Welcome back to my study/review of The Book of Daniel. If you missed the previous parts of this study, you can find them HERE.
Daniel 9:1-7
9 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.
3 Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes. 4 I prayed to the Lord my God and made confession, saying, “O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, 5 we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules. 6 We have not listened to your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land. 7 To you, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel, those who are near and those who are far away, in all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you.
_________________________________
Here Daniel comes to an understanding concerning the duration of the Jewish exile in Babylon. The text describes how he came to this knowledge by saying he “perceived in the books” this knowledge. Daniel 9 is the source of one of the most studied and controversial alleged Messianic prophecies, used by some early Church fathers as a proof of Jesus’s messiahship, though we don’t quite get to that in these verses.
This chapter is also interesting in that it provides more details concerning Darius – a source of some scholarly debate. So we’ll need to look at the text here closely.
From The Pulpit Commentaries:
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes, which was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord same to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem. The version of the Septuagint goes on the assumption that the critics are correct in their belief that the author of Daniel imagined a Median Empire between the Babylonian and the Persian.
“(1) In the first year of Darius son of Xerxes, of the seed of the Medes who,” that is, the Medes—the LXX. seems to have read malkoo instead of homlak—”reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans.
(2) In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by the books the number of the years when the ordinance (πρόσταγμα) about the land was (revealed) to Jeremiah the prophet to accomplish seventy years to the fulfilment of the reproach of Jerusalem.”
Theodotion is closer to the Massoretic, only he does not seem to have read the hophal of “reign,” but the kal. Further, Theodotion omits the second statement of the year of Darius, with which, both in the LXX. and in the Massoretic, the second verse begins. We have in Tertullian a few verses from this chapter in the Old Latin Version, called sometimes the Vetus. It coincides exactly with neither of the Greek Versions, nor with the Massoretic, but is in closer relationship with Theodotion. The Peshitta in the first agrees in the main with the Massoretic texf, but renders the second verse thus: “In the first year of his reign, I Daniel understood in the book the number of years; I saw what was the ordinance of the number which Jeremiah the prophet had said concerning the completion of the desolation of Jerusalem—seventy years.” Theodotion, the Vetus, the Peshitta, and also Jerome, neglect the fact that הָמְלַד (hom’lak) is hophal, and translate as if the word were kal. This neglect is due to the difficulty of understanding the semi-satrapial position occupied by Gobryas. He had regal powers given him to appoint satraps in the divisions of the province of Babylonia. Not improbably, further, be could fulfil certain sacred functions which customarily only a king could fulfil. This is the only case where the hophal of this verb occurs. Such a unique use of a verb must imply unique circumstances; such unique circumstances existed in the position of Gobryas in Babylon. Only a contemporary would have indicated this singular state of matters by the use of an out-of-the way portion of a verb without further explanation. It is singular that critics will not give the obvious meaning to the persistent indications that the author of this book gives, that he regards Darius, not as an independent sovereign, but as in some sort a vassal of a higher power, on whom he is dependent. Of the seed of the Medes. This statement naturally implies that while Darius was of Median descent, he was naturalized into some ether race. In the first year of his reign. This phrase has the appearance of representing the original beginning of the narrative. Probably there were originally two recensions of this narrative, one of them beginning with the first verse, the other with some modification of the second verse which has been still further modified till it has reached its present form. The year indicated corresponds to b.c. 538, the year of the capture of Babylon, therefore sixty-eight years from the time that Daniel was carried captive. The period, then, which had been foretold by Jeremiah during which the Jews were to be captive and Jerusalem desolate, was drawing to a close. According to the critical assumption, that this date is to be reckoned from the captivity of Jehoiachin, there were yet ten years to run, and if it reckoned from the capture of Jerusalem during the reign of Zedekiah, there were twenty years. There is a certain dramatic suitability, if no more, in Daniel studying the prophecies of Jeremiah, with always growing eagerness as the time approached when God had promised release. I Daniel understood by books. The critical school have assumed that this phrase “books” applies, and must apply, to the canon; therefore it is concluded that this book was written after the formation of the canon, and therefore very late. Unfortunately for the assumption brought forward, aephareem is