D. A fourth objection designed to show that the book betrays a later origin than the time of the captivity is, that Daniel is represented (ch. vi. 10,) as entering into his chamber, or " upper room" — vxepwov — when he prayed, and that the custom of setting apart a chamber in a house for private devotion, sprang up in a later age among the Jews, as one of the results of formalism and ostentation in religion. Bertholdt, p. 30.
In regard to this custom among the later Jews, see tlm Notes on the passage referred to. But there are two remarks to be made, show ing conclusively that this objection has no force:
(a) There is no evidence that it was such an "upper room" — virepwcv — as is here referred to. All that is fairly implied in the word in this passage — mV>! might be applied to any house, and at any time. It denotes, indeed, an upper room, upper story, or loft; but not necessarily such an upper room as was built by the Jews in later times, and desig nated by the word fcrepww. It is not improbable that Daniel would retire to such a part of his house to pray, but it is not nectssarily implied in this word that the chamber referred to had been specifically constructed as a place of prayer.
(6) But even supposing that this was the case, it is impossible to prove that such a custom may not have prevailed in the time of the cap tivity. We cannot now trace the origin of that custom among the Jews, and though it undoubtedly prevailed in a later age, yet no one can de monstrate that it did not exist also at a time as early as that of the exile. Indeed, there is some evidence that it did prevail at an earlier period among the Hebrews. Thus in 2 Samuel xviii. 33, it is said of David on the death of Absalom, " And the king was much moved, and went up to tlie chamber over the gate, and wept," &c. So in the case of the prophet Elijah, during his residence with the widow of Zarephath, an upper chamber or loft was assigned the prophet, 1 Kings xvii. 19, called " a loft where he abode" — rrhy. the very word which is used in Daniel. The same word occurs again in Judges iii. 20, 23, 24, 25, in such case ren dered parlor, and referring to a private room where one might retire, and, as the word implies, to an upper room — doubtless a small room built on the flat roof of the house, as being more retired and cool. And again, in 2 Kings i. 2, it is said of Ahaziah that " he fell down through a lat tice in his upper chamber that was in Samaria." And again in 2 Kings iv. 10, the Shunamitess proposes to her husband to make for the prophet
Elisha "a little chamber on the wall" tvn:1?? a place of retirement for him. These passages show that the custom of constructing a cham ber or upper room for the purpose of retirement or devotion prevailed long before the time of Daniel, and, therefore, the fact that he is repre sented as having such a place in his house in Babylon, if that be the fact referred to here, cannot be alleged as evidence that the book was written at a later period than the captivity.
E. It is alleged as an evidence that the book was written at a period later than the exile, that Daniel is represented (in the same passage, ch. vi. 10,) as praying three times a day, a custom, it is said, which origi nated in later times.
But the reply to this is obvious, (a) The custom of praying three times a day in sacred devotion, is one of which there are traces in earlier times. Thus the Psalmist, Ps. Iv. 17, " Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray and cry aloud, and he shall hear my voice." (b) Daniel may have had such a custom without supposing that he derived it from any one. (c) These are the natural times of prayer; times that devout persons will be likely to select as seasons of devotion; the morning, when one just enters upon the duties and trials of the day — when it is appropriate to give thanks for preservation, and to ask of God that he will guide, direct and sustain us; the evening, when, having finished the toils of the day, it is appropriate to render thanksgiving, to pray for the remission of the sins of the day, and to seek the blessing and protection of God as we lie down to rest; and noon, when we feel the propriety of dividing the labours of the day by an interval of rest and devotion — thus keeping up, amidst the cares of the world, the life of religion in tke soul, (d) There is no certain evidence that this be came a regular and settled usage in later times among the Jews, anj more than that it was of a former ao-e.
F. It is alleged that what is said in ch iv. 27, of the efficacy of almsgiving in averting the judgments of God, is an opinion that had its origin in later times, and proves that the book must have been written at a period subsequent to the captivity. The passage is, " Let my coun sel be acceptable unto thee, and brake off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor; it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity." This, it is said, could have been written only at a time when great merit was attributed to almsgiving, and when such acts, it was supposed, would avert divine vengeance from the guilty; and this opinion, it is alleged, sprang up at a period subsequent to the cap tivity. That the sentiment here adverted to prevailed in later times, there can be no doubt; but there is no proof that it is used in the pas sage before us in the sense in which it prevailed in the time when the books of the Apocrypha were written. And, in reference to the objec tion here urged, all that is necessary, it seems to me, is to refer to the Notes on the passage, where its true meaning is fully considered. The short answer is, that the passage does not teach any such peculiar doc trine on the subject of almsgiving as prevailed in later times among the Jews, but only the general doctrine, which is found everywhere in the Bible, and which accords with all just notions on the subject, that if a sinner will abandon the error of his ways, and perform acts of righteous ness, it will conduce to his happiness, and in all probability to the length ening out of his days.
G. One other objection, under the general head now under considera tion, remains. It is derived from what are called the ascetic customs re ferred to in the book. On this point De Wette refers to ch. i. 8 — 16, as compared with 2 Mace. v. 27, and with the Apocryphal portion of the Book of Esther.
In regard to this objection, also, perhaps all that is necessary is to refer to the Notes on the passage. The reason which Daniel gave for not partaking of the food and wine furnished by the king of Babylon, is not such as would be derived from any ascetic or monastic opinions, but such as would be given by any Jew of that age Avho was conscientious. It was " that he might not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank" (ch. i. 8); that is, he pur posed to keep himself clear from all participation in idolatry, and to save himself from the temptations to which one would be exposed if he indulged freely in the luxuries in eating and drinking which were prac tised at the royal table. As this solution explains the passage on prin ciples that would be like to influence a pious Jew, and which would be proper in young men everywhere, it is unnecessary to seek any other, and improper to suppose that there is an allusion here to superstitious customs which prevailed among the Jews in later times.
VI. A sixth objection to the authenticity and genuineness of the Book, is derived from the place assigned it in the canon. This objection is urged by Bertholdt, Bleek, Eichhorn, Kirms, and Be Wette, and is sub stantially this, as stated by Bertholdt. It is well known that the Jews, in the time when the Talmud was composed, divided their sacred books into three parts — the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography. The latter class embraced the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the two books of the Chronicles. This classification also existed in the time of Jerome, who obtained it evidently from the Jews in Palestine. The objection is, that in collecting and arranging the books of the Old Tes tament, Daniel was assigned to this latter class, and was not placed among the Prophets. The book professes to be, in a great part, pro phetical, and if genuine, its true place, it is argued, would be among the prophets; and, it is said, it would have been placed in that class if it had been in existence at the time when the collection of the sacred books was made. It is argued, therefore, that it must have had a later origin, and that when it was written it was assigned a place in that general col-^ lection of writings where all those books were arranged which could not be placed with either of the other classes. This objection is summarily stated by Prof. Stuart (Critical History and Defence of the Old Testa ment Canon, p. 266,) in the following words: " The argument runs
thus: ' No reason can be assigned, except the lateness of the composi tion, why Daniel and the Chronicles should be placed among the Kcthubim or Hagiography, since the first belongs to the class of the later pro phets, and the second, like Samuel, Kings, etc., to the class of the former prophets. The fact, then, that Daniel and the Chronicles are joined with the Kethubim, shows that they were written after the second class of the scriptural books, viz. the Prophets, was fully defined and completed. Now, as this class comprises Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, so we have conclusive evidence that Daniel and Chronicles must have been composed, or at all events introduced into the canon, at a period sub sequent to Nehemiah and Malachi, which was about 430 — 420, B. C.;;;
In reference to this objection, perhaps all that would be necessary for me would be to refer to the very full and satisfactory argument of Prof. Stuart on the Canon in the work just named, $ 9 — 13, pp. 214 — 298. A few remarks, however, on two or three points, seem to be demanded to show the results which have been searched by a careful investigation of the subject, and how entirely without foundation is the objection.
A. The objection, then, takes for granted the following things, which it is impossible now to prove: (1.) That the division of the books of the Old Testament found in the Talmud, and prevailing among the Jews in the time of Jerome, in which Daniel is placed in the third class, the Kethubim or Hagiography, is the ancient and original division; for if this is not so, then Daniel may have been placed among the prophets, and of course the objection would not then exist. There is the strongest reason to believe that this was not the arrangement that prevailed at an earlier period, but that it was made long after the time. of Josephus. At any rate it cannot be proved to have been the original arrangement. (2.) It takes for granted that the main reason for inserting Daniel and the books of the Chronicles in the Hagiography was the recent origin of these books, or the fact that they were composed after the second class — the prophets — was completed and collected together; for the whole weight of the objection rests on this. If any of these books in the Hagi ography were in fact written at an earlier period than some in the second class — the Prophets, or if any other reason existed for referring them to the class of the Hagiograghy than the lateness of their composition, then the objection would have 110 force. But this difficulty of itself would be uital to the objection, for there is every reason to suppose that the lateness of the composition was not the reason why these books were placed in the Hagiography, and that this was never supposed or implied by those who made the arrangement. For, not to speak of the Book of Job, which is found in that class, and which is probably one of the oldest compo sitions in the Bible, if not the very oldest, what shall we say of the Psalms, and the Book of Proverbs, and the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, which are also found in that class? Assuredly it could not have been pretended that these writings belonged to the Maccabean age, and that they were inserted in the Hagiography because they were sup posed to have had a later origin than the Prophets; for, in all ages, the Jews have regarded the Book of Proverbs, the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, as the genuine production of Solomon. Why then were they put into the Hagiography — for there the Psalms, and the Book of Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, have always been, in every triplex division of the books of the Old Testament which has ever been made? (3.) The objection takes for granted that the two classes, the Prophets and the Hagiography, have been fixed and uniform, like the first, the Law, as to the number of books, in each ever since the division was made; that the same number of books, and the same arrange ment, has been found which existed in the time of Josephus; and that no causes have ever operated since to produce a change in the arrangement; for if this is not so it would be fatal to the objection. But this can never be shown to be true. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the contrary is true, and if it cannot be demonstrated to be true, the objec tion is without force. But,
B. There are strong positive arguments to show that the fact that Daniel, in the later divisions of the Hebrew books, is placed in the list of the Hagiography or Kethubim, is no argument against the genuineness and authenticity of the book.
