" (ra) Daniel makes no mention in his book of prostration before the king, in addressing him. O Jci?ig, live for ever! was the usual greeting. Arrian (iv.) testifies, that the story in the East was, that Cyrus was the first before whom prostration was practised. It is easy to see how this came about. With the Persians, the king was regarded as the represen tative of Onnusd, and therefore entitled to adoration. Nebuchadnezzar was high enough in claims to submission and honour; but not a word of exacting adoration from those who addressed him. How could a Pseudo- Daniel know of this nice distinction, when all the Oriental sovereigns of whom he had any knowledge had, at least for four centuries, exacted prostration from all who approached them?
" (n) In mere prose (Dan. i. 2), Babylon is called by the old name, Shinar (Gen. xi. 2, xiv. 1); and as an old name, it is poetically used once by Isaiah (xi. 11), and once by Zechariah (v. 11). Now Shinar was the vernacular name of what foreigners call Babylonia; and it was easy and natural for Daniel to call it so. But how or why came a Pseudo- Daniel to such a use of the word? Babylon he would naturally, and almost with certainty, call it.
" (o) Dan. i. 5 tells us that the Hebrew lads were to be fed from the king's table. Such a custom, even in respect to royal prisoners, Jer. lii. 33, 34, discloses. Among the Persians this was notorious, and ex tended to the whole corps d'elites of the soldiery. Ctesias tells us, that the king of Persia daily fed 15,000 men. How came the late writer of Daniel to be acquainted with a minute circumstance of the nature of that before us?
" (p] Daniel and his companions receive Chaldee r ames, some of which are compounded of the names of their false gods. In 2 Kings xxiv. 17, Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have changed the name of king Mattaniah into ZedekiaJi. How did the late forger of the book come by the notion of assigning to his Hebrew heroes the names of idol-gods? The rigorous attachment to all that was Jewish, and the hearty hatred of heathenism by all the pious in the time of the Maccabees, makes it difficult to ac count for his course.
" (q) In Dan. ii. 1, the Babylonish mode of reckoning time is intro duced, viz., the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Where else, unless in Ezek. i. 1, is this employed? How came the late interpolator of the sacred books to betake himself to this mode of reckoning; and especially since it apparently contradicts i. 1, v. 18? See the solution of the diffi culty, in Exc. I. p. 19, seq.
" (r) In Dan. ii. 5, iii. 29, one part of the threatened punishment is, that the houses of the transgressors should be turned into a dung-hill, or rather a morass-lieap. Here an intimate acquaintance with the Baby lonish mode of building is developed. The houses were mostly co> structed of sun-baked bricks, or with those slightly burned; and when once demolished, the rain and dew would soon dissolve the whole mass, and make them sink down, in that wet land near the river, into a miry place of clay, whenever the weather was wet.
" (s] In Dan. iii. 1, the plain of Dura is mentioned; a name found no where else, yet mentioned here as a place familiar to the original readers of the book, inasmuch as no explanation is added. Whence did the Pseudo-Daniel derive this name?
" (t) In Dan. ii. 5, and iii. 6, we find the punishment of hewing to pieces and burning in ovens mentioned. Testimony to such modes of punishment may be found in Ezek. xvi. 40, xxiii. 25, and Jer. xxix. 22. But such a mode of punishment could not exist among the Persians, who were fire-worshippers; and accordingly in chap. vi. we find casting into a den of lions as substituted for it.
" (u) In Dan. iii. we find not only a huge idol (in keeping with the Babylonish taste), but also a great variety of musical instruments em ployed at the dedication of it. Quintus Curtius has told us, that when Alexander the Great entered Babylon, ' there were in the procession
three parts, first the wide and long pantaloons for the lower part of the person; secondly, a woollen shirt; and thirdly, a large mantle with a girdle around it. On the cylinder rolls found at Babylon, Miinter (Relig. d. Bab. s. 96) discovered the same costume. In Dan. iii. 21, the same three leading and principal articles of dress are particularized. Other parts of clothing are merely referred to, but not specificated; but these garments being large and loose, and made of delicate material, are men tioned in order to show how powerless the furnace was, since they were not even singed. How did a Pseudo-Daniel obtain such particulars as these? " (w) Dan vi. 16 shows, that the regal token of honour bestowed, was j, collet or golden chain put around the neck. Brissonius, in his work on the Persian dominion, has shown the same custom among the Persian kings, who, not improbably, borrowed it from the Babylonians,
" (x] In Dan. vi. 8, ' the laws of the Medes which change n >t' are men* tioned. In Esth. i. 19, and viii. 8, we have repeated mention of this same peculiar custom. The reason of this probably was, that the king was regarded as the impersonation of Orrnusd, and therefore as infallible.
" (y] In Dan. vii. 9, we have a description of the divine throne as placed upon moveable wheels. The same we find in Ezekiel i. and x.; which renders it quite probable, that the Babylonian throne was con structed in this way, so that the monarch might move in processions, with all the insignia of royalty about him.
" (z) It deserves special remark, that Daniel has given individual clas sifications of priests and civilians, such as are nowhere else given in Scripture, and the knowledge of which must have been acquired from intimate acquaintance with the state of things in Babylon. In Dan. it. 2, 10, 27, the various classes of diviners and literati are named. In Dan. iii. 2, 3, the different classes of magistrates, civilians, and rulers, are specifically named. On this whole subject, I must refer the reader to Exc. III. on the Chaldees, p. 34, seq. above. Whence a Maccabaean writer could have derived such knowledge, it would be difficult to say. It is ono of those circumstances which could not well be feigned. Several of the names occur nowhere else in the Heb. Bible, and some of them are evi dently derivates of the Parsi or Median language; e. g. prntj in vi. 3, a name unknown in the Semitic. On the other hand, several of them are exclusively Chaldean; e. g. Dan. iii. 3, N^p-iN, N^ri, of which no pro fane writer has given the least hint. How came the Pseudo-Daniel to a knowledge of such officers?"
