READING HALL

THE DOORS OF WISDOM

BIOGRAPHYCAL UNIVERSAL LIBRARY

DANIEL , HIS LIFE AND TIMES.

BY

H. DEANE

PDF

CHAPTER I. Early Days of Daniel

Daniel as a youth at Jerusalem—His early religious and secular education—Effects of these on his career at Babylon—Hebrew politics in Daniel’s youth—Assyria and Egypt the two great powers—Downfall of Assyria—Rise of new empires—Babylon— The sudden growth of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar — Capture of Jerusalem—Daniel taken to Babylon—The journey thither. 

CHAPTER II. Daniel in Babylon

Daniel in Babylon—His daily life there—The old city—The river Euphrates and its lessons—The great tower of Babel—The temples, and a Babylonian wedding—The market—The police— The bank of the Egibi family—The law courts—A scene—A settlement of accounts—The rebuilding of the city by Nebuchadnezzar —Restoration of the temple of Merodach—The great ornamental lake—The hanging gardens—Bridge over the Euphrates—Forced labour.

CHAPTER III. Israel in Captivity

Condition of Jerusalem after the Exile—Death of Jehoiakim—Jehoiachin, and subsequently Zedekiah, taken to join the exiles— The number of them—Their limited self-government—Their oc­cupation—The Elders of the Captivity—The religious observances of the exiles—The false prophets and the true—How the exiles received the prophetical teaching—Specimen of a sermon preached to an Exile congregation—Prophetical teaching on the Exile and on the return—Influence of the appearance of Cyrus upon (1) the world ; (2) the minds of the exiles.

CHAPTER IV.The Education of Daniel

The learning of the Chaldeans — Chiefly theology — How the system was daily brought before Daniel—An objection answered —Three principal external difficulties in speaking of the religion of Babylon—Internal difficulties—The principal gods—Dogmas in Babylon—Origin of evil—Revivification of the dead—Religious books of Babylon—Forms of exorcism—Charms and omens— Scientific treatises—Babylonian education—Physicians and their prescriptions—Summary.

CHAPTER V. Daniel’s First Public Appearance

Daniel’s residence in Babylon—His physical training and diet— Two questions respecting Daniel—Reply—Daniel's wisdom put to the test—Nebuchadnezzar’s dream—Bewilderment of the wise men—A massacre imminent—Daniel’s intervention—His prayer and thanksgiving—He stands before the king—Causes of the king's disquietude—The interpretation of the dream—Daniel’s reward—Three lessons taught by the dream.

CHAPTER VI. The Martyrs of Babylon

The early part of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign—Few foreign troubles arising, except those brought about by Egypt—Peace in Northern and Eastern Asia—Temples built at Babylon—Attention paid to the gods—The colossal image at Dura—Signification of it—Re- ' formation in Babylonian religion—The day of the festival—The pageant—The three holy children—Their brave conduct—The furnace heated—Ordinary use of it—Two marvels—The apoc­ryphal additions to Dan. iii.—The meaning conveyed to the king by the phrase “ Son of God "—How Christians understand it.

CHAPTER VII. A Dream of Sad Import

Absence of notes of time in Daniel—The second dream of the king occurred during a time of peace—Previous warnings—A State document—Biblical language in it—How accounted for— The dream—Four special points of interest contained in it— Effect produced upon Daniel by hearing the dream—His counsel to the king—Consequence of neglecting the Divine warning— Influence of the king's character felt during his madness—His recovery—Tradition respecting him in ancient authors—One strange misrepresentation—The true lesson learned from him.

CHAPTER VIII. The Fall of Babylon 

The successors of Nebuchadnezzar—Evil Merodach—Nergal Sha- rezer—Laborosoarchod—Nabonidus—Growth of Persian power — Steps taken to fortify Babylon—Belshazzar's feast—Description ot it—Not held at Babylon, but at Accad—The inscription on the wall failure of the wise men to read it—Daniel’s interpretation of it—Theimmediate fulfilment of it—Chronological tables.

CHAPTER IX . The Conqueror of Babylon

The revolution at Accad—Political causes—Religious causes— Light thrown upon the history by the inscriptions--Babylon, as the prophets had foretold, destroyed by her own idols—Death of Nabonidus—Accession of Cyrus—Darius the Mede identified with Gobryas—Various hypotheses respecting Darius—Conduct of Cyrus on his accession—Cyrus an opportunist—Cyrus and Israel—Daniel's position with regard to Cyrus and the return from the Exile—Daniel’s difficulties about the end of the Exile—It continues to this day.

CHAPTER X. Daniel’s Testimony to the Truth

Daniel under Darius the Mede—He resides in Babylon—Character of his private house—His further advancement—Envious feelings against Daniel show themselves—Crafty nature of the attack upon him—King-worship originally an Eastern custom, whence it passed into Greece and Rome—Punishment by exposure to beasts —Daniel's prayer and the manner of it—He is detected—The king in a dilemma—Sentence executed—The king's conduct— Daniel’s delivery—Fate of his accusers—A ficticious miracle.

CHAPTER XI. Daniel the Seer

Two styles in the Book of Daniel—Explanation of this—Peculiar character of the visions in the second part—Singular charac­teristics of the revelations—In both visions and revelations we observe certain notes of time—How these were understood—How certain measures of time continue unexplained—The vision of the four beasts shortly described—The New Testament a key to parts of Daniel’s vision.

CHAPTER XII.

Daniel and the Four Empires

Further considerations of the four empires—The traditional interpretation—History of it—Porphyry’s view—The modern interpretation traceable to Ephraim the Syrian—A plain statement of it— Simplicity of it—Difficulties of it—The two little horns represent two different personages—No Median Empire, as distinct from the Persian, existed in the time of Cyrus—The Greek Empire does not correspond with the fourth empire in either vision.

CHAPTER XIII. Daniel's Apocalypse

Daniel at the close of the Captivity—A further vision—Supplemen­tary character of it—Change in the language of the book—Was Daniel actually at Susa?—The little horn—Explanation of the vision—Antiochus Epiphanes—His crusade against the law—The measure of time—Importance of this vision to the Israelites— The Psalms of Solomon arose in the time <?f Antiochus—The Messianic hopes contained in them.

CHAPTER XIV. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel

The first year of the return—Cheering prophecies—Daniel’s difficulty—His prayer, founded on Scriptural phrases, the model of all prayer—The revelation of the seventy weeks—What it taught him—Difficulties felt in the interpretation—The LXX.—Africanus —Apollinarius—Judas—The starting-point of the prophecy—The last week of it—Other modes of explaining it—The Messianic teaching of the prophecy.

CHAPTER XV. Daniel and the Return from the Exile

The end at hand—Importance of the return—Account of it in Scripture—In Apocrypha—Edict of Cyrus—His inscriptions— Poverty of Israel as a colony in Palestine—Smallness of their number—Priests—Form of government —Zerubbabel’s duties— No monarchy—Importance of the temple—Difficulties in recon­struction of it.

CHAPTER XVI. Daniel's Last Vision 

Daniel remains in Babylon—His feelings of solitude—He is acquainted with what takes place at Jerusalem—His fast at the time of the Passover—Reason of it—He goes to the Tigris—The vision—His companions—Whom did he see?—The Word of God —In human shape—Effect produced upon him by the vision— Inferences from what we observe in his gradual recovery—Reason of his terror—Answer to his prayer why delayed—The prince of the kingdom of Persia—Doctrine of guardian angels of states— Nothing unreasonable in this—The threefold asseveration.

CHAPTER XVII. The Last Revelation to Daniel

he character of the revelation—The angelic ministration—The coming struggle—Persia—Greece—Successors of Alexander down to Antiochus Epiphanes—The persecution—Is this interpretation correct ?—Various opinions—Last words to Daniel.

CHAPTER XVIII. The Writer of the Book of Daniel

Anonymous character of the Book of Daniel—Instances of anonymous authors being identified—Attempt made in the case of Daniel — Both parts of the Book of Daniel written by the same man—He professes to have lived from B.c. 606 to B.c. 530—This is borne out by internal evidence—The author is well acquainted with Babylon—Less so with Persia—Greece and the successors of Alexander—Daniel could not have lived when prophecy was extinct, for he did all that prophet ever did—He did not live in the time of Ezra, still less in Maccabean times—The book was well known in the first century of the Christian era—There is break in Hebrew literature for many years—But Ezekiel knew a contemporary of his own named Daniel, who fulfilled all the con­ditions required by the author Qf this bopk.

CHAPTER I.

Daniel as a youth at Jerusalem—His early religious and secular education— The effect of these on his career at Babylon—Hebrew politics in Daniel’s youth—Assyria and Egypt the two great powers—Downfall of Assyria—Rise of the new empire of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar- Capture of Jerusalem—Daniel taken to Babylon—His journey.

The narrative of the Book of Daniel in a few short and unpretending words introduces to our notice the reign of Jehoiakim as marking the era of Daniel the Prophet. He was at that time quite young; but though the ambiguous word “children” is applied to him and to the three others, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (with whom we are still familiar as “the three holy children”), yet extreme youth is not in any way implied by the word “child.” It is a word frequently used in Hebrew, where we should consider it more correct to employ the word “young man.” For instance, Joseph who, we know, was seventeen years of age, is spoken of later as being a ‘child.” So also the companions of Rehoboam are called  children,” though Rehoboam was at the time forty-one years of age.

The age of Daniel being only vaguely described, we may not be far from the truth, perhaps, if we suppose him to have been about seventeen years old at the time of his captivity. Assuming this to have been the case, and working backwards from the year BC 606, in which he first appears to us, we are brought to the year BC 623, as the possible date of his birth. In any case Daniel must have been born during the reign of Josiah, the last good king of the House of Judah. But the year which has been suggested as Daniel’s birth year is one of vast importance in Jewish history, being that in which Josiah effected his notable reformation in Church and State.

It is well known from the Holy Scriptures what immense pains were taken by Josiah, so as to secure for each Israelite a complete education in the principles of the Law of the Lord. He had every reason to do so, after having been a witness of the abominations which had arisen in his time from the general neglect of religious instruction which had prevailed. It is hard to realize the fact, but it is undoubtedly the case, that during the whole reign of good Hezekiah, even while Isaiah was attempting to lead the people of Jerusalem to a closer walk with Jehovah, the temple which Solomon had erected to Chemosh, the Moabite goddess, was standing on the Mount of Olives, opposite Jerusalem. We may remark, in passing, how singular it is that, at so early a time, the type of Antichrist should have been raised in the sight of Mount Zion. But it remained for Josiah, in his zeal for God, to destroy this shrine. Under the guidance of the priest, and probably not without the counsel of his friend, the prophet Jeremiah, he removed this, and all other traces of idolatry from the kingdom of Judah, and restored all the feasts which were required by the law of Moses.

Daniel as a child must have heard of all these events, and of the horrors which had accompanied idolatrous worship. He had been educated upon the principles of the Bible, though his Bible was small compared with that which we possess. However, with such a solid foundation of true practical religion laid in him, we shall not be surprised when we see what was his conduct in Babylon, when he was brought into contact with idolatry as a living power; when, in the very centre of heathenism, we find him bravely refusing to comply with a royal edict, though his refusal would cost him his life. Similarly we shall not find anything unnatural in the manly refusal of the three holy children to fall down and worship the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar had set up. To those who had been brought up in the rigid monotheistic principles of the law of Jehovah, death would be preferable to idol service.

