stone, “cut out of the mountain without hands, which Sect. 6. Daniel being promoted to the highest office in the brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and empire under Darius the Mede, a conspiracy is formed the gold” (34,35.), represented the kingdom of the Messiah, against him. The prophet, being in consequence cast into which was " to fill the whole earth,” become universal, and a den of lions, is miraculously preserved; and Darius pubstand for ever, unchangeable and eternal. (44, 45.). This lishes a decree that all men should glorify the God of section concludes with an account of the promotion of Daniel. (vi.)

Daniel and his friends to distinguished honour.
Sect. 3. An account of the miraculous preservation of Sha- Part II. comprises various Prophecies and Visions of Things

drach, Meshach, and Abednego, who, having refused to wor-| future, until the Advent and Death of the Messiah, and the ship a golden image that had been set up by Nebuchadnez

ultimate Conversion of the Jews and Gentiles to the Faith of zar, were cast into a fiery furnace. (iii.)

the Gospel, in four Sections. (ch. vii.-xii.) Sect. 4. Nebuchadnezzar, having been punished, on account Sect. 1. The vision of the four beasts concerning the four

of his pride, with the loss of his reason, and driven from the great monarchies of the world : it was delivered about fortyconversation of men, is restored to reason and to his throne; eight years after Nebuchadnezzar's dream related in ch. ii. and by a public instrument proclaims to the world Daniel's but with some different circumstances. The first beast (4.) interpretation of his dream, and extols the God of heaven. represented the Babylonian empire, the second (5.) the (iv.) For an account of the nature of his insanity, see Medo-Persian empire: the third (6.) the Macedo-Grecian Vol. II. Part III. Chap. IX. Sect. I. S III. 7.

empire ; and the fourth (7.), the Roman empire. The ten Sect. 5. Relates the history of Daniel under Belshazzar; horns of this beast denote ten kingdoms or principalities

who, while rioting in his palace, and profaning the sacred which arose out of it, and were signified by the ten toes of vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jeru- the image. (ii. 41, 42.) These ten kingdoms or principalisalem, is suddenly terrified with the figure of a hand in- ties are variously enumerated by different writers, who have scribing certain words on the wall, which Daniel promptly supported their respective hypotheses with great learning reads and interprets. In the course of that same night, Bel- and ingenuity, for which we must refer the reader to their shazzar is slain, and the Babylonian empire is transferred to works. The following table, however, will exhibit the rethe Medes and Persians. (v.)

sult of their elaborate researches :

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

2. The second The Visigoths in

The Saxons in Britain. Pannonia. horn. 3. The third The Sueves and Alans in Gas.

The Franks. horn.

coigne and Spain. 4. The fourth The Vandals in


The Burgundians in France. horn. 5. The fifth The Franks in The Visigoths in the south of horn.

France. France and part of Spain. 6. The sixth The Burgundians The Sueves and Alans in Galhorn.

in Burgundy. licia and Portugal. 7. The seventh The Herali and

The Vandals in Africa. Thuringi in Italy. horn. 8. The eighth The Saxons and

The Alemanni in Germany. horn. Angles in Britain. 9. The ninth The Huns in

The Ostrogoths, who were suc

ceeded by the Lombards in Pan

Hungary. horn.

nonia, and afterwards in Italy. The Lombards, first 10. The tenth upon the Danube, The Greeks in the residue horn. and afterwards in

of the empire. Italy.

[blocks in formation]

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 Egeadæ, or the goat's people, as their first seat was called Ægeæ or Ægæ, or goat's town, a goat being their ensign or standard. (viii. 1-7. 20—22.) The four

“notable" horns, that sprang up on the fracture of the great horn (8. 23.), denote the four kingdoms of Greece, Thrace, Syria, and Égypt, 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 cha

racter. Sect. 3. While Daniel, understanding from the prophecies ix. 1, 2.), was humbling himself in fasting and prayer for of the Jewish Targums and Talmuds, which frequently quote 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

of Jeremiah (compare Jer. xxv. 11, 12. xxix. 10.), that the seventy years' captivity was now drawing to a close (Dan.

1 Hist. Flor. lib. i.

, Works, p. 661. : In Lowth's Commentary on the Prophets, pp. 381, 382. • Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book i. pp. 536–538.

