''."'.'¦

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

KAYE UNIVERSITY PRIZE.

AN ESSAY

ON THE

AUTHENTICITY

OF THE BOOK OF / DANIEL

BY THE

REV. J. M. FULLER, M.A.
ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBEIDGB,
AND CUEATE OF ST PETEE'S PIMLICO.

CAMBRIDGE :
DEIGHTON, BELL, AND CO.
LONDON: BELL AND DALDY.

TO MY FATHER,
THE REV. THOS. FULLER, M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
AND INCUMBENT OF ST PETER'S, PIMLICO,

is ®ssa;g

18
DEDICATED
AS A TOKEN OB
FILIAL EESPECT AND AFFECTION.

THE KAYE PRIZE.
" The Committee of the Subscribers to the late Bishop Kaye's
Memorial at Lincoln, having offered the sum of £500, 3 per Cent.
Consols for the foundation of a Prize to be called the Kaye Prize,
to be given every fourth year to ihe graduate of not more than ten
years' standing from his first degree, who shall write the best English
Dissertation upon some subject or question relating to ancient Ec
clesiastical History, or to the Canon of Scripture, or important
points of Biblical criticism; the offer was accepted by Grace of the
Senate, June 6, 1861, under the following conditions:
" The Prize to consist of the accumulation of interest on the
Capital sum during ihe four years preceding, and the successful
Candidate to print and publish his Dissertation at his own expense,
and to send ten copies to the Cathedral Library at Lincoln, and one
copy to the Vice-Chancellor, the Regius Professor of Divinity, and
each of the two Examiners." — From The Cambridge University
Calendar.

PREFACE.

It has been my endeavour in the following Essay
to bring together the latest results of modern
criticism upon the Book of Daniel. It is no dis
paragement to such excellent critics as Bertholdt,
Hengstenberg, and their respective followers, to
assert, that the criticism of twenty, or even of
ten years ago, is in many points obsolete. Sci
ence, discovery, sounder methods of interpretation,
a deeper acquaintance with philological and his
torical canons, have suggested the necessity of
correcting many former views. The subject will
be felt to be a large one, and I do not pretend
to have succeeded in my intention. "While I am
writing1 fresh works upon this subject have passed

1 Tlie opening statement of the Introduction concerning S. Hippolytus has
been elaborated and established by a writer in the Journal of Sacred Literature
(Jan. 1864). The new Vols, of Smith's Diet., to which I have been able to
make casual reference only, and of Herzog's Rgal-Encyclop.; a work of Hilgen-
feld's on Ezra and Daniel, the second part directed against Ziindel ; Aberle's

viii Preface.
and are passing through the press. But I rnay
claim them as instances of the interest the whole
question is exciting, not as superseding any indi
vidual effort. In my little work I have but
endeavoured to do for my brother students in
England what Ziindel, to name the last, has
done for Germany.
The limits imposed upon me were naturally
those suggested by the title of this treatise. My
work is an 'Essay,' not a book. I have not
therefore thought it necessary to discuss points of
minor importance. The maintenance of the 'au
thenticity' of Daniel defined for me the task of
proving that it was composed by the author whose
name it bears, at the time, among the people,
and under the circumstances assigned in the con
tents. Within - these limits I have confined my
remarks. They have been more than sufficient to
permit to me the Examination of a Canonical
Work by the tests of Inspiration, and by the laws
of nature, of language, and of history.
It has been said that error has a thousand
forms yet but two characteristic marks, supersti
tion and incredulity. Superstition virtually perished

friendly criticism on Ziindel in the Tubingen QuartalscJirift (erstes Heft. 1864);
and Aguado's treatise (Spanish), will furnish to the reader many fresh points
of interest. The English student is still waiting with pardonable impatience the
appearance of Dr Pusey's Lectures.

Preface. ix
in the ashes of Paganism ; incredulity alone re
mains. No longer however as in the days of
Bayle and Voltaire, when the passions it engen
dered found their pretext in the intolerance of
opposition. That stage has died out ; it is too
foreign to the modern mind. But it is much to be
wished that the stage of abuse which has replaced
and succeeded it should also perish. I have had oc
casion to allude to this habit once or twice in
the course of this Essay. If experience proves
that the Bible can be discussed reverently and
philosophically in the same breath, there should be
but scanty exception to so good a rule. Reason
would then be found at least respecting where it
did not always justify the veneration paid by reli
gious feeling to the Sacred Volume.
My respectful thanks are due to the University
authorities for permitting me to expand certain
Sections of the original MS.
If in discussing the subject of deification of kings
and hero-worship, I have availed myself of Prof.
Chwolsohn's researches, it has been in deference to
the favourable opinion entertained of them far more
generally in Germany than in England. It should
be better known that the enormous expense of the
publication of the originals alone retards what Prof.
Chwolsohn believes to be a complete answer to

x Preface.
M. Renan's scholarly and good-humoured criticism.
My argument does not however depend upon the
acceptance or non-acceptance of his views. They
will be seen to be simply quoted in illustration of a
practice co-existent everywhere in the East with the
recognition of idolatry, and certainly therefore in
Babylonia. I owe many acknowledgments to Messrs Boyle
and Walter for affording me a perusal of their
Books on our common subject.
A first attempt at Biblical criticism will per
haps be received with some little indulgence. I
have carefully remedied errors, and named my
authorities, perhaps too fully. Yet in spite of
every precaution, I am quite aware that mistakes
may have escaped my notice. But at- least I trust
that I shall not be found to have erred on the
score of tone. Friend and foe in the very pole
mical literature of the Book of Daniel urge it, by
pure contrast, upon a Christian Priest to remem
ber and imitate the noble maxim of S. Augustine:
'in necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus
caritas.'
J. M. FULLER.
July, 1864.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Preface . .  ... vii
Introduction . . .  1

CHAPTER I.
Daniel and the Captivity  13

CHAPTER II.
External Objections : —
A. Canonical position  27

CHAPTER III.
B. Argumenta e Silentio: —
1. Silence of Jesus Sirach  45
2. Silence of later Scriptural Writers . 49

CHAPTER IV.
C. Philological Objections  50
1. Greek words  55
2. Alternate use of Hebrew and Chaldee . . 59
3. Nature of the Hebrew  61
4. Nature of the Chaldee  65
5. Persian Words  88

XII

Contents.

The Casdim

CHAPTER V.
Internal Objections : —
A. Historical Inaccuracies
§ 1. Ch. i. 1 and ii. 1 ...
§ 2. Ch. ii. Nebuchadnezzar's Dream.
§ 3. Ch. iii. The Golden Image
§ 4. Ch. iii. 31 ; iv. Nebuchadnezzar's Madness
§ 5. Ch. v 
1. Belshazzar ....
2. Darius the Mede ....
§ 6. Ch. vi. The Decree of Darius
Persian customs. Hero worship
The 'Den of Lions'

PAGE 95
98
113
127
133
141
145 162
179
182
203

B. Miracles

CHAPTER VI.

209

CHAPTER VII.
C. Prophecies  . 226
§ 1. The Pour Kingdoms . ... 229
§ 2. The Seventy Weeks . .... 243
Prophecy and History  256
Daniel and Apocalypse .... .... 264
Hebraism and Mazdeism ... 270
a. The doctrine of the Messiah . ... 282
b. The doctrine of the Resurrection .... 287
Hebraism and Judaism  295
Daniel and the Sibylline Book . . . 300
Daniel and Inspiration  3^3
Angelology ... ... ..." 320
Ethical ideas  o2g
CHAPTER VIII.
Testimonies in favour of the Authenticity .... 332
(a) 1 Maccabees  033
(b) LXX. Version . . ... 334
(c) Baruch  3gg
(d) Zechariah  „„„
(e) Josephus  ,340
(/) New Testament . 34 S
(g) The Church . . . .'.'.'.'. 348
Conclusion „„,
do2

ERRATA.

Page i, line i, omit comma after 'triumph.'
13, note 1, last line, for Ch. vi. read Ch. v.
19, line 9, for 'our book' read 'the captivity.'
12, Hne 31, for 'our book' read 'Scripture.'
16, line 1, for 'was' read 'were.'
... line 1, for 'it' read 'them.'
33, note 1, line 3, /or 3 77 read 377.
... 35, Hue 26, /or ' was clearly ' read ' were clearly.'
64, note, insert 1 before Delitzsch.
¦ ¦• 94, line 36, /or Blan read Blau.
¦-¦ 197, line n, for 'climactic' read 'climatic' or 'climatal.

INTRODUCTION.

'It is,' says Bunsen1, 'one of the highest triumphs,
of modern criticism, to have proved that the Book of
Daniel is a production of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes.'
But the ingenuity, as some call it, or the scholarship as its
supporters would have it termed, which has led to this
result can hardly be considered a discovery peculiar to
modern criticism. The opinion is not entirely modern ;
its revival can alone claim that designation. For centuries
this very opinion has been lying in abeyance, possibly
through the indifference or the inability of an unscholastic
age to discuss it. But there it has been, till within the
last few years it has been resuscitated, advocated and
pleaded with an earnestness and a diligence worthy of
a better cause.
The few following historical' facts may prove interest
ing, and serve as an introduction to the whole subject.
For a long time the heathen writer Porphyry (ad. 233 —
302) was considered the father of the objectors to the
authenticity of the book. But in 1859 Ewald2 announced
1 Gott in der Geschichte, p. 302, Vol. I. Leipz. 1857.
2 Gbttingen Gel. Am. 1859, pp. 270, 271, in a review of P. A. de Lagarde's
edition of Hippolytus.— Davidson (Introd. to 0. T. III. 200, 1863) repeats
Ewald's statement. 1

2 Introduction.
that long before Porphyry, so good a Bishop of Eome as
Hippolytus (circ. 200 a.d.) had put forth similar views. It
was a most unhappy announcement on the part of the great
German critic, as any one may discover who will take the
trouble to refer to the work reviewed by Ewald. Not
only is Hippolytus a supporter of the 'traditional' view of
the 'four kingdoms ;' not only is there more disagreement
than agreement between his and modern views on those
very points where the resemblance is said to be the
strongest; but also when speaking of Daniel himself,
Hippolytus describes him as that 'blessed prophet, who
recorded what was revealed to him in visions by the Spirit,
that to those who would search the holy Scriptures he
should be proved a prophet1; ' a description which would
have met with very little favour from Porphyry. Most of
the critics of Ewald's school allow to the Bishop 'a few
luminous thoughts2;' but the peculiar luminosity of these
newly translated writings sheds no favourable light upon
their opinions. To the heathen critic must be restored
again the distinction he has hitherto enjoyed8.
Porphyry was a man of considerable talents and
eloquence, and the author of a voluminous work against
the Christians4. In the twelfth book of this work he
made it his object to refute the claims of 'Daniel' to
the rank of prophecy5. He asserted that the Book of
Daniel was not composed by him whose name was at
tached to it, but by some writer who lived in Judsea

1 Lagarde, Op. cit. p. 176. Hippolytus' remark is in a comment upon
Dan. vii. I shall take the opportunity of giving the opinions of Hippolytus in
their proper places.
2 Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, I. 453. Lond. 1854.
8 Lardner, Credibility, &c. (8vo Edit. Lond. 1837), Vol. vii. ch. xxxvii.
390 seq. Westcott (Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Article 'Daniel') gives
the date circ. A.D. 305.
4 Karh XpuTTiavuv \6yovs te1. Suidas (Lardner, p. 394).
= Lardner, 399. The passage is to be found in S. Jerome's preface to his
Commentary upon Daniel (e.g. Vol. v. p. 491, Ed. Migne).