And we may notice another influence of early religious training upon the character of Daniel. When long advanced in years, witnessing the approach of the deliverance from the exile, and wondering, perhaps, whether he should be permitted to return to his own city once more, we find him seeking for comfort by reading the prophecies of Jeremiah, whom he must have seen when a lad, and known as the statesman-prophet of Judah, and friend of the great king of Babylon.

We would gladly learn what secular education was common among the Jews at this period of their history; but, unfortunately, little can be discovered about the matter. We know that “Schools of Prophets” had formerly existed throughout Palestine. We are also informed that in Hezekiah’s time a college of learned men had been very active in collecting what remains of ancient Hebrew literature could then be recovered. One subject, evidently, was taught, namely, geography, for without a knowledge of this a large amount of the Sacred Scriptures would have been unintelligible. We may be sure, however, that whatever subjects of study may have been prescribed, the Hebrews took immense pains with the education of those who were destined to rise in life. They were aware that the main purpose of education was to form habits of attention, and that when these had once been secured, the pupil would be capable of mastering any subject that Divine Providence should put before him.

Upon such principles must Daniel and his three companions in exile have been educated. We shall shortly see that they had not been so very long in Babylon, before those habits of attention and application, which had been formed by their education at Jerusalem, enabled them not only to master the wisdom and learning of the Chaldeans, but actually to surpass these Gentile scholars in their own science.

But we must return to Daniel’s youth, and take a brief survey of Hebrew politics at that period, so as to be the better able to form a distinct view of his times. Let us remember that the two great world-powers at this time were Egypt and Assyria. Palestine lay on the highroad between these two countries. The kingdom of Israel had disappeared nearly a century before the date which we have assumed for Daniel’s birth. Further northwards we find that Syria, mighty kingdom though it had been in former times, was now a dependency of Assyria. Such also were other tribes in the neighbourhood of Judah, the Moabites, Edomites, Ammonites, and others of less note. Whatever power they may have had in former times belonged to thein no more. Consequently, party quarrels between Judah and the neighbouring tribes were quite impossible except with the permission (or rather encouragement) of one of the two great powers.

It was to the Assyrian rule that Daniel, as a youth, was first subject. To the Assyrians, he must have heard, the good king Josiah had paid tribute; and one event, which occurred when he was a lad of thirteen or fourteen years of age, must have been vividly impressed upon his memory for the rest of his life. One day Daniel heard the sounds of mourning and woe; public lamentations, and grievous cries of distress throughout the streets of Jerusalem. These were occasioned by the death of Josiah. Nechoh, king of Egypt, for some reason of which we are not informed, made war against the king of Assyria. Josiah, loyal to his master, went out to fight in his defence. It was in vain that Nechoh urged Josiah to retreat; the king of Judah stood firm to his oath of allegiance, and fell pierced with the Egyptian arrows. Strange indeed that Judah should have lost her best king by his act of supporting an empire which the prophets had denounced for the cruelties which it had so frequently practised upon the people of God. But, whatever may be the opinion of the world at the present time, in those days an oath of allegiance was regarded as something binding in the sight of God and man, and Josiah died faithful to his word which he had given to the king of Assyria.

The Assyrian Empire, however, was doomed to be overthrown, and the great catastrophe was not far distant. Warnings had been given to Nineveh, the capital town of Assyria, that such, most assuredly, would be the case. For just as Daniel was sent to Babylon to prepare that city for her overthrow, so had Jonah been sent to Nineveh, years before in God’s mercy, to preach the doctrine of repentance. His warnings, we know, availed to procure the temporary penitence of the people, but they produced no permanent effects upon their general character, so as to avert the final downfall.

And yet any Assyrian who at that time happened to be well versed ‘i politics might have seen danger in the horizon of his country. On the one side was Babylon, an inveterate enemy, which had never been at any time wholly subordinate to Assyria, but required to be coerced into obedience, and had many times not only attempted to assert her own independence, but actually succeeded in so doing. In the days of Merodach Baladan, the Assyrian yoke was for a time entirely cast off, and nothing but the iron will of the reigning emperors, Sargon and Sennacherib, availed to crush that great Babylonian patriot. On the northern frontier there had been an incursion of a vast horde of Scythians. Very little is known about the history of these tribes, beyond the fact that, in the sixth and seventh centuries before the Christian era, they devastated a large portion of Western Asia and Northern Europe. The news of the danger which was threatened by their approach must have been carried to the head-quarters of the Assyrian monarch, but we do not know whether any steps were taken to check their advance.

A further danger was impending. A new empire was gradually rising in the North, though it sinks into insignificance when compared with the Assyrian or Babylonian Empires. This was the Median power, and between the Median king Cyaxares and Nabopolassar of Babylon friendly relations had been established. But, notwithstanding all these apparent dangers, the signs of the times were neglected by Assyria. No attempts were made to keep off the impending ruin. No doubt, as is often the case both with nations and individuals, the Assyrians were more keen-sighted when looking on the past and the future, than they were with regard to the present.

Daniel, as a youth, was a passive spectator of all these political convulsions. From his own home, and possibly under the guidance of some great man like Jeremiah, he traced the gradual decay of Assyria. He learned that the huge and unwieldy extent of that empire was a continued source of internal weakness to it; that large outlying provinces, and the difficulties of communication were a constant danger to its stability. For instance, if a proper hold had been maintained over the dependencies, how could the Medes have obtained even that semblance of a kingdom which they had acquired under Cyaxares? Or, if a strenuous government had existed, how could the Scythians have succeeded in forming themselves into so strong a power, that with their united action they proved themselves an object of terror both to Assyria and to Media?

Another fact must have arrested the attention of Daniel. Knowing as he did that Assyria and Egypt were the two great powers in the world at that time, he must have inferred that any weakness in the one would be a source of vantage to the other. So he found the Egyptians gradually working their way in the West, while the Babylonians and Medes were advancing on the East and on the North. Apparently, at the very time when the Egyptian king took Ashdod, the strongest Assyrian fortress in the West, Nabopolassar declared the independence of Babylon and prepared to take the initiative against his neighbouring rival. Cyaxares, whose little kingdom was rapidly recovering from the Scythian inroads, was ready to join, and looked forward to pick up anything that he could in the general scramble for the remains of Assyria.

At length the end came, and the time for striking a decisive blow had arrived. Nabopolassar made a friendship with Cyaxares, whose daughter he procured in marriage for his son Nebuchadnezzar. The king of Armenia, a country little known in ancient history, joined Cyaxares in attacking Assyria on the North, Nabopolassar with his son appeared in the very heart of the empire, while the Egyptians appeared suddenly in the West. It was, let us remember, in attempting to stop this advance of the Egyptians that Josiah lost his life. A battle was fought at Carchemish, a fortress of great importance, which commanded the passage of the Euphrates. In this, the Egyptians were victorious, and by this one blow all the Syrian possessions of Assyria, Palestine included, became provinces under Egyptian authority. Thus the nationality of Daniel was changed; he became an Egyptian subject, and saw Jehoahaz, the rightful king, deposed, and Eliakim humiliated by the substitution of the name Jehoiakim for that which he had originally received, while the land was heavily taxed so as to pay the tribute which Nechoh demanded.

It is unknown whether the Egyptian army penetrated beyond the Euphrates; in fact, the whole story of the fall of Nineveh is as yet only partially known. We cannot tell, for instance, whether it was the result of an agreement between the powers that Egypt took the field against Assyria on this occasion. We do not even know by what means the city of Nineveh was taken. Some have stated that a sudden rise of the Tigris effected a wide breach in the broad walls which surrounded the city, and that the victors made an unopposed entrance. Others have said that a protracted siege occurred, which resulted in the king burning his palace over his head. One thing only is certain, which is, that Nineveh fell, and never recovered her former splendour, and that the remains of the vast empire east of the Euphrates were shared between Babylonia and Media, while Nechoh was permitted for the time to retain the Syrian portion of the Assyrian Empire.

Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, was advanced in years at the time of the fall of Nineveh, but his spirit was as ambitious as it had been in his younger days. In his son Nebuchadnezzar he had one whom he rightly regarded as a worthy successor to himself. Accordingly no sooner was Nineveh in his power than he determined to acquire by conquest all that had formerly belonged to Assyria. Naturally his first thoughts were about the western provinces of Syria, which were at this time occupied by Nechoh. From such works on geography and history as he possessed, he was well aware of the importance of a port upon the coast of the Mediterranean. To an empire geographically situated as was the Babylonian, having already means of access to the Persian Gulf, the possession of a harbour on the Syrian coast was absolutely essential. Accordingly, a pretext for war was readily found, and an expedition against Syria, which at this time was an Egyptian province, started under the command of Nebuchadnezzar.

The Egyptians were speedily informed of this invasion of their territory, and started off to meet the enemy. It was in the third year of Jehoiakim, according to the story narrated by Daniel, that the war was commenced by the march of Nebuchadnezzar upon Syria. He was met by the Egyptians at Carchemish, where a furious battle ensued in which the latter were utterly routed. A wonderful account of this engagement is recorded in the Book of Jeremiah. He regards the battle as a decisive point in the history of Egypt. It was—

A day of the Lord God of hosts,

A day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries :

 And the sword shall devour

And it shall be made satiate, and made drunk with their blood:

For the Lord God of hosts hath a sacrifice In the north country by the river Euphrates.

The prophet compares the battle not only to a sacrifice, but to an incurable wound;

Go up into Gilead and take balm,

O virgin, the daughter of Egypt;

In vain shalt thou use many medicines ;

For thou shalt not be cured.

And as Jeremiah had said, so the result proved. Egypt never recovered what she had lost. From that time “the king of Egypt came not again any more out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt unto the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.”

It is impossible to do more than conjecture what occurred after the second battle of Carchemish. It is probable, from the prophecy of Jeremiah, that the Egyptians took to headlong flight, and that the Babylonian army followed in pursuit so as to reap the fruits of the victory. Possibly the king of Judah, being a vassal of Egypt, thought it his duty to go out and oppose the passage of the Babylonians through Palestine. All that we know for certain is that in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which is the year of the battle of Carchemish to which we refer, Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar’s army. How long the siege lasted we cannot say. It is recorded that Jehoiakim was bound in fetters to be carried to Babylon. The sentence, however, was not carried out; for it appears that this king became tributary to Babylon, and continued his miserable reign three years longer. But Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and others of “the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes,” were conveyed to Babylon. In the same caravan with them were taken a part of the Temple vessels, which were placed in the shrine of one of the Babylonian gods

Nothing is recorded respecting the route which was followed by the conquerors as they led their captives from Jerusalem to Babylon. We know that on a later occasion the road through Riblah was taken by the Babylonian army ; hence the valley of the Euphrates was easily reached, down which they marched till they arrived at Babylon. But on that occasion, we must remember, on account of a campaign in Syria, the head-quarters of the Babylonian army were at Riblah. On the present occasion it is probable that only a small number of troops had remained to invest Jerusalem. The rest had either gone in pursuit of the Egyptians, or were guarding the passages of the Euphrates at Carchemish. It is probable, therefore, that another line of march was adopted by them so as to curtail the distance. This would have been to strike into the desert, to pass through Tadmor (or Palmyra), and in this way to reach the Euphrates valley. It is most likely that Nebuchadnezzar took this route, as he was much hurried in his movements on account of the death of his father, which had occurred since the battle of Carchemish.