The evidence that the book is a genuine production of the Daniel of the captivity, may be summed up now in few words. There is (1), on the face of the book, the testimony of the writer himself to his own author ship — good evidence in itself, unless there is some reason for calling it in question or setting it aside. There is (2) the fact that it was early received into the canon as a part of the inspired Scriptures, and that it has always been, both by Jews and Christians, regarded as entitled to a place there. There is (3) the express testimony of the Saviour that Daniel was a prophet, and a clear reference to a part of the prophecy by him, as we have it now in the Book of Daniel. There is (4) express testimony that the book was in existence before the time of the Maccabees, and was then regarded as a genuine production of Daniel; particularly (a) the testimony of Josephus; (6) of the author of the Book of Maccabees, and (c) of the authors of the Septuagint translation. There is (5) the fact that the book was so written in two different languages that we cannot well attribute it to a writer of the Maccabean period. And there is (6) " the accurate knowledge which the writer of the Book of Daniel displays of ancient history, manners, and customs, and Oriental-Baby lonish peculiarities, which 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." For the genuineness and authenticity of what other book can more clear and decisive testimony be brought? These considerations seem to make it clear that the book could not have been a forgery of the time of the Maccabees, and that every circumstance combines to confirm the common belief that it was written in the time of the exile, and by the author whose name it bears. But if this is so, then its canonical autho rity is established: for we have all that can be urged in favor of the canonical authority of any of the books of the Old Testament. Its place in the canon from the earliest period; the testimony of Christ; the testi mony of Josephus and the Jews in all ages to its canonical authority; tho testimony of the early Christian fathers; its prophetic character; and tho strong internal probabilities that it was written at the time and in the manner in which it professes to have been, all go to confirm the opinion that it is a genuine production of the Daniel of the captivity, and worthy to be received and accredited as a part of the inspired oracles of truth. On one of these points, which has not been insisted on in this Introduc tion — its prophetic character — the evidence can be appreciated only by an examination of the particular prophecies; and that will be seen as the result of the exposition of those parts of the book which refer to future events. It may be said, in general, however, that if it is proved to have been written in the time of the captivity, there will be no hesitation in admitting its inspiration. Porphyry maintained, as we have seen, that the pretended prophecies were so clear that they must have been written after the events; and this, as we have seen also, is one of the leading ob jections urged against the book in more modern times. If this is so, then, apart from all the evidence which will be furnished of the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel in the course of the exposition, it may be pro perly inferred, that if the book was written in the time in which it pro fesses to have been, it furnishes the highest evidence of inspiration, for no one can pretend that the predictions occurring in it, pertaining to future events, are the results of any mere natural sagacity.
THE Book of Daniel is not properly a history either of the Jews or Babylonians, nor is it a biography of the writer himself. It is not con tinuous in its structure, nor does it appear to have been written at one time. Though the work, as we have seen, of one author, it is made up of portions, written evidently on different occasions, in two different lan guages, and having, to a considerable extent, different objects in view. Though the author was a Jewish exile, and surrounded by his own country men as exiles, yet there is almost no reference to the past history of these people, or to the causes of their having been carried into captivity, and no description of their condition, struggles, and sufferings in their exile; arid though written by one who resided through the greatest part of a very long life in a land of strangers, and having every opportunity of obtain ing information, there is no distinct reference to their history, and no description of their manners and customs. And although his own career while there was eventful, yet the allusions to himself are very few; and of the largest portion of that long life in Babylon — probably embracing more than seventy years — we have no information whatever. In the book there are few or no allusions to the condition of the exiles there; but two of the native kings that reigned there during that long period are 6* even mentioned; one of those — Nebuchadnezzar — only when Daniel interpreted two of his dreams, and when the colossal idol was set up on the plain of Dura; and the other — Belshazzar — only on the last day of his life. The book is not regular in its structure, but consists of an inter mixture of history and prophecy, apparently composed as occasion demanded, and then united in a single volume. Yet it has a unity of authorship and design, as we have seen, and is evidently the production of a single individual.
In considering the nature, design, and general character of the book, the attention may be properly directed to the following points: —
I. The portions containing incidents in the life of the author, and of his companions in Babylon, of permanent value.
II. The prophetic portions.
III. The language and style of the book.
I. The portions containing incidents in the life of the author, and of his companions in Babylon, of permanent value.
As already remarked, the allusions to his own life, and to the circum stances of his companions in exile, are few in number; and it may be added, that where there are such allusions they are made apparently rather to illustrate their principles, and the nature of their religion, than to create an interest in them personally. We could make out but little respecting their biography from this volume, though that little is suffi cient to give us decided views of their character, and of the value and power of the religion which they professed.
The few personal incidents which we have, relate to such points as the following: — The selection of Daniel, and three other captives, when young, with a view to their being trained in the language and science of the Chaldeans, that they might be employed in the service of the govern ment, ch. i.; the fact that Daniel was called, when all the skill of the Chaldeans failed, to interpret a dream of Nebuchadnezzar, and that he was enabled to give an explanation that was so satisfactory that the king promoted him to exalted honor, ch. ii.; the narrative respecting the three friends of Daniel — Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, — who refused to fall down and adore the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar erected in the plain of Dura, and who for their disobedience were cast into the fiery furnace, ch. iii.; Daniel's interpretation of a second dream of Nebuchad nezzar, and the fulfillment of the interpretation of that dream on the monarch, ch. iv.; his interpretation of the hand-writing on the wall at the feast of Belshazzar, ch. v.; and the attempt of the enemies of Daniel to destroy his influence and his life by taking advantage of his known piety, and the firmness of his attachment to God, ch. vi.
These must have been but a few of the incidents that occurred to Daniel in the course of a long life spent in Babylon, and they were pro bably selected as furnishing valuable illustrations of character; as evincing the nature of true piety; as proofs of divine inspiration; and as showing that God has control over kings and nations. All that is here stated occurred at distant intervals in a long life, and this fact should be remembered in reading the book. For the practical lessons taught by these portions of the book, I may be permitted to refer to the remarks at the close of chs. i. ii. iii. vi.
II. The prophetic portions of the book.
The prophecies of the Book of Daniel may be arranged under two great classes: — those relating to the Babylonian monarchs; and those of more general interest partaining to the future history of the world.
(1.) The former are confined to the calamities that would come upon the two monarchs who are mentioned in the book — Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Of the former of these kings, Nebuchadnezzar, his derange ment as a judgment of heaven, on account of his pride, is predicted, ch. iv.; and of the latter, Belshazzar, the termination of his reign, and the taking of his kingdom, are predicted on account of his impiety, ch. v. The object did not seem to be to state what farther would occur to the kingdom of the Chaldeans, except as it should be lost in the great king dom of the Medes and Persians, in which it would be absorbed.
(2.) Those of general interest pertaining to future times. Of these there are several classes: —
(a.) The prospective history of the revolutions in the great kingdoms of the world; or a general glance at what would happen in relation to the empires that were then playing their part in human affairs, and of those which would grow out of the kingdoms existing in the time of Daniel.
