that he did not consult those authors on Babylonish affairs? Or if (as was surely the fact in regard to most Jewish writers at that period) he had no familiarity with Greek authors, then where did he obtain his views about the death of Belshazzar? There can scarcely be a doubt that the account of Daniel and Xenophon is the true one.

"Xenophon relates, that the party which assailed the palace, who were led on by Gobryas and Gadatas, fell upon the guards who were carousing, pòç puç roλú, i. e. at broad daylight; * (Cyrop. VII., 5, 27). In other words, the Persians did not accomplish their onset upon the palace until the night was far spent, and daylight was dawning. How now are matters pre

First, there is the feast

sented in the book of Daniel? (of course in the evening); then the quaffing of wine; then the handwriting on the wall then the assembling of all the Magi to interpret it; then the introduction of Daniel, whose interpretation was followed by his being clothed with the insignia of nobility, and being proclaimed the third ruler in the kingdom. All this must of course have taken up most of the night. Here, then, one writer confirms and illustrates the other. A Pseudo-Daniel would not have risked such a statement as the true one has made; for, at first view, the matter seems incredible, and it is charged upon the book as such. But Xenophon has freed it from all difficulties.

* "c Singular, that in a critical edition and commentary on Xenophon, now before me, this is rendered before a good fire. First, the Greek words do not allow this. Secondly, the Babylonians need and have no fires for warmth. Thirdly, Cyrus would not have drained the Euphrates, and marched his army in its channel, at a time when fires were needed for warmth."

Daniel (v.) also declares that Belshazzar was a son, i. e. a descendant, of Nebuchadnezzar. An appeal is made to Berosus and Megasthenes, to show that this was not true. Yet they do not so testify, but only that Belshazzar was not of the regular line of heirs of the throne. He might still have been a younger son of Nebuchadnezzar, or a son of Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. Now Herodotus agrees with Daniel, i. 188, i. 74. So does Xenophon. And as the other authors have not in reality contradicted this, what reason is there for refusing to believe?

"It certainly deserves to be noted, that, in part, the book of Daniel is on the side of the Greek writers, and against Berosus and Abydenus, where the representations of the latter may be justly regarded as designed to save the honour and credit of the Babylonians; in part also is Daniel on the side of the latter, and against the Greek writers, i. e. in cases where there is no reason to suppose the native historians to be partial. The media via appears in this case to be hit upon, by the simple pursuit of historical truth in the narratives of the book before us.

'Again, in Dan. v. 31, we have an assurance that Darius the Mede assumed the throne of Babylon. Here Herodotus and Ctesias are silent; but here Xenophon fully confirms the account given by Daniel. Herodotus himself states (i. 95) that there were two other modes of telling the story of Cyrus besides that which he follows; and that of Xenophon and Daniel is probably one of these. This is confirmed by Isa. xiii. 17, where the Mede is declared to be the leading nation in destroying Babylon, and the same is also said in Jer. li. 11, 28. In Isa. xxi. 2, both Media

and Persia are mentioned. The silence of Herodotus and Ctesias cannot disprove a matter of this kind.

“Daniel (vi. 1) states that Darius set over his kingdom 120 satraps. Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII. 6, 1, seq.) relates that satraps were set over all the conquered nations, when Cyrus was in Babylon. He speaks of the appointments as made by Cyrus; and doubtless they were, since he was the only acting governor of Babylon, and vicegerent of the king. No less true is it, that to Darius also, as supreme, may the appointment be attributed. How came the alleged late writer of Daniel to know this? Xenophon mentions no express number. The book of Esther (i. 1) mentions 127 satraps. Why did not our late writer copy that number, in order to remove suspicion as to so great a number of those high officers? And how is it that 120 in Daniel is objected to as an incredible number, when the empire was actually as large at the time of their appointment, as it was in the time of Xerxes, as exhibited in Esth. i. 1? The Septuagint translator of Daniel, who belonged to the Maccabæan age, did not venture to write 120, as it seems, but 127 (so in Cod. Chis.), thus according with Esth. i. 1, and leaning upon that passage. He seems evidently to have felt that the story of so many satrapies must be supported by the book of Esther, in order to be believed. He even, in his ignorance of history, translates ver. 31 thus :- And Artaxerxes, the Mede, took the kingdom,' probably meaning the Persian Artaxerxes Longimanus.

"It is worthy of remark, that the order of the two nations, Medes and Persians, is to be found in

strict accordance with the idiom of the times. Thus in vi. 8, 12, 15, we have the Medes and Persians; but after Cyrus comes to the throne, the order is invariably Persians and Medes. So in the book of Esther, the law of the Persians and Medes shows the same change of usus loquendi. Would a Pseudo-Daniel have been likely to note such a small circumstance?

"It is also noted (Dan. v. 31), that when Darius took the kingdom, he was three score and two years old. From his history, his reign, and his descent. from Ahasuerus (ix. 1), this seems altogether probable. But no other author states his age. The fact that it is done in Daniel betokens a familiarity of the writer with the minutiae of his history. So does the mention that in the first year of his reign Daniel took into most serious consideration the prophecy of Jeremiah respecting the seventy years' exile of the Hebrews.

"Thus far, then, all is well. All seems to be in conformity with true history, so far as we can ascertain it. It is not upon one or two particulars that we would lay stress. We acknowledge that these might have been traditionally known, and accurately reported. It is on the tout ensemble of the historical matters contained in the book that stress is to he laid. And certainly it would be very singular if all these circumstances should be true and consistent, and yet the book be written in the Maccabean period?

"How is it with the best historical books of that period? The first book of the Maccabees is, in the main, a trustworthy and veracious book. But how easy it is to detect errors in it, both in respect to geography and history! In viii. 7, it is related that the Romans took Antiochus the Great prisoner alive.

But this never happened. They gained a great victory over him, and took away many of his provinces ; but he himself escaped their grasp. In viii. 8, it is said that they took from him the land of India, Media, and Lydia. But neither India nor Media ever belonged to him. The efforts to show that Mysia was originally written instead of Media, are of course but mere guesses; and, if true, India still remains. More likely is it that the author himself put Media for Mysia, and if so, then this does not mend the matter. In viii. 9, 10, it is related, that 'the Greeks resolved to send an army to Rome and destroy it; but that the Romans learning this, sent forth an army, who slew many, carried away numerous captives of their women and children, laid hold of their strong places, and took possession of their lands, and reduced the people of Syria to servitude unto this day. Now nothing of all this ever happened. There was indeed a fracas between the Etolians and the Romans at that period; but it was soon made up, without any ravages of war, or any servitude. Further, the author, in viii. 15, represents the Roman Senate as consisting of 320 members, continually administering the government. He goes on to state (ver. 16), that they choose a ruler annually, and that all obey this one. Every tyro in Roman history knows how unfounded all this is. And what shall we say of the very first sentence in the book, which tells us that Alexander, the son of Philip, smote Darius, king of the Persians and Medes, and then reigned in his stead over Greece? In i. 6, he states that the same Alexander, about to die, made a partition of his empire among his chiefs-a thing that took place some considerable time afterwards, partly