Daniel 1:21

And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.

EXPOSITORY (ENGLISH BIBLE)

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

(21) Continued.—(See Introduction, § I.) The phrase does not mean that “he prophesied,” but that he lived until the time specified; by no means implying that he died in the first year of Cyrus. This year is specified on account of its importance to the Jewish people as the year of their deliverance. We are led to think of Daniel during this period holding high positions in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius, yet so using the things of this world that at the close of his life (Daniel 10:11) he became the man greatly beloved by God. (See Pusey: Daniel the Prophet, pp. 21-23).

Benson Commentary

Daniel 1:21. And Daniel continued — Hebrew, ויהי, he was, namely, in the court of Babylon, known, employed, and held in reputation, under Nebuchadnezzar and his successors; even unto the first year of Cyrus — Till the monarchy passed from the Chaldeans to the Persians in the person of Cyrus, under whom also he maintained his authority. For the expression, unto, or till, the first year, is not intended to signify that he lived no longer; for it appears, from Daniel 10:1, that he lived at least till the third year of that monarch, in which year he had visions and revelations. He lived to see the promises of Isaiah and Jeremiah fulfilled, with respect to the deliverance of the Jews from their state of captivity in Babylon, which began to be accomplished in the first year of Cyrus, Ezra 1:1, and for the accomplishment of which we find Daniel very solicitous, Daniel 9:1-2. This being so remarkable a year, the text takes notice that Daniel lived to that time, but does not say how much longer he lived.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary

1:17-21 Daniel and his fellows kept to their religion; and God rewarded them with eminence in learning. Pious young persons should endeavour to do better than their fellows in useful things; not for the praise of man, but for the honour of the gospel, and that they may be qualified for usefulness. And it is well for a country, and for the honour of a prince, when he is able to judge who are best fitted to serve him, and prefers them on that account. Let young men steadily attend to this chapter; and let all remember that God will honour those who honour him, but those who despise him shall be lightly esteemed.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus - When the proclamation was issued by him to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem, Ezra 1:1. That is, he continued in influence and authority at different times during that period, and, of course, during the whole of the seventy years captivity. It is not necessarily implied that he did not "live" longer, or even that he ceased then to have influence and authority at court, but the object of the writer is to show that, during that long and eventful period, he occupied a station of influence until the captivity was accomplished, and the royal order was issued for rebuilding the temple. He was among the first of the captives that were taken to Babylon, and he lived to see the end of the captivity - "the joyful day of Jewish freedom." - Prof. Stuart. It is commonly believed that, when the captives returned, he remained in Chaldea, probably detained by his high employments in the Persian empire, and that he died either at Babylon or at Shushan. Compare the Introduction Section I.

Practical Remarks

In view of the exposition given of this chapter, the following remarks may be made:

(1) There is in every period of the world, and in every place, much obscure and buried talent that might be cultivated and brought to light, as there are many gems in earth and ocean that are yet undiscovered. See the notes at Daniel 1:1-4. Among these captive youths - prisoners of war - in a foreign land, and as yet unknown, there was most rich and varied talent - talent that was destined yet to shine at the court of the most magnificent monarchy of the ancient world, and to be honored as among the brightest that the world has seen. And so in all places and at all times, there is much rich and varied genius which might shine with great brilliancy, and perform important public services, if it were cultivated and allowed to develope itself on the great theater of human affairs. Thus, in obscure rural retreats there may be bright gems of intellect; in the low haunts of vice there may be talent that would charm the world by the beauty of song or the power of eloquence; among slaves there may be mind which, if emancipated, would take its place in the brightest constellations of genius. The great endowments of Moses as a lawgiver, a prophet, a profound statesman, sprang from an enslaved people, as those of Daniel did; and it is not too much to say that the brightest talent of the earth has been found in places of great obscurity, and where, but for some remarkable dispensation of Providence, it might have remained forever unknown. This thought has been immortalized by Gray:

"Full many a gem of purest ray serene,

The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear;

Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,

And waste its sweetness on the desert air.

"Some village Hampden, that with dauntless breast

The little tyrant of his fields withstood;

Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest.

Some Cromwell, guiltless of his country's blood."

