Notes on the Old and New Testaments

A VERY remarkable resemblance has always been observed between the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. Whatever view may be taken of the proper interpretation of these books, it is difficult to write a commentary on one of them without carefully studying the other, and without practi cally furnishing to a considerable extent an exposition of the other. There is no evidence, indeed, that John, in the Book of Revelation, intended to imitate Daniel, and yet there is so strong a resemblance in the manner in which the Divine dis closures respecting the future were made to the two writers; there is so clear a reference to the same great events in the history of the world; there is so much similarity in the symbols employed, that no commentator can well write on the one without discussing many points, and making use of many illustrations, which would be equally appropriate in an expo sition of the other.

The following Notes on the Book of Daniel were mostly written before I commenced the preparation of Notes on the Book of Revelation, though the latter volume is published first. It has thus happened that many inquiries have been started, and many subjects discussed, in connection with this book, which would otherwise have found a place in the Notes on the Book of Revelation, and that in the exposition of the latter, I have, in many places, to avoid needless repetition, done little more than refer to corresponding places in the Notes on Daniel. While I have endeavoured to make each work a complete exposition in itself, it is nevertheless true that the two volumes are designed, in some measure, to go together, and that the one is necessary to the full understanding of the other. PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 26$, 1851.

OF Daniel little more is known, or can now be ascertained, than is re corded in this book. There are two other persons of this name mentioned in the Bible — a son of David, 1 Chron. iii. 1; and a Levite of the race of Ithamar, Ezra viii. 2; Neh. x. 6. The latter has been sometimes con founded with the prophet, as he is in the Apocryphal Addenda to the Septuagint.

Daniel, supposed commonly to be the same person as the author of this book, is twice mentioned by Ezekiel, once as deserving to be ranked with Noah and Job, and once as eminent for wisdom. " Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God." Ezek. xiv. 14. " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel, and there is no secret that they can hide from thee." Ezek. xxviii. 3. Whether this is the Daniel who is the author of this book, however, or whether this was some ancient patriarch whose name had been handed down by tradition, and whose name was assumed by the author of this book in later times, has been a question among recent critics, and will properly come up for examina tion under the next section in this Introduction.

Assuming now that the book is genuine, and that it was written by him whose name it bears, all that is known of Daniel is substantially aa follows: —

He was descended from one of the highest families in Judah, if not one of royal blood (Notes on ch. i. 3; Josephus' Ant. b. x. ch. x. $ 1.) His birth-place was probably Jerusalem, (comp. ch. ix. 24,) though it is not absolutely certain that this passage would demonstrate this.

Of his first years nothing is recorded. At an early age we find him in Babylon, among the captive Hebrews whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away at the first deportation of the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. He is mentioned in connection with three other youths, apparently of the same rank, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who, 1* (V)

with him, were selected for the purpose of being instructed in the lan guage and literature of the Chaldeans, with a view to their being employed in the service of the court. Ban. i. 3, 4. His age at that time if is impossible to determine with accuracy, but it is not improbable that it was somewhere about twelve or fifteen years. In ch. i. 4. he and his three friends are called ''children," (sn^.). ''This word properly denotes the period from the age of childhood up to manhood, and might be translated boys, lads, or youth." — Professor Stuart on Daniel, p. 373. Ignatius (Ep. ad Magn.), says that Daniel was twelve years of age when he went into exile; Chrysostome says that he was eighteen, (Opp. vi. p. 423;) Epiphanius says, In vfimos WK; Jerome calls him admodum puer. These are, of course, mere conjectures, or traditions, but they are proba bly not far from the truth. Such was the age at which persons would be most likely to be selected for the training here referrc d to. The design of this selection and training is not mentioned, but in the circumstances of the case it is perhaps not difficult to conjecture it. The Hebrews wer< a captive people. It was natural to suppose that they would be restless, and perhaps insubordinate, in their condition, and it was a matter of policy to do all that could be done to conciliate them. Nothing would better tend to this than to select some of their own number who were of their most distinguished families; to place them at court; to provide for them from the royal bounty; to give them the advantages of the best education that the capital afforded; to make an arrangement that con templated their future employment in the service of the state, and to furnish them every opportunity of promotion. Besides, in the inter course of the government with the captive Hebrews, of which, from the nature of the case, there would be frequent occasion, it would be an ad vantage to have native born Hebrews in the confidence of the govern ment, who could be employed to conduct that intercourse.

In this situation, and with this view, Daniel received that thorough education which Oriental etiquette makes indispensable in a courtier, (Comp. Plato, Alcib. § 37,) and was more especially instructed in the science of the Chaldeans, and in speaking and writing their language. He had before evidently been carefully trained in the Hebrew learning, and in the knowledge of the institutions of his country, and was thoroughly imbued with the principles of the religion of his fathers. An opportunity soon occurred of putting his principles to the test. Trained in strict religious principles, and in the sternest rules of tem perance in eating and drinking, and fearing the effect of the luxurious living provided for him and his companions by the royal bounty, he resolved, with them, to avoid at once the danger of conforming to the habits of idolaters; of " polluting" himself by customs forbidden by his religion, and of jeoparding his own health and life by intemperate in dulgence. He aimed, also, to secure the utmost vigor of body, and the utmost clearness of mind, by a course of strict and conscientious temper ance. He obtained permission, therefore, to abstain from the food pro vided for him, and to make an experiment of the most temperate mode of living, ch. i. 8 — 14. " His prudent proceedings, wise bearing, and absolute refusal to comply with such customs, were crowned with the divine blessing, and had the most splendid results."

er the lapse of three years spent in this rourse of discipline, Daniel passed tho examination -which was necessary to admit him to the royal favor, and was received into connection with the government, to be em ployed in the purposes which had been contemplated in this preparatory training, ch. i. 18 — 20. One of his first acts was an interpretation of o dream of Nebuchadnezzar which none of the Chaldeans had been able to interpret, the result of which was that he was raised at once to that im portant office, the governorship of the province of Babylon, and the headinspectorship of the sacerdotal caste, ch. ii.

Considerably later in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, we find Daniel in terpreting another dream of his, to the effect that, in icnsequence of his pride, he would be deprived for a time of his reason and his throne, and would be suffered to wander from the abodes of men, and to live among wild beasts, but that after a time he would be again restored. The record which we have of this, is found in a proclama tion of the king himself, which is preserved by Daniel, ch. iv. In the interpretation of this remarkable dream, and in stating to the king — the most proud and absolute monarch of the earth at that time — what would come upon him, Daniel displays the most touching anxiety, love, and loyalty, for the prince, and shows that he was led to this inter pretation only by the conviction of the truth. In view of a calamity so great, he exhorted the monarch yet to humble himself and to repent of his sins, and to perform acts of charity, with the hope that God might be mer ciful and avert from him a doom so humiliating — so much to be dreaded, ch. iv. 19—27.

Under the immediate successor of Nebudchadnezzar — Evil-Merodach — Daniel appears to have been forgotten, and his talents and his for mer services seem to have passed away from the recollection of those in power. His situation at court appears to have been confined to an inferior office (ch. viii. 27), and it would seem also that this led him occasionally, if not regularly, away from Babylon to some of the provinces to attend to business there. Comp. Notes in ch. viii. 2. This was not strange. On the death of a monarch, it was not unu sual to discharge the officers who had been employed in the govern ment, as, at the present time, on the death of a king, or a change of dynasty, the members of the cabinet are changed; or as the same thing happens in our own country when a change occurs in the Chief Magistracy of the nation.* Sir John Chardin in his MS. Notes on Persia says that, in his time, on the death of a Shah or king, all the soothsayers and physicians attached to the court were at once dismissed from office; the former because they did not predict his death, and the latter because they did not prevent it. It is to be remembered also, that Daniel was raised to power by the will of Nebuchadnezzar alone, and that the offices which he held were, in part, in consequence of the service which he had ren dered that prince; and it is not strange, therefore, that on a change of the government, he, with perhaps the other favorites of the former sovereign, should be suffered tc retire. We find consequently no men tion made of Daniel during the reign of Evil-Merodach or in the short

* Since this was written, a remarkable illustration of what is here said has occurred in our own country, on the death of the late President, Gen. Zachary Taylor. It will be rer-ollected that on the very night of his death, all the members of the cabinet tendered their resignation to his constitutional successor, and all of them in fact ceased to hold office and retired to pri vate life.

reign of his successor; we lose sight of him until the reign of Belshazzar the last king of Babylon, and then he is mentioned only in connection with the closing scene of his life, ch. v. In consequence of a remarkable vision which Belshazzar had of a hand-writing on the wall, and of the inability of any of the wise men of the Chaldeans to read and interpret it, Daniel, at the instance of the queen mother, who remembered his former services at court, was called in, and read the writing, and an nounced to the king the impending destiny of himself and his empire. For this service he was again restored to honor, and the purpose was formed to raise him to an exalted rank at court — a purpose which was, however, frustrated by the fact that Babylon was that very night taken, and that the government passed into the hands of the Medes and Per sians. It was under this king, luwever, that Daniel had two of his most remarkable visions (ch. vii. viii.), respecting future events — visions which perhaps more definitely than any other in the Scriptures, disclose what is to occur in the ages to come.