On Daniel, ch. vi. p. 47. • Dissertations on the Prophecies, vol. i. p. 267.

. 23– for 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 testof 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.. Sect. 4. contains Daniel's fourth and last prophetic vision, in

2. The INTERNAL EVIDENCE is not less convincing ; for the third year of the reign of Cyrus, in which he is in

(1.) The language, style, and manner of writing, are all formed of various particulars concerning the Persian,

Gre- perfectly

agreeable to that age, and prove that it was written cian, and Roman empires, and the kingdom of the Messiah. about the time of the Babylonish captivity. Part of the (x.-xii.)

book, viz. from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the An introductory narrative states the occasion of the end of the seventh chapter, is written in the Chaldee lan vision, viz. Daniel's fasting and supplication (probably on degree as to prove that none but a Hebrew could have writ

guage (which, however, abounds with Hebraisms to such a account of the obstruction of the building of the temple), ten it), because that portion treats of the Chaldæan or Babyand describes the glorious person who appeared to the pro-lonish'affairs: the rest of the book is pure Hebrew, with the phet. (Dan. x. 1—21. xi. 1.). The prediction then describes exception of four words which have been supposed to be the fate of the Persian empire (xi. 2.), which was invaded Greek, the occurrence of which, however, is satisfactorily and destroyed by Alexander (3.); the partition of his vast accounted for.? dominions into four kingdoms (4.); and the wars between the kingdoms of Egypt (which lay to the south-west of in its historical statements and allusions, is another important

(2.) The extraordinary accuracy, which this book exhibits Judæa) and of Syria (which lay to the north-east of the internal evidence of its authenticity. To adduce one or two Holy Land) are then foretold, together with the conquest examples :of Macedon by the Romans. (5—36.) The prophecy then 1.] The first chapters represent Daniel as having attained, declares the tyranny of the papal Antichrist, which was to while yet a young man, an extensive reputation for extraorspring up under the Roman empire (36-39.), and the in- dinary wisdom and devotion to his God.' How satisfactorily vasion of the Saracens and of the Turks in the time of the does this explain the language of Ezekiel, his contemporary end, or latter days of the Roman monarchy. (40—45.) and an older man! “Son of man, when the land sinneth This prophetic vision concludes with foretelling the general against me, &c. though these three men, Noah, Daniel and resurrection (xii. 1—4.), and with announcing the time Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by when all these great events were to have their final con- their righteousness, said the Lord God.” (Ezek. xiv. 13, 14.) summation, when the Jews were to be restored, Antichrist Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the destroyed, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in, and the Lord God, Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast millennium, or reign of saints, was to begin. (5—13.) But said, I am a God, &c. thou art wiser than Daniel; there is the exact period, until Providence shall open more of the no secret that they can hide from thee.” (xxviii. 2, 3.) Can seals, cannot be fully ascertained.

this praise be accounted for in any other way than by supUpon the whole, we may observe with Bishop Newton, posing just such facts as are recorded in the book of Daniel? from whom the preceding analysis is chiefly abridged, “what

[2.] "The truth with which the characters of certain kings an amazing prophecy is this, comprehending so many various are drawn deserves attention. The last king of Babylon is events, and extending through so many successive ages, from represented by Xenophon as an effeminate, but cruel and imthe first establishment of the Persian empire, upwards of 530 pious, voluptuary, who put a man to death, because he missed years before Christ, to the general resurrection! What a proof his aim in hunting, and was guilty of innumerable other cruof a Divine Providence, and of a Divine Revelation ! for who elties; who despised the Deity, and spent his time in riotous could thus declare the things that shall be, with their times debauchery, but was at heart a coward. Is not this Belshazand seasons, but He only who hath them in his power : zar? The same historian represents Cyaxares as weak and whose dominion is over all, and whose kingdom endureth pliable, but of a cruel temper, easily managed for the most from generation to generation !"

