Encyclopaedia Biblica/Dan (place)-David

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Dan (place)-David
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

DAN (place)[edit]

(|1 ; A&n)- I- A city 'in the valley which belongs to BETH-KEHOB [q.v.y Judg. I828 ; conquered by the Danites.

1 References[edit]

It was the most northern city of Israel : note the phrase ' from Dan as far as Beersheba ' (see above, 994, n. 2). Its original name was LAISH [ij-v.] ; in Judg. ISzg the change of name is accounted for. Historical references to it occur, not only in Judg. 18, but also in 2 .S. '246 (where jaun is appended to Dan by a singular error of the text ; see Da.n-ja.'VN) ; also in i K. I229 (golden calf), and i K. 152o, and 2 Ch. I64 (Benhadad's in- vasion). The reference to the name Dan in Gen. 14 14 need not, in the present writer's opinion, be counted ; it is true, the city afterwards called Dan is meant, but the anachronistic ' Dan ' is simply a scribe's error for Laish ' ; the true text probably is, ' . . . and pressed after them, he and his servants, as far as Laish, and smote them.' '

One of the supposed arguments for the late date of Gen. 14 must therefore be abandoned ; but this by no means involves regarding that strange narrative as historical. The anachronism in Dt. 34 i remains.

2. Identification.[edit]

The site of Dan has recently been fixed by G. A. Smith (JJC. 473, 480/.) at Banias, on the ground that the situation of Banias is so much stronger than that of Tell Kadi (cp CEASAREA, 7). The fact is undeniable, yet not decisive. From Judg. 18 we do not gather that Laish was a place of exceptional natural strength ; its inhabitants were a jxjaceful folk, \\ho trusted not in their fortress but in their remoteness from troublesome people like the Danites.

Theodoret no doubt favours our eminent geographer's view. 'The present Paneas," he says, 'was called i)an, 2 and even Jerome (on Ezck. 48 18 and on .Xm. 8 14) speaks of Dan as being where Paneas now is. The Jerus. Targ., too (on Gen. 14 14), calls Cajsarea Philippi ' Dan of Cajsarea." These vague state- ments, however, do not carry much weight. On the other hand, Josephus {Ant. i. 10 i v. 3 i viii. ,84 ; It/ iv. 1 i) expressly says that Dan stood at the ' lesser ' fountain of the Jordan, in the plain of Sidon, a day's journey from that city, and that the plain around it was extremely fertile. Eus. and Jer. {OS^^) 114 26 24932) sprak still more definitely. 'A village y<>r miles distant from Paneas, on the road to Tyre ; it was the boundary of Judaea (optoM ttjs 'loofiai'a?), and at it the Jordan takes its rise.' Jerome adds: ' De quo et Jordanis flumen erumpens a loco sortitus est nomen. lor quippe oelBpoi' (id est fluvium sive rivum) Hebrxi vocant ' (cp Jmkdan). A glance at any hand- book of geography will show what spot is here meant.

1 There is a corrupt duplication. Read [On'Sj,*] pS"!*^. nr'Sny o.^Sy pari jyiy. p3Ti for pSn'] is due to Ball ; but it is also the original of P|TI*1. C. Niebuhr has already suspected a place-name in ,-rS(S. In fact, the Pa.sek after o.T*?!' warns us that the text is doubtful. Ewald (CVI I73) supposed that JT was substituted late for E*'^ an arbitrary and inadequate

2"0n Jer. 4.5 (Opera (.770), 2433).

Four miles west of Banias, in a well-watered district, is one of the two great fountains of tlie Jordan. It rises at the W. base of an extensive cup-shaped mound, called Tf// el-Kadi. Now Kadi in Arabic and Dan in Hebrew both mean ' judge, ' and tlie fountain bears a name (LetldSii) which also may perhaps be an echo of the name of the old city. The very fact that Tell el-Kadi is now said to be unhealthy suggests one rea&on more for identifying it with Dan, for Josephus (lij iv. 1 1 ) expressly says that the marshes of Lake .Semachonitis (Hiileh) extend northwards as far as Daphne (Dan), where are the sources of the Little Jordan (I^dddn). Probably, however, in antiquity, when irrigation was better cared for, the place now called Tell el- Kadi was perfectly healthy. On the whole, the grounds of the jiroposed identification seem to the present writer to \yn strong. Robinson, Gu^rin, Porter, I uhl, and Moore have given their support to the same tl eory.

Tell el-Kadi rises out of a dense jungle of thorn-bushes and rank weeds. ' Its circumference is al)out half a mile, and its greatest elevation above the plain eighty feet. There are some traces of old foundations, and heaps of large stones on the top and sides of the S. part of the rim, where perhaps the citadel or a temple may have stood. There are also ruins in the plain a short distance N. of the tell. There are doubtless other remains, but they are now covered with grass and jungle' (Porter).

See Rob. BR : Gu^rin, GaliUe, 2338^; G. A. Smith, HG, I.e.; PEF Mem. 1139^; Buhl, (.'leog. iy]/.\ Moore, Judges, 390-

2. For Dan in Ezek. 27 19 AV, see Javan, \ g.

T. K. C.


'There is a time to raise the death-wail and a time to dance,' says the Preacher (Eccl. 84).

1. Among the ancients: in Egypt etc.[edit]

We have not now to discuss the origin of the practice of dancing. nor its connection with funeral, as well as with festival, observances. We may assume that from a very early period it h;is been an expression of joy, and has been accompanied by music and song. The musical instrument employed may be no tietter than a wooilen drum ; ^ but without some music there can be none of that rhythmic movement which we call dancing. The principal occasions of dancing are, in an ancient community, religious. If these assumptions are. as far as our evidence goes, true for Polynesia, still more obviously are they true for early I'gypt and Babylonia. The happy -tempered Egyptians loved their various dances, and cultivated the art both in public and in private festivities, both in war and in peace ; but the primary impulse was religious.- In Babylonia and .Assjria, too, the art of dancing flourished. 'To dance' {rakddu) is a synonym for 'to rejoice"; and so great was the demand for singers (music and singing naturally go together with dancing) that HcEckiah king of Judah was made to send singers as well as other women of the palace to Nineveh (Prism Inscr. .339).*

2. Among the Bedouin[edit]

Neither Egypt nor early Babylonia, however, can be presumed to have influenced the primitive Israelitish customs, except indeed, through the Canaanites. Of much greater importance .are our scanty notices of Arabian dancing. What the Bedouin dancing is to-day can te seen as near to civilisation as Jericho. Wild as it is, it is not without rhythm and measure. There are also still some relics of the primitive religious dance. Besides the dancing at the merry Circumcision Feast (mutayyin), combined with sacrifice, there is the well-known custom of ' circumambulating " the Ka'ba or Holy House at Mecca seven times. This procession is a true substitute for a very old heathen rite.' The prince- poet Imra-al-Kais likens a herd of wild kine (ox antelopes) to a group of girls, gown-clad, going swiftly round the Dawar or sacred stone. Mohammed himself could not abolish this custom. The procession round the Kaaba is really the Hajj : this term is now applied to the Mecca pilgrimage ; but its root-meaning plainly is to go in a circle (cp Ps. 107 27 uin;).

1 Gill, From Darkness to Light in Polynesia, 252.

  • See Erman, Eervpt, 216.

3 Correcting KB-ii^j by Del. Ass. HWB 257^.

  • Cp Doughty, .-}r. Des. 1 31.

See We. Ar. Heid.(^) 106, 165; and cp Hesiod, Theog. 259 (the Muses dancing round the altar on Helicon); Thucyd. 4 30; Liv. 2t>9; Verg. ^. 8 285 ; Plut. Thes. ai, ixoptwt irtpi TOf KtfMniva ^u/iidf.

3 Hebrew hag[edit]

Pre-Islamic Arabia explains much that is characteristic in Israelitish life. This is specially true of religious rites. The chief original Hebrew term for a religious dance was doubtless :n, hag. The rendering ' feast ' or ' festival ' will indeed suffice in most cases, but only liecause religious festivals necessarily included the sacred dance, at least as long as the sacred stones remained in the sanctuaries. In Ps. II827 Cheyne [Psalins^^^) renders ' Hind the procession with branches,' with reference to the swiftly moving proces- sion which took the place of the older dance ; Baer, more boldly, 'Bind the dance' {i.e. the dancers). Unfortunately, the te.\t of this j)assage is not free from corruption ; ' but it is, at any rate, permissible to recognise the sacred dance in E.\. 10 9, ' Let my people go that they may keep a feast with dancing to me in the desert' not that all would take part in the dance: the dancers would represent the people, all of whom would ' rejoice before Vahwe,' as the phrase was. Perhaps we may compare i S. 80 16, if c"j:n (applied to the Amalekites who had plundered Ziklag) means ' circling in the sacred dance ' (see BUH). At any rate, in Ps. 424 [5] the best sense is obtained by reading, not Jjin Jion, 'a muhitude that kept holyday ' (AV), but C'j^iin [121, ' the music of those who kept festival ' "^ (pc.-!, 'music,' Am. .023 Ezek. 2613). That dancing is here referred to, however, is not evident.

4. OT Vocabulary.[edit]

Words for dancing in general,

(1) pnii, si/tck, or priw, sikek (Arab, (fahika 'to laugh,' whence vtadliak'tn 'mimus'; Syr. g'/takk; (P Trai^'eLv) meaning 'to .sport, or' jest.' Though commonly used to denote any kind of sport (Gen. 21 9, RVnig. 'playing'; 268 RV 'sportuig'), it may denote simply ' dancing (see 2 S. 65 = 1 Ch. 13 8 Judg. I625 Jer. 31 4).

2. In late writings we meet with ipn, nikadh, prop, 'to leap." I Ch. 1529; Ass. rakadu [see above]; Syr. nkcuih, Pa. 'to dance,' Aph. ' to lament ' (plangcre) ; Tg. tSB ; 6px^<^'> (TKipTai' ; cp Ar. rakada, ' to move the feet, to hop.'

3. The root S^n, /'/, 'to writhe, whirl,' Judg. 21 21 (whence SinO, niahol, nVinp, m'hOlah, 'dance,' xop6<:) suggests a more intricate movement.

4. Lastly, we have in 2S. 616 the two an-. Aey. HS, pizzcz, and "1313, kirkcr (the latter also in v. 14) (Ar. karra, ' to advance and retreat,' karkara, id.; 2S. 014 HSISD, Targ., n2tya, Pesh. m'hihbah, Vg. sultahat'). Most probably, how- ever, "13^30? I'EO should rather be read Hi'S'TOI riDSD (Che.); the former of these participles is justified by the facts brought together by Toy, JUL 10 \^'& f. ['97]), which show that nOS {/>dsah), the root of flDS, means virtually ' to dance,' and the latter by the authority of i Ch. 15 29.

5. A part of primitive religion.[edit]

Dancing, then, was of the essence of a primitive religious festival. It was not the choral dances (n'Siip) that provoked the wrath of Moses (Exod. 32:19) : Miriam's ' dances ' were evidently congenial to all (Exod. 15:20-21; cp Judg. 11:34 1 Sam.18 6 21 i. [12]). It was the worship of the steer-god that angered the great leader. The Hebrews never ceased to be religious dancers, though the form of the ceremony may have changed. Some idea of the early rite may be gained from the account in 2S. 614 of Davids dancing 'before Yahwe' (i.e., before the ark ; cp. v. 5). Michal indeed took her husband's act amiss. She was too un- imaginative to .see the meaning of a practice which was beginning to be antitjuated. She thought that by leading the dance in such attire, and mixing with the common people, her husband was playing a part which was within the province of a woman only, and unworthy of his character and office. Davids answer well expresses his own devoutness, though he cannot have guessed what issues of world-wide importance hung upon the transference of the ark to Jerusalem. 1

1 Che. reads

Make melody with dancing (Sinoa) and with timbrels,
Make melodv to our king, make melody.

2 Che. Psaliiii^-i'.

Again, at the great religious crisis in the reign of Ahab it is not the 'dancing' that Elijah disapproves, but its connection with a bad, foreign religion. The prophets of Baal, we are told, 'leaped' i.e., danced after a special rite around their altar, not eucharistic- ally, but as suppliants (iK. 18 26). Elijah, though too confident of his God's favour to attempt to work upon him by ritual, does not hesitate to use the word nos (' to leap') in his taunting address to the Israelites (v. 21).'* Indeed, Toy seems to have shown that the spring-festival called Pesah (EV Passover) derived its name from the dances (nOB, see above, 4 4) connected with it. A conservative prophet like Elijah could never have opposed religious dances.

Indeed, one may fairly say that prophecy itself at any rate, that represented by Elisha was under some obligations to dancing. The inspiration of those who belonged to the guilds of prophets (see Prophi-XV) was prepared for by music and rhythmic movements of the body (cp iS. lOioii I920-24). It was the wild proceedings of prophets when in this preparatory state that degraded the whole order in the eyes of many Israelites (cp 2 K. 9ii). It is difficult, when looking at dervishes performing their exercises, not to think of the so-called 'sons of the prophets' (again see Pkophkcv). ' Ulemas and dervishes with the chief muftis at their head were leaping, lx)unding, swaying their arms, and whirling in time to the din of drums, trumpets, and cymbals which followed them ' (Tristram).

6. At festivals.[edit]

Eor the stated religious ritual of the pre-exilic age we are ill-provided with authorities. Still, we know that the three great festivals (especially that of Tabernacles) were celebrated with an exuberant joy which expressed itself in dancing. The Psalter proves that even in the post-exilic age dancing as well as music formed part of divine service (see Pss. 1493 L5O4). Eucharistic procession (no doubt at a quick pace) round the altar was customary (266, and according to MT [see above], II827). Processions of God also, which, from the mention of maidens with timbrels, may be presumed to have been a dance- festival, are spoken of (Ps. 6824[25]. SDOT). Ps. 876, however, is too obscure to be quoted.

There was dancing at tribal and family festivals (cp the place-name Abel-Meholah [q.v.], 'dancing meadow ' ; i K. 19 16). It was at a yearly tribal festival that the daughters of Shiloh came forth for choral dances (Judg. 21 21 ni^iiEa h-^rh), and there is a singular story, which almost seems like an attempt to account for marriage by capture (see M'Lennan, Primilive Marriage), respecting the Benjamites who chose wives from among the dancers (niSSnsrrip). \\'e must apparently take this in connection with the curious custom referred to elsewhere (C.^NTici.e.s, 9 ; Ato.n'K- MKNT, Day of), which was evidently greatly toned down in post-exilic times. The young men and maidens of Jerusalem danced in the vineyards, not without results, on the evening of the 15th of Ab (this was the festival of Wood-carrying) and of the Day of Atonement, and sang edifying songs on marriage (Mishna, Tdanith, iv. 8). A dance performed by the chief men of the city was a special incident in the festivities of the Feast of Tabernacles. At the close of the first day men of piety anti repute, singing hymns, danced with torches in their hands. No one who has not seen this joy, s;iid a proverb, has seen true joy (Succa, 5 1-4). Thus the severity of the Law could not extinguish the impulse in the Jewish people towards rhythmic movement.

1 Che. Aids to Criticism, 55/.

2 On this passage see Klo., and. for a fuller development of the meaning, /QK, July 1898 (p. 56S); cp Jastrow, /BL, 1S98, 1 1087?; It is useless to compare the Phoenician divine title ^oA/napicios /.<., ip-o Sya, 'Baal of dancing' (Haethg. Bei/r. 25261) and other similar forms. They have " *" Melkart, the name of the Baal of Tyre (Texier).

3 See Jos. jSyii. 17 6, and cp Neh. 10 35 [36] 13 31, Del. Iris, 96.

There was, however, one kind of dancing against which wise men protested. It is no doubt of Greek dancing-girls that Ben Sira is thinking when he warns his readers not to ' use the company of a woman that is a singer' (licclus. 94). Hellenism, indeed, was even more dangerous morally than religiously. It is just possible, ttxj, that when on Herod's birthday the daughter of Herodias came forward to amuse the guests ((V Ti^ fi^ffif), Mt. 116; cp Mk. 622 Lk. 152$) her style of dancing was derived from the pantomimic solo-dance of the hiretl female dancers of (jrc-cce. '

7. Biblical references[edit]

The few occasions in the Mible in which dancing is referred to may be said to have an interpretative value. It was not always necessary to mention that a happy event was celebrated by dancing, because early readers would supply this detail mentally for themselves. We are thankful, however, that the writers did sometimes mention the dancing, and that so they interpreted for us many other passages. Dancing was continually in request in Israelitish and in Jewish society (Jer. 3I413 Mt. 11 17 Lk. 732 1525). Thus (as in Assyrian) dancing ' and ' rejoicing ' were synonymous terms (Lam. 5 15 Eccles. 84 Vs. 30 11 [12]). It is an imijrobable idea of Leyrer {PA'/i^->) that there is a reference to a kind of square dance in Cant. 7 1 [613] (c':nsri nSnpa ; see M.\ii.\.n.\IM). Much more safely may we suppose a reference to a sword-dance, such as Wetzstein found as a part of the wedding ceremonies in Syria (cp CANTICLK.S, 9). Dancing has, of course, alw-iys been popular at weddings ; and the virgins in the parable who go out to meet the bridegroom no doubt looked forward to a merry choral dance. Modern Arabs still sing and dance with lighted torches on the day of a wedding.

8. Literature.[edit]

Lucian, De .Saltat. ; Speiicor, De Saltat. Tet. Hehr. ; 'Saltatio' in Diet. 0/ CIc. and Rom. Antigq.; ' Tanz ' in /'A'Ci\V,2o6: kiehm, ///r'A"(* 1636/; Wetzstein, Zeitsch. /Ur Etitnol. 1873, p. 285/ ; Kranz Delitzsch, Iris (KT), 189-206 ; 'Iristram, I'astvrn Customs, 207-210; Grove (Lilly), Dancing (^()^)\ R. \'ijss, Pi-r J'anz u. seine Gesch. ('69).


(^X3"n, Kt.; Kr. '?S.3-n [Ba. and Ginsb.], Ezek. 14 1420 283 ; Sk^O^ it- , God is my judge, or, the defender of my right ; A&NIhA [BX.KQF]. The name SwT occurs in a Falmyrene inscription (De \'ogU(5, La Syrie centrale, no. 93). On the name Daniel in Ezek. , see the suggestion in Enoch, i.

1. A man of extraordinary wisdom and righteousness (Ezek. ; see above). This Daniel api)ears to have become proverbial, as did Noah and Job ; but when and where he was thought to have lived we are not told.

2. A Jewish captive, said to have Xxxn carried to Babylon ' in the third year of Jelioiakim ' when Jeru- salem was taken (Dan. I126), and to have become, through his supernatural wisdom, chief of the sages of Babylon and the minister of successive dynasties. The latest date mentioned in his life is the third year of Cyrus (Dan. ]0i ; cp, however, I21). Outside the book which bears his name, and the apocryphal additions to it, the only biblical passages which mention this Daniel are i Mace. 26o and Mt. 24 15 ( = Mk. ISm). The former contains only a didactic reference to the story of the lions' den. The latter apparently makes Jesus speak of ' Daniel the prophet ' ; but, as the form of the citation shows, it is rather the evangelist who speaks (cp B. Weiss, Das Matthdnsevang. 508). See Daniel, Book of.

