotion renders οἰκτιρμόν, which may be regarded as practically equivalent to our Revised Version. While the third verse speaks of the "chief" (רַב) of the eunuchs, a Babylonian and Assyrian title, the more usual Hebrew שַׂר replaces it in this verse and in that which precedes it. From this root the Assyrian and Babylonian word for "king," sat or sarru, was derived, while tab fell on evil days. Among the later Jews it became equivalent to mr doctors of divinity. Before the word for "God" (Elohim) there is the article. So far as the form stands, it might be plural, and therefore be capable of being translated "the gods," but the verb being singular renders that translation impossible. The affection with which the chief of the eunuchs regarded Daniel is notified to us as the result of God's goodness, who had thus given him favour in the eyes of him set over him. The Hebrew never failed to recognize, in his devouter moments, that the hearts of all men are in the hands of God; that by him kings reign and princes decree wisdom.

Daniel 1:10

Verse 10. - And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. In the Hebrew of this verse there are traces that it has been translated from an Aramaic original. We shall consider the differences of the versions from the Massoretic below. The word (sar) for "prince" is continued from the preceding verse, I fear. In the Massoretic text, the word is not a verb, but an adjective. If the phrase were rendered "I am afraid," this would represent the construction, it is one that is specially frequent with this adjective; it resembles the construction so common in Aramaic of participle with pronoun where an ordinary preterite or imperfect would be used in Hebrew. Your meat and your drink. In this phrase the enigmatic word path-bag has disappeared; מאֲכַל (ma'achal), the ordinary word for "food," has replaced it. For why should he see your face. The construction here is decidedly Aramaic, and resembles a word-for-word rendering from an Aramaic original. The Targumic phrase here is דִילְמָא (deelma) (Onkelos, Genesis 3:3). The Peshitta rendering here is dalton. The construction occurs in Song of Solomon 1:7, shallama, only with the northern shortened relative. In worse liking. The word zo'apheem means "sad," "troubled" (Genesis 40:6); the verb from which it comes means "to be angry" (2 Chronicles 26:19). It is to be noted that the Septuagint here has two renderings, probably a case of "doublet." The first διατετραμμένα may refer to the mental confusion or sadness that they might be in if on account of their poor nourishment they were unable to answer the king's questions; the second, ἀσθενῆ, "weak," may refer to the body: σκυθρωπὰ ισ Theodotion's rendering, which may be rendered "scowling" (it is used along with λυπούμενον, Plato, 'Syrup.'). The Peshitta has m'karan, "ashamed;" that they would feel shame were they much inferior in looks or acquirements to their neighbours would be natural. The intimate connection between food and good looks and good mental qualities is well known as one much held, especially in ancient days. Than the children of your sort. Keqilkem; this word, גִל or גַּיִל, is maintained by Professor Bevan to be unused in early Hebrew in the sense of "generation" or "age" Furst would regard the name Abigail as exhibiting the word as existing in early times. The only difficulty in this is that the name may have another derivation. The real meaning of the word in this connection is "a circle;" hence then a revolution of the heavens. It is explained by Buxtorf as meaning "constellation, planet;" בֶּן נָילו, "son of his star" - born under the same constellation, contemporary. The Syriac paraphrases the word, and renders "of your year." Theodotion renders συνήλικα, "of like age." When we turn to the Septuagint, we find evidence either that the word was not there at all, or that it was misunderstood; the Septuagint rendering is "than the stranger (ἀλλογενῶν) youths brought up with you (συντρεφομένους)." This is an evident case of doublet. The first that stands in the Greek is συντρεφομένους: this represents a various reading, גָּדְלוּ אִתְּכֶּם (gad'lu itkem), by no means an impossible reading. The other, ἀλλογενῶν, represents גידים (geereem): this is still more like the Massoretic reading גילכם (geelkem). The Massoretic is possibly the reading from which the other two have sprung; if so, it is clear that the word גיל has not in this sense been known to either of the two Egyptian translators. It is not Targumic, for Levy has it not in his Lexicon. Professor Bevan says it is Aramaic and Arabic. This, then, is a case where the Aramaic original shines through; the chief of the eunuchs would naturally speak in Aramaic. Then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Here again is a word which Professor Bevan declares is late, the word here translated "make me endanger יְחִיַּבְחֶם (yehigyabetem)." There is no difficulty as to the reading in the versions, save that the Septuagint reads the first person singular instead of the second person plural, in other words, vehiyyabti, "and I shall endanger," and "my neck," reading, instead of "my head," possibly צַוָּארִי (tzavvari) or מַפְרַקְתִּי (maphraqti), the latter reading due to the mere, the sign of the second person plural being transferred to the following word. It may certainly have been a paraphrase, but the phrase as it stands in the Massoretic seems awkward. Professor Bevan brings forward this word as Aramaic, and a proof of the lateness of Daniel. If we are correct, it is a case where the Aramaic of the original shines through. The word indubitably occurs in Ezekiel 18:7. As counsel for the prosecution, Professor Bevan must get rid of this awkward fact. Cornill, one of his colleagues in the case against Daniel, suggests that another word should be read in Ezekiel, and Professor Bevan agrees, but differs as to the word. There is no indication in any of the versions that there is any uncertainty as to the reading in Ezekiel. It is a most convenient method of getting rid of an awkward fact; little extension of it might make any word one pleased a hapax legomenon. The critics might have tried the method more reasonably on Daniel than on Ezekiel; but as their brief was against Daniel, that did not occur to them. The picture presented to us in this verse is one that in the circumstances is full of naturalness. We have, on the one hand, the eager entreaty of the Hebrew youth; the kindly look of the prince, willing to grant anything he possibly can to his favourite, yet hindered by fear for himself, and at the same time a desire that Daniel, his favourite, should stand well with the king. The chief of the eunuchs knew that personal good looks were an important matter with Nebuchadnezzar. If they were badly nourished, these Hebrew youths would be handicapped in their examination before the king. But more, shame at their own appearance would disturb them mentally, even if they were able to study as well on this plain food they desired. If the failure were egregious, then investigation might be demanded, and then the fact that he had transgressed the orders of the king would be a serious offence - the king knew no mercy when enraged. It is to be observed that the chief of the eunuchs first appeals to the self-interest of the youths before him, that they would endanger their own prospects; but as that does not move them, he next tells them that his own life would be endangered. In this case we must remember we have merely a summary, and a very condensed summary, of what was probably a prolonged argument. We have only the heads, and probably the succession of the arguments. It may, perhaps, be regarded as a proof of the authenticity of this speech that two Aramaic words are preserved in it. The Rabsaris most certainly would speak in Aramaic, and technical words such as geel and heyyabtem might be retained even in a translation, if there were no word which was quite an exact equivalent. Thus in translations from French or German into English, how frequently are words transferred from the original tongue[ "One-sided" is a case in point.

Daniel 1:11

Verse 11. - Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. The reading of the Septuagint differs from the Massoretic in two particulars - instead of "Melzar," the name given is "Abiesdri," as in the third verse; and the verb minnah (מִנָּה) is read מֻנָּה (munnoh), "set over." The Peshitta reads instead of "Melzar,' in this verse, "Mashitzar" (but see ver. 16). This confirms the idea that this is a proper name, not an official title. If the assumption of the Septuagint is correct, then the name in the Massoretic text ought to be Hammelzar. This might indicate the name to be Amil-Assur, corresponding to Amil-Merodach. Theodotion renders the name Ἀμέλσαδ. While a good deal can be said for making "Melzar" or "Ham-melzar" a proper name, something may also be said for the idea which has gained ground that "Melzar," since it has the article before it, is the name of an official. Lenormant ('La Divination,' p. 196) makes the name Amil-Ussur. Such, at any rate, is the name of an official in the court of a Ninevite king; it is supposed to mean "steward," but it may be doubted if this is the exact equivalent of such an official as the one here referred to. Hitzig suggests παιδαγωγός, and for this rendering there is much to be said. It is an indirect proof of the antiquity of the book, that an official is referred to by a title the exact force of which had been forgotten when the Septuagint translation was produced, not later certainly than the first century B.C. Theodotion and Jerome are as far at sea as is also the Peshitta. The critical hypothesis is that this Assyrian name for "steward" remained known among the Palestinian Jews from the fall of the Babyloniau Empire in B.C. 532 to B.C. 168, and then in less than a couple of centuries utterly disappeared. The reading of the Septuagint," Abiesdri," may be laid aside; it is a reading that would suggest itself to any one who appreciated the difficulty of the passage. In the previous verse we were made auditors to a conversation between Daniel and Ashpenaz, in which he does not consent to Daniel's request. In the verse before us Daniel addresses another request to a new but subordinate official. As the request is one that might naturally follow the refusal, mild but to all appearance firm, of the prince of the eunuchs, what could be more natural than to imagine that Amelzar was a misreading for Abiesdri? The story has been condensed. Had we the full narrative, we most likely would have seen that Daniel had to go over the argument with the subordinate that he had already had with the superior. It is not unlikely that the prince of the eunuchs was not expressly informed of the experiment being tried,of which the verse which follows informs us. This would help to save him from the responsibility of the thing; it is not inconceivable that he intentionally kept himself uninformed. Not only has Daniel secured a personal influence over the prince of the eunuchs, but also over this Melzar, or steward. There are people in the world who have this magnetic power over their fellows which compels their liking. When with this are united abilities of a man to do exploits and leave his mark on the world, we have a national hero. Napoleon the Great was eminently a man of this kind.

Daniel 1:12

Verse 12. - Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. The Septuagint seems to have read yutan, "let there be given," instead of yitnu, "let them give." Zero'im, "seeds" (σπερμάτων, Theodotion), "pulse" (ὀσπρίων, Septuagint and Authorized and Revised Versions). This word occurs only here; it differs, however, only by the second vowel from zeruim in Isaiah 61:11, and there it is rendered as by Theodotion here, σπέρματα. As the vowels were not written for centuries after the latest critical date of Daniel, it is in the highest degree absurd to ground any argument on the pronunciation affixed to the word by these late scribes, probably with as great caprice as made them maintain to all time "suspended letters" here and there in the text, or sometimes begin a word with a final mere. Professor Bevan regards this word a s possibly a scribe's mistake for zeronim, a word with the same meaning, which occurs in ver. 16, and is found in the Talmud. He might more naturally regard zero'him as a scribe's mistake for zero'im. As, however, the word is Aramaic, occurring both in the Eastern and Western dialects, it may be a case where the original word shines through. Prove thy servants ten days. The word used for "prove' is that frequently used of God in relation to men, as in Genesis 22:1," God did prove Abraham." Calvin thinks that Daniel made this request because he had been directed by the Divine Spirit. We would not for one moment deny that all wisdom comes down from above, and that it is the Spirit of the Almighty that giveth understanding, yet the suggestion was a reasonable one, the period was long enough to have given signs that it affected them injuriously, and yet not so long but the evil effects might easily be removed. Ten days. It may be that this is merely a round number - an easily marked period - but an experiment would have a definite period. It is approximately the third of a revolution of the moon, and as the Babylonians were attentive observers of the movements of the heavenly bodies, especially of the moon, "ten days" is likely enough to be a period with them, as certainly a week was. Moreover, among all the nations of antiquity numbers were credited with special powers, as all who have studied Greek philosophy know. Pythagoras rested the whole universe on number. This theory, in which to some extent he was followed by Plato, seems to have been derived from Assyrian, if not Babylonian sources. Thus Lenormant, in 'La Magic,' gives a dialogue between Hea and his son Hilgq-mulu-qi. Everything depends on knowing "the number." It may be noted, as bearing on this, that in the bas-reliefs portraying a feast from the palace of Asshurbanipal, the guests are seated in messes of four round small tables. If, then, as is probable, all these young cadets at the Babylonian court sat in the royal presence, they would have a table to themselves, and thus the peculiarity of their meal would not be patent to the whole company. Had the number of friends been more, they would have been conspicuous: had they been fewer, they would have been observed by those added to make up the number. Their request to be allotted to eat only pulse and to drink only water, had not, as we have already said, anything necessarily of the asceticism of the Essenes. They, the Essenes, rather started from Daniel and his friends. Maimonides tells us that there were three kinds of zeronim - tbu'ah, "crops," wheat, barley, millet, etc.; gatonith, "small crops," peas, beans, lentils; geenah, "garden seeds," such as mint, anise, and cummin. The English versions and the Septuagint agree in regarding the second of these classes as here intended. There is this to be said, that seeds are the most nourishing form of vegetable diet. Aben Ezra suggests "rice" as the seeds used for this purpose; but as, just as in all hot climates, vegetables and fruits of all sorts were largely consumed in Babylon, definition is unnecessary. To the present day among the inhabitants of the district around ancient Babylon, indeed, over the Levant generally, dates and raisins, with grain, and in the season fresh fruit, form the staple food. Daniel really prayed to live as the common people.