part, but ferocious in his anger. Is not this Darius8—the III. Of all the old prophets Daniel is the most distinct in same Darius who allowed his nobles to make laws for him, the order of time, and the easiest to be understood ; and on and then repented—suffered Daniel to be cast into the lion's this account, Sir Isaac Newton observes, in those events den, and then spent night in lamentation, and at last, in which concern the last times, he must be the interpreter of strict conformity with Xenophon's description, condemned to the rest. All his predictions relate to each other, as if they death, not only his false counsellors, but all their wives and were several parts of one general prophecy. The first is the

children ? easiest to be understood, and every succeeding prophecy adds

[3.] It is also observable, that in this book, certain events something to the former. Though his style is not so lofty

are mentioned as a contemporary would be apt to mention and figurative as that of the other prophets, it is more suita-them; that is, concisely, and without minute detail, as being ble to his subject, being clear and concise: his narratives perfectly familiar to his immediate readers. Thus we are and descriptions are simple and natural; and, in short, he told that Daniel survived the first year of Cyrus, a notable writes more like an historian than a prophet.

Of the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel & The most important of these testimonies are collected by the writers we have every possible evidence, both external and internal.

referred to in the preceding column.

* The occurrence of Greek words (some German critics have objected) 1. With regard to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, we have not indicates a period not arlier at the furthest than the middle of the reign only the general testimony of the whole Jewish church and of Darius Hystaspes, when (they assert) Daniel could not have been living.

But four of them have been nation, which have constantly received this book as canoni- traced by later critics to the old Persian, and Gesenius himself maintains cal; but we have the particular testimony of Josephus, who that the Chaldees and Assyrians were of Medo-Persian origin.. Another (we have seen) commends Daniel as the greatest of prophets ; sf these ten words is admitted by the same distinguished scholar to be

curring in the fifth verse of the third chapter. The similarity of these 1 of this illustrious prophecy, which Sir Isaac Newton has justly pro- to certain Greek

words may be accounted for in either of these

ways:-1. nounced to be the foundation of the Christian religion, Dr. Hales has given From the ancient intercourse between the Greeks and Babylonians, mensome chronological computations, slightly differing from the above. See tioned by Strabo, Quintus Curtius, and Berosus;-2. On the supposition, his Analysis, vol. ii. p. 559. et seq.

that the Shemitish and Greek languages bore a common relation to an See Ezra iv. 4, 5.

older tongue;-3. On the supposition, that the names of musical instru. 3 The reader who is desirous of studying what has been written on this ments

were in the first instance onomapoetic, and therefore inight be subject is ref:rred to the writings of Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, analagous in languages totally distinct. Nothing more need be added than Mr. Faber and Dr. Hales, who have collected a great variety of'important a statement of the fact, that the latest writer on the wrong

side of the information or ine falfilment of Daniel's prophecies.

question (Kirms) has yielded this whole ground of opposition as untenable. • Dissertations on Prophecy, vol. i. pp. 413, 414.

(Philadelphia Biblical Repertory, vol. iv. p. 51.) * On Daniel, 2. 15.

• 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 Mac- which have been already fulfilled as those which are now cabees, would have been very likely to explain why this was fulfilling in the world. So clear and explicit, indeed, are mentioned as a sort of epoch.

his predictions concerning the advent of the Messiah, and 3. A distinct but analogous body of internal evidence is Other important events, of times far remote from those in furnished by the accurate acquaintance which the writer of which he lived, that Porphyry,2 a learned adversary of the this book evinces with the manners, usages, and institutions Christian faith in the thírd century,--finding that Daniel's of the age and country in which it is alleged to have been predictions concerning the several empires

were so universally written. The particular instances are many and minute; we acknowledged to be fulfilled, that he could not disprove the shall indicate a few.

fact of their accomplishment,-alleged against them that (1.) Daniel never speaks of adoration being rendered to they must have been written after the events to which they the kings of Babylon, according to the ancient, oriental usage. refer had actually occurred. To him they appeared to be a Why ? Arrian informs us, that Cyrus was the first who narration of events that had already taken place, rather than received such homage, which arose from a notion that the Per- prediction of things future ; such was the striking coincisian kings were incarnations of the Deity. For the same dence between the facts when accomplished,

and the prophereason, their decrees were esteemed irrevocable, while no cies which foretold them. And he further affirmed that they such doctrine seems to have prevailed under the Chaldee were not composed by Daniel, whose name they bore, but by monarchs. Daniel accordingly asserts no such thing of any some person who lived in Judæa about the time of Antiochus but Darius.

