stone, "cut out of the mountain without hands, which brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (34, 35.), represented the kingdom of the Messiah, which was "to fill the whole earth," become universal, and stand for ever, unchangeable and eternal. (44, 45.) This section concludes with an account of the promotion of Daniel and his friends to distinguished honour. SECT. 3. An account of the miraculous preservation of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who, having refused to worship a golden image that had been set up by Nebuchadnezzar, were cast into a fiery furnace. (iii.)

SECT. 4. Nebuchadnezzar, having been punished, on account of his pride, with the loss of his reason, and driven from the conversation of men, is restored to reason and to his throne; and by a public instrument proclaims to the world Daniel's interpretation of his dream, and extols the God of heaven. (iv.) For an account of the nature of his insanity, see Vol. II. Part III. Chap. IX. Sect. I. § III. 7. SECT. 5. Relates the history of Daniel under Belshazzar; who, while rioting in his palace, and profaning the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem, is suddenly terrified with the figure of a hand inscribing certain words on the wall, which Daniel promptly reads and interprets. In the course of that same night, Belshazzar is slain, and the Babylonian empire is transferred to the Medes and Persians. (v.)

[blocks in formation]

SECT. 6. Daniel being promoted to the highest office in the empire under Darius the Mede, a conspiracy is formed against him. The prophet, being in consequence cast into a den of lions, is miraculously preserved; and Darius publishes a decree that all men should glorify the God of Daniel. (vi.)

PART II. comprises various Prophecies and Visions of Things future, until the Advent and Death of the Messiah, and the ultimate Conversion of the Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of the Gospel, in four Sections. (ch. vii.-xii.)

SECT. 1. The vision of the four beasts concerning the four great monarchies of the world: it was delivered about fortyeight years after Nebuchadnezzar's dream related in ch. ii. but with some different circumstances. The first beast (4.) represented the Babylonian empire, the second (5.) the Medo-Persian empire: the third (6.) the Macedo-Grecian empire; and the fourth (7.), the Roman empire. The ten horns of this beast, denote ten kingdoms or principalities which arose out of it, and were signified by the ten toes of the image. (ii. 41, 42.) These ten kingdoms or principalities are variously enumerated by different writers, who have supported their respective hypotheses with great learning and ingenuity, for which we must refer the reader to their works. The following table, however, will exhibit the result of their elaborate researches :

[blocks in formation]

2. The second horn.

3. The third horn.

4. The fourth horn.

5. The fifth horn.

6. The sixth horn.

7. The seventh horn.

8. The eighth horn.

9. The ninth horn.

10. The tenth horn.

The Visigoths in Pannonia.

The Sueves and Alans in Gascoigne and Spain.

The Vandals in

The Franks in

The Burgundians
in Burgundy.
The Heruli and
Thuringi in Italy.

The Saxons and Angles in Britain.

The Huns in Hungary.

TheLombards, first upon the Danube, and afterwards in Italy.

The Burgundians in France.

The Visigoths in the south of France and part of Spain.

The Sueves and Alans in Gallicia and Portugal.

The Vandals in Africa.

The Alemanni in Germany.

The Ostrogoths, who were succeeded by the Lombards in Pannonia, and afterwards in Italy.

The Greeks in the residue of the empire.

Franks, 407.

Vandals, 407.

The Saxons, 476.

The Longobardi in Hungary, 536; who were seated in the northern parts of Germany about 483.

The number of these kingdoms was not constantly ten, there being sometimes more and sometimes fewer; but Sir Isaac Newton observes, whatever was their number afterwards, they are still called the ten kings from their first number. Besides these ten horns or kingdoms, there was to spring up another little horn (vii. 8. 24.), which Grotius and others have erroneously applied to Antiochus Epiphanes; but which is generally conceived to denote the pope of Rome, whose power as a horn or temporal prince was established in the eighth century. All the kingdoms above described will be succeeded by the kingdom of Messiah. (9-13.27.)

SECT. 2. In Daniel's vision of the ram and the he-goat is foretold the destruciton of the Medo-Persian empire (typified by the ram, which was the armorial ensign of the Persian empire), by the Greeks or Macedonians under Alexander, represented by the he-goat: because the Macedonians, at first, about two hundred years before Daniel, were denominated Egeada, or the goat's people, as their first seat was called Æges or Ege, or goat's town, a goat being their ensign or standard. (viii. 1-7. 20-22.) The four