There is at any time on the earth talent enough created for all that there is to be done in any generation; and there is always enough for talent to accomplish if it were employed in the purposes for which it was originally adapted. There need be at no time any wasted or unoccupied mind; and there need be no great and good plan that should fail for the want of talent fitted to accomplish it, if what actually exists on the earth were called into action.

(2) He does a great service to the world who seeks out such talent, and gives it an opportunity to accomplish what it is fitted to, by furnishing it the means of an education, Daniel 1:3. Nebuchadnezzar, unconsciously, and doubtless undesignedly, did a great service to mankind by his purpose to seek out the talent of the Hebrew captives, and giving it an opportunity to expand and to ripen into usefulness. Daniel has taken his place among the prophets and statesmen of the world as a man of rare endowments, and of equally rare integrity of character. He has, under the leading of the Divine Spirit, done more than most other prophets to lift the mysterious veil which shrouds the future; more than "could" have been done by the penetrating sagacity of all the Burkes, the Cannings, and the Metternichs of the world. So far as human appearances go, all this might have remained in obscurity, if it had not been for the purpose of the Chaldean monarch to bring forward into public notice the obscure talent which lay hid among the Hebrew captives. He always does a good service to mankind who seeks out bright and promising genius, and who gives it the opportunity of developing itself with advantage on the great theater of human affairs.

continued...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

21. Daniel continued … unto … first year of Cyrus—(2Ch 36:22; Ezr 1:1). Not that he did not continue beyond that year, but the expression is designed to mark the fact that he who was one of the first captives taken to Babylon, lived to see the end of the captivity. See my [1081]Introduction, "Significance of the Babylonian Captivity." In Da 10:1 he is mentioned as living "in the third year of Cyrus." See Margin Note, on the use of "till" (Ps 110:1, 112:8).

Matthew Poole's Commentary

i.e. In the court of Babylon until Cyrus, and then he was in the Persian court, and he lived in honour and high employment all that time, yea, after Cyrus began to reign; for, Daniel 10:1, he had visions and revelations in the third year of Cyrus. He might live longer, for the word until doth not exclude things that follow after, Psalm 110:1 112:8.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

And Daniel continued,.... In Babylon, and at court there, and in the favour of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors:

even unto the first year of King Cyrus: by whom Babylon was taken, and when the seventy years' captivity of the Jews were at an end; which time Daniel was there, for the sake of observing which this is mentioned: not that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus; or went from Babylon with the rest of the Jews to Jerusalem upon the proclamation of Cyrus, as Jacchiades thinks; for we hear of him at the river Hiddekel, in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel 10:1, but he was till this time in the court of the kings of Babylon; and afterwards in the courts of the kings of Media and Persia; for when it is said he was there, it does not so much intend his being there as the state and condition in which he was there; namely, as a favourite and prime minister; for he is said to prosper in the reign of Darius and Cyrus, Daniel 6:28. This is that Cyrus who was prophesied of by name, near two hundred years before he was born, by the Prophet Isaiah, Isaiah 44:28, which were sure prophecies, and to be depended upon; and had their exact accomplishment in him. Heathen writers report many things, as presages and predictions of his future greatness; they tell us some dreams, which his grandfather Astyages had concerning his daughter Mandane, the mother of Cyrus; which the interpreters of dreams in those days explained of a future son of hers, that was to be lord of all Asia (h): and Megasthenes (i) relates a prophecy of Nebuchadnezzar, who before his death foretold to the Babylonians that a calamity should befall them, which neither his progenitor Belus nor Queen Beltis could avert; which was, that a Persian mule should bring them under subjection, assisted by a Mede; which is understood of Cyrus, who was a Medo Persian; his father was Cambyses king of Persia, and his mother Mandane was daughter of Astyages king of Media; and he, with Darius the Mede, or however with his army, conquered Babylon: and he is also supposed to be the mule in the Pythian oracle that should be king of the Medes; by which Croesus was deceived, who concluded a mule would never be a king; and therefore, as his kingdom was safe till there was such an one, it must be for ever so (k). The birth, parentage, and education of this prince, together with his victories, and particularly his taking of Babylon, are recorded by Xenophon in his history, in great agreement with this book of Daniel. Plutarch says (l) that Cyrus, or Coresh, as his name is in Hebrew, in the Persian tongue signifies the sun; and the name of the sun, Cheres, is pretty near in sound to it in the Hebrew tongue; and of the same signification and derivation with Cyrus, or Coresh, seems to be Carshena, one of the seven princes of Persia. Cyrus is remarkably famous for the edict he published in favour of the Jews, giving them liberty to go to their own land, and rebuild their temple, Ezra 1:1, according to Cicero (m), out of Dionysius the Persian, he lived to be seventy years of age; and died after a reign of seven years, according to Xenophon (n); and of nine years, according to Ptolemy's canon; the one reckoning from the time he became sole monarch of the empire; the other from his reigning in partnership with his uncle Cyaxares, or Darius the Mede.