Epiphanes; because all the prophecies to that time contained (2.) The land of Shinar was the name used by the natives, true history, but all beyond that period were manifestly false. as we learn from good authority. It occurs nowhere in the But this method of opposing the prophecies, as Jerome has historical parts of Scripture, after the book of Genesis, until rightly observed,3 affords the strongest testimony to their we meet with it in Daniel. (i. 2.) A resident in Palestine truth; for they were fulfilled with such exactness, that, to would not have thought of using it.

infidels, the prophet seemed not to have foretold things fu(3.) Nebuchadnezzar commands (i. 5.) that the young ture, but to have related things past. With respect to the men chosen for his service should be fed from his

table. particular prophecy (Dan. xi.) relating to the kings of Syria That this was the oriental custom, we are informed by Ctesias and Egypt, which Porphyry affirmed was written after the and others.

time of Antiochus Epiphanes, we may remark that the book (4.) Daniel and his companions, when selected for the of Daniel was translated into the Greek language one hunroyal service, received new names. (i. 7.). In 2 Kings xxiv. dred years before he lived; and that very translation was in 17. we read, that “the king of Babylon made Mattaniah king, the hands of the Egyptians, who did not cherish any great and changed his name to Zedekiah.” Two of these names, kindness towards the Jews and their religion : and those moreover, are apparently derived from those of Babylonish prophecies which foretold the successes of Alexander (Dan. idols.

viii. 5. xi. 3.) were shown to him by the Jews, in conse(5.) In Dan. ii. 5. iii. 6. there are tokens of an accurate quence of which he conferred upon them several privileges.* acquaintance with the forms of capital punishment in use Conclusive as the preceding external and internal evidences among the Chaldees; while in the sixth chapter a new sortare, for the genuineness of Daniel's predictions, the destruction is described as usual with the Medes and Persians.

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 known fondness for that art,

Professor Hengstenberg, in his Treatise on "The Authenticity (7.), We find in ch. v. 2. that women were present at the of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah." From this royal banquet. So far was this from being usual in later leared writer's masterly treatise the following observations, times, that the Septuagint translators have expunged it from comprising his refutations of the most material neologian the text. And yet we know from Xenophon, that before the objections, have been selected :Persian conquest such was indeed the practice of the Baby- OBJECTION 1.—Daniel is not mentioned by the son of Sirach lonian court.

when eulogizing the worthies of his nation in Ecclus. xlvii. 50. 4. There are some things peculiar to the prophecies of this ANSWER.-If this proves any thing, it proves too much. It - book, which clearly indicate that he who was the organ of proves that no such man as Daniel ever lived,—nor Ezra, --noz them, was a bonâ fide resident in Babylon. Thus, (1.) In the earlier predictions of this book, as in Zechariah is mentioned.

Mordecai,-nor any of the minor prophets--not one of whom and Ezekiel, we find less poetry, and more of symbolical language, than in the pure Hebrew prophets. Every thing stands near the end of the Hagiographa, and not among the

OBJECTION 2.—The book of Daniel, in the Hebrew Bibles, is designated by material emblems. Beasts are the representatives of kings and kingdoms. The imagery likewise prophets. appears cast in a gigantic mould. All this is in accordance

ANSWER.—This circumstance Bertholdt explains by saying, with the Babylonish taste, with which the Prophet

was fami- that this third division of the Old Testament was not formed liar, and to which the Holy Spirit condescended to accommo- until after the other two were closed. The compilers, or authors date his teachings. A striking confirmation of this exegesis of the canon, he supposes, intended to make two great classes, is, that this mode of exhibition ceases suddenly and wholly the law and the prophets. The books of Joshua, Judges, Sawith the Chaldee dynasty. The last four chapters, which muel, and Kings, were included in the second, merely because were written under the Medo-Persian domination, are with there was no third. A third was eventually formed to receive out a trace of it.

those writings which afterwards laid claim to inspiration. To (2.) Again, Daniel's visions, like those of Ezekiel, have this explanation, Dr. Hengstenberg objects, that it rests on mere the banks of rivers for their scene. (Dan. viii. 2.-X. 4. assumptions, and is flatly contradicted by all Jewish authorities, Ezek. i. 1. 3.) Does not this imply, that the author had His own solution may be briefly stated thus :—The distinction resided in a land of lordly streams? This minute local pro- between the prophets and the Hagiographa is not of a chronolopriety would scarcely have been looked for in a Canaanitish gical kind at all, but is founded on the peculiar character and forger, though writing in full view of the very“ swellings of Jordan."