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

"notable" horns, that sprang up on the fracture of the great horn (8. 23.), denote the four kingdoms of Greece, Thrace, Syria, and Egypt, erected by Cassander, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy. The little horn, which is described as arising among the four horns of the Grecian empire (9 -12. 23, 24.), is by many Jewish and Christian commentators understood to mean Antiochus Epiphanes, to which hypothesis Mr. Wintle inclines; but Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, and Dr. Hales, have clearly shown that the Roman temporal power, and no other, is intended for, although some of the particulars may agree very well with that king, yet others can by no means be reconciled to him; while all of them correspond exactly with the Romans, and with no other power whatever: it was the Roman power that destroyed the polity and temple of the Jews, and left the nation and holy city in that desolate state in which they are to remain to the end of two thousand three hundred prophetic days, that is, years. (13, 14. 24, 25, 26.) The distress of Daniel (17. 27.), on learning the great and lasting calamities that were to befall his nation, represents him in a very amiable light, both as a patriot and as a prophet, and gives an additional lustre to his glory and exalted character.

SECT. 3. While Daniel, understanding from the prophecies of Jeremiah (compare Jer. xxv. 11, 12. xxix. 10.), that the seventy years' captivity was now drawing to a close (Dan.

ix. 1, 2.), was humbling himself in fasting and prayer for [ of the Jewish Targums and Talmuds, which frequently quoté the sins of his people, and earnestly imploring the restora- and appeal to his authority; of JESUS CHRIST himself, who tion of Jerusalem (3-19.), the angel Gabriel is sent to has cited his words, and has styled him, "Daniel the Prohim. (20-23.) He announces to the prophet, that the phet" (compare Dan. ix. 26, 27. with Matt. xxiv. 15. and holy city should be rebuilt and peopled, even in troublous Mark xiii. 14.); and likewise of the apostle Paul, who has times (compare Neh. iv. 7., &c. vi. 15.), and should subsist frequently quoted or alluded to him (compare Dan. iii. 23for seventy weeks, that is, weeks of years, or four hundred 25. and vii. 22. with Heb. xi. 33, 34. and Dan. xi. 36. with and ninety years; at the expiration of which it should be 2 Thess. ii. 4.), as also of St. John, whose Revelation de utterly destroyed for putting the Messiah to death. (25-rives great light from being compared with the predictions 27.) It was in consequence of this prophecy that the ad- of Daniel. To these testimonies we may add that of Ezevent of Messiah, towards the end of the period, was gene-kiel, a contemporary writer, who greatly extols his exemplary rally expected among the nations of the East. The latter part character (Ezek. xiv. 14. 20. xxviii. 3.), and also the testiof the prediction (27.) relates to the subversion of the Jew-mony of ancient profane historians, who relate many of the ish temple and polity, and the second coming of the Messiah. same transactions.6 SECT. 4. contains Daniel's fourth and last prophetic vision, in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, in which he is informed of various particulars concerning the Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires, and the kingdom of the Messiah. (x.-xii.)

2. The INTERNAL EVIDENCE is not less convincing; for (1.) The language, style, and manner of writing, are all perfectly agreeable to that age, and prove that it was written about the time of the Babylonish captivity. Part of the book, viz. from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter, is written in the Chaldee landegree as to prove that none but a Hebrew could have writguage (which, however, abounds with Hebraisms to such a ten it), because that portion treats of the Chaldæan or Babypro-lonish affairs: the rest of the book is pure Hebrew, with the exception of four words which have been supposed to be Greek, the occurrence of which, however, is satisfactorily accounted for.7

An introductory narrative states the occasion of the vision, viz. Daniel's fasting and supplication (probably on account of the obstruction of the building of the temple), and describes the glorious person who appeared to the phet. (Dan. x. 1-21. xi. 1.). The prediction then describes the fate of the Persian empire (xi. 2.), which was invaded and destroyed by Alexander (3.); the partition of his vast dominions into four kingdoms (4.); and the wars between the kingdoms of Egypt (which lay to the south-west of Judæa) and of Syria (which lay to the north-east of the Holy Land) are then foretold, together with the conquest of Macedon by the Romans. (5-36.) The prophecy then declares the tyranny of the papal Antichrist, which was to spring up under the Roman empire (36--39.), and the invasion of the Saracens and of the Turks in the time of the end, or latter days of the Roman monarchy. (40-45.) This prophetic vision concludes with foretelling the general resurrection (xii. 1-4.), and with announcing the time when all these great events were to have their final consummation, when the Jews were to be restored, Antichrist destroyed, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in, and the millennium, or reign of saints, was to begin. (5-13.) But the exact period, until PROVIDENCE shall open more of the seals,3 cannot be fully ascertained.

Upon the whole, we may observe with Bishop Newton, from whom the preceding analysis is chiefly abridged, "what an amazing prophecy is this, comprehending so many various events, and extending through so many successive ages, from the first establishment of the Persian empire, upwards of 530 years before Christ, to the general resurrection! What a proof of a Divine Providence, and of a Divine Revelation! for who could thus declare the things that shall be, with their times and seasons, but He only who hath them in his power: whose dominion is over all, and whose kingdom endureth from generation to generation!"

