Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - Daniel 6:1 - 6:1
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(5:31-6:9)
Transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede; appointment of the regency; envy of the satraps against Daniel, and their attempt to destroy him.
The narrative of this chapter is connected by the copula ו with the occurrence recorded in the preceding; yet Dan 6:1 does not, as in the old versions and with many interpreters, belong to the fifth chapter, but to the sixth, and forms not merely the bond of connection between the events narrated in the fifth and sixth chapters, but furnishes at the same time the historical basis for the following narrative, vv. 2-29 (vv. 1-28). The statement of the verse, that Darius the Mede received the kingdom when he was about sixty-two years old, connects itself essentially with Dan 5:30, so far as it joins to the fulfilment, there reported, of the first part of the sacred writing interpreted by Daniel to Belshazzar, the fulfilment also the second part of that writing, but not so closely that the designation of time, in that same night (Dan 5:30), is applicable also to the fact mentioned in Daniel 6:1 (Dan 5:31), and as warranting the supposition that the transference of the kingdom to Darius the Mede took place on the night in which Belshazzar was slain. Against such a chronological connection of these two verses, Dan 5:30 and 6:1 (Dan 5:31), we adduce in the second half of v. 1 (Dan 5:31) the statement of the age of Darius, in addition to the reasons already adduced. This is not to make it remarkable that, instead of the young mad debauchee (Belshazzar), with whom, according to prophecy, the Chaldean bondage of Israel was brought to an end, a man of mature judgment seized the reigns of government (Delitzsch); for this supposition fails not only with the hypothesis, already confuted, on which it rests, but is quite foreign to the text, for Darius in what follows does not show himself to be a ruler of matured experience. The remark of Kliefoth has much more in its favour, that by the statement of the age it is designed to be made prominent that the government of Darius the Mede did not last long, soon giving place to that of Cyrus the Persian, v. 29 (Dan 6:28), whereby the divine writing, that the Chaldean kingdom would be given to the Medes and Persians, was fully accomplished. Regarding Darjawesch, Darius, see the preliminary remarks. The addition of מָדָיָא (Kethiv) forms on the one hand a contrast to the expression “the king of the Chaldeans” (Dan 5:30), and on the other it points forward to פַּרְסָיָא, v. 29 (Dan 6:28); it, however, furnishes no proof that Daniel distinguished the Median kingdom from the Persian; for the kingdom is not called a Median kingdom, but it is only said of Darius that he was of Median descent, and, v. 29 (Dan 6:28), that Cyrus the Persian succeeded him in the kingdom. In קַבֵּל, he received the kingdom, it is indicated that Darius did not conquer it, but received it from the conqueror. The כְ in כְבַר intimates that the statement of the age rests only on a probable estimate.
Daniel 6:2 (Dan 6:1)
For the government of the affairs of the kingdom he had received, and especially for regulating the gathering in of the tribute of the different provinces, Darius placed 120 satraps over the whole kingdom, and over these satraps three chiefs, to whom the satraps should give an account. Regarding אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא (satraps), see at Dan 3:2. סָרְכִין, plur. of סָרָךְ; סָרְכָא has in the Semitic no right etymology, and is derived from the Aryan, from the Zend. sara, çara, head, with the syllable ach. In the Targg., in use for the Hebr. שֹׁטֵר, it denotes a president, of whom the three named in Dan 6:2 (1), by their position over the satraps, held the rank of chief governors or ministers, for which the Targg. use סַרְכָן, while סָרְכִין in Dan 6:8 denotes all the military and civil prefects of the kingdom.
The modern critics have derived from this arrangement for the government of the kingdom made by Darius an argument against the credibility of the narrative, which Hitzig has thus formulated: - According to Xenophon, Cyrus first appointed satraps over the conquered regions, and in all to the number of six (Cyrop. viii. 6, §1, 7); according to the historian Herodotus, on the contrary (iii. 89ff.), Darius Hystaspes first divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies for the sake of the administration of the taxes. With this statement agrees the number of the peoples mentioned on the Inscription at Bisutun; and if elsewhere (Insc. J. and Nakschi Rustam) at least twenty-four and also twenty-nine are mentioned, we know that several regions or nations might be placed under one satrap (Herod. l.c.). The kingdom was too small for 120 satraps in the Persian sense. On the other hand, one may not appeal to the 127 provinces (מְדִינוֹת) of king Ahasuerus = Xerxes (Est 1:1; Est 9:30); for the ruler of the מְדִינָה is not the same as (Est 8:9) the satrap. In Est 3:12 it is the פֶּחָה, as e.g., of the province of Judah (Hag 1:1; Mal 1:8; Neh 5:14). It is true there were also greater provinces, such e.g., as of Media and Babylonia (Ezr 6:2; Dan 2:49), and perhaps also pecha (פֶּחָה) might be loosely used to designate a satrap (Ezr 5:3; Ezr 6:6); yet the 127 provinces were not such, nor is a satrap interchangeably called a pecha. When Daniel thus mentions so large a number of satraps, it is the Grecian satrapy that is apparently before his mind. Under Seleucus Nicator there were seventy-two of these.