These may be arranged under the following general heads: —
(1.) A description of the great kingdoms or empires that would pro perly grow out of the Babylonian or Chaldean monarchy, ch. ii. That kingdom was, in the time of Daniel, the great, and almost the single, sovereignty of the earth; for, in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, this had absorbed all others. From this, however, were to spring other great dynasties that were to rule over the world, and that might properly, in some sense, be represented as the successors of this. These great revo lutions are represented in the dream of Nebuchadnezzar respecting the golden image, ch. ii., and they are described by Daniel as (a) the great monarchy of which Nebuchadnezzar was the head — Babylon — represented in the image by the head of gold, ch. ii. 38; (6) as another kingdom inferior to this, represented in the image by the breast and arms of silver (ch. ii. 32, 39) — the Medo-Persian empire, that would succeed that of Babylon; (c) as a third kingdom that would succeed this, represented in the image by the belly and the thighs of brass, ch. ii. 32, 39; (d) as a fourth kingdom more mighty than either, subduing all nations under it, and crushing the powers of the earth, yet made of discordant materials, so as never firmly to adhere as one — represented by the legs of iron, and the feet and toes partly of iron and partly of clay in the image (ch. ii. 32, 41-43), denoting the mighty Roman power_; and (e) as another kingdom that would spring up under this fourth kingdom, and that would ulti mately supplant it, and become the permanent kingdom on the earth (ch. ii. 44, 45).
Substantially the same representation occurs again in ch. vii., under the image of a succession of formidable beasts that were seen by Daniel in a dream. These four great kingdoms, represented successively by a lion, by a bear, by a leopard, and by a non-descript monster, were also succeeded by a great and permanent kingdom on the earth — the reign of Qod. In this representation, Daniel goes more into detail in respect to the last great empire than he does in interpreting the dream of Nebu chadnezzar. Indeed, the design of this latter representation seems to be, to give a more full account of the changes which would occur in this last great kingdom on the earth — the kingdom of the saints — that had been before given.
g 4. NATURE, DESIGN, AND GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.
(2.) A particular prophecy of the conquests of the king of Greciae — Alexander the Great — extending down to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and to the calamities and desolations which he would bring upon the holy land, ch. viii. This occurs in a vision which Daniel had at Shushan, in the province of Elam, and consisted of a representation of a ram with two horns, " pushing" in every direction, as if to extend its conquests everywhere. From the west, however, there carne a goat, with a single horn between its eyes, that attacked and overcame the ram. This single horn on the head of the goat is subsequently represented as broken, and in its place there came up four other horns, and out of one of them a little horn that became great, and that magnified itself par ticularly against " the prince of the host," and that took away the daily sacrifice, or that closed the sacred services of religion in the temple.
A part of this is explained by Gabriel, as referring to the king of Grecias; and there can be no difficulty in understanding that Alexander the Great is referred to, and that by the four horns that sprang up out of the one that was broken, the four kingdoms into which that of Alex ander was divided at his death are meant, and that by the little horn that sprang up Antiochus Epiphanes is designated.
(3.) A particular and minute prophecy respecting the wars between two of the kingdoms that sprang out of the empire of Alexander — Syria and Egypt — so far especially as they aifected the holy land, and' the services in the sanctuary of God, chs. x. xi. This vision occurred in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, and on an occasion when Daniel had been fasting three full weeks. The prediction was imparted to him by an angel that appeared to him by the river Hiddekel, or Tigris, and con tains a detailed account of what would occur for a long period in the conflicts which would exist between the sovereigns of Syria and Egypt. In these wars the Hebrew people were to be deeply interested, for their country lay between the two contending kingdoms; their land would be taken and re-taken in those conflicts; not a few of the great battles that would be fought in these conflicts would be fought on their territory; and deep and permanent disasters would occur to them in consequence of the manner in which the Hebrew people would regard and treat one or both of the contending parties. This prophetic history is conducted onward, with great particularity, to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes — the most formidable enemy that the Hebrew people would have to encounter in the future, and then (ch. xii.), the vision terminates with a few uncon nected hints of what would occur in future periods, to the end of the world.
It was from this portion of the book particularly that Porphyry argued that the whole work must have been written after the events had vocurred, and that, therefore, it must be a forgery of a later age than the time of the exile in Babylon.
(4.) A particular and minute prophecy respecting the time when the Messiah would appear, ch. ix. This was imparted to Daniel when, anxious about the close of the long captivity of his countrymen, and sup posing that the predicted time of the return to the land of their fathers drew on, he gave himself to an earnest and careful study of the books of Jeremiah. At the close of the solemn prayer which ho offered on that occasion (ch. ix. 4-19), the angel Gabriel appeared to him (ch. ix. 20, 21), to assure him that his prayer was heard, and to make an important com munication to him respecting future times, ch. ix. 22, 23. lie then pro ceeded to inform him how long a period was determined in respect to the holy city, before the great work should be accomplished of making an end of sin, and of making reconciliation for iniquity, and of bringing in everlasting righteousness; when, that great work having been accom plished, the oblations at the temple would cease, and the overspreading of abomination would occur, and desolation would come upon the temple and city, ch. ix. 24-27. This celebrated prophecy of the " seventy weeks" is among the most important, and, in some respects, among the most difficult parts of the sacred volume. If the common interpretation — and the one that is adopted in these Notes — is correct, it is the most definite prediction of the time when the Messiah would appear, to be found in the Old Testament.
(5.) Particular prophecies respecting events that would occur after the coming of the Messiah. These relate to two points: —
(a.) The rise of ten kingdoms out of the great fourth monarchy which would succeed the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Macedonian — to wit, the Roman power, ch. vii. 24.
(6.) The rise of another power after them, springing out of them, and subduing three of those powers — to wit, the Papal power, ch. vii. 24.
(c.) The characteristics of that new power — as arrogant, and per secuting, and claiming supreme legislation over the world, ch. vii. 25.
le.) The manner in which it would be terminated, ch. vii. 26.
(f.) The permanent establishment of the kingdom of the saints on the earth, ch. vii. 27.
B. Prophecies relating to the final judgment, and the end of all things, ch. xii.
This portion (ch. xii.) is made up of hints find fragments — broken thoughts and suggestions — which there was no occasion to fill up. What is said is not communicated in a direct form as a revelation of new truths, but is rnther based on certain truths as already known, and employed here for the illustration of others. It is assumed that there will be a resurrection of the dead and a judgment, and the writer employs the language based on this assumption to illustrate the point immediately before him, ch. xii. 2, 3, 4, 9, 13. There is also a very obscure reference to the times when certain great events were to occur in the future (ch. xii. 11, 12); but there is nothing, in this respect, that can enable us certainly to determine when these events will take place.