(h) Herodoti Clio, sive l. 1. c. 107, 108. Justin. e Trogo, l. 1.((i) Apud Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 9. c. 41. p. 456, 437. (k) Herodotus, Clio. sive l. 1. c. 55. (l) In Vita Artaxerxis. (m) De Divinatione, I. 1. (n) Cyropaedia, l. 8. c. 45.

Geneva Study Bible

And Daniel continued even unto {u} the first year of king Cyrus.

(u) That is, he was esteemed in Babylon as a Prophet as long as that commonwealth stood.

EXEGETICAL (ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

21. A remark on the long continuance of Daniel—with the reputation, it is understood, implied in Daniel 1:20—in Babylon. The first year of Cyrus (b.c. 538) would be nearly 70 years after the date of Daniel’s captivity (Daniel 1:1), so that he would then be quite an aged man.

continued even unto] lit. was until. The expression is an unusual one; but the meaning, it seems, is that Daniel survived the fall of the empire of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors, and remained, unaffected by the change of dynasty, till the first year of Cyrus, the year in which (Ezra 1:1; Ezra 5:13; Ezra 6:3) the Jews received permission to return to Palestine. He is mentioned indeed as still alive in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1); but that fact is here left out of consideration.

Cyrus] Heb. Kôresh, as regularly. The Persian form is Kuru(sh), the Babylonian Kurâsh.

Additional Note on the term ‘Chaldaeans’

The term ‘Chaldaeans’ (Heb. Kasdîm) is used in the Book of Daniel in a sense different from that which it has in any other part of the Old Testament. In other parts of the Old Testament (e.g. in Jeremiah, passim) it has an ethnic sense: it denotes a people which (in the inscriptions at present known) is thought to be first alluded to about 1100 b.c., and is certainly named repeatedly from 880 b.c.: they lived then in the S.E. of Babylonia, towards the sea-coast; afterwards, as they increased in power, they gradually advanced inland; in 721 b.c. Merodach-baladan, ‘king of the land of the Kaldu,’ made himself king of Babylon; and ultimately, under Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, they became the ruling caste in Babylonia. In the Book of Daniel (except in Daniel 5:30, Daniel 9:1, where the term plainly has its ethnic sense), ‘Chaldaean’ is the designation not of the ruling caste at large, but of the class—or one of the classes—of wise men (Daniel 1:4, Daniel 2:2; Daniel 2:4-5; Daniel 2:10, Daniel 3:8 (prob.), Daniel 4:7, Daniel 5:7; Daniel 5:11). Of this sense of the word there is no trace in the inscriptions; it is first found in Herodotus (c. 440 b.c.), and is common afterwards in the classical writers; and it dates really from a time when ‘Chaldaean’ had become synonymous with ‘Babylonian’ in general, and when virtually the only ‘Chaldaeans’ known were members of the priestly or learned class. The following passages will shew how the classical writers understood the term.

Hdt. i. 181 (in the description of the ‘ziggurat’ of Bel, i.e. [Tiele] Merodach, in Babylon): ‘as the Chaldaeans, being priests of this god, say.’

i. 183: ‘On the greater altar [in the precincts of the temple at the foot of the ‘ziggurat’] the Chaldaeans burn also 1000 talents of frankincense every year, when they celebrate the festival pf this god.’