(1.) There is every presumption that in the earliest arrangement of the books of the Old Testament, the book of Daniel, with several that now occupy the same place in the Talmudical arrangement, was ranked with the second class — the Prophets. This presumption is founded, mainly, on what is said of the division of the books of the Old Testa ment by Josephus. It is true that he has not enumerated the books of the Old Testament, but he has mentioned the division of the books in his time, and, of course, in earlier times, in such a way as to make it morally certain that Daniel was not in the third class, but in the second class — the Prophets. His account of this division (Against Apion, b. 1, $ 8) is
as follows: " We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arranged against each other, but only two and twenty books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine [the old editions of Josephus read merely, 'which are justly accredited' — Sna (divine) comes from Eusebius' translation of Josephus, in Ecc. Hist. iii. 10]; and of these five belong to Moses, which contain both the laws and the history of the generations of men until his death. This period lacks but little of 3000 years. From the death of Moses, moreover, until the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who fol lowed Moses have described the things which were done during the age of each one respectively, in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and rules of life for men. From the time of Artaxerxes,
moreover, till our present period, all occurrences have been written down; but they are not regarded as entitled to the like credit with those which precede them, because there was no certain succession of prophets. Fact has shown what confidence we place in our own writings. For although so many ages have passed away, no one has dared to add to them, nor to take anything from them, nor to make alterations. In all Jews it is im planted, even from their birth, to regard them as being the instructions of God, and to abide steadfastly by them, and if it be necessary to die gladly for them." Prof. Stuart's translation, ut supra, pp. 430, 431.
Now, in this extract from Josephus, stating the number and order of the sacred books in his time, it is necessarily implied that the Book of Daniel was then included in the second part, or among the " Prophets." For (a) it is clear that it was not in the third division, or the Hagiography. Of that division Josephus says, " The remaining four contain hymns to God, and rules of life for men." Now we are not able to determine with exact certainty, indeed, what these four books were, for Josephus has not mentioned their names, but we can determine with certainty that Daniel was not of the number, for his book does not come under the description of " hymns to God," or " rules of life for men." If we cannot, therefore, make out what these books were, the argument would be complete on that point; but although Josephus has not enumerated them, they can be made out with a good degree of proba bility. That the " hymns to God" would embrace the Psalms there can be no doubt; and there can be as little doubt that in the books contain ing " rules of life for men," the Proverbs would be included. The other books that would more properly come under this designation than any other, are Ecclcsiastes and the Song of Solomon, (see the full evidence of this in Prof. Stuart, ut supra, pp. 256-264); at all events it is clear that Daniel would not be included in that number. (6) There is evidence, then, that Daniel was included a-t that time in the second division — that of the Prophets. Josephus says that that division comprised " thirteen books," and that Daniel was included among them is evident from the rank which Josephus gives to him as one of the greatest of tho prophets. Thus he says of him (Ant. b. x. ch. xi.), "lie was so happy as to have
strange revelations made to him, and those 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. For the several books that he wrote and left behind him are still read by us till this time, and from them we believe that he conversed with God; for he not only prophesied of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplishment. And while prophets used to foretell mis fortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to the kings and the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and tiiis to such a degree, that, by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he pro cured the good-will of all men; and by the accomplishment of them he procured the belief of their truth, and the opinion of a sort of divinity for himself among the multitude. He also wrote and left behind him what evinced the accuracy, and an undeniable veracity of, his predictions."
From this it is clear that Josephus regarded Daniel as worthy to be ranked among the greatest of the prophets, and that he considered his writings as worthy to be classed with those of the other eminent prophets •jf his country. This is such language as would be used in speaking ol my ancient prophet; and, as we have seen that the Book of Daniel could not have been of the number mentioned by him in the third class — " those containing hymns to God and rules of life for men" — it follows that it must have been ranked by Josephus in the second division — that of the prophets. It does not seem easy to suppose that there could be clearer proof than this, short of direct affirmation. The proof that he regarded Daniel as belonging to this division of the books, is as clear as can be made out from his writings in favor of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel.
(2.) If Daniel had this rank in the time of Josephus, then it would follow that in the division of the books of the Old Testament, as referred to by the Saviour (Luke xxiv. 44), he must have had this rank also. There can be no doubt that Josephus expresses not his own private judgment in the matter, but the prevailing opinion of his countrymen on the subject. Josephus was born A. D. 37. and consequently he must have uttered what was the general sentiment in the time of the Saviour and the apostles — for it cannot be supposed that any change had occurred in that short time among the Jews, by which Daniel had been transferred from the third division to the second. If any change had occurred in the arrangement of the books, it would have been, for reasons which are ob vious, just the reverse — since the predictions of Daniel were at this time much relied on by Christians, in their arguments against the Jews, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. We may regard it as morally cer tain, therefore, that in the time of the Saviour, Daniel was ranked among the prophets. It may be added here, also, that if Daniel had this rank in the estimation of Josephus, it may be presumed that he had the same rank when the division of the sacred books is referred to in the only other two instances among the Jews, previous to the composition of the Talmud. In both these cases there is mention of the triplex division; in neither are the names of the books recorded. One occurs in the " Pro logue of the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach," in the Apocrypha. This Prologue was probably written about 130 B. C.; the book itself probably about 180 B. C. In this Prologue the writer mentions the divisions of the sacred books three times in this manner: " Since so many
and important things have been imparted to us by the Law, the Prophets, and other [i.corks'] of the like kind which have followed, for which one must needs praise Israel on account of learning and wisdom; and inas much as not only those who read ought to be well-informed, but those who are devoted to learning, should be able to profit, both in the way of speaking and writing, such as are foreigners, my grandfather, Jesus, having devoted himself very much to the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of his country, and having acquired a great degree of experience in these things, was himself led on to compose something per taining to instruction and wisdom, so that those desirous of learning, being in possession of these things, might grow much more by a life con formed to the law. Ye are invited, therefore, with good will, and strict attention, to make the perusal, and to take notice whenever we may seem to lack ability, in respect to any of the words which we have labored to translate. Not only so, but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the remaining books, exhibit no small diversity among themselves as to the modes of expression."
The other reference of the same kind occurs in Philo Judseus. He flourished about A. D. 40, and in praising a contemplative life, and giving examples of it, he comes at last to the Therapeutce, or Essenes, and in speaking of their devotional practices, he uses this language: " In every
house is a sanctuary, which is called sacred place or monastery, in which, being alone, they perform the mysteries of a holy life; introducing nothing into it, neither drink, nor bread-corn, nor any of the other things which are necessary for the wants of the body, but the Laws, and Ora cles predicted by the prophets, and Hymns and other writings, by which knowledge and piety are increased and perfected." There can be no
reasonable doubt that precisely the same division of the books of the Old Testament is referred to in each of these cases which is mentioned by Josephus. If so, then Daniel was at that time reckoned among the Prophets.
(3.) He certainly had this rank among the early Christians, alike in their estimation of him, and in the order of the sacred books. It happens, that although Josephus, the son of Sirach, and Philo have given no list of the names and order of the sacred books, yet the early Christians have, and from these lists it is easy to ascertain the rank which they
assigned to Daniel. " Melito places Daniel among the Prophets, and before Ezekiel. The same does Origen. The Council of Laodicea places Daniel next after Ezekiel, and, of course, among the Prophets. The same do the Canones Apostol., Cyrill of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturse in Athan. The Council of Hippo, like Melito and Origen, place it before Ezekiel, as also does Hilary; and Rufinus places it next after Ezekiel. Jerome alone, in giving an account of the Rabbinical usage in his day, puts Daniel among the Hagiography; and after it he puts Chronicles, Ezra (with Nehemiah) and Esther." Prof. Stuart, ut supra, p. 284.* The Talmud thus stands
alone, with the exception of Jerome, in placing Daniel among the books constituting the Hagiography; and Jerome, in doing this, merely gives an account of what was customary in his time among the Jewish Rabbins, without expressing any opinion of his own on the subject. These testimonies are sufficient to show that Daniel was never placed in the division composing the Hagiography, so far as can be proved by the Son of Sirach, by Philo, by Josephus, by the Jews in the time of the Saviour, or by the Christian writers of the first four centuries; and, of course, until it can be demonstrated that he was thus classified, this ob jection must fall to the ground. But,
(4.) The fact that Daniel occupied this place in the- divisions made of the books by the later Jews, can be accounted for in a way perfectly con sistent with the supposition that he wrote at the time when the book is commonly believed to have been composed. For,
(a) The reason which they themselves give for this arrangement is, not that his writings were of later date, but some fanciful view which they had about the degrees of inspiration of the prophets. They say that the Books of Moses take the precedence above all others, because God
* The lists of the books, as given by these writers and councils, may be seen at length In?rof. Stuart, ut supra, Appendix, pp. 431-452.
spake with him mouth to mouth; that the prophets who came after him, were such as, whether sleeping or waking when they received revelations, were deprived of all the use of their senses, and were spoken to by a voice, or saw prophetic visions in ecstacy; and that the third and lowest class of writers were those who, preserving the use of their senses, spake like other men, and yet in such a way that, although not favoured with dreams or visions in ecstacy, they still perceived a divine influence resting upon them, at whose suggestion they spake or wrote what they madt public. For the proof of 'this, see Prof. Stuart, ut supra, p. 269. Agree ably to this fanciful opinion, they made the arrangements of the sacred books which is found in the Talmud, and on this principle they placed Daniel in the list of the Hagiography. But assuredly this fanciful opinion, and the mistake of the Jews consequent on it, can be no reason for supposing that the Book of Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabees; and especially as they who made this arrangement never pretended this, and never could have made the arrangement on this ground. And,
(6) There is great reason for supposing, after all, that Daniel was not assigned to the place which he has in the Talmudic divisions of the sacred books, on the ground that he was properly classed there, even on their arbitrary and fanciful opinion as to the degrees of inspiration among the prophets, but because, in the disputes between Christians and Jews about the Messiah, in the first three and a half centuries, the Jews felt themselves to be so pressed by the prediction in Dan. ix. respecting the seventy weeks, that they sought to give the book a lower place than it had occupied before, and thus to remove it somewhat from an association with the other prophets, and to diminish the force of the argument in proof that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ.
