xxv. 27; and Jeremiah in his round number of seventy years includes

_three_ generations (Jer. xxvii. 7). Herodotus and Abydenus made the same mistake. See Kamphausen, pp. 30, 31.

[123] Herod., i. 191. See Rawlinson, _Herod._, i. 434.

[124] Xen., _Cyrop._, VII. v. 3.

[125] _Antt._, X. xi. 2. In _c. Ap._, I. 20, he calls him Nabonnedus.

[126] This is now supposed to mean "grandson by marriage," by inventing the hypothesis that Nabunaid married a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar. But this does not accord with Dan. v. 2, 11, 22; and so in Baruch i. 11, 12.

[127] 2 Kings xxv. 27.

[128] Sayce, _The Higher Criticism and the Monuments_, p. 527.

[129] I need not enter here upon the confusion of the Manda with the Medes, on which see Sayce, _Higher Criticism and Monuments_, p. 519 ff.

[130] Winer, _Realwörterb._, _s.v._ "Darius."

[131] So Bertholdt, Von Lengerke, Auberlen. It is decidedly rejected by Schrader (Riehm, _Handwörterb._, i. 259). Even Cicero said, "Cyrus ille a Xenophonte non ad historiæ fidem scriptus est" (_Ad Quint. Fratr._, Ep. i. 3). Niebuhr called the _Cyropædia_ "einen _elenden_ und läppischen Roman" (_Alt. Gesch._, i. 116). He classes it with _Télémaque_ or _Rasselas_. Xenophon was probably the ultimate authority for the statement of Josephus (_Antt._, X. xi. 4), which has no weight. Herodotus and Ktesias know nothing of the existence of any Cyaxares II., nor does the Second Isaiah (xlv.), who evidently contemplates Cyrus as the conqueror and the first king of Babylon. Are we to set a professed romancer like Xenophon, and a late compiler like Josephus, against these authorities?

[132] T. W. Pinches, in Smith's _Bibl. Dict._, i. 716, 2nd edn. Into this theory are pressed the general expressions that Darius "received the kingdom" and was "made king," which have not the least bearing on it. They may simply mean that he became king by conquest, and not in the ordinary course--so Rosenmüller, Hitzig, Von Lengerke, etc.; or perhaps the words show some sense of uncertainty as to the exact course of events. The sequence of Persian kings in _Seder Olam_, 28-30, and in Rashi on Dan. v. 1, ix. 1, is equally unhistorical.

[133] This is supported by the remark that this three-months viceroy "appointed governors in Babylon"!

[134] Herod., iii. 89; _Records of the Past_, viii. 88.

[135] See, too, Meinhold (_Beiträge_, p. 46), who concludes his survey with the words, "Sprachliche wie sachliche Gründe machen es _nicht nur wahrscheinlich sondern gewiss_ dass an danielsche Autorschaft von Dan. ii.-vi., überhanpt an die Entstehung zur Zeit der jüdischen Verbannung nicht zu denken ist." He adds that almost all scholars believe the chapters to be no older than the age of the Maccabees, and that even Kahnis (_Dogmatik_, i. 376) and Delitzsch (Herzog, _s.v._ "Dan.") give up their genuineness. He himself believes that these Aramaic chapters were _incorporated_ by a later writer, who wrote the introduction.

[136] Sayce. _l.c._, p. 529.

[137] Kamphausen, p. 45.

[138] Sayce, _l.c._ The author of the Book of Daniel seems only to have known of _three_ kings of Persia after Cyrus (xi. 2). But five are mentioned in the Old Testament--Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes, Xerxes, and Darius III. (Codomannus, Neh. xii. 22). There were three Dariuses and three Artaxerxes, but he only knows one of each name (Kamphausen, p. 32). He might easily have overlooked the fact that the Darius of Neh. xii. 22 was a wholly different person from the Darius of Ezra vi. 1.