III. Of all the old prophets Daniel is the most distinct in the order of time, and the easiest to be understood; and on this account, Sir Isaac Newton observes, in those events which concern the last times, he must be the interpreter of the rest. All his predictions relate to each other, as if they were several parts of one general prophecy. The first is the easiest to be understood, and every succeeding prophecy adds something to the former. Though his style is not so lofty and figurative as that of the other prophets, it is more suitable to his subject, being clear and concise: his narratives and descriptions are simple and natural; and, in short, he writes more like an historian than a prophet.

Of the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel we have every possible evidence, both external and internal. 1. With regard to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, we have not only the general testimony of the whole Jewish church and nation, which have constantly received this book as canonical; but we have the particular testimony of Josephus, who (we have seen) commends Daniel as the greatest of prophets;

1 of this illustrious prophecy, which Sir Isaac Newton has justly pronounced to be the foundation of the Christian religion, Dr. Hales has given some chronological computations, slightly differing from the above. See his Analysis, vol. ii. p. 559. et seq.

2 See Ezra iv. 4, 5.

The reader who is desirous of studying what has been written on this subject is referred to the writings of Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Mr. Faber and Dr. Hales, who have collected a great variety of important information on ne fulfilment of Daniel's prophecies. Dissertations on Prophecy, vol. i. pp. 413, 414.

• On Daniel, 15.

(2.) The extraordinary accuracy, which this book exhibits in its historical statements and allusions, is another important internal evidence of its authenticity. To adduce one or two examples:

[1] The first chapters represent Daniel as having attained, while yet a young man, an extensive reputation for extraordinary wisdom and devotion to his God. How satisfactorily does this explain the language of Ezekiel, his contemporary and an older man! "Son of man, when the land sinneth against me, &c. though these three men, Noah, Daniel and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, said the Lord God." (Ezek. xiv. 13, 14.) "Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord God, Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, &c. thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee." (xxviii. 2, 3.) Can this praise be accounted for in any other way than by supposing just such facts as are recorded in the book of Daniel?

[2.] The truth with which the characters of certain kings are drawn deserves attention. The last king of Babylon is represented by Xenophon as an effeminate, but cruel and impious, voluptuary, who put a man to death, because he missed his aim in hunting, and was guilty of innumerable other cruelties; who despised the Deity, and spent his time in riotous debauchery, but was at heart a coward. Is not this Belshazzar? The same historian represents Cyaxares as weak and pliable, but of a cruel temper, easily managed for the most part, but ferocious in his anger. Is not this Darius8-the same Darius who allowed his nobles to make laws for him, den, and then spent a night in lamentation, and at last, in and then repented-suffered Daniel to be cast into the lion's strict conformity with Xenophon's description, condemned to death, not only his false counsellors, but all their wives and


[3.] It is also observable, that in this book, certain events are mentioned as a contemporary would be apt to mention them; that is, concisely, and without minute detail, as being perfectly familiar to his immediate readers. Thus we are told that Daniel survived the first year of Cyrus, a notable

referred to in the preceding column.

• The most important of these testimonies are collected by the writers

The occurrence of Greek words (some German critics have objected) indicates a period not earlier at the furthest than the middle of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, when (they assert) Daniel could not have been living. Of these words Bertholdt reckons ten. But four of them have been traced by later critics to the old Persian, and Gesenius himself maintains that the Chaldees and Assyrians were of Medo-Persian origin. Another of these ten words is admitted by the same distinguished scholar to be Syriac. The remaining four are the names of musical instruments occurring in the fifth verse of the third chapter. The similarity of these to certain Greek words may be accounted for in either of these ways:-1. From the ancient intercourse between the Greeks and Babylonians, mentioned by Strabo, Quintus Curtius, and Berosus;-2. On the supposition, that the Shemitish and Greek languages bore a common relation to an older tongue;-3. On the supposition, that the names of musical instruments were in the first instance onomapoetic, and therefore night be analagous in languages totally distinct. Nothing more need be added than a statement of the fact, that the latest writer on the wrong side of the question (Kirms) has yielded this whole ground of opposition as untenable. (Philadelphia Biblical Repertory, vol. iv. p. 51.)

The difference of name is explained at length by Dr. Hengstenberg.

year in Jewish history, the year of the return from exile. | exact accomplishment of Daniel's prophecies, as well those Now a later writer, one, for instance, in the days of the Maccabees, would have been very likely to explain why this was mentioned as a sort of epoch.