(5.) To all this it may be added, that it would have been impossible to have foisted a book into the canon that was composed in the time of the Maccabees, and that was not regarded as of divine inspiration. We have, as above, the express testimony of Josephus, that for some four hundred years before his time they had no prophets who wrote inspired books, or who could be regarded as sacred writers. The canon, according to him, was closed at the time of Artaxerxes, and afterward they had books in which " all occurrences were written down, but these were not regarded as of like credit with those that preceded them, because there was no certain succession of prophets." That is, the canon of inspired books was then closed, in the apprehension of the Jews, or they had a definite number which they regarded as of divine origin, and as distinguished from all others.
Now, supposing this to have been, as no doubt it was, a prevailing opinion among the Jews, it would have been impossible to have foisted in a book written in the time of the Maccabees — or after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as the objection supposes the Book of Daniel to have been — in such a way that it would be regarded as entitled to a place among the sacred writings. If this book was written at that time, it must have been known that it was not the genuine production of the Daniel of the captivity, and by whom could it be introduced into the canon? On what pretence could it be done? What claim could have been urged for a spurious book of this kind to a place by the side of
Isaiah and Ezekiel? It is well known that the Hebrews have been, in aft ages, most careful of their sacred books; that they have transcribed them with the greatest possible attention; that they have counted the words and the letters; that they have marked and preserved every variety, irregularity, and anomaly, even every unusual shape and position of a letter in the manuscript; and it may be asked with em phasis, in what way it would be possible to introduce a book which was known and admitted to be spurious, — a book falsely ascribed to one who was said to have lived long before — among those which they regarded as of divine origin, and whose purity they guarded with so much care? Scarcely any greater literary absurdity can be imagined than this.
VII. A seventh objection which has been urged to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, is derived from the silence of the Son of Sirach in regard to it. This objection is urged by De Wette, Bleek, Eichhorn, Kirms, and Bretschneider, and is substantially this: — that in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (ch. xlix.), the author of that book, Jesus, the Son of Sirach, undertakes to give a list of the personages in the Jewish history who had been eminent for virtue, piety, and patriotism; and that the circumstances of the case are such that it is to be pre sumed that if he had known anything of Daniel and his writings, he would have been mentioned among them. Thus he mentions David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Prophets, Zorobabel, Jesus the son of Josedec, Nehemiah, Enoch, Joseph, Shem, Seth, and Adam. The particular point, however, of the objection seems to bo, that he mentions men who were eminent in securing the return of the He brews to their own country, as Nehemiah and Zorobabel, and that if Daniel had lived then in Babylon, and had had the important agency in effecting the return of the captives which is ascribed to him in this book, or had had the influence at the court of Persia attributed to him, it is un accountable that his name was not mentioned.
To this objection we may reply: (1.) That the argumentum a silentio is admitted not to be a conclusive kind of reasoning. So long as there may have been other reasons why the name was omitted in such a list, it is unfair and inconclusive to infer that he had not then an existence, or that there was no such man. It is necessary, in order that this reason ing should have any force, to show that this is the only cause which could have led to this omission, or that this alone could account for it. But it is easy to conceive that there may have been many reasons why the name was omitted in this rapid enumeration, consistently with the belief that Daniel then lived in Babylon, and that he occupied the position, and rendered the services, which it may be supposed from the account in this book, he would render. In such a rapid enumeration it cannot be supposed that the writer mentioned all the eminent men among the Hebrews, and therefore it is in no way remark able that the name of Daniel should have been omitted. This is con ceded even by Kirms. See his work, Commentatio Historico-Critica, &c., p. 9. (2.) The objection, if of any value, would prove that no such person as Daniel existed at that time, or even at any time previous to the age of the Son of Sirach; for he did not mention these persons as authors of books, but as eminent persons — as distinguished not by their writings, but by their lives. But the existence of Daniel, as a historical personage, is as clear as that of any of the eminent men mentioned in the Jewish history, and is even conceded by the objectors themselves. See § 1 of this Introduction. (3.) As a matter of fact, the Son of Sirach has omitted the names of others whom he would be at least as likely to refer to as the name of Daniel. He has wholly omitted the name of Ezra. Would not his agency be as likely to occur to such a writer as that of Daniel? He has omitted the names of Mordecai and Esther — personages whose agency would be as likely to be remembered in such a connection as that of Daniel. He has omitted also the whole of the Minor Prophets; for the passage in ch. xlix. 10, which in the common version makes mention of them, is shown by Bretschneider (in loc.} to be clearly spurious, it having been copied verbatim from ch. xlvi. 12, with merely the substitution of the words " the twelve prophets" for the word " their." See Prof. Stuart, Com. p. 463. How can such an omission be accounted for if the objection derived from the omission of the name of Daniel has any force? And if the mere silence of the Son of Sirach be allowed to be an argument against the existence of pro minent persons in the Jewish history, and the genuineness of the books which they wrote, who will determine the limit to which the objection will go? How small a portion of the patriarchs and prophets; how small a portion of the writings of the Old Testament, would be spared! And, after all, why should so much weight be allowed to the mere silence of the Son of Sirach — an author comparatively unknown — as to set aside the positive testimony of all antiquity, and change the faith of the world?.. T
§ 3. CONTINUATION OF THE ARGUMENT FOR THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
B. Positive Proofs of its Genuineness and Authenticity.
HAVING thus examined at length the objections which have been made to the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, I proceed now to notice the positive proofs that it was written at the time when it is alleged to have been, and by the author whose name it bears. This need not detain us long; for if the objections which are made to the genuineness of the book are not well founded, there will be little diffi culty in showing that the common sentiment in the church in regard to its authorship and authenticity is correct. It has undeniably for a long time had a place in the sacred canon; it has been received by the Christian church at all times as a sacred book, on the same level with the other inspired books; it has had a place among the books regarded by the Jews as inspired, and if it cannot be displaced from the position which it has so long occupied, the conclusion would seem to be fair that that is its proper position. We have seen, in the previous dis cussion, that it was ranked by Josephus among the prophetic books; that it was held in high estimation among the Jews as one of their sacred books; that the canon of Scripture was closed some four hundred years before the time of the Saviour, and that, from the nature of the case, it would have been impossible to foist a book of doubtful origin, or an acknowledged fiction, into that canon in a later age.
In looking now at the positive evidence of the genuineness and canonical authority of the book, the only points that are really necessary to be made out are two: — that it is the work of one author, and that that author was the Daniel of the captivity. If these two points can be established, its right to a place in the canon will be easily demonstrated. My object, then, will be to establish these two points, and then to show how, if these points are admitted, it follows that the book is inspired, and has a right to a place in the canon.
I. It is the work of one author. That is, it is not made up of frag ments from different hands, and composed at different times. It is a book by itself, every part of which is entitled to credit if any part of it is, and entitled to the same credit on the ground of being the com position of the same author.
The evidence of this lies in such circumstances as the following: —
(1.) It is apparent on the face of the book that the design is to repre sent it as the production of one author. If the book is a forgery, this was no doubt the intention of its author; if it is genuine, it was of course the design. No one, on reading the book, it is presumed, could fail to perceive that the design of the author was to leave the impression that it is the work of one hand, and that it was intended to represent what occurred in the lifetime of one man, and that one man had committed it to writing. This is apparent, because the same name occurs throughout; because there is substantially one series of transactions; because the transactions are referred to as occurring in one place — Babylon; and because the same languages, customs, usages, and times, are referred to. All the internal marks which can go to demonstrate that any work is by one hand would be found to be applicable to this; and all the external marks will be found also to agree with this supposition.
There are two things, indeed, to be admitted, which have been relied on by some, to prove that the work is the composition of different authors.
(a) The one is, that it is divided into two parts: — the one (ch. i.-vi.), in the main historical; the other (ch. vii.-xii.), in the main prophetical. But this is no argument against the identity of the authorship, for the same intermingling of history with prophecy occurs in most of the pro phetic books; and it is no objection that these occur in separate con tinuous portions instead of being irregularly intermingled. In fact, the same thing occurs in Isaiah, where the first part (ch. i.-xxxix.) is made up, in a considerable degree, of historic allusions mingled with prophesy; and where the second part (ch. xl.-lxvi.) is wholly prophetic. Besides, anyone must admit that on the supposition that Daniel v\ as the sole author of the book, nothing would be more natural than this ve^y arrange ment. What objection could there be to the supposition that one part of his book might relate to historic incidents mainly — though even these have a strong prophetic character — and that the other should be com posed of prophecies? What would there be in his condition or character that would forbid such a supposition?