But as for Daniel, who formed one of the caravan, we have to think of the effects produced upon him at his youthful time of life by the fatigues of so long a journey. We know from the writings of Ezra and Nehemiah how much they suffered from the length of the travel which in their case occupied three months and a half; yet they were journeying home, and we all know that the homeward is less fatiguing than the outward journey. But Daniel was taken away from his home, his friends, and everything that he most dearly loved, to a country, the language of which he could not understand, and to scenes which, to one of his education, were of a most revolting description. Yet the God whom he had served was with him, and Daniel knew whom he had believed. With deep sorrow of heart, but without a shadow of doubt in God’s providence, he passed beneath the gates of Babylon, and entered into exile.

CHAPTER II.

DANIEL IN BABYLON.

Daniel's daily life in Babylon—The old city—The river Euphrates and its lessons—The great tower of Babel—The temples and a Babylonian wedding—The market—The police—The great Bank of the Egibi family—The law courts—A scene—A settlement of accounts—Rebuild­ing of the city by Nebuchadnezzar—Restoration of the temple of Merodach—The ornamental lake—The hanging gardens—The bridge over the Euphrates—Forced labour.

In the manner described in the foregoing chapter Daniel made his first appearance in Babylon. He was at once placed under the strict supervision of competent directors both as to his mental and bodily discipline. This was necessary inasmuch as the cultivation of mind and body were esteemed of equal im­portance in the times of which we are speaking; the well-trained slave being highly valuable to the monarch in tabulating his reports, and furnishing him with various details affecting the welfare of the empire; and on the other hand, the personal appearance of the slaves and other attendants being a weighty matter in a court where so much depended upon the dazzling splendour in which the Eastern nations delighted. For these reasons the chief of the courtiers, Ashpenaz by name, was ordered to 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 tongue of the Chaldeans.”

We have seen that the foundations of Daniel’s learning had been already laid while he lived at Jerusalem. Like his race in the present time, he possessed a marvellous power of application, and even at an early time of life was regarded as a fit person to be initiated into the mysteries of Babylonian learning, and to be taught the language of the country.

But before we proceed to speak of the educational course which Daniel pursued at Babylon, it will be well for us to attempt to picture to ourselves the man himself and his daily surroundings in that city; for we can never truly appreciate the, real character of the men of the Bible unless we endeavour to place them before our mind’s eye as living men, actuated by motives similarly to ourselves, and taking their own part in the bustle and strife of the busy world.

Let us assume that there was a seminary in Babylon where the young men of promise were educated in the learning and wisdom of the Chaldeans; let us suppose also that from time to time these students were permitted to walk through the city so as to gain an insight into Babylonian life and manners, and to be brought into contact with the people in their daily life; and, to fix our thoughts, let us follow Daniel in one of his walks through the city.

Here he is, in one of the oldest cities in the world, a city that can boast of a higher antiquity than even Damascus. He walks through the streets of the capital of a kingdom which claims a succession of kings for over four hundred thousand years before the Deluge, and nearly forty thousand years since that event. Through the midst of the city flows the river Euphrates, which an old Assyrian fragment declares to be “ the life of the world,” a and such, perhaps, was the very name by which the river was called by the guide who escorted Daniel through the town. What a host of ideas must have been suggested to Daniel by the sight of this river. While living in Palestine he had been accustomed to look upon rivers as the emblems of the nations through whose territories they passed. He regarded “the waters of the river strong and many” as the figures of the hostile armies of the East; and the sight of this mighty rushing stream swollen by the melting of the snows on the Armenian mountains suggested to him the various invasions to which his own country had been subjected. It called to his mind the Assyrian ravages from Tiglath Pileser down to Esarhaddon, and those attacks made a few years ago by the Babylonians themselves. And as he gazed from some tower upon the surrounding country, and saw it inundated by the various canals which had been cut for purposes of irrigation, he must have thought of Palestine overspread with troops, covering it like a torrent that gathers up its waters even to the neck of the traveller. And then, as he contemplated the scene, the ancient prophecy occurred to him: “He shall pass through Judah, he shall overflow, and go over, he shall reach even unto the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.” And must not that word “Immanuel” have suggested to him another comforting prophec ? Must he not have taken courage from the thought that all the raging of the nations symbolized by the surging flood was to no purpose against God’s people, “for God is with us ”?

But to return, we must remember that when Daniel first arrived in Babylon the city retained much of its old form. It was not till many years afterwards, when the outlying provinces of Nebuchadnezzar were quieted, that the old city was restored, and the new public buildings were erected. However, the old city must have been a magnificent place, even before the great alterations were made; and as Daniel walked along one of the broad quays abutting upon the river he would have been pointed out the tower of Babel, the ruins of which were then of a far greater size than they are at present. Upon seeing this he would at once remember the destiny of the vast city. He would think upon Isaiah’s prophecy, “Babylon the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency, shall be as when God overthrew the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation.”  Daniel may well have asked himself whether it were possible that this vast centre of life should ever be reduced to a ruin. But his faith gave him the true answer. If Babel, now a ruin, had once been so magnificent, why should not Babylon hereafter become a desert? In her periods of greatest prosperity Babylon had always been a standing witness to the truth of God’s prophecies respecting her future overthrow.

Daniel now turns from the quays to go up one of those streets, or rather squares, which distinguished Babylon from other Oriental cities. The houses are different from what may be seen elsewhere. They are lofty, extending to three or even four storeys, and are alive with business.

At every corner of the streets stands a temple dedicated to one or more of the many gods of Babylon. The walls are made of plaster, in which here and there a row of bricks are imbedded. The portico stands before us, and a grand flight of steps leads up to the temple door. The lintel, bolt, and lock are overlaid with gold, and the cedar roofs are overlaid with silver in some parts, and in others with fine burnished gold. The external decorations are of the most magnificent description ; massive bulls of bronze, and huge serpents guard the entrance.

As Daniel passes by he sees the provisions being delivered for the daily use of the gods—that is, of the priests : “A fine bullock, a fatling, a bullock full grown, food of fish, fowl flesh, vegetables, tokens of abundance, mead, spiced wine, date wine, heady liquor of the hills, pure wine, honey, milk, curd, the first of the oil”—all these provisions are being carried into the temple. And how is it that the temples are able to provide such rich stores? It is because they are endowed. In fact, those offerings of fine flour, sheep, and wine mentioned in the apocryphal book of Bel and the Dragon had been presented before the gods since the year B.C. 2600, and tithes in behalf of the temples had been collected from various cities for many generations.

But a religious ceremony is to be performed in the temple, no less than a marriage service. The marriage settlement has been already drawn up by the proper legal officers. It has been duly witnessed. Those witnesses who could write have subscribed their names. Those who have not acquired the art of writing have impressed their mark by their nails in the well-kneaded clay. By this precious tablet (for such we must call the document) the bride has acquired as her dowry from her father as much as ten minae of silver, and four slaves, not to mention the furniture which she will require for her house.

Perhaps the young lady has been even better endowed. She has received a cornfield, well planted and well tilled; situated, moreover, not so very far from the river, so that she can avail herself of all the machines which were employed for the purposes of irrigation during the dry seasons. This field she has received in lieu of certain personal property with which she is willing to part, to wit, thirty minae of white silver, five of refined silver, two minae of gold, a ring, and two slaves? Happy Babylonians, to find so great a security in land 1 And yet you had to pay tithes. Perhaps you had a poor rate, and a school rate as well; yet-you were better off than the British farmer of the present times.

The marriage ceremony is now being performed in the gate of the temple before the image of the god. Here the bride and bridegroom are placed, and the priest, standing before them, delivers a very solemn address, in which he urges them to make restitution in respect of every wrong which they may have done to any person while they lived in the happy state of bachelor and spinster. Then sacrifices are offered. Libations are poured out. Once again the man and his bride stand side by side, and then, after some further ceremonial, they are solemnly exorcised from all evil spirits that can possibly touch them.

This ceremony being finished, Daniel has the opportunity of seeing the various emblems of the many deities which the Babylonians were accustomed to worship. As he notices these his thoughts recur to that simple faith in which he himself has been brought up, which admitted one temple only for the worship of the One true God, and allowed no symbol or representation of Him to be made. He thought of this, and blessed the Lord who had called Abraham from beyond Babylon, years ago, to leave his false gods, and to become the father of the faithful.

But while we linger with Daniel on the temple steps, we have forgotten that it is market day in Babylon. What vast crowds of people are pressing in from the country to do their business ! What a strange sight for the Israelite to see the prominent part in active life taken by the women of the neighbourhood! They are not closely shut up from the gaze of men as was the case in many parts of the East, but work like men, and at the very same tasks as the men. Perhaps, even, the women are more masculine in appearance than the men, for both have long flowing hair, both are somewhat slender in their frame, but there is an air of audacity in the features of the weaker sex which is not noticed in the stronger. The latter have every trace of brutality and ferocity stamped upon their countenance, but the former add cunning and intelligence to the other marks which they possess in common with the men. But these are not the grand ladies of Babylon, they are only country people. The others are, as Isaiah observes, “tender and delicate,” unused to any hard domestic tasks. But even these are more masculine in their demeanour than the young dandies, who are conspicuous with their richly-coloured turbans, and whom the whole repository of a Jezebel could not supply with sufficient paint and cosmetics to brighten up those cheeks so sunken by the effects of a luxurious and licentious life.

The men and women flock in from the country with their loads of produce prepared for the daily supply of Babylon. But among them some women walk alone; these have no heavy burdens to bear, only a clay jar or two, which they guard with immense precaution. The bearers are married ladies of Babylonia, who, having a certain amount of capital of their own, are trading upon their own account.1 Those earthenware jars contain their precious documents, all stamped upon clay tablets, all duly executed before the judges in the presence of witnesses. Another jar contains her money, and in it she will bring back this evening the leases and mortgage deeds of a neighbour’s property, upon which she is going to advance her manehs. No tender-hearted woman is she; nothing will satisfy her short of the highest rate of interest; no humble three, four, or five per cent., but forty, fifty, or even sixty will she obtain.

Daniel sees the large loads of grain, both wheat and barley, brought in for the needs of the city. He recognizes the oil merchants at once. He sees the large baskets of beans and lentiles prepared for the inhabitants. Fruit is there too, the date, the olive, and the mulberry; while in another place the air is redolent with the perfumes of the various spices in which the Babylonians delighted. He sees the camels, horses, and mules casting off their precious cargoes, and the carter’s dog barks as merrily around his master’s dray as he does in modern London.

Then what a rush of people there is in the streets! Each man is intent on his own business, as if the welfare of the whole world depended upon it! What a crush, too, there is before that spacious mansion! Daniel wonders, and hears that this is the great bank of Babylon, where the firm of the Egibi (probably Jacob and Co.) are only too glad to “do business” with anybody. Here they have traded, fathers and sons, for nearly two centuries, collecting taxes or tithes, lending money at an exorbitant rate of interest, giving mortgages on fields, in fact, doing anything they are asked, provided that they are sure of getting a good return for their money.