1 Or, if Oriental analogies be preferred, we may consult Thomson, LB, 555-6; Tristram, Eastern Customs, 208; Lane, MoiL Kg. 1 240 294/; ; cp also Erman, Arte. Eg. 349-350).

3. A priest of the line of Ithamar in Kzra's caravan (see Ezra, i. i 2 ; li. i 15 (i) </), Ezra 2 - I EmI. S 29 yyOfLttKo^ |H), ycuxaifA (A|, a corruplixn (if Ja><t>)A|of |, nut -( uinalicl, as van Hoo- nacker) ; ami si(;natory to the i;t>venant (see KzKA, i. | 7), Neh. lOft (7). Aniont; his ciintenipoiarics we hnil a .MisihacI (Neh. 4), an Azariah (Neh. 10 2 I3I), anJ a Hananiah (Neh. 10 23 (24]). Cp. Dan. 1 7.

4. One of the six sons Iwrn to David in Ffehron ; his mother was Abigail (1 Ch. 3 i ; .sec Davih, | ii, iii. it). Accordiii(j to He. the name is miswrittcn for Dclaiah (cp ) ; but, as Klo. more plausibly thinks, it is rather a corruption of D<xliel (Sk'I^) ; Al. reads AoAouia /.<., Aoioi/ta Dodiah (nn^), an- other form of the same name. Cp the names Do<lai, Dixlo, Dodavahu. D", however, has Aafii>ii)A ; Jos. (.Int. vii. 1 4) Aai-i'ijAot- The li 2 .S. 3 3 has Chileab (3(^2) in Ml', but HAi. has AaAovia ; the other versions (Cod. 243, in Field, 1 5^0) A/3<o. Chileab, though adopted by Ki. (Chrot\. .Sl>'l> /"), is surely wrong (cp Berachot/i, ^a). This was David's second son, and after the death of Amnon would be the heir to the throne. His brothers .Absalom and Adi>nijah played so important a p.i t that it is surprising that nothing is told of their elder brother. Perhaps he died early or was removed.


1. Divisions[edit]

If we adopt the mediaeval division of the book into twelve chapters,^ the first six form a narrative half, which can be distinguished naturally enough from the second, in which Daniel recounts his visions. More important, however, than any such division into twice six chapters is a recognition of the fact that the aim of the book is not historical but parenetic : it aimed at exhortation and encouragement. It falls, accordingly, into several more or less detached and (so to Speak) independent pieces or pictures, designed to lift the minds and hearts of its original readers, the contemporaries of the tyrant Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, above the oppressive present to the heights of a glowing piety and a strong spiritual faith. These detached pieces, of which there are ten, K\\ald groups so as to divide the Ixiok into (a) an introductory part (chap. 1/. ) ; (b) a second part (chap. 3-6), containing four narratives prefiguring events ; and [c) a third part (chap. 7-12), containing four prophetic pieces. This threefold division is favouretl by the con- sideration that the twice four pieces contained in parts (b) and (t) then serve as further amplifications of part [a) for [a) also contains a narrative prefiguring e\ents (chaj). 1), and a Messianic prophecy (chap. 2) in which four kingdoms (corresponding to the four beasts of chap. 7) are followed by the everlasting Messianic king- dom which brings the history of the world to its close.

2. Contents.[edit]

The first of the ten pieces thus indicated (chap. 1) tells how Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, after a siege and capture of Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim king of Judah (605 n.c.), took Daniel and three other youths of noble descent from Judah to Babylon, where he had them brought up for the service of the royal court. Casual mention is made of some of the sacred vessels having been conveyed to Habylon as the author intends afterwards (chap, f)) to speak of their desecration and we are told with some minuteness of the scrupulosity with which Daniel, Hanani.ih, Mishael, and Azariah guarded themselves again>t certain pollu- tions, and how marvellously God rewarded them for this : when they came to stand Ijefore the king, he found them ten times better than all the m.tgicians and enchanters in his realm.

The second piece (chap. "2) relates an astonishing proof of the supernatural wisdom of Daniel, by means of which he was able to save his own life and the lives of the other magicians. 1 he king insists on having the dream which h.-is disturbed him not only interpreted but also, first of all, recovered for him, and Daniel meets the unreasonable demand. The great image seen by the king is interpreted as signifying by its head of gold the present kingdom of Nebuchadrezzar, whilst the remaining parts of the body, of silver, brass, and iron, are referred to three kingdoms which are destined to follow the Babylonian. The fourth kingdom, to which, as a divided kingdom, the legs (of iron) and the feet (partly of iron and partly of clav) correspond, is followed by the everlasting kingdom set up by the God of heaven. Just as the stone cut out without hands breaks in pieces the whole image, and itself becomes a great mountain that tills the whole earth, so every earthly dominion must give way before the imperishable kingdom of God.

1 anV in 3kSd is 'he beginning of S*3'2lt'^ I 3 is a miswritten fragment (for 3) of the true name of David's son (cp Names, f 4). Kerber's derivation of the name from ' Caleb is surely too precarious (Hehr. Eigennam. ^d).

2 The division into chapters has been unskilfully made at three points : chap. 11 ought not to begin till 11 2^ ; and in MT chaps, 3 and 5 ougnt to end, as in EV, with 3 30 and 631 [61] respec- tively.

In the third piece () 1-30) we are told how, as a punishment for their refusal to worship the great golden image which Nebuchadrezzar h;<d set up, the three friends of Daniel (himself silently passed over) were cast into the burning fiery furnace, and how at last, when the fire had not been able to hurt the men of Judah who had been thus steadfast to their faith, the great kiim was compelled to do homage to their god.

TVi fourtk piece (4 i [3 3i)-4 37 [34)) tells, in the form of a proclamation by Nebuchadrezzar to all the peo[)les of the whole world a form which is not carried out with uniform consistency how an evil dream (which the king himself in this instance relates) had thrown him into dismay, anil how Uaniel alone was able rightly to interpret the vision, prophesying to the king that as a punishment for his pride he should for a long time be bereft of reason. \ebuchadrezz;ir is thus for a third time constrained to give the glory to the Ruler of hea\en.

Next, in the./f/?/ piece (51-631 [tii]), we have Belshazzar's feast and overthrow : we are told how in a wild orgy this king, unwarned by the fate of his father Nebuchadrezzar, desecrated the sacred vessels of the temple, and thereupon was horror- stricken by the miraculous handwriting on the wall.* The explanation of this, which Daniel alone was able to give, was soon shown to have been correct, for that very night the king was slain, and his crown passed to Darius the Mede.

The sixth piece (ti 1-28 [2-29]), that of Daniel in the lions' den, has reference exclusively to Daniel just as a corresponding section, that of the burning fiery furnace, relates only to his three friends. We here read how King Darius suffered himself to be induced by his nobles, who were envious of Daniel, to promulgate the foolish decree that any one who for the space of a month should offer any petition to god or man should be thrown to the lions. Naturally Daniel transgressed this com- mand ; but the king, who had been compelled against his will to consign his faithful servant to punishment, soon became convinced of his error by the protection which Daniel's god vouchsafed to his worshipper, and, condemning the accusers to the fate which they had prepared for Daniel, commanded all his subjects to serve Daniel's god.

The snrn/h piece (7), the first in the prophetic section, is a picture in companionship to chap. "2, and dates from the first year of Helshazzar, not from the time of Nebu- chadrezzar, to which the first group of four pieces belong. If, moreover, as we read in 10 1, the last great vision which Daniel saw immediately before his death is to l>e assigned to the third year of Cyrus, e.vactly seventy years after Daniel's deportation from Judah, it seems fitting that the eighth piece also should be assigned to the Babylonian period, and that only the last two prophetic sections should be given to that of the Medes and Persians. .Most of the years they amounted to an ordinary lifetime that Daniel spent in the Vas<\. must have fallen under the reigns of the Baby- lonian kings ; for, whilst Darius the Mede was already in his si.xty-second year when he ascended the throne of Babylon (ii^i [61]), Daniel saw only the beginning of the reign of his successor C'yrus the Persian.

In chap. 7 we have Daniel's account of his vision of the four be.asts, from each of which successively the supremacy is taken away to be at last and for ever bestowed upon the Messiah, one ' like a son of man ' who comes from heaven, and so at the same time the kingdom is possessed by the .saints of the Most High.

If, in 7 25, tha angel's interpretation of one of the horns of the fourth beast has already unmistakably pointed to a king who persecuted the Jews on account of their religion, it is made still more apparent in the ^/^/tM piece (in the interpretation which Gabriel gives of Daniel's vision in the third year of Helshazzar) that by the fourth kingdom, which arises after the reigns of the Medes and Persians, we are to understand the Grecian empire of Alexander the Great and his successors. By the rexider acquainted with Jewish history the description of the horn which at first was small, or of the bold overbearing king who deprives the Most High of his continual burnt-ofl^'ering and gives up his sanctuary to wanton desecration, and at the same time rages furiously against the holy people, cannot fail to l>e understood as referring to the Syrian king Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (175- 164 B.C.) who, by his religious edict (i Mace. 1 ^i/.), designed to bring about the establi.shment of the Greek cultus throughout his whole dominions, and, by setting up an altar to the Olym- pian Zeus upon the altar of burnt-offering in Jerusalem (Dec. 16S), provoked the revolt of the Maccaljees (167). The eighth piece contains the comforting promise that after 2300 evenings and mornings the temple of God will be again restored to its rightful position, and the shameless king overthrown, but not by human hand.

1 Clermont Ganneau's theory (/.4, 1 880. accepted by Nold. {ZA 1 414 j^)and Bevan, that the mysterious inscription consists really of names of weights, is rejected by Behrmann. See Menil.

The ninth piece (chap. 9), after a prayer of Daniel which, notwithstanding its borrowings from Ezra9 and Neh. 9, is still pathetic, gives Gabriel's interpretation of the seventy years, predicted by Jeremiah, as meaning seventy weeks of years, after the lapse of which the day of salvation is to dawn.

Whilst this vision comes to Daniel in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom of Babylon, the last or tenth piece (chaps. 10-12) is dated from the third year of Cyrus his successor. In corre- spondence with the great importance of this last vision is the long introduction, after which, by a sketch (chap. 11) mainly devoted to the complicateti relations I)e- tween the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, and a picture of the downfall of the SjTian tyrant, the final destiny of the people of God is brought more preci-sely into connection with universal history. Chap. 12, however, does not give any one alwolutely precise indication of the exact time when the troublous days, such as have never before liecn known, are to come to an end : it vacillates Ixitween 1290 and 1335 as the number of days that are to elapse between the setting up of the idolatrous worship in the temple and the coming of the glorious time of the end.

3. Authorship.[edit]

The view taken over by the church from the synagogue, which makes Daniel not only the principal hero but also the author of the book, has not unreasonably passed current among theologians down to the present century. To the unprejudiced reader the book appears to claim to have been written by Daniel. The narratives in the first si.\ chapters do not e.xpressly make this claim ; but in 7 2 we find Daniel himself presented as the narrator by the use of the first person singular. The use of the third person in chaps. 1-6 and in the lieginnings of chaps. 7 and 1 is not against the authorship of Daniel (cp Am. 7 12^), who, at the beginning of chap. 8 and of chap. 9, speaks in the first person in giving the date. The close connection of chaps. 1-6 with the visions which follow may fairly be held to carry over the claim for Daniel's authorship to the teginiiing of the book also.

4. Unity[edit]

No attentive reader will allow himself to be misled as to the oneness of the authorship of the took by the fragmentary or detachetl character of the ten pieces of which it is composed, if he attentively observes how the earlier portions allude to the later, and conversely how the later portions attach themselves to the earlier, and how the same general manner of presentation, thought, and language pervades the whole.

The organic unity of the Book of Daniel, denied by Reuss and Lagarde, has been once more defended by Frhr. von Gall in a monograph (see below, g 23). The grounds, however, which he offers (123^) for regarding 9 4-20 as a late insertion are no more than plausible. The contents of this section are of a higher type than those of the hymns in the apocryphal additions to Daniel. A certain solemn fulness is characteristic of the liturgical style, and is not wanting in passages which may have served the author as his models e.g., Ezra 9 and Neh. 9. 'Von Gall's changes in 9 2^. are arbitrary; the change in the names of Gotl, which is quite appropriate, proves nothing. It is a pure fancy that the author of Daniel, who was acquainted with the Book of Jeremiah, does not regard misfortune as penal ; see 434 622 3o,"etc. Be- .sides, if we expunge 9 4-20, how much remains for chap. 9? Only ten verses. "This is surely not enough for the ninth of the pieces which form the book.

5. Interchange of language.[edit]

What has been said as to the true unity of the book is only apparently contradicted by the use from 2:4d to the end of chapter 7 of the Aramaic language in a book otherwise written in Hebrew.

This interchange of language has given rise to many hypothcses. Spinoza thought the first seven chapters might be an extract made in the time of Judas the Maccabee from old writings of the Chalda:.ans (cp Berlholdt. Eint. 1508^?). Huetius, on the other hand, suggested that the whole Book of Daniel had been ori^;in- ally written in Aramaic, and shortly afterwards translated into Hebrew, and that, the original work having been partly destroyed in the dark days of the .Seleucida;, the text was restored by borrowing the Heb. sections that we now have from the Heb. version (cp Berth. Einl. 1544, 1549)- It is hardly an improvement on this view when J. D. Prince, adopting the theory of Lenormant and Bevan, says : ' The work was probably written at first all in Hebrew ; but for the convenience of the general reader, whose language wan Aramaic, a translation, possibly fruin the suiiic pen as il)c uriginal, w.ih made into the Aranuiic vernacular. It inust be suj)ikciI then that, certain parts of the Hib. manuscript bring lo>l, the missing ]>laces were supplied from the current Aramaic translation ' (lifok oj Danitl ['a()\, p. 13).

The hypothesis that 'the Heb. edition was partly destroyed in the troubled Scleucidan perioil, and the missing portions supplied from the Aramaic version," leaves unexplained why the change of language should occur precisely at 2 4, wliurc the Aramaic language happens to be mentioned. This name cannot be regarded as a gloss, although ' the author of Daniel evidently fell into the error of regarding "Chaldscan" as ihe language of Babylonia.' If, to l>cgin with, the loss <A fxirt of a M.S of no great length is in itself very improbable, still less satisfactory is the assertion that in the second century before Christ such Palestinian lews as were able to read books at all could hardly understand any Hebrew. Reusch is right when he says {liinl. in das Al\*), 1870, p. 118): 'The c-liange of language occurs in the middle of a section that cannot be divided (24), which shows that the author w.is so familiar with both languages that he could glide from one into the other without noticing it, and could assume for a great proportion of his contemporaries a knowledge of them both.' No one asserts, as Prince expresses it, that both languages 'were used quite indifferently': the author of Daniel ami his readers were certainly more at home in the Aramaic vernacular. When Prince asks why chap. 7, ' which is indivisible troin the succeed- ing prophetic Hebrew p'lrtions,' was written not in Heb. but in .\ram., we may answer that chap. 7 was written in the same .\ramaic idiom as chap. 2 simply in order to make every observant reader feel that the book was one, and that the four visions were inseparable from the six narratives.^

The change of dialect is made C|uite naturally thus : In chap. 2 the author h;is introtluced the ' Chaldaans ' as spe;iking the language which he lx.-lieved to lie customary with them ; afterwards he continues to use the same language on account of its greater convenience both for himself and for his original readers, both in the narrative portions and in the following (seventh) cliapter, the piece in companionship to chap. 2 ; for the last three visions (8-12) a return to Hebrew was sut;gested by the consideration that this had from of old been the usual sacrtKl language for prophetic subjects. Whether the Aramaic of Daniel, which is closely allied to that in Ezra, can really be taken as historically the language spoken in the Babylonian court in the sixth century B.C. . or for the native language of the Chaldaeans, cannot be discussed until we have faced the whole question of the historical validity or invalidity of the lK)ok (see 10). It is enough in the meantime to say that the Aramaic or 'Chaldee' portion of Daniel cannot possibly have formed an independent work ; on the contrary, the change of language serves to bind the different parts of the work into a firmer uni .

6. Range of vision[edit]

The position of the Book of Daniel with reference to historical fact, a question most intimately bound up with that of the date, can be discussed to advantage only after we have, in a purely exegetical way ( Bleek in JD T, 1 860, p. 53^ ) firmly established the fact that makc-s for the unity of authorship in all five prophetic pieces(chaps. 2and 7-12) : the fact, namely, that the range of vision in each case reaches down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, in whom afHicted Israel discerned the culmination of all that had been hostile to God in all history, and that, with Epiphanes' destruction, which is regarded as immi- nent, the daw n of the Messianic time is e.vpected. This done, we shall have no difticulty in finding other weighty reasons for fi.xing the composition of the Ixxjk of Daniel at a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV.

The extraordinary precision with which the exilic Daniel seems to prophesy about things that are to happen several centiu-ies afterwards is particularly con- spicuous in chap. 11, where, for example, reference is made in -.: 18 to the victory which the C onsul Lucius Scipio gained over Antiochus III. at Magnesia, in Lydia, in 190 B.C.. or in i: 30 to Popilius L.Tnas, who in the name of the Roman Senate forced .Xntiochiis Epiphanes in 1 68 B. C. to quit Egypt with great precipitancy, upon which the king, as we learn from 1 Macc, \yoff., wreaked his wrath upon his Jewish subjects. Alth jugh predictions of this sort are nowiiere fotind in the writ ngs of the prophets of the O'V (cp I'koi'UKCv), orthtnloxy was long accustotned to take special delight in con- templating predictions which had lx;en so wonderfully fulfilled (cp the case of the name of Cyrus in Is. 44 28). In the present century, however, as the historical sense became cjuickened, difficulties began to jjrescnt themselves against assumptions which were contrary to the analogy of the prophetic writings and found their support merely in the dogma of a magical inspiration.

1 Considerations of space prevent us from considering the hint thrown out by v. Oall (123) that it is not yet critically estab- lished that the LXX was based on the text in the two l.-inguages, or the complicated hypotheses of KOnig {Einl. 384) and Kyssei (TLZ, 1895, col. i6o/).