After the conquest of Babylon by the united arms of the Medes and Persians, under the reign of Darius or Cyaxares, Daniel was raised again to an exalted station. The whole kingdom was divided into one hundred and twenty provinces, and over these three presidents or chief governors were appointed, and of these Daniel had the first rank, ch. vi. 1—3. The reasons^ of this appointment are not stated, but they were doubtless found in such circumstances as the following: — that it was desirable for Darius to employ some one who was familiar with the affairs of the Babylonian empire; that Daniel probably had knowledge on that subject equal or superior to any other one that could be found; that he had long been employed at court, and was familiar with the laws, usages and customs that prevailed there; that he knew better than any one else pea-haps what would secure the tranquillity of that portion of the empire; that, being himself a foreigner, it might be supposed better to employ him than it would be a native Chaldean, for it might be pre sumed that he would be less inimical to a foreign dominion. Under these circumstances he was again raised to a high rank among; the officers of the government; but his elevation was not beheld without malice and envy. Those who might have expected this office for themselves, or who were dissatisfied that a foreigner should be thus ex alted, resolved, if possible, to bring him into such a situation as would ruin him, ch. vi. 4. To do this, they determined to take advantage of a principle in the government of the Medes and Persians, that a law having once received the royal sanction could not be changed, and by securing the passage of such a law as they knew Daniel would not obey, they hoped to humble and ruin him. They, therefore, under plausible pretences, secured the passage of a law that no one in the realm should be allowed for a certain time to offer any petition to any God or man, except the king, on penalty of being thrown into a den of lions. Daniel, as they anticipated, was the first to disregard this law, by continuing his regular habit of worshipping God, praying, as he had been accustomed, three times a day, with his window open. The consequence was, that the king, there being no way to prevent the execution of the law, allowed it to be executed. Daniel was cast into the den of lions, but was mi raculously preserved; and this new proof of his integrity, and of the divine favour, was the means of his being raised to more exalted honour, ch. vi.

In this situation at court, and with these advantages for promoting the interests of his people, he employed himself in seriously and diligently securing the return of the exiles to their own country, though it does not appear that he himself returned, or that he contemplated a return. It is probable that he supposed that at his time of life it would not be wise to attempt such a journey; or that he supposed he could be of more use to his countrymen in Babylon in favouring their return than he could by accompanying them to their own land. His position at the court of the Medo-Persian government gave him an opportunity of rendering material aid to his people, and it is not improbable that it was through his instru mentality that the decree was obtained from Cyrus which allowed them to return. One of the designs of Providence in raising him up, was, doubtless, that he might exert that influence at court, and that he might thus be the means of restoring the exiles. He had at last the happiness to see his most ardent wishes accomplished in this respect.

In the third year of Cyrus, he had a vision, or a series of visions, (chs. x. xi. xii.) containing minute details respecting the history and sufferings of his nation to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, concluding with a more general represention (ch. xii.) of what would occur in the last days of the world's history.

Beyond this, nothing certain is known of Daniel. The accounts respecting him are vague, confused, and strange. How long he lived, and when and where he died, are points on which no certain information can now be obtained. Josephus gives no account of his latter days, or of his death, though he says respecting him, "he was so happy as to have strange revelations made to him, and these as to one of the greatest of > the prophets, insomuch that while he was alive he had the esteem and applause both of kings and of the multitude; and now he is dead he retains a remembrance that will never fail." Ant. b. x. ch. xi. It is commonly believed that he died in Chaldea, having been detained there by his employments in the Persian empire. Epiphanius says that he died in Babylon, and this has been the commonly received opinion of historians. This opinion, however, has not been universal. Some sup pose that he died at Shusan or Susa. Josephus (Ant. b. x. ch. xi.) says that, " on account of the opinion which men had that he was beloved of God, he built a tower at Ecbatana in Media, which was a most elegant building, and wonderfully made/' and that it was still remaining in his day. Benjamin of Tudela says that his monument was shown at Chuzestan, which is the ancient Susa. As Benjamin of Tudela professes to record what he saw and heard, and as his 'Itinerary' la a book which has been more frequently transcribed and translated thun almost any other book, except the Travels of Maundeville, it may be of some interest to copy what he has said of the tomb of Daniel. It is a record of the traditions of the East — the country where Daniel lived and died, and it is not improbably founded in essential truth. At any rate, it will show what has been the current tradition in the East respecting Daniel, and is all that can now be known respecting the place of his death and burial. Benjamin of Tudela was a Jewish Rabbi of Spain, who travelled through Europe, Asia, and Africa, from Spain to China, between A. D. 1160 and

1173. His Itinerary -was first printed in 1543. It was a work in wide circulation in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, and has been translated from the original Hebrew, into Latin, English, French, Dutch, and Jewish German, and, in these languages has passed through not less than twentytwo editions. I quote from the London and Berlin edition of 1840.

" Four miles from hence begins Khuzostan, Elam of Scripture, a large province which, however, is but partially inhabited, a portion of it lying in ruins. Among the latter are the remains of Shushan the Metropolis and palace of king Achashverosh, which still contains very large and handsome buildings of ancient date. Its seven thousand Jewish inhabi tants possess fourteen synagogues; in front of one of which is the tomb of Daniel, who rests in peace. The river Ulai divides the parts of the city which are connected with a bridge; that portion of it which is inhabited by the Jews, contains the markets; to it all trade is confined, and there dwell all the rich; on the other side of the river they are poor, because they are deprived of the abovenamed advantages, and have even no gardens nor orchards. These circumstances gave rise to jealousy, which was fostered by the belief that all honor and riches originated from the possession of the remains of the prophet Daniel, who rests in peace, and who was buried on their side. A request was made % the poor for per mission to remove the sepulchre to the other side, but it was rejected; upon which a war arose and was carried on between the two parties for a length of time; this strife lasted until ' their souls became loath' (Num. xxi. 4. 5; Judg. xvi. 16.), and they came to a mutual agreement, by which it was stipulated that the coflin, which contained Daniel's bones, should be deposited alternately every year on either side. Both parties faithfully adhered to this arrangement, which was, however, interrupted by the interference of Sanjar Shah Ben Shah, who governs all Persia, and holds supreme power over forty-five of its kings.

" When this great emperor Sanjar, king of Persia, came to Shushan, and saw that the coffin of Daniel was removed from side to side, he crossed the bridge with a very numerous retinue, and accompanied by Jews and Mahometans, inquired into the nature of these proceedings. Upon being told what we have related above, he declared that it was derogatory to the honor of Daniel, and recommended that the distance between the two banks should be exactly measured, that Daniel's coffin should be deposited in another coffin, made of glass, and that it should be suspended from the very middle of the bridge, fastened by chains of iron. A place of public worship was erected on the very spot, open to every one who desired to say his prayers, whether he be Jew or Gentile, and the coffin of Daniel is suspended from the bridge unto this very day."

This story, trifling as it is in some of its details, may be admitted as evidence of a tradition in the East that Daniel died and was buried at Shushan. This tradition, moreover, is very ancient. In a Note on this passage (vol. ii. p. 152.) A. Asher, the publisher of the Itinerary of Ben jamin says, " Aasim of Cufah, a venerable historian, who preceded Ibn ilankcl by two hundred years, (for he died 735) mentions the discovery of Daniel's coffin at Sus. Ibn llankel, who travelled in the tenth century, speaks of it, and ascribes to the possession of the bones of Daniel the virtue s»f dispelling all sorts of distress, particularly that of famine from want of rain." It has been a matter of much controversy whether the place now known as Chouck, Chouz, or Sous is the ancient Shushan, (Lat. 31° 55', Long. 83° 40'), or the place now called Shuster (Lat. 31° 30', Long. 84° 30X). The former opinion is maintained by Rennel, Ouseley, Barbie du Bocagc, Kinneir, and Iloek; the latter by d'Herbelot d'Anville, Vincent, Mannert, and Hammer. Major Rawlinson, who has furnished the most recent account of this place, maintains that ' Shushan the palace' is the present Susan on the Kulan or Eulaeus, the Ulai of Scripture. See vol. ix. of the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society.

§ 2. GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. Consideration of Objections.

Until a comparatively recent period, with some slight exceptions, the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel have been regarded as settled, and its canonical authority was as little doubted as that of any other portion of the Bible. The ancient Hebrews never called its genuineness or authenticity in question (Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, Konigsberg, 1835, p. 6; Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Daniel, Berlin, 1831. p. 1). It is true that in the Talmud (Tract. Baba Bathra, Fol. 15. Ed. Venet.) it is said that "the men of the Great Synogogue wrote — 13 ro the.jjip K. D. N. G. — that is, portions (xi. chs.) of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet Daniel, and the Book of Esther;" but this, as Lengerke has remarked, (p. v.) does not mean that they had introduced this book into the canon, as Bertholdt supposes, but that, partly by tradition, and partly by inspiration, they revised it anew. But whatever may be the truth 'in regard to this, it does not prove that the ancient Jews did not consider it canonical. It is true that much has been said about the fact that the Jews did not class this book among the prophets, but placed it in the Hagiography, or Kethubim, ouirvp. It has been in ferred from this, that they believed that it was composed a considerable time after the other prophetic books, and that they did not deem it worthy of a place among their prophetic books in general. But, even if this were so, it would not prove that they did not regard it as a genuine production of Daniel; and the fact that it was not placed among the prophetic books may be accounted for without the supposition that they did not regard it as genuine. The usual statement on that subject is, that they placed the book there because they say that Daniel lived the life of a'courtier in Babylon, rather than the life of a prophet; and the Jews further assert that, though he received divine communications, they were only by dreams and visions of the night, which they regard as the most imperfect kind of revelations. Home, Intro, iv. 188. The place which Daniel should occupy in the sacred writings probably became a matter of discussion among the Hebrews only after the coming of the Saviour, when Christians urged so zealously his plain prophecies (ch. ix. 24 — 27) in proof of the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus.

