'aššafım = אשפים, Assaphim, Asaphim, Aschaphim, Aschaphim, Ashshafim, Ashshaphim; Aššɔpīm.
mekaššfım/mecaššfım = מכשפים, Mecasphim, Mekasphim, Machspim, Mechaschephim.
J. Fabre d'Envieu, Le Livre du Prophète Daniel traduit d'après le texte hébreu, araméen et grec, Vol. 2 [1890], pp.109-121
Various Classes of the Babylon Sages.
All critics (and Cäsar von Lengerke himself) admit there were divisions and classes among the Wise-Men of Chaldea. It is known there were sections among Egyptian ‘priests’ (Exodus 7: 11; Herodotus 2:36, 2:58), and it is not surprising when we consider the diversity of functions these scholars had to fulfill. In Babylon there were even special colleges.
Daniel mentions four classes (2:2, 4:4,5:11), three classes (5:7), and one single ruling class (2:4,10). Here, it should suffice to give a short explanation of the titles for such ‘Wise-Men,’ scholars, priests, astrologers, etc., of Babylonia.
The class of hartummim (XX) occupies primary rank. The Septuagint aptly translates this term as ἱερογραμματεῖς (sacred scribes). Lengerke {in Das Buch Daniel [1835]} adopted this sentiment and translated 'hartummim' as die Bilderschriftkenner {Hieroglyphic Expert}. In fact, these people were scholars, scribes, royal notaries. This term derives from XXX (stamp, chisel, stylus, writing instrument). A hartom was the scholar who knew how to read and write characters of the classical and sacred language, the one who applied himself to books, tablets, and special cuneiform writing reserved for the learned classes. He was the interpreter of sovereign orders and secret laws of the empire. Many scribes were employed to copy old texts and to prepare new ones. Thus, strictly speaking, hartummim were ‘men of the stamp’, people of letters, literates. They formed {p.110} a literary society. Also, we see that the god Nabu or Nebo is represented with the writing-punch or stylus (Assyrian: hatļu, punch to engrave, to write; reed, scepter), because he was regarded as the Inventor of Writing. From this meaning of the name offered by Daniel, we see that it has been mis-translated as ‘diviners, horoscope-readers, fortune-tellers, magicians or astrologers’ (Vulgate harioli; Theodotion, ἐπαοιδοὺς = enchanters; LXX, σοφιστὰς). It is true many hierogrammatists (or ‘scholars educated in literature and the science of books’) must have been involved in magic. The name hartummim could thus also be taken in an unfavorable direction (like that of ‘philosopher’, which often indicates only dangerous sophists); simply, it indicated magicians, sorcerers, enchanters, and individuals who meddled with matters in the field of magic.
Hartummim, properly called, undoubtedly carried in their hands a symbol of their profession, an instrument similar to the one they used for writing. This instrument would later become a hallmark which distinguished all those concerned with true (or false) sciences: with astrology and astronomy, with occult sciences, etc. Thus, the Roman augur held a short stick in his right hand, curved at one end called lituus. We also find this usage in Egypt. Among Greeks, the religious poets of the First Age, the Rhapsodes who sang of the deeds of gods and heroes, who composed religious hymns, and mythological stories, they carried in hand a tree-branch (laurel or myrtle). The name of these scholars, which is given the meaning of ‘singers of stitched lays’ (ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων), seems rather to come from ῥάβδος (rod) which was the sign of their profession. This etymology, confirmed by Callimachus (Fragm.138) and by Apuleius (Florid.122), was adopted by Boileau who, in his Réflexions critiques sur Longin, calls the Rhapsodes ‘singers of the branch.’ Pindar and Plato make Homer a rhapsode, and it is in allusion to this name that this poet is represented on a medal of Smyrna as carrying a laurel branch in his hand. For the same reason, several gods regarded as protectors of letters and sciences were also represented carrying a stick.
Quite recently, an etymology has been proposed which would link the term ḥartom to the Assyrian word harutu (scepter), found in inscriptions designating the scepter {p.111} carried by kings. Yet the scepter could very well have received this name because it resembled the stylus and designated the king as Chief-Scholar of his kingdom: as legislator, possessor of the magical sciences, and uerrier (Cfr. stylus and stylet). This wand, which became a divining or magic-wand, indicated his kingship over inhabitants of the Earth and Spirit-World.
Later, we shall see Daniel had the title and dignity of rab-hartummim (4:6) or ‘Chief-of-Letters’. When speaking of the Hebrew Prophet, it is needless to say this term must be taken in its special, original and etymological sense, not in that general and quite secondary sense of ‘Diviner’ or ‘Enchanter’.
The 'aššafım (1:20; 2:27; 4:4) were presumed to be astrologers, enchanters, magicians, etc. Aben-Esra translates this term as refa'im (doctors) and Theodotion as magoi. Saadia and Kimchi explain it as 'astronomers, observers of the stars' (probably attaching this term to zafah: he observed, spied); the LXX (Venetian Greek) translate by astronomos; the Vatican edition by magous, and the Chigi manuscript by pharmakous. For Lengerke, the 'aššafım are conjurors (die Beschwörer). But the Greek of Alexandria seems to have captured the true etymological meaning of the name by rendering it as philosophous. Indeed, the aš-šaf was the Babylonian sophos, who studied the superior, admirable, difficult and demonic things, as Aristotle says: τά καὶ περιττὰ μὲν καὶ θαυμαστὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ καὶ δαιμόνια (Ethic., 6,7).