3. A distinct but analogous body of internal evidence is furnished by the accurate acquaintance which the writer of this book evinces with the manners, usages, and institutions of the age and country in which it is alleged to have been written. The particular instances are many and minute; we shall indicate a few.

(1.) Daniel never speaks of adoration being rendered to the kings of Babylon, according to the ancient, oriental usage. Why? Arrian informs us, that Cyrus was the first who received such homage, which arose from a notion that the Persian kings were incarnations of the Deity. For the same reason, their decrees were esteemed irrevocable, while no such doctrine seems to have prevailed under the Chaldee monarchs. Daniel accordingly asserts no such thing of any but Darius.

(2.) The land of Shinar was the name used by the natives, as we learn from good authority. It occurs nowhere in the historical parts of Scripture, after the book of Genesis, until we meet with it in Daniel. (i. 2.) A resident in Palestine would not have thought of using it.

which have been already fulfilled as those which are now fulfilling in the world. So clear and explicit, indeed, are his predictions concerning the advent of the Messiah, and other important events, of times far remote from those in which he lived, that Porphyry,2 a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century,-finding that Daniel's predictions concerning the several empires were so universally acknowledged to be fulfilled, that he could not disprove the fact of their accomplishment,-alleged against them that they must have been written after the events to which they refer had actually occurred. To him they appeared to be a narration of events that had already taken place, rather than a prediction of things future; such was the striking coincidence between the facts when accomplished, and the prophecies which foretold them. And he further affirmed that they were not composed by Daniel, whose name they bore, but by some person who lived in Judæa about the time of Antiochus Epiphanes; because all the prophecies to that time contained true history, but all beyond that period were manifestly false. But this method of opposing the prophecies, as Jerome has rightly observed, affords the strongest testimony to their truth; for they were fulfilled with such exactness, that, to infidels, the prophet seemed not to have foretold things future, but to have related things past. With respect to the particular prophecy (Dan. xi.) relating to the kings of Syria and Egypt, which Porphyry affirmed was written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, we may remark that the book of Daniel was translated into the Greek language one hundred years before he lived; and that very translation was in the hands of the Egyptians, who did not cherish any great kindness towards the Jews and their religion: and those prophecies which foretold the successes of Alexander (Dan. viii. 5. xi. 3.) were shown to him by the Jews, in consequence of which he conferred upon them several privileges. Conclusive as the preceding external and internal evidences are, for the genuineness of Daniel's predictions, the destruction of their credit has in all ages been a favourite object with (6.) The description of the image, in the third chapter, the enemies of divine revelation, whether open or disguised, corresponds remarkably with what is known from other-pagans, deists, or neologians. All the various objections sources of the Chaldee taste in sculpture; and the use of of these writers (many of which are sufficiently absurd, as music at the worship of it, completely tallies with their well-well as weak) have been collected and refuted in detail by Professor Hengstenberg, in his Treatise on "The Authenticity of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah." From this leared writer's masterly treatise the following observations, comprising his refutations of the most material neologian objections, have been selected :—

(3.) Nebuchadnezzar commands (i. 5.) that the young men chosen for his service should be fed from his table. That this was the oriental custom, we are informed by Ctesias

and others.

(4.) Daniel and his companions, when selected for the royal service, received new names. (i. 7.) In 2 Kings xxiv. 17. we read, that "the king of Babylon made Mattaniah king, and changed his name to Zedekiah." Two of these names, moreover, are apparently derived from those of Babylonish idols.

(5.) In Dan. ii. 5. iii. 6. there are tokens of an accurate acquaintance with the forms of capital punishment in use among the Chaldees; while in the sixth chapter a new sort is described as usual with the Medes and Persians.

known fondness for that art.

(7.) We find in ch. v. 2. that women were present at the royal banquet. So far was this from being usual in later times, that the Septuagint translators have expunged it from the text. And yet we know from Xenophon, that before the Persian conquest such was indeed the practice of the Babylonian court.

4. There are some things peculiar to the prophecies of this - book, which clearly indicate that he who was the organ of them, was a bona fide resident in Babylon. Thus,

(1.) In the earlier predictions of this book, as in Zechariah and Ezekiel, we find less poetry, and more of symbolical language, than in the pure Hebrew prophets. Every thing is designated by material emblems. Beasts are the representatives of kings and kingdoms. The imagery likewise appears cast in a gigantic mould. All this is in accordance with the Babylonish taste, with which the Prophet was familiar, and to which the Holy Spirit condescended to accommodate his teachings. A striking confirmation of this exegesis is, that this mode of exhibition ceases suddenly and wholly with the Chaldee dynasty. The last four chapters, which were written under the Medo-Persian domination, are without a trace of it.