Introduction. 3
in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. He urged that it
did not speak of things future so much as narrate the
events of the past. In fact, that whatever event it
recorded up to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes was
to be considered true history, but all beyond that date
must be counted false, as the writer was necessarily un
acquainted with futurity. Therefore, concluded Porphyry,
the book was written in the age of that king. This ob
jection, founded upon a disbelief in prophecy, was natural
in a heathen writer; but it is somewhat surprising and
very painful to find it made the groundwork of the en
lightened criticism of our own day. 'The argument of
Porphyry1,' says Mr Westcott, 'is an exact anticipation
of the position of many modern critics. It involves this
two-fold assumption : first, that the whole book ought
to contain predictions of the same character ; and secondly,
that definite predictions are impossible. Externally, the
book is as well attested as any book of Scripture ; and
there is nothing to show that Porphyry urged any histori
cal objections against it ; but it brings the belief in miracle
and prediction, in the divine power and foreknowledge,
as active among men, to a startling test ; and according
to the character of the belief in the individual must be his
judgment upon the book.' Porphyry was answered by
Eusebius of Csesarea, Apollinarius2, Methodius and Jerome.
To this last-named commentator is due the preservation
of the views of the heathen critic3. In his Commentary
upon Daniel this early father of the Church collected the
most forcible of Porphyry's objections ; either appending
to each a direct or indirect refutation, or pointing out the

1 Smith's Diet, of the Bible, Art. cit.
2 In Lagarde, Hippolyt. p. 17L — The names of Hippolyt. Apollin. Euseb.
of Ceesar. are united as holding one and the same opinion upon the dream of
Nebuchadnezzar. 3 Porphyry's objections and criticisms, as also S. Jerome's answers and re
marks, are briefly given by Lardner (Credib. pp. 401 seq.). 1—2

4 Introduction.
path to a more sound mode of interpretation. Porphyry,
as far as is known, found no followers in Christian an
tiquity. The Dutchman Spinoza, and the Englishman
Hobbes, are usually represented to be the first who revived
somewhat similar objections. Spinoza1 maintained the
theory that the Books of Daniel, Ezra, Esther, and
Nehemiah, were all written by one and the same writer,
though he confessed himself unable to say who that writer
might be. His reason for including Daniel in this list was
briefly this2. He allowed that chapters viii — xii. were
undoubtedly written by Daniel, but he questioned the
authenticity of chapters i — vii. Owing to their Chaldee
element he believed them, with the exception of chapter i.
to have formed a portion of the Chaldee annals, and that
from these annals the unknown writer drew the materials
for the composition of his own work. It will be seen that
Spinoza's objection affects the unity, but does not touch
the credibility of the Book of Daniel ; he guards himself,
in fact, from any such supposition, by immediately adding
that those very chapters (i — vii.) were considered of ' equal
sanctity with the rest of the Bible.'
This however, and that of Hobbes3, which was of a
purely general character, were but slight and passing
suspicions. They are chiefly of value now as pointing out
the line adverse criticism was preparing to follow. The
Spaniard Acosta4 next asserted that the book was com
posed to propagate the doctrine of the Pharisees re
specting the resurrection of the dead. Collins6, in his
1 Tractat. Theolog. Polit. ch. *. p. 210. English Ed. 1862.
* Id. p. 209.
8 Leviathan, ch. xxxiii., quoted by Hengstenberg, The Genuineness of Daniel,
transl. by Pratten, p. 4 (Clark, Edinb. 1848).
* Bertholdt, Einleit. in d. A. T. p. 1508 (Erlangen, 1812).
5 The views of Collins and his school, as also the answers to those views
may be very fairly estimated from (1) A Vindication of the Antiquity and
Authority of Daniel's Prophecies, by Samuel Chandler, Lond. 1728. (2) A
pamphlet entitled Tlie Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) considered.
Cambr. 1728.

Introduction. 5
turn, heaped up objection upon objection, evidently with
the intention of wresting from the hands of the defenders
of the Old Testament prophecy one of their most valuable
documents. The German Sender1 followed him in re
jecting the inspiration of the book, contenting himself with
the self-satisfied opinion, that the benefit likely to result
from such a work as the book of Daniel was not of that
kind which God intends to confer upon man when He
makes use of means of a very extraordinary character.
Michaelis is generally allowed to be the first who opposed
the book upon scholar-like grounds ; but even his ob
jections were perfectly compatible with the fullest recog
nition of its canonicity. In his opinion, the variations be
tween the Hebrew and Greek texts of chapters iii — vi.
suggested the belief that that portion was an interpolation.
Eiehhorn followed him, at first timidly (Einleitung, 1st
and 2nd Edd.), rejecting only the first six chapters. But
when at length (1783) Corrodi, a learned Swiss and the
precursor of the more modern views, revived the opinions
of Porphyry and rejected the whole book, Eiehhorn joined
him, and boldly gave up his previous reserve. From this
time the course of the impugners of the book was clear.
Bertholdt in 1803 gave a critical basis and spirit to the
opinions of his party ; and though later critics of the same
school have refuted many of the objections of their prede
cessors, only to see their own demolished by their suc
cessors2, yet all have agreed to revert, with Bertholdt, to
Porphyry, for the foundation-stones of the structure of
opposition. Prophecy and miracles, singly or unitedly, have formed
1 Hengstenberg, p. 5. Something very like this is to be found in Davidson's
latest work (Introd. to 0. T. 1863, in. 174): 'The miracles recorded in the
book (of Daniel) are lavishly accumulated without any apparent object, and
differ from those elsewhere related. Their prodigal expenditure is unworthy of
the Deity.'
2 e. g. Hitzig's by Ewald (Jahrb. J. Bibl. Wissenschaft. ill. p. 233), and
Ewald's by Bleek (Mini, in d. A. T. i860, p. 610).

6 Introduction.
the main reasons for rejecting the Book of Daniel from
the 'authentic' lists of Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Kirms,
De Wette, Ewald, von Lengerke, Hitzig, Bunsen, and,
greatest of all, Bleek ('the indefatigable'). Philological
arguments, supposed historical inaccuracies, argumenta
e silentio, have of course had special weight with some
more than with others; but they have formed the sub
stance of secondary or additional, rather than of primary
objections to the authenticity of the book. The existence
of ' too accurate predictions,' of ' irrational and impossible
miracles,' has, in the opinion of modern criticism, stamped
the book as the production of an impostor of the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes1.
For instance : The Prophecies of Daniel, cry some, are
so clear with reference to this king and so manifestly end
with him, that they must have been written either during
or shortly after his time. In a word, they are vaticinia
post eventum. This bold assumption naturally led its
supporters to doubt the historical existence of the prophet
Daniel; while to others, the only satisfactory mode of
explaining all the recognised phenomena, seemed to be to
separate the prophet from the writer, and place them in
different periods of Jewish history. Thus, von Lengerke
and Hitzig suppose Daniel to have been a celebrated hero
who lived in a mythical age : Ewald2 and Bunsen3 consider
him to have been a real sentient being, but place him not
at Babylon but at Nineveh, about 22 years before Sargina
(the Sargon of Scripture and father of Sennacherib) over
turned the ancient dynasty of Assyria. They agree only
in distinguishing him from the writer of the present book
whom they place in the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. And
Englishmen are now told that it is time for their divines

1 Davidson, Introd. in. 172-4.
2 Die Propheten d. Alten Bmides, 1840, Vol. n. p. 560.
3 Gott in d. Geschichte, I. 514.

Introduction. 7
to recognise these views1. 'The current error' — that is,
the attributing to the prophet Daniel the work which
bears his name — 'is declared to be as discreditable to
them with their opportunities of study as it is a matter of
grave compassion for that well-meaning crowd who are
taught to identify it with their creed.' Distinguish the
man Daniel from the Book of Daniel; bring the latter
as low as the reign of Epiphanes, and you only follow
the admitted necessities of the case. But the exhortation
or the advice will necessarily fall upon deaf ears till
there be something like unity in the counsels of the
advisers. When reasoning men see advocates of this or
that hypothesis say their say, and then disappear, extin
guished by the last opinions of the last critic, it makes
them think whether after all the ' current error ' may not
contain a much deeper aspect of the truth than that
presented by the latest current novelty. The ' error '
comes before them backed by the opinion of centuries,
and upheld, however modified, by some of the most
advanced minds of their own day. Shall they reject it to
follow an ipse dixit of to-day which may undergo com
plete alteration to-morrow? I pass by the manner in
which many instructors teach these new opinions. Too
often a sneer or a charge of ignorance takes the place of
a proof; and a defiant tone is supposed to supersede the
necessity of argument. There is one writer who — be it
always recorded to his honour — has carefully avoided this
self-condemning mistake; and he is one of the greatest
biblical scholars Germany has produced for many years.
Of Bleek it has been said by one2 who naturally is no
friend to his views, that while he handles all the questions
upon the Old Testament with the utmost freedom, while
further he decides in many cases against the old opinions,
1 Essays and Reviews. Williams' ' Essay on Bunsen's Biblical Researches,'
pp. 76, 77.
2 Replies to Essays and Reviews. Essay, by H. J. Rose, p. 75.

8 Introduction.
yet in tone he is altogether different from the critical
school of Gesenius and his followers. The admissions of
Bleek are such as would have been treated with scorn
in the palmy days of rationalism. He invariably speaks
with reverence of the prophets as the recipients of the
revelations of God and interpreters between God and
man. When he controverts the opinions of Hengstenberg
and other writers of that school, he does it with courtesy
and with evident respect for names, which, when only
mentioned, suffice with other writers to call forth a storm
of abuse. It is from this writer that I shall draw the
chief arguments used by the impugners of the authenticity
of the book.
The miracles of Daniel, cry others, are perfectly
aimless in their profusion : their character is so evidently
fabulous that they cannot be true. The history of Daniel,
says Knobel1, has a legendary, almost a fairy-tale com
plexion ; it represents events in a manner in which they
could not possibly have happened. They can only have
assumed their present form after a long oral transmission.
In Hebrew history, where numerous myths and legends
occur — as that of the patriarchs, of Moses, Balaam, Sam
son, Elijah, Elisha, &c. — the narratives were committed to
writing long after the events themselves. But where
events have a natural appearance, as those recorded in the
Books of Ezra, Nehemiah, 1 Maccabees, we may conclude
that they were generally committed to writing at the time
or very soon after their occurrence. This, we are told, is
a historic canon of whose validity there can be no doubt ;
but it is one of which, I am bold enough to believe, most
historians would entertain considerable doubt. It is, on
the face of it, formed to suit a preconceived opinion;
admitting everything or nothing in accordance with the
caprice of its proposer, and Certainly resting on no sound
1 Prophetismus, n. 401. It may be new to some readers to learn what are
considered the myths of the Old Testament.