Much too influenced by rationalists of his day, Calmet incorrectly expressed himself about this term: "The root of Asaphim is not found in Chaldean. Some clever people (Grotius) pretend this term comes from the Greek Sophos. The Septuagint and the Vulgate have very well rendered it by Magi: they were the philosophers of that country. So this name was very honorable" (Hoc loco). However, this commentator could easily have found an etymology for this word in the Semitic languages. Moreover, he notes the author of Ecclesiastes 6:23, seems to derive Sophia from the Hebrew XXX ‘hide’). Without stopping at this etymology, we shall observe that Greek critics have supported the thesis of the scholars whose prejudices made D. Calmet tremble. Dr. Williams (Introduction to P.S. Deprez, Daniel; or, The Apocalypse of the Old Testament [1865], p.xxiiii) believes that the term 'aššafım (the Wise-Men, diviners) could only be the Greek word sophos. He might have known, however, that the Greeks took philosophy from the ‘barbarians’ {p.112} that is, from the Babylonians, so it is natural to think the word traveled as such. But we cannot dwell on this point here. It is sufficient to recall that Pusey has proven the word 'aššuf has a certain Aramaic origin. Indeed, this root initially had the meaning of ‘to speak in a low voice, mysteriously.’ This meaning is preserved in the Syriac 'ašef; and it is found in Hebrew words našaf, našam, saaf, and in the Arabic nasafa (to speak low, secretly), the meaning of which reappears in the Arabic nasifo, clandestine preservation, secret, hidden thing). This root then meant ‘to fascinate, to enchant,’ to whisper certain formulas that were supposed to have a mysterious influence and extraordinary power. Thus the Hebrew word lahas first had the meaning of ‘to speak low’ and then that of enchanting, conjuring. The noun 'aššaf very well designated the man who possessed a secret, mysterious science transmitted in a manner which Pythagoras had borrowed from his teachers. Indeed, it is known that Pythagoreans communicated their teaching by secret signs. Basically and originally, 'aššafım were scholars in abstruse, philosophical and theological sciences: the 'aššafım were above all theosophists.
Moreover, it should not be ignore that the aššaf (like later Neo-Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists) fell into superstitious practices also, and that this name designated one who worked enchantments: particularly, one who charmed snakes. The Assyrian word a-si-pu was discovered which translates as ‘conjurer’. This name became synonymous with ‘enchanter’: it designated men in charge of repelling evil spirits, using incantations, prayers or imprecations. From these explanations, it still follows that the word 'ašaf (alef is a simple aspiration which could have passed for the Greek article ó) is probably identical to the word Sophos, and that it is completely wrong that Daniel borrowed it from the Greeks. On the contrary, the Greek word can be assumed a simple transcription of the Hebrew word.
The mekaššfım (XXX) were probably a particular type of enchanter. St. Jerome translates this term as malefici; he believes they used sacrificial victims' blood in their magical operations and that they used corpses to ascertain the future. Menochius, Tirin, Grotius imagine those evoking souls of the dead by their enchantments were necromancers. According to Lengerke, this term means ‘magician’ {p.113} (Zauberer). In Syriac the root kašaf means ‘to whisper, to speak in a low voice’. Therefore, the original meaning of mekaššfım would indicate 'men who spoke low while reciting mysterious words'. In Arabic, kašaf means detexit, denudavit future {=disclosed, uncovered the future}; and in this case, mekaššfım would designate ‘revelators of future things’.
The Casdim or Chaldeans (Assyrian frequently changes a sibilant before a dental into an l; cf. Jules Oppert, Éléments de la Grammaire Assyrienne [1868] p.5) were once a tribe distinguished by religious and superstitious knowledge. Later on, in addition to its ethnic meaning, this name, took on a restricted meaning and designated more particularly a caste particularly devoted to magical practices. This is the sense Daniel takes for the term, here: Casdim were the official interpreters of dreams and omens. In later Antiquity, among the Greeks and Romans, fortune-tellers and magicians were called 'Chaldeans'. The name Casdim was perhaps not so debased in Daniel's time. It referred to a priestly and learned caste which had become preponderant in Babylon after the Twentieth Century’s reformation {i.e. c.1850 BC}. This priestly caste came from the conquering race of Casdim or Chaldeans; however, they did not concentrate all sciences under their control. The Casdim seem to have formed a priestly caste of its own. But next to it, besides this priestly college, there were scientific colleges whose attributions were all different. We will not pause to search for an etymology of the name of the Casdim.
The one imagined by Saadia (as demons כְשֵׁדִים) is no better than Scheuchzer's. A. Scheuchzer {in M. Heidenheim's Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für englisch-theologische Forschung und Kritik, Vol. 4., No. 4 (1868)} merely changes Khasd into Khsad1 - which becomes Zend Khsaeta {=fiery red} identical to the Sanskrit Kshatriya {=authority; Red} - and the name 'Casdim' would mean 'the dominators' or 'warriors'. It costs nothing more to identify the Sanskrit stem with the Aramaic schalat (to dominate), which has exactly the same meaning, and to recall the Casdim name with that of the Scythians. We cannot take these linkages seriously. In our opinion, the word 'Casdim' derives from the Assyrian Kasid (acquirer, conqueror). It was the name of a Semitic tribe which conquered the southern part of the Euphrates-Tigris basin and adopted the writing and part of the language and religion of the conquered people, just as Tatar, Mongol or Turkish conquerors were yoked to the writing, language and beliefs of China or Islam. {p.114} The terms Casd-im and Chald-æi are two collateral forms, whose origin we have explained.
Further on, Daniel (5:7; 2), speaks of a class he designates by the term gazrin (See at the place indicated). Nor does the Prophet mention here the hakkim or Wise-Men (Aramaic: hakkim, wise; Hebrew: hakam, wise, prudent, skilful, experienced), of whom he speaks elsewhere (2:12,21; 4:3; 5:7,8). Translators who have rendered this term (and various words mentioned above) as ‘magi’ demonstrate they were more interested in Persians than Chaldeans. It is also worth noting the term ‘Wise-Man’ included all classes of scholars and literates of Babylonia.
Moreover, we must repeat here what we have mentioned about the names of magistrates: the etymology of the Wise-Men’s names does not always indicate the special meaning of each of these names. Translators have interpreted them according to Greek customs which copied Asia and Egypt on so many points.
Objections.
It would have been surprising if critics had not raised objections to these classes of Babylonian sages. It is therefore claimed Daniel did not know the organization of ‘the priestly and learned caste of Babylon.’ But it will be easy to see the rationalists' objections on this subject are groundless: they are based only on ignorance of these critics.
{p.115} Objection to the limited meaning of the term ‘Casdim’.
Some rationalist critics have objected to the limited usage or restricted meaning of the term ‘Casdim’ as designating a single section of the ‘Magi.’ Wilhelm Gesenius (Der Prophet Jesaia, Vol.2 [1821] p.355) questions the limited meaning of this term. However, it is used by Daniel (2:2,10; 5:17; 2) to designate a class of Wise-Men of Babylon; and in Ctesias the word ‘Chaldean’ means the highest class of magi. It is true, as Gesenius and Hitzig say, the term Chaldean is used in a general sense (Ch.2:4; 4). But Lengerke rightly replies that this is a shorthand way of speaking and that a dominant class is named to avoid recapitulating or detailing various groups again (p.50).