by no means invariably used collectively for the books of the Bible, but K’thubim, e.g. Talmud Babli Shabbath (Mishna), p. 115a, was also used. Many of the cases where sephareem appears it is used distributively, not collectively; e.g. Talmud Babli Megillah (Mishna), p. 8b. From the fact that the same word was used for the third division of the canon, and for the books of the canon as a whole, there was liable to be a difficulty, and hence confusion. Traces of this we find in the prologue to the Greek Version of Ecclesiasticus. Thus in the first sentence the translator speaks of “the Law, the Prophets, and the others (τῶν ἄλλων),” as if τῶν βιβλίων were mentally supplied before νόμου. While sepher is used for any individual book of Scripture, and sephareem used for a group of these books, as the Books of Moses, it is not used for the Bible as a whole, just as in English we never call the Bible “the books,” but not unfrequently “the Scriptures; “on the other hand, we speak of “the Books of Moses,” never of the “Scriptures of Moses.” If sephareem does not mean the canon, what does it mean? We know from Jeremiah 29:1 that Jeremiah sent to the exiles a “letter,” and in that letter (verse 10) it is said, “For thus saith the Lord, After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you in causing you to return to this place.” It is true that this letter is called sepher in Jeremiah, but in 2 Kings 19:14 and Isaiah 37:14 we have sephareem the plural, used for a single letter. This is proved by the fact that in Isaiah all the suffixes referring to it are singular; in Kings one is in the plural by attraction, but the other is singular as in Isaiah. The correct rendering of the passage, then, is, “I Daniel understood by the letter the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet.” It is clear that the reference in this verse is to Jeremiah’s letter, for we have the use of יחוה, Jahve (Jehovah), which out of this chapter does not appear in this book; we have in this verse מַלִּאת, which we have in Jeremiah 29:10; it is vocalized as infinitive piel in Daniel, and infinitive kal in Jeremiah, but there is probably some error in Daniel. Another peculiarity which connects this passage with the “letter” of Jeremiah is the form the prophet’s name assumes. In the rest of his prephecy it is usually called יִרְמְיָהוּ (Yir’myahoo); in the section of which the ‘letter forms part, as in this verse in Daniel, he is called יִרְמְיָה (Yir’myah). It is thus clear that Daniel had in his mind Jeremiah’s “letter;” hence it is far-fetched to imagine that he claims acquaintance with all the books of the Hebrew canon, in order to know the contents of a letter. Even a falsarius of the most ignorant sort would scarcely fail to avoid the blunder attributed to the author of Daniel by critics. How do the critics harmonize their explanation of this verse with their theory that the canon closed in b.c. 105, while Daniel was written in the year b.c. 1687 It would be as impossible for an author to speak of the canon in terms which denote it being long fixed, sixty years before it was actually collected, as four hundred years. The impossible has no degrees. That he would accomplish seventy years. That seventy years would fulfil the period of desolation to Jerusalem. It is to be noted that the word translated here “accomplish” occurs in Jeremiah’s letter in regard to this very period (Jeremiah 29:10). The word for “desolations” is connected by Furst with “drought;” it is also connected with the word for “a sword.” The date at which the vision related in the chapter was given was, as we have seen, shortly after the fall of Babylon. The period set by God, if we date from Daniel’s own captivity, was rapidly nearing its conclusion. As yet Cyrus had given no sign that he was about to treat the Jews differently from the other nations. The King of Ansan had declared himself—whether from faith or policy we cannot tell—a fervent worshipper of Merodach and the other gods of Babylon: would he not be prone to pursue the policy of the kings of Babylon, whose successor he claimed to be? He had certainly ordered the return to the various cities of the images of those gods which had been brought to Babylon by Nabunahid, but there was no word of the return of the captives of Zion. Would Jehovah be true to his promise or not? Lik
The note here provides a lot of textual scrutiny as between ancient versions of this portion of Daniel. LXX vs. MT vs. Peshitta and so on. This is of particular importance when “Darius the Mede” comes up because this person is the most cited reason to doubt the historicity of the entire book – as there are no historical records outside of Scripture which indicate he existed at all. This wasn’t much of an issue until what one might describe as the archaeological era began, in the Enlightenment, but now it’s viewed as highly important. The following video breaks it down and provides a solution rooted in historical tradition and known records:
What book or books is Daniel perceiving in these verses? The answer seems to be Jeremiah. (From Ellicott’s Bible Commentary)
(2) Understood.—He gave special attention to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years of the Captivity. Two passages occur in that prophet’s writings where the duration of the Captivity is mentioned (Jeremiah 25:11; Jeremiah 29:10), to the former of which Daniel refers (see especially Daniel 9:9; Daniel 9:11-12). It will be observed that there existed at this time a collection of sacred books, consisting of what had been already admitted into the Canon.