Introduction. 9
principles. But it need be no longer surprising that to
writers of this class the Book of Daniel and the Gospels
should be equally unauthentic. To deny the former on
account of its miraculous element is but a step towards
that scientific criticism which rejects the narratives re
cording the miracles of Jesus Christ.
The impugners of the authenticity of the Book of
Daniel may be divided into two main classes1; those who
respectively urge their arguments against the prophecies,
miracles, historical and philological peculiarities, on sub
jective and objective grounds. Both classes, as has been
before observed, unite in fixing the date of its compo
sition in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. Hitzig2 placed
it between the years 170 b. c. and the spring of 164 b. c,
and this latter date Liicke has ventured to pronounce
a certain result of historical criticism. Naturally, this
date, if it could be substantiated, would decide the contro
versy, for it repudiates the substantial composition of the
Book during the time of the captivity. To this point
then the attention must throughout be directed. But be
fore proceeding to discuss it, I would state briefly the
views held by Bleek and his school, and then allude to
those who have maintained the authenticity of that tradi
tional view founded upon the statement of our Lord
Himself (S. Matt. xxiv. 15). The question between us
and our opponents, says Bleek3, is this : whether the
Book of Daniel was written by that Daniel who, according
to the book itself, lived during the whole period of the
1 Hengstenberg, p. 7.
2 Westcott, Art. cit. Davidson, Introd. III. 200, places the date in 168 or
at most in 167, so that Liicke is wrong after all.
3 Bleek's views were first put forward in the Theol. Zeitschrift von Schleier-
macher, De Wette and Liicke, in. 171 seq. 1822. They are repeated with but
little important alteration in the posthumous edition of the Einleitung (in das
A. T. i860, p. 577-611. ed. J. P. Bleek and Kamphausen), and in the /a7tr-
bucher fibr Deutsche Theologie, i860, p. 47 seq. The passage in the text is in
substance from the Einleitung, pp. 585, 586.

10 Introduction.
Babylonian exile till the third year of Cyrus at least; or
by some Jewish scribe (of the time of the Syrian king,
Antiochus Epiphanes) who assumed the name of Daniel
as a nom de plume, and lived some three centuries and
a half after the prophet. The historical sections of chap
ters i — vi. would seem to make no express affirmation that
they were written by Daniel. The narrative is throughout
carried on in the third person both as regards Daniel
himself and his three companions. But in the commence
ment of the second main division of the book it is
expressly affirmed (vii. 1) that Daniel himself is the writer ;
and in the visions the first person is uniformly employed,
signifying that Daniel is the narrator. Consequently it
appears that at least this part, and therefore also from
the recognised connection of the two parts, that the whole
book expressly requires its recognition as his work. 'If
therefore we place the date of this in a later age than that
traditionally assigned to it, we must assume that the book
presents itself to us under conditions similar to those
presented by the Book of Deuteronomy, the Blessing of
Jacob, or Ecclesiastes; viz. with the title of Daniel em
ployed by the writer and reporter of the visions as a
literary device to forward the didactic or hortatory lessons
he had in view. Internal and external considerations of—
in my opinion — great weight have led me to give my
assent to this assumption.' These grounds it will be the
object of this Essay to discuss.
Against the successive stages of this critical depre
ciation of the book there has always ensued a strong
critical reaction. The theologians of the Early Church
contested the opinions advanced in their day, and their
example has been steadily repeated from time to time.
Within the last thirty years England and Germany have
sent forth their sons to dispute with and, in my humble
opinion, to refute the modern revivalists of sceptical

Introduction. 11
opinions1. It is not denied that the nature of the defence
has greatly altered since the days of Jerome. With the
immense progress observable in every branch of study, it
would have been extraordinary had this not been the
case. But out of the common stock of information thus
newly acquired, the advocates and the opponents of
'Daniel's' authenticity have usually deduced very opposite
conclusions. Perhaps there is reason to rejoice even in
this result, for from the modern contest true criticism
has always derived some permanent gain. The nature of
prophecy, the subject of miracles, the issue of historical
researches and of philological enquiries, have been more
elaborately analysed, more profusely illustrated, and more
accurately determined. And where they have been fairly
used, they have invariably tended to advance and support
the authenticity of the book. That the Book of Daniel
contains difficulties no true critic would ever deny : but
these difficulties are not to be solved by ingenious and
ephemeral explanations, any more than by false and
imperfect views. If a theory or an interpretation, whether
traditional or that of yesterday, is found to be either
simply conjectural or untenable upon sound and healthy
principles of criticism, then it should be resigned without
hesitation. To retain it is only to hamper further research ;
it is to imitate, in an opposite direction, that practice of
modern scepticism which will hold fast the creations only
of its own brain. A liberal and manly criticism is never
afraid to confess that there are many points in this book
which it has not solved and cannot yet solve. But the
confession is not one of weakness, it is rather the evidence
of conscious strength. Every step in the elucidation of
this subject has been hitherto gained after a patient
1 It may be sufficient to mention in a note the well-known names of Heng
stenberg, Havernick, Auberlen, Ziindel, Delitzsch, in Germany; and in Eng
land, Davidson (Home's Introd. to 0. T.), Westcott, Hooper, Rawlinson, &c.

12 Introduction.
sifting of the views of antiquity, and the sober results of
modern investigation. To depart from that cautious
attitude would be to imperil the correctness of the results
already attained ; it would be to admit that spirit of con
jecture which ends by disbeUeving everything beyond the
range of its limited vision, or cuts the knot of the diffi
culty it cannot unloose.

CHAPTER I.
DANIEL AND THE CAPTIVITY.

The fundamental fact of the time, the Captivity itself,
is allowed to admit of no reasonable doubt. The Assyrian
monuments and the later history of the Persian empire
sufficiently testify to the practice of transferring captive
populations ; and the particular instance of the transpor
tation of the Jews to Babylon is expressly attested by
the heathen historian Berosus1. Yet this period would be
almost a blank in the history of the Hebrew nation, did
we not possess in the writing of Daniel a personal nar
rative of events which then took place. Evidently there
fore, if the Book of Daniel be authentic, it takes its place
as a record of the highest historical value. It comes
before us as the writing of a man who claims to be
a witness, a contemporary of the facts he narrates.
The introductory chapter of the Book of Daniel opens
with a statement of the beginning of the captivity (i. 1),
and closes with a record of its termination (i. 21 ; vide ix.
1, 2). The period of the Exile is thus the basis of the
prophet's predictions. Daniel, a youth of considerable
1 Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures, 1859, Lect. IV. (and note 86), v. (and
notes 12-14), (ist edit.) pp. 154, 160. On Berosus vid. note at the end of
Ch. VI.

14 Daniel and the Captivity.
talent and of great personal beauty, was taken captive to
Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim, king of Judah
(b.c. 604)1. There he was trained in the royal palace for
the king's service. Later inroads on the part of Nebu
chadnezzar led to the captivity of king Jehoiachin, the
successor of Jehoiakim, and the prophet Ezekiel (b. c. 598).
And in b. c. 588 ensued the destruction of Jerusalem, the
abolition of the kingdom of Judah, and the transfer of its
king (Zedekiah) to Babylon, blinded, and in fetters (Jer.
xxxix. 7).
With the Babylonian captivity began a new stage in
the history of God's chosen people. It was a stage marked
by great and heavy reverses. The captive Israelites had,
it is true, the comfortable words of Jeremiah (ch. xiv —
lxvi.) to encourage them in their trials. Ezekiel also was
labouring among those carried away from home and
country to the banks of Chebar. But it pleased the God
of Israel to give yet further comfort. The Jews were
destined to pass through periods of the deepest affliction,
and for these they must be forewarned and forearmed,
lest anger and distrust should create disobedience and
apostasy. He, who was chosen to see the visions of those
numerous and heavy griefs still hidden in the future;
he, who heard also the accompanying words of priceless
comfort, was Daniel the captive, henceforth the Prophet.
From early youth to extreme old age he lived at the
Babylonian and Medo-Persian court (i. 1, vi. 21, x. 1). Like
Joseph2, he gained the favour of his guardians by his
force of character, even while he resolutely avoided the
' defilement of the king's meat ' (i. 8), in his determination
to preserve his purity as a Jew. At the end of three
1 Westcott, Art. cit. This disputed date will be considered p. 102 seq.
Davidson (Introd. 1863), in. 183, agrees with the date named.
2 The comparison between Joseph and Daniel is in many points an inter
esting one. It has been well drawn out by Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel 2te
Aufl. Biel. [857, p. 32 seq. As early as Hippolytus it was noticed and
exhibited (e.g. pp. 170, 173, ed. Lagarde).

Daniel and the Captivity. 15
years Daniel had an opportunity of exercising his peculiar
power as an interpreter of dreams (i. 17, ii. 14 seq.) ; and,
in consequence of his success, he was made ruler of the
whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors
over all the 'wise men' (ii. 48). Consecutive instances
of this power led to his appointment at different times to
positions of high official responsibility (iv. 8 — 27, v. 10 —
28, vi. 10—23).
While thus occupied he gained a valuable knowledge
of the political organization of the kingdoms of the
world; and this, without losing his deep perception of
their perishableness. The humiliation of Nebuchadnezzar,
the fall of Belshazzar, the rapid decay and extinction of
the Babylonian monarchy, kept alive in him the higher
and more spiritual impression, that the powers of this
world were but transitory, the power of that God who
had delivered him and his companions (iii — vi.) alone
eternal. Daniel, again like Joseph, became the repre
sentative of the true God in the courts of heathen kings ;
and for the work assigned to him in that capacity he was
eminently fitted by his talents, education and position.
Though, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, an exile and a sojourner
in a strange land, yet his worldly position as an officer of
high consideration under successive dynasties gave to
him an influence those prophets never attained. This,
while it never lost to him the hearts of his fellow-country
men, procured for him and them a certain respect and
deference from their pagan conquerors1. And his intel
lectual superiority confirmed to both Jews and Babylonians
the impression derived from his civil dignity. Trained in
the secrets of the Casdim, and president of the wise men
of Babylon, Daniel demanded and received from the
heathen, by virtue of his character, that reverence always
granted by superstition to the supposed favourites of the
1 Comp. Hippolytus, p. 169.

