DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? BY JOSEPH D. WILSON, D.D. S.f^/oS. ^ PRINCETON, N. J. *^ Presented h{~^\^eA . G TY? . & V-Arr\ CA. Division ..■rX^..',^...\.'^ ^ O rA DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? The Genuineness and Authenticity of the Book of Daniel Discussed JOSEPH D. WILSON, D. D. PROFESSOR OF HISTORY IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF THE REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH Charles C. Cook 150 nassau street new york, n. y. TO ELEANOR B. RAINEY Through whose encouragement this book is published CONTENTS Introduction 7 The Question ii Alleged Inaccuracies 19 Belshazzar 19, 22 Belshazzar's father? 19, 28 Nebuchadnezzar termed king too early 19, 33 Discrepancy with Jeremiah i9> 34 List of kings imperfect i9) 38 Two languages in the book 20, 39 Persian words 20, 41 Greek words 20, 41 Angelology 20, 46 Darius the Mede 20, 52 " Chaldeans " wrongly applied . . . 21,57 The Hebrew favors late date . . . . 21,59 The forgotten dream 21, 65 Spelling of Nebuchadnezzar 21,65 Daniel too young 21, 67 " Other Objections 68 Laudatory expressions 68 Silence of post exilic prophets 70 Apocryphal Literature 71 Ecclesiasticus 74 5 CONTENTS The Canon 80 Daniel not in the " Prophets " .... 82 Evidence Sustaining Daniel 87 The captivity 88 Written in Babylon 88 Ezekiel's witness 91 Ezra — Nehemiah 96 Baruch 96 Maccabees 97 Josephus TOO The Magi . . . . 106 Nebuchadnezzar's madness 107 Subjective Considerations iic Apocalypses late in time 112 Prediction impossible 115 The supernatural 118 The Prophecies 122 The image 124 The four beasts 125 The ram and he-goat 129 The seventy weeks 134 Testimony of Our Lord 150 Why Speakest Thou in Parables ? 153 INTRODUCTION Recent years have witnessed, among scholars, a questioning of the traditional dates and authorship of many of the books of the Old Testament. The dates of some of the books have been changed by more than a thousand years. Books attributed hitherto to one author have been declared of composite authorship ; the various conjectured authors living hundreds of years apart. Much ingenuity has been exercised in tracing the supposed originals, emendations and recensions. As might be expected, there are wide differences of opinion among those who seek to reconstruct the books ; there being no data upon which to found opinion ex- cept the books themselves — no contempo- rary Hebrew literature of any kind; the subjective predilections of the literary critics forming a large part of the critical apparatus. The results of criticism based DID DANIEL WRITE DAXIEE? on such incomplete and variable evidence can hardly be conclusive, and it occasions no surprise to find criticism criticising it- self and critics changing their opinions from time to time. Among the books, whose date and au- thorship are challenged, is Daniel. But here there is a considerable consensus of opinion against the traditional date. !Many persons who reject altogether the radical theories concerning the Penta- teuch have accepted the new view about Daniel, and many more are holding judg- ment in suspense. It is probable that very few, except those who are professionally engaged in literary criticism^ have access to all the arguments against the authenticity and Cfenuineness of Daniel. Even some of the literary critics appear to form their opin- ions simply upon the opinions of other critics. This essay is designed to furnish the student w^th all the considerations which have led critics to displace Daniel from its 8 DID DANIEL WTtlTE DANIEL? traditional position. Some of the argu- ments will appear of no weight — perhaps they will all so appear. The reader may judge when he sees the arguments. But as this is not a one-sided plea, the replies to the above adverse considerations will also be presented and the arguments for Daniel will be given. The opinion of the writer of this essay will of course mani- fest itself. When one has examined a question and has reached a positive con- clusion, that conclusion will affect his judgment of the points of evidence. I have examined this question as thoroughly as lay in my powxr, and have reached a conclusion; so that while the whole matter will be laid before the reader, I do not pretend to be without an opinion which becomes a firm conviction as I re- view the whole case before penning this introduction. I beg the reader to examine the matter for himself, to consult the Scriptures, Eu- sebius, Josephus, Herodotus, the Old Tes- tament Apocrypha, all of which are avail- DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? able in English translations in any public library. I ask him not to be influenced by vehement assertions whether in this book or in any other discussion of the case. Especially I warn him to be wary of pre- tentious claims to exclusive knowledge. Scholarship is not rare in these days ; good sense and sound judgment are rarer. lO THE QUESTION Porphyry, a heathen philosopher of the third century, wrote fifteen books against Christianity. He saw that the new faith was winning its way rapidly. Thousands throughout the empire had become fol- lowers of Jesus Christ. Persecution had not stopped the progress of the Gospel. Martyrs calmly met their fate and as many more were ready to die. Roman soldiers were sick of butchering inoffen- sive and unresisting men and women, boys and girls ; and Roman prefects were murmuring against the laws which re- quired them to put to death the most moral, industrious, peaceable and loyal people under their charge. The ridicule of the wits and the curses of the heathen priests, who saw their temples deserted, were powerless to stay the rising tide of Christianity. Perhaps philosophy could accomplish what the sword could not do. II DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? and accordingly Porphyry brought his intellectual acumen to bear against the religion of the Nazarene. The best known of Porphyry's assaults is his attack upon the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. That book foretold many important events in the political world — events which had already come to pass. It seemed also to predict the coming of the Christ. If its prophecies of matters in secular affairs were really predictions, then a supernatural warrant for the Chris- tian religion was afforded. These pro- phecies, moreover, intimated the ultimate overthrow of the Roman Empire, an is- sue which every patriotic member of the empire viewed with horror. If by any means it could be shown that Daniel pre- dicted nothing, that all the forecasts con- cerning Babylon, Persia^ the Greek domi- nation and its Syrian successor, were written after the events, then forebodings about the permanence of the empire would be soothed and one stroke at least could be dealt against the Galilean. 12 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? To this object, of showing a late date for the composition of the Book of Daniel, Porphyry devoted himself. His argu- ments doubtless had effect. At all events, the sharpest persecution which the early church had to endure followed hard upon the publication of Porphyry's work. But the progress of the Gospel w^as not stayed. Ten years after his death an imperial edict proclaimed toleration for Christianity. The modern criticisms upon Daniel do not come from a heathen like Porphyry, but from Christian scholars. They are not designed to antagonize Christianity. They may, indeed, like Porphyry's, ex- cite the enemies of Christ to greater bit- terness, and weaken faith in those in whom faith is feeble. But the critics de- sire neither of these ends — their purpose being solely a search for truth. If they reproduce the arguments of Porphyry, it is because they perceive merit in those argu- ments, and not because Porphyry's pur- pose w^as bad. There is a good deal of self-assertion 13 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? on the part of some of the critics — a way of claiming the ''latest results of criti- cism," of posing as heroic opponents of the ''fetters of traditionalism," and so forth. All true critics regret this, and this essay will treat such claims as im- pertinent and untrue. In these days there is no heroism involved in assailing old opinions. If there be any heroism in the case, it is on the part of the defenders of traditional views. Many suppose that the questions in- volved are exceedingly recondite and can be approached only by learned Oriental- ists, and so they shrink from personal in- vestigation ; but there is nothingmysterious in the question of the date of the Book of Daniel. Common sense and honest judg- ment provide all the equipment for ex- amining the case from top to bottom. Scholarship will but verify the verdict which good sense shall render. This is not to decry scholarship. Much ingenuity and learning have been expended on the book, but these apply rather to the inter- 14 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? pretation of the visions and symbols. Upon the interpretation, except so far as the interpretation is an element in the ar- gument, this essay will not enter. The book, according to its own state- ments, appears to have been written at the beginning of the Persian w^orld-empire, about ^T,;^ B. C, by Daniel, who w^as car- ried captive to Babylon in his youth and who attained a post of honor and respon- sibility under the great King, Nebuchad- nezzar. Daniel saw the overthrow of the Babylonian monarchy and the establish- ment of the Persian regime. While parts of the book may have been written as a journal or diary during the Babylonian ascendancy, it was finished only after the Persians had been in control some years. One hand wrote the book. Of its unity there is no question now, for, although in pursuance of the mania for ascribing com- posite authorship to the books of the Old Testament, some have tried to imagine a number of authors, all such attempts are now abandoned. The unity of the book 15 DID DAXIEL AVRITE DAXIEL ? is not challenged. It is not an aggrega- tion of legends or m}'ths slowly taking form in the passage of years. It is the book of one author. But that author, it is said, was not the Daniel of the Court of Nebuchadnezzar. There may never have been a Daniel at that Court. The whole book is a work of fiction written by an unknown Jew about the year 163 B. C. It was written to en- courage the Maccabees in their heroic struggle against their Syrian oppressors. As it prophesies the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the chief oppressor, it must have been written after his death or so short a time before that a guess thereat might be safely ventured. The book is written as if a prophecy, but its predic- tions were written after the events, and took the form of forecasts merely as a matter of literar}- presentment. It is not denied that the book contains predictions looking to the far future, but no value is to be attached to them any more than to the prognostications of any enthusiast. 16 DID DAXIEL WRITE DANIEL? It is evident that between the book's own claim and the above-mentioned theon- a wide divergence exists. The book claims to be a truthful record; the theory proclaims it a fiction. The book narrates historic events and also records certain visions vouchsafed from God to his faithful servant ; the theory, while ad- mitting the general accuracy of the his- tory, denies that there were any visions from God. The book is the effort of a patriotic Jew to fire the zeal of his com- patriots, and though it is fiction, it is in a noble cause, and according to ideas then prevalent, not only excusable but praise- worthy. It is not denied that the book has been received by Jews and Christians as the true work of a real Daniel. Never- theless, the theory says that the book itself contains evidence of its own late date: that circumstances corroborate that evi- dence, and that a proper view of pro- phecy compels the placing of prophecy — at least the kind of prophecy contained in Daniel — after the events prophesied. 17 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? We will examine first the inaccuracies of the book and then the objections which may be called more subjective in char- acter — /. e., whose weight is affected by the views men hold of Divine Revelation in general. i8 ALLEGED INACCURACIES The alleged inaccuracies and peculiar- ities in the book from which a late date is inferred are as follows : 1. Belshazzar is named as King of Babylon at the time of its fall, when in fact Nabonidus was King. 2. Nebuchadnezzar is called the father of Belshazzar, when he was grandfather or, possibly, no relation at all. 3. Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, is said to have come against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim, King of Ju- dah. At that time Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, was King of Babylon. 4. This attack upon Jerusalem is given as in the third year of Jehoiakim, while Jeremiah says it was the fourth. 5. The writer does not mention the 19 DID DANIEL WHITE DANIEL ? names of the Kings who succeeded Ne- buchadnezzar. 6. The book is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, about half in each. Aramaic was extensively used by the Jews of later times; which raises the presumption that it was composed in those later times. 7. There are some Persian words in the book. 8. Also three Greek words, which proves that the book was written after Alexander conquered the Persian empire, B. C. 332. 9. The author speaks of angels, thus showing that he had imbibed the religious ideas of the Persians. 10. ''Darius the Mede" is spoken of as the first ruler of Babylon under Persian domination. Darius Hystaspis was not the first ruler under Persian sway, but the third or fourth, and came to the throne twenty years after Babylon was taken. Moreover, he was not a Alede but a Per- sian. 20 DID DAXIKL WRITE DANIEL? 11. The wise men of Babylon are called "Chaldeans" — a name not applied to them until later. Also they spoke in Syriack (Aramaic), which probably was not spoken at Court; and if it was spoken there, it was a dialect different from that used in the book. 12. The Hebrew of the book favors a date long after the exile, and the Aramaic permits a late date. 13. It is unreasonable that a wise King like Nebuchadnezzar should have been troubled about a dream which he had for- gotten, or, if he was troubled, that he should have threatened the lives of the Chaldeans for not recalling the dream to his memory. 14. The author of the book Daniel did not know how to spell Nebuchadnezzar. 15. The man Daniel of the book was too young to have attained the high position assigned him. In my opinion these charges are with- out weight. Some of them are obviously 21 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? frivolous. Whatever value once attached to a few of them vanished long ago. But as I find them advanced by respectable scholars in recent publications,* and ap- parently with seriousness, let us examine them seriatim. I. Belshazzar, King of Babylon, is not mentioned by any ancient secular his- torian. Berosus^ who lived about 250 years after the Persian conquest, gives the succession as follows : Nabuchodonosor, the Nebuchadnezzar of Scripture. Evil-Marudack, the Evil-Merodach of Scripture. Neriglissor. *Canon Driver's Introd. to O. T. Hastings' Diet, of Bible. Prof. Curtis in a series of articles by various authors published in Philadelphia Bulletin, 1902, and others. 22 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Laborosoarchad. Nabonned. Cyrus. Ptolemy the Greek historian gives : Nabokolassar. Illoariulamus. Nerikasolassar. Nabonadius. Cyrus. The names are not identical, but the length of the reign of each is the same in both lists, so that no doubt exists as to the persons. Belshazzar does not appear in either of them. For many years this was a stumbling block in the way of com- mentators. Attempts were made to iden- tify Belshazzar with Nabonned, but be- sides the difference in name — not in itself insurmountable, for every king" had manv names — there was the distinct statement by Berosus, that Nabonned escaped from Babylon, capitulated at Borsippa, and was sent thence to Carmania, where he died. 23 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? Daniel says, "In the same night was Bel- shazzar slain." Passing by other attempts at reconciliation, for none of them pre- sented any more probability than the at- tempted identification of Belshazzar with Nabonned, the matter for a long time was reduced to the question wdiether Daniel or Berosus was the more accurate. On one side was the probability that Berosus had access to the national records. Two and a half centuries had intervened; it is true, and great changes had occurred meanwhile through conquests and revolu- tions. On the other hand, Daniel was on the spot and must know better what was happening under his eyes than any subse- quent historian, however diligent and painstaking. But, then, suspicion began to arise that perhaps Daniel was not present. Perhaps the Book of Daniel was a composition of more recent date than Berosus. How could Berosus be mistaken? And why did not Herodotus, Xenophon, ]\Iegas- thenes or Abydenus, any one of whom 24 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? might have mentioned Belshazzar, give some hint of that unfortunate monarch? Those to whom our Lord's recog-nition of Daniel is an all-sufficient warrant clung to the authenticity of the narrative, but they were sorry the truth was not plainer. And some Christian men were shaken. They shrank from impugning the veracity of the Christ, but there stood the fact — not a single secular historian made any mention of Belshazzar. And so the case stood until 1854. Through all the Christian ages up to that time no evidence to sustain Daniel had appeared. No wonder that other lapses on the author's part were looked for. And no wonder they were found. In 1854 Sir Henry Rawlinson deciph- ered certain cylinders containing memo- rials of Nabonned. From these it ap- peared that Bil-shar-uzur (Belshazzar) was the son of Nabonned and was ad- mitted to a share in the government. With this discovery the conflict between Berosus and Daniel disappears. Nabon- 25 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? necl was the last King of Babylon and escaped from the city to make his sub- mission afterward, while Belshazzar re- mained in Babylon, the ruler there, and perished when the city fell. Incidentally, too, the explanation of Belshazzar's prom- ise to make the interpreter of the mys- terious writing on the wall "third ruler" in the kingdom is evident. Belshazzar himself was the second. Thus the inscriptions have vindicated Daniel on this point. We may wonder at that Providence which allowed these in- scriptions to remain hidden for two thou- sand years, the absence of the evidence they contained affording opportunity for error. It is probable that the assaults upon the genuineness of the book would never have begun had it not been for the mention therein of Belshazzar's name. Through the lack of that evidence which lay concealed in the ruins of Babylonia many lost confidence in the Book of Dan- iel. \Miy did not God bring that evidence to light earlier? Why was a stumbling 26 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? block left so long in the way of weak faith ? The possibility of error, either intellectual or moral, is never taken away from us. It is part of the perilous posi- tion in wdiich we, as free intelligences, al- ways stand. No one was compelled, through the silence of a historian w4io lived two and a half centuries after the event, to doubt the prophet who was en- dorsed by our Saviour. We are sorry for those who made shipwreck of their faith, and passed from earth before Rawlinson's discovery was published, but they were not compelled. They made their choice. Believers whose faith was firmer lamented the obscurity, but they trusted God wdio would bring hidden things to light. But what if Nabonned had never made those inscriptions ? Or what if among the thousands of inscriptions which have been destroyed, these had been lost? Or what if the antiquarians had never been spurred to the difficult and costly work of exca- vation? Some of us who are not over- confident of our own stability tremble at 27 DID DAXIEL AVRITE DANIEL ? these possibilities. Perhaps we would have lost our confidence in the Bible! But the facts would have been just the same. Bel- shazzar was King in Babylon and Daniel is correct in this matter at least. 