::^^^^^J^s^^^:St:S?:^!^S:::^!:^.:^^5:^^^-^:StSt^ 
 
 DEFENCE 
 
 THE AUTHENTICITY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 BOOK OF DANIEL. 
 
 S. p. TREGELLES, LL.D. 
 
 •^ 
 
 ?imW^ 
 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 mSGS 
 
6", a "32. 
 
 '^ PRINCETON, N. J 
 
 '* 
 
 % 
 
 Section TT» | » O 
 
DEFENCE OF THE AUTHENTICITY 
 
 BOOK OF DANIEL. 
 
 S. p. TREGELLES, LL.D. 
 
 [EXTRACTED FROM "REMARKS ON THE PROPHETIC 
 VISIONS IN THE BOOK OF DANIEL."] 
 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS, 
 15, PATERNOSTER ROW. 
 
 M.DCCC.LII. 
 
DEFENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL. 
 
 The common belief of tliose who maintain the divine 
 authority of the Old Testament Scriptures (whether Jews 
 or Christians), is, that the book of Daniel was really 
 written by an actual prophet of God, who lived in 
 Babylon during the seventy years' captivity; and that it 
 records the visions given to king Nebuchadnezzar, and 
 to the prophet himself, together with the interpretations 
 which God gave to Daniel of the visions, as well as cer- 
 tain important historical narrations. 
 
 Such is the received opinion of those who believe in 
 divine revelation; and this opinion (if mere opinion it 
 be) has been held and maintained for two thousand years 
 at least ; so that if it be not true, there ought to be 
 definite and unquestionable demonstration that such is 
 the case. 
 
 In the third century we find that Porphyry, the Syrian 
 of Bashan, asserted that this book was a forgery of the time 
 of the Maccabees; so that it would be a production, not 
 of Daniel in Babylon, B.C. 507-538, but of some un- 
 known writer subsequent to B.C. 164. The assertions of 
 Porphyry have often been repeated with various modifica- 
 tions; and they have of late been circulated in such forms 
 as to render it of some importance to consider the subject 
 pretty fully. Arguments have been advanced by two 
 classes of persons — those who oppose revelation as such, 
 and those who admit the revelation of God in many parts 
 
of his Scripture, and yet deny that this hook forms a 
 genuine portion of such revelation. 
 
 It is to the latter class, or to those who may encounter 
 their arguments, that I wish first to address myself in the 
 following remarks ; for although in many points the 
 argument will apply (as I trust that I may show) to the 
 thorough deniers and opposers. of revelation in general, 
 yet if such were the persons especially considered, the 
 primary lines of proof might perhaps be carried to an 
 extent that is needless in the general discussion of the 
 present question. I assume that the New Testament is a 
 divinely-bestowed and authentic communication of God's 
 will and truth, and that its statements are therefore 
 worthy of all reliance. This gives a ground of argu- 
 ment common to all who have not rejected simple and 
 clear results of evidence : some of the other proofs to be 
 advanced will apply equally to objectors in general.* 
 
 At the time when the Lord Jesus Christ taught on 
 this earth amongst his own people, the Jews, that nation 
 possessed a collection of books which they regarded as 
 sacred, believing that they had been given of God to 
 their fathers as an authoritative declaration of his holy 
 will. We know as a fact what these books were : they 
 were the same that we now have in the Old Testament, 
 written (with the exception of the few and short Chaldee 
 portions) in the Hebrew language. In proof of what the 
 sacred books of the Jews were in our Lord's days, it 
 might sufQce to refer to the testimony of Josephus, the 
 
 * In proof that I do not shun the inquiry as to the grounds on which 
 the books of the New Testament are received as genuine and authoritative, 
 I may rofer to my " Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the Authorship 
 and Transmission of the Books of the New Testament." Bagstee and 
 Sons, 1852. 
 
contemporary of most of his apostles : that Jewish writer 
 tells us what the Scriptures of his nation were, mention- 
 ing how they were divided (according to the then Jewish 
 arrangement) into hcenty-two books, of which he gives a 
 particular description; we thus k7iow that they answered 
 to the thirty-nine books as they stand in our division, — 
 the Apocrypha forming no part of this collection of 
 sacred writings. 
 
 If, too, we take the Jews in their dispersions from the 
 days of Titus, we find that, in whatever land they have 
 been located, they have preserved the same collection of 
 books, without addition or rejection, and have maintained 
 their divine authority. 
 
 AY hen we turn to the New Testament, we find that 
 our Lord and his apostles refer to the Jewish Scriptures 
 as a collection, and that they speak in the strongest man- 
 ner as to their authority. This is amply proved by the 
 references which they make to the Scripture as a collec- 
 tion, or to the Scriptures as the body of holy writings. 
 Thus, our Lord met his adversaries with a citation, to 
 which He added, " The Scripture cannot be broken" 
 ( Jno. X. 35). He appealed to the Old Testament in proof 
 of his mission; " Search the Scriptures, . . . they are 
 they which testify of me" (Jno. v. 39). He met the igno- 
 rant objections of the Sadducees with, " Ye do err, not 
 knowing the Scriptures" (Mat. xxii. 29). He spoke of 
 the Scriptures as so authoritative that they must be ful- 
 filled (Mat. xxvi. 54). So, too, the apostles. St. Paul 
 says, " "VA^iatsoever things were written aforetime, were 
 written for our learning, that we, through patience and 
 comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope" (Kom. xv. 4). 
 He refers to the Old Testament as consisting of those 
 holy Scriptures in which Timothy had been instructed, 
 
and which, as being God's revelation, could make wise 
 unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 
 These Scriptures were "the oracles of God," which St. 
 Paul teaches us (Rom. iii. 2) were intrusted to the Jews. 
 They were the depositaries of the precious trust, and to 
 know what were the writings contained in the collection, 
 we have only to inquire what they held as such; for the 
 collection is confirmed by all the sanction of our Lord 
 and his apostles. This sanction, be it remembered, is not 
 confined to mere dogmatic statements (though that would 
 have been enough), but it extends also to the habitual 
 use which they make of the statements of the Old Testa- 
 ment, on which they rest as being unquestionable autho- 
 rity. " The Holy Ghost saith," Heb. iii. 7, is followed 
 by a citation from the 95th Psalm. We are taught in 
 Heb. X. 15, that " the Holy Ghost is a witness to us, for 
 after that He had said before," — and then follow words 
 from the prophecy of Jeremiah. 
 
 Thus, in direct statement, in allusion, and in practical 
 use, do we find that the Son of God and his inspired 
 servants have confirmed to us the collection of Jewish 
 Scriptures, as being possessed of divine authority. If, 
 then, we can show that any particular book formed part 
 of that collection, it will be enough to satisfy fully a 
 Christian inquirer: such an one will not be deterred by 
 difficulties which an objector might raise, for he will 
 know that such difficulties can in no way invalidate the 
 truth of what our Lord has taught. This general ground 
 might suffice with regard to Daniel or any other of the 
 Old Testament books. 
 
 With regard to Daniel^ however, we can go yet further 
 in the way of explicit statement. Our Lord in his pro- 
 phetic discourse to his disciples, in Mat. xxiv., says, 
 
" When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of deso- 
 lation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy 
 place (whoso readeth let him understand)" (ver. 15). 
 What can be more decisive than this reference? Christ 
 mingles his own predictions with a citation from this 
 book, referring to Daniel by name, and giving him the 
 high designation of prophet. This is authority to us in 
 our use and reception of this book; so that we may, on 
 this ground alone, cast aside every difficulty and objection 
 as things of no weight when compared with the declara- 
 tion of the Son of God. 
 
 Besides this explicit statement, we find also in the New 
 Testament frequent and clear allusions to the book of 
 Daniel. Thus, in the discourse contained in Mat. xxiv., 
 in which Christ distinctly uses the book of Daniel, He 
 also (ver. 30) speaks of " the sign of the Son of Man in 
 heaven," and of those who " shall see the Son of Man 
 coming in the clouds of heaven, with power and great 
 glory." In this the terms and statements of Daniel vii. 13, 
 are adopted so as to embody them as part of our Lord's 
 teaching. So, too, in verse 21, in mentioning the time 
 of unequalled tribulation, he plainly alluded to Dan. 
 xii. 2. 
 
 On what ground did the high-priest and the council 
 charge our Lord with blasphemy? Because of his appli- 
 cation of a prophecy of Daniel to Himself Jesus had 
 answered (Mat. xxvii. 64), " Hereafter ye shall see the 
 Son of Man sitting on the right-hand of power, and 
 coming in the clouds of heaven" Jesus and the Sanhe- 
 drim alike admitted the authority of the book of Daniel : 
 only they charged Him with blasphemy in saying that He 
 was '* the Son of Man," of whom these things were writ- 
 ten: this they considered to be a sufficient ground for 
 
8 
 
 condemning Him to death, and on the ground of this 
 application of the passage in Daniel they did so condemn 
 Him, saying, " He is guilty of death"; and thus they 
 delivered Him to Pontius Pilate to be crucified. 
 
 It is needless to refer in detail to the allusions to the 
 book of Daniel found in many parts of the New Testa- 
 ment; it is sufficient to state this as a fact, and to refer 
 in a general way to the images and expressions with 
 which the book of Revelation abounds, borrowed from 
 Daniel. 
 
 I should have thought that the statements of our Lord 
 and liis apostles were sufficient on these points; they are 
 so, I fully believe, for every simple-minded Christian 
 who rightly reverences their authority ; unhappily, how- 
 ever, such attempts have been made to invalidate this 
 attestation, as call for a passing notice. It has been said, 
 that oiir Lord and his apostles did no more in their allu- 
 sions to Daniel, and in citing him by name, than express 
 themselves according to the current opinion of the day : 
 — that they intended no more than a kind of argumentum 
 ad homiiiem, as addressing the Jews who owned the 
 authority of Daniel, and that their words must be no 
 more rested on in their literal force, than those of a phi- 
 losopher should be, who expressed himself in popular 
 language, and spoke of the sun as rising or setting, — 
 words which in his mouth would not imply, that he be- 
 lieved the sun to move and the earth to be stationary. 
 
 Such is the hinted doubt by which some would invalidate 
 the plain statements of the New Testament. I reply. First: 
 That the direct statement of Christ, and the allusions made 
 by Him and his apostles, go far beyond the use of a cur- 
 rent opinion ; for the book of Daniel is used as an autho- 
 rity, so as to show what Christ Himself regarded it to be. 
 
(1 
 
 Secondly : Tliat the use of Daniel, so far from being in- 
 troduced as any mere argumentum ad homincm addressed 
 to unbelieving ^ews, is most markedly found when the 
 Lord's own disciples are the persons addressed, — persons 
 whom He had to instruct by truth, not to confute: 
 Thirdly: That any argumentum ad hominem not based 
 on absolute truth, would be utterly inconsistent with the 
 person, character, and mission of the Son of God; so that 
 whatever ground He took, whether in teaching or in con- 
 futation, his having taken it is in itself a sufficient proof 
 of its truth. Fourthly : That such an explanation of the 
 use of Daniel shows an entire want of apprehension of 
 the sanction which the New Testament writers give to 
 the collected Scriptures of the Old Testament, — a sanc- 
 tion which would be meaningless if we had thus to limit 
 it, and which must be taken in its full extent if words 
 are in any sort the exponents of ideas. Fifthly : That 
 the comparison of the statements of the New Testament 
 in divine things, to those of a philosopher in matters of 
 science, is wholly beside the mark: for he who says " the 
 sun rises," or "the sun sets," deceives no one, and leads 
 no one to suppose that he rejects the Copernican system : 
 because he speaks not out of conformity to popular 
 opinion or prejudice, but as using popular language, 
 founded on the phenomena as presented to the eye. 
 Whereas, our Lord spoke of facts of divine truth, as fully 
 declaratory of his oitm judgment as those of a philosopher 
 would be, when he defined the system of the universe 
 which he beheved to be true. If a teacher of natural 
 philosophy spoke approvingly of the Cartesian theory of 
 Vortices, would not this be taken as full evidence that he 
 himself adhered to the theory, and did not admit the 
 Newtonian law of gravitation? We might far better 
 
10 
 
 suppose a Newtonian to adopt the language whicli clothed 
 the notions of Des Cartes, and yet expect not to be mis- 
 understood, than imagine that our Lord could have 
 spoken of Daniel as a prophet, and have used his book 
 authoritatively, unless He intended his words to be taken 
 in their literal sense as giving this book his plenary 
 sanction. 
 
 Besides, it is of importance to remember that our 
 Lord, so far from accommodating Himself to any of the 
 false notions and opinions which were current amongst 
 the Jews, his countrymen, reproved them for the tradi- 
 tions which they had added to the word of God, and the 
 false opinions which they had introduced: to suppose, 
 then, that He used words which would sanction an 
 opinion of theirs that Daniel was a prophet, unless this 
 were truly the case, and unless his book were truly 
 divine Scripture, is to introduce a thought utterly at 
 variance with the whole character and course of our 
 Lord's teaching and actions. How would tie have said 
 " the Scripture cannot be broken," if He had not only 
 sanctioned others in their use of a spurious book as being 
 holy Scripture, but had also so used it Himself? How 
 could He in that solemn hour, when He was judged 
 before the high-priest (in accordance with God's pur- 
 pose that one man should die for " the children scattered 
 abroad"), have taken his title and his attributes of glory 
 from this hook^ unless He had intended his Church to be 
 taught and guided by what He then said and did ? 
 
 On these definite grounds may we hold fast the book 
 of Daniel as being divinely -inspired Scripture, — a book 
 to which our Lord has directed our especial attention, 
 and from which He drew those statements of his divine 
 attributes, and (yet unrevealed) glorious kingdom, which 
 
 
11 
 
 were made the grounds of his condemnation hy men. 
 This species of absolute proof ought to carry a conviction 
 of absolute certainty to the minds of all who acknowledge 
 I the divine authority of the New Testament. 
 
 While these proofs are conclusive, it is at the same 
 time right to show, as a matter of fact, that the opinion 
 that the book of Daniel was written in the Maccabean 
 period is per se untenable. The proofs of this point are 
 to be stated, not as though they could be needed to co7i- 
 firm the conclusions already arrived at on the highest 
 possible authority, but simply to show how far removed 
 are the theories of objectors from the facts of the case, 
 and how such may be refuted even on their own grounds. 
 This may disarm objections: it might lead opposers to 
 see that the only reasonable ground which they can take 
 on such a subject is the same which has been already 
 reached on the authority of our Lord and his apostles. 
 
 It is certain that at the Christian era the book of 
 Daniel was commonly received by the Jews as the pro- 
 phecy of a servant of God in Babylon, written about five 
 centuries and a half before. Of this the New Testament 
 and Josephus are sufficient proofs. How fully the rulers 
 of the Jews received it, is shown by their charge of blas- 
 phemy against our Lord for applying its terms to Himself. 
 Had this book been one of doubtful authority or obscure 
 origin, they could not have thus regarded the use which 
 He made of its contents. 
 
 Had the Jews, then, a.ny proofs that this book belonged 
 to a period anterior to the Maccabean? Could this be 
 shown irrespective of the revelation through our Lord 
 Jesus Christ ? The Jews most certainly knew that they 
 were the depositaries of the Scripture of God, and thus 
 
12 
 
 they would at once have rejected such a notion as that 
 they had added a book, professedly containing divine 
 revelations, to the sacred writings of Moses and the other 
 prophets, when that book, so fur from having been writ- 
 ten by a prophet in the captivity, was of comparatively 
 modern date. The Jews at the Christian era must have 
 knoivn whether Daniel pertained or not to the jMaccabean 
 period; for that age was not so far removed from the 
 time of our Lord as to be sufficient to introduce uncer- 
 tainty in a matter of such public importance and noto- 
 riety as the introduction and reception of a book as part 
 of holy Scripture. Melanchthon thus states the connec- 
 tion of the two periods, — " Simeon, who embraced Christ 
 as an infant, saw, when a young man, the elders who had 
 seen Judas Maccabaeus." * Had the book of Daniel, then, 
 been a spurious composition of that age, it must have still 
 been avcU known as a fact. 
 
 But we can go farther back : some time in the interval 
 between the birth of our Lord and the days of Judas and 
 his brethren, was written the first book of ]\Iaccabees, 
 which has been transmitted to us in a Greek version. f 
 In this we find the prophecy of Daniel used as a well- 
 known and accredited book. Li chap. i. 54, the writer 
 
 * "Simeon qui Chi-istum infantem gestavit in sinu, vidit adolescens 
 senes, qui Maccabseum videraut." — (Cited in Havernick iiber Daniel, 
 p. 390). 
 
 t That the first book of Maccabees was originally written in Hebrew, 
 and that the Greek which we now have is a version, is learned from the 
 direct evidence of Origen (in Euseb. 11. E. vi. 25), and Jerome (Prologus 
 Galeatus). I think that the endeavours to i)rove the Greek to be the 
 original have been entire failures, and that it has been woi-sc than useless 
 to make any argument for the genuineness of Daniel depend on a supposed 
 proof of thi^ point. 
 
 The internal grounds for regarding the Greek copy of this book to be a 
 translation are very strong. It must have been a very early version, and 
 thus the use that it makes of the LXX. of Daniel, is a good proof of the 
 early execution and reception of that version of this prophet. 
 