Such an enormous amount of traffic being carried through the streets of Babylon, it is quite natural to suppose that officers must have existed whose duty it was to control it; or, in other words, we must take for granted that some police system existed in this great city. It is highly probable that such was the case. (1) We know that immense pains were taken to secure the ends of justice. We know that a table of legal precedents was drawn up for the use of the judges, and it is highly probable that if there was a higher organization of judicial functions, a lower organization must have existed as well. (2) We must not forget that as early as the time of the Hebrew monarchy we find traces of the existence of a police organization at Jerusalem. We have good reason to infer that in a highly civilized society such as Babylon possessed, the police were thoroughly organized at a later period. But (3) one little tablet which has been recently discovered appears to place this point beyond all question. We gather from it that the horrors of modern civilization were not unknown in ancient Babylon. An awful tragedy is described in the following simple but expressive language :

“ Dammu to the child of her husband

Hath given drink. She hath killed him.”

Not a note or a scratch denotes the name of the informer; but here we find an anonymous letter giving information to the police of Babylon that a terrible case of child murder had occurred which required immediate investigation.

Another turn brings Daniel face to face with one of the many gates that, even in his time, defended the town of Babylon from any sudden surprise. These gates are large and roomy places, furnished with seats, and within them the processes of law are carried on. As we enter these gates, we find a father bargaining with his future son-in-law respecting the terms on which he is to receive his wife. In another place we notice a widow pleading before the judges for the restoration of her small fortune, to which her three sons have laid claim. This matter has been hardly settled, when up rushes an energetic young fellow who has some grievance for which he desires redress. As has been remarked with reference to many Babylonian tablets, “these ancient documents show that at a very remote period, as early as the days when Abram was leaving his Chaldean home, the laws were administered by judges who sat in the city gate, and there in the sight of the people dealt out justice apparently of a very common-sense kind.”

Let us follow Daniel into the gate, and see what business is being transacted. Here stands a lady of Babylon, a tradesman, and a youth; the magistrates are seated, and evidently something of importance is about to happen. The youth is the slave of the lady, and it is her intention to increase his value by binding him as apprentice to the tradesman, who is a weaver. The clay tablets have been prepared, and the document states that the slave is to receive from his mistress his daily food and all other necessaries of life, and that the weaver, Bel-Edir by name, shall teach him the art of weaving. The terms of the contract are remarkably severe. If Bel-Edir fails to teach the slave he is to be fined. If either party to the contract contests it in any way he will be mulcted to the amount of forty shekels. It does not appear to whom the fine should be paid, but the exchequer of Babylon, doubtless, was always thankful to receive any sums which would aid it to meet the enormous daily drain that was entailed upon its resources by the vast public expenditure.

Another case is soon called on. Two men have an account current between them, and are anxious to arrive at a settlement. A owes B one mina and fifty shekels. B owes A ten shekels. A agrees to pay B one mina and a third in wheat, according to the market price in the month Tammuz, and to pay the balance in silver by instalments of ten shekels each, without paying interest. The witnesses stand by and sign the important agreement.

We must now suppose several years to have elapsed, and Daniel no longer a youth, but a man of mature years, to be passing through the city. A new town has grown up amidst the old, and has attained a magnitude and a splendour unrivalled in the world. The walls are of an enormous size; their circuit is no less than forty miles, the height between seventy and eighty feet, the width about thirty. The prophet Jeremiah refers to the height of the walls when he says, “Though Babylon should mount up to heaven, and though she should fortify the height of her strength, yet from me shall spoilers come unto her, saith the Lord.” The estimate of Herodotus, that the height was three hundred feet is an obvious exaggeration, and, standing as the city did in the midst of a broad plain, it would be very easy for the eye to be deceived. But the work in any case was one of gigantic proportions, and was due to the skill of Nebuchad­nezzar and his engineers.

Then the great restoration of the temple of Belus was also witnessed by Daniel. The work is described by the great king himself in the following words, “I reared the summit of the house with blocks of noble lapis lazuli; to the construction of Bit-Saggatu my heart uplifted me; in abundance I wrought the best of my pine trees which I brought from Lebanon, to­gether with Babil wood for the portico of the temple of Merodach. I made good the shrine of his Lordship with pine and tall cedar woods. I covered the portico of the temple of Merodach with brilliant gold. I embellished the lower thresholds and the cedar awnings with gold and precious stones.” This, apparently, was the shrine on the summit of the lofty tower or Ziggurat, which is stated to have measured two hundred yards each way at the base, and, being built up in eight stages, to have attained the incredible height of two hundred yards.

Another great work constructed at the same time was a large reservoir on the left bank of the river. It is described by the king as follows: “Great waters like the might of the sea I brought near in abundance, and the passing by was like the passing by of the great billows of the Western ocean. Passages through them there were none, but I heaped up heaps of earth, and caused to be constructed embankments of brickwork.”

But this was apparently only an ornamental piece of work, for not far off was the most extensive work of all, namely, the hanging gardens. It is impossible to get an accurate account of these, but from the various stories that have been told about them, we may infer that the king, with a view of gratifying the longings of one of his wives for something which would resemble the scenery of Media, her own country, constructed in miniature a mountainous region on the plain of Babylon. Masses of earth were collected so as to throw up a mound which formed at the base a square, with each side over four hundred feet long. It was then raised to a great height, and laid out in terraces.

Sufficient soil was placed there to enable the largest of trees to grow, all difficulties with regard to the water supply being obviated by machinery which enabled the appointed officers to draw from the Euphrates whatever quantity was required for the purposes of watering and the like.

The earth required for this mound was probably obtained from the excavation of the large reservoir just mentioned, from the forming of a much larger reservoir, and finally from a canal which was constructed for the purpose of joining the Euphrates to the Tigris.

Among other engineering works which must not be omitted is the bridge over the Euphrates, which is stated to have been built of stone. An ancient writer expresses his wonder at the possibility of the foundations having been laid in a river so rapid as the Euphrates, and carrying along in its bed so large an amount of sand. And it is indeed wonderful, if true, that engineers in those days should have possessed so much practical skill; but in a country where so much pains had been taken with education, and where for so many years a remarkably high degree of culture had existed, the skill and the genius of the engineer or architect is not so marvellous as the energy of that one king, Nebuchadnezzar, who caused all these great works to be carried into effect.

Daniel saw the works executed, and had it been his calling to write a history of Babylon, or a chronicle of the Jewish captivity, he could have told us how it was carried out. But the king himself tells us in his inscription how it was that he managed to compress so much work into a lifetime. It was by employing forced labour. His words are as follows, “I stirred up the disobedient, and I collected the poor and gave full direc­tions for the work, and in numbers I supported them.”  Though it appears to be not improbable that the labourers were paid, yet their service was compulsory. And among those numbers who had been brought away from their own homes, it must be remembered that, in the only case of which we know anything at all, it was chiefly the very best of the inhabitants who were deported. But, probably, the same rule was applied to all other conquered nations. This explains the reason why not only so large a number of labourers, but also why so vast a body of skilled workmen were always easily obtained. The money that was paid in wages was of small consequence to a king who had conquered a large portion of the known world. But hardships were inflicted upon the unfortunate slaves, from which Israel suffered now, as it did of old in the Egyptian bondage. On account of this comes the reproof of the prophet: “Thou didst show no mercy, upon the ancient hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke.” Hence it appears that, whether by the “ancient” is meant the Jewish nation, or persons advanced in years, the taskmaster in Babylon had transgressed those limits of inflicting punishment which had been entrusted to him by Almighty God.

Let us bear in mind again that Daniel was a silent witness of these sufferings, that he saw the disgrace of Israel culminate; and we can well imagine that, as he walked along the quays and broad terraces of the city on his way to his business, he paused by the waterside, where some of his fellow captives had met together for worship, and there addressed to them a few words of comfort from that rich store of Divine truth which he had been taught.

CHAPTER III.

ISRAEL IN CAPTIVITY.

Condition of Jerusalem after the Exile—Death of Jehoiakim—Jehoiachin and, subsequently, Zedekiah taken to Babylon—Probable number of exiles—Their form of government—Their occupations—Their religious observances—The false prophets—How the exiles received the true prophetical teaching—Specimen of a sermon preached to an exile con­gregation—Prophetical teaching on the return from the Exile—Influence of the appearance of Cyrus upon (1) the world ; (2) the minds of the exiles.

The excavations which have been made at Jerusalem during the last few years have exhibited the most remarkable structural phenomena. They have shown us not only that the modern city is built upon ruins, but that these ruins vary in depth from sixty to over a hundred feet. The stratum of ruins with which students of the life and times of Daniel are most concerned dates from BC 580, when the houses which had escaped the destructive work of the soldiers of Nebuchadnezzar were left tenantless of the best of their inhabitants.

A quarter of a century had at that time elapsed since Daniel and his companions had been taken to Babylon, and afterwards no more Israelites were removed from Jerusalem into Babylonian exile. However, since the deportation of Daniel, matters at Jerusalem had been going from bad to worse. It was in vain that Jeremiah had preached by repentance, and threatened the certainty of coming Judgment. It was in vain that, at the peril of his life, he announced his warning message within the sacred precincts of the Temple, and inside the portals of the palace. Jehoiakim persisted in his evil course. Only three years after he had been reinstated by Nebuchadnezzar, it appears that he attempted to form an alliance with Egypt. To what extent his negotiations had been carried is quite uncertain, but we have no doubt that he had entered into some deep conspiracy against the Babylonian authorities. Nebuchadnezzar, to whom it was a matter of indifference who was king in Jerusalem, provided that his own sovereignty was unquestioned, besieged the city and took it, thereby inflicting serious wound on Egypt. In some skirmish, the details of which are not recorded, Jehoiakim was slain. We read, indeed, in the Book of Kings that “he slept with his fathers”; but that sleep of death, which to his brave ancestor Josiah, was a sleep of peace, proved far different to the cowardly Jehoiakim. “He was buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem; ... his dead body was cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.”

He was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who had only been king for a short time, when the Babylonians, for some unknown reason, seized him and carried him off to Babylon; and with him were taken “his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers, and all the mighty men of valour, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths.” Thus there was an accession to the numbers of the colony which had set out seven years previously. Ten years more elapsed, and then another party joined them. The number is fixed by Jeremiah at eight hundred and thirty-two, but as this is a very small number it is probable that the prophet intended to designate some of the higher classes, who had escaped notice at the time of the former captivity. Amongst them was Zedekiah, Jehoiachin’s unfortunate successor, who had been blinded of his eyes at Riblah, was then carried to Babylon without seeing it, as had been foretold, and there died miserably in prison. And last of all, five years later, though under what circum­stances a remarkable silence is observed, the work of desolation was completed by the deportation of seven hundred and forty- five persons more.

It is impossible to estimate the exact number of those who were carried away. The Scripture narrative accounts only for a few more than eleven or twelve thousand; but this reckoning probably refers to the number of households. To obtain the approximate number of individuals we must multiply by five at least. Com­paring the number so obtained with that of those who are reported to have returned, it appears that there is nothing unreasonable in this hypothesis. It must always be remembered, however, that it was the superior classes who were taken into exile; the poor and the unskilled labourers were left in Judaea and in Jerusalem.

