Excursus on Land

Studies In The Book Of Daniel: A Discussion of the Historical Questions by Robert Dick Wilson

 

Excursus on the Words for Land, People, and Nation.

 

  In support of my contention, that the words for land do not denote the idea of empire in the sense that this latter term is used by Dr. Driver, I append the following data. In all of the building inscriptions of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar, irṣitiu is found numerous times in the phrase “king of the gods of heaven and earth” applied to the god Merodach.3 Once4 Nebuchadnezzar says that he laid the foundation of his palace upon the bosom of the broad earth (irṣitim), and sometimes he uses it in the phrase “land of Babylon.”5 The other and usual Assyrio–Babylonian word for land, matu is used frequently in these and other inscriptions; but, in the singular, it always refers to one land only;6 the plural matati, or matan, being used when the rule of the king of Babylon over other lands is mentioned.7 This is true, also, of the contract

3 Langdon, 84, 122, 114. 4 Langdon, 88.    5 Id., pp. 134, 176.    6 E.g., Langdon, pp. 54, 60, 99 et al.

7 E.g., Langdon, pp. 88, 120, 148.

Page 186

tablets from Nebuchadnezzar down, including those from the time of the Persian kings of Babylon. That is, when the king of the land, or city, of Babylon is meant, the singular is used; and when the king of lands is meant, the plural is used. So, also, in the Annals of Sargon (Winckler’s edition), the singular for land (matu) occurs 279 times, always of a country such as Elam, Assyria, or the Medes; or of a part of a country —a district. In this last sense, it is employed sometimes before nagu “district,” though nagu may be employed alone in this sense.1 There might also be a land within a land, as “the land of Yatbur in the land of Elam;2 or districts within a land, as “six districts (nage) of the land of Gambuli.”3 Or there might be two names united under the head of one land, as “the land of Shumer and Accad.”4 Before this last combination of names we find also the two names for land combined as irṣit mati Shumer u Accadi, “the land (surface) of the country of Shumer and Accad.”5 Or there might be such a phrase as “the land of the district of the land of the Medes which is of the region of the land of Illibi”;6 that is, a land within a land.7

  In the Babylonian inscriptions of the Persian kings

1 See annals of Sargon, lines 173, 227, 375.    2 Id., 291.    3 Id., l. 264.

4 Id., ll. 313, 314. Compare the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

5 Id., ll. 235, 241.    6 Id., l. 158.

7 The plural “lands” is used but eight times in Sargon’s Annals, usually in the phrase “people of the lands,” e.g., nisi matabe (ll. 16, 71, 177, 227). The other uses are “kings of the lands” (l. 437); “Bel, lord of the lands” (l. 436): “I passed through those lands” i.e., those mentioned in the preceding context (ll. 58—60); the “lordship of the lands” (l. 181). In this last example, the text is much broken; but it seems to indicate that the lands meant are all parts of the land of Kammanu spoken of in l. 179.

Page 187

also, “land” is never used for “lands”; but the former always means a single division of the empire which embraced the lands under the dominion of the great kings of kings. For the empire as a whole the following expressions are used: “lands”;1 “lands of the totality of tongues”;2 “lands of the totalities of all tongues”;3 “the great wide earth’s surface”4 “all the totality of the lands”;5 “the totality of all lands”;6 “earth’s surface”7; “this great wide earth’s–surface of many lands”;8 “the land of Persia and the land of Media and the other lands of other tongues of the mountains and the land this side the sea and beyond the sea, of this side the desert land and beyond the desert land”;9 “this great broad earth’s surface”;10 “the totality of lands”;11 “the totality of all tongues”;12 “the great broad earth’s surface”;13 “the lands  which are upon all the earth’s surface.”14

  In these inscriptions, earth as opposed to heaven is denoted by irṣitiu in NR. 1, H. 2, Ca. 2, K. 3; and by ḳaḳḳaru.15

1 Matati, Behistun Inscription, 7, 8, 14, 40, NR. 4, 8, 20, 25, D 18.

2 Id., D 7, E5.     3 Matati sha naphar lishanu (lishanali) gabbi (id., NR. 4, B. 2, O. 15, Ca. 6, Cb. 9).

4 Ḳaḳḳar ruktum rabitu (id., NR. 5).    5 Kullu napharisun (id., NR. 26).