Seventy years.—It appears from Haggai 1:2, Zechariah 1:12, that considerable uncertainty prevailed as to the time whence the seventy years were to be reckoned. It has been pointed out (Professor Leathes’ Old Testament Prophecy, p. 179) that three periods of seventy years occur in connection with the Captivity:—(1) from B.C. 606, the date of Jeremiah’s prophecy, to B.C. 536, the edict of Cyrus; (2) from B.C. 598, Jehoiachin’s captivity, to B.C. 528, the period of Ezra 4:6; (3) from B.C. 588, the destruction of the Temple, to B.C. 518, the edict of Darius (Ezra 6:1). In the first year of Cyrus, seventy years had elapsed since the captivity of Daniel, but to him it was a question of melancholy importance whether his computation had begun at the right date.
As the note indicates, there were prophecies made and recorded prior to the captivity, and Daniel had access to those prophecies – or at least he did so after the Medo-Persians conquered the Babylonians. Daniel read these prophecies – mentioned in the commentary note above – and sought additional guidance from God as to what they mean. (Continuing in Ellicott, with the notes for verses 3 and 4)
(3) I set my face.—Comp. Daniel 6:11. Probably he prayed, as on that occasion, with his face towards Jerusalem. The prayer of Daniel bears some resemblance to those offered by Ezra and Nehemiah, while that of Baruch resembles it much more closely. (On this see Excursus F.)
(4) The covenant.—See Exodus 19:5.
Exodus 19: 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine;
One aspect of human nature, that we can read into the Old Testament when we look for it, is the ease with which one can take things for granted when you have them. The Israelites and the Judahites knew they had a promise, from an unfailing God, to be His treasured possession. As a result, you can sometimes see in their behavior an attitude of “I can do what I like, because this covenant informs me that all will be well.” Instead of letting the notion of “being chosen” create a culture of humility, it often had the opposite effect. AND YET… that promise also allowed the chosen people to remain hopeful in bleak circumstances. We see the latter from Daniel here.
Continuing on in TPC’s note at verse 5:
We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments. While otherwise close, neither of the Greek versions retains the change of construction before the last clause, which is exhibited in the English versions. The Peshitta fails in this way ale, but uses participles all through. This verso has a strong resemblance to Nehemiah 1:6, Nehemiah 1:7, only in Nehemiah there is more elaboration and all the signs of a later development. There is a climax here from simple sin to rebellion; at the same time, this heaping up of terms so nearly synonymous is more liturgic than literary; these words may have been used in the synagogue service in Babylon.
Nehemiah 1: 6 let your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you. Even I and my father’s house have sinned. 7 We have acted very corruptly against you and have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and the rules that you commanded your servant Moses.
You do see a lot of similarities in the text here, even in the English translation. As mentioned above, the covenant and God’s history with His people may have given them a pride that led to their downfall, but after the punishment it provides continued hope also. The hope – as you see in Daniel and Nehemiah – is accompanied by humility and confession of sin.
Perhaps a lesson should be observable from this that when God’s people cease to be humble, they likely will be given new circumstances to bring it about. Continuing in TPC:
Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy Name to our kings, our princes, and oar fathers, and to all the people of the land. The Septuagint, while agreeing in the main with the Massoretic, translates “to all the people of the land” as “to every nation on the earth.” Theodotion is more accurate, but the Peshitta maintains the ambiguity. Daniel continues his confession of sin. Not only will they not keep God’s commands, but when God sent prophets, men of their brethren, to speak to them with human voice, they would not hearken. The designation of the ordinary inhabitants, the common people, as עַם־הָאָרֶץ (‛am ha‛aretz) is a usage that became more pronounced in later days, when all not educated as rabbin were called ‛am ha‛aretz. The resemblance is striking between this passage and Nehemiah 9:30-32. It is, perhaps, impossible to settle on merely critical grounds which is the more primitive form. There is much in both passages that would suggest a third form, the independent source of both. Not unlikely the source was some liturgic prayer. As the shorter, the passage before us may be nearer this original source.
Sometimes, only after a calamity are the warning signs more clearly seen by all. Here it took the calamity to silence the voices filled with pride and bravado, but once they were quiet, the willful and sinful path to ruin was more obvious. We’ll finish this section of confession with the commentary note from Ellicott:
(7) Righteousness.—The absolute righteousness of God appears distinct and clear in spite of the chastisement from which the nation suffers. Meanwhile, the humble looks of the devout part of the nation show that it feels the present shame and confusion.
All the countries.—See Isaiah 11:11-12. In the midst of his sorrow for the past, the mind of the prophet recurs unconsciously to the great promise of future deliverance by “the root of Jesse.”
The circumstances of Babylon humbled many of the Jewish people, but the promises of God provided hope as well.
Daniel will continue to confess the sins of his people in the verses that follow. Later in the chapter, the angel Gabriel will visit him and provide an answer to the question in his prayers.
