09 - Darius the Mede and The Kings of Persia

CHAPTER IX DARIUS THE MEDE AND THE KINGS OF PERSIA In this and the following chapters, will be considered a number of objections against the book of Daniel on the allegation that it is clear that the author was deficient in knowledge or confused in thought. I shall endeavor to show that these objections are based, not upon what the author really says, but upon false interpretations of what he says. These false interpretations arise partly from wrong definitions of terms, partly from a misinterpretation of the meaning of the author’s statements, and partly from the pure creative imagination of the objectors. To the first of these belong the objections which are based upon wrong definitions of such words as satrap, peoples, nations, and tongues; to the second, the assumptions as to the number of the kings of Persia that were known to the author of Daniel, and that are mentioned in the Old Testament; to the third, the assertions that Darius the Mede was a reflection into the past of Darius Hystaspis, that the author confused Darius Hystaspis with Xerxes, and with Darius Codomannus and that he states that Alexander the Great repulsed an attack upon Greece made by the last king of Persia.

OBJECTIONS STATED When we find him (i.e., Daniel) attributing to the Persian empire a total of only four kings (Daniel 11:2; comp., also, Daniel 7:6), this clearly arises from the fact that by accident the names of only four Persian kings are mentioned in the O. T.; when we find that he makes the fourth of these exceedingly rich, provoke a mighty war against Greece, and in a triumphant repulse of this attack by the Greek king Alexander the Great to be defeated and dethroned—it is clear that the author has confused Xerxes and Darius Hystaspis by making them one and the same person, and mistaken the latter for Darius Codomannus.1 In Daniel 6:1, the temptation to suspect a confusion (of Darius the Mede) with Darius Hystaspis—who actually organized the Persian empire into “satrapies” though much fewer than 120—is strong. Tradition, it can hardly be doubted, has here confused persons and events in reality distinct.2

“Darius the Mede” must be a reflection into the past of Darius Hystaspis, father—not son—of Xerxes, who had to reconquer Babylon in B.C. 521 and again in 515, and who established the system of satrapies, combined, not impossibly, with indistinct recollections of Gubaru (or Ugbaru), who first occupied Babylon in Cyrus’ behalf, and who, in appointing governors there, appears to have acted as Cyrus’ deputy.3

Dr. Driver further cites Prof. Sayce’s Higher Criticism and the Monuments, pp. 524-537, as showing “that the representations in the book of Daniel are inconsistent with the testimony of the inscriptions,” and “that the aim of the author was not to write history, in the proper sense of the word, but to construct, upon a historical basis, though regardless of the facts as they actually occurred, edifying religious narratives (or ‘Haggadah’).”

ASSUMPTIONS INVOLVED There are here the following assumptions:

I. That the author states that the Persian empire had a totality of only four kings.

II. That only four Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testament.4

III. That Darius the Mede is represented as absolute ruler of the Persian empire and as having divided it into 120 satrapies.5 IV. That the author of Daniel supposed Xerxes the Great to be the father and not the son of Darius Hystaspis.6 V. That the author of Daniel confused Darius the Mede with Darius Hystaspis.7 VI. That Darius the Mede must have been a reflection into the past of Darius Hystaspis.8 VII. That the author confused Darius Hystaspis and Xerxes by making them one and the same person.9 VIII. That he mistakes Darius Hystaspis for Darius Codomannus.10

IX. That the author states that the attack of the fourth king of Persia on Greece was repulsed by Alexander the Great.11 ANSWER TO THE ASSUMPTIONS

I. The author does not say that the Persian empire had onlyfour kings. Daniel 11:2, which Prof. Cornill cites to show this, reads as follows: “And now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and when he is waxed strong through his riches, he shall stir up all against the realm of Greece.” Daniel 7:6, with which Prof. Cornill compares Daniel 11:2, reads: “After this I beheld, and, lo, another, like a leopard, which had upon its back four wings of a bird; the beast had also four heads; and the dominion was given to it.”

1. It is obvious that before this second verse can even be considered in this connection, it must be clearly shown that it really refers to the Persian empire at all. But this cannot be clearly shown. It will only be regarded as referring to the Persian empire by those who believe that the third kingdom of Daniel’s prophecies is the Persian, rather than the Grecian. But this itself is an assumption, which, while it may be accepted by some, cannot be proven. There are in our opinion stronger reasons for holding that the leopard (or panther) of the verse cited refers to Alexander the Great than to the Persian empire. The lion of Daniel 7:4 would then be the Babylonian empire; the bear, the Persian; and the leopard, the Macedonian. Certainly, if we accept the view that Darius the Mede reigned contemporaneously with Cyrus the Persian as a sub-king under him, there seems to be no reason for speaking of a separate Median empire as set forth in any of the visions of Daniel. If such a separate Median kingdom be ruled out, the leopard must refer to Alexander’s rapid conquests. The number four, used with reference to the wings and heads of the beast, cannot be pressed further than the figure of the vision allows. Daniel himself merely makes them a part of the wings of the flying and devouring leopard, to which dominion was given.

If this interpretation of Daniel 7:6, be admitted, it is obvious that it cannot be brought in to show Daniel’s opinion as to the number of the Persian kings. But, even if Daniel 7:6 did refer to the Persian empire, the four wings and four heads cannot possibly be used to show that Daniel believed that the empire of the Persians had only four kings. We repeat, these four wings and four heads most naturally refer to the rapidity of the movements and to the voracity of the beast. The assumption that they refer to four kings (an assumption which is not the obvious nor the most natural interpretation), and the further assumption that the leopard refers to the Persian empire, cannot be used to support the assumption that the author of Daniel “attributes to the Persian empire a total of only four kings.”