(6) The other circumstance is, that, between these two parts, there is a change in the person of the writer — that in the first portion (ch. i.-vi.), he uses the third person when speaking of Daniel, and in the other (ch. vii.-xii.), the first person. This is, in the main, true, though it is true also that in the second part the third person is sometimes used when speaking,>f himself, ch. vii. 1, x. 1. But in regard to this, it may be observed, (1.) that it is no uncommon thing for an author to speak of himself in the third person. This is uniformly done by Caesar in his Commentaries, and this fact is never urged now as an argument against the genuineness of his work. (2.) This is often done by the prophets. See Isa. ii. 1, vii. 3, xiii. 1; Ezek. i. 3. So Hosea, throughout the first chapter of his book, speaks uniformly of himself in the third person, and in chs. ii. and iii. in the first person; and so Amos, ch. vii. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, speaks of himself in the first person, and again, vs. 12, 14, in the third person. It may be added, that it is the uniform method, also, of the Evangelist John to speak of himself in the third person; and, in fact, this is so common in authors that it can constitute no argument against the genuineness of any particular book.
It may be observed, also, that, in general, those who have denied the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, have admitted that it is the work of one author. This is expressly admitted by Lengerke, p. ci., who says, " The identity of the author appears from the uniformity of the plan, and the relations which the different parts bear to each other; that the historical and prophetic parts are related to each other; that there is a certain uniform gradation (Stufenfolge) of the oracles from the uncertain to the certain; that there is a remarkable similarity of ideas, images, and forms of speech; and that in the respective parts of the He brew and Chaldee, there is great similarity of style." The same opinion is maintained by Dereser, Gesenius, Bleek, De Wette, Kirms, Hoffmann, and Hengstenberg; though nearly all of these authors suppose that it was written in the time of the Maccabees. They admit, however, that it is the work of a single author. Eichhorn and Bertholdt appear to have been the only authors of distinction who have denied it.
(2.) The identity of the book appears from the manner in which it is written in respect to language. We have already seen that a part of it is written in Hebrew, and a part in Chaldee. From the beginning to ch. ii. 4, it is Hebrew; then from ch. ii. 4, to the end of ch. vii. it is Chaldee, and the remainder (ch. viii.-xii.) is Hebrew. Now, it may be admitted, that if the historical part (ch. i.-vi.) had been wholly in either of these languages, and the prophetical part (ch. vii.-xii.) had been wholly in the other, it might have constituted a plausible argument against the identity of the book. But the present arrangement is one that furnishes no such argument. It cannot well be conceived that if the work were the production of two authors, one would begin his portion in one language and end it in another, and that the other would just reverse the process in regard to languages. Such an arrangement would not be likely to occur in two independent compositions professedly treating of the same general subjects, and intended to be palmed off as the work of one author. As it is, the arrangement is natural, and easy to be accounted for; but the other supposition would imply an artifice in composition which would not be likely to occur, and which would be wholly unneces sary for any purpose which can be imagined.
(3.) The identity of the book appears from the fact that it refers to the same series of subjects; that the same great design is pursued through the whole. Thus in the two parts, though the first is mainly historical, and the last prophetical, there is a remarkable parallelism between tha predictions in ch. ii. and in ch. vii. The same great series of events is referred to, though in different forms; and so throughout the book, as remarked above in the quotation from Lengerke, we meet with the same ideas, the same modes of speech, the same symbols, the same imagery, the operation of the same mind, and the manifestation of the same cha racter in the authors. The Daniel of the first part is the Daniel of the last; and, in this respect, the similarity is so great as to leave the irre sistible impression on the mind that he is the personage of the whole book, and that his own hand is apparent throughout.
(4.) The identity of the book appears from the fact that the objections made to it pertain alike to every part of it, and in reference to the dif ferent parts are substantially the same. By referring to the objections which have, in the previous section, been examined at length, it will be seen that they all suppose the identity of the book, or that they are drawn from the book considered as a whole, and not from any particular part. Whatever difficulty there is in regard to the book pertains to it as a whole, and difficulties of precisely the same kind lie scattered through the entire volume. This fact proves that the book has such an identity as appertains to one and the same author; and this fact would not be likely to occur in a book that was made up of the productions of different authors.
(5.) It may be added, that whenever Daniel is spoken of by Josephus, by the Saviour, or by the early Christian writers, it is always done as if the book was the production of one author. Just such language is used as would be used on the supposition that the book is the composition of one man; nor is there an intimation that there were two Daniels, ov that there was even any doubt about the identity of the authorship.
The fact that the Book of Daniel is the production of one author, may be regarded as established. Indeed, there is no ancient work concerning which the evidence is more direct and clear.
II. The second point to be made out is, that the author was the Daniel of the captivity. The evidences on this point will be adduced in the order, not of time, but of what seems due to them in value and im portance.
(1.) I refer, first, to the testimony of the writer himself. In chs. vii. 28, viii. 2, 15, 27, ix. 2, x. 1, xii. 5, the writer speaks of himself as " I Daniel;" that is, the same Daniel whose history is given in ch. i. This cannot be, indeed, regarded as conclusive evidence; for the forger of a book might insert the name of another person as the author, and be constant in maintaining it to be so. All that is affirmed is, that this is prima facie evidence, and is good evidence until it is set aside by substantial reasons. We assume this in regard to any book, and the evidence should be admitted unless there are satisfactory reasons for supposing that the name is assumed for purposes of deception. It cannot be doubted that the book bears on its face the appearance and the claim of having been written by the Daniel of the captivity, and that, in this respect, it is altogether such as it would be on that supposition. There is certainly an air of simplicity, honesty, and sincerity about it which we expect to find in a genuine production.
(2.) I refer, secondly, to the fact that the Book of Daniel was received into the canon o* the Old Testament as an authentic work of the Daniel of the captivity, and as entitled to a place among the inspired books of Scripture.
(a) It has been shown above, that the Canon of Scripture was re garded as complete long before the time of the Maccabees; or that, according to the testimony of Josephus, there were three classes of books among the Hebrews, all regarded as sacred books, and all, in this respect, differing from certain other books which they had, as containing the record of affairs subsequent to the time of Artaxerxes. These classes of books were known as the Law, the Prophets, and the " Kethubim" — the " other writings," or the " Hagiography;" and these books together con stituted what, in the New Testament, are called t/ie Scriptures, or Scrip ture: the Scripture in Matt. xii. 10, xv. 28; Luke iv. 21; John ii. 22, vii 38, 42, x. 35, xix. 37; Horn. iv. 3, ix. 17; Gal. iii. 8, 22; 2 Tim. iii. 16 1 Pet. ii. 6; 2 Pet. i. 20; the Scriptures in Matt. xxi. 42, xxii. 29, xxvi. 54; Luke xxiv. 27, 32, 45; John v. 39; Acts xvii. 2, 11, xviii. 24, 28; Rom. i. 2, xv. 4, xvi. 26; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4; 2 Tim. iii. 15; 2 Pet. iii. 16. These constituted a collection of writings which were distinct from all others, and the use of the word Scripture, or Scriptures, at once suggested them, and no others, to the mind.
(b) The Book of Daniel was found in that list of writings, and would be suggested by that term as belonging to the general collection. That is, in order to adduce his authority, or to mention a prophecy in that book, it would be done as readily as a part of the Scriptures, and would be as well understood, as in quoting a declaration of Moses or Isaiah. This is apparent (1) from the fact seen above, that Josephus must have regarded Daniel as having a rank among the prophets; and (2), mainly, from the fact that Daniel has always, from the earliest knowledge which we have of the book, had a place in the canon. The book has never, so far as we have any knowledge, been placed among the Apocryphal writings. It was evidently regarded by Josephus, speaking the common sentiment of his countrymen, as having a place in the canonical writings; it was cer tainly so regarded by the authors of the Talmud, though they assigned it a place in the third division, or Kethubini; it is expressly so men tioned by Jerome, by Melito, Bishop of Sardis (A. D. 170), by Origen, by the Council of Laodicea (A. D. 360-364), by Cyrill of Jerusalem (A. D. 350), by Gregory Nazianzen (A. D. 370), by Athanasius of Alexandria (A. 1). 326), and by the author of the Synopsis Scriptures Sacra), who lived in the time of Athanasius. See Prof. Stuart on the Old Testament. Appendix. From that time onward it is needless to show that the Book of Daniel has always had a place in the canon of Scripture, and been re garded as on a level with the other writings of the sacred volume. Indeed, it has never had, so far as we have any historical information, any oilier place than that, but wherever known, and wherever men tioned, it has always been as a portion of the sacred writings.
(c) It is -norally certain that it could not have been introduced into that canon if it was the work of a later age, and if it was not believed, at the time when the canon of the Old Testament was completed, or when the books^ of the Old Testament were collected and arranged, by whom soever this was clone, to have been the genuine work of Daniel. This point has been considered already. The Jews were the most cautious of all people in regard to their sacred books, and at an early period of their history the contending sects of the Pharisees and Sadducees arose, and from the very nature of their opinions, and the vigilance of the one against the other, it was impossible that a book could be introduced into the sacred canon which was not universally regarded as genuine and authentic. The exact period, indeed, when these sects arose has not been determined, and cannot now be; but it is put beyond a doubt that it was before the time of the Maccabees. Josephus first mentions them (Ant. xiii. 5, 9) under the high-priest Jonathan (B. C. 159-144); but he mentions them, together with the Essenes, as sects already fully and definitely formed. Winer thinks that the spirit of Judaism, soon after the return from the exile, gave rise to a feeling which led to the forma tion of the party of the Pharisees; and that this very naturally called forth an opposition which embodied itself in the party of the Sadducees. In the time of John Hyrcanus, nephew of Judas Maccabseus, Josephus speaks of the Pharisees as having such influence with the common people that " they would be believed even if they uttered anything against the king or high-priest." The Sadducees were always opposed to them; always watched all their movements, opinions, and aims, with jealousy; always contended with them for power, and always embodied in their own ranks no small part of the learning, the wealth, and the influence of the nation. The main subject of division between them was one that pertains to the Very point before us. It was not the question about the existence of angel or spirit, or the question of predestination, as has been sometimes said, but it was whether the Scriptures are to be regarded as the only rule of faith and practice. The Pharisees insisted on the authority of tra dition, and claimed that the oral or unwritten law was of equal authority with the written; while the Sadducees rejected all traditions and ordi nances of men not expressly sanctioned by the Scriptures. So Josephus says expressly: " Their custom was, to regard nothing except the Laws [that is, the written Laws — the Old Testament]; for they reckon it as a virtue to dispute against the doctors in favor of the wisdom (««$<»*) which they follow." Ant. xviii. 1, 4. Again, in Ant. xviii. 10, 6, he says, " The Pharisees inculcated many rules upon the people, received from the fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moses; and on this account the sect of the Sadducees reject them, alleging that those things are to be regarded as rules which are written" [in the Scriptures], " but that the traditions of the fathers are not to be observed."