The first open and avowed adversary to the genuineness and authen ticity of the Book of Daniel, was Porphyry, a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century. He wrote fifteen books against Christianity, all of which are lost, except some fragments preserved by

Eusebius, Jerome, and others. His objections against Daniel were made in his twelfth book, and all that we have of these objections has been preserved bv Jerome in his commentary on the Book of Daniel. A full account of Porphyry, ami of his objections against the Christians and the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, so far as can now bo known, may be seen in Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. vii. pp. 390 — 470, of his works, Ed. London, 1829. In regard to the Book of Daniel, he maintained, according to Jerome (Pr. and Explan. in

Daniel), " that the book was not written by him whose name it bears, but by another who lived in Judea in the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes; and that the Book of Daniel does not foretell things to come, but relates what had already happened. In a word, whatever it contains to the time of Antiochus is true history; if there is anything relating to aftertimes it is falsehood; forasmuch as the writer could not see things future, but at the most only could make some conjectures about them. To him several of our authors have given answers of great labour and diligence, in particular Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, in three volumes, the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th. Apollinarius, also, in one large book, that is the 26th, and before them, in part, Methodius. As it is not my design," says Jerome, "to confute the objections of the adversary, which would require a long discourse, but only to explain the prophet to our own people, that is, Christians, I shall just observe that none of the prophets have spoken so clearly of Christ as Daniel, for he not only foretels his coming, as do others likewise, but he also teaches the time when he will come, and mentions in order the princes of the intermediate space, and the number of the years, and the signs of his appearance. And be cause Porphyry saw all these things to have been fulfilled, and could not deny that they had actually come to pass, he was compelled to say as he did; and because of some similitude of circumstances, he asserted that the things foretold as to be fulfilled in Antichrist at the end of the world, happened in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Which kind of opposition is a testimony of truth; for such is the plain interpre tation of the words, that to incredulous men the prophet seems not to foretell things to come, but to relate things already past. And though, as before said, it is not my intention to confute all his objections, I shall, as occasion offers, take notice of some of his weak arguments. And it may be proper for us, among other things, to observe now, that Por phyry argued that the Book of Daniel was not genuine, because it was written in Greek, and, therefore, was not the work of any Jew, but the forgery of some Greek writer. This he argued from some Greek words which are in the fable of Susanna, to which both Eusebius and Apollinarius returned the same answer, that the fabulous stories of Susanna, and Bel, and the Dragon, are not in the Hebrew, but are said to have been com posed by a person of the tribe of Levi; whereas the sacred Scriptures assure us that Daniel and the three children, his companions, were of the tribe of Judah. And they said they were not accountable for what was not received by the Jews, nor was a part of the sacred Scriptures." A few

of the objections which Porphyry makes to the credibility of certain parts of Daniel, Jerome has quoted in his commentary on tne particular pas sages referred to. These have been collected by Dr. Lardner, and may be socn in his works, vol. vii. pp. 402 — 415. It is not necessary to trans- cribe them here, as they will come up for consideration in the Notes on the particular chapters.

Dr. Lardner [vol. vii. p. 401 J, remarks respecting Porphyry, " that Porphyry's work against the Christians was much laboured, and that in this argument he displayed all his learning, which was very considerable. Hence, we can perceive the difficulty of undertaking an answer to him, for which very few were fully qualified; in which none of the apologists for Christianity seem to have answered expectations." We cannot now form a correct opinion of the argument of Porphyry, for we have only the few fragments of his work, which Jerome and others have seen proper to preserve. We are in danger, therefore, of doing injustice to what may have been the real force of his argument, for it may have been stronger than would be indicated by those fragments that remain. It is impossi ble to recover his main objections; and all that can now be said is, that, as far as is known, he did not make any converts to his opinions, and that his objections produced no change in the faith of the Christian world.

No further attack on the genuineness and authenticity of Daniel seems to have been made, and no further doubt entertained, until the time of Spinoza. Spinoza was by birth a Jew; was born at Amsterdam in 1G32; became professedly converted to Christianity in consequence of supposing that his life was in danger among the Jews, but was probably indifferent to all religions. lie gave himself up to philosophical inquiries, and is commonly understood to have been a pantheist. He maintained (Tractat. Theol. Politicus, c. 10, T. i p. 308 Ed. Paulus) that the last five chapters of Daniel were written by Daniel himself, but that the seven previous chapters were collected about the time of the Maccabees, from the chro nological writings of the Chaldeans, and that the whole was arranged by some unknown hand. Edward Wells, who lived in the first part of the eighteenth century, maintained that the work was composed by some one soon after the death of Daniel. Antony Collins, one of the British Deists, maintained also that it was not written by Daniel. In more recent times, the genuineness of the book has been doubted or denied, in whole or in part, by Corrodi, Gesenius, Luderwald, Dereser, Scholl, Lengerke, Eichhorn, De Wette, Griesenger, Bertholdt, Bleek, Ewald, Ilitzig, and Kirms; it has been defended by the English writers generally, and among the Germans, by Staiidlin, Beckhaus, Jahn, Ilavernick, Ilengstenberg, and others. The general ground taken by those who have denied its genuineness and authenticity is, that the book was written at or about the time of the Maccabees, by some Jew, who, in order to give greater authority and importance to his work, wrote under the assumed name of Daniel, and laid the scene in Babylon in the time of the cap tivity.

The various arguments urged against the genuineness of the book, may be seen in Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Lengerke, Kirms (CommentatioIIistorico Critica, Jenae, 1828), and De Wette. The best defence of its au thenticity, probably, is the work of Ilengstenberg, (Die Authentic des Daniel, Berlin, 1831). The exanmiation of the objections alleged against the particular chapters, and particular portions of chapters, it will be most convenient to examine in the introductions to the respective chap ters. I propose, in this general Introduction, merely to examine the objections of a general character "which have been made to the work. These have been concisely arranged and stated by De Wette (Lehrbuch der Historisch-kritischenEinleifung, etc. Berlin, 1845, pp.382— 389), and in the examination of the objections I shall consider them in the order in which he has stated them.

The view which De "VVette entertains of the book is stated in the fol

lowing manner: " that in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, when the spirit of prophecy among the Jews had been a long time extinct, a Jew ish friend of his country endeavoured to encourage and strengthen his contemporary sufferers, and those who were contending for their liberty, through these apocalyptic prophecies respecting the former ascendency of the theocratic principle, which, in order to give the work greater repu tation and authority, he ascribed to an ancient Seer of the name of Daniel, of whom probably something had been handed down by tradition. Designedly he suffered the promises to extend to a great length of time, in order to make them appear the more certain. After the manner of the ancient prophets, also, he inwove much that was historical, and especially such as would be fitted to excite and arouse the martyr spirit of his own people." Lehrbuch, p. 390.

I. The first objection which is urged against the genuineness of the book is derived from what is denominated the fabulous contents — Mahrchenhaften Inhalte — of its narrative parts. This objection, in the words of De Wette, is that " the book is full of improbabilities (ii. 3, ff. 46, f. iii. 1, 5, f. 20, 22, 28, f. iii. 31, ff. 31, f. v. 11, f. 18, ff. 29, vi. 8, ff. 26, ff.); of wonders, (ii. 28, iii. 23, ff. v. 5, vi. 23, 25); its historical inaccu racies are such as are found in no prophetic book of the Old Testament, and are founded on the same type (Comp. ii. 2 — 11, with iv. 4. v. 8. iii. 4 —12, 26—30, with vi. 8—18, 21—24). This seeking after wonders and strange things, and the religious fanaticism nourished through these per secutions, which it breathes, place the book in the same condition as the second Book of the Maccabees, as a production of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the similarity of the former of the two books betrays the fictitious character (Dichtvng] of the book." Lehrbuch, pp. 382, 383.

In reference to this objection, which turns on the marvellous charac ter of the Book, and the improbable historical statements in it, the following remarks may be made:

(a) These objections are noticed in detail in the Introductions to the respective chapters where the historical events here objected to are stated, and the question whether they are fabulous, or are in accordance with true history, is there fully considered. This will make it needless to no tice them here particularly. In the Introduction to the respective chap ters, I have noticed, and have endeavoured to answer, all the objections which I have found of this character in the works of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Bleek, and Lengerke. This will make it the less necessary to dwell on this point in this general Introduction.

(6) But as to the alleged contradiction between Daniel and the his torical accounts which we have of the affairs to which he refers, it may be proper to observe in general — (1.) That, for anything that appears, Daniel may be as accurate a historian as any of the heathen writers of those times. There is, in the nature of the case, no reason why we should put implicit confidence in Berosus, Abydenus, Xenophon, and

Herodotus, and distrust Daniel; nor why, if a statement is omitted by them, we should concluds at once, that if mentioned by Daniel it is false. It is an unhappy circumstance, that there are many persons who suppose that the fact that a thing is mentioned by a profane historian is pre sumptive evidence of its truth; if mentioned by a sacred writer, it is presumptive evidence of its falsehood. Under the influence of the same feeling it is inferred, that if an event is mentioned by a sacred writer, which is omitted by a profane historian, it is regarded as demonstrative that the work in which it is found is fabulous. It is unnecessary to show that this feeling exists in many minds; and yet nothing can be more unjust — for the mere fact that an author writes on sacred subjects, or is the professed friend of a certain religion, should not be allowed to cast a sus picion on his testimony. That testimony must depend, in regard to its value, on his credibility as an historian, and not on the subject on which he writes. In the nature of things there is no more reason why a writer on sacred subjects should be unworthy of belief, than one who is record ing the ordinary events of history. (2.) Daniel, according to the account which we have of him, had opportunities of ascertaining the truth of the facts which he narrates which no profane historian had. He spent the greater part of a long life in Babylon, in the very midst of the scenes which he describes; he was intimately acquainted with the affairs of the government; he enjoyed, in a remarkable degree, the confidence of those in authority; and he was himself deeply concerned in most of these transactions, and could have adopted the language of /Eneas — et quorum magna pars fui. (3.) It is to be remembered, also, in regard to these events and times, that we have few fragments of history remaining. We have fragments of the writings of Berosus, a Chaldean, indeed, who wrote in Greece; and of Abydenus, a Greek, who wrote in Ghaldea; we have some historical statements in Xenophon, and a few in Herodotus, but the Chaldean history, if ever written, is lost; the public documents are destroyed; the means of an accurate and full knowledge of the Chal dean or Babylonish power in the time when Daniel lived, have disap peared forever. Under these circumstances, it would not be strange if we should not be able to clear up all the difficulties of a historical nature that may be suggested respecting these fragmentary accounts, or be able to verify the statements which we find in the sacred books by the explicit testimony of contemporary writers.