> Porphyry seems to have been the first who impugned the genuineness (3.) Lastly, Daniel, still like his fellow in captivity and against the Christians. Dr. Lardner has collected such of his objections

and authority of Daniel's writings, in the twelfth of his fifteen books the prophetic office, displays a chronological precision quite as are extant, together with Jerome's answers to them, Jewish and unknown to earlier seers, but perfectly in keeping with the Heathen. Testimonies, chap. xxxvii. (Works, vol. viii. pp. 185–204. 8vo.; character of one who had been naturalized among the great wrote answers to Porphyry, which have long since perished. astronomers and chronologers of the old world.1

3 Præf. ad Danielem, et Proæm. ad Comment in Daniel. 5. But the most satisfactory internal evidence for the genu- Daniel was the original, and more ancient than the genuine septuagint

• Michaelis has demonstrated that the Hebrew and Chaldee text of ineness and authenticity of this book is to be found in the version of this book, in the fourth volume of his (Gertnan) Bibliotheca 1 For the above proofs of the

genuineness and authenticity of the book Discourses on Prophecy, vol. i. pp. 244–250. of Daniel we are indebted to Professor Hengstenberg of Berlin, whose 6 Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integrität des Sacharjah, erwiesen Vindication of this Prophet is analyzed at considerable length in the von Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg. Berlin, 1831. 8vo. fourth volume of the Biblical Repertory, printed at Philadelphia in 1832. 6 These refutations of neologian objections are abridged from the Bibli (pp. 65–68.)

cal Repertory printed at Philadelphia, vol. iv. N. S. pp. 51-58.

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 extremely ancient. Thirdly, Athenæus and others state that the inspired; the latter to the regular, official prophets, who commu- city was called Shushan, from the multitude of lilies growing in nicated the divine will to the Jewish nation. The books written that region, a fact reconcilable with any date whatever. by these prophets, as such, formed the second great division. (2.) Another passage which has been objected to, is what De The third, Dr. H. thinks, contains the inofficial prophecies. Why Wette calls the laughable description (in ch. vi.) of a lion's den else should Jeremiah's Lamentations be disjoined from his pro- like a cistern, with a stone to close the orifice. phecies? As to the relative position of the book among the Hagio- ANSWER.We know nothing about the lions' dens in that grapha, it evidently proves neither one thing nor another; as the part of the world; but we know, that in Fez and Morocco they book of Ezra is placed after it, and a slight inspection shows are subterraneous, and that criminals are often thrown into them. that no regard was had to date in the arrangement of the parts. Who knows how large the stone was in the case before us?

OBJECTION 3.—The authors of the Talmud and the modern (3.) A third objection of the same kind is, that Belshazzar is Jews regard the book of Daniel with contempt.

represented (Dan. v. 11. 13. 18. 22.) as the son of NebuchadAnswer.—The Talmudists have been misapprehended, and nezzar, whereas, according to profane historians, he was his the prejudice of the modern Jews has naturally sprung from their fourth successor. hatred to the Gospel, and whatever tends to prove its authen- ANSWER.—No fact is more familiar, than that father denotes ticity.

an ancestor, son, a descendant. OBJECTION 4.-A fourth objection is founded on the words of (4.) The other historical objections which Dr. Hengstenberg the book itself. “In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, under- notices, are, that Cyaxares II. is by Daniel called Darius-and stood by Books the number of the years whereof the word of the that in the first verse of the first chapter, Jerusalem is said to Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, in the third year of Jehoiaseventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.” (Dan. ix. 2.) kim, while it appears from Jer. xlvi. 1. that the hattle of CarcheThe Hebrew word translated books has the article prefixed. This mish, which must have preceded that event, occurred in the Bleek considers as synonymous with biblia or the Scriptures, fourth year of Jehoiakim, and from Jer. xxv. 1. that this same und a decisive proof that the Old Testament canon was already fourth year was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. Dr. Hengstenclosed, and in the hands of the writer of this book.