Also, in the same chapter, ‘as the Chaldaeans said,’ and ‘I did not see it, but I say what is said by the Chaldaeans.’

Strabo (1 cent. b.c.) xvi. 1 § 6: ‘There is also a quarter reserved in Babylon for the native philosophers called “Chaldaeans,” who pursue principally the study of astronomy. Some claim also to cast nativities; but these are not recognized by the others. There is moreover a tribe of the Chaldaeans, and a district of Babylonia, inhabited by them, near the Arabian and the Persian Gulf[189]. There are also several classes (γένη) of the astronomical Chaldaeans, some being called Orcheni [i.e. belonging to Orchoe, or Uruk], others Borsippans, and others having other names according to the different doctrines held by their various schools.’

[189] This sentence (cf. § 8 and 3 § 6) is interesting, as it shews that ‘Chaldaeans,’ in the original ethnic sense of the name, were still resident in their ancient homes.

Diodorus Siculus (1 cent. b.c.) describes them at greater length. The ‘Chaldaeans,’ he says (Daniel 2:29), ‘form a caste, possessing a fixed traditional lore, in which successive generations are brought up, and which they transmit unchanged to their successors. They are among the most ancient of the Babylonians, and hold in the state a position similar to that of the priests in Egypt. Appointed primarily to attend to the worship of the gods, they devote their lives to philosophy, enjoying especially a reputation for astrology. They are also much occupied with divination (μαντική), uttering predictions about the future; and by means partly of purifications, partly of sacrifices, and partly of incantations (ἐπῳδαί), endeavour to avert evil [cf. Isaiah 47:9; Isaiah 47:11-13] and to complete happiness. They are moreover experienced in divination by means of birds, and interpret dreams and omens (τέρατα); they are also practised in the inspection of sacrificial animals (ἱεροσκοπία), and have a character for divining accurately by their means.’ And he proceeds (cc. 30, 31) to give some account of the astronomical doctrines of the ‘Chaldaeans,’ and to speak of their remarkable skill in predicting the destinies of men from observation of the planets[190].

[190] Cf. also Cic. Divin. i. i., xli., ii. xli–xliii., xlvii.; Tusc. i. xl.; de Fato viii. (a criticism of their astrological claims); Juv. x. 94, xiv. 248, with Mayor’s notes.

In the view of the classical writers, the ‘Chaldaeans’ were thus a caste of priests, who were also diviners, magicians, and (especially) astrologers. Except in what concerns the name ‘Chaldaeans,’ the statements of Diodorus, as far as they go, are correct, and substantiated by what is now known from the inscriptions. Here is what is said in the most recent and best work upon the subject[191]:

[191] Jastrow’s Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, U.S.A. 1898), p. 656 f.

“The general name for priests was shangû, which by a plausible etymology suggested by Jensen, indicates the function of the priest as the one who presides over the sacrifices. But this function represents only one phase of the priestly office in Babylonia, and not the most important one, by any means. For the people, the priest was primarily the one who could drive evil demons out of the body of the person smitten with disease, who could thwart the power of wizards and witches, who could ward off the attacks of mischievous spirits, or who could prognosticate the future and determine the intention or will of the gods. The offering of sacrifices was one of the means to accomplish this end, but it is significant that many of the names used to designate the priestly classes have reference to the priest’s position as the exorciser of evil spirits, or his power to secure a divine oracle or to foretell the future, and not to his function as sacrificer. Such names are mashmashu, the general term for ‘the charmer’; kalû, so called, perhaps, as the ‘restrainer’ of the demons, the one who keeps them in check; lagaru, a synonym of kalû; makhkhû[192], ‘soothsayer’; surrû, a term which is still obscure; shâilu, the ‘inquirer,’ who obtains an oracle through the dead or through the gods[193]; mushêlu[194], ‘necromancer’; âshipu[195] or ishippu, ‘sorcerer’.”

[192] Whence, probably, the ‘Rab-mag,’ i.e. ‘chief of the soothsayers,’ of Jeremiah 39:3; Jeremiah 39:13.

[193] Cf. the Heb. שׁאל in Deuteronomy 18:11; Jdg 1:1; 1 Samuel 23:2; 1 Samuel 28:6, &c.