7. Always Antiochus IV[edit]

In spite of Pusey's energetic warning against ' half- measures,' modern apologists, pressed by the constantly increasing historical difficulties caused by cuneiform decipherments, have been driven more and more to seek refuge in the 'half-measures' thus deprecated, so that, as Bevan {Don. 8) humorously says, ' the defenders of Daniel have, during the last few years, been employed chicHy in cutting Daniel to pieces. '

It may suffice if reference is made here to but one of the equally arbitrary and nugatory attempts which have been made to save the authenticity of the book as a whole by surrendering its oneriess (if authorsliip. Zockler in his exposition of the 1 <x>fe of Daniel Cyu) declared U 5-39 to be a later interuylation ; he had come to see quite clearly that such a piece of fiisiory could never have been penned by an exilic prophet. The attempt, however, was just as vain as the attempt made elsewhere to change the name of Cyrus (Is. 45 i)into an appellative, for it left altogether out of account Dan. 'J43 and the relation of that verse to 1 1 6 17. These two verses treat of two unlucky intermarriages between .Scleucids and t!ie Ptolemies: namely, t. 6, of the marriage of IJerenice, daughter of Ptolemy II. Philaiielphus, with Antiochus II. Theos, aid v. i;, of that of Cleopatra (daughter of the Seleucid Antiochus HI., the Great, and thus sister of Antiochus IV. Kpiphanes), from whom all the K-syptian Cleopatras have taken their name, with Ptolemy V. Kpiphanes. But these inarriaLes are quite plainly alluded to in 243, where we read as follows regarding the kingdom represented in the vision by the legs of iron and the feet partly of iron and partly of clay : 'And whereas thou saw est the iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another, even .is iron doth not mingle with clay.' From this it follows at once that by the fourth kingdom in chap. 2 is meant that of Alexander the Great, which became divided into that of the Seleucids and that of the Ptolemies (the other kingdoms of the successors of .Mexander have here no interest for the author, and are, there- fore, passed over). But if in chap. 2 the first of the four kingdoms has been made tut to he the Babylonian, and the Greek to be the fourth, it follows, from what we are told of ihc (i\i,.i^M,s under which Daniel himself lived, that the second and the third kingdoms, touched upon so lightly in Daniels interpretation in 1 1 2 .9, must be the Median and the Persian. Still more clearly then in chap. 2 does the author's special irtere^i in hm- p' m 1,1 ,jf the fourth kingdom disclose itself in the \isions ot I).inici ; the relations of the people of God to Antiochus Kpiphanes possess such great importance, because, immediately upon the fall of this tyrant which is to be brought about without human inter- vention (cp234 45 with 825) the Messianic kingdcmi is forth- with to l>e set up. It is universally admitted that the reference to .\ntiochus l^piphanes is as plainly manife^< in the second vision (89-14 23-i5) as it is in the last vision (1121-4:), which occupies Itself wholly with the reign of this king. Chap. 12 1 7 iiy; also relates to his persecution of the .saints and its longed- for cessation. To the unprejudiced interpreter there cui be no possibility of doubt that in the three other pieces also the rang.; of vision is limited to the time of Antiochus Kpiphanes. What is true of 24; is true also of 7 8^ ^o/F., where the little horn (cp. 89), to whose power the saints are delivered up for three times and a h.ilf (cp 7 25 with 12 7), must again be the same persecutor who had m.ide him.self so hateful to the Jews. The .same holds good, finally, of chap. 9. Here the sixty-two year-weeks which follow the first seven present, it is true, a historical difficulty which will have to l)e discussed (see g 20); but thus much at least is certain, that the 'anointed one' in 9a6 is the high-priest Oni.is III., who was put to death in 171 B.c.,1 so that the last ye.ir-wcek comes down to 164 B.C., and the suspcn.sion of .sacrifice and offering which is predicted in 9 27 (of, 'he .second half of this week enables us plainly to see that it is the action of Antiochus Kpiphanes that is referred to.

1 Cp., however, Israel, | 69.

8. Authenticity.[edit]

Now, on the assumption of the authenticity of the book, it is very hard indeed to understand how, out of the ten pieces of which it is composed, so many as five, in which the coming of the Messianic kingdom is predicted, should stop short at the reign of a Seleucid sovereign whose kingdom not to speak of the Greek kingdom out of which it and the other Seleucid kingdoms had arisen had no existence in the days of the exilic Daniel.

Even the early father Hippolytus did not fail to notice the allusions to the history of the Seleucidae and the Ptolemies which occur in the book of Daniel ; but it was the Neo-platonist PorphjTy {ofi. 304 A.D. ) who first drew the right inference from the acknowledged facts, and took Daniel's professed authorship to be a mere literary form, ascribing the book to a Jew who wrote during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. As, however, this denial of the authenticity of the book came from an opponent of Christianity, it produced no effect. It was necessary that, within the Church itself, a truly scientific and historical method of dealing with the OT should arise. ^ This has at last come to pass. As the result of the labours of several generations, we can safely hold it to have teen established, as one of the ascertained results of science, that in chap. 7 we are to understand by the fourth beast the Grecian Empire, by the eleventh horn Antiochus Epiphanes, and by what is related regarding this horn the religious persecution under that king ; as also that the author of the book wrote in his reign. A fundamental rule of all sound exegesis was violated when the utterances of chap. 7 were not interpreted in the light of the other four parallel texts, but were torn from their connection in the book in order to give them a meaning divergent from the sense of the rest of the book, as if the fourth beast signified not the Grecian but the Roman Empire. To interpret the four kingdoms as denoting those of Babylonia, Medo- Persia, Greece, and Rome, seems, indeed, by grouping the Medes and Persians under one empire, to offer a series which, from a historical point of view, can 1)6 more easily accepted than that of Babylonia, Media, Persia, and Greece ; but this last series alone gives the true sense of the book, wliich represents the Median kingdom of Darius as Ixjing the second of the four world-monarchies, and places this as an indepen- dent intermediate link tetween the Chaldnsan and the Persian monarchies (cp 61 [031] 832091), distinguishing it quite plainly from the Persian, which it makes out to be the third. With our perfectly certain knowledge, derived from the cuneiform inscriptions, that there never was any such Median empire between those of Babylonia and Persia (cp Pkrsi.\), the authenticity of the Book of Daniel falls to the ground. Quite apart, however, from the lumierous contradictions of history to be afterwards spoken of ( 10, etc. ), contra- dictions which absolutely exclude the supposition that the author was an eye-witness living during the period of the 'exile,' the fact that the horizon of the book is throughout tounded by the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the fierce persecutor of the Jews and their religion, with whose fall the Messianic salvation is represented as being ushered in, makes it abundantly plain that the figure of the exilic Daniel is employed only as a literary form. The Messianic hope could not possibly have taken this special form so early as during the ' exile, ' but only under the oppression of the Syrian tyrant who sought to extirpate the religion of Israel, and to compel the Jews to adopt the idolatrous worship of Greece.

1 Gunkel, Schol>/. 325. [Doubts as to the authenticity of the Hook of Daniel were uttered again in the seventeenth century by Hobbes (^Leviatlian, 33) and Spinoza (Tract, theol. polit. 10) ; but Anthony Collin.s, the ' free-thinker,' was the first who treated the subject with something like modern thoroughne.s. As Lechler has shown, the eleven grounds which Collins adduces (Scheme of Literal Priiphecy, 1726, p. 149^) are mostly those on which recent criticism relies for proving the Maccabjean date of Daniel. It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that critical doubts were confined to sceptical theologians. Richard Bentley, scholar and apologist, had reached by 17-)! a con- viction of the late origin of I )aniel. Jebb in his monograph isn f.) makes too light of Bentley 's doubts. _ In spite of VVhiston's somewhat disparaging language, it is clear that Bentley found serious difficulties both in the narratives and in the predictions of Daniel, in consequence of which he ' supposed the ix)ok to have been written after the time pf Onias the high priest, and that this Onias was Daniel's Messiah ' (see Whiston's Memoirs by himself, Lond. 1749, p. ic8 /:) Whiston was a Boyle Lecturer.]

9. Aim[edit]

The book of Daniel being, as Wellhausen well describes it (//O'"^', 240/), 'a hortatory and consolatory writing for the persecuted, designed to strengthen and cheer them by the knowledge that within a very short time the overbent bow will break,' its atithor was able to allow himself great freedom in the use of his materials. His aim was not the communication of historical information. Using as a vehicle the materials, historical or unhistorical, that tradition had placed at his disposal, he availed himself of the literary artifice of employing the name of the exilic Daniel to gain weight for the ethical and religious truths which he desired to set forth. ^ As in the cases of Job and Jonah, so also in that of the book of Daniel, a great injustice is done if the standard of strict historicity is applied, a standard by which the book is not in the least intended to be tried.

10. Unconcerned about history.[edit]

We find in it (cp Kamph. Daniel, 16/, 28^, 45) not only many historical errors but also, frequently, a magnificent unconcern about historical possibilities, of which the author, in spite of his great literary art, certainly was not always conscious. If it is permissible to find in 68, no less than in the demand mentioned in 2 11, a scornful refer- ence to that religious edict of Antiochus Epiphanes which the pious Jew could regard only as a piece of insanity, these passages without doubt contain other conscious allusions to historical fact. In many cases, we can quite confidently conjecture their presence, though we do not always quite understand them. If it is only with diflficulty that we are able to form any visual image of the fiery furnace (3), or of the lion's den (tj), still less are we able to comprehend how Daniel, who had constantly remained steadfast to the God of Israel, could have come to be the chief of the heathen Magi (243) ; and in like manner we fail to make clear to ourselves how Daniel (cp 826 I24) could have managed to secure that what he had seen should remain a secret for centuries. The matter becomes at once natural and intelligible if we suppose that the exilic Daniel was simply employed as a literary device by a writer of much later date, who regarded the fury of Antiochus Epiphanes as the last visitation of the people of God Ixifore the blessed time of the end should come. Anachronisms and historical difficulties of every sort occur throughout the whole of the book, not only in its preliminary narratives.

Orthodoxy shows a natural reluctance to recognise the unhistorical character of the book. As even its latest expounder,^ although dating it in the Maccabean period, greatly exaggerates its historical value, and justifies himself in his refusal to recognise its true character by urging that in substance the book is not pure invention, but rests upon tradition, it seems fitting to call attention to one outstanding instance in which tradition is no guarantee of historical truth, before we proceed to enumerate some samples of the unhistoricity of the book. Among the apocryphal additions to Daniel contained in <&, that of the ' Dragon at Babel" (cp Schr. in Riehm's HWB) is certainly not pure invention. This legend, which in its present literary form is very late, had already been brought into relation with the old Babylonian mythology by Schrader and Ball (Wace, Apocr. ii. 348 ff.)\ but quite recently Gunkel (/ sup. 320/:) has conclusively shown that what lies at the root of it is the primeval Babylonian myth of the conquest of the Chaos-monster or the great dragon Tiamat by the god Marduk.* Instead of merely pronouncing this apocryphal narrative, as Zockler (Apocr. ['91], 215 231 ) somewhat imprudently does, foolish and silly, we ought rather to learn from it that dependence on ancient tradition is not incompatible with complete unhistoricity.

I'll is possible, no doubt, that he derived some part of these narratives from Jewish or Babylonian popular stories. But even if we accept this conjecture, the historical setting, the moral purpose, and the skill m presentation are all his own' (Che. AM91, art. ' Daniel ').

2 Georg Behrmann, Hand<ommcntar, 1894.

As a contemporary, the author of Daniel llai-39 was in circumstances which enabled him to depict with the utmost accuracy the reign of Anticx;hus i:piphanes and his two Egyptian campaigns ; but for the concluding portion of ch. 11 he can no longer be taken as a historical source, inasnmch as ii: 40-45 go beyond the author's present ; the actual course of events in which Antiochus Epiphanes perished on an eastern raid in the Persian city of TalxK in 164 h. c. is glaringly inconsistent with the author's anticipation that the king, after a successful ex[x.'dition against Egypt, was to meet his end suddenly in Palestine.

11. Language.[edit]

We are thus led to the conclusion that the book was written during the lifetime of Antiochus Epiphanes. The conclusion that it belongs to a very late date in the post-exilic period is forced upon us also by its language.

The many Persian words in the book are, in the mouth of Daniel, anachronisms which clearly testify against the authenticity of the book ; as also testifies the use of the word Kasdiin (EV ' Chalda:ans ' [</. j'. ]) for the Habylonian priests, soothsayers, or magicians. True, our book sometimes, in agreement with those prophets who lived under the new IJabylonian kingdom, understands by the Kasdim the people who had the predominance in liabylon (cp Dan. 38 5301*1 with Is. 4314); but it stands alone, opposed not only to the Assyrio-Babylonian usus loquendi but also to that of all the rest of the O l", in the manner in which it everywhere else (cp 224, etc.) makes Kasdim synonymous with ' Magi,' a practice which is found, long after the down- fall of the IJabylonian empire, in Greek and Roman authors. As the number of words borrowed from Persian certainly exceeds a dozen, the few Greek ex- pressions do not come so much into account ; but attention is worth calling to psanterin in Dan. 3s, because this form, alongside of the Greek psaltirion, proves the influence of the Macedonian dialect (which substituted n for /), and because it is in the case of this word that the Semitic derivation of the foreign words in Daniel, so much insisted on in the apologetic interest, is strikingly seen to be untenable.

12. Aramaic[edit]

The non-Hebrew language of Dan. 2:4^ is introduced as being the speech of the Chaldajans,' and is kept up by the author down to the end of chap. 7, because in his time (though not so in 2 K. 18 26) both languages were readily understood ; it is thus possible for us to form definite conclusions as to its character. .Although it is called Aramaic correctly, it is at the same time intended to tje taken as the language of the ' Chaldajans," and this on any assumption involves a historical error. The biblical Aramaic (see Akamaic Languagk, 3 / ) is now known to belong to the West Aramaic group and to be closely related to the language of the Targums and of the Palmyrene and other inscriptions. We know also that this language, of which the remains preservetl to us come for the most part from Palestine, did not, as the language of current intercourse, supersede the old Hebrew (which had now begun to assert its claim to be regarded as a sacred languagy) until the end of the third century B.C. The actual language of the ' Chald;eans ' also we know from the cuneiform inscriptions to have been Semitic, but very different from the West .Aramaic, so that Luther's free translation of 24 'Then spake the Chaldees to the king in Chaldee" is indeed exegetically correct but historically false. If, on the other hand, in order to avoid supposing that Aramaic was confoundetl with ' Chaldaean,' it is maintained that the court language at Babylon was Aramaic, we may point to the linguistic peculiarities of the old Aramaic inscriptions,* which abundantly show that the Aramaic of the Book of Daniel could not have lieen spoken in Babylon in the sixth century.

1 .Simil.irly Mardiik reappears later in the Christian knight St. Georiie.

13. Mistakes in names[edit]

How little the Book of Daniel can be depended on in matters of history appears from its very first verse. Not only do the real contemporaries (cp Jer. 46:2 Ez.267)of the famous Chaldaean king Nebuchadrezzar ; but also Strabo, in transliterating the name, comes near the cuneiform form. In Dan. 1 1, on the other hand, the name is given in a later corrupt form (with n instead of r) in connection with the unhistorical statement (cp Jer. 25 1 3(5 1 9 29) that Nebuchadrezzar conquered Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim. Whatever be the case with the rest of the OT, Daniel betrays no trace of acquaintance with cuneiform ; the error made in 4 8 [5] is an urgent warning against any attempt to interpret the writing on the wall in 5 25 by reference to the real sjjeech of the ' Chald;eans.' In 4 8 [5J Daniel's name Belteshazzar, which is already taken in the LXX to Ix: the same as Belshazzar (5i), the name of the alleged last Babylonian king, is wrongly supposed to be a compound of the divine name liel (Is. 46i), although Bel-sar-usur (that is, ' Ikl ])rcserve the king ') and Belatsu-u.sur (that is, ' may his life i)e preserved ') are philologically distinct.- It would take us too far afield were we to show how even Nebuchad- rezzar's insanity and the equally unhistorical conception of Belshazzar or even of the legendary Darius the .\ledc (whom Xenophon's romance, the Cyrofxcdia, cannot make a historical person ) carry us back to traditions which, widely different as they seem, in part at least, to have been, were in any case greatly distorted. How strainetl are the author's relations with history can Ix; seen by a glance at chap. 11 2/ As only two Babylonian kings are known to him, so he knows of only three Persian .sovereigns besides Cyrus (lOi), their names being tho.se of the four that occur elsewhere in the OT (cp ! zra4 5-7) ; as Xerxes is clearly intended by the fourth, this sovereign is made to be the successor of Artaxer.xes (whom he really pre ceded), and the contemporary of Alexander the (jreat.

14. Daniel the hero[edit]

In these circumstances Drivers correct statement (Introd.1^^ 510). that ' the book rests upon a traditional basis,' ought not to have been followed by the statement that ' Daniel, it cannot be doubted, was a historical person, one of the Jewish exiles in Babylon. ' A book which does not admit of being used as a historical source, save for the author's own time, cannot possibly be a guarantee for the existence of an exilic Daniel. When we cast about us for information concerning Daniel independent of our present book, we find that the name Daniel is of rare occurrence in the OT, being met with (see Daniki. i. 1) only once on perfectly historical ground; and, moreover, what is very remarkable, we find also in Ezra's time (see Daniel i. 3) a Mishael, an .Azariah, and a Hananiah (cp Dan. 16) a coincidence of rare names which led Bleek to conjecture that our author had thrown back the contemporaries of Ezra by more than a century in order that he might represent them as living in the time of the ' exile ' at a heathen court, and showing an example to his countrymen under the oppression of the heathen. This hypothesis and that of Cheyne ( OPs. 107) are, at any rate, preferable to the view of Ewald, who places the original Daniel among the North Israelitish exiles at the court of Nineveh {/'rophe/s, 5iii).

t Cp Dr. Introd.'^) 503 / (the language of D.iniel, [c ] end). We possess monuments of the official use of .Aranuiic for the times of the Assyrian, the Babylonian, and the Persian supremacies, which indicate that there was in the case of the smaller parts of speech, such as the relative and demonstrative pronouns which have special value for the determination of the age of a language, a notaole difference of form between the older and the younger Aramaic. Whilst the old Aramaic of the inscriptions from the eighth to the fifth centuries B.C. h.xs (ii K1 and r\l\, in biblical Aramaic these much used particles have the forms n, kt and nj^. The Book of Daniel is thus, in its ase of t for the older 1, quite in agreement with what we know of the usage prevailing in Aramaic in.scriptiorLs and books dating from the 1st centuries b.c. and the first centuries a.d.

3 On the name and asserted kingship of Bclsh.azzar, and on Darius the Mede, see Belshazzar, Dakius, i.

15. Other signs of late date.[edit]

In confirmation of the date (during the lifetime of Antiochus Epiphanes) already made out, we have many additional facts which point to the early Maccabean periotl even if they do not enable us to fix the time with absolute precision. Among these are the argumenta e silentio supplied by the fact that Daniel is not named by the son of Sirach who wrote atxjut 190 H.c. (Ecclus. 48 f.), and a still weightier argument by the complete absence of any influence of Daniel upon post -exilic prophetic literature. Conversely this book, to which the angelic names Gabriel and Michael, the resurrection (122 ; cp Escii.XToi.OGv), and a collection of sacred books that included the prophecies of Jeremiah (92) are known, plainly reveals its dependence not only^on Jeremiah and 12zekiel but also on the post-exilic Book of Zechariah. If the absence of Daniel from Ecclus. 496-io is itself a proof of late origin, a still stronger proof lies in the fact that it has found its place in the Hebrew canon, not in the second division, the collection of prophetic books, but in the third or hvst division, between Esther and Ezra (cp Canun', 49). Not until the time of the LXX (which, moreover, has treated the text of Daniel in a very arbitrary fashion) does it find a place, after Ezekiel, as the fourth of the ' great ' prophets, and thus it comes to pass that once in the NT ^ Daniel is designated as a prophet.