16 Daniel and the Captivity.
gods. To his own people he must have appeared as a
being moulded after the type of their great and revered
Lawgiver, who, in his day, had been so sedulously 'trained
in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.' If Daniel's contact
with polytheistic profanities raised a momentary suspicion
of possibly lax and degenerate views, it was immediately
silenced by those instances furnished in early and late life
(i. 8 — 16, vi. 10 — 1) of the deepest possible attachment
to the moral and ceremonial code. And thus it was, that
at the close of the exile Daniel was permitted to offer
to the returning Jews, for the instruction of the Dispersion
in after times, that pattern of holiness, his own life, which
they, his contemporaries, had been privileged to witness1.
These considerations are of material value in the elucida
tion of many points. For it is impossible for any intelligent
reader to study the Book of Daniel, and not notice that
there are many peculiarities which separate it from the
other prophetic writings. Its apocalyptic character, its
symbolic imagery, the cast of its predictions, are marked
and singular features of distinction2. The eye and not
the ear is the prophetic organ of Daniel, visions and not
words are revealed to him. The will of God is declared
to him by the ministry of angels (vii. 16, viii. 16, ix. 21),
and not by the 'Word of the Lord.' The revelation
vouchsafed to him is of the highest class, and yet it is
almost unprecedented in character. The Jewish nation
is seen by him expanded into the world; the restored
kingdom of the chosen people knows now no other limits
than the universal kingdom of God. So altered, so
peculiar, is the prophetic portion of the Book of Daniel,
that it seems to demand some peculiar, some altered state
1 Westcott, Art. cit. It is well known that after the return from exile the
Jews never again gave way to the seductions of idolatry ; v. Herzfeld, Ges-
chichte d. Volkes Israel, I. 205 (1847). Nicolas, Des Doctrines religieuses des
Juifs, i860, p. 9.
2 Id. The polemical bearing of these points will be noticed under the
Chapter on 'Prophecies.'

Daniel and the Captivity. 17
6f circumstances to explain what can be explained; and
such circumstances are supplied by the history of the
Babylonian captivity. If search be made for one who
could combine both an outward training suited to the
recipient of so novel and holy a revelation, and an inward
humility capable of receiving with thankfulness what yet
was hidden from his understanding (xii. 8), — Daniel, as re
presented in Scripture, meets in every respect the require
ments of the case. His private character, his religious
feefings, his hopes of a restoration, all combined to pre
pare his mind for the reception of God's message. And
his official position, the scenes amongst which he lived,
rendered no longer strange that peculiar form of revela
tion communicated to him. A resident in Babylonian
courts, an adept in the mysterious wisdom of Casdim and
Magi, he was prepared for visions of symbolic import, —
visions dealing with things animate and inanimate of
colossal proportions and monstrous forms. For such as
these surrounded him and his countrymen. Nebuchad
nezzar's enormous image (iii. 1 sq.) created no surprise
either to his princes or to his people ; winged and human-
headed bulls, visible still in existing monuments, were
familiar objects to every native of Babylonia; and they
were probably but one among many forms of grotesque
combinations of human and bestial figures. These ex
ternal features naturally impressed themselves upon the
mind of any reflecting Jew resident among them ; and it
can be easily understood that that impression would
betray itself in many ways. In the case of Daniel they
serve to explain those peculiarities which, in point of
symbolism , distinguish his writing from that of the other
prophets. Revealed to us as they are in the book of a
man such as Scripture describes Daniel to have been,
these very peculiarities are psychological attestations to
its authenticity. By Daniel 'the invisible things of his
God were clearly seen, being understood by the things

18 Daniel and the Captivity.
that were made' (Rom. i. 20). God vouchsafed to open
His mouth in a parable drawn from the scenes with which
His servant was familiar. The incongruous forms of
Babylonian sculpture became the vehicles of the highest
and most prophetic truths. This clue to the peculiar form
of the book gives a very valuable result. The undesigned
coincidences between the external features of the age and
locality, and their typical reproduction in the pages of the
writer, form an aggregate mass of evidence in favour of ita
composition by a Prophet such as Daniel assumes to be.
No impostor could have devised the incidental touches,
the delicate shades of local colouring which indicate the
hand of one bred and resident at Babylon and Susa. And
with the further clue these same pages furnish as to the
mental and spiritual endowments of their author, it is
in one sense an undesigned, in another a necessary, co
incidence that the prophet Ezekiel celebrates in Daniel
such special attributes of ' wisdom' (Ezek. xxviii. 3, C3DM,
comp. Dan. i. 17, T\l2i2T\), and ' righteousness' (Ezek. xiv. 14,
20). For these are the special qualities of the Daniel of
Scripture which fitted him on the one hand for his pro^
minent position over the 'wise men' (D^MFl), and enabled
him on the other to propose himself to his downcast
countrymen as a pattern of 'righteousness' (i. 8; vi. 11).
It must not, however, be concealed that Ezekiel's allu
sions to Daniel have been very differently understood by
those who consider it impossible that the two prophets
could have been contemporaries. I believe that a fair and
dispassionate examination of the whole subject can only
lead to the recognition of such contemporaneousness ; but as
the question is an interesting and important one, I would
examine it here once for all. — In the above chapters of
Ezekiel (xiv, xxviii.) there are found certain laudatory
passages of a Daniel. In the former he is coupled with
Noah and Job; in the latter, allusion is made to his
wisdom. Who is this Daniel? According to Hitzig, he is

Daniel and the Captivity. 19
a mythical personage, whose prototype is to be sought
in Melchizedek ; he is a fictitious character, borrowed
by the author of the book of Daniel as suited to his
design1. According to Ewald, he is a well-known per
sonage of antiquity. According to Bleek, he is either
a purely poetical character, or a contemporary of Ezra.
And what are the grounds for these guesses, for they are
nothing more? That for the first is, that the Daniel
of our book was too young to be thus praised by Ezekiel :
that for the second, that his position with the patriarchs
Noah and Job points him out as no contemporary of
Ezekiel : that for the third, that the name occurs in a list
in the book of Ezra (viii. 1, 2). Now as regards the first,
Bleek and von Lengerke both allow that Daniel, supposing
him to have been such as Scripture represents him to be,
was quite thirty years of age when those passages in
Ezekiel were written, and Westcott thinks that he may
have been nearly forty. Assuming the Scripture accounts
to be genuine, the events which laid the foundation of
Daniel's fame took place in the second year of Nebuchad
nezzar's sole reign (ii. 1), that is, about ten years before
Ezekiel began to prophesy. And if Daniel really dis
tinguished himself in the manner narrated (ii. 25 seq.),
he would speedily become celebrated ; his ' wisdom ' might
with justice be recalled to the mind of the ' Prince of Tyre '
(Ezek. xxviii. 2, 3) ; his ' righteousness ' (Ezek. xiv.) to the
captives of Chebar. A lesson, in fact, was intended and
conveyed by this selection of attributes. The name of
Daniel would remind the ' Prince of Tyre,' so proud of his
own wisdom and of that of his nation (Ezek. xxviii. 2,
comp. xxvii. 8, Zech. ix. 2), of one who was 'wise' and
learned in mysteries which he and his people would re
spect ; while the ' elders of Israel ' (Ezek. xiv. 1) would
1 Hitzig's further opinion that the book itself was written in Egypt, and by
the high priest Onias IV. may be called, as Bleek has called it, ' ganz unberech-
tigt' (Einl. 610).
2—2

20 Daniel and the Captivity.
be taught to reverence the name of a contemporary,
as that of an Israelite remarkable for ' righteousness '
in the midst of heathendom. But it is upon this second
passage of Ezek. (xiv.) that more stress is laid : and an
examination of it will, I think, account for Daniel's posi
tion near Noah and Job, without involving the necessity
of adopting the alternative proposed by Ewald. Ezekiel,
if plain words have"!Ja plain meaning, most decidedly
meant by 'Noah, Daniel and Job,' the three great men
who bore those names. If one, as Daniel, was a ficti
tious hero, it is difficult to understand why Noah and
Job were not equally so1. Ewald's view is much more
sound and much more critical when he makes his Daniel
a real historical being. But Theodoret2 long ago point
ed out that there is no necessity to transfer the age
of Daniel to some remote antiquity. 'The striking cor
respondence in the events of their times was Ezekiel's
reason for uniting those three names, Noah, Daniel and
Job.' A very few observations will make this correspond
ence apparent. It may be affirmed that it was certainly
not without intention that Ezekiel selected the names of
the patriarchs Noah and Job. Abraham, Jacob, Moses,
Samuel, David, were all men remarkable in their day for
the very virtue of ' righteousness ' attributed to these
instances : they were, moreover, household names, co-eval
with the most glorious periods in the annals of Jewish
history. But yet they are passed over by the Prophet.
He prefers, in illustration of his point, that patriarch whose
name was ¦ connected with one of the saddest chapters
of the history of the human race, and another whose
name was eminently suggestive of deeds of patience and
not of heroism. What was Ezekiel's intention in this selec-
1 I need hardly add that this conclusion has been accepted and defended.
Comp. Ziindel, Krit. Untersuchungen iiber die Abfassungszeit d. Buches Daniel,
i86r, pp. 259, 268.
2 Quoted in Hengstenberg, Genuineness, &c. pp. 60—2. Opera, n. 768. S. ¦
Jerome, Rosenmiiller, Auberlen, and Ziindel, adopt similar explanations.

Daniel and the Captivity. 21
tion? Whether he meant anything by the order of the
names may be left an open question. Delitzsch1 and
Westcott2 believe that order to represent the first and
last historic types of righteousness, before the Law and
under it, combined with the ideal type. But this does not
meet all the requirements of the case. All that can be
decisively affirmed is that the order is not intended to
be chronological. Now the contrast instituted by Ezekiel
(xiv. 12—21) is between the punishment of the wicked and
the salvation of the righteous. ' The sword, the famine, the
noisome beast and the pestilence ' were coming upon Jeru
salem, and upon that 'land which trespassed grievously,'
'to cut off from it man and beast.' So just was this
punishment, so crying the sins which deserved it, that the
Prophet emphatically declares that were Noah, Daniel
and Job present to witness the coming destruction,
they should save their own souls only, and that in con
sequence of their righteousness. Noah had once before
done this, when the deluge had 'cut off' all, save the
'preacher of righteousness' and his family. But were
he to be alive in the days of this coming visitation, he
' should deliver neither sons nor daughters ; ' ' the righte
ousness of the righteous should be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked should be upon him' (Ezek.
xviii. 20). Similarly Daniel, that man whose 'righteous
ness ' had made him ' greatly beloved ' (ix. 23) ; whose
effectual fervent prayer had procured favour for himself
and his companions from heathen hands (i. 16 ; ii. 49 ;
iii. 30); whose rank probably enabled him to modify, in
the case of his countrymen, the usual oriental barbarity
towards captives3 ; — were he to live again, and witness the
future trial, yet should he 'deliver his own soul only' by his
1 Herzog, Rgal-Encyclop. Art. ' Daniel.'
2 Westcott, Art. cit.
3 Comp. Ziindel's expression, Op. cit. p. 263, Daniel was 'wie ein Schutz-
Engel seines Volkes vor dem Throne des Weltherrschers Nebucadnessar.'