The rise of these contending sects must, at all events, be referred to a time which preceded the Maccabees — the time when it is pretended by objectors that the Book of Daniel was composed. But the moment when these two parties were formed, the extent of the Jewish Scriptures was, of course, a matter that was fully and permanently decided. It is im possible to suppose that the Sadducees would concede to their antagonists the right to introduce new books into the canon, or that a new book could be introduced without producing controversy. This would have been giving up the very point in dispute. No book could be introduced, or could be recognised as entitled to a place there, which was not acknow ledged by both parties as having been written by a true prophet, and as being believed to be divinely inspired. If the Book of Daniel, then, was the work of that age, and was falsely attributed to the Daniel of the exile, it is impossible that it could have been introduced into the canon.
(d) It may be asked, in addition, why, if the Book of Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabees, and was then introduced into tho canon, the Book of Ecclesiasticus, and other books of the Apocrypha, were not also introduced? If the book of Daniel was spurious, what was there that should entitle that to a place in the canon which could not have been urged in favor of the " Book of Wisdom/' or of some of the other books of the Apocrypha? Yet these books never found a place in tho canon, and were never regarded as belonging to it; and there was, there fore, some reason why Daniel had a place there which could not be applied to them. The only reason must have been that the Book of Daniel was regarded as the genuine work of the Daniel of the exile, and therefore written by a prophet before the times of inspiration ceased.
(3.) I refer, third, in proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, to the New Testament.
Daniel is expressly mentioned in the New Testament but once, and that is by the Saviour, in Matt. xxiv. 15, and in the parallel passage in Mark xiii. 14. In the former passage the Saviour says, " When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand), then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." In the latter place — the same passage reported by another writer — " But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them which be in Judea/' &c.
These, it must be admitted, are the only places in the New Testament where Daniel is directly quoted, though it cannot be denied that there are others which seem to imply that the book was known, and that it was intended to be referred to. Comp. the argument in Hengstenberg, Authentic des Daniel, pp. 273-277. The passages of this nature referred to by De Wette, g 255, (31), and commonly relied on, are the following: —
In regard to these passages, however, it may be doubted of some of them (2 Thess. ii. 3, 1 Cor. vi. 2) whether there is in them any designed allusion to any prophet of the Old Testament; and of 1 Pet. i. 10, that the allusion is so general that it cannot be demonstrated that Peter had his eye on Daniel rather than on the other prophets, or that he neces sarily included Daniel in the number; and of the other passage (Heb. xi. 33, (" Stopped the mouths of lions"), that, from anything that appears in the passage, it cannot be demonstrated that Paul meant to refer to Daniel, or, if he did, all that is there implied may have been founded on a traditionary report of Daniel, and it cannot be adduced as proof that he meant to refer to the Book of Daniel. It cannot be denied that there is, in some respects, a very strong resemblance between the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation, and that the Book of Daniel was familiar to the author of the Apocalypse, but still, as Daniel is not ex pressly quoted or referred to, it cannot be demonstrated with certainty that John meant to recognise the book as inspired. The argument, then, rests mainly, if not exclusively, on the testimony of the Saviour.
And here it is proper to say that, in this country, we may lay out of view, as not worthy of attention, the remark of De Wette, that " Christ neither ivould (wollte) nor could (konnte], from the nature of the case, be a critical authority." \ 255, (3). In this argument it must be assumed, that if a book of the Old Testament can be shown to have his sanction, it is to be regarded as belonging to the inspired canon. Or, to state the proposition in a form which cannot, on any account, be regarded as ob jectionable, the point of inquiry is, to ascertain whether Christ did, or did not, regard the Book of Daniel as belonging to the canon of the inspired writings, and as coming within the class which he, in John v. 39, and elsewhere calls " the Scriptures/'
Now, in regard to this reference to Daniel by the Saviour, considered as an argument for the genuineness and authenticity of the book, the following remarks may be made: —
(a) There is a distinct recognition of Daniel as a historical personage — as a man. This is plain on the face of the quotation — for he refers to him as he would to Moses, Isaiah, or Jeremiah. No one can believe that he regarded Daniel as a fictitious or fabulous personage, or that, in this respect, he meant to speak of him as different from the most eminent of the ancient prophets. Indeed, in all the doubts that have been expressed about the genuineness of the Book of Daniel, it has never been main tained that the Lord Jesus did not mean to be understood as referring to Daniel as a real historical personage.
(b) He refers to him as a prophet: " When ye shall see the abomina tion of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, the prophet" — ™« ^po-Mrou. This word he uses evidently, in its ordinary signification, as meaning one who predicted future events, and as entitled to a rank among the true prophets. It is the very word which Josephus, in a passage quoted above, employs in relation to Daniel, and is manifestly used in the same sense. The Saviour assigns him no inferior place among the prophets; regards him as having uttered a true prediction, or a prediction which was to be fulfilled at a period subsequent to the time when he was then speaking; and refers to him, in this respect, as he would have done to any one of the ancient inspired writers.
(c) He refers to him as the author of a book, and, by his manner of speaking of him, and by the quotation which he makes, gives his sanction to some well-known book of which he regarded Daniel as the author. This, which if true settles the question about the testimony of the Saviour, is apparent from the following considerations: (1.) From the very use of the word prophet here. It is evident, on the face of the pas sage, that he refers to him in the use of this word, not as having spoken the prediction, but as having recorded it; that the language is used as it would have been of any other of the " prophets," or of those who had this appellation because they had made a record predicting future events. It is clear that the word among the Jews had so far a technical significa tion, that this would at once be suggested on its use. (2) Because he quotes the language found in the Book of Daniel — ftb&vytia rfjf cpe/jLuaeuf. This very phrase occurs in the Greek translation, in ch. xii. 11, and a similar expression — (tt&vyn* rtiv epc^acuv — occurs in ch. ix. 27; and another similar expression — /?<3tXi>y/ja tyufUfavQ* — occurs in ch. xi. 31. The phrase, therefore, may be regarded as belonging to Daniel, not only by the express mention of his name, but by the fact that it does not elsewhere occur in the sacred Scriptures. (3.) The same thing is apparent from the parenthetical expression, " Whoso readeth, let him understand." The point of this remark is in the word " readeth," as referring to some written record. There has been, indeed, much difference of opinion in regard to this phrase, whether it is to be considered as the command of the Saviour that they who read the words of Daniel should pay attention to its meaning; or whether it is the remark of the evangelist, designed tc call attention to the meaning of the prophecy, and to the words of the Saviour. In my Notes on the pas sage in Matt. xxiv. 15, the opinion is expressed that these are the words of the evangelist. It is proper now to say, that on a more careful con sideration of that passage this seems to me to be very doubtful; but whether correct or not, it would only vary the force of the argument by making Matthew the speaker instead of the Saviour. It would still be an inspired testimony that, at the time when Matthew wrote, there was a book which was understood to be the production of Daniel, and that it was the intention of the evangelist to rank him among the prophets, and to call particular attention to what he had written. The interpretation of the parenthesis, it must be admitted, however, is so uncertain that no argument can be founded on it to denonstrate that Christ meant to call attention to the words of Daniel; but the passage does prove that such words to be "read" were found in the book, and that in order to determine their exact sense there was need of close attention. Olshausen agrees with the interpretation of the parenthesis expressed in my Notes on Matthew, regarding it as the declaration of the evangelist. The older expositors generally regard the parenthesis as the words of the Saviour; more recent ones generally as the words of the evangelist. The former opinion is defended by Hengstenberg. Authen. pp. 259, 260.
Whichever interpretation is adopted, it seems clear, from the above remarks, that the Saviour meant to refer to Daniel as a real historical personage, and to a well-known book bearing his name, as a genuine pro duction of the Daniel of the exile. If so, then the testimony of Christ is expressly in favor of its canonical authority.
