DABAREH <dab’-a-re > . See DABERATH.

DABBESHETH <dab’-e-sheth > ([ tv,B,D” , dabbesheth ]; [ Dabasqai>, Dabasthai ]; the King James Version Dabbasheth, dab’a-sheth): A town on the western boundary of Zebulun ( Joshua 19:11). It is probably identical with the modern Dabsheh , a ruined site to the East of Acre.

DABERATH <dab’-e-rath > ([ tr”b]D;h” , ha-dabherath ], “pasture”; [ Dabeirw>q, Dabeiroth ]): A city in the territory of Issachar, on the boundary between that tribe and Zebulun ( Joshua 19:12). It was assigned to the Gershonite Levites ( Joshua 21:28; 1 Chronicles 6:72). The most probable identification is with Dabuiriyeh , a village on the lower western slopes of Tabor.

DABRIA <da’-bri-a > : One of the five who wrote down the visions of Esdras, described (2 Esdras 14:24) as “ready to write swiftly.”

DACUBI; DACOBI <da-ku’-bi > , <da-ko’-bi > , King James Version: Head of a family of gatekeepers (1 Esdras 5:28). See AKKUB; DAKUBI.

DADDEUS <da-de’-us > , the Revised Version (British and American); LODDEUS ([ Loddai~ov, Loddaios ), which see.

DAGGER <dag’-er > . See ARMOR, ARMS.

DAGON <da’-gon > ([ ˆ/gD; , daghon ]; apparently derived from [ gD; , dagh ], “fish”):

Name of the god of the Philistines (according to Jerome on Isaiah 46:1 of the Philistines generally); in the Bible, Dagon is associated with Gaza (Judges 16) but elsewhere with Ashdod (compare 1 Sa 5 and 1 Macc 10:83 f; 11:4); in 1 Chronicles 10:10 there is probably an error (compare the passage 1 Samuel 31:10). The god had his temple (“the house of Dagon”) and his priests. When the ark was captured by the Philistines, it was conducted to Ashdod where it was placed in the house of Dagon by the side of the idol. But on the morrow it was found that the idol lay prostrate before the ark of the Lord. It was restored to its place; but on the following day Dagon again lay on the ground before the ark, this time with the head and both hands severed from the body and lying upon the miphtan (the word is commonly interpreted to mean “threshold”; according to Winckler, it means “pedestal”); the body alone remained intact. The Hebrew says: “Dagon alone remained.” Whether we resort to an emendation ([ /gD; , dagho ], “his fish-part”) or not, commentators appear to be right in inferring that the idol was half-man, half-fish. Classic authors give this form to Derceto. The sacred writer adds that from that time on the priests of Dagon and all those that entered the house of Dagon refrained from stepping upon the miphtan of Dagon. See 1 Samuel 5:1-5. The prophet Zephaniah (1:9) speaks of an idolatrous practice which consisted in leaping over the miphtan . The Septuagint in 1 Samuel indeed adds the clause: “but they were accustomed to leap.” Leaping over the threshold was probably a feature of the Philistine ritual which the Hebrews explained in their way. A god Dagon seems to have been worshipped by the Canaanites; see BETH-DAGON.

LITERATURE Commentaries on Judges and 1 Samuel; Winckler, Altoriental.

Forschungen, III, 383. Max L. Margolis DAILY <da’-li > : This word, coming as it does from the Hebrew [ µ/y , yom ] “day,” and the Greek [hJme>ra, hemera ], suggests either day by day ( Exodus 5:13), that which is prepared for one daily ( Nehemiah 5:18), as e.g. our “daily bread,” meaning bread sufficient for that day ( Matthew 6:11); or day by day continuously, one day after another in succession, as “the daily burnt offering” ( Numbers 29:6 the King James Version), “daily ministration” ( Acts 6:1), and “daily in the temple” ( Acts 5:42 the King James Version). The meaning of the word “daily” as used in the Lord’s Prayer ( Matthew 6:11) seems to indicate sufficient for our need, whether we consider that need as a day at a time, or day after day as we are permitted to live. “Give us bread sufficient for our sustenance.” William E. Vans DAILY OFFERING OR SACRIFICE See SACRIFICE.

DAINTIES; DAINTY (MEATS) <dan’-tis > ([ t/M[“f]m” , maT`ammoth ], “things full of taste,” [ µyM[“n]m” , man`ammim ], [ ˆd;[\m” , ma`adhan ]; [liparo>v, liparos ], “fat,” “shining”): Jacob is represented as predicting of Asher, “He shall yield royal dainties” ( Genesis 49:20; compare parallel clause, “His bread shall be fat,” and Deuteronomy 33:24, “Let him dip his foot in oil”).

David, praying to be delivered from the ways of “men that work inquiry,” cries, “Let me not eat of their dainties” ( <19E104> Psalm 141:4). The man who sitteth “to eat with a ruler” ( Proverbs 23:1-3) is counseled, “If thou be a man given to appetite, be not desirous of his dainties; seeing they are deceitful food” (compare John’s words in the woes upon Babylon ( Revelation 18:14), “All things that were dainties and sumptuous are perished from thee,” and Homer’s Iliad (Pope). xviii.456). “Dainties,” then, are luxuries, costly, delicate and rare. This idea is common to all the words thus rendered; naturally associated with kings’ tables, and with the lives of those who are lovers of pleasure and luxury. By their associations and their softening effects they are to be abstained from or indulged in moderately as “deceitful food” by those who would live the simple and righteous life which wisdom sanctions. They are also “offered not from genuine hospitality, but with some by-ends.” He should also shun the dainties of the niggard ( Proverbs 23:6), who counts the cost ( Proverbs 23:7 the Revised Version, margin) of every morsel that his guest eats. See DELICATE; FOOD, etc.

George B. Eager DAISAN <da’-san > , <da’-i-san > ([ Daisa>n, Daisan ]): Head of a family of temple servants (1 Esdras 5:3:1) called Rezin in Ezra 2:48; Nehemiah 7:50, the interchange of “D” and “R” in Hebrew being not uncommon.

DAKUBI <da-ku’-bi > , <da-koo’-bi > ([ Dakou>b, Dakoub ], [ Dakoubi>, Dakoubi ]; the King James Version Dacobi): Head of a family of gate-keepers (1 Esdras 5:28) called “Akkub” in the canonical lists.

DALAIAH <da-la’-a > , <da-la-i’-a > . See DELAIAH.

DALAN <da’-lan > ([ Dala>n, Dalan ]; the King James Version Ladan): Head of a family that returned to Jerusalem, but which “could shew neither their families, nor their stock, how they were of Israel” (1 Esdras 5:37); corresponds to Delaiah ( Ezra 2:60). Another reading is “Asan.”

DALE; KING’S <dal > , [ Ël,M,h” qm,[e , `emeq hamelekh ]) : (1) “Absalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself the pillar, which is in the king’s dale” ( 2 Samuel 18:18). According to Josephus (Ant., VII, x, 3) this was a marble pillar, which he calls Absalom’s hand” and it wa two furlongs from Jerusalem. Warren suggests that this dale was identical with theKING’ S GARDEN (which see), which he places at the open valley formed at the junction of the Tyropoen with the Kidron (see JERUSALEM ). The so-called Absalom’s Pillar, which the Jews still pelt with stones in reprobation of Absalom’s disobedience, and which a comparatively recent tradition associates with 2 Samuel 18:18, is a very much later structure, belonging to the Greco-Roman period, but showing Egyptian influence. (2) King’s Vale ( Genesis 14:17; the King James Version dale). See KING’S VALE; VALE.