(2.) Again, Daniel's visions, like those of Ezekiel, have the banks of rivers for their scene. (Dan. viii. 2.-x. 4. Ezek. i. 1. 3.) Does not this imply, that the author had resided in a land of lordly streams? This minute local propriety would scarcely have been looked for in a Canaanitish forger, though writing in full view of the very "swellings of Jordan."

(3.) Lastly, Daniel, still like his fellow in captivity and the prophetic office, displays a chronological precision quite unknown to earlier seers, but perfectly in keeping with the character of one who had been naturalized among the great astronomers and chronologers of the old world.1

5. But the most satisfactory internal evidence for the genuineness and authenticity of this book is to be found in the For the above proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel we are indebted to Professor Hengstenberg of Berlin, whose Vindication of this Prophet is analyzed at considerable length in the fourth volume of the Biblical Repertory, printed at Philadelphia in 1832. (pp. 65-68.)

OBJECTION 1.-Daniel is not mentioned by the son of Sirach when eulogizing the worthies of his nation in Ecclus. xlvii. 50. ANSWER.-If this proves any thing, it proves too much. It proves that no such man as Daniel ever lived,-nor Ezra,—-nor Mordecai,-nor any of the minor prophets,--not one of whom

is mentioned.

stands near the end of the Hagiographa, and not among the OBJECTION 2.-The book of Daniel, in the Hebrew Bibles, prophets.

ANSWER. This circumstance Bertholdt explains by saying, that this third division of the Old Testament was not formed until after the other two were closed. The compilers, or authors of the canon, he supposes, intended to make two great classes, the law and the prophets. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, were included in the second, merely because there was no third. A third was eventually formed to receive those writings which afterwards laid claim to inspiration. To this explanation, Dr. Hengstenberg objects, that it rests on mere assumptions, and is flatly contradicted by all Jewish authorities. His own solution may be briefly stated thus:-The distinction between the prophets and the Hagiographa is not of a chronological kind at all, but is founded on the peculiar character and

2 Porphyry seems to have been the first who impugned the genuineness and authority of Daniel's writings, in the twelfth of his fifteen books

against the Christians. Dr. Lardner has collected such of his objections as are extant, together with Jerome's answers to them. Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, chap. xxxvii. (Works, vol. viii. pp. 185-204. 8vo.;. or vol. iv. pp. 214-225. 4to.) Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, also wrote answers to Porphyry, which have long since perished.

3 Præf. ad Danielem, et Procem. ad Comment. in Daniel. Daniel was the original, and more ancient than the genuine Septuagint Michaelis has demonstrated that the Hebrew and Chaldee text of version of this book, in the fourth volume of his (German) Bibliotheca Orientalis. See an English version of this demonstration in Dr. Apthorp's Discourses on Prophecy, vol. i. pp. 244-250.

Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integrität des Sacharjah, erwiesen von Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. Berlin, 1831. 8vo.

These refutations of neologian objections are abridged from the Bibl cal Repertory printed at Philadelphia, vol. iv. N. S. pp. 51-58.

extremely ancient. Thirdly, Athenæus and others state that the city was called Shushan, from the multitude of lilies growing in that region, a fact reconcilable with any date whatever.

(2.) Another passage which has been objected to, is what De Wette calls the laughable description (in ch. vi.) of a lion's den like a cistern, with a stone to close the orifice.

office of the writers. The prophetic gift must be discriminated | tradicted by all Greek and Oriental writers, who represent it as from the prophetic office. The one was common to all who were inspired; the latter to the regular, official prophets, who communicated the divine will to the Jewish nation. The books written by these prophets, as such, formed the second great division. The third, Dr. H. thinks, contains the inofficial prophecies. Why else should Jeremiah's Lamentations be disjoined from his prophecies? As to the relative position of the book among the Hagiographa, it evidently proves neither one thing nor another; as the book of Ezra is placed after it, and a slight inspection shows that no regard was had to date in the arrangement of the parts. OBJECTION 3.-The authors of the Talmud and the modern Jews regard the book of Daniel with contempt.

ANSWER. The Talmudists have been misapprehended, and the prejudice of the modern Jews has naturally sprung from their hatred to the Gospel, and whatever tends to prove its authenticity.

OBJECTION 4.-A fourth objection is founded on the words of the book itself. "In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood by BOOKS the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem." (Dan. ix. 2.) The Hebrew word translated books has the article prefixed. This Bleek considers as synonymous with biblia or the Scriptures, and a decisive proof that the Old Testament canon was already closed, and in the hands of the writer of this book.