Daniel 1:13

Verse 13. - Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. The Septuagint Version here differs considerably from the Massoretic text; it is as follows: "And should our countenance appear more downcast than (διατετραμμένη παρὰ) those other youths who eat of the royal feast, according as thou seest good (θέλῃς), so deal with thy servants." In the text before the Septuagint translator לְפָנִיך (l'phaneka), "before thee," is omitted, and instead of מַרְאֵה (mareh)," appearance," is read זְלֺעַפִים (zo'aphim), and after is inserted מִן (min), "from," the sign of the comparative, equivalent to "than." Theodotion, Jerome, and the Peshitta represent accurately the Massoretic text. Against the Septuagint reading is the fact that in the Massoretic, marayeeaen is construed a singular, but in Ezekiel 15:10 it is plural. The vocalization of tirayh, "thou shalt see," is Aramaean, and therefore confirms the idea that this chapter is a translation in which the original shines through. The reading of the Septuagint implies that a different meaning must be put on the last clause from that in the English Version. It means that, should the experiment prove a failure, they were willing to suffer any punishment that the official in question saw good. Such an interference with the arrangements of the king would be a crime to be punished with stripes. Although a perfectly consistent sense can be brought from the text behind the Septuagint, yet, from the fact that the phrase, לֺזְעַפִים מִן־חַיְלָדִים (zo'apheem min-hay'ladeem), occurs in the tenth verse, and therefore may be repeated here by accident, we would not definitely prefer it. Further, the Massoretic text follows more naturally from the context. Let the steward see the result of the experiment after ten days, and, as he sees, so let him judge and act. Daniel and his companions leave the matter thus really in the hands of Providence.

Daniel 1:14

Verse 14. - So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. The literal rendering is, And he hearkened unto them as to this matter, proved them ten days. The Septuagint reading is again peculiar, "And he dealt with them after this manner, and proved them ten days." ישמע is not very unlike יעשה, nor לדבד very unlike כדבר, and this is all the change implied. The Massoretic reading seems the more natural, but it might be argued that this very naturalness is the result of an effort to make the Hebrew more flowing. But further, from the fact that עֲשֵׂה. ('asayh), imperative of the same verb, precedes almost immediately, the word might come in by accident, or another word somewhat like it might be misread into it. The consent of the subordinate official implies, if not the consent, at least the connivance, of the superior. As we have already explained from the arrangements of a Babylonian feast, the plan of the Hebrew youths could the more easily be carried out.

Daniel 1:15

Verse 15. - At the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. The Septuagint is a little paraphrastic, and renders, "After ten days their countenance appeared beautiful and their habit of body better than that of the other young men who ate of the king's meat." Theodotion is painfully faithful to the Massoretic text. The Peshitta translates טוב (tob), "good," "fair," by sha-peera, "beautiful." We have here the result of the experiment. At the end of the ten days these youths who had lived plainly are fairer and fatter than those who partook of the royal dainties - a result that implies nothing miraculous; it was simply the natural result of living on food suited to the climate. The grammar of the passage is peculiar; mareehem, which so far as form goes might be plural, is construed with a singular verb and adjective, but bere'eem, "fatter," is plural. The explanation is that while "countenance," the substantive, is in the singular, it is not the substantive to the adjective "fat," but "they" understood. The sentence is not intended to assert that their faces merely were fatter than those of the other youths of their rank and circumstances, but that their whole body was so. This contrast of reference is brought out in the Septuagint paraphrase. Any one looking on the Assyrian and Babylonian sculptures, and comparing them with the sculptures and paintings of Egypt, will observe the relatively greater stoutness of the Assyrians. In the eunuchs especially, one cannot fail to notice the full round faces and the double chins of those in immediate attendance on the king. Among savage nations and semi-civilized ones, corpulence is regarded as a sign of nobility. The frequent long fasts, due to failure of their scanty crops or the difficulty of catching game, would keep the ordinary savage spare; only one who could employ the sinews and possessions of others would be sure of being always well fed, consequently the corpulent man was incontestably the wealthy nobleman. In semi-civilized countries, as Babylon, this was probably a survival. On the sculptures the kings are not unwieldy with corpulence, but the eunuchs have an evident tendency to this. A king, abstemious himself, might feel his consequence increased by having as his attendants those who bore about in their persons the evidence of how well those were nourished who fed at his table. There is no reason to imagine that Nebuchadnezzar was superior to his contemporaries in regard to this. The melzar, having thus seen the result of the experiment, must see that, so far as externals were concerned, the Hebrews who fed on pulse were better than their companions. The period of ten days was a short one, but not too short for effects such as those mentioned to be manifested. Jephet-ibn-Ali thinks that special leanness was inflicted on those who were unfaithful or had failed in courage. That, however, is an unnecessary supposition.

Daniel 1:16

Verse 16. - Thus Melzar took away the portion of their moat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. The Massoretic has the article here before "Melzar" - a fact that the Authorized does not indicate; the Revised renders more correctly, "the steward." The version of the Septuagint does not differ much from the Massoretic, only the word translated "that they should drink" is omitted; on the other hand, we have the verb δίδωμι (ἐδίδου) put in composition with ἀντί (ἀντεδίδου), "gave them instead," as if, in the text before the translator, the mem, which begins mishtayhem, had been put to the end of yayin, "wine," making it "their wine" - a construction which would be more symmetrical than the present. Only it is difficult to see how either tahath asher could be changed into shtayhem, or vice versa. The Septuagint translation suggests a simpler and more natural text - not a simplified one - therefore it is, on the whole, to be preferred. The careful word-for-word translation of the beginning of the verse renders it little likely that the translator would paraphrase at the end; c g. the word translated in our version "thus" is really veeay'he, "it was," and in the LXX. this is rendered η΅ν, "it was." Theodotion is in absolute agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta calls the steward ma-nitzor, and renders the last clause, "and he gave to them seeds to eat, and water to drink," evidently borrowed from the twelfth verse. The result of the success of the experiment is that the youths are no more importuned to partake of the king's dainties. The steward, or the attendant who looked after their mess, supplied them with pulse. It has occurred to two commentators, widely separated from each other in point of time, that the consent of the "Melzar ' was all the more easily gained, that he could utilize the abstemiousness of these Hebrew youths to his own private advantage. Both Jephet-ibn-Ali in the beginning of the eleventh century, and Ewald in the middle of the nineteenth, maintain that the "Melzar' used to his own purposes, possibly sold, the portion of food and wine that the Hebrew youths abjured. Certainly the verb nasa means the lifting and carrying away, and suggests that every day the portions of food and wine were first carried to the table of these Hebrews, and then, after having been placed before them, were removed and pulse brought instead. When we think of it, some such process would have to take place. If it had been observed that one table was never supplied with a portion from the king's table, there might have been remarks made, and the "Melzar" would have fallen into disgrace with his sovereign, and the Hebrew youths would possibly have shared his disgrace. As to how the portions thus retained were disposed of, we need not be curious; there would, no doubt, be plenty of claimants for the broken victuals from the King of Babylon's table, without accusing the "Melzar" of dishonest motives. The fact that the verbs are in participle implies that henceforth it was the regular habit of the "Melzar" to remove from before the tour friends the royal dainties, and supply them instead with pulse. We have already referred to the word used for "pulse; ' it is here zayroneem, whereas in the twelfth verse it is zayroeem. Not impossibly in the verse before us we have another case of the original Aramaic shining through the translation; in the Peshitta the word is zer'oona, Whatever the word was, it seems certain that originally it was the same in both places, as in none of the versions is there any variation. It is not so impossible that originally the vocalization was different, and that the word was the ordinary word zer'aim, "seeds." This certainly is the translation of Theodotion.