E. W. G. Masterman DALETH <da’-leth > ([D, d ]): The 4th letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and as such used in Psalm 119 to designate the 4th section; transliterated in this Encyclopedia with the dagesh as d, and, without, as dh (= th in “the”). It came also to be used for the number four (4) , and with the dieresis for 4,000. With the apostrophe it is sometimes used as abbreviation for the tetragrammaton. For name, etc., see ALPHABET.

DALLY <dal’-i > : Occurs in The Wisdom of Solomon 12:26: “But they that would not be reformed by that correction wherein he dallied with them” ([paigni>oiv ejpitimh>sewv, paigniois epitimeseos ], “child play of correction”), the reference being to the earlier and lighter plagues of Egypt; Version (British and American) renders “by a mocking correction as of children,” “by a correction which was as children’s play,” Greek (as above). He first tried them by those lighter inflictions before sending on them the heavier. In later usage “daily” implies delay .

DALMANUTHA <dal-ma-nu’-tha > . See MAGADAN . Compare Mark 8:10; Matthew 15:39.

DALMATIA <dal-ma’-shi-a > ([ Dalmati>a, Dalmatia ], “deceitful”): A district of the Roman empire lying on the eastern shore of the Adriatic. Writing from Rome to Timothy during his second imprisonment (in 66 or 67 AD, according to Ramsay’s chronology), Paul records the departure of Titus to Dalmatia ( 2 Timothy 4:10). No mention is made of his special mission, and we cannot tell whether his object was to traverse regions hitherto unevangelized or to visit churches already formed. Nor can we determine with certainty the meaning of the word Dalmatia as here used. Originally it denoted the land of the barbarous Dalmatae or Delmatae, a warlike Illyrian tribe subjugated by the Romans after a long and stubborn resistance; it was then applied to the southern portion of the Roman province of Illyricum, lying between the river Titius (modern Kerka ) and the Macedonian frontier; later the name was extended to the entire province. On the whole it seems most probable that the apostle uses it in this last sense. See further under the word ILLYRICUM.

Marcus N. Tod DALPHON <dal’-fon > ([ ˆ/pl]D” , dalphon ], “crafty”): The second of the ten sons of Haman, slain by the Jews (Est 9:7).

DAM ([ µae , ‘em ], ordinary Hebrew word for “mother”): Hebrew law prohibited the destruction of the “dam” and the young of birds at the same time, commanding that if the young be taken from a nest the dam be allowed to escape ( Deuteronomy 22:6,7). In the same spirit it enjoined the taking of an animal for slaughter before it had been seven days with its “dam” ( Exodus 22:30; Leviticus 22:27; compare Exodus 23:19).

DAMAGE <dam’-aj > ([ al;b;j\ , chabhala’ ]): This word expresses any inflicted loss of value or permanent injury to persons or things. “Why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?” ( Ezra 4:22). In Proverbs 26:6 “damage” means “wrong,” “injury” (Hebrew [ sm;j; , chamac ]). The translation of Est 7:4 is doubtful: “Although the adversary could not have compensated for the king’s damage” (the Revised Version, margin “For our affliction is not to be compared with the king’s damage” the King James Version “could not countervail the king’s damage”) but Hebrew [ qz,ne , nezeq ] (Est 7:4) and Aramaic [ qzin; , naziq ] ( Daniel 6:2) have the meaning of “molestation” or “annoyance” (see Ges.6 Buhl Dict. (15th edition) 489, 806, 908). We therefore ought to read `for that oppression would not have been worthy of the molestation of the king’ (Est 7:4) and `that the king should have no molestation’ ( Daniel 6:2). The Greek [zhmi>a, zemia ], “loss” and [zhmio>w, zemioo ], “to cause loss”; the Revised Version (British and American) therefore translates Acts 27:10 “will be with injury and much loss” (the King James Version “damage”), and 2 Corinthians 7:9 “that ye might suffer loss by us in nothing” (the King James Version “damage”). A. L. Breslich DAMARIS <dam’-a-ris > ([ Da>mariv, Damaris ], possibly a corruption of [da>maliv, damalis ], “a heifer”): The name of a female Christian of Athens, converted by Paul’s preaching ( Acts 17:34). The fact that she is mentioned in this passage together with Dionysius the Areopagite has led some, most probably in error, to regard her as his wife. The singling out of her name with that of Dionysius may indicate some personal or social distinction.

Compare Acts 17:12.

DAMASCENES <dam-a-senz’ > , <dam’-a-senz > [thlin Damaskhnw~n, ten polin Damaskenon ], “the city of the Damascenes”): The inhabitants of Damascus under Aretas the Arabian are so called ( 2 Corinthians 11:32).

DAMASCUS <da-mas’-kus > :

1. NAME:

The English name is the same as the Greek [ Damasko>v, Damaskos ]. The Hebrew name is [ qc,M,d” , Dammeseq ], but the Aramaic form [ qc,m,r]D” , Darmeseq ], occurs in 1 Chronicles 18:5; 2 Chronicles 28:5. The name appears in Egyptian inscriptions as Ti-mas-ku (16th century BC), and Sa-ra-mas-ki (13th century BC), which W. M. Muller, Asien u. Europa, 227, regards as representing Ti-ra-mas-ki , concluding from the “ra” in this form that Damascus had by that time passed under Aramaic influence. In the Tell el-Amarna Letters the forms Ti-ma-as-gi and Di-mas-ka occur.

The Arabic name is Dimashk esh-Sham (“Damascus of Syria”) usually contrasted to Esh-Sham simply. The meaning of the name Damascus is unknown. Esh-Sham (Syria) means “the left,” in contrast to the Yemen (Arabia) = “the right.”

2. SITUATION AND NATURAL FEATURES:

Damascus is situated (33 degrees 30’ North latitude, 36 degrees 18’ East longitude) in the Northwest corner of the Ghuta, a fertile plain about 2,300 ft. above sea level, West of Mt. Hermon. The part of the Ghuta East of the city is called el-Merj, the “meadow-land” of Damascus. The river Barada (see ASANA ) flows through Damascus and waters the plain, through which the Nahr el-Awaj (see PHARPAR ) also flows, a few miles South of the city. Surrounded on three sides by bare hills, and bordered on the East, its open side, by the desert, its well-watered and fertile Ghuta, with its streams and fountains, its fields and orchards, makes a vivid impression on the Arab of the desert. Arabic literature is rich in praises of Damascus, which is described as an earthly paradise. The European or American traveler is apt to feel that these praises are exaggerated, and it is perhaps only in early summer that the beauty of the innumerable fruit trees — apricots, pomegranates, walnuts and many others — justifies enthusiasm. To see Damascus as the Arab sees it, we must approach it, as he does, from the desert. The Barada (Abana) is the life blood of Damascus. Confined in a narrow gorge until close to the city, where it spreads itself in many channels over the plain, only to lose itself a few miles away in the marshes that fringe the desert, its whole strength is expended in making a small area between the hills and the desert really fertile. That is why a city on this site is inevitable and permanent. Damascus, almost defenseless from a military point of view, is the natural mart and factory of inland Syria. In the course of its long history it has more than once enjoyed and lost political supremacy, but in all the vicissitudes of political fortune it has remained the natural harbor of the Syrian desert.

3. THE CITY ITSELF:

Damascus lies along the main stream of the Barada, almost entirely on its south bank. The city is about a mile long (East to West) and about half a mile broad (North to South). On the south side a long suburb, consisting for the most part of a single street, called the Meidan, stretches for a mile beyond the line of the city wall, terminating at the Bawwabet Allah, the “Gate of God,” the starting-point of the Haj, the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. The city has thus roughly the shape of a broad-headed spoon, of which the Meidan is the handle. In the Greek period, a long, colonnaded street ran through the city, doubtless the “street which is called Straight” ( Acts 9:11). This street, along the course of which remains of columns have been discovered, runs westward from the Babesh-Sherki, the “East Gate.” Part of it is still called Derb el-Mustakim (“Straight Street”), but it is not certain that it has borne the name through all the intervening centuries. It runs between the Jewish and Christian quarters (on the left and right, respectively, going west), and terminates in the Suk el-Midhatiyeh, a bazaar built by Midhat Pasha, on the north of which is the main Moslem quarter, in which are the citadel and the Great Mosque. The houses are flat-roofed, and are usually built round a courtyard, in which is a fountain.