6 Naphar matati gabbi (id., Ca. 4, Cb. 7, K. 8).    7 Ḳaḳḳaru (O. 2).    

8 Ḳaḳḳar agaa rapshatum sha matati madietum (id., H. 5).

9 H. 6–12, 15–20. Bezold, p. 39.    10 Ḳaḳḳari agata rabiti rapshatum (id., Ca. 6, Cb. 11, F. 16).

11 Naphar matati (id., F. 15).    12 Naphar–lishanu gabbi (id., K. 12).

13 Ḳaḳḳari rabitum rapshatum (id., K. 12). 14 Matati sha ina muḥḥi Ḳaḳḳar gabbi  (id., S. 2).

15 Heb. Ḳaḳḳa, ground. To denote land the Babylonian uses, also, dadmu, kibratu, nagu, and pihatu.

Page 188

  In the Persian of the Behistun Inscription bumi is employed to render both irṣitu and ḳaḳḳaru ; dahya for matu; and zana for lisani. The Susian inscriptions make similar and consistent distinctions, using murun for earth, tayiyaus for land, and zana for tongue.

  In Arabic, balaḍ came to be used in the sense of matu; but ’arṣ had the double meaning of earth as opposed to heaven, and of the land in which we live.1

  In Hebrew, the one word ’ars had to do service in both senses. It meant earth as opposed to heaven as in Gen. 1:1; but it was used, also, for land, as in Gen. 4:16, “land of Nod.”2

  The plural “lands” was used appropriately when a number of countries was meant. A good example is to be found in Gen. 26:3, 4, where the Lord says to Isaac: “Sojourn in the land…; for unto thee and unto thy seed I will give all these lands…; and in thy seed shall all the nations be blessed.” Another is the familiar phrase “kings of the lands” as used in Ezra 9:7.3

1 For the latter use, see the Koran: vii, 107; xiv, 16; xx, 59, 66; xxvi, 34; xxviii, 57; xxxi, 34; xxxiii, 27.

2 So, also, “Land of Shinar,” Gen. 10:10, 11, 11:2; “land of Canaan,” 11:31, 12:5; “Land of Egypt,” xiii, 10; and often of other lands, as Philistina, 21:32, Edom, 36:16, Goshen, 45:10, Midian, Ex. 2:15, Gilead, Num. 32:1, Moab, Deut. 1:5, Ephraim and Manasseh, 34:2, Judah, 34:2, Hittites, Jos., 1:4, Mizpeh, 11:3, Zebulon, Jud. 12:12, Ephraim, 12:15, Benjamin, 21:21, Shalisha, I Sam. 9:4, Shalim, id., Zuph, 9:5, Gad, 13:7, Shual, 13:17, Israel, 13:19, Beni Ammon, 2 Sam. 10:2, Hepher, I Kings 4:10, Galilee, 9:11, Naptali 15:20, Hamath, 2 Kings 23:33 Bashan, I Chron. 5:11, Chittim, Isa. 23:1 Chaldeans, 23:13, Assyria, 27:13, Uz, Jer. 25:20, Pathros, 44:1, Babylon, 50:28, Magog, Ezek. 38:2, Nimrod, Mic. 5:6, and others.

3 Compare, also, the phrases “people of the lands,” Ezra 3:3, 9:1, 2, 11 Neh. 9:30, 10:29; “kingdoms of the lands,” I Chron. 29:30, 2 Chron. 12:8, 17:10, 20:29; “families of the lands, ” Ezek. 20:32; and  especially, 2 Chron. 34:33, where we read, “And Josiah took away all the abominations out of the countries that pertained to the children of Israel.”

Page 189

  In the Aramaic and Syriac, ’ar’, the word corresponding to the Hebrew ’arṣ, has the same variety of meanings.