11. The second charge against the book of Daniel is that in it Xebuchadnezzar is called the father of Belshazzar when, as one critic puts it, "he did not belong to the same family." If Xebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar's grandfather, he would be called "father'' according to the not uncommon Hebrew usage. But was he Belshazzar's grand- father? He was not X'abonned's father. The question then will be, w^as Nebuchad- nezzar the father of Belshazzar's mother ? Here we must consult probabilities. We will find, I think, that probabilities point in one direction only. Evil-^Ierodach. son of X^'ebuchadnez- 28 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL ? zar, succeeded his father upon the throne, which he occupied only two years, being murdered by his brother-in-law, Nerig- lissar. Berosus says that Evil-Merodach was ''lawless and intemperate." The only act of his which is known to us is recorded in 2 Kings, xxv, 27-30, viz., his kindness to Jehoiakim, the captive King of Judah. As Berosus, himself a priest, obtained his information from the priestly guild, we may suspect the strict accuracy of his judgment upon the murdered monarch. Xeriglissar, who succeeded, was of the priestly party. This gave him favor with that powerful faction. He was not legiti- mate heir to the crown, but his son was. for Neriglissar had married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. After a reign of three and a half years Neriglissar died a natural death, and his son Laborasoarchod, a child, w^as king. But the disorders in the kingdom de- manded a hand stronger than a child's at the helm of state, and the unfortunate boy was beaten to death, having borne the 29 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? royal title for nine months. Nabonned seized the kingdom. What title had he? It was a perilous dignity to which he suc- ceeded. He was not of roval blood bv birth, but his claim appears to have been recognized, for he reigned seventeen years and until the Babylonian dynasty was overthrown by the conquering Cyrus. The inference is almost unavoidable; his son Belshazzar was the legitimate heir. Nabonned, too, had married a daughter of the illustrious Nebuchadnezzar, some say the widow of Neriglissar, and some another daughter of the great King. Upon Belshazzar the hopes of the nation rested and the great mourning for the king's son mentioned in the annalistic tablet of Cyrus is explained. ''Gobryas made an assault," says that tablet, ''and the King's son was slain — there was lamentation in the coun- try of Accad — and Cambyses, son of Cyrus, conducted the obsequies." If Bel- shazzar was grandson of the illustrious Nebuchadnezzar, these things, Nabonned's undisputed reign, the popular affection for 30 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the young prince, and the ostentatious honors paid by the poHtic conqueror, are accounted for. Otherwise they are not accounted for. The queen mother spoke truth (Dan. V, ii) and the prophecy of Jeremiah xxvii, 7, *'A11 nations shall serve Nebu- chadnezzar and his son, and his son's son," was fulfilled. Additional probability is lent to this conclusion by the fact that Nabonned's second son was called Nebuchadnezzar and when certain revolts occurred under Darius Hystaspis, twenty years later, the insurgents invoked the name of that younger son, thus showing that the first- born was dead and had died in so well known a manner that his name could not be used as a rallying cry. Herodotus* speaks of a queen Nitocris. He is confused as to her relationship, but he dwells much upon her eminence, the great works, forts, canals, etc., which she *Herod., I, 185-188. 31 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? built. The excavations show that many of these works attributed by the historian to her, bear the name of Nabonned. ^^^hat is the inference? Is it not that she was the wife of Nabonned and that he derived dignity and security from alHance with the daughter of the great King? The very confusion of Herodotus strengthens the probabihty here advanced, for he seems to say that Nitocris was the wife of Ne- buchadnezzar and the mother of Nabon- ned. If this were so, then Belshazzar was grandson of Nebuchadnezzar through Nabonned. This, however, disagrees with all other testimony, but it is easy to imagine that Herodotus, knowing that Nabonned's sons were grandsons of Ne- buchadnezzar, counted their descent through their father instead of their mother. Look at it how we will, the en- tire evidence — leaving out the testimony of Scripture altogether — establishes a probability, amounting to a moral cer- tainty, that Belshazzar was grandson to Nebuchadnezzar. 32 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? III. Dan. i, i, states that in the third year of Jehoiakim King of Judah, Nebuchad- nezzar, King of Babylon, came unto Jeru- salem and besieged it. It is objected that Nebuchadnezzar did not become king— at least full king — till the following year. What if he did not? Daniel wrote while Nebuchadnezzar was king and em- ploys his present title, just as we would say, President Roosevelt was at the Battle of San Juan, though he was not President then. But it appears from Berosus* that Ne- buchadnezzar was King in association with his father in the third year of Je- hoiakim. This plan of associating the heir with his father in the Kingship — a not uncommon occurrence among Ori- ental monarchies, as e.g., Nabonned and Belshazzar, Assurbanipal and Essarhad- don, Amenhotep I and Amenhotep II, Seti and Ramses II, sfave rise to a double *Josephus Ant., X, ii. 33 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? method of computing the years of a King's reign ; some reckoned from the date of association ; some from the death of the father only. IV. A discrepancy is said to exist between Daniel and Jeremiah ; Daniel giving the third year of Jehoiakim and Jeremiah the fourth for the attack upon Jerusalem. Dan. i, i, comp. Jer. xxv, i, xxxvi, i, xlvi, 2. If there be a discrepancy here, it can hardly be counted an argument for the Maccabean origin for the Book of Daniel. A writer in Judea in the time of the Mac- cabees, with the Book of Jeremiah before him, would not^ in the first sentence of his romance, diverge from such an authority as Jeremiah. A discrepancy with Jere- miah w^ould show that the writer of Dan- iel was not familiar with Jeremiah. This 34 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? is incredible, for the author of Daniel refers to Jeremiah. Dan. ix, 2. But there is no need to suggest dis- crepancy. In the Babylonian calendar the year began in the spring. In Judah the year began in the autumn. The Baby- lonian third year would overlap the Ju- dean fourth year by about six months. The same date could be both the third and fourth year, according to the mode of reckoning (see Chronology in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible). The notion of a discrepancy probably arises from the mention, Jer. xlvi, 2, that the battle of Carchemish occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the assump- tion that Nebuchadnezzar could not have appeared before Jerusalem prior to that battle. This assumption is not inevitable. Necho, King of Egypt, moved against the Chaldeans in 610 or 608 B. C, probably in the latter year. The battle of Carchem- ish, which is on the Euphrates, did not occur till three years later, i.e., 605 B. C. What happened during the interval? 33 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Josiah opposed the Egyptian advance in 608 B. C. and was defeated and slain at Megiddo. The people of Jerusalem im- mediately chose Jehoahaz as King. Three months afterward Necho deposed Jehoa- haz, placed Jehoiakim, the elder brother, on the throne, and carried the deposed monarch as prisoner to Egypt. It would seem, therefore, that, though victorious at ]\Iegiddo, his army was so crippled that he had to return home to refit. It is diffi- cult otherwise to account for the three years' inaction in the face of so energetic an opponent as Nebuchadnezzar. That a detachment of Necho's army should have been left undisturbed for three years in Carchemish is unlikely. W^e have then Jehoiakim for three years upon the throne of Judah ruling a dis- tracted city. He was King through favor of Necho, but a party in the city, in which party was Jeremiah, favored the Baby- lonian alliance. We read, Jer. xxvii, 1-6, that "in the beginning of the reign of Je- hoiakim" the prophet warned the King 36 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? that "all these lands have been given into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar." Is it not possible that the King vacillated? And, whether he did or not, would it not have been wise policy on Nebuchadnezzar's part, by force, if necessary, by persuasion, if possible, to secure Judea for his side in the coming conflict? There was nothing to prevent Nebuchadnezzar appearing with a force before Jerusalem, taking young nobles like Daniel and his com- panions as hostages or as guests, as Je- hoiakim's behavior should determine. This could have happened before Carche- mish. Then when in 605 B. C. the Egypt- ian troops on their way to Carchemish appeared in Judea, Jehoiakim's revolt in their favor follows naturally. Dan. i, i, 2, does not describe a single event. It is a summary of the deporta- tions. The two principal deportations were that mentioned in II Kings, xxiv, when Jehoiakim was carried to Babylon, and that mentioned in II Kings xxv, when the temple was destroyed. The deporta- 37 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? tion of the young nobles, among whom was Daniel, occurred previously during Jehoiakim's reign while the Jewish mon- arch was wavering in his allegiance. It was a politic measure on Nebuchadnez- zar's part. The favor granted to the voung men shows this. Nebuchadnezzar had no wish to make enemies of the Jews. They were useful to him as a buffer state against Eg}'pt. At the same time these princes were virtual hostages; that they became captives along with the rest of their nation was due to the folly of Je- hoiakim against the advice of Jeremiah. There is, of course, an element of con- jecture in this attempted reconstruction of the history, but so there is in all attempts where the data are so incomplete. V. The fifth charge against the Book of Daniel is that it does not give a list of Babylonian Kings. 38 DID DANIEL WHITE DANIEL ? But why should it ? The book is not a history of Babylon, but a narrative of Dan- iel's experiences. He, evidently, was re- leased from public service upon the death of Nebuchadnezzar, and in his old age was recalled to pronounce the doom of Belshazzar. So far from this omission of a list of Kings between Nebuchadnez- zar and Belshazzar proving the book a fic- tion, its evidence, it seems to me, is di- rectly the other way. A romancer, to give an air of reality to his work, would probably introduce such a list ; but as Daniel had nothing to do with the inter- mediate Kings, he very properly omits what has no connection with his story. I am at a loss to understand why this fact is considered an argument against the genu- ineness of the book. VI. The book is written partly in Chaldee, partly in Hebrew — an arrangement never 39 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? so likely as in the case of one familiar with both languages. The same thing is seen in Ezra iv, 8 — vi, i8 and vii, 12-26. Ezra, too, had lived in Babylon. One comes upon a similar phenomenon — if so important a word may be used for a very ordinary occurrence — in shops kept by Germans in any of our cities. Conversa- tion branches into English and back to German without apparent effort. The popular language of Babylon was Aramaic. There was an older tongue, the Babylonian, used for inscriptions and learned treatises^ but that was in decline, and, as appears from business tablets dated in the reign of Artaxerxes I and Darius II, 464-405 B. C., it had then ceased to be the language of the plain peo- ple; only scholars employed it.* Here we come upon one of those cri- teria which are valuable in determining the date of a writing, viz., the incidental, casual unimportant expressions. We read, *Prof. Clay and Dr. Ranke in Rec. of Past, December, 1904. 40 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Dan. ii, 4, that the Chaldeans spoke to the King in Syriack (Aramaic). Evidently this was something unusual. There was no time for the composition of a reply in the stately old tongue. The King was impatient ; in no mood to be trifled with. The Chaldeans were alarmed. Their lives were in peril. The readiest speech comes first to their lips. The naturalness and simplicity of truth are here. VII. There are Persian words in Daniel. Naturally. It would be remarkable if there were not, seeing that there was in- tercourse betw^een Persia and Babylon, and seeing also that Daniel himself held high station in the Persian Court. VITI. But there are also Greek words, and this is taken to indicate a composition 41 DID DANIEL WRITE DAXIEL ? long after the Greek conquest under Alex- ander, which took place in 332 B. C. Fol- lowing that conquest, Greek influence dominated in Palestine. Seleucus, one of Alexander's generals, obtained Syria in his share of the empire. Under the Se- leucidae constant efforts were made to Hellenize the Jews. Greek laws, Greek language, Greek games and Greek relig- ion were crowded upon the Jews, many of whom yielded wholly to Hellenic influ- ence. At that time Greek expressions were likely to creep into any writing, so that the Greek words in Daniel are, by the critics, thought to indicate a late date. Canon Driver rests his conclusions on the Greek words. "The Persian words," he says, "presuppose a period after the Per- sian empire had been well established. The Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports and the Aramaic permits a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alex- ander the Great, B. C. 332." "Alore than this," he goes on to say, "can scarcely in the present state of our knowledge 42 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? be affirmed categorically. Nevertheless grounds exist, which, though not ade- quate to demonstrate, yet make the opin- ion a probable one, that the book, as we have it, is a work of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes." Let us examine these Greek words which ''demand" a late date for the book. Let it be remembered that Greek was spoken by all scholarly men in Palestine in the time of Antiochus and by many who were not scholars. The Old Testament had been translated into Greek — parts of it more than a hundred years before — Jews changed their Hebrew names into Greek. Commerce was conducted in Greek. Litercourse with government was in Greek. For many articles in use there was no Hebrew or Aramaic word. Ev- erything else written at that time by Jew- ish writers which has come down to us was either in Greek or so marked by Greek expressions and ideas as to render the determination of the original language difficult. Esdras was in Greek only, Ju- 43 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? dith, composed in Maccabean times, was probably in Chaldee, but it is so Greek that scholars are uncertain what the orie- inal was. Baruch, 330-160 B. C, some scholars think was composed in Hebrew, some that Greek was the original; while others think a part was Hebrew and a part Greek. If Daniel were written in the time of Antiochus it would have many Greek ex- pressions and ideas. It has no Greek Ideas and of Greek words it has two, possibly three ! And these three are the names of musical instruments ! Dan. iii, 5. So then this vigorous assertion about "the Greek demanding" rests only on the fact that a man writing in Babylon uses three foreign names of musical instruments ! How many foreign names of musical in- struments does our language employ? And every other language? A foreign instrument introduced into Babylon would carry its foreign name, just as instruments would and do in London or New York. 44 DID DANIEI. WRITE DANIEL? But could foreign musical instruments have been introduced into Babylon ? Cer- tainly. And of all foreign things they are most likely to have retained their names. Babylon was the centre of vast commerce. Its boundaries touched Ionia on the west and at times included Ionia. Babylonians fought with the Greek soldiers whom the Egy^ptians employed. If Greek musicians did not go voluntarily to so inviting a metropolis as Babylon, they would surely be brought thither by victorious generals returning from war. Would not Neb- uchadnezzar — whose chief glory was, not his conquests, for he says but little about them in his inscriptions, but his splendid city — have gathered every in- strument he could find into his military band? It would not be surprising if among that assemblage of "all kinds of musick" there were instruments from Egypt or Etruria or the western limits of the Mediterranean Sea, brought in by Tyrian trade. And this, in the opinion of the eminent 45 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? English critic, is the one prime proof of the late composition of the Book Daniel. And, strange to say, we find Driver's dic- tum repeated, with and without quotation marks, as decisive. IX. The "angelology" show^s, it is said, a Persian influence upon the mind of the writer of Daniel. The angelology of Daniel is different, the critics admit, from the angelology of Tobit and the Book of Enoch ; but still approximates the notions of those later books. Suppose it is so. Whence did the writers of Tobit and Enoch get the doc- trine which they elaborated into their no- tions? An ancient and venerated book would be a probable source. Such a book would be Daniel, wdiich must in that case have existed before Tobit and Enoch were written. "But Daniel might have obtained his ideas from the Persians." So? Well, he 46 DID DANIEL WRITE DAXIEL? lived among them ; held high office among them; read their books, and if there were anything true in those books, why should he not accept it? And if he did accept such truths, why should he wait 370 years before mentioning the matter ? The Persian religion must have been known to the guild of learned men in Babylon, of which guild Daniel was a member. If Daniel knew that religion, and if it was like the Zoroastrianism, traces of which have come down to us, he knew something better than the Babylon- ian idolatry which he saw around him. If a prophet of the Lord must get his relig- ious knowledge from heathenism, then Daniel in Babylon was in the best position to get that knowledge amid the serious discourses of his learned colleagues, and he merits much credit for his wise choice of the best that heathenism had to give. But how nonsensical is this theorizins: about heathen origins for the truths of the Bible! If God could reveal truth to hea- then sages, why not to Hebrew saints? 