The streets, with the exception of Straight Street, are mostly narrow and tortuous, but on the west side of the city there are some good covered bazaars. Damascus is not rich in antiquities. The Omayyad Mosque, or Great Mosque, replaced a Christian church, which in its time had taken the place of a pagan temple. The site was doubtless occupied from time immemorial by the chief religious edifice of the city. A small part of the ancient Christian church is still extant. Part of the city wall has been preserved, with a foundation going back to Roman times, surmounted by Arab work. The traditional site of Paul’s escape ( Acts 9:25; Corinthians 11:33) and of the House of Naaman (2 Kings 5) are pointed out to the traveler, but the traditions are valueless. The charm of Damascus lies in the life of the bazaars, in the variety of types which may be seen there — the Druse, the Kurd, the Bedouin and many others — and in its historical associations. It has always been a manufacturing city. Our word “damask” bears witness to the fame of its textile industry, and the “Damascus blades” of the Crusading period were equally famous; and though Timur (Tamerlane) destroyed the trade in arms in 1399 by carrying away the armorers to Samarcand, Damascus is still a city of busy craftsmen in cloth and wood. Its antiquity casts a spell of romance upon it. After a traceable history of thirty-five centuries it is still a populous and flourishing city, and, in spite of the advent of the railway and even the electric street car, it still preserves the flavor of the East.

4. ITS HISTORY: (1) The Early Period (to circa 950 BC).

The origin of Damascus is unknown. Mention has already been made (section 1 ) of the references to the city in Egyptian inscriptions and in the Tell el-Amarna Letters. It appears once — possibly twice — in the history of Abraham. In Genesis 14:15 we read that Abraham pursued the four kings as far as Hobah, “which is on the left hand (i.e. the north) of Damascus.” But this is simply a geographical note which shows only that Damascus was well known at the time when Genesis 14 was written.

Greater interest attaches to Genesis 15:2, where Abraham complains that he is childless and that his heir is “Dammesek Eliezer” (English Revised Version), for which the Syriac version reads “Eliezer the Damaschul.” The clause, however, is hopelessly obscure, and it is doubtful whether it contains any reference to Damascus at all. In the time of David Damascus was an Aramean city, which assisted the neighboring Aramean states in their unsuccessful wars against David ( 2 Samuel 8:5 f). These campaigns resulted indirectly in the establishment of a powerful Aramean kingdom in Damascus. Rezon, son of Eliada, an officer in the army of Hadadezer, king of Zobah, escaped in the hour of defeat, and became a captain of banditti. Later he established himself in Damascus, and became its king ( 1 Kings 11:23 ff). He cherished a not unnatural animosity against Israel and the rise of a powerful and hostile kingdom in the Israelite frontier was a constant source of anxiety to Solomon ( 1 Kings 11:25). (2) The Aramean Kingdom (circa 950-732 BC).

Whether Rezon was himself the founder of a dynasty is not clear. He has been identified with Hezion, father of Tab-rimmon, and grandfather of Ben-hadad ( 1 Kings 15:18), but the identification, though a natural one, is insecure. Ben-hadad (Biridri) is the first king of Damascus, after Rezon, of whom we have any detailed knowledge. The disruption of the Hebrew kingdom afforded the Arameans an opportunity of playing off the rival Hebrew states against each other, and of bestowing their favors now on one, and now on the other. Benhadad was induced by Asa of Judah to accept a large bribe, or tribute, from the Temple treasures, and relieve Asa by attacking the Northern Kingdom ( 1 Kings 15:18 ff). Some years later (circa 880 BC) Ben-hadad (or his successor?) defeated Omri of Israel, annexed several Israelite cities, and secured the right of having Syrian “streets” (i.e. probably a bazaar for Syrian merchants) in Samaria ( Kings 20:34). Ben-hadad II (according to Winckler the two Ben-hadads are really identical, but this view, though just possible chronologically, conflicts with 1 Kings 20:34) was the great antagonist of Ahab. His campaigns against Israel are narrated in 1 Kings 20:22. At first successful, he was subsequently twice defeated by Ahab, and after the rout at Aphek was at the mercy of the conqueror, who treated him with generous leniency, claiming only the restoration of the lost Israelite towns, and the right of establishing an Israelite bazaar in Damascus. On the renewal of hostilities three years later Ahab fell before Ramoth-gilead, and his death relieved Ben-hadad of the only neighboring monarch who could ever challenge the superiority of Damascus. Further light is thrown upon the history of Damascus at this time by the Assyrian inscriptions. In BC the Assyrians defeated a coalition of Syrian and Palestine states (including Israel) under the leadership of Ben-hadad at Karqar. In 849 and 846 BC renewed attacks were made upon Damascus by the Assyrians, who, however, did not effect any considerable conquest. From this date until the fall of the city in 732 BC the power of the Aramean kingdom depended upon the activity or quiescence of Assyria. Hazael, who murdered Ben-hadad and usurped his throne circa 844 BC, was attacked in 842 and 839, but during the next thirty years Assyria made no further advance westward. Hazael was able to devote all his energies to his western neighbors, and Israel suffered severely at his hands. In 803 Mari’ of Damascus, who is probably identical with the Ben-hadad of 2 Kings 13:3, Hazael’s son, was made tributary to Ramman-nirari III of Assyria.

This blow weakened Aram, and afforded Jeroboam II of Israel an opportunity of avenging the defeats inflicted upon his country by Hazael.

In 773 Assyria again invaded the territory of Damascus. Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BC) pushed vigorously westward, and in 738 Rezin of Damascus paid tribute. A year or two later he revolted, and attempted in concert with Pekah of Israel, to coerce Judah into joining an anti-Assyrian league ( Kings 15:37; 16:5; Isaiah 7). His punishment was swift and decisive. In the Assyrians advanced and laid siege to Damascus, which fell in 732.

Rezin was executed, his kingdom was overthrown, and the city suffered the fate which a few years later befell Samaria. (3) The Middle Period (circa 732 BC-650 AD).

Damascus had now lost its political importance, and for more than two centuries we have only one or two inconsiderable references to it. It is mentioned in an inscription of Sargon (722-705 BC) as having taken part in an unsuccessful insurrection along with Hamath and Arpad. There are incidental references to it in Jeremiah 49:23 ff and Ezekiel 27:18; 47:16 ff. In the Persian period Damascus, if not politically of great importance, was a prosperous city. The overthrow of the Persian empire by Alexander was soon followed (301 BC) by the establishment of the Seleucid kingdom of Syria, with Antioch as its capital, and Damascus lost its position as the chief city of Syria. The center of gravity was moved toward the sea, and the maritime commerce of the Levant became more important than the trade of Damascus with the interior. In 111 BC the Syrian kingdom was divided, and Antiochus Cyzicenus became king of Coele-Syria, with Damascus as his capital. His successors, Demetrius Eucaerus and Antiochus Dionysus, had troubled careers, being involved in domestic conflicts and in wars with the Parthians, with Alexander Janneus of Judea, and with Aretas the Nabatean, who obtained possession of Damascus in 85 BC. Tigranes, being of Armenia, held Syria for some years after this date, but was defeated by the Romans, and in 64 BC Pompey finally annexed the country. The position of Damascus during the first century and a half of Roman rule in Syria is obscure. For a time it was in Roman hands, and from 31 BC-33 AD its coins bear the names of Augustus or Tiberius. Subsequently it was again in the hands of the Nabateans, and was ruled by an ethnarch, or governor, appointed by Aretas, the Nabatean king. This ethnarch adopted a hostile attitude to Paul ( 2 Corinthians 11:32 f) . Later, in the time of Nero, it again became a Roman city. In the early history of Christianity Damascus, as compared with Antioch, played a very minor part. But it is memorable in Christian history on account of its associations with Paul’s conversion, and as the scene of his earliest Christian preaching ( Acts 9:1-25). All the New Testament references to the city relate to this event ( Acts 9:#25 1:25; 22:5- 11; 26:12,20; 2 Corinthians 11:32 f; Galatians 1:17). Afterward, under the early Byzantine emperor, Damascus, though important as an outpost of civilization on the edge of the desert, continued to be second to Antioch both politically and ecclesiastically. It was not until the Arabian conquest (634 AD when it passed out of Christian hands, and reverted to the desert, that it once more became a true capital. (4) Under Islam.