ANSWER. First, We have no proof of these books containing any other matter than the prophecies of Jeremiah. Secondly, The technical term in use among the later Jews to designate the canon was not "the books," but "the writings." Thirdly, The supposititious forger of the book of Daniel never would have hinted at the canon's being closed, when his very object was to have his book included in it. Fourthly, Before the adjustment of the canon, there were private collections of the sacred books, as appears not only from the nature of the case, but from the fact, that Jeremiah quotes and imitates Moses, Isaiah, Obadiah, and Micah, a circumstance admitted both by Eichhorn and De Wette. These reasons are, we think, sufficient, without appealing, as Pareau does, to the Jewish tradition, that the sacred books were secured by Jeremiah before the burning of the temple, and entrusted to the care of Daniel.

OBJECTION 5. The lavish expenditure of signs and wonders, without any apparent object, is unworthy of the Deity.

ANSWER. It is worthy of remark, that one of those who urge this difficulty has supplied an answer. This is Griesinger, who innocently observes, that no better reason seems assignable for all these miracles than a disposition to exalt Jehovah above other Gods! Can a better be desired? It is true, the adversaries still object, cui bono? We need only condense Dr. Hengstenberg's three replies into as many sentences. 1. That the faith and hope of the exiles might be maintained. 2. That a way might be opened for their restoration. 3. That the heathen might be awed into forbearance and respect towards God's peculiar people. OBJECTION 6.-The book of Daniel contains historical inaccuracies.

ANSWER. We know nothing about the lions' dens in that part of the world; but we know, that in Fez and Morocco they are subterraneous, and that criminals are often thrown into them. Who knows how large the stone was in the case before us?

(3.) A third objection of the same kind is, that Belshazzar is represented (Dan. v. 11. 13. 18. 22.) as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas, according to profane historians, he was his fourth successor.

ANSWER. No fact is more familiar, than that father denotes an ancestor, son, a descendant.

(4.) The other historical objections which Dr. Hengstenberg notices, are, that Cyaxares II. is by Daniel called Darius-and that in the first verse of the first chapter, Jerusalem is said to have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, in the third year of Jehoiakim, while it appears from Jer. xlvi. 1. that the battle of Carchemish, which must have preceded that event, occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and from Jer. xxv. 1. that this same fourth year was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. Dr. Hengstenberg's solution of these difficulties carries him so far into minutise that we can neither follow copy nor abridge his argument. Suffice it to say, that it is wholly satisfactory, and exhibits in a strong light his critical sagacity, his learning, and his judgment. OBJECTION 7.-The book of Daniel contains various inconsistencies and contradictions.

ANSWER. These alleged inconsistencies and contradictions are merely apparent, not real. The last verse of the first chapter, for instance, has been represented as at variance with the first verse of the tenth, as though the former intimated that he lived no longer! A similar objection has been founded on Belshaz zar's not knowing Daniel (v. 14.), who had been exalted to such honour by Nebuchadnezzar (ii. 48, 49.); a circumstance explained by the very characters of the prophet and the king, which were too opposite to admit of intimacy. Daniel would naturally stand aloof from so debauched a court.

Again, the indefatigable adversary asks, how could Nebuchadnezzar be ignorant (iii. 14.) whether the Hebrews served his God, when he had himself (ii. 47.) acknowledged theirs to be a God of gods and Lord of lords? This inconsistency, as Dr. Hengstenberg observes, is chargeable not upon the sacred writer, but upon the heathen king. His former acknowledgment resulted not from a change of heart, but from astonishment and terror-a distinction which the psychology of rationalists knows nothing of. The same may be said of the objection started to the diverse exhibitions of this same king's character in the first three chapters and the fourth.

OBJECTION 8.-Opinions and usages are mentioned in this book, which are clearly modern, that is, of later date than that claimed for the book itself.

(1.) The grossest of these is said to be the statement in the (1.) Dan. vi. 11. "Now when Daniel knew that the writing first two verses in the eighth chapter. Bertholdt's objections are was signed, he went into his house; and, his windows being -that Elam is mentioned as a province of the Babylonish em- open in his chamber towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his pire, in which Daniel acted as a royal officer (v. 27.), whereas knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks to his God it was a province of the Median empire, as appears from Isaiah as he did aforetime." Here it is objected that these are allusions xxi. 2. and Jeremiah xxv. 5. 2. That a palace is spoken of at to three modern customs,-that of praying thrice towards JeruShushan, whereas the palace there was built by Darius Hys-salem-that of praying thrice a day and that of having a chamtaspes, as appears from Pliny. 3. That the name Shushan itself ber appropriated to prayer. (which signifies a lily) was not given until long after Darius, and was intended to express the beauty of the edifices which that prince erected.