47 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Why must we assume that the whole- some food in the Scriptures must have been picked from the garbage barrels of heathenism ? Are divine impressions shut out from good and holy men, and vouch- safed only to idolators? Daniel's doctrine of angels is warranted by Christ. A bet- ter source than Persian fancies can be looked for. Could he not be a recipient of Divine revelation ? W^as there an advance in Scriptural truths upon the prophets pre- ceding him ? That is what we look for in the whole history of God's dealings with men, and it is what we find. "God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son." Daniel stands in precisely that place in history in which a wider view of God's purposes for mankind and of his control of the movements of the powers of this world could best be given. The Hebrew people, disciplined by their captivity, w^ere destined to a spiritual influence upon the 48 DID DANIEL WRITE DxVNIEL ? world, more profound than was exerted or could have been exerted in their con- stricted position as a nation among na- tions. Visions of a return of temporal power, of wealth and wordly prosperity filled their minds. Their subsequent his- tory, hampered and persecuted as they were, was not calculated to produce the majestic sweep of the Book of Daniel. It was in great Babylon that a revelation of their Lord as the God of the whole earth, with purposes grander and more far- reaching than the setting up of a human dynasty, was fitting. In Daniel and Eze- kiel prophetic vision reaches be3^ond a sin- gle race, and, though the Lord's kingdom is a kingdom of chosen ones, it is a king- dom greater than a Semitic tribe. To place the Book of Daniel — even if there were no proof of its date — along with Tobit, Bel and the Dragon and other por- ductions of that age, is like placing the Gospel of St. John among the Apocryphal Gospels. But let us scrutinize this "angelology." 49 DID DANIEL V/RITE DANIEL? It is insinuated that contact with Persian magianism is necessary to account for Daniel's angelology. If this were so, we have the contact in Daniel's own time in Babylon itself under the Persian domina- tion. We certainly ought not to look for its origin among the Maccabees with their fierce antagonism to heathenism. Whence did Zechariah get the angelology of which his book is full? He was among the first exiles wdio returned to Jerusalem. Whence, also, came the angelology of Ezekiel, the contemporary of Daniel? Neither of these writers can be assigned a date 300 years after their death. If their angelology must come from the Persians, then it came in the same way and at the same time as Daniel's. But why must it come from the Per- sians at all ? The Assyrian and Accadian mythologies recognize a hierarchy of good spirits and another of bad spirits. "The Babylonian was taught to consider himself surrounded and affected by spirit- ual beings from the hour of his birth to 50 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? that of his death." But why again should we resort to an awkward and senseless hypothesis of plagiarism from any hea- thenism? The Hebrew books from the earliest times are familiar with the thought of angels. Jacob meets ''God's host" at Mahanaim, Gen. xxxii, 1-2. He wrestled with an angel at Peniel, Gen. xxxii, 24. Abraham entertains angels at Mamre. Gideon and Manoah talk with angels, Jud. vi, 21, xiii, 16. David, H Sam. xxiv, 16; Elijah, I Kings, xix, 5, and others communed with angels. ''But these were appearances to indi- viduals — Daniel speaks of angels as cham- pions or protectors of nations." Yes, but we read, H Kings, xix, 35, of the over- throw of Sennacherib's host by an angel; of the mountain full of spirit horsemen whom Elisha's servant saw; of the man with the drawn sword, Josh, v, 14, who declared himself the Captain of the host of the Lord; and in Is. xxiv, 21, of the host of high ones whom the Lord will punish. 51 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? There is nothing in the gradations of angehc spirits as mentioned by Daniel which is not substantially contained else- where in the Old Testament. Isaiah saw the Seraphim (vi, 2). Cherubim were placed at the gate of Eden (Gen. iii, 24). Micaiah saw the Lord sitting on his throne and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. I Kings, xxii, 19-22. "But Daniel is the first to use the names of Gabriel and Michael." True; and Isa- iah is the first to name the Seraphim ; must we infer that Isaiah a hundred years before the captivity learned his angelology from the Persians? X. Darius the Mede is mentioned in Daniel (v, 31) as the immediate successor of Belshazzar in Babylon. And vi, 28 — ''Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian" 52 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? seems to fix the reign of Darius before that of Cyrus. But, according to secular historians, the first Darius under the Per- sian regime was Darius Hystaspis, and he came to the throne twenty years after the capture of Babylon and after the death of Cyrus and of Cambyses the son of Cyrus. It is assumed therefore that the writer of the book, ignorant of the facts, misplaced Darius. In reply to this, the Book of Daniel makes no mention whatever of Darius Hystaspis the Persian. Darius the Mede is the King spoken of. ''But Darius the Mede is not in the royal lists of Berosus." Neither was Belshazzar, and Belshazzar existed notwithstanding. Seeing how worthless the argument drawn from the omission of Belshazzar's name has turned out to be, caution in advancing a similar argument is advisable. Who was this Darius the Mede? He was an old man when he began to reign, and onlv one vear of his reisfn is men- tioned. He was "made King over the 53 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Chaldeans." What are the circumstances? The alhed forces of the Medes and Per- sians had been pursuing a course of con- quest. Lydia and other kingdoms of Asia Minor had fallen. Babylon and the an- cient dominions of Assyria were next to yield, and then the conquest of the world seems to have been the ambition of Cyrus the commander of the allied armies. But Cyrus was no mere butcher of men. He was a wise statesman as well as a skillful general. Jealousy among allied armies is always possible. Unless checked, it in- volves disunion and defeat. When we come upon the allied names it is the ''Medes and Persians" — the Aledes being the older and more powerful. Cyrus was a Persian. What more probable than that he would place a Mede in control of the important conquest. Babylonia? He had other conquests to make, and he made them. If he placed a Mede at the head in Babylon, he acted with the wisdom of a statesman. If he did not, he ran a serious risk. The Medes were sinking from their 54 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? place of prominence, and, as we know, the whole empire ceased after a while to bear the double title, and was known as Persian alone. A proper and most politic act was this of making a Mede the King. It helps us understand the success and the great popularity of Cyrus. It need not surprise us that Darius the Mede escapes mention by the secular historians. His reign was brief. Whatever compliment to the Median people was designed in his elevation to the Kingship, the real power was Cyrus, and the Mede was overshad- owed by the towering figure who ever after was the national hero of Persia. In the A. V. Daniel v, 31, Darius is said to have taken the kingdom. The word translated "taken" means received as a subordinate. The same word occurs Dan. ii, 6, ''Ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards," and Dan. vii, 18, "The saints of the Most High shall take the king- dom," i.e., not by their own power, but through gift from God. But Darius the Mede is not so invisible 55 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? among ancient writers as the critics would have us suppose. Xenophon says that a Mede succeeded to the throne of Babylon. He gives him the name of Cyaxares. Xenophon's account is romantic and the name he gives cannot be reconciled with other statements. Still, he apparently sees no improbability in a Mede occupy- ing the throne. Abydenus puts in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar an oracular declaration — "O Babylonians, I, N^ebu- chadnezzar announce to you a future ca- lamity. There shall come a Persian mule, using our divinities as allies. He shall bring us into bondage ; leagued v;ith him shall be the Mede, the boast of Assyria." Aeschylus in his Persae mentions a ]\Iede as the first leader, followed by Cyrus. While these are but faint traces, there occurs in the scholiast upon Aristophanes this statement, "The Daric (/. c. the coin) is not named from Darius (Hystaspis) the father of Xerxes, but from another preceding King." This preceding King must be Darius the Mede. 56 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? If Darius the Mede had held a more independent position, or if his reign had lasted longer, we might expect to find him among the inscriptions now awaiting decipherment but, unless incidentally, we can hardly look for such mention of him. Sir Robert Anderson, however, in his Daniel in the Critic s Den, identifies him with Gobryas who is spoken of in the an- nalistic Tablet of Cyrus. XI. It is said that '^Chaldeans" was the name of a people, but that the Book of Daniel applies it to a caste or society of learned men. Dan. i, 4; ii, 2. Anszvcr. It is used in both senses in Daniel. See v, 30. It was used in both senses in later times, why could it not have been so used in the time of Daniel? Whatever reason existed for its special use at any time, existed also in Babylon 57 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? under Nebuchadnezzar. ''But Ezekiel does not use the limited sense, nor does Jere- miah." Why should they ? They had no occasion to refer to the guild so desig- nated. The Chaldeans were the early in- habitants of Southern Alesopotamia. They were distinguished for their learn- ing, especially in arithmetic and astron- omy. Their treatises were written in their own tongue, which became a learned tongue in Babylon, just as Greek or Latin is now. And just as we call a scholar a ^'Grecian" who understands the Greek language, so they who knew the ancient tongue were termed Chaldeans. Doubt- less Daniel himself was one of them, though by birth a Jew. He was sent to school that he might acquire "the learning and tongue of the Chaldeans," i, 4. He- rodotus (born 484 B. C), who visited Babylon eighty or ninety years after Daniel, mentions the Chaldeans as a sect of philosophers, and appears to know no other use of the term, and he wrote 280 years before the Maccabees. The name 58 DID DANIEL AVRTTE DANIEL? was well established in Herodotus' time. It must have existed before Daniel. XII. "The Hebrew of the Book Daniel favors a date long after the exile, and the Aramaic permits a late date." The preceding charges against Daniel are frivolous. The only one of them that ever had any weight — the silence of historians about Belshazzar — has been turned by the inscriptions into a vindica- tion, but when we come to charge No. 12, the reader who is not a Hebrew scholar, is apt to feel that an accusation serious to the last degree has appeared. But let us not be precipitate. To prove the date of anv book of the Old Testament from its orthography and grammar is a pre- carious undertaking. When scholars en- deavor to determine the original text of the New Testament, they have abundance of material. Books written in Greek be- 59 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? fore and after and contemporaneously with the New Testament exist. Moreover there are manuscripts of the N. T. written within 300 years of the Apostles' times. With much learning these sources of in- formation have been collated and a text of the Greek Testament, approximately accurate, has been secured, though even now there are many disputed passages. Idioms, grammar and spelling in all lan- guages change with the passage of years. Copyists, even when endeavoring to transcribe literally, are apt to use, now and then, the language of their own day. There are several thousands of variations in the manuscripts of the Greek Scrip- tures. When we come to a determination of the originals of the Hebrew, the difficul- ties increase enormously. Wq have no manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible earlier than the ninth century of our era — thir- teen centuries after the latest books of the Old Testament. According to the Jewish tradition, Ezra and the Great Synagogue 60 DID DAXIEL WRITE DANIEL? collected the books which constituted the Old Testament. We may reasonably as- sume that the Hebrew of their day ap- peared in their work. But have we the books, in grammar and orthography, as they left them? It is not reasonable to suppose we have. Copies were made, and copies of those copies, and so on through a long series. We may reverently believe that the Holy Spirit guarded copyists from essential error, but to suppose that in rhetorical style the exact language of the original writers has come down to us is absurd. Nobody supposes it — least of all Hebraists. Idiosyncrasies of copyists may creep in. And they have crept in as the additions, glosses and corrections found in existing manuscripts abundantly prove. The Septuagint, which is the Old Testament done into Greek by the Jews of Alexandria — begun in 280 B. C. and continued for many years — is a very free rendering of the Hebrew. If it were an exact translation — which no one sup- poses — it would show our Hebrew text to 61 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? be imperfect. Every writer's style varies v^ith his years, and his orthography may vary from moment to moment. I have before me a letter in which the writer at the beginning spells "honor" thus, but on the third page he spells it "honour." A critical Hebraist could easily find a hundred years difference between the fore and latter part of this letter, and might even determine that the latter part was written first. Much credit is due to Hebrew scholars for their elucidation of the Hebrew text — a labor in which conjecture necessarily plays a large part — but, like the rest of mankind, they are liable to mistakes in guessing. The Hebrew text, as we have it, is what the scribes have transmitted. Sometimes they have lengthened words for clearness ; sometimes shortened words to economize space. They arbitrarily in- troduce silent letters, and exhibit idio- syncrasies in various ways. To dig through a manuscript of the ninth cen- tury, and eliminate the peculiarities of the 62 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? copyist who prepared it, so as to deter- mine the exact language of the manu- script from which it was copied, and then to do similarly with that unknown manu- script, eliminating the unknown peculiari- ties of its unknown scribe, and to do this through a catena of unknown books, is simply impossible. If the identical books, which Ezra and the Great Assembly edited, should be unearthed, or if writings contemporaneous wnth the authors of the Old Testament books should be discov- ered, we should no more expect their dic- tion to resemble the text transmitted than Chaucer resembles the English of the pres- ent day. Professor Cheyne, though one of the most radical critics, shows good sense when he savs, ''From the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn."* As to the Aramaic of Daniel, Canon Driver says "it is all but identical with that of Ezra." Precisely what we should expect, for Ezra was born and brought up *Encyc. Brit. s. v. Daniel. 63 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? in Babylon, and, moreover, he and his col- leagues edited Daniel. And if Ezra's Aramaic suffered modification at the hands of the subsequent scribes, so would Daniel's. Professor Cobern very vigorously as- serts that all great living Aramaic schol- ars are a unit in declaring that the Ara- maic of Daniel was never spoken in Baby- lon.* The great living Aramaic scholars mean, of course, that the Aramaic of the text recently discovered and now under- going decipherment differs somewhat from the Aramaic in which Ezra edited Daniel. This is very likely. Ezra, though brought up in Babylon, had removed to Judea and had caught the dialect of his associates in Jerusalem; still, some traces of the Babylonian style appear when he transcribes the Aramaic of Daniel. Ezra's Aramaic in his own book differs slightly from his Aramaic when editing Daniel, just as Professor Cobern's English would differ from his English were he editing *Hom. Review, July. 1903. 