Damascus has now been a Moslem city, or rather a city under Moslem rule, for nearly thirteen centuries. For about a century after 650 AD it was the seat of the Omayyad caliphs, and enjoyed a position of preeminence in the Moslem world. Later it was supplanted by Bagdad, and in the 10th century it came under the rule of the Fatimites of Egypt. Toward the close of the 11th century the Seljuk Turks entered Syria and captured Damascus. In the period of the Crusades the city, though never of decisive importance, played a considerable part, and was for a time the headquarters of Saladin.

In 1300 it was plundered by the Tartars, and in 1399 Timur exacted an enormous ransom from it, and carried off its famous armorers, thus robbing it of one of its most important industries. Finally, in 1516 AD, the Osmanli Turks under Sultan Selim conquered Syria, and Damascus became, and still is, the capital of a province of the Ottoman Empire. C. H. Thomson DAMMESEK ELIEZER ( Genesis 15:2 the English Revised Version). See ELIEZER (1).

DAMN; DAMNATION; DAMNABLE <dam > , <dam-na’-shun > , <dam’-na-bl > : These words have undergone a change of meaning since the King James Version was made. They are derived from Latin damnare = “to inflict a loss,” “to condemn,” and that was their original meaning in English Now they denote exclusively the idea of everlasting punishment in hell. It is often difficult to determine which meaning was intended by the translators in the King James Version. They have been excluded altogether from the Revised Version (British and American). The words for which they stand in the King James Version are: (1) [ajpw>leia, apoleia ], “destruction,” translated “damnable” and “damnation” only in 2 Peter 21:3 (the Revised Version (British and American) “destructive,” “destruction”). False prophets taught doctrines calculated to destroy others, and themselves incurred the sentence of destruction such as overtook the fallen angels, the world in the Deluge, and the cities of the Plain. Apoleia occurs otherwise 16 times in the New Testament, and is always translated in the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) by either “perdition” or “destruction”: twice of waste of treasure ( Matthew 26:8 = Mark 14:4); twice of the beast that comes out of the abyss and goes into perdition ( Revelation 17:8,11). In all other cases, it refers to men, and defines the destiny that befalls them as the result of sin: Judas is the “son of perdition” ( John 17:12). Peter consigns Simon Magus and his money to perdition ( Acts 8:20). Some men are “vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction” ( Romans 9:22), and others, their “end is perdition” ( Philippians 3:19). It is the antithesis of salvation ( Hebrews 10:39; Philippians 1:28). Of the two ways of life, one leads to destruction ( Matthew 7:13). Whether it is utter, final and irretrievable destruction is not stated. (2) [kri>nw, krino ], translated “damned” only in the King James Version of 2 Thessalonians 2:12 (the Revised Version (British and American) “judged”) means “to judge” in the widest sense, “to form an opinion” ( Luke 7:43), and forensically “to test and try” an accused person. It can only acquire the sense of “judging guilty” or “condemning” from the context. (3) [katakri>nw, katakrino ], translated “damned” only in the King James Version of Mark 16:16; Romans 14:23 (“condemned” in the Revised Version (British and American)), means properly “to give judgment against” or “to condemn” and is so translated 17 times in the King James Version and always in the Revised Version (British and American). (4) [kri>siv, krisis ], translated “damnation” in the King James Version of Matthew 23:33; Mark 3:29; John 5:29 (the Revised Version (British and American) “judgment,” but in Mark 3:29, “sin” for [aJma>rthma, hamartema ]), means (a) judgment in general like krino , and is so used about 17 times, besides 14 times in the phrase “day of judgment”; (b) “condemnation,” like katakrino , about 14 times. (5) [kri>ma, krima ], translated in the King James Version “damnation” times ( Matthew 23:14 = Mark 12:40 = Luke 20:47; Romans 3:8; 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:29; 1 Timothy 5:12), “condemnation” times, “judgment” 13 times, “law” and “avenged” once each; in the Revised Version (British and American) “condemnation” 9 t ( Matthew 23:14 only inserted in margin), “judgment” 17 times, and once in margin, “lawsuit” and “sentence” once each. “Judgment” may be neutral, an impartial act of the judge weighing the evidence (so in Matthew 7:2; Acts 24:25; Romans 11:33; Hebrews 6:2; 1 Peter 4:17; Revelation 20:4) and “lawsuit” ( 1 Corinthians 6:7); or it may be inferred from the context that judgment is unto condemnation (so in Romans 2:2,3; 5:16; Galatians 5:10; 2 Peter 2:3; Revelation 17:1; 18:20, and the Revised Version (British and American) Romans 13:2; 1 Corinthians 11:29). In places where krima and krisis are rightly translated “condemnation,” and where “judgment” regarded as an accomplished fact involves a sentence of guilt, they together with katakrino define the relation of a person to the supreme authority, as that of a criminal, found and held guilty, and liable to punishment. So the Roman empire regarded Jesus Christ, and the thief on the cross ( Luke 23:40; 24:20). But generally these words refer to man as a sinner against God, judged guilty by Him, and liable to the just penalty of sin. They imply nothing further as to the nature of the penalty or the state of man undergoing it, nor as to its duration. Nor does the word “eternal” ([aijw>n, aijw>niov, aion, aionios ], often wrongly translated “everlasting” in the King James Version) when added to them, determine the question of duration. Condemnation is an act in the moral universe, which cannot be determined under categories of time.

These terms define the action of God in relation to man’s conduct, as that of the Supreme Judge, but they express only one aspect of that relation which is only fully conceived, when coordinated with the more fundamental idea of God’s Fatherhood. See ESCHATOLOGY; JUDGMENT.

LITERATURE.

Salmond, Christian Doctrine of Immortality; Charles, Eschatology. T. Rees DAMSEL <dam’-zel > : A young, unmarried woman; a girl (lass); maiden (compare French demoiselle ). The Revised Version (British and American) in Matthew 26:69; John 18:17; Acts 12:13; 16:16 gives “maid” for [paidi>skh, paidiske ], “a girl,” i.e. (spec.) a maidservant or young female slave (the King James Version “damsel”), and “child” for [paidi>on, paidion ], “a half-grown boy or girl,” in Mark 5:39,40 bis. 41.

DAN (1) ([ ˆD; , dan ], “judge”; [ Da>n, Dan ]).

1. NAME:

The fifth of Jacob’s sons, the first borne to him by Bilhah, the maid of Rachel, to whom, as the child of her slave, he legally belonged. At his birth Rachel, whose barrenness had been a sore trial to her, exclaimed “God hath judged me .... and hath given me a son,” so she called his name Dan, i.e. “judge” ( Genesis 30:6). He was full brother of Naphtali. In Jacob’s Blessing there is an echo of Rachel’s words, “Daniel shall judge his people” ( Genesis 49:16). Of the patriarch Daniel almost nothing is recorded. Of his sons at the settlement in Egypt only one, Hushim, is mentioned ( Genesis 46:23). The name in Numbers 26:42 is Shuham.