Objection to the number of classes specified in this verse.
Bleek (in Schleiermacher’s Zeitschr. Heft 111. § 25 c.1860) doubts there were different classes. But even if one were to claim the Casdim were a large priestly and learned class, one would still have to admit their various groups. Indeed, apart from astrology practiced by the Casdim, it is known there were diviners versed in the art of predicting the future by bird-flight, explaining dreams and prodigies, and inspecting the entrails of victims, as neatly explained by Diodorus of Sicily (11.29). Now, these various subjects could very well indicate different classes, such as we have recognized among Greeks. Also Lenormant says with reason: "The Greek writer thus points out to us among the Chaldeans the existence, in the state of a study pushed very forward and regular in its procedures, {p.116} of the four principal divisions which one recognized to the divinatory art in the classical world, {1} the science of auguries and auspices sought in the observation of birds, {2} the haruspicy according to the entrails of sacrificial victims, {3} the study and explanation of prodigies or signs of any nature, τέρατα {=monstrosities}, which strictly speaking constituted the mantic practice {i.e. prophecy/divination}, and finally {4} the interpretation of dreams. His statement is confirmed by the testimony of fragments we receive from augural literature, in cuneiform script, because there we find examples of all these kinds of divination sufficient to give us a certain idea of the manner in which one practiced them." (La Divination et la Science des Présages chez les Chaldéens: les Sciences Occultes en Asie [1875], p.51ff). The same Assyriologist also tells us: “It is important to note that the division we find in the astrological and divinatory books of the Chaldeans corresponds, in the data of the biblical Book of Daniel, to two special classes of the Chaldean caste, the chasdim and the gazrim, the astrologers and the soothsayers, just as we have already noted, in a previous work La Magie chez les Chaldéens et les Origines Accadiennes, p.13), that three other classes corresponded to the three divisions of the magic books" (16. p.49).
It is moreover evident that not all Chaldean scholars simultaneously cultivated all the various branches of true or superstitious knowledge of their time. Moreover, one cannot help recognizing that - besides astrologers, diviners, magicians and sorcerers - there were men who possessed positive notions of astronomy, meteorology, physics, chemistry, and medicine; we also know there were engineers, architects, and scribes. Furthermore, we see Lengerke granting his pseudo-Daniel a certain knowledge of the priestly classes of Babylonia; which, he says, is not surprising, for the Babylonian ‘magi’ persisted long after Christ, and there were relations between Palestine and Babylonia. Nevertheless, the rationalist critic claims to have discovered here the error of a writer not quite familiar with Chaldean matters (p.49). He therefore points out historical contradictions about the ‘Magi,’ and finds the author has in this connection mixed the true with the false. The alleged historical errors concerning the Magi concern: firstly, the number of the five classes, and secondly, the introduction of Daniel and his friends into a closed pagan-caste given to superstitious practices (pp.47,51). We shall answer this last objection a little further on (see vs. 48).
{p.117} Lengerke thus accuses Daniel of being mistaken in listing five sections or classes of magi. "The rest of antiquity protests against this assertion (dagegen spricht das übrige Alterthum), for all the ancient writers have known only three orders of priests or magi." To prove this, the critic has recourse to Indians, Medes, Persians and Bactrians, and he could just as easily have had recourse to the Catholic clergy (bishops, priests and deacons). Hence the argument of the rationalist critic: the Persian magi had only three orders; therefore there were only three orders or classes of Wise-Men among Babylonians. Nor does it merit anything better to confuse the Median magi of Daniel's day with Mazdean or Zoroastrian magi of a more recent period (see Introd., pp.586-608).
The authorities for "the uniform report of all antiquity" on which Lengerke relies are St. Jerome (contra Jov., I, p. 55), and Porphyry of Abstin., IV, 16). But in reality, neither gives his own testimony; they quote Eubulus. A rhetorician of this name is known to have lived about 370 BC; another Eubulus lived about 200 years before this same Christian era. It is undoubtedly the latter who said, in his Mithra history: "the magi were divided into three classes." But at what time was that division made? In the time of Eubulus, or in some earlier period? Among Babylonians in Nebuchadnezzar's day, or among Persians at the time of Darius, son of Hystaspe? Obviously, Eubulus has Persians in mind, since his book is about Mithras. But we may ask: what does Persian usage of the 3rd or 2nd C. BC prove against Babylonian practice in the 7th C. BC? It is a division completely alien to the Chaldean sages. The Zend-Avesta speaks of two classes - it is not known at what time - the herbeds (candidates for the priesthood) and the mobeds (priests). But this Persian hierarchy was established and clearly defined only in a later period, and it has no connection with the organization of Aramaic sages of Babylonia. Daniel speaks of the latter, and therefore the Persian usage {p.118} is of little importance. He speaks of the Chaldeans. It is impermissible to reason this way: the Persian magi formed three groups, therefore the Chaldean sages did not comprise five classes. So Lengerke is not entitled to conclude the Book of Daniel's author is a writer of a recent age, and of a remote country where tradition had preserved no more than a vague, uncertain testimony of the past. This critic has succumbed to the mania of 'Parsism', which is seeing Zoroastrianism everywhere. Since the middle of the 18th C. AD, anti-Christians have thought the best way to see clearly into something is to muddle it; by following this method they have confused a relatively modern religion (which only became a completed religion in the time of the Sassanids) with the Babylonians' religion under Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Lengerke has come to confuse classes of Babylonian sages (Casdim, etc.) with the magi who formed a Mede caste, whose worship and beliefs were reformed in name under Zoroastrianism, at the time of the Achaemenids, around the 5th C. BC. This observation is sufficient to show that texts relating to these magi prove nothing against texts of Daniel relating to Babylonian sages. Moreover, the Assyriological discoveries would not contradict testimony of the Prophet, since according to Fr. Lenormant, the "five classes of doctors (in the Book of Daniel) correspond exactly to the five great divisions which we have observed in the surviving fragments of sacred, astrological, divinatory and magical books" (La Divination, etc., p.189).