  It requires, therefore, more than ipse dixit to show that the author of Daniel meant that Darius the Mede made his own decree for more than a limited portion of that great empire which was ruled over by Cyrus and by Darius Hystaspis. For the word employed in Daniel 6:25, ’ar’ might be used for the land of a city, of a tribe, of a people, or of peoples and nations, as well as to denote earth as distinguished from heaven. The Hebrews consistently employ the word kingdom or realm to denote empire or dominion; but the words used to express the idea are limited to a province , or a country, or a number of countries. The nearest approach in Hebrew to a phrase equivalent to our “Persian empire” is to be found in Ezra 1:2, and 2 Chron. 36:23, where we read: “Thus saith Cyrus, king of Persia, The Lord God of heaven hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth.” This phrase “all the kingdoms of the earth” is used in the widest in 2 Kings 19:15, 19,1 where Jehovah is said to be God alone of all the kingdoms of the earth; and again in Isa. 23:17, where it is said of Tyre that “she shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the earth which are upon the face of the ground”; and in Jer. 34:1, where it is said that “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and all his army, and all the kingdoms of the earth that were under his dominion (memsheleth yado), and all the peoples

1 Isa. 37:16, 20 id.

Page 190

(ha‘ammim) fought against Jerusalem.” In a similar sense the phrase is employed where it is said in several places, that God would scatter the children of Israel among “all the nations of the earth,”1 In 2 Chron. 17:10, it is said, that “the fear of Jehovah was upon all the kingdoms of the lands which were round about Judah.” In 2 Chron. 20:29 this fear is said to have been upon “all the kingdoms of the lands” which heard of the slaughter with which Jehovah had caused the sons of Ammon and the inhabitants of Mount Seir to destroy one another, in answer to the prayer of Jehoshaphat recorded in the sixth verse of the same chapter, where he asks Jehovah, God of his fathers, “Art thou not God in heaven? and rulest thou not over all the kingdoms of the nations?” In 1 Chron. 29:29, 30, it speaks of the books which recorded the acts of David “with all his reign and his might and the times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the lands.” In 2 Chron. 12:8, Israel was delivered into the hand of Shishak, king of Egypt, that they might know Jehovah’s “service, and the service of the kingdoms of the lands.” This phrase “all the kingdoms” is found, also, in I Kings 4:21, where Solomon is said to have “ruled over all the kingdoms from the River (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt.” “All the kingdoms of Canaan” are spoken of in Ps. 135:11; and “the kingdoms of Hazor” in Jer. 49:28.

  From the above examples, it is evident that if the writer of Daniel had wished to indicate the decree of Darius in chapter 6:25, was meant for the Persian empire, he could have used such a phrase as “all the kingdoms of the earth,” as Cyrus did in his decree of

1 Deut. 28:25, Jer. 25:4, 14:9, 29:18, 34:17.

Page 191

Ezra 1:2, and Hezekiah in his prayer; or more definitely still, the phrase of Isaiah 23:17, “all the kingdoms of the earth which are upon the face of the ground.” Or, he might have said “all the kingdoms of the lands,” or “all the kingdoms of the nations” or, after the manner of Esther 1:1, “all the kingdoms of the earth from India even unto Egypt.” But, as he uses simply “all the earth,” the presumption is that he meant the land (’arṣ), or country, over which he rules, without defining the extent of the country. It might have been merely Babylonia, or Chaldea, or Media, or any two, or all three, of these. According to any fair interpretation, however, it must be made to harmonize with the rest of the book of Daniel as explained in the light of its own evidence; unless and until sufficient evidence shall be gathered to convince unbiased judges the the ’arṣ of chapter 6:25, must have meant the empire of Persia.

  But, someone may say, is not this shown conclusively by the use of the words “peoples, nations, and languages” of this very verse? To which the answer is, Certainly not. For these words also must be limited by their context. In Dan. 3:4, 7 bis, 31, they are employed to denote the inhabitants of the provinces of the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar; and in 5:19, Daniel is represented as saying to Belshazzar, that “all peoples, nations, and languages trembled and feared before” Nebuchadnezzar. Here, of course, the Median and Lydian empires can scarcely have been meant. In Dan. 7:14, where it is said that “all peoples, nations, and languages, should serve” the son of man forever, it was probably used in the most general sense. But we contend that they do not necessarily, even in themselves, have this sense.

 Page 192

  For the words here translated peoples are employed in Hebrew, Phenician, Arabic, and Aramaic in a narrower meaning which will suit the boundaries of the land of a sub–king of a province, as well as the empire of the king of kings.