In reference to these prophetic portions of the Book of Daniel, a few illustrative remarks may now be made: —
(1.) They relate to most momentous events in the history of the world.
If the views taken of these portions of the book are correct, then the eye of the prophet rested on those events in the future which would enter most deepfo* into the character of coining ages, and which would do more than any mher to determine the final condition of the world.
(2.) The prophecies in Daniel are more minute than any others in the Bible. This is particularly the case in respect to the four great king doms which would arise; to the conquests of Alexander the Great; to the kingdoms which would spring out of the one great empire that would be founded by him; to the wars that would exist between two of those sovereignties; to the time when the Messiah would appear; to the man ner in which he would be cut off; to the final destruction of the holy city; and to the rise, character, and destiny of the Papacy. Of these great events there are no other so minute connected descriptions anywhere else in the Old Testament; and even, on many of these points, the more full disclosures of the New Testament receive important light from the prophecies of Daniel.
(3.) There is a remarkable resemblance between many of the predic tions in Daniel and in the Book of Revelation. No one can peruse the two books without being satisfied that, in many respects, they were designed to refer to the same periods in the history of the world, and to the same events, and especially where time is mentioned. There is, indeed, as is remarked in the Preface to these Notes, no express allusion in the Apocalypse to Daniel. There is no direct quotation from the book. There is no certain evidence that the author of the Apocalypse ever saw the Book of Daniel, though no one can doubt that he had. There is nothing in the Apocalypse which mi^ht not have been written if the Book of Daniel had not been written, or if it had been entirely unknown to John. Perhaps it may be added, that there is nothing in the Book of Revelation which might not have been as easily explained if the Book of Daniel had not been written. And yet, it is manifest, that in most im portant respects the authors of the two books refer to the same great events in history; describe the same important changes in human affairs; refer to the same periods of duration; and have in their eye the same termination of things on the earth. No other two books in the Bible have the same relation to each other; nor are there any other two in which a commentary on the one will introduce so many topics which must be considered in the other, or where the explanations in the one will throw so much light on the other.
III. The language and style of the book.
(1.) The language of the Book of Daniel is nearly half Chaldee and half Hebrew. In ch. i. ii. 1 — 3, it is Hebrew; from ch. ii. 4, to the end of ch. vii. it is Chaldee, and the remainder of the book is Hebrew. The Book of Ezra also contains several chapters of Chaldee, exhibiting the same characteristics as the part of the Book of Daniel written in that language.
As Daniel was early trained in his own country in the knowledge of the Hebrew, and as he was carefully instructed, after being carried to Babylon, in the language and literature of the Chaldees (see | 1), it is certain that he was capable of writing in either language; and it is pro bable that he would use either, as there might be occasion, in his inter course with his own countrymen, or with the Chaldeans. There is the highest probability that the captive Hebrews would retain the knowledge of their own language in a great degree of purity, during their long captivity in Babylon, and that this would be the language which Daniel would employ in'his intercourse with his own countrymen, while from his own situation at court, and the necessity of his intercourse with the Chal deans, it may be presumed that the language which he would perhaps most frequently employ would be the Chaldean.
That there were reasons why one portion of this book was written in Chaldee, and another in Hebrew, there can be no doubt, but it is now utterly impossible to ascertain what those reasons were. The use of one language or the other seems to be perfectly arbitrary. The portions written in Hebrew have no more relation to the Jews, and would have no more interest to them, than those written in Chaldee; and, on the other hand, the portions written in Chaldee have no special relation to the Chaldeans. But while the reasons for this change must for ever remain a secret, there are two obvious suggestions which have often been made in regard to it, and which have already been incidentally adverted to, as bearing on the question of the authorship of the book. (1) The first is, that this fact accords with the account which we have of the education of the author, as being instructed in both these languages — furnishing thus an undesigned proof of the authenticity of the book; and (2) the other is, that this would not have occurred if the work was a forgery of a later age; for (a] it is doubtful whether, in the age of the Maccabees, there were any who could write with equal ease in both languages, or could write botli languages with purity; (6) if it could be done, the device would not be one that would be likely to occur to the author, and he would have been likely to betray the design if it had existed; and (c) as the apocryphal additions to Daniel (see §5) were written in Greek, the presumption is that if the book had been forged in that age it would have been wholly written in that language. At all events, the facts in the case, in regard to the languages in which the book was written, accord with all that we know of Daniel.
(2.) The book abounds with symbols and visions. In this respect it resembles very closely the writings of Ezekiel and Zechariah. One of these was his cotemporary, and the other lived but little after him, and it may be presumed that this style of writing prevailed much in that age. All these writers, not improbably, " formed the^r style, and their manner of thinking and expression, in a foreign land, where symbol, and imagery, and vision, and dreams, were greatly relished and admired. The ruins of the Oriental cities recently brought to the light of day, as well as those which have ever remained exposed to view, are replete with symbolic forms and images, which once gave a play and a delight to the fancy." Prof. Stuart on Daniel, p. 393. Perhaps none of the other sacred writers abound so much in symbols and visions as Daniel, except John, in the Book of Revelation; and in these two, as before suggested, the resemblance is remarkable. The interpretation of either of these books involves the necessity of studying the nature of symbolic language; and on the views taken of that language, must depend, in a great degree, the views of the truths disclosed in these books.
(3.) The Book of Daniel, though not written in the style of poetry, yet abounds much with the spirit of poetry — as the Book of Revelation does.
Indeed the Apocalypse maybe regarded as, on the whole, the most poetic book in the Bible. We miss, indeed, in both these books, the usual forms of Hebrew poetry; we miss the parallelism (comp. Intro, to Job, 1 5); but the spirit of poetry pervades both the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation, and the latter, especially if it were a mere human production, would be ranked among the highest creations of genius. Much of Daniel, indeed, is simple prose — alike in structure and in form; but much also in his visions deserves to be classed among the works of imagination. Throughout the book there are frequent bursts of feel ing of a high order (comp. ch. ii. 19-23); there are many passages that are sublime (comp. chs. ii. 27-45, iv. 19-27, v. 17-28); there is a spirit of unshaken fidelity and boldness — as in the passages just referred to; there is true grandeur in the prophetic portions (comp. chs. vii. 9-14, x. 5-9, xi. 41-45, xii. 1-3, 5-8); and there is, throughout the book, a spirit of humble, sincere, firm, and devoted piety, characterising the author as a man eminently prudent and wise, respectful in his intercourse with others, faithful in every trust, unceasing in the discharge of his duties to God; — a man who preferred to lose the highest offices which kings could confer, and to subject himself to shame, and to death, rather than shrink, in the slightest degree, from the discharge of the proper duties of religion.