(c) As a matter of fact, the investigations of history, as far as they can be made, go to confirm the authority of Daniel. Instances of this will occur in the examination of the particular chapters in this book, and all that can now be done is merely to refer to them, particularly to the intro ductions to chs. i. iv. v. vi. In general, it may be said here, that none of the historical authorities contradict what is stated by Daniel, and that the few fragments which we have go to confirm what he has said, or at least to make it probable.

(d) As to the objections of De Wette and others, derived from the mi raculous and marvellous character of the book, it may be observed fur ther, that the same objection would lie against most of the books of the Bible, and that it is, therefore, not necessary to notice it particularly in considering the Book of Daniel. The Bible is a book full of miracles and marvels; and he who would have any proper understanding of it must regard and treat it as such. It is impossiblo to understand or explain it without admitting the possibility and the reality of miraculous events; and in a book which claims to be founded on miracles, it does not prove that it is not authentic or genuine simply to say that it assumes that miracles are possible. To destroy the credibility of the book, it is ne cessary to show that all claims of a miraculous character are unfounded, and all miracles impossible and absurd; and this objection would not lie against the Book of Daniel peculiarly, but equally against the whole Bible. Two remarks here may be made, however, of a more particular character: (1.) one is, that the statements in Daniel are not more mar vellous than those which occur in other parts of the Bible, and if they may be believed, those occurring in Daniel maybe also; and (2.) the other is, that it would rather be an argument against the genuineness and authen ticity of the book if no miraculous and marvellous statements were found in it. It would be so unlike the other books of tin- Bible, where miracles abound, that we should feel that there was wanting in its favour the evi dence of this nature, which would show that it had the same origin as the other portions of the volume. The particular objections in regard to the statements in Daniel of this nature, are considered in the Notes on the Book.

II. A second objection to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, re lates to the prophecies which are found in it. This objection is derived from the peculiar character of these prophecies; from the minuteness of the detail; the exact designation of the order of events; the fact that they seem to be a summary of history written after the events occurred; and that in these respects they are essentially unlike the other prophe cies in the Bible. This objection, we have seen, is as old as Porphyry; and this was, in fact, with him, the principal argument against the au thenticity of the book. This objection is summed up and stated by De Wette in the following manner (§ 255. b. pp. 384, 385): " The ungenuineness (Unachtheit) appears further from the prophetic contents of the same, which is to a remarkable extent different from that of all the remaining prophetic books, (a) through its apocalyptic character, or through this — that the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah is mentioned and deter mined according to certain definite periods of time, or specified periods, and that the representation of it occurs so much in the form of visions; (b) that the circumstances of the distant future, and the fortune of the kingdoms which were not yet in existence, even down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, are described with so much particularity and accuracy (viii. 14, ix. 25, ff. xii. 11, ff.) that the account must have been written after the event; (c) and that, if Daniel was a prophet, he must have lived in the times of Ezekiel and Zechariah, and we must suppose that his prophecies would have borne the general character of the prophe cies of those times, but that in fact we find in them the spirit of a later age — the spirit that ultimately developed itself in the Sibylline Books, to which these prophecies bear a strong resemblance."

In reply to this, it may be remarked:

(1.) That all that is said in Daniel is possible: — that is, it is possible that prophetic intimations of the future should be given with as much particularity as are found in Daniel. No one can demonstrate, or even affirm, that God could not, if he chose, inspire a prophet to predict in detai)

vkfc wccrrences of the most remote times, and the fall of kingdoms not yei \u oemg. All this knowledge must be with him; and for anything mai appt/ars, it would be as easy to inspire a prophet to predict these events AS any other. The sole inquiry, therefore, is in regard to a fact; and this Is to be settled by an examination of the evidence, that the prophet lived and prophesied before the events predicted occurred.

(2.) The prophecies iu Daniel are not, in their structure and character, so unlike those whose genuineness is undisputed, as to make it certain or even probable, that the latter are genuine, and those of Daniel not. Dreams and visions were common methods of communicating the Divine will to the prophets, (See Introduction to Isaiah, g 7. (2), (4), and who will undertake from any internal evidence to determine between those of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel?

(3.) As to the allegation respecting the details in Daniel of future events — the particularity with which he describes them — all is to be admitted that is affirmed on the subject. It is a fact that there is such particularity and minuteness of detail as could be founded only on truth, and that the delineations of Alexander and his conquests, and the statements of the events that would succeed his reign down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (ch. xi.), are drawn with as much accuracy of detail as they would be by one writing after the events had occurred. No one can doubt this who attentively examines these remarkable prophecies. Por phyry was undoubtedly right in affirming, that in regard to their minute ness and accuracy, these prophecies appeared to be written after the events; and if it can be shown, therefore, that they were written before the events referred to, the testimony of Porphyry is a strong evidence of the fact that Daniel was inspired; for no one will maintain that man, by any natural sagacity, could describe events before they occur with the exactness of detail, and the minute accuracy which is found in this part of Daniel.

But is not what is here said of Daniel, as to the accuracy and minute ness of detail true also, in the main, of other prophecies in the Old Tes tament? Are there not many prophecies that are as accurate, and in some respects as minute, as they would have been if they were written after the events referred to? Is not this true of the predictions respecting the destruction of Tyre and of Babylon, and the carrying away of the Jews into captivity? Is not Cyrus expressly mentioned by Isaiah, and is not the work which he would perform in the conquest of Babylon drawn out in exact detail? See Isa. xlv. 1. soq. So in Jeremiah (1. li.), there is a prophetic account of the destruction of Babylon as minute in many re spects as the predictions of Daniel, and as exact and minute as it would have been if written after the events had occurred, and the author had been making a historical record instead of uttering a prediction. But on this point I must content myself with referring to the argument of Hengstenberg, Authentic des Daniel, pp. 173 — 195. It may be added, however, that it is on this accuracy of detail in Daniel that we ground one of the strong arguments for his inspiration. It will be admitted on all hands — it cannot be denied — that no one could foresee those events and describe them with such accuracy of detail, by any natural sagacity; but no one who believes in the fact of inspiration at ail, can doubt that it would be as easy for the Divine Spirit to present future events in this accuracy of detail as in a more general, jajaamer. At all events, this ao- curacy arid minuteness of detail removes the prophecies from the region of conjecture, and is an answer to the usual objections that they art obscure and ambiguous. Not one can pretend this of the writings of Daniel; and if it can be shown that the book was written before the events occurred, the conclusion cannot be avoided that the author was inspired.

III. A third objection to the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel is thus stated by De Wette (| 255, b. 3, p. 385): " Grounds of objection lie further in the repeated mention of Daniel himself, in so hon ourable a manner, ch. i. 17, 19, f. v. 11, f. vi. 4, ix. 23, x. 11, et al."

This objection cannot be regarded as having any great degree of force, or as contributing much to set aside the direct evidence of the authority of the book: — for (a) it is possible that all these honours were conferred on him. This is, in itself, no more incredible or remarkable than that Joseph should have reached the honours in Egypt, which are attributed to him in Genesis; and no one can show that if the account had been written by another, it would have been unworthy of belief, (b) If it were a fact that he was thus honoured, it was not improper to state it. If Daniel was the historian of those times, and kept the records of the events of his own life, and actually obtained those honours, there was no impropriety in his making a record of those things. He has done no more than what Csesar did in the mention of himself, his plans, his conquests, his triumphs. In the record of Daniel there is no unseemly parading of his wisdom, or the honours conferred on him; there is no praise for the mere sake of praise; there is no language of panegyric on account of his eminent piety. The account is a mere record of facts as they are said to have occurred — that Daniel was successful in his early studies, and his preparation for the examination through which he and his companions were to pass (ch. i.); that on more than one occasion he succeeded in interpreting a dream or vision which no one of the Chaldeans could do; that in consequence of this he was raised to an exalted rank; that he was enabled to maintain his integrity in the midst of extraordinary temptations, and that he was favoured with the Divine protection when in extraordinary danger. I presume that no one who has read the Book of Daniel with an unpre judiced mind, ever received an impression that there was any want of modesty in Daniel in these records, or that there was any unseemly or unnecessary parading of his own virtues and honours before the world.

IV. A fourth objection which has been urged against the genuineness of Daniel, is derived from the language in which it is written. This ob jection, as stated by De Wette, ( \ 235, b. 4, p. 385,) is founded on " the corrupt Hebrew and Chaldee, and the intermingling of Greek words in the composition." The objection is urged more at length in Bertholdt, (p. 24, seq.) and by Bleek, Kirms, and others. The objection, a» derived from the language of the book, is properly divided into three parts: — (a) that it is written in Hebrew and Chaldee; (b) that in each part of it there is a want of purity of style, indicating a later age than the time of the captivity; and (c) that there is an intermingling of Greek words, such as it cannot be presumed that one who wrote in the time of the exile, and in Babylon, would have employed, arid such as were probably in troduced into common use only by a later intercourse with the Greeks, and particularly by the Macedonian conquest.