[194] Lit. the ‘bringer up,’ from elû = עלה: comp. 1 Samuel 28:11.

[195] Comp. on Daniel 1:20.

The antiquity, if not of the ‘Chaldaeans’ under this name, yet of the priests in whose hands the traditional lore mentioned by Diodorus was, is also well established: “the magical texts formed the earliest sacred literature” of Babylonia[196]; and the great astrological work, called Nûr-Bel, ‘the Light of Bel,’ is earlier than b.c. 2000.

[196] Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, p. 337.

Babylonia was the land of magic (cf. Isaiah 47:9-13); and a very extensive literature, dealing with different branches of the subject, has been brought to light during recent years. Demons, or evil spirits, were supposed to be active upon earth, bringing to mankind diseases, misfortunes, and every kind of ill; the heavens were supposed to exercise an influence over the destinies of men and nations; all kinds of natural occurrences which we should describe as accidental, such as an animal entering a building, were supposed to be declarations of the will of the gods; and methods had to be devised for the purpose of dealing with the occult agencies concerned, of interpreting all significant phenomena, and of averting, where this was held to be possible, the evils which they portended. The demons were ever present and ever active: so sorcerers and sorceresses sprang up, who, by means of various magical devices, could invoke the demons at their will, and bring such persons as they chose within their power. On the other hand, the priests were ready with means for protecting people who were thus assailed; and many collections of ‘incantations’ have come down to us, each dealing with some particular kind of demonic evil, or providing some particular method of protection against demons. In particular, every kind of disease was attributed to the action of some malignant spirit, either attacking a person spontaneously, or induced to do so by bewitchment; and the cure was effected by exorcising the demon through prescribed formulae of supposed power, accompanied by symbolical acts (e.g. burning the image of the witch)[197]. Omens were also carefully observed, and tables were drawn up describing the significance of all kinds of occurrences, including the most trifling, in heaven and earth. “Fully one-fourth of the portion of Asshurbanabal’s library that has been discovered consists of omen-tablets of various sizes in which explanations are afforded of all physical peculiarities to be observed in animals and men, of natural phenomena, of the positions and movements of the planets and stars, of the incidents and accidents of public and private life—in short, of all possible occurrences and situations[198].”

[197] Jastrow, pp. 253–293.

[198] Jastrow, pp. 352–406. See further Lenormant, La Magie chez les Chaldéens (1874), and La Divination et la Science des Présages chez les Chaldéens (1875); the translations of magical texts in Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures for 1887, p. 441 ff. (‘to be accepted with caution,’ Jastrow, p. 713); and the literature cited by Jastrow, p. 717 ff. Minuter details would here be out of place, as they would not really illustrate anything in the Book of Daniel.

The principles upon which the explanations of all these phenomena were drawn up were, no doubt, partly the association of ideas (as when the sight of a lion symbolized strength, or success), and partly the extension of a single coincidence between a given phenomenon and a particular subsequent occurrence, into a general law. It is, however, evident to what long and elaborate treatises the systematization of rules for dealing with, and explaining, such an immense variety of phenomena would ultimately lead.

There are six terms used in the Book of Daniel as designations of diviners or magicians, viz. (1) wise men (חכמים), (2) enchanters (אשפים), (3) magicians (חרטמים), (4) ‘Chaldeans’ (כשדים), (5) determiners (of fates) (גזרין), (6) sorcerers (מכשפים), which are distributed as follows:—

Daniel 1:20 the magicians and the enchanters.

Daniel 2:2 the magicians, the enchanters, the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans.

Daniel 2:10 b any magician, enchanter, or Chaldean.

Daniel 2:27 wise men, enchanters, magicians, (or) determiners (of fates).

Daniel 4:7 the magicians, the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the determiners (of fates).

Daniel 5:7 the enchanters, the Chaldeans, and the determiners (of fates).

Daniel 5:11 (of Daniel) ‘master of magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, (and) determiners (of fates).’

Daniel 5:15 the wise men, (even) the enchanters.