THESE additions are three in number: —
(1.) "The Song of the Three Holy Children;" that is, the song of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who were cast into the burning fur nace by Nebuchadnezzar, ch. iii. This " Song," as it is called, is inserted, in the Greek copies, in ch. iii., between the twenty-third and twentyfourth verses, and contains sixty-eight verses, making the whole chapter, in the Greek, to contain an hundred verses. The " Song" consists pro perly of three parts: I. A hymn of " Azariah," or of " Ananiah, Azariah, and Misael" — Avavias Kai A^apea? xai Mitral — of whom Azariah is the speaker, in which praise is given to God, and a prayer is offered that thej may be accepted, preserved, and delivered, vs. 1-22. These are the Hebrew names of the three persons that were cast into the fiery furnace (Dan. i. 6, 7), but why these names are inserted here rather than the names given them in Babylon by the " prince of the eunuchs" (ch. i. 7), and which are used in the Chaldee in this chapter, is not known; and the circum stance that they are so used furnishes a strong presumption that this addition in Greek is spurious, since, in the other portions of the chapter (vs. 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, marked in Codex Chisian. in brackets), the same names occur which are found in the original Chaldee. II. A statement, that the king's servants added fuel to the flame, or kept up the intensity of the heat by putting in rosin, pitch, tow, and small wood, making the furnace so hot that the flame rose above it to the height of forty-nine cubits, and so hot as to consume the Chaldeans that stood around it, but that the angel of the Lord came down, and smote the flame of fire out of the oven, and made the midst of the furnace like a moist, whistling wind, so that the three " children" were safe, vs. 23-27. III. A hymn of praise, calling on all things to praise God, uttered by " the three, as out of one mouth," vs. 28-68. The narrative then proceeds, in the Greek translation, as it is in the Chaldee, and as it now stands in our common translation of the Book of Daniel.
(2.) The second addition is what is called " The History of Susanna." This is a story the des.gn of which is to honour Daniel. A man in Baby lon of great wealth, by the name of Joacim, marries Susanna, a Jewess, who had been brought up in the fear of the Lord. The house of Joacirn was a place of much resort, and particularly by two men of advanced life, who were appointed judges of the people. Susanna was a woman of great beauty, and each one of the two judges, ignorant of the feelings of the other, fell violently in love with her. They both observed that at a certain time of the day she walked in the garden, and both, un known to each other, resolved to follow her into the garden. They pro posed, therefore, to each other to return to their own homes, and both, after having gone away, returned again, and then, surprised at this, they each declared their love for Susanna, and agreed to watch for the time when she should enter the garden, and then to accomplish their purpose. She entered the garden as usual for the purpose of bathing, and the elders, having hid themselves, suddenly came upon her, and threatened her with death if she would not gratify their desires. She, rather than yield, calmly made up her mind to die, but gave the alarm by crying aloud, and the elders, to save themselves, declared that they found a young man with her in the garden, and the matter coming before the people, she was condemned to death, and was led forth to be executed. At this juncture, Daniel appeared, who proposed to examine the elders anew, and to do it separately. In this examination, one of them testified that what he had seen occurred under a mastick or lentisk tree, the other that it was under a holm tree. The consequence was, that Susanna was discharged, and the two elders themselves put to death.
This story is said, in the common version of the Apocrypha, to be " set apart from the beginning of Daniel because it is not in the Hebrew." It is found only in the Apocrypha, and is not incorporated in the Greek translation of Daniel.
(3.) The third addition is what is called " The History of the Destruc tion of Bel and the Dragon, cut off from the end of Daniel."
This is a story in two parts. The first relates to Bel, the idol god of the Babylonians. A large quantity of food was daily placed before the idol in the temple, which it was supposed the idol consumed. The inquiry was made of Daniel by Cyrus, king of Persia, why he did not worship the idol. Daniel replied, that he was permitted by his religion to worship only the living God. Cyrus asked him whether Bel was not a living God; and, in proof of it, appealed to the large quantity of food which he daily consumed. Daniel smiled at the simplicity of the king, and affirmed that the god was only brass and clay, and could devour nothing. The king, enraged, called for the priests of Bel, and insisted on being informed who ate the large quantity of food that was daily placed before the idol. They, of course, affirmed that it was the idol, and proposed that a test should be applied by placing the food before him as usual, and by having the temple carefully closed and sealed with the signet of the king. Under the table they had, however, made a private entrance, and, in order to detect them, Daniel caused ashes to be sprinkled on the floor, which, on the following day, revealed the foot prints of men, women, and children, who had secretly entered the temple, and consumed the food. The consequence was, that they were put to death, and Bel and his temple were delivered to Daniel, who destroyed them both.
The other part of the story relates to a great dragon which was wor shipped in Babylon. The king said that it could not be affirmed that this dragon was made of brass, or that he was not a living being, and required Daniel to worship him. Daniel still declared that he would worship only the living God, and proposed to put the dragon to death. This he did by making a ball of pitch, and fat, and hair, and putting it in the mouth of the dragon, so that he burst asunder. A tumult, in consequence of the destruction of Bel and the dragon, was excited against the king, and the mob came and demanded Daniel, who had been the cause of this. Daniel was delivered to them, and was thrown into the den of lions, where he remained six days; and, in order that the lions might at once devour him, their appetites had been sharpened by having been fed each day with "two carcasses" — in the margin, "two slaves" — and two sheep. At this juncture, it is said that there was in Jewry a prophet, by the name of Habbacuc, who had made pottage, and was going with it into a field to carry it to the reapers. He was directed by an angel of the Lord to take it to Babylon to Daniel, who was in the lions' den. The prophet answered that he never saw Babylon, and knew not where the den was. So the angel of the Lord took him by the crown, and bare him by the hair of his head, and placed him in Babylon over the den. He gave Daniel the food, and was immediately restored to his own place in Judea. On the seventh day the king went to bewail Daniel; found him alive; drew him out, and threw in those who had caused him to be placed there, who were, of course, at once devoured.
This foolish story is said, in the title, in the common version of the Apocrypha, to have been " cut off from the end of Daniel." Like the Prayer of the Three Children, and the History of Susanna, it is found only in Greek, in which language it was undoubtedly written.