(a) As to the first of these, little stress can be laid on it, and indeed 4 is rather an argument for the genuineness of the work than against it. It is well known that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter, the work is written in the Chaldee language, while the remainder is pure Hebrew. The only way in which this fact could he regarded as an objection to the genuineness of the book, would be that, it is an indication that it is the production of two different authors. But this would be an objection only on the supposition that the author could write and speak only one language, or that, supposing he was acquainced with two, there were no circumstances which could account for the use of both. But neither of these suppositions apply here. There is every reason to believe that Daniel was acquainted with both the He brew and the Chaldee; and there is no improbability in the supposition that he wrote in both with equal ease. And, on the other hand, it may be remarked, that the very circumstance here referred to, is a confirma tion of the genuineness o*f the book; for (1.) it accords with all that is known of Daniel. He was a youth when he left his native country, and there is every probability that he was familiar with the Hebrew in early life, and that he would never forget it, though it might be true that he would ordinarily use the language of Chaldea. He was still familiar with the Hebrew books, and it is to be presumed that the language used by the Hebrews in exile was their native tongue. In all his intercourse with his own countrymen, therefore, it is every way probable that he would use his native language, and would thus through life retain his know ledge of it. (2.) It is equally clear that he was familiar with the Chal dee language. He was early, in connection with three other Hebrew youth, (ch. i. 3, 4,) placed under the best instruction in Babylon, for the express purpose of acquiring, with other branches of learning, a know ledge of the " tongue of the Chaldeans;" and he speedily made such acquisitions as to pass with honour the examination appointed before he was admitted to public employment, ch. i. 18 — 20. He was, moreover, employed at court during a considerable part of his long life, and no one, therefore, can doubt that he was entirely familiar with the language used in Babylon, and that he could compose in it with ease. (3.) It is evident that the work must, if it is the production of one author, have been com posed by some person who was, in this respect, in the circumstances of Daniel; that is, by one who was familiar with both the languages: and the circumstances bear on their face evidence that the work was written by one in the condition in which Daniel was known to be; that is, one who had been early trained in the Hebrew, and who had lived in Chaldea. No native-born Hebrew, who had not lived in Chaldea, would be likely to be so well acquainted with the two languages that he could use either with equal facility; and it may be presumed that no nativeborn Chaldean could evince so intimate an acquaintance with the Hebrew. The direct evidence that it is the production of one author will be ad duced in another part of this Introduction. (4.) It is by no means pro bable that one who lived so late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes could have written the book as it is written; that is, that he would have been so familiar with the two languages, Hebrew and Chaldee, that he could use them with equal ease. It is an uncommon thing for a man to write in two different languages in the same work, and he never does it without some special design — a design for which there would not be likely to be occasion if one were "writing in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes It was perfectly natural that Daniel should write in this manner, and perfectly unnatural that any one should do it in a later age, and in dif ferent circumstances. If the book had been forged by a Hebrew in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is every reason to believe that he would have been careful to write it in as pure Hebrew as possible, for that was the language in which the canonical books were written, and if he had endeavoured to gain credit for the book as one of divine authority, he would not have intermingled so much of a foreign language. If he were a Chaldean, and could write Hebrew at all, as it is certain that the author of this book could, then, for the reason just given, he would have been careful to write the whole book in as pure Hebrew as possible, and would not have jeoparded its credit by so large an infusion of a foreign tongue. (5.) This reasoning is conclusive, unless it be supposed that the author meant to represent it as a composition of some Hebrew in the time of the exile, and that in order to give it the greater verisimilitude he adopted this device — to make it appear as if written by one who was a native Hebrew, but who had become familiar with a foreign language. But this device would be too refined to be likely to occur, and, for the reasons given above, would be difficult of execution if it should occur. Even in such a case, the writer would be much more likely to represent its author as writing in the sacred language of the prophets, in order to procure for himself the credit of employing the language used in all the divine communications to men. The language in which the book is writ ten, therefore, is just such as it would be on the supposition that it is genuine, and just such as it would not be on the supposition that it is a forgery of a later age.

(6) As to the statement that the language is corrupt Hebrew and Chaldee — in der Verderbten sowohl hebraischen als Chaldaishen Sprache (De AVette), it may be remarked that this position has never been satisfacto rily made out, nor has it been shown that it is not such as might be em ployed, or would be employed, by one who resided in Babylon in the time of the exile. That the language would not be the purest kind of Hebrew, or the purest Chaldee, might be possible, in the circumstances of the case; but it could be shown that it was not such as might be em ployed there, unless there are words and forms of speech which did not come into use until a later period of the world. This has not been shown. It is true that there are Persian words; but this is not unnatu ral in the circumstances of the case — bordering asChaldea did on Persia, and during a part of the time referred to in the book, being actually subject to Persia. It is true that there are Greek words; but under the next speci fication I shall endeavour to show that this does not militate against the supposition that the book may have been written in Babylon in the time of the exile. It is true that there are words and forms of speech which were not in use in the earlier periods of Hebrew literature, but which be came common in the later periods of their literature; butthis doos not prove that they may not have been in use as early as the exile. A specimen of the words referred to — indeed all on which the argument is founded — may be seen inDe Wette, p. 385, Note (e.) They are few in number, and in respect to none of these can it be proved that they were not in existance in the time of Daniel. They are of Persian, of Syriac, or of Chaldee origin, and arc such words as would be likely to come into use in the cir cumstances of the case. In regard to this objection it may be added, that it has been abandoned by some of the objectors to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel themselves. Bleek is candid enough to give it up entirely.

He says, " We have, in general, too few remains of the different centuries after the exile, to draw any conclusions as to the gradual depreciation of the language, and to determine with any certainty to what particular period any writer belongs." Zeitschr. p. 213. " Daniel," says Prof. Stuart, " in the judgment of Gesenius (Geschich. Heb. Sprach. p. 35), has decidedly a purer diction than Ezekiel; in which opinion," says he, " as far as I am able to judge, after much time spent upon the book, and exam ining minutely every word and phrase in it many times over, I should entirely coincide." Com. p. 465.

(c) A more material objection is derived from the use of Greek words in the composition of the book. That there are such words is undenia ble; though they are by no means numerous. Bertholdt (pp. 24, 25,) has enumerated ten such words; De Wette has referred to four, p. 386. The words enumerated by Bertholdt, are, n^ams, rrp<m/ioi; c^nc*

In regard to this objection, it may be remarked, in general, that it does not assert that the structure of the Book of Daniel is fashioned after the Greek manner, or that the Greek style pervades it; it asserts only that a few Greek words have been incorporated into the book. The question then is, whether even all these words are of Greek origin; and whether, if they are, or if only a part of them are, their use in the book can be accounted for on the supposition that it was written in the time of the captivity, or rather, whether their occurrence in the book is a proof that the book could not have been written at that time.

The first point is the question, whether these words are of undoubted Greek origin; and this question will require us to examine them in de tail.

(1.) The first word specified is D'pijna partemim — rendered princes — (ch. i. 3,) which it is alleged is the same as the Greek jrpon/jor — protimoi. The word used by Daniel occurs only in two other places in the Old Testament (Esther i. 3, vi. 9), where it is rendered noUes, and most noble; and it is obvious to remark, that the fact that it is found in Esther might be urged in proof that the book of Daniel was written at the time in which it ia commonly believed to have been, since the antiquity and genuineness of the book of Esther is not called in question. But apart from this, there is no evidence that the word is of Greek origin. Gesenius, who may be considered as impartial authority on the subject, says, " It is of Persian origin, 1 — 9. Pehlvi pardom the first, see Auquetil du Perron Zendavesta, ii. p. 468. Comp. Sanscr. pratliama the first. In the Zend dialect the form is peoerim. Comp. Sanscr. pura, prius, antea, purana, autiquus. From the former comes the Greek n-pwnrj, and from the latter the Latin primus." Lex. The same account of the origin of the word is given by Jahn, De Wette, Bleek, and Kirms. This word, then, may be set aside. It is indeed objected by Bertholdt, that, though the word had a Persian origin, yet there is no evidence that it would be used in Babylon in the time of the exile. But this objection can have no force. Babylon and

Persia were neighbouring kingdoms, and there is no presumption that Persian words might not find their way to Babylon, and as a matter of fact such words occur in Jeremiah, and probably in Isaiah and in Nahum. See Hengstenberg, pp. 11, 12. The truth was, that the Assyrians and the Medo-Persians were originally all of the same stem or stock, and there is no presumption against the supposition that the same words might be found in each of the languages spoken by them.

(2.) The next word referred to is ajnp, pithgham, (Dan. iii. 16, iv. 17, — rendered matter), which it is alleged is the same as the Greek <f>$ryi*a — pthegma. The word occurs, besides these places in Daniel, in Ezra iv. 17, v. 11, rendered answer; v. 7, rendered letter; and vi. 11, rendered word. In Hebrew it occurs in Esth. i. 20, rendered decree, and in Ecc. viii. 11, rendered sentence. In respect to this word, also, Gesenius says, "The origin of the word is to be sought in the Persian, in which vedam is word, edict, mandate." Lex. The fact, also, it may be added, that it is found in Esther, in Ezra, and the book of Ecclesiastes,is sufficient to destroy the objection that its use proves that the Book of Daniel was written later than the time of the exile. It was brought, probably, into the Greek language from the common origin of the Persian and the Greek.

(3, 4.) The next words referred to, are Np'ns, kdhroz (a herald), ch. iii. 4, and nj> — kdrciz, to cry out, to make proclamation, which it is alleged are the same as the Greek * '/p»£ — kemx, and xripvoaw — kerussein. Of these words, also, Gesenius remarks, " The root is widely diffused in the Indo- European languages, e. q. Sansc. krus, to cry out; Zenda. khresio, crying out, a herald; Pers. to cry out; Gr. f'/pfo™ • also, *p''<w, *pa£«; Germ, kreischen, kreissen; Eng. to cry." Lex. Among the Christian Arabs, Gesenius remarks, it means to preach. Jalm and Dereser say that the word is related to the Zendish word khresio, which means to tread behind, and to scream out, to screech — kreischen. Hengstenberg (p. 13,) remarks of this word, that its use is spread abroad nut only in Chaldee, but in Syriac, and that this circumstance makes it probable that it had a Semitish origin. The probability is, that this word and the Greek had a common origin, but its use is so fur spread in the world that it cannot be argued that the fact that it is found in the Book of Daniel demonstrates that the book had a later origin than the period of the exile.