Considering the amount of information which the prophet Jeremiah gives us with respect to those Israelites who had been content to remain in Palestine, or had migrated into Egypt, we should have expected to have heard considerable details about those who were taken to Babylon. But it is not so. Except from a few scattered notices in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we know nothing whatever respecting the exiles in the East.

From these sources we will now endeavour to obtain a consistent account of Israel during the Babylonian Captivity; we shall then be able to realize to ourselves more distinctly the position of Daniel.

Jeremiah, in a remarkable letter which he addressed to the captives in Babylon1 some five years after the first detachment of them had settled there, exhorts the elders as follows: “Build houses and dwell in them, plant gardens and eat the fruit of them, take ye wives that ye may be increased there, and not diminished, and seek the peace of the city, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace.” From this passage it is perfectly plain that the exiles had fixed residences allotted to them, that they were permitted to cultivate the soil, that some prescribed form of worship existed; in fact, it is highly probable that there was in Babylon an organized community of exiles governed by its own officers, who were subject in their turn to the Babylonian government.

The language of Ezekiel2 confirms this. It was amongst “them of the captivity at Tel-Abib that dwelt by the river Chebar,” where God first showed this prophet what is called “the rule of prophecy.” Here, as we can easily see, there was a regular colony of Israelites; elders are spoken of in connec­tion with them, who formed a distinct body apart from the rest of the people, as appears both from Jeremiah’s letter, and from many passages of Ezekiel. It may indeed be questioned whether there were various ranks of them or not, but circumstances seem to justify us in assuming that one of these was regarded as the chief.

That this was the case we infer as follows : (1) We notice that as soon as the edict of Cyrus was issued, permitting the Jews to return, Zerubbabel at once came forward as the acknowledged chief and leader of the people, and assumed the management of affairs. It is not likely that he could have appeared publicly in so exalted a position, unless he had possessed certain supreme powers previously. (2) We notice that the names of the Davidic family were most carefully preserved during the course of the Captivity through the lines of Pedaiah, Zerubbabel, and Hananiah. This not only shows us that some officials must have existed whose duty it was to preserve the genealogies of the exiles, but that the chief was selected from the family of the house of David. But (3) what occurred some centuries later amongst dispersed Jewish communities is not without weight in lending some further probability in favour of this hypothesis. At Alexandria, for instance, was the Alabarch, or Arabarch; at other places were persons dignified by the titles of “ Chiefs of the Captivity.” The organization is so simple and so practicable, that we cannot suppose it to have been non­existent in some form or other at Babylon in the times of Daniel.

But while many of the exiles, and probably the greater part of them, lived in this way, there were others who were young men of great promise like Daniel, or were known by report to Nebuchadnezzar as men of ability in science, art, or letters. These were taken to the city of Babylon itself. Here those who were of mature years were employed in carving, painting, or otherwise dedicating their skill to the glory of the king’s palaces and public buildings. The younger persons were taken to the palace, or to an adjacent building, where they were instructed in every branch of science, art, and literature, which professors in ancient Babylon had it in their power to teach.

We have already observed1 that the great mounds which stand to this day on the site of ancient Babylon bear testimony to the sorrows undergone by those who were not skilled work­men. We may say that each Babylonian brick in the British Museum represents a groan from one of this numerous class.

We hear them complain about their sufferings, saying in the Psalms that they were “ devoured,” and “ broken in pieces.” We hear their cries in the sorrowful words which they use of their oppressors, “They swallowed us up quick when their wrath was kindled at us”; “The plowers plowed upon my back and made long furrows.” Or observe the still more more touching appeal for sympathy, which is found in the Psalm where the writer is complaining of the way in which the Hebrew captive musicians were treated by the aesthetic and music-loving Babylonians. “Sing us one of the songs of Zion,” was one of the daily taunts to which some were subjected. Mere curiosity attracted the Babylonians to demand specimens of Jewish music, just as in the present day crowds will go to listen to Japanese or Indian performances for the sake of the novelty of the exhibition.

The religion of Israel, as might have been expected, was not so rigorously observed at Babylon as it had been at Jerusalem. We can trace amongst the Jews of Babylon precisely what we observe among persons of the present times who are voluntary exiles in foreign countries. In other words, English people, when travelling or residing in foreign countries, frequently forget for the time their own religion, and conform to the worship of the country in which they are sojourning. Most of them do not care whether it is a Protestant or a Catholic faith which they profess. Similarly, we find that in the times of the Exile, as soon as the company, which had carried Jeremiah into Egypt, began to grow into a regular colony, the worship of the Queen of heaven was established.1 Such, no doubt, was the case in Babylon. We can find allusions to the facts in the writings of Ezekiel, and there is no room for doubting that what Jeremiah had foreseen actually occurred.

This prophet had warned the Israelites in the plainest words, “ Learn not the way of the heathen,” alluding, of course, to the Babylonish captivity which was then close at hand. But from Ezekiel we learn the facts more distinctly. He speaks of the worship of Moloch as being practised among the elders who came to inquire of him. In course of time idols and idol temples were erected, and even human sacrifices were offered. True, indeed, some communities continued to maintain the outward semblance of the worship of the true God, but side by side with them there dwelt others whose desire was “ to be the heathen, as the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone.”

And though the exiles had prophets like Ezekiel, and in after­times Haggai and Zechariah, men whose sole object of life it was to restore Divine worship to its spiritual purity, yet they imitated the example of the inhabitants of Jerusalem by having their false prophets as well. Strange to say, that same great antagonistic power of false prophecy, which Jeremiah had to encounter within the city of Jerusalem, was endured and opposed by Ezekiel in Babylon. It appears that not so very long after the captivity of Jehoiachin an opinion was commonly current, both at Jerusalem and at Babylon, that the Captivity was nearly at an end, and that Jehoiachin would be shortly restored. This opinion was supported by a false prophet at Jerusalem, named Hananiah, and by two otherwise unknown Jewish false prophets in Babylon named Ahab and Zedekiah. They appear to have been not only misleaders of the people, but also men of immoral lives. Their prophecy that the Captivity was nearly closed was justly construed by Nebuchadnezzar into an act of attempting to incite the Israelites to rebellion, and they expiated their crime by undergoing the horrible punishment of burning.

We must not suppose, however, that falsehood and evil practices were universal among the exiles. Jeremiah speaks of some who were men of blameless life, who were carried into the “land of the Chaldeans for their good,” that is, that they might escape the misery and distress which would fall to the lot of those who remained in Jerusalem till the closing scene in Zedekiah’s reign. Among these was the king Jehoiachin himself, of whom Jeremiah, in his famous chapter of judgment, speaks in terms of regret, without uttering a single reproachful word against him. Amongst others who went to join Daniel in exile was a large class of persons whom the prophet Ezekiel describes in his prophecies as “the righteous.”

But to return to the prophets of the Lord, who were the chief religious instructors of the exiles, let us see how their labours were received by those to whom they ministered. We find that they were treated very much in the same way as their fellow labourers had been at Jerusalem. Nor is it hard to explain this. Just exactly as man has no connatural knowledge of God implanted in him, so is he gifted with no natural religious instincts. True religion can come only by revelation; and those only who have been prepared by a religious education, and by religious influences are capable of receiving religious impressions. In this way we can explain why the majority of men and women now living pay so little regard to any religion whatever. The little education worthy of the name of education that they have received, and the influences which have guided them, have been of an entirely irreligious, if not anti-religious, character, and for this reason they are not only indifferent to religion, but actually come to hate it. Such has been universally the way with the world from the Fall of Adam to the present moment, and upon this general principle we can explain the indifference with which, as we shall see, the exiles received the religious teaching of the prophets.

The best, or rather the only, instance that we can take of a prophetic teacher during the Captivity is Ezekiel, for Daniel’s teaching cannot be properly called “prophetical.” We find that this prophet of the Exile, though listened to by some, was an object of mockery to others. “Ah Lord, doth he not speak parables,” was a scoffing remark made at a message of Ezekiel’s, which was plain enough to be understood by those who were willing to do so. Or again, people went out of curiosity to hear Ezekiel address them, just as many at the present time will go to hear a popular preacher or a religious address, with no further purpose than to criticize. Thus, we hear that some said, with regard to Ezekiel, “Come, I pray you, hear what is the word that cometh from the Lord.” This passage, indeed, proves beyond a doubt that there were many among the exiles who were quite as callous to the earnest exhortations of the prophets as they had been at Jerusalem.

Taking Ezekiel as a type of the prophets of the Captivity, we must say that his preaching is plain and practical. A fitter specimen of his discourses, to illustrate what we are speaking of, could not be taken than that which appears in his twentieth chapter. In this he traces the history of Israel from the Exodus down to his own time, showing that the life of the people had been one continued act of rebellion against God from first to last. They had received their warnings, but the lessons of the wilderness and of the Law were lost upon them. They have served idols; therefore all the offerings are polluted, and once again they are brought into “the wilderness of the people; and here again the Lord will plead with them, as He did with their fathers, so as to purge out the rebels and the transgressors from among them.” And the grand address comes to a close with the solemn announcement that purifying fires must fall upon Jerusalem, because she has become the very centre of all that is opposed to God, instead of what God had intended her to be.

The striking feature in the discourse, of which a very short summary has been just given, is the point of view from which the prophet, himself an exile, regards the Captivity. It is not as a punishment for sins that he looks upon it, so much as a purification from sin. It is a process through which the people of Israel must pass, if they would become more like their God. In fact, the prophet Ezekiel, in this respect, has a point in common with both Jeremiah and Daniel, teaching that a process of refining is the result of oppression and persecution. In the passage cited from Jeremiah, the metaphor is taken from the melting vessel which has been heated to the utmost, and into which the very best fusing metal has been poured, but all to no purpose, “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord hath rejected them.” With Daniel the lesson taught by tribulation is precisely the same. It is “to try them, and to purge and to make them white even to the end.” By such language did these three great prophets anticipate the teaching of the New Testament. “Through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God.” Even so in those days, Israel, when regenerated by the Captivity, would become fitted to dwell in that Canaan of which Ezekiel speaks, at the conclusion of his book.

We have already seen that Jeremiah foretold that there should be a return from the captivity after the end of seventy years. It will be interesting to observe the way in which Ezekiel enlarges upon this point.

Here he pursues the same remarkable line of thought which he took up with regard to the Captivity itself. The condition of Israel in Babylon is analogous to what it had been nearly one thousand years earlier in Sinai and Paran; it is the land through which those must pass who would reach Canaan; and when they enter the land of promise it must, on this occasion as on the first, be divided out upon certain fixed and definite principles No second Joshua is hinted at who sh.ould divide their inheritance to them (a second David is to do this), but the position of each one of the twelve tribes is assigned to it. And then, again, as in the days of the Exodus, minute details were given with respect to the form of the tabernacle, so now does Ezekiel, like a second Moses, lay down the plans for the Israelites to follow when they return and build their Temple. Even the rules for sacrifices, for the dresses of the priests, and similar matters are laid down with a minuteness which makes the latter part of Ezekiel read more like a section of the Levitical law than as a prophetical book.