berg's solution of these difficulties carries him so far into minuANSWER.——First, We have no proof of these books contain- tie that we can neither follow copy nor abridge his argument. ing any other matter than the prophecies of Jeremiah. Secondly, Suffice it to say, that it is wholly satisfactory, and exhibits in a The technical term in use among the later Jews to designate the strong light his critical sagacity, his learning, and his judgmenta canon was not “ the books,” but “the writings.” Thirdly, The OBJECTION 7.–The book of Daniel contains various inconsupposititious forger of the book of Daniel never would have sistencies and contradictions. hinted at the canon's being closed, when his very object was to AxSWER.–These alleged inconsistencies and contradictions have his book included in it. Fourthly, Before the adjustment are merely apparent, not real. The last verse of the first chapof the canon, there were private collections of the sacred books, ter, for instance, has been represented as at variance with the first as appears not only from the nature of the case, but from the verse of the tenth, as though the former intimated that he lived fact, that Jeremiah quotes and imitates Moses, Isaiah, Obadiah, no longer! A similar objection has been founded on Belshazand Micah, a circumstance admitted both by Eichhorn and De zar's not knowing Daniel (v. 14.), who had been exalted to such Wette. These reasons are, we think, sufficient, without appeal- honour by Nebuchadnezzar (ii. 48, 49.); a circumstance exing, as Pareau does, to the Jewish tradition, that the sacred books plained by the very characters of the prophet and the king, which were secured by Jeremiah before the burning of the temple, and were too opposite to admit of intimacy. "Daniel would naturally entrusted to the care of Daniel.

stand aloof from so debauched a court. OBJECTION 5.-The lavish expenditure of signs and wonders, Again, the indefatigable adversary asks, how could Nebuchadwithout any apparent object, is unworthy of the Deity. nezzar be ignorant (ii. 14.) whether the Hebrews served his

Answer.—It is worthy of remark, that one of those who urge God, when he had himself (ii. 47.) acknowledged theirs to be a this difficulty has supplied an answer. This is Griesinger, who God of gods and Lord of lords? This inconsistency, as Dr. innocently observes, that no better reason seems assignable for all Hengstenberg observes, is chargeable not upon the sacred writer, these miracles than a disposition to exalt Jehovah above other but upon the heathen king. His former acknowledgment reGods! Can a better be desired ? It is true, the adversaries still sulted not from a change of heart, but from astonishment and object, cui bono? We need only condense Dr. Hengstenberg's terror—a distinction which the psychology of rationalists knows three replies into as many sentences. 1. That the faith and nothing of. The same may be said of the objection started to the hope of the exiles might be maintained. 2. That a way might be diverse exhibitions of this same king's character in the first three opened for their restoration. 3. That the heathen might be awed chapters and the fourth. into forbearance and respect towards God's peculiar people. OBJECTION 8.—Opinions and usages are mentioned in this

OBJECTION 6.—The book of Daniel contains historical inac- book, which are clearly modern, that is, of later date than that curacies.

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.1 3. That the name Shushan itself ber appropriated to prayer. (which signifies a lily) was not given until long after Darius, ANSWER.—There are no such allusions to modern customs. and was intended to express the beauty of the edifices which that That the custom of praying towards Jerusalem was an anprince erected.

cient practice, is susceptible of proof from Scripture. The law ANSWER.–First, The subjection of Elam by the Chaldees is of Moses required all sacrifices to be offered at the place which predicted by Jeremiah (xlix. 34.), and the fulfilment of the pro- the Lord should choose " to put his name there.” (Deut. xii. 5, phecy recorded by Ezekiel. (xxxii

. 24.) The prediction quoted 6.) Prayer would of course accompany oblation. Their burntby Bertholdt (Jer. xxv. 5.) represents Elam, not as a province offerings,” says the Lord by the mouth of Isaiah," and their of Media, but as an independent monarchy, and intimates its sacrifices, shall be accepted upon my altar ; for mine house shall overthrow. This prophecy was uttered in the first year of Nebu- be called a house of prayer for all people.” (Isa. lvi. 7.) " In chadnezzar's reign, that of Daniel in the third of Belshazzar’s. thy fear,” says David, “ will I worship toward thy holy temple." But even admitting the assertion of the adversary, there is no (Psal. v. 7. cxxxviii. 2.). “ I lift up my hands toward thy holy ora, departure from the truth of history. Daniel was at Shushan cle." (xxviii. 2.) Now, if in the temple prayer was offered toward only “in a vision,” as appears from a strict translation of the the oracle or sanctuary, and in the city toward the temple, surely passage. The scene of his vision, so to speak, was there, because those who were out of the city, whether far or near, would be Shushan was to be the capital of the empire whose fortunes he likely to offer theirs toward Jerusalem itself. “ If thy people," foresaw. Secondly,