The foundation of this argument, viz., that Darius Hystaspes, “according to the historian Herodotus,” first divided the kingdom into satrapies, and, of course, also that the statement by Xenophon of the sending of six satraps into the countries subdued by Cyrus is worthy of no credit, is altogether unhistorical, resting only on the misinterpretation and distortion of the testimonies adduced. Neither Herodotus nor Xenophon represents the appointment of satraps by Cyrus and Darius as an entirely new and hitherto untried method of governing the kingdom; still less does Xenophon say that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the subjugated countries. It is true he mentions by name (Dan 8:6-7) only six satraps, but he mentions also the provinces into which they were sent, viz., one to Arabia, and the other five to Asia Minor, with the exception, however, of Cilicia, Cyprus, and Paphlagonia, to which he did not send any Πέρσας σατράπας, because they had voluntarily joined him in fighting against Babylon. Hence it is clear as noonday that Xenophon speaks only of those satraps whom Cyrus sent to Asia Minor and to Arabia, and says nothing of the satrapies of the other parts of the kingdom, such as Judea, Syria, Babylonia, Assyria, Media, etc., so that no one can affirm that Cyrus sent in all only six satraps into the conquered countries. As little does Herodotus, l.c., say that Darius Hystaspes was the first to introduce the government of the kingdom by satraps: he only says that Darius Hystaspes divided the whole kingdom into twenty ἀρχαί which were called σατραπηΐ́αι, appointed ἄρχοντες, and regulated the tribute; for he numbers these satrapies simply with regard to the tribute with which each was chargeable, while under Cyrus and Cambyses no tribute was imposed, but presents only were contributed. Consequently, Herod. speaks only of a regulation for the administration of the different provinces of the kingdom for the special purpose of the certain payment of the tribute which Darius Hystaspes had appointed. Thus the historian M. Duncker also understands this statement; for he says (Gesch. des Alterth. ii. p. 891) regarding it: - ”About the year 515 Darius established fixed government-districts in place of the vice-regencies which Cyrus and Cambyses had appointed and changed according to existing exigencies. He divided the kingdom into twenty satrapies.” Then at p. 893 he further shows how this division also of the kingdom by Darius was not fixed unchangeably, but was altered according to circumstances. Hitzig's assertion, that the kingdom was too small for 120 satrapies in the Persian sense, is altogether groundless. From Est 8:9 and Est 8:3 :19 it follows not remotely, that not satraps but the פִַחֹות represent the מְדִינוֹת. In Dan 8:9 satraps, פִַחֹות, and הַמְדִינוֹת שָׂרֵי are named, and in Dan 3:12 they are called the king's satraps and מְדִינָה עַל אֲשֶׁר פִַחֹות. On Est 3:12 Bertheau remarks: “The pechas, who are named along with the satraps, are probably the officers of the circles within the separate satrapies;” and in Dan 8:9 satraps and pechas are named as הַמְדִינוֹת שָׂרֵי, i.e., presidents, superintendents of the 127 provinces of the kingdom from India to Ethiopia, from which nothing can be concluded regarding the relation of the satraps to the pechas. Berth. makes the same remark on Ezr 8:36 : - ”The relation of the king's satraps to the pachavoth abar nahara (governors on this side the river) we cannot certainly determine; the former were probably chiefly military rulers, and the latter government officials.” For the assertion that pecha is perhaps loosely used for satrap, but that interchangeably a satrap cannot be called a pecha, rests, unproved, on the authority of Hitzig.