But the legislation contained in Ezekiel is very different from the Levitical. The priests themselves are no longer to be taken from the tribe of Levi. A more specific determination of their qualifications is now given. The prophet is so fully convinced of the firmness and stability of the promises of God made to David, that he limits the ministers of the Temple to the descendants of Zadok, saying, “The priests, the Levites, the sons of Zadok, that kept the charge of My sanctuary when the children of Israel went astray from Me, and they shall come near Me to minister unto Me, and they shall stand before Me to offer unto Me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord God.”

In this striking language Ezekiel recalled to the minds of the people the infallible character of God’s promises to David, in spite of the apparent failure which they had received when Jerusalem was destroyed.

We see, then, that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, the three great prophets of the Exile, each have their own peculiar way of exhibiting (so to say) the certainty of the return from the Captivity. Jeremiah bought a field, though he knew that it was so soon to fall into the hands of the Babylonians, and then to show how firmly he believed in the return from the Captivity, “subscribed the evidence, and sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed the money in the balances.” Ezekiel indicates his belief in the certainty of deliverance by legislating for the revived community. With Daniel, the certainty of the future is expressed in a more peculiar manner. He assumes that his people actually are dwelling in Palestine, and then points out some of the perils to which they would be exposed after their return, warning them also that a period of seventy weeks further probation was determined upon them in Palestine.

There is another feature which is found in the writings of these three great prophets, though their language and method of dealing with the subject is different. The feature to which we refer consists of the prophecies respecting nations who were not Israelites.

Jeremiah’s prophecies of this class are chiefly directed against Babylon and Egypt. These were the powers of the world which, in his time, were most frequently brought into collision with Israel, and Jeremiah foretells in the plainest language the overthrow of Egypt by Babylon, and the ultimate and complete destruction of the latter.

Ezekiel simply dwells upon Egypt, and says very little about Babylon, declaring little more than that Nebuchadnezzar shall be successful in his invasion of that country, as a reward for his labours at Tyre. He prophesies that Babylon shall be strengthened by the Lord, so as to subdue Egypt, and declares that the sword of the king of Babylon shall destroy all the multitudes of Egypt. But while, like Jeremiah, Ezekiel prophesies respecting heathen nations of secondary importance, he differs from Jeremiah by uttering no prophecy respecting the final overthrow of Babylon.

But Daniel does not speak so explicitly upon this subject as his two contemporaneous writers. In his vision he is shown that in the course of history four principal empires would stand prominently forward; that one of them, if not two, would be the cause of great tribulation to Israel; and it is only quite indirectly that we are able to discover what those different empires are. Egypt, if it is mentioned at all by Daniel, is not the Egypt of the sixth century before the Christian era, but the Egypt of the Roman period of history.

We cannot help speculating upon the interest with which the prophets of the Exile must have witnessed one great event which occurred not so very long after Ezekiel uttered his prophecy against Egypt, which was the sudden appearance of Cyrus. Isaiah had mentioned the name of the deliverer.1 He mentioned, as one of the proofs of the supernatural character of his prophecy, that the very name of the man has been declared by God before the birth of the man who bore that name. What hopes must have been raised among people and prophets when the news of the progress of Cyrus was told in Babylon ! Daniel of course was living. Did he stir up the faith of any of the wavering Israelites by directing them to watch his movements? —how he is now in Asia threatening Croesus and terrifying Greece and Egypt;—now further off again amongst the Bactrians and Scythians;—and now, as the prophet Isaiah had foretold, like an eagle on the swoop, directing his armies against Babylon? The only language that Daniel uses about him is that in which he records his vision, where he says, “I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, there stood a ram ... which had two horns : and the two horns were high; but one was higher than the other, and the highest came up last. I saw the ram pushing westward, and northward, and southward ; so that no beasts might stand before him, neither was there any that could deliver out of his hand ; but he did according to his will and became great.” These are the only direct references made to Cyrus by Daniel, but is it likely that, with Cyrus in the immediate vicinity, he should have abstained from pointing out that not only were the seventy years of exile nearly ended, but that God’s appointed “ Servant ” had come as well ?

Twenty years, however, had to pass away before those hopes could be realized, which had been raised by the first appearance of Cyrus. By that time the conqueror was over sixty years of age, but he was hailed by the Jews as their coming deliverer. Josephus  goes so far as to say that Cyrus was prompted to act as he did by reading the prophecies of Isaiah. However, we cannot pronounce with certainty upon that point; all that we can affirm is that Cyrus came as an instrument of God’s providence, and that he acted as such, but from what motives on his own part, we will not say at present.

The return from the Captivity will form the subject of another chapter, but it was advisable to carry on the description of Israel in captivity down to the time of Cyrus so that it might be more easy to picture to ourselves Daniel living as an individual belonging to a large foreign population dispersed throughout Babylonia. Unless we bear in mind that Daniel was one of the conquered race, and that the race itself had some considerable political importance in Babylonia, one great lesson of the Book of Daniel will be lost to us.

CHAPTER IV.

THE EDUCATION OF DANIEL.

The learning of the Chaldeans-—Chiefly theology—How the system was daily brought before Daniel—An objection answered—Three principal external difficulties in speaking of the religion of Babylon—Internal difficulties—The names of the principal gods—Dogma in Babylon— Origin of evil—Revivication of the dead—Religious books of Babylon —Forms of exorcism—Charms and omens—Scientific treatises— Babylonian education—Physicians and their prescriptions—Summary.

We have already considered Daniel’s outer life in Babylon, as well as the daily surroundings of his companions in exile within the city ; it remains for us to direct our attention to his inner life, to his education, and to the various religious influences which were brought to bear upon him in his new home. The Bible tells us in simple language that he was placed under the care of the chief of the king’s servants, that he might be taught the “ learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.”

The learning of the Chaldeans! What a huge subject is implied by this system of Babylonian theology, the whole science of divination, astronomy, and, what was most closely connected with it, astrology—all these and more were the subjects of Daniel’s study. And let us not imagine that the greater part of these subjects were entirely science falsely so called. Far from it. A high civilization like that of Babylon, which already possessed the elements of the telescope, and a knowledge of the calculation of eclipses, even though it taught some of the principles of science very erroneously, yet was far from possessing nothing but what was contemptible.

  It must have been the theology of Babylon which most severely tried the religious feelings of Daniel; for what a contrast it must have been for a man who had been educated in a simple childlike faith in One God and Father of all, to be brought into contact with Babylonian polytheism. Daniel found himself living face to face with what he had heard denounced by the prophets who had preceded him, as the Pantheon of Babylon. Here he was in the land spoken of by Jeremiah “as aland of graven images.” He had read in the writings of Isaiah that in Babylon idols were made wholesale, in factories, so to say; and now he could see the whole of this taking place before his very eyes. He had been told by the prophet Jeremiah that the whole nation, amidst whom he was now living, was “mad upon idols, ” and now he saw some of his own people yielding, when tempted to worship these false gods and serving them with that zeal which the same prophet had sarcastically characterized as “serving them day and night.” He was aware from the communication of his friend and companion in exile, the prophet Ezekiel, that magic and enchantment were practised upon a huge scale throughout the country, and now he was forced to learn these very things of which he could not hear without horror. Confident as he was, that the day would come when Bel should bow and Nebo stoop, and all the graven images of Babylon be dashed in fragments to the ground, yet he was forced to learn the mysterious legends in which these gods played so important a part. Here was the awful reality of idolatry surrounding him on all sides, Babylon and all her gods, Babylon the centre of idolatry, Babylon the acknowledged emblem in his day of all that was opposed to the truth of the God of Israel.

And the reality of all this was emphatically forced upon him daily, if not hourly, in one particular way. His very name could not even be mentioned without the heathen character of his surroundings being recalled to him. To the Hebrew there was something very precious in his name. It always brought to his mind some of God’s mercies vouchsafed to him­self or to his people. It was, in fact, a text, rather than what we should call a name in our senge of the word. For instance, Daniel’s own name signified “ God is Judge,” and whenever he had been addressed by it, he was led to think of those many ways in which God had “judged” or “vindicated” the cause of His people. But now this name had been changed to “ Belteshazzar,” a word quite as much of a text in the Babylonian language as “ Daniel ” was in Hebrew. “ Protect his life,” or, possibly, “Beltis protect the prince,” was the meaning of it. He could not hear it pronounced without being reminded of the name of Bel, the great god of Babylon. His three friends also felt the pain of having their names changed. Azariah, meaning “ he whom Jehovah helps,” was changed to Abednego, “the servant of Nebo;” while Hananiah and Mishael received names which, though their meaning has not as yet been ascertained, were undoubtedly of a similarly idolatrous character.

But Daniel was obliged, as an exile, to bear the name imposed upon him by his masters, and to study the religion of Babylon as it was set before him by his teachers. How indeed could he avoid learning it when theology was so much mixed up with all the science and learning of the Chaldeans ? He could not have become skilled in the latter without an intimate knowledge of the former.

Some persons have objected that Daniel ought to have had sufficient faith to enable him to refuse to study the religious system of Babylon. But, after all, was it worse for him to study a Gentile religion than for Moses to do so, who became “learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians”?2 Or was Daniel’s faith weaker than that of many Christians who in these days are led by their studies to make researches upon ancient systems of heathen theology and philosophy in which they do not believe? No English schoolboy believes in the gods of Homer and Virgil, though he reads about them. Just so, Daniel studied the Babylonian systems, not that he might believe them, but that he might understand them ; and it was quite as possible then as it is now for a person to study a theory or a science while he believes the whole thing to be false from beginning to end.

It is necessary for us at this point to give some account of religion in Babylon, as otherwise the position of Daniel would be very obscure. But it is not easy to give a short sketch of so weighty a matter, inasmuch as it is beset on all sides with difficulties and obscurities. It may be worth while to state what some of these difficulties are.

(i.) First, it is far from easy to understand even a modem system of religion or philosophy with which we are unfamiliar. Let us take Buddhism as an example. Though this is professed by at least five hundred millions of human beings, yet the system is imperfectly understood. Take any particular doctrine of it, such as the Nirvana. How hard it is to enter into the esoteric sense of it is best exemplified by the very different interpreta­tions of it with which we meet in books written upon the subject.

(2.) But, secondly, if the difficulty is great when we deal with a living religion, the sacred books of which are written in a language that can be learned in such a way as to make the student certain what the words themselves mean, how much greater difficulties must be experienced in attempting to describe the Babylonian religion, where the language is only imperfectly known as yet, and many words and phrases possess a meaning which has not at present been accurately ascer­tained ! Marvellous though the progress is which has been made in discovering the lost languages wherein the sacred books of Babylon were written, yet the science of Cuneiform decipherment is still in its infancy ; and though daily making prodigious strides, it has yet ample room for progressing almost indefinitely.

(3.) And, lastly, if we were actually in possession of the whole of the religious literature of Babylon, we might be able to be more certain of the accuracy of the results which we obtain; for if that were the case, we should be able to compare one text with another, and verify the readings as well as the trans­lations. But as it is, much if not most, of what we have at present is very fragmentary. A fragment frequently breaks off just in the most important place, and precious though each word is which helps us to grasp the meaning of those aspira­tions of devout men who lived at least two thousand years, if not twice as long, before the Christian era, yet we are unable to feel certain of the ground over which we are travelling. As it has been observed, in many cases the language in which some of the religious hymns were written was absolutely un­known to the priests who recited them.[9]

  Such are the principal external difficulties which we have to encounter in attempting to give an account of the Babylonian religion. But there are others besides. Not to mention that the priests, in this as well as other religious systems, always endeavoured to make everything as mysterious and unintelligible as they could, there are further internal difficulties which arise.