2. THE TRIBE:

The tribe however stands second in point of numbers on leaving Egypt, furnishing 62,700 men of war ( Numbers 1:39); and at the second census they were 64,400 strong ( Numbers 26:43). The standard of the camp of Daniel in the desert march, with which were Asher and Naphtali, was on the north side of the tabernacle ( Numbers 2:25; 10:25; compare Joshua 6:9 the King James Version margin, “gathering host”). The prince of the tribe was Ahiezer ( Numbers 1:12). Among the spies Daniel was represented by Ammiel the son of Gemalli ( Numbers 13:12). Of the tribe of Daniel was Oholiab (the King James Version “Aholiab”) one of the wise-hearted artificers engaged in the construction of the tabernacle ( Exodus 31:6). One who was stoned for blasphemy was the son of a Danite woman ( Leviticus 24:10 f). At the ceremony of blessing and cursing, Daniel and Naphtali stood on Mount Ebal, while the other Rachel tribes were on Gerizim ( Deuteronomy 27:13). The prince of Daniel at the division of the land was Bukki the son of Jogli ( Numbers 34:22).

3. TERRITORY:

The portion assigned to Daniel adjoined those of Ephraim, Benjamin and Judah, and lay on the western slopes of the mountain. The reference in Judges 5:17: “And Dan, why did he remain in ships?” seems to mean that on the West, Daniel had reached the sea. But the passage is one of difficulty. We are told that the Amorites forced the children of Daniel into the mountain ( Judges 1:34), so they did not enjoy the richest part of their ideal portion, the fertile plain between the mountain and the sea. The strong hand of the house of Joseph kept the Amorites tributary, but did not drive them out. Later we find Daniel oppressed by the Philistines, against whom the heroic exploits of Samson were performed (Judges 14 ff). The expedition of the Danites recorded in Judges 18 is referred to in Joshua 19:47 ff.

4. THE DANITE RAID:

The story affords a priceless glimpse of the conditions prevailing in those days. Desiring an extension of territory, the Danites sent out spies, who recommended an attack upon Laish, a city at the north end of the Jordan valley. The people, possibly a colony from Sidon, were careless in their fancied security. The land was large, and there was “no want of anything that was in the earth.” The expedition of the 600, their dealings with Micah and his priest, their capture of Laish, and their founding of an idol shrine with priestly attendant, illustrate the strange mingling of lawlessness and superstition which was characteristic of the time. The town rebuilt on the site of Laish they called Dan — see following article. Perhaps Chronicles 2:14 may be taken to indicate that the Danites intermarried with the Phoenicians. Divided between its ancient seat in the South and the new territory in the North the tribe retained its place in Israel for a time ( Chronicles 12:35; 27:22), but it played no part of importance in the subsequent history. The name disappears from the genealogical lists of Chronicles; and it is not mentioned among the tribes in Revelation 7:5 ff.

Samson was the one great man produced by Dan, and he seems to have embodied the leading characteristics of the tribe: unsteady, unscrupulous, violent, possessed of a certain grim humor; stealthy in tactics — ”a serpent in the way, an adder in the path” ( Genesis 49:17) — but swift and strong in striking — ”a lion’s whelp, that leapeth forth from Bashan” ( Deuteronomy 33:22). Along with Abel, Daniel ranked as a city in which the true customs of old Israel were preserved ( 2 Samuel 20:18 Septuagint). W. Ewing DAN (2) A city familiar as marking the northern limit of the land of Israel in the common phrase “from Daniel even to Beer-sheba” ( Judges 20:1; Samuel 3:20, etc.). Its ancient name was Laish or Leshem ( Judges 18:7, etc.). It was probably an outlying settlement of Tyre of Sidon. Its inhabitants, pursuing the ends of peaceful traders, were defenseless against the onset of the Danite raiders. Having captured the city the Danites gave it the name of their own tribal ancestor (Judges 18). It lay in the valley near Beth-rehob ( Judges 18:28). Josephus places it near Mt. Lebanon and the fountain of the lesser Jordan, a day’s journey from Sidon (Ant., V, iii, 1; VIII, viii, 4; BJ, IV, i, 1). Eusebius, Onomasticon says it lay 4 Roman miles from Paneas on the way to Tyre, at the source of the Jordan. This points decisively to Tell el-Qady, in the plain West of Banias. The mound of this name — Kady is the exact Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew Dan — rises from among the bushes and reeds to a height varying from 40 to 80 ft.

The largest of all the springs of the Jordan rises on the west side. The waters join with those of a smaller spring on the other side to form Nahr el-Leddan which flows southward to meet the streams from Banias and Chasbeiyeh. The mound, which is the crater of an extinct volcano, has certain ancient remains on the south side, while the tomb of Sheikh Marzuk is sheltered by two holy trees. The sanctuary and ritual established by the Danites persisted as long as the house of God was in Shiloh, and the priesthood in this idolatrous shrine remained in the family of Jonathan till the conquest of Tiglath-pileser ( Judges 18:30; 2 Kings 15:29). Here Jeroboam I set up the golden calf. The ancient sanctity of the place would tend to promote the success of his scheme ( 1 Kings 12:28 f, etc.). The calf, according to a Jewish tradition, was taken away by Tiglath-pileser.

Daniel fell before Benhadad, king of Syria ( 1 Kings 15:20; Chronicles 16:4). It was regained by Jeroboam II ( 2 Kings 14:25). It shared the country’s fate at th hands of Tiglath-pileser ( 2 Kings 15:29).

It was to this district that Abraham pursued the army of Chedorlaomer ( Genesis 14:14). For Dr. G. A. Smith’s suggestion that Daniel may have been at Banias see HGHL1, 473, 480 f. W. Ewing DAN (3) ( Ezekiel 27:19 the King James Version). See VEDAN.

DANCING <dan’-sing > . See GAMES.

DANDLE <dan’-d’-l > . ([ [v”[‘v; , sha`-osha` ], a Pulpal form, from root ([ [[“v; , sha`-a` ]) with sense of to “be caressed”). Occurs in Isaiah 66:12, “shall be dandled upon the knees.”

DANGER <dan’-jer > : Danger does not express a state of reality but a possibility. In Matthew 5:21 f, however, and also the King James Version Mark 3:29 (the Revised Version (British and American) “but is guilty of an eternal sin”) the expression “danger” refers to a certainty, for the danger spoken of is in one case judgment which one brings upon himself, and in the other the committing of an unpardonable sin. Both are the necessary consequences of a man’s conduct. The reason for translating the Greek ([e]nocov, enochos ] (literally, “to be held in anything so one cannot escape”) by “is in danger,” instead of “guilty” or “liable,” may be due to the translator’s conception of these passages as a warning against such an act rather than as a statement of the judgment which stands pronounced over every man who commits the sin. A. L. Breslich DANIEL <dan’-yel > ([ laYeniD; , daniye’l ], [ laeniD; , dani’-el ], “God is my judge”; [ Danih>l, Daniel ]): (1) One of the sons of David ( 1 Chronicles 3:1). (2) A Levite of the family of Ithamar ( Ezra 8:2; Nehemiah 10:6). (3) A prophet of the time of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, the hero and author of the Book of Daniel.

1. EARLY LIFE:

We know nothing of the early life of Daniel, except what is recorded in the book bearing his name. Here it is said that he was one of the youths of royal or noble seed, who were carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah. These youths were without blemish, well-favored, skillful in all wisdom, endued with knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability to stand in the king’s palace.