From the book of Esther it cannot certainly be proved that so many satraps were placed over the 127 provinces into which Xerxes divided the kingdom, but only that these provinces were ruled by satraps and pechas. But the division of the whole kingdom into 127 provinces nevertheless shows that the kingdom might have been previously divided under Darius the Mede into 120 provinces, whose prefects might be called in this verse אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנִין, i.e., kschatrapavan, protectors of the kingdom or of the provinces, since this title is derived from the Sanscrit and Old Persian, and is not for the first time used under Darius Hystaspes of Cyrus. The Median Darius might be led to appoint one satrap, i.e., a prefect clothed with military power, over each district of his kingdom, since the kingdom was but newly conquered, that he might be able at once to suppress every attempt at insurrection among the nations coming under his dominion. The separation of the civil government, particularly in the matter of the raising of tribute, from the military government, or the appointment of satraps οἱ τὸν δασμὸν λαμβάνοντες κ.τ.λ., along with the φρούραρχοι and the χιλίαρχοι, for the protection of the boundaries of the kingdom, was first adopted, according to Xenophon l.c., by Cyrus, who next appointed satraps for the provinces of Asia Minor and of Arabia, which were newly brought under his sceptre; while in the older provinces which had formed the Babylonian kingdom, satrapies which were under civil and military rulers already existed from the time of Nebuchadnezzar; cf. Dan 2:32. This arrangement, then, did not originate with Darius Hystaspes in the dividing of the whole kingdom into twenty satrapies mentioned by Herodotus. Thus the statements of Herodotus and Xenophon harmonize perfectly with those of the Scriptures, and every reason for regarding with suspicion the testimony of Daniel wholly fails.
Daniel 6:2-3 (Dan 6:1-2)
According to v. 2, Darius not only appointed 120 satraps for all the provinces and districts of his kingdom, but he also placed the whole body of the satraps under a government consisting of three presidents, who should reckon with the individual satraps. עֵלָּא, in the Targg. עֵילָא, the height, with the adverb מִן, higher than, above. טַעֲמָא יְהַב, to give reckoning, to account. נָזִק, part. of נְזֵק, to suffer loss, particularly with reference to the revenue. This triumvirate, or higher authority of three, was also no new institution by Darius, but according to Dan 5:7, already existed in the Chaldean kingdom under Belshazzar, and was only continued by Darius; and the satraps or the district rulers of the several provinces of the kingdom were subordinated to them. Daniel was one of the triumvirate. Since it is not mentioned that Darius first appointed him to this office, we may certainly conclude that he only confirmed him in the office to which Belshazzar had promoted him.
Daniel 6:4 (Dan 6:3)
In this situation Daniel excelled all the presidents and satraps. אִתְנַצַּח, to show one's self prominent. Regarding his excellent spirit, cf. Dan 5:12. On that account the king thought to set him over the whole kingdom, i.e., to make him chief ruler of the kingdom, to make him לַמֶּלֶךְ מִשְׁנֶה (Est 10:3). עֲשִׁית for עֲשֵׁת, intrans. form of the Peal, to think, to consider about anything. This intention of the king stirred up the envy of the other presidents and of the satraps, so that they sought to find an occasion against Daniel, that he might be cast down. עִלָּה, an occasion; here, as αἰτία, Joh 18:38; Mat 27:37, an occasion for impeachment, מַלְוּתָא מִצַּד, on the part of the kingdom, i.e., not merely in a political sense, but with regard to his holding a public office in the kingdom, with reference to his service. But since they could find no occasion against Daniel in this respect, for he was מְהֵימָן, faithful, to be relied on, and no fault could be charged against him, they sought occasion against him on the side of his particular religion, in the matter of the law of his God, i.e., in his worship of God.
Daniel 6:7 (Dan 6:6)
For this end they induced the king to sanction and ratify with all the forms of law a decree, which they contrived as the result of the common consultation of all the high officers, that for thirty days no man in the kingdom should offer a prayer to any god or man except to the king, on pain of being cast into the den of lions, and to issue this command as a law of the Medes and Persians, i.e., as an irrevocable law. הַרְגִּשׁ, from רְגַשׁ to make a noise, to rage, in Aphel c. עַל, to assail one in a tumultuous manner, i.e., to assault him. “These presidents and satraps (princes),” v. 7 (Dan 6:6), in v. 6 (Dan 6:5) designated “these men,” and not the whole body of the presidents and satraps, are, according to v. 5 (Dan 6:4), the special enemies of Daniel, who wished to overthrow him. It was only a definite number of them who may have had occasion to be dissatisfied with Daniel's service. The words of the text do not by any means justify the supposition that the whole council of state assembled, and in corpore presented themselves before the king (Hävernick); for neither in v. 5 (Dan 6:4) nor in v. 7 (Dan 6:6) is mention made of all (כֹּל) the presidents and satraps. From the fact also that these accusers of Daniel, v. 25 (Dan 6:24), represent to the king that the decree they had framed was the result of a consultation of all the prefects of the kingdom, it does not follow that all the satraps and chief officers of the whole kingdom had come to Babylon in order, as Dereser thinks, to lay before the three overseers the annual account of their management of the affairs of their respective provinces, on which occasion they took counsel together against Daniel; from which circumstance Hitzig and others derive an argument against the historical veracity of the narrative. The whole connection of the narrative plainly shows that the authors of the accusation deceived the king. The council of state, or the chief court, to which all the satraps had to render an account, consisted of three men, of whom Daniel was one. But Daniel certainly was not called to this consultation; therefore their pretence, that all “presidents of the kingdom” had consulted on the matter, was false. Besides, they deceived the king in this, that they concealed from him the intention of the decree, or misled him regarding it. אִתְיָעֵט means not merely that they consulted together, but it includes the result of the consultation: they were of one mind (Hitz.).