(i.) While the Babylonians were polytheists in almost every sense of the word, yet each divinity of the Pantheon did not receive equal honours in all places. Most deities received only local worship, and nothing was further from the mind of the Babylonian than the belief in One Supreme God, to the exclusion of all other lords, a doctrine we look upon as forming the very essence of all religion. Thus, for instance, Bel was principally worshipped at Babylon, but Nebo was the tutelary god of Borsippa, though that town was not so very far distant. True it is that Nebo and others had their temples at Babylon, but they did not rank with Bel Merodach at Babylon any more than the last-named would stand in the same class with Nebo at Borsippa.

(2.) A further difficulty arises from the custom that individuals had of placing themselves under the protection of one particular god, and attaching themselves to him alone. Thus Nebuchad­nezzar was most especially devoted to the god Merodach, though, judging by his name, he was originally dedicated to Nebo. His successor Nabonidus, however, though a resident in Babylon, adopted the god Sin, or the moon, as his tutelary divinity ; and though as king of Babylon he must have been bound to recognize Bel Merodach as his god, yet he did not scruple to address the moon as “ Chief of the gods of heaven and earth, King of the stars upon stars which dwell in heaven.” But even here it must be noticed that by the “ heaven ” he means no more than the visible sky, and is regarding the moon, from the popular point of view prevalent in his day, as having been made before the sun, and therefore superior to all planets.

(3.) Again, we find that local gods in some cases were relics of forgotten and antiquated deities. It appears as if anti­quarian research had been directed to the discovery of any god who might have been overlooked, and that he was occasionally locally adopted. The difficulty caused by this is very great, as it is hard to tell at times whether we are reading of an old god who had been long and continuously worshipped, or of one who had been recently adopted from the relics of a former age. In such cases it is only the antiquity of the text of the hymn which can serve as any guide whatever towards a correct conclusion.

Making allowance for the local and individual worship of particular gods, we may roughly say that the Babylonian religion, though polytheistic, was not originally pantheistic. The visible world, that is to say, was not the outward manifestation of a hidden god who was within it. The universe did not come into being as an emanation from any god. The world was not one with the gods, nor were the gods one with the world. They were above the world, as the protectors, guardians, and creators of it. It may be urged that the Babylonians wor­shipped the stars as gods, but this they did, not because they believed the stars to be identical with gods, but because there was a certain amount of awe and mystery in the movements of the planets which reminded them of what they imagined to be wonderful and hidden in the gods.

First and foremost among the gods came one who was the fountain-head or root of all godhead whatever. His name was Ilu, a word corresponding to the Hebrew word El, and strictly meaning “ god.” The extent to which he was worshipped, if indeed at all, is most uncertain. Apparently, on account of his immensity and great antiquity, his ear was regarded as being far beyond the reach of the prayer of man. It is questionable whether ueever acquired anything like divine personality, and still more so whether any image or symbol was used to represent him.

From Ilu there emanated a triad of gods known by the names of Anu, Nuah or Ea, and Bel, representing time, intelligence, and creation. “The origin of the triad was purely accidental; there was nothing in the religious conceptions of the Babylonians which led to its formation.”1 It was merely from his position at the city of Erech that Anu was entitled to the first place in the triad. These three being masculine, it was considered necessary to place in close rank with them three female deities, though not forming a second triad, namely, Anat, Davkina, and Beltis. Here a remarkable difference is to be noticed between the second and the other two members of the triad. While Anat and Beltis are strict feminines of Anu and Bel, Davkina took a different position. She was, so to say, the female principle of which Ea was the male. While the latter repre­sented intelligence, or the god of the water, the former signified the fruitful or productive principle in nature, or the god of the earth.

The first, however, of the great triad, the god Anu had ac­quired in course of time a very different character from the other two. From the position which he originally occupied at Erech, he came to hold another. No longer representing the abstract notion of time, no longer being the mere god of the visible heavens, he became spiritualized into the god of the in­visible heavens, where the gods dwelt. And gradually it came to be believed that “as he had become a supreme god, the lord and father of the universe, it was only a step further to make him the universe, and to resolve into him the other deities of the Babylonian Pantheon.”2 Thus Anu is a god in whom we may discern traces of a later pantheistic development.

From the first triad originated a second, consisting of Sin, Samas and Istar, with three female deities corresponding to each male god. The three male deities represented the Moon, the Sun, and the Evening Star. But though we read much of these deities separately, they were not looked upon as forming a triad so high as the first, and we also trace a relation between the different members of the second triad which is not to be observed in the other. Sin comes before us as the father of Samas and Istar. It is a curious peculiarity that the moon should be regarded as the eldest of the stars, but yet such was the case. In the Babylonian legend of the Creation we read ;

“ The god Uru (the moon) he caused to rise out, the night he overshadowed, to fix it also for the light of the night until the shining of the day, that the month might not be broken, and in its amount be regular. At the beginning of the month, at the rising of night his horns are breaking through to shine on the heaven. On the seventh day to a circle he begins to swell, and stretches towards the dawn further.”1 And then the poet pro­ceeds to describe the creation of the sun, though the tablet is unfortunately too much mutilated to enable anything to be definitely ascertained except that the moon was regarded as the principal body of the two. Daniel’s earliest lessons in religion had taught him a far better theory about “ the greater light ” and “ the lesser light.”

Next in order of succession came the five planets Adar, Mero- dach, Nergal, Istar, Nebo, corresponding to those known to us as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and Mercury respectively. Each of these had a mate of the opposite sex, as, for instance, Istar corresponded to Tammuz. The god thus in his complete state corresponded to, or was a secondary manifestation of, one of the gods of the first triad, so that Merodach and Bel, Ishtar and Belis were very closely related.

It appears, then, that the godsof the highest rank were twelve in number, and there can be no doubt that they were in some way connected with the twelve months of the year, and the twelve signs of the Zodiac. But the above is a very incomplete sketch of the Babylonian theology. Not only was each month dedicated to a god, but each day of the month had its appointed service set apart to the honour of a certain god. The Baby­lonian had his calendar of saints days like the modern English­man, and a very minute ritual for each day. Then besides these days there were sabbaths observed also. They were kept every seventh day, though the original institution of them is not recorded in Babylonian literature. It was customary also to proclaim special fasts or festivals for certain special occasions, so that the Babylonian who really desired to be religious accor­ding to his lights had plenty of opportunities for so being. It is needless to add that, besides the principal gods whom we have already noticed, there were in unlimited number various minor gods, some of whom had become obsolete, some whose names only had survived, some identical with gods then wor- shipped but called by other names, some perhaps not even considered as gods, but rather as genie empowered to protect or even to injure men.

The Babylonian mind exercised itself with various specula­tions upon theological doctrines. Thus we are not surprised to find that the old question of the origin of evil was disputed upon even in very early times. The world has gaped over this weari­some inquiry for the last two thousand years, and possibly there were some in those remote days who looked upon it as a ques­tion to which no answer could ever be found. It appears how­ever that the Babylonian attempted to solve the difficulty in the following way. He regarded his gods1 as the creators of good and evil alike—judging from what he saw in nature, namely, a good side and an evil side to every question ; he inferred that these qualities of good and evil must have come from the gods, who themselves possessed them. In the course of time the evil principle disappeared from the higher gods, who were regarded as the benefactors of man, as those who heard his prayers and the like, while the minor gods or demons had their power of malevolence increased. “ But the old conception which derived both good and evil from the same source, did not wholly pass away. Evil never came to be regarded as the antagonist of good, it was rather the necessary complement and minister of good.”2 Further than this they could not attempt to go, and who has ever gone any further? Who at least has ever succeeded in doing more than to shift the difficulty one step further back ?

One remarkable instance can be given of the practical way in which the Babylonians treated evil. Pestilence was regarded as a demon that made war with mankind. The pestilence was not merely personified, but actually regarded as a divine being. Even a form was ascribed to this awful personage. It is repre­sented as having four wings, the body of a man, the claw-like feet of a gryphon, while its head was a half-decayed, parched skull. An ancient epic poem once existed in which was cele­brated the Apotheosis of Dibbara, the demon of Pestilence, of which the following is a free translation by the author cited in the footnote:

Dibbara couches in the great gate on the body of the noble and slave

There he has fixed his seat

The Men of Babylon, even they themselves are shut in

Their curse thou art

Thou throwest down, dust thou makest

O Warrior Dibbara

Thou departest not when thou goest to another place,

Gnawing as a dog thou makest, and the palace thou enterest.

They shall see thee, and throw away their arms.

The high priest of Babylon, the enticer to evil hardens his heart

Go to the city whither I shall send thee, Reverence no man—fear not a soul.

The host of the king is gathered and entereth the city

Drawing the bow, and piercing with the sword,

The host of the bound ones he cuts down

Their weapons thou breakest,

Their corpses into the streets like the downpour of rain thou hast cast.

Their storehouses thou openest, and sweepest [the food] into the river.”

Another question upon which the Babylonians appear to have made up their minds was the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. They regard the soul after death as being clothed in a “ dress of feathers.”2 An engraved seal represents a disem­bodied soul brought by the ministers of punishment before the god Ea to receive the punishment which its sins have merited. Ea is represented with two streams of water flowing from his loins, and one of the attendants is evidently correcting the soul with a staff.

But their views respecting the future state of the dead are plain from what we read in one of the hymns where the god Merodach is addressed as “ The merciful one among the gods who loves to raise the dead to life.” 3 Similarly, to Samas was attributed the same power. “ O Sun-god, thou that clothest the dead with life.” 4 And so again we find a hymn in which prayer is offered that the king might come to a hoar old age, and that “ for the men who pronounce these prayers may the land of the silver sky, oil unceasing and the wine of blessedness be their food, and a good noontide be their light.”s Such simple unpre­tending words may have been the source of consolation to many a religious Babylonian as he lay upon his death-bed, and may we not hope that those who offered their prayers in earnest were heard by the Lover of man ?

Another subject of Daniel’s study must have been the re­ligious books of the Babylonians. Of course amongst these there were large collections of hymns and litanies to the gods.1 Another large work consisted of the story of I shtar and Tammuz,[10] [11] [12] which appears in its Western form as the legend of Venus and Adonis. Besides this amongst many others may be mentioned the Chaldean account of the creation of the world,3 which ex­hibits a remarkable correspondence with the first chapter of Genesis. Closely connected with this is a legend respecting the tower of Babel and the Deluge, in which, as in the former, we may trace a very close agreement with the story preserved in the Book of Genesis.

In this system Daniel was educated. We need not think that at any time of his life he joined in any religious act of worship which would have been contrary to his religious belief as “a servant of the living God.” His own firmness of character in the days of Darius the Mede shows us what his conduct must have been in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and we may feel certain that had he been called upon to worship the golden image, he would have shared the horrible death that was designed for his three friends rather than comply with the orders of the king. Yet he was compelled to make this and much more the object of his study.