In respect to these additions to the Book of Daniel, and the question whether they are entitled to be regarded as a part of his genuine work, and to have a place in the inspired writings, the following remarks may now be made: —
(a) Neither of them, and no portion of them, is found in the Hebrew or the Chaldee, nor is there the slightest evidence that they had a Hebrew or Chaldee original. There is no historical proof that they ever existed in either of these languages, and, of course, no proof that they ever formed a part of the genuine work of Daniel. If they were written originally in Greek, and if the evidence above adduced that the Book of Daniel was written in the time of the exile is conclusive, then it is clear that these additions were not written by Daniel himself, and of course that they were not entitled to a place among the inspired records. For the Greek language was not understood in Babylon to any considerable extent, if at all, until the time of Alexander the Great, and his conquests in the East; and it is every way certain, that a book written in Babylon in the time of the exile would not have been written in Greek.
The evidence is conclusive that these additions were never auy part of the genuine Book of Daniel; and, of course, that they have no claim to a place in the canon. Moreover, as they constituted no part of that book, none of the evidence urged in favor of the canonical authority of that book can be urged in behalf of these stories, and any claim that they may have must rest on their own merits.
(b) They have no claim, on their own account, to a place in the canon. Their authors are unknown. The time of their composition is unknown. They were never recognized by the Jews as canonical, and never had the sanction of the Saviour and the apostles, as they are never quoted or alluded to in the New Testament. And they have no internal evidence that they are of divine origin. There is no evidence which could be urged in favour of their claims to a plaoe in the canonical Scriptures which sould not be urged in favour of the whole of the Apocrypha, or which could not be urged in favour of any anonymous writings of antiquity. The only ground of claim which could be urged for the admission of these stories into the sacred canon would be, that they were a part of the genuine Book of Daniel; but this claim never can be made out by any possibility.
(c) In common with the other books of the Apocrypha, these books were rejected by the early Christian writers, and were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church. See Home's Introduction, i. 628. Some of the books of the Apocrypha were indeed quoted by some of the Fathers with respect (Lardner, iv. 331), particularly by Ambrose (who lived A. D. 340-397), but they are referred to by Jerome only to be censured and condemned (Lardner, iv. 424, 440, 466-472), and are mentioned only with contempt by Augustine. Lardner iv. 499.
It is seldom that these additions to Daniel in the Apocrypha are quoted or alluded to at all by the early Christian writers, but when they are it is only that they maybe condemned. Origen, indeed, refers to the story of Susanna as a true history, and, in a letter to Africanus, says of it, " That the story of Susanna, being dishonorable to the Jewish elders, it was sup pressed by their great men; and that there were many things kept, as much is might be, from the knowledge of the people, some of which, nevertl eless, were preserved in some apocryphal books." Lardner, ii. 466. Origen, indeed, in the words of Dr. Lardner, " Says all he can think of to prove the history [of Susanna] true and genuine, and affirms that it was made use of in Greek by all the churches of Christ among the Gentiles; yet he owns that it was not received by the Jews, nor to be found in their copies of the Book of Daniel." Lardner, ii. 541, 542. Comp. also Du Pin, Dissertation Preliminaire sur la Bible, Liv. i., eh. i. sect. 5, p. 15, note (e}. To the arguments of Origen on the subject, Africanus replies, that " he wondered that he did not know that the book was spurious, and says it was a piece lately forged." Lardner ii. 541. The other books — the Prayer of the Three Children and the Story of Bel and the Dragon — I do not find, from Lardner, to have been quoted or referred to at all by the early Christian writers.
(d} The foolishness and manifest fabulousness of the Story of Bel and the Dragon, may be referred to as a proof that that cannot be a part of the genuine Book of Daniel, or entitled to a place among books claiming to be inspired. It has every mark of being a fable, and is wholly un, •worthy a place in any volume claiming to be of divine origin, or any voiume of respectable authorship whatever.
(e] Little is known of the origin of these books, and little importance can be attached to them, but it may be of some use to know the place which they have commonly occupied in the Bible by those who have re ceived them as a part of the canon, and the place where they are com monly found in the version of the Scriptures.
" The Song of the Three Children'' is placed in the Greek version of Daniel, and also in the Latin Vulgate, between the twenty-third and twenty-fourth verses of the third chapter. " It has always been ad mired," says Home (Intro, iv. 217, 218), " for the piety of its* sentiments, but it was never admitted to be canonical, until it was recognised by the Council of Trent. The fifteenth verse [' Neither is there at this time prince, or prophet, or leader, or burnt-offering, or sacrifice, or oblation, or incense, or place to sacrifice before thee, and to find mercy'], contains a direct falsehood; for it asserts that there was no prophet at that time, when it is well known that Daniel and Ezckiel both exercised the prophetic ministry in Babylon. This Apocryphal fragment is, therefore, most pro bably the production of a Hellenistic Jew. The Hymn (vs. 20, seq.) re sembles the hundred and forty-eighth Psalm, and was so approved of by the compilers of the Liturgy, that in the first Common Prayer Book of Edward VI. they appointed it to be used instead of the Te Deum during Lent/7
" The History of Susanna has always been treated with some respect, but has never been considered as canonical, though the Council of Trent admitted it into the number of the sacred books. It is evidently the work of some Hellenistic Jew, and in the Vulgate version it forms the thirteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel. In the Septuagint version it is placed at the beginning of that book." Home. iv. 218.
" The History of the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, was always rejected by the Jewish Church; it is not extant either in the Hebrew or the Chaldee language. Jerome gives it no better title than The Fable of Bel and the Dragon; nor has it obtained more credit with posterity, except with the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who determined it to be a part of the canonical Scriptures. This book forms the fourteenth chapter of the Book of Daniel, in the Latin Vulgate; in the Greek, it was called the Prophecy of Ilabakkuk, the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi. There are two Greek texts of this fragment, that of the Septuagint, and that found in Theodotion's Greek version of Daniel. The former is the most ancient, and has been translated into Syriac. The Latin and Arabic versions, together with another Syriac translation, have been made from the text of Theodotion." Home, iv. 218. These additions to Daniel may be found in Greek, Arabic, Syriac, and Latin, in Walton's Polyglott, torn. iv.
