Prince, John Dyneley.
Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin, an Historical Study
of the SlSSi^ Chapter of Daniel.
(Johns Hopkins diss. 1897.)

M£x465 835p

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

lENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN

AN HISTORICAL STUDY

OF THE

FIFTH CHAPTER OF DANIEL

DISSERTATION
Presented to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins
University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

JOHN DYNELEY PRINCE

BALTIMORE 1893

^93o

INTRODUCTION.

The following dissertation is an attempt to bring forward and empha
size whatever germs of historical truth there may lurk in the flfth
chapter of the much disputed Book of Daniel. The keen knife of
modern criticism, in the demonstration of the untenable character
of the old orthodox position regarding the book, has so dissected and
torn the work asunder, that whatever of truth there might be in it is
now liable to be overlooked in the search for and exposition of the
many unquestionable historical errors.
It seems therefore that the time has come, without denying the un
doubted late origin of the Book of Daniel, to lay stress on the few
grains of true history which the Maccabsean author has succeeded in
gathering from the erring traditions of his time.
The writer of this dissertation, accordingly, offers a suggestion
towards the elucidation of the mysterious sentence Ch. v. 25, and has
endeavoured to show that it is not absolutely necessary to consider this
part of Daniel a pure invention of the author, but that it is possible to
detect even here an echo of real history. Abstracts of this dissertation
have been published in the Johns Hophins Univ. Circulars, No. 98, p.
94 ; and in the Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, April, 1893,
pp. clxxxii-clxxxix.
The writer takes this opportunity to express his gratitude to Professor
Paul Haupt for many kindnesses and especially for the constant guid
ance and personal attention which have been given him in his work
at the Johns Hopkins University.
Baltimore, February, 1893.

PRESS OF TUTTLE, KOREHOtTSE & TAYLOR,
NEW HAVEN, CONN.

CHAPTER FIRST
THE MYSTERIOUS WRITING.
Every reader of the Bible is famihar with the story of the
feast of Belshazzar and the mysterious writing which appeared
as a warning to the last king of Babylon. The enigmatical
sentence has always been considered one of the most obscure
of the many difficult scriptural passages which have awakened
the interest and baffled the ingenuity of scholars. Indeed, up
to the present decade no really satisfactory explanation of the
phrase has been attained. Even if it be admitted that the
events described in the fifth chapter of Daniel actually oc
curred, there are still two difficulties presented by the Biblical
record; first, the true meaning of the sentence, and second,
the reason why the writing was unintelligible to the hierogram-
matists. The ancient writers evidently regarded the three words Mene,
Tekel and Peres' of verses 26, 27 and 28 as substantives.
Josephus {Antt., x. 11, 3) e. g., translates them by apiOfio';,
a-Tadfio'i, KXaa-fia, and Jerome by 'namerus, appensio, divisio."
Among the more modern scholars the opinion has been
advanced that KJD and ^'pt) are preterites of the verbs NJO
'to count' and bpr\ 'to weigh,' respectively, and that [?Dlfl
the last word of the phrase, is a plural participle of D^Q ' to
divide.' Tlie translation for verse 25 was accordingly sug
gested, 'numeravit, numeravit, appendit et dividunt."'
J. D. Michaelis, ' Daniel ' p. 51, suggested reading NJQ KJD
"Der Zahlende (God) hat gezahlt," while Dereser and
Bertholdt (' Daniel ' p. 389) following Theodotion and the Vul
gate rejected one NJp as an error of the copyist, who, accord
ing to their, idea, may have written the word twice. Bertholdt
^ Both the Greek and Latin translations have only the three words
' Mane, Thekel, Phares ' in verse 35. See below, Appendix II, note 1, to
verse 25.
''See Buxtorf, 'Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Rabbinicum,'
col. 2623.

regarded the three words as participles, translating " Gezahlt
ist es, gewogen ist es, getheilt ist es." This opinion which
was followed with certain modifications by almost all the
subsequent critics" was never a satisfactory explanation, because,
while it may be possible to regard NJD as a passive participle,
the form of the other words "^pri and DIS has always pre
sented a difficulty.
The remark of Abr. Geiger in an explanation of a Mishnic
passage in the Ztschr. der deutschen morgenldndischen Gesell
schaft, xxi. (1867)^. 467/. that the Tosephta regarded D")fl in
the phrase D"1fl"l HJO HJO , as ' a half -mina,' should have given
a clue to the true meaning of the mysterious sentence. No
one however seems to have had a similar idea until of late
years, when an entirely new light was thrown on the interpreta
tion of the passage by the distinguished French archaeologist
M. Clermont-Ganneau, who, in 1886, published in the Jour
nal Asiatique {Serie viii. vol. ^.pp. 36^.) an article entitled
' Mane, Theeel, Phares et le festin de Balthasar,' which appeared
in an English translation in Hebraica, iii. pp. 87-102. Gan-
neau calls attention to the fact that the interpretation attributed
to Daniel does not agree rigorously with the prophet's deci
pherment of the inscription, i. e., that the interpretation given
by the author in vv. 26, 27, 28, is based ouly on the three
words Mene, Tekel and Peres, the plural form of the latter
PD15, which appears in v. 25 preceded by the conjunc-
' Compare among others, Havernick, 'Daniel,' 1832, p. 195, who
explained the form /TiT) as being caused by analogy with KJD ;
Lengerke, ' Daniel,' 1835, pp. 261, 262, who explains the three words
as participles analogous in form to the fictitious form ntN (TfN)
in chap. ii. 5, 8; and Hitzig, 'Daniel,' 1850, p. 84, who regarded
7pfl as a middle pronunciation between '?*pri and ^^T\ (from
77p) containing the double meaning 'thou art weighed' and 'found
too light,' a rather fanciful supposition which was objected to by
Kranichfeld, ' Daniel,' 1868, p. 226. The latter considered 'PHfl not
as a pure passive participle, but as a sort of passive preterite which
passed to an intransitive, T'pfl becoming "^pfl by assonance with
NJP- {Cf. also Keil, 'Daniel,' p. 158, who translated verse 35
" Gezahlt, gezahlt, gewogen und in Stilcke.")

tion 1 being disregarded. This difference between the text as
read and the explanation, he thought could only be explained
by the supposition that the Biblical author had to do with a
set traditional phrase, from which it was necessary to bring
out a certain interpretation adapted to the circumstances of the
case. Ganneau then proceeds to explain his important discovery
which gives a new key to the meaning of the mysterious words.
During an epigraphic mission to the British Museum in 1878,
he found that the three letters on certain half mina-weights,
which had previously been read B'Hp were in reality ^1Q =
fo/ras = half. As the weight bearing the inscription was equal
to that of half of a light mina, he concluded that tyifl must
mean ' half -mina.' This discovery led him to decide that on
the set of Ninevitic weights, engraved with letters approaching
in form to the Aramsean characters, the three words, HJO =
' mina,' "^pn = ' shekel ' and tyifl = ' half mina,' were to be
found, and that these three names might correspond to the
three chief words of the sentence in the fifth chapter of Daniel.
Concluding then that the mysterious sentence may contain
names of weights, he proceeds to apply this theory to the inter
pretation of the phrase, suggesting a number of conjectural
translations for the entire sentence, no one of which throws
any satisfactory light on the meaning. Beading pp"1£) as a
dual form (f'p"lfl), he proposes, e. g., to transfer the 1 from
pOliDI to '^'pri , reading I'^pJl, imperative of b'^T) 'to weigh,'
and to translate ' for every mina weigh two paras ' or ' a mina
is a mina, weigh two paras '; or, regarding the verb as a
preterite, ' they have weighed two paras,' etc., (see Hebraica,
iii. No. 2, pp. 96 ff.) The general conclusion at which he
arrived was that ' the two extreme and essential terms of the
phrase in Daniel are two names of weights, of which one is
double the other, placed in relation by a third middle term,
which is either a third name of weight (that of shekel) or the
verb 'to weigh,' from which the name of shekel is derived.
This attempt of Ganneau was followed by an admirable
paper published in the Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, i. pp.
414-418, by Theodor Noldeke. Noldeke accepted Ganneau's
discovery that the phrase in Dan. v. contains names of weights,

but clearly saw in '7pn the shekel, explaining the three words
HiD , '7pn and D"l3^ as absolute forms of N'^P > X'7pn > and
NOnfi respectively! ' In the case of NJP he notices that the
word' for mina in Syriac occurs only in the emphatic state,
ii'>lt2 , a form Kke N'Jp ' reed.' Admitting that the absolute
state of such words is scarcely ever found, he adds that accord
ing to aU analogy, and especially after the manner of adjectives
and participles like Syriac XST , i(7i , {st. emph. N'Pl K»7J),
XJI? would have been in the older language the absolute
state of N'JO. Regarding the NJP XJp of Dan. v. 25
as a repetition of the same word, he suggests "accordingly
the translation, ' a mina, a mina, a shekel and half-minas.'
A third attempt to explain the enigma was advanced in
1887 by Dr. Georg IlofEmann, of Kiel, who differed from
Noldeke only in suggesting that '7\)Ii\ ' shekel ' might be in
apposition to HiD, explaining bpn NJP as 'a mina in shekel
pieces.' {Ztschr. fwr Assyr., ii. 45-48).
Ganneau's discovery and its critical scrutiny by Noldeke
have established the fact beyond doubt that XJO ¦. "^pH and
pD")fl of verse 25 are to be considered as names of weights.
It does not seem necessary, however, to regard NJD NJP as
a repetition of the same word. As Noldeke himself has
noticed, but did not adopt in his interpretation, the form KJP
can be regarded as a passive participle Peal from NJP 'to
count,' as Aramfean and Syriac verbs tertim Yddh form their
passive participles in this manner {fail). In this way the
mysterious sentence may be translated as follows : ' There have
been counted a mina, a shekel and half-minas.' This transla
tion which was suggested by Prof. Haupt in the session of
the Semitic Seminary of the Johns Hopkins University of the
year '86-87," would seem to receive additional confirmation,
when we consider the peculiar apphcation of these names of
*It may be well to remark that Noldeke (loc. dt., 415) considered it
against the spirit of the language to regard Pp"13 as a dual in form as
did Ganneau. (Hebraica iii. p. 94 ; see above.) Hoffmann, Zeitschr.
fur Assyr., ii. 46 has pointed out that in meaning, at least, the word has
a dual force just as in Q^dn ' twins.'
' The Johns Hopkins University Circulars, No. 58, p. 104 and the
Johns Hopkins University Annual Beport, 1887, p. 13.

weights to the circumstances under whicli the writing ap
peared. Ganneau, among a number of rather fanciful explanations
recalled the Talmudic metaphorical usage of HJO and DID,
' mina ' and ' half -mina.' In the Talmudic writings we find
occasionally the inferior son of a worthy father, called ' a half-
mina son of a mina ' (TtJP p D"15), while a son superior to
his father is spoken of as 'a mina son of a half -mina ' (HJO
D"lfl p), and- a son equal to his father as ' a mina son of a
mina ' (HJP p HJP)". In a rather vague manner characteristic
of his whole paper, Ganneau suggests that the Biblical author
might have had in mind some such allusion, and hints without
any definite explanation that a parallel might have been meant
between Nebuchadnezzar, the father and Belshazzar the
son. Referring to pO'lfl, he mentions that this word, owing
to its resemblance to Dlfl ' Persian,' may have determined
the choice of the saying as a theme to explain the prophecy
relative to the coming of the Persians.' It is certainly safe to
say that Ganneau arrived at no definite conclusion on the sub
ject. On the last page of his article, he fancifully compares
the whole scene of Chapter v. both to a vignette from the
Egyptian ' Book of the Dead ' and to the scene often found on
Assyrian seal-cylinders, representing a god seated on a throne
holding a vase for libations, a candelabrum, an inscription
on the seal and two persons, one of whom presents the other
to the god. Babylon and Egypt he thought may have in
fluenced the author of Daniel in his . description of the feast
of Belshazzar !
Noldeke with his usual caution attempted nothing beyond
the mere grammatical explanation of the words, but Hoffmann
{p. 46 of his article) considered that pO^fl, ' two half-minas,'
referred to a division of the Empire between the Mede Darius
and the Persian Cyrus.
"Compare Ta'anith 21S HJP '?lfN Difl X2 HJO ND' '^QTi
:Pifi p njo b)iii rrjQ p njo ay ':'N1 hjd \2 '" '« goo^
that a mina son of a half -mina come to a mina son of a mina, but not
that a mina son of a mina should come to a mina son of a half-mina,'
cited by Levy, Chaldaisches Worterhuch, ii. p. 46.
' This paronomasia was remarked also by Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' p. 389,
Lengerke, ' Daniel,' J3. 363, and others.
3

10
We have seen that the mysterious sentence contains three
names of weights grouped together in a strange order, the two
greater quantities being separated by the lesser ; i. e. mina,
shekel and half-minas. It may be supposed that beneath these
terms hes some typical meaning which is not fully brought out
in the explanation of the sentence by Daniel. The interpreta
tion which the writer puts into the mouth of the prophet is
based on a paronomasia. Thus, mina (XJD) is explained by
NJJP ' to count.' ' God has counted thy kingdom and finished
it.' Shekel ('?pfl) is explained by bt^T^ ' to weigh :' ' Thou
art weighed in the balances and found wanting.'- Half-mina
(Dl?) is explained by D^fi ' to divide.' ' The kingdom has
been divided (HDHfi) and given to the Medes and Persians.'
In the latter case there is clearly a double paronomasia on
D"1S 'Persian.'
Professor Haupt, following up the idea of Ganneau regard
ing the symbolical meaning of the words, explained the mina,
whicii is the largest Babylonian weight, as an allusion to the
great King Nebuchadnezzar ; the shekel, one sixtieth as valu
able," as the symbol of Belshazzar, whom the author of Daniel
considered the unworthy son and successor of the founder of
the Babylonian empire ; and the two half-minas as referring
to the division of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar between
the Medes and Persians. If the sentence be understood in
this way, as indicating a comparison of persons, it becomes
clear that XJO NJO can hardly be considered a repetition of
the same word, as there would be no point in thus repeating
the symbol for Nebuchadnezzar. The mysterious sentence
therefore implies a scathing comparison of the unworthy last
king of Babylon with his great predecessor, and a prophecy of
8 It is well known that the weight mina contained 60 shekels, this
shekel serving also as the smallest gold unit ; i. e., a, gold shekel
weighed one sixtieth of the weight mina. The money mina on the other
hand contained only 50 shekels. See Levy, Chald. Worterhuch, under
XJJ3 and compare C. F. Lehmann, in Verhandlungen der physikalischen
Gesellschaft zu Berlin, published February, 1890, p. 95, also Verhand
lungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, March, 1889, p.
349, 'Encycl. Brit.' xvii. 631 and Haupt, Akkad. Sumerische Keil-
schrifttexte, p. 55, 42: gihit 1 ma-na, 13 Siqli-tan, ' the interest of one
mina is twelve shekels; i. e., at 20 per cent.

11
the speedy downfall of the native Babylonian dynasty and the
division of the empire between the Medes and Persians.
Nebuchadnezzar, practically the founder of the IJabylonian
empire and really the greatest name of the time, might well
be called the mina. The author of Daniel tlirougliout the
fifth chapter is perfectly riglit in comparing hira with the
insignificant last king. As will be seen from the subsequent
discussion of the various accounts regarding the fall of Baby
lon, the two chief points in the later Babylonian history are
really the rise and development of the empire under Nebuchad
nezzar 'and its final overthrow under Belshazzar's father
Nabonidus, so that the Biblical author in choosing Nebu
chadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, although inaccurate as
to detail, nevertheless reflects faithfully the general historical
facts of the period.
The Medes and Persians were the people who destroyed the
unity of the Babylonian power and divided between them the
great empire of Nebuchadnezzar. The Medes, a brief outline
of whose history,.previous to their subjugation by the Persians,
is given below, attained the height of their greatness under
Cyaxares, who subdued the Assyrians and laid waste Nineveh
their proud capital. Although attaining a considerable in
fluence in the farther East, they were certainly never a world
power until their union with the Persians under Cyrus. This
combination was sufficient to subjugate the entire "West and to
establish an empire which lasted for centuries. Why the
author of Daniel introduces a Median dynasty before the Per
sians is discussed fully hereafter.
But why was it that the learned scribes whom the king sum
moned to decipher the inscription were totally unable to read
and interpret the sentence ?
To explain this difficulty a great number of conjectures have
been advanced by various commentators." Thus Liiderwald in
his ' Critical examination of the first six chapters of Daniel,'
(quoted by Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' p. 346) considered the portent
as a vision of the king alone, which no one save the super-
Tor a coUection of the opinions of the older commentators, cf.
Pfeiffer ' Dubia Vexata,' p. 503, quoted by Bertholdt, p. 350,

12
naturally gifted Daniel could interpret." This is the same as
Calvin's conjecture, whieh he offered as one of two possible
hypotheses : " probabile est vel scripturam fuisse regi proposi
tam et latuisse omnes Chaldseos vel ita excaecatos fuisse , ut
videndo non viderunt, quemadmodum etiam Dens saepe ejus
modi stuporem denuntiat Judaeis." See edition of Baum,
Cunitz and Reuss, vol. xl, col. 704.)
Nothing in the text of chapter v. however, seems to support
such a view. The evident terror not only of the king but also
of his lords, and the statement in verse 8, that the wise men
could neither read nor interpret the writing seem to show that
the author had no intention of representing the portent as
merely a freak of the king's brain.
Some of the Talmudists thought that the words were writ
ten according to the Cabbahstic alphabet ^DHN ; i. e. one in
which the first letter has the last as its equivalent." It may be
well to note in connection with this from the Ethiopic corre
spondence of Job Ludolf published by Flemming in the second
volume of Delitzsch and Haupt's Beitrage zur Assyriologie"
that a similar cryptographic method of writing involving the
interchange of letters was known to the Abyssinians.
It is hardly worth while to discuss here the idea advanced
by some of the other Talmudists that the characters of the
mysterious sentence were arranged in three lines as a sort of
table and were to be read vertically and not horizontally."
"See D. S. Margoliouth, 'Jephet Ibn All's Daniel,' p. 36.
1' See Buxtorf, 'Lexicon Chaldaicum Talmudicum et Eabbinicum,'
col. 348, and Levy, ' Neuhebraisches und Chaldaisches Worterhuch'
under p'^KN , "IIN > D^' ¦ p'7NN however is due to a process quite
different to ty'^riK • ^or the opinion that the sentence was a crypto
gram compare Pfeiffer, op. cit, p. 805, and for all these views see San
hedrim 22».
'^ Beitrdge zur Assyriologie, ii. 110.
>«See Ganneau, loc. cit, p. 88. Some considered the sentence as
an anagram ; see Levy, ' Neuhebr. und Chald. Worterb.', under QJ{i{ ;
while two of the older commentators, Menochius and Maldonatus
thought that only the initial letters of each word were written.
(They are quoted by Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' p. 350). Jephet Ibn Ali, the
Karaite, held the view that the words were written backward ; for ex
ample XJQ was arranged as if it were QJJJ , and that the letters of all
the four words were similarly transposed. See Margoliouth's transla
tion, p. 36. Pfeiffer, p, 808, expressed the opinion that the words were
written in • Chaldsean ' letters which were intricately arranged.

13
Thube and others, at the end of the. last century, (quoted by
Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' 351), held that the writing may have ap
peared in such unusual characters as to prevent its decipher
ment by the hierogrammatists ; and the Gottingen Professor of
Biblical Philology, the late Ernst Bertholdt, suggested that it
may have been written in some complicated flourished hand
writing (Charakterschrift, ' Daniel,' p. 379). It is interesting
to note in this connection that so great a scholar as Johann
David Michaelis, of Gottingen, was the author of the following
wild but amusing theory. He translated the expression ' end
of the hand' (see below, Appendix II. note to verse 5), by
' the inner surface of the hand.' That is, the hand must have
appeared to the king as if writing from the other side of the
wall, which by some mysterious means had become transpar
ent! The writing was therefore reversed as if in a mirror,
which fact remained unnoticed until Daniel was summoned
(see Michaelis, 'Daniel,' ^^. 49-50). Some scholars, on the
other hand, believed that the inscription may have been in a
foreign language or character unknown to the wise men.
Thus Prideaux (quoted by Bertholdt, 348) suggested Old
Phoenician, while Pusey (' Daniel,' 376) beheved it may have
been written in the old Hebrew script. Finally, some recent
critics, evidently under Assyriological influence, have inclined
to the opinion that the words presented themselves to the king
in the Babylonian ideographic character.'*
The question as to the difficulty of decipherment is really
narrowed down to one of two hypotheses. The reason why the
learned scribes whom the king had summoned were totally
unable to read or interpret the writing must have been that the
mysterious sentence appeared either in a foreign language or
in an unusual form of the vernacular. Had the warning been
written in a foreign language, the probability is that it would
have been immediately recognized at so cosmopohtan a court
as the Babylonian, which had come in contact with so many
foreign nations. Then, too, had the writing appeared in an
'* So, for instance, Andrea, in his article on the Feast of Belshazzar
in Beweis des Glaubens, 1888, pp. 263-364, and de Lagarde in his admir
able review of E. Havet's La moderniti des prophetes, in Mittheilungen,
iv. p. 364 = Gott Gel. Anz., 1891, p. 519.

14
uuknown idiom, the eft'ect of the interpretation would have
been, to a great extent, lost on the king. But as soon as the
explanation was given, Belshazzar understood it perfectly.
It is certainly most natural to suppose that the inscription
was originally written in the Babylonian language and in the
cuneiform script, having been translated later and handed down
in the Aramsean in the form which we find in the Book of
Daniel." This view is strengthened by the fact that the sen
tence can be reproduced in Babylonian with surprisingly little
change. The Aramsean sentence, as given in the twenty-fifth verse
of the fifth chapter, reads pD")fi") bpt) WO XJD . As stated
above, the first NJO is probably to be considered as a passive
participle from NJP ' to count.' In this case the correspond
ing form in Assyrian would be mani." The second NJD
meaning mina is equivalent to the Assyrian manu = ' mina,'
usually writteu ideographically mor-na and in form the pas
sive participle of mam,u 'to count.' The Assyrian word for
mina, although generally occurring ideographically, is occasion
ally found written plene. Thus in Nebuchadnezzar 17, 6 ; 189. 5,
'» Kamphausen in his pamphlet, ' Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Ge-
schichtsforschung,' 1893, pp. 45, 46, has unintentionally misrepresented
me, as stating in the Johns Hopkins Circalars, No, 98, p. 94, that the
author of the Book of Daniel was familiar with the cuneiform inscrip
tions ! I merely indicated that the original of the mysterious sentence
may have been in Babylonian,
1" Passives with internal vowel change have not been lost in Assy
rian but are not developed. The active and passive participles are not
yet sharply distinguished, the difference being merely arbitrary. For
examples of the passive participle, cf. the frequent kima Idbirisu Satir
= ' written like its original,' and SapHx ^pru = ' dust is spread.' See
Haupt, Journal of the Boyal Asiatic Society, 1878, p. 344. We may
compare in this connection the frequent passive meaning of the Inten
sive Permansive. See Zimmern, Busspsalmen, p. 11,
The Assyrian Permansive must be considered the prototype of the
common Semitic Perfect, as there are no evidences that Assyrian once
possessed and then lost its Perfect. J. A. Knudtzon in the Ztschr. filr
Assyriologie, vii, p. 48 (April, 1893), goes too far, however, in demand
ing a common name for both the Permansive and Perfect, as they are
by no means fully identical. The Assyrian Permansive is not a stereo
typed tense like the ordinary Semitic Perfect, as the language can use
any noun or adjective in a permansive sense by suffixing the pronomi
nal endings. See in this connection Haupt, loc. cit, p. 246.

15
in Tallquist, ' Sprache der Contracte Nabun^'ids,'^. 96, we find
the form ma-nu-u / in Nebuch. 46. 8. 4. in Strassmaier, ' Baby-
lonische Texte,' ma-ni ; and in Nebuch. 67. 4 ; 176. 5 ; 282. 5,
in Strassmaier, ' Bab. Texte,' ina-ni-e. Manu is a form like
qa-nu ' reed.' "
It is interesting to notice that the familiar Mammon (Ma/mui/a?)
of the New Testament may be a loan word from the same stem
as man'A, mina. There is an Assyrian word mannimo proba
bly meaning ' a vessel capable of liolding a mina full,' which
occurs in the El Amarna inscriptions, frequently in connection
with bigru. Jensen considered rightly that higrii. and manninu
are the prototype of the Mandtean XJI.i'O'l N3Jl"1X 'money
and property,' with metathesis in the case of bigrti, and
JOJ'IK . A similar change of consonants he finds in bargidht
'stonecutter' and J<'7mJ"lN.'° Noldeke, 'Mand. Gram.',
p. 50, connects Mandsean NJ1TD with the Syriac poiaio ^
Ma/otwi'a?. It is extremely probable, therefore, that manninu
is the original of Ma/.icoi'a?. Hoffmann's idea is, of course,
untenable that va-:>ai>o jg g, loan word from the Phoenician
DJJ3 ' treasures,' whicli, he thinks, is connected with the
Greek i/o'/it(o-)/ia. (gee Nestle, ' Syriac Grammar ' — Engl, edi
tion, p. xi.) DJD is probably a plural of HJQ , mina, and
is consequently purely a Semitic stem. (Compare Levy, ' Phce-
nizisches Worterhuch,' 1864.)
Shekel, the third word of the mysterious sentence, by regu
lar mutation of D and J5', corresponds to the Assyrian siqlu,
from saqalu ' to weigh.' The word is almost invariably writ
ten ideographically TU, but the form siqlu is now established
as the proper pronunciation.'"
" Note that a number of forms like qanii, suffer apocope of the long
flnal vowel in the construct state. Thus qaniir—qan ; sada, ' moun
tain,' sad; nas-a,, 'bearer,' nas; rasH, 'possessor,' ras; rahii, 'great,'
rab. IS For the Mandsean KJ"1TD"1 NDJ~IN / see Noldeke, Manddische
Grammatik, p. 50, and for K':'21JN compare Jensen, Kosmologie,
293, rem. 3 ; 353, rem. For examples of metathesis see Zimmern, Zeit
schrift filr Assyriologie, v. 164, n. 4.
19 See Bruno Meissner, Ztsch. fiir Assyriologie, vii. (April, 1893), p. 20,
Althabylonisches Privatrecht, p. 93. Delitzsch, Assyrisches Worter
huch,' 44. n. 4, and Lehmann in a metrological paper in the Verhand
lungen der Berliner Anthropologischen Gesellschaft, June 20, 1891, p.

16
Oppert's reading for TU, daragmana {Ztschr. fv/r Assy
riologie, i. 430), he has himself abandoned. (See Beii/rdge zur
Assyriologie, i. 496.) Siqlu is a form hke sMu ' staff ' ; igru
'hire,' etc.
The last word of the phrase pp"lfl ' half minas,' plural of
ND"15, is equivalent to the Assyrian pars%i, 'a part,' from
pan-dsu ' to separate.''"" Parsu means technically a section of
a chapter or a paragraph. (See Keilinschr., BibUotheJc, ii.
p. 284, I. 39.)
Combining then these words as in the Aramsean of Daniel,
the supposed Assyro-Babylonian original may be restored as fol
lows : mant mana siqlu u parsdni, ' there have been counted
a mina, a shekel and parts."' (Parts of a mina = half-minas.)
' Counted ' means, of course, in this connection, ' the following
has been flxed by fate.' We may compare the use of HJO in
Isaiah lxv. 12, 'and I will allot you to the sword.' (?ri'JOl
yyrt) DDHN) ; Psalm cxlvii. 4, ' He flxes the number of the
stars' (O'DilS*? "ISDP H^ID).
If it be thus assumed that the mysterious inscription appeared
in the Babylonian language and in cuneiform characters, it is
easy to explain the inability of the king and his lords, and even
of the skilled scribes to decipher the writing, as an ideographic
rendering of these names of weights would have baffled the
518, n. 1. The stem saqdlu may be a shaphel formation from qdlu ' be
light.' Compare sakdnu probably from 1^2 and sardru from "l"){i{ .
In the case of saqdlu, however, the Sis a ^„ appearing in Arabic as
iij, while the S of the shaphel is sa, because we flnd it in Arabic as
^ . We may explain this by supposing that such a form as Jjij
withij was borrowed from a dialect where the original ^ of the
shaphel was lisped like J") . Compare the case of fl'iriQ . See below.
Appendix IL, note to verse 7, and Beitrdge zur Assyr., i. 181, note 3.
'"pardsM =' separate,' in Asurb., ix.46; 'check, stop,' in Sennach.,
vi. 14, iv. R. 57, ^a, East India House Inscr., ii. 19 ;— ' quarrel,' in iv. 58,
32 ;— ' alienate,' in Asurb., iii. 83.
" Professor Haupt informs me that Dr. P. Jensen of Strassburg in a
University lecture explained the mysterious words of Dan. v. as having
probably come from some Assyrian proverb, which he thinks might
have read about as follows : manH mane saqlu parsi, ' minas were
counted but half minas were weighed.' Jensen thought that this
phrase was used whenever anything proved of less value than first
appearances seemed to warrant.

17
ingenuity of the most expert scholars of the Babylohian court.
Of course it cannot be denied, as Lagarde has pointed out, that
the ideographic values of these four words, ' count, mina, shekel
and part,' were undoubtedly signs with which any educated
Babylonian was familiar. (' Mittheilungen,' iv. 364.) If, how
ever, we suppose that the ideograms were written close togetlier
without any division between the individual words, a style of
writing we often meet with in the cuneiform inscriptions, thus :
it would be just as hard to read as a rebus and would puzzle
the most skillful decipherer. The difficulty would have been
still more increased if the ideograms had been grouped in some
unusual way, severing the natural connection of the component
elements ; for example, thus :
If the signs had been written in this manner it would have
been almost impossible to arrive at their true meaning. The
first combination, SID-MA, might have some fifteen different
meanings, the second group, NA-TU-U, might signify 'is fit'
or ' suitable,' while the third and last, BAR-BAR, is capable
of explanation in a variety of ways.°" Of course, as soon as
one is told the meaning of the combination, the sentence at
once becomes clear.
De Lagarde {I. c.) has amusingly remarked that the riddle is
of the same nature as that of the Innsbrucker who, as a greet
ing to his emperor coming to the Tyrolean capital, had the fig
ure of a Franciscan monk painted on his house with the word
' wie ' written over it. The rebus is to read ' Wie Franz ist
kaner ' (Tyrolese pronunciation for ' keiner '). This, however,
is hardly a good parallel. A better illustration of the nature
of the mysterious sentence may be found in the tricky Latin
phrases often given in Latin primers in Germany : *. e. ' no bis
perpontem,' 'anser bibit magis ter,' 'mea mater est mala sus,'
etc. =2 For SID-MA see Brunnow's 'List,' nos. 5964-5981 and 5997-8. For
nata., meaning ' is flt, suitable,' see ' Nimrod Epic,' 67, I. 18, while for
BAR-BAR, compare again Brtlnnow, no. 1738 ff.
3

CHAPTER SECOND.
THE HISTORICAL INACCURACIES OF THE FIFTH CHAPTEE
OF DANIEL.
The above more or less conjectural explanations have been
offered under the supposition that the account given in the
fifth chapter of Daniel is to a certain extent historical. It can
not be denied, however, that if the fifth chapter, and indeed
the entire book of Daniel be regarded as pretending to full
historical authority, the Biblical record is open to all manner
of attack. The Book of Daniel must not be considered as
intended by the author to be a veracious account of events
which took place at the time of the fah of Babylon, but rather
as a political pamphlet of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes.
It is now the general opinion of most scholars who study the
Old Testament from a critical point of view, that the Book of
Daniel cannot have originated, according to the accepted
theory,* at the time of Cyrus. The following are the chief
reasons for such a conclusion.
It should be noticed, first, that the position of the Book
among the Hagiographa instead of among the D*N*!3J would
seem to indicate that it must have been introduced after the
closing of the Prophetic Canon. The explanation that the
Apocalyptic nature of the work did not entitle it to a position
among the Prophetic books is hardly satisfactory. Some com
mentators believed that Daniel was not an actual N*3J or
prophet, in the proper sense, but only a seer (rifH — so Haver
nick), or else that he was a prophet merely by natural gifts,
but not by official standing.' If Daniel, however, had really
* See additional note A.
' The explanation originated with the Rabbinical writers that Daniel
had the ti'lpn HTl ' spirit of holiness,' but not the nXIDJIl 111")
'the ofBcial inspiration ' (Qamchi, 'Preface to the Psalms'; Maimon.
' More Nebochim,' 3.. 41, 119, quoted by Bertholdt, p. xiii). The Rab
binical device was followed and elaborated by a number of the later
orthodox commentators. Thus, Auberlen, ' Daniel, pp. 34, 35, Franz
Delitzsch in Herzog und Plitt's Real Encycl. iii. 371, 273, ' Commen
tary on Isaiah,' p. 3, Keil, ' Daniel,' p. 23, etc. See also in this connec
tion Kranichfeld.' Daniel,' p. 9, Lengerke, ' Daniel,' jj. 565, etc.

19
seen the visions which are attributed to him by the work bear
ing his name, he was certainly a great prophet, and, as has been
pointed out by Bleek, would have had fully as much right to
be ranked as such as Amos, Ezekiel or Zechariah." The natu
ral explanation regarding the position of the Book of Daniel
is that the work could not have been in existence at the time
of the completion of the second part of the canon, as otherwise
the collectors of the prophetic writings, who in their caJSe did
not neglect even the parable of Jonah, would hardly have
ignored the record of such a great prophet as Daniel is repre
sented to be.
Secondly, the silence of Jesus Sirach concerning Daniel seems
to show that the prophet was unknown to that late writer.
Jesus Sirach, in his list of celebrated men (chapter 49), makes
no mention of Daniel, but passes from Jeremiah to Ezekiel and
then to the twelve minor prophets and Zerubbabel. If Daniel
had been known to Jesus Sirach we would certainly expect to
find him in this list, probably between Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
Again the only explanation appears to be that the Book of
Daniel was not known to Jesus Sirach, who wrote between
200 and 180 B. C. Had so celebrated a person as Daniel
been known, he could hardly have escaped mention in such a
complete list of Israel's leading spirits. Hengstenberg re
marked that Ezra and Mordecai were also left unmentioned,
but the case is not parallel. Daniel is represented in the work
attributed to him as a great prophet, while Ezra appears as
nothing more than a rather prominent priest and scholar.
A third argument against an early origin for the book is the
fact that the post-exilic prophets exhibit no trace of its influence.
Had the Book of Daniel been extant and generally known
since the time of Cyrus, it would be reasonable to look for
some sign of its power among the writings of prophets like
Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
''Bleek, 'Einleitung,' 5th ed., 418. In the LXX. the book is placed
directly after Ezekiel, which shows that the translators considered it a
prophetic work. Compare in this connection the opinion of Jaehja
(quoted by Bertholdt, loc. cit.) who attributed to Daniel the highest
degree of prophetic inspiration ; "^lUrT HVp HNI^Jn •

20
In addition to this, the actual contents of the book itself
seem to preclude the supposition of even an approximately
contemporary origin for the work. The Book of Daniel differs
materially from all other prophetic writings of the Old Testa
ment in the especial details of its prophecies. Other prophets
confine themselves to vague and general predictions, but the
Book of Daniel gives a detailed account of historical events
which may easily be recognized and identified through the
thin veil of prophetic mystery thrown lightly around them.
If it be supposed that the book originated at the time of
Cyrus, the positiveness with which events of the far future are
prophesied is certainly strange. It is highly suggestive that
while the Book of Daniel contains an account pf a long series
of historical events, just those occurrences which are the most
remote from the assumed standpoint of the writer are the most
correctly stated, wliile the nearer we approach to the author's
supposed time, the more inaccurate does he become. This has
especial application to the last chapters, x.-xii., where the com
bats between the Ptolemaides and Seleucides are so clearly laid
before the reader that the visions have more the appearance of
history than prophecy. In addition to this correctness of
detail, the chronological reckoning by days for future events is
very striking. {Of. chapter viii. 14; xii. 11, 12.)
The Hebrew prophets rarely set definite times for future
occurrences, and when they do, give a date in round numbers.
(Except, of course, in the interpolated passage. Is. vii. 8 — in
which connection see Delitzsch, ' Comm. on Isaiah,' j?. 137.) The
prophecies in the Book of Daniel seem to centre on the period
of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the Syrian prince was endeav
oring to suppress the worship of Jehovah and substitute for it
the Greek idolatry. These passages either break off directly
with the overthrow of this prince or else add a prophecy of
freedom for God's people from all oppressions and the an
nouncement of a Messianic Kingdom and the resurrection of
the dead. A comparison of the Apocalyptic and narrative
chapters makes it apparent that we have the same prophecies
in all, repeated in different forms. The vision of the colossal
image in ch. ii. is evidently identical with the vision of the four
beasts in ch, vii. In the 'Little Horn,' ch. vii. 8 : viii. 9 and

21
the wicked prince described in chs. ix.-.vi., who is to work such
evil among the saints, we have clearly one and the same per
son. Moreover, in all the prophecies, a period of trial and
tribulation is followed by the triumph* of the Lord and his
saints. According to tbe Book of Daniel four distinct empires
are to arise, during which time the sufferings of the saints are
to increase until they culminate at the end of the fourth empire
under a prince worse than all his predecessors, after which the
Kingdom of God is to appear. A careful examination of the
book makes it apparent that the author believed that Nebu
chadnezzar was succeeded by his son, Belshazzar, who was
displaced by Darius the Median, and he in turn followed by
Cyrus the Persian. It seems evident, therefore, that in the
mind of the author the four empires were : first, the Babylo
nian, represented by Nebuchadnezzar and his immediate suc
cessor, Belshazzar ; second, that of Darius the Median ; third,
the Persian empire of Cyrus, and fourth, the empire of Alex
ander and his successors, culminating at the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes. (Compare Reuss, ' Geschichte des Alten Testaments,'
p. 595 ff^ It is now generally recognized that ch. xi. 21-4^5,
refers to the evil deeds of Antiochus IV. and his attempts
against the Jewish people and the worship of Jehovah. In
chapter xii. follows the promise of salvation from the tyrant.
In ch. viii. the king symbolized by the ' Little Horn,' of whom
it is said that he will come from one of four kingdoms which
shall be formed from the Greek empire after the death of its
first king, can be none other than Antiochus Epiphanes. In
like manner do the references in ch. ix. plainly allude
to this prince. (Compare in this connection Bleek, 'Ein
leitung,'^^. 420^.) It would be extremely difficult to recon
cile these facts with the theory of a Babylonian authorship for
the book, because, setting aside the marvel of such accurate
prophecy centuries before the events referred to, it would be
natural to expect that a prophet of the time of the Babylonian
captivity would rather direct his attention to the freedom of
his people from their servitude in Babylon than from the
oppression of a king who ruled centuries later. It would be
* See additional note B.