22 Daniel and the Captivity.
'righteousness.' So also Job, that 'perfect and upright
man, who ' feared God and eschewed evil ' (i. 1, 8) ; who,
in the bitter hour of his grief, ' spake of his God the thing
that was right ' (xiii. 7) ; whose prayer for his friends was
accepted and their pardon assured (xiii. 8 — 10) — were he
to live again in that period of future desolation, even
' righteousness ' and prayer such as his would deliver none
but himself, the hour for intercession for others would
have passed and gone by for ever. To those 'elders of
Israel ' (Ezek. xiv. 1) who listened to the words of their
prophet, the name of Daniel thus became suggestive of the
most quickening thoughts. The ' faith ' of Noah they knew.
The 'patience' of Job they knew. But here was a con
temporary proposed to them ; a man who, if the order
meant anything, united in himself that faith which was
the groundwork of righteousness, and that patience which
would make it perfect. It cannot be too strongly insisted,
that if ' Noah, Daniel and Job,' was worth anything as an
illustration to the men to whom it was offered, and at the
time when Scripture declares it to have been offered,
then it must have referred to real sentient beings ; types
high, though human, of the true children of God. Carry
back Daniel to a remote antiquity, and the illustration
is reft of half its force to the languishing captives at
Chebar. Degrade him to the position of a hero in some
current romance, and the Prophet Ezekiel becomes at once
guilty of propounding as actually true what every one in
his day must have known was pure fiction. It is strange
that Bleek1, seeing clearly the force of the above alterna
tive, can yet support for one moment that really difficult
hypothesis that the Daniel of our book was a fictitious
personage. He allows that the ' Daniel ' of Ezekiel was a
man of like remarkable virtue and wisdom with the
' Daniel ' of Daniel : but there he stops. He has a theory
Eml. p. 608 seq.

Daniel and the Captivity. 23
to defend which opposes itself to any further concession.
It is a sad task at any time to watch a great mind run
waste in shifts and conjectures ; but it has also its instruc
tive side ; and therefore it is that I would briefly describe
Bleek's mode of reaching those conclusions between which
he appears to have oscillated. Starting from the very
necessary supposition that the author of our book must
have lived in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, this is the
way he explains the mention of Daniel by Ezekiel. We
are told that we may conjecture with probability that
Ezekiel was acquainted with some old writing. This docu
ment described Daniel as a man equally remarkable for his
. attachment to the religion of his fathers and for his pro
found wisdom, and yet gave no definite information as to
the age in which he Uved. We are next to suppose that
this document was lost during the exile at Babylon or soon
after. It was certainly no longer in existence at the time
of the compilation of our present book. Hence it happened
that the author of our book and his contemporaries had no
more certain knowledge about Daniel than what was told
them in those passages of Ezekiel. This fact enabled the
author to introduce the person of Daniel into his parabolic
narrative with very great freedom ; and he employed it
so as to promote most effectively the hortatory object he
had in view. But all this must be felt to be conjecture
heaped upon conjecture. The impressions suggested by
fancy are gravely set down, and we are required to credit
them as historical. Such a system of explanation may be
convenient, but it is not critical. It is not therefore
surprising that Bleek himself almost resigned this mode
of reasoning. He propounded another, and what he
considered ' a more possible ' method of explanation1. We
are now to believe that the fact of the career of Daniel
being placed in the period of the Babylonian captivity, was
due to a confusion between the Daniel named by Ezekiel
1 Id. p. 609.

24 Daniel and the Captivity.
and a later Daniel who really was in exile with the Jews.
Such an exile we are to recognize among those who went
up from Babylon in the reign of Artaxerxes the king
(Ezra viii. 1, 2). He was a priest of the family of Ithamar,
and the contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah. We are to
notice it moreover as remarkable that contemporaneous
with this Daniel were a Misael, a Hananiah, and an Azariah.
Misael is one of those who ' stood by the side of Ezra the
scribe' (Neh. viii. 4) ; the two latter were, like Daniel,
among the chiefs and priests of the people, having their
names recorded upon the 'sealed writing' (Neh. x. 1, 3, 23).
This correspondence of names with those in the Book of
Daniel (i. 19) may of course be accidental, but Bleek
would have us consider it a very remarkable coincidence,
especially as Daniel and Misael are not at all common
names. So far, this hypothesis of Bleek's is preferable to his
former one, in that it makes Daniel a man of flesh and
blood. It is now no imaginary champion of Judaism, no fic
titious character that we have to accept, but a real sentient
being. Ewald's strong and just opposition to anything like
phantom or ideal representatives has had a salutary effect1.
But this hypothesis is supported by arguments as purely
conjectural as was the first. There is a very awkward
interval of 160 years between the Daniel of the Captivity
(i. 1) and the Daniel contemporary with Ezra (viii. 1). And
this interval cannot be fairly accounted for. We are told,
indeed, to suppose that the anonymous author took the
names of the contemporaries of Ezra, and applied them
to the characters in his book, without feeling it necessary
to explain why he did so. He expected his readers to

1 Ewald, Einleil. p. 15. 'The invention of a history without foundation
in facts — the mere brain-creation of a person represented as having a real
historical existence — is a notion so utterly alien to the spirit of antiquity, that
its development is a sign of a late epoch in the literature 'of an ancient people,
and its complete form a sure index of modern times.'

Daniel and the Captivity. 25
understand, that in selecting a 'Daniel' as the represen
tative of piety and wisdom, he chose a name already
endued by Ezekiel with those qualities. But supposition
is not criticism, conjecture must not take the place of
proof. Of late, however, this latter hypothesis of Bleek's
has found a supporter in Davidson ; and for the very intel
ligible reason, that it does not resolve the whole book into
fiction. The 'production' of the anonymous author is, at
any rate, partly historical1. ' It has a historical basis, though
it is all but impossible to separate it from the fictitious
materials interwoven.' This, then, is the latest creed
concerning Daniel which modern criticism demands mo
dern intelligence to accept. But, when stripped of its
poetry, what does it contain? A 'whole romancer2,' such
as Hitzig and von Lengerke recommend, is not now so
palatable as a half-romancer. 'It is hard to believe,' says
Davidson, 'that a romance (i.e. an entire romance) re
specting Daniel could have gained acceptance among the
people, or encouraged them to withstand tyranny to the
death. Romances do not make martyrs3.' Quite true :
but apparently half-romances will. Give to a fictitious
narrative a tinge of history, and men will learn to regard
the fiction simply as an embellishment. They will sepa
rate it from the history, and become martyrs through their
study of that historical element4. Such a view may safely
be left to the impossibilities which encompass it. There
is, in fact, but one explanation of the whole point. The
Daniel mentioned by Ezekiel is the Daniel of the age
of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. To suppose him any
other is to be compelled to adopt expedients and ac
commodating devices utterly unworthy of real criticism.

1 Introd. in. 202. 1863,
5 Davidson. 'The writer of the book before us was not wholly a romancer.'
3 Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel, Vol. 1. Excurs. ii. § 14, p. 296, 1847,
makes this same objection to von Lengerke's view of ch. v.
* So Herzfeld, I. cit.

26 Daniel and the Captivity.
Daniel's fame and reputation was well known at Babylon,
and it was Ezekiel's wish to extend it to his own more
immediate charge. He did so by coupling the honoured
name with those of the patriarchs whose times of afflic
tion had been similar to his own, and whose 'righteous
ness ' had supported them to the end.

CHAPTER II.
EXTERNAL OBJECTIONS.

The objections made to the authenticity of the Book
of Daniel may be conveniently separated into two main
divisions : those founded on external and internal grounds
respectively. Under the former may be classed the ques
tions concerning canonical position, argumenta I silentio,
and philological phenomena; under the latter, historical
inaccuracies (so called), miracles, and prophecies. Natu
rally, it will not be supposed that every kind of objection
has been entertained and discussed under one or the other
of these heads. In the limits of an Essay this would be
impossible. All that has been here attempted is a review
of those points to which most weight is attached by the
disputants upon both sides. It might almost be said that
to do more is unnecessary. Objections of a minor cha
racter vary every day; the latest commentator destroys
those of his predecessor, and replaces them by others
destined to suffer a fike fate.
A. Canonical Position.
The first objection of any weight urged against the
Book of Daniel is its canonical position.
It is well known that the Jews divide the Hebrew
Bible into three great sections: the Law (Thorah), the

28 External Objections.
Prophets (Nebi-im)1, and the Hagiographa (Cetubim). In
the LXX. version and in the English Bibles the Book of
Daniel is placed after Ezekiel. But in the Hebrew Bible
the book, instead of being coupled with prophets and
finding a place in the Nebi-im, is placed in the last class,
or Cetubim. The question therefore occurs, assuming
that the formation of the biblical Canon was not completed
at once, but that the Thorah, the Nebi-im, and the Cetu
bim represent three epochs in its development, is there
any reason why the Book of Daniel occupies the place it
does in the Hebrew Canon? Why is it found in the third,
and not in the second division? From Eiehhorn to
Bleek2, the objectors to its authenticity have urged that
it admits of no explanation but this, that it was un
known when the collection of the Nebi-im was made. If
that collection was made, as seems probable, by Nehemiah,
the absence of Daniel from the Nebi-im is said to prove
that the book was unknown to him at least a hundred
years after the date assigned to Daniel in the Scripture
accounts. It did not come to light till the Maccabean
period, by which time the second division of the canon
was closed.
The whole question is confessedly a difficult one, rest
ing for its solution upon some of the most disputed points
of biblical criticism. It involves an accurate determination
of (1) the time of the closing of the Old Testament
Canon ; (2) the nature of the third division of that Canon ;
(3) the position of Daniel in that division : and upon these
points it is next to impossible, at this distance of time,
to decide either accurately or decisively. There are, how
ever, indications in biblical and post-biblical writings suffi
cient to assist in forming approximate and sound opinions
1 In speaking of the divisions of the Canon, the word Nebi-im will be used
in preference to 'Prophets,' in order to avoid confusion.
2 EM. 587. In the 2nd part of his EM. Bleek calls it the 'last book of
the 0. T. canon,' p. 672.