  For example, ‘am, ‘people” is found in Phenician for the people of the city of Tyre;1  for the people of the city of Sidon;2 for the people of the city of Maktar;3 and for those of the city of Carthage.4 In Arabic, the word ‘am means “a company of men,” or as some say “of a tribe.”5 In the Arabic version of Isaiah ‘am is rendered by sa’b, “tribe,” in chapter 25:3; 33:3; 45:1, and also Saadya’s version in Deut. 33:3. The Arabic has six of more divisions and sub–divisions of the tribe and several more of the nation.6

  In the Aramaic of the Targum of Jonathon to the prophets, and in the Peshitto, ‘am translates the corresponding Hebrew word and also usually goy, “nation.” E.g., Isa. 14:6, 25:3, 31:28, 42:6.7

  Goy, the ordinary Hebrew word for nation, is rendered malkuth in Isa. 11:10; 33:3; 49:22, by the Targum of Jonathon. L’om is always rendered by maleku in Onkelos.8 ‘Am is rendered by shevet in Gen 28:3, 48:4, and Deut. 33:3, where it refers to divisions of Israel.9 Mishpachah, the

1 CIS i, 7.5.    2 Cooke, North Semitic Insc., p. 95. 3 Id., 151.

4 Id., 134.    5 Lane, vol. i, p. 2149.    6 Lane, p. 1536.

7 In the Nabatean royal inscriptions, ‘am is used ordinarily in the phrase “lover of his people.” See Cooke, pp. 217, 220, 225, 226, 227, et al.

8 The Aramaic version of the Pentateuch in common use among Jews of the early Christian centuries and until about 200 A.D.

9 Shevet is the transliteration of the Hebrew sheveṭ and the translation of the maṭṭeh meaning a tribe of Israel, both in the Aramaic Targums in the Syriac and Samaritan dialects, and with the change of the sibilant in Arabic also. In both Aramaic and Arabic the word shevet is commonly used only for a tribe of Israel.

Page 193

Hebrew word for family, is rendered in Onkelos by the word for seed. The Samaritan usually transliterates,1 but at other times renders by the peculiar word karn. The Arabic version employs ’asirat, the word in Arabic for the next greatest divisions of a tribe.2 For the Hebrew “house” in the sense of household, or family, Onkelos uses3 “the men of his house.” The Syriac has seven words for “gens”; four for family; two for nation; four for populus.”4 In Hebrew, we have a much larger number of words for nation, people, etc., such as goy nation, ’ummah tribe, shevet tribe, maṭṭeh tribe, chayyah tribe (Psa. 118:11), mishpachah family, and beth house. Perhaps, also, pachad means tribe in Gen. 31:42

  ’Ummah occurs but twice in the Hebrew bible and in both cases it is used to denote a subdivision of the ‘am; in Gen. 25:16, it denotes the twelve divisions of the Ishmaelites, and in Num. 25:15, Zur the father of Cozbi is said to have been head of the ’Ummoth of a father’s house in Median. As Median is called an ‘am in Ex. 2:15, it is plain that the ’ummah was a subdivision of the ‘am, whatever the exact relationship to a “father’s house” may have been.

  In Babylonian, the ordinary word for people is nishu, which is probably of the same origin as the Hebrew enosh and the Syriac nosho, the usual word for man (vir) as distinguished from woman. The word is used of the people of a city;5 or of a land.6

1 As in Num. 27:7 et al.    2 Lane, p. 1556, compared with p. 2053. Steingass in his English–Arabic dictionary gives 5 words for nation, 10 for people, 4 for family; and Lane in his Arabic dictionary gives 9 subdivisions of “tribe.”

3 E.g., Gen. 12:17.    4 See Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum in loco.

5 E.g., nishim Babilam–ki ( Muss–Arnolt, p. 737b).

6 E.g., nish Sumerim u Akkadian, “people of Shumer and Accad” (id., 737a); nishim mati Babili, “peoples of the land of Babylon” (Langdon, p.59); and in the phrase land and people (id., 59:12; 61:12; 91:9; 103:23; 123:26); for many nations e.g., in the phrase nishim rabeatim (id., 89:28), or nishim rapashtim (71:12; 83:10; 89:11; 117:19; 149:12); for all nations e.g., in the phrase kullat nishim, (id. 59:17; 89:24; 171:35(?)); or kishshat nishi, “host of nations” (id. 119:42; 121:64; 141:50); or nishi matati (Muss–Arnolt, 737a); or simply nishi in the phrase Ea patik nishi, Ea creator of mankind. (KB, iii, 11).