22
more natural, too, to expect in an early work prophecies of the
return of the Jews to Palestine, as in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
Isaiah, rather than the proclamation of an ideal Messianic king
dom, such as we find in the Book of Daniel.
Not only do the Apocalyptic portions of the book seem to
preclude the theory of a Babylonian authorship,' but the
numerous inaccuracies in the narrative sections make it
equally difficult to hold such a view. Such statements as
are found, for example, in the fifth chapter only, which
win be fully discussed below, can hardly date from Baby
lonian times. No writer living at the Babylonian court
of Cyrus could have asserted, for instance, that Belshazzar
was the son of Nebuchadnezzar,' or have interpolated a
Median ruler between the last king of Babylon and the Per
sians. Nor are these historical inaccuracies by any means
confined to ch. v. Among the most important occurring in
other narrative sections, should be mentioned ; first, The
chronological error in ch. i., that Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusa
lem as king of Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim, while
it is known from Jeremiah xxv. 1, that the former did not
begin to reign in Babylon until the fourth year of the latter,
and that the Babylonians in the ninth month of the flfth year
of Jehoiakim had not yet come to Jerusalem. (From Jeremiah
xxxvi. 9, 29 ; see Bleek, op. cit., '427). The origin of this error
has been traced to a false combination of 2 Chron. xxxvi.
Qf. and 2 Kings, xxiv. 1. (See Kamphausen, 'Das Buch
Daniel und die neuere Gesehichtsforschung,' p. 17). Second,
The statement in ch. ii. 1, that Nebuchadnezzar had his
fanious dream in the second year of his reign, is in direct
^ For the evident lateness of the second part of the book, cf. Bleek,
' Einleitung,' p. 420 ; Strack, Herzog and Plitt's ' Real Encyclopasdie,'
vii^. 419 ; Hoffmann, 'Antiochus,' iv. pp. 82 ff ; Driver, ' Introduction to
the Study of Old Testament Literature,' p. 461. It has been remarked
that the contents of ch. ix, referring to Jerusalem, would remove all
further doubt as to the late origin. (See Derenbourg, Hebraica, iv. 8,
note 1.) '
"It is interesting to notice that as early as A.D. 1757, Goebel, 'De
Belsasaro,' (see Reuss, ' Geschichte,' p. 602), called attention to this his
torical error. Reuss mentions also Sartorius, ' Hist. Exoid. Babyl.'
(Tubingen, 1766) ; Norberg, Opp. iii. 223.

23
Contradiction to ch. i. where it is asserted that Nebuchadnezzar
was king when Daniel and his companions were taken into
captivity and that the latter were trained three years at court.
The interpretation of the dream must have taken place after
this period of three years, and consequently later than the
second year of Nebuchadnezzar.
An additional evidence that the Book of Daniel must have
been written at a considerably later period than the Persian con
quest of Babylon may be found in the presence of both Persian
and Greek loanwords. The occurrence of the former shows con
clusively that the book must have originated after the conquest
of Babylon," while the presence of Greek words appears to
preclude the possibihty of setting the origin of the work prior
to the time of Alexander the Great. The names of the three
musical instruments in chapter iii ; n'JSQID , verse 5, 16 (also
V. 10 in the form n'Jfi'D), jnnJDS and Din'p" are undoubt
edly loanwords from the Greek avfjLJtmvla, ¦>^a\T'qpiov and
KiOapi's.'' It can hardly be supposed that these three essentially Greek
names of musical instruments were current at the court of
Nebuchadnezzar. While there was in all likelihood some
intercourse, even at that time, between the Asiatics and the
lonians in Asia Minor, it does not seem probable that the
influence was then strong enough to cause the adoption by the
Babylonians of Greek musical instruments and even of their
Greek names. In Assyrian literature the flrst mention of the
lonians occurs in the inscriptions of Sargon (722-705 B. C.)
who relates that he conquered the ' Yanind ' who dwelt ' in the
' The theory advanced by Strack in Zockler's ' Handbuch,' i. 165, and
' Real Encycl.', vii.' 419, that the occurrence of Persian loanwords nec
essarily points to a pre-Maccabaean origin for these sections does not
seem tenable. It is quite conceivable that Persian loanwords should
have remained until the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. For the opin
ion that the origin of the book of Daniel must be pre-Maccabaean see
Additional Note B.
"For the termination -os in Hebrew, compare Ges. 'Thesaurus,'
p. 1215.
' Compare in this connection Cheyne, ' Encycl. Britannica,' vi. 803,
807 ; Driver, ' Introduction,' 470. Derenbourg, Hebraica, ii. pp. Iff.
It is interesting to notice that the ipaXr^piov was a favorite instrument
of Antiochus Epiphanes. (See Polybius ; Athenaeus, x. 53.)

M
midst of the sea.' Abydenus in Eusebius {Chronicon, ed.
Schoene, i. 1. 36) tehs of Sargon's successor Sennacherib that
he conquered the fleet of the Greeks on the Cilician coast :
'In maris litore terrae Cilicum classem navali proelio cer-
tantem navium Graecorum profligans vicit.' Sennacherib
himself relates that he manned his ships with 'maldxe
^^Qurrd, ^gidund, "'^'¦'^ Tamnd,' i. e. 'with Tyrian, Sidonian
and Ionian sailors.' (Senn. Smith, 1. 91.) Neither in the
later Assyrian nor in the Babylonian inscriptions does auy
further allusion to the Greeks occur. In fact not until
the time of Darius Hystaspis, two hundred years later do
we hear anything more of them. This king speaks frequently
ofa ' ™'''' Ydmanu,' evidently referring, not to Greece proper
but to the Greek territory in Asia Minor. (See in this
connection Delitzsch Wo lag das Paradies,' pp. 248 ff., and
Schrader Keilinschriften und das alte Testament, 81-82).
In view of the absolute silence of the Babjdonian inscriptions,
it may be inferred that the Greek influence, later so powerful
had not yet begun to make itself perceptible in the East.
With regard to the opinion of Praetorius in his review of
Delitzsch, 'Hebrew and Assyrian,' in Kuhn's Liter aturblatt
fur orientalische Philologie, i. 195, that perhaps centuries
before Asurbanipal a loanword from the non-Semitic languages
of anterior Asia may have crept into the idioms of the Assy
rians, Hebrews, Aramaeans and even of the non-Semitic Sumer
ians, it seems to me difficult to come to any deflnite conclusion.
It appears equally possible to consider the Assyrian pilaqqu
axe (the word in question) either as a loanword from the
Greek ireXeKv; according to this suggestion,^ or to suppose
that the word is original in Semitic and crept into the Indo-
Germanic languages at a very early date, perhaps even before
they differentiated. (So Lehmann ' Samas sumukin' p. 127,
who believes that the word is from the Sumerian bala{g)).
At any rate this' word certainly gives no assistance towards
determining the period when Greeks and Semites first met.
8 Both Frankel and Praetorius hold this opinion. Compare also
Lagarde 'Ges. Abhandl.', 49. 10,, Haupt ' Sumerische Familiengesetze,'
55, n. 5. Delitzsch 'Assyrische Studien,' 138— all quoted Haupt,
' Beitrage,' i. 171 n.

25
The object of the author of the Book of Daniel, in both
the apocalyptic and narrative portions of the work, appears to
be to comfort his oppressed people, demonstrating in the one case,
by means of prophetic visions, the nearness of their salvation
and showing in the narrative sections by means of carefully
arranged tales the inevitable overthrow of blasphemers against
God. The stories of the fiery furnace and the lion's den are
both excellent illustrations of the divine protection of the
faithful during the pagan persecution, w^hile in the account of
the lycanthropy of Nebuchadnezzar in chapter iv. the author
seems to have had the intention of holding up the fate of the
mighty Babylonian prince who had destroyed Jerusalem and
the Temple, as a warning to Antiochus Epiphanes to desist in
time from his blasphemous opposition to the King of Kings.
To proceed, however, more especially to the fifth chapter.
As has been mentioned above, it must be admitted that this
section, which is the Biblical record of the fall of the Babylon
ian dynasty, contains certain striking inaccuracies. As will
be seen subsequently, however, in spite of the manifest errors
of the writer, it is not impossible that tbe account may have
an historical background.
The chief inaccuracies of chapter v. of which a brief dis
cussion will be necessary are three in number :
A. The last king of Babylon is called Belshazzar (a name
occurring only in Daniel and in the apocryphal passage, Baruch
i. 11), and it is clearly stated that he was the son of Nebuchad
nezzar. B. The queen mother is introduced at a feast on the eve of
the fall of Babylon.
C. It is stated (v. 31) that a Median king, Darius, received
the kingdom after the fall of the native Babylonian house.
The first point whicii should receive attention is the errone
ous statement regarding Belshazzar. The name Belshazzar,
previous to the discovery of the inscriptions was held to have
been invented by the author of Daniel. (So Von Lengerke,
204; Hitzig, 76. It is now generally admitted, however,
to be identical with the Babylonian form Bdsaruqui- which

26
has been discovered in the cuneiform documents" as the name
of the eldest son of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon.'"
Among the various allusions to this prince in the cuneiform
hterature, the most important are those in the two inscriptions
of Ur, and in the annals of Nabonidus, the chief document
relating to the fall of Babylon. As the reference in the small
inscription" of Ur is the most complete and consequently the
most important, I append a translation and transcription. In
this document Nabonidus speaks as follows :
Baldtu sa ume rtoq'uti Life for long days
ana siriqti surqdm give as a gift to me
u sa BdsaruQur and cause to dwell
mdru restu in the heart of Belshazzar
git libbiya my fi/rst born son,
puluxti ilwtika rabiti the offspring of my body,
libbus susTcinma reverence for thy great God-
d irsd head: May he ne'er incline
xiteti to sin,
lale baldtu lisbi. may he be filled with the
fuln,ess of life.
In the second column of the great inscription of Ur," the
king, after describing the restoration of the temple of Ebarra
' Sir Henry Rawlinson in the Athenaeum, March, 1854, j). 341, *A letter
from Bagdad.' See also Oppert, ZDMG, viii. 598.
"" The name occurs in the inscriptions as that of probably two other
persons : (a) In ' Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,' ii, 60, I. 59, where the
ruler of the city of the Kisesi, one of the tribes conquered by Sargon, is
called BelsaruQur. (b) The Belsarugur son of Baldtu mentioned by
Pinches in the New York Independent, 1889, Aug. 15, is probably not,
as he thinks, the son of Nabonidus but of some ordinary person, possi
bly of some one named after the king's son (?). For the proper name
Baldfu, see Peiser 'Babylonisohe Vertrage,' No. ix. I. 2. (Ztschr. fiir
Assyriologie, vii. 66, I. 2.)
" Text, IR. 68, col. ii. 33-33, and Winckler's ' Keilschrifttexte,' p. 43.
Translation, Journal of the Boyal Asiatic Society, xix. (1861), 195 Jf.;
repeated also, ' Records of the Past,' v. 143^., Talbot: Oppert, 'Expe
dition en Mesopotamie,' i. 363.
i« ' Keilinschriftliche Bibl.' iii. pt. 2, p. 83. Belsarugur mdru rgstH.
. . . gtt (?) libhiya siXriku Hmesu, d irsd xifeti, ' Belsfiazzar my flrst
born . . . the offspring of my body, make long his days, may he not
incline to sin.' Peiser transcribes in the 'Keilinschriftliche Biblio
thek ' . . . lu(9)uxbia^ git (9) libbiya.

27
and offering a devout petition to Samas, the sun-god, that the
sacred shrines may now remain uninjured, closes with a prayer
for his own weU being and with a supplication for BelSa/ruQur
his first-born in almost the same words as the above. Why
this especial mention of the king's son occurs in these inscrip
tions of Ur is doubtful. It may be conjectured with Tiele
('Geschichte,' 463) that Belsarugur was governor of this
province in Southern Babylonia and had Ur as his capital, or
it is possible that Nabonidus attached some special religious
importance to the cult of the moon-god local in this place.
The petition here that the king's son might -not incline to sin
may perhaps indicate that the prince had in some way offended
the prejudices of the religious classes, who, as is well known,
supervised the preparation of the inscriptions. From the
allusion to the prince in the annals'" of Nabonidus it appears
that the son of the king was a number of years with the lords
and army in Akkad, raost probably in the capacity of com
mander in chief, while his father was residing in Tema free
from the cares of government. It is worthy of notice here
that in the annals the name Belsarugur does not occur, the
allusion being merely to the 'son of the king'; but there can
be little doubt that the reference is to the first-born.
In addition to these three passages from the historical litera
ture, there are numbers of references to Belsarugur in the
contract tablets, none of which, however, throw any further
important historical light on his character.*
As Belsarugur is the only king's son mentioned with such
prominence in the Babylonian inscriptions,'* and as it is espe-
" Annals, col. ii. 5, during the seventh year of Nabonidus, col. 3. 10,
during the 10th year. See also col. ii. 19 and 23.
"Compare, however, Nbpl. col. ii. 69, 'Keilinschriftl. Bibl.' iii. pt.
2, 4, mention of Nebuchadnezzar ; and col. iii, ^ff. of Nabusulisir, his
brother. In later documents mention is made of Cambyses, son of Cyrus,
as oo-regent and king of Babylon during his father's lifetime. (See Tiele
' Geschichte,' 483, 484.) In the inscription of Antiochus Soter, VR. 66,
25, (' Keilinschr. Bibl.', iii. pt. 2, 138, 35), mention is made of Seleucus,
his son and vice-king. Delattre, ' Solomon, Asurbanipal et Baltasar,'
1883, p. 5, compares in connection with Belsarugur the cases of Solo
mon and Sardanapalus, both of whom exercised the vice-regal dignity
during the life of their respective fathers,
* See additional note C.

28
cially stated that the lords of the kingdom and army were with
hira (probably under his supervision) in Akkad, it seems highly
probable that he was a very important personage in the govern
ment, a theory which is strengthened by the fact that his
father, Nabonidus, was more of an archaeologist than a ruler,
and far more interested in the discovery of a forgotten site
than in the affairs of his kingdom. Belsarugur, therefore,
as some critics have argued,'" may have really been co-
regent ; but, as will be seen subsequently, the author of the
Book of Daniel could not, as they thought, have had this idea
in mind in calling him king of Babylon.
Comparing the Belsarugur of the inscriptions with Belshaz
zar of the Book of Daniel, the following important differences
are apparent. The former was the son of the last king of Baby
lon, but never reigned except possibly as co-regent, while the
latter is distinctly called the last king and the son of Nebuchad
nezzar. There can be little doubt that both of these statements
were made by the author of Daniel in perfect good faith. A
nuraber of coraraentators'" have sought to prove that the Belshaz
zar of the Book of Daniel ^vas not necessarily meant by the
author as the last king of Babylon, but was intended for Evil-
merodach, son of Nebuchadnezzar ; a view advanced in support
of the statement in verse 2, that Belshazzar was the son of Nebu
chadnezzar. Following this theory, some considered Belshazzar
merely a secondary name. (So Ziindel ' Daniel,' 26 ; Niebuhr
' Geschichte,' 30, etc.) It is difficult to understand, however,
"= Floigl, ' Cyrus und Herodot,' 34 ; Andrea, ' Beweis des Glaubens,'
1888, p. 349 ; Smith in the ' Dictionary of'the Bible ;' Meinhold, ' Disser
tation,' 30, n. 3, etc.
"So Marsham, 'Canon chron.,' 596^.; Conring, 'Advers. Chron.'
c. 13 ; Harenberg, ' Dan.' ii, pp. AMff.; Hofmann, ' Die siebenzig Jahre
des Jeremia und die siebeijzig Jahrwochen des Daniel,' p. 44 ; Haver
nick, 'Neue kritische Untersuchungen,' pp. 72 ff.; M, v. Niebuhr,
' Geschichte Assurs und Babels,' p. 42. ; Wolff in the ' Studien und Kj-it-
iken,' 1858, p. 684 woie a,; Ziindel, 'Daniel,' 83; Unger, 'Kyaxares und
Astyages,' pp. 38, 39. Keil, ' Dan.' 145, although knowing of the dis
covery of the name in the inscriptions thought that the Belsarugur,
son of Nabonidus, of the inscriptions must have been named after Bel-
shazzar-Evilmerodach son of Nebuchadnezzar ! Quatremere in his
' Annales de la philosophic chretienne,' 1838, (Migne, ' Die, de la Bible,'
ii, p. 30, note, 1845), advanced the theory in support of Jeremiah xxvii.
7, that Nabonidus, as an usurper, associated with himself Belshazzar,

29
how the author could make Daniel declare to the Babylonian
monarch that his kingdom was about to pass to the Medes and
Persians, unless the prophecy were intended for the last king.
There would be little point in such a warning, if it were given
a generation before its actual fulfillment. We raay compare
in this connection the indifference of Hezekiah to the prophecy
of Isaiah of the ultimate deportation to Babylon and degra
dation there of all the Jewish royal family. In Isaiah xxxix.
8, Hezekiah said : " Good is the word of the Lord, which thou
hast spoken ... for there shall be peace and truth in my
days." In addition to this it is evident that if the author of
Daniel did not really regard his Belshazzar as the last king of
Babylon, but as Evilmerodach, he must have omitted without
mention a period of twenty years between the death of the latter
and the foreign supremacy ; i. e. that between the two contigu
ous and closely related statements of the death of Belshazzar and
the accession of" Darius the Median, the reigns of several kings
were passed over in silence. That an author should do this
knowingly without a word of explanation, as some writers have
sought to show, seems a preposterous supposition." It appears
perfectly clear that the Biblical author regarded Belshazzar as
the last king of Babylon before the coraing of the Medes and
Persians. son of Evilmerodach and grandson of Nebuchadnezzar, in order to
strengthen his position. The view that Belshazzar and Nabonidus
were identical was held by Josephus (Antt, x, 11, 3), where he states
that ' Baltasar ' was called ' Naboandelus ' by the Babylonians. (Cf .
also ' Contra Apionem,' i. c. 30). This idea was followed by J, D,
Michaelis ' Daniel,' 46 ; Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' 344 ; Bleek, Kirms, Heng
stenberg, Havernick, 'Daniel,' p. 173; Ewald 'Gesch,', v. 85, note;
Herzfeld, 'Gesch,', i. 154; Browne, ' Ordo Saeclorum,' 178.
Sulpitius Severus, 'Hist,', ii, 6, considered Belshazzar a younger
brother of Evilmerodach, both being sons of Nebuchadnezzar,
Scaliger (see ' Isagogicorum chronologise canonum libri tres.', iii.
p. 190,) and Calvisius, who were followed by Ebrard, ' Comm. zur Offen
barung Johannis,' 45, and Delitzsch ' Real Encycl.', iii.' 473, identifled
him with Laborosoarchod (Lahasimarduk), son of Neriglissar.
" Cf. Ziindel and Kranichfeld ' Dan.', 35, 28, who believed that Bel
shazzar was Evilmerodach, and explained this silence regarding the
intervening period and the connection of two statements so far apart,
by supposing that they were brought together because the latter was
the sequence of the former !

30
As remarked above, certain critics have held the view
that because Belsarugur may have been co-regent with his
father, the Biblical writer, knowing this, gave his Belshazzar
the title of king. A conclusive answer to this has been given
by Professor Driver, 'Introduction,'" xxii., where he states
that there are certain contract tablets published by Strassmaier
and bearing date continuously from the reign of Nabonidus to
that of Cyrus, which show that neither Belshazzar nor Darius
the Mede (supposing the latter to have been historical) could
have received the title of king in any capacity whatsoever.
If Belshazzar really had been co-regent, however, we would
not expect to find hira with the unqualified title ' King of
Babylon ' without any further explanation. Cambyses, the son
of Cyrus, was undoubtedly co-regent and bore the title King of
Babylon during his father's life-time, tut in the contract which
dates from his first year it is expressly stated that Cyrus was
still ' king of the lands.' This statement should be contrasted
with Dan. viii. 1, where reference is made to the third year
of 'Belshazzar, King of Babylon,' without any mention of
another over-ruler. Had the author of Daniel really believed
that Belshazzar was co-regent it is reasonable to suppose
that he would in some way have qualified the title ' King
of Babylon.'
Furtherraore the stateraent that Belshazzar was the son of
Nebuchadnezzar shows conclusively that the historical knowl
edge of the author of Daniel was considerably at fault. Certain
commentators have endeavored to prove that this statement may
be in accordance with the facts, i. e. that ' son ' here is to be trans
lated ' descendant ' or ' grandson.' It is of course perfectly true,
as Dr. Pusey has remarked, that DX and p (Aramaic ID) are
used, not only of the actual father aud son, but also of the grand
father or grandson, and ancestor or descendant in general."
The way, however, in which Nebuchadnezzar ' is referred to
in the fifth chapter shows plainly that the author could have
had no knowledge of the intervening kings, but considered
'8 Compare Pusey, 'Daniel," p. 346. There is no distinctive word
either in Hebrew or Aramsean for grandfather or grandson. In later
Hebrew, Buxtorf gives ?pf . 'grandfather,' fem. 'r\)i\^\ ¦

31
Nebuchadnezzar as the actual father of Belshazzar. In the
first place, the narrative of chapter v. follows directly on the
chapters concerning Nebuchadnezzar and begins with the un
qualified assertion that Belshazzar was the son of that monarch ;
and secondly, the reraark of Belshazzar in v. 13, ' so thou art
Daniel .... whom the king my father brought from Judaea,'
would be ambiguous if the king were referring to his gtand-
father or an ancestor. In this case we would expect the repe
tition of tbe name Nebuchadnezzar to indicate to wliich 'father'
the king was alluding. But even if the words 'father' and
' son ' of the fifth chapter really were used for ' grandson ' and
' grandfather,' there is no proof that Belsariigur was in any way
related to Nebuchadnezzar." Nabonidus, his father, was the son
of a nobleman, Nabubalatsuiqbi (see 'Keilinschr. Bibl.' \\\. pt.
2. 96, I. 6), and was probably a leader in the conspiracy against
his predecessor, Labasi-MarduTc. As far as is known, he was
not related to any of the preceding kings. Had Nabonidus
been descended from Nebuchadnezzar he could hardly have
failed to boast of such a connection with the greatest Babylo
nian monarch, yet in none of his inscriptions does he trace his
descent beyond his father. Some scholars have tried to ob
viate the difficulty by supposing that Nabonidus, in order to
strengthen his dynasty, married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar,
and that in this way Belsarugur was the great king's grandson,
a theory which in the absence of records cannot possibly be
proved.'" "Auberlen, 'Daniel,' j>. 16, thought that Belshazzar was called son of
Nebuchadnezzar, just as Omri was considered by the Assyrians as
father of the house of Israel. ' Father,' however, cannot be used of
the unrelated predecessors, as Pusey (Daniel, 347) sought to show.
Wherever it is used in this connection, as in the above cited case, it is
an error as to the real relationship. The passage in Sargon which
Pusey cites in support of his view, believing that Sargon was no rela
tion to the preceding kings, is very doubtful, and probably does not
contain the words sarru abiya, 'the king, my father.' Cf. Winckler's
' Sargon,' ii., xiii., but also Tiele ' Gesch.', 354, 355, rem. 3.
so Note that Bertholdt, 'Daniel' 344, Bleek, Kirms, Havernick,
'Untersuch.' 73, Hitzig, 'Dan.', 73, Schrader ' Jahrbuoh ftir Prot. The
ologie,' vii. 639, are aU agreed that the author considered Belshazzar
the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

32
The. similarity of narae and the imis, first, that the historical
BelSarucur of the inscriptions was the son of the last king of
Babylon, while the Belshazzar of Daniel is represented as being
himself the last king, and, secondly, that it has been estabhshed
quite lately, as wih be seen below, that Belsarugur, son of Na
bonidus, probably met his death at the tirae of the capture of
BabJ-lon, in partial agreement with the Bibhcal account con
cerning Belshazzar, prove beyond reasonable doubt that the
son of Nabonidus is the original of the king in the Biblical
account."' The first historical inaccuracy of the fifth chapter is, there
fore, the erroneous statement concerning the name and ances
try of the last king of Babylon. It should be remembered
that the value of the Book of Daniel, whicii nowhere pretends
to be an accurate account, but is rather a political pamphlet
written with a certain object in view, is by no means impaired
by this inexact treatraent of history. The force of the story
would have been materially weakened had the author known
and raade use of the names of the kings intervening between
Nebuchadnezzar and the last king. The whole point of the
fifth chapter, as brought out in the mysterious sentence, is a
comparison between the great Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder
of the Babylonian monarchy ; the insignificant last king who
had allowed the reins of government to slip from his feeble
hands ; and the coming stranger people who should divide
between them the empire of Nebuchadnezzar.
The sew?i(? inacui-acy of the author in the fifth chapter of
Daniel which should be noticed at this point, is his introduc
tion of the queen-mother, i. e. the mother of Nabonidus, into
the story. According to verse 10 the queen entered the hall
and suggested that the Jewish prophet Daniel be called to
"Talbot, 'Records of the Past,' v. 143, doubts the identity of the Bib
lical Belshazzar with the Belsarugur of the inscriptions, supposing that
the account in Daniel is told of some other person with this name,
which he asserts to be a common one. As the name Belsarugur occurs
only twice in the published inscriptions of another than the son of
Nabonidus (see above note 10 to this chapter), until the hypothetical
' other person' be discovered it is certainly consistent with good judg
ment in view of the reasons just given to regard Belsarugur son of
Nabonidus and the Belshazzar of Daniel as identical.

33
interpret the mysterious writing. There can be little doubt
that the author was referring to the queen-dowager, the mother
of the last king of Babylon. The mother of Nabonidus, how
ever, died in the ninth year of his reign (see Annals, col. ii. 13),
just eight years before the occupation of Babylon by Cyrus, so
that her presence at a feast held towards the close of the reign
of Nabonidus would be clearly impossible. It might be argued
that the reference in ch. v. may be to the wife of Nabonidus,
the raother of BelSartigior, but, as we have seen, there is little
doubt that the author of Daniel regarded Belshazzar (^e^sa^it-
gur) as actually king and knew nothing of Nabonidus ; so it
seems only possible to assert that he considered the queen
alluded to in this verse as the mother of the reigning monarch.
The third and last historical inaccuracy of the fifth chapter
of Daniel is the assertion in verse 31 that a Median King
Darius " received the kingdom " after the end of the native
Babylonian dynasty. It is well known that Babylon was cap
tured by Cyrus the Persian, who, some time previously, had
obtained possession of Media and its King Astyages. It is evi
dent too, from Daniel i. 21 ; x. 1, that the Biblical writer was
perfectly aware of the existence of Cyrus. From his introduc
tion of a Median Darius directly after the fall of Belshazzar ; it
must be concluded that the author of the Book of Daniel
believed in the existence of a Median king between the Baby
lonian and Persian dynasties.
The fact that in no other scriptural passage'" is mention
made of any Median ruler between the last king of Babylon
and Cyrus, and the absolute silence of the most authoritative
ancient authors regarding such a king, have cast serious doubt
on the accuracy of the Book of Daniel in this particular.
Various attempts have been raade, however, to vindicate the
historical character of this Darius the Median." The opinion
-s See Isaiah, xliv. ff. Compare also the legend of Bel and the Dragon,
verse 1, and the Greek translations (LXX and Theodotion) of Dan. xi. 1,
where the name Cyrus is substituted for that of Darius.
S3 Note in this connection Josephus, Antt. x. 11, 4, followed by
Jerome on Daniel v. 1 ; vi. 1, (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, tom. v. 651, 657), Jose
phus stated that Babylon was captured by Darius, who was the son of
Astyages and had another name among the Greeks, The following
5

34
has been very generally advanced that he was identical with
Cyaxares, son of Astyages, mentioned in Xenophon's Cyro-
paedia,"" and in support of this theory reference has been made
to the lines of Eschylus, Pers(s, 762-766. (So Hitzig, 77 ;
Keil, 165.) Mi)So? r^ap riv o 7r/3WTO? i^^e/xcoV arparov
"AXXo? B' iKclvov irai's toB' epyov ijvvae •
<I>/Dei'e? yap avTOv dvp,ov oiaicoarpo^ovv.
TpiTO'i S' ott' avTOv KO/Joy, evSai/jiwv avrjp, k. t. X.
*
writers attempted to prove the historical character of Darius the Mede ; .
Delitzsch, ' Real Encyclopadie,' iii. ed. 1, article ' Daniel ;' Prideaux,
'History of the Jews,' i. 98, 154, 173, etc.; Havernick, 'Daniel,' 205;
Hengstenberg, ' Daniel,' 48, 337 ; Kranichfeld, ' Daniel,' 44 ; Lengerke,
'Dan.', 232; Lenormant, 'Magie,' 535; J, D, Michaelis, 'Dan.', 52;
Vaihinger, ' Real-Encycl.', s. v. Darius; Venema, ' Historia Ecclesias
tica,' ii. pp. 309/.; Ziindel, 'Dan.', 37. Compare also Jahn 'Biblical
Archseology,' transi, Upham, ed. 5, p. 289 ; Browne, ' Ordo Saeclorum,'
p. 175 ; Schulz' ' Cyrus der Grosse,' Stud, und Ki-it, 1853, p. 685 ; Zock
ler, ' Daniel,' 34, With regard to other less important opinions as to
Darius the Median, some authorities considered him identical with
Astyages. Among the holders of this opinion is Syncellus, ' Chronogr,'
p. 333, where he said 'SaP&vvi^Sog 6 TeAemaloq paailevQ M.ij6av, 'AaTvdyt/c nap'
avTolg /leyd/iEvog, 6 avrbg di nal Aapelog 'Aaaovfjpov. Cf. also Marsham,
Niebuhr, etc., and more lately Unger, 'Kyaxares und Astyages,' pp.
36-38. Others sought to show that Darius the Median was a near
relative of Astyages. Compare Quatremere, ' Memoires sur Darius le
Mede et Baltasar,' 380-381, who considered him Astyages' nephew.
Ibn Ezra (Hitzig, ' Daniel,' 76), (see IE on Dan. vi. 1) thought that he
was the father-in-law of Cyrus. Klein, Schulz, op. cit., 684, and
Ziindel regarded him as a younger brother of Astyages. Ebrard
Scheuchzer, Scaliger, in Appendix of his ' De emend, temporum ' and
in ' Isagogicorum chronologiae canonum libri tres.' iii. pp. 291 and 315,
Petavius, and Buddeus, (see Zockler, 34) thought him identical with
Nabonidus. Conring, 'Advers. Chron.', c. 13, Bouhier 'Dissertation
sur Herodote,' 29, Harenberg, ii. pp. 434/,, regarded him as identical
with Neriglissar, Hengstenberg, ' Daniel,' 338, identified him with
Bahman, who according to Persian tradition (Mirchond) dethroned
Belshazzar and appointed Cyrus ; but cf. v, Lengerke, • Daniel,' 224/.
etc., etc.
s^Cf. Xen. Cyrop., i. 5, 3. n.pol6vTog 6i tov xp^vov 6 /liv 'Aarvd-yj/g h role
WiSoig dno&D^aicei., 6 Se Kva^ipijg 6 tov 'AaTvayovg Kale, T^g Se Xipov /itiTpdg
a.Se2.fdg, T7p> ^aoikeiav ^axe tuv ^.r^Suv.
For the opinion that Darius the Mede was identical with Cyaxares,
see, for example, Havernick, 'Dan,', 306 ; Keil, 'Dan.', 165 ; Kranich
feld, 'Dan.', 44; Lengerke, 'Dan.", 330; Andrea, ' Beweis d, Glaubens,'
xxv. 57, Meinhold 'Dissertation,; 33/., and others mentioned above.

35
-The TrpSiTO's rjyeiioav a-Tparov was supposed to refer to
Astyages, while the " son " of the fohowing line was under
stood to be the Cyaxares mentioned in the Cyropaedia. As a
further proof of identity, the age of the Darius of Daniel,
sixty-two years, has been cited as a point of agreement with the
account that Cyaxares, having no hope of a male heir, being
too old, gave Cyrus his daughter and raade him his successor.""
It may be well in this connection to compare the data of Xen
ophon regarding the last Median kings with those of Herodo
tus on the same subject. It should be noticed, first, that
Herodotus ends the Median dynasty with Astyages, while
Xenophon adds a son, Cyaxares. Secondly, according to Her
odotus Cyrus was only related to the Median house by being
the son of Astyages' daughter. Xenophon adds to this that
Cyrus married the daughter of Cyaxares (his first cousin), and
inherited with her the Median empire. Thirdly, according to
the account of Herodotus, Cyrus took part in the rebehion
instigated by Harpagus and conquered his grandfather Astya
ges, capturing Media. Herodotus' account of the conquest of
Babylon contains no reference to any Median prince. Xeno
phon relates, however, that Cyrus, after quarrehng with Cyax
ares, became reconciled to him and gave him royal honors after
the Babylonian campaign. Herodotus, as wih be seen from
the above, had no knowledge of any Median king between
Astyages and Cyrus, nor of any special Median occupation of
Babylon, and in this respect his account is substantiated by the
cuneiform records. It should be noticed that neither Berossus
nor any other ancient author knows of a Median rule'after the
fall of Babylon."" In the annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus
Cylinder, the two cuneiform documents relating to the fall of
S5 See Cyrop., viii. 5, 19 andc/. Havernick, ' Dan.', 306. Some commen
tators who identifled Xenophon's Cyaxares with the Median Darius,
explained the silence of Herodotus and other writers regardmg
Cyaxares by supposing that the latter reigned too short a time to have
given his name to history ; but this does not of course explain the
silence of Xenophon himself in the Anabasis about the fabulous
Cyaxares. s6 For the account of Berossus see below, ch. 3, p. 46. Compare in this
connection Ktesias, Pers,, ii. 5 ; Diodorus Siculus, ii. 34, etc.

36
Babylon, no mention whatever occurs of any ruler of Media
between Astyages and Cyrus (cf. Antials ii. 1-4 and note), nor
of any king of Babylon intervening between Nabonidus and
Cyrus. On the contrary it is stated that Cyrus became master
of Media by conquering Astyages, and that the troops of the
King of Persia, capturing Babylon, took Nabonidus prisoner.
Cyrus himself entered the city nine raonths later.
In view of these facts it is difficult to see where an interme
diate reign can be inserted, either in Media, directly after
Astyages, or in Babylonia after Nabonidus. It should be men
tioned, raoreover, that the Cyaxares of the Cyropaedia is not
recorded to have ruled in Babylon, but merely to have received
royal quarters in that city. {Cyrop., vih. 5, 17.) An identiflca
tion between Darius the Median and the Cyaxares, son of Asty
ages, of Xenophon's romance, is, therefore, open to the serious
objection that the existence of this latter person, contrary to
all other accounts, is extremely doubtful. It should be remem
bered that the narrative of the Cyropaedia resembles the Book
of Daniel in that it was not written for an historical but for a
moral purpose. It is enough to quote Cicero, who remarked
{Ad Quintum fratrem, Lib. i. 1, 8), " Cyrus ille a Xenophonte
non ad historiae fldem scriptus est, sed ad effigiera justi imperii."
It is perhaps a little harsh to characterize Xenophon's work,
with Niebuhr as an 'elenden und lappischen Roman.' (' Vor-
trage iiber alte Geschichte,' i. 116.) With respect to the peace
ful succession of Cyrus to the Median Empire, Xenophon, in
his more historical work, the Anabasis, iii. 4, expressly stated
that the Medes succumbed to the victorious arms of Cyrus.
The Cyropaedia, therefore, representing the peaceful passage of
the empire of the East from Astyages to Cyaxares his son, and
from the latter to Cyrus, can only be giving some fanciful em
bellishment." " Some commentators in a mistaken effort to conflrm the Biblical
record have deliberately confounded the names of Darius, Cyaxares,
and Xerxes. Thus, Havernick, 'Dan.', 310; 'Untersuchungen,' 78,
and Zockler, 'Daniel," 34, thought that Astyages was identical with
Ahasuerus ; and Keil, ' Dan.', 167, thought that Darius and Cyaxares wei'e
related in meaning. Hengstenberg, 'Daniel,' 51, and Niebuhr, ' Kleine
Schriften," 207, believed in the identity of the names Cyaxares, Astyages,

37
It is probable that this Cyaxares of the Cyropaedia arose from
a confusion of facts. The father of Astyages was the famous
Cyaxares, and Xenophon, by a confusion of history, must have
beheved, when writing his romance, that Astyages preceded
Cyaxares, and that the latter was the last king of his dynasty
(compare Delattre, ' Medes,' ^. 170). Even had this fabulous
second Cyaxares existed, however, an identification between him
and Darius the Median, would be impossible, owing to the differ
ence of the names of their respective fathers. The latter is
cahed in chapter ix. 1, the son of Ahasuerus (Xerxes) a narae
which could never be considered the sarae as Astyages.
The attempt to identify the Darius of Daniel with the King
Darius mentioned in the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius"' can
hardly be regarded as satisfactory. According to this passage
it is stated that after Cyrus gave the last king of Babylon the
province of Carm ania, Darius drove out sorae one from that
region ; probably Nabonidus.
There is every reason to believe that this Darius is no other than
Darius Hystaspis. (Even Pusey, ' Daniel,' 159, had to admit
that this was possible ; compare also Kranichfeld, ' Daniel,' 45,
V. Lengerke, ' Daniel,' 228.) It is possible that Nabonidus, the
last king of Babylon, whom Cyrus dethroned in 638 B. C, and
according to the record of Berossus (see below, note 3 to chapter
third) sent to Carmania, may have remained in that province
until the time of Darius Hystaspis. The Persian king, perhaps
enraged by some attempt of Nabonidus to rebel, may have
expelled him from his province as the account of Megasthenes
seems to state. The idea can hardly be entertained that there
is an allusion here to an earlier Darius.

and Ahasuerus. In his 'Gesch. Assurs und Babels,' p. 45, Niebuhr
confused the name Astyages, whioh he considered as a title of honor,
with Cyaxares and Darius. Von Lengerke, 'Daniel,' 337, thought that
Cyaxares and Ahasuerus were identical. Ziindel, 'Daniel,' 36,
Kranichfeld, ' Dan.', 46, Pusey, ' Dan.', 159, and Andrea, 58, saw no
difflculty in the difference in name I Unger, ' Kyaxares and Astyages,'
39, thought like Niebuhr that Darius was a throne name, a sort of
title, etc.
S8 See Armenian Chronicle, Ed. Schoene, i. 41 (Latin translation),
quoting from the account of Abydenus from Megasthenes.