Daniel 1:17

Verse 17. - As for these four children, God gave them knewledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. Or, as the words might be more accurately rendered, "these lads, the four of them" (Ezekiel 1:8-10). This indicates that somehow they were separated off into a quaternion. In Ezekiel, where a similar phrase cecum, the four cherubim form a quaternion in a very special way. As we have already seen, the Assyrians in a feast arranged the guests in messes of four. Those thus seated together would most likely be associated in some other way. In the case of these youths, who were permanent guests at the table of the King of Babylon, they would most likely be associated in their studies from the first. The Septuagint Version omits the numeral, but is pleonastic in a way that suggests a coalescing of different readings. The rendering is, "And to the youths the Lord gave understanding and knowledge and wisdom in the art of learning (the grammatic art - grammar), and to Daniel he gave understanding of every kind (in every word), and in visions, and in dreams, and in every kind of wisdom." The omission of the word "four," and the insertion of two words, "understanding" and "knowledge," suggest that the one has somehow taken the place of the other; it may be that the word עָרְמָה was read instead of ארבעת. The Massoretic original of the phrase, "skill in all learning," may be rendered literally, "skill in every kind of books." This has a special meaning in regard to the Babylonian and Assyrian books, which were clay tablets incised when wet, and burnt into permanence. Rolls of parchment were, as we see from Jeremiah, the common material for books among the Jews. Among the Egyptians, papyrus largely took the place of parchment, so the knowledge "of every kind of books" meant "every language." It is certain that three languages were to a certain extent in use in Babylon - Aramaic, the ordinary language of business and diplomacy; Assyrian, the court language, the language in which histories and dedications were written; Accadian, the old sacred tongue, in which all the formulae of worship and the forms of incantation had been originally written. From the fact that Rabshakeh could talk Hebrew when conversing with Eliakim and Shebna, it would seem that the accomplish-merit required from a diplomat implied the knowledge of the languages of the various nations subject to the Babylonian Empire or eonterminous with it. "Knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom" would seem to mean the complete eurriculum fitted to make these youths able diplomatists and wise councillors. And Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. All the nations of antiquity laid stress on dreams as means by which the future was revealed to men; but in no nation was there so elaborate a system of interpretation as among the Babyhmians. Lenormant ('La Divination') gives a long account, with many passages translated from their books, of their mode of interpreting dreams. "Visions" may be regarded as appearances of the nature of the alleged second sight among the Scottish Highlanders. It may, however, refer to appearances which are regarded as omens of good or evil fortune. We see in all the elaborate distinctions of omens preserved to us in Lenormant only the folly of superstition; but we may not assume that Daniel and his friends did not believe in them. It has been objected that if Daniel and his friends were so scrupulous in regard to the dainties and. the wines of the Babylonian monarch, because these were connected with idol-worship, they ought logically to have refused to learn these superstitious formulae. But men are never completely logical; life is wider than logic, and hence there are always elements that are left out in our calculations. The possession even of Divine inspiration would not suffer men to annul the two millennia and a half that separate us from the days of Daniel. They - Daniel and his friends - did not see in this so-called science of oneiromancy mere superstition. Still less did they recognize it as having a necessary connection with the idolatries of Babylon. In the following chapter we see the theory Daniel himself had of the matter, namely, that God used dreams as means to make known the future to men. No one can say he was mistaken in this. When Luther described heaven to his child, he filled it with what would be most happy for the little boy; he takes the child at the stage at which he is, and tells him the truth, but in limitations suited to his knowledge. May we not reasonably argue that the great Father deals so with his children? When they are in the state of knowledge that makes them expect to have his will revealed to them in dreams and omens, then he will make known his will by dreams. Daniel knew all that Chaldean science could tell him, but he saw that it was limited, that behind all the canons of interpretation there was the Eternal Mind, the Great Thinker, whose thoughts are things. In other words, he did not recognize the so-called science of Babylon, its astrology, its incantations, its omens, its interpretations of dreams as false so much as limited. It has been placed by Jerome as a parallel, that Moses was learned in all the learning of the Egyptians. Jerome assumes "they learned not that they might follow, but that they might judge and convict (convincant)." We do not see the need of any such supposition. In their own land they in all likelihood believed in the interpretation of dreams, not unlikely in omens too in some degree. When they came to Babylon they came among a people who halt reduced all this to a form that had a delusive appearance of scientific accuracy. They could not fail to believe in all these things. Long after the latest critical date of Daniel, the Jews believed in omens and dreams. Josephus tells us of his own skill in these matters, and is still more explicit in respect to the wisdom of the Essenes in regard to the future. Students of the Talmud will not require to be told of the bath-qol and other means by which a knowledge of the future was derived. We must, we fear, assume that Daniel was not so far ahead of his contemporaries as not to believe in the science of Babylon, and therefore to expect him to protest against it and refuge to acquire it is absurd in the last degree. This fact of these four Hebrew youths not objecting to heathen learning is n indirect proof of the early date of Daniel. It this book had been written in the days of the Maccabees, then the learning of the Chaldeans would be a synonym for the learning of the Greeks. We know that, so far from the Hasideem - the party from whom, by hypothesis, "Daniel" emanated - looking favourably on Greek learning, they hated and abhorred it. We see in the Second Book of Maccabees (4:14) the feelings with which they regarded those who favoured Greek manners; how even the innocent game of discus was full of horror for them, because it was Greek (1:14); and in the first book with what horror the pious looked on the erection of a gymnasium in Jerusalem. This hatred of everything Greek was very natural, and certainly was very much in evidence in their history. For business purposes they had to know the Greek language; but the learning, the philosophy, and literature of Greece would have been to those engaged in the Maccabean struggle abomination. Is it, then, to be imagined that a writer of the Maccabean period, describing an ancient hero from whose example his contemporaries were to draw encouragement and guidance, would represent him as zealously addicting himself to the pursuit of Gentile learning, and making such progress in it that he excelled all competitors? The attitude ascribed to him would have been more like that of the Rabbi Akiba, who declared that "Greek learning could be studied in an hour that was neither day nor night;" or like that other rabbi, who declared that "the translation of the Scripture into Greek was a disaster to Judaism equal in horror to the fall of Jerusalem." We hear a great deal of the historic imagination and the necessity of applying it to questions of Biblical criticism. Surely the minds must be strangely deficient in the power of imaginative reconstruction who cannot feel the thrill of abhorrence of everything foreign that must have filled the Jews during the Maccabean struggle. If the critics had only realized this, they would have seen how utterly impossible it is to conceive that a religious novel, written at that time, intended to nerve the Jews for fiercer resistance to their oppressors, should represent the hero complacently acquiring Gentile learning, and acting the submissive courtier in the tyrant's palace.

Daniel 1:18

Verse 18. - Now at the end of the clays that the king had said he should bring them in, then the prince of the eunuchs brought them in before Nebuchadnezzar. The Septuagint Version here is shorter and simpler: "After these days the king commanded to bring them in, and they were brought in by the prince of the eunuchs." The only difference is that הַאֵלֶה (haayleh) is read instead of אֲשֶׁר (asher), and the maqqeph dropped. Theodotion is in close accordance with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta is also simpler than the Massoretic text, though founded on it: "And after the completion of the days which the king had arranged, the chief of the eunuchs brought them before Nebuchadnezzar the king." Both the Massoretic and Peshitta texts represent the prince of the eunuchs bringing the youths before King Nebuchadnezzar when the time had elapsed, without any orders from the king himself. According to the Septuagint, it was the king himself that required them to be presented before him. It seems more like the active-minded king, that he should recall his purpose of examining these youths, and command them to be brought in, than that the prince of the eunuchs should bring them trooping in without warning into the royal presence. Such an examination, whether conducted by the king personally, or in his presence, or under his superintendence, would need to be prepared fur; something equivalent to examination papers, test questions, would have to be arranged, or the presentation before the king would be a farce. All this implies that Nebuchadnezzar himself arranged the time of the appearance of those youths before him. We can scarcely imagine the awe with which those young captives must have looked forward to standing before the terrible conqeueror who had swept the army of Egypt before him, and had overthrown all who ventured to oppose him, who had sent home hosts of captives to throng the slave-markets of Babylon. We are not told whether each separately was brought before Nebuchadnezzar, or whether the whole number of the cadets were presented at once. It is the earliest instance of promotion by competitive examination. The clear, sharp eye of the young conqueror was probably worth more than all the questions prepared. While certainly the words used seem to imply that the hostages were called merely to be examined, the occasion may have been the "dream" narrated in the next chapter.

Daniel 1:19

Verse 19. - And the king communed with them; and among them all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azarish: therefore stood they before the king. The word translated "communed" really means "spake," and is the common word for this. The Septuagint translates here ὥμίλησεν, which does mean "commune." Theodotion renders ἐλάλησε. Jerome has loeutus; the Peshitta has malel; all these may be rendered "talked." From Nebuchadnezzar's great reverence for the national religion and for the national magic, we may be certain that much of the conversation would turn on those magical formulae which have been to such a large extent preserved to us. Even if, as we think, the immediate occasion of Daniel and his companions appearing before the king was his "dream," still he would not unnaturally examine them further. It is not unlikely that this conversational examination would involve naturally the languages they would have to be proficient in were they to be of the royal council. They would have to be acquainted with Accadian, the original tongue of all the most sacred magical formulae; with Assyrian, the language in which the royal annals were recorded; and with Aramaic, which was, as we have already said, the language of commerce and diplomacy. Hebrew, the language of the four in whom we are more especially interested, was spoken, not merely by the holy people, but also by the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, and the Phoenicians. Further, Egypt was a factor that had to be taken into account, and so, not unlikely, the tongue of Egypt would be known by some, at any rate, of the court officials in Babylon. The empire of the Hittites had certainly passed away, but, probably, their language was still known and spoken by a large number of the inhabitants of Nebuchadnezzar's extensive empire. Not only were the languages of peoples west of Babylon to be considered, but also those to the east; there were the Aryan tongues too. If the tradition is correct that Nebuchadnezzar married a Median wife, the Median tongue, which seems to have been the same with that of Persia, would be, above all, important, Not unlikely questions of policy and statecraft would be submitted to these candidates, to see what they would say. Above all, in personal intercourse the King of Babylon would be able to form some estimate of the real worth of these youths, There probably would enter in a large measure of caprice, or even superstition, into his choice, yet not unlikely his strong practical sense would limit his superstition. The result of this examination is eminently satisfactory to the young Hebrews. They were found superior to all their competitors. Therefore stood they before the king. Professor Bevan would render this "became his personal attendants" - a very natural translation. We know, from the Ninevite marbles, that the king is always, alike on the field of battle, the hunting-field, and the council-chamber, attended by eunuchs. It may, however, be regarded as referring to the special subjects of their study. As they had been admitted to the class of magicians and astrologers, it would mean they were admitted to the number of those who were royal magicians and astrologers - those whom the king consulted. It is not to be understood that, even though they were admitted to this number, they were therefore necessarily admitted before the king in this capacity on ordinary occasions. They would occupy but a subordinate position in the huge Babylonian hierarchy. We must note here a variation in the Septuagint, η΅σαν, "they were." We, for our part, agree with Professor Bevan, in regarding this as a scribal blunder in the Greek, and that the original text was probably ἔστησαν. The only difficulty is that the blunder is also in Paulus Tellensis.

Daniel 1:20

Verse 20. - And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm. The Septuagint rendering here has a considerable addition, which really means, as it seems to us, the coalescence of two readings. It reads thus: "And in all learning (λόγῳ, a literal rendering of דָבָר, dabhar, 'a word' or 'thing'), and knowledge and education (παιδείᾳ) whatsoever the king asked of them, he found them ten times wiser than all the wise and learned men in all his kingdom." Thus far the verse is a rendering, almost slavishly close, of the Massoretic text; while the translator has recognized that the sentence is incomplete as it stands, and has inserted σοφωτέρους, and translated עַל (al) by ὑπὲρ. But the translation proceeds, "And the king honoured them, and appointed them rulers." This seems to have been due to a various reading. The sentence here translated was probably, in an old recension of the text, all that stood here, and some scribe, finding it, inserted it here to complete the sentence. The translation, however, proceeds yet further, "And constituted (ἀνεδείξεν) them wiser than all those of his in affairs in all his land and in his kingdom." This sentence has all the appearance of an attempt to render into Greek a piece of Hebrew that the translator imperfectly understood. As we find that ἀναδείκνυμι, represents occasionally הודע, and as the Syriac vav and the old Hebrew ע were almost identical in shape, יֹדע (yod'a,) might be read as ידוה evidently the translator has read חכמים (hacmeem) instead of חַרְטֻמִים (hartummeem), and has transferred the 'al col from before hartummeem to before the next word, which seems to have read, not 'ashshapheem, but hartzo, the relative seems to have been omitted, and the second col, "all." This great variety of reading suggests suspicions of the verse altogether, which the content of the verse rather strengthens. Theodotion is in strict agreement with the Massoretic text. The Peshitta also is at one with it in this, but these are late compared with the Septuagint. It has been tea,sued that the Book of Daniel is a story modelled on the history of Joseph, and the presence of harlummeem here is regarded as a proof of this quasi Egyptian origin (see Genesis 41:8; Exodus 7:11, etc.). One thing is clear, that the word - whatever it was - was unknown in Alexandria, where this translation was made; hartummeern, as occurring in the Pentateuch, the earliest part of the Old Testament translated, was certain to be known: how did the word here happen not to be known? We can understand the phenomenon if some word, probably of Babylonian origin, and unknown in Egypt and Palestine, occupied the place and was modified into a more intelligible shape by being turned into hartummeem. As the verse stands, hartummeem is grammatically placed in apposition to the following word, 'ashshapheem, as there is no conjunction to unite the two words. It is acknowledged by Professor Bevan that the latter word has an Assyrian origin; it is not inconceivable that hartummeem is really the explanatory word, though the arrangement of the words is decidedly against this view. It is to be observed here that 'ashshapheem has been naturalized in Eastern Aramaic, but has not found a lodgment in Western, save in Daniel. We cannot help feeling a little suspicion of the authenticity of this verse. This phrase, "ten times better," has all the look of that exaggeration which became the prevailing vice of later Judaism. As we have indicated, the variations in regard to the precise reading deepen this suspicion. If, however, the reference here is really to Daniel's revelation to the king of his dream, then the statement in the text is less objectionable. This was such a marvellous feat, and one that so put Daniel boys all the wise men of Babylon, that the language of the verse before us is rather rhetorical than exaggerated.