Page 194

  Less frequently we find the word ummanu, which probably is from the same root as ‘am. Langdon translates ummananti by “people.”1

  A third word for people is ummatu;2 a fourth, tenišetu , in such phrases as Ea bel tenišetu “Ea lord of mankind”;3 a fifth word is dadmu which is used in parallel inscriptions instead of tenišetu in such phrases as kal dadmi, “all men,”4 or alone for people as in Sargon inscriptions.5 A sixth way of expressing the people of a city, or country, is by the word mare, “sons,” followed by the name of the city or land as in the phrase mare ali, “sons of the city,” mare Nina, “sons of Nineveh,” mare Babili, “sons of Babylon,” mare mati Ashshur,  “sons of the land of Assur.”6 A seventh way is amelu, employed before the name of a city or country to denote the inhabitants of it.7

 

1 So on p. 53, vol. iii, 4. See, also, Delitzsch, HWB., p. 87a. We find, also, the phrases ummanat Bel, people or servants of Bel, and ummnaium shadleatim (id. 59:25), “the numerous or obedient peoples” (Langdon, p. 51, vol. ii, 2; Delitzsch, HWB., under shadlu, vol ii, p. 644).

2 Muss–Arnolt, 64a.

3 Compare tenišeti “people” (Sargon Annals, 373), tenišeti nakiri “hostile peoples” (id. 414, xiv. 27), tenišeti matatan “people of the lands” (id. 428); kala tenišeti “all men” (Del., HWB. 106) to denote tribe or family; kullat tenišeti (id). Tenišet ameli Kaldi “people of the men” or “of the land of the Chaldeans” (id. 106).

4 Del. HWB., 211, e.g., dadmi matitan “the people of the lands” (Sargon, Pr., 165).

5 E.g., Annals, 427, 454, xiv, 76, pp. ii, 40, iv, 121.

6 Del. HWB., 391.

7 E.g., of cities as in Sargon’s annals 40, 50, and of countries as in the Annals, 242, Pr., 37. The abstract word amelutu is used to denote “the human race” (Muss–Arnolt, 57B).

Page 195

  To denote tribe, the Assyrio–Babylonian employs the words nishatu, kimtu, salatu, emutu, limu, (Hebrew l’om), ummatu (Hebrew ’ummah), ṣalmat gagadim, ṣalmat ḳaḳḳadi, and lishanu.1

 In the Persian of the inscriptions, the following words are used for people etc.: Kara “people”;2 karu Mada “the Median people,”3 a word used of the divisions of the Medes and Persians; tauma “family,” especially of the family of the Achæmenidæ;4 citra “seed, race” of the Aryan race only, as in NRa 14; par’uzana “of many tribes, or tongues,” in the phrase “lands of many tribes, or tongues,”5 equivalent to the Babylonian “lands of the totality of all tongues,” and martiya a word corresponding to our word “man.”

  The New–Susian inscriptions of the Persian kings have the same variety of words to denote the people and subdivisions of the people, as we have found in the Old Persian.6

1 Phrases used to denote the idea of mankind in a more or less limited sense are as follows: amelutum nishi ṣalmat ḳaḳḳadu “men of the people of the dark race”; kibrati sha kala tenisheti “the regions of all mankind” (Langdon, p. 141); nishi kibrati arbatim “men of the people of scattered habitations.” or “of many peoples” (151:19) gimir ṣalmat ḳaḳḳadu (Sargon xiv, 69, 70), “the totality of the black headed (people),” and most detailed of all “kullat matatan gimir kala dadmi ultu tiamtim eletim adi tiatim shaplitim matati ragatim nisi dadmi rapsatim sharrani shadi neshutim u nagi bierutim. etc., ummanat Shamash u Marduk” (Langdon 149:17–35) “all lands; the totality of the people from the upper sea to the lower sea, the far away lands, the people of many habitations, kings of distant mountains and remote regions, etc., the subjects (peoples) of Shamash and Marduk I summoned etc.”