The king commanded to teach them the knowledge and tongue of the Chaldeans; and appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s food and of the wine which he drank. After having been thus nourished for three years, they were to stand before the king. Ashpenaz, the master or chief of the eunuchs, into whose hands they had been entrusted, following a custom of the time, gave to each of these youths a new and Babylonian name. To Daniel, he gave the name Belteshazzar. In Babylonian this name was probably Belu-lita-sharri-usur, which means “O Bel, protect thou the hostage of the king,” a most appropriate name for one in the place which Daniel occupied as a hostage of Jehoiakim at the court of the king of Babylon. The youths were probably from 12 to 15 years of age at the time when they were carried captive. (For changes of names, compare Joseph changed to Zaphenath-paneah ( Genesis 41:45); Eliakim, to Jehoiakim ( 2 Kings 23:34); Mattaniah, to Zedekiah ( 2 Kings 24:17); and the tw names of the high priest Johanan’s brother in the Sachau Papyri, i.e. Ostan and Anani.)

Having purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the food and drink of the king, Daniel requested of Ashpenaz permission to eat vegetables and drink water. Through the favor of God, this request was granted, notwithstanding the fear of Ashpenaz that his head would be endangered to the king on account of the probably resulting poor appearance of the youths living upon this blood-diluting diet, in comparison with the expected healthy appearance of the others of their class. However, ten days’ trial having been first granted, and at the end of that time their countenances having been found fairer and their flesh fatter than the other youths’, the permission was made permanent; and God gave to Daniel and his companions knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom, and to Daniel understanding in all visions and dreams; so that at the end of the three years when the king communed with them, he found them much superior to all the magicians and enchanters in every matter of wisdom and understanding.

2. DREAM-INTERPRETER:

Daniel’s public activities were in harmony with his education. His first appearance was as an interpreter of the dream recorded in Daniel 2.

Nebuchadnezzar having seen in his dream a vision of a great image, excellent in brightness and terrible in appearance, its head of fine gold, its breast and its arms of silver, its belly and its thighs of brass, its legs of iron, its feet part of iron and part of clay, beheld a stone cut out without hands smiting the image and breaking it in pieces, until it became like chaff and was carried away by the wind; while the stone that smote the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. When the king awoke from his troubled sleep, he forgot, or reigned that he had forgotten, the dream, and summoned the wise men of Babylon both to tell him the dream and to give the interpretation thereof. The wise men having said that they could not tell the dream, nor interpret it as long as it was untold, the king threatened them with death. Daniel, who seems not to have been present when the other wise men were before the king, when he was informed of the threat of the king, and that preparations were being made to slay all of the wise men of Babylon, himself and his three companions included, boldly went in to the king and requested that he would appoint a time for him to appear to show the interpretation, Then he went to his house, and he and his companions prayed, and the dream and its interpretation were made known unto Daniel. At the appointed time, the dream was explained and the four Hebrews were loaded with wealth and given high positions in the service of the king. In the 4th chapter, we have recorded Daniel’s interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar about the great tree that was hewn at the command of an angel, thus prefiguring the insanity of the king.

3. INTERPRETER OF SIGNS:

Daniel’s third great appearance in the book is in chapter 5, where he is called upon to explain the extraordinary writing upon the wall of Belshazzar’s palace, which foretold the end of the Babylonian empire and the incoming of the Medes and Persians. For this service Daniel was clothed with purple, a chain of gold put around his neck, and he was made the third ruler in the kingdom.

4. SEER OF VISIONS:

Daniel, however, was not merely an interpreter of other men’s visions. In the last six chapters we have recorded four or five of his own visions, all of which are taken up with revelations concerning the future history of the great world empires, especially in their relation to the people of God, and predictions of the final triumph of the Messiah’s kingdom.

5. OFFICIAL OF THE KINGS:

In addition to his duties as seer and as interpreter of signs and dreams, Daniel also stood high in the governmental service of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede, and perhaps also of Cyrus. The Book of Dnl, our only reliable source of information on this subject, does not tell us much about his civil duties and performances. It does say, however, that he was chief of the wise men, that he was in the gate of the king, and that he was governor over the whole province of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar; that Belshazzar made him the third ruler in his kingdom; and that Darius made him one of the three presidents to whom his hundred and twenty satraps were to give account; and that he even thought to set him over his whole kingdom. In all of these positions he seems to have conducted himself with faithfulness and judgment. While in the service of Darius the Mede, he aroused the antipathy of the other presidents and of the satraps.

Unable to find any fault with his official acts, they induced the king to make a decree, apparently general in form and purpose, but really aimed at Daniel alone. They saw that they could find no valid accusation against him, unless they found it in connection with something concerning the law of his God. They therefore caused the king to make a decree that no one should make a request of anyone for the space of thirty days, save of the king. Daniel, having publicly prayed three times a day as he was in the habit of doing, was caught in the act, accused, and on account of the irrevocability of a law of the Medes and Persians, was condemned in accordance with the decree to be cast into a den of lions. The king was much troubled at this, but was unable to withhold the punishment.

However, he expressed to Daniel his belief that his God in whom he trusted continually would deliver him; and so indeed it came to pass. For in the morning, when the king drew near to the mouth of the den, and called to him, Daniel said that God had sent His angel and shut the mouths of the lions. So Daniel was taken up unharmed, and at the command of the king his accusers, having been cast into tile den, were destroyed before they reached the bottom.

LITERATURE.

Besides the commentaries and other works mentioned in the article on the Book of Daniel, valuable information may be found in Josephus and in Payne Smith’s Lectures on Daniel. R. Dick Wilson DANIEL, BOOK OF <dan’-yel > :

I. NAME.

The Book of Daniel is rightly so called, whether we consider Daniel as the author of it, or as the principal person mentioned in it.

II. PLACE IN THE CANON.

In the English Bible, Daniel is placed among the Major Prophets, immediately after Ezk, thus following the order of the Septuagint and of the Latin Vulgate (Jerome’s Bible, 390-405 A.D.) In the Hebrew Bible, however, it is placed in the third division of the Canon, called the Kethuvim or writings, by the Hebrews, and the hagiographa, or holy writings, by the Seventy. It has been claimed, that Daniel was placed by the Jews in the third part of the Canon, either because they thought the inspiration of its author to be of a lower kind than was that of the other prophets, or because the book was written after the second or prophetical part of the Canon had been closed. It is more probable, that the book was placed in this part of the Hebrew Canon, because Daniel is not called a nabhi’ (“prophet”), but was rather a chozeh (“seer”) and a chakham (“wise man”).

None but the works of the nebhi’im were put in the second part of the Jewish Canon, the third being reserved for the heterogeneous works of seers, wise men, and priests, or for those that do not mention the name or work of a prophet, or that are poetical in form. A confusion has arisen, because the Greek word prophet is used to render the two Hebrew words nabhi’ and chozeh . In the Scriptures, God is said to speak to the former, whereas the latter see visions and dream dreams. Some have attempted to explain the position of Daniel by assuming that he had the prophetic gift without holding the prophetic office. It must be kept in mind that all reasons given to account for the order and place of many of the books in the Canon are purely conjectural, since we have no historical evidence bearing upon the subject earlier than the time of Jesus ben Sirach, who wrote probably about 180 BC.

III. DIVISIONS OF THE BOOK.

According to its subject-matter, the book falls naturally into two great divisions, each consisting of six chapters, the first portion containing the historical sections, and the second the apocalyptic, or predictive, portions; though the former is not devoid of predictions, nor the latter of historical statements. More specifically, the first chapter is introductory to the whole book; Daniel 2 through 6 describe some marvelous events in the history of Daniel and his three companions in their relations with the rulers of Babylon; and chapters 7 through 12 narrate some visions of Daniel concerning the great world-empires, especially in relation to the kingdom of God.