2. As to Daniel 11:2, it is certain that if the writer saw his vision in the first year of Darius the Mede, who was sub-king, or contemporary of Cyrus, king of Persia, and there were still to be three kings of Persia and the fourth was to stir up all against Greece, that the three kings would be in the order of their reigns Cambyses, the Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius Hystaspis. The fourth king would be either Darius Hystaspis, or his son and successor Xerxes. It would be the former if we begin to count with Cyrus as first; and Xerxes, if we count Cambyses as first. It seems, then, that the most likely interpretation would make Darius Hystaspis to be the fourth king. This would agree best with the history of the Persian expedition against Greece as recorded in Herodotus,12 where it is stated positively that it was Darius who was the instigator of the first war against Greece which culminated at Marathon; and that he prepared before his death for the second expedition, which was repulsed at Salamis and Platæa, Xerxes himself being disinclined to the war.13 To represent Darius Hystaspis as the arranger of these expeditions against Greece, harmonizes with the alleged motive of Alexander’s subsequent expedition against Persia. For Quintus Curtius,14 says that the cause of his attack on Persia was said by Alexander in a letter to Darius III to be that Darius I had devastated the Ionian colonies of the Greeks, had crossed the sea with a great army and borne arms against Macedonia and Greece, and that Xerxes had come again with a force of cruel barbarians to fight against them. Arrian, also, in his history of the expedition of Alexander15 gives a letter to Darius Codomannus in which Alexander says that the cause of his expedition against the Persians was to take vengeance on them because their “ancestors having come into Macedonia and the rest of Greece had entreated them evilly.” If Alexander could thus connect his expedition in B.C. 332 with the expeditions of Darius and Xerxes of 490-480 B.C., and rightly so, why may not the prophet in vision have seen them in this close connection? At any rate, the placing of the counter movements of the two empires in juxtaposition, whether by prediction or post eventum, would not prove that the author of Daniel was ignorant of the other kings of Persia, any more than it would prove that Alexander himself, or his historians, Curtius and Arrian, were thus ignorant. No one that knew the history of the Persian expeditions against Greece could well avoid placing them in contrast with the Greek expedition against Persia.

II. Prof. Cornill states that only four Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testament and implies that the author of Daniel supposed from this that Persia had had only four kings.16 But it is impossible to prove that only four Persian kings are mentioned in the Old Testament. It must be admitted that only four different names of Persian kings are found there. But since there were certainly three kings of Persia who bore the name of Darius, let alone others of the name who were not kings, such as Darius the son of Xerxes mentioned in Ctesias,17 it will have to be shown that the author of Daniel was ignorant of more than one Darius, before Prof. Cornill’s contention can be admitted. The sangfroid with which this can be asserted without any proof to establish the assertion is astonishing, to say the least. Of course, we admit that such ignorance on the part of the author of Daniel is possible, but affirm that it is very far from probable, and most certainly far removed from such a degree of certainty as would enable any cautious historian to calmly state it as a fact, without even so much as a qualifying particle. If, as Prof. Cornill believes, we know nothing about the author of the book of Daniel, except that we are compelled “to recognize in Daniel the work of a pious Jew, loyal to the law, of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, who was animated with the desire to encourage and support his persecuted and suffering comrades in the faith by the promise that the kingdom of heaven had nearly arrived,”18 how can he be so certain as to his ignorance of either Jewish or profane history? The author, whoever he was, whenever he wrote, must have had some means of information as to the history of Babylon and Persia other than that to be derived from Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Nehemiah-Ezra, or any other known book or writer of the Jews who lived before 165 B.C.; else, how could he have known there was a Belshazzar at all, especially since his name even is not found in Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias, Berosus, or any other known writer sacred or profane? As to Nebuchadnezzar, also, if the author got his information from Jeremiah, how can he have said that he made a campaign against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, if, as some critics contend, Jeremiah states, or implies, that his first expedition against that city was in Jehoiakim’s 4th year? And if Jeremiah and Ezekiel were the sources of his information, what becomes of the argument against the early date of Daniel, based upon his manner of spelling the name Nebuchadnezzar?19 The early Greek writers, so far as they are known to us, cannot have been the source of his knowledge; for they do not even so much as mention the name of Nebuchadnezzar. As to his knowledge of Darius the Mede, moreover, the author cannot have derived his information from the Jewish writings, nor from the profane, so far as we know; for there is not one of them who mentions such a man, at least under the name of Darius, and with the appellative “the Mede.” If writings existed in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, which described the times from Nebopolassar to Cyrus, then they must either have mentioned Darius the Mede, or not. If they did mention him, the author of Daniel would on this supposition and to this extent be confirmed as to his statements with reference to him. If they did not mention him, then how can this author have supposed that he might console the Jews of his time with an easily exposed fiction about an imaginary king? The fortunate escape from deadly perils of a Don Cæsar, a David Balfour, a Count of Monte Christo, or any other hero of fiction can have no comfort for a miserable person. The divine intervention in behalf of Æneas, as portrayed in the Æneid, would not inspire with the expectation of a like divine assistance anyone who did not believe in the reality of the wanderings and deliverances of Anchises’ son. Just so, a supposititious deliverance of an imaginary Daniel from the tyrannical edicts of a king whose very existence the Jews were not aware, would be a poor consolation in the midst of the cruel torments of the atrocious Epiphanes. The critic draws too much on our credulity, when he asks us to believe that the contemporaries of the heroic Judas Maccabeus would have been encouraged for their deadly conflict by any old wives’ fables, or the cunningly devised craftiness of any nameless writer of fiction, however brilliant. People do not die for fiction, however brilliant. People do not die for fiction but for faith. The writer of the First Book of Maccabees, the best and only first-class Jewish authority upon the history of the wars of the Jews against the Seleucids, states that Mattathias stirred up his followers to revolt against the tyrant by an appeal to the deliverance of the three children from Nebuchadnezzar’s wrath. To have had any effect upon the auditors, they must not merely have known of, but have believed as true, the story to which he appeals by way of example to prove God’s interest in his people. To have believed it, they must have known it. So, also, when the writer of First Maccabees uses the story of the den of lions and Daniel’s deliverance from it to encourage his readers, not he only, but they, must have believed in the actuality of that story. This belief would involve a belief in the existence of Darius the Mede. This belief must have been founded upon some knowledge of him, as well as of Daniel. Such a knowledge is best to be accounted for by supposing that the book ofDaniel, certainly at least that portion of Daniel which mentions him, or some other book now lost but then known by his readers, and from which the author of the present book of Daniel derived his information, was in existence before the time of Maccabees. In the absence of all other books which mention him, and in view of the generally admitted unity of the book, and of the claims of that book to be the record of actual events occurring in the life of Daniel, many of which are such as could have been known to him alone, we can rest our case as far as the story of Darius the Mede is concerned, by saying, first, that the Jews who first read the book must have believed that Darius the Mede existed and reigned; and secondly, that they must have believed that a Daniel once lived in the time ofthat Darius who suffered such indignities for God’s sake and was by Him delivered from the tyrant’s power. But if the writer and his readers believed in the existence of Darius the Mede, they can scarcely have failed to have had knowledge also of the Darius “the Persian” of Nehemiah 12:22. These Jews were fighting not merely for the law but for all the sacred writings. The second book of Maccabees (chapter one) refers to Nehemiah, and Jesus ben Sira numbers him among his great men of Israel (ch. xlix, 13). The author of Daniel, if he wrote after the book of Nehemiah was written, must have meant another king than Darius the Persian by his Darius the Mede. He must have known of Cyrus, also; for he mentions him by name three times. He can hardly have been ignorant of Xerxes, son of Darius Hystaspis; for he is mentioned not merely in Esther, but in Ezra 4 also. Nor can he have been unacquainted with the name of Artaxerxes, —a name occurring twelve times in Ezra and three times in Nehemiah. Since, then, all are agreed that a writer living in the second century B.C. must almost certainly have known the names of four kings of Persia, that is, Cyrus, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes, he who believes in the assumption that he knew only one each of the kings who bore these names must also assume also:

(1) That the writer of Daniel can have thought that all of the kings of Persia mentioned in the books of Ezra-Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah under the name of Darius were the same person.

(2) That he must have been ignorant of Cambyses, of the Pseudo-Smerdis, of two of the three kings named Artaxerxes, of two of the three kings named Darius, and of Xerxes II, Sogdianus, and Arses.

(3) That he must have thought either (a) that Darius the Mede was a king of Persia and the same as the Darius of Ezra-Nehemiah and as the Darius of Haggai-Zechariah, and that these last two Dariuses were the same person, or (b) that Darius the Mede was a Median king who succeeded the Chaldean kings and preceded the Persian kings as monarch of the Babylonian empire, or finally (c) that Darius the Mede was a sub-king under Cyrus, who succeeded Belshazzar as king of Babylon, or of the Chaldeans, or of both the Babylonians and Chaldeans. That is, the assumption that the writer of Daniel knew of only four kings of Persia would involve the assumptions one, two, and three (a), (b), or (c). Not merely one of the three assumptions but the first two and one of the suppositions under three. That Darius the Mede was a Median king who became monarch of the Babylonian empire before, and independent of, Cyrus [(3) (b) above], is supported by no good evidence; and claimed nowadays by no one. So we may rule it out. Can we suppose that in an age when Jewish scholars who knew Greek were flourishing in Egypt and Syria and Babylonia, that these Græcized Jews would be so ignorant of the classical Greek historians as to accept as genuine and canonical the work of an author who thought that there had been only four kings of Persia? Can we suppose that the educated Jews of Egypt were so ignorant of the Egyptian history and monuments as not to know that from Cambyses to Darius Codomannus there had been many Persian kings who ruled over Egypt, among them three Dariuses?20 Can we believe that among the Jews in Babylonia —where cuneiform was written and read as late as the first century B.C.—there were none who could read the documents of their adopted country well enough to reject as fabulous the supposititious history and falsely claimed predictions of the so-called Pseudo-Daniel? Are we to believe, that 150 years after the time when Berosus had written the history of Babylon, and Menander that of Tyre, and Manetho that of Egypt, that in the age of Polybius and Diodorus Siculus and a host of other great historians writing in the lingua franca of the educated world; are we to believe, I repeat, that the nation of the Jews throughout the world, many of whom certainly spoke and read Greek, should be so unacquainted with the history of the world in which they lived, as not to be able to detect and expose the falsities of such a pseudograph and to confute its claims to historicity and canonization? Why, 164 B.C., or thereabout, when some critics claim that the book of Daniel was written, was 16 years later than the time when Jesus ben Sira, according to the same critics, wrote the book of Ecclesiasticus, and just 32 years before the time when the same book was translated into Greek by his no less thoroughly enlightened grandson. It was just a short time before the time when the first books of the Maccabees were written. It was the time when, according to these same critics, much of the Old Testament was written. Can we believe that, at such a time, credence and canonization can have been given to a book, claiming to be historical, but which was at variance with what was known about such easily ascertained matters as the number and names of the kings of Persia? Let those believe who can, that the foisting of such a pseudograph upon the public of that time was possible; but let all remember that such a belief is based upon pure assumption, and has no foundation in any known facts, nor in any reasonable probability, to be derived either from the text of Daniel, from a sensible interpretation of the books of Ezra-Nehemiah and Haggai-Zechariah, or from a likely supposition as to the knowledge of profane history current among the Jews of the second century B.C.

III. However, even if it could be proven that the other Old Testament scriptures mention only four kings of Persia, this would not indicate that the author of Daniel thought Darius the Mede was one of them. Those who assert that the author of Daniel was of the opinion that Darius the Mede was a king of Persia21 base their assertion upon the following further assumptions:

1. That “the realm of the Chaldeans” was the same in extent as the “empire of the Persians.”

2. That “from the fact that in Daniel 6:25, Darius the Mede is represented as the absolute ruler of the Babylonian empire and in Daniel 6:1 as having divided this empire into 120 satrapies, the temptation is strong to suspect that the author has confused Darius the Mede with Darius Hystaspis who actually organized the Persian empire into 20 to 29 satrapies.”