13 
 
 says of Antiochus Epiphanes, that " lie buildcd the 
 abomination of desolation upon the altar," — a use of 
 Daniel as manifest as when we read similar words in the 
 New Testament. In chap. ix. 27, the writer says, 
 " There was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not 
 from the time that no prophet appeared amongst them"; 
 thus using a phrase and thought taken from Daniel xii. I. 
 In various places there are expressions in the Greek of 
 the first book of Maccabees verbally identical with the 
 real LXX. of Daniel; for instance, "and many shall fall 
 down slain" (ix. 40, and elsewhere), is literally found in 
 Dan. xi. 26, of that version. 
 
 Thus it is evident that the author of the first book of 
 the ]\Iaccabecs received Daniel as the inspired writing of 
 the prophet in the captivity in Babylon : that he con- 
 sidered that various portions of it were fulfilled in the 
 Maccabean age, is equally certain from the use which he 
 makes of the book ; and he clearly expected that these 
 statements which he makes would be received by his 
 readers, the Jews in general. Whatever, then, may be 
 the time in which this author lived, the book of Daniel 
 had previously obtained its currency as an accredited 
 book. 
 
 If it had been a forgery of the days of the Maccabees, 
 intended to encourage the Jews in their contentions with 
 the Seleucidse, would not this author have been aware 
 of the fact ? He shows a close acquaintaince with the 
 events which he records, and even speaks of some of 
 them so much in the way of allusion and mere indica- 
 tion, as to pre-suppose that, in the age in which he 
 wrote, the events were yet familiar. And so they well 
 might be ; for when did this author live ? He carries on 
 the history to the death of Simon, the last-surviving 
 
14 
 
 brother of Judas Maccabeus, B.C. 135; and then allude. 
 to some of the actions of his son and successor, John j 1 
 Hyrcanus, B.C. 135-107, referring for the rest to the I 
 book of his high-priesthood. Hence it seems as if John j '^ 
 Hyrcanus was still alive when this author wrote, other- ] 
 wise some allusion to his death and successor might have j 
 been expected.* We may thus, I believe, regard this 
 book as older than B.C. 107. Those who think it more 
 recent, consider that it was but a little subsequent to the 
 death of John Hyrcanus ; so that even on that supposi- 
 tion it belongs to a period but little removed from the 
 Maccabean wars which it records. 
 
 Judas Maccabseus purged the Temple and instituted 
 the Feast of Dedication (which our Lord vouchsafed to 
 observe), B.C. 165, — that is \>vX fifty-eifjlit years prior to 
 the death of John Hyrcanus : Simon, the survivor of the 
 brethren, died B.C. 135, which leaves an interval of but 
 twenty-eight years on to the time of the death of his son. 
 Thus, if the book of Daniel were a ]\Iaccabean forgery, 
 it must have been written but fifty-eight years, at the 
 utmost, before the death of John Hyrcanus, — and must 
 have come into general use and reception within twenty- 
 
 * SeTcral parts of the book exhibit a different tone of thought from 
 that which prevailed amongst the Jews after the Asmonean high-priestly 
 princes had assumed the diadem and the kingly title. Thus, in ii. 57, 
 Mattathias says, " David by his mercy obtained the inheritance of the 
 throne of the kingdom for ever." Immediately after the death of John 
 Hyrcanus, his descendants forgot that the crown of Israel could only i 
 belong to the house of David: his son Aristobulus (b.c. iO" — C) assumed ( 
 the name and diadem of king, and thus transmitted the title and power to ) 
 his brother Alexander Jannaeus (b.c. 106—79) ; the contentions of whose) 
 sons, HjTcanus and Aristobulus II., led to the taking of Jerusalem by 
 Pompey (b.c. 63), and to the rise of the Herodian family. The last of the 
 Maccabean house who bore the kingly title was Antigonus, son of Aristo- 
 bulus II. (B.C. 40—37), the great-grandson of John Hyrcanus: he was 
 executed at Antioch, by order of Marcus Antonius, like a common male- 
 factor, by the lictor's axe. 
 
15 
 
 elglit years of the death of the last of those brethren, 
 while his son and other contemporaries were yet alive. 
 
 All this would present many difficulties to be solved, 
 even if it were supported by evidence, which it is not. 
 "We should have to suppose that the Jews were exceed- 
 ingly lax and careless as to what books they received as 
 authoritative Scripture ; whereas, the fact was notoriously 
 the reverse : it was because of their adherence to Scrip- 
 ture that they suffered under the persecution of Antio- 
 chus. We should have to explain hoio the Jews in 
 Jerusalem were persuaded by some unknown author that 
 this book which he had written was an ancient work, 
 and how it could have been thus introduced to their 
 attention. There would be other difficulties behind ; for 
 there were still Jews in Babylonia (as well as in other 
 countries) with whom those of the Holy Land had inter- 
 course (as we see in Josephus) from time to time : how 
 could they be brought to receive this book as an ancient 
 prophecy, if it had indeed been a recent forgery ? 
 
 The continued dissensions of the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees sprung up in the days of John Hyrcanus (if not 
 before): this division among the Jews was a guarantee 
 against either party introducing any new book as a part 
 of holy Scripture. If it were proved that the Sadducees 
 received only the Pentateuch as authoritative, still they 
 would have been a check on the Pharisees, if they had 
 wished to add any fresh book of prophecy, which (on 
 the Maccahean theory) Daniel would have been. 
 
 All the Maccabean theory of the origin of Daniel 
 seems to me to arise from the notion that that age, and 
 the period immediately succeeding, are times of wliich 
 we know so little, that anything might then have oc- 
 curred without our being able to prove the contrary. 
 
16 
 
 But, in truth, we know the history of the Maccabeau 
 age with particular exactness ; and what we know hap 
 pens to supply distinct evidence on the very point in 
 question. How can we imagine that within twenty-eight 
 years (probably but half as long) all memory of facts was 
 so utterly effaced, that a recent book passed current as an 
 ancient prophecy ? 
 
 We may well ask. How could this be ? and especially 
 so, when we remember what pains the Jews have taken 
 to preserve in the Feast of Dedication the memory of the 
 Maccabean deliverance. This feast connects the Jew of 
 the present day with the deeds of Judas : how much 
 more must it have done this while there were yet living 
 the elders, in whose days these tilings had been wrought? 
 The thanksgiving used still in this feast by the Jews 
 appears itself to be a production of that very age ; for it 
 contains the expression, " Thou hast wrought for thy 
 people Israel great salvation and deliverance, as it is this 
 day" — words only fitting a time when the fruits of the 
 Maccabean struggle were still enjoyed by the people of 
 the Jews as mercies in all their freshness.* 
 
 * In Mr. De Sola's translation of the Jewish prayers, the expression 
 nin DVTO is rendered, "on that day" — ("thou didst work a great salvation 
 and redemption for thy people Israel on that daj/") : this, however, is 
 entirely contrary to the meaning and bibUcal use of the words. 
 
 This thanksgiving is thus apparently a production of that age, — used 
 then, in our Lord's days, and still, in the commemorative Feast of Dedicar 
 tion. The beginning of the words then used is connected with a prefatory 
 thanksgiving in daily use, in which various mercies are recounted : — 
 
 " [We will thank thee] for the signs, the deliverances, for the mighty 
 acts, and for the salvations, and for the wonders, and for the consolations, 
 which thou wroughtest for om* fathers in those days and at this season. 
 
 " In the days of Mattathias the son of Johanan the high-priest [refer- 
 ring, probably, to Mattathias's ancestor, Johanan the father of Jaddua], 
 the Asmonean and his sons, when the wicked kingdom of Greece stood up 
 against thy people Israel, to cause them to forget thy law, and to trans- 
 gress the statutes in which thou delightest : thou, in thy gi-eat mercies, 
 didst stand up for them in the time of their trouble j thou didst plead i 
 
17 
 
 Thus the notion of objecting hjrpothetists, that the 
 Maccabean period was one of such uncertainty, and that 
 ts events were so little remembered, that a spurious 
 30ok might easily be received as genuine, is singularly at 
 variance with the facts of the case. It was an epoch to 
 which peculiar attention was directed, both at the time 
 and in later ages. And be it remembered, that the period 
 alleged to be so obscure, in which the book of Daniel 
 was (according to the suppositions brought forward) in- 
 troduced into general use, is Hmited to the sovereignty 
 and high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus, — a period not 
 greater than that from the death of Napoleon, at St. 
 Helena, to the time when the supreme power in France 
 had passed into the hands of his nephew. A comparison 
 of this period with a similar space of time in our own 
 days, makes us feel the futility of imagining that so small 
 an interval was enough to envelope such a notorious fact 
 as the reception or non-reception of a book of Scripture 
 in obscurity. 
 
 Thus the first book of Maccabees is evidence to us of 
 the completest kind, that the book of Daniel was, in the 
 Maccabean age itself, received and used as being what it 
 professed, — an authoritative revelation given to the pro- 
 phet of God in Babylon. 
 1 
 
 'heir cause; thou didst vindicate their right; thou didst avenge their 
 (vrongs ; thou didst deliver up the mighty ones into the hand of the weak, 
 and multitudes into the hands of the few, and the wicked into the hand of 
 the righteous, and the defiled into the hand of the pure, and the proud 
 into the hand of those who upheld thj' law. And thou didst make for 
 thyself in thy world a great and holy name ; and thou didst work great 
 salvation and deliverance for thy people Israel, as it is this day. And 
 ifterwai'ds thy children entered into the oracle of thy house, and cleansed 
 :hy temple, and purged thy sar' .uary, and lighted the lamps in the courts 
 )f thy holiness, and appoi' X these eight days with praise and with 
 .hanksgiving. As thou wruughtest signs and wonders for them, so will we 
 .'ive thanks to thy great name. Selah." 
 
 1 2 
 
18 
 
 But we can go yet farther : the first book of Macca- 
 bees recognises the existence and common knowledge oL 
 tlie book of Daniel prior to the death of Antiochus Epi-_ 
 phancs, and the re-cleansing of the Temple. In chap. ii.. 
 it speaks of the death of Mattathias, the father of Juda^ 
 and his brethren, and how in that hour he gave a charge 
 to his sons to be zealous for the Law of God : in doing 
 this, he draws examples from the saints of the Old Tes- 
 tament, — Abraham, Joseph, Phinchas their ancestor, 
 Joshua, Caleb, David, and Elijah who was zealous for 
 the law, and was received up into heaven. He then con- 
 tinues — '^^ Ananias, Azarias, Misael, believing, were saved 
 from the Jlame : Daniel in his simplicity teas delivered 
 from the moutli of the lions. And thus understand in 
 every generation, that all who hope in Him shall not be 
 feeble. And fear ye not the words of a sinful man ; for 
 his glory is for the dunghill and for worms. To-day he 
 shall arise, and to-morrow he shall not be found ; for he 
 shall return to his dust, and his thought perisheth" — 
 (vcr. 59-63). 
 
 It may be said that we have no certainty that the 
 writer of this book has faithfully recorded the speech 
 of the dying Mattathias : he may have put expressions! 
 into the mouth of the Asmonean patriarch, according ta 
 his own notions of the historical examples which mighi 
 be suitably brought forward under the circumstances 
 Let this objection have its full weight ; and even ther 
 we sec that the author of the book considered that, ir 
 B.C. 166 (not more than sixty years before he wrote). 
 Daniel was a book of Scripture so well known, thai 
 examples might be taken from it to conclude a list whicl 
 began with Genesis. He never would have put into th( 
 mouth of tlic dying priest sentiments and allusions alto 
 
19 
 
 gether incongruous, and wliich must have been known to 
 be such by those for whom he wrote. 
 
 It is, however, difficult to suppose that the speech of 
 Mattathias is the invention of the author of the book : it 
 is characterised by that gravity and sobriety of state- 
 ment which seem to mark it as real history ; and this 
 narrative was written, be it remembered, in the days of 
 the grandson of the Asmonean patriarch. 
 
 Thus the first book of Maccabees supplies simple evi- 
 dence that the prophecy of Daniel was a well-known and 
 accredited document prior to the Maccabean days in 
 which some would place it. 
 
 This might be considered as enough evidence : in 
 common cases, if we find that a document has been 
 accredited for being what it professes, so long, that 
 memory or record can testify nothing to the contrary, 
 then the document is received as bearing evidence of its 
 own origin. 
 
 Did the Jews, prior to the Maccabean age, receive 
 books which professed to contain holy Scripture lightly 
 and unadvisedly ? Let the persecution of Antiochus, 
 during which they so clave to the Law of Moses, bear 
 witness to their adherence to their own Scriptures : let 
 their conduct wherever found, in their dispersions, attest 
 the same thing. They hold fast, and have held fast, the 
 same collection of sacred books, to which they have 
 added no others, even though they have introduced so 
 many disiiguring traditions. 
 
 The book of Daniel professes to be written by Daniel in 
 the captivity : it contains the mention of events which, if 
 true, must have been of public notoriety amongst all the 
 Jews in Babylon. Did they accredit Daniel as a prophet, 
 ,and did they receive his book as a divine prophecy ? If 
 
20 
 
 they did, then there is an end of the whole matter. But 
 if the reception of the book of Daniel was a later thing, 
 how did it take place ? Was it Jirst known and received 
 by the Jews of Jerusalem, at an age subsequent to that 
 of the prophet ? If so, how did the Jews of the dis- 
 persions regard it ? Did those of Babylonia condemn it 
 or attest it? With Babylonia the returned exiles had 
 habitual intercourse for ages;* and Jews of that region 
 had much to do (as we see in the cases of Ezra and 
 Neheraiah) with the reforms carried on amongst the re- 
 turned Jews. Thus, if the book were first received in 
 Babylon, it must have been by those who would at once 
 check any forgery in the matter ; — if in Jerusalem, then 
 the Babylonian Jews would have been witnesses for or 
 against its claims. 
 
 But, in fact, this leads the inquiry to the common 
 grounds on which we prove the transmission of any 
 ancient books or ancient monuments whatever. If any 
 book is spoken of in the first place where it is mentioned 
 as a known and authentic writing, the presumption is 
 always considered to be in its favour, even though there 
 is no prior proof of its existence. This presumption is 
 considerably strengthened if the writing is mentioned as 
 
 * Thus, after Antigonus, the last Asmonean who united the Aaronic 
 high-priesthood with that kingship which the family of David alone could 
 claim, was ignominiously beheaded at Antioch, Herod (B.C. 36) bestowed 
 the office of high-priest on Ananelus, an obscure priest whom he sent for 
 from Babylon to receive the office (Josephus, Ant. Jud., lib. xv. 2, 8). 
 This Ananelus was descended from the priests who had remained in the 
 captivity; and it is evident that the Jews must have well known the cir- 
 cumstances, and even genealogies, of their brethren on the Euphrates; 
 otherwise they would never have owned Ananelus — the descendant of 
 those who had been deported five centuries and a half before. So far from 
 objecting to the appointment of this priest from Babylon, the Jews ob- 
 jected to his subsequent deprivation. Thus the children of Israel in the 
 different countries must have been well acquainted with the things that, 
 related to one another. 
 
21 
 
 well known, and especially if it is spoken of under circum- 
 stances which incidentally prove this to be the case. A 
 further corroboration is afforded if it is not the property 
 of any individual merely, but of a community who guard 
 it as an authoritative document : we then possess that 
 sort of external evidence which leads us to examine the 
 writing itself, and to see by whom it professes to be 
 written, and when. 
 
 Having done this, if we find that it claims to proceed 
 from an author, who would, from the circumstances of the 
 case, be well known by the community who possess the 
 writing, we have reasonable grounds for receiving it as 
 being what it claims to be. The burden of proof, then, 
 rests wholly on those who deny the authenticity. 
 
 And thus it is with the book of Daniel: it was re- 
 ceived (as I have shown) in the Maccabean age, as a 
 writing previously received, well known, and accredited; 
 the persons in whose hands it was, were the Jews at 
 large, who must have known that the appeals made in 
 the first book of Maccabees, were to a publicly-accredited 
 book of Scripture. Thus, in the proper custody, there 
 was this book in existence, which must, according to all 
 principles of historic proof, be admitted to give its own 
 testimony, quantum valeat. It professes to be written by 
 a prophet in Babylon, whose mission was connected with 
 remarkable miracles : the community which received this 
 book must have known from whence it came into their 
 hands, and thus they must have known whether it pos- 
 sessed claims on their attention or not. And if no point 
 of time can be assigned as that at which the Jews first 
 received the book of this prophet posterior to his own 
 age, we must embrace the conclusion that from his own 
 time and onward they had always possessed it. 
 
22 
 
 An ancient monument must always be allowed to 
 speak for itself: if proof be required that it is ancient, 
 let that be given, and then let the monument be listened 
 to as to all that it has to say of its own origin ; it is thus 
 that we obtain many valuable points of historic evidence. 
 
 Thus, the inscription on the arch of Titus is, — 
 
 S E N A T V S 
 POPVLVSQVE . ROMANVS 
 DIVO.TITO.DIVI.VESPASIANI.F. 
 VESPASIANO .AUCUSTO. 
 
 and it is of deep interest to us, connected as it is with 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, and with the carrying away 
 of the holy vessels of the Temple, depicted on the edifice. 
 We do not raise any question about fraud or deception ; * 
 we receive the evidence as trustworthy. We might find 
 difficulty in proving that this arch is that erected in 
 honour of Titus, in the same way that we might prove 
 a contemporary event; but we take the inscription itself, 
 standing on a public edifice, as proof of the fact; — and 
 a good proof it is, not only as carrying moral conviction, 
 but even as legal evidence. 
 