(4.) I refer, fourth, in proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the book, or in proof that it was written by the Daniel of the captivity, to the fact that it had an existence before the times of the Maccabees, and was re ferred to then as among the books having a divine authority. This might, indeed, be regarded as already demonstrated, if it had a place in the Canon of Scripture, as I have endeavoured to show that it had; but there is other proof of this that will go further to confirm the point. It will be recol lected that one of the main positions of those who deny its genuineness is, that it was written in the time of the Maccabees by some one who assumed the name of Daniel. The point now to be made out is, that there is direct evidence that it had an existence before that time. In proof of this, I refer,
(a) To the testimony of Joscphus. His statement is found in kis " Anti quities," b. xi. ch. viii., in the account which he gives of the interviewbetween Alexander and the high-priest Jaddua, in Jerusalem: "And
when he went up into the temple, he offered sacrifices to God, according uo the high-priest's direction; and magnificently treated both the highpriest and the priests. And when the Book of Daniel was shown to him, wherein Daniel declared that one of the Greeks should destroy the empire of the Persians, he supposed that himself was the person intended. And as he was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bade them ask what favors they pleased of him." The genuineness of this narrative
has been examined at length by Hengstenberg, Authen. pp. 277-288. In reference to that testimony, the following remarks may be made: — (1.) The authority of Josephus is entitled to great credit, and his testi mony may be regarded as good proof of a historical fact. (2.) There is here express mention of " the Book of Daniel," as a book existing in the time of Alexander, and as shown to him, in which he was so manifestly referred to that he at once recognised the allusion. The passages re ferred to are the following: ch. vii. 6, viii. 3-8, 21, 22, xi. 3, 4. For the evidence that these passages relate to Alexander, the reader is referred to the Notes on them respectively. It is clear that if they were read to Alexander, and if he regarded them as applying to himself, he could not doubt that his victory over the Persians would be certain. (3.) There is every probability in the circumstances of the case, that, if the Jewish high-priest was in possession of the Book of Daniel at that time, with so clear a reference to a Grecian conqueror, he would show those passages to him, for nothing would be more likely to appease his wrath, and to obtain protection for the Jews in Jerusalem, and for those who were scattered in the lands where it was manifest that he purposed to extend his conquests. And (4.) it may be presumed that, as a consequence of this, Alexander would grant to the Jews all that Josephus says that he did. The best way of accounting for the favor which Josephus says he did show to the Jews, is the fact which he states, that these predictions were read to him announcing his success in his projected wars. Thus Josephus says, as a consequence of these predictions being shown to him
(Ant., ut supra], " And as ho was then glad, he dismissed the multitude for the present; but the next day he called them to him, and bade them ask what favors they pleased of him. Accordingly the high-priest desired that they might enjoy the laws of their forefathers, and might pay no tribute the seventh year. This was readily granted. And when they entreated that he would permit the Jews in Babylon and Media to enjoy their own laws also, he willingly promised to do hereafter what they desired. And when he said to the multitude, that if any of them would enlist themselves in his army, on the condition that they should continue under the laws of their forefathers, and live according to them, he was willing to take them with him, many were ready to accompany him in his wars."
There is intrinsic probability that this account in Josephus is true, and the main historical facts, as stated by Josephus, are vouched for by other writers. " That Alexander was personally in Judea, Pliny testifies, Hist. Nat. xii. 26. That Palestine voluntarily surrendered to him, is testified in Arrian's History of Alexander, ii. 25. That he was met by the highpriest and his brethren dressed in turbans, is testified by Justin (xi. 10), who says: Obvios cum infulis multos orientis regis habuit." See Stuart on Daniel, p. 408.
There is, therefore, the highest degree of probability that thie narrative of Josephus is true; and if this is a correct historical narrative, then it is clear that the Book of Daniel, containing, in respect to the conquests of Alexander, the same passages that are now applied to him, was in existence long before the time of the Maccabees. This occurred in 332 B. C., and if this account is correct, then " the Book of Daniel, as it now exists, was current among the Jews as a sacred book, at least some 168-170 years before the time when, according to the critics of the sceptical school, the book could be written."
(&) The same thing may be inferred from a passage in the Apocrypha. In 1 Maccabees ii. 49-68, the dying Mattathias is said, in an exhortation to his sons to be " zealous for the law, and to give their lives for the covenant of their fathers," to have referred to the ancient examples of piety and fortitude among the Hebrews, mentioning, among others, Abraham, " found faithful in temptation;;; Joseph, who " in a time of distress kept the commandments, and was made lord of Egypt;" Joshua, who " for fulfilling the word was made a judge in Israel;" Caleb, who for " bearing witness before the congregation received the heritage of the land;" David, Elias, Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, and then (ver. 60) he mentions Daniel in these words: " Daniel for his innocency was delivered from the mouth of lions." Here is an evident reference to the history of Daniel as we have it (ch. vi.); and although it is true that such an account might be handed down by tradition, and that such a reference as this might be made if there were nothing more than mere tradition, yet it is also true that this is such a reference as would be made if the book were in existence then as it is now, and true also that the other references are, mostly at least, to written accounts of the worthies who are there mentioned. If there were no positive evidence to the contrary, the prima facie proof in this quotation would be, that Mattathias referred to some well-known written record of Daniel.
(c) The fact of the existence of the book before the time of the Mac cabees may be inferred from its translation by the authors of the Septuagint. The fact that the book was translated with the other He brew and Chaldee books of the Old Testament, is a proof that it had an existence at an early period, and that it was worthy, in the estimation of the translators, of a place among the sacred books of the Jews.
(5.) I refer, fifth, in proof of the genuineness and authenticity of the book, to the language in which it is written. We have already seen that it is written partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. The argument to which I refer, from this fact, in proof of the genuineness of the book, consists of the following things: —
(a) The language is such as it might be expected it would be on the supposition that Daniel was the real author. Daniel was by birth a Hebrew. He was probably born in Jerusalem, and remained there until he was about twelve or fifteen years of age (see $ 1), when he was re moved to Babylon. In his youth, therefore, he had used the Hebrew language, and his early education had been in that language. In Baby lon he was instructed in the language and literature of the Chaldeans, and probably became as familiar with the language of the Chaldeans as he was with his native tongue. Both these languages ho un doubtedly spoke familiarly, and probably used them with the same degree of ease. That the book, therefore, is written in both these 5* languages, accords with this representation; and, if written by one man, it must have been composed by one who was thus familiar with both. It is true that the fact that Daniel could thus speak the two languages is in itself no proof that he was the author; but the fact that it was so written accords with the circumstances of the case. His early training, and the fact that the book is written in the two languages with which it is known he was familiar, furnish a coincidence such as would occur on the supposition that he was the author; and a coincidence, like those adverted to by Dr. Paley, in his argument in favor of the genuine ness of the New Testament (Horee Paulina)), the more valuable because it is clear that it was undesigned.
But why^ the book was written in two languages, is a question that is not so easily solved, and which it is not necessary to solve. No reason is given in the book itself; none appears from anything in the design of the portions written respectively in Hebrew and ChaKL-o. There is nothing apparent in these portions of the book which would lead us to suppose that one was designed to be read by the Hebrews arid the other by the Chaldeans, or that, as it is often affirmed (comp. Home, Introduc tion, vol. iv. p. 193) that one portion " treats of the Chaldean or Baby lonish affairs." There is no particular " treatment" of the Chaldean or Babylonish affairs, for example, in the seventh chapter, where the Chaldean portion ends, any more than in the eighth, where the Hebrew is resumed, and, in fact, no internal reason can be assigned why one of those chapters should have been written in Chaldee or Hebrew rather than the other or both. The same remark is applicable to the first and second chapters, and indeed to every portion of the book; and the reason which induced the author to write different portions of it in different languages must be for ever unknown. This does not, however, affect the force of the argument which I am suggesting.
(6) The circumstance now adverted to may be regarded as of some force in showing that it is not probable that the book was forged, and especially that it was not forged in the time of the Maccabees. It is an unusual thing for a man to attempt to forge a book in two languages; and though cases have occurred in great numbers where a man could so familiarly write in two languages that he could do this, yet this would not be likely to occur in the time of the Maccabees. It was probably a very uncommon thing at that time that a man was so familiar with the two languages that he could write readily in each, for there are no writings extant in either of these languages in that age; and it is well known that the Hebrew language became greatly adulterated by foreign admixtures soon after the return from the exile, and never regained the purity which it had in the early periods of its history.
(c) To these considerations it may be added, that if the book was written in the times of the Maccabees, or at a later period, there is every reason to suppose that it would have been written in the Greek language. This appears from the fact that all the books which we have of that age are written in Greek, and that the Greek at that time had become so pre valent that it would be natural that it should be used. Thus all the books of the Apocrypha, and those parts which profess to be additions to the Book of Daniel, as the Song of the Three Holy Children, the His tory of Susanna, and the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, are found only in Greek, and there is no evidence that they were ever written in Hebrew or Chaldee. See $ 4 of this Introduction. If the Book of Daniel itself was written in that age, why was not it also written in Greek? Or why should the book, as we have it now, if it were a forged book, have been written in Hebrew and Chaldee, and those other portions, which the author seems to have designed should be regarded as belonging to the book, have been written in Greek? There are none of the books of the Apocrypha of which there is any evidence that they were written in Hebrew or Chaldee, The only one of those books for which such a claim has been set up is the Book of Ecclesiasticus. That is affirmed by the Son of Sirach (see the Prologue), to have been written originally by his grandfather in Hebrew, and to have been translated by himself into Greek. But the Hebrew original is not in existence; nor is there any certain evidence that it ever was. It is an additional circumstance, showing that a book of the Maccabaean age would have been written in Greek, that even Berosus, who was himself a Chaldean, wrote his history of Chaldea in Greek. See Intro, to ch. iv. $ 1.
To all these considerations, which seem to me of themselves to settle the question, I may be permitted to add a very ingenious argument of Prof. Stuart, in his own words; an argument which, I think, no one can answer. Com. on Daniel, pp. 438-449.
" The accurate knowledge, which the writer of the Book of Daniel displays, of ancient history, manners and customs, and Oriental-Baby lonish peculiarities, shows that he must have lived at or near the time and place, when and where the book leads us to suppose that he lived.
" A great variety of particulars might be adduced to illustrate and confirm this proposition; but I aim only to introduce the leading and more striking ones.
" (a) In drawing the character of Nebuchadnezzar, and giving some brighter spots to it, Daniel agrees with hints of the like nature in Jer. xlii. 12, xxxix. 11. If a writer in the Maccabaean age had undertaken, as is asserted, to symbolize Antiochus Epiphanes by drawing the character of Nebuchadnezzar, it would be difficult to conceive how he would have been persuaded to throw into the picture these mellower tints.