3. That “the author of Daniel supposed Xerxes to be the father and not the son of Darius.”22

1. In answer to assumption number one, that the “author of Daniel thought the realm of the Chaldeans to be equivalent to the empire of the Persians,” it is sufficient to say, that it is an assertion absolutely unsupported by evidence. If we assume that he meant them to be the same, we are met by a host of difficulties, inasmuch as such a king as Darius the Mede preceding Cyrus in the government of the Persian empire is unknown in both the Hebrew Scriptures and in the Persian, Greek, and Babylonian records. But if we allow that the author meant them to connote different dominions, the one local, the other the vast empire of Cyrus, extending from the Ægean Sea to the River Indus, embracing within its limits, as a part of it, the former kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar, no inconsistency is found between the statements of Daniel and the other biblical or extra-biblical sources. Let it be remembered by the reader, that in testing with other testimony the veracity or consistency of a document, it is not fair to take the statements of the document in a sense different from that which the words most naturally imply; nor of two possible interpretations of a passage to take the one which is inconsistent with veracity, while casting aside the one which is consistent. The burden of proof rests upon the man who impugns another’s veracity or the truth of his statements. Pennsylvania is not the United States of America. Prussia is not Germany. England is not the British Empire. Nor was the realm of the Chaldeans even at the height of its glory ever equal in extent, or equivalent in power or dominion to the empire of the Persians. Nor can we believe that any of the critics, nor that any writer of history, sacred or profane, early or late, ever thought that they were the same. The critic may call the author of Daniel an ignoramus doubly dyed; but such an assertion does not prove that the author ever said, or thought even, that the Chaldean kingdom had the same extent as the Persian empire.

2. But, says the critic, does not Daniel say that Darius is represented in Daniel 6:25, as absolute ruler of the Persian empire, and in 6:1, as having divided this empire into 120 satrapies?23 To both of these questions I answer: No.

(1) For, first, no such representation as that Darius the Mede was ruler of the Persian empire is made in Daniel 6:25. This verse in the Revised Version reads as follows: “Then king Darius wrote unto all the peoples, nations, and languages, that dwell in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you.” Now, it is a fact that can scarcely need more than a statement from us, that the Aramaic word here translated “earth” may just as well be translated “land.” the corresponding word in Hebrew, Assyrian, and Arabic may, also, have either of these senses. “All the earth” may mean simply “all the land.” Instead, therefore, of meaning “empire,” as Dr. Driver implies, it is doubtful if a single example of its use in this sense can be found in any literature of any age.24

(22) As to Daniel 6:1, on the basis of which it is asserted that Darius the Mede divided the Persian empire into 120 satrapies, the verse says merely that he placed these satraps over (literally “in”) all the kingdom. The natural interpretation of this kingdom would be, of course, the kingdom over which he ruled. As we have shown above that by this kingdom was not meant the Persian empire, the only further inquiry needed is as to whether or not the sub-kingdom above defined could have had 120 satraps. This inquiry demands consideration of the meaning of the word satrap and of the extent of country over which a satrap may have been placed. The word satrap is derived from the Old Persian Khshatrapavan, which according to Spiegel is compounded of khshatra, “kingdom,” and pa, “to protect.” Its meaning, then would be “protector of the kingdom.” It is used twice only in the Persian inscriptions: in Behistun, iii, 14, where a Persian Dadarshish is called the servant of Darius and satrap of Bactria; and in iii, 55, of the same, where the Persian Vivana is called the servant of Darius and satrap of Arachosia. In the Avesta, the corresponding word is shoithrapan, which Justi, with whom Bartholomae agrees, renders “protector of the country” (Beschützer des Landstrichs) and derives from shoithra-pa. Shoithra he defines as “dwelling place, Wohnort, rus, pagus in opposition to city, about the extent of country occupied by a zantu.” Zantu he defines as a “communion of thirty men and women.”

Now, if we accept of these derivations and definitions, a satrap may have been originally merely a chief of a small body of wandering Medes, or Persians. According to Justi, a daqyu was a region (Gaubezirk) containing several zantus; so that each daqyu might have had several satraps. This daqyu, however, is said by Spiegel to be the same as the Old Persian dahyu of the monuments, which means both country and a sub-division of a country. We have seen above that on the monuments dahyu is always used in the singular to denote a country like Media, Bactria, Babylonia, Assyria, etc., and the subdivisions, or provinces of the same. So that a country like Media may have had many subdivisions each called dahya and each of these may have had several satraps. When Cyrus and Gobryas took Babylon, Gobryas who was already governor (pihatu) of the land of Gutium, a part of Media (?), was made governor of Babylon also. If Gobryas is the same as Darius the Mede, then, according to Daniel 6:1, he may have become king of Chaldea, also, at the time including probably a part of Elam. According to the Cyrus chronicle this Gobryas, himself a pihatu of Cyrus, appointed pihats under him. According to the same chronicle somebody (most probably Cyrus) broke into the land of Accad from Elam at an earlier time and placed a shaknu, or governor, in Erech. This shaknu of Erech and others, who were probably placed over other cities, as well as the pihat placed in Babylon by Gobryas, might all very well be called satraps in Persian for all anyone knows to the contrary. Remember, that satrap occurs nowhere on the Persian monuments save in two places of the Behistun Inscription mentioned above, to wit, Col. iii, lines 14 and 55. While Darius in the Behistun Inscription mentions the names of 23 countries over which he reigned and in the Naksh-i-Rustam inscription mentions 29 of them, it is not said in either that he had set satraps over them; but that he ruled them himself and that they brought tribute directly to him. Besides, even if Darius had called the men who ruled these countries under him by the name of satrap, this would not prove that the rulers of the provinces in these countries may not also have been called satraps by him; and certainly it would not prove that at an earlier time the word may not have been used to denote them. For all we know from the Old Persian inscriptions, it was the only proper Persian title to apply to them.25 In view of this fact, our readers will doubtless consent to the statement that there is no reason why Darius the Mede may not have appointed 120 satraps to rule under him in the kingdom which according to Daniel 6:1, he had received, and over which according to Daniel 9:1, he “had been made king,” as we suppose, by is over-lord Cyrus king of Persia. Notice, whether the kingdom was greater or smaller in extent than Babylonia merely, he may have had satraps under him, and the number of these satraps may have been as large as one hundred and twenty, for all we know to the contrary; and so the statement of Daniel 6:1, stands unimpugned.