16. Greek translations.[edit]

The very arbitrary treatment of the MT of Daniel in the LXX, particularly in chaps. 3-6, and the false interpretation of 925 ^ (.((f/5;^//'/w, 'weeks' confounded with sibh'im, 'seventy') brought it about that long before Jerome's time, Theodotion's translation of Daniel (already employed by Irenaeus)'- superseded the LXX in ecclesiastical use. Though Theodotion did not remove the apocryphal additions not found in M T, yet, by making use of Aquila's version, he brought the text of the LXX into closer relation with MT. From a MS (Cod. Chisianus) of the LXX in the library of Cardinal Chigi, not very old, but supplied with Origen's obeli and asterisks, an edition of the LXX Daniel was published at Rome in 1772, and another and better one by Cozza in 1 877. The Syriac Hexaplar version of Paul of Telia, edited by Bugati in 1788 and photographically reproduced by Ceriani in 1874, is justly held to be purer than the te.xt of the Cod. Chisianus (Swete's 87), which is, indeed, full of errors. The text-critical importance of (5 is, for the Book of Daniel, fortunately very small ; so far as the integrity of the consonants of the original text is concerned, the book is one of the best preserved in the whole O T.

As distinguished from the older prophets the Book of Daniel is often spoken of as the first apocalypse (cp Dan. 2191. It makes a revelation of the coming end of the world, although in a veiled manner, so as to avoid the dangers of open speech.

1 In Mt. 24 15, but not in the i| Mk. 13 m-

- Porphyry, too, made use of Thcodotion's translation, aud even (according to Jerome's express testimony) regarded it as the original (cp Bevan, op. cit. 3).

  • Following out a suggestion of Noldeke (.^ ////. Litt. 224),

Prof. Bevaii has offered this interpretation of 9 2, 'I understood the number of years by the Pentateuch,' the special reference being to Lev. '2') 18 21 2428, where it is declared that the Israelites are to be punished seren times for their sins. ' The 70 weeks become intelligible if we suppose that the author of Daniel com- bined Jer. '25 1 1 29 10 with Lev. 2(5 18^.' 'The 70 years of Jeremiah were to be repeated 7 times, and at the end of the 490th year the long - promised deliverance might be confidently ex- pected.' But the expression ' seven times ' has here, as in Prov.

  • 24 16, simply the sense of ' often.' The text in 9 2 cannot ascribe

to Daniel a comprehension of ' the number of the years by the (holy) books,' because such a comprehension is, as a fact, only obtained through the angel in Tr. 24-27. Besides, it is unnatural to explain the phrase ' the books ' as referring to the Penta- teuch when the context speaks only of Jeremiah. Behrmann's rendering of 'pj'-j ('I took notice of) is preferable to that of Be\-an and of EV ( I understood').

17 Pseudonymity.[edit]

Upon the basis of his study of earlier writers (92),* and conscious of his own divine enlightenment, the author wrote his work of admonition and comfort in the name of the ancient Daniel ; it is only 'i"*"'^^ (cp ^^^ excellent remarks of Ball in Wace's y4/(j<rr. 2307) or misapprehension that can lay to his charge as a fault his employment of a literary form which was common throughout antit|uity. We must not, of course, unduly exaggerate the feeling, no doubt prevalent in the Maccabean jxjriod, that prophecy had Ijecome extinct a feeling which may have contributed, along with other causes, to the choice of this literary form. Our author pursues the same lofty moral and religious aims which were sought by the older prophets, and it is by no means his intention to gratify a merely idle curiosity. In presenting, as still future, past occurrences in which, as one world-empire perished after another, he saw the hand of his God only as preparing the way for that which was still really in the future, the downfall of the last and most direful enemy of the good, and the coming of Messiah's salvation, there was a double advantage. The people who were in the secret were able to recog- nise in what he wrote the circumstances of their own time, although only darkly alluded to ; and what had happened already supplied a guarantee for the certainty of that which was still to happen. The author lives in the firm faith that everything has been fully foreordained in the counsels of God (cp 7 12) : the Almighty is steering the whole course of history towards the salvation of his people (cp Smend's lecture on 'Jewish Apocalyptic' in ZATW, 1885, p. 222/:). Cp ESCHAT0L0GY.

18. Chronological data[edit]

If we turn now to the question how our author set about fixing by computation the date of the accomplishment of the Messianic hopes of the Jews, we are able to arrive at a more precise determination of the date of his writing.

It must have teen either soon before, or soon after, the purification of the temple. This we learn from the number given in 814. As already said, the years of weeks (cp 2 Ch. 8621) present some historical difficulty, inasmuch as, after the first seven weeks of years (which suit the Babylonian ' exile '), instead of the 62 x 7 = 434 years of the interval which we should expect to find between Cyrus and the death of Onias III. (538-171 K.c. ), we are, according to the actual chronology (which gives 367 years), 67 years short. As the Jewish Hellenist Demetrius, however, who wrote about 210 B.C., has fallen into a mistake precisely similar to our author's a mistake which could easily be made in the absence of a fixed era we need not be surprised at such an error in a book historically so inaccurate as that of Daniel. The last week of years, which begins in 171 B.C. , extends (precisely reckoned) to 164 K.c, and it has certainly contributed greatly to the esteem in which the book ha.s been held, that Antiochus Epiphanes actually did die in the year 164. For our author the division of the seventieth week of years into two equal parts was sug- gested by the history of his time, inasmuch as towards the end of 168 B.C. the Alxjmination of Desolation was set up, and idolatrous worship in the temple began. The ihree-years-and-a-half which remain after deduction of the historical three- years-and- a- half stand for the still incomplete period of the last and greatest tribula- tion in the course of which our book was written. For the correctness of this second number (3^) faith had to be the guarantee ; and that it was known to Ije a round numlier or a number of faith is shown not only by the vague periphrasis in 725 and 12 7, where the plural ' times' takes the place of the linguistically imp)Ossible dual, but also by the three numbers, 1150 (cp the 2300 evenings and mornings in 814), 1290, and 1335 days, used in an approximate way to express three years and a half apparently with precision but in reality only in round numbers. Behrmann, with Cornill. continues to fix the date of the boolt as in the beginning of the year 164, because the number in 814, which does not seem to be symbolical, is held to pxjint to the purification of the temple as having alrcjidy bi-en accomplished ; but Cornill.' reckoning backwards 1150 days from 25th Decemljer 165 .c. , sought to make out 27th October 168 as the probable tlatc of the religious edict of Antiochus lipiphanes. The difference of 45 days Ix:- tween the numlx;r iu 12 11 and that in 12 la, which it is merely arbitrary to attempt to explain as a gloss, points to months of 30 days. In that case the 1290 days (v. 11), or 43 months, would fit in if we were to add an inter- calary month to the 42 months of the three years and a half. However we may reckon (cp H. Oort in TA. T 28, 450 ['94]), the end of chap. 9 forbids the dissociation of the restoration of the temple service from the final close so tlecidedly that the present writer now unites with Kuenen and Wellhausen in preferring the usual view, according to which 814 still lies in the author's future, and holds the date of the book to be 165 H.c.

19. Apocryphal additions.[edit]

When the book, which rapidly became popular, first began, perhaps as early as 150 B.C. (cp i Mace. 1 54 J 59/.). to be translated by Egyptian Jews into Greek, the legends of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon (cp I5evan, 45), which may very well have had an independent circulation,^ had certainly not as yet been taken up into it. In fact, iis late as the fifth century A.n. we have it on the authority of Folychronius that the Song of the Three Children was still absent alike from the Syriac version and from the original text. We cannot tell at what date it was that these apocryphal additions (which are contained in all the MS.S that have reached us) were taken up into the Greek and the Syriac Daniel. In view of the great popularity of their contents, shown by the variety of the forms in which they are presented, we can only conjecture that they nmst have been adopted comparatively early (the Ixxjk from the first was freely rendered rather than faithfully translated in the LXX), although the growth of the four different SjTiac texts of Susjuuia (cp Wace, 2 330/-) niay have lieen later. 'Ihe so-called genuine LXX text, which we possess in the Cod. Chisianus (Sw. 87) and (in Syriac) in a valuable Milan MS (cp Swete, Septuagint, vol. 3, p. \\f. ) contains, of course, the additions just as fully as do the many MS.S which give us Daniel in the text of Theodotion, already described above ( i6) as a revision of the LXX. Swete (as above) has conveniently printed together the text of Theodotion, which obtained ecclesiastical sanction, and that of the LXX, which had lain in oblivion for almost fifteen centuries. Even if we su])pose, with Schiirer (PRE<^> I640), that the LXX text nnist have been in existence before the Daniel legend received new develop- ments in Greek, we may safely assume that the additions to the Greek Daniel had been made before the beginning of the Christian era. The balance of probability is that they were not translated from any Semitic source, but were originally written in Greek (cp Pusey, Daniel, 378/. ). They are distinguished as indeed is the LXX version of Daniel from the Jewish Greek that prevails in the rest of the LXX by their purer and more elegant diction ; another indication in the same direction is the well- known play upon Greek words in Susanna (it. 54 f. 58/., cp HoLMTREE). which even Julius .Africanus urged as proof of the spuriousness of the piece in his letter to Origen, who wished the narrative to be retained in the canon.

' See his Die Siebzig Jahrwochtn Daniels, 1889. ' Cp above, | 10.

20. Susanna.[edit]

As Protestants are in no way bound by the decree of the Council of Trent (cp Wace, Apocr. I368/. ), which declares the apocryphal additions to be true history, and as we hardly require a full enumeration of reasons such as is given, e.g., by Reuss \Das AT iibcrsetxt. 1894, 7411/ ) in proof of the unhistorical character of the Susanna legend, we are able to approach without any prejudice the question as to the language in which it was originally written. It may be frankly conceded that in view of the small extent of the additions plainly the work of a Hellenistic Jew (or Jews) and in view of the fact that even in the case of a comparatively poor language it is always possible by free translation to imitate any play up>on words whatever, we have not the means that would enable us to prove conclusively that the original language was Greek.

To estimate the additions correctly, we must consider their substance rather than their present Greek form. Without prejudice to the literary freedom which is manifestly presupposed by their present forn* and by the fact that the Susanna legend appears in several shapes (cp Salmon in Wace, p. xlvi), it is clear that they contain more or less of traditional matter, and, like the canonical book itself, cannot Ix; regarded as pure invention. So long ago as 1832 Zunz (Gottesdienstl. Vortr. 122/) called attention to the fact that traces are preserved in the Haggada of wonderful doings of a Daniel famous for his wisdom e.g., the fight w'Wh the dragon, already mentioned, in Midrash Ber. h'ab. par. 68 (in Wiinsche's transl. , lA;ipsic, 1881, p. 334). As for the jx>silion of the legend of the beautiful Susanna, whom Daniel (represented in v. 45 as a very youthful Ixiy) saves from the false accusation of the two elders by his wise judgment, Theodotion, for the sake of the presumed chronological order, has placed it lx;fore Dan. 1 (though after chap. 1 would be more appropriate), while the LXX and \'g. , on the other hand, place it as a thirteenth chapter after the twelve canonical chapters ; liel and the Dragon being a fourteenth. Daniel's wise judgment recalls i K. 3 16^ ; but the lascivious old men recall still more .-^hab and Zedekiah, the two adulterous false prophets living in Ikibylon and threatened by Jeremiah (cp Jer. 2920-23 with Sus. V. 57), alxjut whom the Talmud and Midrash have so much to say. Briill even thought that he had discovered the explanation of the flower-name Susanna in the Midrash U'ayyikra Piabda, par. 19 (p. 129 in Wiinsche's transl.), antl Ifell (Wace, 2330) would fain have it that the piece is an anti-Sadducean ' tendency ' writing. More likely is the connection suggested by Ewald (fj /'/ 4636) of the Susanna story with a Baby- lonian legend, an allusion to which occurs in the Koran {Sur. 296). of the seduction of two old men by the goddess of love.

21. Bel and the Dragon.[edit]

While in Susanna Daniel, as his name implies, appears as a judge, he comes before us in the other two related pieces -Bel and the Dragon of Babylon (see : 24 28) which immediately follow in all MSS and editions, as the successful opponent of heathenism, distinguished for wisdom and piety. In the first of the two, Daniel convinces the king (called Cyrus only in Theod. ) of the fraud practised by the priests of Bol, who pretended that their god was an actual living deity, while it wiis they themselves with their wives and families who consumed the Uiod and drink offered to Bel. -After the e.vecution of the priests and tho destruc- tion of the helpless Bel and his temple {v. 22) we read (?T. 23-42) of further exploits of Daniel in liabylon. He subdued the invulnerable dragon (Job 41 18 [26]^) which they worshippetl with divine honours, by throw- ing indigestible substances into its jaws, whereupon the king at the instigation of his enraged people caused the destroyer of their gtxis to be cast into the lions' den (cp Dan. 6) ; here he was divinely protectetl, and sup- ported by food miraculously brought to him from the land of Judrpa by the prophet Habakkuk (cp Kzek. S3). In 87 (see .Sw. ) the superscription of the twofold narra- tive of IVl and the Dragon runs : ' From the prophesy of Habakkuk, the son of Jesu, of the tribe of I A^vi. ' Here. doubtless, there is a reference to some Jewish prophetic legend, although only The<xlotion calls this Habakkuk a prophet (see HABAKKUK). The only addition which, strictly speaking, supplements the canonical book of Daniel is the double hymn introduced after 823, consisting of 67 verses numbered in Greek and Vg. as , vv. 24-90.

22. Song of the 3 Children.[edit]

The EV treats this entire section as one, headed ' The Song of the Three Children ' ; Luther, following the Vatican superscription, divides it into two, under the titles ' The Prayer of Azariah ' and ' The Song of the Three Men in the Fiery Furnace.' The prayer named after Azariah (cp Dan. I7) is spoken in the name of the three friends ; but its language is as general as if the entire Jewish people, oppressed and penitent, were speaking. After a brief connecting narrative relating their miraculous preservation from the devouring fire a preservation regarded as an answer to Azariah's prayer we have in zt'. 52-90 the song of praise sung at the same time by all three together. This speaks of the deliverance from the fire only in the verse where they call upon themselves by name [v. 88), whilst the rest takes the form of a prolonged litany, reminiscent of Ps. 10320/: and still more of Pss. 136 148 and Ecclus. 43, where in quite general terms all created things are summoned to praise the Lord.

23. Literature.[edit]

To the bibliography in Hevan's Short Comm. on Daniel (Cambr. '94), p. 9, and in Strack's Einl. ('98), p. inf., add Kamph. 'Daniel' in SBOT; Dr. IntrotiA') 488-515; Sayce, Crit. Man. 524-537", Che. OFs. 94, 105 107, Founders, 363-371 ; Behr- mann, Das />'. Daniel, Giittingen, 1894 (his exegesis is con- scientious and sober ; his etymologies are weak, but he criticises Kautzsch's Gramm. in several points successfully) ; Breasted, Hehraica, July ('91), p. 2a,\ff. (on the proof of the recent origin of Daniel derived from synta.\) ; Lohr, ' Text-krit. Vorarb. zu einer Erklarung des B. Daniel,' ZATIV, 1895-96; Dillm. A Tlichc Theol., Leipsic ('95), p. 5227^, 538 ; Baer, Libri Dan. Ezr. et Nek. Text Mas. etc., 1882 (with pref. by Franz Del., and ' Babylonian glosses ' by Friedr. Del.) ; J. D. Prince, A Critical Comvicntary on the Book of Daniel ('99) ; Nestle, Marg. u. Mai., 1893 (see pp. 35-42) ; ^Larti, A'urzi,'. drain, des Bibl.-Aravi. Sprache, 1896 (note especially the Texts and Glossary). The commentary of Hippolytus on Daniel has recently been edited by Bonwetsch {Hippolytus' IVerke, i. ; Leipsic, '97) ; see also Bonwetsch, 'Studien zu den Komm. Hippolytus' in Archiv f d. dlteren christl. Schriftsteller, i. ('97); Bludau, Die Alexatulrin. Uebersetzung des B. Dan. u. ihr. Verhdltniss z. Mass. Text ('97), an instructive exposition of the problems presented by the LXX : chaps. 1-3 7-12 in the LXX are a real translation of text-critical value ; the deutero-canonical parts are most probably based on a Semitic original. G. A. Bar- ton, 'The Comp. of the Book of Daniel, '/A'/-, 17 ('98)62-86 (against unity of authorship); F. Buhl, /'7? "(3) ('98), 4445-457. a. K.


{\V\ r\r^\ eic Aan eiAa^N k<m oyAan [B]. eic Aan iapan k\\ ioyAan [A], eooc h.ts.u [L] ; IX n.tx siiJiiSTRiA [Vg.]), a place mentioned (2 S. 246) in a description of the limits of David's kingdom, after the ' land of Tahtim-hodshi ' [q.v. ). Conder {Hdbk. 408), following Schultz, identifies it with Ddnidn, a ruined place between Tyre and Akka, 4 m. N. of Achzib. That, however, is too far west. ' Dan ' must be the historic Dan, and -j'aan (for which Ges.'s j^'ar ' forest' is a poor conjecture ; but see "^ Vg. ) is plainly corrupt. To emend the text so as to read ' (they went) to Dan, and from Dan they went round (laao JTOi) to Zidon ' (We., Dr. , Ki. , Bu. ) is possible. It is better, however, especi- ally if Klostermann is right in his emendation of Tahtim- hodshi, to change -jaan into w^-iyyon, 'and (to) Ijon'; Ijon, like Kedesh, belonged to the territory of Naphtali. We should then continue, ' and they went round (53b'\ BAL ^jjj iK{<K\(j}<ja.v) to Zidon.' Observe that Kloster- mann's emendation (pyi) is easier, and probably gives a better sense than that of Wellhausen and Driver. It is also proposed by Griitz. T. K. C.


(n31 ; pcNNA [BAL]), a city of the hill country of Judah (Josh. 15 49), mentioned between Socoh (.Shuweikeh) and Debir. Suitable to this position is the modern Idhna, the leSva of the OS, 6 m. .SE. of Beit-Jibrin ; the variation in the form of the name is a not unusual one (cp Ibzik and Bezek).


(Aa(J)NH [AV]), 2 Mace. 433- SeeANTiOCH, 2. I-


(y^ll). one of three wise men, sons of Mahoi, (the Chronicler differs ; see Zerah), compared with Solomon (i K.431 [5ii]; 427: AaraAa [B]. TON Aaraa [A], AarAac [L]). In I Ch. '26 the name appears as Dara (5apa fB.A], dapaSe [L]) ; but, as it seems intended to be analogous in form to Chalcol (Chalcal?), a second d is indispensable. The largest group of MSS of read in 1 K. and i Ch. tov Sap5a ; three cursives in i K. have tov SapSav (so Arm. ). Pesh. Targ. and some MSS ( Kenn. ) support MT in both passages.


(D^yS-inN, D*yi?lT), RV iCh.297 etc., AV Dkam [q.v.].'


(t^'VI^; Old Pers. Darayavaus, DarayavaS ; Bab. Dari'amuS (v7d); Sus. viTariyamaui (vaui)\ Aar[6]ioc [BXAQL 87]).

1. Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus, Dan. 61 [2] 28 [29] 9. and 11 1 (/f.-poi- SJAh.(^i.e. , Theod. ; 87 i.e., the LXX], Aapetoi; [.Aq. Sym.]). The name is here applied in error to the conqueror of the new Baby- lonian empire. In Dan. 9i Ahasuerus is the father of Darius the Mede, who, we are informed (cp 11 1), ' was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans ' after the death of Helshazzar. We are told of Darius that he was then (638 B.C.) sixty-two years old, from which it follows that Ahasuerus his father must have been a contemporary of Nebuchadrezzar. With this agrees Tob. 14 15, where it is said (but not by N*) that the population of Nineveh was deported by Nebuchad- rezzar and Ahasuerus. -All this proceeds upon a mistake. Nineveh was conquered by Cyaxares (Old Pers. Uvakhshatara), the predecessor of Astyages, with the assistance of Nabopolassar (Nabu-pal-usur) the father of Nebuchadrezzar. In the list of Median kings one searches in vain for a name that can by any possibility be taken for that of Ahasuerus or Darius. Even if it be argued that Darius was indeed a Mede, though nowhere called king of Media, we have to reckon not only with the notices given by the Greek historians but also with the Nabu-na' id -Cyrus cylinder, from which it appears that Cyrus himself, immediately after the fall of the capital, ascended the throne of Babylon, and appointed to the governorship of the province of Babylon Gobryas (Old Pers. Gaubaruva, Bab. Ugbaru or Gubaru), governor of Gutium, who, it would appear, was superseded, as king, by Cambyses the Persian. This Gobryas may very well have been the person who, seventeen years afterwards, joined forces with Darius Hystaspis against the pseudo-Smerdis. As governor of Gutium, which lay on the Median frontier, he may well have been called a Mede, and, as the ally of Darius, have been confounded with him. The name, however, of the father of Gobryas was Mardonius (Marduniya), not Xerxes, and it is not to be supposed that C\tus made such a political blunder as to entrust the control of so important a province as Gutium to a Mede. See D.VNiEL, Book of, 13.

2. Darius I. Hystaspis, king of Persia (521-485 B.C.), who allowed the Jews to rebuild their temple, is referred to in Ezra 4 524 65 61 Hag. 1 1 2ioZech. I17, and probably in Neh. 12 22.1 His liberality towards the Jews is in complete accord with what we know otherwise of his general policy in religious matters towards the subject nations. He took the great Cyrus for his model, and contrasts strongly with Cambyses.

If Cambyses dealt the sacred Apis-bull of Memphis a mortal wound, Darius presented the city with a new -Apis, and restored the temple of Amun-Ra at the oasis of El-Khargeh with great splendour. In Asia Minor and the islands of the /Egean, temples were indeed sometime.s destroyed by his generals, especially where, as at Naxos and at Eretria (Herod. 696 loi), revenge was to be gratified ; but he himself gave special orders to spare Delos, and also caused three hundred talents of incense to be burnt on the altars of Apollo and Artemis. If he discerned some affinity between Apollo and his own god Mithra, he may well have seen resemblance enoui^h between Yahwe and Ahura-mazda to lead him to do homage to the god of Israel.

1 It is stated in Neh. 12 21 f. that the priests were registered under ' Darius the Persian ' ; the I.evites (if we emend the text) not till the period from Eliashb to J.addua. The text of V. 22 f. has passed through changes, probably through the redaction of the Chronicler. So Rosters, Hcrstel, tog. [For other views see Meyer, Entst. 103, and Nhhemiah, ft i.]

('. I*. T.

3. Darius III. Codomannus, the last king of Persia (i .Mace. 1 1). Cp Danikl, Hook ok, 8 13 ; Pkksia.

4. : NIacc. I'-* 7 AV ; KV Akius. See Si'akta.


(jipl"!! : BL)B compares Ar. daraka, h:\su-i\.' t/umiui"", 'shield' ; Aarkoon [B], Aep.[AL]).

The line U.irkon, a group of children of ' Solomons servants ' (see Nk THlNiM) in the great post-exilic list (see Kzka, ii. 9) ; Ezra2 56=Neh. "58(AopK<;oi/[l5<Al)=i Esd. 633, LozoN follow- ing IP"* .Vofioi' (StpKiay [L]).


On the various Heb. and Gk. words see WEAPONS.


(w'31), 2 Ch. ;51 s .W'"^- ; K\' HONEY (y.v.).


(jni. AaBan, meaning obscure; and O'l'IlX, see ABRAM), Reubenites who led a revolt against Moses in the interval between the return of the spies and the final march towards Canaan.

1. The story ; in Numbers.[edit]

In Nu. 15-17 the revolt of Dathan and Abiram is mingled and confused with another revolt, that of Korah. Consequently, it is difticult, indeed impossible, to interpret the narrative as it stands. There are sections of the narrative from which Korah disappears altogether. We have three causes for the revolt : impatience with the civil authority of Moses, discontent with the exclusive right of the Levitical tribe (as against Israel in general) to exercise priestly functions, and a desire on the part of the Levites who were not descended front Aaron to vindicate their equal right to the priesthood. These various motives are not combined, but appear in various parts of the narrative independently. The confusion reaches its highest point when we are told that the company of rebels who had already been swallowed up by the open earth were devoured by fire from Yahwe (cp 1633 with 35).

2. In Deuteronomy.[edit]

If, however, we turn to Dt. 116, we find the means of escaping from this confusion ready to our hand. There Moses begs the Israelites to remember what Yahwe their God ' did to Dathan Abiram the sons of Eliab, the sons of Reuben ; how the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them up and their households and their tents and every living thing that followed them, in the midst of all Israel'. From this passage, with which cp Ps. 106:17, we might naturally conclude that the Deuteronomist had a text of early Israelite history before him, in which the revolt of Dathan and Abiram was mentioned without any reference to Korah, and the rebels, instead of being devoured by fire, were swallowed up alive by the earth.

3. Original narrative[edit]

We ask, therefore, if any such independent narrative of the revolt led by Dathan and Abiram can be extracted from the composite text of Nu. 16. The answer must be given, and is in fact given by all recent scholars, in the affirmative. We have but to read 16: 1b 2a 12-15 25-26 27b-32a 33-34 by themselves, in order to obtain an account which is nearly complete and is also consistent and intelligible. This is the history from which the Deuteronomist has borrowed his summary from which he has taken not only his facts but also his words and phrases. That, however, is not all. The verses just mentioned form a literary unity. Their style is partly that of the Yahwist, partly that of the Elohist, whose allied works here, as elsewhere, have been combined by an editor into a whole. Tie rest of the narrative in ch. 16 is in the style of the priestly writer (P), a style so clearly marked and uniform that it cannot be mistaken. The Deuteronomist makes no allusion to the priestly narrative for the simple reason that in his time it did not exist. One difficulty remains. In v 1 On is mentioned as one of the rebels ; but not a word is said of him in the sequel. Here in all probability the text is corrupt, and most scholars accept the emendation proposed by Graf (Gesch. BUiher, 89) : ' Dathan and Abiram, sons of Eliab, son of Pallu, son of Reuben. ' The emendation is abundantly justified by a compari.son of Gen. 469 Kx. 6 14 Nu. 265 8 i Ch. 63.

4. The old tradition.[edit]

When disentangled from the later priestly story of the rebellion of Korah, with which it was mingled by the compiler of the Hexateuch, the old tradition is in substance as follows. Dathan and Abiram belonged to Reuljen, the oldest tribe, which had, however, forfeited its claim to the hegemony or princedom among the sons of Jacob (see the so-called Blessing of Jacob ; Gen. 49 3+). As Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram resent the supremacy of Moses. When Moses bids them come up to judgment, they insolently refuse. They reproach him with his unfitness for rule. Instead of leading them into a land flowing wjth milk and honey, he has led them away from Egypt, which deserved to be so described, and has exposed them to the deadly perils of the wilderness. It is only by blinding the people that he can maintain his position. Moses, in answer, protests that he has neither done them any hurt nor robbed them of so much as an ass, and he begs Yahwe to pay no respect to their offering. These last words refer, apparently, to the sacrifice which every Israelite might offer for his household, and may be compared with Gen. \i,f., where the Yahwist tells us that Yahwe looked favourably on the offering of Abel but not on that of Cain. The writer is not thinking of any special priesthood, but simply takes for granted that Yahwe, whose favour was always sought by sacrifice, will not accept the offering of rebels against just authority. Thereupon Moses, accompanied by the elders of Israel, goes down to the tents of his opponents. He predicts the divine chastisement which will fall upon them, and his threat is fulfilled. The earth opens her mouth and Dathan and Abiram go down into Sheol, the receptacle of the shades : only, they, unlike other men, go down into it alive. Their wives and little ones perish with them.

5. Redaction.[edit]

We have made no attempt to distinguish between the work of the Yahwist and that of the Elohist. There are marks of style and expressions proper to the one and to the other, and again and again the same thing is mentioned twice. Kuenen ((>;/(/.'-'>:; 8, n. 14) and Kittel (///V. 1 212 n. ) attribute the narrative (of course after exclusion of P) as a whole to the Elohist; Cornill (/;//.<" 20), with better right, to the Yahwist. The frequent doublets show that two hands have been at work. We believe that Yahwist and Elohist told much the same story, and that the editor who combined their histories into one here made the Yahwist his basis, adopting at the same time some expressions from the Elohist. We cannot see any solid ground for Dillmann's lx,>lief that the Yahwist represented Dathan and Abiram as claiming the priesihood. He urges the words in v. 15, ' respect not thou their offering ; but such a curse, while all Israelites were allowed to sacrifice, might be naturally invoked against any enemy. The Yahwist makes little or no mention of a special priesthood, and though, no doubt, he was familiar with the institution, assuredly did not impugn the right of lay Israelites to offer sacrifice. The whole narrative now before us depicts a relx;llion directed against Moses as a civil ruler. Had Dathan and Abiram claimed to exercise priestly functions we should have heard more about it. .Sec KORAH. W. K. A.


(AAee/wA [A], -Gaima [X], -MeBA [V]. Syr. il^9 in i Mace. 59; AiaOhma TO <})pOYPiON, Jos. Ant.\\\. 81), one of the strong places in Gilead to which the Jews had I)etaken themselves when threatened by Timotheus and his host. It was relieved, with great slaughter of the enemy, by Judas the Maccal)ce (i Mace. 69/: 24/: 29/:).

Dathema has not been identified ; from the description it must have lain between Bosora and Maspha (Mizpeh). The Syr. read- ing may be only a mistake for Danitha (Ew. Hist. 5 314) ; but within the distance from Bosra of a night's march (cp Jos. Ant. xii. 8 3) lies the modern Kemtluh, a considerable village and station on the Hajj road (Doughty, Ar. Ves, 1 7).


The word 'daughter ' (DS, eyr^THp) in EV often has Hebraistic senses, the chief of which are here mentioned.

1. Native Cana.-inite or Philistine women are ' daughters ' of Canaan (den. 30 2) or of Philistia (2 S. 1 20).

2. ' Daughter ' is a synonyTO for ' girl ' or ' woman ' (Gen. 30 13 Judg. 129 [30 'daughters'] Cant. 22 69); in addressing a person (Ruth 28 Ps. 4.5 1 1 Mt. 922).

3. The population of a place, or the place and its population, may be called collectively a 'daughter.' A typical phrase is J'vs; na (Is. 1 8 10 32, etc.): lit. 'daughter of Zion,' but, since the genitive is appositional, more correctly rendered ' people of Zion ' (so sometimes in SHOT)- So, too, 'daughter of Babylon ' (Ps. 1378), 'daughter of Egypt ' (Jer. 46 11 1924); also ' daughter of my people' i.e., my country-people Js. 224 Jer. 4ii). A phrase which is generally synonymous is 'sons' {i.e., inhabitants) of Zion, Babylon, etc. See /CDMC, 40 i6g; Kdmg, Sjmiax, 255 e.

4. Dependent towns may be called 'daughters.' Thus the 'daughters of Judah' in Ps. 4811(12] are the cities of Judah (cp Genkai.ogies, i. i). Cp the use of 'mother' for a provincial capital in 2 S. 20 19. .See Town, Village.

5. 'Daughter,' like 'son,' in combination with a noun, may also express some speciality of character or capacity. Examples of this are few in number. A 'daughter of Belial' is certainly a 'grossly wicked person' (i S. 1 16). 'Daughter of troops' (inrna ; Mic. 5 1 [4 14]) is explained ' those who subject to attack ' ; but the text is doubtful. ' Daughters of music ' (ri1J3 TB'n, 'daughters of song') in Eccles. 12 4 might be singing women ; but others think that the sounds of music are thus figuratively described.


(-in^, nni ; A&y[6]iA [BAL]1). The name may be explained ( i ) as meaning 'beloved, a friend, Na.mes, 5, 56 ; or (2) as meaning ' paternal uncle,' if we pronounce HTH (i.e. , Dod), for which Gray (//PN 83) offers Semitic analogies, though the explanation is certainly ' at tirst sight unlikely' ; or (3), best of all, as an abbreviation of Dodiel, which was perhaps the name of one of David's sons {see DANIEL i. 4), or of Dodijah = DODAI [t/.v.). See also DODO.

The chronology of the life of David is most un- certain. We have elsewhere (see CHRONOLOGY, 29, 37) assumed 930 B.C. as the first year of the reign of Rehoboam. To accept the round number of forty years assigned to the reign of Solomon in i K. 11 42 and to that of David in 2 S. 64 and in i K. 2 11 as strictly historical, would be uncritical. The chrono- logical statements referred to are, at most, editorial guesses which may, as good critics think, be not very far from the mark.^ The early history also of David is in many respects uncertain. It intertwines to a great e.xtent with the still obscurer record of his pre- decessor (see S.VUl) ; and keen criticism is necessary to arrive at the kernel of fact which there undoubtedly is in the legends that have come down to us. Winckler indeed denies that there is such a kernel of facts in tlie romantic story of David's early vicissitudes. Such ex- aggerated distrust, however, ajspears to arise from a pre- conceived theory respecting David, and most critics hold strongly to the view that the imaginative element in the story of David is but the vesture which half conceals, half discloses, certain facts treasured in popular tradition. If it should appear that this imaginative element contains some details which we have allowed a warm place in our regard and it would pain us to miss from the history of Israel, we must comfort ourselves with the thought (i) that what remains unshaken becomes more precious than ever, and (2) that even pure legends are of great his- torical value for the characterisation of the age which produced them.

1 The MSS generally have idj. Lag. gives AafiiS in a few places.

2 See Kamphausen, Die Chronol. der hebr. Kdnigre, \(>/. ; cp (for David) St. GVI 1 264 297. Wi. (C7/ 1 174) questions this.

1. Stories of earlier days[edit]

(a) First appearance. The only ancestor of David known to early traditions was his father Jesse,* who was believed to have been a citizen of Bethlehem. ^ David was the youngest of his four3 sons (so 1 Samuel 17:13-14 [B omits] ; cp 16:5-9), and was sent to keep his father's sheep in the steppes of Judah. Such at least is the statement of one of our traditions, which, at any rate, has the merit of accounting for the agility, endurance, and courage, so constantly ascribed to David (cp 1 S. 17 34 242 2S. 17 9). There, too, David is supposed to have acquired that skill in music (cp Gen. 420/. ) which led to his first introduction to Saul, after which he became the king's armour-bearer and slew Goliath. This, however, is not in accordance with the older and more trustworthy account, which simply tells us that David was a valiant Israelitish warrior who happened to be also clever with his tongue and with his lyre, and who was sent for from Bethlehem (a feature borrowed, perhaps, from the other tradition) to charm away Saul's melancholy. Nor is the statement that the shepherd-lad slew Goliath the Philistine con- sistent with the plain and thoroughly credible, because unlegendary, tradition given elsewhere, that the slayer of Goliath was Elhanan, and the period of his exploit not in Saul's but in David's reign'* (see Elhanan, Goliath). We must, therefore, if the superior antic|uity and probability of a narrative are to count as recom- mendations, give up the more romantic of the two sets of statements respecting David's introduction to Saul and his early prowess. That he became Saul's armour- bearer and musician need not be disputed.

1 This is intelligible enough in the light of David's words in I S. 18 18 (not in b). That a later age claimed descent for the most popular of the kings from the ancient princes of Judah (Ruth 4 18^) is also intelligible (see Ruth, Book of); David was not to be of less distinguished origin than .Saul (i S. 9i). Cp the case of Sargon. It was only in the time of PLsar-haddon that a genealogy was produced giving the Sargonic dynasty (which had simply usurped the throne) the necessary line of ancestors. See the inscriptions quoted by Wi. (Hebraica, 4 52/)-

2 The connection with Bethlehem has been rendered doubtful by Marq. {Fund. 23^^), who thinks that the belief in it arose from a false reading in i S 20 28, where, for ' asked leave of me unto Bethlehem' (cp (Bal) he reads (with Klo.) 'asked leave of me until the meal-time ' {'eth lelteiii for heth leheni) a sound emendation. From the fact that David's sister Abigail (i) {q.y.) married a man of Jezreel (near Carmel in Judah, the nativ place of David's favourite wife Abigail), and that David himself took his first wife from that place (see .\hino.'\.m), Marquart suspects that the hero's real home was farther south than Bethlehem, perhaps at Arad. This view he .supports by a plausible but unprovable conjecture, viz., that Shammah the Aradite (so he reads in 28.2825; see Harodite) i.e., the man of Arad is Shammah, David's brother, and that Ahi.nm b. Shobab the Aradite (2 S. 23 33 ; .see Hararite) was also a relation of David. Both these persons were enrolled among David's 'thirty.' The name of the home of David may con- ceivably have been forgotten, and (quite apart from i S. 2628) a tradition such as that in 2 S. 23 14-17 may have suggested to narrators the choice of Bethlehem for his birthplace. This is probable. Cp Winckler, Gesch. 1 24.

3 A later tradition incre.ased the number to .seven (i Ch. 2 13 15) or rather eight (i S. 16 loyC 17 12 [B om.]). The names of three out of the .seven in i Ch. I.e. (viz., Nethanel, 2 ; Ozem, I ; and R.^DDAI) appear to be fictitious; cp Gray, HPN 233, Marq. Fund. 25.

The duplicate narratives of Saul's first meeting with David and of the slaying of Goliath respectively are :

  • (a) I S. 16 14-23 17 1-I84 (p.irt), and
  • {b) I S. 17 i-lS 4 (part), 2 S. 21 19.

On these passages what is most necessary has been stated by Dr. Introd. 169 ; cp also the writers referred to in Goliath. WRS {OT/Ci'f) 433) finds .some of the arguments for the existence of two opposite traditions as to David's introduction to .S.iul inconclusive. But there seems no strong objection to regarding the words Jts3 ICK ' *ho is with the sheep ' in i S. 16 19 as a harmonistic interpolation (see St. CK/ 1 224 n. 2 ; Bu. Ri. Sa. 2n), and it seems unnatural to take the words of Saul's servant in I S. 16 18 proleptically. The_ true continuation of i S. 16 23 is not 17 I, but a lost description of David's early exploits (see above), which was followed by 18 6 (in a shorter form) 8(i.