64 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? an English writer of one hundred years ago. XIII. The thirteenth charge that Nebuchad- nezzar could not have been troubled by a forgotten dream reveals a unique experi- ence in dreams on the part of any one who advances so remarkable a statement. So also the suggestion that even Driver, though 'Svith reserve," advances, of the improbability of Daniel's being willing to be classed among the wise men — he being a Jew and they idolators. The ''reserve" is very becoming, seeing that Daniel was a captive and that the caprice of an Ori- ental monarch was law. Daniel had no choice; wherever he went in Babylon he would be with idolators, and nothing in his position demanded an abandonment of his faith. XIV. It appears that the name should be spelled Nebuchadrezzar, that is, with an 65 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? ''r" instead of an **n." If Daniel made a slip in spelling, he is not unlike some other great men. It seems a pity that he should be denied existence for a little thing like that. But let us see; there may have been different ways of spelling a word in those days as there are now. Ezra uniformly spells the King's name with an "n." So does the writer of II Kings . So also the writers of I and II Chronicles. Ezekiel uniformly uses ''r." Jeremiah spells the name both ways, nine times with ''r" and seven times with "n." So that four writers at least agree with Daniel, one disagrees, and one is variable. Jeremiah precedes Daniel by a few years ; Ezra succeeds. Did the Hebrews have difficulty in sounding the ''r" as a China- man has to-day? Or was there some pe- culiarity in the Babylonian letter which placed it somewhere between the two liquids? Or have we here the work of some scribe who began to correct the spell- ing according to his own notions of pro- 66 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? priety, but ceased before completing his task? In view of the uncertainty attach- ing- to the sounds of every letter of the cuneiform inscriptions and even of several letters of the Hebrew, this criticism seems more frivolous than the others. XV. As to Daniel's youth when Ezekiel wrote of him ; he was over forty years, probably over fifty. He had then been emi- nent a score of years. His wisdom did not come slowly through long experience, but at one bound, and that through visions which God gave him. There have been other men as young in places of eminence. William Pitt was prime minister of Eng- land at twenty-four. Napoleon Bonaparte manifested his military genius before he was thirty; so did Charles XII. So did Alexander. The very fact of Daniel's youth would make his name more notable among his countrymen. 67 OTHER OBJECTIONS The foregoing counts instead of les- sening our confidence in Daniel; tend, when carefully considered, to sustain the authenticity and genuineness of the book. If these were all that could be said in criticism there would be little occasion for discussion. Let us pass on to consid- erations of somewhat different character. Laudatory Expressions. It is alleged that expressions, laudatory of Daniel, could not have been inserted by Daniel himself. There is force in this, and it strengthens the presumption that some scribe has added glosses in this book, as is the case with other Old Testament Scriptures. But let us look at these passages. Dan. i, 17-19. "As for these four chil- dren, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom; and Daniel 68 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? had understanding in all visions and dreams * * ^-i^ and among all was found none like Daniel, Hananiah, Mi- shael and Azariah." This passage may be a gloss by an editor, and yet the writer who commends his three companions could hardly have omitted himself. That would have been an affectation of mod- esty. He is giving God the honor for the proficiency of the faithful youths. After all, this is not vain boasting. It is a decla- ration that God helps those who are true to Him. Dan. v, 11-12. This is a statement by the Queen-mother that Daniel possessed an excellent spirit for interpreting dreams and resolving doubts. There is no reason why Daniel should not have written this. He is recording what the Queen said ; in- deed to have omitted it would have left the record incomplete. Dan. ix, 22-23. The angel speaks and says, "O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding * * * for thou art greatly beloved." Here, again, 69 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? Daniel is reporting. He had no right to suppress the commendatory expression. Upon the whole, there is no need of re- sorting to editor's glosses. There is noth- ing in these "laudatory expressions" which Daniel or any other good man could not have written or which he ought not to have written. Daniel Not Mentioned by the Post Exilic Prophets. Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi do not mention Daniel. There is no reason why they should. They do not mention each other, although Haggai and Zechariah stood side by side. Nor do they mention Jeremiah nor Ezekiel nor any prophets whatever, except in the single instance, Mai. iv, 5, where allusion is made to Eli- jah. Does this prove or suggest in the slightest degree that there were no pro- phets before the exile? 70 ALLUSIONS TO DANIEL IN JEW- ISH LITERATURE "We find," says a critic, ''no allusions to the Book Daniel in Jewish literature earlier than the middle of the second cen- tury B. C, while from that time they are frequent.* We find very positive allusions to Dan- iel in the Book of Ezekiel, but the critic refers, of course, to extra canonical Jew- ish literature. How much of such litera- ture is there, and how much of it was written before the middle of the second century B. C. ? If there were a large number of books before that date, Daniel — supposing he had existed — might have been mentioned in some of them. The omission of his name would not disprove his existence, any more than the omission of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea and all the other prophets in the book of Zechariah ^Philadelphia Bulletin. 71 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? would disprove their existence. Still, if there were numerous chances for the name of Daniel to appear prior to the middle of the second century B. C, we might, not unreasonably, look for it. How many such books are there known to be earlier than the middle of the sec- ond century B. C. ? Just one ; Tobit, writ- ten probably during the Persian domina- tion, 533-332 B. C. That book alludes to no prophet but Amos and Jonah. The books referred to as Jewish litera- ture are : Tobit. Ecclesiasticus. Baruch. Judith. Susanna. Bel and the Dragon. Song of the Three Holy Children. I, 2, 3 and 4 Maccabees. I, 2 Esdras. Wisdom. The Prayer of Manasseh. Enoch. 72 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? The Rest of Esther. And one or two others still later. Eighteen or more. None of them, except Tobit, was cer- tainly earlier than the middle of the sec- ond century B. C. Baruch is in two parts — i-iii, 8, orig- inally written in Hebrew, and iii, 9 to the end, written in Greek. The first or Hebrew portion is believed by Ewald and other scholars to have been written in the fourth century B. C, during the Persian period. If it was, then the critic's statement is dis- proved, for that portion does allude to the Book of Daniel. Ecclesiasticus may have been written before 200 B. C. or after 135 B. C. It does not mention Daniel and will be con- sidered below. Of the books written later than the middle of the second century B. C. some allude to Daniel and some do not. Three of them were written for the special pur- pose of honoring Daniel and, of course, they allude to him. Those three, Bel, Su- 73 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? sanna and the Song of the Hebrew Chil- dren are of no value historically. The first Book of Maccabees is of value his- torically. It was not written to glorify Daniel and alludes to him precisely as it alludes to other worthies of ancient times. The student may find these apocry* phal books discussed in any Bible dic- tionary. Baruch and I Alaccabees will reappear upon a subsequent page. Ecclcsiasticus. The Book Ecclcsiasticus, or the Wis- dom of the Son of Sirach, though men- tioning many of the worthies of the Israel- itish history, does not mention Daniel. It is argued that Daniel could not have ex- isted or at least that his book could not have been known to Ben Sirach, else his name would have occurred among the rest. There is force in this, and full value should be given to it. Ecclcsiasticus, through chapters xlv to 1, gives the list as follows and in this order: Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, 74 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Jacob, Moses, Aaron, Phinehas, David, Joshua, Caleb, Samuel, Nathan, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Hezekiah, Isaiah, Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zerubbabel, Joshua, son of Josedee, Nehemiah, Joseph, Shem, Seth, Adam, Simon, son of Onias, Enoch. Twenty-eight Scripture characters and one outside of Scripture. In looking at this list it is evident that the names were written as they occurred to memory. There is no chronologic or- der. Shem, Seth and Adam seem to come in as an afterthought and Enoch gets a double mention, as if the writer had for- gotten his first mention of him. None of the judges is mentioned except Samuel. We are surprised at the omission of Mor- decai, seeing that the book of Esther was in existence before Ecclesiasticus and that the deliverance of the Jews from the ma- chinations of Haman made a profound impression upon the national feeling and was celebrated by a feast. Ezra, too, is omitted, though to him was attributed the codification of the sacred books and 75 DID DANIEL WHITE DANIEL ? the restoration of religion. Job is omitted, though both he and Daniel are cited by Ezekiel as men eminent for righteousness. The list is not exhaustive and is not in- tended to be. The omission of any name is inconclusive. Still, it must be admitted, that Ben Sirach seems to have been ignorant of Daniel. But if he were, he could not have read Ezekiel's prophecies, in which Noah, Daniel and Job are spoken of as the wisest and best men in the world. This is quite possible, for all the Books of Scripture were not possessed by everybody. How- ever, it is more probable that, as the names are given just as they came to mind, his memory played a not infrequent trick. There was certainly a Daniel, wise and well known, as is clear from Ezekiel's words (Ezek. xxviii, 3, xiv, 20). The value of Ecclesiasticus in this con- troversy depends, of course, upon its date. If written after the Maccabean age, it is of no consequence whether Ben Sirach forgot Daniel or not. It is difficult to fix 76 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the date. The writer was famiHar with the Septuagint, but as that version cov- ered many years in its composition, this fact does not help us much. Some give the date as 131 B. C. The date generally received is about 200 B. C. Simon, son of Onias, whose name closed Ben Sirach's list of worthies, resisted the attempt of Ptolemy IV to enter the temple, B. C. 217, so that Ecclesiasticus appears to have been written after that event. Even here we are at a loss, for there were several Si- mons, sons of priests named Onias. Taking 200 B. C. as, upon the whole, the most probable date of Ecclesiasticus, his omission of Daniel's name, though no disproof of the existence of the Book of Daniel, does allow room for suspic- ion. So far in our examination it is the only fact which can raise the faintest doubt of Daniel's genuineness. Faint as it is, it may be counted in favor of the Maccabean hypothesis. But, on the other hand, the position of Ecclesiasticus among the uncanonical 77 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? Jewish books weighs strongly against the Maccabean theory. Ecclesiasticus is a book of moral teaching. It was highly esteemed in the early Christian Church; was read in the public assemblies, is quoted with approval by Clement of Alex- andria, Dionysius, Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine and others. It presents the dominant type of Jewish thought at the time that the Canon was taking a fixed form. Its conception of God is Mosaic, while legalism is fastening itself more and more in the principles and practice of god- ly men. In short, it presents what in the opinion of the Jewish doctors of that day was true religion. In moral and religious teaching it was superior to several can- onical books of the Old Testament and gives the finest expression of Palestinian theology of the two or three centuries fol- lowing Nehemiah that we possess. Why then was it not included in the Jewish Canon ? There is one answer only to this question. The book was not an- cient enough; 200 B. C. was altogether 78 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? too modern a date for any canonical book. Notwithstanding the high regard felt for Ecclesiasticus, it lacked the element of antiquity, which was essential in any book holding place in the Canon. But Daniel is in the Canon. Daniel then must have been wTitten before 200 B. C. It must have been already venerable when Ecclesiasticus was composed. Ec- clesiasticus is thus a witness for and not against the genuineness of Daniel. 79 THE CANON For a learned discussion of this subject the reader is referred to the article ''Canon" by Bishop Westcott in Smith's Dictionary. The Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, like the Canon of the New Testament, was of gradual formation. We read of the ''Book of the Law" in Deut. xxxi, 25, and elsewhere in the Pentateuch. In the reign of Josiah the"Book of the Law"was found in the temple. This was Deuter- onomy and perhaps the whole of the Pen- tateuch. Records were added by Joshua (Josh, xxiv, 26). Samuel wrote in a book and laid it up before the Lord (I Sam. x, 25). Isaiah (xxxiv, 16) refers to the "Book of the Lord" as to an authoritative compilation. Zechariah (vii, 12) speaks of "the Law" and the "former Prophets." But it is to the period of the return from DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the captivity that we naturally look for a formal Canon. Upon Ezra fell the duty of reorganizing the Jewish Church. That he and his colleagues should collect and publish the Scriptures seems inevitable, and the Jewish tradition that he did so rests upon the highest probability. And that Nehemiah should further enlarge the collection, as is stated in II Mace, ii, 13, is equally probable. When the addition of books to the authorized Scriptures ceased it is difficult to determine, but it must have been long anterior to Ecclesiasticus (200 B. C), else that book would have been included in the Canon. Nothing composed after the Persian period, which ended 112 B. C, can be reasonably sup- posed to have place in the sacred Scrip- tures of the Jews. The Book Daniel is in the Canon. The presumption, therefore, is that it was written at the time in which it purports to have been written ; at all events, that it cannot be the product of the Maccabean age. 81 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Daniel N^ot in the Prophets. Daniel is in the Canon, but *Svhy," it is asked, "was not the book placed among the prophets instead of among the miscel- laneous sacred writings, w^hich embrace the latest books of the Old Testament?" The classification of the books under three heads is as old as Ecclesiasticus ; the Law, the Prophets, the Other Books — the third class elsewhere called the Psalms, or the Holy Writings, i.e.^ the Hagiographa. In these divisions, as they have come down to us, the books are arranged as follows : The Law — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Prophets — Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve minor prophets. The Hagiographa — Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Canticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Dan- iel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I and II Chronicles. 82 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? A satisfactory explanation of this ar- rangement has never been given, although attempts at explanation are numerous. Why are the historical books Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings placed among the prophets ? Wliy are not the historical books Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles and Ruth placed with them. There appears to be a chronological order — the most an- cient books appearing in the first two classes — but then Proverbs belongs to the time of the monarchy, preceding all the prophets, except, possibly, Isaiah. Canon Driver thinks Job belongs to the time of Jeremiah — others think it much earlier. Some of the Psalms are certainly ancient. ' No modern codifier, whatever his view of the date of any of the books, would produce such an arrangement. The Sep- tuagint arranges the books differently from the Hebrew, but it does not classify. Most of the Hagiographa are the later books, but all are not. It is unnecessary to add another con- jecture to those already in existence, but 83 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? upon one fact we can fix, viz., that the Hagiographa were more widely read and more affectionately regarded than the other books, though all were revered. But why is not Daniel placed among the prophets? Perhaps the reason is that Daniel was not a prophet in the same sense as the prophets generally. x\ll the prophets, Daniel alone excepted, were preachers to the men of their generation. Their predictions were incidental. Daniel was not a preacher. He was a seer of visions. His book is like the Apocalypse of St. John, which cannot be classed with the Gospels or Epistles. It bears a re- semblance, indeed, to Zechariah and Eze- kiel, but it differs from them more than it resembles them. And Zechariah and Eze- kiel were primarily preachers, not seers. This being so, the place of Daniel is not improperly among the devotional and con- templative Hagiographa along with such books as the Psalms and Job, If, however, it had been placed among the prophets, it would occasion no surprise, seeing that 84 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Joshua, Judges and Kings are in that category, and the compilers of the Sep- tuagint evidently thought that the more appropriate place, for they put the book next after Ezekiel. But "it is among the latest books of the Old Testament,"* says the critic quoted above. Naturally; it is one of the later books. Its place chronologically is imme- diately before Ezra, where it is found in the Hagiographa. There is another consideration which may account for the omission of Daniel from the class styled the "prophets." Some of the Jewish doctors held the notion that there could be no prophet out of Palestine. There was objection on this account to classing Ezekiel among the prophets, al- though he was a priest, and he was ad- mitted upon the theory that his prophecy (Ezek. xvii) was given before the cap- tivity. No such theory could be advanced in the case of Daniel. By putting Daniel in the Hagiographa the scruples of these *Prof. Curtis. 85 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? narrow constructionists would be relieved, while still the book would take its place in the sacred Canon. In the foregoing pages will be found all the arguments that have been advanced against the genuineness and historical credibility of the Book Daniel — all the arguments except those of purely subjec- tive character. It is scarcely necessary to say that they are worthless. But, lest the reader should be led to a contempt for scholarship, it is only right to say that these reasons in themselves are as worth- less in the judgment of scholarly critics as they are in the judgment of other people. It is really upon what I have called sub- jective considerations that the critical con- clusions depend. These considerations will be presented in subsequent pages. 86 EVIDENCE SUSTAINING DANIEL This statement has recently appeared in print. ''There is no extant evidence what- ever that the book (Daniel) originated in the exile."