Daniel 6:8 (Dan 6:7)
מַלְוּתָא סָרְכֵי כֹּל does not denote the three presidents named in v. 3 (2), but all the prefects of the kingdom, of whom there were four classes, as is acknowledged by Chr. B. Michaelis, though Hitz. opposes this view. Such an interpretation is required by the genitive מַלְוּתָא, and by the absence of כל, or at least of the copula ו, before the official names that follow; while the objection, that by this interpretation just the chief presidents who are principally concerned are omitted (Hitz.), is without foundation, for they are comprehended under the word סִגְנַיָּא. If we compare the list of the four official classes here mentioned with that of the great officers of state under Nebuchadnezzar, Dan 3:2, the naming of the סִגְנַיָּא before the אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנַיָּא, satraps) (which in Dan 3:2 they are named after them) shows that the סִגְנַיָּא are here great officers to whom the satraps were subordinate, and that only the three סָרְכִין could be meant to whom the satraps had to render an account. Moreover, the list of four names is divided by the copula וinto two classes. To the first class belong the סִגְנַיָּא and the satraps; to the second the הַדּבְרִין, state councillors, and the פַּחֲוָתָא, civil prefects of the provinces. Accordingly, we will scarcely err of by סִגְנַיָּא we understand the members of the highest council of state, by הַדֳּבְרַיָּא the ministers or members of the (lower) state council, and by the satraps and pechas the military and civil rulers of the provinces. This grouping of the names confirms, consequently, the general interpretation of the מַלְוּתָא סָרְכֵי כֹּל, for the four classes named constitute the entire chief prefecture of the kingdom. This interpretation is not made questionable by the fact that the סָרְכִין had in the kingdom of Darius a different position from that they held in the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar; for in this respect each kingdom had its own particular arrangement, which underwent manifold changes according to the times.
The infinitive clause וגו קְיָם לְקַיָּמָא presents the conclusion arrived at by the consultation. מַלְכָּא is not the genitive to קְיָם, but according to the accents and the context is the subject of the infinitive clause: that the king should appoint a statute, not that a royal statute should be appointed. According to the analogy of the pronoun and of the dimin. noun, the accusative is placed before the subject-genitive, as e.g. Isa 20:1; Isa 5:24, so as not to separate from one another the קְיָם קַיָּמָא (to establish a statute) and the אֱסָר תַּקָּפָה (to make a firm decree). Dan 6:9 requires this construction. It is the king who issues the decree, and not his chief officers of state, as would have been the case if מַלְכָּא were construed as the genitive to קְיָם ot evit. קְיָם, manifesto, ordinance, command. The command is more accurately defined by the parallel clause אֱסָר תַּקָּפָה, to make fast, i.e., to decree a prohibition. The officers wished that the king should issue a decree which should contain a binding prohibition, i.e., it should forbid, on pain of death, any one for the space of thirty days, i.e., for a month, to offer any prayer to a god or man except to the king. בַּעוּ is here not any kind of request or supplication, but prayer, as the phrase v. 14 (Dan 6:13), בָּעוּתֵהּ בָּעֵא, directing his prayer, shows. The word וֶאֱנָשׁ does not prove the contrary, for the heathen prayed also to men (cf. Dan 2:46); and here the clause, except to the king, places together god and man, so that the king might not observe that the prohibition was specially directed against Daniel.
Daniel 6:9 (Dan 6:8)
In order that they may more certainly gain their object, they request the king to put the prohibition into writing, so that it might not be changed, i.e., might not be set aside or recalled, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, in conformity with which an edict once emitted by the king in all due form, i.e., given in writing and sealed with the king's seal, was unchangeable; cf. Dan 6:15 and Est 8:8; Est 1:19. תֶעְדֵּא לָא דִּי, which cannot pass away, i.e., cannot be set aside, is irrevocable. The relative דִּי refers to דָּת, by which we are not to understand, with v. Lengerke, the entire national law of the Medes and Persians, as if this were so unalterable that no law could be disannulled or changed according to circumstances, but דָּת is every separate edict of the king emitted in the form of law. This remains unchangeable and irrevocable, because the king was regarded and honoured as the incarnation of deity, who is unerring and cannot change.