38
The argument based on the authority of Suidas and Harpo-
cration," that the coin darik, was called, not after Darius
Hystaspis, as many have supposed, but after an older monarch
of this name, probably the Median Darius of Daniel,™ is also
in view of modern researches extreraely doubtful.
The name of the coin, BapeiK6<; (Hebrew |1D1'^^<) has been
derived from the name Darius," but it is extremely probable
that there is no connection linguistically between the two.
Putting aside ah other difficulties, the form Sapewo^, if consid
ered an adjectival developraent from Aa/jeto?, has no analogy.
As Georg Hoffmann has pointed out, Zeitschrift fur Assyr.,
ii. 53, forms hke Kepap.eiico'i, Ev^oeiKoi come from Kepafiev;,
Eu/3oe«/?, etc., and not frora an original -etos. The k in
Sapei.K6<; he beheves, therefore, is not of Greek origin.'" The
derivation, however, which Hoffraann suggests {op. cit., p. 66)
from ' Dar-ik ' = i^;*^ , from Dar, gate ; i. e. the royal gate, has
been retracted, Phmniciam, Lnscriptio7is, Gottingen, 1889,^. 8.
(Note that Hitzig, 'Daniel,'^. 77, derived the name from the
Sanscrit dargana, dargamana — mirror, appearance and Len
gerke, 'Dan.', 229, from ^_,t,^ or |^b — 'lord, king,' i.e. the
royal coin par excellence})
Bertin, Proceedings Society for Biblical Archceology, Feb. 5,
1884, p. 87, mentioned that a contract of the twelfth year of
Nabonidus contains the word dariku which he beheved
might be the original of the narae of the coin. This dariku,
S' Suidas said, Aapeimi . . . ovk awb Aapeiov tov Sep^ov waTpbg, aXX' dif
CTipov Tivog naXaioTipov paaAeug Lvojidad-riaav. See Hultsch, ' Metro-
logicorum scriptorum reliquiae,' vol. i, p. 335, 31/ Compare also
Harpocration, suh. v., Schol. ad Aristoph,, Iff., Eccl., 603, who remarked
'eK7iij^i]aav Si AapeiKol ovx, ^f ^'^ nXeiovg vofii^ovGiv, dirb Aapeiov tov 'Eep^ov iraTpSg,
dW dip' htpov . . . jiaaiUoQ. See Hultsch, ' Metrol.' vol. 1, p. 311, 1. 3-5 ;
pp. 315, 1. 17 ; p. 348,1. 30.
"•See Cook's 'Bible Commentary,' vi., 314 Andrea, op. cit., 49.
Hengstenberg, ' Daniel,' 51, Havernick, ' Untersuchungen,' 78, etc. , ete.
'' See above note 39 on Harpocration, and compare Gesenius, ' Thesau
rus,' 353, de Lagarde, ' Abhandlungen,' 343, quoted by Hoffmann, ZA.
ii. 50, who regarded AapetKdg like AapifiKng as a by-form of Darius,
'^ For the extreme improbability of the derivation of this word from
the name Darius, see his entire article, Ztschr. fur Assyr., ii. 49-56. As
early as Havernick, ' Unters.', 78, n. 3, 1888, the difficulty of such a sup
position was felt.

39
however, seems to be the narae of some agricultural product.
(So Tahqvist, ' Sprache der Contracte Nabunaids,' p. 66. For
the word cf. Nbk. 432. 7, Strassmaier, ' Babylonisclie Texte';
darika, Nbk. 347. 10; irf«7OT-?-571 — also ' Alphabetisches
Worterverzeichniss,' No. 1919.) It appears hardly possible.
therefore, to connect it with the later hapuKo^. While the
true derivation of the name of the coin has probably not yet
been discovered, its connection with the name Darius" appears
no longer possible. The assertions of Suidas and Harpocration,
therefore, that the coin was not named frora Darius Hystaspis,
but from some older monarch must thus fall to the ground,
and with it the hope of an identiflcation of Darius the Median
with an older king of this name.
If there is no room in history for this Median king of the
¦ Book of Daniel, and it appears consequently that such a ruler
could not have existed, but that Media passed from Astyages,
and Babylon from Nabonidus, to Cyrus, how is it possible to
account for this interpolation of a Median rule in the Book of
Daniel ?
The author evidently believed that Babylonia passed into
Median hands before it reached Cyrus. The theory is not
tenable that Darius the Median was a Median prince to whom
Cyrus had given Babylon as a reward for his services. (So "^ig-
iiolles, 'Oeuvres,' ii, 510 sq. followed by Lenormant, 'Manual
of the Ancient History of the East,' p. 490). Nor can we
suppose him to have been a sort of satrap or vice-king. (So
Andrea, op. oit. 55 ; Pusey, ' Daniel,' 160.) The author of Daniel
represents Darius with full kingly powers. Darius divides the
empire into one hundred and twenty satrapies (ch. vi. 1) ; he
signs a royal decree making it unalterable law (ch. vi. 7, 8);
he issues a proclamation to all peoples, nations and languages
that dwell in the earth (ch. vi. 26) ; and the author dates accord
ing to his reign and refers nowhere to any overlord (ch. ix. 1).
The question may be divided into two heads : First, Why
does the author of Daniel believe that the Medes held Baby
lon . before the Persians % Second, Why does he call his
Median king by the familiar name of Darius ?
A. In order to answer the first question it seems necessary
to give a very brief outline of the Median history. Accord-

40
ing to the record of Herodotus the Median kingdom was
founded by Deiokes. If the chronology of the Greek historian
is at all correct, Deiokes musi have founded his kingdom, as
Tiele has pointed out (' Geschichte,' j?. 408), during the reign of
Sennacherib in Assyria (706-681 B. C). (For an historical
examination of the foundation of Media see Delattre, ' Medes,'
f. 129 ff)
This whole question, however, is very uncertain and has little
bearing on what follows. The son of Deiokes was Phraortes,
who is really the first historical king of Media. (According to
Herodotus he must have reigned from 646 until 625 B. C.)
Fohowing the account of Herodotus, not content with ruhng
over the Medes alone, Phraortes marched against and subju
gated the Persians. Then, at the head of the combined forces
of Persians and Medes, he set out to conquer Asia, passing
from one people to the other. Finally he attacked the Assy
rians, at that tirae isolated by the defection of their allies, and
not only suffered defeat but was killed during the expedition,
having ruled twentji^-two years. His reign coincides with the
last twenty-two years of that of Asurbanipal. As Tiele remarks
(' Geschichte,' 408), it is certainly striking that this latter
king never followed the exaraple of his predecessors in attack
ing Media. The probable reason was that the power of
Phraortes was too great to admit of such an attempt. If we
accept the chronology of Herodotus, the year of Phraortes'
attack on Nineveh, 625 B. C, coincides with the tirae of the
death of Asurbanipal and the defection of Babylon from the
Assyrian rule. In spite of her difficult position, however,
Assyria seemed still to have possessed sufficient power to cast
off the Medes for a time. Phraortes was succeeded by his son
Cyaxares, who completed his father's work ; and under this mon
arch the Median power reached the summit of its greatness.
According to the account of Herodotus (i. 73, 74), Cyaxares care
fully reorganizing the Median army ; dividing the spearmen,
archers, and cavalry into separate troops, marched with his
entire force against Nineveh, intending, in vengeance for the
defeat and death of his father, completely to destroy the
city. His flrst siege, owing to the Scythian irruption into his
kingdora, he was forced to raise, but finally, shaking off the

41
barbarians, he besieged Nineveh anew and at length made an
end of the Assyrian power.
According to the account of Berossus, which may be trust
worthy, the Babylonian king, whose son Nebuchadnezzar was
married to the daughter of the Median chief, helped the Medes
in this siege. (See Tiele, ' Gesch.', 410.) It should be noticed
here that Berossus and the authors dependent on him did not
know of Cyaxares, but believed that Nineveh was conquered
by Astyages. According to the account of Abydenus, how
ever, the king of Babylon Busalossor (Nabopolassar), having
married his son Nabukodrossoros to the daughter of the Median
chief Asdahak, proceeded alone against Nineveh."
About the details of the fall of Nineveh there is no record
either in Herodotus or in the cuneiform inscriptions, the last
Assyrian kings of whora we have any document being ASur-
6til-ildni-uki7ini and Sin-sar-iskun. (See Bezold ' Literatur,'
122). Herodotus, i. 107, merely mentioned the capture of
Nineveh by the Medes, giving no detailed account, while in the
Assyi-ian inscriptions there is absolutely no reference to the
event. Equally silent are the documents of Nabopolassar, the
father of Nebuchadnezzar and first independent king of Baby
lon, in which, in view of the stateraent of Berossus, just men
tioned, we might expect to find Some allusion to the overthrow
of Assyria.
Winckler's opinion, based on the silence of Herodotus I. c.
regarding the participation of the Babylonians in the siege of
Nineveh, was that the Medes captured the Assyrian capital
alone. This view has been rightly objected to by Lehmann,
'Samas sumukin,' ii. 185. An ' arguraentum ex silentio' is at
best poor reasoning. Moreover, Tiele has pointed out that the
continuation of the Babylonian power would have been irapos
sible had Nabopolassar remained neutral in the war between
Media and Assyria (see Ztschr. fiir Assyriologie, vii. p. 19).
33 Asdahak is the Armenian form of Astyages, see note to Annals,
ii 2 For this and fuller ancient opinions regarding the part of the
Babylonians in the fall of Nineveh we may compare Delattre, ' Les
Chaldeens jusqu'a la formation de I'Empire de Nabouhodonossor,' and
Tiele, ' Geschichte,' 414 and 431.
6

42
The account of Berossus then, regarding the Babylonian and
Median alhance against Assyria seems to commend itself tc
good judgment.
At any rate the chief facts are certainly clear : Nineveh was
destroyed, — so thoroughly that Xenophon, when crossing Asia
in 401 B. C. with the ten thousand, mistook the ruins of the
great city for those of Median towns laid waste by the Persians.
(See Anabasis, iii. 4; iv. 12, and compare in this connection
Zephaniah h. 13-15.) It seems generally recognized, and the
opinion of almost all antiquity (the untrustworthy records of
Abydenus excepted), that the Medes played the chief part in
the ruin of Assyria, and in this historical fact I believe lies the
key to the solution of the problem of Darius the Median.
The interpolation by the author of Daniel of a Median rule
in Babylon directly after the fall of the Babylonian house
raay possibly depend on a confusion between the story of the
fall of Nineveh and the account of the overthrow of Babylon.
Nineveh fell at the hands of the Medes. Some authors might
differ as to the name of the Median prince who destroyed it,
but it seems to have been generally recognized by the ancients
that the Medes captured and overthrew the city. Babylon was
conquered by Cyrus the Persian, who had but a few years pre
viously subdued these same Medes to his standard. What
more natural than that an author writing at a much later
period and having no historical, but rather a moral object in
view, should confuse the accounts of the fall of the two great
cities of the ancient world ? The author of Daniel, probably
influenced by the story of the fall of Nineveh, as a more vivid
fulfillment of the prophecy of the mysterious writing, makes
a Median ruler receive Babylon after the overthrow of the
native dynasty, and then mentions later the historical Cyrus.
We may suppose that the Biblical writer believed that Cyrus
succeeded to the empire of Babylon on the death of the
Median Darius.
B. The second question, however, still reraains unanswered.
Why did the author of the Book of Daniel give to his ficti
tious Median king the familiar name of Darius ?
As early as the eleventh century of our era the view was
advanced by the Benedictine monk, Marianus Scotus

43
(quoted Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' 844), that Darius the Median was
Darius Hystaspis, and, on examining certain points in the
account of Daniel, it will appear that this is probably the
correct solution of the difficulty. In chapter ix. 1, Darius the
Median is said to be the son of Xerxes (Ahasuerus), and it is
stated that he estabhshed one hundred and twenty satrapies ;
Darius Hystaspis was the father of Xerxes and according to
Herodotus, iii. 89, established twenty satrapies. Darius the
Median entered into possession of Babylon after the death of
Belshazzar; Darius Hystaspis conquered Babylon from the
hands of the rebels. (So Herodotus iii. 153-160.) It seems
clear from this comparison, and in view of the impossibility of
reconciling with history the existence of a Median ruler of
Babylon, that the name Darius in Daniel is due to a confusion
with that of the son of Hystaspis."
Just as Xenophon made Cyaxares the son of Astyages, so
the writer of Daniel must have made his Darius the son of
Xerxes, and, in addition to this, transferred in a distorted form
certain facts of the reign of Darius Hystaspis to the reign of
Darius the Mede. (The idea as stated by Friedrich Delitzsch,
in the ' Calwer Bibellexicon,' 137, 138, that the original of
Darius the Median may have been Cyrus' general TJgbaru
(Gobryas), who captured Babylon, seems very unsatisfactory).
Darius the Mede appears therefore to have been the product
of a mixture of traditions ; on the one hand, the story of the
capture and destruction of Nineveh by the Medes, sixty-eight
years before the fall of Babylon, may have contributed to the
historical confusion of the author's mind and influenced him
to insert a Median rule in Babylon before the Persians ; while
on the other hand the fame of the great Darius Hystaspis and
of his capture of Babylon from the rebels may have led to the
choice of the name ' Darius ' for the Median interloper, and
induced the Bibhcal writer to ascribe in a vague way certain
events of the life of the former to the reign of the latter.'"
8* Compare Beers, 'Richtige Vereinigung der Regiemngsjahre,' p. 22,
Bertholdt, ' Daniel,'^, iv. , Lengerke, ' Dan.' 230, and lately Kamphausen,
' Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Gesehichtsforschung.' p. 29,
36 A similar confusion of persons is seen in the well known Greek
legend concerning the fiery death of Sardanapalus (Asurbanipal). Prof.

44
It seems apparent therefore that the interpolation of Darius
the Median raust be regarded as the third and perhaps the most
glaring inaccuracy of the fifth chapter of the Book of Daniel.
To recapitulate briefly : the assertion that Belshazzar' was
the last king of Babylon, the introduction of the Queen
Dowager at a feast on the eve of the capture of Babylon, and
the interpolation of a Median king Darius between the native
Babylonian and Persian dynasties are all contrary to history.
Haupt in his correctio as and additions to the Akkadische und Sumei-ische
Keilschrifttexte in the Zeitschrift fiir Keilschriftsforschung, ii. pp. 383,
rein. 4, advanced the explanation that this account arose from a con
fusion in later tradition between Sardanapalus and his half-brother
Samassumukln, who having rebelled in Babylon against his brother,
perished in the flames when the city was captured by the victorious
Assyrian king. This theory however is not adopted by Lehmann,
' Samagsumukln,'p. 3, who is inclined to believe that the legend may
have had an historical basis in the fact that Nineveh was destroyed by
flre, at the time of its capture by the Medes. (?)

CHAPTER THIRD.
THE REAL VALUE OF THE FIFTH CHAPTER OP DANIEL.
It may well be asked, however, if these inaccuracies treated
of in the last chapter necessarily show that the account of the
fifth chapter of Daniel, regarding the miraculous appearance
of a warning writing during a feast on the eve of the capture
of Babylon, is invented, and if it is not possible that there
may be here an echo of history which can still be detected.
This question may certainly be answered in the affirmative.
We have already seen that it is possible to explain both the
true meaning of the mysterious sentence, and why the phrase
might have been unintelligible to the hierogrammatists. We
may ask, furthermore, whether it is absolutely necessary to
consider the portent a miracle and whether it is not possible
that the inscription was produced by human means.
Two theories have been advanced as to a possible non-mirac
ulous production of the writing : some scholars have held that
it might have been made by loyal servants of the king ; others
have regarded it as the work of conspirators.
The former supposition which was advanced, for instance, by
Bertholdt,' does not seera tenable, as loyal servants would
hardly have used such a disrespectful sentence with which to
warn their master. It must be remembered, of course, that the
symbolical meaning of the phrase was not known when this
suggestion was offered.
The second theory, that it might have been produced by
conspirators against the royal house, has more inherent proba
bility." Judging from the historical accounts of the period, a
powerful conspiracy must have been concerned in the over
throw of the Babylonian power. It may be weh, therefore,
in this connection, before entering on the discussion concerning
' Bertholdt, Daniel, p, 353.
s In justice to Bertholdt it should be remarked that he mentioned
this supposition also as a possible conjecture.

46
the character and value of the Biblical account, to state briefly
the history of the fah of Babylon, comparing the most impor
tant versions.
Previous to the discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions relat
ing to this event, coraparatively little could be known accu
rately. The chief sources upon which historians were forced
to depend were the account of Berossus, which Eusebius and
Josephus took from Alexander Polyhistor, and the narrative of
Herodotus, i. 188_/'. The stateraent of Berossus in Josephus,
' Contra Apionetn,' i. 20, is as follows :' ' Nabuchodonoser . . .
fell sick and departed this life when he had reigned forty-three
years, whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom.
He governed pubhc affairs after an illegal and irapure manner,
and had a plot laid against hini by Neriglissar, his sister's hus
band, and was slain by hira when he had reigned but two
years. After he was slain, Neriglissar, the person who had
plotted against him, succeeded to the kingdom and reigned four
years. His son, Laborosoarchod, though but a child, obtained the
kingdom and kept it nine months, but by reason of the very
ill temper and ill practices which he exhibited to the world, a
plot was laid against him by his friends and he was tortured to
3 TSa^ovxoSovbaopog , . , efnreciov eig appuuTiav jxeTTtAkd^aTO Tbv ^iov,
/?e/3<r(T«Aet)Kaif irri TeaaapdrnvTa Tpla, Tijg Se Paaikelag iciipiog eyevero 6 vibg avTOv
^viXfiapdSovxog. OvTog npoardg Tin/ irpay/idTav dvd/ioig Kal daeXyug, 'einjiovXtv'&elg
virb Toil T^v dSe'k^rjv ix<>^T°C avTov TSripiyliaaobpov dvypid-ij, jBamXevaag Itt; Sho.
Meto Si to dvaipe-&ijvai. tovtov SiaSe^dfievog ttjv dpx^v i 'einBovTiehaag avTi^
TSijpiy^.taaoSpog e/iacriXevaev Itt/ Tinaapa. ToiiTOv vldg AajSopoaodpxoSog 'eKvplevae
/liv Tijg paunXeiag iraig av /lyvag 'evvta, ini^ovXevSeig Si Sid to troXKa e/iifiaiveiv
KaKoij&t! VKo ' TOV ipikuv diveTviJ.TTav'ia-&7i. 'AnoXo/ihov Si ToiiTov aweX&dvreg oi
em/jovTieiicravTeg avTi^ Koivy ttjv paaiXelav nepii&riKav 'SapovvtjSifi tivI tuv ek
Ba^vXaniog bm eK Tijg avTfjg 'eniavaTdaeug . . .. Oia?ig Si Tyg fjaaHeiag aiiTov ev r^
iiTTaKaiSeKaTU iTei ¦Kpoe^eXrjTi.v&ag Kvpog eic Tijg TlepalSog fierd Swdfieag iroXlijg Kal
KOTaaTpeijidfievog ttjv lomf/v 'Aniav irdaav uputjaev em Tijg BajSvlmiiag. A'la'^d-
fie:vog Si TSa^dmriSog t^v iipoSov avTov aitavT^aag fieTa T^g Svvdjieug Kal napoTa^djie-
vog, ¦f/TTTr&elg Ty fidxv "«' fvyav 'oXiyoarbg avveKXe'ia^ti e'lg ttjv Bopatii-wTivav -rrSXiv.
Kvpog Si BajivXHva icaTaXapSfievog Kal avvTd^ag rd i^u Tijg n6\eug teIxt] Karamd-
Tpai Sid Tb Xiav avTi^ wpay/iaTiKijv koi SvadXarov ^avijvai ttjv ndXiv dvk^ev^ev
'eirl Bbpamvov eKiroXiopK^nuv rbv TSajSdvvtjfov. Tov Si 'SajiovviiSov ovx vironelv-
avTog TTp> noXiopdav 'aVC, eyxetpiaavTog avrbv irpdrepov, xpv^diievog Kvpog ijiiXav-
¦B-pimag Kal Sovg o'lKTirripiov avTiS Kapjiaviav 'e^kwejifev ck Tijg Ba^vXaviag. Na/3(ij/-
VTiSog fiiv ovv to Xoiirbv tov xp6vov Siayevdfievog ev ene'ivri tti x^P9- KOT^OTpefe rbv
P'lOP.

47
death. After his death the ,, conspirators got together and by
common consent put the crown upon the head of Nabonnedus,
a man of Babylon and one who belonged to that insurrection.
. . . But when he was come to the seventeenth year of his
reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army, and hav
ing already conquered the rest of Asia, came hastily to Babylon.
When Nabonnedus perceived that he was coming to attack
him, he met him with his forces, and joining battle was de
feated and fled away with a few of his troops and shut himself
up within the city of Borsippus. Hereupon Cyrus took Baby
lon and gave order that the outer wall of the city be deraol
ished, because the city had proved very troublesome, and cost
him a great deal of pains to take. He then marched to Borsip
pus to besiege Nabonnedus. As Nabonnedus, however, did not
sustain the siege, but delivered himself up beforehand, he was
kindly used by Cyrus who gave him Carmania as a place to
dwell in, sending him out of Babylon. Nabonnedus accord
ingly spent the rest of his life in that country and there died.'
(For this last statement concerning the banishment of Nabon
nedus to Carmania, cf. also Euseb., ' Evang. Prsep.' ix. 40, 41,
and ' Chron. Armen.' i. 10, the account of Abydenus.)
Herodotus, i. 188_^. relates that the King of Babylon,
Labynetus, the son of the great queen Nitocris, was attacked
by Cyrus. The Persian king, on his march to Babylon,
arrived at the river Gyndes, a tributary of the Tigris. While
the Persians were trying to cross this stream, one of the white
consecrated horses boldly entered the water and, being swept
away by the rapidity of the current, was lost. Cyrus, exas
perated by the accident, suspended his operations against Baby
lon and wasted the entire summer in satisfying his resentraent
by draining the river dry. On the approach of the following
spring, however, he marched against Babylon. The Babylon
ians, as he advanced, met and gave him battle, but were defeated
and driven back into the city. The inhabitants of Babylon
had previously guarded against a siege by cohecting provisions
and other necessaries sufficient for many years' support, so
that Cyrus was compelled to resort to stratagem. He accordr

48
ingly* ' placed one detachment of his forces where the river first
enters the city and another where it leaves it, directing them
to go into the channel and attack the town wherever the passage
could be effected. After this disposition of his men he with
drew with the less effective of his troops to the marshy ground
. . . and pierced the bank, introducing the river into the lake
(the lake made by Nitocris some distance frora Babylon, see
Herodotus, i. 186), by which means the bed of the Euphrates
becarae sufficiently shahow for the object in view. The Per
sians in their station watched the better opportunity and when
the stream had so far retired as not to be higher than their
thighs they entered Babylon without difficulty.' The account
goes on to say that, as the Babylonians were engaged in a fes
tival, they were completely surprised by the sudden attack and
unable to defend the city which thus fell an easy prey to the
invaders. The two cuneif orra docuraents relating to the fall of Babylon
which have shed a wonderful light on this period of the world's
history are the Cyrus Cylinder and the Annals of Nabonidus,
both of whicli are translated and explained in Appendix I.
The forraer was discovered in 1879 by the workmen of Hor-
muzd Rassam in the ruins of Qagr at Babylon, a hill which,
according to the opinion of Rassam, covers the remains of a
great palace, i. e. that of Nebuchadnezzar. The tablet called
the ' Annals of Nabonidus ' was obtained by th^ British Mu
seum in 1879 from Spartoli and Co. The place where it was
found is unknown, although Mr. Pinches declares decidedly
that the document came from Babylon. It seeras to belong to
a series of annalistic tablets which were collected and pre
served by the Achsemenian kings. (See further. Appendix I.)
The Cyrus Cylinder is a highly laudatory account of Cyrus's
¦> Td^ag Tyv arpari^v dnaaav ef efi/SoXijg rov norafiov tt;" eg tt/v iroXiv 'efi^dXTxi
Kal bina^e avTig Tijg irdXiog rd^ag erepovg ry e^iei eK Tijg ivd'Aiog 6 iroTafidg, irpoe'iire
T(S OTpaTu brav Siaparbv to pee&pov ISavTai yevbfievov eaievai TavTfi eg ttjv ndXiv.
OvTifi rd^ag Kal icard Tama irapaivecag dn-i/Xawe avrbg avv Tif dxpTiiu tov arparov.
. . . TOV ydp woTafibv Siiipvxi eaayaywv eg ttjv XipvTjv eovaav eXog to dpxalov
pie-&pov Sia^arbv elvai enoiT/ae . . . ol Tl^paat oinep eTerdxaTo 'en' avTi^i tovtu Kara
Tb pee^pov tov Ei^p^rew iroTafiov virovevoaTTjKdTog dvSpl ag eg fieaov fiTjpbv fidXiard
kt; Kard tovto earjeaav eg rijv BajSvXava.

49
glorious entrance into Babylon, evidently written by some
scribe under the Persian rule, while the so-caUed Annals is a
concise historical summary of the events of the reign of
Nabonidus until the accession of Cyrus, a paragraph being
devoted to the events of each year.
Before passing on to the history of the advance of the
Persians on Babylonia the following facts should be noticed.
After Cyrus, king of the unimportant state of Ansan," accord
ing to the record of the Annals, had gotten possession of Media,
the Persian prince finding hiraself transforraed from the ruler
of an insignificant province to the leader of a great kingdom,
turned his eyes westward. Here Nabonidus the king of Bab
ylon, who had at first regarded the defeat of his old enemies
the Medes" as a direct intervention of the gods, now becom
ing alarraed at the sudden rise of this new power concluded
an offensive and defensive alliance with Lydia and Egypt, a
league which should certainly have been sufficient to check the
advance of the Persian forces. Lydia was compelled, how
ever, by the swift movements of the enemy to defend herself
without waiting for her allies. Cyrus, after totally routing the
Lydian army at Pteria,' proceeded directly against Sardis, the
capital, which he captured without difficulty and there estab
lished his permanent headquarters in the northwest. The Per
sian king did not hasten at once against Babylonia, his second
powerful rival, but, after settling affairs in Lydia and ap-
* For the chronology of Cyrus' reign, his ancestry and kingdom, see
Appendix I, note to Cyrus Cyl., 1. 21 and to Annals, col. 3, 1. 15.
* The Medes during the reign of Nabonidus had attacked and
destroyed the city of Harran and the temple of Sin. Cf . VR. 64. 13.
'See Herodotus, i, 76, Note that Justin, Hist., i. 7, makes Cyrus
begin the war with Babylon before that with Lydia, interrupting his
conflict however, in order to conquer Crcesus who had offered aid to
Babylon. Sulpicius, Hist,, ii, 10, passed directly from the Median con
quest to that of Babylonia.— Croesus, king of Lydia, whom Cyrus cap
tured, was according to Herodotus, i, 75, the brother-in-law of Asty
ages, Cyrus treated him kindly and gave him the city of Barene near
Ecbatana as a residence, according to Ctesias, with flve thousand
riders and ten thousand bowmen as retinue.

50
pointing governors' over all the conquered provinces, returned
to Ecbatana.
The following historical account of the approach of Cyrus
on Babylonia and the fall of that empire may be gathered
from the Annals of Nabonidus and the Cyrus Cylinder.
The record of the Annals, whicii must have been very com
plete, is unhappily so mutilated that coraparatively little can be
learned about the early period of the invasion. We may con
jecture from a very broken passage {col. ii. I. 21-22) that the
Persians may have made an invasion from Elam against Erech
in the tenth year of Nabonidus (see note to passage. Appendix
I), but this is by no means certain. Where the text treating
of the actual conquest of Babylon is legible, the matter seems
practically to be decided. It is stated that Nabonidus entered
the Temple of Eturkalama (Annals, iii. 6), most probably to
seek help frora the gods. We may then conjecture, — the
translation is very doubtful, — that a rebehion against his
authority took place on the lower sea. The god Bel was
apparently brought out with a solemn religious festival {col.
iii. 8. 9. 10), and, as a last resource, numerous deities were
brought to Babylon as a protection to that city. This,
says the chronicler of the ' Cyrus Cylinder,' so infuriated
Marduk, the god of the city of Babylon, that he decided to
deliver up Nabonidus to Cyrus (see Cyl. 10/". and 33, 34).
In the month Tammuz (539 B. C.) Cyrus offered battle at Opis
and apparently also on a canal (?) Salsallat, which evidently
resulted in his favor. (See note to Annals, col. ih. I. 12,
Appendix I.) The Babylonians, defeated on all sides and dis
gusted with their feeble king, surrendered Sippar to the Per
sians on the 14th of Tammuz (539-538 B. C, see Annals hi. 14).
As this city was the key to the whole sluice region it was
important for Cyrus to get possession of it before he could
besiege Babylon successfully. By breaking the dams at Sippar
in case of need, the water could be cut off from all the plain.
As we have seen, according to the account of Herodotus just
8 See Herodotus, i. 153. The post of governor of Sardis was one of the
most important positions in the Persian Empire. This offlcial seems to
have held the precedence over the neighboring satraps. Compare
Noldeke, Aufsatze zur altpersischen Geschichte, p. 31.

51
given above, Babylon was said to have been captured by the
device of drawing off the water of the Euphrates (cf. also
Xenophon, Cyropsedia, vii. 5, 15), but the short space of time
intervening between the capture of Sippar and Babylon seems
to show that no such device was resorted to. Two days after
the capture of Sippar (16th of Tammuz), the gates of the
capital itself were opened to Gobryas," the governor of
Gutium and commander of a section of the Persian army,
who formally took possession of the city in Cyrus's name.
(See Annals, iii. 15, and Cyl., I. 17, ' without strife and battle
he let him enter into Babylon.')
Nabonidus, who had fled to Babylon after the capture of
Sippar, was taken prisoner and held to await the coming of
Cyrus. Here again, owing to a doubtful text, we are reduced
to conjecture. The Babylonian party seem to have wished to
use the temples as storehouses for arras (?), for the troops of
Gobryas surrounded them and guarded them carefully. (For
other opinions as to the meaning of this passage see note to
ooi. iii., I. 17, Annals, Appendix I.)
Four months later, on the third of Marcliesvan, Cyrus him
self entered the city of Babylon and decreed peace to all,
appointing his general Gobryas governor of the city and send
ing back to their own shrines the gods which Nabonidus had
brought to Babylon. (See Annals, ih. 21. and Cyl. 33-34.)
The Persian monarch was received with great rejoicings by
the nobles, priests and people, who hastened to declare their
ahegiance (Cyl. 18). He then assumed forraally the title of
king of Babylon and of Sumer and Akkad (Cyl. 20), receiving
' In the record of the cylinder no mention is made of Gobryas ; it is
simply stated that Cyrus and his army entered the city without battle.
See Cyl. , 16, 17. The Annals, however, give more details of the conquest
and, moreover, are a strictly impartial account. It is much more flat
tering to Cyrus to attribute to him, as in the Cylinder, all the glory of
the capture and not mention any of his generals. It is interesting to
notice that Xen., Cyrop., vii. 5, 34/., has also preserved the account of
the capture of the city by Gobryas, making him, however, a great
Assyrian leader, who, desiring vengeance of the king of Babylon for
the murder of his only son, allied himself with Cyrus, According to
Xenophon, Babylon was taken by the two generals, Gobryas and
Gadates.

52
the homage of the tributary kings of the westland." (Cyl. 28.)
It is probable, in accordance with the account of Berossus,
given above, that Cyrus dismantled to some extent the fortifica
tions of Babylon soon after its capture. That he cannot
utterly have destroyed the defences is evident from the fact
that the city stood repeated sieges during subsequent revolts ;
one under Cyrus, two under Darius Hystaspis, and one under
Xerxes." Judging from the assertion of Jerorae (Comm. on
Isaiah iii. 23 ; ed. VaUarsi, IV. 180), that the wahs had been
repaired and renewed as an enclosure for a park, they were
probably at no time completely destroyed.
The causes which led to the fall of the Babylonian dynasty
and to the transferring of the empire to the Persians are not
difficult to deterraine.
Nabupalugur, the father of the great Nebuchadnezzar, was
the first independent king of Babylon after the overthrow of
Assyria. After an uneventful reign of twenty-one years he was
succeeded by his son Nebuchadnezzar, the real founder of the
erapire of Babylon. He was not only a great warrior the terror of
whose arras was felt as far as Egypt, and who, by his conquests
made Babylon the political centre of a mighty empire, but also
a lover of art and architecture, who prized his reputation as the
restorer of the capital far more than his military fame. (For
the glories of his reign see Tiele, ' Geschichte,' 441-464.) As
remarked above, Nebuchadnezzar was the greatest name in
Babylonian history, the culminating point of Babylonian glory.
After his time the kings were weak, incapable characters,
judging frora the account of Berossus, not even able to protect
their own crowns. The last King, Nabonidus, though better
than his iraraediate predecessors, was the creature of a conspir-
'"Gaza alone in the land of the Philistines seems to have refused
tribute and offered resistance ; see the citation to Valesius Polyb., xvi.
10, quoted by Noldeke, Aufsatze, 23. n. 2. '
"See G. Rawlinson, Herodotus, 435, n. 5. For the second revolt of
Babylon, see Herod,, iii, 153-160, the story of Zopyrus. A curious work
regarding Zopyrus is that of Joh. Christoph. De Zopyro Babylonios
fallente, 1685.

53
acy against his youthful predecessor LabaSi- Marduk." Nabo
nidus was probably not of royal blood, as it is stated in the
record of Berossus that he was a raan of Babylon, and he calls
himself in his inscriptions, the son of a noble.
It will appear, therefore, that the seeds of decay were ripen
ing fast, as early as the beginning of the reign of this king,
who, had he been a different character, might have delayed the
final catastrophe at least beyond his own lifetime. But Nabo
nidus, as is evident from the tone of the records of his reign,
was by nature a peaceful prince, whose taste lay not in govern
ment or conquest but in archseology and religious architecture.
His inscriptions are one long list of temples repaired'" and pious
duties performed. Under his feeble sway the vast and hete
rogeneous empire, lacking the strong hand of a conquering
ruler to punish defection and protect his subjects from for
eign attacks,'* naturally began to fall to pieces, until flnally the
'¦' Compare fhe account of Berossus given above and the record of
Abydenus quoting Megasthenes as saying that ' Labassoracus ' being
destroyed, they made NaSowiSoxoy^lSaaiXia irpoafjKovra ol ovSkv — king hav
ing no claim to this rank ; see Euseb. Praep., Evang,, ix. 40, 41 ; Euseb.,
Chron. Armen. i. c. 10,
The succession of Babylonian Kings given by Berossus is quite cor
rect and agrees not only with the Ptolemsean Canon but with the
cuneiform inscriptions. The list of kings with their approximate
dates is as follows : —
NabH-pal-ugur, 635-605 B,C,
Nabii-kudurri-ugur, 604-562 B.C.
Amil-Marduk, 561-560 B.C.
Nergal-sar-ugur, 559-556 B.C.
Labasi-Marduk between the 14th of Aru, 556, and the 13th of
Dfizu, 555.
Nabd-na'id, 554-538 B.C.
The Ptolemsean canon omits LabaSi-Marduk son of Nergal-sar-uQur,
probably owing to his short reign of but nine months. Only those
kings are recorded who governed for longer than one year ; see Floigl,
' Cyrus und Herodot.' p. 70. According to Abydenus, Labasi-Marduk
was a boy not older than twelve years. See Floigl, op. cit. 35, and com
pare in this connection, Tiele, Gesch, 424, n. 2.
'3 Hagen in the Beitrage zur Assyriologie, ii. 237, note, gives a com
plete list of the temples repaired by Nabonidus.
" The king seems to have been unable either to prevent the attack of
the Medes on Harran or to punish them for their destruction of the
city. (See above note 6 to this chapter). He was equally powerless
to resist the expedition of Amasis of Egypt against Cyprus by which
several cities were captured. (See Tiele, Gesch. 468).

54
Babylonian name in Western Asia, became more a shadow
than a reality.
Toward the close of his reign Nabonidus showed himseK
even more incapable than in his earlier years, for whhe devot
ing especial attention to the repairing and maintenance of the
teraples, he entirely neglected the defences of the capital,
choosing to hve in Tema'" rather than in Babylon, and evidently
leaving ah raihtary raatters to his son, who, as shown above,
was probably in coramand of the army. Practically no steps
seera tp have been taken either to prevent the advance of the
Persians or to meet them when they carae, so that when Cyrus
arrived he probably found a people discontented with their
king and ready to exchange his rule for a firmer sway. The
fact that both Sippar and Babylon were taken by the Persian
forces 'without battle' certainly seems to show that there
existed a powerful faction in Babylonia in league with the
invaders. It is possible that the priests of Marduk in the city of Baby
lon were especially instrumental in bringing about the final
blow. We have already noticed that the priesthood was prob
ably hostile to Belsarugur the crown-prince. It can easily
be imagined how, disgusted with the king's neglect of the reg
ular offerings and finally infuriated with his infringement on
the jurisdiction of their god in introducing strange deities into
Babylon, they would naturally have cast their influence in favor
of a change of rule." It must be remembered that the priests
exercised the most powerful influence in Babylonian affairs,
being even stronger than the royal house. The inscriptions of
every sort point to the supremacy and importance of the reli-
i&For Tema see note col. ii., 1. 5, Annals, Appendix I.
" Nabonidus was certainly not a reactionary heretic who tried to intro
duce a Sin cult; (so Floigl, Cyrus und Her., p. 3), flrst, because the king
did not conflne his attention to Sin (cf . the list of the temples repaired,
Hagen, Beitr. ii. 337 note,) and secondly, as Tiele has pointed out
(Geschichte, 460), it was the priests of Marduk who inspired him to
repair the temples and to give attention to the cults of other deities.
Compare V R. 64, 16, where Marduk reveals his will in this connection
to Nabonidus in a dream. The insult to Marduk which turned the scale
against the king was his criminal slothfulness about protecting Babylon
and his introduction of other gods into Marduk's own city.

55
gious classes, one of the most constant themes of these docu
ments being the frequent allusion to buildings of temples, tem
ple gifts, restoration of offerings, etc. This prominence of the
priestly classes is to be explained by the fact that they were the
custodians of all knowledge. The arts of writing, astronomy,
and ihagic were their peculiar provinces. It will readily be
understood, therefore, that their favor or disfavor would turn
the scale in an attempt against the reigning dynasty. In addi
tion to this it may be supposed that the large Jewish eleraent
which had been transplanted to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar
and which could not be expected to feel especially well disposed
toward the Babylonian dynasty, probably played a considerable
part in the final conspiracy. Their reasons for so doing were
of course not identical with those of the rebellious Babylonians.
It may be supposed that the native Babylonians, glad at any
price to be rid of their incompetent ruler, were forced to make
the best of a foreign supremacy, while the religious element
among the captive Jews, to whom permission to return to Pal
estine may have been promised beforehand," certainly regarded
Cyrus as the Anointed of Jehovah, who would carry out His
will in every respect and utterly destroy Babylon and its Gods,
a hope which Cyriis was wise enough not to realize. Bearing
in mind, therefore, these facts it seems by no means unnatural
to assume that such a warning as that described in Dan. v.
might have been caused by the agency of conspirators, and
that a basis of historical truth may underlie the account. The
tone of the fifth chapter, however, seems to show beyond doubt
that the Biblical writer considered the portent as a rairacle sent
from God, to warn the impious king of his impending punish
ment. The Maccabsean author of Daniel accordingly makes
use of the account against Antiochus Epiphanes.
That a festival, as raentioned in the Book of Daniel, actually
took place on the eve of the capture of Babylon is not at all
" Compare the enthusiastic prophecies regarding the destruction of
Babylon and the references to Cyrus the shepherd of God, Isaiah, xiii.
xiv. xliv. 38, xlv. ; Ps. 137. ; Jer. 1-li. Cyrus permitted the Jews to
return to their old home in the flrst year of his reign— 537 B.C. See
Ezra, i. The prophecies of the destruction of Babylon were certainly
not carried out, the only one fulfilled to the letter being that regarding
the return of the Jews.