ANSWER. First, The subjection of Elam by the Chaldees is predicted by Jeremiah (xlix. 34.), and the fulfilment of the prophecy recorded by Ezekiel. (xxxii. 24.) The prediction quoted by Bertholdt (Jer. xxv. 5.) represents Elam, not as a province of Media, but as an independent monarchy, and intimates its overthrow. This prophecy was uttered in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, that of Daniel in the third of Belshazzar's. But even admitting the assertion of the adversary, there is no departure from the truth of history. Daniel was at Shushan only "in a vision," as appears from a strict translation of the passage. The scene of his vision, so to speak, was there, because Shushan was to be the capital of the empire whose fortunes he foresaw. Secondly, Pliny's statement as to the building of the palace, and indeed the whole city, by Darius Hystaspes, is con

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

ANSWER.-There are no such allusions to modern customs. That the custom of praying towards Jerusalem was an ancient practice, is susceptible of proof from Scripture. The law of Moses required all sacrifices to be offered at the place which the Lord should choose "to put his name there." (Deut. xii. 5, 6.) Prayer would of course accompany oblation. Their burntofferings," says the Lord by the mouth of Isaiah, "and their sacrifices, shall be accepted upon my altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people." (Isa. lvi. 7.) "In thy fear," says David," will I worship toward thy holy temple." (Psal. v. 7. cxxxviii. 2.) "I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle." (xxviii. 2.) Now, if in the temple prayer was offered toward the oracle or sanctuary, and in the city toward the temple, surely those who were out of the city, whether far or near, would be likely to offer theirs toward Jerusalem itself. "If thy people," says Solomon in his dedicatory prayer, "go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and

toward the house that I have built for thy name, then hear thou | Hellenistic Jew, without having any higher source whence in heaven," &c. (1 Kings viii. 44.) Nor would the practice cease, because the temple was destroyed. Its very site was regarded by the Jews as holy. "Remember this mount Sion, wherein thou hast dwelt. They have set thy sanctuary on fire," &c. (Psal. lxxiv. 2. 7.)

With regard to the custom of praying thrice a day, it is so natural, that we find it among those with whom the Jews could have had no intercourse, the Brahmins for example. And what says David? "Evening and morning and at noon will I pray and cry aloud." (Psal. Iv. 17.)

The third particular-that of having a chamber appropriated to prayer-rests upon mere assumption. There is nothing said about a chamber used exclusively for devotional purposes; and if there was, there can be no ground for the assertion, that this was an invention of the later Jewish formalists. Our Lord commands his disciples to go into their closets, and not to pray in public, like the Pharisees. (Matt. vi.) On the other hand, David "went up to the chamber over the gate," if not to pray, at least to vent his grief (2 Sam. xviii. 33.), and Elijah went into a loft," and "cried unto the Lord." (1 Kings xvii. 20.) Was this a modern pharisaical invention, as affirmed by Bertholdt ?

(2.) The advice of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, (iv. 27.) is represented by Bertholdt as ascribing an efficacy to alms-giving, which was never dreamed of in the days of old. He translates the verse-"Buy off (compensate or atone for) thy sins by gifts, and thy guilt by doing good to the poor." Dr. Hengstenberg shows clearly that the true sense is that which our own translation gives "Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." The adversary has the credit, therefore, not of the objection only, but of the fault objected to!

(3.) A similar objection has been raised by Gramberg, in relation to the doctrine of meritorious fasting, as implied in ch. ix. That religious fasting was a most ancient usage of the Jews, any compendium of biblical antiquities will show. That the popish notion of merit should be found in a passage where such words as these occur-"We do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies" (Dan. ix. 18.)-argues something rather worse than inadvert

ence in the caviller who finds it there.1

IV. In the Vulgate Latin edition of the Bible, as well as in Theodotion's Greek version, which was adopted by all the Greek churches in the East in lieu of the incorrect Septuagint translation above alluded to, there is added, in the third chapter of Daniel, between the twenty-third and twentyfourth verses, the song of the three children, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, who were cast into the fiery furnace. The version of Theodotion also introduces, at the beginning of this book, the history of Susanna, and, at the end, the stories of Bel and the Dragon; and this arrangement is followed by the modern version in use in the Greek church. But, in the Latin Vulgate, both these apocryphal pieces were separated by Jerome from the canonical book, and were dismissed to its close, with an express notice that they were NOT found by him in the Hebrew, but were translated from Theodotion. In a later age, however, they were improperly made a continuation of Daniel, being numbered chapters xiii. and xiv.; an arrangement which has been followed in all the modern versions from the Vulgate in use among the members of the Romish church, and sometimes (particularly in the Dublin edition of the Anglo-Romish version of the Bible printed in 1825) with the unjustifiable omission of the cautionary notice of Jerome. The narratives of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon do not exist in the genuine Septuagint version of Daniel, recovered in the middle of the eighteenth century; nor were these apocryphal additions ever received into the canon of Holy Writ by the Jewish church. They are not extant in the Hebrew or Chaldee languages, nor is there any evidence that they ever were so extant. The occurrence of Hebraisms in them proves nothing more than that they were written by a Hebrew in the Greek tongue, into which he transferred the idioms of his own language; and that they were thus originally written in Greek by some