(b) Break with Saul. Another point in which the ordinary view of the life of David needs rectification is the occasion which gave birth to Saul's jealousy of David. The MT of i S. 186 states that 'when David returned from the slaughter of the Philistines,' the women came out of the cities of Israel, singing, ' Saul hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands,' from which (see vM) Saul inferred that the ambition of his spoiled favourite would not rest satisfied without the crown itself. It is certain, however, that MT does not give the original form of this passage. Whether the Hebrew text underlying the LXX contained the words 'when David returned,' etc. , and the clause at the end of v. 8, is a point on which critics difter. Kven if, ;is Bmide supposes, the LXX translator, to produce a simpler narrative, omitted these clauses, it is not denied by that critic that the former clause is an editorial insertion ; * it was not, therefore, the slaughter of Goliath by the shepherd lad that (according to the tradition) made Saul suspect that David nourished hopes of Ijecoming king.

This, however, is merely a negative statement. What was it, we may a.sk. that, according to the lx.'st analysis of chap. 17, aroused the jealousy of Saul ? To the present writer, as well as to Stade and Wellhausen, i S. 186 (with the omission of the reference to Goliath) seems to presuppose some account of Davids early exploits as a warrior which stoo<l in no connection with the story of Goliath, and indeed was removed by the editor to make room for it. It was these early exploits of a trained warrior that excited the jealousy of Saul, but (since v. 8*-ii, which 0" omits, are derived, like i-v. 17-19, which also 0" omits, from another source) did not suggest the thought of David's wish for the crown. This is no doubt psychologically intelligible. Saul could not bear the sight of his too popular armour-bearer, and so he transferred him to a post which would remove him from his own immediate presence. The tradition adds that this served to promote David's interests. Kven Michal, Saul's daughter (see MiciiAL, Ec;l.\h, Ith- KK.am), fell under his fascination, and her jealous father resolved to put the young captain on a perilous enter- prise, promising him his daughter's hand in return for the customary proofs of victory, but secretly hoping that he would never return. David went forth, slew a hundred Philistines, and won his wife;'^ but the anxiety of Saul went on increasing after such a manifest proof of the divine protection of David.

This is certainly an improvement upon the ordinary view which treats chap. 18 as a homogeneous narrative ; but who can assert that this view of the facts produces the impression of being perfectly historical? It will be noticed that we have laid no stress on the song of the women (IS 7). The fragment is indeed clearly ancient ; but it seems best understood as coming from a time when David was already king. This, however, is not the most important |X)int. We need a narrative of still greater simplicity and verisimilitude. It is, as Stade remarks, * more credible that Saul gave his daughter in mar- riage to David of his own accord, in order to bind the young hero to the family of his benefactor, and that Saul's jealousy broke out after, not before the marriage. Besides, it would be inconsistent in Saul, first, to send David away as a captain of a thousand (18 13), and then to bring him back to the court as the king's son-in-law. I-"or this po. ition had attached to it the captaincy of the body-guard (see 1 S. 22i4, (S"-^'-), which gave its holder a rank next to Abner the general (i 8.20 25), so that Saul would Ix; continually liable to fresh irritation from the sight of David. We cannot, however, positively assert that Stade's correction of the tradition brings us face to face with facts, and must be content to believe that the early story of David's life is not altogether a popular fiction, without insisting too much on the most romantic and interesting, and therefore least certain, parts of it. One of these least certain parts is the account of David's early relations with MICHAL ^q.v.).

1 See Budde's interesting analysis, as embodied in SBOT, Heb. edition. This critic seems to hold that the Coliath-story wa.s originally closed by a description of the festal rejoicing which greeted the returning warriors and especially David, and that the same document then went on to relate the terror with which David's .success inspired Saul, the king's removal of David to a high military post, and the episode of Merab. For Stade's view, sec Sam lei., ii.

3 On the coarse but not in itself incredible requirement of Saul (i S. IS 25 27 2 S. 3 14), see Makkiace, and cp St. Gesch. 1 232.

a (;/-/ 1 233; cpWe. C^25i.

(c) Various late narratives. On the episode of Saul's broken promise of Merab as a wife for David (i .S. 18 17-19) it is un- neccesary to dwell. The story, as all agree, interrupts the original context of chap. 18. to which the insertion has been clumsily fitted by an interpolation in v. i\b. We have here, therefore, a notice drawn from a distinct source. The language of tt'. 17 and 19 seems to nresuppose the story of David and (ioliath (17 25 speaks of the king's promise of his daughter, and the whole narrative imolic-s that David is as yet a mere lad, too young in fact to marry). It mi^ht of course be historical in spite of its close connection with that highly imaginative story. Since, however, Michal, not Merab (iB' , however, has M<po0), appears in 2 S. 'Jl 8 as the mother of Adriel's children, it is more tlian probable that the whole episode of Merab rests on a confusion of names.' In short, we has'e two variants of the same tradition, and the form given in IS 20^ is the more likely to be historical.

Nor need we pause long on some other late narratives, (i.) The account of Samuel's solemn consecration of David as king in 1 S. 10 1-13 has evidently not a historical but a religious motive. To devout readers the ' man according to God's mind ' would have seemed to be disparaged if he had not, equally with his predecessor, been anointed by Samuel, (ii.) The episode of David's visit to the prophetic community at Kamah (11 18-24) 's an attempt, in the style of the midrash, to explain the proverb, ' Is Saul also among the prophets?' On this, as well as on (i.), see SAMUEL, ii. 8 5. (lii.) The pretended madness of David at Gath (21 H-16; see ACHISH). To these we should, not inconceivably, add (iv.) a part of the story of David and Bathsheba (see BATHSHEBA).

2. At the court of Saul[edit]

Let us now resume the thread of the narrative. David was at first known to the servants of Saul as a brave warrior and a skilled musician, and also as clever of speech and comely in person. Whatever he did seemed to prosper, for he had not only unusual abilities, but also a power of fascination which seemed a special sign of the divine favour (cp Ps. 452). His prowess in the war against the Philistines marked him out as one worthy to be the king's friend. He was, in fact, rewarded, first of all w ith the position of a royal armour-ljearer, and then with the hand of Saul's daughter, Michal. Lor a time all went well. In the intervals of military service he played on his harp, and by his skill in music chased away the ' evil spirit ' of melancholy, which already threatened to mar the king's career. Saul's gratitude, however, was not proof against the severe trial to which it was ex[X)sed by David's growing popularity, and, it would seem, by his close intimacy with Jonathan. The heir to the throne had, like Michal, passed under the spell of David, and become his devoted friend, probably his sworn brother,'- and the disturbed mind of the king conceived the idea that Jonathan had stirred up David to Ix; his father's enemy, in the expectation (we must supjjose) of succeeding him as king (228). Saul brofxled over this idea, and even reasoned with his son on the folly of supposing that his crown, if he came by these unholy means to wear it before the time, would be secure from such a powerful and ambitious subject as David (2O31). Hence, tradition reports, Saul "spoke to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants, that they should slay David' (19i), and even sought, in a fit of frenzy, to pierce David with his javelin (18 10/ [<5" omits] 199). Whether it was due to Jonathan's influence that the final breach between Saul and David was averted, we cannot tell ; the story in 19 1-7 seems really another version of that in chap. 20. It is ec|ually uncertain whether the story in 19 11-17 has any claim to represent the closing scene in David's life at Gibeah. There are difficulties in regarding it as the true sequel to 198-io. It may possibly come from another source,^ and refer

1 This is the view expres.sed in /:/.'(!>>, art. 'David.' WRS there emphasises the fact that the episode of Merab (including V. -ill'), like the .section of chap. 17 to which it specially refers, is wanting in iP", the te.\t represented by whicn he regards a.s suuerior to that of .MT in chaps. \~ /. (cp OTJC^) 431 /.).

  • See WRS Kel. Sem.<-\ 335 ; Covenant, f 4 ; and cp also,

with caution, Trumbull, Blood-cmienant ('85).

s Verse 10 should end at 'escaped,' and f . 11 .should begin, 'And it came to pass that night that Saul sent' (so ua, but not L).

to a slightly later period in David's life. The daring spirit of that hero might prompt him to visit his wife, even after his first flight,' or at least the first reciters of the tale may have meant it to \x so understood. There remains the story in chap. 20, which (putting aside the opening words as a misleading editorial insertion, and ft'. 4-17 as an expansion, due to an early editor "^ who loved the theme of Jonathan's friendship for David) evidently gives a traditional account of the rupture Ixitween Saul and David. Whether it is historical, however, is quite uncertain. There were, of course, gaps in the tradition, especially as regards the earlier period of Davids life. Two great facts were certain, viz., the transformation of Saul's original kindness towards David into its ojiposite, and the firm friendship between David and Jonathan. Out of these facts the reciters of legends, aided by a traditional accjuaintance with the general circumstances of the time, had to produce the liest detailed account of David's flight from Saul that the)' could.

3. Flight[edit]

As was natural, David turned his steps southward. In the hill-country of Judah he would find hiding-places enough, and if the arm of Saul threatened to reach him even there, he could easily seek the hospitality of some one of the neightxjuring peoples. This, it is true, would be most displeasing to a worshipper of Yahwe (see 2619) ; but it must have already occurred to David as a possibility, for he soon afterwards placed his father and mother under the protection of the king of Moab (223 / I see Moab). At present, his first impulse was to fly with his men to the sanctuary at Nob, or perhaps rather (Jibeon (see Nob), where he had already, it would seem, had occasion to consult the priestly oracle (22 15). On his arrival, so the tradition declares, he obtained bread, by a plausible but fictitious story, from the consecrated table, and, as a pledge of victory in the king's ' business," the mighty sword of Goliath (see Goliath, 3). We can hardly venture to accept this account as correct ; * it is most probably a later writer's attempt to fill up a gap in the old tradition. Whatever took place, it is certain that David very soon hastened on to the forti- fied hill-town of AduUam. Here he was still in his native land, though probably not among Israelites (see Aull- LA.m) ; he could worship his own god, and might hope to be safe from his pursuers. In the fort (not the cave) of AduUam he was joined by his family, and by a small band of fellow-outlaws (about 400 in number). Mean- time Doeg, the Edomite, who had seen David conversing with the priest Ahimelech at Nob (or Gibeon), had re- ported the circumstance with details, which may or may not have lieen his own invention,'* to Saul, and the king in- ferred from the report that .Vhimelech had used the sacred oracle in support of treasonable designs of David. It is only ills rooted belief in David's treason that e.\c uses the fierceness with which Saul destroyed, not only the eighty- five priests, but also the entire population of the city of Nob or rather Gibeon (22 18/ ) ; see Gibkon. Doeg, Ariathar, Ban. He also indicated the expulsion of David from the royal family by giving Michal, David's wife, to a new husband (see MiCHAL).

1 The danger of such an enterprise was dimini.shed by the reluctance 10 violate the apartment.s of women and to attack a sleeping foe, which appears also in Judg. 1()2, and among the Arabs. Wellhausen cites a closely parallel case from Sprenger's Leben Aluhammad, 2 543.

2 See the text as exhibited by Budde in SHOT.

3 It is incredible that David should have passed by the sanctu- ary without 'inquiring; of Yahwe,' nor does the reference to the ' sword of Goliath ' incline us much to accept the rest of the story. That the words assigned to Saul in 2'2 8 rightly express the kind's belief is, however, more than probable.

  • It is certainly not impossible that David did take the

opportunity of consulting tlie sacred oracle. The reference to the sword of (loliath in '11 icJ> is interpolated (see Budde).

8 So MT Pesli. and Vg.; ha^ by a manifest error, 305. Jos., combining the two readings, 385 {Ant.\\.\'lt). >- has 350.

4 An outlaw.[edit]

David now became a captain of freebooters, levying blackmail on those who could pay it, in return for protection against Amalekites, Philistines, or other enemies. We have an attractive and sympathetic sketch of his conduct, and of the generous spirit which softened the harsher details, in chap. 25. Besides the means of subsistence, David looked, of course, for timely warning of the approach of his bitter enemies. In this way he held his ground man- fully (with the support of the priest Abiathar) against almost overwhelming odds, trusting that he was being preserved for high ends. He must have felt that none but he could provide Israel with the leader that it needed, though to work directly towards the attain- ment of the crown would have been contrary to his loyal nature. One point in his favour there was, the value of which can hardly be overrated viz. , the peculiar conformation of the hill-country of Judah. It is necessary for the untravelled student to form by books and photo- graphs some idea of those ' tossed and broken hills where the valleys are all alike, and large bodies of men may camp near each other without knowing it. ' Major Conder goes even further, and claims that through recent identifications the narrative a.ssumes a consistency which traditional sites have destroyed. ' From Gibeah (Jeba near Mukhmas) David flies southward to Nob, thence down the great valley to Gath (Tell es-.Safieh), from Gath he^returns into the land of Judah, then bounded by the Shephelah, most of which seems to have been in the hands of the Philistines ; and on the edge of the country between Achish and Saul, Philistia and Judah, he collects his band into the strongest site to be found in the neighbourhood of the rich cornlands of Judah. At the advice of the seer he retires to the hills, and if my identification of Hareth be correct, it is but a march of 4 m. distance. Here, as at Adullam, he was also within easy reach of his family at Bethlehem. At Haras he hears that the Philistines, whose advance he probably barred when holding Adullam, had invaded Kfi'ilah immediately beneath him, and it is this propinquity alone which accounts for his attack upon the marauders. ' ' There can be no doubt that exact identifications of the sites referred to would give the narrative of Davids outlaw-period a greater approximation to consistency. But this able explorer's identifications are too often (like that of Gath above) unproven, and he has, on principle, omitted to take account of the composite character of the biblical narrative. "-

We left David at Adullam ; we next find him before another fortified town ( i S. 281-13), called KEILAH (i/.t'.), of which .Ahithophel was perhaps a native (see GILOH). His hope was to secure the gratitude of the inhabitants by chastising the Philistines who were besieging it. Supported by an oracle, he attacked and defeated those most dangerous of foes. He was disturbed, however, by another oracle, warning him that the men of KC'ilah would surrender their benefactor to Saul. The king was, in fact, on his way with his whole fighting force, and David would sooner trust himself to the intricacies of the wilderness than to the ' bolts and bars ' of Ke'ilah. Whether David really went from the ' forest of Hareth ' to Ke'ilah, is highly uncertain. The anecdote in 23i-i3 is not necessarily the sequel of the connected narrative in 21 1-9 22. Nor can we assume (with Conder) that the generous action related in chap. 24 took place immediately before the events described in chap. 25 ; for, as critics agree, the narrative is but a duplicate of the traditional story given in a better form in chap. 26.^

1 PEFQ^, '75, p. 149.

2 See Conder, ' The Scenery of David's Outlaw Life,' PKFQ, '75, pp. 41-48

3 That the story in chap. 26 is more original than that in chap. 24 is obvious. The conversation which it gives is full of antique and characteristic ideas, wanting in chap. 24. That David is recognised by his voice is meaningless in 24:16 (cp. -'. 8), but appropriate in 26:17. See Bu. I\i. Sa. 2277^ ; and cp Che. Aids, 58-62.

If we ask how much of the details of these hairbreadth escapes is historical, the reply must be equally disappointing to literalists. The central facts of the stories are all that we can safely rely upon. Such a detail, for instance, as the meeting of David and Jonathan in the wilderness of Ziph ('23i6-i8) is obviously an inntK-ent piece of romance ; in fact it is but another version of tlie favourite story of the ' covenant ' between the friends. Nor can we venture to assume that, if David once, in accordance with a chivalrous rule still common in Arabia, spared the life of his sleeping foe, either he or Saul displayed that delicacy of sentiment which a later age attributed to them.

Strangely enough, the two accounts of David's generosity towards Saul are the setting of a perhaps more completely historical story that of David and Nebal (chap. 25). The portrait of David here given is less idealistic, but seems nuich more truthful than that in chaps. 24 and 26. Not less interesting is the sketch of Abigail. To her it was that David owed his avoidance of blood-guiltiness. To her, too, he was indebted for the improvement which took place in his social status. As the husband of Abigail, he was no longer a mere freebooter, but the wealthy head of a powerful Calebite family, and so took one step forward towards his ultimate enthronenjent at Hebron as king of Judah. *

6. With the Philistines.[edit]

How long David remained in the Calebite district of Carmel, we do not know. He is next introduced as despairing of being able to hold out any longer against his foe ; ' there is nothing better for me,' he said, 'than speedily to escape into the land of the Philistines' (27 i). So he placed himself and his 6oo at the dispos.al of Achish, king of Gath. Ill at ease, however, among the Philistine chieftains, he induced his new suzerain to give him as a residence the outlying town of Ziklag. Here he still maintained amicable relations with his friends in Judah, and though he craftily professed to be engaged in raids against the Negeb of Judah, he was in reality more honour.ably employed (see AcHiSH, Am.\lek, 3).

At length, in the second year, a change in his relation to Achish became inmiinent. The Philistine lords, who had probably long been suspicious of his intentions, refused to let David join them in their campaign against Saul. David on his side professed eixgerness to fight for Achish ; but we are not bound to take his words too literally. Historians, it is true, differ in their view of David's conduct. It seems psychologically prob- able, however, that David was only too glad to be sent back by Achish to Ziklag, with a charge not to cherish revengeful thoughts against his friendly suzerain (i S. 29 10, 0). A picture, Homeric in its vividness, is given of the effect produced on David and his men by the sight that met them at Ziklag, which the cruel Amalek- ites had plundered (30 3-6). An oracle encouraged David to pursue his foes. He came up with them, and chastised them severely. The account closes with a list of the towns in Judah, to which David sent politic gifts. His ambitious plans were no doubt maturing.

1 Wi. (GT, 1 25) sees underlying the Nab.il-story a tradition that David was ' prince of Caleb ' (a tril>e or district), and, following C. Niebiihr, he even finds this tiile in 28.88, where, according to EV, Abner says, ' .\m I a dog's head?" but where Wi. renders, '.\m 1 the prince of Caleb?" (3S|). Marquart's theory (see above, i, note 2), that DaWd was really a man of S. Judah, might be used to corroborate Wi.'s opinion. In any case, the facts on which Marquart's theory is based illustrate this period. See Dog, i 3 (5).

6. At Hebron[edit]

Meantime Saul had fallen on Gillxia and Israel was in a state of chaos. The Philistines were masters of the fertile lowlands of Jezreel and the Jordan, but disdained to interfere with the poorer country of Judah. There were some even in northern Israel who thought that David and David alone could help them, and among these were probably the men of Jabesh-gilead, to whom he sent graciously expressed thanks for their chivalrous rescue of the bodies of Saul and his sons (2 S. 25-7 cp 817). David, however, was content to let Abner have his way, and attempt to consolidate the weakened regal authority in the North, nominally for Sauls incompetent son, Ish-baal. For the present, David transferretl his residence, in oljedience to an oracle, to Hebron, placing his men in the neighlxmring towns or villages. The ciders of Judah took the hint, and solemnly acknowledged him as their king.