* One is at a loss to understand such a declaration from the pen of an intelligent person. There is more evidence for Dan- iel in the exile than for Ezekiel, yet no one doubts that Ezekiel wrote in the exile. Ezekiel' s position rests wholly upon the statements of his own book. Without that book we could not know that Ezekiel had been in the exile or that he had ever lived. The same may be said of most of the prophets. Under these circumstances the statement at the opening of this chap- ter is remarkable; one wonders what the writer can mean. He may mean that among the recently deciphered inscrip- *Prof. Curtis, Philadelphia Bulletin; Prof. Col- bern, Horn. Review, July, 1903. 87 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? tioiis at Babylon the name of Daniel does not appear. Of course it does not, and the excavators will search long before they find the name of any Jewish captive in the vainglorious inscriptions of Baby- lonian Kings. But if the writer means that events narrated by Daniel find no confirmation in the inscriptions he is mis- taken, as will appear below. The Captivity. — The Jews were cap- tives in Babylonia. This fact does not ap- pear in the inscriptions, nor is likely to. It is stated by Daniel ; but as Daniel's ac- curacy is challenged we may quote Be- rosus, the heathen historian. "Nebuchad- nezzar arranged to bring to Babylon the captives of the Jews, and when the cap- tives arrived he appointed colonies for them in the most suitable parts of Baby- lonia." Written in Babylon. — What we may call the ''atmosphere" of the book betrays its place of origin. It was Babylon. Kue- nen says, "I am certain, after much ex- amination, that the writer of the Book of DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Daniel shows a most intimate personal ac- quaintance with the palace of Nebuchad- nezzar and the affairs of the Babylonian Court and Empire, and that the book was written during the exile," and Lenormant, ''The more I read and reread Daniel, the more I am struck with the truth of the tableaux of the Babylonian Court traced in the first six chapters. Whoever is not the slave of preconceived opinions must confess when comparing these with the cuneiform monuments that they are really ancient and written but a short distance from the Courts themselves." The clay tablets and other inscriptions now undergoing decipherment reveal the life of the Babylonian Court and people. They show a people given over to supersti- tion ; a belief in magic, exorcisms, charms, talismans, prognostications. Hundreds of tablets, prepared with the utmost care, are covered with magical formulae. A class of men existed who could use these writings. Astronomical observations were made and reports thereon prepared and 89 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? sent to the Court. Eclipses figure as por- tending events, good or bad, according to the day or month in which they occurred. This is precisely what we find in Daniel. Moreover, all we gather from secular his- torians shows a government as Daniel de- picts it, a monarch absolute master of the lives and liberties of all his subjects, the law being his will or whim and changing as his fancy changed. But when Daniel gives his brief experience of the Persian rule we see Law, as something superior even to the will of Kings, beginning to as- sume form — "the law^ of the Medes and Persians which altereth not." Such law originating, it is true, in the royal decree, but, once announced, binding its originator. Darius the Alede does a thing against his own wishes — Nebuchadnezzar is untram- meled by any traditional law. The man who wTote the Book of Daniel gives no excursus on this significant dif- ference ; he probably did not perceive the profound change which had come. He simply records the facts as they occurred. 90 DID DANIEL WRITE DAXIEL? There is the mark of the contemporary writer here. No Jew whose people had been Hving for centuries under Persian and Grecian rule could relate with such unconscious simplicity the actual condition of affairs in Babylon 370 years before his own time. Ezckicl. — Ezekiel was a contemporary of Daniel. He was a Jewish priest and wrote in Babylon the book which bears his name. He was held in high esteem by his fellow exiles and was much consulted by them. If Daniel was in Babylon in high official position Ezekiel must have known it. But he need not necessarily mention Daniel in his book. He gives no catalogue of the great men of his people. The Jewish writers of later date were fond of such enumeration, but not the writers of canonical Scriptures. If Daniel had not been mentioned by Ezekiel it would not surprise us. Moreover, being a priest, we might suppose he had such scruples as Canon Driver thinks Daniel ought to have had, but which Joseph in 91 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Egypt and Daniel in Babylon did not have, and which in more recent and more degenerate days some Jews did have, namely, a scruple about serving in a non- Jewish Court, and so have omitted Dan- iel's name purposely. But it happens that Ezekiel does mention Daniel. Three times the name comes in incidentally. Speaking in irony to. the Prince of Tyre he says, ''Behold thou art wiser than Dan- iel," Ezek. xxviii, 3. The Daniel to whom he refers must have been a man prominent for wisdom. Who was that man? He must have been known to Ezekiel's con- temporaries and well known. How non- sensical to fancy it was some obscure per- son unknown otherwise until some "pious and learned Jew" manufactured a his- torical romance nearly four hundred years afterward. Ezekiel might have said "wiser than Solomon," but instead he finds a man as wise as that king and much better. He must have known that Daniel existed, and that he was wise and that he was known, else all point in his irony is lost. 92 DID DxVNIEL WRITE DANIEL? Again Ezekiel speaks of Daniel twice in chapter xiv, 14-20. "When the land sinneth against me, though Noah, Daniel and Job were in it, they shall deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord God." Two things are indicated by this col- location of names. First, that Daniel must have been eminent for righteous- ness, and second, that Ezekiel, strict Jew though he was, had come to see that holi- ness was not monopolized by the descend- ants of Abraham. He might have chosen three names from his own nation. In- stead, he selects from the whole race. Noah, the second father of mankind, who for his godliness was spared when all others were destroyed ; Job, a Gentile, who was honored for his goodness by a place in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Dan- iel, a Jew. Ezekiel could not have pro- nounced higher encomium upon Daniel than he has by this collocation. There wxre Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah and many others, but as the representative 93 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? of Israel he takes Daniel, his contempo- rary. The halo of antiquity which hides many faults had not gathered around the name of Daniel. Daniel must have been marked by signal and singular excellence. It is not sufficient that he was a good man. There were many such. He must have been extraordinarily holy, a special recip- ient of God's favor. Noah and Job were believed to have had intercourse with God. Nothing less must have been believed of Daniel. Let any reasonable man, critic or not, face this fact. Out of all the saints and heroes of Israel, Daniel was chosen to be coupled with Noah and Job. What can this mean but that marked displays of God's favor had been made to him — ex- traordinary displays, superhuman displays as to Noah and Job? Ezekiel must have believed this. Of whom did he believe it? Of a man who was going to be created in the imagination of a Jewish romancer 400 years after? That of course is nonsense. Accordingly we find critics admitting that 94 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? ''there may have been a real Daniel at the Babylonian court whose experiences may have resembled some of those told in the Book of Daniel." This "may have been" is a somewhat ungracious form of admit- ting a fact ; but it is better than stubbornly sticking to an absurdity. The admission, however, is reluctant, so reluctant that it is followed by the insinuation that ''the reference looks like a reference to an an- cient worthy of the dim past; and popular tradition possibly transferred such an an- cient one to the exile period ;" and so the admission is counterbalanced and a doubt left to linger in a reader's mind. It is somewhat difficult to argue with so shadowy a thing as a "possibly." But as we are searching for the truth, we will follow this ancient worthy of the dim past whose name was Daniel, but who was not Daniel of Babylon. Who was this "an- cient worthy"? We search everywhere for him, in profane and sacred history. There is not the slightest hint of him any- where. We find Noah and Job and abun- 95 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? dant references to them. We find also abundant references to Daniel of the Book Daniel, and to no other Daniel. How can we characterize this kind of criticism? Why not make a shorter cut and transfer Ezekiel also to the Maccabean age? Ezra-Nehemiah. — In Ezra and Nehe- miah there is no mention of Daniel by name. This has been taken as proof that the Book of Daniel was not known to the wTiters of those books. Neither do we find in these books any mention of Eze- kiel ; must we discard Ezekiel also ? What is more to the point, however, is that we find in Neh. ix, 32, a quotation from Deut. vii, 9, altered as Daniel had altered it in Dan. ix, 4. Baruch. — Chapters i and ii of the apocryphal Book Baruch are assigned by some scholars to the fourth century before Christ. If this date be correct^ then the writer of that book would seem to have know the Book of Daniel, which must in that case have been in existence long be- fore the Maccabees. In i, ii of Baruch 96 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the author bids men pray for Nabuchod- onosor, King of Babylon and for Balthas- ar his son. How did he learn of Bel- shazzar? He could have learned it from the Book Daniel, and undoubtedly he did. There is no other book, of which we now know, containing Belshazzar's name. Opinions vary as to Baruch's date, and it is not impossible that it is the work of sev- eral hands at long intervals. Baruch did not get his information from a book writ- ten after the overthrow of Antiochus Epiphanes; whatever value its testimony brings, antagonizes the theory that Daniel was wTitten in 163 B. C. / Maccabees. — The time assigned by the critics for the writing of the Book of Daniel was one in which the leading Jews knew they had no prophet among them — knew they had not had one for many years past — and could not expect one for many years to come. The first Book of Mac- cabees — written 120-100 B. C. — describ- ing the calamities consequent upon the death of Judas Maccabeus, B. C. 161, says 97 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? that ''there was great affliction in Israel such as had not been since the last prophet appeared among them." IManifestly this had been a long time. It was then about 270 years since }\Ialachi. Again in I ]\Iac. iv, 16, the Jews laid away the altar stones polluted by Antiochus Epiphanes "until the coming of some prophet to de- cide respecting them." And further, ac- cording to I ]\Iac. xiv, 41, ''Simon was constituted leader and high priest forever until some faithful prophet should arise." With such a condition of public sentiment, how can it be pretended that the book which is one of the most important of the prophecies could have been written at that time? From Malachi down to the date of I Maccabees there was no prophet. Yet the critics are trying to believe that at that very time one of the greatest prophets wrote and that the people received his prophecies ! Mattathias was the father of the Mac- cabee brothers. He raised the standard of revolt against the cruel Antiochus. After 98 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? his death, his sons succeeded him in turn, maintaining the courage of Israel and in cam.paign after campaign withstanding the armies of the Grecian tyrant. The aged hero died B. C. i66. Before his death he exhorted his sons to call to re- membrance what acts their fathers did in their time; alluded to Abraham, Joseph, Joshua, Caleb and Elijah ; and then added "Ananias, Azarias and Misael, by believ- ing, were saved out of the flame. Daniel for his innocency was saved from the mouth of lions." I Mac. ii, 51, 60. This was before the alleged date of Daniel, and Mattathias was referring to deeds then ancient. If ^klattathias spoke this, the critic's theory of the date of Daniel collapses. But to save the theory it is suggested that Mattathias did not say these words — that the speech is put into his mouth by the writer of the book. Very well. Then the writer saw nothing improbable in Matta- thias' being acquainted with the history of Daniel and the Book of Daniel must have 99 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? been esteemed canonical. If held as can- onical, it must have preceded the times of the Maccabees by many years. But further, the first Book of Maccabees not only presupposes the existence of Dan- iel, but it displays an acquaintance with the Septuagint version of the book. The Book of Daniel had had time to get itself translated into the famous Alexandrian version. It is difficult to see how this could be unless the Book Daniel existed long before Antiochus Epiphanes. The Books Bel and the Dragon, Susan- na and the Song of the Holy Children stand in a relation to the Book Daniel similar to that of the apocryphal gospels to the gospels of Matthew, Alark, Luke and John. The apocrypha in both cases are the product of a degenerate age. Josephus. — Josephus gives a history of the Jewish nation from Abraham down to the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70, Narrating incidents of the struggle with Antiochus Epiphanes, he says that these things came to pass ''according to the DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? prophecy of Daniel which was given four hundred and eight years before" the events in the time of Antiochus.* Of the behef of Josephus no one has any doubt. With him the Book of Daniel is an in- tegral part of the canonical Scriptures of the Jews. The critics say he was mis- taken. He probably knew more of the matter than all the critics in the world. Of especial interest is the narrative he gives of the visit of Alexander the Great to Jerusalem.! It is to the effect that w^hile besieging Tyre, Alexander de- manded assistance from the Jews ; that the high priest refused on the ground of his oath of allegiance to the Persians against whom Alexander was fighting; that, therefore, the angry conqueror deter- mined to punish the Jews, and as soon as opportunity occurred, set out for Jeru- salem ; that the spectacle of a procession of priests arrested him; that instead of slaughtering the inhabitants he offered sacrifice in the temple ; that he explained *Ant., XII., 7, 6. tAnt., XL, 8, 5. DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? his conduct to Parmenio, his heutenant, by saying he had had a dream in which he saw this procession and that in his dream he had received assurance of vic- tory. The narrative goes on to say that the priests showed Alexander the pro- phecies in the Book of Daniel concerning himself. No reason exists for doubting this story, and if Josephus had not mentioned the Book of Daniel, no question would ever have arisen. But as the existence of the book at that time demolishes the Mac- cabean theory, Josephus is assailed. "The impossibility of the Greek consulting Jew- ish oracles," "the miraculous dream," "the silence of Roman historians," "the gen- eral unlikelihood of the visit." Now it may be affirmed without hesi- tation that all the circumstances confirm the story of Josephus. Alexander de- feated the Persians at the battle of Issus (.333 B. C). Darius with his dispirited army fell back to the Euphrates. Alex- ander did not pursue. Why not? The 1 02 DID DANIEL WKITE DANIEL? reason is plain. He had but 50,000 men ; the Persians could meet him with a mil- lion. Moreover, every city in Asia Minor and Syria was under Persian domination. To leave these hostile cities in his rear, while he should make a march of 500 miles, with every chance of having his base of supplies cut off and with certain destruction if he should meet a check, would have been rashness of which not even he could be guilty. Accordingly, as we know, he proceeded to capture every city in Syria. Some yielded readily. Some resisted and were cruelly destroyed. Tyre resisted stoutly and cost him much loss of time. Cruel vengeance fell upon it. But Jerusalem was not destroyed. In- stead, the Jews were treated kindly, their taxes during the sabbatical year were re- mitted, and other favors were granted. Something happened to account for their exemption from the common fate of all friends of Persia. Jerusalem was friendly to Persia and with good reason. Persia had released the Jews from captivity, had 103 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? supplied the returning Israelites with food and money, had held off envious neigh- bors and at much cost had rehabilitated Jerusalem and restored Jewish national- ity. Of all the Syrian cities Jerusalem had most cause for gratitude to Persia, and it was grateful. AMiy then was it not destroyed as was every other friend of Persia? Something happened. Josephus tells us what it was. Was it remarkable that Alexander con- sulted the Jewish oracles? He looked upon himself as chosen by the gods for a great enterprise. He consulted every oracle which he could. He visited the shrine of Gordium. He made the toil- some journey to the temple of Ammon in North Africa, to consult the priesthood there. Instead of improbability, there is the highest probability of his seeking in- formation at the shrine of any god. He was undertaking a desperate enterprise. The task before him would deter any prudent commander. He would sustain his courage and the courage of his sol- 104 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? diers by seeking supernatural counsel. Seeing a sight which recalls a dream is a common experience. Advancing to recon- noiter an enemy's town is a customary military procedure. There is no improb- ability in all this. Do the Roman his- torians omit mention of this visit? No doubt they do. They have little to say about the Jews. There is never a mention in all their histories of the heroic strug- gle of the Maccabees. Josephus' story bears every mark of truth. And here we find the Book of Daniel 170 years before the imaginary Maccabean romance. That the Jevv^ish people were treated kindly by Alexander is unquestioned. Jo- sephus explains it. The only other hypoth- esis to account for their immunity is that, instead of refusing to transfer their allegiance, they hastened to acknowledge Alexander. There is no evidence of this and it is unlikely; but, if they did, what could have induced such conduct? To human foresight there was nothing but disaster before the Greek. Something 105 DID DANIEL \yRITE DANIEL? else, higher