It unnecessary to think that magical practice absorbed all the activity of Chaldean sages, however. Among them were scholars, writers in the archaic style (Assyro-Accadian), engineers, architects, mechanics, physicists, men versed in political, administrative, military knowledge; simply, besides those who led the religious cult and devoted themselves to superstitious magic, there were scholars who were depositories of all the knowledge of their day. There were schools or academies in Babylon (in Borsippa, in Sippara, etc). It is known that Chaldean astronomers possessed very advanced knowledge: they knew the true dimension of the earth, its movement around the sun, the precession of the equinoxes, and they calculated eclipses. It was only natural that such varied scholars should form different groups and be designated by special names.
{p.119}
Therefore, Reuss was wrong for repudiating Lengerke's connection by pretending not to take seriously these named classes of Babylonian sages mentioned by Daniel. "For the author, all these terms could have been synonymous or approximate, and we can safely ignore the three classes of priests mentioned by Classical writers" (La Bible, etc., Vol.7, p.233). Nothing proves the names used by Daniel are synonymous, but it is quite true the three orders of Zoroastrianism are irrelevant here. In 7th C BC Mesopotamia, Casdim were the dominant race, and some of them had formed one of the classes (probably the priestly class); but it was all of these classes together which constituted that entirety designated by the name ‘sages’ (hakkimey: - II, 12, 48) of Babylon.
Nor will it be pointless to note here an unforgivable confusion which fanciful critics have made of Nebuchadnezzar's ‘Wise-Men’ of Babylon with Medo-Persian ‘magi’ subsequent to Cyrus. It is true Greeks and the Latins have misunderstood the former as ‘magi,’ attributing, in a retroactively, the name for Persianized Medo-European diviners and enchanters to classes of Chaldean-Babylonian scholars and magicians. (One might have said the same of Greek, Egyptian, Carthaginian, or Roman magicians.) This name took on a vague meaning found in the word ‘magician’. Yet it seems that no Chaldean class of ‘Wise-Men’ were called ‘magicians’. It is true Jeremiah (39:13) does mention a personage who bore the title of rb mg (XXX), who the Massoretes made rab mag. This last word has been identified as the name for ‘magus’. But it has now been discovered one of the chief dignitaries of the Babylonian government was named rubu emga. He is considered a chief of the priestly caste, one of the principal agents of the Babylonian cult. However, we do not know which modern Orientalist assures us this character was the Chief of the Fleet. In any case, this hybrid qualification includes the Assyrian word rubu (= Hebrew rab, great) and the Accadian em-ga (glorious, august). Jeremiah simply wrote the consonants of this compound word, conforming to the Jewish way of writing. The name ‘magus’, in fact, belongs to a {p.120} tribe and caste of Medes which appeared in Babylonia only after the Persian conquest. Herodotus mentions this tribe, but it is not known whether they were Turanian or Aryan. There was certainly a Turanian ethnic layer in Media, but it is no less true that there was also an Aryan tribe in this region which eventually became dominant. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, a pseudo-Daniel would not have failed to call the Wise-Men of Babylon ‘magi’. But the real Daniel was careful not to confuse the Median magi with the Babylon ‘Wise –Men’ at the time of the Captivity.
Objection to the convocation of these classes.
Bleek finds it odd that Nebuchadnezzar should have summoned all the classes of 'magi' to explain a dream, when it would have sufficed to call together that class especially concerned with this subject, namely the oneiroscopes. It was replied that the King (having forgotten particulars of the dream and understanding the difficulty of the problem whose solution he wished to obtain) had decided to summon all the wise-men for this reason: that what one class could not do, the other could. Lengerke rejected the allegation of his Rationalist colleague and does not find it surprising that, the King was not satisfied to summon those who rightly concerned with this branch of divinatory practice, in order to obtain the revelation or indication of this dream. It is understandable that when one type of divination failed to produce results, another method had to be used. It might also be necessary to have recourse to astrology, the evocation of spirits and other practices of the mantic art.
{p.121}
Also, Hartummim or sacred scribes were particularly needed to interpret the written signs, sounds, voices, oracles of the gods which might be part of a dream, offering mysterious things necessary to fathom. Thus, it is understood a hurtom had to be summoned on occasion. Indeed, one of those dreams which Greeks called ‘compound’ (σύνθετος = synthetic) often presented itself, which contained several distinct omens, and whose various parts had to be interpreted in isolation (Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 4.35).
Daniel accused of plagiarism and forgery.
Gesenius has claimed that probably the author of the Book of Daniel simply assembled various designations of classes of people he enumerates, as they are mentioned in other places in the Bible; and Lengerke says this is ‘what he undoubtedly did’ (p.47). But on what basis do these critics make this accusation? On none. They say that pseudo-Daniel only imitated chapters in which Moses describes ‘magicians’ of Egypt (Genesis 41:24; Exodus 8:11). It is true that among the Egyptians there were functions analogous to those of the ‘Wise-Men of Chaldea’, and it is not surprising Moses designated the ‘Wise-Men’ on the banks of the Nile by names taken from the language of his people. Abraham first spoke the Aramaic language in use during his time in Mesopotamia, so his descendants called the scholars of Egypt by names of parallel classes in Chaldea. Thus, among the Magicians who fought against Moses we find mention of hartummim (Genesis 41:8,24; Exodus 7:10,12; 8:3,14,15; 9:11). This term is not found in other books of the Old Testament. Moses also mentions mecaššfım (Exodus 7:11). It is not surprising Daniel found such scholars in Babylon, and that he referred to them by names they had already held before the Terahites’ emigration. But Moses enumerates eight different classes of magicians (Deuteronomy 18:9, 10,11), which Daniel does not mention. On the other hand, the latter speaks of the Casdim, the 'aššafım and the gazrin, who are not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Besides, what would the mention of these same terms in other passages of the Bible prove against the Book of Daniel? In no way would it follow that these classes did not exist in Babylon at the time of the Exile.
All critics (and Cäsar von Lengerke himself) admit there were divisions and classes among the Wise-Men of Chaldea. It is known there were sections among Egyptian ‘priests’ (Exodus 7: 11; Herodotus 2:36, 2:58), and it is not surprising when we consider the diversity of functions these scholars had to fulfill. In Babylon there were even special colleges.