Before closing the discussion of the word satrap, it might be well toask whether the use of the word would best agree with the dating of the book of Daniel in the latter part of the sixth century, say 535 B.C., or with the date 164 B.C., when many think that the book must have been written. As to the earlier of these dates, 535 B.C., the only objections to its use at that time are, first, that the writer could scarcely employ the word in an Aramaic document so soon after the Persian conquest of Babylon, which had been accomplished in 538 B.C.; and secondly, that he would hardly have used a Persian word to denote officers of Nebuchadnezzar. As to the former of these objections, it may be said, that the question is, not whether an author writing in Babylonian would have probably made use of the Persian word satrap in the year 535 B.C.; but whether a man writing for the Aramaic-speaking Jews living at the time might have used it. We must remember, that the Aramean inscriptions go back to about 1000 B.C.; that the Aramean tribes had been largely subject peoples from the time of Tiglath-Pileser in 1100 B.C.; that their vocabulary in all stages of its existence was more or less filled with the words of their conquerors, especially in the sphere of governmental terms.26

Finally, let it be noticed that an “and” is inserted in the text between the second and third words of Daniel 3:2, as if the author intended to say “to the satraps, both deputies and governors.” The last two words are the Assyrio–Babylonian shaknu and pihu (pihatu), the ordinary words for the rulers deputed by the king to rule over subject cities and provinces. The former of these words, shaknu, is found once in the Tel–el–Amarna letters of about the year 1500 B.C., and twice in its Phenician equivalent, on one of the two earliest specimens of Phenician writing which have come down to us, dating from the eighth century B.C., at the latest.27 It is found, also, on the Egypto–Aramaic papyrus D14, dating from the sixth year of Artaxerxes I, i.e., 459 B.C., and in the Sachau papyri seven or eight times. In Hebrew and in late Aramaic, it is not used to denote a deputy governor, but a deputy priest. The latter of the two, pihu, occurs in the Hebrew, referring to the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 10:15); in the Aramaic of the Sendshirli inscriptions of about 720 B.C.; and once in the Aramaic recension of the Behistun Inscription from the fifth century B.C. Both terms, therefore, suit the age of Cyrus, since they would then be understood by everyone, inasmuch as all that part of the world had been ruled for hundreds of years by kings using these terms to denote their sub–ordinate officials. The newer Persian word, satrap, may very well have been explained by the two old Babylonian terms, shaknu and pihu. In fact, we find the latter of these employed by the Aramaic version of the Behistun Inscription as well as by the Babylonian in rendering the Old Persian Khshatrapavan, or satrap.28 The author of Daniel, then, merely collects for his Judeo–Aramaic readers of all sections the various terms for governor known to each or all of them, in order to convey to them the sense of the proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar.29

It is not sufficient to reply to this, that the word satrap has not been found in the inscriptions from his time; for these inscriptions, except the Aramaic dockets, are all in Babylonian. They are either building inscriptions or contract tablets, with exception of the broken historical tablet recording the Egyptian campaign, and this fragment contains only one word for ruler, the ordinary word for king, sharru, and but one word for any other official, the word abkallu, “general of the army (?).” the building inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar, moreover, are not concerned especially with political matters,30 and so far as can be known, Nebuchadnezzar may have used satrap in his proclamations, even in the Babylonian rendition of them.31 But as to the Aramaic translations of the proclamations of the Babylonian kings, whenever such translations may have been made, it was absolutely necessary to employ foreign words to express governmental ideas, inasmuch as the pure Aramaic did not possess a native vocabulary sufficient for expressing them.32 When the Arameans came under subjection to any foreign potentate, we find them uniformly adopting some of the governmental terminology of their latest conquerors, and gradually eliminating from their literature traces of former subjugations.33 The satrap of Ezra 3:2, (Peshitto), of Ephraem Syrus, and of Julian the apostate, is evidently taken over from the Greek and not directly from the Persian; so that the use of the word in Syriac does not prove a continuous use of the term in Aramaic from Achæmenid period down, but rather the contrary. Further, along this line, may be noted the fact, that if we place the writing of the book of Daniel in the second century B.C., it is impossible to account for the manner in which the word rendered satrap is spelled in the original, except on the assumption that the author copied the word from the Hebrew of Esther or Ezra; simply changing the ending to suit the Aramaic form. For notice, that the word, as spelled in Daniel, cannot have been transliterated from the Greek satrap, nor apparently from the Babylonian, nor from the later Persian form found in the Avesta. Whenever the word came into the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament, it must have come directly from the Old Persian, which is known to us only from the inscriptions of the Achæmenids, and in the case of this particular word from the Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspis alone. For first, the word satrap in its Greek form has for its first letter a sigma, or s sound. Now, in the transliteration of Greek words taken over into Hebrew or Aramaic or Syriac, not a single one begins with an Aleph, followed by a Heth, followed by a Shin, as does this word ’ahashdarpan in the Hebrew and Aramaic of the O. T. Nor does a single word begin with Heth followed by a Shin. Nor does one begin even with a shin. This statement may be tested by anyone who will take the trouble, as the writer of this chapter has done, of looking over all the words beginning with the above–mentioned letters, as they are to be found in Dalman’s Aramäisch–neuhebräisches Wörterbuch and Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. On the other hand, we are fortunate enough to be able to certify to the manner in which the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Old Testament transliterated an Old Persian word beginning with the same letters in Persian as does the word for satrap. The Old Persian word which the Greek renders by Xerxes, has on the Achæmenid inscriptions the letters khshayarsha; the word for satrap is khshatrapavan. It will be noted that these words both begin with a kh (Hebrew Heth) followed by a sh (Hebrew Shin). Now, anyone can see in a Hebrew Bible, or Dictionary, that Xerxes in its Hebrew form begins with Aleph, followed by Heth, followed by Shin, just as the word satrap does. In like manner, we might reason, that the Hebrew and Aramaic did not take over the word through the medium of the Babylonian; for, if we look at the way in which Xerxes was transliterated in Babylonian, we find at least twenty–four different ways of spelling the whole word and four different ways of reproducing the first two letters. Only one of these twenty–four ways corresponds to the Hebrew and Aramaic transliteration, and written in this way the word occurs but twice, and even there has a difference of one consonantal letter (Evetts, 3, 5).34 As to the Aramaic form of the word used in Daniel having been derived from the later Persian of the Avesta, this is ruled out by the fact that in this Middle Persian the word for satrap is spelled shoithrapan, a form which might be transliterated into Hebrew with a prosthetic Aleph, but never with a prosthetic Aleph and Heth both. Finally, there is no evidence that the word satrap was used in any Aramaic dialect from Greek of Roman times, except in the Syrian. Here, the forms satrapa and satrapis show clearly that the Syriac took over the word from the Greek. From the above induction of evidence bearing on the word satrap, we may conclude, that the word satrap can have been used by a writer in the latter part of the sixth century B.C., because:

First, the form of the word as spelled in the book of Daniel corresponds with the spelling of the Persian of the inscriptions; whereas the spelling of the word in Syriac, the only Aramaic dialect from Greek or Roman times that employs it, shows that the Syriac imported the word from the Greeks.

Secondly, because this spelling shows, that the word as used in Daniel cannot have been taken over from the Greeks, nor from the Persian of the Avesta or later times, nor, most probably, from the Babylonian; but directly from the Old Persian to which it exactly corresponds.

Thirdly, because the sense of the word as used by Daniel has nothing inconsistent with the derivation and use of the word among the Persians themselves.

IV. The assumption that the author of Daniel supposed Xerxes the Great to be the father of Darius the Mede, after having confused the latter with Darius Hystaspis, is so unwarranted, that it may be safely left to the judgment of the reader.35 There is absolutely no evidence in support of such an assumption.36 Excursus on the Words for Land, People, and Nation In support of my contention, that the words for land do not denote the idea of empire in the sense that this latter term is used by Dr. Driver, I append the following data. In all of the building inscriptions of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, irsitiu is found numerous times in the phrase "king of the gods of heaven and earth" applied to the god Merodach.37 Once38 Nebuchadnezzar says that he laid the foundation of his palace upon the bosom of the broad earth (irs?itim), and sometimes he uses it in the phrase "land of Babylon."39 The other and usual Assyrio-Babylonian word for land, matu is used frequently in these and other inscriptions; but, in the singular, it always refers to one land only;40 the plural matati, or matan, being used when the rule of the king of Babylon over other lands is mentioned.41 This is true, also, of the contract tablets from Nebuchadnezzar down, including those from the time of the Persian kings of Babylon. That is, when the king of the land, or city, of Babylon is meant, the singular is used; and when the king of lands is meant, the plural is used. So, also, in the Annals of Sargon (Winckler’s edition), the singular for land (matu) occurs 279 times, always of a country such as Elam, Assyria, or the Medes; or of a part of a country -a district. In this last sense, it is employed sometimes before nagu "district," though nagu may be employed alone in this sense.42 There might also be a land within a land, as "the land of Yatbur in the land of Elam;43 or districts within a land, as "six districts (nage) of the land of Gambuli."44 Or there might be two names united under the head of one land, as "the land of Shumer and Accad."45 Before this last combination of names we find also the two names for land combined as irs?it mati Shumer u Accadi, "the land (surface) of the country of Shumer and Accad."46 Or there might be such a phrase as "the land of the district of the land of the Medes which is of the region of the land of Illibi";47 that is, a land within a land.48 In the Babylonian inscriptions of the Persian kings also, "land" is never used for "lands"; but the former always means a single division of the empire which embraced the lands under the dominion of the great kings of kings. For the empire as a whole the following expressions are used: "lands";49 "lands of the totality of tongues";50 "lands of the totalities of all tongues";51 "the great wide earth’s surface"52 "all the totality of the lands"537 "the totality of all lands";54 "earth’s surface"55; "this great wide earth’s-surface of many lands";56 "the land of Persia and the land of Media and the other lands of other tongues of the mountains and the land this side the sea and beyond the sea, of this side the desert land and beyond the desert land";57 "this great broad earth’s surface";58 "the totality of lands";59 "the totality of all tongues";60 "the great broad earth’s surface";61 "the landswhich are upon all the earth’s surface."62 In these inscriptions, earth as opposed to heaven is denoted by irs?itiu in NR. 1, H. 2, Ca. 2, K. 3; and by k?ak?k?aru. In the Persian of the Behistun Inscription bumi is employed to render both irs?itu and k?ak?k?aru ; dahya for matu; and zana for lisani. The Susian inscriptions make similar and consistent distinctions, using murun for earth, tayiyaus for land, and zana for tongue. In Arabic, balad? came to be used in the sense of matu; but ’ars? had the double meaning of earth as opposed to heaven, and of the land in which we live.63 In Hebrew, the one word ’ars had to do service in both senses. It meant earth as opposed to heaven as in Genesis 1:1; but it was used, also, for land, as in Genesis 4:16, "land of Nod."64 The plural "lands" was used appropriately when a number of countries was meant. A good example is to be found in Genesis 26:3; Genesis 26:4, where the Lord says to Isaac: "Sojourn in the land.; for unto thee and unto thy seed I will give all these lands.; and in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed." Another is the familiar phrase "kings of the lands" as used in Ezra 9:7. (65) In the Aramaic and Syriac, ’ar’, the word corresponding to the Hebrew ’ars?, has the same variety of meanings.