According to the languages in which the book is written, it may be divided into the Aramaic portion, extending from Daniel 2:4b to the end of chapter 7, and a Hebrew portion embracing the rest of the book.

IV. LANGUAGES.

The language of the book is partly Hebrew and partly a dialect of Aramaic, which has been called Chaldee, or Biblical Aramaic This Aramaic is almost exactly the same as that which is found in portions of Ezra. On account of the large number of Babylonian and Persian words characteristic of this Aramaic and of that of the papyri recently found in Egypt, as well as on account of the general similarity of the nominal, verbal and other forms, and of the syntactical construction, the Aramaic of this period might properly be called the Babylonian-Persian Aramaic With the exception of the sign used to denote the sound “dh,” and of the use of qoph in a few cases where Daniel has `ayin, the spelling in the papyri is the same in general as that in the Biblical books. Whether the change of spelling was made at a later time in the manuscripts of Daniel, or whether it was a peculiarity of the Babylonian Aramaic as distinguished from the Egyptian or whether it was due to the unifying, scientific genius of Daniel himself, we have no means at present to determine. In view of the fact that the Elephantine Papyri frequently employ the “d” sign to express the “dh” sound, and that it is always employed in Ezra to express it; in view further of the fact that the “z” sign is found as late as the earliest Nabatean inscription, that of 70 BC (see Euting, 349: 1, 2, 4) to express the “dh” sound, it seems fatuous to insist on the ground of the writing of these two sounds in the Book of Daniel, that it cannot have been written in the Persian period. As to the use of qoph and `ayin for the Aramaic sound which corresponds to the Hebrew tsadhe when equivalent to an Arabic dad, any hasty conclusion is debarred by the fact that the Aramaic papyri of the 5th century BC, the manuscripts of the Samaritan Targum and the Mandaic manuscripts written from 600 to 900 AD all employ the two letters to express the one sound. The writing of ‘aleph and he without any proper discrimination occurs in the papyri as well as in Daniel. The only serious objection to the early date of upon the ground of its spelling is that which is based upon the use of a final “n” in the pronominal suffix of the second and third persons masculine plural instead of the margin of the Aramaic papyri and of the Zakir and Sendschirli inscriptions. It is possible that was influenced in this by the corresponding forms of the Babylonian language. The Syriac and Mandaic dialects of the Aramaic agree with the Babylonian in the formation of the pronominal suffixes of the second and third persons masculine plural, as against the Hebrew, Arabic, Minaean, Sabean and Ethiopic. It is possible that the occurrence of “m” in some west Aramaic documents may have arisen through the influence of the Hebrew and Phoenician, and that pure Aramaic always had “n” just as we find it in Assyrian and Babylonian, and in all east Aramaic documents thus far discovered.

The supposition that the use of “y” in Daniel as a preformative of the third person masculine of the imperfect proves a Palestinian provenience has been shown to be untenable by the discovery that the earliest east Syriac also used “y”. (See M. Pognon, Inscriptions semitiques, premiere partie, 17.)

This inscription is dated 73 AD. This proof that in the earlier stages of its history the east Aramaic was in this respect the same as that found in Daniel is confirmed by the fact that the forms of the 3rd person of the imperfect found in the proper names on the Aramaic dockets of the Assyrian inscriptions also have the preformative y. (See Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, II, 47.)

V. PURPOSE OF THE BOOK.

The book is not intended to give an account of the life of Daniel. It gives neither his lineage, nor his age, and recounts but a few of the events of his long career. Nor is it meant to give a record of the history of Israel during the exile, nor even of the captivity in Babylon. Its purpose is to show how by His providential guidance, His miraculous interventions, His foreknowledge and almighty power, the God of heaven controls and directs the forces of Nature and the history of nations, the lives of Hebrew captives and of the mightiest of the kings of the earth, for the accomplishment of His Divine and beneficent plans for His servants and people.

VI. UNITY.

The unity of the book was first denied by Spinoza, who suggested that the first part was taken from the chronological works of the Chaldeans, basing his supposition upon the difference of language between the former and latter parts. Newton followed Spinoza in suggesting two parts, but began his second division with Daniel 7, where the narrative passes over from the 3rd to the 1st person. Kohler follows Newton, claiming, however, that the visions were written by the Daniel of the exile, but that the first 6 chapters were composed by a later writer who also redacted the whole work. Von Orelli holds that certain prophecies of Daniel were enlarged and interpolated by a Jew living in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in order to show his contemporaries the bearing of the predictions of the book upon those times of oppression. Zockler and Lange hold to the unity of the book in general; but the former thought that Daniel 11:5-45 is an interpolation; and the latter, that 10:1 through 11:44 and 12:5-13 have been inserted in the original work. Meinhold holds that the Aramaic portions existed as early as the times of Alexander the Great — a view to which Strack also inclines. Eichhorn held that the book consisted of ten different original sections, which are bound together merely by the circumstance that they are all concerned with Daniel and his three friends.

Finally, Deuteronomy Lagarde, believing that the fourth kingdom was the Roman, held that Daniel 7 was written about 69 AD. (For the best discussion of the controversies about the unity of Daniel, see Eichhorn, Einleitung, sections 612-19, and Buhl in See Hauck-Herzog, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche, IV, 449-51.)

VII. GENUINENESS.

With the exception of the neo-Platonist Porphyry, a Greek non-Christian philosopher of the 3rd century AD, the genuineness of the Book of was denied by no one until the rise of the deistic movement in the 17th century.

The attacks upon the genuineness of the book have been based upon: (1) the predictions, (2) the miracles, (3) the text, (4) the language, (5) the historical statements. 1. The Predictions: The assailants of the genuineness of Daniel on the ground of the predictions found therein, may be divided into two classes — those who deny prediction in general, and those who claim that the apocalyptic character of the predictions of Daniel is a sufficient proof of their lack of genuineness. The first of these two classes includes properly those only who deny not merely Christianity, but theism; and the answering of them may safely be left to those who defend the doctrines of theism, and particularly of revelation. The second class of assailants is, however, of a different character, since it consists of those who are sincere believers in Christianity and predictive prophecy. They claim, however, that certain characteristics of definiteness and detail, distinguishing the predictive portions of the Book of Daniel from other predictions of the Old Testament, bring the genuineness of Daniel into question.

The kind of prediction found here, ordinarily called apocalyptic, is said to have arisen first in the 2nd century BC, when parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written; and a main characteristic of an apocalypse is said to be that it records past events as if they were still future, throwing the speaker back into some distant past time, for the purpose of producing on the reader the impression that the book contains real predictions, thus gaining credence for the statements of the writer and giving consolation to those who are thus led to believe in the providential foresight of God for those who trust in Him.