(1.) OF these the oldest, of course, is the Septuagint. For a general account of this version, see Intro, to Isaiah, § 8, I. (1). Of the author of that portion of the Septuagint version which comprised the Book of
Daniel — for no one can doubt that the Septuagint was the work of dif ferent authors — we have now no information. The translation of Daniel was among the least faithful, and was the most erroneous, of the whole collection; and, indeed, it was so imperfect that its use in the church was early superseded by the version of Theodotion — the version which is now found in the editions of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint translation of the Book of Daniel was for a long time supposed to be lost, and it is only at a comparatively recent period that it has been recovered and published. For a considerable period before the time of Jerome, the version by the LXX. had been superseded by that of Theodotion, doubtless on account of the great imperfection of the former, though it is probable that its disuse was gradual. Jerome, in his Preface to the Book of Daniel, says, indeed, that it was not known to him on what ground this happened — " Danielem prophetam juxta LXX. interpretes ecclesise non legunt, et hoc cur acciderit, nescio," — but it is in every way probable that it was on account of the great imperfec tion of the translation, for Jerome himself says, " Hoc unum affirmare, quod multum a veritate discordet et recto judicio repudiata sit." He adds, therefore, that though Theodotion was understood to be an unbe liever — " post adventem Cnristi incredulus fuit" — yet that his translation •was preferred to that of the LXX. " Illud quoque lectorem admoneo, Danielem non juxta LXX. interpretes, sed juxta Theodotionem ecclesias legere, qui utique post adventum Christi incredulus fuit. Unde judicio m:igistrorum ecclesise editio eoruna in hoc volumine repudiata est, et Theodotionis vulgo legitur, quse et Hebraeo et ceteris translator! bus congruit."
From this cause it happened that the translation of Daniel by the LXX. went into entire disuse, and was for a long time supposed to have been destroyed. It has, however, been recovered and published, though it has not been substituted in the editions of the Septuagint in the place of the version by Theodotion. A copy of the old version by the LXX. was found in the Chisian library at Rome, in a single manuscript (Codex Chisianus), and was published in Rome, in folio, in the year 1772, under the title, Daniel Secundum LXX. ex tetraplis Origenis mine primum editus e singulari Chisiano Codice annorum supra DCCC. Romae, 1772. fol. This was republished at Goettinburg, in 1773, and again in 1774. These editions were prepared by J. D. Michcelis, the former containing the text only, the latter with the text of the LXX., the version of Theodotion, the interpre tation of Hippolytus, a Latin version, and the annotations of the Roman editor.
These editions were published from one manuscript, and without any attempt to correct the text by a comparison with other versions. The text is supposed to have been corrupted, so that, as Hahn says, no one can believe that this codex exhibits it as it was when the version was made.
" This corruption," says he, " exists not only in particular words and phrases, but in the general disarrangement and disorder of the whole text, so that those parts are separated which ought to be united, and those parts united which ought to be kept distinct. Besides this, there was entire inattention to the signs which Origen had used in his edition of the Septuagint." Pref. to Daniel, Kara rov$ E/tf<5o/,i»jwKra. As there was but
Dne manuscript, all hope of correcting the text in the way in which it 7 * has been done in the other parts of the Septuagint, and in other versions, by a comparison of manuscripts, was, of course, out of the question.
After four editions of the work had been published, it happened that, in the Ambrosian Library at Mailand, Cajetan Bugati discovered a Syriac Hexaplar manuscript, written in the year 616, or 617, after Christ, which embraced the Hagiography, and the prophetic books, and, among others, " Daniel, according to the Septuagint Translation." The title of this Syriac version, as translated by Hahn, is as follows: "Explicit liber Danielis prophetse, qui conversus est ex traditione T&V Septuaginta duorum, qui in diebus Ptolemoei regis ^Egypti ante adventum Christi annis centum plus minus verterunt libros sanctos de lingua Hebrseorum, in Groecum, in Alexandria civitate magna. Versus est autem liber iste etiam de Graeco in Syriacum, in Alexandria civitate mense Canun pos teriori anni nongentesimi vicesimi octavi Alexandri indictione quinta (i. e. a 617, p. ch.).'; This professes, therefore, to be a Syriac translation of the Septuagint version of Daniel. This version was found to be in good preservation, and the signs adopted by Origen to determine the value of the text were preserved, and a new edition of 'the Greek translation was pub lished, corrected by this, under the title: Daniel Secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex tetraplis desumptum. Rom., 1788. This Syriac version enabled the editor to correct many places that were defective, and to do much towards furnishing a more perfect text. Still the work was, in many respects, imperfect; and, from all the aids within his reach, and probably all that can now be hoped for, Hahn published a new edition of the work, corrected in many more places (see them enumerated in his Preface, p. ix.), under the following title: AANIHA Kara row; E/36o^Kovrat E Codice Chisiano p_ost Segaarium edidit secundum versionem Syriaco- Hexaplarem recognivit annotationibus criticis et philologicis illustravit Henricus Augustus Hahn, Philosophise Doctor et Theologiae candidatus. Lipsise, CIDIDCCCXLV. This is now the most perfect edition of the Septuagint version of Daniel, but still it cannot be regarded as of great critical value in the interpretation of the book. It has been used in the preparation of this commentary. An account of the instances in which it departs from the Hebrew and Chaldee original may be seen at length in Lengerke, Das Buck Daniel, Einleitung, pp. cix-cxiv. It has the Prayer of the Three Children, inserted in the usual place (ch. iii. 23, 24), and the History of Susanna, and the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, as separate pieces, at the end.
(2.) The translation of Theodotion. This is that which has been sub stituted in the Septuagint for the version above referred to, and which is found in the various editions of the Septuagint, and in the Polyglott Bibles. Theodotion was a native of Ephesus, and is termed by Eusebius an Ebonite, or Semi-Christian. Jerome, as we have seen above, regarded him as an unbeliever — post adventum Christi incredulus fuit: — that is, he remained an unbeliever after the coming of Christ; propably meaning that he was a Jew by birth, and remained unconvinced that Jesus was the Messiah. He was nearly contemporary with Aquila, who was the author of a Greek translation of the Old Testament, and who was also of Jewish descent. The Jews were dissatisfied with the Septuagint version as being too paraphrastic, and Aquila undertook to make a literal version, but without any regard to the genius of the Greek language.
\V« have only some fragments of the version by Aquila. The version of Theodotion is less literal than that of Aquila — holding a middle rank between the servile closeness of Aquila, and the freedom of Symmachus. This version is cited by Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Tryphon, the Jew, which was composed about the year 160. The version of Theodotion is a kind of revision of the Septuagint, and supplies some defi ciencies in the Septuagint, but the author shows that he was indifferently skilled in Hebrew. It is evident, that in his translation Theodotion made great use of both the previous versions, that by the LXX., and that of Aquila; that he followed sometimes the diction of the one, and some times that of the other; that he often mingled them together in the com pass of the same verse; and that he adapted the quotations from the two versions to his own style. As his style was similar to that of the LXX., Origen, in his Hexapla, perhaps for the sake of uniformity, supplied the additions which he inserted in his work chiefly from this version. There are but few fragments of these versions now remaining. See Home, Intro, iv. 171-176. Lengerke supposes that Theodotion was a Christian, p. cxv. From this translation of Theodotion, a version was made in Arabic, in the tenth century. Lengerke, p. cxv.