Daniel 1:21

Verse 21. - And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus. The Septuagint supplies Περσῶν. Theodotion and the Peshitta agree with the Massoretic. It has been objected by Canon Driver that the natural classical order of the latter two words should have been hammelek Koresh, not, as it is in the Massoretic, Koresh hammelek. The Septuagint text seems to have had parseem, which would make the order perfectly classical. A greater difficulty is to explain how it is said that Daniel "continued," or, if we take the Hebrew literally "was," until the first year of "Cyrus the king," when in the tenth chapter the third year of Cyrus is referred to. There are several ways of getting over this difficulty. The first way is to suppose that some words have dropped out of the text. There are, however, different ideas as to the words so lost. Thus Bleak would supply "in high respect in Babylon." Earlier commentators would supply "in Babylon," thinking that not impossibly he returned to Palestine. Jerome - one of these - does not, however, intrude his suggestion into the text, as does Ewald. His suggestion is that the omitted words are "in the king's court," which is much the same as Delitzsch's "at the court." Hitzig is credited by Kranichfeld with asserting that the author did not intend to make his hero live beyond the year he refers to - the first year of Cyrus. In his commentary, however, Hitzig suggests that b"sha'ar hammelek, "in the gate of the king," has dropped out. He does certainly hint that the sentence, to be complete, would need hayah (חָיָה), not hayah (חָיָה). Zockler would supply the same word. There is certainly this to be said for the above theory - that the sentence as it stands is incomplete. The verb hayah is never used instead of hayah. At the same time, there is no trace in any of the versions of any difficulty in regard to the text. Another method of meeting the difficulty is that adopted by Hengstenberg, followed by Havernick, but suggested in the eleventh century by Jephet-ibn-Ali. It is this - that as the first year of Cyrus was the year when he allowed the Jews to return to their own laud, that the attainment of this annus mirabilis was an element in his wonderful prosperity, that he who had mourned for the sins of his people, who had been one of the earliest to feel the woes of captivity, should live to see the curse removed, and Judah permitted to return to their city and temple. The objection to this view, urged by Professor Bevan, is that the author elsewhere "never alludes to the event save indirectly (Daniel 9:25)." To this it may be answered that the whole ninth chapter goes on the assumption that the seventy years are now all but over, and therefore that the return cannot be long delayed. We regard this silence of Daniel in respect to the return from Babylon as one of the strongest evidences of the authenticity of the book. Everybody knows how largely it bulks in preceding prophecy, and how important it is in after-days. No one writing a religious romance could have failed to have laid great prominence on this event, and introduced Daniel as inducing Cyrus to issue the decree. On the contrary, he does not even mention it. Tide is precisely the conduct that would be followed by a contemporary at the present time. In religious biographies of the past generation that involve the year 1832, when the Reform Act was passed - the greatest political change of this century - we find that most of them never once refer to it. If any one should take Cowper's 'Letters,' written during the American War, he will find comparatively few references to the whole matter, although from, at all events, 1780 to 1783, we have letters for nearly every week, and they occupy nearly three hundred pages. Now, if a person were condensing these and selecting passages from them, he might easily make such a selection as would contain not a single reference to that war or to any political event whatever. Yet Cowper was interested in the struggle that was going on. The main objection to Hengstenberg's view is the grammatical one that it implies that we should read יחי instead of יהי, and there is no trace in the versions of this various reading The LXX. has η΅ν; Theodotion has ἐγένετο; the Peshitta has (hu); Jerome has fuit. It is somewhat difficult to come to any conclusion, but there are certain things we must bear in mind. In the first place, an author does not usually contradict his statements elsewhere directly. He may implicitly do so, but not when direct dates are given. If he should fail to put the matter right, some other will be sure to do so, if his work attains sufficient popularity to be commented upon. We may thus be sure that there is some solution of the apparent contradiction between the verse before us and ch. 10. In the next place, we must note that this verse is the work of the editor, probably also the translator and condenser, of this earlier part of Daniel. Therefore the difference may be found quite explicable could we go back to the Aramaic original. If 'ad represented 'ad di (Daniel 6:24) in the Aramaic, and the two latter clauses were transposed, we should translate, "And Daniel was for Cyrus the king even before his first year." The connection is somewhat violent; but if we regard the redactor as thinking of the success of Daniel, this might be a thought which suggested itself to his mind - he was with Nebuchadnezzar, and he was with Cyrus. The difficulty of the date is not of importance. That might be got over in several ways. Either by adopting in Daniel 10:1 the reading of the Septuagint, which is πρώτῳ, instead of τρίτῳ - the only objection to this is that it is a correction that might easily be made by a would-be harmonist; but, on the other hand, the "third" year of Belshazzar being mentioned in the eighth chapter may have occasioned the insertion of "third" in the tenth. Or, since we know that, though in his proclamation Cyrus styles himself "King of Babil," yet in some of the contract tables of the flint two years of his reign he is not called "King of Babil," but only "king of nations," and there are contract tables of those years that are even dated by the years of Nabunahid, is it not, then, possible that the third year of Cyrus as "king of nations" might coincide with the first year of his reign as "King of Babil"? Yet further, we must remember that the reign of Cyrus could be reckoned from several different starting-points. He first appears as King of Ansan, then he becomes King of the Persians, and as such he conquers Babylon. His first year as King of Babylon may have been his third year as King of Persia. Thus it would be equally true to say that the Emperor William I. of Germany died in the seventeenth and in the twenty-eighth year of his reign - the one statement reckoning his reign as emperor, the other as king. No solution seems absolutely satisfactory. The difficulty presses equally on the critics and those who maintain the traditional opinion.

Daniel 1

These are not two different things, but the Prophet explains and confirms the same sentiments by a change of phrase, and says that the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had brought into the land of Shinar were laid up in the house of the treasury. The Hebrews, as we know, generally use the word “house” for any place, as they call the temple God’s “house ” Of the land of Shinar, it must be remarked, that it was a plain adjacent to Babylon; and the famous temple of Belus, to which the Prophet very probably refers, was erected there.

Here Daniel marks the time in which he was led into captivity together with his companions, namely, in the third year of Jehoiakim A difficult question arises here, since Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. How then could he have besieged Jerusalem in the third year, and then led away the people captives according to his pleasure? Some interpreters solve this difficulty by what appears to me a frivolous conjecture, that the four years ought to refer to the beginning of his reign, and so the time may be brought within the third year. But in the second chapter we shall see Daniel brought before the king in the second year of his reign. They explain this difficulty also by another solution. They say — the years are not reckoned from the beginning of the reign, and, — this was the second year from the Conquest of the Jews and the taking of Jerusalem; but this is too harsh and forced. The most probable conjecture seems to me, that the Prophet is speaking of the first King Nebuchadnezzar, or at least uses the reign of the second, while his father was yet alive. We know there were two kings of the same name, father and son; and as the son did many noble and illustrious actions, he acquired the surname of Great. Whatever, therefore, we shall afterwards meet with concerning Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be understood except of the second, who is the son. But Josephus says the son was sent by his father against the Egyptians and the Jews and this was the cause of the war, since the Egyptians often urged the Jews to a change of affairs, and enticed them to throw off the yoke Nebuchadnezzar the younger was carrying on the war in Egypt at the death of his father, and speedily returned home, lest any one should supersede him. When, however, he found all things as he wished, Josephus thinks he put off that expedition, and went to Jerusalem. There is nothing strange, nay, it is very customary to call him King who shares the command with his father. Thus, therefore, I interpret it. In the third year or the reign of Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar came, under the command and direction of his father, or if any one prefers it, the father himself came. For there is nothing out of place, whether we refer it to the father or to the son. Nebuchadnezzar, then, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem, that is, by the hand of his son besieged Jerusalem. But if a different explanation is preferred, since he was there himself and carried on the war in person, that view not be taken still, the events happened in the third year of Jehoiakim’s reign. Interpreters make many mistakes in this matter. Josephus, indeed, says this was done in the eighth year, but he had never read the Book of Daniel. (68) He was an unlearned man, and by no means familiar with the Scriptures; nay, I think he had never read three verses of Daniel. It was a dreadful judgment of God for a priest to be so ignorant a man as Josephus. But in another passage on which I have commented, he seems to have followed Metasthenes and others whom he cites, when speaking of the destruction of that monarchy. And this seems to suit well enough, since in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim the city was once taken, and some of the nobles of the royal race were led away in triumph, among whom were Daniel and his companions. When Jehoiakim afterwards rebelled, his treatment was far more severe, as Jeremiah had predicted. But while Jehoiakim possessed the kingdom by permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel was already a captive, so that Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled — the condition of the figs prematurely ripe was improved; for those who were led into exile last thought themselves better off than the rest. But the Prophet deprives them of their vain boast, and shows the former captives to have been better treated than the remnant of the people who as yet remained safe at. home. (Jer 24:2.) I assume, then, that Daniel was among the first fruits of the captivity; and this is an instance of God’s judgments being so incomprehensible by us. For had there been any integrity in the whole people, surely Daniel was a remarkable example of it for Ezekiel includes him among the three just men by whom most probably God would be appeased. (Eze 14:14.) Such, then, was the excellence of Daniel’s virtues, that he was like a celestial angel among mortals; and yet he was led into exile, and lived as the slave of the king of Babylon. Others, again, who had provoked God’s wrath in so many ways, remained quiet in their nests the Lord did not deprive them of their country and of that inheritance which was a sign and pledge of their adoption. (69)

Should any wish here to determine why Daniel was among the first to be led into captivity, will he not betray his folly? Hence, let us learn to admire God’s judgments, which surpass all our perceptions; and let us also remember the words of Christ,

“If these things are done in the green tree,

what will be done in the dry?” (Luk 23:31.)