But we must not forget that, closely connected with the religion of Babylon, were the exorcisms, enchantments, and the like, which were required for various purposes. An acquaint­ance with these was of course necessary to give any individual the title of a learned man. We are in possession of a large number of these formularies, and a specimen or two may be given with advantage. The first is a prayer for an invalid. “ On the sick man, by means of sacrifices, may perfect health shine like bronze; may the Sun-god give this man life; may Merodach, the oldest son of the deep, give him strength, prosperity, and health ; may the king of heaven preserve, may the king of earth preserve.” But in many cases, instead of a prayer being offered, as the sickness was supposed to come from an evil spirit, recourse was had to exorcisms. Thus we find an exorcism in the following form : “ May the goddess . . . wife of the god . . . turn his face in another direction, that the evil spirit may come out from him and be thrust aside, and that good spirits and good powers may dwell in his body.”1 Then, further, a certain amount of good was supposed to come from tying magic knots around the hands or about the head of a sick person. For instance : “ Take a woman’s kerchief, bind it round thy right hand, loose it from the left hand, knot it with seven knots. Do so twice. Sprinkle it with bright wine. Bind it round the head of the sick man. Bind it round his hands and feet like manacles and fetters. Sit down on his bed. Sprinkle holy water over him. He shall hear the voice of Ea, Davkina shall protect him, and Marduk, eldest son of heaven, shall find him a happy habitation.”2 Hence a phrase arose among the Babylonians, used to denote a person who was capable of doing very difficult things, “ a dissolver of knots.”

To these may be added various charms that were employed for various purposes, and above all omens drawn from various objects in the natural world. The value of the latter may be best understood from the two following specimens : “ If a white dog enters into a temple, the foundation of that temple is not stable.” “When a child is born with six toes on each foot, the children go not to school.”

Such rubbish, great as it is, receives credit, though in different garbs, in some of the more secluded parts of our own country till this day. But let us remember, that what we con­demn as a gross superstition in England was part of the wisdom of Babylon; and no doubt so long as the popular mind felt itself in want of such superstitious aids, there were many who were competent and willing to supply the demand. In fact, what strikes us most in the Babylonian tablets is the absence of anything which we should call worth knowing. With history they have little to do. No historical tablet respecting the wars of Nebuchadnezzar has been as yet discovered. Those which we have relate chiefly to his public buildings and to his gods. These, of course, as well as the prayers to the gods, and certain astronomical and scientific tablets, are full of the greatest interest.

Of the fullest importance would be “The Observations of Bel,” 1 a work of large dimensions, dealing with various astro­nomical phenomena, such as eclipses, comets, the phases of Venus, and the like. Such again are the various deeds of sale2 with which we meet, the moral and political precepts of Babylon,3 the legal precedents and decisions which were to rule in future cases, and a large number of letters and reports,4 from which it is evident that in many cases the omens hinted at above were disregarded, and the people set to work in a businesslike, sensible way, when the foundations of a building were suspected of being insecure, instead of watching the movements of a white dog.

The extreme difficulty of the languages required in Babylon for religious and State purposes has already been noticed. It is needless to delay the reader by mentioning the difficulties of the Cuneiform character, in which each sign may signify various sounds, and therefore mean various things, till the “determi­native prefix ” is noted, which shows what meaning is intended by the writer. Let us ask if Daniel was, at the very outset of his education, expected to master the difficulties of these languages and characters ? Probably not at first; for it appears that the Babylonians were very careful teachers, and not only did they have books for the use of Semitic students who were attempting to learn Accadian, but a graduated series of books was made use of in schools for teaching young people. A list of books has been discovered, which contains the lessons which were appointed for children to study. They consist of poems and hymns,5 such as “ Merodach the lord of glory,” “On a day of soothsaying” ; or of fables, such as “The story of the fox,” “ The story of the ox and the horse,” “ The story of the twins,” and others. Thus it appears that even in those days persons attempted to make the act of learning as interesting as they could, and it is amusing to see that the “fox ” figures in these ancient fables just as he does in those of later times.

Another great science taught in Babylon was that of medicine. While there were some who practised upon the sick by exorcisms and charms, there were others who had made medicine a science, and have left behind them, in a series of tablets, the results of their experience. In these we find various prescriptions and recipes intended to cure certain dis­orders. It is true that marks of superstitious customs may be traced here and there, but this only proves that the Babylonian physicians, like some modern medical men, were accustomed to humour their patients. The following is a cure for lowness of spirits.1 The unhappy sufferer is ordered to be placed opposite to his image ; his mouth is to be plastered with an unguent made of calves’ milk, barley, and another substance. By the “image” most likely is meant a waxen effigy of the man himself. This in some cases was treated as well as the man, but unless it was done with a view of humouring the patient we cannot account for the treatment. Again the Baby­lonian physician was quite capable of making a diagnosis of a disease. Thus for a disease of the heart, after a large number of drugs have been mentioned which are to be mixed and well stirred, it is ordered that on the fourth day the physician “ should observe the sick man’s countenance ; if it shows a white appearance his heart is cured ; if it shows a dark appearance his heart is still devoured by the fire ; if it shows a yellow appearance, during the day' it achieves the man’s recovery ; if it shows a black appearance he will grow worse and will not live.”

These few extracts, insignificant though they may appear, are yet of great value in aiding us to realize more distinctly the course of studies which Daniel was obliged to pursue in the College of the wise men of Babylon. We have to think of him surrounded by idolatry and superstition, studying under idolatrous and superstitious masters, and in the end surpassing them in their own branches of study yet never for one moment suffering his faith in the God of his fathers to waver. And let us not think that it was his own mere natural ability, or that marvellous power of industry and perseverance which marks the Hebrew race that enabled him to succeed ; his natural powers were aided by the manifold grace of God, and through this he was able to do all things.

CHAPTER V. DANIEL’S FIRST PUBLIC APPEARANCE.

Daniel’s residence in Babylon—His physical training and diet—Two doubts about Daniel—Reply—Daniel's wisdom put to the test—Nebuchad­nezzar’s dream—The bewilderment of the wise men—A massacre imminent—Daniel’s intervention—His prayer and thanksgiving—He stands before the king for the first time—Causes of the king’s dis­quietude—The dream and its interpretation—Daniel’s reward—Three lessons taught by the dream.

We must now return to the town of Babylon. Let us remember that, roughly speaking, the river Euphrates flows nearly due North and South, and that in its present course it passes through the remains of that ancient city. It is, of course, hard to identify the precise situation of the old buildings, because rivers constantly change their courses, and it is perfectly possible that much of what now lies on the right bank of the river may have been originally situated on the left.

It is to some shapeless mounds on the right bank that we must now direct our attention. One of these, now called the Kasr, was at the time of Daniel the palace of Nebuchad­nezzar. Close to it was a still larger building. Not far from this, on the East, the “ waters of the river strong and many,”1 hurried on amidst the quays and embankments. It was in the very neighbourhood of this larger palace—it may have been inside its walls—that Daniel and his three friends were assigned their habitations.

The enormous size of the debris of this building shows us clearly that it must have been designed to provide for a large number of visitors. We know also that Nebuchadnezzar had a huge retinue, to swell the pomp of his state. Some of these persons were kings, such as the unhappy Jehoiachin, who was allowed to languish in prison for thirty-seven years before “his head was lifted up,” and “his prison garments changed,” and “a continual diet given him by the king of Babylon.”1 Others were there, no doubt, who had been for some time treated as prisoners, but had been released. Such may have been the king of Tyre, whose capital had been taken by Nebuchadnezzar after a prolonged siege of thirteen years in duration.

In this same establishment most probably Daniel himself was placed ; for it is evident that the wise men did not live so very far from the royal residence. The needs of the empire were of such a nature that their advice might be required at a moment’s notice, as, in fact, was the case upon two occasions mentioned in the Book of Daniel. Everything that we read respecting the wise men renders it probable that they lived, what may be called, a collegiate life. Hence it appears likely that Daniel’s “ house,” as it is entitled, must be looked for in the neighbourhood indicated by these ruins.

We have already noticed the pains which the Babylonians took in educating young people. Accordingly there is nothing to surprise us in the fact that Daniel and his three friends were placed under the closest supervision, not only for intellectual, but also for bodily training. The two persons while many other luxuries were imported. The wine of the country was made out of the palm, but we know that a more delicate liquor   was brought down the Euphrates in small circular boats, and been sold to the wealthier inhabitants of the city.

The extreme luxury of the richer portion of the population of Babylon is well known, and as an example of it may be men­tioned the story which tells us that the long halt of Alexander’s troops in this city considerably2 interfered with the military discipline of his army. Nor must it be omitted that the moral corruption of Babylon was very great. Daniel and his friends, having all this in view, determined to live in the most simple way that they could, requesting that they might be fed on pulse and water only. The steward had considerable doubts as to what effect might be produced upon them by so sudden a change from a luxurious to a simple diet, but was induced to give them a trial of ten days. The experiment proved success­ful, and for the rest of the period of their remaining under the tutorage of Ashpenaz they lived without the customary wine and meat. The consequences were such as Daniel had anticipated. The personal appearance of the four friends was improved, and so far were their intellectual powers from suffering loss, that they acquired “knowledge in all learning and wisdom, and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.” Their faith had endeared them to their God, and He had blessed their studies so far, that when the king sent for them to prove their powers he found them “in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king inquired of them, ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in the realm.”

Two questions arise here which require a short notice. It has been asked whether the wisdom that Daniel acquired was miraculous or not. Of course there can be no doubt about the answer. Wisdom comes not from within, but from without, and is therefore the gift of God. God’s blessings, that He bestows upon what we call man’s natural powers, are equally miraculous with those which He grants to inert matter, causing it to bring forth food and the like for the children of men. We speak of these things as natural; it is far better to call each gift that comes from God miraculous. A further question has been reasonably asked. Was it consistent in Daniel to receive instruction in Babylonian wisdom if his prejudices were so strong that he could not eat the Babylonian food ? It is to be observed, in answering this question, that though Daniel ex­pressed a slight fear about being defiled by the Babylonian food, it was a simplicity of life only that he desired, and the effect of this upon him was such as always results from habits of temper­ance in eating and drinking, a healthy and fresh complexion. He had no fears about the defiling powers of the meat any more than he had with regard to the evil effect of the Chaldean philosophy and theology. His mind was fully saturated with the precepts of the law of the true God, his faith was firmly established in His religion, and therefore no harm could befall him either from eating the food or learning the wisdom of the country. To those whose faith has been firmly built up no harm can possibly occur from the study of such subjects as were placed before Daniel, no more harm than the spark of fire can cause to the crystal fountain. Daniel learnt these things, not out of any vain or morbid curiosity, but that he might be able to understand what was the meaning of the men into contact with whom he was daily brought.

At length the time arrived when Daniel’s wisdom should be put to the test. It was the second year of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar, that is to say, according to the Babylonian computation of the reigns of kings, three anniversaries of the king’s accession had passed. We must assume that at this time Daniel had been for about three years engaged in the study of the Chaldean wisdom. At last an opportunity occurred when the services of this holy man were required by his heavenly Master. During those two or three years that he had passed in the Babylonian seminary he would have been ready to come forward at any time, had he been required to do so, to perform the duty that might have been expected of him. But at this epoch, described in the Bible as “the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, he was for the first time prominently brought into public life.”

PDF