 It might be said that we know traditionally that this 
 is the arch of Titus, and that thus all our belief is a 
 mere tradition. " Tradition " is a term used in many 
 senses : — if any one could prove tradition of a fact, then 
 we should receive such a fact as undoubted ; but if it 
 means something vague and baseless, then it has nothing 
 
 * Are there, then, no forged inscriptions ? Hare no antiquaries been 
 deceived by such means? Of course such impositions hare been practised ; 
 but this proves the general principle of evidence, instead of invalidating it. 
 If ancient inscriptions had not been admitted as carrying with them much 
 weight of evidence, forgeries would not have been attempted. The exis- 
 tence of counterfeit coin proves that coins in general pass current aal 
 genuine. 
 
23 
 
 to do with the matter. The common pubUcity of the 
 fact that this is the arch of Titus, accords with the in- 
 scription, and the puhlicity of the inscription, from early 
 ages, is a voucher for its correctness. If there be an 
 accordant tradition, it is known to be true by the evi- 
 dence of the monument itself; if there be a discordant 
 tradition, the same evidence would cause it to be at once 
 rejected. 
 
 Thus, with regard to a sepulchral monument a few 
 miles ftorth of Rome, seen by a traveller, on the Florence 
 road, as he approaches the Tiber and the ]\Iilvian bridge 
 (Ponte MoUe); this monument is hahitualhj pointed out 
 as the sepulchre of Nero ^ and many who hear this in pass- 
 ing by, record it as a fact in their memories or their note- 
 books ; — if, however, they read the inscription, they 
 would at once see that it marks, in fact, the burial-place 
 of Publius Vibius, and not of that Roman emperor who first 
 stirred up persecution against the Christians. Tradition 
 is here wholly in fault. Again, the name of Temple of 
 Concord, was long applied to a ruin of which eight Ionic' 
 columns stand in the Roman Forum ; but in recent years 
 two inscriptions have been discovered which show that 
 that name rightly belongs to another edifice of which the 
 pavement alone remains. The discovery of these inscrip- 
 tions, previously unknown, is considered to be a sufficient 
 proof. So, too, in the case of the pillar standing in the 
 midst of the Roman Forum, which was for a^es " the 
 nameless column with the buried base" ; for there modern 
 excavations have uncovered the base, and exhibited the 
 inscription, showing that it was erected a.d. 608, in 
 honour of the Emperor Phocas. It is thus that we arrive 
 at certainty on historical facts, as transmitted or as dis- 
 covered, — as previously believed or previously unguessed. 
 
24 
 
 Exactly the same is it with regard to the transmission 
 or tradition of ancient books. Many a work has come 
 to light, and is received by all, simply on the grounds of 
 discovery, and of the uncontradicted testimony which it 
 bears to itself. Thus, in the last century, when Muratori 
 discovered, in the Ambrosian library at j\Iilan, a frag- 
 ment in Latin on the canon of the New Testament, it 
 was at once received as a genuine work of the second 
 century : the nature of the case precluded imposture, and 
 the incidental allusions proved the writer to have lived 
 about A. D. 140. When there was discovered in the 
 Bibliotheque du Roi, at Paris, a document relating to 
 Ulphilas, the Gothic bishop and translator of the Scrip- 
 ture into that language, it was at once admitted as pos- 
 sessed of historic importance, as a genuine monument of 
 the fourth century.* 
 
 If this is the case with regard to works previously un- 
 known, how much more must it be so as to a writing 
 received and possessed by a community? The tradition 
 or transmission of a hook which professes to be by a cer- 
 tain author, and which does not come forth to lisht from 
 a secret hiding-place, but, at the first point at which it is 
 mentioned in extant documents, was well and widely 
 known, is the strongest evidence which the case admits, 
 that the book is true in its profession, — that it is in fact 
 the work of the author whose name it bears. To reject 
 this testimony would be to adopt the wildest scepticism, 
 and that with regard not only to Scripture, but also all 
 
 * See Waitz, Ueber das Leben und die Lehre des Ulfila. The docu- 
 ment to which I have referred above, is written in the margin of the Latin 
 MS., No. 594, in the Bibliotheque du Roi. Its discovery has served to 
 correct many mistakes as to the date of the Gothic bishop, and as to 
 many of his actions and the doctrines which he held. It is evidently the 
 work of some contemporary of his. 
 
25 
 
 the literary remains of antiquity. The argument may be 
 summed up in a few words : books exist, professing to be 
 the works of certain authors ; they have been transmitted 
 as such from ancient days ; and thus the profession must 
 either be true, or else we should have to account both for 
 the existence of the books, and also for the false opinions 
 which have obtained currency respecting them. We 
 might as well doubt the genuineness of ancient inscribed 
 edifices, as of books thus transmitted, which carry on 
 their own face a certificate of their origin. 
 
 Thus may we take our stand at the Maccabean age, 
 and look backward at the transmission of the book of 
 Daniel. If not genuine, was it forged in the age imme- 
 diately subsequent to that to which it professes to belong? 
 If so, there were contemporary witnesses to prevent its 
 reception by disproving its claims. Or, was it introduced 
 in a later age? Then, it would have been impossible for 
 the perpetrators of the fraud (if such a word may be here 
 used even hypothetically), to persuade the Jews alike of 
 Jerusalem, Babylon, and Alexandria, that this had been 
 one of their sacred books from the time of Zerubbabel 
 and the building of the second Temple. 
 
 When a book, at a given time, is proved to have been 
 regarded as the work of a certain author, or as possessed 
 of a great antiquity, otherwise undefined, we must look 
 at its own claims, which in such circumstances possess a 
 primary weight of evidence, just like that of a monu- 
 mental inscription. 
 
 Thus the profession of the author of the book that he 
 was Daniel — a prophet in the Babylonish captivity — is 
 prima facie proof that this is the fact ; the onus prohandi 
 may be fairly thrown on those who would deny it. If 
 this be not admitted, then we shall be guilty of treating 
 
26 
 
 this book (well known by a community scattered through 
 many lands), with less consideration than we bestow 
 upon writings of whose origin and early reception we 
 know scarcely anything. 
 
 He who would disprove the evidence of the author of 
 the book, must either do so on internal grounds (and 
 those not of mere surmise, but of a positive character), or 
 else he must show that in some marvellous manner the 
 Jews were led to accredit this book with its professed 
 authorship and its exalted claims. 
 
 This is not a case like that of the book in the Apocry- 
 pha, called Baruch; which, although professing to be by 
 Baruch, tlie companion of Jeremiah, never was accredited 
 as such by the Jews, and can also be proved not to be 
 such, on internal and unquestionable grounds. So that 
 the same principles of transmissive evidence enable us to 
 sift the claims which the inscribed title of a Avork may 
 advance, and to accept or reject them as may be needful 
 in arriving at the truth. 
 
 In looking back at the age when the author of Daniel 
 professes to have lived, we find independent evidence 
 that such a name and person were then known. In 
 Ezekiel, chap, xiv., the name of Dajiiel is twice men- 
 tioned : in the communication of God to the prophet, He 
 says, " when the land sinneth against me by trespassing 
 grievously . . . though these three men, Noah, Daniel^ 
 and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own 
 souls by their righteousness, saitli the Lord God" (verse 
 14, so also verse 20). It appears to be assumed that 
 these three were well-knutvn persons. Xoah, found alone 
 righteous in his generation, was one whose name and 
 actions were familiar to every reader of Scripture : so 
 
27 
 
 too Job, wlio was upright, so that there was none Hke 
 him in the earth : the introduction of Daniel between the 
 other two, is proof that there was at some earUer age, or 
 else in the time of Ezekiel himself, a servant of God so 
 called, of eminent holiness. He must, too, have been a 
 well-known person, for such objects alone can be rightly 
 used as standards of comparison. But we find no Daniel 
 recorded in earlier ages; hence we must conclude that 
 Ezekiel had one as a well-known contemporary. In 
 chap, xxvii. of Ezekiel, we find Daniel again used as a 
 standard of comparison. In verse 3, the Lord says to the 
 " Prince of Tyrus," " Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel ; 
 there is no secret that they can hide from thee." Thus 
 we find that the Daniel recognised in Ezekiel was pre- 
 eminent in holiness, and also one to whom secret things 
 were especially made known. 
 
 Thus, in or before the days when Daniel the writer 
 professes to have lived, there was a well-known Daniel 
 possessed of the moral characteristics of that prophet in 
 chap, i., and sjnritually endowed, as he is said to be, in 
 chap. ii. And as no such previous Daniel is recorded, 
 we must conclude that he belonged to the time of the 
 captivity, so that the Daniel mentioned in Ezekiel, and 
 Daniel the author of the book, are also professedly of the 
 same age. But in Ezekiel's days we find no trace of any 
 other Daniel, except the author. Thus, we have proof 
 that there was an eminent Israelite called Daniel — a real, 
 well-known person — with whom the author of the book 
 identifies himself. The reception of the book of Daniel, 
 by the Jews as a body, sanctions this identification : they 
 must have known whether it was really written by this 
 ivell-known person or not. 
 
28 
 
 The undesignedness of the coincidence between Ezeklel 
 and Daniel is shown by the former not speaking of 
 Daniel as a writer, though indicating his character, and 
 by his referring only to those things now found in his 
 book, which are earlier in date than the time when 
 Ezekiel wrote. 
 
 A reference to the Septuagint version of the Old 
 Testament, and the place of Daniel in that translation, is 
 needful, in order fully to investigate the subject ; while, 
 in so doing, it must be fully admitted that some of the 
 obscurity which rests on the ancient versions in general, 
 still broods over the LXX. 
 
 It is a demonstrated fact, that this version of the Old 
 Testament was commenced before the year 285 B.C., and 
 that whether all the books were executed about the same 
 time, or at a considerable interval, yet that the work of 
 translation went on until all the sacred books, received 
 alike by the Jews of Jerusalem and Alexandria, were 
 turned into Greek. 
 
 The mere fact that Daniel takes its place as part of 
 this version, is an important point in the history of the 
 transmission of the book. It shows how fully it must 
 have been received by the Jewish community at large; 
 and be it remembered that the separation of the Jews 
 was an event long prior to the Maccabean times. Indeed, 
 it is highly probable that the version of Daniel was 
 anterior to that epoch; at all events, the translator of 
 Ecclesiasticus (who lived on the latest supposition at that 
 time) speaks of the books of Scripture in general as 
 translated into Greek: he even notices the imperfections 
 of the Greek version ; and thus it is needless to consider 
 
29 
 
 that the real LXX. of Daniel was a production of a sub- 
 sequent time, on account of its being so defective as a 
 translation.* 
 
 * We derive our knowledge of the authorship, etc., of Ecclesiasticus 
 from the prologue of the Greek translator. He says that the book was 
 written b.v Jesus, his grandfather, in Hebrew, and that he had turned it 
 into Greek. There is one note of time from which we might draw a conclu- 
 sion as to the age in which either the author or translator lived. He says, 
 
 'Ec yap T<j oySoto kol TpioKOcTTw erei ewl toO EvepyeVov |3a(rtA€<os Trapayeirijdei^ ets 
 
 Aiyvn-Toi' : this appears to have been in general translated, " For when I 
 came into Egypt in the thii-ty-eighth year of Ptolemy Euergetes" ; — and, 
 then, as the Egyptian king of that name reigned for but twenty-Jine years, 
 B.C. 247 — 222, it has been supposed that Ptolemy Physcon (also called by 
 some Euergetes) was intended, to whose reign the number of thirty-eight 
 might (it has been supposed) be adapted. The actual reign of Ptolemy 
 Physcon, after the death of his brother Ptolemy Philometor, in B.C. 145, 
 lasted but nineteen years ; xmless, therefore, some other commencement of 
 his reign be reckoned from, it will not meet the term of thirty-eight years : 
 hence, the calculation has been made from B.C. 170, when Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes made Ptolemy Philometor prisoner, and the Alexandrians set up 
 Physcon as king, — an event which led to many subsequent wars. In this 
 manner the translator of Ecclesiasticus is supposed to refer to the year 
 B.C. 132, being the fourteenth of Physcon's actual reign. The translator's 
 grandfather, who wrote the book, has been placed about fifty years earlier. 
 
 But is the above rendering the simple meaning of the Greek sentence ? 
 Does it not rather signify, "When I came into Egypt in [mt] thirty-eighth 
 year, in the reign of Euergetes"? Thus, De Wette in his translation, " Als 
 ich namlich in [meinem] acht und dreissigste Jahre unter der Regierung des 
 Konigs Evergetes nach Aegypten kam" — (in his "Einleitung," § 316, how- 
 ever, he says, — "Die Angabe des Lehensjabres weder deutlich noch passend 
 ist"). This rendering certainly gives, what seems to me, the purport of 
 the passage; and, if so, it is needless to place the translator under the reign 
 of Physcon. Also, I very much doubt whether the years of this latter 
 king were ever reckoned from 170 B.C.; so that this theory would not 
 avoid the difficulty. I am thus inclined to believe that the book of Eccle- 
 siasticus was translated in the reign of the king commonly known as 
 Ptolemy Euergetes, B.C. 247 — 222; and that thus it was written about fifty 
 years before, by one who had himself been contemporary with the high- 
 priest, Simon the Just (B.C. 300—291), whom the author so commends 
 (chap. 50). 
 
 In either case, the Greek version of " The Law, the Prophecies, and the 
 other Books," had been executed prior to the translation of Ecclesiasticus, 
 and the discrepancies between the Greek and the Hebrew original had 
 attracted attention. On the one supposition this would be about B.C. 
 235, and even on the other it must have been anterior to B.C. 132. 
 
 That the high-priest, Simon, B.C. 300 — 291, was the one designated the 
 
30 
 
 Had not Daniel been known as one of the collection 
 of holy writings, it is inexplicable how it could have 
 formed a part of this ancient version. It presents to us 
 another channel of transmission. 
 
 An argument may be based on the imperfection of the 
 Greek version of Daniel as found in the real LXX, (for 
 which the Church at an early period substituted that of 
 Theodotion); had Daniel been a recent book when the 
 Greek translation of it was executed, how could we sup- 
 pose that the meaning would have been so lost in the 
 version? On the Maccahean theory, the original of 
 Daniel, and the Greek translation, must have been 
 separated at most by a very short interval, not nearly 
 sufficient for its meaning and phraseology to have be- 
 come antiquated. 
 
 There is a narration In Josephus (Ant. Jud. xi. 8) in 
 which the book of Daniel is mentioned, the historic 
 accuracy of which has been impugned by many, not on 
 positive grounds, but simply on those of doubt and diffi- 
 culty. He states that Alexander the Great paid a re- 
 markable visit to Jerusalem, with the intention of 
 severely punishing the people for adhering to their oath 
 of fidelity to the last Darius, — that Jaddua, the high- 
 priest, met him at the head of a procession, — that the 
 
 Jwt^ and not the later Simon, B.C. 217—196, we have proof in two passages 
 
 of Josephus: — TiktvTrjaavTOi 'Oi'iov tou ap\i(piioi, 6 irais aiiTou 'S.iiunv yivtrai 
 SiaSoxOi, 6 Koi St'xaiot cJrticAijfiei's, Sid rt to Trpbs tov Btov «vcr€0e5 Km to irpbt TOVt 
 
 6Mo<^iiXovs (ivovv. Ant. Jud. xii. 2, 4 (p. 512, Ed. Hudson). TeXevnjcrovrot yap 
 
 EXea^opov, TTji' dp\iefiu><ruvy)v b fieio? awToO MocotroT)? eXafic ^eB' bv KaTavrpfifiayra 
 TOf ^I'of, 'Oi/io5 Tqv Ti(ii)i' e'ic^aTO, Xifiiovoi vlbf u>y TOU SiKaiov <cXt)6«Vtos. xjj. 4. 1 
 
 (p. 523). 
 
 This must be borne in mind, as the two high-priests of the name liare 
 been, it seems, confounded. 
 
31 
 
 conqueror's wrath was averted, and that on liis visit to the 
 holy city, the prophecy of Daniel was shown him, which 
 said that a Grecian monarch should overthrow Persia. 
 
 Whatever doubt or difficulty may be raised as to the 
 historic truth of this narration in all its parts, still we 
 have no reason to question that this was believed as a 
 fact, in the first century, by the Jews; we know how 
 remarkably Alexander favoured the Jews — a circumstance 
 which must have had some cause or reason — and it is 
 evident that the Jews in Josephus's days believed that 
 Daniel was a book extant in the days of Alexander : this 
 belief is all that I wish to press absolutely; for it shows 
 that they must have knotvn that it was a book long 
 anterior to the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. 
 
 That Jaddua was a remarkable historic person, we 
 have sufficient proof in the significant fact that with 
 him the history of the Old Testament ends. The register 
 of the priests and Levites, inserted in the twelfth chapter 
 of Nehemiah, ends with him. In verses 10 and 11, the 
 genealogy and succession of the high-priests after the 
 captivity, run thus: — 1. Jeshua; 2. Joiakira; 3. Elia- 
 shib; 4. Joiada; 5. Jonathan (called Johanan, i.q. John, 
 verse 22, the two names being of the same import: — 
 from a younger son of this high-priest the Asmonean 
 house seems to have sprang); 6. Jaddua. 
 