2 Beh., i, 50, 66, 75, 78. Compare, also, kara har’uva “the whole people” (id., i, 40, ii, 75, 90).

3 Id., i, 69, 71 et al.    4 Beh., i, 16 et al.    5 Elwend 75, Suez, b 5 et al.

6 See F. H. Weisbach, Die Achamenideninschriften Zeiter Art.

Page 196

  So, also, with regard to the use of the terms to denote mankind and its divisions and subdivisions, the evidence shows, that coördinate, or equivalent, words denoting the same ideas did not exist among all the nations, nor in all languages. The meanings of terms, then as now, were dependent upon social and political conditions. The Arabs, having one kind of society and circumstances, have a suitable vocabulary to express their political and social divisions. The Hebrews, with different conditions, have a different vocabulary. The Persians have another, and Babylonians still another. among the Aramaic dialects, we find the Syrians with a different vocabulary from that of the Targums and from that of Ezra and Daniel. In considering, therefore, the meaning of the terms employed by Daniel to denote the political divisions of the population of the “land” or “earth,” we must limit ourselves, not to words employed in Greek, Latin, German, or English, nor even to those found in Arabic, Hebrew, Babylonian, or Persian; but to a consideration of the words we find in the Aramaic itself. When we do this, we find, that ‘am and ’ummah are the only words in Ezra, Daniel, or the Targums, to express the people of a country, or of its subdivisions. If the book of Daniel had been written in some other language, more terms might possible have been employed to express these ideas. As it is, who can deny that Babylonia itself, or a kingdom, or a sub–kingdom, consisting of Babylonia, Shumer, and Accad, Chaldea, Susiana, and possibly of Mesopotamia, Gutium, and parts at least of Media and Syria, over all of which it is more than possible that Darius the Mede may have reigned as sub–king under Cyrus, —who can deny, I say, that this kingdom may have had in it many peoples and clans and

Page 197

tribes? For example, there was the people, or ‘am, of the Arameans. One tribe, or ’ummah, of these certainly dwelt in Damascus, others lived in the vicinity of Babylon, others probably had already possessed parts of Mesopotamia. So with the Medes, Darius Hystaspis and Herodotus speak of the people of the Medes and of their clans. Then there were the Arabs, who were not merely a separate ‘am had always their distinct tribes. Other peoples would be the Babylonians, the Assyrians the Elamites, and perhaps Scythians, Armenians, and Cimmerians.

  So, also, with the languages, or tongues, spoken of on Daniel. It is perfectly consistent with the facts revealed by monuments to suppose that decrees put forth at Babylon in the sixth century B.C. would be issued in several tongues, such as the Babylonian, the Susian, the Aramean, and the Median. Darius Hystaspis and his successors have made their inscriptions in three or more languages.1 After the Macedonian conquests, many decrees and inscriptions were made on two or more languages, as witness the Rosetta stone and many of the Palmyrene inscriptions. In a polyglot community, like that of Babylon in the sixth century B.C., any king who really wanted his subjects to obey his decrees must have issued them in languages which they could understand; and so we can well believe that Darius the Mede may have issued his decrees, not merely in Babylonian, or Median, or Persian; but also, it may be, in Aramaic, and Hebrew, and Susian, as well as other tongues.2

1 Darius in his Behistun Inscription, § 70, says that he sent it into all lands. See Weissbach, Keilinschriften der Achaemeniden, p.71.

2 The inscription of Behistun is in three languages and an Aramaic version of it has been found at Elephantine in Egypt. The Suez inscriptions of Darius are in four languages.

Page 198

Having thus shown that when the author of Daniel says in chapter 6:25, that Darius made a decree for “all peoples, nations, and languages that dwell in all the ’arṣ he may have meant merely for that part of the Persian empire over which he ruled, we shall rest our case, and advise our readers to do the same, until those who assert that the whole empire of Persia is meant shall produce some evidence to support their claim. Let the readers of this article remember that every part of a document, especially one as to which, as in the case of the book of Daniel, the unity is generally admitted, must be interpreted in harmony with the rest of the document. The only exception to this rule of evidence is in the case of parts as to which it can be shown by convincing evidence that they have been forged and interpolated in the original text. No so claim has ever been made for this and similar verses. Till such a claim shall have been made and the evidence for it produced, we may be allowed to believe that Darius the Mede is not represented in the sixth chapter of Daniel as the absolute ruler of the Persian empire. A sub–king to Cyrus, king of Persia, may have issued the decree in the terms of the text, without exaggeration of language, or any departure from the truth, or any stretch of his authority, or of the legal bounds within which his writ could run.

Page 199

Home Up Chapter 10

Studies In The Book Of Daniel: A Discussion Of The Historical Questions by Robert Dick Wilson. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, The Knickerbocker Press, 1917.

E-Text transcribed from the 1917 edition.

[ Display Problems? ]

07/25/03