Daniel 6:10 (Dan 6:9)
The king carried out the proposal. וֶאֱסָרָא is explicative: the writing, namely, the prohibition (spoken of); for this was the chief matter, therefore אֱסָרָא alone is here mentioned, and not also קְיָם (edict), Dan 6:8.
The right interpretation of the subject-matter and of the foundation of the law which was sanctioned by the king, sets aside the objection that the prohibition was a senseless “bedlamite” law (v. Leng.), which instead of regulating could only break up all society. The law would be senseless only if the prohibition had related to every petition in common life in the intercourse of civil society. But it only referred to the religious sphere of prayer, as an evidence of worshipping God; and if the king was venerated as an incarnation of the deity, then it was altogether reasonable in its character. And if we consider that the intention of the law, which they concealed from the king, was only to effect Daniel's overthrow, the law cannot be regarded as designed to press Parsism or the Zend religion on all the nations of the kingdom, or to put an end to religious freedom, or to make Parsism the world-religion. Rather, as Kliefoth has clearly and justly shown, “the object of the law was only to bring about the general recognition of the principle that the king was the living manifestation of all the gods, not only of the Median and Persian, but also of the Babylonian and Lydian, and all the gods of the conquered nations. It is therefore also not correct that the king should be represented as the incarnation of Ormuzd. The matter is to be explained not from Parsism alone, but from heathenism in general. According to the general fundamental principle of heathenism, the ruler is the son, the representative, the living manifestation of the people's gods, and the world-ruler thus the manifestation of all the gods of the nations that were subject to him. Therefore all heathen world-rulers demanded from the heathen nations subdued by them, that religious homage should be rendered to them in the manner peculiar to each nation. Now that is what was here sought. All the nations subjected to the Medo-Persian kingdom were required not to abandon their own special worship rendered to their gods, but in fact to acknowledge that the Medo-Persian world-ruler Darius was also the son and representative of their national gods. For this purpose they must for the space of thirty days present their petitions to their national gods only in him as their manifestation. And the heathen nations could all do this without violating their consciences; for since in their own manner they served the Median king as the son of their gods, they served their gods in him. The Jews, however, were not in the condition of being able to regard the king as a manifestation of Jehovah, and thus for them there was involved in the law truly a religious persecution, although the heathen king and his satraps did not thereby intend religious persecution, but regarded such disobedience as only culpable obstinacy and political rebellion.”
(Note: Brissonius, De regio Persarum princ. p. 17ff., has collected the testimonies of the ancients to the fact that the Persian kings laid claim to divine honour. Persas reges suos inter Deos colere, majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam. Curtius, viii. 5. 11. With this cf. Plutarch, Themist. c. 27. And that this custom, which even Alexander the Great (Curt. vi. 6. 2) followed, was derived from the Medes, appears from the statement of Herodotus, i. 99, that Dejoces περὶ ἑαυτὸν σεμνύειν, withdrew his royal person from the view of men. The ancient Egyptians and Ethiopians paid divine honours to their kings, according to Diod. Sic. i. 90, iii. 3, 5; and it is well known that the Roman emperors required that their images should be worshipped with religious veneration.)
The religious persecution to which this law subjected the Jews was rendered oppressive by this: that the Jews were brought by it into this situation, that for a whole month they must either omit prayer to God, and thus sin against their God, or disregard the king's prohibition. The satraps had thus rightly formed their plan. Since without doubt they were aware of Daniel's piety, they could by this means hope with certainty to gain their object in his overthrow. There is no ground for rejecting the narrative in the fact that Darius, without any suspicion, gave their contrivance the sanction of law. We do not need, on the contrary, to refer to the indolence of so many kings, who permit themselves to be wholly guided by their ministers, although the description we have of Cyaxares II by Xenophon accords very well with this supposition; for from the fact that Darius appears to have sanctioned the law without further consideration about it, it does not follow that he did not make inquiry concerning the purpose of the plan formed by the satraps. The details of the intercourse of the satraps with the king concerning the occasion and object of the law Daniel has not recorded, for they had no significance in relation to the main object of the narrative. If the satraps represented to the king the intention of compelling, by this law, all the nationalities that were subject to his kingdom to recognise his royal power and to prove their loyalty, then the propriety of this design would so clearly recommend itself to him, that without reflection he gave it the sanction of law.