As I have already said, there was an angelic holiness in Daniel, although so ignominiously exiled and brought up among the kings eunuchs. Then this happened to so holy a man, who from his childhood was entirely devoted to piety, how great is God’s indulgence in sparing us? What have we deserved? Which of us will dare to compare himself with Daniel? Nay, we are unworthy, according to the ancient proverb, to loosen the tie of his shoes. Without the slightest doubt Daniel, through the circumstances of the time, wished to manifest the singular and extraordinary gift of God, since this trial did not oppress his mind and could not turn him aside from the right course of piety. When, therefore, Daniel saw himself put forward as an example of integrity, he did not desist from the pure worship of God. As to his assertion that Jehoiakim was delivered into the hand of King Nebuchadnezzar by God’s command, this form of speech takes away any stumbling block which might occur to the minds of the pious. Had Nebuchadnezzar been altogether superior, God himself might seem to have ceased to exist, and so his glory would have been depressed. But Daniel clearly asserts that King Nebuchadnezzar did not possess Jerusalem, and was not the conqueror of the nation by his own valor, or counsel, or fortune, or good luck, but because God wished to humble his people. Therefore, Daniel here sets before us the providence and judgments of God, that we may not think Jerusalem to have been taken in violation of God’s promise to Abraham and his posterity. He also speaks by name of the vessels of the temple. Now, this might seem altogether out of place, and would shock the minds of the faithful. For what does it mean? That God’s temple was spoiled by a wicked and impious man. Had not God borne witness that his rest was there? This shall be my rest for ever, here will I dwell because I have chosen it. (Psa 132:14.) If any place in the world were impregnable, here truly honor ought to remain entire and untainted in the temple of God. When, therefore, it was robbed and its sacred vessels profaned, and when an impious king had also transferred to the temple of his own god what had been dedicated to the living God, would not, as I have said, such a trial as this cast down the minds of the holy? No one was surely so stout-hearted whom that unexpected trial would not oppress. Where is God, if he does not defend his own temple? Although he does not dwell in this world, and is not enclosed in walls of either wood or stone, yet he chose this dwelling-place for himself, (Psa 80:1, and Psa 99:1, and Isa 37:16,)and often by means of his Prophets asserted his seat to between the Cherubim. What then is the meaning of this? As I have already said, Daniel recalls us to the judgment of God, and by a single word assures us that we ought not to be surprised at God inflicting such severe punishments upon impious and wicked apostates. For under the name of God, there is a silent antithesis; as the Lord did not deliver Jehoiakim into the hand of the Babylonians without just reason: God, therefore, exposed him as a prey that he might punish him for the revolt of his impious people. It now follows —

(68) Calvin’s expression is tam brutus homo in Latin, and si stupide et brutal in French; but he is evidently too severe on so valuable an analyst, who, in so many passages, confirms and elucidates the scriptural narrative. Besides, Calvin seems to have overlooked the passage in his Antiq., lib. 11. cap. 8, section 5, where this Book is mentioned, and its contents alluded to at length.

(69) Much light has been. thrown upon the chronology of these times since the age of Calvin: later Commentators have dated from the third year of Jehoiakim’s restoration to his kingdom after his rebellion. See 2Kg 24:2. The subject is discussed with clearness by Bleek in his Theology. Zeitschrist. Pt. in. p. 28O, etc.; and R. Sal. Jarchi on this passage may be consulted, p. 735, edit. Gotham, 1713. See Dissertation at the end of this Volume.



Here Daniel pursues his narrative, and shows the manner in which he was led away together with his companions. The king had demanded young men to be brought, not from the ordinary multitude, but from the principal nobility, who stood before him, that is, ministered to him. Hence, we ascertain why Daniel and his companions were chosen, because they were noble young men and of the royal seed, or at least of parents who surpassed others in rank. The king did this purposely to show himself a conqueror; he may also have taken this plan designedly, to retain hostages in his power; for he hoped, as we shall see, that those who were nourished in his palace would be degenerate and hostile to the Jews, and he thought their assistance would prove useful to himself. He also hoped, since they were born of a noble stock, that the Jews would be the more peaceable, and thus avoid all danger to those wretched exiles who were relations of the kings and the nobles. With regard to the words, he calls this Aspenaz the prince of eunuchs, under which name he means the boys who were nourished in the king’s palace to become a seminary of nobles; for it is scarcely possible that this Aspenaz was set over other leaders. But we gather from this place, that the boys whom the king held in honor and regard were under his custody. The Hebrews calls eunuchs סריסים, serisim, a name which belongs to certain prefects; for Potiphar is called by this name though he had a wife. So this name is everywhere used in Scripture for the satraps of a king; (Gen 37:36; Gen 40:2;) but since satraps also were chosen from noble boys, they were probably called eunuchs, though they were not made so, yet Josephus ignorantly declares these Jewish children to have been made eunuchs. But when eunuchs existed among the luxuries of Oriental kings, as I have already said, those youths were commonly called by this name whom the king brought up as a kind of school of nobles, whom he might afterwards place over various province.

The king, therefore, commanded some of the children of Israel of the royal seed and of the nobles to be brought to him. So the sentence ought to be resolved; he did not command any of the common people to be brought to him, but some of the royal race, the more plainly to show himself their conqueror by doing all things according to his will. He means those “elders” who yet were in chief authority under the king of Judah. And Daniel also was of that tribe, as we shall afterwards see. The word פרתמים, pharthmim, “princes,” is thought to be derived from Perah, which is the Euphrates, and the interpreters understand prefects, to whom the provinces on the banks of the Euphrates were committed; but this does not suit the present passage where Jews are treated of. We now see the general signification of this name, and that all the elders ought to be comprehended under it. (73) — The rest tomorrow.

(73) ‘This word has caused great difference of opinion among commentators. Theodotion does not attempt to explain it. Symmaehus takes it for the Parthians. Jerome interprets it by tyranni , and Saadias by their off-spring. Aben-Ezra considers it a foreign word; and R. Salom. Jarehi calls it Persian, and translates it “leaders” Hottinger and Aug. Pfeiffer both treat it as Persian, but derive it from different roots. “Nobles” or “elders” seems its best English equivalent.



In yesterday’s Lecture we saw how the prefect or master of the eunuchs was commanded to bring up some noble youths, the offspring of the king and the elders; and Daniel now describes their qualities, according to Nebuchadnezzar’s order. They were youths, not so young as seven or eight years, but growing up, in whom there was no spot; that is, in whom there was no defect or unsoundness of body. They were also of beautiful aspect, meaning of ingenuous and open countenance, he adds also, skilled in all prudence, and understanding knowledge; and then, expressing their thoughts I think those interpreters right who take this participle actively, otherwise the repetition would be cold and valueless. Their eloquence seems to me pointed out here; because there are some who inwardly understand subjects presented to them, but cannot express to others what they retain in their minds; for all have not the same dexterity in expressing exactly what they think Daniel, therefore, notices both qualifications here — the acquisition of knowledge, and the power of communicating it.

And in whom was vigor for כח, cach, usually signifies fortitude, as in Isaiah. (Isa 40:9.) Those who fear God shall change their fortitude, or renew their rigor. Then in Psa 22:0, (Psa 22:15,) my strength or rigor has failed.” He adds, the fortitude or vigor of intelligence, knowledge, and eloquence; or a healthy habit of body, which is the same thing. (77) That they might stand in the king ’s palace, and be taught literature, (I cannot translate the particle ספר, sepher, otherwise, verbally it is a “letter, ” but it means learning or discipline,) and the language of the Chaldees We now see how the king regarded not only their rank, when he ordered the most excellent of the royal and noble children to be brought to him; but he exercised his choice that those who were to be his servants should be clever; they were of high birth, as the phrase is; so they ought to prevail in eloquence and give hopeful promise of general excellence in both body and mind. Without doubt he wished them to be held in great estimation, that he might win over other Jews also. Thus, if they afterwards obtained authority, should circumstances allow of it, they might become rulers in Judea, bearing sway over their own people, and yet remain attached to the Babylonian empire. This was the king’s design; it affords no reason why we should praise his liberality, since it is sufficiently apparent that he consulted nothing but his own advantage.

Meanwhile, we observe, that learning and the liberal arts were not then so despised as they are in this age, and in those immediately preceding it. So strongly has barbarism prevailed in the world, that it is almost disgraceful for nobles to be reckoned among the men of education and of letters! The chief boast. of the nobility was to be destitute of scholarship — nay, they gloried in the assertion, that they were “no scholars,” in the language of the day; and if any of their rank were versed in literature, they acquired their attainments for no other purpose than to be made bishops and abbots’ still, as I have said, they generally despised all literature. We perceive the age in which Daniel lived was not so barbarous, for the king wished to have these boys whom he caused to be so instructed, among his own princes, as we have said, to promote his own advantage; still we must remark upon the habit of that age. As to his requiring so much knowledge and skill, it may seem out of place, and more than their tender age admitted, that they should be so accomplished in prudence, knowledge, and experience. But we know that kings require nothing in moderation when they order anything to be prepared, they often ascend beyond the clouds. So Nebuchadnezzar speaks here; and Daniel, who relates his commands, does so in a royal manner. Since the king commanded all the most accomplished to be brought before him, if they really manifested any remarkable qualities, we need not be surprised at their knowledge, skill, and prudence. The king simply wished those boys and youths to be brought to him who were ingenious and dangerous, and adapted to learn with rapidly; and then those who were naturally eloquent and of a healthy constitution of body. For it follows directly, that they might learn, or be taught the literature and language of the Chaldees We perceive that King Nebuchadnezzar did not demand teachers, but boys of high birth, and good talents, and of promising abilities; he wished them to be liberally instructed in the doctrine of the Chaldees he was unwilling to have youths of merely polished and cultivated minds without natural abilities. His desire to have them acquainted with the language of Chaldea arose from his wish to separate them by degrees from their own nation, to introduce them to forget their Jewish birth, and to acquire the Chaldean manners, since language is a singular bond of communication. Respecting their learning, we may ask, whether Daniel and his companions were permitted to learn arts full of imposition, which we know to be the nature of the Chaldean learning. For they professed to know every one’s fate, as in these days there are many impostors in the world, who are called fortune-tellers. They abused an honorable name when they called themselves mathematicians, as if there were no scientific learning separate from those arts and diabolic illusions. And as to the use of the word, the Caesars, in their laws, unite Chaldeans and mathematicians, treating them as synonymous. But the explanation is easy, — the Chaldeans not only pursued that astrology which is called “Judicial,” but were also skilled in the true and genuine knowledge of the stars. The ancients say, that the course of the stars was observed by the Chaldeans, as there was no region of the world so full of them, and none possessed so extensive an horizon on all sides. As the Chaldeans enjoyed this advantage of having the heavens so fully exposed to the contemplation of man, this may have led to their study, and have conduced to the more earnest pursuit of astrology. But as the minds of men are inclined to vain and foolish curiosity, they were not content with legitimate science, but fell into foolish and perverse imaginations. For what fortune-tellers predict of any one’s destiny is merely foolish fanaticism. Daniel, therefore, might have learned these arts; that is, astrology and other liberal sciences, just as Moses is said to have been instructed in all the sciences of Egypt. We know how the Egyptians were infected with similar corruption’s; but it is said both of Moses and of our Prophet, that they were imbued with a knowledge of the stars and of the other liberal sciences. Although it is uncertain whether the king commanded them to proceed far in these studies, yet we must hold that Daniel abstained, as we shall see directly, from the royal food and drink, and was not drawn aside nor involved in these Satanic impostures. Whatever the king’s commandment was, I suppose Daniel to have been content with the pure and genuine knowledge of natural things. As far as the king is concerned, as we have already said, he consulted simply his own interests; wishing Daniel and his companions to pass over into a foreign tribe, and to be drawn away from their own people, as if they had been natives of Chaldea. It now follows —

(77) It can scarcely be correct to confound bodily with mental endowments. Wintle explains the three clauses very appositely, referring the first to “excellent natural abilities,” the second to “the greatest improvement from cultivation,” and the last to” the communication of our perceptions in the happiest manner to others.”