Wise men occurs besides, alone, in the expression ‘(all) the wise men of Babylon,’ in Daniel 2:12-13 (‘the wise men’), 14, 18, 24, 48, Daniel 4:6; Daniel 4:18 (‘all the wise men of my kingdom’), Daniel 5:7-8 (‘the wise men of the king’): ‘Chaldeans’ also occurs alone in Daniel 1:4 ‘the literature and language of the Chaldeans’ (seemingly in a general sense); in Daniel 2:4-5; Daniel 2:10 a (as speaking on behalf of the ‘wise men’ generally); and in Daniel 3:8 : and ḥarṭummim is used in a generic sense in Daniel 4:9 (where Daniel is called ‘master of the ḥarṭummim’; cf. Daniel 2:48 and Daniel 5:11).

A comparison of the passages shews that the terms in question are used with some vagueness. The generic term appears certainly to be ‘wise men’; but in Daniel 2:27 even this appears to be coordinated with three of the special classes. In Diodorus Siculus ‘Chaldaeans’ is the generic term; but in Daniel that, except once, appears as the name of one class beside others: in Daniel 1:4, however (unless, which is improbable, there was no special ‘literature’ connected with any of the other classes), it is used in a generic sense. In Daniel 4:7 and Daniel 5:11 ‘determiners (of fates)’ appears to take the place of ‘sorcerers’ in Daniel 2:2, although the two terms do not seem to be by any means synonymous. Nor are the several classes of wise men named in Daniel known to correspond to any division or classification indicated by the inscriptions. The attempts which have been made to prove the contrary cannot be pronounced successful. Lenormant, for example[199], observing that the great work on magic preserved in Asshurbanabal’s library consists of three parts, dealing respectively with incantations against evil spirits, incantations against diseases, and magical hymns, argued that these three divisions corresponded exactly to the three classes, ḥarṭummim or ‘conjurateurs,’ wise men or ‘médecins,’ and ’ashshâphim or ‘théosophes,’ mentioned in Daniel by the side of the astrologers and diviners (kasdim and gâzerin): but the parallel drawn is an arbitrary one; there is no reason whatever for supposing that ‘wise men’ in Heb. or Aramaic denoted ‘médecins,’ or ’ashshâphim ‘théosophes.’ It seems evident that the author simply took such terms denoting diviners or magicians, as were traditionally connected with Babylon, or seemed to him on other grounds to be suitable, and combined them together, for the purpose of presenting a general picture of the manner in which the arts of divination and magic were systematically studied in Babylon.

[199] La Magie, p. 13 f.

Pulpit Commentary

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



Daniel 1:21

Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

In Daniel 1:21 the introduction to the book is concluded with a general statement as to the period of Daniel's continuance in the office appointed to him by God. The difficulty which the explanation of ויהי offers is not removed by a change of the reading into ויחי, since Daniel, according to Daniel 10:1, lived beyond the first year of Cyrus and received divine revelations. עד marks the terminus ad quem in a wide sense, i.e., it denotes a termination without reference to that which came after it. The first year of king Cyrus is, according to 2 Chronicles 36:22; Ezra 1:1; Ezra 6:3, the end of the Babylonish exile, and the date, "to the first year of king Cyrus," stands in close relation to the date in Daniel 1:1, Nebuchadnezzar's advance against Jerusalem and the first taking of the city, which forms the commencement of the exile; so that the statement, "Daniel continued unto the first year of king Cyrus," means only that he lived and acted during the whole period of the exile in Babylon, without reference to the fact that his work continued after the termination of the exile. Cf. The analogous statement, Jeremiah 1:2., that Jeremiah prophesied in the days of Josiah and Jehoiakim to the end of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, although his book contains prophecies also of a date subsequent to the taking of Jerusalem. ויהי stands neither for ויחי, he lived, nor absolutely in the sense of he existed, was present; for though היה means existere, to be, yet it is never used absolutely in this sense, as חיּה, to live, but always only so that the "how" or "where" of the being or existence is either expressly stated, or at least is implied in the connection. Thus here also the qualification of the "being" must be supplied from the context. The expression will then mean, not that he lived at the court, or in Babylon, or in high esteem with the king, but more generally, in the place to which God had raised him in Babylon by his wonderful endowments.