" (b) In drawing the portrait of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, Daniel agrees very strikingly with Xenophon. In this latter writer, he appears as a debauched, pleasure-loving, cruel, and impious monarch. Cyrop. iv. v. represents him as killing the son of Gobryas, one of his nobles, because he had anticipated him, while hunting, in striking down the game. When the father remonstrated, he replied, that he was sorry only that he had not killed him also. In Lib. v. 2, he is styled haughty and abusive. One of his concubines spoke in praise of Gadates, a courtier, as a handsome man. The king invited him to a banquet, and there caused him to be seized and unmanned. It is all in keeping with this, when he appears in Daniel v. In his intoxication and pride, he orders the sacred vessels of the Jerusalem-temple to be profaned; and Daniel is so disgusted with his behaviour, that he does not, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (chap, iv.), disclose any strong sympathy for him, but denounces unqualified destruction. Xenophon calls' this king, avoaiog.
" (c) Cyaxares (Darius the Mede in Dan.) is drawn by Xenophon a$> devoted to wine and women (Cyrop. iv.). In Dan. vi. 19, it is mentioned of Darius, as an extraordinary thing, that after he saw the supposed rum of Daniel, he neither approached his table or his harem. Xenophon speaks of him as indolent, averse to business, of small understanding, vain, without self-restraint, and easily thrown into tears; and then, moreover, as subject to violent outbursts of passion (iv. v.). In Daniel he appears as wholly governed by his courtiers; they flatter his vanity and obtain the decree intended to destroy Daniel. Daniel's supposed impending fate throws him into lamentation, and he betakes himself to fasting and vigils; and when he learns the safety of his Hebrew servant, he sentences his accusers, with all their wives and children, to be thrown into the lions' den, vi. 18-24.
" Now as there was no history of these times and kings among the Hebrews, and none among the Greeks that gave any minute particulars, in what way did a late writer of the Book of Daniel obtain his know ledge?
" (d) When in Dan. i. 21, it is stated that Daniel continued until the Jirst year of Cyrus, without any specification when this was, the writer seems plainly to suppose his readers to be familiar with this period. It is true, that from the Book of Ezra a knowledge of that time, the period of Jewish liberation, might be gained; but the familiar manner of the reference to it, indicates that the writer feels himself to be addressing those who were cognizant of matters pertaining to the period.
" (e) In ch. i. and ii. we are told that Icing Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, took it, and sent Daniel and his companions to Babylon. There they were taken under the care and instruction of learned men among the Chaldees, and trained up for the personal service of the king. The period of training was three years. At the close of this, they were examined and approved by the king; and soon after this occurred Nebuchadnezzar's first dream, which Daniel was summoned to interpret. This dream is said to be in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Here then is an apparent parachronism. How could Daniel have been taken and sent into exile by king Nebuchadnezzar, educated three years, and then be called to interpret a dream in the second year of Nebuchad nezzar's reign? The solution of this difficulty I have already exhibited in an Exc. at the end of the commentary on ch. i. I need not repeat the process here. It amounts simply to this, viz., that Nebuchadnezzar is called king in Dan. i. 1, by way of anticipation; a usage followed by Kings, Chron., and Jeremiah. Before he quitted Judea he became actual king by the death of his father; and the Jews, in speaking of him as commanding the invading army, always called him king. But in Dan. ii. 1, Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in the Chaldee mode of reference to his actual reign. This leaves some four years for Daniel's discipline and service. But to those who were not familiar with the Jewish mode of speaking in respect to Nebuchadnezzar, it would naturally and inevitably appear like a parachronism, or even a downright contradiction of dates. Yet the writer has not a word of explanation to make. He evidently feels as if all were plain to his readers; (as doubtless it was) But a writer of the Maccabaean age would plainly have seen and avoided the difficulty.
" (f) In Dan. v. 30, it is stated that Belshazzar was slain; but not a word is said descriptive of the manner in which this was brought about.
nor even that the city of Babylon was taken. The next verse simply mentions that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. All this brevity seems to imply, that the \vriter supposed those whom he was addressing to be cognizant of the whole matter. Had he lived in the Maccabean age, would he have written thus respecting events so interesting and im- Dortant? — In like manner Dan. x. 1, seq. tells us, that in the third year of Cyrus, Daniel mourned and fasted three weeks. But not a word _ is said to explain the occasion of this peculiar and extraordinary humili ation. If we turn now to Ezra iv. 1-5, we shall find an account of a combination among the enemies of the Jews to hinder the building of the city walls, which was successful, and which took place in the third year of Cyrus' reign, i. e. the same year with Daniel's mourning. There can scarcely be a doubt that this was the occasion of that mourning; for certainlv it was no ritual, legal, or ordinary fast. The manner now in which ch. x. is written, plainly imports that the writer feels no need of giving explanations. He takes it for granted that his readers will at once perceive the whole extent of the matter. But how, in the Maccabaean age, could a writer suppose this knowledge within the grasp of his readers?
" (g) In Dan. ii., the dream is interpreted as indicating the destruction of the Babylonish empire by the Medo-Persians. Abydenus, in his singular account of Nebuchadnezzar's last hours (given on p. 122 above), represents this king as rapt into a kind of prophetic ecstasy, and in this state as declaring his fearful anticipations of the Medo-Persian conquest. How came such a coincidence?
" (7i) In iv. 27, Nebuchadnezzar is introduced as saying: " Is not this great Babylon which I have built? Recent critics allege this to be a mistake. * Ctesias/ they tell us, ' attributes the building of Babylon to Semiramis (Bahr Ctes. p. 397, seq.), and Herodotus (i. 181, seq.) ascribes it to Semiramis and Nitocris/ — My answer is, that Ctesias follows the Assyrian tradition, and Herodotus the Persian. But Berosus and Aby denus give us the Babylonian account; which is, that Nebuchadnezzar added much to the old town, built a magnificent royal palace, surrounded the city with new walls, and adorned it with a vast number of buildings. Well and truly might he say that he had built it, meaning (as he plainly did) its magnificent structures. It was not any falsehood in his declara tion, which was visited with speedy chastisement, but the pride and vain glory of his boasting gave offence to heaven. But how came a writer of the Maccabaean period to know of all this matter? No Greek writer has told anything about Nebuchadnezzar or his doings. To Berosus and Abydenus, a writer of the Maccabaean age could hardly have had access. Herodotus and Ctesias told another and different story. Whence then did he get his knowledge of the part which Nebuchadnezzar had acted, in the building of the city? And yet the account of it in Daniel accords entirely with both Berosus and Abydenus. Even the account of Nebu chadnezzar's madness is virtually adverted to in these writers; see above, p. 122, seq.
" (i) In Dan. v. 10-12, is introduced a personage styled the queen, not because she was Belshazzar's wife, for the latter was already in the banqueting-room (v. 3, 23), but probably because she was a queenmother. Not improbably this was the Nitocris of Herodotus; and Berosus,
Diod. Sic. (ii. 10), and Alex. Polyhist. (in Chron. Armen.), all say that Nitocris was a wife of Nebuchadnezzar. If so, she might have had much to do with ornamenting the city both before and after Nebuchadnezzar's death; and this will account for the great deference paid to her by Belbkazzar, as related in v. 10-12. It is one of those accidental circum stances, which speaks much for the accordance of Daniel with the narrations of history. It is, moreover, a circumstance, about which a writer of the Maccabaean age cannot well be supposed to have known anything.
"And since we are now examining ch. v., it may be proper to note another circumstance. We have seen, that at Babylon the wives and concubines of the king were, without any scruple, present at the feast. But in Esth. i. we have an account of the positive refusal of Queen Vashti to enter the guest-chamber of Ahasuerus. In other words, this was, and is, against the general custom of the East. How came a write r of the Maccabaean period to know this distinction between the customs of Babylon and of Persia? The author of the Sept. Version, a contemporary of this period, knows so little of such a matter that he even leaves out the passage respecting the presence of women at the feast. Why? Plainly because he thought this matter would be deemed incredible by his readers. In Xen. Cyrop. (V. 2. 28), is an account of a feast of Belshazzar, where his concubines are represented as being present. Not only so, but we have elsewhere, in Greek and Roman Avriters, abundant testimony to usages of this kind, in their accounts of the Babylonish excesses. But how comes it about, that the forger of the Book of Daniel, whose fami liarity with those writings is not credible, should know so much more of Babylonish customs than the Sept. translator?
" (j) Of the manner in \vhich Babylon was taken, and Belshazzar slain, Daniel has not given us any minute particulars. But he has told us that the Medes and Persians acquired the dominion of Babylon (v. 28), and that Darius the Mede succeeded Belshazzar. The manner in which he announces the slaying of Belshazzar (v. 30), shows that the event was altogether sudden and unexpected. Now Herodotus in (I. 190), and Xcnophon (Cyrop. VII.), have told us, that Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates, and marched in its channel into the heart of Babylon, and took the city in a single night. They tell us that the Babylonians were in the midst of feast-rioting that night, and were unprepared to meet the enemy who were not expected in the city. How entirely all this harmonizes with Daniel, is quite plain. Gesenius himself acknow ledges that this is sehr auffallend, i. e. very striking. He has even acknowledged, in a moment of more than usual candor and concession, that Isa. xliv. 27, has a definite reference to the stratagem of Cyrus in taking the city. In connection with a prediction concerning Cyrus, Jehovah is here represented as " saying to the deep, Be dry; yea, 1 will dry up thy rivers." So in Jer. 1. 38, " A drought is upon her waters, and they shall be dried up;;; and again, li. 36, " I will dry up her sea [river], and make her springs dry." If the Book of Daniel is to be cast out as a late production, and as spurious, because it seems to predict the sudden capture of Babylon in one night, by the Medes and Persians, what is to be done with these passages of Isa. and Jer.? Even the Neologists, Although they maintain a later composition in respect to those parts of the prophets which have just been cited, still do not venture to place that composition post eventum. If not, then there is prediction; and this, too, of a strange event, and one so minute and specific, that guessing is out of question. If, then, Isa. and Jer. predicted, why might not a Daniel also predict?