Daniel mentions four classes (2:2, 4:4,5:11), three classes (5:7), and one single ruling class (2:4,10). Here, it should suffice to give a short explanation of the titles for such ‘Wise-Men,’ scholars, priests, astrologers, etc., of Babylonia.
The class of hartummim (XX) occupies primary rank. The Septuagint aptly translates this term as ἱερογραμματεῖς (sacred scribes). Lengerke {in Das Buch Daniel [1835]} adopted this sentiment and translated 'hartummim' as die Bilderschriftkenner {Hieroglyphic Expert}. In fact, these people were scholars, scribes, royal notaries. This term derives from XXX (stamp, chisel, stylus, writing instrument). A hartom was the scholar who knew how to read and write characters of the classical and sacred language, the one who applied himself to books, tablets, and special cuneiform writing reserved for the learned classes. He was the interpreter of sovereign orders and secret laws of the empire. Many scribes were employed to copy old texts and to prepare new ones. Thus, strictly speaking, hartummim were ‘men of the stamp’, people of letters, literates. They formed {p.110} a literary society. Also, we see that the god Nabu or Nebo is represented with the writing-punch or stylus (Assyrian: hatļu, punch to engrave, to write; reed, scepter), because he was regarded as the Inventor of Writing. From this meaning of the name offered by Daniel, we see that it has been mis-translated as ‘diviners, horoscope-readers, fortune-tellers, magicians or astrologers’ (Vulgate harioli; Theodotion, ἐπαοιδοὺς = enchanters; LXX, σοφιστὰς). It is true many hierogrammatists (or ‘scholars educated in literature and the science of books’) must have been involved in magic. The name hartummim could thus also be taken in an unfavorable direction (like that of ‘philosopher’, which often indicates only dangerous sophists); simply, it indicated magicians, sorcerers, enchanters, and individuals who meddled with matters in the field of magic.
Hartummim, properly called, undoubtedly carried in their hands a symbol of their profession, an instrument similar to the one they used for writing. This instrument would later become a hallmark which distinguished all those concerned with true (or false) sciences: with astrology and astronomy, with occult sciences, etc. Thus, the Roman augur held a short stick in his right hand, curved at one end called lituus. We also find this usage in Egypt. Among Greeks, the religious poets of the First Age, the Rhapsodes who sang of the deeds of gods and heroes, who composed religious hymns, and mythological stories, they carried in hand a tree-branch (laurel or myrtle). The name of these scholars, which is given the meaning of ‘singers of stitched lays’ (ῥαπτῶν ἐπέων), seems rather to come from ῥάβδος (rod) which was the sign of their profession. This etymology, confirmed by Callimachus (Fragm.138) and by Apuleius (Florid.122), was adopted by Boileau who, in his Réflexions critiques sur Longin, calls the Rhapsodes ‘singers of the branch.’ Pindar and Plato make Homer a rhapsode, and it is in allusion to this name that this poet is represented on a medal of Smyrna as carrying a laurel branch in his hand. For the same reason, several gods regarded as protectors of letters and sciences were also represented carrying a stick.
Quite recently, an etymology has been proposed which would link the term ḥartom to the Assyrian word harutu (scepter), found in inscriptions designating the scepter {p.111} carried by kings. Yet the scepter could very well have received this name because it resembled the stylus and designated the king as Chief-Scholar of his kingdom: as legislator, possessor of the magical sciences, and uerrier (Cfr. stylus and stylet). This wand, which became a divining or magic-wand, indicated his kingship over inhabitants of the Earth and Spirit-World.
Later, we shall see Daniel had the title and dignity of rab-hartummim (4:6) or ‘Chief-of-Letters’. When speaking of the Hebrew Prophet, it is needless to say this term must be taken in its special, original and etymological sense, not in that general and quite secondary sense of ‘Diviner’ or ‘Enchanter’.
The 'aššafım (1:20; 2:27; 4:4) were presumed to be astrologers, enchanters, magicians, etc. Aben-Esra translates this term as refa'im (doctors) and Theodotion as magoi. Saadia and Kimchi explain it as 'astronomers, observers of the stars' (probably attaching this term to zafah: he observed, spied); the LXX (Venetian Greek) translate by astronomos; the Vatican edition by magous, and the Chigi manuscript by pharmakous. For Lengerke, the 'aššafım are conjurors (die Beschwörer). But the Greek of Alexandria seems to have captured the true etymological meaning of the name by rendering it as philosophous. Indeed, the aš-šaf was the Babylonian sophos, who studied the superior, admirable, difficult and demonic things, as Aristotle says: τά καὶ περιττὰ μὲν καὶ θαυμαστὰ καὶ χαλεπὰ καὶ δαιμόνια (Ethic., 6,7).
Much too influenced by rationalists of his day, Calmet incorrectly expressed himself about this term: "The root of Asaphim is not found in Chaldean. Some clever people (Grotius) pretend this term comes from the Greek Sophos. The Septuagint and the Vulgate have very well rendered it by Magi: they were the philosophers of that country. So this name was very honorable" (Hoc loco). However, this commentator could easily have found an etymology for this word in the Semitic languages. Moreover, he notes the author of Ecclesiastes 6:23, seems to derive Sophia from the Hebrew XXX ‘hide’). Without stopping at this etymology, we shall observe that Greek critics have supported the thesis of the scholars whose prejudices made D. Calmet tremble. Dr. Williams (Introduction to P.S. Deprez, Daniel; or, The Apocalypse of the Old Testament [1865], p.xxiiii) believes that the term 'aššafım (the Wise-Men, diviners) could only be the Greek word sophos. He might have known, however, that the Greeks took philosophy from the ‘barbarians’ {p.112} that is, from the Babylonians, so it is natural to think the word traveled as such. But we cannot dwell on this point here. It is sufficient to recall that Pusey has proven the word 'aššuf has a certain Aramaic origin. Indeed, this root initially had the meaning of ‘to speak in a low voice, mysteriously.’ This meaning is preserved in the Syriac 'ašef; and it is found in Hebrew words našaf, našam, saaf, and in the Arabic nasafa (to speak low, secretly), the meaning of which reappears in the Arabic nasifo, clandestine preservation, secret, hidden thing). This root then meant ‘to fascinate, to enchant,’ to whisper certain formulas that were supposed to have a mysterious influence and extraordinary power. Thus the Hebrew word lahas first had the meaning of ‘to speak low’ and then that of enchanting, conjuring. The noun 'aššaf very well designated the man who possessed a secret, mysterious science transmitted in a manner which Pythagoras had borrowed from his teachers. Indeed, it is known that Pythagoreans communicated their teaching by secret signs. Basically and originally, 'aššafım were scholars in abstruse, philosophical and theological sciences: the 'aššafım were above all theosophists.