than human foresight, must have revealed the divine purpose to them. Daniel's prophecy was their source of in- formation. The Magi. — The visit of the Wise Mtn to the infant Saviour finds its easiest ex- planation in the transmission of Daniel's prophecy of the Seventy Weeks, through their learned guild. Tacitus and Sueto- nius, the Roman historians, speaking of the time about the beginning of the Chris- tian era, say that there prevailed in the East an expectation that a great ruler would appear in Judea. If Daniel himself was one of the Wise ^len, and spoke in Babylon, as his book declares, then this expectation of which Tacitus speaks and the visit of the ]\Iagi are readily accounted for. Daniel had said that when seventy sevens, after a certain royal decree, had passed, Alessiah the Prince should appear. Familiar with the archives of Babylon, the Wise ]\len knew when that decree was is- sued. The four hundred and ninety years were about expiring. The Magi were on 1 06 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the watch, and some celestial phenomenon — a "star" — indicated that the Prince was born, and prompted their journey, A prophecy originating in Judea in the times of the Maccabees would not have impressed the AMse IMen of Babylon, es- pecially as its spurious character would be apparent to them, but a prophecy in Babylon, by a high dignitary of the Baby- lonian or Persian Courts and withal a member of their guild, would be esteemed. This incident of the Magi does not, of course, disprove the hypothesis of the Maccabean origin of Daniel, but it is more consistent w^ith the view of the authen- ticity of the book. Nehiichadnezzar's Madness. — A very remarkable corroboration of Daniel is given in the standard inscription of Neb- uchadnezzar found in the debris of the temple of Belus. Daniel mentions the temporary insanity of Nebuchadnezzar which lasted seven "times" — presumably seven years. No secular historian speaks of this. The reason is obvious. The King 107 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? recovered and lived to modify the public records at his own pleasure. No court historiographer would care to risk the King's favor by mention of the mental aberration. But the King upon regaining his mental balance must have perceived that something had occurred. Matters were not in the same condition as when he lost his reason. Some years had passed ; how many he did not know. They who informed him would shorten the time and refer as gently as possible to his afflic- tion. If no hint at all of the King's malady had been admitted to the public records, it w^ould not descredit Daniel's statement, but there is a hint and more than a hint — the most remarkable statement that any king ever made in recording his achieve- ments. In the inscription, Nebuchadnez- zar after detailing the great things he had done, savs : "Four years * * * ^^^ g^^^ ^f my kingdom in the city * * *which * * * did not rejoice my heart. In all my dominions I did not build a high io8 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? place of power; the precious treasures of my kingdom I did not lay up. In Baby- lon, buildings for myself and for the honor of my kingdom I did not lay out. In the worship of Merodach, my lord, the joy of my heart, in Babylon, the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my em- pire, I did not sing his praises. I did not furnish his altars, nor did I clear the canals." Many kings have told what they did and, generally, without minifying their great deeds. This King records what he did not do. He speaks from his grave of 2500 years to vindicate the man whose wisdom and goodness he honored. 109 SUBJECTIVE CONSIDERATIONS A calm consideration of the arguments pro and contra set forth in the preceding pages can bring the reader to but one con- clusion, viz., that there is nothing in them to disturb the genuineness and authen- ticity of the Book of Daniel, but, on the contrary, much to confirm it. Many of the objections are so trivial, so far- fetched, so altogether worthless, that commentators treat them with contempt, feeling that to discuss them is to dignify them ; that they are too silly to merit even a denial. And some of the objections, when carefully examined — especially in the light of the discoveries of the last sixty years — turn out to be confirmations of Daniel's historicity. The attestations to the book — Alex- ander's treatment of the Jews, Nabonned's cylinders. Nebuchadnezzar's inscription, the annalistic tablet of Cyrus, all outside no DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? of Scripture — are remarkable. No other book in the Old Testament carries such attestation. How then does it come to pass that many scholars struggle assiduously, at the risk, not only of their reputation for schol- arship, but of their common sense, to dis- place Daniel from its place in Scripture? The answer is found in the subjective attitude of the critics themselves. They have made themselves believe that there can be no such thing as prophecy, in the sense of prediction. If the Book Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile, it foretold many things which came to pass — many things which human sagacity could not possibly foresee. Therefore, they infer that the book could not have been written in the exile. Furthermore, they are convinced that religious development must proceed in a certain way, and that religious literature will express this development. If a piece of literature precedes the time at which it ought to appear, it could not so have ap- III DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? peared, whatever the evidence may seem to say. Let us examine this latter subjective consideration first. According to it, apocalyptic literature, like the Book of Daniel, comes late in the history of a religious movement. Visions and dreams, angelic ministration, sym- bolic imagery, terrific convulsions accom- panying the vindication of the truth and the overthrow of evil as the end of the world draws nigh — these appear in the writings of enthusiasts after the prophet has passed away. The Prophet deals with the elements of good and evil which he sees around him, glancing forward now and then to the fruition of these present germs of right and wrong. In the mind of the Seer, however, the grand events of the future fill the imagination and the present takes its color from them. The Books of Enoch and II Esdras are apocalyptic, and by this character show that they were composed in the late au- tumn of Judaism long after prophecy had 112 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? ceased with Malachi. And the Shepherd of Hernias and other Christian Apoc- alypses appear only after the tongues and pens of Apostles had ceased to move. The Book Daniel may be classed with such writings as those above mentioned and must be dated late in the history of Juda- ism, not earlier than 163 B. C* There is plausibility in this theory, and it is certainly fascinating. The Books of Enoch and II Esdras were not written earlier than 150 B.C., possibly not till after the beginning of the Christian era. Certain parts of Daniel may very properly be con- sidered a prototype of them, that is to say, the authors of these apocryphal books had read Daniel. But this does not bring the composition of Daniel one day nearer these books. And the whole theory, pleas- ing and plausible as it is, breaks down before the facts. However true it may be that enthusiasts are given to visions and revelations, born of nothing but their own *Rev. A. M. Hunter, Age of Daniel, p. viii. 113 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? excited imaginations, it is also true that Ezekiel contains more visions and stran- ger imagery than Daniel. Zechariah is apocalyptic in the same way and Isaiah in his pictures of the future more than paral- lels Daniel. I know, of course, that the inventors of this theory post-date all the parts of Isaiah that disprove their scheme, but they have not yet ventured to bring Isaiah down to 163 B. C. ^Moreover, if the Apocalypse of the New- Testament ^^■as written by St. John or in the days of the Apostles, it shatters the theory. And finally, our Lord's own pre- diction of the last days (Matt, xxiv, xxv) reduces the theory to nothing at all. Dreams, visions, symbolic imagery, pic- tures of future judgments have no fixed chronologic order in the history of re- ligious movements. They may manifest themselves at any time, but if we may judge by modern instances of phenomena, thev mark the vouth and not the ag^e of religious movements. Islam had its dreams in its founder ^lahomet. The 114 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Reformation of the sixteenth century was marked by such phenomena on the part of numerous enthusiasts. The theory it- self is a dream. Prediction Impossible. The other subjective consideration is that prediction beyond a very hmited de- gree is beyond the power of man, and that, therefore, the predictions in Daniel were not predictions at all, but were made after the events. The history prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, it is said, is given with considerable particularity, and is so given because it was past his- tory; but the occurrences after that date are but indefinite yearnings for some re- mote good. If they happened to be ful- filled, it was an accident. 'Tdeas and terms appear, it is true, in connection wath these visions of Daniel which happily il- lustrated thoughts held by the writers of the New Testament concerning Christ and the fate of Jerusalem under the Romans. These, however, were not in the mind of 115 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the original writer. They are an apphca- tion, but not the original intention of the words of Daniel."* The critic in the sentence just quoted refers to the words of our Lord foretelling the fate of Jerusalem. ''When ye see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet" (Matt, xxiv, 15; Mark xiii, 14), and the insinuation is conveyed that our Lord did not say these words, but that the Evangelists, seeing their applicability to the fate of Jerusalem, put them into his mouth. This is to im- pugn the Evangelists, for they give these words as the words of Christ. Moreover, since the Evangelists wrote before the fall of Jerusalem, Daniel's prophecy still re- mains a prediction, and the "writers of the New Testament" did not fit the pre- diction to the fact aftn' the event. And so we have a second insinuation, viz., that the Gospels were written after the Holy Citv fell. *Prof. Curtis, Philadelphia Bulletin. 116 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? These insinuations are serious for Christian men to make^ and the first is revolting to reverent feehng. But the theory that prediction is impossible com- pels them. As for the theory. Prediction like Dan- iel's is, of course, beyond the ability of man, but it is not beyond the ability of God. For His own wise purposes He may uncover the future to the gaze of His children. To say that He cannot com- municate His knowledge to men is to re- duce Him to a level below His own crea- tures, for men can communicate their knowledge to men. And to say that He will not, is to say that He will not do what every earthly father does in forecasting the future for his son and forewarning him of the perils and besetments which the child will encounter. Any conception of God short of an inane Pantheism pro- tests against a dictum so preposterous. But here w^e touch the fount and origin of the whole assault upon Daniel. It is objection to 117 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? The Supernatural. The prophecies and miracles are dis- tasteful. This is frankly avowed by some of the critics. "Whatever is supernatural is not historical." Of course, with a rule like this, all the books of the Bible cease to be in any special manner revelations from God, and it matters little what their dates may be. But why should not God give a revela- tion ? Is there not a need ? Man is stag- gering on in much weakness and ignor- ance; wuth temptations assailing him, temptations which he knows he ought to resist, but which he does not resist. He feels that he is created for a purpose, but what is the purpose ? Has he any destiny except to eat and drink and die like the brute? Is there a life beyond this one? He studies, he reasons, he hopes, he stands over the graves of those who have gone and strives to interrogate the dead. And if there be another life, does his condition there depend upon his conduct here? He is in the dark ; he does not know the way. ii8 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? He is as a child left alone in the forest without lantern or chart, and yet with forebodings if he miss the path. He looks up to God and cries, "Oh, that I knew where I might find Him!'' God knows. He knows what man is created for. He knows the perils if the way is missed. Is it unreasonable that He should tell His child? Will He withhold the knowledge without which man must miss his destiny? Ought He not, we say it reverently, ought He not tell us ? He has. All along from the first there has been a Revelation. He spake unto the fathers by the prophets, at sundry times, in divers manners ; and at last by His be- loved Son. A Revelation is not unreas- onable; it would be unreasonable if there were no Revelation. And if there be a Revelation, is it im- proper that God should give a token by which men should know it? St. Peter says we have the more sure word of prophecy; he evidently thought there was nothing out of the way in God giving 119 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? some attestation to His Revelation. How are we to know the Divine Revelation un- less something supernatural accompanies it? Prophecy is such an attestation, for God alone knows the future. It is the "more sure word" on which we may de- pend. Joseph Smith pretends to have a revelation ; so does Mahomet, but neither of them gives any supernatural sign. We decline receiving such pretended revela- tions ; they carry no supernatural token to warrant them. But when God spoke by His prophets He attested their mission. He had the power to give a token and man had the right to expect it. *'What sign showest thou?" was not an unreasonable demand. Our Saviour con- cedes its justness. ''Believe me," He says, "for the works' sake." The miracle is the token to the eye-witnesses; the prophecy is the token to all generations. What finer evidence can there be of Divine interposi- tion than prophecy? The miracle may be simulated. Impostors may cheat men's eyes and ears ; but prophecy accomplished 1 20 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? long after the prophet has gone from earth is sure. Cruel and foolish is that ingenuity which perverts God's gracious gift and denies Him the power or will to help us. 121 THE PROPHECIES These will be examined only so far as they bear upon the subject of this essay, viz., the date of the Book of Daniel. Ac- cording to the impug-ners of the book, these prophecies all center in a Syrian King, Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus the Illustrious. He was illustrious only as the foe of the Jewish faith in the sec- ond century before Christ. He is being pushed to a bad eminence against the truth to-day. Suppose it true — which it is not — that the prophecies terminate in this vile man, how does that prove that the prophecies were not written at the time the evidence sliows them to have been written? There was coming upon the Jewish peo- ple a trial which threatened to extirpate true religion from the earth. There was danger that all the Jews would be swept into Greek idolatry. The danger was real, 122 DID DANIEI. AVRITE DANIEL? as is evidenced by the fact that great numbers of them did become thoroughly Hellenized. Greek manners and Greek re- hgion became popular even in Jerusalem. To hold them firm in their ancient faith, they were forewarned : the oppression would not last forever. God was in the heavens watching their actions. He knew all that should befall them, and He tells them particularly and specifically of that crisis in their history. They needed sup- port for that special time of distress, and that is the time which is sketched so ac- curately in Dan. xi. There never has been a time since in w^hich the Jews were in danger of letting go their religion. The warning was specific. What its effect was we know. The faithful sons of Abraham stood by their faith and preserved re- lisfion. Forewarned was forearmed. Without that prophecy to encourage them it had been madness to enter upon the struggle against the Syrian tyrant. If they had not made that struggle, gross idolatry would have been everywhere tri- 123 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? umphant, and not a spot would have been left upon the earth where the one God was worshipped. The occasion justified the prophec}^, if justification is needed. But significant and critical as was that occa- sion, there is more in Daniel than the Syrian oppressor. The Image. — The first prophecy (Dan. ii) is of four world kingdoms, represented by the head of gold, the breast and arms of silver, the belly and thighs of brass, the legs of iron, the feet of iron and clay. A stone cut out without hands was to smite the image and the God of heaven was to set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed, but stand for ever and ever. There have been four world kingdoms with which the Jews had to do, and only four. Since the Roman empire there have been no world kingdoms. A kingdom, not earthly, but heavenly, has been set up by the God of Heaven and it will never be destroyed. What this eternal kingdom is ever3^body knows. \\^ find the powers, symbolized by the feet of clay and iron — 124 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? partly strong and partly weak — in the nations which have succeeded the Roman empire. Weak and strong, they have lived side by side ever since, but world- wide powers are no more, except the Church of God. The Four Beasts. — In Chapter vii we have the four world powers again, now more definitely described, under figures of beasts, the lion, the bear, the leopard and a beast diverse from all the rest. The lion was the Babylonian empire. The bear was the Persian empire; it was Medo-Persian at the outset, but it raised itself on one side, the Persian element dominated. The leopard was the Greek empire; it had four wings; it was swift; under Alexander it conquered the world in less than twelve years ; it had four heads ; upon the death of Alexander it was divided into four parts under the rule of his generals. It was the only empire thus divided. The fourth beast was dreadful, diverse from the others, its teeth of iron, its nails 125 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? of brass, which devoured, brake in pieces and stamped the residue with his feet. The Roman empire differed from the other kingdoms. It was not a monarchy when it extended its power over Asia; it was a republic. Its iron teeth tore in pieces wherever the iron legs of Chapter ii strode. Its power passes on to ten Kings, who succeed — or rather who spring out of it — its unity gone, it is a mixture of iron and clay. A new feature is added in this vision, x^m-ong these ten Kings there starts up another King diverse from the ten ; he had eyes and a mouth speaking great things; that is, he is shrewd, cunning and boast- ful ; his power not residing in force appar- ently, but in some moral mastership. Here, as in the symbol of the Image, the four great powers pass away. One like the Son of ]\Ian comes and there is given him a kingdom which shall not be destroyed. This everlasting kingdom does not appear to be reared upon the ruins of the ten Kings, but to be in part 126 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? contemporary with them and with the '''little horn" — the King diverse from the others. Who or what this little horn is, it is not our purpose now to inquire. It is easy to see what it is not. It is not Antiochus Epiphanes. He did not spring out of the decay of the Roman empire. He was not diverse from other Kings, but was a brutal wretch like hundreds of other Kings before and after him, and he was not contem- porary with the coming of the Son of Man nor with the setting up of the king- dom which should never be destroyed. Whoever the little horn of Chapter vii was, or is^ or is to be — for interpreters vary regarding him — he did not appear till the fourth beast, the Roman empire had been established and was moving to decay. But those who seek to displace Daniel must make this little horn Antiochus. They are at their wits' end to do it, but it must be done. And for this purpose they must get the four world powers prior to 127 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? 