.5(1
improbable.'" Although we have no parallel account of such
an event in the inscriptions,"' it certainly seems rather significant
that both Herodotus and Xenophon allude to a feast at this time.
As we have seen, according to Herodotus i, 191, Babylon was
captured while the besieged were off their guard during a festi
val. Xenophon also, alluding to the capture of Babylon, says
that Cyrus had heard that a feast was going on. (Cyrop. vii.
5, 15.) Of course the allusion in Jeremiah li. 39, referred to
in Rawhnson's Herodotus, vol. i. 424, is nierely general and
cannot be understood as referring to a final festival.
It is now demonstrated by the cuneiform inscriptions that at
least the name Belshazzfir,'" not found elsewhere in the Old
Testament, is based on correct tradition, notwithstanding the
errors into which the author fell regarding the person of the
last king. Although undoubtedly wrong in considering Bel
shazzar the last king of Babylon, the writer of Daniel may have
been influenced in this particular by tradition. Belsarugur was
the son of the last king, and was probably in command of the
army and actively concemed in the conflict with the invading
Persians. We cannot doubt that he was a person of great polit
ical prominence in the erapire, and it is even possible that he
" It may not be uninteresting to note, that Havernick, Dan. 176, fol
lowing Vorstius, Exercit, Acad, 4 identifled this flnal feast of the Book
of Daniel with the Sa/caio; which, according to Athenasils (Deipnosoph.
xiv. 639) corresponded to the Saturnalia.
" In the Annals of Nabonidus, iii. 8, mention is made of a religious
festival (the New Year's feast) which took place probably about twelve
months before the capture of the city. This, Andrea, ' Beweis des
Glaubens, "88, p. 357, etc, believed to be the festival of the Book of
Daniel ; a highly improbable theory.
'° It is interesting to note that the Babylonian proper names in Daniel
seem to be for the most part genuine, although of course it cannot be
supposed that the author understood their meaning. In fact we know
from his explanation of the name Belteshazzar that this was not the
case. See note b to verse 13, Appendix II. Compare in this connection
the names Arioch, Belteshazzar, and Abednego which are traceable
to a Babylonian origin, and see further Friedr. Delitzsch in the Pre
face to Baer and Delitzsch, Text of Ezra, Neh. and Daniel. It is
instructive to observe here the difference between the genuine names
in Daniel and the spurious character of those in the book of Judith,
showing the superiority of the tradition followed by the author of
Daniel.

57
may have been possessed of more influence than his father. If
this were the case, a legend making the crown-prince the real
kiujf is easily to be explained.
The author of Daniel seems to be approximately correct
concerning the death of Belshazzar. The Biblical Belshazzar
was slain on the eve of the capture of the city by the Persians,
and it is extremely likely from a new reading of a mutilated pas
sage in the Annals of Nabonidus (hi., 1. 23), that Belsarugur
the king's son met his deatii soon after the capture of Babylon
by Cyrus's forces. If the reading which I have adopted of this
passage of the Annals be correct, it is probable that after the
capture of Babylon, Belshazzar with a remnant of the royal
forces made a last despairing resistance which was crushed
by Cyrus's general Gobryas, and that the patriot prince thus
met his death at the hands of the invader."' The Annals go on
to say that a solemn mourning was then instituted, probably
by order of Cyrus himself.
Of course nothing certain about this event can be known
until a duplicate text be discovered which shall supply the raiss
ing words of the mutilated passage. If the interpretation
here given is correct, the agreement of both Herodotus and
Xenophon, as well as of the book of Daniel, that the last king
of Babylon was slain at the time of the capture of the city,
may be a perversion of this account of the death of the king's
son. It is interesting to note here that the author of Isaiah
xiv. 19, clearly expected the destruction of the last king of
Babylon with the overthrow of the city. We may conclude,
•then, that in the case of the Book of Daniel, the tradition
which the author fohowed in calhng the last king Belshazzar,
''^ It should be noticed that both of the Babylonian rebels against
Darius Hystaspis gave themselves out to be Nebuchadnezzar, son of
Nabonidus. This certainly seems to show that at that time BelSarugur,
the flrst born son of the king, was generally known to be dead, as
otherwise his name would have served as a more promising catchword
for rebellion than that of a younger prince. According to Behistun, 1,
16-3 13-4 3, the names of these two rebellious chiefs were Nadin-
tabel' son'of A^ri, who seems to have beeh for a short time successful
in his rebellion, as there are a few contracts dating from the flrst year
ofhis rei-n (Hommel, Gesch. 787, n. 1), and Arakhan Armenian son of
Handikes' Nothing is known of this Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus.

may have arisen from the prorainence of the son of Nabonidus
during his father's reign, and perhaps especially towards its
close, in the government of Babylon ; and that the statemenit of
Belshazzar's death about the time of the capture of Babylon
possibly had its origin in the death of the king's son at the
hands of the Persians.
The preservation of the name Belshazzar, found only here
in the Old Testament, and now confirmed by the cuneiform
inscriptions, the approximately correct statement regarding
his death, aijid the striking agreement just mentioned of the
record of Herodo'tus and the Biblical account would seem to
show, therefore, that the story of the appearance of the mys
terious sentence may not altogether lack an historical element.
The Book of Daniel loses none of its beauty or force, because
we are bound in the light of modern criticism to consider it a
production of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, nor should
conservative scholars exclaim because the historical accuracy
of the work is thus destroyed. If the book be properly under
stood it must be admitted that the author made no pretence at
exactness of detail. To assert, furthermore, with sorae excellent
Christian divines that with the Book of Daniel the whole pro
phetic structure of the Old Testament rises or falls, is as illogi
cal as the statement of Sir Isaac Newton, that he who denies
Daniel's prophecies denies Christianity ! If we consider that
these ' prophecies ' were never intended to be more than an
historical resume, clothed for the sake of greater literary vivid
ness in a prophetic garb, it is difficult to see how such a con
clusion affects the authenticity of utterances of other authors
which may really have been raeant to be predictions of the
future. If viewed in the proper light, the work of the writer
of Daniel can certainly not be called a forgery, but, as raen
tioned before, merely a moral and political pamphlet. It
should certainly be possible for intehigent Christians to con
sider the book just as powerful, vieweid, according to the
author's intention, as a consolation to God's people in their
dire distress at the tirae of Antiochus Epiphanes, as if it were,
what an ancient but mistaken tradition has made it, really an
accurate account of events belonging to the close of the Baby
lonian period.

ADDITIONAL NOTES,
additional note a.
It was generally recognized by the ancients that the Book of Daniel
was an authentic production. The references in the New Testament,
(Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Mark xiii. 14, referring to Dan. ix, 37 and xii, 11) ascribe
the book especially to Daniel, (cf. also Josephus, x. 11, 7.) In Antt. xi.
8, 5, Josephus relates the oft-cited fable that the Prophecies of Daniel
were shown to Alexander the Great on his ^ntry into Jerusalem.
The flrst known writer who doubted the authenticity of \jhe Book of
Daniel was the Neo-Platonist, Porphyrins, (A.D. 304), who ih his great
work of fifteen books directed against the Christians (A&yoi Kara
Xpiariavav) devoted the whole twelfth book to an attack on Daniel,
which he declared to have been originally in Greek, the work of a
Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The works of Porphyrins
were all collected and burnt by orders of the Emperors Constantine
and Theodosius, so that his views have descended to posterity only
through the works of Jerome, who attempted to refute his arguments.
According to the statement of Jerome, he was also answered by
Methodius, ApoUinaris of Laodicea and Eusebius of Caesarea,
According to Origen, the pagan Celsus is said to have expressed a
doubt concerning the truth of the occurrences described in Daniel,
The following commentators are among those who regarded the Book
of Daniel, either wholly or in part, as belonging to the time of Antio
chus Epiphanes; CoUins, "Scheme of literal Prophecy considered,"
London, 1736; Semler, "Untersuchungen des Canons," iii, 505; Cor-
rodi, " Versuche iiber versohiedene in Theologie und Bibelkritik ein-
schlagende Gegenstande," Berlin, 1783 ; ' Versuch einer Beleuohtung
der Geschichte des jiidischen und ChristUchen Bibelkanons,' vol, i,
Halle, 1793, pp. 75/. ; Eichhorn ; ' Einl, in das A, T.', 3 und 4 Ausgabe ;
Bertholdt, ' Daniel ;' also the commentaries of Kirms, ' Commentatio
historico-critica,' Jena, 1828 ; Redepenning, 1833 ; von Lengerke, 1835 ;
Ewald ; Hitzig ; Bunsen, ' Gott in der Geschichte,' i Teil, 1857, pp.
303, 514, 540; Lticke, 'Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung in die
Offenbarung Johannis,' ii. Aufl,; Bleek, ' Einleitung ' ; Riehm, 'Ein
leitung,' ii. 392 ; Strack in Zockler's ' Handbuch der Theolog. Wiss.', i.
(1885), 164, 165, (see also Herzog, Real Encyclopaedie,^ vii. 419);
Schlottmann, 'Compendium der AlttestamentUchen Theologie,' 1887
and 1889 ; Reuss., ' Geschichte des A. T.', 1890, pp. 592 #.; C. A. Briggs,
' Messianic Prophecy," 411 /. ; and Driver, ' Introd.', p. 467.
Among the defenders of the authenticity of the book should be
mentioned ; Liiderwald, Die 6 ersten Capitel Daniels nach historischen
Grilnden gepriift und berichtigt, 1787: Jahn, 1880; Dereser, 1810

60
(answering Bertholdt); Pareau, Institutio Interpret, v, i,: Royaards.
' Over den Geest en het belang van het Boek Daniel,' Hag, 1821 ; Sack ;
Ackermann, 1839 ; Hengstenberg, 1831 ; Havernick (answered by Droy-
sen, Geschichte der Hellenen, vol, ii, p. 346) ; Ziindel, 1861 ; Hilgenfeld,
1863 ; Kranichfeld, 1868 ; Keil ; Franz Delitzsch ia Real Encyclopaedie,
(first Edition) vol. iii,: Caspari ; Pusey : Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens,
'88, p. 341 ff. : Diisterwald, ' Die Weltreiche und das Gottesreich nach
den Weissagungen des Propheten Daniels,' 1890, (reviewed by Siegfried,
'Theologische Literatur zeitung,' 10 Jan, 1891) etc., etc.
It should be mentioned that Franz Delitzsch, in the second edition of
Herzog's ' Real Encyclopaedie,' vol. vii, pp. 469-479, (1878) had greatly
modifled his views regarding the time when the book of Daniel origi
nated. He was not inclined to deny the possibility of a Maccabaean ori
gin, and even said, (p. 471) that the book, considered as an apocalyptic
work of the Seleucidaft period, had more claims to canonicity, than if
it were a product of the Achaemenian epoch distorted from its original
form by later hands.

additional note b,
The Unity of the Book of Daniel.
The Book of Daniel must be regarded as a unit. Some critics, how
ever, have believed in a separate origin for the flrst six chapters.
Thus Sack, Herbst in his ' Einleitung in's A. T.' 3 Theii, 3 Abteilung,
pp. 104, 105, and Davidson attributed the second part of the work to
Daniel, but regarded the first six chapters as an introduction to the
visions written by a later Jew, Eichhorn (' Einleitung,' 3d and 4th edi
tion,) believed that ch, ii, 4 -vi. were written by one author and ch. vii,-
xii. with i.-ii. 3 by another. The fact that from ch. ii. 4, through
ch. vii. the book is written in Aramaean has not unnaturally influenced
some scholars to believe that the Aramaean portions have a separate ori
gin from the other parts of the work. Zockler, for example, following
some of his predecessors, such as Kranichfeld (' Daniel,' p. 4), con
sidered the Aramsean sections as extracts from a contemporary journal
m the vernacular, while Driver ' Introduction,' 483, 3, although seeing
the strong objections to such a view, remarks with some caution that
the theory of a separate origin for these parts deserves consideration,
Meinhold, ' Dissertation,' p. 38 and ' Beitrage zur Erklarung des Buches
Daniel,' 33, 70, believed thatthe Aramaean portions were in existence
from the time of Alexander, We should compare in this connection
Strack (in Zockler's ' Handbuch,' i, 165,) who inclines to this view,
although admitting that the book at present forms an indivisible
whole. (See also Lenormant 'Magie,' Germ, ed., 527, 565). This idea
should be kept quite distinct from the more extreme theory of La
garde, ' Mittheilungen,' iv, 351 (1891), who, commenting on the opinion
of J, D, Michaelis' ' Orientalische und Exegetische Bibliothek,' ii. (1772),

61
p. 141, that the Book of Daniel consisted of a number of parts of
separate origin, remarked that the bilingual character of the work is
an evidence that it is a 'Biindel von Plugblattern.' (See also Gott.
Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1891, pp. 497-520, particularly 506-517.) This view
of Lagarde's was really a repetition of that oE Bertholdt, ' Daniel,'
pp. 49#., which is now generally rejected. (See Bleek, ' Einleitung,' p.
415, Delitzsch, 'Real Encyclopadie, ' vii." 471, Reuss 'Geschichte,' 599,
and lately Kamphausen, ' Das Buch Daniel und die neuere Gesehichts
forschung' (1893), j3. 8.)
No view that the Book of Daniel is the production of more than one
author is consistent with the uniform character of the entire work.
It must be remembered that the Aramaean chapters are not altogether
pure narrative. Chapter ii. for example, although narrative in form,
is devoted to the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar,
and contains, as shown above, substantially the same prophecies as
we flnd in the purely apocalyptic chapter vii. in the second part
of the work. It will suffice to cite one other striking point of agree
ment between the two sections. The allusion in chapter ii. 43, to the
mixing of iron and clay is clearly to be understood of the aUiance men
tioned in ch. xi. 6, 17 between the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies. (See
Kamphausen, op. cit., p. 8.)
It must not be forgotten that chapter vii., the beginning of the sec
ond part, is certainly as apocalyptic in character as any of the follow
ing sections. Moreover, the natural division of the book is undoubtedly
after ch, vi., so that if the diflerence of language were the sign of a
separate origin for these sections we would expect ch, vii., the begin
ning of tlie distinctly apocalyptic portion to be in Hebrew, which, how
ever, is not the case. The Aramaean seventh chapter belongs as
completely to the following Hebrew apocalyptic parts as the Hebrew
first chapter is essentially part of the following Aramaean narrative
sections. (In this connection see Driver, 'Introduction,' 482.) There
can be little doubt that the complete interdej)endence of all the chap
ters is such that the entire book must be regarded as the work of a
single author,
V^arious attempts have been made to explain the sudden change of
language in ii, 4. Some commentators thought that Aramaean was the
vernacular of Babylonia and was consequently employed as the lan
guage of the parts relating to that country. (So Kliefoth, 1868, ' Dan.',
p. 44, and Keil, ' Dan.', 14.) Such a view is of course no longer tenable,
as the cuneiform inscriptions now show that the Babylonian language
was in use until quite a late date. The latest connected inscription
is that of Antiochus-Soter (280-360 B. C), published VR. 66, and
translated by Peiser in Schrader's ' Keilinschriftl, Bibl,', iii. 3, 136.
Noldeke's theory advanced in his brochure ' Die Semitischen Sprachen,'
pp. 41.^,, that the Assyrian language , died as a spoken idiom, shortly
before the fall of Nineveh seems entirely unfounded. Gutbrod refers
in the Zeitschrift filr Assyr. vi. 37, to a brick on which was engraved
in Aramaean and Greek letters a proper name of distinctly Assyrian

62
character : ^NJ"TJ^^^< — ' ASaSvaSivdxm- (He was evidently alluding
to one of the bricks of Teilo of which there are some examples in the
museums of Paris and Berlin, As Dr, Bezold, editor of the Zeitschrift,
remarked in a foot-note, this inscription has been treated by De Vogue
and Schrader as weU as in the 'Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum,'
See Schrader ' Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,' iii, 3, p. 143, n. 1,) When
it is remembered that a living language exercises the greatest possible
influence on the formation of proper names, this brick, which is unfor
tunately undated, would seem to be an evidence, as Gutbrod thinks,
that Assyrian may have been spoken until Hellenic times. It is there
fore of course clear that the Aramsean could certainly not have been
the vernacular of Babylonia even as late as the time of the author of
Daniel, As a literary language, indeed, Assyrian may well have sur
vived as late as the second century after Christ, (See Gutbrod, op. cit.,
p. 39 jf.)
With regard to the Book of Daniel, it is equally unconvincing to sup
pose with Merx that Aramaean, as the popular tongue of the period
when the book was written, was used for the narrative parts, and
Hebrew, as the more learned language, for the philosophical portions ;
because ch. i, which is just as much in the narrative style as the fol
lowing Aramaean sections, is in Hebrew, while the distinctly apoca
lyptic ch, vii, is in Aramsean.
A third supposition that the bilingual character of the work points to
a time when both Hebrew and Aramaan were used indifferently is cer
tainly strange, as it is very questionable if two languages can ever be
used quite indifferently. A hybrid connected work in two idioms
would be a monstrosity. (For this opinion cf. Bertholdt, ' Daniel,'
p. 15, and later Havernick. Franz Delitzsch, ' Real Encyclopaedie,' iii.
373, and vii.' 470, followed substantially the same theory, considering
the change to be due to the Aramaic answer of the Chaldees in ch, ii. 4.)
Huetius (' Demonstr. Evang,', 473, quoted by Bertholdt, ' Daniel,'
p. 51), believed that the entire work was written originally in Aramsean
and subsequently translated into Hebrew. In the troubled Seleucidan
period, he thought that the Hebrew edition was partly destroyed and
the missing portions supplied from the original Aramaean. This theory,
although very ingenious, does not, however, commend itself as the
most satisfactory explanation.
Bertholdt, ' Daniel,' v. 2, in commenting on Huetius' view has hit
upon what seems the best solution of the problem, but unfortunately
did not adopt it. He remarked, with perhaps a touch of sarcasm, that
it had not yet occurred to any one to consider the Aramsean text as a
translation and the Hebrew as the original. In view of the apparent
unity of the entire work, which Bertholdt did not recognize, no other
explanation of the bilingual character of the book seems possible.
The book was probably written originaUy at the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes, all in Hebrew : but forthe convenience of the general reader
whose language was Aramsean, a translation, possibly from the same
pen as the original, was made into the Aramwan vernacular. We must

63
suppose, then, that certain parts of the original Hebrew manuscript
being lost, the missing places were supplied from the current Aramaean
translation. This theory, which is that of Lenormant, ' Magie ' (Germ.
ed., p. 527), has been also adopted by Bevan, the latest commentator
on our book, in his ' Daniel ' (1892) pp. 27 ff. I cannot agree in this con
nection with Kamphausen, op. cit. 14, note, who rejects this hypothesis
on the ground that the author of Daniel evidently fell into the error of
regarding ' Chaldaean ' as the language of Babylonia, and consequently
deUberately wrote in it those sections applying more especially to
Babylon, reserving the Hebrew for the more solemn prophetic parts.
Kamphausen does not explain, however, any more than his predecessors
in this opinion, why the apocalyptic Aramaic chapter vii., which is
indivisible from the succeeding prophetic Hebrew portions, is in Ara
msean instead of in Hebrew.

ADDITIONAL NOTE C,
The most important references to Belsarugur in the published con
tracts are t?he following : —
(a) Strassmaier, ' Nabonidus,' 184, where mention is made of Nabii-
ukin-axi sipiri sa Belsarugur mdr sarri. ' N, the scribe of B. the son
of the king.' Dated 25th Nisan, fifth year of Nabonidus. Translation
'Records of the Past,' New Series, iii. 124 J',
(b) Boscawen, ' Babylonian and Oriental Record,' ii, 17, 18 ; Revillout
'Obligations en Droits Egyptiens,'jp, 895, , , , Strassmaier, Congres de
Leide,' no. 80, Tablet S-l- 339, 79, 11, 17, mention ofthe same person, and
of Nahu-gabit-qdte, the major-domo of Belsarugur, the son of the king.
Dated seventh year of Nabonidus. Boscawen concludes from the
mention of these especial servants of the king's son so early in his
father's reign that the prince must have been born before the accession
of Nabonidus, a conclusion hardly warranted by the premises, as the
exact age when a king's son had his separate household is not known.
It should be remarked, however, that if Belsarugur were in command
of the army in the seventeenth and last year of his father's reign, the
prince was probably older than seventeen. Compare also in this con
nection the statement recorded below, that in thefirst year of Nabonidus
a plot of ground was sold to a servant of Belsarugur for his lord.
(c) Strassmaier ' Nabonidus,' 581. Translation : ' Records of the Past,'
iii. 134-125, mention of Nahu-gdbit-qdte the steward of Belsarugur the
' mdr sarri.' Dated eleventh year of Nabonidus,
(d) Strassmaier, • Nabonidus,' 688. Translation, ' Records of the Past,'
iii 124 —allusion to same offlcial. Dated sixth year.
(e) Strassmaier, ' Nabonidus,' 662. Translation by Zehnpfund 'Bei
trdge zur Assyr.', i. 527, no. 35, a Ust of garments. 5 gubdt esirti ana
xubd sa kurummate sarri Belsarugur. Dated twelfth year. This is the
only allusion to the king's son known to me, where he is not especiaUy
called mdr sarri. The omission of the title in th's case was probably
because the mention of the royal steward shows who is meant.

64
(f) Boscawen, ' Babylonian and Oriental Record,' ii. 17, n. 1. Record
of an offering made by the son of the king in Ebarra. Dated seventh
year. Nahu-gdbit-qdte (Nebo seizes the hands) was the name of the major-
domo of NerigUssar (Nebuchadnezzar, 34, 3/6, 1, 5, see Strassmaier,
' Alphabetisches Worterverzeichniss,') and of his son Labasi-Marduk
(Neriglissar, 2, 10/6, 3. See ' Bab. and Or. Record,'. ii. 44, 48). The
steward of Belsarugur may be the same person.
To the contracts just mentioned should be added the two references
to BeUarugur treated of by Pinches, Independent, Aug. 15, 1889 :
(a) Sale of a plot of ground by Marduk-6riba to Bel-risim, servant of
Belsarugur son of the king. Dated 26 Ve-Adar, flrst year of Nabonidus.
(b) The record of a small tablet from Sippar that Esaggila-rdmat,
daughter of the king (Nabonidus), paid her tithe to Samas through Bel
sarugur. Dated 5th of Ab, seventeenth (last) year of Nabonidus. This
payment took place in the month before Sippar was captured by the
Persians. Pinches, op. cit., believing that it had already been taken
by the forces of Cyrus, tries to show that the city must have been
retaken by the Babylonians, Sippar was not taken by the Persians
until the 14th of Tammuz of Nabonidus' 17th year.
The attempt of Boscawen, Transactions of the Society for Biblical
Archaeology, ii, 27, 28, (followed by Andrea, Beweis des Glaubens, 1888,
350, Cheyne, 'Encycl. Britannica,' vi, 803, etc.,) to identify Marduk-
sarugur, whose fifth year he thought he had discovered on a tablet, with
Belsarugur is unsuccessful. The contract to which the reference was
made belongs to the time of Neriglissar, See Tiele ' Geschichte,' 476,
Strassmaier, 'Congres de Leide,' n. 115, p. 586.

APPENDIX I.

THE CYRUS CYLINDER AND THE ANNALS OF
NABONIDUS.
The Cyrus Cylinder is written on a barrel cylinder of unbaked clay,
nine inches long, three and a quarter inches in end diameter and four
and one-eighth inches in middle diameter. It was reported by Hor-
muzd Rassam in the Victoria Institute, Febr, 2nd, 1881, as being the
official account of the capture of Babylon,
The text of the inscription was published in 1880 by Pinches on the
35th plate of the fifth volume of Sir Henry Rawlinson's Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia, and lately in Abel-Winokler's Keilschrift
texte, Berlin, 1890, pp, 44 S. The first treatment of the inscription, em
bracing transliteration, translation and commentary, was published by
Sir H, Rawlinson, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, XIP, 70-97,
1880, Since that time translations have been given by Sayce, ' Fresh
Light from the Ancient Monuments,' pp, 172 ff,; Floigl, ' Cyrus und Her
odot,' 1881, which is based on Sir Henry Rawlinson's work ; E, Babelon,
Les inscriptions cuneiformes relatives a la prise de Babylone par
Cyrus, Paris, 1881 ; Halevy, Melanges — ' Cyrus et le Retour de la
Captivity,' pp, 4 fif.; Tiele, 'Assyrische und Babylonisohe Geschichte,'
p, 470 fp, a paraphrase; Hommel, (xeschichte Assyriens und Babylo
niens;' Eberhard Schrader, 'Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek,' III, pt, 2,
pp, 120-127, a transliteration and translation based on a collation from a
photograph ; Friedrich Delitzsch in Miirdter's Geschichte Babyloniens
und Assyriens, 1891, pp, 259 ff, a paraphrase ; 0, E. Hagen, ' Beitrage
zur Assyriologie,' II, pp. 205 ff. 1891, transliteration, translation and
commentary from an entirely new collation, and finally Sayce, Records
of the Past, V, new series, pp. 144 ff., a new translation. A translitera
tion of the cuneiform text is given in Lyon's Manual, pp. 39-41.
The Annals of Nabonidus are engraved upon a gray fragment of
unbaked clay in double columns front and back. The tablet, as we
have it, is. about four inches high and three and a half inches in
breadth. For the exact measurements see Beitrage zur Assyriologie,
II, 206, Notice of the. inscription was given by T, G, Pinches in 1880,
in'the Transactions of the Society for Biblical ArchsBology, pp, 139,
176, (See also Atheneeum, 1881, p, 215, an article by Sir Henry Raw
linson who considered it the Annals of Cyrus, and Sayce, Academy,
March 13, 1881, XVII, 198).
9

The text of the document is given by Winckler, Untersuchungen
zur altorientaHschen Geschichte, 1889, p. 154, and again lately from
a fresh collation by 0. B. Hagen, 1891, op. cit, pp, 248 ff, whose copy
differs but very slightly from that of Winckler,
The first translation of the inscription which was made by Mr,
Pinches, appeared in the Transactions of the Society for Biblical
Archaeology, VII, 1882, pp, 153-169, and was accompanied by an
introduction, transcription and notes. The same scholar submitted
lines 1-4 of column II to a new collation, the result of which appeared
in the Proceedings of the same Society, V, 10,
Translations and paraphrases of the document have been given by
the authors mentioned above as having presented translations, etc, of
the Cyrus Cylinder, the most important being that of 0. E, Hagen,
Beitrage zur Assyriologie, II, 215 ff,, with full commentary.
The greater part of the following translation and commentary, which
is not based on a fresh collation, was made before Dr. Hagen's excel
lent work appeared. As his essay depends, however, on a new and
careful collation of both documents, I have had no hesitation in adopt
ing in many passages his readings and in some cases the translations
suggested by him. In every such instance due credit has been given
to the source from which I drew.

THE CYRUS CYLINDER.
DIVIDED TRANSLITERATION.

,[um-ma-]ni-su
 (ki)-ib-ra-tim

2 
3  (-ka gal) ma-tu^-u is-§ak-na ana e-nu-tu ma-ti-su
¦^ si , . ,  (ta-am-)si-]i
u-ia-a§-ki-na gi-ru-Su-un
5 ta-am-§i-li E-saggil i-te-(ni-ip-pu-us2)  ana Uri ii si-
it-ta-a-tim ma-xa-za
6 pa-ra-agla si-ma-a-ti-su-nu ta^  11 u-mi-sa-am-ma id-di-ni-ib-bu-
ub u ana (na)*-ak-ri-tim
7 sat-tuk-ku u-sab-ti-li u-ad6-di-(ma)  (i§-)tak-ka-an ki-rib ma-
xa-za pa-la-xa Marduk gar ilani (sa-)6qi-se a-su-us-su
I V E, and WinoUer Keilschrifttexte lu. Hagen, Beitrage II, 208, reads lu
' So Hagen, op, oit, 208.
8 ta=i5tu (?).
¦1 So Strassmaier and Pinches, of. Hagen op. oit,
5 In V B. and Winckler's Keilschrifttexte, la. Hagen corrects to ad.
6 Thus Hagen's collation.

67
li-jpu-ut-ti ali-su (i-te)-ni''-ip-pu-(us) u-mi-§a-am-ma. . ,(nise)-su ina 8
ah-^a-a-ni la ta-ap-su-ux-tim u-xal-li-iq kul-lat-si-in,
A-na ta-zi-im-ti-si-na Bel ilani ez-zi-is i-gu-ug-(ma)  ki-su-ur-gu- 9
un ilani a-Si-ib lib-bi-Su-nu e-zi-bu ad-ma-an-su-un
ina ug-ga-ti 5a u-se-ri-bi a-na ki-rib Babili*. Marduk ina si^  10
li sa-ax-ra a-na nap-xar da-ad-mi sa in-na-du-u §u-bat-su-un
u nise ™^t§u-me-ri li Akkadi sa i-mu-u sa-lam-ta-ag u-sa-ax-xi-ir 11
ka  §i ir-ta-5i ta-a-a-ra. Kul-lat ma-ta-a-ta ka-li-ii-na i-xi-it
ib-ri-e-sui§-te-'-e-ma ma-al-ki i-sa-ru bi-bil lib-bi sa it-ta-ma-ax qa-tu-u§-§u. 12
™Ku-ra-a8 Sar ^'An-sa-an it-ta-bi ni-bi-it-su a-na ma-li-ku-tim
kul-la-ta nap-xar i-zak-ra su-(um-su).i''
™^tQu-ti-i gi-mir Um-man-man-da u-ka-an-ni-sa a-na se-pi-su nise 13
gal-mat qaqqadi ia u-sa-ak-si-du qa-ta-a-su
i-na ki-it-tim li mi-sa-ru is-te-ni-'-e-li-na-a-tim. Marduk belu rabii 14
ta-ru-u nise-Su ip-se-e-ti-sa dam^^-qa-a-ta li lib-ba-su i-sa-ra xa-di-is
ip-pa-li-is a-na ali-su Babilii^ a-la-ak-su iq-bi u-sa-ag-bi-it-su-ma xar-ra-nu 15
Babili^^ ki-ma ib-ri li tap-pi-e it-tal-la-ka i-da-a-su.
Um-ma-ni-su rap-§a-a-tim sa ki-ma me-e nari la u-ta-ad-du-u ni-ba- 16
su-un kakke-su-nu ga-an-du-ma i-sa-ad-di-xa i-da-a-su
ba-lu qab-li ii ta-xa-zi u-se-ri-ba-as ki-rib Babili** al-su Babilii^ 17
i-ti-ir ina sap-sa-qi. ™Nabu-na'id sarri la pa-li-xi-su u-ma-al-la-a
qa-tu-us-sunise Babili^^ ka-li-su-nu nap-xar ™^'Su-me-ri li Akkadi ru-bi-e li 18
sak-kan-nak-ka sa-pal-§u .ik-mi-sa u-na-a§-si-qu §e-pu-u§-su ix-du-u
a-na §arru-u-ti-su im-mi-ru pa-nu-us-su-un
be-lu sa i-na tu-kul-ti-sa u-bal-li-tu mi-tuTta-an i-na pu-ta-qu li pa- 19
ki-e ig-mi-lu kul-la-ta-an ta-bi-is ik-ta-ar-ra-bu-gu is-tam-ma-ru zi-
ki-ir-lu.A-na-ku ™Ku-ra-as sar kis-sat sarru rabii sarru dan-nu sar Babili^^ 20
gar ™atSu-me-ri li Ak-ka-di-i sar kib-ra-a-ti ir-bi-it-tim ;
mar ™Ka-am-bu-zi-ia sarru rabu sar "^^An-sa-an mar mari ™Ku- 21
ra-as sarru rabu sar "'An-sa-an lip-pal-pal ™Si-is-pi-is sarru rabii
sar "^'An-sa-an ;
zeru da-ru-u sa sarru-u-tu sa Bel li Nabii ir-a-mu pa-la-a-su a-na 22
tu-ub lib-bi-su-nu ix-si-xa (sarru)-ut-su, E-nu-ma (a-na ki-rib)
Babilii^ e-ru-bu sa-li-mi-is
7 I adopt Hagen's correction to ni. The leak ot the original may have been a
mistake of the scribe,
8 §u-an-na-ki.
9 So V K. and Winckler. Hagen reads fi,
10 Traces not clear.
11 So Winckler. V R. has ' nin-Su.'
Ka-dingir-mes-ki.
13 Tin-tir-kl.

68
23 i-na ul-gi li ri-sa-a-tim i-na ekalli ma-al-ki ar-ma-a su-bat be-lu-tim
Marduk belu rabu lib-bi ri-it-pa-su sa mare Babilii^ li. . . .an-ni-ma
u-mi-sam a-se-'-a pa-la-ax-'*gu.
24 Um-ma-ni-ia rap-§a-a-tim i-na ki-rib Babilii^ i-ga-ad-di-xa gu-ul-ma-
nis. Nap-xar (§u-me-ri) li Akkadi zeru rabii (na-ak)-ri-tim ul u-gar-si
25 ki-ribBabilii5 li kul-lat ma-xa-zi-gu i-na ga-li-im-tim ag-te-'-e mare
Babilii3....ki ma-la lib-(bi) • • ¦ . ma ab-sa-a-ni la si-ma-ti-su-nu su-
bat-su-nu
26 an-xu-ut-su-un u-pa-ag-si-xa u-ga-ap-ti-ir sa-ar-ba-gu-nu. A-na
ip-ge-e-tii8  Marduk belu rabii-u ix-di-e-ma
27 a-na ia-a-ti ^Ku-ra-ag sarru pa-li-ix-gu li Ka-am-bu-zi-ia mar gi-it
lib-bi . . . . ap  1'' um-ma-ni-ia
28 da-am-qi-ig ik-ru-ub-ma i-na ga-lim-tim ma-xar-ga ta-bi-is ni-it-ta-
['-du iliiti-8u(?)]i8 gir-ti.
29 Nap-xar garri a-gi-ib parakke ga ka-li-is- kib-ra-a-ta is-tu tam-tim
e-li-tim a-di tam-tim gap-li-tim a-gi-ib  garrani mSt A-xar-ri-i
a-si-ib kus-ta-ri ka-li-su-un
30 bi-lat-su-nu ka-bi-it-tim u-bi-lu-nim-ma ki-ir-ba Babili^ u-na-ag-
gi-qu se-pu-u-a. Is-tu  a-di Aggur li Suginak^'^
31 A-ga-ne-''* m^tBg-nu-nak ^^Za-am-ba-an ^'Me-tur-nu Dur-iluJ^* a-di
pa-at ™atQu-ti-i ma-xa-(zaga e-bir^^j-ti "^rpigiat^i gaig-tu ap-na-ma
na-du-u gu-bat-su-un
32 ilani a-si-ib lib-bi-su-nu a-na ag-ri-su-nu u-tir-ma u-gar-ma-a su-bat
dara^^-a-ta, Kul-lat nise-gu-nu u-pa-ax-xi-ra-am-ma u-te-ir da-ad-
mi-gu-un
33 u ilani ™^t§u-me-ri ii Akkadi ga Nab^-na'id a-na ug-ga-tim bel
ilani u-ge-ri-bi a-na ki-rib Babili^ i-na qi-bi-ti Marduk belu rabii
i-na ga-li-im-tim
34 i-na mag-ta-ki-gu-un u-ge-gi-ib gu-ba-at tu-ub lib-bi. Kul-la-ta ilani
ga u-se-ri-bi a-na ki-ir-bi ma-xa-ze-gu-un
35 u-mi-ga-am ma-xar Bel li Nabu ga a-ra-ku ume-ia li-ta-mu-u lit-tag-
ka-ru a-ma-a-ta du-un-qi-ia li a-na Marduk beli-ia li-iq-bu-u sa
™Ku-ra-ag garru pa-li-xi-ka u ™Ka-am-bu-zi-ia mari-gu
36 da  su-nu lu-u  (matati) ka-li-si-na gu-ub-ti ni-ix-tim u-ge-
gi-ib
37 
 (U§) TUR-XU-MBS d TU-KIL-XU-MES.
38 
 (ad-ma-) na-gu du-un-nu-nim as-te-'-ma
" Evidently aa> — cf . Hagen op, cit., 210. V R. has tu.
16 Kadingir-ra-ki.
16 Hagen op. cit. p. 212 reads : a-na ib-Be-e-ti-(la dam-qartim?)
n Hagen : ' li a-na na-ap-xar.'
18 So Hagen and the most probable reading.
" See Beitrage II. 233. Suggestion of Delitzsch.
20 This is the most probable restoration of the text. See Beitrage, II, p. 212
21 BAE. TIK. KAR.
2a DA. ER.

69
 .39
. . ,u gi-pi-ir-gu
 40
 gu-un Babili^
 41
 §i-in
 42
 gi-na
 43
 bit
 -tim
 44
 45
. . , , (dara)-a-tim22

70

THE CYRUS CYLINDER.
CONSECUTIVE TRANSLITERATION.

.ummanigu (?)
 kibratim

matti iggakna ana enutu matigu* si  ¦ • •
 tamsili ugagkina giriisun^ tamgili Esaggil etenippug
 ana Uri u sittatim maxaza ^parag la simatisunu ta  li
iimigamma iddinibbub ana nakritim ''sattukku usabtili u'addima 
 igtakkan qirib maxaze, palaxa Marduk gar ilani saqige
aguggu ^limutti aligu etenippug iimigamma  ...(nise)gu ina absani
la tapguxtim uxalliq kullatsin. 'Ana tazimtisina Bel ilani ezzig
egug(ma)  kisurgun, ilani asib libbisun ezibu admangun i^ina
uggati ga useribi ana qirib Babili, Marduk ina si  .li saxra ana
napxar dadmi sa innadii subatsun i^u nise ™^'Sumeri li Akkadi sa emii
galamtag usaxxir ka. . . . gi irtasi tara.
Kullat matata kalisina ixit ibresu i^jgte'ma malki isaru bibil libbi
ga ittamax qatuggu. Kurag sar ^' Ansan ittabi nibitsu, ana malikiitim
kullata napxar izakra sumgu, i''™^'Quti gimir Ummanmanda ukan-
niga ana gepigu, nige galmat qaqqadi ga ugakgidu qatS,gu ^^ina kittim
li jnigaru igteni 'eginatim,
Marduk belu rabii tarii nisesu ipgetiga damqata li libbasu iSara xadis
ippalis i^ana align Babili alakgu iqbi ugagbitsuma, xarranu Babili kima
ibri u tappe ittalaka idagu. i^Ummanisu rapsatim ga kima me nari la
utaddii nibagun, kakkegunu gandiima igaddixa idagu I'^balii qabli li
taxazi ugeribag qirib Babili, algu Babili etir ina gapgaqi. Nabiina'id
garri la pMixigu umala qatuggu.
i^Nise Babili kaligunu napxar ™^tgmneri li Akkadi, rube li gakkan-
nakka gapalgu ikmisa, unaggiqii gepusgu, ixdu ana sarriitigu, immiru
panuggun. ^'Belu ga ina tukultisa uballitu mitutan ina putaqu u
pake igmilu kullS,tan tabig iktarrabusu igtammarii zikirsu.

71

THE CYRUS CYLINDER.
TRANSLATION.