It was not a grand position. As king of Judah, David w.as no less a vassal of the Philistines than when he was only lord of Ziklag ; ' indeed, he still retained Ziklag. This only shows his caution, however, not his want of patriotism. ICven Abner could not venture to let the puppet king Ishlxial revolt front the Philistines ; '* rest was the first need both of Israel and of Judah. We cannot, however, suppose that David and his band were idle. It is, on the whole, probable that the conquest of the Jebusite fortress of Zion t^longs to the period of David's tribal kingship,* and not (as is generally sup- posed) to the commencement of his enlarged sovereignty. When the Philistines made that bold attempt to seize David which is related in 2S. 5i7, David, we hear, took refuge in 'the stronghold." It is diflicult to sup- pose that a different ' stronghold ' is meant from that mentioned in w.t^ (which there is reason to assign to the same document). The Philistines themselves are uncertain where they will find David ; clearly then David had more than one place of residence. We are also told that they ' came up' to seek D.avid. and spread themselves out in the valley of Rephaim near Jerusalem. It is true that where the narrative 2 S. 56-9 is placed, it seems to have reference to the beginning of David's kingship over Israel. Probably, however, something has fallen out lx;fore v. 6. The lost p:issage presumably referred to David's removal of his residence to Jeru- salem ; the narrative which has been preserved explains how the king and ' his men ' possessed themselves of the all but impregnable fortress.

By this important conquest David secured his position from all possible enemies, whether Philistine or Israelite. He also doubtless hoped to make Zion what it ulti- mately Ijecame the capital of united Israel. We may assume that this caused uneasiness to Abner, who doubtless had dreams of a reunited Israel under the sceptre of a descendant or kinsman of Saul. These dreams must have been rudely interrupted by the news of David's success. Abner well understood what the conquest of Zion portended, .and it was natural that he should seek to counteract David's ambition. He had no occasion to form an elatorate plan of operations ; he had but to allow the unsleeping jealousy of Israel and Judah to display itself. There would l)e constant border hostilities, and Judah, as the weaker of the two, would (he must have hoped) lie reduced to vassalage to Israel, and in tinte perhaps incorporated into the king- dom. A ' very sore battle ' is reported between the men of Ishbaal and those of David by the pool of Gibeon. It liegan with a mere sham fight ; but such a contest could not be expected to end without bloodshed, and Abner must have foreseen this when he and the men of Ishbaal set out from Mahanaim (2 S. 212-17). The result was disastrous for the cause of Ishbaal, and year after year the war was renewed with constant loss of prestige to the house of Saul. Fierce private passions, too, added to the horrors of the time (see Abnkr ; ISH- BAAI., i; JoAB, i). At length, Ishliaal lx:ing removed, David stood alone, sad but confident, for who else could be thought of in this hour of need ? Had he not in the olden time been Isr.ael's leader against the Philistines, and was he not by marriage a member of Saul's house (2 S. 62 813-16)? So the elders of Israel accepted the inevitable, and anointed the son of Jesse king over Israel.

1 This view is accepted by St., E. Mey., We., Kiunph., Khtel.

a See Kamph ZATW i^^^^ ("861; Ki. Hist. ii. The older view (see .St.) was that Abner upheld the banner of Israel against the Philistines ; but Kamph. shows at great length that the evidence will not justify this.

3 See Klo. Sam. u. Kin. \^tff. \ Gesch. 159.

7. King over Israel : the Philistines.[edit]

David was now, according to a not very early tradition,* in his thirty-eighth year ; seven and a half years had elapsed since he first became king in Hebron. His training had been long and varied, and he might now fairly hope to finish the work which Saul had begun, and remove for ever the danger of Philistine invasions. The Philistines knew what they had to expect from the new king of ' all Israel and Judah,' and lost not a moment in ' seeking him.' They felt towards him as the Syrian king felt towards Ahab : if he were only slain or captured, the fate of Israel was settled. They knew, too, the rapidity of his movements, and sought to capture him before he could retire into his newly-won stronghold of Zion. They were too late for this, and challenged him to battle in the valley of Rephaim westward from Jerusalem (2S. 518-25; cp BAAL.-PERAZIM). Two great victories are said to have been won on this occasion by David. We have also a record of individual exploits and of personal dangers run by David in 2 S. 21 15-22 238-i7 (see ISHBIBENOR, etc.), which must, it would seem, have stood originally close to 56-i2 17-25. It is singular that this should be almost all that is told us respecting what, if entirely David's work, would be the greatest of all his achievements. One more notice indeed has come down to us (2S. 81) ; but it is tantalisingly short. It states that David smote the Philistines and subdued them, and took ' something of importance ' out of the hand of the Philistines.' The Chronicler thinks that what David 'took' was ' Gath and its towns' (i Ch. 18 1), and this is certainly plausible, for deeds of high renown were performed near Gath (see Elhanan, 1), and afterwards we find 600 men of Gath in David's service (2 S. 15 18 ; see l>elow, 11). It is more probable, however, that Ashdod was the city spoken of in the true text (see Mktheg-Ammah). Still it is doubtful whether such a total defeat of the Philistines as the passage just quoted ascribes to David, is historical. That the Israelites were delivered from the dread of these foes is indisput- able ; but that David broke the power of the Philistines is not probable. It is a reasonable conjecture that the deliverance of the Israelites was helped either by an Egyptian, or by a Musrite (N. Arabian) intervention. '- Moreover, the friendly terms on which David appears to have stood with the Philistines at a later time suggest that he had made a treaty of peace with this people on conditions equally honourable to both sides, one of which, as we have elsewhere seen reason to think, was the restoration of the ark (see Ark, 5).

1 See 2 S. 64 (the work of a Deuteronomistic editor).

2 If an Efiyptian intervention be suppo.sed we must place it during the twenty-first Egyptian d>;nasty. See WMM {/ts. u. Eur. 389), who thinks that the notice in i K. 9 i6 presupposes the Egyptian occupation of Philistia. Observe that Capntorim is called a ' son ' of Mizraim (see Caphtor, 8 4). 'i he alterna- tive theory, however, seems much more probable {^cc/QR 11 1'99] 559i ^"d cp Mizraim, g 2 b).

8. Other wars[edit]

However this may be, David was certainly not deficient in the qualities of a general. This is plain from his wise measures on the rebellion of Absalom of which we have very full particulars. His other wars, with neighbours only less dangerous than the Philistines, may be conveniently referred to here. We have a summary of them in the same section that refers to the suVxluing of the Philis- tines ( 2 S. 81-14, cp I S. 1447, and see Saul, i 3), and further information respecting the Ammonite war in 2 S. 10 11 1 1226-31. It is important, however, to study these notices critically, both from a purely literary, and from a historical, point of view. The two points of view, it is true, cannot be kept very long apart. A preliminary literary analysis, however, will quickly show us that in 2. S. 81-14 we are dealing, not with an original narrative, but with a panegyric made up from various sources, containing strong traces of editorial work. As to 2S. 10 the case is not at first sight so clear ; but a further investigation reveals here, too, the hand of the editor. The contents also must be criticised, and this will greatly clear up the problems of literary analysis. The historical results of the whole process are not unimportant. *

{a) Moab. Little enough is told us of David's war with the Moabites (cp Moab); but that little is suggestive. With cold-blooded precision the conqueror destroyed two-thirds (such is the meaning of 2 S. 82) of the entire fighting force of Moab. The description seems to imply that it was an act of national retaliation, and the offence which caused this may be plausibly conjectured. The kingdom of Ishbaal, as Kamphausen has shown, was by no means so powerful as the early writers supposed. The defeat on Gilboa had brought the Israelites to the verge of ruin, and Saul's feeble successor had to make terms, not only with the Philistines, but also with the Moabites and the Ammonites, to whom his capital, Mahanaim, was only too accessible. It is probable that both Moab and Ammon granted him peace only under insulting conditions, and we can form some idea of the insults that were possible in such circumstances from I .S. 11 2 2S. 10 4. David of course had to give these insolent neighbours a lesson.

{h) Ammon. Passing on to the Ammonites, we notice that, if there is a doubt as to the degree of the severity of their punishment (2 S. I231),'- there is none as to the gravity of their offence (2 S. 10 1-5). The account of the details of the war requires very careful criticism. The conduct of the host of Israel was entrusted to Joab, and it was owing to the politic self-restraint of this general that David in person stormed the Ammonitish capital, and carried away the crown of the idol-god Milcom (see .Vmmon, 8). The difiiculty of the narrative is caused by the statements which it contains respecting the Aramrean allies of the Ammonites and the successes which David gained over them.^ Was the Zobah mentioned in 2S. 106 (undoubtedly an ancient passage) as joining with Beth-rehob to send help to the Ammonites, a powerful kingdom N. of Damascus, to which all Aram W. of the Euphrates was subject (as stated in 2. S. 10 16), or was it a small state near the land of Ammon, which on various grounds agrees best with our expectations ? If the latter view be adopted, we must regard 2.S. lOis-ig^ as a late editorial insertion, akin to the much edited passage 83-8, and all that we know respecting David's relations to the Aramaeans is that Joab routed the forces sent by them to help the Ammonites, so that they ' feared to help the Ammonites any more' (2 vS. 10 13 19*). The statement of 86, in itself so improbable, that David annexed Damascus, is due to a misreading of a passage which appears over again in v. 14. The editor, by mistake, read 'Aram' instead of ' Edom," and then interpreted ' Aram ' as ' Aram-Damascus.' *

1 On the criticism, see Samuel, ii. SS 4, 6, and cp Bu. Ri. Sa. 245/, 249./f. ; KIo. Sam. u. K'Sn. ; Wi. Gl 1 138^?:, 194^ For another estimate of the evidence, see Israku, lo.

2 RV'i't,'. gives the more favourable view (on which .see Dr. TBS 228) that David put the Ammonitish captives to forced labour at public works.

3 .SeeWi. an I -,8-144.

  • KIo., on the other hand, wishes to correct 'Edom' in v. 14

into 'Aram.' The traditional view of 2 8.85/: has been thought to be confirmed by i K. 1 1 24 ; but there the words ' when David slew them 'are a gloss, not found in "i-, as KIo. himself candidly points out.

8 Wi. regards the war as the resumption of hostilities between David as ' prince of Caleb ' and his Edomite neighbours at an earlier period (GI\ 194).

(c) Edom. Lastly we come to the war with Edom, which, as we are told in 2S. 814, was incorporated by David into his kingdom. We are left entirely ignorant as to the cause of the war,* and know next to nothing of the details, though the conquest of such a difficult region would have been well worth describing. A great victory is ascribed to David in the Valley of Salt (^.v. ), to the S. of the Dead Sea (aS. 813, where read ' Etlom ' for ' Aram ' with 6"*'- ; I's. 60, title). There is also an incidental reference to the war in i K. 11 15/, which tells us that the E<lomites contested every inch of ground, but received no quarter from their conqueror. This is the extent of our information.

9. Later theory of a Davidic empire[edit]

To sum up. If it is one of David's titles to fame that he for a time united ' all the tribes of Israel from Dan to Beersheeba ' (2 S. 24a), it is another that he secured the united kingdom from foreign attack. From Assyria and Egypt indeed there was then nothing to fear ; * but the small neighbouring peoples needed the lesson which he gave them. That his suzerainty or sphere of influence e.vlended to the Euphrates is not, however, supported, in the opinion of the present writer, by a thorough criticism of the documents. The editor of 2S. 8, who perhaps wrote also IOis-iq^, confounded the two Zobahs^and made other mistakes, and on the basis of this mis-reading of the e\ idence he and his school erected the airy fabric of a Davidic empire large enough to Ix; named respectfully among the

  • world-powers." This theory (for such we must call it)

fell in with the later tendency to glorify David, and with the idea of a great Messianic kingdom of which the Davidic was a type (.\m. 9ii/, post-exilic ; see Amos, 10, Chronic I. Ks, 9). It cannot be resigned without regret, and should archrKological discoveries disclose some grains of fact which may have assisted the growth of historical error, it will be a satisfaction to find that the ancient editors were not entirely arbitrary in their procedure. That David's power was respected as far north as Hamath (even if the report in 28. 810 be not altogether accurate) need not lie denied. The question is. Can it Ixj proved that friendship had given place, on David's side, to suzerainty ?

10 The new capital.[edit]

David's next aim was to provide a worthy centre for the united people of Israel. In this he showed a truly masterly statesmanship. The kingship of Saul was not altogether different from the authority exercised by the greater 'judges.' It never entirely divested itself of a tribal character, as is clear from the striking narrative, i S. 226-8. At the risk of alienating the men of Judah, who, in fact, appear as the chief malcontents in subse- quent civil disturbances, David transferred his royal residence from the remote southern city, Hebron, to Jerusalem. The new capital had not indeed all the natural advantages which could l)e wished (see Jeku- sai.km) ; but it had two great recommendations : (i) it was neither Israelite nor Judahite, having lieen recently won by David and his men, and (2) whilst easily access- ible from the north, it lay close to David's own trilx; of Judah. The king not only strengthened its fortifications, but also consecrated it by solemnly transferring to it the newly recovered national sanctuary (see Ark, 6) from its temporary home at Baal (see Kikjath-JKARIM) in Judah. This must not be disparaged as merely a proof of political wisdom. It was this, no doubt ; but it also sprang from deep religious feeling, as the old tradition clearly states (2S. 621; see &^^^). David felt that the true principle of national unity and strength lay in fidelity to Yahw6, and it is to him therefore that the world is ultimately indebted for the streams of spiritual life which have issued from Jerusalem. That he built a palace for himself, but no temple for the ark, seemed a strange inconsistency to a later age. 'Whether the course that he took was prescribed by an oracle, it is now impossible to siiy ; the narrative in 2 S. 7, with the acconjpanying prophecy, is one of the late Deuteronomistic insertions and cannot be safely followed.'

1 It is quite needless to suppose that David made a nominal recognition of the suzerainty of KRvpt (Wi. 6V 1 137). This is no doubt a necessarj- corollary to W. M. Muller's theory of the Egyptian conauest of Philistui ; but that theory is not here accepted (see above, | 7, end).

2 The cuneiform evidence for two Zobahs will Ije found in Del. Par. 280, .Schr. A'CF 12a. The historical fist of places given in ASurbAninal's Annals, 7 108-114 (A"5 2 2 16/:) proves the existence of a Subiti to the S. of Dam-iscus and near Ammon, and .apparently distinct from that in the geogra6hical lists (on which cp Tomkins, PEFQ, Apr. 1885, p. 113). See Zobah.

11. Administration, etc.[edit]

(a) Army. Both in military and in civil affairs David was careful to combine the necessary innovations habits and feelings of the people, which he thoroughly understood. The tendency to disintegration inherent in the old clan-organisation (see Governmknt, 18) he sought to counteract by the institution of a bodyguard. which was a natural development out of his old Ixind of freelKJOlers. This well-disciplined and absolutely trustworthy ' standing army ' was sufficient to exhibit a high standard to the old national militia, but not so large as to excite popular suspicion. .Specially honoured were the thirty-seven heroes of whom a list is given in 2 .S. 23 (see below, i. ). It is uncertain whether they were called 'the thirty' or ' the knights ' ; ^ but most are in favour of the former view. They were conspicuous for their fearless courage, of which some anecdotes are preservc"d. Foreigners were by no means excluded from the ranks of the Cjibtx)rim (AV 'mighty men'). Shortly Ijefore the rebellion of Absalom, Ittai the Gittite had entered David's service with 600 other I'hilistines' (2 .S. 15 18), and Uriah the Hittite was one of the trusted ' thirty.* How well those I'hilistine mercenaries repaid David's confidence, is proved by 2 S. 15 18 2O7 i K. 1 38. (See Chkrethitk.s, and on later OT references to the king's foreign guards \_e.g., Zeph. 18 Ezek. 446^]. WRS or J a-) 262 n.)

[(i.) The list of heroes in 2 -S. 23 enumerates 'the Three' kot' fovi)i: IsHBAAL (2), ELEAZAR (3), and SHAMMAH (3); then follow Abishai and Benaiah, who occupy an intermediate position ; and finally, the heroes themselves, thirty-seven in all (see ELIKA, ELIPHELET, 2), and the numerous textual corruptions preclude complete certainty as to their names and origin (besides the special articles cp Marq. Fund. 15^.). The heroes .seem to have been originally arranged in pairs according to their homes; thus Maharai and Heleb from Netophan (aSi^, 29), two from Jattir (38), one each from the neighbouring pl.-iccs of Pirathon and (laash (30), etc. It is noticeable that they are almost wholly of Benjamite and lud^an origin, and this supports the conjecture that the list in the main refers to the early part of David's life (cp, e.g., 1 S. 22 1/.), before his supremacy was spread over the rest of Israel. Note the mention of Asahel and Uriah, and that Benaiah is merely the he.id of David's guard, and h.-vs not apparently reached the position he holds in 2S. S18 (see below \c\ 2). The omission of Joab as the holder of any official position is remarkable, and suggests that he had not yet become 'captain of the host,' although the references in rt'. 18 (.\bishai, the brother of Joab ; cp V. 24), 37 .seem to show that he was not unknown. It is highly proD.-ible that the whole chapter owes its present form to a comparatively l.-\te editor (cp Kue. F.inl. i. 2, $ 22, n. 13).

(ii.) In I Ch. 11 the same list is substantially repeated in a few cases with better readings, and a few names recur in i Ch. 2"i-i4 (see below, \c\ i.). Verses 41b-47 add sixteen other heroes, who, to judge from the gentilicia (often doubtful, see Mahavite, Mesobaite, Mith.s'ITe) were partly of east- Jordanic origin. The authenticity of these names is a difficult question. They may have proceeded from a source common to both compilers (see Kue. Eint. 1 2, 30, n. 11); but the mention of Reubenites, and the preponderating proportion of theophorous names as well as the relative lateness of such names as Jaasiel, Jeiel, Joshaviah in this chapter, render their genuinness open to question.

1 The modifications introduced into thLs narrative both by the author of the gloss in v. 13 and by the Chronicler (1 Ch. 17) are interesting evidence of the constant recasting of old material carried on by the editors. See Samuel, ii. 5, and cp We, FroL, ET, 177).

a Wvhv and CpSb* were sometimes confounded (see i Ch. 11 II 15, 124 18, Var. Bib.). Klo. prefers B'pW (cp DL on Ex- 14 7). At any rate such a term .as ' the thirty ' would soon become conventional (see 2 S. 2839). Cp Chahiot, { 10.

S Read 'and all the men of Ittai the Gittite, 600 men," with Klo., Ki., Bu. It seems doubtful whether David had really had any prolonged or bitter strife with the Philistines.

(iii.) Further lists of warriors are found in i Ch. 12, which enumerates those who came to David (a) at Ziklag (1-22), and (/3) at Hebron (23 /?;). O) The latter is purely fabulous. It represents the warriors as assembling from all the tribes (not excluding the two halves of Manasseh !), and gives a theocratic air to the whole by the inclusion of Aaronites. (a) In the first half (1-22) we have probably a/cw traces of old material, and very possibly a confused recollection of events in David's early life. The lists comprise men of Saul's brethren and of Benjamin (3^), Korahites(6) and men of Gedor (7). In the case of the Korahites it is possible that the Chronicler is thinking of the later priestly class. His inclusion of such warriors among David's band is as intelligible as his ascription to David of the division of priestly courses and other works dealing with the priests and Levites. On the other hand, with He., we may more probably think of the Juda;an Korah (i Ch. 243). It was under David that the S. Judajan populations attained power, and it is perfectly natural to suppose that individuals from among them jomed him. This, of course, does not mean that the names are necessarily old or genuine. Finally, are enumerated (i) certain Gadites, ' captains ol the host ' (xns.l "c;xn), who put to flight David's enemies on either side of the Jordan (8-15) ; (2) Amasai ( = Am asa, g.v.\ who, at the head of men of Benjamin and Judah, came to David in the ' hold (16-18) ; and (3) certain chiliarchs of Manasseh (lo). Underlying the account of .Amasai, we may possibly find the tmces of a confused and mutilated recollection of the revolt of Absalom, wherein Amasa plays so prominent a part in bringing Judah and the king together (2 S. 19 14). S. A. C. ]

(b) Justice. To the chief civil duty of a king the administration of justice David paid the utmost atten- tion (2 S. 815, cpl44^), for Absalom's complaint that the king was inaccessible (2 S. 15 3) is merely factious. He does not appear to have made any change in the old local administration of justice ; but he intro- duced simply by acting as supreme judge an element which profoundly modified the traditional system (see GOVERNMENT, I9).