Canonical Position. 29
upon the first and second of these points ; and these once
established, the means towards apprehending the third
may not seem so distant nor so insignificant.
It is the generally-received opinion that the Canon in
its present shape was formed gradually, during the period
extending from the times of Ezra and Nehemiah to the
end of the Persian domination (B.C. 458— 332) \ But
without doubt many of the writings which constitute the
present Canon were known and received long before the
exile itself. The 'Book of the Law,' for instance, in
cluding probably the Book of Joshua2, was known to and
valued by Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 8) ; and this with many
prophetic and poetical writings would certainly accom
pany the Jews to Babylon3. Zechariah (i. 4, vii. 7, 12)
attests the existence of the writings of the ' former
prophets,' and the 'books' mentioned by Daniel (ix. 2)
point to a collection of prophetic and other writings cur
rent in his day4. But it was not till after the exile that
steps were taken to systematize these fugitive pieces. It
was then felt to be desirable that the stamp of canonicity
should be impressed upon the writings, historic, pro
phetic, and poetical, treasured by the Jews on account of
their religious and national interest. And this duty was
undertaken by Ezra and Nehemiah. With reference to
the Thorah there was no difficulty. It was made the
foundation-stone of the Canon, and speedily adapted for
temple and festival use (Neh. viii — x). But with the
other writings the course to be pursued demanded consi
deration. Malachi was still alive, and, according to an
old Jewish tradition, the prophetic gift had not yet ceased \

1 Westcott (Smith's Bible Did.), Art. 'Canon,' p. 252.
2 Bleek, EM. pp. 332 and 664.
" Herzfeld, Op. cit. p. 64 (1847) ; II. 48, 'Die Enstehung eines Kanons
d. heiligen Sehriften' (1857).
4 Keil (Allg. EM. in das A. T. 1854), p. 29.
5 Vitringa, Observatt. Sacr. vi. 6. 'Seder Olam Rabba.' Keil, p. 28.

30 External Objections.
Nehemiah therefore, perhaps contented himself with
commencing during his lifetime a library (2 Mace. ii. 13) ;
collecting for that purpose the 'acts (or books) of the
kings, the prophets, the Psalms of David, and the letters
of the king concerning the holy gifts.' The sense and
the authenticity of this passage has been disputed, but
the fact itself is generally conceded1 ; and it appears very
probable that this collection was begun under the super
vision of Ezra, possibly though not solely for religious
and festival purposes. The turning-point, however, in
the history of the Canon, may perhaps be called the per
secution of Antiochus Epiphanes (b. c. 168). It acted
upon the Canon of the Old as that of Diocletian af
fected that of the New Testament2. The violent pro
ceedings of the Syrian king; his prohibition of the read
ing of the Law, and the consequent ' pious fraud ' of the
Jews in selecting sections from the prophets correspond
ing in tenor and often in language with the forbidden
books; — tended more than any other means to attach
a sacred and exclusive character to the best accredited
Scriptures. From this time the Bible was accepted by
them in its whole and distinctive character. The Canon,
perhaps already tacitly settled, became definitely closed,
in obedience to the necessity felt for some strict code of
Scripture suitable for the whole Jewish nation wherever
dispersed. It was in accordance with this acknowledged
necessity that Judas Maccabseus in his day gathered toge
ther once more the writings that had been lost during
the war (2 Mace. ii. 14), and restored them to their
proper position in the Canonical collections. Perhaps
1 Bleek, EM. p. 66}. Herzfeld, n. 92 (1857), xxii. Excurs. 'iiber die
Entstehung d. Bibl. Kanons.' According to Herzfeld all the Prophets would
be included except Daniel, and of the Psalms only ii — 1. The alleged Macca
bean, or at least late date of many of the Pss. 1. — el., necessitating with him
their introduction into the Canon at a later period than the age of Nehemiah.
The avaff^/iara he explains as 1TQ13.
s Westcott, Art. cit. p. 251.

Canonical Position. 31
there is an undesigned attestation to this influence of the
Antiochian persecution to be found in the so-called Book
of Ecclesiasticus, a book of very great importance as
regards the questions now under consideration. It is
well known that in the Prologue of the Greek translation
of this book the triple division of the Hebrew Scriptures
is repeatedly affirmed ; and while different critics have
taken different views as to the nature of this division,
yet most, if not all, are agreed in recognising there the
first distinct testimony to the Old Testament Canon as
a whole1. Without therefore alluding here to other evidences to
the fact of the closing of the Canon, I would briefly
describe the two opposite conclusions usually deduced
as to the date of this writing ; for upon that date depends
very much the date of the Book of Daniel. This transla
tion of the 'Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach' (or
Ecclesiasticus) was made by the grandson of the author
in Egypt in the reign of Euergetes. In the prologue to
the work he describes as current everywhere 'the Law
and the Prophets1 — divisions corresponding to the Hebrew
Thorah and Nebi-im, — and also writings variously described
as ra, aXka ra. tear avroii<} ^KoKovQrjKora, or as to, aKka
¦n-drpia /3i/3\ta, but best explained by their last denomi
nation to. \onrd tSiv fiifiXiwv. In this last division he
included all those books not contained in the two former.
When then was this division considered closed? The
answer depends on the date of the author, Jesus Sirach2.
Now there are two chronological points, one in the pro
logue, the other in the body of the work, which might be
of assistance in forming a decision, were they not unfor-
1 e.g. Bleek as well as Westcott; Baxmann as well as Ziindel; Dillmann
as well as Oehler.
8 Eor a monogram upon this subject v. Winer de utriusque Siracidce estate.
Erlang. 1832. Keil, EM. p. 31 sq., gives a brief summary of the whole
dispute. Eritzsche, Exeget. Bandb. zu d. Apokryph. d. A.T. funfte Lieferung.
EM. xiii. seq. (i860). *

32 External Objections.
tunately ambiguous. The first is the mention of the king
Euergetes; the second is the allusion to 'Simon, the
son of Onias, the high-priest' (Ecclesiast. 1.), who closes
the eulogy upon the benefactors of Israel. Unhappily
for biblical criticism there were two Egyptian kings who
took the name of Euergetes ; and there were two Simons,
both high-priests, both sons of Onias. To take these
points in order. The first king surnamed Euergetes
was Ptolemy III., son and successor of Ptolemy II.,
Philadelphus (b. c. 247—22) ; the second was Ptolemy
VII., Physkon (b.c. 170—117). Herzfeld1 and Ewald in
supporting the latter have laid great stress upon the
shortness of the reign of the former, affirming that, as the
translator came into Egypt in the 38th year of Euergetes,
it was impossible for him to have meant Euergetes I.
But this opinion is founded upon erroneous premisses. The
plain grammatical structure of the words alleged can only
refer the date to the age of the writer, not to that of the
king2. The ambiguity about Euergetes leaves the matter
unexplained ; and reference must therefore be made to
the second point, the identification of Simon, son of Onias.
Simon I. and Simon II. are separated from each other by
very nearly a century. The first, surnamed the Just, was
high-priest between the years 310 — 290 b.c. He was a
very celebrated man, and is known as the last of the
' men of the great Assembly3.' Simon II. was high-priest
1 Op. cii. II. 73 (1857). Fritzsche, I. c.
* Baihinger, Stud. -u,. Kritik. 1857, p. 93 seq. Ziindel, p. 236. Westcott
(Smith's Bibl. Diet. Art. 'Ecclesiasticus'), p. 479, note c. The passage is as
follows: iv yap t$ 6y86(p Kal TpiaKoimfi tret M tov TSiepyerov /3ac7i\^ws irapa-
yevriOeU els Alyvwrov  evpoi> k.t.\.
3 The assessors of Ezra's tribunal after the Return were called the ' Men of
the great Assembly.' They were Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Hana-
niah, Misael, Azariah, Nehemiah ben Hachalijah, Mordechai, Balshan, Zerub
babel, and several other sages to the full number of 120. The last of these 120
was Simon the Just, who received the oral laws from all those whom he sur
vived. He was high-priest next in succession to Ezra. (Maimonides,
Introd. to Yad Ohazakah) ; v. also Herzfeld, Op. cit. Vol. I. (1855), xii. Excurs.
'Ueber die Manner der grossen Synagogue,' pp. 380-96.

Canonical Position. 33
at the time when Ptolemy IV., Philopator, attempted to
force his way into the Temple (b.c. 219 — 199) (3 Mace
i. 2), but nothing farther is known of him. From an
examination of the manner in which Sirach speaks of
Simon it has been usually supposed that he was personally
acquainted with him. That supposition has been ques
tioned. He may have been so, but the language he em
ploys is only that which might be very properly used by
any learned Jew when speaking of one of the most famous
men of his nation. But the eulogy pronounced upon
Simon does seem to point more naturally to Simon I. than
to his namesake. Of the latter we know comparatively
nothing; of the former, sayings characteristic of his wis
dom were treasured and transferred to the pages of the
Talmud1 ; and he was universally regarded as one of the
great benefactors of his people. In enumerating those
benefactors, it seems difficult to explain why Simon I.
should have been passed over, and the less celebrated
Simon II. commemorated ; so that as a mere question of
probabilities the balance seems to favour the former more
than the latter. The advocates of the identification of the
'Simon' of Sirach with Simon I. or Simon II. have gene
rally attached to their identification the condition that with
Simon I. must be taken Euergetes I., and with Simon II.
Euergetes II. But there are difficulties connected with this
which have been thus stated by Fritzsche and Westcott2.
The description of Simon may be allowed to refer with
greater probability to Simon I but there are internal
evidences against the translator being placed so far back
as the middle of the third century. The translation,
though Hebraistic in style, betrays a familiarity with the
1 For instance, 'Meseceth Aboth,' I. xviii. 'On three things hangs the
universe, on justice, truth, and peace.' Perhaps too great stress must not he
laid on the title 'the Just.' Herzfeld, I. 377 (1855), mentions three Simons
who bore this honorary title. Simon I. and Simon II. and a Simon who lived
about 41 a.d.
2 Fritzsche, p. xvii. seo—JKestcott. Art. 'Ecclesiasticus,' p. 479. 3

34 External Objections.
Septuagint version, and a reproduction of its language which
is hardly consistent with so early a date. Westcott, there
fore, proposes a combination of these views. He places
the visit to Egypt of the translator, already in his 38th
year at least, early in the reign of Ptolemy Physkon ;
and considers it quite possible that the book itself was
written, while the name and person of the last of the
men of the great Synagogue were still familiar to his
countrymen. The political and social troubles alluded to
in the book (li. 6, 12, xxxiv. ff.) are considered to point
to the more disturbed times of the Syrian dominion over
Egypt rather than to the comparatively tranquil period of
the Ptolemsean supremacy. Under this view the date of
Jesus Sirach, the author, would be about 200 B.C., and the
Greek translation would be made about the time of
Antiochus Epiphanes (b.c. 170).
There are, however, considerations which, whether
conclusive or not, seem to diminish the force of one or
two of the above remarks. The allusions to the trou
bles either in the passages above cited or in those se
lected by Herzfeld1 (ii. 12—14, xxxiii. ; xiii. 2) are
very indistinct. To any ordinary reader, who took up
the book expecting to find in it 'wisdom and learning,'
'dark sentences and parables, and certain particular
ancient godly stories of men that pleased God,' 'prayer
and song,' the description of 'benefits vouchsafed unto
God's people,' and of 'plagues heaped upon their ene
mies' (prologue), the conviction would rather be that
the moral element far exceeds the polemical. There
are encouragements, consolations, warnings, and the like
without number; but they are directed to those who
are sinners far more than to those who are suffering
from persecution. Again, the peculiarities of style in
those particular points in which they approach the Alex
andrian version, are not sufficiently marked to bear the
1 Herzfeld, Op. cit. n. 74 (1857).