Moreover, it should not be ignore that the aššaf (like later Neo-Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists) fell into superstitious practices also, and that this name designated one who worked enchantments: particularly, one who charmed snakes. The Assyrian word a-si-pu was discovered which translates as ‘conjurer’. This name became synonymous with ‘enchanter’: it designated men in charge of repelling evil spirits, using incantations, prayers or imprecations. From these explanations, it still follows that the word 'ašaf (alef is a simple aspiration which could have passed for the Greek article ó) is probably identical to the word Sophos, and that it is completely wrong that Daniel borrowed it from the Greeks. On the contrary, the Greek word can be assumed a simple transcription of the Hebrew word.
The mekaššfım (XXX) were probably a particular type of enchanter. St. Jerome translates this term as malefici; he believes they used sacrificial victims' blood in their magical operations and that they used corpses to ascertain the future. Menochius, Tirin, Grotius imagine those evoking souls of the dead by their enchantments were necromancers. According to Lengerke, this term means ‘magician’ {p.113} (Zauberer). In Syriac the root kašaf means ‘to whisper, to speak in a low voice’. Therefore, the original meaning of mekaššfım would indicate 'men who spoke low while reciting mysterious words'. In Arabic, kašaf means detexit, denudavit future {=disclosed, uncovered the future}; and in this case, mekaššfım would designate ‘revelators of future things’.
The Casdim or Chaldeans (Assyrian frequently changes a sibilant before a dental into an l; cf. Jules Oppert, Éléments de la Grammaire Assyrienne [1868] p.5) were once a tribe distinguished by religious and superstitious knowledge. Later on, in addition to its ethnic meaning, this name, took on a restricted meaning and designated more particularly a caste particularly devoted to magical practices. This is the sense Daniel takes for the term, here: Casdim were the official interpreters of dreams and omens. In later Antiquity, among the Greeks and Romans, fortune-tellers and magicians were called 'Chaldeans'. The name Casdim was perhaps not so debased in Daniel's time. It referred to a priestly and learned caste which had become preponderant in Babylon after the Twentieth Century’s reformation {i.e. c.1850 BC}. This priestly caste came from the conquering race of Casdim or Chaldeans; however, they did not concentrate all sciences under their control. The Casdim seem to have formed a priestly caste of its own. But next to it, besides this priestly college, there were scientific colleges whose attributions were all different. We will not pause to search for an etymology of the name of the Casdim.
The one imagined by Saadia (as demons כְשֵׁדִים) is no better than Scheuchzer's. A. Scheuchzer {in M. Heidenheim's Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für englisch-theologische Forschung und Kritik, Vol. 4., No. 4 (1868)} merely changes Khasd into Khsad1 - which becomes Zend Khsaeta {=fiery red} identical to the Sanskrit Kshatriya {=authority; Red} - and the name 'Casdim' would mean 'the dominators' or 'warriors'. It costs nothing more to identify the Sanskrit stem with the Aramaic schalat (to dominate), which has exactly the same meaning, and to recall the Casdim name with that of the Scythians. We cannot take these linkages seriously. In our opinion, the word 'Casdim' derives from the Assyrian Kasid (acquirer, conqueror). It was the name of a Semitic tribe which conquered the southern part of the Euphrates-Tigris basin and adopted the writing and part of the language and religion of the conquered people, just as Tatar, Mongol or Turkish conquerors were yoked to the writing, language and beliefs of China or Islam. {p.114} The terms Casd-im and Chald-æi are two collateral forms, whose origin we have explained.
Further on, Daniel (5:7; 2), speaks of a class he designates by the term gazrin (See at the place indicated). Nor does the Prophet mention here the hakkim or Wise-Men (Aramaic: hakkim, wise; Hebrew: hakam, wise, prudent, skilful, experienced), of whom he speaks elsewhere (2:12,21; 4:3; 5:7,8). Translators who have rendered this term (and various words mentioned above) as ‘magi’ demonstrate they were more interested in Persians than Chaldeans. It is also worth noting the term ‘Wise-Man’ included all classes of scholars and literates of Babylonia.
Moreover, we must repeat here what we have mentioned about the names of magistrates: the etymology of the Wise-Men’s names does not always indicate the special meaning of each of these names. Translators have interpreted them according to Greek customs which copied Asia and Egypt on so many points.
Objections.
It would have been surprising if critics had not raised objections to these classes of Babylonian sages. It is therefore claimed Daniel did not know the organization of ‘the priestly and learned caste of Babylon.’ But it will be easy to see the rationalists' objections on this subject are groundless: they are based only on ignorance of these critics.
{p.115} Objection to the limited meaning of the term ‘Casdim’.
Some rationalist critics have objected to the limited usage or restricted meaning of the term ‘Casdim’ as designating a single section of the ‘Magi.’ Wilhelm Gesenius (Der Prophet Jesaia, Vol.2 [1821] p.355) questions the limited meaning of this term. However, it is used by Daniel (2:2,10; 5:17; 2) to designate a class of Wise-Men of Babylon; and in Ctesias the word ‘Chaldean’ means the highest class of magi. It is true, as Gesenius and Hitzig say, the term Chaldean is used in a general sense (Ch.2:4; 4). But Lengerke rightly replies that this is a shorthand way of speaking and that a dominant class is named to avoid recapitulating or detailing various groups again (p.50).
Objection to the number of classes specified in this verse.