(5.) The next word mentioned as of Greek origin is DT^ kitharos, (ch. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15,) cithara, harp, lyre, (rendered in each place, harp,} which it is said is the same as the Greek *i3ap«f, citharis. In regard to this word, which is the name of a musical instrument, it is to be admitted that it is the same as the Greek word. It occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, and its origin is unknown. As a Greek word, it will be considered, in connection with the three others of the same class, in the sequel. It cannot be affirmed, indeed, that it has a Greek origin, but its origin cannot be found in the Chaldee, Persian, or Sanscrit languages. But, although it is admitted that it is a Greek word, and denotes an in* strument that was well known in Greece, this does not demonstrate that it is of Greek origin. It is admitted on all hands that the names of Greek instruments of music were mostly of foreign derivation; and there is nothing to lead to the supposition that this was of Greek origin, unless it be that the word KiSapa or KiSdpos, means, in the Doric dialect, the breast, and that this instrument might have received its name either because it was played by being placed against the breast, like the violin with us, or be cause its form resembled the human breast. This is the opinion of Isidorus, Origg. i. 2, 21. But there is great uncertainty in regard to this.

(6.) The next word specified is sp3?, sabbeka (ch. lii. 5), and the simi lar word, Kjqfr (ch. iii. 7, 10, 15), in each case rendered sackbut. Of this word it is alleged that it is the same as the Greek an^vKn, — sambuca, a stringed instrument well known in Greece. But in regard to this word, also, the remark of Gesenius maybe quoted: — " Strabo affirms," says he, " that the Greek word, aa///?wj (sambuca), is of barbarian, i. e. of oriental origin, and if so, the name might have allusion to the interweaving of the strings — from the root -335" — to interweave, to entwine, to plait. Gesenius, however, remarks, that in this place it is joined with a word (symphony) which is manifestly of Greek origin; and he seems to infer that this word, also, may have had a Greek origin. The direct affirmation of Strabo is (Lib. x.), that the names of the Greek instruments of music were of foreign origin, and in reference to this particular instrument, Athenaeus (i. iv.) affirms, that it was of Syrian origin. So Clemens Alex, expressly declares that the sambuca had a foreign origin. Strom. L. i. p. 307. Even Bleek admits this in regard to this particular instrument. See Hengstenberg, p. 15.

(7.) The next word for which a Greek origin is claimed is JOJSBID symphony, Greek av^^via, ch. iii. 5, 10, 15, rendered in the text, in each place, dulcimer, and in the margin symphony, or singing. Gesenius re marks, in regard to this word, that "it is the Greek word adopted into the Chaldce tongue, just as at the present day the same instrument is called in Italy, zampogna, and in Asia Minor, zambouja." It cannot be denied that the word is the same as the Greek word; though it is to be remarked that among the Greeks it was not used to denote the name of an instrument of music. Yet, as it is compounded of two Greek words— avv and 0u«»j — its Greek origin cannot well be doubted. With the Greeks, the word meant properly harmony, or concert of sounds (Passoiv); and it was then readily given to an instrument that was fitted to produce har mony, or that was distinguished for its sweet sounds. The word is found in Syriac, as applied to a musical instrument, but the evidence seems to be strong that the ivord had a Greek origin, though there is no evidence that the Greeks ever applied it to a musical instrument.

(8.) The next word for which a Greek origin is claimed is j-najDe, and jnn:D? —pesanterin, (ch. iii. 7, 5, 10, 15, rendered psaltery in each place,) which, it is said, is the same as the Greek ^a\rfiptov — psaltery. "This word," says Gesenius, (Lex.) " was adopted from the Greek into Chaldee, h and j being interchanged." The origin of the word is, however, wholly uncer tain. That it is found in Greek is undoubtedly true; but, as has been before remarked, as it is admitted that the names of the Greek instru ments of music had mostly a foreign origin, it is impossible to demon strate that this may not have been true in regard to this word. Baxtorf (Lex. Chald.) says that it is a word " corrupted from the Greek."

(9.) The next word is #2.3, pattish, (ch. iii. 21, rendered hosen,) which it is said is the same as the Greek neraaof — j)etasos. But there is no reason to believe that this word had an original Greek origin. It is found in Syriac, and the root, \y$$ — -patash, Gesenius remarks, " is widely found in the Indo-European languages. The primary form," says he, "is bait, patt, whence later Lat. battere; French, battre; Dutch, bot; Swed. batsch," &c. The Greek word has undoubtedly had the same origin, and it cannot be maintained that the Chaldee word is derived from the Greek.

(10.) The remaining word which is alleged to be of Greek origin is, njpj, nebirbaU (ch. ii. C, v. 17), rendered in both cases in the text, rewards, and in the margin, fee. It does not elsewhere occur in the Old Testament. It is maintained by Bertholdt and others, that this is the same word as the Greek voniapa — money. But there is no evidence that the word is of Greek origin. Gesenius says (Lex.}, that the word may have a Chaldee origin, though he prefers to assign to it a Persian origin, and he says that the idea of money (implied in the Greek word) is foreign to the context here. Bohlen, Winer, and Ilengstenberg, agree in assigning the word to a Persian origin. See Hengs. Authen. p. 12.

The result, then, to which we have come in regard to the objection that words of Greek origin, and indicating an age later than the time of the exile, are found in Daniel, is, that the number alleged to be of such an origin is very few at best, and that of those which have been referred to, there are not more than four (marked 5, C, 7, and 8, in the enumera tion above,) to which the objection can be supposed to apply with any degree of probability. These are the words actually selected by De Wette, (p. 386,) as those on which he relies.

In regard to these four words, then, we may make the following gene ral observations:

(a) They are all names of musical instruments said to have been used in Babylon.

(6) The general remark of Strabo above referred to may be called to recollection here, that the names of musical instruments among the Greeks were mostly of foreign origin. In itself considered, therefore, there is no improbability in the supposition that the same words should be applied to musical instruments in Greece and in Chaldea.

(c) The languages in which these words are found belong to the same great family of languages — the Indo-European; that is, the Persian, the Greek, the Latin, &c. They had a common origin, and it is not strange if we find the same words spread extensively through these languages.

(d) There was sufficient intercourse between Persia, Chaldea, Asia Minor, and Greece, before and at the time of the Hebrew captivity, to make it not improbable that the names of musical instruments, and the instruments themselves, should be borne from one to the other. There is, therefore, no improbability in supposing that such instruments may have been carried to Babylon from Greece, and may have retained their Greek names in Babylon. Curtius (b. iv. c. 12) says, that in the Persian host that came out to meet Alexander the Great, there were many per sons found of Greek origin who had become subject to the authority of Media. For farther historical proofs on this subject, see Hengs. Authen, pp. 16, 17. Indeed, little proof is needed. It is known that the Greeks were in the habit of visiting foreign lands, and particularly of travelling into the region of the East, for the purpose of obtaining knowledge; and nothing is, in itself, more probable than that in this way the names of a few musical instruments, in common use among themselves, should have been made known to the people among whom they travelled, and that those names should have been incorporated into the languages spoken there.

This objection, it will be observed, divides itself into several parts or portions, though coming under the same general description. The gene ral statement is, that there is an allusion to customs and opinions which were found among the Jews only at a later period than the captivity, and that, therefore, the book could not have been composed at the time al leged. The specifications relate to angelology, or the representations re specting angels; to christology, or the views of the Messiah; to the doctrines stated, particularly to those respecting the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment; to the customs that prevailed, and to the ascetic views expressed, particularly on the effect of abstinence from rich kinds of diet. It will be convenient to notice them in their order, so far as to furnish a general answer. Most of them will be noticed more par ticularly in the Notes on the passages as they occur; and for a full and complete answer the reader may be referred, in general, to Hengstenberg, Authentic des Daniel, pp. 137 — 173.

A. The first specification is derived from the statements which occur respecting angels, ch. iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 21. These, it is affirmed, in dicate a state of opinion which prevailed among the Hebrews only at a later age than the time of the exile, and consequently the book could not have been written at that time. This objection, as urged by Bertholdt and others, refers to two points; first, that the statements respecting the opinions of the Chaldeans on the subject, are not in accordance with the opinions in the time when the book is said to have been written; and se cond, that the statements respecting angels, considered as Hebrew opin ions, are those which belong to a later age. It will be proper to notice these in their order.

I. The first is, that the statements which occur as representing the opinions of the Chaldeans, express sentiments which did not prevail among them. The objections on this point relate to two statements in the book; one, that the Son of God, or a Son of God, is spoken of by Nebu chadnezzar; the other, to what is said (ch. iv. 14,) of the " decree of the Watchers."

The former objection is thus stated by Bertholdt: In ch. iii. 25, " Nebuchadnezzar speaks of a Son of God [' and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God'], and although the Chaldeans, and most of the dwellers in Upper Asia, were polytheists, yet there is no evidence that anything was known at the time of the views which prevailed among the Greeks on this subject, but that such views became known in the time of

Seleucus Nicator." p. 29. It is hence inferred that the book could not have been written before the time of Seleucus.

In regard to the objection, it may be observed, in addition to what is said in the Notes on the passage, (ch. iii. 25,) where the expression oc curs, that the objection is so vague and indefinite that it scarce needs a reply. The opinions which prevailed in the East on the subject of the gods, is so little known now that it is impossible to demonstrate that such an opinion as this might not have existed in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and impossible to prove that such views as would have suggested thia expression did not prevail before the time of Seleucus Nicator. Indeed, it is not easy to show that such language as is here ascribed to Nebu chadnezzar would have been more likely to have been suggested by the views of mythology that prevailed in Greece, and that were spread abroad in consequence of the difference of Greek opinions in the East, than by the views which prevailed in Babylon in the time of the exile. But it may be more particularly observed in reply to the objection,

(a) That according to Gesenius (Thes. p. 237), this language, as used by Nebuchadnezzar, is such as would properly denote merely one of the gods, or one in the form of the gods; that is, one who resembled the gods — in the same way as the phrase "son of man" denotes a man, or one in the form and appearance of a man. Perhaps this was all that was meant by Nebuchadnezzar; at least that is all that can be demonstrated to have been his meaning, or all that is necessarily implied in his words. See Notes on the passage. But,

(6) There were opinions which prevailed in Chaldea on the subject of the gods which would fully justify the use of such language. That they regarded one portion of the gods as descended from another, or as be gotten by another; that they looked upon them as constituting families, in a way similar to the Greeks, and particularly that they regarded Bel, their supreme god, always accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, as the father of the gods, has been abundantly demonstrated. On this point, see Gesenius, Com. zu. Isai. ii. 332, seq. (Beylage \ 2, Gottheiten der Chaldaer), and Creuzer, Symbolik, on the word Mylitta, i. 231, ii. 331, 333, 350, 460. The idea of derivation, descent, or birth, among the gods, was one that was quite familiar to the Chaldeans, perhaps as much so as to the Greeks. In fact, this has been so common an opinion among all polytheists, that it is rather to be presumed that it would be found every where among the heathen than otherwise.