(3.) The Syriac versions. For the general character of these versions, see Intro, to Isaiah, \ 8, (3). There is nothing remarkable in these versions of Daniel. For an account of a later Syriac version of the Septuagint, see the remarks above. " As Daniel has no Targum or Chaldee version, the Syriac version performs a valuable service in the explanation of Hebrew words." Prof. Stuart, p. 491.
(4.) The Latin Vulgate. For the general character of this, see Intro, to Isa. $ 8, (2). As this contains the Apocryphal portions, the Prayer of the Three Children, the History of Susanna, and the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, and as the Latin Vulgate was declared canonical by the Council of Trent, of course those fragments have received the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church as a part of the inspired records. This version, as a whole, is superior to any of the other ancient versions, and shows a more thorough knowledge than any of them of the tenor and nature of the book. " An invaluable service has Jerome done, by the translation of Daniel, and by his commentary on the book." Prof. Stuart, p. 491.
(5.) The Arabic version. For an account of the Arabic versions, see Intro, to Isaiah, $ 8, (4). There is nothing peculiar in the Arabic ver sion of Daniel.
BESIDES the versions above referred to, I have made use of the following exegetical helps to the Book of Daniel, in the preparation of these Notes. The order in which they are mentioned is not designed to express any thing in regard to their value, but is adopted more for the sake of con venience: —
Newton on the Prophecies. London, 1832.
Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Von Johann Gottfried Eichhorn. Vierter Band, § 612-619.
Daniel aus dem Hebraish-Aramaischen neu ubersctzt und erklart mit einer vollstandigen Einleitung, und einigen historischen und exegetischen Excursen, Von Leonhard Bertholdt. Erlangen, 1806.
Das Buch Daniel Verdeutscht und Ausleget Von Dr. Csesar von Lengerke, Professor der Theologioe zu Kb'nigsburg in Pr. Konigsberg, 1835.
Lehrbuch der Historish-Kritischen Einleitung in die kanonishen und Apokryphischen Biicher des Alten Testamentes. Von Wilhelm Martin Leberect De Wette. § 253-259. Berlin, 1845.
Ueber Verfasser und der Zweck des Buches Daniel. Theologische Zeitschrift. Drittes Heft. Berlin, 1822, pp. 181-294. By Dr. Fried. Llicke.
Commentatio Historico-Critica Exhibeus descriptionem et censuram recentium de Danielis Libro Opinionum, Auctore Henrico Godofredo Kirmss, Saxone Seminarii Theologici Sodali. Jense, 1828.
The Season and Time, or an Exposition of the Prophecies which relate to the two periods of Daniel subsequent to the 1260 years now recently expired. By W. Ettrick, A. M. London, 1816.
An Essay towards an Interpretation of the Prophecies of Daniel. By Richard Amner. London, 1776.
Neue Kritishe Untersuchungen iiber des Buch Daniel. Von Heinrich Havernick, der Theologie Doctor und A. 0. Professor an der Universitat Rostock. Hamburgh, 1838.
An Exposition of such of the Prophecies of Daniel as receive their ac complishment under the New Testament. By the late Rev. Magnus Frederic Roos A. M., Superintendant and Prelate in Lustnan and
A Description accompanying an hieroglyphical print of Daniel's Great Image. London.
Daniel, his Chaldie Visions and his Ebrew: both translated after the original, and expounded both, by the reduction of heathen most famous stories, with the exact proprietie of his wordes (which is the surest certaintie what he must meane): and joining all the Bible and learned tongues to the frame of his Worke London, 1596. By Hugh Broughton.
Observations intended to point out the application of Prophecy in the eleventh chapter of Daniel to the French Power. London, 1800. Author unknown.
An Apologie in Briefe Assertions defending that our Lord died in the time properly fortold to Daniel. For satisfaction to some studentes in both Universities. By H. Broughton. London, 1592.
As Essay in Scripture Prophecy, wherein it is endeavoured to explain the three periods contained in the xiith chapter of the Prophet Daniel, with some arguments to make it probable that the first of the periods did expire in the year 1715. Printed in the year 1715. Author and place unknown.
Daniel, an Improved Version attempted, with a Preliminary Disser tation, and Notes, critical, historical, and explanatory. By Thomas Wintle, B. D., Rector of Brightwall, in Berkshire, and Fellow of Pem broke College. Oxford, 1792.
A Chronological Treatise upon the Seventy Weeks of Daniel. By Benjamin Marshall, M. A., Rector Naunton, in Gloucestershire. Lon don, 1725.
The Times of Daniel, Chronological and Prophetical, examined with relation to the point of contact between Sacred and Profane Chronology. By George, Duke of Manchester, London, 1845.
Prof. Stuart's Commentary on Daniel, Boston, 1850, was not pub lished until after the " Notes" or Commentary in this work had been written. I have consulted it carefully in revising the manuscript for the press.
To these works, which I have consulted feely, in proportion to what seemed to me their respective worth, and to such collateral exegetical helps in addition as I have access to in my own library, the following works are referred to by De Wette, Lehrbuch, pp. 378, 379, as valuable aids in interpreting Daniel: —
FOB the general argument in favour of the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, §ee Intro., § 2, 3. To the genuineness and authenticity of each particular chapter in detail, however, objections, derived from something peculiar in each chapter, have heen urged, which it is proper to meet, and which I propose to consider in a particular introduction to the re spective chapters. These objections it is proper to consider, not so much because they have been urged by distinguished German critics — De Wette, Bertholdt, Bleek, Eichhorn, and others, for their writings will probably fall into the hands of few persons who will read these Notes, but (a) because it may be presumed that men of so much learning, industry, acuteness, and ingenuity, have urged all the objections which can, with any appearance of plausibility, be alleged against the book: and (/>) because the objections which they have urged may be pre sumed to be felt, to a greater or less degree, by those who read the book, though they might not be able to express them with so much clearness and force. There are numerous objections to various portions of the Scriptures floating in the minds of the readers of the Bible, and many difficulties which occur to such readers, which are not expressed, and which it would be desirable to remove, and which it is the duty of an expositor of the Bible, if he can, to remove. Sceptical critics, in general, but collect and embody, in a plausible form, difficulties which are felt by most readers of the Scriptures. It is for this reason, and with a view to remove what seems to fur nish plausible arguments against the different portions of this book, that the objections which have been urged, principally by the authors above referred to, will be noticed in special sections, preceding the exposition of each chapter.