 I speak of this register as being inserted in the book of 
 Nehemiah, not as intending to detract from its authority 
 (for I believe it to be an integral part of holy Scripture), 
 but simply because it Avas clearly not written by Nehe- 
 miah himself, who probably did not long survive the 
 year B.C. 400 (if, indeed, he lived so long), and the high- 
 priesthood of Jaddua is placed from B.C. 341-322, and 
 
32 
 
 the date of Alexander having visited the Holy Land is 
 B.C. 332. 
 
 It cannot be said that this register was introduced in 
 order that it might pass as Nehemiah's; there is as little 
 possibility of imposture, as there is in the addition of the 
 last chapter of Deuteronomy, where Moses himself could 
 not be supposed to be the writer. Such additions to the 
 books of the Old Testament stand on the same ground as 
 to their reception, as the books which are anonymous; 
 we receive them as transmitted to us through the proper 
 channel of custody as holy Scripture. 
 
 This duly-chronicled succession of high-priests, and of 
 contemporaiy Levites, is a guard, up to that time, 
 against the reception of Daniel, or any other book, if 
 spurious, as part of holy Scripture : and Josephus shows 
 that the Jews believed that Daniel was known and used 
 by Jaddua himself. 
 
 Nell. xii. 22, also mentions Jaddua, and "the priests 
 to the reign of Darius the Persian." This shows us the 
 time to which this register carries us on, even to the days 
 of Darius Codomannus, the last Persian king. It was to 
 him that Jaddua had sworn allegiance, and thus he re- 
 fused to break his oath, preferring rather to endure the 
 displeasure of Alexander. "Darius the Persian" seems 
 to be an expression thus used after the rule of Macedon 
 had been set up; otherwise the designation has no such 
 significance as it would have once had in those days 
 when it was used in opposition to Mede. 
 
 The Jewish account is, that Simon the Just (the high- 
 priest from B.C. 300-291) closed the canon of the Old 
 Testament : if this means that he finished the books as 
 transmitted in one collection, it may be probable as a 
 fact; for that Simon the Just was the son of Onias, the 
 
33 
 
 son of this Jaddua. If this account be a tradition, it is 
 confirmed by the fact that the Old Testament mentions 
 persons on to his age, and no farther : we are thus shown 
 that the writing of any books of the Old Testament ends 
 in his days, with the mention of the last Darius, and the 
 high -priest Jaddua, his grandfather. 
 
 Such, then, is an outline of the external and trans- 
 missive proof of the genuineness of the book of Daniel : 
 it will be seen that we possess these grounds of evidence 
 besides what we learn authoritatively from the New 
 Testament. 
 
 If the genuineness of an ancient book is attacked, it 
 must be either on external or internal grounds. The 
 grounds of disproof from the former may be satisfactory, 
 but in general the external arguments against a book are 
 negative ; for they rest on the silence of those who may 
 be expected to mention it. Of course, we have sometimes 
 explicit early testimony that a book does not really pro- 
 ceed from the author whose name is attached to it; and 
 in such a case the evidence is positive. In general, how- 
 ever, external counter-testimony is only negative: such and 
 such writers do not mention a book, which they must 
 have known, had it been then in being; hence there is a 
 presumption against the book which one who defends it 
 has to meet. 
 
 Internal grounds, however, may be wholly different; 
 for the contents of a book may show that some claim has 
 been advanced on its behalf, which is wholly untenable : 
 for instance, a book may speak of its alleged author as 
 already dead, or it may introduce the events and opinions 
 of an age altogether more recent than his time: on such 
 internal grounds Ave can at once reject the claims made 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 on behalf of sucli parts, at least, of the book. "We 
 may possess such external proof as to lead us to pause 
 before we reject the book entirely, and to inquire 
 whether the difficulties are really such as we have sup- 
 posed, and whether the passages in which they occur are 
 undoubtedly parts of the genuine text of the book. 
 
 In thus examining objections, we may find such con- 
 tradictions, etc., running through the whole texture of 
 the work, as to show that it cannot be genuine, and that 
 its claims are altogether false. 
 
 Eeference has been made above to the Register inserted 
 in Nehemiah; this is a good illustration of the mode in 
 which external evidence is not invalidated by facts con- 
 tained in a book which, at first, might seem to contradict 
 such testimony. When, however, any addition has been 
 introduced into a book, bond Jide, it is commonly so 
 manifest as such, that none could imagine it to be part 
 of the older work, and thus no confusion arises, either as 
 to principles of evidence, or their application: just as the 
 Arch of Titus (to which I have already referred as an 
 illustration of historic monuments), which has been re- 
 paired in modern times, to preserve it from destruction; 
 where the later stone-work is purposely so different from 
 the ancient, that no one could confound them, even if 
 there had not been a modern inscription recording the 
 repairs. 
 
 These principles will apply not merely to authorship, 
 but also to other claims advanced on behalf of any book : 
 thus, the second book of Maccabees is said, by the Church 
 of Rome, to be divinely-inspired Scripture, although the 
 author disclaims any such authority (xv. 38) as plainly 
 as words can be devised : I use this as an illustration of 
 internal disproof. 
 
35 
 
 The grounds on which the book of Daniel has been 
 attacked are partly external, partly internal. 
 
 The external grounds are but few, and but little re- 
 liance can be placed on them ; because the Jewish nation 
 ^having no writings extant for some centuries subsequent 
 to the time when the Old Testament books in general 
 had been written, it can excite no surprise that allusions 
 from writings cannot be brought forward in favour of 
 Daniel or other Scripture books. This silence proves 
 nothing and disproves nothing. 
 
 However, it has been said that the author of Eccle- 
 siasticus knew nothing of the book of Daniel ; because, in 
 the place in which he recounts the writers of Scripture, 
 he mentions the other prophets, but says not one word 
 about Daniel. 
 
 This may seem to be an argument of some weight : let 
 it, however, be examined. In the passage in question 
 (chap, xlix.), Jesus the son of Sirach is not recounting 
 the writers of his nation, but the famous men: he does 
 not profess (as some have seemed to assume) to give a 
 list of the books of the Old Testament. Let it be granted 
 that he might well have mentioned Daniel amongst the 
 other famous Israelites, but the argument will equally 
 apply to Ezra, of whom he says not a word. Perhaps it 
 may then be argued that he knew nothing of Ezra; but 
 this is disproved from his mention of Nehemiah, in whose 
 book the actions of Ezra are just as much spoken of as in 
 that which bears his own name. 
 
 If any reliance be placed on the silence of Jesus the son 
 of Sirach, it would go to disprove that any famous Daniel 
 ever existed; whereas, we know from Ezekiel that there was 
 such a Daniel; and Ezekiel, with his visions, is mentioned 
 in Ecclesiasticus amongst the other prophets (xlix. 8). 
 
36 
 
 Thus vain is it to rest on the negative argument drawn 
 from this source. 
 
 Another external objection has been grounded on the 
 place assigned to the book of Daniel in the Hebrew 
 Bible; where it stands, not amongst the prophets, but in 
 that part called by the Jews Q^S-ina K'thuvim, which 
 commence with the Psalms and end with the Chronicles. 
 The place of Daniel, there, is between Esther and Ezra. 
 What bearing this argument has on the question is not 
 very apparent to any one who • regards these books as 
 being, all of them, holy Scripture: it must be supposed 
 (as it seems) that this place was one of less honour than 
 among the prophets ; and the Jews must be imagined to 
 have placed Daniel there as a book of whose origin or 
 authority they were in doubt. It is difficult to suppose 
 that such arguments could be serioiisly alleged. It may 
 be quite sufficient to remark that the Psalms stand in the 
 same division of the collection, — that the Jews, at the 
 Christian era (as witnessed by Josephus), considered 
 Daniel as a super-eminent prophet, — that we do not 
 know on what principle many parts of the collections of 
 sacred writings were arranged, — and that Daniel stands, 
 after all, in a by no means imnatural place, between other 
 writings relating to the captivity, — and that his book is 
 partly historical, partly prophetic. 
 
 This place of the book of Daniel in the collection of 
 sacred writings may explain how Jesus the son of Sirach 
 omits him when speaking of the other prophets. 
 
 Such are the slender external grounds of disproof 
 Will they avail anything when looked at in themselves? 
 And will they not rather set off the fullness of the external 
 evidence in favour of Daniel, by the marked contrast ? 
 
 It is on internal grounds that the objectors really rest. 
 
37 
 
 It will be needless for me to toucli on several of these 
 supposed grounds ; for they relate but little to the book 
 of Daniel itself, but rather to the subjective condition of 
 mind on the part of those who object. Thus the miracles 
 and lyropUecies are stated as grounds for rejecting the 
 book ! This is an argument, of course, against the truth 
 of any such interpositions on the part of God. But how 
 different are the miracles in Daniel from those recounted 
 in Jewish legends ! They stand in the same contrast as 
 do the miracles in the Gospels to those in the apocryphal 
 lives of Christ, and in the legends of saints. 
 
 It is said that the book contains such historical errors 
 and contradictions as prove the writer to have lived at a 
 later age. But what are the grounds on which such 
 errors are alleged ? Every fragment of ancient history 
 bearing on Babylon is ransacked, and these doubtful 
 accounts, which present but little agreement amongst 
 themselves, are taken as sufficient for impugning this 
 book.* And so, too, as to the statements of Daniel itself 
 For instance, it has been said that " the second year of 
 the reign of Nebuchadnezzar" (chap. ii. 1) is altogether 
 incorrect ; since chap. i. 5 shows that three years and 
 more had elapsed since king Nebuchadnezzar had taken 
 Jerusalem. This shows that the whole account must be 
 taken as transmitted together, and to the whole must the 
 principle be applied, which I call historic transmission. 
 By this term I mean, that the transmission of a document 
 
 * Those who thus impugn Daniel would often find it difficult to prove 
 the genuineness and transmission of the very authors whom they quote 
 against him. They have not balanced as they ought the evidence in favour 
 of the authors whom they prefer, against that in favour of the book of 
 Daniel, which they reject. This would have shown them that genuine 
 ancient fragments have come down to us, and ai'e received, on not a tithe 
 of the evidence which authenticates Daniel. 
 
38 
 
 containing difficulties makes the earliest receivers of the 
 document, and the author himself, vouchers that the his- 
 toric difficulties, so far from being real objections, show 
 that those who were acquainted with the whole of the 
 circumstances would know that they were no difficulties 
 at all. I include the author as a witness, for he would at 
 least know what he was writing ; and thus, if possessed 
 of ordinary intellectual powers, he would not go out of 
 his way to introduce difficulties. It is true, that such 
 things are often found in such forged writings as are 
 wholly weak and absurd; but, in a book sensibly written, 
 with ability and intelhgence, like that of Daniel, it would 
 be difficult to suppose that the author would introduce 
 contradictions, just to puzzle the reader. The solution of 
 the supposed difficulty seems to be, that Nebuchadnezzar 
 first ruled jointly with his father Nabopolassar, and that 
 his "second year" in Daniel ii. is dated from his sole 
 sovereignty.* 
 
 In Daniel, we find Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon 
 when the Jews were carried captives: his successor (as 
 we learn from other Scriptures) was Evil-Merodach, and 
 the last king of Babylon was Belshazzar, called in Daniel 
 the son (meaning, as some think, grandson) of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar. Then came the rule of the Medes and Per- 
 sians, Darius the Mede (Dan. vi.) possessing the kingdom, 
 in which he was succeeded by Cyrus the Persian. This 
 account of the Babylonian kings appears as if it was 
 given by one who knew the facts ; and yet any statement 
 
 * In criticism, it holds good as a sound canon, that difficulties connected 
 with dates and nmnbers are not in themselves legitimate grounds for 
 rejecting any document; because transcribers oinumbers (just like modem 
 compositors with regard io figures) were more habitually liable to err than 
 in anything else. Few MSS. of any ancient work whatever are wholly 
 free from errors in this particular. 
 
39 
 
 in the fragments of profane historians which might seem 
 to contradict it, has been advanced as a reason for reject- 
 ing Danieh It is singular that Scripture statements 
 should not be allowed to possess equal weight with those 
 of profane historians. Why should we pay more implicit 
 heed to Berosus and Abydenus* than to the author of 
 the book of Daniel? But are the discrepancies real? 
 Daniel does not say that other kings did not reign be- 
 tween Evil-Merodach and Belshazzar : indeed, he does 
 not mention the former of these kings at all, although, 
 on any hypothesis, he must have heard of him, — so vain 
 is it to base an argument on the silence of Daniel. There 
 may have been other and intermediate kings without one 
 statement of this book being controverted even by im- 
 plication. It would be needless to enter into a grave 
 refutation of those who would make difficulties and ob- 
 jections out of the names which the kings bear in the 
 book of Daniel : in Koman history, Mastarna and Servius 
 Tullius are one and the same person ; so, too, Caius 
 
 * Berosus was a Chaldean historian of the former part of the third 
 century B.C. The fragments which we have of his writings are transmitted 
 by means of citations in Josephus, and in the " Chronicon" of Eusebius 
 (Josephus, Ant. Jud., Lib. I., cap. iii. 6, p. 12, Hudson ; cap. viii. 2, p. 22 ; 
 Lib. X., cap. xi. 1, p. 459 ; Cont. Apion. I., 19, 20, p. 1342—4. Euseb. Chron., 
 Lib. I., cap. L 2, 3 ; cap. ii. 1, 6 ; cap. iv. 2 ; cap. v. 4 ; cap. xL 1, seq.). 
 
 Abtdenus was a more recent writer than Berosus, and much less 
 worthy of credit : the exaggeration in speaking of all Chaldean affairs is 
 manifest enough in Berosus, but still more so in Abydenus. The fi-ag- 
 ments which we possess of this writer have been transmitted by Eusebius, 
 in his "Pra?paratio Evangelica" and "Chronicon" (Prisp. Evan. ix. 12, 
 p. 414, d, Viger ; ix. 14, p. 416, b ; ix. 41, p. 456, d ; Chron., Lib. I., cap. vi., 
 vii., viii., ix., x., xii.). 
 
 Thus, the channels through which we know anything of the \\Titings of 
 these historians are simply Jewish and Christian : bej'ond this we know 
 nothing of the contents of their works. This shows that it is a most arbi- 
 trary criticism (to use no stronger name) for any to employ the fragments 
 of these historians, token it is thought that they impugn the sacred narra- 
 tive, in preference to all writers who are in accordance with it. 
 
40 
 
 Octavius, Caius Julius Csesar Octavlanus, and Augustus, 
 are identical, as are Annius Vcrissimus and ]\Iarcus An- 
 toninus, and so (to come to modern times) are Taraas Kouli 
 Khan and Xadir Shall. What wonder, then, if Daniel, 
 writing in Babylon, used the names by which sovereigns 
 were best known there, even though they possessed other 
 designations ? 
 
 In truth, the allegations of historic difficulty connected 
 with Daniel, though often stated as if they were strong, 
 fall to pieces at the first touch; for they all rest almost 
 entirely on the notion that we possess independent know- 
 ledge of the contemporary facts : a groundless assumption 
 such as this ought to be allowed no weight in historical 
 investigations, — nor would it, if Scripture were not ar- 
 raigned at the bar of (so-called) criticism. 
 
 The time has been when the silence of profane his- 
 torians has been used as an argument against Scripture in 
 general, and against the book of Daniel in particular. 
 Thus, it was once said, with a kind of boast, that Hero- 
 dotus, " the father of history," does not even mention 
 Nebuchadnezzar; and thus it was insinuated that either 
 he was a mythic person, or, at least, that the Scripture 
 accounts of him, and his greatness and conquests, were 
 fiction or exaggeration. Some have looked on the wide- 
 spread ruins on the shores of the Euphrates, around 
 Hillah, doubting or denying that the city to which they 
 belonged had really risen to its greatness under that 
 founder of the first monarchy of prophetic vision ! 
 
 But it was reserved for our days that those heaps of 
 ruins should be no longer mute and silent, but that from 
 the sculptured stones of Egypt, from the buried palaces 
 of Nineveh, and from the bricks of Babylon, there should 
 arise a testimony to the fidchty of Scripture, in opposi- 
 
41 
 
 tion to the opinions of men, or the ignorant assertions of 
 proflme writers. 
 
 Dr. Young was led (shall I say, by a special interposi- 
 tion of divine Providence?) to discover, by means of the 
 Rosetta stone, the letters of ancient Egypt, and thus to 
 open the way for others to follow in reading the records 
 of the Patriarchal ages. More recently, three have la- 
 boured in the Assyrian and Babylonian field ; and thus, 
 Colonel Rawlinson has deciphered the arrow-headed cha- 
 racter, so long a mystery ; while Dr. Layard has been 
 busied in bringing to liglit the long-buried monuments of 
 Nineveh, and Dr. Plincks has been a successful fellow- 
 labourer in the investigation of results in reading inscrip- 
 tions. All these discoveries have shown that the writers of 
 holy Scripture must have been acquainted vfith facts which 
 they state ; for the same facts are, in many cases, told us 
 on independent grounds, transmitted in contemporary re- 
 cords, though concealed for ages. These things cannot give 
 the Christian more certainty than he had before, as to 
 what is written in holy Scripture ; it does, however, supply 
 an argument which ought to convince the objector that 
 the writers of Scripture ivere, at least, possessed of an ac- 
 quaintance with the historic facts to ichich they allude. And 
 yet it may be, that some will now believe in the ancient 
 grandeur of Nineveh, because of Dr. Lay ard's discoveries, 
 ignoring the fact that this greatness, in its detail, was pre- 
 viously taught fully in holy Scripture, — and there alone. 
 