Canonical Position. 35
argument deduced from them. They are not greater
than what might be expected. And the gap of time
between Simon I. (d. 291 B.c.) and the commencement
of Ptolemy Physkon's reign (170 B. c.) seems too long
to be explained so as to suit the composition of the
book in 200 b. o. There is a freshness and a spirit in the
description of Simon, which though not necessarily pro
ceeding from the pen of a friend and contemporary, seems
hardly in accordance with its composition nearly a hundred
years after his decease. It is this latter feature of vivid
ness and forcible representation which has, in fact, led
to the belief that Simon I. and the 'grandfather of Sirach'
were contemporaries. Starting therefore from that sup
position, and remembering that the 'grandson' was 38
years old at the beginning of the reign of Ptolemy Euer
getes I. (247 b. a), the age of Sirach would be not later
than about 300 B. C. ; and, at that time, says Baihinger1, the
time of Simon I. the high-priest, the Canon may be sup
posed closed. He returns, in short, with Hengstenberg,
Auberlen, and Oehler to the original opinion of Eiehhorn,
that about a century after the new consolidation of the
Hebrew power in Palestine, the Canon was considered com
pleted, and those books enrolled which we find in it now.
Thus early, therefore, or, on the other supposition,
about the year 200, apocryphal and canonical literature
was clearly distinguished; and the possibility of any com
mixture of the two obviated by the closing of the Canon.
It remains now to be seen how this affects the position of
the Book of Daniel. If this third class of writings known
to the grandfather of Jesus Sirach, is identified with the
third division of the Canon, the Cetubim, then the Book of
Daniel under either date (c. b. c. 300 or B. c 200) must have
existed before the date of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is
this fact which makes the opponents of the authenticity
1 Stud. u. Krit. p. 97. Ziindel, p. 238. Oehler (Herzog's Real-Encycl.)
Art. 'Canon,' VII. 243, seq.
3—2

36 External Objections.
of the book strongly deny the identification. Herzfeld,
Dillmann, Bleek refuse to acknowledge it. Dillmann1, for
instance, because the expression, rd irarpia fiiftXia, is not
defined by the epithet ayia; while Bleek2 prefers to place
the closing of the Canon among the Jews of Palestine
about 100 B. c, and among the Hellenistic Jews later still.
But the manner in which Sirach mentions the ' Law, the
Prophecies, and the remainder of the Books,' evidently
points to perfect divisions of a completed whole : the
phrase descriptive of the last class suggests no fair reason
for supposing that it was still indefinite and open to
additions. And there are other facts which singly point
to the probability of the Canon being then closed, and
unitedly may be said to certify it. There are passages in
the Talmud which bring the existence of the latest mem
bers of the Cetubim down to even 400 B. c.3 In our Lord's
time the division was known under the name of the Psalms
(v6/j,o<; koI irpocfirJTai, teal ¦^raXp.ot,, S. Luke xxiv. 44), the first
Book of the Cetubim being probably used to express the
whole class. Philo speaks of the Therapeutse finding their
food in ' laws and oracles uttered by prophets, and hymns
(vfj,vot, Kal to, a,\\a) and other books (or means) by which
knowledge and piety are increased and perfected4;' where
vfivoi represents the third division of the Canon. And
there is, above all, the classic passage of Josephus (contr.
Apion. I. 8). The historian there mentions the twenty-
two books of the Hebrew Bible; and as notes of time for
their reception and canonicity, he makes his terminus
a quo the death of Moses, and his terminus ad quem the
Persian Xerxes. From that time, he adds, there have
been other writings, but they are not to be ranked in

1 Jahrb, fur D. Tkeol. 1858, p. 477 sq., 483 sq., 487.
2 Einl. pp. 674-5.
• e.g. the celebrated passage from Baba-Bathra (v. Westcott, Canon.
PP- 253-4)-
4 De Vitd Contempt. 3; n. 475. Westcott, I.e.

Canonical Position. 37
point of authority with the writings that preceded them,
because of the cessation of the accurate succession of
prophets1. Our own Scriptures (ypd/j,/j,aTa), he continues,
we regard as decrees of God (BoypLara ®eov). These pas
sages unitedly point to a definite and fixed Canon of
Scripture ; and it must be remembered that they all pro
ceed upon the supposition, that what they are recording
was a long-established opinion. Josephus, the evangelist,
the oral tradition, may be respectively regarded as the
exponents of the belief not of their own age only, but of
the belief received from the fathers. In such a point
the superstitious reverence of the Jew for the sacred
records must not be forgotten. From Moses to Josephus
there existed a cautiousness in adding anything to the
Scriptures or diminishing aught from them, which made
the act of collecting and canonizing the respective writings
no literary nor casual task, but one to be undertaken in
the most solemn and grave spirit.
The triple division of the Canon thus established, as
I believe, by the time of Jesus Sirach, what was the nature
of its third division? and why is Daniel found in the
third and not in the second? The opinions upon both
these points again divide themselves in accordance with
a belief or a disbelief in the authenticity of the book. The
Canon was kept open, say Herzfeld2 and Bleek3, to admit
those writings which at a later period (i. e. the Maccabean)
claimed recognition at the hands of the Jews. Though
the Jews of Palestine, about a hundred years B.C., had
come to the conclusion that the Spirit of God no longer
rested upon their countrymen as of old : though they

1 Compare the old Jewish tradition before noted, p. 29, n. 5, and the state
ment in 1 Mace. ix. 27. Oehler, p. 249.
5 Op. cit. n. 96 (1857). He places the completion of the Canon long after
the birth of Christ.
8 Einl. 672-4. *

38 External Objections.
believed it impossible that any writing could henceforth
be produced worthy of a resting-place by the side of the
Thorah and the prophetic writings ; though, again, they
admitted into their Canon no writing which could not
claim to have been originally composed about 100 years
after the termination of the exile1 ; yet exceptions to. this
rule were made in favour of the books of Daniel and
Ecclesiastes. These were admitted into the Canon because
considered (popularly) to be the writings of Daniel and
Solomon. The books came before the Jews with the
literary recommendation of a titular connection with an
old prophet and a wise man2. Their historical or their
didactic nature increased the prejudice in their favour
and secured their canonical acceptance. In the case of
Daniel we are to consider it a very probable supposi
tion, that soon after its appearance, and in spite of its
unhistorical character, it was hailed with ready recogni
tion. It met with no opposition from the strict and reli
gious leaders of Israel.
It would seem, therefore, that if it had not been for these
two books the Canon would have been definitely closed by
the age of Jesus Sirach, and probably long before. As this
was not the case, we must believe that it was kept open long
after it was tacitly allowed to be closed, in the forlorn hope
that some writings would yet come in deserving of a place
in its ranks. This actually took place, and then, but not till
then, the Canon was closed. On the face of it such a mode
of argument can satisfy no one ; it is made to suit a par
ticular case, and certainly contradicts the whole spirit of
Jewish opinion respecting their sacred books. On whose
authority and by whose judgment were these books
admitted at this late date ? The ' men of the great As
sembly' were all dead. The spirit which quickened them
had rested upon- no successor. Peaceful times were at
1 Bleek, I. c. * Bleek, I. c. Herzfeld, n. 55 (1857).

Canonical Position. 39
an end. There "was oppression without and dissension
within. During the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, and after
that down to the Christian era, where could unanimity be
found sufficient to discuss soberly and gravely the admis
sion of a new book into the Canon ? Admit the consolatory
object of the Pseudo-Daniel in writing, yet would it not
be utterly thrown away upon the Hellenising party who
favoured the interests of the Syrian persecutor? That
party was headed by Jason, the high-priest1, and was he
likely to recognise a work which, on the modern view,
was directed against his patron and all who sided with
him ? And if the high-priest rejected it would it not be
certain that a large party would adopt his view purely
from respect to his office, and through consideration of
the supposed infallibility superstitiously attached to his
opinion ? At a later period we meet with the violent sect
of the Sadducees. If they did not reject prophetic
writings they ignored them. They took the Thorah as
their code of life, and refused credit to whatever writing
beyond it defined too accurately dogmas opposed to their
creed. They also had their followers. Members of this
sect filled for many years the chief pontifical office, — and
were they likely to recognise in the hour of their triumph
a book which more strongly than any other inculcated the
doctrines of angels and of the resurrection of the dead ?
That they did not we have proof positive in the fact that
the Book of Daniel was the book above all which they
rejected2. It is both impossible and improbable that the
Book of Daniel was admitted into the Canon after the
manner suggested by Herzfeld and Bleek. The Canon
was closed by the time of Jesus Sirach, and by that time
Darnel was counted canonical.
But what was the nature of the third division of the
Canon, the Cetubim ? Is there any just reason for finding
1 2 Mace. iv. 2 Herzfeld, n. 104.

40 External Objections.
Daniel inserted in that division andj-.jaetc.in the second?
I believe there is. Not one but many facts tend to prove
that the triple division of the Canon was not formed on
arbitrary haphazard principles,: but with a strict regard
to the fundamental ideas of Judaism. Mosaism and Pro
phetism, says Philippson1, declare the objective doctrines
of God, the world, and mankind. The Hagiographa (Ce
tubim) enlarge on the relation of God to the individual,
and of the individual to his God2. The Law is the first
stage in the progressive developement of the Old Testa
ment religion. The Nebi-im presents the next stage objec
tively. The Cetubim the third subjectively, with special
regard to the religion and piety of the individual. And
thus it is that this triple division of the Old Testament
Canon is itself a reflection of the different stages of reli
gious developement through which the Jewish nation
passed. As the foundation of the whole revelation of
God comes the Thorah, enforcing that special discipline by
which the chosen race was to be trained from a savage
wilfulness to the accomplishment of the divine work ap
pointed to it. The Nebi-im in their turn exhibit the strug
gles of the same people when brought into close connec
tion with the kingdoms of the world, and when led to
search for inward antitypes of the outward precepts con
veyed to them. And lastly, the Hagiographa reveal the
workings of the religious idea in the various phases of
individual life ; they depict its relation to the great prob
lems of thought and feeling presenting themselves by a
necessary law in the later stages of civilisation3. It was
not then so much outward authority as inward features —
exhibiting a greater or a less approximation to this or
that stage of religious developement— which led to the.
position in the Canon of the respective books. How does
1 Developement of the Relig. Idea. Engl. Transl. 8vo. Lond. 1855, p. 117.
2 Oehler, Art. 'Kanon,' 254. (Herzog's R.-E.).
3 Westcott, Art. 'Canon' (Smith's Bibl. Diet.), p. 252.