Bleek (in Schleiermacher’s Zeitschr. Heft 111. § 25 c.1860) doubts there were different classes. But even if one were to claim the Casdim were a large priestly and learned class, one would still have to admit their various groups. Indeed, apart from astrology practiced by the Casdim, it is known there were diviners versed in the art of predicting the future by bird-flight, explaining dreams and prodigies, and inspecting the entrails of victims, as neatly explained by Diodorus of Sicily (11.29). Now, these various subjects could very well indicate different classes, such as we have recognized among Greeks. Also Lenormant says with reason: "The Greek writer thus points out to us among the Chaldeans the existence, in the state of a study pushed very forward and regular in its procedures, {p.116} of the four principal divisions which one recognized to the divinatory art in the classical world, {1} the science of auguries and auspices sought in the observation of birds, {2} the haruspicy according to the entrails of sacrificial victims, {3} the study and explanation of prodigies or signs of any nature, τέρατα {=monstrosities}, which strictly speaking constituted the mantic practice {i.e. prophecy/divination}, and finally {4} the interpretation of dreams. His statement is confirmed by the testimony of fragments we receive from augural literature, in cuneiform script, because there we find examples of all these kinds of divination sufficient to give us a certain idea of the manner in which one practiced them." (La Divination et la Science des Présages chez les Chaldéens: les Sciences Occultes en Asie [1875], p.51ff). The same Assyriologist also tells us: “It is important to note that the division we find in the astrological and divinatory books of the Chaldeans corresponds, in the data of the biblical Book of Daniel, to two special classes of the Chaldean caste, the chasdim and the gazrim, the astrologers and the soothsayers, just as we have already noted, in a previous work La Magie chez les Chaldéens et les Origines Accadiennes, p.13), that three other classes corresponded to the three divisions of the magic books" (16. p.49).
It is moreover evident that not all Chaldean scholars simultaneously cultivated all the various branches of true or superstitious knowledge of their time. Moreover, one cannot help recognizing that - besides astrologers, diviners, magicians and sorcerers - there were men who possessed positive notions of astronomy, meteorology, physics, chemistry, and medicine; we also know there were engineers, architects, and scribes. Furthermore, we see Lengerke granting his pseudo-Daniel a certain knowledge of the priestly classes of Babylonia; which, he says, is not surprising, for the Babylonian ‘magi’ persisted long after Christ, and there were relations between Palestine and Babylonia. Nevertheless, the rationalist critic claims to have discovered here the error of a writer not quite familiar with Chaldean matters (p.49). He therefore points out historical contradictions about the ‘Magi,’ and finds the author has in this connection mixed the true with the false. The alleged historical errors concerning the Magi concern: firstly, the number of the five classes, and secondly, the introduction of Daniel and his friends into a closed pagan-caste given to superstitious practices (pp.47,51). We shall answer this last objection a little further on (see vs. 48).
{p.117} Lengerke thus accuses Daniel of being mistaken in listing five sections or classes of magi. "The rest of antiquity protests against this assertion (dagegen spricht das übrige Alterthum), for all the ancient writers have known only three orders of priests or magi." To prove this, the critic has recourse to Indians, Medes, Persians and Bactrians, and he could just as easily have had recourse to the Catholic clergy (bishops, priests and deacons). Hence the argument of the rationalist critic: the Persian magi had only three orders; therefore there were only three orders or classes of Wise-Men among Babylonians. Nor does it merit anything better to confuse the Median magi of Daniel's day with Mazdean or Zoroastrian magi of a more recent period (see Introd., pp.586-608).
The authorities for "the uniform report of all antiquity" on which Lengerke relies are St. Jerome (contra Jov., I, p. 55), and Porphyry of Abstin., IV, 16). But in reality, neither gives his own testimony; they quote Eubulus. A rhetorician of this name is known to have lived about 370 BC; another Eubulus lived about 200 years before this same Christian era. It is undoubtedly the latter who said, in his Mithra history: "the magi were divided into three classes." But at what time was that division made? In the time of Eubulus, or in some earlier period? Among Babylonians in Nebuchadnezzar's day, or among Persians at the time of Darius, son of Hystaspe? Obviously, Eubulus has Persians in mind, since his book is about Mithras. But we may ask: what does Persian usage of the 3rd or 2nd C. BC prove against Babylonian practice in the 7th C. BC? It is a division completely alien to the Chaldean sages. The Zend-Avesta speaks of two classes - it is not known at what time - the herbeds (candidates for the priesthood) and the mobeds (priests). But this Persian hierarchy was established and clearly defined only in a later period, and it has no connection with the organization of Aramaic sages of Babylonia. Daniel speaks of the latter, and therefore the Persian usage {p.118} is of little importance. He speaks of the Chaldeans. It is impermissible to reason this way: the Persian magi formed three groups, therefore the Chaldean sages did not comprise five classes. So Lengerke is not entitled to conclude the Book of Daniel's author is a writer of a recent age, and of a remote country where tradition had preserved no more than a vague, uncertain testimony of the past. This critic has succumbed to the mania of 'Parsism', which is seeing Zoroastrianism everywhere. Since the middle of the 18th C. AD, anti-Christians have thought the best way to see clearly into something is to muddle it; by following this method they have confused a relatively modern religion (which only became a completed religion in the time of the Sassanids) with the Babylonians' religion under Nebuchadnezzar. Thus Lengerke has come to confuse classes of Babylonian sages (Casdim, etc.) with the magi who formed a Mede caste, whose worship and beliefs were reformed in name under Zoroastrianism, at the time of the Achaemenids, around the 5th C. BC. This observation is sufficient to show that texts relating to these magi prove nothing against texts of Daniel relating to Babylonian sages. Moreover, the Assyriological discoveries would not contradict testimony of the Prophet, since according to Fr. Lenormant, the "five classes of doctors (in the Book of Daniel) correspond exactly to the five great divisions which we have observed in the surviving fragments of sacred, astrological, divinatory and magical books" (La Divination, etc., p.189).
It unnecessary to think that magical practice absorbed all the activity of Chaldean sages, however. Among them were scholars, writers in the archaic style (Assyro-Accadian), engineers, architects, mechanics, physicists, men versed in political, administrative, military knowledge; simply, besides those who led the religious cult and devoted themselves to superstitious magic, there were scholars who were depositories of all the knowledge of their day. There were schools or academies in Babylon (in Borsippa, in Sippara, etc). It is known that Chaldean astronomers possessed very advanced knowledge: they knew the true dimension of the earth, its movement around the sun, the precession of the equinoxes, and they calculated eclipses. It was only natural that such varied scholars should form different groups and be designated by special names.