(c) Officers. In this and other departments David was aided by his great officers of state (2 S. 816-18) ; see Benaiah, Husiiai, Jkhoshaphat 2, Joab, and below. It is important to notice that in all probability he had a Babylonian scribe or secretary (see Shavsha) a late trace of the early preponderance of Babylonian civihsation in Palestine.

[It will be convenient here to note briefly the lists of David's officers, treasurers, etc.

i. I Ch. 27, a p.-issage of obviously complex character, after reproducing (in'. 1-15) the first part of the list of David's warriors (see above a i.) in the form of a list of twelve captains of divisions (njJ'^nD"':'!? 1-15), enumerates twelve /r/c^.f (C")r) of the tribes of Israel (16-24), including Levites, Aaronites, the twofold division of Manasseh and the post-e.\ilic priestly names Hoshe.i, Iddo, Jeroham ('/), Zichri ; Jaasiel (7'. 21) is probably borrowed from i Ch. 11 47. This is followed in 25-31 by a third list of twelve David's cn>ersci>-s or treasurers ; the names seem to be old (Gray, IIPN 230^), and so far as this goes, the list might be trustworthy (but cp Kue. Kinl. 1 2, 31, n. 11. Besides Gray, HPN 229 /fl, see Chronicles, 0, and cp We. Prol.i*) i7i#-)-

ii. David's supreme officers of state are variously enumerated in 2 S. 816-18 (cp2023-26 [where they are obviously out of place], I Ch. 18 14-17) and i Ch. 2732-34 (cp Solomon's officers I K. 4, and the list given by i^L at the end of i K. 2). In the case of the list in 2 S. the genuineness of the passage has been questioned by Bonk {ZATll-' 12143) and probably rightly. Joab b. Zeruiah is said to be 'over the host' (x3i'n), but with the exception of 8 10 (David's wars) he appears, on the other hand, to be over the Cherethites and Pelethites (2S. 20 7); and Benaiah, who in the list is credited with this office (i'. 18), was 'head of the nyDtJ'O.' 2 S. 2823* (see Council, i. 2) and perhaps also ' chief of the brick-kiln ' (t K. 246A bl ; cp [iSsn aS. 1231). Jehoshaphat (f.7'.) b. Ahilud was recorder (cp GOVERNMENT, $ 2i) and Shisha (see Shavsha) the secretary. The priests were David's sons (but see Minister, Chief); but at the head stood Zadok b. Ahitub and Abiathar b. Ahimelech. Abiathar is a descendant of the famous Eli, Zadok is of un- known origin, and although mentioned first (cp similarly 2 S. 15 24 ^ 36) did not obtain pre-eminence until the time of Solomon. The Chronicler's list (2732-34) mentions a Jonathan, the -m of David, as a counsellor, and Jehiel [g.v.], who was ' with the king's sons.' Ahithophel, ancf Hushai the ' friend ' of David (see Hushai), are well-known characters in the revolt of Absalom ; according to the Chronicler their places were filled by Benaiah and Abiathar. S. A. C. ]

(d) In another respect too David followed the example of Oriental kings : with the aid of his ally, Hiram, king of Tyre, he built himself a palace of stone and cedar wood which rose proudly <at)ove the low dwellings of Jerusalem. There he combined a regal generosity with a not less regal luxury. Mephibosheth (MERinu.VAi,) and Chimham were among his court-pensioners (2 S. 97^ 1928 33 38) ; singing men and singing women enlivened his repasts (2 S. 19 35)-

Another piece of genuine Oriental magnificence was the harem (2 S. 5 13, etc.), which, though it does not seem to have shocked the nation (2 S. I621), was fraught with moral danger to the king, and was the source of much of the unhappiness of his later years. It is clear from passages like 2 S. 132i I424 15 1 14 19 6 12 14 that the moral weakness of his last days had begun many years before, under the influences of his harem.

[Lists of David's sons are found in (a) 2 S. S 1-5 (= i Ch. 3 1-3) and O) 2S. 5i3-i6(^iCh. 3c-8=iCh. I43-7). It is probable that originally these stood together, and Budde (SB07) accordingly places them before 815. (a) The former list gives the names of the six sons born at Hebron and reflects David's policy of strengthening his power by alliances with neighbouring clans or trilies. Besides the two wives from Jezreel (in Judah) <-ind and Carmel (Caleb), we have one from the S. Palestinian Geshur ly.v., 2] and, possibly, one from Gath (see Hagcith). The two remaining names, Shephatiah (more common in later literature) and Ithrea.m, are unknown. The death of Ammon left Chileab (if the name be correct see Chileab) heir to the throne, and it is therefore the more remarkable that nothing what- ever is told us of his fate : for an ingenious conjecture, cp Marq. Fund. 25 /. O) The second list contains eleven names sons born at Jerusalem. Of these the first two, Shammua (or Shimeah)and Shobab, may probably recur (see above i, n. 2). These and the two following (Nathan and Solomon) are, according to I Ch. 35, all sons of Bathsheba. The statement in Ch. has probably arisen from the desire to render Solomon's birth as stainless as possible (Solomon is mentioned last), since from 2 S. ll-12 it appears that Solomon was really the second son. These names are increased to thirteen in i Ch. 3 = 14 by the addition of Nogah and a second Eliphelet. Perhaps Nogah is original and should be inserted in 2 S. ( Th. Be.), thus raising the number to twelve ; but it is possible that it has arisen from the following Nepheg and should (with Eliphelet) t)e omitted. It is noteworthy that in 2 S. 613-16, (but not a) has a double list, the second of which (based upon Ch.) agrees with '- in includ- ing the two doubtful names. s. A. C. ]

That the government of this great king was perfectly successful cannot, of course, be maintained. His people was far from homogeneous, and it is not surprising that the jealousies of Judah and Israel reappeared. Great discontent was also produced by his attempt to number the people, which was no doubt regarded by his subjects as introductory to an attempt upon their liberties, and was checked only by the rebukes of his seer Gad and the breaking out of a pestilence^ (2 S. 24).

According to the early narrative, the conscience of the king accepted the rebuke ; but most probably David still felt as a statesman that the position of Israel was precarious without that improved military organisation which he had contemplated. On the other hand, he continued to tolerate some ancient usages inconsistent with the interests of internal harmony. The practice of blood-revenge was not put down,* and, by allowing the Giteonites to enforce it against the house of Saul (see GiiiKON, Rizpah), the king involved himself in a feud with the Benjamites (cp 2 S. 21 with 168, which refers to a later date). Yet he might have braved all these dangers but for the disorders of his own family. Need we tell over again the story of his great moral disaster? Nowhere is the impossibility of upholding the saintliness of this king more apparent than here. And yet a laudable desire to believe the Ijest of David has perhaps blunted the edge of the scalpel of the critic (see Bathsheba).

It is certain that the narrative in 2 S. 11 1-I225 is not without later insertions, and it is very prob.-ible th.^it the most fascinating part of the story was imagined by an editor in the interests of reverence and edification, in fact, that the process of converting David into a saint had already begun. "That later ages were profoundly shocked at David's action is a proof of the pro\-i- dential education of Israel to be the greatest of moral teachers. The Chronicler shows his own feeling very clearly by omitting the narrative altogether, though, h.-id he accepted the view adopted in the late heading of Ps. 51, he would have shown David to he more nearly a saint than he appears to us in almost any part of the Chronicler's biography.

1 The event must have been subsequent to David's foreign war : the king has no longer any enemy to fear. On the state- ment of the boundaries of the kingdom in 2 S. 24 5-7 see Tahtim-hodshi, Dan-jaan, and on the literary criticism of chap. 24. see Samuel, ii. f 6.

2 It IS clear, however, from 2 S. 828/:, 14 i-io, that his sympathies were against this barbarous usage.

The effects of David's sin lasted to the close of his life, for the undue influence of Ikilhsheba is conspicuous in the sad story of the competition for David's crown. Kvcn apart from this, however, the royal princes could not but display the faults due to their birth and education. The narrative is impartially exact. We shudder at the brutal passion of Amnon, and the shameless counsel of the wily Jonatlab. If a brilliant suggestion of Ewald may t)e accepted, we see the ' inauspicious expression,' or in plain Hnglish the black scowl that for two long years rested on the face of Absalom,' and the panic of the court when the blow was struck, and Amnon was assassinated in the midst of his brethren. Not less valuable psychologically is the graphic description of Absalom's unfilial revolt (see Abs.\i.((M, 1).

On the tragic death of the popular favourite, better thoughts came to David's people, who bethought themselves of the many occasions on which he had saved them from their enemies. The men of Judah, however, took the opportunity of putting forward that claim to precedence (2 S. 1941-43) which the king's policy had steadily ignored, and a rupture ensued between north and south, which, but for Joab's energy, might have led to a second and more dangerous reljellion (see, however, SiiKH.\,ii. i). After this nothing seems to have occurred to trouble the peace of the kingdom. David had not nuiny more years to live, for Absalom's rebellion must have occurred near the last decade of his father's life (Kittel, ///.f/. 2 175). The closing scene in the biography (i K. li-'2ii) represents David as decrepit and tedridden, and an easy prey to the partizans of Solomon. The unedifying account of the palace-intrigue (see Adonijaii, 1), which placed Bath- sheba's son upon the throne, and was followed by the execution of Adonijah and Joab, shocked the Chronicler's sense of reverence. He therefore (as also perhaps the author of a lost Midrash on which he bases his work) sul)stitutes for it a great religious function, in which David plays the leading part, and Solomon appears as the meek recipient of much highly spiritual advice and of minute instructions as to the building of the temple (i Ch. 2J-29).

1 On 3 S. 1332 see F-w. ///s/. 8172. The suRgestion is given in fuller form by Dr. '/'US 234, whose ' only doubt Ls whether a word (Jm'W") meaning in itself simply " unluckiness" could be used absolutely to signify a "token of unluckiness" for others." WRS (David, /U9>) accepted the view ; We. and Ku. are also attracted by it. The present writer prefers Ew.'s alternative suggestion, viz., to read nCtpC" instead of rtO'V (Kt.) or TO?C'(Kr.); but "S'^V remains unexplained. Almost certainly Oratz is right. Read, with him, .TOei.~D . . . a'T'^V '? 'for hostility was in .\bsaIom's heart '; cp Si-.

'- The most helpful characterisation of David from a moderate traditional point of view is that of K6h. Lehrb. der bihl. Crsch. ii. 1 184-188 373 ('84). Owing to the progress of criticism, however, all trie earlier sketches of David's character need a thorough revision. A bridge between the old and the new is offered in Cheyne's Auls, 16-73, where the results of recent criticism of the liooks of .Samuel and of the Psalter are pre- supposed, and all that is .still tenable in the earlier estimates of David is restated. See also Iskael, |g 17-33.

12. David's character[edit]

We have now to estimate the character of David. ^ We may safely assert that, if the narratives can in the main be trusted, no ancient Israelite exercised such a personal charm as David, and that he owed this not merely to his physical but also to his moral qualities. In him the better elements of the Israelitish character start at once into a new life. There are some points in him that reix;l us ; in these he is the child of the past. There is more in him that attracts us ; in this he is a herald of the future. One of the later writers who have contributed to the story of Saul and David descrilxjs the latter as 'a man according to Gcxl's mind' (i S. 1-3 14), which means, as the context interprets it, one in whom Yahwe God of Israel has found the c|ualities of a leader of his people (cp Jer. 315). Ihat David was an honest and vigorous ruler both in peace and in war, the evidence given above sulliciently shows. In after- times his name became the syntlxjl of a righteous rule (Jer. 285), and further criticism of the records has only confirmed the eulogy given to David by Koljertson Smith in 1877 'hat his adnunistration of justice 'was never stained by selfish considerations or motives of personal rancour. ' ' Nor does he deserve to lie blamed for his cruelty to Israel's foreign enemies, when we consider the imperfect development of the idci t)f ntorality in his time, and the fate that would have lx."en in store for himself and his people, had the conquerors and the contiuered changed places. He doubtless thought it absolutely neces.sary to cripple Israel's cruel and malicious neighbours ; to the Canaanites at his own door he was gentle.* Compare him with .Sargon or Asur-bani-pal, in whom cruelty was joined to the lust of conquest, and how great is his moral superiority ! Nor can we easily admit a doubt as to the genuineness of his religion. He lived in the fear of God, according to the standard of his times.

The generous elevation of David's character is seen most clearly in those parts of his life where an inferior nature would have been most at fault in his conduct towards Saul (with which the story of Rizi'.VH is in no way inconsistent), in the blameless reputation of himself and his band of outlaws in the wilderness of Judah, in his repentance (which we so greatly desire to believe) under the rebuke of Nathan, and in his noble and truly religious tearing on the revolt of Absalom, the accuracy of the account of which is guaranteed by the antique elements which it contains. His unfailing insight into character, and his power of winning men's hearts and touching their lielter impulses, api)ear in inmimerable traits of the history [e.g., 2 S. 14:8-2o 331-39 2815-17).

1 It would be a strange exception to this rule if out of pure vindictiveness David urged his .son Solomon to put certain persons who h.id injured him to death (1 K. 21-9). Three answers may be given to this charge, (i) If I >avid spoke in sub- stance these words, it was because he feared to leave Joab's bloodshedding unexpiated and Shimei's solemn curse unneutral- ised b>- the death of the offenders : continued clemency would, according to the prevalent belief, have been dangerous. (2) The words ascribed to David imply a vigour of mind and a regard for the interests of the kingdom which the narrative docs not permit us to assume in the dying king. After neglecting to communicate with the elders of Israel and Jud.-h respecting the .successor to the throne, it is not likely that David's mental powers suddenly rallied, so as to enable him to make this forcible and even eloquent .speech. (3) This is precisely one of the occasions on which a narrator was likely to invent. Solomon needed to be excused to unfriendly readers for having put Joab and Shimei to death. The excuse (which in the narrator's view W.1S perfectly valid) could best be given by introducing it into a last speech of David.

2 The allusion is to Araunah, or rather Adonijah, as the name should probably be read. See Araunah.

3 Even the AIT of v. $6 only says, ' Like David, they devise for themseU-es instruments of (i.e. to accompany) song." This does not suit the context, which says, ' who chant (read C'TClcn > cp 5 2j : t fell out) to the sound of the harp," and then speaks of the wine-bibbing and the rich unguents. Some detail of the banquet must be referred to in t. ^fi. .\\\ but the last word tc -seems to be the conjecture of an ancient editor (before was ni.-ide), who found the letters of his text almost illegible. On see Vollers, Z.-ITIW 326-7 ('8.:]. Probably the verse should read thus, Tr SipS incd 733^ IffSy D~1CTCn 'who play on the timbrel and harp, and rejoice at the sound of song." "i-na ' like David ' is a gloss, as I. P. Peters and Winckler have independ- ently pointed out. Cp Is. 612, and especially Job 21 13 ; als T^aj msi Am. 5 33.

13. Was he a poet ?[edit]

His knowledge of men was the divination of a poet rather than the acquired genius of a statesman, and his capacity for rule stood in harmonious unity with his lyrical genius. But was David reallv a poet? Did he, like the Arabian prince Imra' al-Kais, fascinate his half-primitive people by song? The old tradition knows him as a musician (i S. 16 14-32) ; late editors of the psalms, but not Amos (as most have suiJjxjsed ^), as a poet. Several poems, too, are ascribed to his authorship in the Books of Samuel, and those who inserted them had a very definite belief on the subject (see Samui-.I., ii. 7). One of them the deeply-felt elegy on Saul and Jonathan was taken from the so-called Book of Jashar {q.v. , 2), and another the short elegy on Abner may have been copied from the same book. These occur in 2 S. 1 19-27 and 833/ respectively. They have an antique air and are worthy of David. Whether any religious elements formerly present have been removed, we cannot say ; but there is no special reason to think so. That the song of triumph in 2 S. 22 ( = Ps. 18) and the 'last words of David' in 23 1-7 (both highly religious compositions) are Davidid, is not, on grounds of criticism, tenable. Nor can any of the psalms in the Psalter be ascribed with any probability to David. The eager search for possible Davidic psalms seems to be a proof that the seekers have taken up the study of the Psalter at the wrong end. That David composed religious songs is of course probable enough. When he and his companions ' played before Yahw6 with all their might, and with songs and with (divers musical instruments),' * it is reasonable to conjecture that ' some of these songs had been made for the purpose by the poet-king. ' '^ But how much resemblance would these psalms have had to the psalms of the second temple? and how could the David known to us from history have entered into the ideas of Psalms 32 and 51, which are assigned by Delitzsch and Orelli to the sad period of David's great sin ? Would not that have been one cf the greatest of miracles ? See PsALMS.

[In the above sketch sentences have been here and there borrowed from the late Robertson Smith's art. ' David ' in the EH, especially where David's character and his originality as a ruler are referred to. The advance of criticism since 1877 required a fresh survey of the subject. On Renan's view of David in his Hist, dlsrael, see WRS Eng. Hist. Rev., 1888, p. 134/ Duncker {Hist, of Ant. vol. ii. ) is hardly less un- sympathetic than Renan, and his narrative needs adjustment to the results of critical analysis. St. 'sG I'l 1 223-298, and We.'s ProL, ET, 261-272, and UG(^) 56-64, are of the highest importance. Wi.'s GI 1 is fresh and original, but often rash. Cheyne's Aids {'92), part I, relates to the David - narratives ; Ki.'s analysis in Kau. HS, the results of which are tabulated in chap. 1, is provisionally adopted. See also Dr. TBS ('90); Kamph., Philister und Hehrder zur Zeit Davids, ZATW ['86] 43-97; Marquart's Funda- meiite ('97) ; and the articles in this Dictionary on Samuel and Chronicles (with the books there referred to). Prof W. R. Smith's article in EBC^^ should be taken with the corresponding portion of Ewald's History. Chandler's Life of David (ist ed. 1766) gives answers to the very real difficulties suggested by Pierre Bayle which are now superseded. Stiihelin's Lehen Davids ('66) is recommended by Rolx;rtson Smith for the numerous parallels adduced from Oriental history. The late H. A. White's art. in Hastings' DB has great merit. For an account of David as a tactician, see Dieulafoy's monograph. ] T. K. C.

1 a S.fl5. We emend, with Klost., after i Ch. 138. 2 Che. OPs. 192.