" Another circumstance there is also, in which all three of these pro phets are agreed. According to Dan. vi., Babylon was feasting and carousing, on the night of its capture. In Isa. xxi. 5, we have the like: * Prepare the table... Eat, drink; arise, ye princes, and anoint the shield/ i. e rise up from your feast-table, and make ready for assault. So Jer. li. 39, * I will prepare their feasts, and I will make them drunken, that they may rejoice, and sleep a perpetual sleep, and not wake, saith the Lord/
" If now a writer of the Maccabaoan period had undertaken to write the story of the capture of Babylon, is there any probability that he would have hit upon all these circumstances, so peculiar and so con cordant? Conversant with the native Greek historians we cannot well suppose him to have been; for Greek literature was regarded as reproach ful by the Jews of that period, and even down to the time of Josephus, who speaks strongly on this subject.
" (k) Daniel v. 30, relates the violent death of Belshazzar, when the city was taken. In this particular he is vouched for by Xenophon, Cyrop. VII. v. 24, 30. So do Isa. xxi. 2-9, xiv. 18-20; Jer. 1. 29-35, li. 57, declare the same thing. But here Berosus and Abydenus dissent, both of them representing the Babylonish king as surrendering, and as being treated humanely by Cyrus. How comes it, if the forger of the Book of Daniel wrote about B. C. 160, that he did not consult those authors on Babylonish affairs? Or if (as was surely the fact in regard to most Jewish writers at that period), he had no familiarity with Greek authors, then where did he obtain his views about the death of Belshazzar? For a full discussion of this matter, see p. 147, seq., above. There can scarcely be a doubt, that the account of Daniel and Xenophon is the true one.
" Xenophon relates, that the party which assailed the palace, who were led on by Gobryas and Gadatas, fell upon the guards who were carous ing,?rpoj </>£> jroAu, i. e. at broad daylight;* Cyro. VII. 5. 27. In other words, the Persians did not accomplish their onset upon the palace, until the night was far spent, and daylight was dawning. How now are matters presented in the Book of Daniel. First, there is the feast, (of course in the evening); then the quaffing of wine; then the hand-writing on the wall; then the assembling of all the Magi to interpret it; then the introduction of Daniel, whose interpretation was followed by his being clothed with the insignia of nobility, and being proclaimed the third ruler in the kingdom. All this must of course have taken up most of the night. Here, then, one writer confirms and illustrates the other. A Pseudo- Daniel would not have risked such a statement as the true one has made; for at first view, the matter seems incredible, and it is charged
" * Singular, that in a critical edition and commentary on Xenophon, now before me, this is rendered before a good Jlre. First, the Greek words do not allow this. Secondly, the Baby lonians need and have no fires for warmth. Thirdly, Cyrus would not have "drained the Euphrates, and marched his army in its channel, at a time when fires were needed fq/ Varmth.
upon the book as such. But Xenophon has freed it from all diffi* culties.
" Dan. vi. also declares, that Belshazzar was a son, i. e. a descendant of Nebuchadnezzar. An appeal is made to Berosus and Megasthenes, to show that this was not true. Yet they do not so testify, but only that Belshazzar was not of the regular line of heirs of the throne. He might still have been a younger son of Nebuchadnezzar, or a son of Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. Now Herodotus agrees with Daniel, i. 188, i. 74. So does Xenophon. And as the other authors have not in reality contradicted this, what reason is there for refusing to believe? See the discussion of this topic at large, p. 144, seq.
" It certainly deserves to be noted, that, in part, the Book of Daniel is on the side of the Greek writers, and against Berosus and Abydenus, where the representations of the latter may be justly regarded as designed to save the honor and credit of the Babylonians; in part also is Daniel on the side of the latter, and against the Greek writers, i. e., in cases where there is no reason to suppose the native historians to be partial. The media via appears in this case to be hit upon, by the simple pursuit of historical truth in the narratives of the book before us.
" Again, in Dan. v. 31, we have an assurance, that Darius the Mede assumed the throne of Babylon. Here Herodotus and Ctesias are silent; but here Xenophon fully confirms the account given by Daniel. Herodotus himself states (i. 95), that there were two other modes of telling the story of Cyrus, besides that which he follows; and that of Xenophon and Daniel' is probably one of these. This is confirmed by Is. xiii. 17, where the Mede is declared to be the leading nation in destroying Babylon, and the same is also said in Jer. liii. 11, 28. In Is. xxi. 2, both Media and Persia are mentioned. The silence of Hero dotus and Ctesias can not disprove a matter of this kind. See a full dis cussion of the topic, p. 148, seq,
"Dan. vi. 1 states, that Darius set over his kingdom 120 satraps. Xenophon (Cyrop. VIII. 6, 1 seq.) relates, that satraps were set over all the conquered nations, when Cyrus was in Babylon. He speaks of the appointments as made by Cyrus; and doubtless they were, since he was the only acting governor of Babylon, and vice-gerent of the king. No less true is it, that to Darius also, as supreme, may the appointment be attributed. How came the alleged late writer of Daniel to know this? Xenophon mentions no express number. The Book of Esther (i. 1) men tions 127 satraps. Why did not our late writer copy that number in order to remove suspicion as to so great a number of those high officers? And how is it that 120 in Daniel is objected to as an incredible number, when the empire was actually as large at the time of their appointment, as it Avas in the time of Xerxes, as exhibited in Esth. i. 1? The Septuagint translator of Daniel, who belonged to the Maccabaean age, did not venture to write 120, as it seems, but 127 (so in Cod. Chis.), thus according with Esth. i. 1, and leaning upon that passage. He seems evidently to have felt that the story of so many satrapies must be supported by the Book of Esther, in order to be believed. He even, in his ignorance of history, translates v. 31 thus: 'And Artaxerxes, the Mede, took the kingdom/ probably meaning the Persian Artaxerxes Longimanus.
" (1} It is worthy of remark, that the order of the two nations, Mede& and Persians, is to be found in strict accordance with the idiom of the times. Thus in vi. 8, 12, 15, we have the Medes and Persians; but after Cyrus comes to the throne, the order is invariably Persians and Medes So in the Book of Esther, the law of the Persians and Medes shows the same change of usus loquendi. Would a Pseudo-Daniel have been likely to note such a small circumstance?
" It is also noted (Dan. v. 31), that when Darius took the kingdom, he was threescore and two years old. From his history, his reign, and his descent from Ahasuerus (ix. 1), this seems altogether probable. But no other author states his age. The fact that it is done in Daniel, betokens a familiarity of the writer with the minutiae of his history. So does the mention, that in the first year of his reign, Daniel took into most serious consideration the prophecy of Jeremiah, respecting the seventy years' exile of the Hebrews.
" Thus far, then, all is well. All seems to be in conformity with true history, so far as we can ascertain it. It is not upon one or two particu lars that we would lay stress. We acknowledge that these might have been traditionally known, and accurately reported. It is on the tout en semble of the historical matters contained in the book, that stress is to be laid. And certainly it would be very singular, if all these circumstances should be true and consistent, and yet the book be written in the Maccabaean period.
" How is it with the best historical books of that period? The first Book of the Maccabees is, in the main, a trustworthy and veracious book. But how easy it is to detect errors in it, both in respect to geography and history! In vii. 7 it is related that the Romans took Antiochus the Great prisoner alive. But this never happened. They gained a great victory over him, and took away many of his provinces; but he himself escaped their grasp. In vii. 8 it is said, that they took from him the land of India, Media, and Lydia. But neither India nor Media ever belonged to him. The efforts to show that Mysia was originally written instead of Media, are of course but mere guesses; and if true, India still remains. More likely is it that the author him self put Media for Mysia, and if so, then this does not mend the matter. In vii. 9, 10, it is related, that 'the Greeks resolved to send an army to Rome and destroy it; but that the Romans learning this, sent forth an army, who slew many, carried away numerous captives of their women and children, laid hold of their strong places, and took possession of their lands, and reduced the people of Syria to servitude unto this day.' Now nothing of all this ever happened. There was indeed a fracas between the Aetolians and the Romans at that period; but it was soon made up, without any ravages of war, or any servitude. Further, the author, in vii. 15, represents the Roman Senate as consisting of 320 members, continually administering the government. He goes on to state (v. 16), that they choose a ruler annually, and that all obey this one. Every tyro in Roman history knows how unfounded all this is. And what shall we say of the very first sentence in the book, which tells us, that Alexander, the son of Philip, smote Darius, king of the Persians and Medes, and then reigned in his stead over Greece? In i. 6, he states that the same Alexander, about to die, made a partition of his empire among his chiefs — a thing that took place some considerable time afterwards, partly by mutual agreement, and partly by force. In vi. 1 he makes Elymais a town instead of a province.
"Such are some of the specimens of this writer's errors in geography and history. That he was a grave, enlightened, and veracious writer, in the main, is conceded by all. But if in things so plain, and transac tions so recent, he commits eo many errors as have been specified, what would he have done, if the scene had been shifted from near coun tries to the remote places where the Book of Daniel finds its circle of action?
" As to the second Book of the Maccabees, it is so notorious for errors and mistakes, that very little credit has been attached to it, on the part of intelligent critics. It is not once to be named, in comparison with the Book of Daniel. It must have been written, when a knowledge of historical events was confused, and at a very low ebb. The Book of Tobit, which originated in or near the Maccabaean period, exhibits not only a romantic, and, as it were, fairy tale, but contains historical and geographical difficulties incapable of solution; also physical phenomena are brought to view, which are incredible. It is needless to specificate them here. De Wette's Einleit. presents them, § 309.
" We have dwelt hitherto, under our 5th head, mainly on things of a historical nature, i. e. events and occurrences. Let us now examine a number of things that are of a miscellaneous nature, which it would be somewhat difficult if not useless to classify throughout, but most of which are connected with manners, customs, demeanor, etc.