.his troops (?)

 regions. . . , ,% weak one
was appointed to thc government of his land  ,*a similar one
he caused to be over them, ^Hke Esaggil he made  unto Ur and
the rest of the cities ^a command unbefitting them  daily he planned
in enmity ''he allowed the regular offering to cease. He appointed
 was done in the cities, as for the veneration for Marduk,
king of the gods, he destroyed its  ^eyii against his city he did
daily,..  his (people) under a yoke whioh gave them no rest he
ruined all of theni. 'At their laments the lord of the gods was furi
ously wroth  their side. The gods dwelling in the midst of
them left their abodes i"in anger that he had caused (strange deities) to
enter into Babylon, Marduk in  turned (?) to all the dwellings
whose abode was established ^^and the people of Sumer and Akkad
who resembled corpses* he turned  he granted mercy.
Through all the lands altogether he looked, he saw him, and i^gought
the righteous prince, the favourite of his heart, whose hand he took,
Cyrus king of Ansan, he called by name, to the kingdom of every
thing created he appointed him, i^Qutii, the entire tribe of the Um-
man Manda he made bow at his feet ; as for the people of the dark
heads whom he (Marduk) caused his (Cyrus') hands to conquer, ^*in
justice and right he cared for them,
Marduk the great Lord, merciful (?) to his people, looked with pleas
ure on his pious works and upright heart, i^unto his pity Babylon
he commanded him to go, he caused him to take the road to Baby
lon going by his side as a friend and companion, i^His extensive
army, the number of which like the waters of a river cannot be known,
with weapons girded on, proceeded beside him, ^''without strife and
battle he let him enter into Babylon, he spared his city Babylon in (its)
calamity. Nabonidus, the king, who reverenced him not, he delivered
into his hand. ^^All the people of Babylon, all Sumer and Akkad,
lords and governors bowed before him, kissed his feet, rejoiced at hia
coming to the throne, their faces were happy. I'The Lord, who by
his power brings the dead to life, who is universally benevolent with
care and protection, they blessed jo.yously, reverencing his name.
* i. B. might as well be dead.

72
^''Anaku Kuras, gar kissat, sarru rabii, garru dannu, gar Babili
gar mS'tgmiieri li Akkadi gar kibrati erbittim ^imar Kambuziya, garru
rabii, gar ^'Angan, mar mari Kurag, garru rabii, gar ^'Angan, lippalpal
Sispig, garru rabii, gar ^'Angan, ^^^eru darii sa garriiti ga Bel li Nabii
iramu palagu ana tiib libbisunu ixgixa (garrut)su, Enuma (ana qirib)
Babili ^rubu salimis, ^^ina ulgi li rigatim, ina ekalli malki arma subat
beMtim, Marduk belu rabu libbi ritpasu ga mare Babili li , . , • annima
iimigam age'a palaxgu, 24Ujjjj)r,^i]iya rapgatim ina qirib Babili igaddixa
gulm^nig. Napxar (Sumeri) li Akkadi zeru rabii (nak)ritim ul usargi,
^^qirib Babili li kullat maxazesu ina galimtim aste' mare Babili 
kl mala lib(bi)  ma abgani la simatisunu subatsunu ^^anxutsunu
upaggixa ugaptir sarbagunu.
Ana epgeti. , , , Marduk belu rabii ixdema, ^^ana iati Kurag, garru 
palixgu li Kambuziya mar git libbi (li ana napxar) ummaniya, ^^dam-
qig ikrubma, ina galimtim maxarsa tabis nitta' (du iliitisu ?) girti.
^'Napxar garri agib parakke, ga kalis kibrata, igtu tamtim elitim
adi tamtim saplitim, agib :..,. garrani mat Axarri agib kugtari kali-
sun, ^"bilatsunu kabittim libilunimma qirba Babili unaggiqii gepiia.
Istu  adi Aggur ii Susinak, ^^Agane, "^'Esnunak ^'Zamban
^'Meturnu, Diirilu adi pat ™^fQuti, maxaza (sa ebir)ti "^""Diqlat ga
igtu apnama nadii gubatsun, ^-^ilani agib libbigunu ana asrisun utirma,
usarma gubat darata. Kullat nisegunu upaxxiramma, utir dadmegun,
^'u ilani "Stgumeri u Akkadi sa Nabiina'id ana uggatim bel ilani ugeri-
bi ana qirib Babili, ina qibiti Marduk belu rabii ina galimtim ^*ina
magtakisunu ugegib, gubat tub libbi. Kullata ilani sa useribi ana qirbi
maxazegun ^^umigam maxar Bel n Nabii ga araku umea litamii, littag-
karii amata dunqiya ii ana Marduk beliya liqbii ga Kuras sarru palixika
u Kambuziya marigu ^Ma  gunu lii  matati kaligina subti
nixtim ugesib^^ 
U§. TUR. XU. MES li TU. KIL. XU, ME§,
(For the broken traces of the remaining verses see the Divided
Transliteration,)

78
201 am Cyrus, the king of hosts, the great king, the mighty king, the
king of Babylon, the king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four
regions, ^ison of Cambyses, the great king, king of Angan ; grandson of
Cyrus the great king, king of Angan ; great-grand-son of Teispis, the
great king, king of Angan, ^^of everlasting royal seed, whose government
Bel and Nebo love, whose rule they desire as necessary to their happi
ness. When into the city of Babylon I entered in friendship, ^s^ith joy
and gladness I established my lordly dwelling in the royal palace, Mar
duk, the great lord, made favourable to me the generous heart of the sons
of Babylon, daily I cared for his worship, 24]\jy extensive army pro
ceeded peacefully into the midst of Babylon, All Sumer and Akkad,
the noble race, I permitted to have no opposition, ^Sthe interior of
Babylon and all their cities I cared for properly, the sons of Baby
lon  as much as they desired  the yoke which
was not suitable for them, their dwelling place, %heir disorder I
remedied, I caused their troubles to cease.
At my (favourable) deeds Marduk the great lord rejoiced and ^^me,
Cyrus, the king who reverences him and Cambyses, the offspring of
my body (and) all my troops, ^^he blessed graciously, while we right
eously lauded his exalted divinity,(?)
2' All the kings dwelling in royal halls, of all the regions from the
upper to the lower sea, dwelling  the Kings of the West-
land, all those who dwell in tents, brought me ^^their heavy tribute
and in Babylon kissed my feet. From  as far as Aggur and
§ugan, 3iAgane, Egnunak, Zamban, Meturnu, Durilu, as far as the
border of the land of the Quti, the cities across the Tigris whose sites
had been established from former times, ^^the gods who live within
them, I returned to their places and caused them to dwell in a perpet
ual habitation. All of their inhabitants 1 collected and restored to
their dwelling places, ^^and the gods of Sumer and Akkad whom
Nabonidus, to the anger of the lord of the gods, had brought into Baby
lon, at the command of Marduk the great lord, in peace 3*in their
own shrines I made them dwell, in the habitation dear to their heart.
May all the gods whom I brought into their own cities, ^Sdaily
before Bel and Nebo pray for a long life for me, may they speak a
gracious word for me, and unto Marduk my lord may they say, that
Cyrus the King who reverences thee and Cambyses his son^s 
 ^jjgjj.  all the lands I caused to dwell in a quiet dwell-
QI? 
ui. TUR. xu ME§ and TU. KIL, XU, MEg,
10

74

THE CYRUS CYLINDER.
COMMENTARY.
L, 3, ' matu,' weak is a synonym of ' engu '— cf • ASKT 59,21, ' maxim
matii ' = light price, and for the verb see IV. 56.11 'me magtitiya
umattii'— my drinking water supply they lessened. See also Zimmern,
Busspsalmen, 93.
'eniitu' — abstract formation from the Sumerian, 'en' Lord — cf.
Agurb, 1.38.
L. 4. ' tamsilu ' — similarity, likeness — I 47. c. vi, 14 — ' tam-gil Xama-
nim,' The form ' tan-gil ' with partial assimilation ofthe 'm' tothe
'g' occurs Sarg, Cyl, 64, — For this change cf, Haupt, Hebraica, I, pp,
219-220, and see below note to v, 2, of Daniel v,
L, 6, ' parag la simatisunu ' — ' pargu ' can never mean ' shrine ' as Jen
sen, Keilinschr, Bibliothek, III, 1 p. 201 — translates, asserting it to be
asynonj'mof 'parakku,' In this Jensen appears to have followed an
error of Winckler's, for which see Fried, Delitzsch, Beitrage II, p, 250
and remark,
L, 7, ' sattukku,' the regular offering or TDf) • For the Assyrian
T
names of sacrifices cf , Joh, Jeremias, Beitrage I, 279, ' sattukku ' may
be regarded as an intensive formation with ' a ' in the first syllable, (?)
L, 9, ' tazimtu ' —lament for 'tazzimtu' from v/QfJ — a synonym of
unninu, 'lament' and dimtum, 'tear,' See Delitzsch, Beitrage, II,
251, and passages there cited. For the verb 'nazamu' cf. Asb.
Smith 120, 27 — ' a-zi-ma ' — I lamented (var. ' az-zi-ma ') and IV. 58, 20b
' unazzimu,' ' ki-su-ur-gu-un,' their border — cf, Keilinschr, Bibliothek III, pt, 1,
188 11, 18-19. ' a-xu-u-ti ki-sur-gi-na ' — the portioning off of their
border. In V, 31, 3 e. f, we find 'ki-sur-(ri)'='mi-gir,' The verb
'kaslru' means 'bar off,' of, I. 27, 34 b,
L, 10, ' ga innadu gubatsun' — not 'whose abode was cast down,'
'gubtu' or ' miisabu nadii' means to set up or establish a dwelling.
See Cyl. 31 and Jager, Beitrage II. 282, and literature there cited,
L, 11, ' emii,' be like, is a synonym of ' magalu ' — V, 47, 23, It is con
strued either with an adverb as here cf , " useme karmig ' — ' I made it
like a field,' Sanh. I, 75; 'emfi tilanig,' I. 51, n, 2. 14; emii 'maxxu-
tig,' 'they were as if destroyed,' III, 15, 21, c. I. (See Jensen Kosm,
336/7.), or with ' kima '—or ' ki ' as in the Deluge, Nim, Epos II, 143, 1.
203, For discussion regarding the stem n/JIO^ see note to v, 21 of
Daniel v,, Appendix II,
'galamtag' — cf, 'Elamtas,' Sanh. Konst, 27— ' axratag,' V, 34, c, II, 48.
I R., Sargon Barrel, 44, and I R, 7. F. 18, 'galamtu,' or, with reciprocal

75
assimilation 'galandu,' is the same as Nl'7tJ'"N1^'?£J^ cf. Haupt,
T- : T : - ;
Ztschr. fiir Assyriologie II. 266, n. 5; Beitrage 1. 3, and Hebraica III.
187, for the existence of a stem, \/glm meaning to die, both in Assy
rian and Samaritan.
' tara,' = mercy is used substantially as in V. 64, 15" and Creation
Fragm. n. 18 obv. 13 (Beitrage II. 231)— cf. also V. 21, 54. 'taru,tir-
anu,' forgiveness, is a synonym of ' mustaru' — V. 21. 57 (Beitrage 1.173)
and ' kigau ' = love, I, 56, ' Ta-a-a-ra ' is an intensive form like ' daiianu'
and stands for ' taiiaru,' of, Busspsalmen 102,
L. 13. Qute— see below on Annals III. 15,
' Umman-manda ' probably means, as Jager has lately suggested (sce
Beitrage II. 300 note), the ' great horde,' or ' army,' regarding ' manda '
as a byform of 'ma 'da, madda.' See the citation in Delitzsch, Assyr,
Worterb, 227, 1. 20ff; III. R, 63, 38", where we find 'umman ma'atti'
(fem, of 'ma'du') for "umman-manda.' Delitzsch's opinion is that
'mandu' stood for 'mantu ' = 'manu' = ' ma'anu' (cf, njiyp from
\/py) and was a word meaning north, (op, cit. 226.) (See, however, in
this connection Jensen, Kosm. 10). Halevy, Zeitschr, flir Assyr, III
188, derived it from v'TIQ i, e. manda = madda.
Umman-manda seeijis to havc been the common name for the wild
hordes of the east and north, of various races, who were probably
so called owing to their great numbers. Later on, however, the name
became applied to the Medes proper, as we find it, for instance, in V R.
64. 30 ff, where Astyages (Istumegu) is called ' King of the Umman-
manda.' The reason of this was, that after the overthrow of Nineveh
by the Medes, the wild Asiatic hordes became subject to Median rule
and thus were identified in the minds of foreigners with their con
querors. In the passage, V R. 64. 30", there is apparently a com
parison between the ' Umman manda, great army,' of Istumegu and
the 'ummani igiiti ' of Cyrus. (See Jiiger, op. cit. 300 note and com
pare, furthermore, in connection with the name. Proceedings of the
Society for Biblical Archaeology, Nov. 7, '82, 11, Muss-Arnolt, Hebra
ica, vol. VIL, p, 86 ff, and Tiele, Geschichte, 334),
'nige galmat qaqqadi.'— Hagen, Beitrage II. 231, thinks that this can
hardly be a reference to the Babylonians, as they were not yet con
quered by Cyrus. We have no reason to doubt, however, that Cyrus
did not have the greater part of Babylonia in his hands before he
took Babylon proper. The ' people of the dark heads ' here, therefore,
are probably those Babylonians who had already surrendered to the
Persian power, and whom Cyrus had treated with exemplary forbear
ance. . O i ^ , T ll
L 14 ' taru '—merciful, a derivative trom taru —to turn towards, be
gracious to The form ' ta-ru-u 'may be for ' tarii,' an adjectival for
mation with ' nisbe.' Hagen, Beitr. II. 231, compares V. 47, 17 ' taranu '
=' cillu ' but is in doubt whether ' taranu ' is from taru, ' to turn
toward '' or from a stem ' tarii ' to shield. ' ta4nu,' however, may be

76
a formation with '-anu ' from ' taru,' just as ' mutanu', pestilence,' is a
derivative of ' matu,' cf. also ' garanu '—a running of tears, from
'g^raru,' 'ipgetiga damqata' — Itseems necessary to consider with Hagen the
'sa' as a byform of the masculine suffix -su. Compare 1, 19, 'tukultisa
(=gu) and 1, 28, 'maxarga' (= gu) and also in this connection IV. 27,
11 b, ' etla ina bit emiitiga ugegii', they (the evil demons) have driven
the man from his conjugal chamber.'
L, 15, 'tappii' — companion and technically, partner, cf,, IV, 58, 50°
'bit tappegu '— ' kasap tappegu' ASKT 66, 7, The word can hardly
be connected with the stem " t1J0£0 ," = protect,^ as Muss-Arnolt has
sought to show, (Hebraica, vol, VII, p, 57,), first, because the Assyrian
'tappii' is written with the character 'tap ' (see Haupt, ASKT-Schrift-
tafel no, 65 and ASKT, p, 66-7 ff,) which indicates a value ' H ' for the
initial consonant, and secondly, because the forms ' tap-pi-u-tu ' and
'tap-pe-su,' occur, showing that the word cannot be from a stem y^.
We find also the feminine form 'tappatu' — V, 39. no. .3, 1. 62. For the
abstract 'tappiitu,' cf. IR, Sennacherib Prism, 1. 5b — 'alik tappiit aki'
—one who goes to protect the weak : V, 33, c, II, 5, ' tap-pu-ut Marduk,'
The stem in Assyrian is probably a derivative from the non-semitic
root ' tap ' = two — the partner being considered the ' second,' Compare
in this connection V R, 37, 28 ff, where we find as synonyms of ' tappii,'
— ' gina ' = twice, ' kilallan ' = on both sides, and, V R, 37, 1, 31, ' atxu,'
The latter being a form from the same stem as 'axu' brother, with
infixed 't,' cf. 'itxiltu' = howling, from \/ axu— IV 9. n. 3. 39,
L, 16. 'uttaddu'— from 'idii'— to know, 3 m, pi. of the Iftaal. See
IV, 15, 8" ; 43, 44. and the Deluge— Haupt's Nimrod Epic, pt. II, pp.
134-139 1, 113, For the form cf, Keilinschr. und das A, T.2 p, 73.
'ganduma' — usually of harnessing beasts of burden, as Hagen, Bei
trage, II. 231 correctly remarks. For a figurative usage of the verb
'gamadu' compare however, ASKT. 116 1, 18. 'ma'dig ana galpiiti
gamdaku' — 'greatly am I yoked to sin,'
' gadaxu '—always means 'to proceed '—' march '—cf, the substantival
usage ' gadaxu ga Belit Babili ' Agurb, VIII, 18, The procession of B.
of Babylon. Derivatives are ' masdaxu '—syn. of ' siiqu '—street, II,
33. 11— see also ASKT 202. n, 20, and 'igdixu' = 'alaktu', IV 57, 15",
L, 19, ASKT 'Ina tukulti-ga '— see 1, 14
' mitiitan '— the dead, cf, ' kullatan,' matitan,' 'kilatan,' Delitzsch,
Assyr, Gr, ? 80, d.
' putaqu u pake,' care and protection. See Hagen, Beitrage II, 232.
' putaqu ' may be derived from a stem p^fi = paqu, to look, care for,
' tatapu— means really to surround, enclose, cf, II E, 23, 1. ff, C— where we flnd a
door called 'saniqtum,' i, e. that whioh encloses or shuts in, and also ' mutetiptum'
and tttlpxni,.' All of these words are given as synonyms of ' daltum.' ' '

77
being, as Hagen suggests, an intensive reflexive form, ' paqu ' on the
other hand can only be from a stem J<pfl , See Flemming, Neb. 39,
and Zimmern, Busspsalmen 60, n, 1, who explain it as denoting tbe idea
of 'confident looking,' cf, Heb. Hpfi in the Piel, which means 'to
look attentively.' Is it not possible that pIQ and Kapfi may contain
the same root? There seems to be no connection between the ' pake '
in this passage of the Cyl. and that in V R. 23, 23-27, where the word
' pakii ' is cited as a synonym of various expressions denoting meekness.
The adverbial accus. ' piqa ' may be a derivative of the stem XspO ,
cf. Jager, Beitrage II, 305.
L. 21. Kurag sar Babili ; For the legends regarding Cyrus in general
and especially in connection with the account of Herodotus, compare
Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot ; Bauer, die Cyrussage ; Schubert, Herodots
Daretellung der Cyrussage, Breslau, 1890, etc., etc. For the chro
nology of Cyrus' reign, compare Tiele, Geschichte, p, 483, and the litera
ture cited note 2, ; also Biidinger, Die neuentdeckten Inschriften
iiber Cyrus, p. 39, 1884 and Oppert and Menant, Documents Juridiques,*
p, 262.
As to the commencement and duration of Cyrus' rule in Babylon
the following statement may be of interest. The last contracts of
the reign of Nabonidus are dated in the month lyar (April-May)
538. B.C. The date 538 instead of the usual 539 (See Unger, Kyaxares-
und Astyages p. 52, Noldeke, Aufsatze, p, 26) is necessitated by the
nine months' reign of Labagi-Marduk, unmentioned by the Ptole-
maean Canon, which brings forward the date of the fall by one year.
Babylon was taken on the 16th Tammuz (July 15th) 538, when
Nabonidus ceased to reign. Cyrus entered the city the 3rd day of
Marchesvan (October 27) evidently assuming the reins of government
at once, as the first known contract of his reign is dated in the follow
ing month in his ' commencement year ; ' i. e. Kislev 16th (December
9th) 538. (See Tiele, Geschichte 424, Unger, op, cit. 52,) The official
first yedh- did not begin therefore until five months later ; i. e, Nisan
537, As to the exact duration of Cyrus' reign there is some confusion.
Although the Ptolemaean Canon gives him nine years as King of Baby
lon, a contract-exists, dated in his tenth year, giving him the title
' King of Babylon and of the Lands,' (See Tiele, Geschichte 483, citing
Strassmaier,) It is possible either that this may be an error or that
the writer may have confused the last year of Nabonidus or the com
mencement months of Cyrus with the first year of Cyrus' reign. The
twenty-nine years of Herodotus I. 214 and the thirty years of Ktesias
(see Justin I. 8.) attributed to Cyrus, refer .to his combined rule over
Angan and Babylon. It is therefore probable that Cyrus -began to
reign in Ausan either twenty or twenty-one years before he captured
Babylon ¦ i e. about 558 or 559. (See Evers, Das Emporkommen der
persischen Macht unter Cyrus, 39, who sets his birth about 590.)

78

' gar kibrati erbittim '—For the origin and significance of this title see
now Lehmann, Samaggumukin pp, 78, 93-98.
L. 21. ' Mar Kambuziya,' etc.
The genealogy of the Achaemenian Kings presents a hitherto
unsolved problem, of which a brief statement may be interesting.
Cyrus was descended from the same stock as Darius Hystaspis,
Their respective genealogies as given in the Cylinder and the Behistun
Inscription may be seen from the following table :

_ , f Cyrus, son of
Genealogy p' ^.p„„ „
ofthe Cambyses,
I Cyrus,
L (BiSpiS) Teispis

Darius,

sonof

Cylinder,

Vistaspa, "
Arsama, "
Ariaramna, "
(QaiSpiS) Teispis
HakhamaniS

Genealogy ofthe
Behistun
Inscription.

Darius Hystaspis in the Behistun Inscription traces his descent from
^Hakhamanig (Achaemenes) giving five generations of his ancestry, but
adding that eight of his family were formerly kings and that he was
the ninth. (See Spiegel, Altpersische Keilinschriften, 1881, p. 3).
The eight generations can be made up from Herodotus, who in his
ancestry of Xerxes added three names between Qaispis (Teispis) and
Hakhamanis, the latter of whom, as will be seen from the above table
is mentioned in the Behistun Inscription as father of the former.
The three names introduced by Herodotus are: another Teispis, whom
we may call the first, and another Cambyses and Cyrus. His geneal
ogy giving eight generations is as follows: Her. VII. 11. M^ ydp elifv
eK Aaphov rov 'tardaireog, rov 'Apadfieog rov 'Apfivea tov leianeog, adding
then TOV Kiipov rov Kafifiiiaeu tov Tetaireog rov 'Axaifiiveog yeydvug.
Hystaspis, however, according to Herodotus III. 70, was merely a
governor in Persia, though of good family and it is probable that
Arsames and Ariaramnes were never Kings, nor are they so called in
the Behistun Inscription.
Comparing then the record of the Cyrus Cylinder with the list of
Herodotus, still further difliculties arise, as will be seen from the fol
lowing table: Herodotus and f
Behistun -j HakhamaniS = Achaemenes
Inscription. I

Names given
only by
Herodotus.

Teispis (?)

Cyrus (?)

Teispis

(?)

Herodotus and
Behistun
Inscription.

Ariaramnes ArsamesHystaspis
Darius

Cyrus I
Cambyses I
Cyrus the Great
Cambyses II,

Cyrus Cylinder

79
Omitting the three immediate ancestors of Darius and counting only
the other line, beginning with Cambyses II, son of Cyrus the great,
nine kings of Darius' family will be found instead of eight. (Winck
ler, Untersuchungen, p. 28, omits Achaemenes, the ' Ahnherr' ; but he
is especially mentioned by the account of Darius as the first of his
house.) On examining the record of Herodotus (Teispis? Cambyses? Cyrus?)
and comparing it with the account of the Cylinder (Teispis, Cyrus,
Cambyses, Cyrus) it seems probable that Herodotus misunderstood the
genealogies, placing two parallel lines in consecutive order, omitting
the Cyrus after Teispis and introducing a second Teispis.^ Adopting
this supposition and omitting the Teispis, Cambyses and Cyrus of
Herodotus the following family tree can be presented:
Achasmenes Teispis

Ariaramnes Cyrus I
Arsames Cambyses I
Hystaspis Cyrus (the Great)
Darius Cambyses II
Here again if the three immediate predecessors of Darius be omitted
as non-kings, there is an ancestry of only six, whereas if they be
included there is a total of nine.^ Of course the easiest way out of the
difficultj^ is with Halevy (Museon 2. 43.) to cut the knot by calling
Darius a liar and asserting that he purposely gave a wrong genealogy.
(Winckler, Untersuchungen, 128, hints at such a solution. See in this
connection Delattre, Medes, 53).
Concerning the early history of the Achaemenians practically all that
can be decided at present is, that if as seems necessary, Ariaramnes,
Arsames and Hystaspis be omitted, two unknown kings* must be
included in the list in order to make up the total of eight claimed by
Darius. As will be seen from the above, the descent of Cyrus the Great is
perfectly clear up to Teispis and that Teispis was not only an ancestor
2 Amiaud, Melanges Renier 260, accepts the genealogy of Herodotus and conject
ures that the second Teispis may have been the flrst King of Persia to rule over
3 Floigl (op. cit. 22) includes them, considering thera Kings of Hyrcania (see pp.
6-T) and in order to bring down the total, sacriflces Cyrus I. the Grandfather of
Cyrus the Great. The latter however distinctly designates his grandfather as
' great King, King of AnSan.'
i Spiegel adds before AohEemenes and Teispis two supposed kings of the same
name If however, Achsemenes, the founder of the dynasty, be conceived of as
mythical (the^pwf-so Biidinger, p, 6, Winckler, p, 28) and as never having reigned,
(Merer Gesch. 559) itwill be necessary to supply three supposititious kings. For
other opinions concerning this problem see Rawlinson, Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, 1880, li ff. Oppert, Medes, 113, b. 162 b. refuted however by Spiegel.
op. cit. 84, Budinger 6, Evers, 26 ff. etc.

80
of Darius Hystaspis, but also an Achaemenian and an Ary^n, is shown
by the Persian inscriptions,^ Cyrus was therefore not of Elamitic
origin or naturalization, as some have sought to show," but an Aryan
of Aryan descent, according to the opinion of the ancient writers both
sacred and profane. Not only is Cyrus called King of Persia (Parsu)
in the Babylonian inscriptions, but the testimony of the biblical writ
ers as well as of Herodotus, who drew from Greek, Lydian, Egyptian,
Babylonian and Persian sources, point to the same fact. We should
compare the scriptural references to Cyrus as a Persian or King of
Persia; Daniel vi, 28; II Chron, xxxvi, 22, 23; Ezra i, 1, 2, 7, 8; iii,
7 ; iv, 3. In Ezra v, 13, he is called King of Babylon, (See in this
connection Delattre, Medes 48, 49,)
' Sar ^' Angan.' The place is specified either as al Ansan (city of
Ansan) as here or mat Ansan, indifferently. See V R, 64,29, where
Cyrus is called King of the country of Ansan and an insignificant vas
sal of Astyages, ^ardu gaxrV The city or country evidently bore the
same name. It is mentioned in the astronomical tablets in connection
with Subartu, Compare Delattre : Cyrus dans les monuments Assy
riens, p, 2, and for Subartu, see Zeitschr, fiir Assyr, I, 196.
The country of Anzan or Angan, over which Cyrus and his three
ancestors ruled has excited numerous conjectures. See Evers, op, cit,,
p. 30 ff, and literature cited. Some critics, suoh as Rawlinson (Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Soc. XII.^ p. 76) and Sayce (Transactions III.
475) have considered it identical with Elam, following the syllabary
II R, 47, 18, where we find An-du-an'''-Ag-ga-an=Blamtu, (cf. also
Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, 180, and Meyer, Geschichte,
396, 493,
That the name cannot be synonymous with Elam is shown in Sen
nach,, Taylor, 5, 31, where it is recorded that the King of Elam leagued
against Assyria with a number of smaller states among which was
Angan, (See Weisbach, Anzanische Inschriften, 123-124.) Angan
must therefore have been an independent state, but we may conclude
from II R., 47, 18 probably at one time tributary to Elam, In early
days it appears to have been a feeble power, as it succumbed
the attacks of Princes like Gudea (Amiaud, Ztschr, fiir Keilschrift-
forschung 1, 249) and Mutabbil of Durilu (Winckler, Untersuchungen,
116, 156, 157,) In the classical authors there is no mention of the
place but the Arab, Ibn el Nadim (Kitab el Pihrist 12, 22, cited JRAS.
s Naqsh-1 Rustem 8, ' I am Darius  son ot Vistaspa the Achaemenian, a Per"
sian son of a Persian, an Aryan son of an Aryan,' In Behistun 1, 14, 61 Darius says
that the government whioh Gaumata the Magian usurper took from Cambyses had
been in the family from most ancient times. This can ouly refer to the rule over
Persia. 6 Halevy, Revue des fitudes Juives, 1880. Comptes rendues de I'Aoademie des
Inscriptions 7, 1880. Melanges 6, also formerly Sayce, Herodotus 386 ; Fresh Light,
167-175. See however Delattre Medea, 45-54, who meets and refutes all of Hal(5vy's
theories In this connection. Ktesias stated, apparently with little or no authority
that Cyrus was the sou ol' a ' M ardian ' robber Athadatea^

81

XII.2 76) speaks of an ^;L*I in the district of Tuster (Shuster) which
is probably identical with the Ansan of the Achaemenians.
The title King of Angan proves nothing against the Persian origin of
Cyrus, whose family may have acquired this Elamitic country by con
quest, perhaps under Teispis, or some previous king.'' It is well
known that in earlier times Angan was ruled by a non- Aryan, non-
Semitic native line, and it may be supposed that all the Elamitic
provinces after the complete overthrow of Elam by Aggurbanipal
were an easy prey to any invader. (Note that the language of Angan
was Elamitic- See Weisbach, Anzanische Inschriften, 124.125. and
below. Appendix II, on v. 28, Amiaud, Melanges Renier, 249, thought
that Angan was the most ancient part of Elam,)
With reference to the fact that the Elamitic Susa was the seat of
the Persian power, which has been cited by Halevy, (see Delattre,
Medes 52) as an evidence against the Persian origin of Cyrus we find a
satisfactory explanation in Strabo, Susiana, the Geographer said, had
become like a part of Persia, After the conquest of Media, Cyrus and
the Persians, owing to the remote situation of their own country,
established the seat of their government in the more central Susa, the
chief city of Susiana, which is not far from Babylon and the other
provinces, (See Strabo, 15. 3. 2. cited by Delattre, 1, c) Now as
Delattre has pointed out, had Susa been their hereditary capital we
would expect to find the Elamitic language as the usual idiom of
the Achaemenian inscriptions. It seems probable that the Achaeme
nian kings and the Persians had at some unknown period of their his
tory conquered and annexed to their own territory the Elamitic country
of Angan, When, with the conquest of Media by Cyrus, a larger ter
ritory was at their disposal, a proper capital being necessary for the
new empire, the splendour of the old Elamitic Susa influenced Cyrus
to establish it as his headquarters.
L. 22. ' ixgixa ' — an imperfect also occurs in ' u ' — cf . Asurb. VII, 33,
ix-gu^xa, also Tig. VII, 47, Derivatives are 'xugaxxu '=' necessity,
famine,' cf, Asurb, III, 125, Tig. VIII. 85. and 'Xisixtu '=need, want—
cf. Aram mil^ri~Dan. iii. 16 ; Ezra vi. 9 ; vii. 20, A synonym of
'xusaxxu ' is "qalqaltum," V R. 11, 42/43 def.
L. 23, 'age'a palaxsu gc'ii'- to care for, trouble about, is frequently
used in a religious sense, cf, ASKT, 75;i.b 'anaku Pulpul mar Pulpul
aradka asxurka ege (ka)'— I N. son of N. thy servant turn to thee, seek
thee. There are three verbs, ' ge'ii ' in Assyrian : viz., 1, geii— to seek—
Vn^, Hebrew nj7^=to look, cf, 2 S, 22.42, to look for help. Gen.
iv, 4, 5 look graciously upon, etc 2. ge'ii— to grow, from which
7 See Evers, op, cit, 39; Winckler, Untersuoh. 138. Amiaud, Melanges Renier,
260 n 3 refers the overthrow of Elam in Jeremiah xlix. 34 If. to the conquest of
that country by the Persians, See also H. H, Howarth, Academy, no, 1033, p. 182.
Note that Ezekiel xxxii, 34 speaks of Elam as a conquered people: of, Meyer,
Gesch, 560. 11

82
' ge'um ' grain, cf , ge'u zer, I, 70. c. 1. 1 : also AL393. B. 6. (creation tab
let)— Hebrew n'jJ>-sprout. 3. 'ge'ii'— to fly, cf. Agurb- VIIL 88.
L. 25. ' Subatsun '—Hagen, Beitrage II. 232, reads ' guzuz(?)-su-un,
a shafel of ' nazazu '—and translates ' the yoke * * * was taken from
them.' This however necessitates supposing an entirely new value
¦ ZUZ 'for the character ' be, bat, til, ziz.' Besides this objection, the
meaning ' taken away ' for the shafel of ' nazazu ' given by Delitzsch,
Worterhuch, 253, in the passage V. 50.51/52, and cited by Hagen, 1. c. in
support of this translation of ' suzuz-su-un ' is by no means certain.
The passage reads ' sarat zumrigu ugzizu ' (V.50 51/52) and is rather
to be translated ' one the hair of whose body the evil demon has caused
to stand up (i. e. in fear), and not ' taken away.'
L. 28. 'ma-xar-ga' — see 1. 14. 'parakku,' — ' sacred shrine,' or 'royal
apartment,' not a ' seat,' ' heiliger Gottersitz.' with Lehmann, ' Samag
gumukin,' Glossar. I, and Berliner philologische Wochenschrift, 1891,
No. 25 sp. 789, f , The word is a derivative from the stem ' paraku ' =
to separate, bar off, and signifies literally, a place barred off. Cf.
Agurb. IV, 125 ' sa kima diiri rabe pan Elamti parku ' which like a
great wall barred the way before Elam, also 1. c, IV, 82 ' ga siiqe pur-
ruku ' — which blocked up the streets. ' Napraku ' and ' parku ' signify
a bolt, and are synonyms of ' medilu,' cf. II. 23, 35-37, and 38.
For the form of ' parakku ' see Delitzsch, Assyrian Grammar, Engl.
Ed, p, 169,
L. 29. For ' kugtaru ' see Delitzsch in the Zeitschr, fiir Assyriologie
I, 419 ff,
L. 30. ' bilatsunu kabittim,' ' biltu ' is probably cognate with the
Hebrew 173 , see Paul Haupt, Journal of the American Oriental
Society, XIII, 51 f,
L, 31. Agane '"^^ an ancient city the site of which has not yet been
discovered, but it appears to have been on the left bank of the Tigris
in northern Babylonia, The idea that the name of the place was
' Agade,' another form of 'Akkad,' (cf, Hommel, Geschichte p, 204 rem,
1. and p, 220; 234) is entirely unfounded, Agane was plundered by
Xumbaxaldasu II, King of Elam in the sixth year of the reign of
Esarhaddon (674) and the image of the goddess Nana was carried away
to Elam. Por the ancient kings of the city see Lehmann, ' Samaggum
ukin,' 93, Tiele Gesch, 83, 113, 3.33, and Murdter-Delitzsch, Babyl.
Gesch. 2 ed,, p, 73.
'Es-nu-nak' is Hagen's reading for ' Ab-nu-nak on account ofthe
form ' Agnunnak ' V, 33, 1, 36, (Inscription of Agumkakrime) cf, also
'Ig-nu-nak' L 66, n. 2 c, II, 3 and see Del,, Paradise, 230 f, and Kos-
saeans p, 60, It is a city and district on the border of Elam, In II,
39, 59 g, h, we find it compared with Um-li-as, Jensen in Keilinschr.
Bibliothek III. pt. 1, 137 n, however doubts the identity of Egnunnak
and Umliag thinking that the former may be the same as the 'mS,tu

83
rabii' of I, 60, while the latter may be the 'matu gixru' mentioned
II R, 39,
Zamban and Me-tur-nu, See Delitzsch, Paradise, 2,30 f, also 203, 204.
Diir-ilu, see Winckler Untersuchungen zur Altoriental. (icsch. 86,
Peiser Actenstiicke, 77, It wSts the site of the battle between Xum-
banigas of Elam and Sargon of Assyria,
'pa-at Quti ' = ' entrance ' of Gutium. See II R, 51. c, II. 21 and
Delitzsch, Par, 233— (Hagen). Professor Haupt has suggested that
'patu' is probably a feminine plural form of 'pii' mouth, just as
¦panu' face is to-be considered a masculine plural of the same word,
'pitii' to open may also be a verbal formation from the feminine of
'pii,' 'Qute'— See 'Gutium' on Annals III, 17,
' apnama ' is probably an abbreviation for ' appunama,' Sce Delitzsch
Proleg. 136. According to V R, 47, 55, it is a synonym of ma'dig ; see
Zimmern Busspsalmen, 97 and cf, II. 16, 21 where it appears to have
the force of 'very, exceedingly'; 'ina nari tabbaSima miika daddaru
appunama.' When thou art in the river, thy water is exceedingly
'daddaru,' i. e. gall-like — bitter. For 'daddaru,' sec also IV 3, 30''
(Busspsalmen 97), where it is explained by the same ideogram as
'martu'; viz., Qi— cf. Syll. S*" 194 Qi = martu = gall, bitterness, for
' marratu ' — (see Haupt, Beitr. 1, 16 and cf. Heb. HTIQ •) ' Daddaru '
is, as Jager has pointed out, a reduplicative formation from "IHX = be
dark, hence perhaps dirty. (?) (See Beitrage II. 299,)
'appuna' is explained by 'piqa' 11,25,10; 16,44, and by the Sumerian
' iginzu ' (V, 16, 30 ef, ASKT, 182, 12), which aecording to Jensen, Kos
mologie 403, is translated in a Berlin syllabary by Assyrian 'mandi,'
the exact meaning of which is not clear. (See V 16, 32 f.) The form
'man(min)dima' occurs Senn. Bawian, 40. See Del. Assyr. Gram.,
p. 210. For 'piqa' see noto^to 1. 19.
In II. 16, 21 e., we find m the Sumerian column "an-ga-an' as the
equivalent of 'appunama.' This is evidently a byform of 'iginzu.' I
believe Jager (I. c.) is right in connecting 'appunama' with the Tal
mudic ?ISJ'flK = ' indeed, in truth.' In fact all of these words, ' piqa,
mandi, iginzu^ and 'angan' are probably to be translated in this way.
L. 34. ' magtakigunu ' cf . IV. 27, 9b ' ardatam mastakisa ugeld ' = They
have made the girl go up from her dwelling, Agurb, X, 72, ' magtaku
suatu mugallimu beleguma ' = The abode which blesses its owner.
L 35. 'Littagkaru'-Niphal Reflexive of 'zakaru'with partial assim
ilation of the 'z' to the'k,' It is not necessary to suppose a verb
'gakaru' with Hagen, (Why sakaru with p ?) . . ,
Parallel forms are ' isqup ' from ' zaqapu and isxur from saxaru
L, 37, For US-TUR-XU and TU-KIL-XU— see Hagen, Beitrage II,
234,

84

THE ANNALS OF NABONIDUS.
TRANSLITERATION,
Column I.
1 
 a™81abkallai-gu
2  ^•-
 gu ig-gi^ garru
3  ¦•, 
. . . -ma-ti-gu-nu' ana Babili'' u-bil-lu
4 
j,| (unwritten space.)
5  ;  ¦¦  •  •
SU is-(iz, ig)-xu-xu-ma ul is-gi.
6 
ti kimat^-su-nu ma-la basu-u
7  : 
(e)-zib, Sarru umman-gu id-qe-ma ana xu-me-e*
8   if; (unwritten space,)
9 (Sattu 2kan) 
(ina) ^'''''^Tebeti ina Xa-ma-a-tu ipsax^
10 (Sattu 3 kan) 
(ina) ^.raxj^bi ^^d^jn.ma-na-nu sa-qi-i
11 
gip-pa-a-tu inbu" ma-la ba-gu-u
12 
gi-ib-bi-gi-na ana qi-rib Babili'
13  e-zib-ma iblu^-ut, Ina
araxKisilimi garru umman-gu
14 . . . .tim Nabii- ?®-dan-ugur
> NUN-ME.
2 Su iS-Si or i5-lim. This is of course uot the ending of a proper name. Cf. Floigl,
Ownis und Herodot, pp. 54, 55, who thought the passage referred to Croesus of
Lydia. 3 IM-EI-A.
i Thus Hagen. Schrader considered it a proper name with determinative.
' See Brunnow's List, 3036 for the ideogram.
6 So Winckler, Vntersuchwngen, p. 154.
8 TIN.
0 Hagen suggests MAX. Winckler has a sign compounded of ' si ' and ' en.'