The above are the principal objections of modern neologians, with the very satisfactory refutations of Dr. Hengstenberg; who has further investigated various anachronisins, improbabilities, and incongruities alleged to exist in the book of Daniel, at greater length than the limits of this work will admit of being stated even in the most condensed form. The reader is therefore necessarily referred to the English translation (forming part of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet), of his "Critical Inquiry into the Authenticity and Integrity of the Books of Daniel and Zechariah," which was announced for publication while this sheet was passing through the press.

they could be derived, is evident from this circumstance, that, in the history of Susanna, Daniel, in his replies to the elders, alludes to the Greek names of the trees, under which, they said, the adultery charged upon Susanna was committed, which allusions cannot hold good in any other language. The church of Rome, however, allows these spurious additions to be of the same authority with the rest of the book of Daniel; and, by a decree of the fourth session of the council of Trent, has given them an equal place in the canonical Scriptures. But they were never recognised as part of the sacred volume by the ancient fathers of the Christian church. Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and Apollinarius rejected these pieces, not only as being uncanonical, but also as fabulous; and Jerome, who has been followed by Bel and the Dragon no better title than that of "The Fable Erasmus and other modern writers, has given the history of of Bel and the Dragon." And others, who have admitted them for instruction of manners, have nevertheless rejected them from the canonical Scriptures; in which conduct they have been followed by the Protestant churches, who exclude them from the canonical, and class them among the apocryphal writings.3

I. Author and date.-II. Synopsis of its contents.

I. THE time when this prophet flourished is wholly uncertain. Jerome, with the Jews, is of opinion that he was the same person who was governor of Ahab's house, and who hid and fed one hundred prophets whom Jezebel would have destroyed. Some other critics think that he was the Obadiah mentioned in 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12. Dupin refers him to the whom Josiah constituted overseer of the works of the temple, time of Ahaz, in whose reign the Edomites, in conjunction with the Israelites, made war against the tribe of Judah; because his prophecy is almost wholly directed against the Edomites or Idumæans. Grotius, Huet, Dr. Lightfoot, and other commentators, however, make him to be contemporary with Hosea, Joel, and Amos, agreeably to the rule of the Jewish writers, viz. that, where the time of the prophet is not expressed, his predictions are to be placed in the same chronological order as the prophecy immediately preceding. Archbishop Newcome, with great probability, supposes that Obadiah prophesied between the taking of Jerusalem (which happened in the year 587 before Christ) and the destruction of Idumæa by Nebuchadnezzar, which took place a very few years after; consequently he was partly contemporary with Jeremiah. As the latter has many expressions similar to others in Obadiah, it is a question which of the two has borrowed from the other. Opinions vary on this subject, and there is not much preponderance of evidence on either side; except that, as Jeremiah has used the works of other prophets in his predictions against foreign nations, this fact renders it more probable that he had read Obadiah than the reverse. The following table of the parallel passages will enable the reader to form his own judgment:

Obadiah, verse 1. compared with Jeremiah xlix. 14.

[blocks in formation]

The writings of Obadiah, which consist of only one chapter, are composed with much beauty, and unfold a very interesting scene of prophecy.

2 In the examination of the elders, when one of them said he saw the crime committed, uno exivov, under a mastich tree, Daniel is represented as answering, in allusion to exivov, "The angel of God hath received sentence of God, XIZAI & Merov, to cut thee in two." And when the other elder said that it was bo pivov, under a holm tree, Daniel is made to answer, in allusion to the word pivov, "The angel of the Lord waiteth with the sword, IIPIZAI μrov, to cut thee in two." Jerome, ut supra.

3 Dr. Prideaux's Connection part i. book iii. sub anno 534. vol. i. pp. 164, 165. edit. 1720. Calmet's Dictionary, voce Daniel, and his Préface sur Daniel, Comm. Litt. tom. vi. pp. 609-612. The fullest vindication of the genuineness and canonical authority of the prophecies of Daniel is to be found in Bishop Chandler's "Vindication of the Defence of Christianity, from the Prophecies of the Old Testainent," in Dr. Samuel Chandler's "Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel's Prophecies," both published at London in 1728, in 8vo.; and in Dr. Hengstenberg's treatise already referred to in the course of this section.

• Professor Turner's Translation of Jahn, p. 369. note.

« ElőzőTovább »