The other objection on this point is derived from what is said of the Watchers, ch. iv. 13, 17. The objection is, that there are betrayed here traces of a later Parsish- Jewish representation; that is, that this indicates that the book was composed in later times.

In regard to the meaning of this language, see notes on ch. iv. 13. Perhaps a reference to this Note, where the probability that such a term would be used in Babylon is shown, is all that is necessary in answering the objection. But, in addition to this, an observation of Diodorua Siculus may be introduced here. I copy it as I find it in Gesenius, Com. zu. Isa. vol. ii. pp. 333, 334. Diodorus is speaking of the sun, moon, and five planets as adored by the Chaldeans, and adds, "To the course of these

etars, there are, as they say, thirty others that are subordinate, which are represented as divine counsellors (Swi /?ovXa/oi — consulting gods, as wa

would say,) of whom one half has the supervision of the regions under the earth; the other half has the supervision of things on the earth, among men, and in heaven. Every ten days is one of them sent as a messenger of the stars from those above to those below, and from those

below to those above." This quotation will render it unnecessary to say anything more as to the question, whether it is improbable that such language would be used by one residing in Babylon in the time of the exile. It is to be remembered that this is language which is represented in a dream as having been addressed to Nebuchadnezzar, and the quota tion proves that it is such language as would be likely to occur to the king of Babylon in the visions of the night. It was such language as he must have been accustomed to, and so far is the use of this language from being an objection to the genuineness of Daniel, that it might rather have been urged as a proof of it, since it is not probable that it would have been used by one who was not familiar with the customary ideas of the Chaldeans.

(2.) The other form of the objection derived from the statements re specting the angels in the Book of Daniel, refers to the opinions held among the Hebrews themselves. The general objection is, that these are representations respecting the ranks, and orders, and names of the angels which pertain only to later times in the history of Jewish opinions, and which did not exist in the period of the exile. This objection divides itself into several specifications, which it may be proper to notice briefly in their order.

(a) One is, that there is in the book, and particularly in ch. viii. 16, an allusion to the Persian doctrine of the seven Amhaspands, or angels that stand before God, and that this idea is found only in times later than the exile. Bertholdt, p. 528.

To this the answer is obvious: (1.) That there is no manifest allusion to that Persian doctrine in the book, and no statement which would not as readily have been made if that doctrine had no existence — since it is a mere representation of angels with certain names, and with no par ticular reference to the number seven; and (2.) if this were so, it is cer tain that this representation occurs in the Zendavesta, and the Zendavesta was composed in a distant antiquity, probably long before the time of the exile, and certainly before the time of Alexander the Great. See Crouzer, Symbolik, i. 183, seq., and the authorities there referred to. This, then, if it were true that the doctrine of the seven Amhaspands is found in the book of Daniel, and was derived from the Zendavesta, or the Persian, would remove the objection so far as to show that the book was composed before the time of Alexander the Great, or at least that there is no reason, from this quarter, to suppose that it was written afterwards. But the truth is, that the doctrine respecting angels and intermediate beings was so prevalent a doctrine all over the East, that this objection can have no solid foundation.

(6) It is objected, that there are found in this book representations of the angels, in reference to their ranks and orders, which are opinions of the Jews of a later age, and which did not exist in the time of the exile, and that, therefore, the book had a later origin than the captivity. Bertholdt.

To this it is sufficient to reply, (1.) that such a representation of ranks and orders of angels is implied in Isa. vi. 1, seq., in the account of the Seraphim, a representation which supposes that there are angels of exalted rank and names; (2.) That there are traces of such an opinion in much earlier ages, as in Psa. cxxiii. 20; Ixviii. 17; (3.) That this repre sentation of differences in the ranks of angels is one that prevails in tho Old Testament; and (4.) That, for anything that appears, all that is im plied in Daniel may have been a matter of common belief in his time. There is nothing in the book which would indicate any very definite arrangement of the angels into orders, though it is evidently implied that there are different degrees in the ranks of the angelic hosts, (ch. x. 5, 13, xii. 1,) but this was a common opinion in the East, and indeed has been a common sentiment where a belief in the existence of angels has pre vailed at all.

(c) It is objected that names are given to the angels — the name of Gabriel and Michael, and that this is indicative of a later age. To this, also, it may be replied, (1.) That long before this we find the name Satan given to the leader of evil angels, Job i. 6, and there is no presumption against the belief that names may have been given to good angels also; (2.) That even if the practice had not prevailed before, no reason can be assigned why the angels who appeared to Daniel may not have assumed names, or been mentioned under appropriate titles to designate them, as well as those who appeared in after times; and (3.) That, for anything that appears, the fact that names were given to the angels among the Jews of later times may have had its origin in the time of Daniel, or may have occurred from the fact that he actually mentioned them under specific names.

(d) A similar objection is, that the statement in ch. vii. 10, that "' thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him," is also a statement that had its origin in the representation of a Persian court — in the numbers that stood round the throne of a Persian monarch, and that this indicates a later age, or a Persian origin. To this objection it is sufficient to refer to Isaiah, vi., and to the Notes on this passage. But we have other representations of the same kind abounding in the Scriptures, in which God is described as a magnificent monarch, attended and surrounded by hosts of angels, and the same objection would lie against them which is urged against the ac count in Daniel. See particularly Job i. 2; 1 Kings, xxii. 19 — 22; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. Ixviii. 18.

(e) Another objection from the representations of the angels, is derived from what ifj said of their interposition in human affairs, and their ap pearing particularly as the guardians and protectors of nations, in ch. x. 12, 20; xii. 1, which it is said indicates opinions of a later age. In reply to this, all that is necessary is to refer to the copious Notes on these pas sages, where the foundation of that opinion is examined, and to add that no one can demonstrate that that opinion may not have had an existance as eariy as the time of the exile. Indeed, it was a common opinion }n ancient times — an opinion whose origin no one now can determine — an opinion whose correctness no one can disprove. That this was & pre vailing opinion in ancient times, is admitted by Bertholdt himself, pp. 32, S3, 705—707.

In general, therefore, jjk may be remarked respecting the objections derived from the angeiology of the Book of Daniel, (a) that there way be things occurring in the book which were suggested by opinions prevailing in.Babylon and the East; (6) that the statements in Daniel— the revelations made to him as an eminent prophet — may have been the germ of the opinions which prevailed among the Jews in later times, de velopments of which we have in the books of the Apocrypha, and in the later Rabbincal writings. If so, the objection derived from the angei ology of the book is entirely unfounded.

B. The second objection derived from the alleged reference to later customs and opinions, is founded on the Christology of the book, or the doctrine relating to the Messiah. The objection is, that the opinions which are found in the book belong to a later age; or ^ that in the time of the exile no such views exist in the genuine writings of the prophets, and that consequently the book must have been composed when those later views had come to prevail. The views referred to as the ground of the objection, are found in ch. vii. 13, 14, and xii. 1 — 3. This objection, thus stated by De Wette, has been expanded by Bertholdt and others, and properly embraces, as stated by them, four specifications, which it will be convenient to notice in their order.

(1.) The first is, that in the time of the exile, the doctrine of the Mes siah had not become so developed that it was expected that he would ap pear in glory and majesty, and set up a kingdom upon the earth, as is im plied in ch. vii. 13, 14. 'See Bertholdt, p. 31.

In reply to this, all that is necessary to be said is, to refer to the prophecies in the other portions of the Old Testament, whose antiquity and genuineness are undoubted. In the prophecies of Isaiah, there are predictions of the Messiah as clear, as definite, as distinct, as any that occur in Daniel; and no one can compare the prophecies found in other parts of the Old Testament with those found in Daniel, and de termine by any internal evidence that one class must have been written before, and another after, the time of the exile. Besides, why may not the predictions, under the spirit of inspiration, have been more clearly communicated to one prophet than to another — to Daniel than to Isaiah? And why may not some circumstances respecting the Messiah and his reign have been made to one rather than to another? If it be admitted that all that occurs in the first part of Isaiah (chs. i. — xxxix.) was actually revealed to him, and recorded by him, previous to the exile, there can be no difficulty in admitting that what is found in Daniel may have been communicated and recorded at the time of the exile. In proof of what is here said, it is only necessary to refer to Hengstensberg's Christology, vol. 1. The Messianic prophecies there collected and illustrated, Gen. iii. 14, 15, ix. 26, 27, xlix. 10, Num. xxiv. 17, Deut. xviii. 15—18, Ps. ii. xlv. ex. xvi. xxii. Isa. ii. — iv. vii. xi. xii., furnish statements as clear, in many respects, respecting the Messiah as anything in Daniel, and of many of these statements it might as well be alleged that they are couched in the language of later times, as anything that occurs in the book before us.

(2.) It is alleged further, of the Christology of Daniel, that the ideas respecting the kingdom of the Messiah are stated in the language of later times. Bertholdt, p. 31. In proof of this Bertholdt refers to ch. ii. 44, vii. 13, seq.

This is the same objection in another form. The reply to it is obvious.