 The plain of Babylon has one voice and one testimony : 
 the inscribed bricks, used as they are for all edifices and 
 for all purposes, still show whence they came ; and they 
 all tell who was the mighty monarch who raised the 
 buildings of Babylon: the inscription on each is ^'■Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, son of Nabopolassar." 
 
42 
 
 But Herodotus makes no mention of Nebuchadnezzar, 
 and ascribes the glories of Babylon to others : let this 
 teach caution in judging Scripture statements by what 
 we find in profane historians. Had Scripture been com- 
 posed of such materials as their narratives, we might 
 have found an equal absence of knowledge on such points 
 of history. We have sufficient data for adhering to what 
 Scripture says (even if we could regard it as an ordinary 
 book), when on historic points it seems to clash with 
 profane writers. 
 
 All now admit the existence and might of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, and yet Herodotus knew nothing about him or 
 his actions: this is a simple argument to meet some of 
 the false criticisms which are used to oppose Scripture by 
 exalting other authorities.* 
 
 The allegations, then, of historical errors in Daniel, 
 based on the silence of other authors (of whom scarcely 
 one goes over the same ground), are worse than futile: 
 they are not easy to combat, for they are as intangible as 
 shadows on the wall. They are such points as the names 
 of the kings mentioned in this book ; the customs spoken 
 of as existing; the time, etc., of Nebuchadnezzar's acces- 
 sion; — not one of which would be regarded as a serious 
 difficulty (or as any difficulty at all) in the case of a pro- 
 fane historian. 
 
 One of these objections (and, I believe, far the strong- 
 est) may be noticed in detail. Daniel says that Belshazzar, 
 
 * How could Herodotus, who had visited Babylon, have been ignorant 
 on such a point as the existence and greatness of Nebuchadnezzar ? Per- 
 haps his Babylonian informant had other interests than those of setting 
 forth the grandeur of the extinct Chaldean dynasty. Thus, at Paris, 
 strangers have been told by Bonapartists, that edifices of the old mon- 
 archy belong to the time of Napoleon, while Bourbonists have chosen to 
 attribute monuments of the empire (such, for instance, as the church of 
 the Madelaine) to the old race of monarcbs. 
 
43 
 
 the last Babylonian king, was slain on the night of his 
 impious feast, and that Darius the Mede took the king- 
 dom. On the contrary, Berosus and Abydenus both say 
 that the last king, whom they call Naboneddus or Nabo- 
 nedochus, was not killed, but that he had an honourable 
 abode in Caramania assigned to him. To which shall we 
 give credit? Berosus says that he surrendered voluntarily 
 in Borsippa after the city of Babylon was taken; so that 
 this account disconnects him altogether from the final 
 catastrophe. Berosus and Abydenus give us the Chaldee 
 account, in which the downfall of the monarchy was thus 
 represented : the interval between the days of Cyrus and 
 those of the Seleucidas, was quite sufficient for a legend 
 to assume this form ; and now that the Persian sovereignty 
 was fallen, it was but natural for those stories which re- 
 lated to the last of a preceding race to be revivified. In 
 fact, this narrative about an abode in Caramania for the 
 king who had disappeared, is only the same in kind as 
 the many similar legends which have been connected 
 with fallen monarchs: witness the tales respecting Don 
 Roderick, James IV., and Don Sebastian. 
 
 But it may be asked. How can this Babylonian ac- 
 count be refuted f Perhaps a direct disproof cannot be 
 given: but here the two narrations stand; let them be 
 judged between themselves. Had Daniel been a late 
 book, how can we account for the writer not having in- 
 serted the later narration of Berosus and Abydenus? 
 And if he gave a history difiering from that current in 
 Babylonia, how could we imagine that the Jews of that 
 region would receive the narration as true? In fact, the 
 two histories stand on their own merits ; and thus, with- 
 out pressing into our service the testimony of Xenophon, 
 who says that the Babylonian king was killed, it may be 
 
44 
 
 fairly put to the reader, whether he rejects the narrative 
 of Daniel in favour of those who, pro more, soften and 
 explain away what would be for the discredit of Baby- 
 lonia. Historic investigation would not hesitate in such 
 a case. This is at least a proof that the historic parts of 
 Daniel are wholly independent of the accounts which 
 were current in later times. 
 
 One ground of objection to the book has been based 
 on Greek words which it contains. These are found in 
 the names of musical instruments, ch. iii. 5, etc.: KidapL<;, 
 O-iT}'?. or Din^?; aafM^VKr], SD?p ; faXTripiov, V^B^Q^ ; 
 and av/jL^Q)via, '"i^^spiD. But what ground do these 
 afford for questioning the date or authorship? The con- 
 clusion which I should draw from their occurrence, 
 would simply be, that such musical instruments were 
 then known in Babylon, as had been derived from the 
 Greeks, and still retained their Greek names. 
 
 The fact of part of Daniel being written in Chaldee, 
 and part in Hebrew, has been made an objection. This 
 is most strangle: the same thinjr is found in Ezra; and 
 SO it rather tells in favour of Daniel than the contrary. 
 
 So, too, the impurity of the Hebrew: had the lan- 
 guage been such as is found in Isaiah, no doubt that an 
 objection would have been raised from the purity of the 
 language being such as a Jew in Babylon could not be 
 expected to use. 
 
 An objection has been raised from Dan. ix. 2, where 
 the writer says, " I Daniel understood by books" ; it has 
 been alleged that the writer evidently means by the 
 phrase by the books Q''"}2iD3 ^ the Old Testament as a col- 
 lection, and therefore he must have lived later than " the 
 closing of the canon." If this objection has any mean- 
 ing, it shows that the writer of Daniel was demented; 
 
45 
 
 for it is evident tliat he intended his book to be received 
 as part of holy Scripture. But "the books" is not the 
 Jewish designation of the Old Testament, but " the 
 wi'itings." And, further, iSp , a book, in the plural, com- 
 monly means a letter; the only places where it is other- 
 wise rendered are Ec. xii. 12, "books," Jer. xxxii. 14, 
 "evidences," and this passage in Dan. ix. Elsewhere 
 (and it occurs eighteen times), it is always translated in 
 our version quite correctly, a letter, or letters. The re- 
 ference in Daniel ix. 2 is assuredly to the letter mentioned 
 in Jeremiah xxix. 10. 
 
 Objections arising from opposition to doctrinal state- 
 ments I pass by, for they have no further weight than is 
 due to the doctrinal subjectivity of the objector. Of course 
 a contemner of the dogmatic teaching of Scripture thinks 
 that to be a sufficient ground for rejecting the books 
 which contain it.* 
 
 * There is a wide-spread latitudinarianism of thought, calling itself 
 enlightenment and liheraUti/, which contemns the positive teaching of 
 Scripture, as though it were antiquated bigotry. Hence the dislike, often 
 avowed and still more frequently felt, of all the doctrinal statements of 
 Christ and his apostles, as to the condition of man as a lost sinner, and of 
 the ONLY way of deliverance in virtue of the merits of Christ applied to 
 the soul through faith. The stern reality of God's wrath against sin is 
 rejected, and the soul-reviving truth of the grace shown in the cross' of 
 Christ does not find its true place. Objectors to dogmatic truth in Scrip- 
 ture profess to recognise the divine in man, wherever found, irrespective of 
 all forms of belief Thus, the maintenance of revelation as giving us abso- 
 lute truth which condemns, as not of God, all false religions, becomes in 
 this point of view narrow-minded intolerance. Thus, the God of revelation 
 is cast off, and all that remains is some idea of vague worship to " Jehovah, 
 Jove, or Lord" of Pope's "Universal Prayer"; — universal indeed; for it is 
 just the religion for man who believes not in the blood of Christ, and forms 
 his ideas of " Nature's God," and of human actions, fi'om his own corrupt 
 heart, — denying (as a verse of that prayer, often omitted, expresses it) — 
 "That Nature's God can e'er condemn 
 What Nature's self inspires." 
 If we sit in judgment on God's revealed truth, what place is there at which 
 we can pause in our downward course? 
 
46 
 
 It may be needful to assure the reader that these ob- 
 jections, trivial as they are, have actually been brought 
 forward as if they were weighty and conclusive, — as if 
 they would be admitted for one moment as sufficient for 
 rejecting any ancient writing whatever. It really seems 
 as if an endeavour were made to compensate in the num- 
 ber of accusations for their individual weakness. Opposers 
 seem to have acted on the principle which weighs with 
 vulgar minds, vitupera fortiter, aliquid adhcBrebit: if much 
 is said on a subject, or in accusation of any person or 
 thing, it seems to such as if there must be something in 
 the charges, or else so many could not be brought. Such 
 principles are utterly at variance with critical truth and 
 mental rectitude. 
 
 But, it is added, that the prophecies in Daniel prove 
 the book to be a forgery. How can this be? Because (it 
 is answered) they give a clear and distinct history on to 
 the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and then fail entirely. 
 This argument rests, then, on the subjective mode in 
 which the objector understands the prophecies. Some 
 have shown their supposed critical acumen, by even 
 pointing out in what parts of the Maccabean age the dif- 
 ferent sections of Daniel were written ; so that it has 
 been said that chapters i. to vi. were written while Antio- 
 chus Epiphanes had suppressed the Jewish worship, and 
 his abominable idol was yet standing, and that the rest 
 of the book was written when Judas Maccabteus had 
 purged the Temple ! And all this without one tittle of 
 evidence ! To affirm that this book belongs to the Mac- 
 cabean age, shows a sufficient boldness of assertion, but 
 this minuteness goes farther still. I cannot but regard it 
 as an instructive proof of the consequences of rejecting 
 evidence, that such opinions are advanced, and we are 
 
47 
 
 told that they are worthy of reception without evidence. 
 Suppose we were to reject history (that for instance of 
 the last sixty years), and account for the present condition 
 of things, politically and morally, from our own subjec- 
 tive ideas of what is fitting and probable. 
 
 I do not now discuss the interpretation of Daniel up 
 to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes ; but this assumed 
 theory is overturned at once and sufficiently by two parts 
 of Daniel. 
 
 1st. He prophesies that there should arise four great 
 monarchies; and he says himself that Babylon was the 
 first of these, and the Medo- Persian the second; and that 
 this second would be subverted by the first king of 
 Greece, and that then a fourth would rise. It might be 
 plain, in the Maccabean days, that the Roman power was 
 rising into supremacy; but still it teas not a monarchy, 
 and even its supremacy, as an ultimate thing, was still 
 very problematical. He further prophesies that no 
 other earthly kingdom would subvert this fourth, but 
 that it would divide into parts. All this has been ac- 
 complished. The Roman state became a monarchy; it 
 subverted the subsisting parts of the Grecian sovereignty ; 
 but no fifth great earthly monarchy has arisen, tliough 
 repeatedly attempted ; as, for instance, by Charlemagne, 
 by Charles V., and in our day by Napoleon. How 
 could an impostor, a pseudo-Daniel of the days of the 
 Maccabees, know all this? 
 
 2nd. He foretells the time when IMessiah the Prince 
 should arise, as dated from a certain deci'ee: now, at the 
 time foretold the Messiah did come ; he also foretold that 
 Messiah should be cut off; this, too, was accomplished ; 
 he then speaks of the destruction of the city, which also 
 took place. 
 
48 
 
 These two predictions, involving many points, are 
 sufficient to show, 1st., that Daniel was a true prophet; 
 and, 2nd., that it is not correct to make the death of 
 Antiochus the last point of definite prediction in the 
 book. 
 
 As, then, Daniel was a prophet of post-Maccabean 
 events, as proved by this twofold testimony, Avhy not 
 admit that the antecedent occurrences, spoken of in the 
 form of predictions, are also prophecies? Why not be- 
 lieve this prophet when he speaks of the time when he 
 wrote, and tlie place where? Why suppose that truth 
 and imposture are most mystically combined? 
 
 Thus, then, do the arguments against the authenticity 
 of Daniel, whether drawn from external facts or from 
 internal statements, fail in impugning the evidence that 
 this book was an ancient Jewish writing, known and 
 received as authoritative from before the ]\Iaccabean 
 times. The investigations of these arguments have, how- 
 ever, not a mere negative value, for they lead us to the 
 internal proofs of the genuineness of the book. 
 
 A strong evidence of this kind has just been given: — 
 I shall not elaborate others in their detail, but I will 
 give the heads of argument, which might be dwelt on at 
 great length, in proof that in the book of Daniel we have 
 to do with that which has proceeded from no forger's 
 hand.* 
 
 1. The names of kings are so introduced as to appear 
 
 * The reader will of course see that, in specifying this mode of proof, I 
 refer to the manner in which Archdeacon Paley, in his " Iloi-a? Paulina?," 
 demonstrated the truth of the history in the Acts, and the genuineness of 
 St. Paul's Epistles. 
 
 The undesigned coincidence between Daniel and Ezekiel has been 
 pointed out above. 
 
49 
 
 as if the account proceeded from one who was familiar 
 with the subject, and who did not consider explanations 
 of who persons were, and of historic connections, to be 
 necessary. All these things seem to exhibit a contem- 
 porary writer, whose book was primarily intended for 
 contemporaries. 
 
 2. A forger would have been but little likely to com- 
 mence his book with an account of an expedition of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, "in the third year of Jehoiakim," which 
 cannot, without difficulty, be identified with any invasion 
 of which we know from other sources. To give this in- 
 troduction, was only natural on the part of the real 
 Daniel. 
 
 3. A forger in the Maccabean age would hardly have 
 stated (i. 7) that Daniel and his companions received 
 and bore names taken from the idols of Babylon. 
 
 4. The omission of any reason being stated why "the 
 portion of the king's meat" (i. 8) would defile, is what 
 could not have been expected from a pseudo-Daniel. 
 
 5. The date at the beginning of chap, ii. can only be 
 accounted for, standing as it does without explanation, 
 on the supposition that all was clear to the writer, and 
 the original readers, from tlieir knowledge of the circum- 
 stances. 
 
 6. In this chapter we are not told how it was that 
 Daniel and his fellows were not brought before the king 
 with the other wise men of Babylon, when yet they were 
 sought for to be destroyed with them. Had not this 
 proceeded from the genuine Daniel, more pragmatism 
 might have been expected. 
 
 7. So, too, in chap, iii., Daniel does not appear on the 
 scene at all. Had the book been forged with a purpose, 
 this surely would not have been the case. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 8. Also, In case of such forgery, it would be, at least, 
 remarkable that the three who were cast into the furnace 
 disappear from the scene, and that this deliverance was 
 not made the basis of a further history. 
 
 9. In chap, iv., Daniel was not called on to interpret 
 the king's dream, until after the others had failed; and 
 yet in chap, ii., he only had been able, in a similar case, 
 to reveal what the king needed. This looks more like 
 historic truth, leaving many things unexplained, than a 
 mere product of imagination. 
 
 10. Chap. V. is remarkable for the points in which it 
 accords with the accounts subsequently current, and for 
 the particulars in which it contradicts them. There is 
 no explanation who Belshazzar is, or to whom he suc- 
 ceeded; the reigns of Evil-Merodach (B.C. 562-560), his 
 brother-in-law Neriglissor (B.C. 559-556), and Laboraso- 
 archod (nine months), are passed by, and then this last 
 king is introduced by a name wholly different from that 
 which he bears in profane historians. His origin, too, is 
 here boldly stated as being the son (or descendant) of 
 Nebuchadnezzar ; while some profane historians represent 
 him as not allied to the royal house: would a forger have 
 contradicted the accounts current in his days in so marked 
 a manner? 
 
 11. So, too, as to the death of this last king, which 
 this chapter distinctly states : would a writer of a sup- 
 posititious book have introduced this, so as to differ from 
 Berosus and Abydenus? Would he have gone out of 
 his way to invent a contradiction? 
 
 12. It would be remarkable to find a Median Darius 
 spoken of as ruling in Babylon, — a reign almost unknown 
 to profane history, — unless the book was genuine and 
 contemporary. 
 
51 
 
 13. So, too, as to the promotion of Daniel, a Jew, and 
 one who had been high in favour with the destroyed 
 dynasty. 
 
 14. Daniel was first of the three presidents, and yet 
 in the history, as it stands, Darius receives the presidents 
 and princes without Daniel, and puts forth a decree as 
 coming from them unitedly, of which Daniel had not 
 heard. This does not look like a planned fiction. 
 
 15. Daniel, in chap. viii. 2, says, " I saw in a vision; 
 and it came to pass, when I saw, that I was at Shushan, 
 in the palace, which is in the province of Elam." He 
 does not explicitly state whether he was there personally 
 or in vision. Difficulties have been drawn from this 
 verse, as to whether Elam was at all under the rule of 
 Belshazzar, and thus whether Daniel could have been 
 there personally; also, it has been questioned whether 
 Shushan (Susa) was built at that time. Are these diffi- 
 culties marks of authenticity or of imposture? — of authen- 
 ticity which leaves points to be understood by the reader, 
 or of imposture, which naturally would avoid stating 
 anything, without explanation, to which objection could 
 be made? 
 
 16. Chap. ix. contains Daniel's prayer for the restora- 
 tion of his people: chap. x. commences with the third 
 year of Cyrus ; and yet not a word do we find about the 
 restoration of Daniel's people, in the first year of Cyrus, 
 in answer to his prayer. This silence, as to a leading 
 fact, argues the real Daniel, and not an impostor. 
 