In this verse, Daniel shews that the king had ordered some youths to be brought to him from Judea, and to be so nourished as to be intoxicated with delicacies, and thus rendered forgetful of their own nation. For we know that wherever there is any cunning in the world, it reigns especially in kings palaces! So Nebuchadnezzar, when he perceived he was dealing with an obstinate people, (and we know the Jews to have been of a hard and unsubdued spirit,) wished to acquire servants spontaneously obedient, aid thus endeavored to soften them with luxuries. This was the reason why he provided for them an allotment of his own meat and drink; as at present it is the greatest honor at princes’ tables to be served with a bon-bouche, as they say. Nebuchadnezzar wished this Daniel and his companions, though but captives and exiles, to be brought up not only splendidly but royally, if of the royal race. Through his right of conquest he, had drawn them away violently from their country, as we said yesterday. Hence he does not act thus from any feeling of liberality, and his feeding those miserable exiles from his own table should not be esteemed a virtuous action; but, as we have said, he cleverly reconciles the minds of the boys to be reckoned Chaldeans rather than Jews, and thus to deny their own race. This, then, was the king’s intention; but we shall see how God governed Daniel and his companions by His Spirit, and how they became aware of these snares of the devil, and abstained from the royal diet, lest they should become polluted by it. This point will hereafter be treated in its place — we are now only commenting on the craftiness of the king. He, commanded a daily portion of diet to be distributed to them, not that the spirit of parsimony dictated this daily portion, but the king wished their food should be exactly the same as his own and that of the chiefs.

He adds, that they should be educated for three years; meaning, until they were thoroughly skilled in both the language and knowledge of the Chaldeans. Three years were sufficient for both these objects, since he had selected youths of sufficient talent to learn with ease both languages and sciences. As they were endued with such capacity, it is not surprising that the space of three years had been prescribed by the king. At length, he says, at the end of them, meaning of the three years. We have shown how this ought not to be referred to the boys, as if the king afterwards selected some of them, for we shall see in its own place that a distinct time was fixed beforehand; hence no long refutation is needed. It is certain, then, that the Prophet speaks of the close of the three years. It had been said just before, that they with stand in the palace; but this ought also to be understood of the time of which mention has been made. They did not stand before the king immediately, but were reserved for this purpose. Since the king commanded them to be brought up for the purpose of using their services afterwards Daniel twice repeats — they were splendidly educated — seeing the king wished them to become his servants at table and in other duties.



The Prophet now comes to what properly belongs to his purpose. He did not propose to write a full narrative, but he touched shortly on what was necessary, to inform us how God prepared him for the subsequent discharge of the prophetic office. After he had stated their selection from the royal and noble seed, as excelling in talent, dexterity, and eloquence, as well as in rigor of body, he now adds, that he would his companions were among them. He leaves out the rest, because he had nothing to record of them worthy of mention; and, as I have said, the narrative hitherto is only subsidiary. The Prophet’s object, then, must be noticed, since he was exiled, and educated royally and sumptuously in the palace of King Nebuchadnezzar, that he might afterwards be one of the prefects, and his companions be elevated to the same rank. He does not say that he was of the royal house, but only of the tribe of Judah; but he was probably born of a noble rather than of a plebeian family, since kings more commonly selected their prefects from their own relations than from others. Moreover, since the kingdom of Israel was cut off, perhaps through a feeling of modesty, Daniel did not record his family, nor openly assert his origin from a noble and celebrated stock. He was content with a single word, — he and his companion were of the tribe of Judah, and brought up among the children of the nobility. He says — their names were changed; so that by all means the king might blot out of their hearts the remembrance of their own race, and they might forget their own origin. As far as interpretations are concerned, I think I have said enough to satisfy you, as I am not willingly curious in names where there is any obscurity, and especially in these Chaldee words. As to the Hebrew names, we know Daniel’s name to mean the judge, or judgment of God. Therefore, whether by the secret instinct of God, his parents had imposed this name, or whether by common custom, Daniel was called by this name, as God’s judge. So also of the rest; for Hananiah has a fixed meaning, namely, one who has obtained mercy from God; so Misael means required or demanded by God; and so Azariah, the help of God, or one whom God helps. But all these flyings have already been better explained to you, so I have only just touched on these points, as the change has no adequate reason for it. It is enough for us that the names were changed to abolish the remembrance of the kingdom of Judah from their hearts. Some Hebrews also assert these to have been the names of wise men. Whether it was so or not, if, was the kings plan to draw away those boys that they should have nothing in common with the elect people, but degenerate to the manners of the Chaldeans. Daniel could not help the prince or master of the eunuchs changing his name, for it was not in. his power to hinder it; the same must be said of his companions. But they had enough to retain the remembrance of their race, which Satan, by this artifice, wished utterly to blot out. And yet this was a great trial, because they suffered from their badge of slavery. Since their names were changed, either the king or his prefect Aspenaz wished to force them under the yoke, as if he would put before their eyes the, judgment of their own slavery as often as they heard their” names. We see, then, the intention of the change of name, namely, to cause these miserable exiles to feel themselves; in captivity, and cut off from the race of Israel; and by this mark or symbol they were reduced to slavery, to the, king of Babylon and his palace. This was, indeed, a hard trial, but it mattered not to the servants of God to be contemptuously treated before men, so long as they were not infected with any corruption; hence we conclude them to have been divinely governed, as they stood pure and spotless. For Daniel afterwards says —



Here Daniel shows his endurance of what he could neither cast off nor escape; but meanwhile he took care that he did not depart from the fear of God, nor become a stranger to his race, but he always retains the remembrance of his origin, and remains a pure, and unspotted, and sincere worshipper of God. He says, therefore, —he determined in his heart not to pollute himself with the kings food and drink, and that he asked the prefect, under whose charge he was, that he should not be driven to this necessity. It may be asked here, what there was of such importance in the diet to cause Daniel to avoid it? This seems to be a kind of superstition, or at least Daniel may have been too morose in rejecting the king’s diet. We know that to the pure all things are pure, and this rule applies to all ages. We read nothing of this kind concerning Joseph, and very likely Daniel used all food promiscuously, since he was treated by the king with great honor. This, then, was not perpetual with Daniel; for he might seem an inconsiderate zealot, or this might be ascribed, as we have said, to too much moresoness. If Daniel only for a time rejected the royal food, it was a mark of levity and inconsistency afterwards to allow himself that liberty from which he had for the time abstained. But if he did this with judgment and reason, why did he not persist in his purpose? I answer, — Daniel abstained at first from the luxuries of the court to escape being tampered with. It was lawful for him and his companions to feed on any kind of diet, but he perceived the king’s intention. We know how far enticements prevail to deceive us; especially when we are treated daintily; and experience shows us how difficult it is to be moderate when all is affluence around us, for luxury follows immediately on plenty. Such conduct is, indeed, too common, and the virtue of abstinence is rarely exercised when there is an abundance of provisions.

But this is not the whole reason which weighed with Daniel. Sobriety and abstinence are not simply praised here, since many twist this passage to the praise of fasting, and say Daniel’s chief virtue consisted in preferring pulse to the delicacies of a palace. For Daniel not only wished to guard himself against the delicacies of the table, since he perceived a positive danger of being eaten up by such enticements; hence he simply determined in his hem not to taste the diet of the court, desiring by his very food perpetually to recall the remembrance of his country. He wished so to live in Chaldea, as to consider himself an exile and a captive, sprung from the sacred family of Abraham. We see, then, the intention of Daniel. He desired to refrain from too great an abundance and delicacy of diet, simply to escape those snares of Satan, by which he saw himself surrounded. He was, doubtless, conscious of his own infirmity, and this also is to be reckoned to his praise, since; through distrust of himself he desired to escape from all allurements and temptations. As far as concerned the king intention, this was really a snare of the devil, as I have said. Daniel rejected it, and there is no doubt that God enlightened his mind by his Spirit as soon as he prayed to him. Hence he was unwilling to cast himself into the snares of the devil, while he voluntarily abstained from the royal diet. This is; the full meaning; of the passage.

It may also be asked, Why does Daniel claim this praise, as His own, which was shared equally with his companions? for he was not the only one who rejected the royal diet. It is necessary to take notice, how from his childhood he was, governed by the Spirit of God, that the confidence and influence of his teaching might be the greater; hence he speaks peculiarly of himself, not for the sake of boasting, but to obtain confidence in his teaching, and to show himself to have been for a long period formed and polished by God for the prophetic office. We must also remember that he was the adviser of his companions; for this course might never have come into their minds, and they might have been corrupted, unless they had been admonished by Daniel. God, therefore, wished Daniel to be a leader and master to his companions, to induce them to adopt the same abstinence. Hence also we gather, that as each of us is endued more fruitfully with the grace of the Spirit, so should we feel bound to instruct others. It will not be sufficient for any one to restrain himself and thus to discharge his own duty, under the teaching of God’s Spirit, unless he also extend his hand to others, and endeavor to unite in an alliance of piety, and of the fear and worship of God. Such an example is here proposed to us in Daniel, who not only rejected the delicacies of the palace, by which he might be intoxicated and even poisoned; but he also advised and persuaded his companions to adopt the same course. This is the reason why he calls tasting the king’s food pollution or abomination, though, as I have said, there was nothing abominable in it of itself. Daniel was at liberty to eat and drink at the loyal table, but the abomination arose from the consequences. Before the time of these four persons living in Chaldea., they doubtless partook of ordinary food after the usual manner, and were permitted to eat whatever was offered to them. They did not ask for pulse when at an inn, or on their journey; but they began to desire it when the king wished to infect them with his delicacies, and to induce them if possible to prefer that condition to returning to their own friends. When they perceived the object of his snares, then it became both a pollution and abomination to feed on those dainties, and to eat, at the king’s table. Thus we may ascertain the reason why Daniel thought himself polluted if he fared sumptuously and partook of the royal diet; he was conscious, as we have already observed, of his own infirmities, and wished to take timely precautions, lest he should be enticed by such snares, and fall away from piety and the worship of God, and degenerate into the manners of the Chaldeans, as if he were one of their nation, and of their native princes. I must leave the rest till tomorrow.