(a] If Daniel is admitted to be a true prophet, there is no presumption against the supposition that some ideas may have been imparted to him which might not be found in other prophets — any more than that circum stances respecting the power and kingdom of the Messiah may have been communicated to Isaiah which were not to the earlier prophets; and (6) as a matter of fact, as before stated, many of the prophecies of Isaiah are as minute and as clear in regard to the kingdom of the Messiah as those in Daniel. Compare Isa. ix. 6, 7. No one could place that prediction by the side of the prediction in Daniel vii. 13, 14, and determine from any inter nal evidence that the one was written before the exile, and that the other was couched in the language of later times.

(3.) It is objected (Bertholdt p. 31), that the sentiment found in Daniel (ch. xii. 1,) that the setting up of the kingdom of the Mes siah would be preceded by times of trouble, is a doctrine of the.Rabbincal writings of later times, and savors of a later origin than the times of the exile. To this, also, the reply is obvious, (a] It is to be admitted that this idea occurs in the Rabbincal writings, and that it was a common doctrine among the Jews; but can any one demonstrate that the doctrine had not its origin in this very passage in Daniel? It is quite as philosophical to suppose that this language may have been found in the genuine language of the prophets, and that the doctrine may have sprung up from that cause, as to suppose that it was first originated by uninspired men among the Jews, and then embodied in a pretended prophecy, (b] It was natural that Daniel, if a real prophet, should con nect the two things together, not in time, but in the range of vision. See Intro, to Isa. § 7, iii. (5). Placing himself in prophetic vision in the midst of foreseen trouble coming upon his country, it was natural that the mind should be directed to brighter days and that he should en deavour to cheer his own heart, and to comfort his afflicted countrymen, by dwelling on happier scenes when, under the Messiah, these troubles would cease, (c) As a matter of fact, the same thing elsewhere occurs. Thus Isaiah (ch. xl. and onward,) describes the coming of the kingdom of the Messiah, by connecting it with the deliverance from the calamities that would come upon the Jewish people in the time of the captivity. He seeks to comfort them in their troubles by the assurance of better days; and in describing their return to their own land, the mind of the prophet insensibly glides on to the coming of the Messiah — to the happier times that would occur under him — to the deliverance from the bondage of sin and to the setting up of a kingdom of peace and truth in the world; and the description which began with the troubles of the exile, and the return to their own land, ends with a sublime and glorious view of the times of the Messiah, and of the happiness of the world under his reign. And it may be added that this is in accordance with a general principle laid down in the Bible. " But the Lord shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he saith that their power is gone, and there is none shut up or left." Deut. xxxii. 36. Comp. Isa. xi. 11, and the Notes of Gesenius on that place. See also Hos. iii. 5, Amos ix, 14, 15, Micah iv. 6, 7, Joel v. 6, 7, Zeph. iii. 19, 20, Jer. xxiii. 8, xxxiii. 7, Ezek. xxxvi. 26.

(4.) A fourth specification respecting the Christology in the Book of Daniel, is derived from the reference to the doctrine of the resurrection ih. xii. 2. It is objected that this is a doctrine of later times, and that it could not have been known in the age when Daniel is said to have lived.

That the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is referred to in that passage, or that what is there said is based on the belief of that doctrine, and implies that the doctrine was so commonly believed as to make it proper to refer to it as such, seems plain from the passage itself. See Notes on the passage.

But in regard to the objection derived from this fact, it may be re marked:

(a) That there is evidence elsewhere that the doctrine was known as early as the time of the exile, and was assumed to be true in the same man ner in which it is here. Thus in Isa. xxvi. 19, it is referred to in the same manner, for the remark of the prophet is based on that, and cannot be explained except on the supposition that this ivas an article of common belief. See Notes on that passage. See also Gesenius, who says, " that this place actually contains the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and that in these words the doctrine of the resurrection is undoubtedly implied." The same thing seems also to be true in the vision of the valley of dry bones, Ezekiel xxxvii. 1 — 14. Though that passage does not refer primarily to the resurrection of the dead, and is not intended directly to teach it, yet it is difficult, if not impossible, to explain it except on the supposition that this doctrine was understood, and was believed to be true. It is just such an illustration as would be used now in a community where that doctrine is understood and believed.

(6) It is undoubtedly true that in the passage under consideration, (Dan. xii. 2,) the design is not directly to teach the doctrine of the resur rection of the dead, but that it refers, as the primary thought, to the restoration and recovery of the Jewish people, as if they were raised from the dead; but still, as in the passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel above referred to, the doctrine of the resurrection is assumed, and the illustration is derived from that, and, as Jerome has remarked on the passage, such an illustration would not be employed unless the doctrine were believed, for " no one Avould attempt to confirm an uncertain or doubtful thing by that which had no existence." But the same design exists in each of the cases, in Daniel, Isaiah, and Ezekiel. The doctrine is alluded to in the same manner, and in each case is assumed to be true in the name way — as a doctrine that was known, and that might be employed for illus tration. This is one of the best proofs that there could be that it was a common article of belief; and as it is used by these three writers in the same manner, if it proves that, one of them lived in a later age, it proves the same of all. But as the genuineness of that portion of Isaiah where the passage occurs, and of Ezekiel is not called in question, it follows that the objection has no force as alleged against the genuineness of Daniel.

(c) It may be added, that on the supposition that there is no allusion to this doctrine in any of the prophets that lived in the time of the exile, or before it, that would furnish no evidence that it might not be found in a book written by Daniel. The belief undoubtedly sprang up at some time among the Jews, for it is admitted by those who object to the genu ineness of Daniel on this account, that it did exist in the time in which they allege that the book was written — in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; and it undoubtedly somelioiv gained so much currency among the Jews as to lay the foundation of the peculiar belief of the Pharisees on the subject. But no one can show that this doctrine could not have had its origin in Daniel himself; or that he, living in the time of the exile, might not have made such statements on the subject, as to lay the foundation for the general belief of the doctrine in later times. Even on the sup position that he was not inspired, this might have been; much more on the supposition that he was inspired — for he was one of the latest of the prophets of the Old Testament, and one of those who were most eminently favored of God. In itself considered, there is no improbability in sup posing that God might have honoured Daniel, by making him the instru ment of first distinctly announcing the doctrines of the resurrection and the future judgment of the world.

C. A third objection, from the alleged reference to later customs and opinions in the book of Daniel, is derived from the fact stated in ch. vi. 10, that Daniel in his prayer is said to have turned his face towards Jerusalem. This objection, as urged by Bertholdt and others, is, that the custom of turning the face towards Jerusalem in prayer, was one that was originated after the building of the second temple, and that no traces of it are found while the first temple was standing. It is ad mitted indeed that the custom of turning the face towards a temple or place of worship prevailed extensively in Oriental countries — as among the Mohammedans at present — but it is alleged that this had its origin among the Jews after the captivity, and after the second temple was built. It is further added that it is improbable that Daniel would turn his face towards Jerusalem on that occasion, for the city and temple were destroyed, and the Shekinah, the symbol of the Divine presence there, had disappeared. See Bertholdt, p. 30.

To this objection, the following remarks may be made in reply:

(1.) The custom of turning the face in worship towards a temple or shrine, was one that existed early in the world, and has prevailed in almost all countries. It is one that would naturally spring up even if there were no positive commands on the subject, for this would seem to be demanded by respect for the God who was worshipped, and who was supposed to have his residence in a particular temple. If Jehovah, therefore, was supposed to have his dwelling in the temple; if the sym bols of his presence were believed to be there; if that was his house, just in proportion as that was believed would the custom be likely to prevail of turning the face towards that place in worship — just as we now naturally turn the face towards heaven, which we regard as the pecu liar place of his abode. It would have been unnatural, therefore, if Daniel had not turned his face towards Jerusalem in his devotions.

(2.) The custom is, in fact, far-spread in the East, and goes back in its origin beyond any period we can now assign to it. It prevails everywhere among the Mohammedans; it was found by Mungo Park among the negroes in Africa; (Rosenmiiller Morgenland, iv. 361,) and it maybe said to be the general custom of the East. No one can determine its origin, and probably, for the reason above stated, it existed in the first periods of the history of the world.

(3.) The custom is mentioned in the Psalms as existing before the time of Daniel. Thus in Ps. v. 7, " As for me, I will come into thy house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear will I worship toward thy holy temple/' Ps. cxxxviii. 2, " I will worship toward thy holy temple," &c. Comp. Ps. cxxi. 1. So Psalm xxviii. 2, " Hear the voice of my supplication — when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle."

(4.) The custom was sanctioned by what Solomon said at the dedica tion of the temple. In his prayer on that occasion, it is implied that the custom ivould prevail, and what was said at that time could not but be regarded as giving a sanction to it. Thus in the prayer offered at the dedication of the temple, he seems to have supposed just such a case as that before us: — " If they sin against thee, and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the enemy, so that they carry them away cap tive into the land of the enemy, far or near; if they shall bethink themselves in the land whither they were carried captives, and repent, and pray unto thee toward their land which thou gave.st unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I have built for thy name, then hear thou their prayer," &c. 1 Kings viii. 44 — 49. Comp. also vs. 33, 35, 38, 44.

(5.) It may be added that nothing was more natural than for Daniel to do this. It is not said that he turned his face toward the " temple," but toAvard " Jerusalem." It was true that the temple was in ruins; true that the ark was removed, and that the Shekinah had disappeared. It was true, also, that Jerusalem was in ruins. But it is to be remem bered that Jerusalem had been long regarded as the city of God, and his dwelling-place on the earth; that this was the place where his worship had been celebrated for ages, and where he had manifested himself by visible symbols; that this was the place where the ancestors of Daniel had lived and worshipped, and where he believed the temple of God would be built again, and where God would again dwell — a place sacred in the recollection of the past, and in the anticipations of the future — a place where Daniel had himself been taught to worship God when a child, and where he anticipated that they who should be delivered from the long captivity would again offer sacrifice and praise; and nothing, therefore, was more natural than for him in his prayer to turn his face to a spot hailowed by so many sacred associations.