numerous subjects (of which no traces are to be found in history) commanding them to reverence the God of Israel. We are disposed to regard the narrative of Daniel in the lion's den from the same point of view as those which have preceded it, and to suppose that it rests upon an original fact wrought into its present shape by the artistic touches of a later writer. A prophet of the Lord had been previously placed in a somewhat analogous position. The princes of Judah, like the satraps of Media, combine to accuse Jeremiah because of his faithfulness, before king Zedekiah. The weak and timorous king unable, as in the case of Darius, to defeat their object, delivers the prophet into their hands. Availing themselves of the permission afforded, they let down Jeremiah with cords into the dungeon or pit, "in which there was no water but mire where he is like to die for hunger." A servant of the king intercedes on his behalf with Zedekiah, and at the king's command takes thirty men (comp. vi. 7), and "passing clouts and rotten rags under his armholes" lifts Jeremiah unhurt out of the pit (Jer. xxxviii.). The correspondence of this incident in its main features with the narrative related in Daniel is too plain to require comment. With the substitution of Jewish for Medo-Persian scenery, and the prospect of death by hunger instead of by wild beasts, the same tale is told of Jeremiah as of Daniel. It may not therefore be thought improbable 1 Reference would seem to be made to the hunger experienced by Jeremiah in the pit in the apocryphal story of Habbacuc taking the dinner to Daniel in the lion's den.-See Bel and the Dragon. that the circumstances of the elder prophet formed the basis of the present story, in the same manner as the destruction of Babylon during a time of drunken revelry supplied the foundation of Belshazzar's impious feast. It may be added to this that the writer of Daniel quotes by name the prophecy of Jeremiah, with which he was doubtless thoroughly conversant. The object of the Maccabean editor in recasting into its present shape an event which the lapse of years may have transferred from Jeremiah or Joseph to Daniel, or which may rest on a basis of its own, is sufficiently apparent. A new Darius had arisen demanding regal deification, "exalting and magnifying himself above every god," and "establishing a royal statute and a firm decree," that whosoever should ask a petition of any god or man, excepting those of his own adoration, should suffer a martyr's death. "He forbade them (says Josephus) to offer those sacrifices which they used to offer to God according to the law. . . . he also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods. he also appointed overseers who should compel them to do what he commanded. . . . and if there were any sacred book or law found it was destroyed; and those with whom they were found miserably perished also" (Ant. xii. 5). In the face of this command men were found who, like Daniel, regarded not the decree which the king had signed, but who "were fully resolved and confirmed in themselves not to eat any unclean thing, wherefore they choose rather to die . . . that they might not profane the holy covenant; so then they died" (1 Macc. i. 62, 63). And thrice-blessed and holy martyrs, ye have not died in vain. A sacred light streaming adown the truthful record of your glorious deeds kindles a flame of generous sympathy in every true heart; and ye stand forth to succeeding ages the revered and undying memorials of principle preferred before expediency, and of piety cherished above life itself. That portion of the book which may be called the biography of Daniel ends with this deliverance: the remaining part being chiefly occupied with an historico-prophetic narration of events extending to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. And it is only when viewed in the light in which we have attempted to present the subject that the former part of the book can be regarded in unity with the latter. Apart from the consideration that the historical is illustrative of the prophetical portion, no sufficient reason can be given for the intermixture of personal biography and prophetic vision in a work purporting to be written by the same individual. But when it is perceived that the scenes on the plain of Dura and at Babylon prefigure those elsewhere enacted; that the idolatrous deifications of the monarchs of Babylon and Media reflect impieties of a subsequent age; that the deliverances of the servants of God who trusted in him in old time foreshadow the triumphs of those saints who should in later days possess the kingdom, the unity is restored, the plan of the writer is seen to be consistent, and the prophetic vision resolves itself into one grand whole of absorbing interest, having for its object the suffering and the rescue of the holy people. MACEDONIAN KINGDOM OF ALEXANDER AND HIS FOUR POTENT SUCCESSORS. He goat with notable horn. On the face of the whole earth." "For it came up four notable "Four kingdoms shall stand up OF THE TEN HORNS. "His kingdom shall be plucked up even for others besides those." 3 which fell. "The king of the south." xi. 5.-Ptolemy Philadelphus. "A branch of her (Berenice's) roots." xi. 7.-Ptolemy Euergetes. |