Pliny's statement as to the building of the says Solomon in his dedicatory prayer, “ go out to battle against palace, and indeed the whole city, by Darius Hystaspes, is con- their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray 1 Hist. Nat. vi. 26.

unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and VOL. II.


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 they could be derived, is evident from this circumstance, that, cease, because the temple was destroyed. Its very site was re- in the history of Susanna, Daniel, in his replies to the elders, garded by the Jews as holy. “Remember this mount Sion, alludes to the Greek names of the trees, under which, they wherein thou hast dwelt. They have set thy sanctuary on said, the adultery charged upon Susanna was committed, fire,” &c. (Psal. lxxiv. 2. 7.)

which allusions cannot hold good in any other language. With regard to the custom of praying thrice a day, it is so The church of Rome, however, allows these spurious addinatural, that we find it among those with whom the Jews could tions to be of the same authority with the rest of the book have had no intercourse, the Brahmins for example. And what of Daniel; and, by a decree of the fourth session of the says David ? “ Evening and morning and at noon will I pray and council of Trent, has given them an equal place in the cry aloud.” (Psal. lv. 17.)

canonical Scriptures. But they were never recognised as The third particular—that of having a chamber appropriated part of the sacred volume by the ancient fathers of the to prayer—rests upon mere assumption. There is nothing said Christian church. Julius Africanus, Eusebius, and Apolli about a chamber used exclusively for devotional purposes; and narius rejected these pieces, not only as being uncanonical, if there was, there can be no ground for the assertion, that this but also as fabulous; and Jerome, who has been followed by was an invention of the later Jewish formalists. Our Lord com- Erasmus and other modern writers, has given the

history of mands his disciples to go into their closets, and not to pray in Bel and the Dragon no better title than that of The

Fable public, like the Pharisees. (Matt. vi.) On the other hand, David them for instruction of manners, have nevertheless rejected

of Bel and the Dragon.” And others, who have admitted * went up to the chamber over the gate,” if not to pray, at least them from the canonical Scriptures; in which conduct they to vent his grief (2 Sam. xviii. 33.), and Elijah went into a have been followed by the Protestant

churches, who exclude loft,” and “ cried unto the Lord.” (1 Kings xvii

. 20.), Was this them from the canonical, and class them among the apocrya modern pharisaical invention, as affirmed by Bertholdt ?

phal writings. (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

$ 5. ON THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET OBADIAH. the verse—“Buy off (compensate or atone for) thy sins by gifts, and thy guilt by doing good to the poor." Dr. Hengstenberg

I. Author and date.-II. Synopsis of its contents. shows clearly that the true sense is that which our own transla

BEFORE CHRIST, 588—583. tion gives—“Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." The adversary has

1. The time when this prophet flourished is wholly uncerthe credit, therefore, not of the objection only, but of the fault tain. Jerome, with the Jews, is of opinion that he was the objected to !

same person who was governor of Ahab's house, and who (3.) A similar objection has been raised by Gramberg, in hid and fed one hundred prophets whom Jezebel would have relation to the doctrine of meritorious fasting, as implied in ch. destroyed. Some other critics think that he was the Obadiah ix. That religious fasting was a most ancient usage of the whom Josiah constituted overseer of the works of the temple, Jews, any compendium of biblical antiquities will show. That time of Ahaz, in whose reign the Edomites, in conjunction the popish notion of merit should be found in a passage where with the Israelites, made war against the tribe of Judah; such words as these occur—“We do not present

our supplica, because his prophecy is almost wholly directed against the tions before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies” | Edomites or IJumæans. Grotius, Huet, Dr. Lightfoot, and (Dan. ix. 18.)—argues something rather worse than inadvert- other commentators, however, make him to be contemporary ence in the caviller who finds it there.