Since those who believe that God has spoken unto man by His Son and through the prophets will not be able to set limits to the extent and definiteness of the revelations which He may have seen fit to make through them, nor to prescribe the method, style, time and character of the revelations, this attack on the genuineness of Daniel may safely be left to the defenders of the possibility and the fact of a revelation. One who believes in these may logically believe in the genuineness of Daniel, as far as this objection goes. That there are spurious apocalypses no more proves that all are spurious than that there are spurious gospels or epistles proves that there are no genuine ones. The spurious epistles of Philaris do not prove that Cicero’s Letters are not genuine; nor do the false statements of 2 Macc, nor the many spurious Acts of the Apostles, prove that 1 Macc or Luke’s Acts of the Apostles is not genuine. Nor does the fact that the oldest portions of the spurious apocalypses which have been preserved to our time are thought to have been written in the 2nd century BC, prove that no apocalypses, either genuine or spurious, were written before that time. There must have been a beginning, a first apocalypse, at some time, if ever. Besides, if we admit that the earliest parts of the Book of Enoch and of the Sibylline Oracles were written about the middle of the 2nd century BC, whereas the Book of Esdras was written about 300 AD, 450 years later, we can see no good literary reason wh Daniel may not have antedated Enoch by 350 years. The period between 500 BC and 150 BC is so almost entirely devoid of all known Hebrew literary productions as to render it exceedingly precarious for anyone to express an opinion as to what works may have characterized that long space of time. 2. The Miracles: Secondly, as to the objections made against the Book of Daniel on the ground of the number or character of the miracles recorded, we shall only say that they affect the whole Christian system, which is full of the miraculous from beginning to end. If we begin to reject the books of the Bible because miraculous events are recorded in them, where indeed shall we stop? 3. The Text: Thirdly, a more serious objection, as far as Daniel itself is concerned, is the claim of Eichhorn that the original text of the Aramaic portion has been so thoroughly tampered with and changed, that we can no longer get at the genuine original composition. We ourselves can see no objection to the belief that these Aramaic portions were written first of all in Hebrew, or even, if you will, in Babylonian; nor to the supposition that some Greek translators modified the meaning in their version either intentionally, or through a misunderstanding of the original. We claim, however, that the composite Aramaic of Daniel agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology and syntax, with the Aramaic of the North Semitic inscriptions of the 9th, 8th and 7th centuries BC and of the Egyptian papyri of the 5th century BC, and that the vocabulary of Daniel has an admixture of Hebrew, Babylonian and Persian words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th century BC; whereas, it differs in composition from the Aramaic of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Persian, Hebrew, and Babylonian words, and is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Greek words, while having but one or two Persian words, and no Hebrew or Babylonian.

As to different recensions, we meet with a similar difficulty in Jeremiah without anyone’s impugning on that account the genuineness of the work as a whole. As to interpolations of verses or sections, they are found in the Samaritan recension of the Hebrew text and in the Samaritan and other Targums, as also in certain places in the text of the New Testament, Josephus and many other ancient literary works, without causing us to disbelieve in the genuineness of the rest of their works, or of the works as a whole. 4. The Language: Fourthly, the objections to the genuineness of Daniel based on the presence in it of three Greek names of musical instruments and of a number of Persian words do not seem nearly as weighty today as they did a hundred years ago. The Greek inscriptions at Abu Simbal in Upper Egypt dating from the time of Psamtek II in the early part of the 6th century BC, the discovery of the Minoan inscriptions and ruins in Crete, the revelations of the wide commercial relations of the Phoenicians in the early part of the 1st millennium BC, the lately published inscriptions of Sennacherib about his campaigns in Cilicia against the Greek seafarers to which Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus had referred, telling about his having carried many Greeks captive to Nineveh about 700 BC, the confirmation of the wealth and expensive ceremonies of Nebuchadnezzar made by his own building and other inscriptions, all assure us of the possibility of the use of Greek musical instruments at Babylon in the 6th century BC. This, taken along with the well-known fact that names of articles of commerce and especially of musical instruments go with the thing, leave no room to doubt that a writer of the 6th century BC may have known and used borrowed Greek terms. The Arameans being the great commercial middlemen between Egypt and Greece on the one hand and Babylon and the Orient on the other, and being in addition a subject people, would naturally adopt many foreign words into their vocabulary.

As to the presence of the so-called Persian words in Daniel, it must be remembered that many words which were formerly considered to be such have been found to be Babylonian. As to the others, perhaps all of them may be Median rather than Persian; and if so, the children of Israel who were carried captive to the cities of the Medes in the middle of the 8th century BC, and the, Arameans, many of whom were subject to the Medes, at least from the time of the fall of Nineveh about 607 BC, may well have adopted many words into their vocabulary from the language of their rulers. Daniel was not writing merely for the Jews who had been carried captive by Nebuchadnezzar, but for all Israelites throughout the world.

Hence, he would properly use a language which his scattered readers would understand rather than the purer idiom of Judea. Most of his foreign terms are names of officials, legal terms, and articles of clothing, for which there were no suitable terms existing in the earlier Hebrew or Aramaic There was nothing for a writer to do but to invent new terms, or to transfer the current foreign words into his native language. The latter was the preferable method and the one which he adopted. 5. The Historical Statements: Fifthly, objections to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel are made on the ground of the historical misstatements which are said to be found in it.

These may be classed as: (1) chronological, (2) geographical, and (3) various. (1) Chronological Objections.

The first chronological objection is derived from Daniel 1:1, where it is said that Nebuchadnezzar made an expedition against Jerusalem in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, whereas Jeremiah seems to imply that the expedition was made in the 4th year of that king. As Daniel was writing primarily for the Jews of Babylon, he would naturally use the system of dating that was employed there; and this system differed in its method of denoting the 1st year of a reign from that used by the Egyptians and by the Jews of Jerusalem for whom Jeremiah wrote.

The second objection is derived from the fact that Daniel is said ( Daniel 1:21) to have lived unto the 1st year of Cyrus the king, whereas in Daniel 10:1 he is said to have seen a vision in the 3rd year of Cyrus, king of Persia. These statements are easily reconciled by supposing that in the former case it is the 1st year of Cyrus as king of Babylon, and in the second, the 3rd year of Cyrus as king of Persia.

The third chronological objection is based on Daniel 6:28, where it is said that Daniel prospered in the kingdom of Darius and in the kingdom of Cyrus the Persian. This statement is harmonized with the facts revealed by the monuments and with the statements of the book itself by supposing that Darius reigned synchronously with Cyrus, but as sub-king under him.

The fourth objection is based on Daniel 8:1, where Daniel is said to have seen a vision in the third year of Belshazzar the king. If we suppose that Belshazzar was king of the Chaldeans while his father was king of Babylon, just as Cambyses was king of Babylon while his father, Cyrus, was king of the lands, or as Nabonidus II seems to have been king of Harran while his father, Nabonidus I, was king of Babylon, this statement will harmonize with the other statements made with regard to Belshazzar. (2) Geographical Objections.

As to the geographical objections, three only need be considered as important. The first is, that Shushan seems to be spoken of in Daniel 7:2 as subject to Babylon, whereas it is supposed by some to have been at that time subject to Media. Here we can safely rest upon the opinion of Winckler, that at the division of the Assyrian dominions among the allied Medes and Babylonians, Elam became subject to Babylon rather than to Media. If, however, this opinion could be shown not to be true, we must remember that Daniel is said to have been at ShuShan in a vision.

The second geographical objection is based on the supposition that Nebuchadnezzar would not have gone against Jerusalem, leaving an Egyptian garrison at Carchemish in his rear, thus endangering his line of communication and a possible retreat to Babylon. This objection has no weight, now that the position of Carchemish has been shown to be, not at Ciressium, as formerly conjectured, but at Jirabis, 150 miles farther up the Euphrates. Carchemish would have cut off a retreat to Nineveh, but was far removed from the direct line of communication with Babylon.

The third geographical objection is derived from the statement that Darius placed 120 satraps in, or over, all his kingdom. The objection rests upon a false conception of the meaning of satrap and of the extent of a satrapy, there being no reason why a sub-king under Darius may not have had as many satraps under him as Sargon of Assyria had governors and deputies under him; and the latter king mentions 117 peoples and countries over which he appointed his deputies to rule in his place. (3) Other Objections.

Various other objections to the genuineness of Daniel have been made, the principal being those derived from the supposed non-existence of Kings Darius the Mede and Belshazzar the Chaldean, from the use of the word Chaldean to denote the wise men of Babylon, and from the silence of other historical sources as to many of the events recorded in Daniel. The discussion of the existence of Belshazzar and Darius the Mede will be found under BELSHAZZAR and DARIUS . As to the argument from