 17. The mention of superhuman powers, called the 
 prince of Persia and the prince of Grecia, in chapters x. 
 and xi., without explanation, is an indication of the 
 absence of all fraudulent design. We are inclined to ask 
 who and what they were. These powers are able to 
 
52 
 
 hinder the angel of God (or at least are permitted to do 
 so) for a time; and that in a book which so specially sets 
 forth the supremacy and omnipotence of the God of 
 Israel. This has not the mark of a book constructed for 
 a purpose by an ingenious impostor. 
 
 These are some of the internal points which might be 
 made the basis of lengthened argument. The particular 
 passages might be greatly multiplied, and the combined 
 force of this kind of evidence would show, that if the ex- 
 ternal testimony to the genuineness of Daniel be not true, 
 then the book presents phenomena wholly inexplicable — 
 difficulties to be accounted for, which vanish when the 
 truth of the received account is admitted, in accordance 
 with the external evidence that the book was written by 
 Daniel in the captivity. 
 
 The book of Daniel has been transmitted to us as one 
 work: the additions in the Apocrypha form no part of 
 the volume to which the transmissional evidence applies: 
 they have not come to us from what might be technically 
 termed the proper custody; and external and internal 
 grounds alike demand that we should reject tlicm as 
 spurious legends. Kot so the Hebrew and Chaldee 
 book.* Some, however, have sought to divide this, and 
 thus to reject the first six chapters as an accretion. As 
 a ground for this remarkable and uncritical mode of 
 treating an ancient book, it has been said that Christ and 
 his apostles do not, by citation, sanction the former half 
 of Daniel. Certainly, if this had been true, and if the 
 canon of criticism, thus asserted, were sound, we could 
 
 * The apocryphal additions to Daniel have not come down to us in 
 Hebrew, or as part of the Jewish Scriptures. They are thus destitute of 
 all transmissional evidence. lutcniully they contain such statements and 
 contradictious as sliow theii- spurious origin. 
 
53 
 
 prove the genuineness of scarcely any ancient book 
 whatever by external testimonies. Wlio can expect that, 
 in citing a book, it must be done by making quotations 
 from every part? The citation of passages, and the 
 diplomatic transmission of the united whole, is suflicient. 
 Before an objection can be grounded on the silence of 
 Christ and the apostles, it must first be shown that 
 Daniel was not at that time a united book : if not, then 
 the citation of part is a sanction of the whole. 
 
 But is it true that our Lord and his apostles have 
 o-ivcn us no proof of their acquaintance with the former 
 half of Daniel? In Mat. xxi. 44, Jesus says, " Whoso- 
 ever shall fall on this stone shall be broken : hut on ivhom- 
 soever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." What is 
 this last clause but an allusion of the plainest kind to 
 Dan. ii. 34, 35 ? Indeed, unless we saw that it was taken 
 from the prophet, the words would be enigmatical. 
 Thus, our Lord knew, used, and sanctioned the former 
 half of Daniel. 
 
 In Heb. xi., we have the enumeration of those who 
 had obtained a good report through faith; amongst 
 others, we read, in ver. 33, 34, of those " who stopped 
 the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire." Does 
 not tliis indubitably refer to Daniel in the lions' den 
 (chap, vi.), and to his three companions in the fiery 
 furnace (chap, iii.)? This, then, is a proof of the use of 
 the former half of the book. But, it may be objected, 
 what sanction of its authority does such an allusion 
 prove? Do not the words of the next verse, " others 
 were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they 
 might obtain a better resurrection," refer to the second 
 book of Maccabees ? and might not this ground of allu- 
 sion (if sound) be applied to both books equally? 
 
54 
 
 It seems to me that this passage does refer to the nar- 
 rative in the second book of Maccabees, where (in chap. 
 vii.) the account is given of the seven brethren and their 
 mother, put to death by Antiochus. The second of the 
 brethren (ver. 9) says to the king, " Thou, accursed 
 one, takest away from us this present life, but the King 
 of the Universe will raise us up, who have died for his 
 laws, to life again for ever." The fourth brother says 
 (ver. 14), " To be put to death, by men, is to be chosen 
 to look onward for the hopes which are of God, to be 
 raised up again by Him ; but for thee there is no resur- 
 rection to life."* 
 
 Thus does the Epistle to the Hebrews recognise the 
 existence of the Maccabean narrative : are we, then, to 
 make more of the mode in which it refers to Daniel ? I 
 reply unhesitatingly, yes ; and for this simple reason, — 
 Daniel is a book which claims to be a divine revelation, 
 an allusion, therefore, to it sanctions that claim; whereas 
 the second book of Maccabees expressly disclaims inspira- 
 tion and authority; an allusion to it, therefore, could not 
 put it on a different ground to that which it thus takes. 
 The case is just as if I were, in the same sentence, to 
 quote from Scripture and from some Christian writer ; 
 the knowledge which the reader possesses would hinder 
 his making any mistake. I cannot but regard it as a 
 thing ordered by the providence of God, that the writer 
 of the second of Maccabees should disclaim inspiration 
 and authority; for this prevents our making the mistake 
 of supposing that the book is sanctioned as divine in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 * Perhaps some of these expressions are taken from Dan. xii. 2 ; if so, it 
 is another proof that the Jews considered that the book of Daniel was 
 known and used in the beginning of the Maccabean age. 
 
55 
 
 It is the more important to give the proofs of the 
 general sanction which the book of Daniel has in the 
 New Testament, because the form of opposition to its 
 authority, with which we may have the most to do in 
 this country, is in the way of partial attack. The New 
 Testament, then, distinctly sanctions chapters ii., iii., vi., 
 vii., and xi., besides containing many allusions to the 
 general phraseology: who then can refuse to receive the 
 entire book without first casting aside the whole of the 
 New Testament?* 
 
 * We may, in this country, be in more clanger from the theory which 
 treats the book of Daniel as if it were spurious in part, and perhaps 
 genxiine as to the rest, from the manner in which such a notion has been 
 widely cu'culated in a statement of the late Dr. Arnold. 
 
 He says :— "I have long thought that the greater part of the book of 
 Daniel is most certainly a very late work, of the time of the 3'Iaccabees ; 
 and the pretended prophecy about the kings of Grecia and Persia, and of 
 the North and South, is mere history, like the poetical prophecies in 
 Virgil and elsewhere. In fact, you can trace distinctly the date when it 
 was wi'itten, because the events, up to the date, are given with historical 
 minuteness, totally unlike the character of real prophecy, and beyond 
 that date all is imaginary The self-same criticism which has estab- 
 lished the authenticity of St. John's Gospel against all questionings, does, 
 I think, equally pi-ove the non-authenticity of great part of Daniel ; that 
 there may be genuine fi-agments in it, is very likely" — ("Life," vol. ii., p. 195, 
 5th edition). On this passage, Mr. Pratten observes (Preface to "Heng- 
 stenberg on the Genuineness of Daniel"),— "It is surely not desirable that 
 such a statement should go forth, sanctioned by a name of no ordinarj' 
 piety, candour, and judgment, without some attempt to rescue the credit 
 
 of a book of reputed holy Scripture One circumstance is worthy 
 
 of being noticed,— that these objections appear to have arisen primarily 
 from a previous dogmatic view. Just before the passage quoted, it is said, 
 in reference to his 'Sermons on Prophecy,' 'the points in particular, on 
 which I did not wish to enter, if I could help it, but which very likely I 
 shall be forced to touch on, relate to the latter chapters of Daniel, lohich, 
 if genuine, would he a clear exception to my canon of interpretation, as 
 there can be no reasonable spiritual meaning made out of the kings of the 
 North and South.'" 
 
 It is well to see that Dr. Ai-nold's judgment was formed on grounds of 
 personal feeling, and in order to uphold his own subjective opinions as to 
 what prophecy ought to be, and not on any basis of Scripture authority or 
 of critical evidence. True criticism would alike uphold the authority of 
 
56 
 
 I have, then, considered the objections made to the 
 genuineness of this book, and have put them in contrast 
 with the evidence in its favour; and thus the conclusion 
 drawn on grounds of merely historic criticism, such as 
 may be applied to any ancient book, are, that so far from 
 being written in the Maccabean age, it was then known 
 and received as a book long accredited as being what it 
 professes to be, — the work of the contemporary of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar and Cyrus, — that its transmission is duly 
 vouched for, — and that the objections, whether sepa- 
 rately or unitedly, cannot invalidate one of the proved 
 points. The line of external evidence (in full accordance 
 with which is the internal) is such as would accredit any 
 writing of antiquity; such is the evidence (to use the 
 words of Augustine), ut hinc dubitare dementis sit, that 
 to doubt would be to act the part of a madman. 
 
 Thus, as a mere historical investigation, we may be 
 
 St. John's Gospel and of Daniel ; as to the latter, it is instructive to see 
 how entirely Dr. Ai-nold passes by the sanction which it receives from our 
 Lord Himself: had he remembered this, he would, I believe, have seen 
 that his own subjective ideas must be rejected. 
 
 In reading Dr. Arnold's " Life," it seems evident that two defects in his 
 system of opinions led to incorrect conclusions : 1st., a want of due appre- 
 hension of the entire corruption of human natui'e, so that he felt disappoint- 
 ment that training would not amend its defects : and 2nd., an insufficient 
 revci-ence for the plenary authority of Scripture. Had things been other- 
 wise, his expectations would not have been so continually fi-ustrated and 
 disappointed. I lament deeply these defects in his system : they are, I 
 think, instructively connected with his rejection of Daniel — a book which 
 •would have modified his subjective opinions. It would be well if others 
 in theu" admiration for the character and estimable (jualities of Dr. Arnold 
 would inquire, "What were the grounds of his assertions respecting Da- 
 niel?'' instead of saying (as they often have done), "If so excellent and 
 learned a person as Dr. Arnold did not own the authenticity of Daniel, 
 Tie must have had good reasons for rejecting it." 
 
 If an opinion is stated, without any reason being assigned, it carries with 
 many a far greater weight than if reasons were given : in the latter case, 
 the reasons for the opinion are judged ; in the former, the opinion seems 
 to depend on some ground of unknown and indefinite importance. 
 
57 
 
 fully satisfied with the evidence : the believer in the New 
 Testament, however, goes farther, for he knows that 
 Christ and his apostles have given a sanction far beyond 
 all human testimony : he will not, however, undervalue 
 the historic proofs, for they enable him to answer the 
 doubts of inquirers, and to remove difficulties from the 
 way of others. The historic evidence will be to him 
 a manifest example of the absolute accuracy of all that 
 the New Testament teaches: all that we learn thence 
 must be true ; and all oppositions, direct or indirect, must 
 sooner or later show the weakness of those who engage 
 in them. 
 
 Here, then, I might conclude; for I have proved the 
 point under discussion, both on historic grounds, which 
 suflSciently meet the understanding, and on the authority 
 of revelation, which is binding on the conscience. But 
 there is one other theory to consider; it is, that Daniel 
 is indeed a divine book, rightly used as an authority in 
 the New Testament ; but that it was given forth, not to 
 a prophet in Babylon, but to an inspired prophet in the 
 days of the jMaccabecs. 
 
 Thus it has been said, that it may rightly be used as 
 holy Scripture, and that the sanction of the New Testa- 
 ment must be allowed its full force. A^^ly (it has been 
 asked) should it be thought unworthy of God thus to in- 
 struct his people in Maccabean times?— to give such warn- 
 ings against idolatry, and such declarations of the judg- 
 ments against blaspheming persecutors, as were most 
 fitting in the days of Antiochus? 
 
 It is important not to confound the sentiments of others 
 with some entirely diiferent tone of thought : much harm 
 may be done by treating a peculiar theory, however un- 
 
58 
 
 tenable, as though it were mere rationalistic scepticism. 
 I wish, therefore, to meet this theory, rather as a mis- 
 conception of the character, inspiration, and authority of 
 hbiy Scripture, than as counselled opposition to the 
 revelation of God. I shall therefore first refer to the 
 positive grounds o^ fact which disprove this theory, and 
 then point out how such a scheme interferes with all true 
 notions of Scripture inspiration. 
 
 Every point already proved, which shows that Daniel 
 was used and known in and before Maccabean times, 
 meets this theory as fully as that of the rejecters of 
 Daniel altogether. The question, whether it was worthy 
 of God to do any particular thing, calls for another in- 
 quiry; namely, whether He has so seen fit or not to do 
 it. Thus, on grounds already stated, we may say that 
 God did not see fit to give forth this portion of Scripture 
 in Maccabean times. 
 
 But we have further proof in refutation of this theory. 
 If we admit the book to possess any authority at all, then 
 the writer was a prophet ; as a prophet the Jews have 
 ever owned him, and by the name of prophet does our 
 Lord designate him. On this theory, then (which pro- 
 fesses to admit the authority of Scripture), a prophet he 
 certainly was. But in the Maccabean days there was no 
 prophet at all. "V\nhen Judas Maccabaeus purged the 
 Temple from the pollutions of Antiochus (b.c. 165), and 
 removed the idol which had been erected on the altar, 
 "they took counsel concerning the altar of burnt-offering 
 which had been polluted, what they should do with it. 
 And they determined, with good counsel, to pull it 
 down, lest it should be a reproach unto them, because 
 the Gentiles had defiled it : and they pulled down the 
 altar, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the 
 
59 
 
 house, in a fitting place, until there should he a prophet to 
 answer the question concerning them" (1 Mac. iv. 44-46). 
 Twenty-two years later (b.c. 143), when Simon, the last 
 survivor of the sons of Mattathias, was the chief of the 
 Jewish people, "it pleased the Jews, and the priests, that 
 Simon should be leader and high-priest for ever, until 
 there should arise a faithful prophef^ (1 Mac. xiv. 41). 
 Thus certain is it that the Maccabean age knew of no pro- 
 phet. Nor had there been one for a long time : "There 
 was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the 
 time that no prophet appeared amongst them " (1 ]\Iac.ix.27). 
 
 In support of this theory, it has been said that no state 
 or kingdom could be the subject of a prophecy, unless it 
 was actually existent when the prediction was delivered. 
 With this supposed canon another has been conjoined, 
 that we ought never to extend the contents of a prophecy 
 beyond the horizon of the prophet himself. 
 
 These canons would require proof; and, until such 
 proof were given, they never could be the basis of legiti- 
 mate argument : — one assumption can never strengthen 
 another. But these canons can be distinctly met by 
 Scripture, which is on this theory admissible in proof 
 without discussion. Now, the New Testament tells us, 
 as well as the Old, that prophets of God spoke and wrote, 
 not in their own name, or by their own authority, but as 
 the messengers of the Most High. " Thus saith the 
 Lord" was the principle of their communications. Pro- 
 phecy comes then from God, who "calleth things that 
 are not as though they were," who " seeth the end from 
 the beginning"; and we have not to think of the scope 
 of observation before the prophet's eye, but of the extent 
 of God's prescience, unbounded like Himself He told 
 Abraham, when He showed him the stars of heaven, " So 
 
60 
 
 shall thy seed be," though as yet he had no child : He 
 anticipatively stated what should be the history of that 
 nation, which should spring from Abraham, before he 
 had even a son. He also declared that a nation should 
 descend from Ishmael; and He enabled his servant Isaac 
 to prophesy of the future history of the nations of Edom 
 and Israel. Thus, even in the early days of prophecy, 
 it had to do with nations as yet non-existent. 
 
 The prophet's own horizon had little or nothing to do 
 with the subjects of his predictions : whoever admits 
 Daniel to have any authenticity whatever, might see this ; 
 for he again and again gives predictions, which he says 
 that he did not understand. The measure of their pro- 
 phetic scope was not that of their personal knowledge, 
 but of the mind of the Holy Ghost Himself, by whom 
 they were moved. 
 
 The book of Daniel professes to be written by a pro- 
 phet in Babylon ; how, then, can this profession be re- 
 conciled with a theory which represents it as written by 
 a Maccabean prophet, — not an impostor of that age, but 
 a real messeno^er of God? 
 
 The mode in which this difficulty is avoided, shows 
 the entire want of an appreciation of the reality of Scrip- 
 ture inspiration, to which I referred above. It seems to 
 be thought by those who hold such theories, that a pro- 
 phet or other writer of Scripture had a kind of general 
 commission to write ; but that the form of what he wrote, 
 — the clothing of the thoughts which he had to com- 
 municate, — was left wholly to his own judgment. And 
 thus the name of Daniel, and the Babylonian and Medo- 
 Persian circumstances in this book, are regarded as mere 
 drapery, used for a purpose; — just like the figures in a 
 parable. But what in this book resembles a parable? If 
 
61 
 
 tliere be auglit, it is tlie symbolic visions, first shown and 
 then interpreted; but to compare the narrations of this 
 book to parables is wholly beside the mark. This book 
 is as little a parable as the miracles and teaching of 
 St. John's Gospel. No doubt that in Maccabcan times 
 this book was very valuable in sustaining the faithful 
 Jew to resist idolatry (the dying words of Mattathias 
 show this), — but its force lay in its truth. It may be 
 said, indeed, that the occurrences did take place as nar- 
 rated, but that they were not tvritten till the Maccabean 
 age; but nothing of any kind is gained by this compU- 
 cated theory : it would only suppose a mystic re-inspiring 
 of another prophet (and that in an age when tliere were 
 none) with what had been revealed to an actual prophet 
 some ages before, and which that actual prophet says 
 that he wrote. 
 