with Hosea, Joel, and Amos, agreeably to the rule of the IV. In the Vulgate Latin edition of the Bible, as well as Jewish writers, viz. that, where the time of the prophet is in Theodotion's Greek version, which was adopted by all the not expressed, his predictions are to be placed in the same Greek churches in the East in lieu of the incorrect Septuagint chronological order as the prophecy immediately preceding, translation above alluded to, there is added, in the third Archbishop Newcome, with great probability, supposes that chapter of Daniel, between the twenty-third and twenty- Obadiah prophesied between the taking of Jerusalem (which fourth verses, the song of the three children, Hananiah, happened in the year 587 before Christ) and the destruction Mishael, and Azariah, who were cast into the fiery furnace. of Idumea by Nebuchadnezzar, which took place a very few The version of Theodotion also introduces, at the beginning years after; consequently he was partly contemporary with of this book, the history of Susanna, and, at the end, the Jeremiah. As the latter has many expressions similar to stories of Bel and the Dragon; and this arrangement is fol- others in Obadiah, it is a question which of the two has bor. lowed by the modern version in use in the Greek church. rowed from the other. Opinions vary on this subject, and But, in the Latin Vulgate, both these apocryphal pieces were there is not much preponderance of evidence on either side ; separated by Jerome from the canonical book, and were dis- except that, as Jeremiah has used the works of other prophets missed to its close, with an express notice that they were in his predictions against foreign nations, this fact renders it Not found by him in the Hebrew, but were translated from more probable that he had read Obadiah than the reverse. Theodotion. In a later age, however, they were improperly The following table of the parallel passages will enable the made a continuation of Daniel, being numbered chapters xiii. reader to form his own judgment: and xiv.; an arrangement which has been followed in all the modern versions from the Vulgate in use among the members

Obadiah, verse 1. compared with Jeremiah xlix. 14. 2.

15. of the Romish church, and sometimes (particularly in the

3, 4.

16. Dublin edition of the Anglo-Romish version of the Bible


9. printed in 1825) with the unjustifiable omission of the cau


10. tionary notice of Jerome. The narratives of Susanna and of


7.4 Bel and the Dragon do not exist in the genuine Septuagint version of Daniel, recovered in the middle of the eighteenth The writings of Obadiah, which consist of only one chapcentury; nor were these apocryphal additions ever received ter, are composed with much beauty, and unfold a very into the canon of Holy Writ by the Jewish church. They interesting scene of prophecy. are not extant in the Hebrew or Chaldee languages, nor is there any evidence that they ever were so extant. The 2 In the examination of the elders, when one of them id he saw the occurrence of Hebraisms in them proves nothing more than crime committed, use ozivov, under a mastich tree, Daniel is represented that they were written by a Hebrew in the Greek tongue, tence of God, EXIE AI TE usoov, to cut thee in two." And when the other into which he transferred the idioms of his own language; elder said that it was bro apivov, under a holm tree, Daniel is made to an: and that they were thus originally written in Greek by some the sword, NIPILAI ct ystov, to cut inee in two." Jeroine, ut supra.

1 The above are the principal objections of modern neologians, with the 3 Dr. Prideaux's Connection part i. book iii. sub anno 534. vol. i. pp. 164, very satisfactory refutations of Dr. Hengstenberg; who has further inves- 165. edit. 1720. Calmet's Dictionary, voce Daniel, and his Préface sur tigated various anachronisins, improbabilities, and incongruities alleged to Daniel, Comm. Litt. tom. vi. pp. 609-612. The fullest vindication of the exist in the book of Daniel, at greater length than the limits of this work genuineness and canonical authority of the prophecies of Daniel is to be will admit of being stated even in the most condensed form. The reader found in Bishop Chandler's "Vindication of the Defence of Christianity, is therefore necessarily referred to the English translation (forming part from the Prophecies of the Old Testainent," in Dr. Samuel Chandler's of the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet), of his Critical Inquiry into the An- "Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel's Prophecies," both thenticity and Integrity of the Books of Daniel and Zechariah," which published at London in 1728, in 8vo.; and in Dr. Hengstenberg's treatise was announced for publication while this sheet was passing through the already referred to in the course of this section. press.

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

« ElőzőTovább »