It requires, therefore, more than ipse dixit to show that the author of Daniel meant that Darius the Mede made his own decree for more than a limited portion of that great empire which was ruled over by Cyrus and by Darius Hystaspis. For the word employed in Daniel 6:25, ’ar’ might be used for the land of a city, of a tribe, of a people, or of peoples and nations, as well as to denote earth as distinguished from heaven. The Hebrews consistently employ the word kingdom or realm to denote empire or dominion; but the words used to express the idea are limited to a province , or a country, or a number of countries. The nearest approach in Hebrew to a phrase equivalent to our "Persian empire" is to be found in Ezra 1:2, and 2 Chronicles 36:23, where we read: "Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth." This phrase "all the kingdoms of the earth" is used in the widest in 2 Kings 19:15, 2 Kings 19:19,(66) where Jehovah is said to be God alone of all the kingdoms of the earth; and again in Isaiah 23:17, where it is said of Tyre that "she shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the earth which are upon the face of the ground"; and in Jeremiah 34:1, where it is said that "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth that were under his dominion (memsheleth yado), and all the peoples (ha`ammim) fought against Jerusalem." In a similar sense the phrase is employed where it is said in several places, that God would scatter the children of Israel among "all the nations of the earth."67 In 2 Chronicles 17:10, it is said, that "the fear of Jehovah was upon all the kingdoms of the lands which were round about Judah." In 2 Chronicles 20:29 this fear is said to have been upon "all the kingdoms of the lands" which heard of the slaughter with which Jehovah had caused the sons of Ammon and the inhabitants of Mount Seir to destroy one another, in answer to the prayer of Jehoshaphat recorded in the sixth verse of the same chapter, where he asks Jehovah, God of his fathers, "Art thou not God in heaven? and rulest thou not over all the kingdoms of the nations?" In 1 Chronicles 29:29-30, it speaks of the books which recorded the acts of David "with all his reign and his might and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the lands." In 2 Chronicles 12:8, Israel was delivered into the hand of Shishak, king of Egypt, that they might know Jehovah’s "service, and the service of the kingdoms of the lands." This phrase "all the kingdoms" is found, also, in 1 Kings 4:21, where Solomon is said to have "ruled over all the kingdoms from the River (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt." "All the kingdoms of Canaan" are spoken of in Psalms 135:11; and "the kingdoms of Hazor" in Jeremiah 49:28. From the above examples, it is evident that if the writer of Daniel had wished to indicate the decree of Darius in Daniel 6:25, was meant for the Persian empire, he could have used such a phrase as "all the kingdoms of the earth," as Cyrus did in his decree of Ezra 1:2, and Hezekiah in his prayer; or more definitely still, the phrase of Isaiah 23:17, "all the kingdoms of the earth which are upon the face of the ground." Or, he might have said "all the kingdoms of the lands," or "all the kingdoms of the nations" or, after the manner of Esther 1:1, "all the kingdoms of the earth from India even unto Egypt." But, as he uses simply "all the earth," the presumption is that he meant the land (’ars?), or country, over which he rules, without defining the extent of the country. It might have been merely Babylonia, or Chaldea, or Media, or any two, or all three, of these. According to any fair interpretation, however, it must be made to harmonize with the rest of the book of Daniel as explained in the light of its own evidence; unless and until sufficient evidence shall be gathered to convince unbiased judges the the ’ars? of Daniel 6:25, must have meant the empire of Persia.

But, someone may say, is not this shown conclusively by the use of the words "peoples, nations, and languages" of this very verse? To which the answer is, Certainly not. For these words also must be limited by their context. In Daniel 3:4; Daniel 3:7 bis, 31, they are employed to denote the inhabitants of the provinces of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar; and in Daniel 5:19, Daniel is represented as saying to Belshazzar, that "all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before" Nebuchadnezzar. Here, of course, the Median and Lydian empires can scarcely have been meant. In Daniel 7:14, where it is said that "all peoples, nations, and languages, should serve" the son of man forever, it was probably used in the most general sense. But we contend that they do not necessarily, even in themselves, have this sense. For the words here translated peoples are employed in Hebrew, Phenician, Arabic, and Aramaic in a narrower meaning which will suit the boundaries of the land of a sub-king of a province, as well as the empire of the king of kings. For example, `am, `people" is found in Phenician for the people of the city of Tyre;68for the people of the city of Sidon;69 for the people of the city of Maktar;70 and for those of the city of Carthage.71 In Arabic, the word `am means "a company of men," or as some say "of a tribe."72 In the Arabic version of Isaiah `am is rendered by sa’b, "tribe," in Isaiah 25:3; Isaiah 33:3; Isaiah 45:1, and also Saadya’s version in Deuteronomy 33:3. The Arabic has six of more divisions and sub-divisions of the tribe and several more of the nation.73 In the Aramaic of the Targum of Jonathon to the prophets, and in the Peshitto, `am translates the corresponding Hebrew word and also usually goy, "nation." E.g., Isaiah 14:6, Isaiah 25:3, Isaiah 31:28, Isaiah 42:6. (74)

Goy, the ordinary Hebrew word for nation, is rendered malkuth in Isaiah 11:10; Isaiah 33:3; Isaiah 49:22, by the Targum of Jonathon. L’om is always rendered by maleku in Onkelos. `Am is rendered by shevet in Genesis 28:3, Genesis 48:4, and Deuteronomy 33:3, where it refers to divisions of Israel. Mishpachah, the Hebrew word for family, is rendered in Onkelos by the word for seed. The Samaritan usually transliterates,75 but at other times renders by the peculiar word karn. The Arabic version employs ’asirat, the word in Arabic for the next greatest divisions of a tribe.76 For the Hebrew "house" in the sense of household, or family, Onkelos uses77 "the men of his house." The Syriac has seven words for "gens"; four for family; two for nation; four for populus."78 In Hebrew, we have a much larger number of words for nation, people, etc., such as goy nation, ’ummah tribe, shevet tribe, mat?t?eh tribe, chayyah tribe (Psalms 118:11), mishpachah family, and beth house. Perhaps, also, pachad means tribe in Genesis 31:42