163 B. C. The Roman empire, the great- est of them all, must be eliminated. Vari- ous are the shifts resorted to in this en- deavor. One man suggests the x\ssyrian empire as the firsts and then come the Bab}donian, the Persian and the Greek. But "thou, O Nebuchadnezzar, art this head of gold," spoils that hypothesis. The four empires must begin with the King of Babylon. Another proposes, i, the Baby- lonian ; 2, the Median ; 3, the Persian ; 4, the Greek. But there was no ]\Iedian world empire. The Median was merged with the Persian and presently submerged by it. A third happy hit is this— i, Baby- lonian; 2, Persian; 3, Greek; 4, the Syrian; i.e., one of the four parts into which Alexander's Greek empire was di- vided. But the Syrian was no world power. Only as a member of the Greek period had it any standing. This ex- hausts the hypotheses up to the present writing, and all are untenable. But is not Antiochus Epiphanes in Dan- iel? Yes, we find him, I think, in the 128 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? next vision, Dan. viii, and in his proper place chronologically. Ram and Hc-goaf. — This vision Is not of four beasts, but of two, and the em- pires are named. There is a ram with two horns, one horn higher than the other and the higher came up last. This re- minds us of the bear (Dan. vii, 4) Medo- Persia. A he-goat with a notable horn between his eyes came swiftly from the West and smote the ram. The he-goat waxed strong; but presently the notable horn was broken, and in its place four horns came. The early death of Alex- ander, and the assignment of the empire to his four generals are plain here. It is to be noted in passing that there are not three beasts but two. The he-goat is one empire, whether he has one horn or four. This disposes of that hypothesis, mentioned in a previous page, which tries to make two empires out of the Greek domination. The vision goes on. Out of one of the four horns in the latter time of their king- 129 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? dom there came forth a Httle horn which waxed great toward the East, South and the pleasant land. The pleasant land was Palestine, and this little horn was Antio- chus in all probability. At all events, he fits in here exactly. He is not said to be diverse from other kings, nor is he put four or live hundred years after his death. By him, it is said, the daily sacrifice shall be taken away and the sanctuary trodden under foot. This is true of Antiochus, wdio defiled the temple at Jerusalem and sacrificed swine in the holy place. Chapter xi is an expansion of this vision. Therein the movements of the Ptolemies of Eg}'pt and the Seleucidae of Syria are given briefl}^, and the trials which were to befall the Jews set forth. Antiochus Epiphanes, the greatest perse- cutor of all, is among them. Here then are two sets of prophecies. The first set (Chapters ii and vii) takes, in a wide sweep, the history of the world, so far as it touched the chosen people, until the coming of the Son of Man and 130 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the setting up of the Kingdom which shall never be destroyed. The second set of prophecies (Chap- ters viii and xi) is strictly limited in time, and carries the story through the Maccabean struggle for the preservation of the Jewish faith. The first set reaches to the setting up of the Church of Christ, and possibly to the second advent of the Redeemer. The second set reaches to the great crisis in the history of Judaism and, upon its sur- face at least, no further. Many fanciful interpretations have been constructed upon this second set of prophecies. Interpreters have seen there- in the Russian and the Turkish powers and some even the United States. What secondary adumbrations may be concealed in the figures and symbols it is not the purpose of this essay to discuss. The plain and obvious reference of the second set of prophecies (Chapters viii and xi) is to the history down to Antiochus. The reason for this definiteness is recognized 131 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? by all. It was to encourage the Jews in resistance to the tyranny which sought to destroy the worship of God. As a pro- phecy, written long before, it would have that effect. The critic admits this, but, being unwilling to admit predictive pro- phecy, he claims that this must have been written at the close of Antiochus' reign to encourage the Jews to what further efforts might be necessary. It is his objection to the supernatural, viz., prediction, which is the animus of his theory. He argues that a document which treats of some events with comparative precision, and of other events in a general way, must have been written after the events definitely spoken of, and that the other predictions are not predictions at all, but only vague yearn- ings. Apply this theory to our Lord's words in Matt, xxiv, xxv, and its parallels. Therein are specific predictions concern- ing the destruction of Jerusalem, the siege of the city, the circumvallation, the fright- ful slaughter, the ruin of the temple, the 132 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? eagles gathered together, and there are also forecasts of the end of the world in general; therefore, according to the the- ory, there was no prediction at all con- cerning Jerusalem and the other forecasts are vague guesses. The critic who retains his faith in Christ will shrink from such an issue as this. It destroys the Gospels as faithful records, and resolves the historic Christ into a mvth. Still there are critics who do not shrink even from this issue. They loudly assert their eagerness for the truth, and proclaim their heroic willing- ness to accept results, whatever they may be. This essay is reaching for the truth as much as any writings of the critics, and it asserts that no evidence has been adduced to displace the Book of Daniel from its place in the exile ; that, on the contrary, all the evidence, archaeological, historical, philological. Scriptural and, we may add, sensible and sane, sustains the view which Jews and Christians have held through 133 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? the ages. The critic's one and only argu- ment is a theory and his search, which is admitted to be eager, industrious, venture- some and patient, is a search only for something to sustain the theory. This essay admits that a useful theory may be formed in advance of facts and that then the facts to sustain it may be looked for, but it maintains that when the facts discovered do not sustain the theory, but contradict it, then the theory is not useful, but mischievous and deluding. The physicist tries theory after theory in his -domain, \\lien the facts do not sustain the theory, he discards it, how- ever disappointing it may be to his expec- tations, or mortifying to his pride. Can- not literary critics be as virtuous? The Seventy Weeks. — The question may be asked : why should God concern Himself with the rise and fall of nations, the birth, growth, decay and death of em- pires, which are but ephemeral phenomena when compared with His eternal years? We may answer : that He who notes a 134 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? sparrow's fall cannot be supposed indif- ferent to the fortunes of His intelligent creatures. Babylonian, Persian, Greek or Hebrew, they are all His creatures, though some have been indifferent . to Him. But the further question may be asked : why should He depart from His ordinary methods and reveal beforehand the for- tunes of some? The answer to this is: that whenever He has done so it is for a purpose, a sufficient purpose. The preser- vation of the Hebrew's faith — the only monotheism then existing — justifies the revelation to the remnant of Israel of the crisis which was impending, in which a cruel, exulting and relentless paganism was aiming to crush true religion for- ever. When that crisis came under An- tiochus Epiphanes, although many of the Jewish remnant yielded and abandoned Jehovah for Diana and the heathen Pan- theon, yet a remnant of the remnant stood firm, sustained amid the gathering gloom by the prophecy which had been given. 135 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? The other prophecy of the Four Em- pires has served through two thousand years a grander purpose, and "the King- dom which shall never be destroyed" has cheered, consoled and strengthened my- riads of suffering saints through floods of bitter persecution and arid years of world- liness. The critic will admit this, al- though he says that all along, the prophecy has been misunderstood. The preserva- tion of the Jewish faith in its time of stress and trial and the preservation of the Christian faith in the dark days which have come upon it are a sufficient justifi- cation for the revelation. In the opinion of many wise and godly men this latter purpose is not finished yet. Times of trial are coming in which men shall say, "Lo, Christ is here! or there!" and shall deceive, if it were possible, even the elect. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Wq have seen Him in the Son of Man of Dan. vii, 13. We shall see Him again in the prophecy of Dan. ix, 24-27, the Seventy Weeks. 136 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Messiah is the center of human history. Upon Him and His work, foreordained from the beginning, rest the hopes of Jew and Gentile. In the fuhiess of time He was to appear, through the channel of the Hebrew race, and make reconciliation for man. He was expected by the Jewish people. Isaiah had foretold a triumphant Conqueror and withal a suffering Servant. Jeremiah had promised, ''the Branch, Je- hovah our Righteousness" (Jer. xxiii, 5, 6), and the post-exilic prophets carried on the tidings. No doubt the Jewish doctors were perplexed at what must have seemed contradictory characteristics in the Com- ing One. How could He be born in Beth- lehem whose goings forth have been from everlasting, as Micah had declared? (Mic. V, 2.) How could the sword awake against a Man who was God's equal, as said Zechariah? (Zech. xiii, 7.) How could the W^onderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God be despised and rejected of men, and be brought as a lamb to the slaughter? (Is. ix, 6, liii.) We cannot 137 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? wonder at their wonderment concerning the Wonderful. They did not compre- hend the Incarnation of the Son of God. How could they? The prophets them- selves must have been amazed^ searching what the Spirit did signify when it testi- fied beforehand the sufferings and the glory of Christ. (I Pet. i, ii.) It is tliis Messiah of whom Daniel writes in the ninth chapter of his pro- phecy. Jerusalem lay in ruins during the exile. Under Cyrus, the exile ended and the Jews began their return to Palestine. They did not return in a body, but in de- tachments, and at considerable intervals, and all did not return. We are surprised at the paucity in numbers of the returning bands. Only those most heroic and most inspired with religious zeal ventured to return. Various reasons suggest them- selves: the difficulties of the journey and the hardships to be encountered in rehabil- itating desolated Judea. But these can hardly explain the timidity of the mass of exiles which kept them away from the 138 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? land they loved, and in an idolatrous coun- try where they were subjected to insult and outrage. If, however, they knew of Daniel's prophecies, and had therein read of the troubles impending over Judea, we can understand their faint-heartedness. Included in the prophecy of the Seventy ^^'eeks is the specific prediction that from the going forth of a commandment to re- store and build Jerusalem unto Messiah the Prince, there would be sixty-nine weeks. Those weeks are weeks of years. After four hundred and eighty-three years Messiah was to come.* Was this prophecy fulfilled? Was there a commandment to restore and build Jerusalem? And 483 years after, did a Personage, Messiah the Prince, appear? There were four decrees concerning Jerusalem issued by the Persian Court. *The word translated "weeks" means sevens. If sevens of days were meant the word "days" would have been appended. "Seventy sevens" means four hundred and ninety periods ; probably years of some kind. 139 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? The first is by Cyrus, 536 B. C. (Ezra i, 1-4; II Chron. xxvi, 22-23). This au- thorizes the restoration of the Temple. There is nothing in it about building Jeru- salem, and as we learn afterward the city was not built. The next decree is that of Darius Hys- taspis (Ezra vi). It, too concerns the Temple, its finishing and furnishing. "And the house was finished in the sixth year of Darius, the King." There is noth- ing in this decree about building Jeru- salem. The next decree is in the seventh year of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii, 12-26), which authorizes contributions for the service of the Temple by any well-disposed people and directs that what is lacking for this service be made up from the King's treas- ury. There is nothing in this decree about building Jerusalem. The next decree is referred to in Neh. ii. It was in the twentieth year of Ar- taxerxes. The words of the decree are not given, but its subject matter can easily 140 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? be determined. Nehemiah hears of the desolate condition of Jerusalem. He is deeply grieved. The King asks the rea- son. Nehemiah replies "the city, the place of my fathers' sepulchres lieth waste and the gates thereof are consumed with fire." The King bids him make request. He does so promptly, asking an order from the King that 'T be sent to the city that I may build it." And, as we read, he was sent, and he rebuilt Jerusalem. This decree then is the ''commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." There is no other decree authorizing the restora- tion of the city. This decree authorizes the restoration and the book of Nehemiah tells how the work was carried on. The exigencies of their various theories have led men to take some other decree for the terminus a quo of their calculations, but it is not apparent how any could have done so without misgivings. This decree of Neh. ii is the commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem ; no other decree gives any permission to restore the city. All 141 DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? other decrees refer to the building of the temple and the temple only. It is true^ as we read in Ezra iv, that the Samaritan neighbors of the Jews sent word to the Persian" King at Babylon that the Jews were building the city wall, and by this means arrested work on the temple for several years. But if the Jews were working on the walls, they were doing so without permission. It is more probable, however, that the Samaritans lied. ^^^hat now is the date of the decree of the 20th year of Artaxerxes ? Hengstenberg in an elaborate calcula- tion (Christology ii, 394) makes it 454 B. C. Other chronologists make the date later, the latest date being 445 B. C. Pres- ent opinion prefers this latest date. Tak- ing any of the dates assigned to 20th Ar- taxerxes, 69 weeks or 483 years there- from bring us to Alessiah, Jesus of Naza- reth. Some designed obscurity seems to be involved in these years. Our Lord's cau- tion, "whoso readeth, let him under- 142 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? stand," Matt, xxivj 15, intimates as much. They are called ''sevens/' not "years." Are they years at all? Or if they are, shall we count them astronomical years of 365^4 days, or years of 360 days, such as were used in Babylon ? The only years whose length is given in the Bible are of 360 days — twelve months of 30 days each. Gen. vii, 11, viii, 3-4; Rev. xi, 2-3, xii, 6, xiii, 5. It seems not unreasonable to take the period designed as 360 days. In that case the 483d year from 445 B. C. is 32 A. D-i the date of the Crucifixion. Sir Robert Judge Anderson, in The Coming Prince, by a careful and learned calculation, fixes the date for the termina- tion of the four hundred and eighty-three years as Sunday, April 6, 32 A. D., which in his opinion was the day on which our Lord made His triumphal entry into Jeru- salem. Into the niceties of the calculation it is not necessary to enter here. It is sufficient to say that if the 483 years begin with the 20th year of Artaxerxes, they find their termination somewhere during 143 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? the mortal life of Jesus Christ, or in close connection therewith. But while this conclusion will not be contravened by the destructive criticism, that system will not allow the premise. To accept 445 B. C. or any date near it as the tcniiiiius a quo, would be to admit the predictive character of the Seventy Weeks' prophecy. ''All views," writes a critic, ''presented by those who hold the genuine- ness of the Book of Daniel, contain their own refutation, for the termini a quo must be later than the period of the prophet, who would have died many years before the commencement of the 490 years,"* that is to say, no prophet can predict what is to happen after his death. His pro- phecies must always be of something past and gone ! As prediction is excluded by the critical theory, some other date is sought, some date so early that the 483d year thereafter will fall