85

THE ANNALS OP NABONIDUS.
TRANSLATION.
Column I.
 1
 his leader
 :  2
 .his  the king took away(?)
 3
 of their land unto Babylon they brought
 4
¦ ¦'  5
Su is-xu-xu-ma{?) he did not take away
 6
of(?) their families, as many as there were
 ;  7
he left. The king collected his troops, in order to(?)
 8
 is.
(Second year)  9
in the month Tebet in the land of Hamatu he gave peace.
(Third year)  10
in the month Ab, the high mountain Amanus
 11
willows, fruit as much as there was
 12
their. - . -unto the midst of Babylon
 he left and remained alive. 13
In Kislev the king (collected) his troops.
 14
tim Nab'A- ?-dan-ugur

86
15 

(tam)-tim ga "^tAxarri^" a-na
16 
-du-um-mu it-ta-du-u
17  -ma gabe ma-du-tu
18 
abulluii aigin-di-ni
19  tidiiki-su
20  ¦ 
 te-qu.
21   gabePi- Column II.
1 (Ummangu) upaxxii-i^-ma ana eli "nKu-ras sar An-ga-an ana ka-
(ga-di-gu^^) il-lik-ma. . . .
2 Is-tu-rae-gu umman-su ibbalkit-su-ma ina qati ga-bit a-na ™Ku-rag
id-{di-nu-gu).
3 ™Ku-ras a-na ™StA-gam-ta-nu al garru-u-tu kaspu xuragu sa-gu
makkiirui* 
4 ga ™atA-gam-ta-nu is-lul-u-ma a-na mat^n-sa-an il-qi. Sa-gu mak-
kiiru^* sa ud 
5 Sattu 7'^an- Sarru ina aiTe-ma-a mar sarri amglfabiiti u gabe-
su ina ™§-tAkkadii^' 
6 ana Babili' la illi-ku. Nabii ana Babilii^ la illi-ku. Bel la itta
ga-a isinnui" (akitu). . -
7 niqe ina E-sag-gil u B-zi-da ilani ga Babili^' u Bar-sap ki (gal-mu)
8 iddii^-nu urigallu^^ is-ruq-ma bita ip-qid.
9 Sattu 8''«''-
10 Sattu 9^^^- Nabii-na'id^o garru (ina) ^'Te-ma-a, mar sarri,
amglpabiiti u umma-ni ina ™&t Akkadi. Sarru ana ^^^Nisani ana
Babili"
11 la illi-ku, Nabu ana Babili^^ la illi-ku, Bel la ittaga-a i-sin-nu a-ki-
tu ba-til
12 niqe ina B-sag-gil u E-zi-da ilani sa (Babili) u Bar-sip-^^' ki sal-
mu iddi-^^na.
10 MAR-TD.
" Evidently 'babu rabu,'
12 NIGIN— So Hagen.
13 Hagen,
u §A-GA,
15 Ka-dingir-ra-ki.
16 For the ideogram see nelitzsch, Lesestttcke, Sehrifttafel, n. 111. Col. 2.
1' Tin-tir-kl.
18 SB.
19 §BS. GAL. I read 'is-ruq' with Hagen as preferable to Schrader'a ' kirt(??)-ma.
20 AN-PA-I.

87
 15
the sea of the Westland unto
 16
du-um-mu set up.
 17
 numerous warriors
 18
the gate of the city of Sindin
 19
 his troops,
 20
 (marched ?)
 21

Column II.
(His troops) he collected, against Cyrus, king of Angan, to conquer 1
him he went.
(Against) Astyages his troops rebelled and, being taken prisoner, 2
unto Cyrus they gave him,
Cyrus unto Ecbatana, the royal city, went, the silver, gold, treas- 3
ures, spoil 
of the land of Ecbatana they captured and unto the land of An- 4
san he brought. The treasures and spoil which 
The seventh year. The king in Tema ; the nobles and his army in 5
Akkad, (The king for Nisan)
unto Babylon came not, Nebo unto Babylon came not, Bel was 6
not brought forth; the New Year's festival (remained uncelebrated),
sacrifices in Esaggil and Ezida to the gods of Babylon and Bor- 7
sippa, as is (right),
they gave, the Urigal poured out libations and guarded the palace, 8
The eighth year.
The ninth year. Nabonidus the king iu Tema ; the son of the king, 10
the nobles and his army in Akkad. The king for Nisan unto
Babylon came not. Nebo unto Babylon came not, Bel was not brought 11
forth ; the New Year's festival remained uncelebrated,
sacrifices in Esaggil and Ezida to the gods of Babylon and Bor- 12
sippa, as is right, they gave.

13 ^'¦^''Nisanu iimu 5'^*°- Ummi garri ina Diir-ka-ra-gu ga kigad^i
n^rPurati^s e-la-nu Sip-par^
14 im-tu-ut. Mar garri u gabe-su 3 iimu gu-du-ru bikitu gitku-
na^s.at. Ina a^^Simani ina mSt^vkkadi'^i
15 bi-ki-tu ina eli ummi sarri gitkuna-at.^^ Ina i™^Nisani ™Ku-rag
gar ™8,tpar-gu gabe-su id-qi-e-ma
16 gap-la-an aiAr-ba-'-il n8.rDiq]at i-rab-ma ina arax^j,; ana™at 
17 garri-su i-duk bu-ga-a-su il-qi gu-lit sa ram-ni-gu ina libbi u-ge-li-
(ma?)
18 arki gu-lit-su u gar-ri ina libbi ib-gi.
19 Sattu lO^^'""- Sarru ina ^'Te-ma mar garri a™6'rabiiti u umma-ni-
gu ina ™ft'^Akkadi'^'- Sarru (ana Nisani ana Babili la illi-ku)
20 Nabii (ana) Babili la illi-ku, Bel la ittaga-a isinnu a-ki-tu ba-til
niqe (ina B-sag-gil u E-zi-da)
21 ilani ga Babili^'' u Bar-sip-'^' ki gal-mu iddi-na, Ina ^'¦^''Simani
umu 21':an 
22 ga matE-lam-mi-ya ina matAkkadi"^' , . . . amsiga-kin^^ ina Uruk 
23 Sattu lll«an- Sarru ina ^'Te-ma-a, mar garri amglj-abiiti u umman-
gu ina •"S.t^tkadi'^' (§arru ana Nisani ana Babili la illi-ku)
24 (Nabii ana) Babili^ garru ana^^ Bel la ittaga-a isinnu a-ki-tu ba-til
niq(e ina B-sag-gil u E-zi-da)
25 (ilani ga) Babili'' u (Bar-sip ki sal-mu) iddi-na 
About 19 lines wanting. Of reverse about 17 lines wanting.
Column III.
1  "^''Diqlat 

2  se Istar Uruk 
3  ilani ga mat tam-(tim) .
4 

 P'ni 
5 (Sattu 17''«°-)  Nabii igtu
Bar-sip'^i ana agi-e . , - ,
6  ab garru ana E-tur-kalam-ma eriib,^^
Ina 
7  tam-tim gapli^f'-tum ?-bal-ki-tum 
git 
8 (Nabu ana Babili illi-ku?) Bel ittaga-a isinnu^ a ki-tu ki gal-mu
ep-gu, Ina ^^^^ 
21 TIK.
22 ud-kib-ndn.
23 Sa.
24 MAT (KUR).
25 T0.
86 BAL.

89
The month Nisan, The fifth day. The mother of the king died in 13
Diirkarasu, which is on the bank of thc Euphrates above Sippar,
The son of the king and his army mourned three days, a lamenta- 14
tion took place. In Sivan, in Akkad
a lamentation for the mother of the king took place. In Nisan, 15
Cyrus, king of Parsu, collected his troops,
below Arbela the Tigris he crossed(?) In lyyar, to the land of  16
its king hc killed, its loot he took. His own governor(?) he 17
appointed [lit. made go up) there.
Afterward his governor also becaine king there(?). 18
The tenth year. The king in Tema ; the son of the king, the nobles 19
and his army in Akkad, The king (for Nisan unto Babylon came
not)Nebo unto Babylon came not, Bel was not brought forth ; the New 20
Year's festival remained unperformed, sacrifices (in Esaggil and
Ezida)unto the gods of Babylon and Borsippa, as is right, they gave. In 21
Sivan, the twenty-first day 
of the Elamite(?) in Akkad  the representative in Erech, . . 22
The eleventh year. The king in Tema; the son of the king, the 23
nobles and his army in Akkad. (The king for Nisan unto Babylon
came not)
(Nebo unto) Babylon (came not). Bel was not brought forth, the 24
New Year's festival remained uncelebrated, sacrifices (in Esaggil
and Ezida
to the gods of) Babylon and (Borsippa, as is right), they gave  25
(About 19 lines wanting. Of reverse, about 17 lines wanting.)
Column III.
 the Tigris  1

.Istar of Erech  2
,'. -gods of the land of the sea  3
 4

 pl-ni
(The seventeenth year)  Nebo from Borsippa 5
to go forth ....
 ah the king unto Eturkalamma entered in the_ 6
month ....
 of the lower sea, rebelled(?) 7

(Nebo came unto Babylon?) Bel was brought forth. The New 8
Year's festival they celebrated, as is right. In the month 
la

90
9' ilani ga Marad^^-da^ ii"Za-ma-ma u ilani ga Kigi^' Belit u ilani
10 ga Xar-sag-kalam-ma ana Babilii^ erubu-ni. Adi^" ket^s a™*Ululi
ilani ga™atAkkadiW
11 sa eli same u gapla^o game ana Babili'' erubii-ni ilani ga Bar-sip'''
KiitiiW
12 u Sip-pai-i*:* la erubii-ni. Ina araxDflzi ""Ku-ras gal-tum ina
Upg.siki ina mux-(xi)
13 nargal-sal-lat ana libbi umma-ni matAkkadi''* ki epu-gu nige mStAk-
kadiiii (ki epu-gu nise m^' Akkadi''" ^^
14 BAL ki uqtaggir33 nise iduk.3* Umu 14 Sippar''' ba-la gal-tum
ga-bit.
15 Nabii-na'id ixliq.^s Umu 16 "Ug-ba-ru amSipaxat matQu-ti-um
u gabe ™Ku-rag ba-la gal-tum
16 ana Babili'' erub. Arki Nabii-na'id ki irtaka^^-sa ina Babili'' ga-bit.
Adi28 ket29 arxi masaktuk-ku™e
17 sa ™atQ-u_ti_uin babani ga E-sag-gil isxuriis' be-la sa mim-ma ina
E-sag-gil u ekurrati
18 ulig-sa-kin u si-ma-nu ul etcti^Mq. Araxgamna iimu 3''*"- ™Ku-
rag ana Babili'' erub.'^^
19 Xa-ri-ni-e ina pani-gu irpudii^^-ni. §u-lum anaali sa-kin. ™Ku-ras
gu-lum ana Babili'^''
20 gab-bi-gu qi-bi. ™Gu-ba-ru amSipaxati-gu ameipaxata ina Babili'
ip-te-qid
21 u ultu araxKisilimi adi a^'a^Addari ilani ga "^tAkkadi''' sa ™Na-
bil-na'id^c ana Babili'' u-ge-ri-du-(ma)
22 a-na ma-xa-ze-su-nu iturii*''-ni. Araxsamnamiigu iimi ll''an ™Ug-
ba-ru ina eli. . . .
23  mar« sarri^i ugma*2-at. Ultu'^' ga araxAddari adi iimi 3 ga
araxNig^tii bi-ki-tum ina •"^'Akkadi''' 
24 nige gab-bi qaqqad-su-nu ilbiniini.*^ Umu 4''an mKam-bu-zi-ya
maru ga ™Ku-ras
21 AMAR-da.
28 EN.
20 BE.
so KI, TA.
31 UT.
32 Repetition clearly due to a scribal error. See also Col. II. 1. 24. ' sarru ana.'
33 SAR. SAR. For value 'qacaru,' see Bciinnow, 4317. Thia reading was suggested
flrst by Hagen.
31 GAZ.
35 XA-A.
36 LAL.
3! NIGIN.
36 LD.
30 BAG.
40 GURME.
" Hagen.
« BE. (Hagen,)
13 GABp',

91
the gods of Maradda, the god Zamama and the gods of Kig, Beltis 9
and the gods
of Harsagkalamma entered into Babylon. Until the end of Eliil, 10
the gods of Akkad,
those who are above as well as those below tho firmament, entered 11
into Babylon. The gods of Borsippa, Kiitii
and Sippar entered not. In the month Tammuz when Cyrus gave 12
battle in Opis (and ?) on the
Salsallat to the troops of Akkad, the people of Akkad he subdued, 13

whenever they collected he slew the people. On the 14th day Sip- 14
par was taken without battle.
Nabonidus fled. On the 16th day Gobryas the governor of Gutium 15
and the troops of Cyrus without battle
entered into Babylon, Afterward, Nabonidus although he had 16
shut himself up(??), was taken prisoner in Babylon, Until the end
of the month, shields(?)
of Gutium surrounded the gates of Esaggil, No weapons were in 17
Esaggil and in the other temples
and no standard had been brought in. On Marchegvan 3d, Cyrus 18
entered Babylon,
The Jiarine lay down before him. Peace was confirmed to the city. 19
Cyrus pronounced peace to
all Babylon, Gobryas, his governor, he appointed governor in 20
Babylon and
from Kiglev until Adar, the gods of Akkad, which Nabonidus had 21
brought down to Babylon,
unto their own cities he returned. On the night of the llth 22
Marchegvan, Gobryas against 
 the son of the king he killed. From the 27th Adar until Nisan 23
3d, mourning took place in Akkad 
All the people cast down their heads. On the fourth day, when 24
Cambyses, son of Cyrus went

92
25 a-na E-gA-PA-KALAM-MA-SUM-MU ki illiku amS'pit-xat"
Nabii sa pa 
26 (Id illi)-ku ina qati*^ dib-bu ug-bi-nim-ma Id qata Nabd 
27 (as-ma)*5-ri-e u ma5aki§pat45pl, ^ 
mar garri ana 
28  Nabii ana E-sag-gil is-xur '"niqe ina pan Bel u gu 
Column IV.
1

2
34
5 6
7

 en

 e-ki*8 mePi-

 X«P'- ik-ta-tur

(ig)-gak-kan arxu babu na-pi-il

 E-an-na ga Ubara*^'''

bit mu-um-mu ittagi

 zi

 ina Babili''

9  Babili''' is-kir-ma
" Hagen. Schrader has " E. PA. Nabii-??"
m Hagen.
46 Hagen reads : Sa Babil-ap',
« DAN(?)
« See Sb 353.

93
to E-§A-PA-KAL AM-MA-SUM-MU, the prefect of Nebo who , . . . 25

when he went, in his hand a message he brought, when the hands 26
of Nebo 
javelins and quivers  the son of the king unto  27
 Nebo turned to Esaggil, sacrifices before Bel and  28

Column IV.

.... the gate was destroyed,
... .unto E-anna from. .. .
from the Bit-mummu he went forth.

in Babylon.
 he shut up Babylon,

94

THE ANNALS OF NABONIDUS.
COMMENTARY,
Column I.
L. 6. 'kimatsunu;' 'kimtu '=family, from 'kamii ' to bind, is a synonym
of ' xammu ' and ' altu,' both meaning family, ' Xammu,' which occurs
in the famous name ' Xammurabi,' is a derivative from the stem xam-
amu ' = to bind or fix firmly. See E. J. Harper, Beitrage, ii, 412 ; ' lux-
mum ' construed with ' tereti ' = oracles. Cf . also V R, 43. 36d. and
II R. 57. 27 cd., cited by him, and compare further Haupt's Texts, p,
36, I, 882, where 'xammu' is explained by the same ideogram as
'egedu' =bind, surround, gather, (See also Zimmern, Busspsalmen,
81 and Delitzsch, Kossaaans, 72 rem. 2.) Another derivative of this
stem is ' xammamu ' =region, enclosed district, I R, Sargon Barrel-
Cylinder 1. 9, (Lyon's Sargon, 66, 9,). 'altu,' the second synonym of
'kimtu' is a rare word from the stem 7nK = to settle, and must be
carefully distinguished from ' altu ' = ' aggatu ' =wife. For this word
and the passages where it is found, see Jager, Beitrage, ii. 303,
For the ideogram ' im-ri-a ' = ' kimtu ' cf , Beiser, Beitrage ii, 137 :
I R, 70, c, II I. 2, In IV R, 10. 37, b„ however, we find ' im-ri-a '=
'rugumtu,' marsh. See Briinnow, List, 8396 fF,
L, 10, 'Ammananu,' Hommel thinks this is identical with the Baby-
lonian-Elamitic 'Amnanu ' (See Lehmann, Samaggumukin, p, 76, rem,
2), For 'Amnanu,' probably near the border of Elam, see 1, c, 40 and
76, Hagen — Beitrage ii, 235 — reasoning from Tig, Jun, rev, 76 and
Sennach. Kuj. 4, 12, believes that 'Ammananu ' of the Annals was a
part of Lebanon. It appears impossible to decide at present whether it
was an Elamitic or Palestinian mountain,
L, 11. 'gippatu' — some sort of tree or reed, for whose cultivation
water was needed, as it was planted by the side of canals — cf. Hebr.
nflVfllf and in this connection, Jensen, Zeitschr. fiir Assyriologie, iii.
317, 85 and Hagen, op, cit,, p. 236,
L, 19, I have followed Hagen's reading GAZA instead of Winckler's
'sigigge' = 'niqii,' Column II.
L, 2, 'Igtumegu' = Astyages. The Median empire, an outline of
whose history has been given above, fell into the hands of the Persians
in about the year 549 B. C. According to this account which probably
belongs to the sixth year of Nabonidus, the Median army rebelled
against Astyages their king and delivered him over to Cyrus, king of
the tributary state of Ansan (See Cyr, Cyl, note to 1. 21,), The latter

95
then marched upon and plundered Ecbatana the Median capital, soon
getting possession of the entire empire,
Astyages was thc son of the great Cyaxares, cnui(ucror of Nineveh,
About the ultimate fate of Astyages there are various accounts. Ac
cording to Herodotus 1, 130, Cyrus kept him prisoner, but did not mal
treat him. The only author, as far as I know, who asserted that the
Median king was killed by Cyrus, was Isocrates in his funeral oration on
Evagoras, king of Salamis (See Oration, 9. 38. where it is asserted that
Cyrus killed the father of his mother, which is probably an allusion to
Astyages, with regard to whose relationship to Cyrus, we may suppose
that Isocrates followed Herodotus,) According to Ctesias, Cyrus
treated Astyages like a father and sent him to a distant province.
Some years later, being summoned to court, Astyages was left behind
in a desert by the Persian servants of Cyrus who thus thought to do
their master a service (cf, Persica, i 5).
Astyages has survived in the tradition of the East under the name of
' LiOOVi or in Armenian 'Adjiahak,' Moses of Chorene, Hist. Armen.
edition, Whiston, p. 77, gives the form ' Dahak,' Lenormant explained
the name as meaning 'biting serpent,' a translation rightly rejected
by Oppert, Weisbach, Acham, Inschr, zweiter Art. p, 20, remarks
that such an epithet would be more befitting a chief of the Sioux
Indians than a great king! Weisbach derives the name from the
Aryan stem ' argti ' — lance and ' yuga,' a formation from the well
known stem 'yuj,' several of whose numerous meanings may be under
stood in this connection ; — thus, ' be connected with, set in motion,'
etc. The name may mean 'he who wields a lance '(?), Winckler, with
out sufiicient reason, regarded Astyages as neither a Mede nor a
descendant of Cyaxares, but as a Scyth who with his barbarous hordes
had gotten possession of Media (Untersuchungen, pp, 124 ff,). For
the fall of the Median power under Astyages, cf, among others Biidin
ger, Ausgang des Medischen Belches, 1880,
L. 3. 'Agamtanu ' — see Keilinschr, und das alte Testament, 378. 524.
598. The 'g' was evidently pronounced like Arabic ghain,' as seen
from KnianX • (See Haupt, Assyr. E Vowel, p, 12, note,)
¦L. 5. 'Tema'. Evidently not a quarter of Babylon, (Hommel,
Gesch, 779 ; Pinches, Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archse
ology, vii. 152) but a place at some distance from the capital. The
king would hardly have stopped so long in a quarter of the city without
attending the yearly feast of Marduk. Tiele's conjecture (Gesch. 470.
n. 1) that Tema was probably not in Akkad, because it is especially
stated that the king was in Tema and the son of the king in Akkad,
seems improbable, because Akkad was the general name for all Baby
lonia ( See Lehmann, Samaggumukin, 71 f.) It is not possible at present
to determine the exact situation of Tema,
L, 6, ' isinnu akitu,' See also Pinches' Texts, 15. No, 4, 7, The
New Year's festival or 'zagmuku,' (='res gatti,' HJtJ'n tJ'NI)- See

96
East India House Inscription, VII. 23 ' ina isinim zagmuku'; ' isinnu,'
pi, ' isinate ' (see I R, 66, 3, 7,)= festival, probably from a stem v/|DN •
Cf, 'Assinnu ' a sort of priest, II R, 32, 22. ef, = ideogram UR, SAL.
(cf. also IV R. 31. 12.) UR, SAL, is also explained II R. 36. 49 e, by
sibkii ga pi' = 'weeping or lamenting(?) with the mouth,' May not
the duties of the 'Assinnu' have been connected with lamentation,
perhaps at funeral rites(?).
The form 'isittu,' S**- 263, must, as Zimmern remarked, (Buss
psalmen, 31, n. 1,) stand for 'isintu' a feminine formation from the
same stem as ' isinnu,' For ' isinnu ' cf, further ASKT. 80. 18 ; V. 31,
50 ; Nimrod Epic. 75, 6, ; Sennach. Smith. 119 ; Asb, Smith, 119. 17, ;
126, 77.
' akitu' — perhaps as Hagen points out, I. c. 238, some sort of sacrifice.
(See Bast India House Inscr. IV. 7 ; ' Bit niqe akiti girti.') It is pos
sible, as Hagen suggests, that ' akiti girti ' in this passage is in apposi
tion to and denotes a peculiar kind of ' niqe.'
For ' akitu ' see I R, 67, c, 135, and Pinches' Texts 17, 7,
L, 8, 'Urigallu is-ruq,' According to S«- lb, 10 ff,, SES, GAL, =
'urigallura' = ' massu biti,' i, e, the 'massii' of the house or temple, a
priestly office of very high rank. We should compare here ASKT, 76,
18, where the god Ea is called the exalted ' massii,' and Pinches' Texts,
17, 1, 15 ff, where two brothers of the king are mentioned as being
endowed with the office of SES, GAL ; '§amag-gum-ukin axi-ya talime
ana sarriit Kardunyag ugadgila panuggu, 'Asur-mukin-paleya axiya
tardinni ana SE§. GAL-ut ugdallip(?) ina pan  Asur-etil-game-u-
erciti-bala(t)su axiya gixra ana SES, GAL-ut pan Sin agib xarrani
ug-dallip(?),' I prefer to adopt here the reading ' tardinnu ' in place of the usual
' kuddinnu,' regarding it as a word descriptive of close relationship,
probably meaning elder brother, and as a derivative of the stem ' radii '=
' to copulate,' Compare ' radii ' and ' ridii ' synonyms of ' maru ' child,
II R, 30. No, 3. 1. 30 ff, ' Tardinnu ' must be considered a similar
formation to ' terdinnu ' II R, 30, No, 3, 46, The exact force of the
three words ' talimu,' ' tardinnu,' and ' gixru ' in the inscription of
Agurbanipal just cited is by no means clear, Lehmann, Samaggumu
kin, L^, 12, translates ' tardinnu ' which he reads ' kuddinnu,' by
' unrechtmassig ' and p, 30 by ' uhebenbiirtig.' Tiele in his review
of Lehmann, Ztschr, fiir Assyriologie, vii, p, 76 prefers to regard the
three words as indicative of grades of rank(?).
The real meaning of ' urigallum ' is probably elder brother. See IV
R, 58, 33, where the ideogram SES. GAL occurs in parallel with ' NIN.
GAL-ti' = 'axati rabiti' = elder sister, and II R. 29. 63, bff., where we
find §E§, GAL, = 'urigallum' compared with 'tardinnu' and 'dub-
bussu,' For the phonetic reading 'u-ri-gal-lum,' see S"''- 1, 13, where
we find it descriptive of the ideogram MAS. MAS.
L. 10. Winckler has omitted ' garru ' before ' ana Nisani.'

97
L, 13, 'Durkaragu '—also to be found II R, 52, No, 2, 651, (Hagen,)
L, 15. 'Parsu '—see Behistun 1. 14 41 ; 2. 47. In the inscriptions of
the second sort we find the form ' Parsin ' (See Weisbach— Achiime-
niden Inschriften zweiter Art. 106.). ' Parsu ' in the Annals appears to
have been used synonymously with 'Ansan.' Thus, Cyrus seems to
have been called indifferently by the Babylonians either ' King of An
gan ' or of ' Parsu,' Compare Annals c, II, I, 1 and I, 15 and see also in
this connection, Amiaud, Melanges Renier 246, 265),
Whether the name ' Parsua ' (Parsuag) which in early days seems to
have been applied either to Northern Media or to some part of that
territory, (see Tiele, Gesch. 27, 195, 241, 193, 203, and Hommel, Gesch,
719, 739, 740, 744) can be identified with thc later 'Parsu' = Persia,
must remain a matter of doubt, Tiele (Gesch, 304) suggested that the
name ' Parsua ' may have been applied to Persia as early as the time of
Sennacherib, It does not seem impossible that the old 'Parsua ' may
have been the home of Persian tribes, who, migrating to the South,
carried the name to the regions about Elam ; i, e, to the Elamitic Angan,
H, H, Howarth in the Academy, No, 1035, p. 231 (1892) argued with
some reason, however, that the Persian tribes could not have occupied
Parsua long, or we would find Aryan words in Assyrian, because the
Assyrians, as is well known, overran and occupied the cquntry in early
times. In Academy, No. 1041, p. 373, he mentions as additional evidence
that the geographical and personal names of ' Parsua ' are not Aryan,
It is practically impossible at present to determine the original habitat
of the Persians, It is not unlikely, however, as Amiaud has suggested,
(Melanges Renier, 246) that the names 'Angan ' and ' Parsu ' after the
Persian invasian of the former territory became synonymous in much
the same manner as Gaul and France, Britain and England.
^J. 16. 'Diqlat irab.' According to the latest collation by Hagen
(Beitr, ii, 240) the sign ' rab ' is clear. The meaning ' crossed ' is there
fore by no means certain although to be expected. The form may
signify ' approached.' The only other forms at all similar to this are
those cited by Hagen ; viz., Beitrage ii, 61, 'erabiini' and Winckler,
Keilschrifttexte, 33, 'irabbanni' ^= 'entrusted to me,'
Ithas been conjectured that this passage is a reference to the Lydian
campaign, the only great victory between the sixth and tenth years of
Nabonidus for which the Tigris would have to be crossed,* The
advancer of this theory evidently forgot that fully two months would
have been necessary for the Persians to go to the Halys, whereas
according to the cuneiform account, Cyrus collected his troops in
Nisan (March-April) and entered the enemy's country in lyar (May-
* Compare Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot, 125, who aupplies 'laparda,' = Sardia for the
name of the place. Unger, however, Kyaxares iind Astyages, p, 6, objects quite
rightly that the form ' Isparda ' is not the Babylonian form, which would have been
'Saparda.' 'Isparda' ia the form found in the Ach^menian Inacriptions of the
' second sort.' 13

98
June), The short space of time occupied on the march shows conclu
sively that the object of the attack cannot have been Lydia, but was
probably some country necessary as a basis of operations against that
kingdom. Because of the doubtful meaning of ' irab,' there is even no
authority for supposing that this place is on the west bank of the
Tigris, as did Evers, Emporkommen der persischen Macht, 9, n, 1, All
that we can say is that the land to which Cyrus went, must have been
below Arbela, not far from the Tigris, Certainly neither Meyer's
idea, that this is a reference to the battles in the Median provinces
west of the Euphrates, Gesch. p. 603, nor Winckler's conclusion that
the country was Singara or some independent state between the rivers,
is satisfactory (See Untersuchungen, 131),
L, 17, ' Sulit ga ramnigu,' His own governor; probably a shaphel
feminine formation of ' elii ' = to go up, ' Sulit' would mean ' one who
is set up or appointed,' with feminine ending as in " pixatu ' = prefect,
governor, Hagen translates in this passage 'garrison,' citing Assyr,
Worterhuch, 427, 11 ff, where Delitzsch demonstrates that 'giiM' can
mean 'bring soldiers into a fortress.' We may note here, that the
words ' gaMtu,' V R, 11, 11 f,, and ' guliitu,' Sennach. c. IV, 48, = lord
ship, usually understood as derivatives from ' gain " to decide (Zim
mern, Busspsalmen, p, 99), may be regarded equally well as abstract
formations from thc shaphel of ' eM."
L. 22. ' Elammiya ' = Elamite, I have adopted Hagen's translation
here as being preferable to the attempts of former translators who
understood the word as denoting ' Elam ' (see Sayce, Fresh Light ;
Floigl, Cyrus und Herodot, 58 ; Halevy, Melanges, 2. etc.). I know no
other example of a gentilic ending ' ya.'
This mutilated passage may indicate that there was an invasion of
the Persians from the side of Elam, possibly directed against Erech-
Unger, Kyax, und Astyages, 7, believed this passage, 11, 21-22, to refer
to the invasion of Lydia, The situation of Erech so far to the south
west, however, would preclude the possibility of an attack on Lydia
from this quarter,
L, 23-4, See Delitzsch's opinions as given by Hagen regarding the
restoration of these lines. It is of course impossible to conjecture
with any certainty to what events the lines missing between Cols, II,
and III, referred. Hagen suggested with some show of reason that the
Lydian campaign may have been here described. We havc seen that
the country alluded to in 1, 16 cannot have been Lydia, (See above
note to Col, II, 16,) It seems probable, therefore, there being no other
place in the Annals for the allusion, that, if there were any reference to
the Lydian war in this account, it would have been just before the
description of the capture of Babylon ; i, e, just before Col, III, I
cannot agree with Winckler's conclusion that, because the chronicle
gives no account of any hostilities in the seventh and eighth years of
Nabonidus' reign, the Lydian campaign must have taken place during

99
those years. If the Annals were completely preserved we should cer
tainly expect to find mention made of so important a campaign as the
Lydian. It seems permissible to suppose that the records of the
seventh and eighth years are silent, because no events of any impor
tance occurred at that time. We may be allowed therefore, pending
further discoveries, to place the Lydian campaign as late as from the
twelfth to the sixteenth year of Nabonidus and to conclude that the
account of it in the Annals is lost with the missing lines at the end of
Col. II, Column III.
L, 7, 'tamtum BAL-tum' = 'gaplitum.' Por this use of BAL cf,
II R, 30, 3, c, ' An-ta-bal-ki ' = ' elitum u gapiltum ; in II. 62. 63a. ki-
an-bal = ditto (sa-pil-tum ?) u e-li-tum.
L, 9, 'Sar Marad-da,' For 'Marad-da' see Delitzsch, Wo lag das
Paradies, 220 and for 'Kig' op, cit, p, 218, 'Zamama' was evidently
from this passage and the following, the chief deity of ' Kig,' The
reading is still uncertain. For the name compare II, 61, 52 f, 'bit za-
m^-mA ga Kig,' written, however, with the character 'ma,' 'mal,' 'ga,'
According to II R, 57, 70, this deity is equivalent to Adar (Ninib),
(See further Briinnow, List, No, 11761,) The only compound known to
me in which the name occurs, is the proper name, ' Zamamanadingumu '
king of Babylon and contemporary of 'Agurdan, the grandfather of
Tiglath-pileser I, (See Tiele, Geschichte, 104, 148,)
L, 10, ' Xarsagkalama ' was the centre of culture for the old ' garrut
kibrat erbitti,' Salmanassar IL and Tiglath-pileser III, offered sacri
fices there. (See Lehmann, 'Samaggumukin,' 95, 97, 98 and Delitzsch,
Paradies, 219).
'Ketum,' See II R, 35, 62. c, = ' ki-i-tum.' (Brunnow, List, No,
1513,) L, 11, ' ga eli game u sapla game,' It is perfectly possible to read
' IM ' here as in II R. 50, 23, where it is explained by ' ga-mu-u ' =
heaven, Hagen reads it as 'garu' = wind, and translates the passage ;
'  Akkad of the part above as well as that below the ' Windrioh-
tung(?),' referring the relative 'sa' to 'Akkadi.' (See Beitrage, ii, p.
243,) It seems to me, however, possible to understand ' ga ' as refer
ring to 'ilani,' Hagen's objection to the translation, 'above and below
the atmosphere,' applied to images of the deities, does not really hold
good. Why may the reference not be to the images of the higher and
lower gods ; i, e, of those ahove and those helow the vault of the
heaven ? (For the Babylonian heaven, see Jensen, Kosmologie, pp,
4-16,) L, 12, ' Upe'':' = ' Opis.' So Pinches— see literature cited by Hagen,
Beitrage, ii, 243/244 and note 1, Hommel, Gesch, 785 read 'Kig;'
others ' Rutu,' a plaee in S. Babylonia. So Halevy, Melanges, 3;
Sayce, Fresh Light, 171, and formerly Pinches, Transactions, vii, 174
n, 1. (See also Budinger, op. cit. 12 ; Evers, op. cit. 13, n. 1.)

100
' Salsallat,' The situation of this canal(?) is doubtful. It seems
probable according to Hagen that the first conflict took place at Opis,
after which the Babylonians under Belgarugur retired to the ' Salsallat,'
where they were defeated,
L, 14, With regard to the reading of 'BAL,' I fully agree with
Hagen, op, cit,, 244,
L. 15. Gutium, according to Delitzsch, Paradies, 233, was the upper
region of the Adhem and Diyala. Compare in this connection the
tablet cited by Hagen, 81-7-27-22 which plainly places Gutium between
Akkad and Elam. The province may have included the sources of the
Adhem. The Guti were nomads on the Assyro-Babylonian border in
Agurbanipal's time. (See Tiele, Gesch, 378.) 'Agumkakrime ' refers
in V R, 33, c, 1, 38. to ' Alman gar mat Gu-ti-i nige saklati,' for whom
see Delitzsch, Paradies, 205. (Keilinschr, Bibl,, iii, 1, 137,)
L, 16, ' tukku ' = shield is possibly from V' takii ' = to lift up, syno
nym of 'nagii,' (See Delitzsch, Beitrage, i, 198,) It seems to be a
form like ' surru ' = beginning, from |/' sarii,' The 'su' before the
word is, as Hagen points out, merely the determinative for skin or
leather, of which shields were made. The former reading ' sutukku '
was as incorrect as the reading ' sunadi ' in I R, Sennach, III, 80, for
' ^"nade,' where 'su ' is ' masku,' determinative, and 'nade ' is plural of
¦ nadu' = IXJ = bottle, i, e, leather bottles.
L, 17, The troops of Gobryas had surrounded the temples, perhaps to
prevent any attempts on the part of the Babylonians who might organize
a rebellion to use the temples and shrines as storehouses for arms. The
exact sense of the line is not clear, Tiele, Geschichte, 472, n, 3,
believed that the remnant of the Babylonian party had taken refuge in
the great temple of Esaggil which was consequently besieged by troops
of Gutium, The idea of Pinches, Transactions, and Sayce, Fresh
Light, 171, that this passage records a rebellion of the troops of
Gutium against Cyrus is most improbable,
' be-la ' = weapons. See I R, 66, c. III, 13, 'bi-e-la-a,' The usual
plural form is of course 'bele,' cf, I R, 47, c, VI 48 ; IV R. 48, 1, a ; V
R, 5, 62,
" L. 18, 'sinianu' means standard; cf, Sennach. Prism. V 78-79;
' kima mixi gabsi ga gamiitum simani u munnigunu ugarda gir ergiti
sadilti ;' like a mighty storm of violent rain I made their standards
and ' munni ' (weapons ?) be strewn over the wide earth. In connection
with the passage, 11. 17-18 in the Annals, compare especially VR,6, 17,
'bele qarabi, simanii u mimma epeg taxazi,' 'Simanu' is a formation
from the stem ' asamu,' v' wasama,' like ' lidanu ' from 'aladu,' v' walada,'
L, 19, 'xarine ina panigu irpudiini' = the 'xarine' lay down before
him, i, e, in homage. The word "xarine' has not yet been found else
where. It may denote some sort of officials or nobles(?),
L, 23, From a new collation of the inscription Prof. Friedrich
Delitzsch has recently explained this passage as a record of the slaying

101
of the king's son. He says that at the beginning of 1. 23 he believes
that he saw plainly the sign TUR, before which, however, was a very
narrow sign like ' si ' or ' ga,' ' ga ' being the more probable reading, he
proposes, pending further discoveries, to read ' ina muxxi §A;' i, e,
'iggakin ;' i, e. he went against and killed the king's son. See Hagen,
op, cit, p, 247.
The former tendency was to refer this passage to the death of the
king or of his wife, Budinger, Die neuentdeckten Inschriften uber
Cyrus, 14., Evers, Das Emporkommen der persischen Macht unter Cy
rus, and Halevy, M6langes, 4, all considered this line to refer to the
death of Nabonidus, Meinhold, Diss, 30. n, 2, referred the allusion to
Belshazzar, reading ' the king died,' and considering him king of the
city. Winckler, Untersuchungen, p, 155 gives traces of thc sign 'DAM
= aggatu = wife (also Pinches) which would give the reading ' the wife
of thc king died.'
For discussion regarding the death of Belshazzar, see above.
L. 24. 'qaqqadsunu ilbiniini,' 'cast down their heads in deep grief
— cf. the familiar 'labanu appi' — casting down of the face in worship,
ASKT,, 115, 2 ; 80, 14 ; V R. 10, 31 ; IV R. 26, 65, b ; also I R, Anp.
II. 134, 'ina labana' = 'with prayer.'
Column IV. '
L, 6, ' bit mummu ' — most probably the college of sages, priests of
Ea, attached to the court and dedicated to Ea as god of supreme wis
dom ; cf, V, 65, 32, where Nabonidus speaks of having collected the
'enqiiti agib bit mummu ' and IV 23, n, 1, c. IV. 25 ; ' enuma aipa ana bit
mummu tuseribu.' In the inscription of Merodach-Baladan IL, pub
lished by Peiser and Winckler, Keilinschr. Bibliothek, iii, 1, p. 186,
I, 5, b, Ea himself is called the ' mummu ban kala ' = source of wisdom,
creating all things, ' Mummu ' is undoubtedly the ' Muv/iig ' of Damas-
cius, ('De primis principiis,' Cap, 125). It is probably a reduplication
of 'mu' = water i. e, mu + niu (Haupt), In ASKT. Syl, 513, we find
'mummu' and 'giqitum' explained by the same ideogram, Ba being
the god of the deep and of wisdom it would be peculiarly appropriate
that his sanctuary be called ' the house of the waters.' The term ' mum
mu,' then, by a natural development of ideas, came to mean 'wisdom'
or 'art,' I see no reason, therefore, with Jensen, Kosm, 322, to dis
tinguish two words 'mummu ;' the one being the same stem as in 'um-
manu' = artisan(?); i, e, 'tf^ii ¦ In V 28, 63. gh, we find 'mummu' =
' bi-el-tum,' a word which may be a derivative from the stem v^^lD =
be moist and then plenteous ; cf, biilu = cattle, I R. 27, 62, b,; Tiglath,
c, VI, 82, etc. The Hebr, '?13 means offspring, ' proventus,' and
Assyrian ' biiltu ' = sexual power, (See ASKT. 81. 10„ IV R, 2. 17,
18, c, ' gallu ga bultu la igii,' the demons who have no sexual power ;
also I R, Senn. VI. 1 ; East India House Inscr, c. IX, 33, and Deluge, I,
233— gubat biiltigu ' = the garment of his private parts.)