’Ummah occurs but twice in the Hebrew bible and in both cases it is used to denote a subdivision of the `am; in Genesis 25:16, it denotes the twelve divisions of the Ishmaelites, and in Numbers 25:15, Zur the father of Cozbi is said to have been head of the ’Ummoth of a father’s house in Median. As Median is called an `am in Exodus 2:15, it is plain that the ’ummah was a subdivision of the `am, whatever the exact relationship to a "father’s house" may have been. In Babylonian, the ordinary word for people is nishu, which is probably of the same origin as the Hebrew enosh and the Syriac nosho, the usual word for man (vir) as distinguished from woman. The word is used of the people of a city;79 or of a land.80

Less frequently we find the word ummanu, which probably is from the same root as `am. Langdon translates ummananti by "people."81 A third word for people is ummatu;82 a fourth, tenisetu , in such phrases as Ea bel tenisetu "Ea lord of mankind";83 a fifth word is dadmu which is used in parallel inscriptions instead of tenisetu in such phrases as kal dadmi, "all men,"84 or alone for people as in Sargon inscriptions.85 A sixth way of expressing the people of a city, or country, is by the word mare, "sons," followed by the name of the city or land as in the phrase mare ali, "sons of the city," mare Nina, "sons of Nineveh," mare Babili, "sons of Babylon," mare mati Ashshur,"sons of the land of Assur."86 A seventh way is amelu, employed before the name of a city or country to denote the inhabitants of it.87 To denote tribe, the Assyrio-Babylonian employs the words nishatu, kimtu, salatu, emutu, limu, (Hebrew l’om), ummatu (Hebrew ’ummah), s?almat gagadim, s?almat k?ak?k?adi, and lishanu.88 In the Persian of the inscriptions, the following words are used for people etc.: Kara "people";89 karu Mada "the Median people,"90 a word used of the divisions of the Medes and Persians; tauma "family," especially of the family of the Achæmenidæ;91 citra "seed, race" of the Aryan race only, as in NRa 14; par’uzana "of many tribes, or tongues," in the phrase "lands of many tribes, or tongues,"92 equivalent to the Babylonian "lands of the totality of all tongues," and martiya a word corresponding to our word "man." The New-Susian inscriptions of the Persian kings have the same variety of words to denote the people and subdivisions of the people, as we have found in the Old Persian.93

So, also, with regard to the use of the terms to denote mankind and its divisions and subdivisions, the evidence shows, that coördinate, or equivalent, words denoting the same ideas did not exist among all the nations, nor in all languages. The meanings of terms, then as now, were dependent upon social and political conditions. The Arabs, having one kind of society and circumstances, have a suitable vocabulary to express their political and social divisions. The Hebrews, with different conditions, have a different vocabulary. The Persians have another, and Babylonians still another. among the Aramaic dialects, we find the Syrians with a different vocabulary from that of the Targums and from that of Ezra and Daniel. In considering, therefore, the meaning of the terms employed by Daniel to denote the political divisions of the population of the "land" or "earth," we must limit ourselves, not to words employed in Greek, Latin, German, or English, nor even to those found in Arabic, Hebrew, Babylonian, or Persian; but to a consideration of the words we find in the Aramaic itself. When we do this, we find, that `am and ’ummah are the only words in Ezra, Daniel, or the Targums, to express the people of a country, or of its subdivisions. If the book of Daniel had been written in some other language, more terms might possible have been employed to express these ideas. As it is, who can deny that Babylonia itself, or a kingdom, or a sub-kingdom, consisting of Babylonia, Shumer, and Accad, Chaldea, Susiana, and possibly of Mesopotamia, Gutium, and parts at least of Media and Syria, over all of which it is more than possible that Darius the Mede may have reigned as sub-king under Cyrus, -who can deny, I say, that this kingdom may have had in it many peoples and clans and tribes? For example, there was the people, or `am, of the Arameans. One tribe, or ’ummah, of these certainly dwelt in Damascus, others lived in the vicinity of Babylon, others probably had already possessed parts of Mesopotamia. So with the Medes, Darius Hystaspis and Herodotus speak of the people of the Medes and of their clans. Then there were the Arabs, who were not merely a separate `am had always their distinct tribes. Other peoples would be the Babylonians, the Assyrians the Elamites, and perhaps Scythians, Armenians, and Cimmerians.

So, also, with the languages, or tongues, spoken of on Daniel. It is perfectly consistent with the facts revealed by monuments to suppose that decrees put forth at Babylon in the sixth century B.C. would be issued in several tongues, such as the Babylonian, the Susian, the Aramean, and the Median. Darius Hystaspis and his successors have made their inscriptions in three or more languages.94 After the Macedonian conquests, many decrees and inscriptions were made on two or more languages, as witness the Rosetta stone and many of the Palmyrene inscriptions. In a polyglot community, like that of Babylon in the sixth century B.C., any king who really wanted his subjects to obey his decrees must have issued them in languages which they could understand; and so we can well believe that Darius the Mede may have issued his decrees, not merely in Babylonian, or Median, or Persian; but also, it may be, in Aramaic, and Hebrew, and Susian, as well as other tongues.95

Having thus shown that when the author of Daniel says in Daniel 6:25, that Darius made a decree for "all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the ’ars? he may have meant merely for that part of the Persian empire over which he ruled, we shall rest our case, and advise our readers to do the same, until those who assert that the whole empire of Persia is meant shall produce some evidence to support their claim. Let the readers of this article remember that every part of a document, especially one as to which, as in the case of the book of Daniel, the unity is generally admitted, must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the document. The only exception to this rule of evidence is in the case of parts as to which it can be shown by convincing evidence that they have been forged and interpolated in the original text. No so claim has ever been made for this and similar verses. Till such a claim shall have been made and the evidence for it produced, we may be allowed to believe that Darius the Mede is not represented in the sixth chapter of Daniel as the absolute ruler of the Persian empire. A sub-king to Cyrus, king of Persia, may have issued the decree in the terms of the text, without exaggeration of language, or any departure from the truth, or any stretch of his authority, or of the legal bounds within which his writ could run.