{p.119}
Therefore, Reuss was wrong for repudiating Lengerke's connection by pretending not to take seriously these named classes of Babylonian sages mentioned by Daniel. "For the author, all these terms could have been synonymous or approximate, and we can safely ignore the three classes of priests mentioned by Classical writers" (La Bible, etc., Vol.7, p.233). Nothing proves the names used by Daniel are synonymous, but it is quite true the three orders of Zoroastrianism are irrelevant here. In 7th C BC Mesopotamia, Casdim were the dominant race, and some of them had formed one of the classes (probably the priestly class); but it was all of these classes together which constituted that entirety designated by the name ‘sages’ (hakkimey: - II, 12, 48) of Babylon.
Nor will it be pointless to note here an unforgivable confusion which fanciful critics have made of Nebuchadnezzar's ‘Wise-Men’ of Babylon with Medo-Persian ‘magi’ subsequent to Cyrus. It is true Greeks and the Latins have misunderstood the former as ‘magi,’ attributing, in a retroactively, the name for Persianized Medo-European diviners and enchanters to classes of Chaldean-Babylonian scholars and magicians. (One might have said the same of Greek, Egyptian, Carthaginian, or Roman magicians.) This name took on a vague meaning found in the word ‘magician’. Yet it seems that no Chaldean class of ‘Wise-Men’ were called ‘magicians’. It is true Jeremiah (39:13) does mention a personage who bore the title of rb mg (XXX), who the Massoretes made rab mag. This last word has been identified as the name for ‘magus’. But it has now been discovered one of the chief dignitaries of the Babylonian government was named rubu emga. He is considered a chief of the priestly caste, one of the principal agents of the Babylonian cult. However, we do not know which modern Orientalist assures us this character was the Chief of the Fleet. In any case, this hybrid qualification includes the Assyrian word rubu (= Hebrew rab, great) and the Accadian em-ga (glorious, august). Jeremiah simply wrote the consonants of this compound word, conforming to the Jewish way of writing. The name ‘magus’, in fact, belongs to a {p.120} tribe and caste of Medes which appeared in Babylonia only after the Persian conquest. Herodotus mentions this tribe, but it is not known whether they were Turanian or Aryan. There was certainly a Turanian ethnic layer in Media, but it is no less true that there was also an Aryan tribe in this region which eventually became dominant. In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, a pseudo-Daniel would not have failed to call the Wise-Men of Babylon ‘magi’. But the real Daniel was careful not to confuse the Median magi with the Babylon ‘Wise –Men’ at the time of the Captivity.
Objection to the convocation of these classes.
Bleek finds it odd that Nebuchadnezzar should have summoned all the classes of 'magi' to explain a dream, when it would have sufficed to call together that class especially concerned with this subject, namely the oneiroscopes. It was replied that the King (having forgotten particulars of the dream and understanding the difficulty of the problem whose solution he wished to obtain) had decided to summon all the wise-men for this reason: that what one class could not do, the other could. Lengerke rejected the allegation of his Rationalist colleague and does not find it surprising that, the King was not satisfied to summon those who rightly concerned with this branch of divinatory practice, in order to obtain the revelation or indication of this dream. It is understandable that when one type of divination failed to produce results, another method had to be used. It might also be necessary to have recourse to astrology, the evocation of spirits and other practices of the mantic art.
{p.121}
Also, Hartummim or sacred scribes were particularly needed to interpret the written signs, sounds, voices, oracles of the gods which might be part of a dream, offering mysterious things necessary to fathom. Thus, it is understood a hurtom had to be summoned on occasion. Indeed, one of those dreams which Greeks called ‘compound’ (σύνθετος = synthetic) often presented itself, which contained several distinct omens, and whose various parts had to be interpreted in isolation (Cf. Artemidorus, Oneirocritica 4.35).
Daniel accused of plagiarism and forgery.
Gesenius has claimed that probably the author of the Book of Daniel simply assembled various designations of classes of people he enumerates, as they are mentioned in other places in the Bible; and Lengerke says this is ‘what he undoubtedly did’ (p.47). But on what basis do these critics make this accusation? On none. They say that pseudo-Daniel only imitated chapters in which Moses describes ‘magicians’ of Egypt (Genesis 41:24; Exodus 8:11). It is true that among the Egyptians there were functions analogous to those of the ‘Wise-Men of Chaldea’, and it is not surprising Moses designated the ‘Wise-Men’ on the banks of the Nile by names taken from the language of his people. Abraham first spoke the Aramaic language in use during his time in Mesopotamia, so his descendants called the scholars of Egypt by names of parallel classes in Chaldea. Thus, among the Magicians who fought against Moses we find mention of hartummim (Genesis 41:8,24; Exodus 7:10,12; 8:3,14,15; 9:11). This term is not found in other books of the Old Testament. Moses also mentions mecaššfım (Exodus 7:11). It is not surprising Daniel found such scholars in Babylon, and that he referred to them by names they had already held before the Terahites’ emigration. But Moses enumerates eight different classes of magicians (Deuteronomy 18:9, 10,11), which Daniel does not mention. On the other hand, the latter speaks of the Casdim, the 'aššafım and the gazrin, who are not mentioned in the Pentateuch. Besides, what would the mention of these same terms in other passages of the Bible prove against the Book of Daniel? In no way would it follow that these classes did not exist in Babylon at the time of the Exile.
1. See Edouard Secrétan, Les Assyriens. Nouvelles recherches dans le champ de l'histoire assyrienne [1871], p.36:
The Assyrians are a conquering people. Babylon, according to Ctesias, was his first conquest, but not his place of origin; their appearance in history is contemporary with and identical to that of the Khasdim. M. Scheuchzer's thesis is essentially based on philology. Without wanting to follow him to the end on this ground, we will nevertheless try to give an idea of his argument. Khasd makes Semitic plural Khasdim; now Khasd is Khsad, whence the Sanskrit makes Kshaita and the Zend Khsaeta and which, in the cuneiform inscriptions of the first kind, is transformed into Khsavathia. The Persian Khasayathias are therefore the equivalent of the Kshatriyas of India, a word which in Sanskrit designates the class of warriors. The real meaning of this word is 'ruler', and Kshatra means 'power, government'.