 It is not thus that Scripture teaches. The word of 
 God came from Him, as pure and absolute truth; and it 
 possesses such plenary authority as we find ascribed in 
 the New Testament to the Old. " The Scripture cannot 
 be broken," and " the Holy Ghost saith," are our sure 
 principles of guidance in understanding how the word of 
 God is addressed to us. This could not be if a writer of 
 Scripture received only some general instruction from 
 God, and in all other things employed merely his own 
 ability and skill. This would admit of mistake and mis- 
 statement in all minor points. 
 
 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,* and is 
 
 * To some, who are aware that much controversy has been cairied on 
 over this test, it may seem as if I were assuming the English version to 
 be connect. I do so assume, because the words will really bear no other 
 rendering, without violence to both sense and construction. 
 
 The other rendering proposed, which was defended by the late Dr. Pye 
 Smith, was, — "Every writing, divinely inspired, [is] also profitable"; it 
 
62 
 
 profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for in- 
 struction in riglitcousness ; that the man of God may be 
 perfect, throughly furnished unto good works" ( 2 Tim. 
 
 was thus that he avoided the difficulty which this text presented to the 
 theory which he maintained during one part of his life, in opposition to 
 the authority of the book of Canticles. This text, as commonly under- 
 stood, must include all Scripture, Jewish or Christian, as given by inspira- 
 tion of God; and thus it precludes our forming a judgment, whether a 
 writing be inspired or not, from what we may think as to its utility. 
 
 In the first place, I remark that ypo^i? has a technical or appropriated 
 meaning, so that it cannot be rendered by merely "writing"; it means 
 Scripture, just as we use the word in the definite sense of holt/ Scripture, 
 and not merely something written. To make this appropriated sense of 
 ypa<(>ii yet morc Certain here, ifpa ypiniiara have been mentioned imme- 
 diately before. If it be asked why yp<i't>h has not the article here, one rea- 
 son may be that, if it had, it might be supposed that it limited the sense to 
 the '«pa ypdixnara. of the preceding verse, which were only the Old Testa- 
 ment ; whereas the assertion is here more general, ^^co- ypo4>v all Scripture. 
 
 (See also 2 Pet. i. 20, ^Sjxa jrpo<^7)Teia ypcu^^s.) 
 
 "Why then, keeping Scripture in its appropriated sense in the transla- 
 tion, may it not be rendered "All Scripture that is divinely inspired is also 
 useful"? I ask, does not this rendering imply that there is some Scrip- 
 t-ure which is not divinely inspired ? Does not that idea immediately ex- 
 clude the appropriated sense of the word ? and who could need to be told 
 that all divine Scripture is useful ? These renderings give the word ""i an 
 emphatic, not a connective, meaning; and yet it is an emphasis which 
 weakens the force of the sentence ; and we may well ask, where ""i can be 
 found as emphatic in such a position ? it would lay a stress on useful, and 
 not on the important words which follow ; as if we were to say, that it is 
 useful for doctrine, etc. (tliough perliaps not essential). 
 
 We could not think it probable that an apostle would solemnly bring 
 forward a statement so meagre ; and surely we might ask for some Greek 
 authority for taking the words in so peculiar a manner. Dr. Pyc Smith, 
 indeed (with whom, while living, I discussed this verse, in print, bringing 
 forward the principal points now advanced), said that he believed that no 
 phrase, exactly similar, could be found, and thus he alleged no authority, 
 scriptural or classical. 
 
 But a similar passage, in form and construction, is found, and that in 
 the New Testament itself. The Holy Ghost has thus vindicated his own 
 use of words. The two passages may thus be looked at together : — 
 
 2 Tim. iii. 16, no<7a ypou^i) fleoirreuorot Ka\ ux^eAtf^o;, k.t.K, 
 
 Heb. iv. ].'i, Hoi'Ta &i yviii'a Kal TeTpa\r)Ki(rnei'a TOi? oi^SoAfiors ouToC. 
 
 If, then, the proposed rendering of the passage in 2 Tim. were correct, 
 then that in Heb. iv. must be translated, "Now all naked things are ALSO 
 open to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do." Would not this 
 
63 
 
 ili. 16, 17). This declaration of an apostle, who was so 
 authoritative a teacher of the Church, that he could say, 
 " If any man judge himself to be a prophet or spiritual, 
 
 rendering refute itself? Instead of the passage speaking of the all-search- 
 ing character of the eye of God, it would limit Him to the beholding of 
 naked things, — those, in fact, which are equally exposed to the sight of man. 
 
 Also in 1 Tim. iv. 4, l^"" "TcV^ia dtov koXov, koI ovSev aTTopKr^Tov, could not be 
 rendered " Every good creatui-e of God is also nothing to be rejected." 
 
 Eflbrts have been made to press the Vulgate into the defence of the 
 above rendering of 2 Tim. iii. 16 ; the common Clementine Vulgate does, 
 indeed, insert est after utilis, and it also omits the tal; this last point 
 would aid that rendering gi-eatly, for it would give it a better sense. 
 Omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum. All Scripture 
 that is divinely inspu-ed is useful for instruction. There are, however, no 
 critical testimonies which could sanction such an omission of the ""il ; and 
 even the Vulgate itself, in the oldest and best copies (e.g. the Codex 
 Amiatinus), reatls exactly like the Greek, Omnis Scriptura divinitus in- 
 spirata ET utilis ad docendum. (The MS. reads thus, and not with the 
 words transposed, as in Tischendorf's edition of its text.) 
 
 Thus futile are the attempts to set aside the common rendering and 
 acceptation of this verse. I called it, thii-teen years ago, "much mis-spent 
 labour and false criticism," and so I advisedly call it still. De Wette, 
 whose predilections would not have led him to translate so as to uphold 
 Scripture authority too strongly (though he learned in his last years "that 
 Jesus Christ and Him crucified was his only hope"), rendered the verse, 
 "Jeghche [heilige] Schrift is Gott-begeistert und niitz zur Lehre," u.s.w. 
 " Every [holy] writing (or Scripture) is God-inspired, and useful for in- 
 struction," etc. This, as to the main points, such as the force and use of 
 «a"'. supports the true beai'ing of the passage. 
 
 Since writing the above, I have looked at the fourth edition of Dr. Pye 
 Smith's " Scripture Testimony," where he notices the passage, Heb. iv. 13 
 (which had been pointed out as perfectly parallel to 2 Tim. iii. 16), only by 
 saying that "the intervention of *« is an index to the subject on the one 
 hand, and the predicate on the other"; — a remark which has no bearing 
 whatever on the constnietion, which is not indicated by *«, but by the 
 force of the whole expression. Dr. Pye Smith adds, in a note, that a friend 
 has pointed out to him a dissertation of Galen, entitled, 'On ipi.(rro<: iarpb? 
 (cai (|>iAo(ro<J>6s. "A closer parallel (he says) to our passage we can scarcely 
 expect to find in the whole compass of Greek literature. Of its construc- 
 tion, it is impossible to doubt. It is, 'That an accomplished physician is 
 also a philosopher.' But if it were rendered in the way which I am com- 
 pelled to protest against, as applied to the words of the apostle, it would 
 come out thus, 'That an accomplished man is a physician and a philoso- 
 pher.'" — I only reply, that the sentences are not pai-allel ; to make them 
 seem to be such, the words of Galen must be transposed thus. On iarpot 
 
64 
 
 let liim acknowled2;e that tlie tliin";s which I write unto 
 you arc the commandments of the Lord," is our sufficient 
 warrant for maintaining Scripture inspiration as a true 
 doctrine in all its fulness. 
 
 ^^ All Scripture is divinely inspired": this is spoken 
 in immediate connection with those holy Scriptures 
 which are able to make wise unto salvation through 
 faith which is in Christ Jesus; and this is enough to 
 cause us to reject every theory which would invalidate 
 its paramount claim. 
 
 " But (it may be asked) what theory of inspiration do 
 you maintain?" I answer, None: I consider inspiration 
 to be fact, not a theory; — a fact which makes holy Scrip- 
 ture to be what it is, — the word of God (so termed by our 
 Lord Himself, Mark vii. 13), and not the word of man. 
 
 The inspiration of the writers of Scripture was that 
 power exercised over them by the Holy Ghost, which 
 caused the things which they wrote to be of absolute 
 authority. It might or might not be accompanied by 
 revelation of facts, or of principles of truth previously 
 unknown; but, in either case, inspiration was equally 
 needed; for else how could a man, however holy or wise, 
 write authoritatively/ ? and how could he rightly know 
 what would be a record for the profit of God's people in 
 all ages? 
 
 " Verbal inspiration," or the contrary, has often been 
 discussed ; some would confine the notion to the general 
 thouf/hts, while others would limit it yet more, applying 
 it only to the subject-matter. It is probable that the ex- 
 pression, " verbal inspiration," would never have been 
 
 opi(TTo« Kol <j>iXo<7-o<^ds, and then the rendering would be, " That a physician is 
 a very excellent person and a philosopher." Dr. Pj o Smith seems to hare 
 wholly overlooked the force of ««' as standing between the two adjectives; 
 otherwise he could never have thought the words in Galen pai-alloL 
 
65 
 
 used, had uot laxity of thought set itself against the 
 plenary character of inspiration; and thus, when a ques- 
 tion was raised as to inspiration of ideas or of words, the 
 latter opinion was upheld, because the inspiration of the 
 whole includes, of necessity, the inspiration of the parts 
 of that whole, and words are the only medium by which 
 ideas are set forth to us. 
 
 If this were not the case, how could we use Scripture 
 for argument on any subject? Should we not always be 
 in doubt about the tvords, and whether they could be im- 
 plicitly relied on? Those, however, who believe the 
 Bible at all, even if holding what are called " theories of 
 inspiration," use it in preaching, in teaching, or in con- 
 troversy, exactly in accordance with what is meant by 
 plenary verbal inspiration. Thus, the late American 
 Professor, Moses Stuart, in his " Defence of the Old 
 Testament Canon" (Sect, xix), although an opposer of 
 verbal inspiration, argues thus against the rash presump- 
 tion shown by Professor Norton, in his book called the 
 " Genuineness of the Gospels." He says: — "What shall 
 we say, then? What can we say less than what the 
 Saviour Himself said to the Jews? ' Had ye believed 
 Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. 
 But if ye believe not his WRITINGS, how shall ye believe 
 my words?' (John v. 46, 47). The expedient to which 
 Mr. Norton resorts, in substituting spoke for wrote, and 
 words for writings, is one which shows the desperate 
 nature of the cause which he is labouring to defend. On 
 this ground no declaration of Scripture, anywhere, in 
 any passage, on any subject, is exempt from arbitrary 
 alteration, at the will and pleasure of every reader. Of 
 course, the Scripture is not the rule of our faith, but our 
 faith is the rule of Scripture." 
 
66 
 
 This argument of Moses Stuart's is good and sound ; — 
 but observe that it all turns on tlic fact that the words 
 " writings" and " wrote" were really authoritative: that 
 is to say, that the evangelist really wrote the words, as 
 well as expressed the ideas, which the Holy Ghost in- 
 tended that he should write. 
 
 As so, too, much as Dr. Pye Smith opposed verbal 
 inspiration in his discussion of theories, yet when arguing 
 for Christian doctrine against Socinian error, he upheld 
 the force of words, as fully as if his theoretic opinions 
 had been just the contrary. Thus he argues on Gen. 
 i. 26, " Let us make man in our image," making all to 
 depend on verbal exactness ; and again and again does he 
 reprobate the mode in which Scripture had been set aside 
 by those who argued against its verbal force. 
 
 And thus in all legitimate discussion as to what the 
 writers of Scripture meant, and what the doctrines are 
 which God has taught in his word. The insertion or 
 non-insertion of the article, the order of words (on which 
 grammatical construction so often turns) and all miuutia; 
 of language, are relied on rightly, as exhibiting the 
 meaning of the apostles and prophets : and tliis is done 
 quite as much by those who oppose what tluy call 
 " verbal inspiration," as by those who maintain that in- 
 spiration extends to all points and parts. 
 
 And thus do we find the Old Testament constantly 
 used in the New: the words are rested on as su]ipl}ang 
 data for argument. It would be useless to multijdt/ in- 
 stances of this, because it is clear on the very face in almost 
 every place in the New Testament wlicre the Old is 
 quoted. The following, however, may serve as in- 
 stances : — " There is no difference between the Jew and 
 the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all 
 
67 
 
 that call upon Him : for, WHOSOEVER shall call upon the 
 name of the Lord shall be saved" (Kora. x. 12, 13). Here 
 the apostle rests so fully on the words of the quotation 
 from Joel ii. 32, that he authoritatively expounds lohoso- 
 ever to include all, whether Jews or Gentiles, who thus 
 call on the Lord Jesus. Take, also, the contrasts in Gal. 
 iii. 11, 12, where the words of the citations are rested on 
 almost severally: " But that no man is justified by the 
 law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, the just shall 
 live by FAITH (Hab. ii. 4). And the law is not of faith ; 
 but. The man that doeth them shall live in them (Lev. 
 xviii. 5)." So in Heb. viii. 13, " In that he saith, a new 
 covenant, he hath made the first old^ Thus, the one 
 word " new" in Jeremiah (which might easily be passed 
 by as a mere epithet), is the proof relied on that the 
 former covenant had been antiquated. " Now, that 
 whioh decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." 
 In a similar manner might the Old Testament citations, 
 in general, be analysed so as to show their verbal force. 
 
 It is asked, "Are we to suppose that Scripture was 
 dictated, word by word, to the inspired writers?" This 
 is merely an absurd representation of the notion of in- 
 spiration, such as has been termed mechanical. The 
 Spirit of God used his servants so that they spake or 
 wrote, moved by Him. He who could use their hands 
 to write, could first inform their minds, so as to employ 
 them altogether in the authorship of Scripture. Just as 
 they were inspired to write in languages which they 
 knew, so might their mental powers be employed; and 
 they wrote in such a manner, as was (so to speak) in 
 accordance with the idiosyncrasy of each. We sec quite 
 enough difference of style; and whose is more marked 
 than that of David? and yet he said, " The Spint of the 
 
68 
 
 Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue" 
 (2 Sam. xxiii. 2). 
 
 We know full well that any law, even though but 
 human, must be understood according to the force of the 
 words, which are rightly regarded as the exponents of 
 ideas : so, too, the law of God engraven on stones ; for 
 the words were there written by the finger of God, The 
 authority of all the Scripture, though written through 
 men, is as much from God as was the law. This is what 
 is contended for, when " verbal inspiration" is main- 
 tained. 
 
 The fact of inspiration, which we have to uphold, 
 irrespective of all theory, is, that it is plenary in its cha- 
 racter, so that the ideas are from God, though written by 
 men, that the phraseology in which the ideas are clothed 
 is precisely what He intended it shoidd be, and that the 
 words, as written by his inspired servants, may be rgsted 
 on as fully as being the exponents of his mind and of 
 the ideas which He wished to convey, as those of a mere 
 human author are of his own sentiments. 
 
 This is not at all invalidated by the character of the 
 contents of Scripture : in many parts it is simply an in- 
 spired record, so that the objection falls to the ground 
 which some have raised by asking whether the persons, 
 Avhose speeches are recorded in Scripture, were all of 
 them inspired. Surely not: but the record of what was 
 said by idolaters, or other wicked men, or by Satan, is 
 as much inspired as is the record of the words of God 
 Himself. The record of the words of Peter, when he 
 denied his Lord, is as much inspired as the record of his 
 confession, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living 
 God." And thus documents are inserted in Scripture 
 (such as the decrees of the Persian kings), not as making 
 
69 
 
 them what they were not before, but simply as an autho- 
 ritative record which God has seen fit thus to preserve. 
 Thus, in Daniel, the fourth chapter is a decree of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, introduced by the prophet. 
 
 And as to citations in the New Testament from the 
 Old, which are not imfrequently given in the rendering 
 of the LXX., though often defective and imperfect, so 
 far from their invalidating inspiration in its fullest sense, 
 they do nothing of the kind on any supposition which 
 admits that the inspired writers of the New Testament 
 wrote what the Holy Ghost intended that they should 
 write: thus they use the LXX., even when not perfectly 
 exact, because it was sufficiently accurate for the matter 
 in hand. This is the kind of honour which God has 
 seen fit to put on an honestly-made version of his word. 
 
 The opponents of " verbal inspiration" have often 
 stated a theory on the subject, and then demolished it, — 
 such theory being utterly opposed to the real opinions of 
 those who maintain the absolute inspiration of Scripture. 
 Thus, there has been much fighting with shadows, while 
 the impression on by-standers has been, that the actuahty 
 of inspiration and its plenary character have been, in 
 part at least, set aside. 
 