APPENDIX II.

TRANSLATION OF THE FIFTH CHAPTER OF
DANIEL.*
<'>Belshazzar'", the king, gave a great feast''^ to a thousand of his
lords and in the presence of the thousand drank wine. ®Belshazzar
commanded, being under the influence of the wine", to bring the
vessels' of gold and silver which Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken
from thc temple which was in Jerusalem, in order that the king and
his wives" and his concubines might drink out of themi. ®Then they
brought the vessels of gold which they had taken away from the temple
of the house of God, which is in Jerusalem, and the king and his lords,
his wives' and his concubines drank out of them^. '''^'They drank wine
and praised the gods of gold and silver, brass, iron, wood, and stone.
®At that same moment came forth"' fingers of a man's hand and
wrote opposfte**" the chandelier on thc plaster"'^ of the wall''' of the
king's palace ; and the king saw the hand"' which wrote. '^'Thon the
king changed color"' and his thoughts terrified hini and the joints of
his hips were loosened' and his knees knocked one against the other^.
''"The king called with a loud voice to summon the magicians, the
Chaldaeans' and the horoscopists. The king spoke and said to the
wise men of Babylon that any man who could read this writing and
show its interpretation"' should wear^ scarlets'"' and a chain* of gold upon
his neck and should rule as third"' in rank in the kingdom^, '^j^pj^gj,
all the wise men came in, but could not read the writing nor show its
interpretation to the king. '^'Then the king Belshazzar was greatly
disturbed and his color changed and his lords were confounded".
<""But the queeni entered the banquet hall by reason of the exclama-
tions^ of the king and his lords and the queen spoke and said : 0
King, live forever^; let not thy thoughts terrify thee nor thy color be
changed. ""There is">a man in thy kingdom in whom is the spirit of
the holy gods and in the days of thy father enlightenment and under
standing and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him,
and the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father appointed him chief of the
hierogrammatists"*', the magicians, the Chaldaeans, and the horoscopists
—aye even the king thy father^. <i2)Because an extraordinary power
and knowledge and understanding to interpret"' dreams and to show
hidden matters and to solve riddles were found in Daniel whom the
*The numerical references refer to the critical notea and the letters to the
appended linguistic remarks.

103
king called Belteshazzar'"'; so let Daniel be summoned, in order that
he may show the interpretation.
'13'Then Daniel was brought in before the king (and) the king spoke
and said : So thou art Daniel' of the sons of the exiles of Judah,
whoni^ the king my father brought from Judnca. <i*'I have heard con
cerning thee that the spirit of the gods is in thee and that enlighten
ment and understanding and extraordinary skill are found in thee.
('"'And now the wise men (and)' the magicians have been brought in
before me, in order that they should read this writing and make known
its interpretation to me, but they are not able to show the interpreta
tion of the thing. '""But I have heard concerning thee that thou art
able to make interpretations and solve riddles. So if thou canst read
the writing and make known to me its interpretation, thou shalt wear
scarlet and a chain of gold upon thy neck and shalt rule as the third in
rank in the kingdom.
""Then Daniel answered and said before the king : Let thy gifts be"'
to thyself and give thy presents to another ; yet I will read the writing
for the king and will make known the interpretation to him'^. "^q
King', the Most High God gave a kingdom and greatness and glory and
might unto Nebuchadnezzar thy father^. "^And on account of the
greatness which He gave him, all peoples, nations and languages were
trembling" and fearing'' before him. Whomsoever he would" he killed
and whomsoever he would he kept alive ; and whomsoever he would he
exalted and whomsoevef he would he brought low. '^O'But when his
heart was high and his spirit was haughty with pride, he was hurled
from the throne of his kingdom and they took his glory from him,
'^"and he was cast out"' from among the children of men and his reason
was made like'"' to the beasts and his dwelling was with the herds'. They
fed him grass like oxen and his body was moist' with the dew of the heav
ens, until he discovered that the Most High God is ruler over the king
dom of men, and that whomsoever He will He appoints over it^. '^^jg^t
thou Belshazzar his son hast not humbled thine heart although thou
knewest all this. <23)]3|j<; ^^q^ jjagt exalted thyself against the Lord of
the heavens and they have brought the vessels of His house before
thee ; and thou and thy lords, thy wives and concubines were drinking
wine from them, and thou hast praised the gods of silver and gold, of
brass, iron, wood, and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor notice';
but the God in whose hand are thy life and all thy paths^. Him thou
hast not honored. ''¦^'''Then' the hand was sent forth from Him and
this writing was engraved.
®5'And this is the writing which was written: There have been
counted a mina, a shekel and two half-minas.'" '^^'This is the inter
pretation of the thing : Mina— God has counted thy kingdom and fin
ished it. <2"Shekel— thou hast been weighed in the balances and found
wanting."^ ss'Half-mina— thy kingdom has been divided and given to
the Medes and Persians.'

104
'2^'Then Belshazzar gave orders to clothe' Daniel in scarlet and a
chain of gold about his neck and that they should proclaim publicly
concerning him that he be the third ruler in the kingdom. '2<"In that
same night was Belshazzar king of the Chaldaeans slain <s"and Darius
the Median received the kingdom, being sixty-two years old.
COMMENTARY ON DANIEL V.
CRITICAL HOTES.
Verse 1. Note 1. — Belshazzar, as stated before, is identical with
Belsarugur, the son of Nabonidus the last king of Babylon.
Note 2.— At such a feast the king would probably sit facing his lords
at a separate table ; cf. I. Sam. 20, 25 where the king sat during his
meal on a special seat by the wall, and in this connection, see also fig.
33 in Kaulen's Assyrien und Babylonien, p. 54, representing an Assyr
ian king taking his meal surrounded by his servants and protected by
the gods. According to Athenseus, Deipnosophistae, Bk. IV. 26 on
the authority of Heraclides of Cuma in the second part of his Paras-
keuastika, this was also the custom of the Persian kings at festivals.
(Cf. V. Lengerke, Daniel, p. 243.) Posidonius (100 B. C.)— De Parth. I.
V. in Athen, 4, 38, quoted Pusey, 383 n, 2 — gives the same account of the
Parthians, For ancient customs regarding the royal table see further
Jahn, Biblical Archseology, transi, by Upham (1849), i 227, 'In the
presence of = before, facing them, 6 has ' Karevavn.' It is not neces
sary to translate by 'propinare ' with Bertholdt, Dan. 364, Havernick,
Dan, 174, etc.
Verse 2, Note 1, — The author evidently regarded this as a ter
rible profanation (see v, 23), Havernick's strange idea (J)an,, 175 ff.)
that Belshazzar wished to honor Jehovah by using the sacred vessels,
finds no confirmation in the text. That the vessels were not sent for
until the king was well in his cups, seems to show that the author
wished to represent the command as a drunken whim. These vessels
were brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar at the time of the
first capture of Jerusalem (597 B, C,) in the reign of Jeconiah (II.
Kings 24, 13), and were restored by Cyrus in the first year of his reign
at the time of the return of the exiles, (Ezra 1. 7ff.)
Verse 3. Note 1, — The wife of the king who held the rank of queen
was among the Assyrians and Babylonians usually she who bore the
first son, (Delitzsch-Miirdter, Geschichte Babyloniens und Assyriensi
p, 118,) As it is well known that the greatest freedom of life pre
vailed at Babylon, especially with regard to the relations between the
sexes, there is nothing incongruous in the statement that women were
present at feasts. According to Curtius 5. 5, they were admitted to
drinking bouts. He says with respect to the shocking immorality of
the women at those feasts ; ' Feminarum convivia ineuntium in princi
pio modestus est habitus : dein summa quaeque amicula exuunt, paula-
timque pudorem profanant ; ad ultimum (honos auribus sit) ima cor-

105
porum velamento projiciunt : nec meretricum hoc dedecus est sed matro-
narum virginumque apud quas comites habetur vulgati corporis vilitas,'
Regarding the Persian customs in this matter, accounts vary. Ac
cording to Josephus it does not seem to have been proper for women to
be seen by strangers, (See Antiquities, xi, 6, 1, referring to Esther i,
10-12, the refusal of Vashti to obey the king's command to present
herself before him and his lords,) On the other hand, if the record of
Esther can be trusted thus far, the queen consort seems to have been
able to invite men high in rank to dine with her and the king (Esther
V,), In Herodotus, too (5, 18), it is stated that not only the concubines,
but also the young wives were accustomed to be present at Persian
feasts, Plutarch, however, asserts (Sympos, I, 1.) that concubines
were allowed at feasts but not wives, (See Pusey, Daniel, 382, n, 2,)
This statement was applied to the Parthians by Macrobius, Saturnalia,
Lib, 7, 1,, cited by Havernick, Dan. 180, (Compare Justin, 41, 3),
It is worthy of notice that the Septuagint makes no mention of the
presence of women in this passage of Daniel, Havernick, Dan, 180,
thought that the translator deliberately omitted it, as being repugnant
to his ideas of propriety.
Note 2, — Verse 3 is a good example of the repetition of the narrative
style. One codex omits it altogether,— see Bertholdt, Daniel, 368, n, 4,
Verse 5, Note 1,— Opposite the light where the writing could be
most easily seen.
There is a double Greek translation of vv. 1, 4 and 5 (for the variants
see Pusey, Daniel, 502). In this verse the words written on the wall
are transferred from verse 25 and the following interpretation is given :
' mane '—it is numbered ; ' phares '—it is taken away and, ' thekel '—
it is weighed, (See note to v, 25,)
Note 2,— A plain stucco work or simple painted plaster. In the ruins
of the palace at Nimroud a thin coating of painted plaster was discov
ered by Layard, the colors of which when first found were still fresh
and brilliant. (Nineveh 2. 203 ; see also Kaulen, Assyrien und Baby
lonien, p. 52 ; 109 ; 262,) The interior of the later Babylonian houses
was frequently painted, on the lower half of the wall more in figures,
but above ornamentally, (See Reber, Zeitschr, fur Assyriologie, i, 303),
That plaster mixed with ashes was used for mortar is evident from the
ruins of Ur (Mugheir), but it is probably a later development, (So
Reber, op, cit,, 145,) ^ , , . t t.
Plaster seems to have been known also in Palestine; ct, Josephus,
Antiquities viii, 5, 2,, describing Solomon's palace— 'but the other part
up to the roof was plastered over and, as it were, embroidered with
colours and pictures.' (In this connection cf. Jahn, op. cit ? 39.)
The feast of Belshazzar is represented by the author to be m a room
or hall, and not necessarily in a garden (v, Lengerke 247), orj^J^hon
(Havernick, 181), Hezel (cited Bertholdt, Daniel, 369) thought that it
was in the inner court of the palace (?),
14

106
Verse 6, Note 1,— Some of the interpreta;tions of the older commen
tators are very grotesque. For example, Grotius and Maldonatus, under
standing 'loins' as the private parts, translated 'urina defluebat,' It
may be interesting in this connection to compare the famous passage of
the prism inscription of Sennacherib ; Col, 6, 11, 19, 20, 21 ; Itarraku
libbugun sinatigun ugarrapu qirib narkabatigunu umaggiru nigiigun ;
' Their heart failed them ; with their urine they soiled their chariots.
They let their excrement fall.' See Schrader's Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek, ii. pp. 110, 111, Sanctius (quoted Havernick, Dan, 184)
thought that the passage in Daniel referred to an ' emissio seminis '
from fear ! For the expression of violent emotions of fear and suffer
ing ascribed to the loins see Ezekiel xxi, 12 : '^0 ^Sl) D7"73 DDJ
D'D nJD'?^ D'5")3-'73i mi-b^ nnrr^i 'onf.' Aiso'psaim
Ixix, 24V :nj;qr? rm nrj^im^ n^xna dD'J'I? ^^^^^^
Compare also Deut, xxxiii, 11 : i'Dp D'JHO KD^""'- ^- P"* them to
confusion; Isaiah xxi, 3: DHV n'^n'^n 'jho IN'pO J'D''?^
:niN"iQ ?ri'pnDj iibtifn 'n^m^hib'v n'V? 'J^fO^ *°^
Nahum ii, 2, referring to Nineveh : ''±)^ rjjpO'O rTplDOl hp13
' , , T : I- T ¦•. ¦¦ ; ¦- : T r : t T :-¦-:¦ ] ¦ T
Note 2, — Theodotion omits the translation of H"]? NH — ' one against
another,' but another version has tovto tovtv. See Field, Hexapla Cod-
.87, Verse 7, Note 1, — The author applies the term '' Chaldsean " some
times to the ruling people of Babylon, as in ch. iii. 8 ; v. 30 ; ix. 1, but
much oftener uses the name, as here, to denote a class of magicians, or
as a general term for all magicians.
It is a common error to consider the name Chaldsean as synonymous
with "Babylonian " or even "Old Babylonian." The Chaldaeans were
clearly in ancient times a people quite distinct from the inhabitants of
Babylonia. Their exact origin is extremely uncertain. It may be con
jectured with Winckler (Untersuchungen, 48), judging from the Semitic
character of their proper names, that they were a Semitic people, or
with Jensen (see Lehmann — Samaggumukin, p. 173), that they were
" Semitised Sumerians," i. e. a non-Semitic race which by contact with
Semitic influences had lost its original character. It seems probable
thatthey came flrst from the South at a very early date, along the coast
of the Persian Gulf. (For the old opinion of Gesenius, Heeren, Nie
buhr, etc., that the Kaldi came from Armenia and Kurdistan and con
quered Babylon shortly before the time of Nebuchadnezzar, see Tiele,
Geschichte, 65,), Having settled in the region about Ur (, . . *T)J<
?ntJ>3), they began a series of encroachments on the Babylonians
proper, which after many centuries ended in the Chaldsean supremacy
under Nabopolassar and his successors. (That Nabopolassar was a
Chaldsean, see Tiele, op, cit, 421; Winckler, op. cit. 60 ff,, and for the

107
history of the rise and development of the Chaldsean power, compare
Tiele 65 ; 207 ; 211 ; 286 ; 287 ; 362 ; 422 ; Winckler, op, cit,, pp. 47-64 ;
Delattre, " Les Chaldeens," Paris, 1877.)
The peculiar use of the name " Chaldsean " in this passage of Daniel,
to denote a class of magicians, is not only entirely foreign to the usage
of the Old Testament, but is peculiar to the Greek and Roman writers.
The term XaXdaioi is used, for example, by Herodotus to denote the
priestly class of Babylonia, from whom he got his historical informa
tion. This transfer of the name of the people to a special class is prob
ably to be explained in the following manner.
The sudden rise of the Babylonian Empire under the Chaldsean rule
of Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar, tended to produce so thorough
an amalgamation of the Chaldseans and Babylonians who had hitherto
been racially distinct, that, in the course of time, no perceptible differ
ences existed between the two peoples. The name '' Chaldaean," how
ever, lived on in the restricted sense already mentioned and for the
following reasons. The Kaldi had seized and held from most ancient
times the region of old Sumer, the centre of the non-Semitic culture.
(See Lehmann, op. cit., 173.) It seems extremely probable that they
were so strongly influenced by this superior civilization as to eventually
adopt it as their own, and, as they were the dominant race, the priestly
caste of that region became a Chaldsean institution. It is reasonable
to conjecture that Southern Babylonia, the home of the old culture,
supplied Babylon and other important cities with priests, who from
their descent were correctly called Chaldseans ; a name which in later
times, owing to the amalgamation of the Chaldseans and Babylonians
when the term had lost its national force, became a distinctive appella
tion of the priestly caste. (Compare in this connection Gutbrod,
Ztschr. fiir Assyriologie, vi, pp. 29 ff. Lehmann, op. cit, 173, and De
lattre, Chaldeens, pp, 29-34.) It may not be out of place to remark
here that Lagarde, thinking of DH''?)^ "IJlH Ml'^'J Isaiah xiv, 1 and
niiT ba ni'^Jn l^jn p isaiah ivi, 3, believed that the original
Levites or Jewish religious caste were those Egyptians who had gone
with the Israelites in their exodus from Egypt, That Egyptians went
out with Moses is probable from Exodus xii. 38 (Numbers xi. 4 ?), and
that Egyptian influence is traceable in Israel appears evident from the
examples cited by Lagarde. He believed that Moses was an Egyptian
and treated the account of his birth and exposure (Exodus i. 1-10) as a
fable similar to the Persian story that Alexander the Great was a son of
Darius. If Lagarde's theory be true, it explains why Moses found his
chief support in the Levites, his fellow countrymen. Lagarde goes on
to say that if the Levites were Egyptians, this explains why they were
able to govern the ¦ Irsaelitish nation ; i. e. by virtue of their higher
culture ; it shows why the Levites do not appear as a regular tribe,
and finally, it explains what the Egyptian sources relate about the
Hebrew exodus. (See Lagarde Symm, 2, 35 and in connection with

108
this theory cf. also Orientalia, H. 2. 1880, pp, 20-21 and Meyer,
Geschichte, I, 3776,)
The Chaldaean priestly caste was in all probability an hereditary
order, as Diodorus Siculus (II, 29) stated. According to the same
authority the priests were divided into three classes ; first, those who
celebrated sacrifices and performed purifications, secondly, those who
recited incantations to keep off evil spirits, and finally, those who
explained portents and dreams. (See Tiele, Geschichte, 546.) This
division is, as Tiele remarks, not contradicted by the inscriptions,
although it cannot be known with certainty what Assyrian names may
correspond to each of these classes. The scribes (Tupsarre), whose
tutelary deity was Nebo, were also a priestly class, from whom all the
literature of the times proceeded.
Note 2. — This translation seems perfectly clear, as already Bertholdt
saw (Daniel, 372-373,), He translated it: 'Der darf den Pufpur-
mantel und den goldenen Halsschmuck tragen,' There is no need to
supply 'have ' as does our Authorized Version,
Note 3, — The darker purple scarlet was a color held in high esteem
in antiquity. Compare Ezekiel xxvii. 7 ; Esther viii. 15, Herodotus
3, 20, and Xenophon, Cyropaedia 1, 3, 2 : 8, 5, 18, We may remember
the ' purpurati ' of the Persian kings who wore the KdvSvg. Oriental
sovereigns sent robes of this color to their vassals very much as the
popes sent the pallium in the middle ages (I Maccabees x. 20: xiv.
43. 44.). The Syriac chronicle of the Jacobite primate Gregory Bar
Hebraeus (1226-1286) relates how the Sultan Masud sent a purple robe
to a favorite who had done him a service (cf. Havernick, Dan. 187.)
Note 4. — A gold chain seems to have been worn by the higher class
Persians (Xenophon, Anab, 1, 8, 29), It was given as a sign of special
favor (cf, Herodotus, 3, 20 : Anabasis, 1, 27, and Jahn, op, cit, §130),
Note 5. — Third in rank, i. e. after Nabonidus and Belshazzar. Prob
ably not " one of the board of three," following chapter vi. 3, although
the translation is possible. Compare Kranichfeld, 9. 21 ; Hitzig, 81,
and lately Prof, Siegfried — Theologische Literaturzeitung, Jan, 10,
1891, where he takes exception to Dusterwald's translation ' third in
rank' (Review of Diisterwald, Die Weltreiche und das Gottesreich
nach den Weissagungen des Propheten Daniels, p, 63 — cf, also Driver
Introduction, 460), Jerome remarked ' vel tertius post me, vel unus a
tribus principibus quos alibi "rpiaTaTag" legimus,' LXX, 'Efowi'a rov
Tpirov fiipovg rijg jiaaiXeiag. Q. Tpirog ev ry (iaaiXela fiov dp^ei. (Cf. Jose
phus Antiquities, X. 11,3,) The Syriac has ' WthiU'tha neglat,' The
old idea was that Daniel was to be second Vizier, the first Vizier
being called the ' second ' after the king, (Cf , Esther x. 3.— Haver
nick, 185 ; Lengerke, 251 ; Bertholdt, 374). Kautzsch, Grammatik des
Biblisch-Aramaischen, p. 121, thought that it probably meant after
Nabonidus and the queen-mother.

109
Verse 10, Note 1, — The queen here must mean either the chief
wife or the mother of the king. It has been stated, however, in verses
2 and 3 that the wives of the king were already present and this fact
and the tone of command, which the author gives his "queen" in this
passage seems to show that he considered her not the wife, but the
mother of Belshazzar, That the queen-mother was meant was the
opinion of the majority of the older commentators. Compare Len
gerke, 252 ; Kranichfeld, 221 ; Havernick, 191 ; Hengstenberg, 47, 318,
etc. Note however that J, D, Michaelis, Daniel, p, 47 and Bertholdt
believed that the wife of the king was meant, Josephus, Antiquities
X, 11, 2, thought that it was the king's grandmother, etc, etc.
The queen-dowager was a powerful and important personage in
ancient times. (See I Kings xv. 13, II Chron, xv, 16,) As at present,
she ruled during the minority of the king and probably always had
an advisory voice in the management of the government. In modern
Turkey, as was the case in ancient Egypt, the queen-mother is a
weighty factor in political affairs. Among the Hebrews the queen-
dowager ranked after the king but before his wives, (See II Kings
xxiv, 15,)
In the Assyrian letters the king's greeting to the queen-mother is
of the most respectful character. Thus, in the letter translated by
Delitzsch, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, i, 187-188, we find 'abit garri ana
ummi garri gulmu agi, sulmu ana ummi sarri' — word of the king to the
queen-mother, my greeting, greeting to the queen-mother,'
When the king greets a subject he uses the words 'libbaka Iu tabka
— ' make glad thy heart,' but in the message to the queen-mother such
an address would be disrespectful. In spite of the honor accorded by
the king to his mother, it is interesting to notice that he never calls
her ' his Lady,' a fact to which Delitzsch has called attention (I, c) as,
indicating the evident supremacy of the king. From the tone of the
above mentioned letter the king was ready to carry out his mother's
behests, but her commands must first have the royal sanction. For
other references in the cuneiform inscriptions to the queen-dowager,
ef. Delitzsch, op. cit, 189, 192.
Note 2. — ?'^JO , Everything was in confusion, see verse 9, —
Vt2^^r\t^D — and the queen entered the hall to see what the trouble
was, Hitzig's translation (Daniel, p, 81) is correct; 'Aus Anlass der
Reden,' Compare the Greek version, Karevavn rav X&yuv tov ^aaiX'eag Kal
fieyiaTdvav avrov. (See Field, Hexapla), Theodotion omits the words
altogether. The Vulgate has, ' pro re quae acciderat regi et optimati-
bus ejus,' LXX, rdre 6 jiaaO,,evg eKaXeae rijv jSaaiXiaaav irepl rov aT/fieiov.
Note 3,— ??(! Vd^i^b a^bD is the regular salutation to the king,
as in chapter ii, 4 ; iii. 9 ; vi, 7, 22 ; Neh, ii, 3 ; I Kings i, 31, This
greeting was common also in Babylonian times ; see Delitzsch, Bei-

110
trage, i. 239 ; ' May Nebo and Merodach give long days and everlast
ing years unto the king of the lands my lord,' and also op. cit, 242,
In this connection Kaulen, As.syrien und Babylonien, 262, should be
read. Verse 11. Note 1. — Compare chapter ii. 48, It is not historically
probable that a Jewish prophet could have occupied such a position ;
first, because it is difficult to see how a strict Jew could conscientiously
hold this post, and secondly, because the magicians, probably being
an hereditary order (see n, 1, to v, 7,), would have resented an outsider
being set over them, (See Lenormant, Magie, Germ, ed,, chapter 6,
563), Note 2, — The repetition of the words 'thy father' at the end of the
verse is not necessarily an anacolouthon (Kautsch, Grammatik des
Biblisch-Aram., p, 163), but simply for emphasis. The great king did
it himself, ,The Vulgate has 'et rex N, pater tuus principem majorum
 pater inquam tuus,' (I find that the well known commentator,
Moses Stuart, sometime Theological Professor at Andover, was also of
this opinion ; see his 'Daniel,' Boston, 1850, on this verse,)
Verse 12, Note 1, — It does not seem to have been uncommon for
kings to change the names of their vassals. Compare II Kings, xxiv,
17, where the name of Mattaniah, the uncle of Jeconiah, is changed
by Nebuchadnezzar to Zedekiah, and II Kings xxiii. 34, where Necho,
king of Egypt, changed the name of Eliakim, brother of Jehoahaz, to
Jehoiakim. Jehoiakin, son of Jehoiakim, was also called Jeconiah
(I Chron, iii, 16) and Coniah (Jer, xxii, 24),
In Assyrian we may compare the case of Tiglath-pileser III, (745-
727 B, C), who reigned in Nineveh as Tiglath-pileser, (Tukultipale-
sarra) and in Babylon under the name Pulu ; i. e, the biblical Pui,
Shalmaneser the fourth (727-722 B, C), was called in Babylon Ulula'a
(Ilulaios), but in Assyrian Shalmaneser (Sulmanu-agarid),
Verse 13, Note 1, — Reflectively and not necessarily a question with
the interrogative H dropped to avoid hiatus, (So Kautzsch, op, cit,).
If the translation given above be adopted, there is certainly no contra
diction between this verse and the statement in chapter viii, 27, that
Daniel had already been in the service of Belshazzar, The king does
not say 'art thou Daniel?' as if he had never before heard the name,
(Lengerke, Daniel, 254), but remarks reflectively ' so thou art Daniel,'
The author certainly did not intend to represent in this address any
latent scorn at Daniel's Jewish origin, according to Calvin's strange
idea (followed by Havernick, Dan,, 194).
Note 2,— The relative pronoun refers to tho exiles and not to Daniel
directly as the Vulgate has it, Theodotion has correctly ijg f/yayev.
Verse 15, Note 1, — Simple asyndeton, cf, chapter i. 20 ; ii, 27, 45.
The Syriac version inserts the copula. Havernick, Dan. 194, and Ber
tholdt, Dan. 380, following Theodotion, supposed that the other classes
of magicians had been omitted. Theodotion has Soipol Mdyoi, Ta^apT/vol.

Ill
Verse 17, Note 1.— ^Daniel's refusal to accept the promised reward
is a sign of his religious exclusiveness. He is unwilling to take gifts
for using the power which God has given him. As to his final accept
ance of the offer, see note to v, 29,
Note 2, — The author gives the prophet time to examine and read the
writing during the speech of the king. Compare the LXX,: rdre
Aavi^X iarTf KarivavTi^rijg ypa^ijg Kal dvkyva Kal ovrag aireKpld-rf, etc.
Verse 18. Note 1, — ' 0 King ' — really ' Thou 0 King ' — a nomina
tive absolute as in chapter ii, 29,
Note 2. — Notice the contrast so strongly emphasized in these verses
18-20, between the great Nebuchadnezzar, and his insignificant suc
cessor. The point is, that if Nebuchadnezzar, the great king, suffered
such punishment for his pride from the Most High, how much more
then Belshazzar who has deliberately insulted the God of the Heavens
by the profane use of His sacred vessels.
Verse 21. Note 1- — The usual translation is 'wild asses.' Theodo
tion has rwv bvdypuv, translating the Arama3an word XT^p,
It seems preferable however to read here }<'"np — herds, a sugges
tion which was advanced by Prof, Haupt in his lectures and which is
mentioned by J- D, Michselis, Daniel, p, 51, as being the reading of an
old codex. The reading ' wild asses ' certainly makes no sense, as no
mortal man could take up his abode with these swiftest denizens of the
desert. Note 2. — For this legend regarding Nebuchadnezzar see Daniel iv.
25-34. Eusebius gives an account which bears some slight resem
blance to the Biblical story. Eusebius took his version of the tale
from the writings of Abydenus who mentioned Megasthenes as his
source. The latter was said to have had the account direct from the
Chaldeans. According to this version, Nebuchadnezzar prophesies
the downfall of Babylon and invokes on his enemies the very fate
which according to the book of Daniel he suffered himself. Compare
Eusebius, Evang, Praeparationis Liber 9, 41, 6, ed. Gaisford, and the
shorter account of the same in the Chronicorum Libri duo, Schbne I,
41, 42, cited Schrader, Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie, vii, 628
— 'Wahnsinn Nebuchadnezzar's,'
The theory of v. Lengerke, Dan, 151 and Hitzig, Dan, 57, seems
hardly tenable, that the account of Abydenus was a later fabrication,
taken partly from the prophecies in chapters ii,-iv, and partly from
the story of the lycanthropy, chapter iv. and chapter v. The diame
trically opposed character of the two accounts appears to preclude such
a supposition. In the Bible the curse falls on Nebuchadnezzar, while
in the secular version the king invokes it on his enemies. The con
nection between the two seems to lie in the fact that in both accounts
it is a tale about Nebuchadnezzar and a curse. If, as Schrader thought,
the two accounts are independent developments of one and the same
Babylonian legend, one version has been sadly distorted.

112
Some have sought to find confirmation for the biblical account in the
statement of Josephus, c. Ap, I, 20, that Nebuchadnezzar, efmeaav kg
appuariav, departed this life, their idea being, that unless the illness
had been something peculiarly remarkable, such as the biblical ' in-
sania zoanthropica,' it would not have been mentioned(?). It appears
impossible, however, with our present data to make any definite state
ment with regard to the historical accuracy of the biblical account of
Nebuchadnezzar's lycanthropy.
Verse 23, Note 1,— Compare Psalm cxxxv. 16, 17. 'They have
mouths but they speak not, eyes have they, but they see not. They
have ears but they hear not, neither is there any breath in their
mouths,' Also Psalm cxv. 4 ff.
Note 2,-Cf, Jeremiah x, 23, i3"n Dlii'7 K"? •
: — T T :
Verse 24, Note 1, —Theodotion did rovro and Vulgate ' idcirco ' are
not quite exact. It is 'then' not 'therefore,' (Cf, the more suitable
Syriac 'ha''den,'
Verse 25, — Note 1, — The mina alludes to Nebuchadnezzar, the shekel,
one sixtieth as valuable, points to the insigniflcant Belshazzar, while
the two half-minas refer to the double nation the Medes and Persians,
who are to destroy the power of Nebuchadnezzar, See above, chapter
first, for full discussion. Both the Greek and Latin versions in the
reproduction of the mysterious sentence in v, 25 read only the three
words 'mane,' 'thekel,' 'peres,' omitting one K.iO , and disregarding
both the conjunction 1 and the plural form of D"lO • This reading
may have been due to the influence of vs, 26, 27, 28 where only a single
KJP , and the singular form D"13 are mentioned with 7pf1 , as
strictly necessary to the interpretation. The Syriac version alone has
kept the received text, ' mane m''na th'qel w" pharsin,'
It is interesting to notice that one version of the LXX. in disagree
ment in this point with the version of Theodotion, has transferred the
words to V, 5 (q. v.) and changes their order, reading Mavi/, ^dpeg, eexeX.
It seems possible that the copyist of the original manuscript, from
which this translation was made, understood the real meaning of the
words as names of weights and without seeing their sjjecial application
to this passage, felt the necessity of a regularly decreasing enumera
tion. (Cf. in this connection Hebraica iii. No. 2, 36, note 1. (Ganneau)),
The LXX,, however, translates the three words by vpi-^uerai, e^ijprai,
eararai; 'numbered, taken away, weighed,'
Verse 28, Ancient history establishes the closest connection be
tween the Medes and Persians, (For the history of the Medes proper
see above, ch, ii.) The Greeks frequently applied the common term
Medes indifferently to either nation. Thus, the conflicts with Darius
and his successors were called either rd MifSmd or rd UepaiKa, while
the Persian Great King who ruled in Susa was addressed as the ' King
of the Medes.' (Cf. in connection with this, Rawlinson, Five Great
Monarchies, 2. 306, note 1, and Delattre, Medes, p, 5,) The Jews also

113
as is well known, regarded the Medes and Persians as two peoples
closely allied in law and customs. (Cf, Dan. vi. 8. 12. 15 ; viii, 20 ;
Esther i. 3— reference to the power of Persia and Media ; i. 14 — Princes
of Persia and Media (see also i, 18) ; x, 2— allusion to the book of the
chronicles of Media and Persia,) Previous to the discovery of the
cuneiform inscriptions, no one thought of doubting that the Medes as
well as the Persians belonged to the Aryan race, Herodotus, 7, 62,
remarked eimXiovro vdXai irpbg ntdvruv 'Apioi, and adds that when Medea of
Colchis came to them from Athens they changed their name to Medes,
It is also especially stated by Strabo xv, 2, 8, that both Medes and Per
sians used practically the same language, {ttal ydp wag Kal bfiSyXorroi
irapd fiiKpbv.) We may compare Rawlinson, 1, c, and also Strabo, xv, 11,
14, where the same assertion is ascribed to Nearkos, one of the officers of
Alexander, (See for further examples Weisbach, Achameniden In
schriften zweiter Art,, p, 21,)
Of late years, however, serious doubt has been cast on the Aryan
origin of the Medes by a number of scholars. Because in the trilingual
inscriptions of the Achaemenian kings, between the original Persian
and the Babylonian translation, another idiom appears, taking prece
dence over the Babylonian, certain scholars have believed'this to be
the language of Media, (So Oppert, Medes, p, 2, For a synopsis and
discussion of the various opinions on this subject see Delattre, op, cit,,
pp, 7ff, and p, 16,) This dialect of the second sort which was given
such a prominent place in the royal inscriptions must be, it was thought,
the idiom of the most important subject people of the Persian Empire,
the Babylonian being necessarily excluded. They decided accordingly
that it could only be the language of the Medes, Then, when an exam
ination brought to light that it was neither a Semitic nor an Aryan
idiom, they concluded that the Medes must have been a ''Turanian"
people. The principle on which such a -supposition rested is, that the
choice and disposition of language in the Achaemenian texts depended
on the relative importance of the peoples who made up the Persian
Empire, Although it would certainly be natural that the Persian kings
should in their trilingual documents give the idiom of the most impor
tant subject state the precedence, it still does not necessarily follow
that the second language in these inscriptions is that of Media, It
cannot of course be denied that the Medes enjoyed a special promi
nence in the empire. The place which they occupied in the inscrip
tions next to the Persians, and the fact that Medes are found in the
most important and responsible positions seem to point to such a con
clusion. (Cf. Herodotus, I. 156-157, Mazares, a Mede, quelled the
revolt of Sardis against Cyrus.— 1. 162-176, Harpagus, a Mede, carried
on the war ; cf . also Delattre, op. cit. p. 17, note 3). Part of their
powerful influence may have been due to the sacerdotal caste of the
Magi who were probably originally of Median origin, (So Delattre, p.
15

114
17 and p. 55). The very fact that the name Mede survived so long as
almost a synonym for Persian, certainly seems to show that the indi
viduality of the older people was extremely prominent throughout a
long period of the Persian history. Delattre's remark (op. cit. p. 18)
that these considerations are somewhat weakened by the statement of
the Annals 2. 1-4 that Cyrus plundered Ecbatana the Median capital,
like an enemy's city, has no special force. Because the Medes by
their superior civilization eventually exercised a strong influence on
the Persian people, it does not necesisarily follow that Cyrus, probably
the first Persian who came into close contact with Median culture,
established directly such friendly relations with the conquered people
as to abstain from plundering their capital, which had fallen to him
by right of war.
The influences of this Median culture, however, probably began to
be felt by the rougher Persians very shortly after their subjugation of
the Medes. Indeed it seems very evident that those friendly relations
between the two peoples which lasted with but few interruptions until
the Median name disappears from history were early founded.
While the strong influence of the Medes on the destinies of the Per
sian empire seems an established fact, the actual province or Media
was still very probably not the most important in the empire. Media
alone was not even a distinct province, but according to Herodotus, 3,
92, with two neighboring countries formed a single satrapy, paying
annual tribute.
It is contrary to the consensus of the ancient authors, as shown
above, to regard the Medes as anything but Aryans and closely allied
to the Persians, The statement of Strabo that both Medes and Per
sians used nearly the same language is confirmed by an examination of
the extant Median proper names, nearly all of which are of marked
Aryan character. We may compare Rawlinson, Herodotus 3. 444-455
(2d ed,) and the remarks of Eduard Meyer on the list of names of the
Median chiefs of Sargon's time given in Delitzsch, Kossaeans, p, 48. —
See also Literaturblatt fiir Orientalische Philologie (Ernst Kuhn), ii.
p. 51, From the nature of these names Meyer concludes quite rightly
that the rulers of Media at the end of the eighth cgntury B. C. were of
Aryan race. (See also Weisbach, op. cit., p. 19.)
With regard to the opinion that the Medes were made up of two ele
ments, "Aryan" and '"Turanian," I cannot do better than paraphrase
as follows the remarks of Weisbach (op. cit., pp. 21 ff.). According to
him if this theory be accepted, four possibilities present themselves
with regard to the language of the Medes.
A. All Medes spoke Aryan.
B. All Medes spoke an Aryan-Turanian mixed language.
C. All Medes spoke Turanian,
D, The Aryan Medes spoke Aryan, the "Turanians" spoke "Turan-

116
In answer to the first two suppositions, it may be stated, that the
language of the inscriptions cf the second sort is clearly neither Aryan
nor a mixed idiom, for example, liko modern Turkish, while the theory
that all Medes spoke "Turanian " is made untenable by tho statements,
referred to above, of the ancient authors who evidently regarded the
Median language as Aryan, The fact, too, that the Medes played such
an important part in Persian history, and were for such a long time so
closely and prominently connected with thc latter people, could hardly
have been the case had they been a totally distinct " Turanian " race.
In the latter instance, while considerable influence might have been exer
cised by an entirely alien people, such a complete association and iden
tification of interests as appear between the Medes and Persians could
hardly have been expected. The tie of a common language must have
been present to establish such a close union. As to the last idea, that
part of the Medes spoke Aryan and part "Turanian," even if this were
so, we would have no right to call the language of the "Turanian"
Medes, "Median," as this term was applied by custom to an Aryan
speech. To do so, would he start a confusion of names similar to that
suggested by Weisbach (p, 22), He asserts quite rightly, that to call a
" Turanian " language " Median " would be an error like calling the
language of the Germans resident in Bohemia, "Bohemian," a term
which is only applied to the idiom of the Czechs ; the true Bohemians,
In addition to this, however, there is no reason for supposing that the
language of the Achaemenian inscriptions of the second sort is that
of " Turanian " Medes at all.
If, as seems necessary, the Medes must be regarded as entirely
Aryans, to what people then are the non-Aryan non-Semitic Achae
menian inscriptions of the second sort to be ascribed? Here M,
Delattre seems to have found the key to the solution of the problem.
He advances the theory that, because according to Oppert and Sayce
the so-called "Median" of the Achaemenian inscriptions has affinity
with the Elamitic or Susian language, the people who used the doubt
ful idiom of the Persian documents were of Elamitic race. As a num
ber of Persian loan-words (see Lenormant Lettres Assyr,, t. 1, 18-19,
Delattre, op, cit, 43) are found in the Achaemenian dialect, he further
concluded that the people who spoke it must have been for some time
closely connected with Persian influences. The fulfillment of both
these conditions he finds in the natives of Angan, the hereditary state
of Cyrus ; i, e. he believes that the second Achaemenian language was
the Elamitic dialect of Angan, a theory which certainly deserves con
sideration, in that the language of Angan, as the vernacular of the
nucleus of the Persian empire, might have ranked directly after Persian
and taken the precedence of Babylonian, (For Angan and" its older
language see Weisbach, Die Anzanischen Inschriften, 1891),
As our knowledge of the language of Old Elam, however, does not
yet permit a translation of the cuneiform inscriptions in that tongue, it