Daniel, yesterday, related what he had asked from the master to whose care he had been committed, he now inserts his sentence, to show this demand to be quite unobjectionable, since the prefect of the eunuchs treated him kindly. The crime would have been fatal had Daniel been brought into the king’s presence. Although very probably he did not use the word “pollution,” and openly and directly call the royal diet a “defilement,” yet it, may be easily conjectured from these words which he now records, that he asked the prefect to be permitted to eat pulse, because he did not think himself permitted to partake of the royal diet. We yesterday gave the reason; but the king of Babylon would immediately have been angry, had he known this. What! he would say, I honor those captives, when I might abuse them as slaves; nay, I nourish them delicately like my own children. and yet they reject my food, as if I were polluted. This, therefore, is the reason why Daniel here relates his being in favor with that prefect. For, as we shall see in the next verse, the prefect simply denied his request. Where was then any favor shown? But though he was not willing to acquiesce in the prayers of Daniel, he showed a singular kindness in not taking him before the king, since courtiers are ready for any accusation for the sake of obtaining favor. Then, very probably, the prefect would know that this had been granted to Daniel by his servant. If then there was any connivance on the part of the prefect, this is the favor and pity of which Daniel now speaks. His intention, then, is by no means doubtful, since he did not hesitate to adopt a different course of life, in order to remain pure and spotless, and uncontaminated with the delicacies of the palace of Babylon. He expresses how he escaped the danger, because the perfect treated him kindly, when he might have instantly caused his death. But we must notice the form of speech here used; — God placed him in favor and pity before that prefect He might have used the usual phrase, merely saying he was favorably treated; but, as he found a barbarian so humane and merciful, he ascribes this benefit to God. This phrase, as we have expounded it, is customary with the Hebrews; as when it is said, (Psa 106:46,) God gave the Jews favor in the sight of the heathen who had led them captive; meaning, he took care that their conquerors should not rage so cruelly against them as they had done at first. For we know how the Jews were often treated harshly, roughly, and contemptuously. Since this inhumanity was here mitigated, the Prophet attributes it to God, who prepared mercies for his people. The result is this, — Daniel obtained favor with the prefect, since God bent the heart of a man, otherwise unsoftened, to clemency and humanity. His object in this narrative is to urge us to greater earnestness in duty, if we have to undergo any difficulties when God calls us.

It often happens that we cannot discharge everything which God requires and exacts without imminent danger to our lives. Sloth and softness naturally creep over us, and induce us to reject the cross. Daniel, therefore, gives us courage to obey God and his commands, and here states his favor with the prefect, since God granted his servant favor while faithfully performing his duty. Hence let us learn to cast our care upon God when worldly terror oppresses us, or when men forbid us with threats to obey God’s commands. Here let us acknowledge the power of God’s hand to turn the hearts of those who rage against us, and to flee us from all danger. This, then, is the reason why Daniel says the prefect was kind to him. Meanwhile, we gather the general doctrine from this passage, that men’s hearts are divinely governed, while it shows us how God softens their iron hardness, and turns the wolf into the lamb. For when he brought his people out of Egypt, he gave them favor with the Egyptians, so that they carried with them their most precious vessels. It is clear enough that the Egyptians were hostile towards the Israelites. Why then did they so freely offer them the most valuable of their household goods? Only beck, use the Lord inspired their hearts with new affections. So, again, the Lord can exasperate our friends, and cause them afterwards to rise up in hostility against us. Let us perceive, then, that on both sides the will is in God’s power, either to bend the hearts of men to humanity, or to harden those which were naturally tender. It is true, indeed, that every one has a peculiar disposition from his birth some are ferocious, warlike, and sanguinary; others are mild, humane, and tractable. This variety springs from God’s secret ordination; but God not only forms every one’s disposition at his birth, but every day and every moment, if it seems good to him, changes every one’s affections. He also blinds men’s minds, and rouses them again from their stupor. For we sometimes see the rudest men endued with much acuteness, and show a singular contrivance in action, and others who excel in foresight, are at fault when they have need of judgment and discretion. We must consider the minds and hearts of men to be so governed by God’s secret instinct, that he changes their affections just as he pleases. Hence there is no reason why we should so greatly fear our enemies, although they vomit forth their rage with open mouth, and are overflowing with cruelty; for they can be turned aside by the Lord. And thus let us learn from the example of Daniel to go on fearlessly in our course, and not to turn aside, even if the whole world should oppose us; since God can easily and readily remove all impediments and we shall find those who were formerly most cruel, become humane when the Lord wishes to spare us. We now understand the sense of the words of this verse, as well as the Prophet’s intention. It follows —



Daniel suffers a repulse from the prefect; and truly, as I have lately remarked, his humanity is not praised through his listening to Daniel’s wish and prayer; but through his burying in silence whatever might have brought him into difficulties. And his friendship appears in this; for although he denies his request, yet he does so mildly and civilly, as if he had said he would willingly grant it unless he had feared the king’s anger. This, therefore, is the meaning, — the prefect, though he did not dare to comply with Daniel’s request, yet treated both him and his companions kindly by not endangering their lives. He says, — he was afraid of the king who had ordered the food He is not to be blamed as if he feared man more than the living God, for he could not have any knowledge of God. Although he may have been persuaded that Daniel made his request in the earnest, pursuit of piety, yet he did not think himself authorized to comply; for he thought the Jews had their peculiar method of worship, but meanwhile he clung entirely to the religion of Babylon. Just as many profane persons now think us quite right in casting away superstitions, but yet they slumber in this error, — it is lawful for themselves to live in the ancient manner, since they were so brought up and instructed by their forefathers. Hence they use rites which they allow to be disapproved by us. So also this prefect might feel rightly concerning Daniel and his associates; at the same time he was not so touched by them as to desire to learn the difference between the two religions. Therefore he simply excuses himself, as not being at liberty to grant Daniel’s request, since this would endanger his own head with the king. It now follows —



Since Daniel understood from the answer of the prefect that he could not obtain his wish, he now addresses his servant. For the prefect had many servants under him, according to the custom of important stewardships. Most probably the steward’s duty was similar to that of the Chief Steward of the Household, (93) as it exists at this time in France. Daniel and his companions were under the care of one of these servants; Daniel descends to this remedy and obtains his wish, though, as we shall see, not without some artifice. And here Daniel’s singular constancy is observable, who after trying the matter once in vain, did not cease to pursue the same object It is a clear and serious proof of our faith, when we are not fatigued when anything adverse occurs, and never consider the way closed against us. Then if we do not retrace our steps, but try all ways, we truly show the root of piety fixed in our hearts. It might have seemed excusable in Daniel, after he had met with his first repulse; for who would not have said he had discharged his duty, and that an obstacle had prevailed over him! But; since he did not prevail with the chief prefect, he goes to his servant. Thus voluntarily to incur risk was the result of no common prudence. For this servant could not make the same objection, as we have just heard the prefect did. Without doubt he had heard of Daniel’s request, and of his repulse and denial; hence Daniel is beforehand with him, and shows how the servant may comply without the slightest danger; as if he had said, — We, indeed, did not obtain our wish from the prefect because he was afraid of his life, but I have now thought of a new scheme by which you may both gratify us and yet not become chargeable with any crime, as the whole matter will be unknown. Try thy servants, therefore, for ten days, and prove them; let nothing but pulse be given us to eat and water to drink If after that time our faces are fresh and plump, no suspicion will attach to time, and no one will be persuaded that we are not treated delicately according to the king’s commandment. Since, then, this proof will be sufficiently safe for thee, and cautious enough for us both, there is no reason why you should reject our prayers. Besides, without the slightest doubt, when Daniel brought this forward, he was directed by God’s Spirit to this act of prudence, and was also impelled to make this request. By the singular gift of the Holy Spirit Daniel invented this method of bending the mind of the servant under whose care he was placed. We must hold, then, that this was not spoken rashly or of his own will, but by the instinct of the Holy Spirit. It would not have been duty but rashness, if Daniel had been the author of this plan, and had not been assured by the Lord of its prosperous issue. Without doubt he had some secret revelation on the subject; and if the servant allowed him and His associates to feed on pulse, it was a happy answer to his prayers. Hence, I say, he would not have spoken thus, except under the guidance and command of the Spirit. And this is worthy of notice, since we often permit ourselves to do many things which turn out badly, because we are carried away by the mere feelings of the flesh, and do not consider what is pleasing to God. It is not surprising, then, when men indulge in various expectations, if they feel themselves deceived at last, since every one occasionally imposes upon himself by foolish hopes, and thus frustrates his designs. Indeed, it is not our province to promise ourselves any success. Hence let us notice how Daniel had not undertaken or approached the present business with any foolish zeal; and did not speak without due consideration, but was assured of the event by the Spirit of God.

But he says, let pulse be put before us to eat, and water to drink We see, then, that the foul youths did not abstain from the royal food for fear of pollution; for there was no law to prevent any one drinking wine, except the Nazarites, (Num 6:2,) and they might eat of any kind of flesh, of which there was abundance at the royal table. Whence then sprang this scrupulousness? because, as we said yesterday, Daniel was unwilling to accustom himself to the delicacies of the palace, which would cause him to become degenerate. He wished, therefore, to nourish his body not only frugally, but abstemiously, and not to indulge in these tastes; for although he was raised to the highest honors, he was always the same as if still among the most wretched captives. There is no occasion for seeking other reasons for this abstinence of Daniel’s. For he might have fed on ordinary bread and other less delicate food; but he was content with pulse, and was continually lamenting and nourishing in his mind the remembrance of his country, of which he would have been directly forgetful if he had been plunged into those luxuries of the palace. It follows —

(93) Du grand Escuyer. — Fr. Trans.



Now this surprising event took place, — Daniel contracted neither leanness nor debility from that mean food, but his face was as shirting as if he had continued to feed most delicately; hence we gather as I have already said, that he was divinely impelled to persist firmly in his own design, and not to pollute himself with the royal diet. God, therefore, testified by the result that he had advised Daniel and his companions in this their prayer and proposal. It is clear enough that there is no necessary virtue in bread to nourish us; for we are nourished by God’s secret blessing, as Moses says, Man lives not by bread alone, (Deu 8:3,) implying that the bread itself does not impart strength to men, for the bread has no life in it; how then can it afford us life? As bread possesses no virtue by itself, we are nourished by the word of God; and because God has determined that our life shall be sustained by nourishment, he has breathed its virtue into the bread — but, meanwhile, we ought to consider our life sustained neither by bread nor any other food, but by the secret blessing of God. For Moses does not speak here of either doctrine or spiritual life, but says our bodily life is cherished by God’s favor, who has endued bread and other food with their peculiar properties. This, at least, is certain, — whatever food we feed on, we are nourished and sustained by God’s gratuitous power. But the example which Daniel here mentions was singular. Hence God, as I have said, shews, by the event, how Daniel could not remain pure and spotless with his companions, otherwise than by being content with pulse and water. We must observe, for our improvement, in the first place, — we should be very careful not to become slaves of the palate, and thus be drawn off from our duty and from obedience and the fear of God, when we ought to live sparingly and be free from all luxuries. We see a this day how many feel it a very great cross if they cannot indulge at the tables of the rich, which are filled with abundance and variety of food. Others are so hardened in the enjoyment of luxuries, that they cannot be content with moderation; hence they are always wallowing in their own filth, being quite unable to renounce the delights of the palate. But Daniel sufficiently shews us, when God not only reduces us to want, but when, if necessary, all indulgences must be spontaneously rejected. Daniel indeed, as we saw yesterday, does not attach any virtue to abstinence from one kind of food or another; and all we have hitherto learnt has no other object than to teach him to guard against imminent danger, to avoid passing over to the morals of a strange nation, and so to conduct himself at Babylon as not to forget himself as a son of Abraham. But still it was necessary to renounce the luxuries of the court. Although delicate viands were provided, he rejected them of his own accord; since, as we have seen, it would be deadly pollution, not in itself but in its consequences. Thus Moses, when he fled from Egypt, passed into a new life far different from his former one; for he had lived luxuriously and honorably in the king’s palace, as if he had been the king’s grandson. But he lived sparingly in the Desert afterwards, and obtained his support by very toilsome labor. He preferred, says the Apostle, the cross of Christ to the riches of Egypt. (Heb 11:26.) How so? Because he could not be esteemed an Egyptian and retain the favor which had been promised to the sons of Abraham. It was a kind of self-denial always to remain in the king’s palace.