 Dr. Pye Smith says, " The divine influence on the 
 mind of the inspired writer would as certainly guide his 
 judgment and his faculty of expression to the selection of 
 the best and most suitable terms and phrases, as if the 
 words were dictated to a mere amanuensis" (Scr. Test, 
 vol. i., p. 62). This is very much the opinion of those 
 who hold (what Dr. Smith rejected and condemned) 
 "verbal inspiration"; for "dictation to an amanuensis" 
 is not their idea; and " the selection of the most suitable 
 terms" is the very point which they uphold. This is 
 
70 
 
 almost a concession, on Dr. Smith's part, of the whole 
 question: for of what do terms and phrases consist, but 
 of words ? and how can the ideas of a writer be known, 
 except ex vi terminorum, from the force of the terms (i.e. 
 verbal expressions) used?* 
 
 All, I suppose, who acknowledge divine inspiration at 
 all, believe that, in many cases, the writer of Scripture 
 was not competent to choose words for himself. We 
 know that the prophets often did not understand the pre- 
 dictions they delivered. In such cases it could not be 
 supposed that they were inspired to select the fittest 
 terms, but they used the fittest terms, though they under- 
 stood them not, because the Spirit of God gave them the 
 terms. In the prophecy of Caiaphas (John xi.), we find 
 him using words from the Holy Ghost, which he did not 
 comprehend as to their full import : we should thus limit 
 
 * Some have blamed the upholders of "verbal inspiration" for having 
 expressed themselves stronyly on the subject. Where, however, the im- 
 portance of any point is strongly felt, the expression will often be strong 
 also. All harshness, however, is to be deprecated, as being but little sub- 
 servient to the cause of truth. But, have the impugners of " verbal in- 
 spii'ation" never used strong language ? Dr. Henderson, in a passage 
 quoted approvingly by Dr. Pye Smitli (Scr. Test. v. i., p. 68), after giving an 
 absurd description of the doctrine, as if it were maintained that of dis- 
 courses, etc., each account was verhally exact and COMPLETE, speaks thus : 
 " If the whole was composed as the result of direct verbal infusion, and 
 the formulas are to be understood in the restricted sense in which they are 
 interpreted by those who take this view of inspiration, we must inevitably 
 abandon the consistency and TRFTII of the documents altogether. To 
 maintain that the Holy Spii'it might immediately inspire the diflerent 
 wordings, and yet declare that they are verbally the original communica- 
 tions, is worse than trifling : it is to turn tlie truth of Ood into a lie, to 
 expose it to the scoff of the infidel, and to cast a stumbling-block in the 
 way of the honest inquirer." 
 
 This mode of argumentation seems but little calculated to uphold the 
 authority of Scripture. "How (I ask) can the maintenance of the belief 
 that the Scripture, in all its parts, was given forth by the Spirit of Truth, 
 lead to the abandonment of the truth of the documents altogether?" Can 
 solemn consequences be legitimately drawn from a confused description of 
 the opinions of others ? 
 
71 
 
 the notion of inspiration greatly, if we imagined that in 
 all cases the mind of the person was primarily informed. 
 This seems to have been specially a mark of the inspira- 
 tion of the apostles, as the constituted legislators of 
 Christ's Church. 
 
 In speaking of verbal i?ispirafwn, I wish it to be under- 
 stood that it is the thing, and not the expression, which I 
 would maintain : the expression has been represented as 
 if it implied some mere mechanical operation; while the 
 thing really is that "all Scripture is given by inspiration 
 of God," so that everything in it, narratives, prophecies, 
 citations, arc such as He saw fit to be there; and the 
 whole, — ideas, phrases, expressions and words, — was 
 given forth exactly as was according to his mind and will. 
 
 It would be needless, in connection with this subject, 
 to refer to the various readings existing in copies of the 
 Scriptures, as well as in other ancient writings, were it 
 not that their existence has been supposed (e.g. by Drs. 
 Pye Smith and tienderson) to invalidate the notion of 
 plenary inspiration. Nothing but confusion of thought 
 could lead to such a conclusion : the present condition of 
 the text of any ancient author is no ground for conclud- 
 ing that he did not originally write just what he in- 
 tended; it is only a reason why we should use all critical 
 diligence to learn, on grounds of evidence, what were 
 the words and phrases which he actually wrote. 
 
 I have spoken of "theories of inspiration" which 
 some have maintained; some of these profess to define 
 the kind and degree of inspiration needed and possessed 
 by the sacred writers for the different things which they 
 wi'ote ! This has arisen, in part at least, from confounding 
 revelation with inspiration : the latter of these may be 
 accompanied by revelation or not, but inspiration is as 
 
72 
 
 mucli needed for writing known doctrines or facts au- 
 thoritatively, as for the communication of new truth.' 
 
 Of late, however, the expression " theory of inspira- 
 tion" has taken a wider range: it is now used to signify 
 theories which exclude all real inspiration whatever from 
 the Scripture. And thus, when the importance of up- 
 holding the authority of Scripture is asserted, it is met 
 by a theory which sets that authority, as an objective 
 truth, wholly aside: and when an endeavour is made to 
 show the untenableness of such opinions, and their op- 
 position to the doctrine of Scripture inspiration, it is 
 said that their maintainors are harshly condemned only 
 for holding "a different theory" of inspiration from those 
 who uphold the plenary authority of God in his word. 
 
 Few things render the discussion of a point more diffi- 
 cult than for an innovator to use accustomed terms in 
 new senses, and that without plainly avowing that he 
 does so. Thus, when "inspiration" is used in a new 
 meaning, its reality is utterly set aside, although it is not 
 immediately apparent, from the word being retained as 
 a cloak for new and perverse opinions. " A different 
 theory of inspiration " is a singular manner of speaking 
 of a mode of excluding the Holy Ghost from the author- 
 ship of his own Scripture. 
 
 In a similar manner we might say, that those who fol- 
 lowed Absalom merely held " a different theory" on the 
 subject of their allegiance to king David, from that of 
 those who accompanied him beyond Jordan. 
 
 But how far do these " different theories of inspira- 
 tion" diverge? Do they recognise i\iQ fact at least of 
 inspiration as taught us by prophets and apostles? Far 
 from it: we are told of theories of the subject, which 
 suppose that the writers of Scripture may have made 
 
73 
 
 mistakes in points of fact; and then again we hear that 
 if any of us now were as holy as the apostles, we might 
 write Scripture quite as authoritatively; that the Spirit 
 of God is given to believers now in the same manner as 
 to the writers of Scripture; as though the distinction 
 were not clear between his dwelling in us and his having 
 inspired some for the purpose of communicating that truth 
 which the Church would need in all ages. Is not this 
 excluding inspiration altogether, and substituting some 
 other not very intelligible notion in its stead? 
 
 Wliat absolute connection is there between personal 
 holiness and supernatural ability to write Scripture ? 
 Because the inspired servants of God were holy, are we 
 irrationally to argue that a suflBcient measure of holiness 
 will make a man inspired? Such thoughts show that 
 Scripture has not been rightly regarded as from God, that 
 it does not come from the will of man (even though 
 renewed by divine grace), but that it was written by the 
 direct operation of the Holy Ghost, put forth for that 
 very purpose, — a thing entirely differing in kind from his 
 ordinary workings. 
 
 A man's supposed mental fitness would not constitute 
 him a legislator; unless he possessed the official authority 
 he could decree nothing: just so as to the communication 
 of authoritative teachings or records to the Church. Such 
 theories do indeed lower the character of Scripture almost 
 to the level of the writings of holy men in many ages; 
 and that not merely in supposed results, but in the minds 
 and the expressed tone of thought of those who propound 
 them. 
 
 It is said, indeed, " Let it be borne in mind, that what- 
 ever theory of inspiration a man may hold, it does not 
 disqualify him from being a Christian." A parallel state- 
 
74 
 
 ment would be: Whatever theory of obedience to the 
 laws a man may hold, it does not disqualify him from 
 being a loyal and peaceable subject and citizen. Thus, 
 then, the followers of Absalom, of Sheba, or of Adonijah, 
 were not disqualified from being esteemed dutiful subjects 
 of king David. It is not for me to define how far Chris- 
 tians may, in mind and theory, wander astray from their 
 allegiance to Christ, their Lord and King; but tliis is 
 certain, that theories which would so depreciate the 
 authority of human laws would riot be borne with in any 
 well-ordered state. If then we are not to condemn such 
 theories when applied to the Scripture of God inspired 
 by the Holy Ghost, what real apprehension can we have 
 of the authority of Christ and his apostles? What real 
 value can there be for that gospel which declares to us 
 God's terms of salvation through faith in the blood of a 
 crucified Eedeemer? Let theoretical confusion of mind 
 be met with all gentleness; but how can we lead others 
 to regard Scripture as inspired, if we concede that the 
 term inspiration will apply to the modern notions which 
 exclude from it all objective reality? I know that state- 
 ments of the importance of the subject are deprecated, as 
 if they were uncharitable in the extreme : thus it is said 
 on this subject, " Shall we disgrace our common Christi- 
 anity by taking now to persecution by the pen?'' — the 
 persecution in question being nothing but explaining 
 the true tendency and bearing of "the theories of in- 
 spii-ation" which their maintainors demand the right of 
 diffusing unchecked. 
 
 If it be intolerance to cleave to the truth of God, then 
 let us be intolerant. If it be bigotry to maintain that 
 there is no development of divine truth, but that all is 
 complete in holy Scripture (whether understood or not), 
 
75 
 
 then let us be bigots. If it be narrowminded prejudice 
 to deny that modern advance in science has superseded 
 one point of Christian verity, then let us be obnoxious 
 to these and even worse charges, rather than surrender 
 the truth of God, rather than overlook that the true 
 place of Christian love is to work by truth, and by up- 
 holding the plenary authority and inspiration of the 
 word of God. 
 
 The consideration of this theory that owns the book of 
 Daniel to be really a divine book, but written by a pro- 
 phet in Maccabean times, has led into a kind of digression, 
 needful, however, in order fully to meet the notion in 
 question. For this opinion could only be received by 
 one whose views of the fact of inspiration were either 
 wholly indefinite or else in accordance with some very 
 lax theory, or by one who had never considered the 
 bearing of Scripture inspiration on the question, — the 
 point really being whether a book could be written by a 
 prophet in the days of Antiochus, such prophet professing 
 to live and write many ages before, under Nebuchadnezzar 
 and his successors. 
 
 Apply the fact of Scripture inspiration to the theory 
 in question, and it vanishes; for if Daniel be an inspired 
 book, then its statements must be received as pure truth 
 — the very expression of the mind and will of God who 
 cannot lie, who gave forth his Scripture through holy 
 men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Thus, we find the untenableness of this theory evinced 
 not merely by the historic facts of the case, but also by 
 the very character of what holy Scripture is; — which 
 could not, because it is inspired, deal in such misleading 
 fictions as this theory supposes. 
 
76 
 
 Thus, then, I have considered the theories and modes 
 of argumentation by which some have sought to set aside 
 the plain and unequivocal testimony of Christ in favour 
 of the book of Daniel ; the whole investigation has 
 shown that the objections are per se untenable, so that 
 they must be regarded as futile, even on their own 
 grounds, and as mere imaginary difficulties, when set in 
 contrast with the authoritative warrant of Christ in the 
 New Testament. 
 
 It will be seen that the greater part of this investiga- 
 tion has been occasioned by a statement of the points of 
 fact which meet the arguments of objectors;* I do not 
 consider such statements to be without their use, although 
 the highest ground of Christ's authority is at last the sure 
 basis of truth to which we return. Let it not, then, be 
 supposed by any that I give up this ground of divine 
 authorisation because I discuss particular points that have 
 been raised. Wliatever rests on the authority of Scrip- 
 ture may be known by the Christian as being uncon- 
 
 * I have given the detail of objections so far as appeared needful or 
 desh'able: the reader will (if he wishes it) find them ti'eated at great 
 length, and with much minuteness of dissection, in Prof Hengstenberg's 
 " Genuineness of Daniel" (translated by B. P. Pratten ; T. and T. Clark, 
 Edinburgh, 1847). To speak of them in such detail was no part of my 
 object : I had to establish the authenticity of Daniel as a primanj point, 
 and not merely to discuss the theories of objectors, and to dwell on the 
 history of opposition to the book. Thus I pass by entirely the counter- 
 arguments drawn from doctrinal considerations, as they have nothing to 
 do with the question of definite proof. I have sought to state and meet 
 all counter-arguments drawn from points of /acf,— for these, and these 
 alone, present us with something tangible. I have not thought it needful 
 to give the names of objectors ; their arguments may stand for what they 
 are worth in themselves. I have taken care not to state objections which 
 have not been actually brought forward, whether I have myself read the 
 books through or not, in which they are contained. " On m'a demand^ si 
 j'ai lu moi-meme tons les livi'es que j'ai cites. tTai repondu que non. Cer- 
 tainement il aurait fallu que j'eusse passe ime gi'ande par tie de ma vie a 
 lire de tres mauvais livres." — Pascal. 
 
77 
 
 querable truth; so that he need not fear the force of the 
 arguments of cavillers, if he can meet them with the 
 word of God. The refutation of the theories and objec- 
 tions of which I have spoken, may tend to show the 
 sufficiency of holy Scripture for the purposes for which 
 it was o-iven forth, since absolute truth concerning this 
 book of Daniel is taught us by the New Testament, even 
 though objections are raised. Let the authority of the 
 revelation of God in the New Testament be first rendered 
 void, and then, but not till then, will such questions rest 
 merely on human testimony. 
 
 Whoever really, through God's grace, apprehends the 
 value of holy Scripture,* possesses a basis of certain truth, 
 
 * The student of holy Scripture iivill repeatedly find that theories which 
 seek to invalidate parts of the Old Testament are set aside by the plain 
 authority of the New. 
 
 Thus, many have chosen to deny that Isa. chap. xl. to Ixvi. were really 
 written by that prophet: they have alleged that these twenty-seven chapters 
 are more recent by some centuries. But if we turn to the New Testament, 
 we find ihis part of the book quoted repeatedly by name. Isa. xl. 3, is so 
 cited in ^lat. iii. 3, Mark i. 2, 3 (in critical texts), Lu. iii. 4, etc., and Jno. 
 L 23. Isa. liii. 4, is quoted in Mat. viii. 17 ; and in Acts viii. 28, etc., the 
 chapter is distinctly mentioned as the writing of Isaiah ; so also Jno. xii. 
 38, and Eom. x. 16. In Luke iv. 17, we learn that Isa. Ix. belongs really to 
 that prophet. In Eom. x. 20, Isa. Ixv. 1, 2, is similarly quoted. These dis- 
 tinct statements of the New Testament are of coui-se decisive to him who 
 learns simply from the word of God. 
 
 And so, too, as to the Pentateuch, which some affirm not to have been 
 written by Moses, but to belong to a later age. Our Lord, however, speaks 
 distinctly of Moses' writings in Jno. v. 46 ; He mentions the Law as given 
 through him^ Jno. vii. 19, etc., Luke xxiv. 44, and He makes specific use 
 of the Pentateuch as the work of ]\Ioses, in Mat. viii. 4, xix. 8, Mark L 44, 
 vii. 10, X. 3, Luke v. 14. So, too, Peter in Acts iii. 22, and Paul in Eom. 
 X. 5, 19. AU this is besides the passages in which "the Law of Moses" is 
 simply spoken of, and the many places where the Pentateuch is quoted 
 without the express mention of Moses' name. In Mark xii. 26, and the 
 parallel place, Luke xx.37, there is a peculiar eonfii-mation of the fact that 
 Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. In Luke ovu- Lord says, " Now 
 that the dead are raised, even Moges showed at the bush, when he caUeth 
 the Lord the God of Abraham," etc. In Mark the place is quoted in its 
 
to the security of which nothing can add. Thus does 
 the iUiterate peasant, whose soul has been led by God's 
 spirit to receive the gospel of Christ, and who knows that 
 the Old and New Testaments are the record of the Holy 
 Ghost, stand on a vantage-ground from which many an 
 erudite scholar, wise in all the wisdom of this world, 
 mifijht strive in vain to dislodge him. He might be tried 
 an.d pained by the assertions which he had to hear; he 
 might have difficulties set before him which in their 
 detail he could not answer ; but none of these things 
 would really shake his confidence if rightly placed. 
 
 To remove such difficulties, and to invalidate such 
 assertions, has been my purpose in that part of these re- 
 marks which treats of theories and objections. 
 
 Thus, we possess absolute grounds for receiving the 
 book of Daniel as being the genuine work of that pro- 
 phet, and for regarding its contents as being authentic 
 prophecies and histories. Both points are proved on the 
 authority of Christ and his apostles in the Xew Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 It will be seen that I do not take a merely apologetic 
 ground of defence. I did not design merely to show the 
 futility of objectors, and so leave the subject ; but I 
 
 Old Testament form, and cited from " the book of Moses," " I am the 
 God of Abraham," etc. How, then, did Moses snow this, when God was 
 the speaker? — By his being the writer of the book in which this declara- 
 tion of God is recorded. 
 
 Thus will a simple rece|)tion and confiding use of the K^ew Testament 
 be the safeguard to the Christian, whose learning goes not beyond the 
 Bible, against the false theories with which spurious criticism would 
 obscure and mutilate tlie Old. Thus will he be able at once to deny that 
 dilRculties which human learning would bring forward can invalidate 
 facts which have the sanction of Christ and hifl apostles. 
 
79 
 
 wislied to establish the authority of this book on inde- 
 pendent grounds, and not merely negatively ; — that is, by 
 meeting and answering objectors. The books of holy 
 Scripture are to Christians the charters of their privileges, 
 the title-deeds of that inheritance, the price of which was 
 the blood of the Son of God : therefore, it is not for us 
 to defend them by merely refuting the objectors with 
 whom we may have to do at any given time, but we 
 have to take such grounds as shall uphold their absolute 
 authority, as looked at in themselves, and not merely 
 that which goes no farther than a disproof of certain 
 objections. I now leave the subject, trusting that this 
 defence may be of use in pointing out to some Christians 
 the definite reasons why they receive Daniel as an autho- 
 ritative book, and in enabling them to meet the asser- 
 tions which (if correct) might, in some minds, weaken 
 or invalidate its claim to be an integral part of the word 
 of God. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 'Sr-*^^ 
 
 
 
 
 !«¥»9^W 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYUORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U S A.