116
seems impossible at present to make any definite statement concerning
Elamitic dialects. Then, too, the fact that the Achaemenian second lan
guage and the Elamitic are quite distinct though evidently allied lan
guages heightens the difficulty. In this connection, however, the great
difference in time between the Achaemenian inscriptions of the second
sort and the ancient documents of Susiana or Elam must notbe forgotten,
Sayce has found that the inscriptions of Old Elam are to be divided
into two groups — the one written in characters closely allied to the
Old Babylonian, while the second kind, the inscriptions of Mal- Amir
present a later form which is closely akin to that of the Achaemenian
records of the second sort. According to Weisbach (Acham. Inschr.
zweiter Art., p, 24), it is possible to demonstrate by a number of exam
ples that this form of the Achaemenian inscriptions, originally derived
from the Babylonian characters, is a later development from the form
found on the monuments of Mai-Amir, Weisbach refers in this con
nection to the list of characters given by Sayce in the Transactions of
the Sixth International Oriental Congress,
All that can be asserted at present seems to be that the three great
languages of the Persian empire were Persian, the idiom of the second
sort, and Babylonian, The second language may he a later form of the
old Elamitic or Susian, containing a number of Aryan loan-words ob
tained through long intercourse with Aryan races ; i, e, the Medes and
Persians, This is practically the opinion of Weisbach (op. cit, 24) who
calls the doubtful Achaemenian dialect "New Susian'' and remarks that
this idea agrees excellently with the order in which we find the three
idioms in the documents of the Persian Kings, — first, language of
Persia ; second, that of Susa or Elam, and third, that of Babylonia.
As soon as it appears evident that the Achaemenian inscriptions of the
second sort need not necessarily be in the language of the Medes, the
Aryan race of the latter, in view of the reasons mentioned above, should
not be called in question.
In the twenty-eighth verse of the fifth chapter of Daniel the parono
masia on ' Persian ' may perhaps indicate that the author was not un
aware of the dominant position of that people. Thc idea advanced by
V, Lengerke that he used a play of words on Persian, because he could
not pun on the word Mede, is untepable, because a derivative of the
stem mo , to measure, such as H^D would have answered the pur
pose admirably (see Kranichfeld, Daniel, 227), With regard to the
question of the precedence accorded by the biblical writer to the older
people, it is interesting to notice that the earlier references use the
term Medes for both nations. Thus, in Isaiah xiii, 17, in prophesying
the doom of Babylon it is stated, 'behold I will stir up thc Medes
against them,' etc, and in Jeremiah li, 11, referring to the same subject,
' the Lord hath raised up the spirit of the kings of the Medes,'
Throughout the entire book of Daniel, wherever both nations are men
tioned, the Medes have the first place, while in the book of Esther

117
Persia is put before Media, except in chapter x. 2, where an allusion is
made to the book of the chronicles of Media and Persia, — perhaps an
old record.
The explanation of the gradual decadence of the Median name seems
to be, that as the Medes in the course of time amalgamated and became
practically identical with their Persian kinsmen, the name Persian
came to be used in place of Mede, In fact the latter naine seems to
have completely disappeared under the Sassanidae (see Delattre, op,
cit. 31). It was perfectly natural that two closely allied peoples speak
ing practically the same language and probably intermixing, should
end by becoming one, and that the name of the dominant race should
prevail. Verse 29, Note 1. — It is not clear from the text of this verse
whether the author meant to convey that the promised honors were
really conferred on Daniel or not, nor is the question of sufficient im
portance to merit the discussion given to it by some commentators,
(Cf, Havernick, Dan, 201, v, Lengerke, 241, 265, etc.) It is possible
to translate, 'Belshazzar gave orders and they clothed Daniel, etc.,'
which would mean that the reward was conferred immediately, or, ' Bel
shazzar gave orders to clothe Daniel,' which does not necessarily imply
that the commands were carried out, but that the death of the king
may have prevented the fulfillment of the promise. In view of the
frequent co-ordination of sentences in cases where the subordinate
character of one clause is apparent, the latter translation seems prefer
able. (See Kautzsch, Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramaischen, i 102.)
The idea that the rewards were conferred directly was held by Jerome,
who remarked: 'non mirum si B, audiens tristia solverit praemium
quod pollicitus est, Aut enim longo post tempore credidit ventura quae
dixerit, aut, dum Dei prophetam honorat, sperat se veniam consecutu-
rum,' (Cf, also Zockler, Daniel, 119.)
ADDITIONAL LINGUISTIC NOTES TO DANIEL V.
Verse 1, a) Belshazzar = Babylonian, Bel-sar-ugur, 'Bel preserve
the King,' Compare among others, Schrader, Die Keilinschriften und
das Alte Testament,' ed, 2, p, 433, and Fried, Delitzsch, in Baer and
Delitzsch, Daniel, Ezra and Neh, praef,, p, x. Similar names are Mar-
duk-gar-ugur, Nergal-gar-ugur, Sin-gar-ugur, etc, (for the latter, see
Ztschr, fiir Assyriologie, ii, p, 101).
Previous to the discovery of the name in the cuneiform inscriptions,
most commentators identified it with Belteshazzar, an error which dates
from ancient times, as the Greek translators of the Old Testament evi
dently regarded the two names as the same, representing both by the
form BaXrdaap. ,
J, D Michaelis defended the reading IVSTN^a (found Daniel vii
1 and viii 1) Hitzig regarded this form as evidence that the JJ'K
was an abbreviation of the relative 'im.' Among the Jewish

118
authorities Sa'adia derived the name from jj''73 — to search and "IVX i
because the king had to search for the vessels in the "liflN !
For various obsolete opinions as to the derivation of the name see
Havernick, p, 172 ; v. Lengerke, p. 242 : Kranichfeld, p, 65, etc., etc.
The name Sheshbazzar, of the Persian Commissioner, or, according
to some, of Zerubbabel, found in Ezra i, 8, may be a formation like Bel-
gar-ugur, A number of variants of the name Sheshbazzar occur in the
Greek versions, i, e, in the translation of Ezra, J,aatjajiaaaap, 'LafiaaapTig,
lavafiaaaap, Sava^aaaapog ; in first Esdras ; "^avafiaaaap ^a/iavaaaap, and in
Josephus 'Ajiaaaap. The ending — aaaap, common to all, would seem to
indicate that it is a name ending in -ugur. (In the form SafSaaapT/g,
— the -IC is clearly the Greek termination), Sheshbazzar may be
regarded therefore, either as a corruption of §amag-sum-ugur, ' Samas
protect the name,' or, as Cheyne has suggested, for Samag-pal-ugur,
' Samas protect the son ' (see Academy, No, 1031, p, 138, commenting on
Van Hoonacker's idea that it is for Samag-bil-ugur, ' Samag protect the
Lord '—in Academy, No, 1030, p, 114).
I am inclined to favor Chej'ne's ingenious interpretation, as it would
not only be perfectly possible for the I of ' pal ' to disappear before the
following sibilant, but the name would be more in conformity with
Babylonian usage, than any of the other suggestions,
b) DVh 1DJ7 cf. nn^D ntJ'J^ Eccies. x. 19 ; Gen, xxi, 8.
c) 7313") : really a double plural ; i, e, with reduplication and the
ending -an. The word is common in the Targums, where it occurs in
the forms, NJDID'H NJDIDI'H and KJ3"l1"l • For examples, see
T T : : - T T : ; t t :
Levy, Chaldaeisches Worterhuch, and cf, Syriac, rawrvane, rawrvaniiy,
etc., Noldeke, Syriac Grammar, 'i 146, For a list of nouns in Syriac
forming their plural in -an, see op, cit, i 74, As Noldeke remarked
(Gott, Gel, Anz., 1884, p, 1020), Kautzsch might, in his Grammatik des
Biblisch-Aram,, p. 110 and 114, have stated a little more explicitly that
the double formations |'3'^D") > PJ^n^l , etc., cannot occur in the
singular, any more than the simple form 3") , K3"l can form a plural,
(with the exception of course, of a few special cases),
d) "^^p"? = before, in front of, from 'l^p , receive, Arabic JJj" .
An exactly equivalent expression is the Assyrian ' ina maxru ' = before,
in the presence of, from ' maxaru,' to be in front of, go to meet ; then, to
meet as an enemy; hence 'tamxaru,' battle, and 'maxiru,' rival, 'Max-'
aru' means also, to hasten; hence ' mitxarig,' swiftly. See Delitzsch,
Assyrische Studien, pp, 124-125, for the development of these words.
Verse 2. a) XIOIl Dp£OD — ' at the command of the wine,' not,
' when the wine began to taste ' as is usually translated. See Haver
nick, Dan. 174; Kranichfeld, Dan, 214; Hitzig, Dan, 79, etc Both
R, Salomo and Ibn Ezra understood this passage correctly, translating
¦ at the bidding of the wine,' cf. Havernick, Dan. 175. The LXX. has
'Evviliov/iivog dnb tov olvov. Theodotion, ev ry yevaei rov olvov. Vulgate,
jam temulentus.

119
Aram. DJ}^£P and Assyrian 'temu' mean both 'understanding' and
¦ command,' For the former meaning for DJ/CO , see Dan, ii, 3 ; DIB'
O^tD 'to consider;' also Dan, iii. 12; iv. 14, For the signification
'command;' see Ezra iv, 8, 9, 17, D^^D '7i^5"~' '""'""^'"^^'" i' also
Dan, iii, 10, etc,
Assyrian ' temu ' occurs in the meaning ' understanding,' IR, Samgi-
ramman ; II, 18, where we find amelu tema, ' a man of understanding ;'
IV R, 57 ; col. III, 33, uganna tenki, I will change thy understanding ;
i, e, ' make thee mad,' and Asb, c, 8, 6, tengu ugannima, 'he smote him
with insanity,' For this translation and the form ' tengu ' for ' temgu,'
see Haupt, Wateh-Ben-Hazael, Hebraica, i,, pp, 219-220, ' temu ' means
'command, demand ;' IV R, 54, n. 1. 2 etlu ina temigu 'the husband
with his demand ;' I R, 46; col. III 57, ki tem ramanigu, ' of his own
accord,' b) 'JKO7 • For the Aramaean and later Hebrew use of '|li , to denote
the Accusative (Kautzsch,, p, 127), the exactly equivalent usage of
' ana ' = to, for, in later Assyrian may be compared. For full references
see Bezold, Achameniden Inschriften, p, 49, n, 3,
c) '7JIJJ' , ' the legitimate wife,' — see Ps, xlv, 10, used in Neh, ii, 6, of
the queen. According to Bar Ali (cf, Payne Smith, Thesaurus, p, 542,
top, under belathi, Venus) the star Venus was called by the Babylonians
g"gal wadilbat, '?J^ was evidently a synonym, therefore, of belathi,
beltu. Lady, a name of Igtar,
Hesychius also gives the form AeXiijiar, (i, e, Dilbat), as the Babylonian
name of Igtar- Venus as the morning star, (See Lehmann, Samaggumu
kin, p, 125.) Dilbat seems to mean 'the announcer,' i, e, of morning or
evening. See II R, 7, 37, g, h, ; dilbat = nabii, 'to tell, announce,' In
II R, 48, 51, the star Dilbat is mentioned in the same paragraph with
Sin (the moon) and Samas (the sun). For the goddess Igtar in her
double capacity of morning and evening star, see Delitzsch-Miirdter,
Geschichte, p, 29, and for the name of the place Dilbat cf, Delitzsch,
Wo lag das Paradies, p, 119,
Verse 5, a) IpfiJ— Vulgate, ' apparuerunt,' The q"re HpflJ is un
necessary, nor is there any need of reading fpflJ fem, pi,, according to
an old codex. (118, K, cf, Bertholdt, Daniel, 368, n, 5), The Semitic
construction does not require that the verb and subject should agree.
As to the possible survival of a feminine pi. in Hebrew, see J, P, Peters,
Hebraica, iii,, no. 2. 111. That A and d were respectively the masculine
and feminine third person pi, endings of the perfect is quite probable,
if the existence of a perfect in primitive Semitic be granted. More
than this it is very difficult to assert. We may compare in this connec
tion the remarks of Dr, Cyrus Adler, Hebraica, 111,, n, 4, 268,
b) Nn£J''lDJ «''¦"? ^^yo/'"""'- Derivation uncertain, Syriac nev-
raSta-flame, lantern, from which the Denominative ethneyrag,
illuminate ; Arabic, nibras. The Jerusalem Gemara translates it by

120
D*1fl07 , using the Greek worf. According to Ibn Ezra, }>{nti''n3J
is the synonym of mUO , used of the great branching candlestick of
T
the Tabernacle, (See Buxtorf, Lexicon, col, 1290 and Exod, xxv, 31 ff.;
I Kings vii. 49, etc.) The Targum to Zephaniah i. 12, translates "IJ by
In this passage of Daniel v. the Syriac version has g'raga. Vulgate.
"contra candelabrum. Theodotion, Karevavn rijg XafnrdSog. Vers. Mass,
evamov rov Xafiirifpog, and in the LXX, Karevavn rov fardg.
All authorities seem agreed that the word is of foreign origin, Cf,
Bickell, Ephr, Carm, Nisib, 53, where a derivation from the Sanskrit
ni H-bhrag, illuminate, is suggested. This is as unsatisfactory as the
attempt of Bernstein (Lexicon) to derive it from 'H^J , shine, and
NDJJ'K 1 fire, or that of Sa'adia from NritJ'"'nD'""lJ — light that shines
through all the year. See Buxtorf, Lex, col, 1290,
A Persian derivation (Frankel, Fremdwbrter, p, 96) is hardly admissi
ble, because the original Persian word has yet to he found. (See also
Guidi, Osservazione, p, 3.) That the Arabic form ' nibras ' belongs to the
older language is seen from Nab, 27, 21 ; Jakut, iv. 737, 7. No satis
factory etymology seems possible at present,
c) X"1*J — ' plaster, lime ' ; cf. Buxtorf, Lexicon, col, 425, for the Rab
binical definition, "l^n^OH i^p"1p f'O "1*J ' species terra deni-
grantis. The word is probably cognate with Assyrian, qiru, 'pitch,
mortar,' (Cf, Haupt, Nimrod Epos, 137, 1, 66, — (the Deluge — ) attabak
ana qiri, — 'I poured out for caulking,' or 'pitching,' The ideogram
which is found in this passage with variant ' ki-i-ri ' is explained in the
syllabary S"" 94, There is probably some connection with the Arabic
yKS , pitch, according to the theory of Professor Haupt in Schrader's
Keilinschriften und das alte Testament,^ p. 516, in spite of Jensen's
doubt the meaning of the word (Kosmologie, p. 410), Lagarde connects
it with Turkish, kil, 'fuller's earth '(?),
d) "^nO , 'wall ; status emphat, N^'^ri!? ,— see Ezra v. 8, We may
compare Kautzsch, op, cit, ? 54 e, and Assyrian ' kutallu ' = ' side.'
(Senn. VI, 28 ; I R, 44, 55 ; IV R, 52, 20 ; II R, 48, 50),
' e) Xl' D3 , ' the end of the arm ;' i, e. the hand, the fingers and
knuckles in distinction to the arm, Theod, rovg darpaydXovg rijg x^tp'^c.
Vulgate, articulos manus, Sa'adia on verse 24, m^^VNH DV fl^n.
DO may be used of the surface of the hand or foot alike— cf. Mishna,
Tn Dfl and "Tijnn D£3 and Syriac, p"sath regia, p"sath ide. See
Syr. I K, xviii, 44 ; and Deut, xxviii, 35,
Verse 6- a) 'nVf , 'his countenance,' Vf 'face,' 'complexion,' 'hue.'
Theodotion and the Vulgate both translate by 'figure,' The word is
not from the Persian, (Noldeke, Mand, Gr. XXXL), but is cognate
with Assyrian zimti, ' face ;' cf. Jensen, Ztschr. fiir Keilschriftsfor
schung, II. 43, 2; Zimmern, Busspsalmen, p. 108 and Delitzsch, Pro-

121
legomena, p, 153, ' zimii is explained in Assyrian by sak-ki, ' surface of
the head' (V R, 31, 14 c). For the interchange of m and "), cf, Ztschr,
fiir Assyriologie, ii,'273, 267, Haupt,
b) 'm^JJ' . The termination has the force of a dative, as already
Kranichfeld saw (Daniel, p, 217), Moses Stuart, in his Commentary
on Daniel, p, 130, probably followed Kranichfeld in this opinion. It is
not the use of the suffix to express the pronominal ending and the
preposition, as Kautzsch thought, (Aram, Gr, 'i 89. 2, as in v, 9 *m'?y),
nor is it reflexive (Lengerke, Daniel, p. 248). The use of the suffix
to express the dative relation occurs possibly in Assyrian in such a
connection as Akkadische und Sumerische Keilschrifttexte, 80, 18, ina
isinni saknug, at the feast made for him ; probably also op, cit, 80, 14,
Adar garru mS,ru ga abagu ana ruqetim appa usalbinugu — ' Adar the
king, the son, before whom his father makes them worship far and
wide.' It is difficult to know if the suffix has a real dative force in
cases like, amatum ubakki, IV R, 30, 7, ' I made the word come to thee;'
ina biti a erubsu, Akkad, Sum. Keilschrifttexte, 93, 21, 'may it not
come into the house to him ;' op, cit, 81, 14, lummidsu, ' may I erect
to him,' etc.
Verse 7. a) i^'ytifQ . Cf. Assyrian ' pagaru ' — ' to loosen, free ;' IV R.
56. 23 ; I R. 50. 18. Arabic yvjJ . We find also the expression, guttu
pagaru 'to interpreta dream' in Akkad., Sum. Keilschrifttexte, 205;
gunata pagaru, Haupt, Nim. Ep., 6, 44., etc. We should compare also
IK'lD Eccles, viii, 1, The Hebrew form jiiriS) , 'interpretation,'
must be a loan-word from some dialect where the ^ was lisped as a /I ;
cf, Haupt, Beitrage zur Assyriologie, i, 181, n, 2,
h) WlJlIN, Assyrian, ' argamannu ' Asurn, 1. 88; c. III, 68.; the
darker purple scarlet as opposed to 'takiltu,' pt?^!^ ^ ^^'^ lighter
purple red. Compare in this connection, Zehnpfund in the Beitrage,
i, 507, on the different sorts of purple,
c) ND'JOn . var, K31JD , may be the same word as the Greek
fiavMKT/g to which Polybius, II. 31, refers as a Gallic ornament : rovro
S'earl xpvaovv feXXiov b (popovai nefil rdg x"P'^C "«' ™^ rpdxr/Xov bi VaXdrai.
Theodotion's translation has here o fiavtaKifg d xpvaoig.
d) '>!iVPl (in "PV- 16, 29 Uphr})- The ordinary form of the Ara
msean numeral is Tl''?]!, cf. Daniel ii. 39. Hitzig (Daniel, 81) read
here ?fl'^n in order to connect it with HTpH > hut the form 'fl'pri
can bean "adjectival formation meaning the third, like the Hebrew
<5j>"»'7jj>" = ' a third part,' Num, xv, 6 ; Ezek, v, 12. Nnpn would then
have to be considered as an abnormal st, emphat, of an absolute
'ri'7r) (Kautzsch, op, cit, p, 121), Bevan's idea is that Hrpr) may
be the Aramaic equivalent of the Arabic ' ath-thilth ' = "every third
day " and that ^phH in this verse may be an error due to a scribe
who, not understanding Kn'pn- read 'n'7ri = tlii'"d (see his Com-
16

122
mentary, p, 102), Such a view seems highly improbable, as it would
imply the interpretation that the reader of the mysterious writing
should reign over the kingdom on alternate days with the king him
self !
Verse 9, a) |'JJ'!3ritJ'0~Cf, Assyrian ' gabasu,' rage ; Asurb, c, IV,
88, c, VI, 108, and the substantive 'gibsu,' Agurn, II, 106,
Verse 11. a) ?JlX — 'There is.' Before suffixes it often occurs in
the form H^N ; see Kautzsch, op. cit. p. 125. It was originally a sub
stantive of the stem •\/ n' , cognate with the Hebrew biconsonantal
noun y , a formation like 73, 'son,' D^, 'name,' andthe Assyrian
' isu ' v' JJ'' . The form TIK with final ' is a secondary development
from the noun, with the addition of ?. TIN comes from an original
'yaty' (Tl'), the construct state of which, 'Jl' , was pronounced 'H'K
(TIN) in Aramaean, initial ? becoming as always i. The Syriac form
'ithya' 'being' — rb bv, is probably a form with a denominal Nisbe,
as for example in ' s'giigya.' The triradical stem ending in ? is
found in the Assyrian verb 'igii,' to have; ¦x/'tJ". In Assyrian
the original short form 'igu,' mentioned above as corresponding to JJ''
and jTN , occurs, for example, Nimrod Epic, 13. 3 ; 5, 37, etc. Similar
biconsonantal forms are nouns like 'saptu,' lip; 'daltu,' door; 'ilu,'
God ; ' binu,' son ; ' bintu,' daughter, etc. The negative of Syriac ' ith '
is ' la^th ' contracted from ' la + ith,' A simliar contraction is found in
the well known Arabic (jjaaJ (the only form of this stem preserved in
Arabic), and in Assyrian ' lagu ' = ' la' -|- ' isu,' See Keilinschriftliche
Bibliothek, I,, p, 40, 1, 25, where we find the form 'laggu').
Verse 12, a) "IK'GO and N"IJJ'D • It is simpler in agreement with
Bertholdt, Daniel, p, 378, n, 15, and Kautzsch, op, cit,, § 40, rem, 1, to
read lE'Op and N'ntJ'P , infinitives, following the Vulgate; Quia spir
itus amplior  et interpretatio somnorum et ostensio secretarum et
solutio ligatorum inventae sunt in eo,' Baer and Delitzsch, however,
read l^flQ and K")!2'P (Liber Dan. p, 11) as participles, cf, Theodo
tion, on TTvevfia nX^iarbv ev dvr^ Kal ifipdvTiaig Kal aiiveaig ev dvrfi avyKp'ivuv
evhirvia Kal dvayyeXXoni Kparoii/ieva Kal Xiiav avvSeafiovg. It should be noticed
that if IK'fip be read, this is the sole instance of the Pael of this
stem in Biblical Aramaean, (See Kautzsch, op, cit,, p, 65, rem, 1).
The original meaning of the stem N'lJJ'' , to dwell, is 'to loosen.'
T :
We may compare also the Assyrian ' garii ;' see Zimmern, Busspsalmen,
99. In primitive Semitic the meaning must then have arisen, 'to
cast bundles from the beasts of burden ;' i, e, preparatory to en
camping for the night, so that later the idea ' to dwell,' was devel-
oped. (Cf. Arabic J^ loosen, and JcLsSuo and J^Sui = ' place of
rest.') Derivatives of the Assyrian ' garii,' to loosen or begin are ' gur-

123
m,' 'beginning,' I R. Tig. I. 62, 'gurratu,' Asurn. I, 43, and 'tigritu,'
the seventh month, the beginner of the second half of the year,
b) Belteshazzar, The author of Daniel evidently regarded the first
syllable of this word as containing the name of the god ' Bel ' (cf, Dan,
iv, 5 ; 'n*?};} D^3)- It is now generally recognized that this name is
a corruption of the Assyrian ' Balatsu-ugur,' 'protect his life,' (Cf,
Oppert, Doc, Jur,, p, 282 ; Schrader, Die Assyr,-Bab. Keilinschriften
p, 152, Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament, p, 429 and Fried,
Delitzsch, Liber Dan, Praef, pp, ix,-x,) While it is true that we would
rather expect to find D instead of JJ' in the biblical form 'iVNJJ'tD'^D ,
representing an original s sound ; i, e, ' Balatsu-ugur,' it is possible
that in Babylonian the form of the name may have been ' Balata-
gu-ugur ' with s. In addition to this, it should not be forgotten that
the name was probably strongly influenced by the similar sound
ing Belshazzar. (See Delitzsch, Assyr. Gr. Germ, ed,, p, 171,) Georg
Hoffmann's reading, Ztschr, fiir Assyr,, ii, 56, 'Balat-gar-ugur,' Balat
preserve the king ' does not seem admissible. He sees in ' Balat ' the
name of a god, Saturn, and compares ' Sanballat,' which is clearly a cor
ruption of ' Sin-uballit,' 'Sin (the moon-god) has made him live,' The
BoXd-d-Tjv of Phot, Bibl, c, 242, quoted by Hoffmann, is probably not
' Balat,' The passage as he gives it is as follows : ^oiviKcg nal Ivpoi rbv
Kpdvov 'HA Kal BfjX Kal BoXd-^ifv eirovofid^ovai. The writer may have mis
taken BoXd^TTv for the name of a male divinity.
Verse 17, a) f'ifl'?. For the Imperfect with 'p preformative see
Kautzsch, op. cit,, p, 79, Although a number of these Imperfect forms
with "7 preformative have an optative meaning, in some cases they
show simply the force of a regular Imperfect, as in Daniel ii, 28, 29,
It cannot be asserted, therefore, that there is any difference in mean
ing between the third pers, m, with ? preformative, or the same form
with *? preformative.
In Mandaean, as in Syriac, the regular preflx of the third pers. masc
of the Imperfect is re, but sometimes I. It is highly probable that the
re form is secondary, being a development of an original I, (see Haupt,
Beitrage i. 17,), which, as is well known, occurs in Assyrian in a preca-
tive signification. We may compare in this connection, Laurie, He
braica, ii,. No, 4, 249 ; "Remarks on an Assyrian Preeative in Daniel,"
In Mandaean, as in Aramaean, the two prefixes appear to have an
equal force ; so much so that in the former language the I sometimes
occurs by mistake for the unchangeable re of the first person. See
Noldeke, Mandaische Grammatik, § 166, and for examples in Mandaean
of the Imperfect of the verb NIH 'to be,' with ^ preformative, see
op, cit,, ? 196, X. t, 1
Imperfect forms with I are also found in the dialect of the Babylo
nian Talmud ; see Luzzato, Grammatik des Idioms des Thalmud Babli,
p,84.

124
Verse 19, a) f'J^Nt , from V'j^f , to tremble. The same stem is
seen in the Assyrian 'zu,' storm, bird of the storm; see Zimmern,
Busspsalmen, 94,
h) TFlOlp \t2 7'':»rn— fearing before him— cf. Assyrian, 'lapan
egriti ...aplaxma,' I reverenced (before) the shrines, Agurb, c, X.
78 ; also I R, 11, 14, etc.
c) ays ¦ We may compare Assyrian ' gibii,' to wish, I R, Sargon
Barrel Cylinder, 1, 42, from which the derivative ' tegbitu,' ' a wish ;'
also ' gibtitu,' ' desire ;' see Jensen, Ztschr, fiir Keilschriftsforschung,
ii, 26/27,
d) NIlO • Pto. Haphel of N'fl ' to live.' The older authorities con
sidered it the participle of Nflb , to strike, evidently reading here
NtllO • Thus, Theodotion translated Kal oiig f/jiovXero avrbg ervirrev, while
the Vulgate has 'percutiebat.' It is now generally accepted, however,
that this is the participle of N'H , to live, as indeed the context
plainly shows, (Cf, Bertholdt, Daniel, p, 362, 19 ; Havernick, Daniel,
196 ; V, Lengerke, 257/8 ; Hitzig, Daniel, 83,. etc, etc) For this form
NHQ of the Haphel Ptc. of N'H , we may compare the Syriac Aphel
' axi,' with the Participle 'maxe.' Such forms are based on the anal
ogy of the verbs mediae geminatae, Cf, Noldeke, Syrische Gram
matik, 1 183, and the Aphel ' abez ' parte ' mabez ' from the stem vff3-
NHO is not therefore to be considered as representing an original
N'niD , as Kautzsch thought (op, cit, p, 29 and see also Noldeke, Gott,
T : —
Gel, Anzeigen, 1884, p, 1018), Such an analogy between N*n and the
stems mediae geminatae found in the Imperfect and in the Aphel of
the verb in Syriac, is easily understood when it is remembered that the
primitive form of NTT is VH (' xayiwa' — intransitive) a trace of which
s  .
is still found in. the Arabic ^jijjt:^ , animal, and in the Aramaic
NnVn • This vn became naturally "H which was itself a form J^p .
It is interesting to note here that Syriac Aphel forms like ' abez,' Parte,
' mabez ' of ^^ verbs are in their turn based on the analogy of verbs
?fl , Thus, the Aphel of Syriac 'n'faq' is ' appeq,' Parte, 'mappeq,'
For analogy in the Semitic languages in general, cf, Huizinga, Disserta
tion on "Analogy in the Semitic Languages," Baltimore, 1891,
Verse 21. a) T")jp, Assyrian 'tarMu' 'drive away,' (passim); — for
ex. ' ina zumrigu litrud,' ' from his body may he drive it ;' IV R. 15. 276.
b) ''ILif . This reading as a passive is possible and, moreover, is
indicated as the correct one by the old translators ; Theodotion, 'eS6-&Ti.
Vers, Mass, red-eirai, Vulg,, 'positum est,' Syriac, 'esfwe.' See also
Lengerke, Daniel, p, 259 ; Hitzig, Daniel, p, 84, Kautzsch, op, cit,,- p,
81, however, reads here V'lJJ', a third pers, pi, Pa'il, unnecessarily
transferring the 1 from the following word DJ^I • For the use of this

125
verb 'IJJ' with the preposition D^, cf, Pesh, St, John v, 18, "g'wa 'am,"
and in Hebrew the construction DJ7 blifDi in Ps, xxviii, 1 ; cxliii, 7,
In Hebrew the construction p iTlJJ' is also found ; cf, Ps, xviii, 34,
A precisely equivalent usage is that of the Assyrian 'emii kima' for
which see note to Cyrus Cyl, 1, 11,
That ' emii' has the meaning 'be like," is shown by the comparison
' emii ' = ' magalu,' V R, 47, 23a. It seems to me rather doubtful if the
stem nitt', Arab, sawa^", Syr, g'wa, is to be considered with Zimmern
a common Semitic possession (Ztschr, ftir Assyr,, v. 85ff.), He cites
the Assyrian form ' gu-u-u ' = ' gum-mu-u,' found V R, 28-87 e, f,
as the Piel Infinitive of mtJ'- (Cf. also Bussps,, 16, E, A similar
form to 'gu-u-u' is ' qu-u-u ' = qum-mu-u also V R, 1, c) Zimmern
then proceeds to argue that an original T may remain in a few verbs H'?
in Assyrian, contrary to Haupt, Ztschr, fiir Assyr, ii, 259. 86 and Bei
trage, i, 293-300.
Although the occurrence in Assyrian of the three signs ' pi,' ' me '
and 'ma,' indifferently used in the form 'u-ga-me,' mentioned by Zim
mern, certainly does seem to indicate a w pronunciation, I am still by
no means convinced that the w is necessarily a radical letter of the stem
and that consequently ' ugame ' ('ugawe ') is to be considered the Inten
sive of a stem Tl^^ , and that 'gummii' = 'gu-u-u' are Infinitives of
this Intensive. It appears quite possible to regard these forms as
two variations of the Shaphel Infinitive of the stem r\D^ = ' emii,' be
like, resemble, and to consider the m as a radical. In this case the w
pronunciation in the Shaphel Infin. ' gu-u-u ' must be understood sim
ply as a secondary w development from the original m, which is seen in
the usual form of the Infin. Shaphel, ' gummii.' Furthermore, the stem
niU', common to Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic, may itself be a Shaphel
formation from the same stem as Assyrian ' gummii ;' i. e. from V HDJ^ •
Amiaud's idea that Assyrian ' emu ' is to be derived, not from V HQJ^
but from an original V^NTH (??) seems to me quite untenable. (Cf.
Ztschr. fiir Assyr. ii. 205.)
c) ^3^X'— from V'y^lf , which is possibly the same stem as in
'gubbu' 'finger;' i.e. 'the dipping member '(?). We may compare
Assyrian 'gebii,' 'to dye,' found in the substantive 'gibii turn' =tinctio,
immersio, II R. 30. 62 f. There are three words of this form ' gibiitum '
in Assyrian ; viz., besides the above ; ' gibfitu ' = ' desire ' (see above
note c. to V. 19), and ' gibiitu ' = ' a precious thing.' Compare for these
forms Jensen, Ztschr. fiir Keilschriftsforschung, ii. 26/27.
Verse 25. a) For exhaustive discussion of this verse see ch. I. of
this dissertation. f'D1£3 = half-minas, from the stem D")fl , meaning
' break ' in the sense of dividing into parts. We may compare Jere
miah xvi. 7 and Isaiah Iviii. 7, where it is used of the breaking of bread.
The original meaning of dSS , therefore, seems to be 'a piece' or
' portion.' It is worthy of notice that only in the word ' half-mina,'

126
does the meaning ' half ' belong to this stem, so that in this sense D'^Q
may be a loan-word in Aramaean, (See Hoffmann, Ztschr, fiir Assyr,
ii, p, 47,)
The form tJ'"l£) with JJ', discovered by Ganneau on the weights, may
represent a distinctively Assyrian pronunciation of the word, (See in
this connection, Noldeke, Ztschr, fur Assyr, i, 418,)
Concerning the pronunciation of D and JJ' in Assyro-Babylonian
there seems to be a confusion of ideas among scholars. It seems evi
dent that the pronunciation of these sibilants in Nineveh was not
identical with that common in Babylonia, contrary to the idea, of
Delitzsch (Paradies, p. 131) that original B* in both Assyrian and
Babylonian later became confused with D , just as in Ethiopic, (See
also his Assyrische Grammatik, p. 108 and cf, Hommel, Jagdin-
schriften, p, 29, 5 and Semiten, p. 509,) The difference between the
sibilants seems not to have been a temporal one but rather local. It is
evident from numerous examples in the inscriptions that JJ' was pro
nounced s in the northern kingdom but s in the southern, while D was
JJ' in Assyria, but had its true value in Babylonia. Thus, in the
Assyrian inscriptions we find D'7JJ*1T in the form 'Ursalimmu' with
s for s, ' Asdiidu' for 'injJ'N etc, while the Babylonian month names
Nisanu, Hebr, |D'J ; Kislimu, Hebr, l'7p3 , etc are sufficient evidence
that D and Jj/ had their true value in the south, (For further exam
ples and full discussion, see Haupt, J, H. U, Circulars, No, 59, p, 118,)
The ordinary scriptural spelling of our word D"10 with D is not then
necessarily to be considered a later usage as Halevy thought, (Recher
ches Bibliques, p, 491), probably following the opinion of Delitzsch
regarding the temporal difference between D and JJ',

INDEX OF ASSYRIAN WORDS AND FORMS CITED
IN THE APPENDICES.

THE NUMBERS REFER TO THE PAGES.

Agamtanu  95
Agane  83
iginzu  83
aclS,ru  83
axrataS  74
akitu  96
alaktu  76
Alman  100
Elammiya  96
Elamtas  74
altu  94
gUtum  99
IM = sarn  99
gmil  74, 125
UmUag  82
Ammananu  94
Amnanu  94
Umman-manda,. 75
IM-RI-A  94
Angan  83
unninu  74
AnSan  80
en  74
AN-TA-BAL-KI,, 99
assinnu  96
isinnu,  96
Isparda  97
isittu  96
Upgki  99
appuna  83
apnama  83
i-rab  97
Urigallu  96
UR, SAL  96
iSu  122
i§u  122
iMixu  76
i§xur  83
Binunak  82
isqup  83
Istumegu  94
US-TUK-XU  83
uttaddu  76
atxu  76
itxutu  76
bulu  101

bela  100
biltu  82
bultu  101
bgltu  119
Balatsu-U5ur  123
bit mummu  101
gallu  101
garanu  76
gararu  76
Gutium  100
daddaru  83
Dilbat  119
dimtum  74
Durilu  83
Durkarasu  97
zii  124
Zagmuku  96
zima  120
Zamama  99
Zamban  83
xammu  94
xarine  100
Xarsagkalama,.. 99
xasaxu  81
xuSaxxu  ^1
xisixtu  81
taradu  124
tatapu  76
tgmu  119
kl  74
kilalian  76
kilatan  76
kullatan  76
kima  74
kimtu  94
kasaru  74
kisurru  74
karmis  74
KiS  99
kiSSu  75
kuStaru  82
kutallu  120
kltum  99
labanu appi  101
littaSkaru  83
mgdilu  82

ma'diS  83
maxru  118
maxiru  118
maxxutis  74
matu  74
mummu  101
mandi  83
MAS, MAS  96
massu  96
mustaru  75
migru  74
Maradda  99
marratu  83
martu  83
maSdaxu  76
masaiu  74, 125
maitaku  83
Meturnu  83
matitan  76
mitutSn  76
mutanu  76
nadu  100
nadu  ¦  74
nazazu  82
napraku  83
naSii  100
SIGISSe  94
Salsallat  100
Simanu  100
Saparda  97
suqu  76
sattukku  74
pixatu  98
paku  77
panu  83
paqii  76
piqa  77
paraku  83
parakku  82
Parsu  97
parpu  74
patu  83
pltii  83
putaqu  76
fibu  125
Cebii  125

gibutu  125
?illu  75
galmat qaqqadi., 75
fipp&tu  94
qalqaltum  81
qlru  120
qummu  135
radii  96
ridu  96
ruSumtu  94
Eutu  99
-Sa  ,  76,82
Se'n  81,82
libkii  96
Subatsun  82
Sadaxn  76
Suzuzsiin  83
Saiii  98
sulu  98
Salam taS  74, 75
Salutu  98
Suliitu  98
SuHtu  98
Summu  125
saplitum  99
Sarii  100, 123
surru  100, 133
SE§. GAL  96
tesbltu  134
tazimtu  74
tnkku  100
TU-JKIL-XU  83
tilaniS  74
Tema  95
tamxaru  118
tamSllu  74
tappii  76
tappatu  76
tappiitu  76
taru  75
taru  75
tardinnu  96
taranu  75
TiSrltu  123

128

ARAMAIC WORDS AND FORMS.

WUIK  131
Titi  122
ixNtySa.... 111,118
KTJ  130
nymn  121
rt  120
i^M  124
Knvn  124
ayi3  118

TIB  124
ratar  125
Sna  120
pnS  123
h2ph  118
'JKD  119
snn  124
•\W30  133
KlIffD  132

ptsantyn  122
Kntyn2j...,u9,i3o IpSJ  119
nn;;  125
03  120
pD^3,•.,125, 136
msya  121
K3X  124
'nimp  134

pi3"l  118
hm  119
nity.... 124, 125
¦'nUB'  131
xisy  ia2
ns3E'ty..,.ii7, 118
rhsn  131
Thn  121

3 9002 00875 3098