either of the above suppositions, Darius the Median will be Cyaxares II., son of Astyages and uncle to Cyrus, who succeeded to the title of king—­“took the kingdom” (Dan 5:31 and chap. 6)—­though the conquest of Babylon was due to Cyrus himself, who not long afterwards ascended the throne of the united kingdoms of Media and Persia.  Another view makes Belshazzar the same as Evil-merodach, son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and identifies Darius the Median with Astyages.  It is not necessary to decide which, if either of these two views, is correct.

(2.) An argument has been drawn from the fact that Jesus, the son of Sirach, does not mention the name of Daniel in the catalogue of his worthies (chap. 49).  Such negative arguments are at best weak, and this loses all its force from the circumstance that he omits others, as Ezra and Mordecai (the twelve minor prophets also, since chap. 49:10 is regarded as spurious).

(3.) The alleged linguistic difficulties have been reduced, so far as the date of the book is concerned, to three or four Greek names of musical instruments; all of which—­the instruments and their names—­may naturally enough have been brought from Greece, the home of musical art, in the way of ordinary commercial intercourse.  We are not called upon to defend the classic purity of Daniel’s style.  A Hebrew and educated at the court of Babylon, it was natural that his Chaldee should be colored with Hebrew forms, and his Hebrew with Chaldaisms.  The argument from the general style of the book is in favor of its genuineness, not against it.

(4.) The commendations bestowed upon Daniel are thought to be inconsistent with his being the author of the book.  Some, who admit its authenticity and its right to a place in the sacred canon, have been led by this consideration to adopt the opinion that Daniel, though essentially the author of the book, did not himself put it into its present form, but that some one of his countrymen put together his prophecies, prefixing to them introductory notices respecting the author.  So far as the canonical authority of the book is concerned there are no serious objections to this hypothesis; but we may well ask whether undue weight is not given to the objection under consideration.  Throughout the whole book these commendatory notices are underlaid by the idea that Daniel’s wisdom is not his own, but is given him by God, and for purposes connected with the welfare of the covenant people.  By revealing to his servant secrets beyond the ken of all the wise men of Babylon, he manifests at once his own infinite perfections and the vanity of the Chaldean gods; and this Daniel records to the glory of the God of Israel.