We may take this test as a true proof of our frugality and temperance, if we are able to satisfy the appetite when God compels us to endure poverty and want; nay, if we can spurn the delicacies which are at hand but tend to our destruction. For it would be very frivolous to subsist entirely on pulse and water; as greater intemperance sometimes displays itself in pulse than in the best and most dainty dishes. If any one in weak health desires pulse and other such food which is injurious, he will surely be condemned for intemperance. But if he feeds on nourishing diet, as they say, and thus sustains himself, frugality will have its praise. If any one through desire of water, and being too voracious, rejects wine, this as we well know would not be praiseworthy. Hence we ought not to subsist on this kind of food to discover the greatness of Daniel’s virtue. But we ought always to direct our minds to the object of his design, namely, what he wished and what was in his power — so to live under the sway of the king of Babylon, that his whole condition should be distinct from that of the nation at large, and never to forget himself as an Israelite — and unless there had been this great difference, Daniel would have been unable to sharpen himself and to shake off his torpor, or to rouse himself from it. Daniel necessarily kept before his mind some manifest and remarkable difference which separated him from the Chaldeans; he desired pulse and water, through the injurious effects of good living.

Lastly, this passage teaches us, although we should meet with nothing but the roots and leaves of trees, and even if the earth herself should deny us the least blade of grass, yet God by his blessing can make us healthy and active no less than those who abound in every comfort. God’s liberality, however, is never to be despised when he nourishes us with bread and wine and other diet; for Paul enumerates, among things worthy of praise, his knowing how to bear both abundance and penury. (Phi 4:12) When, therefore, God bountifully offers us both meat and drink, we may soberly and frugally drink wine and cat savory food; but when he takes away from us bread and water, so that we suffer from famine, we shall find his blessing sufficient for us instead of all nutriment. For we see that Daniel and his companions were ruddy and plump, and even remarkably robust by feeding on nothing but pulse. How could this occur, unless the Lord, who nourished his people in the Desert on manna alone, when other diet was deficient, even at this day turns our food into manna, which would otherwise be injurious to us. (Exo 16:4.) For if any one asks the medical profession, whether pulse and other leguminous plants are wholesome? they will tell us they are very injurious, since they know them to be so. But at the same time, when we have no choice of viands and cannot obtain what would conduce most to our health, if we are content with herbs and roots, the Lord, as I have said, can nourish us no less than if he put before us a table well supplied with every dainty. Temperance does not exist in the food itself, but in the palate — since we are equally intemperate if pleasure entices us to gratify the appetite on inferior food — so, again, we may remain perfectly temperate though feeding on the best diet. We must form the same opinion of the properties of various viands, which do not support us by their own inherent qualities, but by God’s blessing, as he sees fit. We sometimes see the children of the rich very emaciated, although they may receive the greatest attention. We see also the children of the country people most beautiful in form, ruddy in countenance, and healthy in condition; and yet they feed on any kind of food, and sometimes upon what is injurious. But although they are deprived of tasty sauces, yet God gives them his blessing, and their unripe fruit, pork, lard, and even herbs, which seem most unwholesome, become more nourishing than if the people abounded in every delicacy. This, therefore, must be remarked in the words of Daniel. It follows —



After Melsar saw it possible to gratify Daniel and his companions without danger and promote his own profit, he was humane and easily dealt with, and had no need of long disputation. For an intervening obstacle often deters us from the pursuit of gain, and we forbear to seek what we very much crave when it requires oppressive labor; but when our profit is at hand, and we are freed from all danger, then every one naturally pursues it. We see, then, what Daniel means in this verse, namely, when Melsar saw the usefulness of this plan, and the possibility of his gaining by the diet assigned by the king to the four youths, then he gave them pulse. But we must notice also Daniel’s intention. He wishes to shew that we ought not to ascribe it to the kindness of man, that he and his companions could preserve themselves pure and unspotted. Why so? Because he never could have obtained anything from this man Melsar, until he perceived it could be granted safely. Since, therefore, Melsar consulted his own advantage and his private interest, and wished to escape all risks and hazards, we easily gather that the benefit is not to be ascribed entirely to him. Daniel and his companions obtained their wish, but God’s providence rendered this man tractable, and governed the whole event. Meanwhile, God openly shews how all the praise was due to himself, purposely to exercise the gratitude of Daniel and his associates.



The Prophet here shows what we have already touched upon, how his authority was acquired for exercising the prophetic office with greater advantage. He ought to be distinguished by fixed marks, that the Jews first, and foreigners afterwards, might acknowledge him to be endued with the prophetic spirit. But a portion of this favor was shared with his three companions; yet he excelled them all, because God fitted him specially for his office. Here the end is to be noticed, because it would be incorrect to say that their reward was bestowed by God, because they lived both frugally and heavenly, and spontaneously abstained from the delicacies of the palace; for God had quite a different intention. For he wished, as I have already said, to extol Daniel, to enable him to shew with advantage that Israel’s God is the only God; and as he wished his companions to excel hereafter in political government, he presented them also with some portion of his Spirit. But it is worthwhile to set Daniel before our eyes; because, as I have said, before God appointed him his Prophet, he wished to adorn him with his own insignia, to procure confidence in his teaching. He says, therefore, to those four boys, or youths, knowledge and science were given in all literature and wisdom Daniel was endued with a very singular gift — he was to be an interpreter of dreams, and an explainer of visions. Since Daniel here speaks of literature, without doubt he simply means the liberal arts, and does not comprehend the magical arts which flourished then and afterwards in Chaldea. We know that nothing was sincere among unbelievers; and, on the other hand, I have previously admonished you, that Daniel was not imbued with the superstitions in those days highly esteemed in that nation. Through discontent with genuine science, they corrupted the study of the stars; but Daniel and his associates were so brought up among the Chaldeans, that they were not tinctured with those mixtures and corruptions which ought always to be separated from true science. It would be absurd, then, to attribute to God the approval of magical arts, which it is well known were severely prohibited and condemned by the law itself. (Deu 18:10.) Although God abominates those magical superstitions as the works of the devil, this does not prevent Daniel and his companions from being divinely adorned with this gift, and being very well versed in all the literature of the Chaldees. Hence this ought to be restricted to true and natural science. As it respects Daniel, he says, he understood even, visions and dreams and we know how by these two methods the Prophets were instructed in the will of God. (Num 12:6.) For while God there blames Aaron and Miriam, he affirms this to be his usual method; as often as he wishes to manifest his designs to the Prophets, he addresses them by visions and dreams. But Moses is treated out of the common order of men, because he is addressed face to face, and mouth to mouth. God, therefore, whenever he wished to make use of his Prophets, by either visions or dreams, made known to them what he wished to be proclaimed to the people. When, therefore, it is here said, — Daniel understood dreams and visions, it has the sense of being endued with the prophetic spirit. While his companions were superior masters and teachers in all kinds of literature, he alone was a Prophet of God.

We now understand the object of this distinction, when an acquaintance with visions and dreams was ascribed peculiarly to Daniel. And here our previous assertion is fully confirmed, namely, that Daniel was adorned with the fullest proofs of his mission, to enable him afterwards to undertake the prophetic office with greater confidence, and acquire greater attention to his teaching. God could, indeed, prepare the in a single moment, and by striking terror and reverence into the minds of all, induce them to embrace his teaching; but he wished to raise his servant by degrees, and to bring him forth at the fitting time, and not too suddenly so that all might know by marks impressed for many years how to distinguish him from the common order of men. It afterwards follows:



Now, Daniel relates how he and his companions were brought forward at a fixed time, since three years was appointed by the king for their instruction in all the science of the Chaldees and on that account the prefect of the eunuchs produces them. He shews how he and his companions were approved by the king, and were preferred to all the rest. By these words he confirms my remark, that the Lord through a long interval had adorned them with much favor, by rendering them conspicuous throughout the royal palace, while the king himself acknowledged something uncommon in them. He, as well as the courtiers, ought all to entertain such an opinion concerning these four youths, as should express his sincere reverence for them. Then God wished to illustrate his own glory, since without doubt the king was compelled to wonder how they could surpass all the Chaldeans. This monarch had spared no expense on his own people, and had not neglected to instruct them; but when he saw foreigners and captives so superior, a spirit of rivalry would naturally spring up within him. But, as I have already said, God wished to extol himself in the person of his servants, so that the king might be compelled to acknowledge something divine in these young men. Whence, then, was this superiority? for the Chaldeans boasted of their wisdom from their birth, and esteemed other nations as barbarians. The Jews, they would argue, are eminent beyond all others; verily the God whom they worship distributes at his will talent and perception, since no one is naturally gifted unless he receives this grace from heaven. God, therefore, must necessarily be glorified, because Daniel and his comrades very far surpassed the Chaldeans. Thus God usually causes his enemies to gaze with wonder on his power, even when they most completely shun the light. For what did King Nebuchadnezzar propose, but to extinguish the very remembrance of God? For he wished to have about him Jews of noble family, who should oppose the very religion in which they were born. But God frustrated this plan of the tyrant’s, and took care to make his own name more illustrious. It now follows.



Expositors are puzzled with this verse, because, as we shall afterwards see, the Vision occurred to Daniel in the third year of Cyrus’s reign. Some explain the word היה, haiah, by to be “broken;” but this is by no means in accordance with the history. Their opinion is right who say that Daniel continued to the first year of the reign of Cyrus in the discharge of the prophetic office, although expositors do not openly say so; but I state openly what they say obscurely. For since he afterwards set out into Media, they say this change is denoted here. But we may understand the words better in the sense of Daniel’s flourishing among the Chaldeans and Assyrians, and being acknowledged as a celebrated Prophet; because he is known to have interpreted King Belshszzar’s vision, on the very night on which he was slain. The word here is simple and complete — he was — but it depends on the succeeding ones, since he always obtained the confidence and authority of a Prophet with the kings of Babylon. This, then, is the true sense. (99)

(99) See the Dissertations at the end of this Volume.