before 163 B. C, the time of the conjectured composition of Daniel. Fur- *Hastings' Diet, of Bible s. v. Daniel. M4 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? thermore, some person who might be called "Messiah the Prince" must have been cut ojff prior to 163 B. C. Two or three persons who met violent deaths in the troubled times preceding 163 B. C. have been suggested, of wdiom the high priest Onias, who was murdered in 171 B. C, best suits the description. He was not the Messiah of Jewish expectation, but as Messiah means the Anointed One and as Onias had been anointed, in com- mon with all priests, he could be made to fit the exigency. Nor was he precisely a prince, but as the high priest in Jerusalem then exercised civil power, the title was not wholly misplaced. Though answer- ing the description imperfectly, he is the most available person. But the decree of Cyrus was not a commandment to rebuild Jerusalem. The terms of Cyrus' decree are before us (Ezra i, 1-4). No casuistry can make that decree other than a permission to re- vive Jewish worship by the erection of the temple. The building of the temple 145 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? involved no risk to Persian suzerainty, but to attribute to Cyrus such an act as permission to a people, whose loyalty was untried, to build a walled town remote from Babylon and contiguous to his pow- erful rival Egypt, is to make Cyrus a sim- pleton. However grateful the Hebrews might be for their deliverance, they longed for independence. They had yielded to Egyptian blandishments before; they had no sympathy with Persian heathenism, and depressed and feeble though they were, they felt themselves superior to all other people. Afterward, when the power of Egypt was broken by Cyrus' son Cam- byses, and Egypt itself was a Persian province, and the Jews' loyalty to Persia had been tested through many years, it became safe to allow^ Jerusalem's wall to rise. It was not safe in Cyrus' time. Now as to the 483 years. From 536 B. C. to 171 B. C. is 365 years — not 483! This is missing the mark by a great dis- tance. That pious and learned Jew of the critics' imagination was a singularly bad arithmetician. DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? This absurdity is too much, and so seven weeks, i.e., 49 years, are deducted from the 483, making 434 years to be fitted in between the decree of Cyrus and the death of Onias. Still a disparity ex- ists. ''The chief objection," says Driver, "to this interpretation is that the period from 538 to 172 is 366 years only, not 434- This is indeed a serious objection, but not the chief one. The fatal objection to all such strained devices is that the decree for rebuilding the city was given by Ar- taxerxes about 445 B. C, and by no one else and at no other time. A scheme still wilder is to make Jere- miah's prophecy of the seventy years' cap- tivity (Jer. xxix, 10) the "commandment to restore," etc. This juggles in the 434 years, but has nothing else to recommend it, and besides it acknowledges predictive prophecy which the critics deny. Lame as the Cyrus-decree-explanation is, it must be adhered to rather than admit that Jere- miah or any one else ever predicted any- thing. 147 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Over against these contrivances to in- validate the prophecy set the prophecy it- self. Dan. ix, 25. "From the going forth of the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem unto Messiah, shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks ; the streets shall be built again and the wall in troublous times. And after sixty-two weeks shall Messiah be cut off. And the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." The meaning appears to be that it will be forty-nine years before the street and w^all would be finished; that 434 years after that Alessiah would come ; that after that the people of some prince would de- stroy city and sanctuary. Now, what happened? The w^ork of rebuilding and fortifying was much im- peded by envious neighbors. That it was forty-nine years before the work was com- plete is very probable. Then 434 years after — somewhere between A. D. 26 and 32 — the Redeemer of mankind appeared. 148 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? After that, the Roman prince sent an army which utterly destroyed the city and temple of Jerusalem. That destruction was complete. The temple was not simply polluted, as it was by Antiochus Epiphanes — it was de- stroyed. It has not been reared in Jeru- salem since. The Jewish ritual was ended. It has never been restored, and it never can be. It has had no priesthood since Jeru- salem fell ; for every son of Aaron was slain. There can be no more priestly sacrifices, nor atonement by high priest; for in that dire disaster, the older cove- nant passed away. Its vitality and valid- ity had ceased when the Lamb of God was offered upon Calvary ; but for forty years the outward shell remained. That shell was removed in the destruction of Jeru- salem, 70 A. D. It was fitting that these events, so mo- mentous to Jews and Gentiles, should be predicted. What spirit is that which struggles to bewilder and befog the minds of men concerning them ? 149 THE TESTIMONY OF OUR LORD In the solemn discourse given by our Saviour concerning the fate of Jerusalem and the end of the world, He said, "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place * * * (Matt, xxiv, 15; Mark xiii, 14). Two facts bearing upon this enquiry are here declared. First, that Daniel was a prophet, and, secondly, that the abomina- tion of desolation had not yet appeared. That abomination, then, was not some- thing connected with Antiochus Epi- phanes, who had been dead nearly 200 years. Whatever it was, it still lay in the future. The abomination of desolation is foretold in the prophecy of the Seventy Weeks. (Dan. ix, 27.) This decides the whole matter. Daniel was a true prophet. He did predict. Antiochus was not the terminus ad quern, and the critics' theory is exploded. 150 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? But, strange to say, the critics are un- abashed. They now proceed to evade the statement of Christ Himself. One critic says that our Lord was not raising, nor settHng the date of the book of Daniel, that ''it would not have been good pedagogy to raise it."* And that ''the latest critical opinion," etc. Very well, we are not enquiring what the critics think, but what our Lord said. Let it be granted that Christ was not discussing the date of Daniel — nobody ever said He was. What He said was that the abomi- nation spoken of by Daniel was yet to appear. Then it could not have appeared in the time of Antiochus, and the Seventy Weeks' prediction was not accomplished in that Syrian tyrant. Our Lord endorses Daniel as a prophet, and says that Dan- iel's prediction was yet to be fulfilled. This shatters the critics' theory that the Book of Daniel was written after the events. ^Hom. Review, July, 1904. 151 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Is there not something disingenuous in this talk about "good pedagogy" and "ac- commodation to the prejudices of one's hearers" — something of the cuttlefish de- vice to cloud the subject with ink? Sup- pose, if you will, that our Lord did not think it worth while to disabuse His hear- ers of their error, must He go out of His way to confirm that error ? There was no necessity for mentioning Daniel at all, un- less Daniel was a true prophet. Other attempts to evade our Lord's pronouncement are, that He did not know of what He spoke, or that He did not say anything about Daniel — that the passage is an invention of the Evangelists or a distorted report of something else, and so forth. To what painful tergiversations a false theory compels its advocates ! How much easier and simpler — as well as more straightforward and reverent — is the truth ! 152 "WHY SPEAKEST THOU IN PARABLES?" It may be asked why the prophecies in Daniel are obscure? Why, if God chose to reveal the future, should He not give dates and names and all accessories, so as to forbid the possibility of error? In re- ply it may be said that all prophecy is veiled, the visions of Daniel no more than the predictions of other seers. In some respects they are plainer than other pro- phecies. One obvious reason why prophecy is veiled is, lest its friends be tempted to en- deavor to fulfill it^ or its foes to defeat it. But there is another reason. It is found in our Lord's significant words, Matt, xiii, 10-13, "To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to them it is not given. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because they, seeing, see not, and hearing, they hear not, 153 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL ? neither do they understand." That is, the possibiHty of erring will not be taken and ought not be taken from a moral be- ing. j\Ian is free to choose good or evil. Obedience cannot be forced, else it has no moral character. So also opinion, belief must not be forced, else it has no moral character. A mathematical demonstra- tion is believed because we cannot help ourselves. The greatest scoundrel and the greatest saint believe it alike. There is no merit in believing. They cannot avoid it. So, too, an argument may be so logical as to force conviction, and here again there is no freedom of choice and no moral quality in the mental act. But re- ligious truth cannot be given in that way. Wq must not be forced to receive it — a way is left open — crooked and wrong — which we may take if we wish. No man is forced to take the wrong way — but there it is. The whole Bible is a parable in this sense. Revelation does not come with mathematical exactness nor with logical 154 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? precision. All avenues to error are not blocked. Room for free choice — even wrong choice — is left. This is a danger- ous power which man possesses, but it is a splendid power. It separates man from the brute, and lifts him immeasurably higher — into a moral kingdom. The wrong way in act or opinion is not the straighter nor the plainer that men should follow it ; but every day men follow the wrong and crooked way in their ac- tions to their own hurt and the hurt of others. In opinion, a conceit of learning, a desire to be in the forefront of discov- ery, so powerful a stimulus in these days of startling scientific research, an ambition for notoriety; an impatience of old truth because it is old — these may dull our sight and turn our feet aside. We are free ; we are not compelled to err, but we are not hindered. And so parable and prophecy are ob- scure to some, but not to those to whom it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom. Or if unfulfilled prophecy is 155 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? still obscure, that is what we are to ex- pect. We can wait. The Day will de- clare it. No man who recognizes his standing as a free agent ought to find fault with the Revelation on account of its lack of mathematical precision. That lack leaves him free to err if he prefers to do so. He is not forced to take the correct view. He is a man and not a brute. Sinless, the cattle on the meadows munch their corn ; But I would be a man — I serve, because I will, And not because I must. He who demands a Revelation which shall preclude every chance of mistake, makes a demand which cannot and which ought not be granted. He is demanding that he be reduced to the condition of an intellectual animal and deprived of his manhood. Freedom must be left to us, even though it involve the possibility of error. Even with the abundant proof of Dan- iel ; with the distressing inadequacy of the 156 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? so-called arguments against it; with the continuous accomplishment of some of its prophecies at the present time; with the striking fulfillment of its predictions of Messiah, the Prince; with the solemn repetition of one of its predictive warn- ings by our Saviour himself; men are found who lift up their voice and deny this Revelation. There is not a book in Scripture against which similar assaults may not be made. Only a few remain against which similar assaults have not already been made. Perhaps this is that Falling Away of which the New Testament forewarns us. A "falling away" — not an attack by ex- ternal foes — but an eclipse of faith within the nominal Church of God. If so, no w^onder many are misled. But they need not be. A judicial indif- ference to the unproved assertions of those who claim to be the only competent guides in this matter, and a fair, frank and full investigation of all claims and counter- claims, will save any man from mistake. 157 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? We know well — we are in no danger of forgetting it — that the critics maintain that they are experts, and that all men ought to 3neld to their opinion; and that any Hebraist^ who refuses to do so, is ipso facto not an expert. But we remember that there were certain persons — and they, too, were expert Hebraists — who said, "Have any of the rulers or of the Phari- sees believed on Him?" Let it be granted that the critics are ex- perts. There are other experts who do not agree with them, and all experts are in danger of becoming victims of their own theories; but in a matter of this kind a bare ''diximus" by any experts does not decide the question. If the critics are per- suaded that the Book of Daniel is not exilic, what reasons have persuaded them? Where are those reasons? A more pitiful array than those given in the preceding pages it would be difficult to conceive. And yet these are all. Can it be true that scholarship deprives a man of the reasoning faculty ? 158 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? Let it not be supposed that upholders of the genuineness and authenticity of Daniel object to criticism. Any sincere criticism, higher or lower, from Jew, In- fidel or Christian, is gladly welcomed by those who hold that the Bible is God's blessed gift to man. To learn the truth about it and the truth in it is the desire of all Christian men. Any light, even though it comiC from the miasmatic morass of rationalistic speculation, will be welcomed and used, but when the alleged light is nothing but offensive and stifling smoke, blinding the eyes and dulling the senses of all who come under its influence, what good thing can be said of it? Not a solitary charge against the au- thenticity of Daniel has been sustained. And yet these charges are repeated in the ears of Divinity students, and no hint is given of their inadequacy. The proofs for Daniel are omitted or ingeniously be- fogged. Historians whose wTitings sus- tain Daniel — and they are all the historians who touch these matters — are discredited. 159 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? A royal edict, whose terms are plainly in- dicated, is moved a hundred years back- ward from its place in defiance of all laws, literary or critical or historical. The in- tegrity or the wisdom of Jesus the Christ is impugned. And all this is done in a blind infatuation for the fancies of some Germans who have set themselves to overturn the Gospel of the Son of God. The air of assurance with which these theories are presented, and the assumption of superior scholarship, fortified as they are by lists of Teutonic names, impress the minds of the unwary. But when the stu- dent examines the arguments adduced to support the theories, he discovers the fal- lacy of the entire scheme. Beyond guesses and hypotheses there is really nothing; so that when he meets, as he probably will in the critical writings, minatory intimations that if these fancies are not accepted, the Christian religion will be in peril, a feeling of indignation rises in him — indignation against what seems to be pretense playing upon ignorance and innocence. And then harsh language is the natural sequel. i6o DID DANIEL AVRITE DANIEL? But the occasion really calls for sorrow, sympathy and pity. We have come upon one of those delusions to which the minds of men — even intelligent and good men — are exposed. The critics assert their eagerness for truth and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity. Good men have often been deluded. History presents many occasions where scholars have been led into foolishness. The heresies of the early Christian centuries, the learned vapidities of the schoolmen, the Salem w^itchcraft frenzies are instances. Nor need we confine ourselves to the remote past, with its supposed immaturity of thought. To-day we see thousands of persons embracing Eddyism, Theosophy and similar fantastic cults. x\nd the vic- tims of all these follies are sincere. The destructive critics will, no doubt, resent being classed with such crack- brained people ; but why call them ''crack- brained"? By some means they have been led into a foolish theory. They then search for facts to sustain their theory. i6i DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? If no facts are forthcoming, they invent hypotheses and count them as facts, and they ignore adverse evidence. That is to say, they do as the critics do. In general culture, in special scholarship, in mental poise outside their pet delusion, they can match the critics man for man. More- over, they profess, like the critics, great respect for the Christian religion, and, though they find it necessary to discard sortie things in the Bible, they mutilate the Book less than the critics do. The melancholy history of human error should lead every thoughtful man seri- ously to consider the warning, ''Take heed that ye be not deceived." Never is de- lusion more imminent than in a time of high intellectual conceit. "Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." There is predictive prophecy. The critics' denial does not disprove it. "In the last days perilous times shall come. Men shall be proud, boasters, blas- phemers * H« * having a form of 162 DID DANIEL WRITE DANIEL? godliness but denying the power thereof * * * ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth." There shall arise false prophets, who shall deceive many, even, if it were pos- sible, the very elect. 163 INDEX Alexander the Great loi, 129 Antiochus Epiphanes 122, 127, 128 Artaxerxes 140 Baruch 73, 96 Belshazzar 19, 22, 28 Berosus 22 Cambyses 30 Carchemish 36 Chaldeans 57 Cyrus 52, 145 Darius the Mede 20, 52, 90 Ecclesiasticus 74 Evil-Merodach 28 Ezekiel 91 Ezra 75,96 Four Empires 124 Gobr>'as . 30, 57 Greek Empire 125, 129 Greek Words 20, 41 Haggai 70 Hagiographa 82 Herodotus 58 Isaiah 137 Jehoiakim 35 Jeremiah 19, 34, 147 165 INDEX Jerusalem 102, 140, 149 Josephus 100 Josiah 36 Maccabees 97 Malachi 70 INIegiddo 36 Messiah i37 Nabonadius 25, 30 Nebuchadnezzar' 65, 107 Necho 35 Nehemiah 140 NerigHssar 29 Nitocris 3^ OniasIII H5 Persia 125 Porphyry. • ^^ Prophets S2 Prophecy ii5, 122 Revelation ii7, i54 Rome 125 Seleucidae ... 130 Standard Inscription • • 108 Weeks i34 Year 35, 142 Zechariah 70, i37 166 Date Due /^ATN^^ V ^ f) BS1555.4 .W74 Did Daniel write Daniel? : the Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 1 1012 00076 1827