Canonical Position. 41
this apply to the Book of Daniel? Supposing that the
Cetubim represents a specific and necessary phase in the
history of this developement1, are there any features in the
Book of Daniel which would naturally refer it to the third
rather than to the second of these Canonical divisions ?
Daniel was a prophet, why is he not among the prophets
as in the LXX Version? The answer is that he is not
so much a prophet as an Apocalyptic seer2. The objective
and subjective features which singly would decide his
position in the Nebi-im or the Cetubim, are united in
Daniel in a remarkable manner: but the subjective ele
ment preponderates ; and therefore it was, that with some
thing more than proper tact3 — with a deep penetration
into the peculiarities of the book — Ezra and Nehemiah,
or Simon the Just, did not reckon him with the pro
phets,, but placed him in that class where subjectivity
prevails. Upon this view the Book of Daniel, placed in
the same collection as the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, &c,
seems naturally placed. It is there from its connection
with the subject-matter of those writings. And the
same book placed midway between the poetry and the
prose, the moral and the historical portions of this divi
sion, is again naturally placed4. It has elements in common
with both. Prayer and prophecy link it to the softer, more
spiritual members of the Cetubim : history and narrative
to the sterner, more prosaic records of the Jewish annals.
An examination of the prophets of the Nebi-im seems
to advance and support the distinction laid down above.
The objective element is strongly developed in them.
For instance, Isaiah in the Holy City, Ezekiel at Chebar,
Zechariah in Judsea after the Keturn, laboured among their
1 Philippson, p. 116.
8 Baihinger, Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 96. Ziindel, p. 222 int. al.
3 Baihinger, p. 97.
4 Herzfeld, II. 35, considers that the introduction of Daniel and historical
works into the Canon ' obliterated the hymnological nature of this division. '
This is a tacit concession of the subjective nature of the division.

42 External Objections.
people by divine appointment. They were sent to work
as well as to speak. Each of those names recalls the
memory of a prophet who delivered his message face to
face with his people. They were the appointed ' preachers
of righteousness,' and whether men would 'hear or
whether they would forbear,' they were bound to speak.
Daniel, on the contrary, does nothing of this. He is a
prophet1, he was so called by our Lord, by the LXX,
and by Josephus, and yet there is no command to him to
go forth and labour among his fellow-captives as the
messenger of God. He moved among his fellow-country
men a silent God-fearing man, working by his example
more than by speech. At the proper time he uttered
the divine message to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar,
as Jonah did at Nineveh, fearless of consequences. His
mission as a prophet was to the heathen. He was not
called upon to declare the whole counsel of God to his
own people as was his contemporary Ezekiel. Such a
step might, humanly speaking, have imperilled his posi
tion as their protector; Daniel was able to do his work
as a religious reformer by 'silence and by example. The
form and contents of the Book of Daniel support this
difference. They are emphatically distinct from those of
the prophets of the Nebi-im. In the writings of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, &c, a lofty impassioned spirit and a nervous
thrilling diction characterise every page. It is the ' word
of the Lord' flashing through every line and quickening
every thought. But the prophecies of Daniel are recorded
in visions and dreams ; their subjects are revealed in sym
bolical shapes and scenes. He hears the discourses of
heavenly spirits. He receives into his own heart words
addressed by angels to himself; and what he hears, what
he receives, he treasures and records in silence. The
1 'Non si quis prophetat, ideo propheta est. Ac profecto si quis propheta
est, is quidem prophetat, sed vero qui prophetat non continuo etiam est pro
pheta.' Origen, quoted by Delitzsch (Herzog, R.-E. Art. 'Daniel').

Canonical Position. 43
palace of Susa and the courts of Babylon were no fitting
localities for the open promulgation of such mysteries.
This form of revelation is not indeed entirely confined
to Daniel. It is found occasionally in some of the other
prophets1. But where with them it is the exception, with
him it is the rule. It is more common in Zechariah who
lived later, but for anything that can be determined to the
contrary it was probably entirely independent ; or if pre
cedent be required, it was more likely that Zechariah
adopted it from Daniel than the reverse. In Zechariah
the usual mode of prophecy is far the more frequent,
prevailing throughout the closing chapters (vii. — xiv.).
Everything therefore unites in placing the Book of Daniel
in the catalogue of the Cetubim, and that without any
disparagement to the prophet. It is of very little moment
that a later rabbin, Abarbanel2, should attribute ascen-
sive degrees of inspiration to the three divisions of the
Canon. Such a distinction was unknown to the early
doctors of the Jewish church3, and Abarbanel himself
admits that Daniel was endued with the highest prophetic
power. In the Gemara4 he is preferred to Haggai, Zecha
riah, and Malachi. Objections sometimes found against
his work in later Jewish writings, are due to the argu
ments deduced from it by Christians against Jews in
their proof that Jesus of Nazareth is foretold in the Mes
siah of Daniel (ix. 24 — 27). Talmudical writings contain
many allusions to doubts cast upon Canonical books, and
but very little value is to be attached to them6. The
earliest Jewish catalogues of the Biblical books place
1 Isai. vi. ; Amos vii.; Jerem. xxiv.; Ezek. i. 8-n, 37, 40 sq.
2 Keil. EM. § 158, 6. The first was that of Moses ; the second that of the
'Prophet'; the third that of the EHpn ITI"), given without ecstasy, and pro
duced in speech like that of other men.
" Fabricius, Cod. Pseud, in V. T. 1. p. 897 n. Wolfii, Bibl. Heir. 11. p. 46,
Oehler, Op. cit. 254. Herzf. II. p. 19. (1857).
4 Carpzov. Crit. Sacr. in V. T. pp. 977, 8.
5 Comp. Eisenmenger, Judenthum, I. 433, sq. ; II. 406. Herzfeld, II. g6, 97.

44 External Objections.
Daniel in the Cetubim, but as the chief of these1 carries
back the existence of the book to the time of the great
Assembly, very little doubt can be entertained as to the
feeling with which the compilers of this list regarded it
themselves, or considered that Ezra and Nehemiah re
garded it. The order of the Baba-Bathra is said to be
chronological, and the position of Daniel in the order of
its Cetubim may perhaps bear that interpretation. In
the present arrangement of the Cetubim, the five Megil-
loth are placed close together for synagogal use (Song
of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes and Esther),
and immediately following them the Book of Daniel2. The
book is thus in close connection with the historical works
of Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Chronicles, which conclude
the Cetubim.
The canonical position of the Book of Daniel may
therefore be accepted as both natural and necessary.
Far from being a proof against the authenticity of the
book, that position, so early and so invariably maintained?
is an evidence in its favour of no small moment. It
supports in a remarkable manner the historical evidence
for the acceptance and canonical admission of the book
before the age of Antiochus Epiphanes.

1 The Baba-bathra, v. Herzf. ir. 102-4.
2 Herzf. I. c.

CHAPTER III.
B. ARGUMENT A E SILENTIO.

1. Silence of Jesus Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).
The next argument against the authenticity of the
Book of Daniel is that deduced from the silence of the
writer of Ecclesiasticus.
I have already spoken at sufficient length upon the dis
puted date of this Book. But this objection is independent
of the date. It turns upon an alleged omission.
In chapters xliv — 1. is contained the eulogy of the
heroes of Israel (vpLvos irarepccv, ch. xliv.), but the name of
Daniel is not found among them. This catalogue of great
men embraces the Rulers, Patriarchs, Lawgivers, Prophets,
and others who signalized themselves in their day. Among
those of a later date — not to recall earlier names — are
Isaiah (xlviii. 22), Jeremiah (xlix. 6, 7), Ezekiel (xlix. 8), the
twelve Prophets (xlix. 10), Zorobabel (xlix. 11), and Nehe
miah (xlix. 13).
It seems impossible to explain, says Bleek1, the omis
sion of Daniel's name. He was a man favoured with re
markable visions, and an actor in very momentous scenes—
if the account of his book be followed ; why then is his
name absent from this list ? There is but one explanation :
1 Einl. p. 589. So Davidson, Introd. ill. 170-1. 1863.

46 External Objections.
'the Book was neither known to Jesus Sirach, nor reckon
ed canonical in his day.' Evidently, arguments of this
negative character depend very much upon the bias of
the objector who employs them. With some they will
have great weight, with others little or none. More often
than not, negative arguments drawn from the silence of an
author prove nothing and disprove nothing. In the pre
sent case, the objection rests upon the supposition that it
was necessary for Jesus Sirach to mention Daniel. The
author of the Book of Ecclesiasticus enumerated, it is said,
his list of heroic Israelites upon a certain definite plan. In
celebrating the Prophetic order three out of the four
'greater Prophets' are personally mentioned, and the
twelve 'lesser Prophets' are summed up in a body. Daniel
alone is omitted. The omission can only be explained on
the supposition that Jesus Sirach was unacquainted with
his work. In answer to this objection the defenders of
the authenticity of the Book have usually urged two points :
one turning upon a question of textual criticism, the
other disputing the plan here attributed to Sirach.
The verse (xlix. 10) which mentions the twelve prophets
is this, Kal rav BcoBeKa rrrpodyrrrwv to, oara dvaOaXoi eK tov
T07T0V avT&v. irapeKaXeae Be tov Ta/c<w/3, Kal eKvTpwaaro
aiiTov<; iv irlaTei e'X7rt'So?. (Tiscliendorf1).
It is alleged that this verse is spurious. De Wette,
Hengstenberg, Havernick and Westcott reckon it an in
terpolation. The reasons for this opinion are given by
Bretschneider2. A later scribe appears to have inserted it
as an after-thought, believing that the twelve prophets
should be mentioned after Ezekiel (xlix. 9), after whose
Book the Hebrew codices have placed the whole of the
lesser prophets. One scribe inserted the words Kal Bd>8.
•7rpo<p., and a second added the words to, So-to,. . .avrwv from
(xlvi. 12). This is said to be borne out by the appearance
1 LXX. Vol. n. Ed. 1856.
a Liber Jesu Siracidw, p. 662 (Ratisb. 1806).

Silence of Jesus Sirach. 47
of the texts. The Cod. Vatic, reads as Tischendorf gives
it ; but the Cod. Alex., the Vulgate and Syriac versions read
the verbs in the latter clause, not in the singular but in
the plural to connect them with the ' Prophets' (wapeKake-
aav, iXvTpcocravTo. Cod. A.). And if Sirach was commemo
rating the Prophets in a chronological order, it is thought
that he would not have put the twelve Prophets after
Ezekiel. Too much stress however must not be laid upon
these arguments of Bretschneider's. Fritzsche1 is probably
right in affirming that the words Kal Twv...avr6c>v are only
displaced, and should succeed e'\7rt'So? at the end of the
verse. It is also a too precarious assumption that the words
tc\ oard k.t.X. were copied from xlvi. 10. And Herzfeld's2
view that the singular of the verbs refers them to God as
a nominative is unnecessary, and from the context incor
rect ; naturally and grammatically the verbs are connected
with Ezekiel. The verse therefore must be retained, as is
done in the texts of Holmes and Parsons, Tischendorf3, &c.
But it may be very fairly questioned whether Jesus Sirach
compiled his catalogue of names upon any settled plan. On
the contrary, it appears evident that he selects or omits as
memory and fancy suggested. He commences his 'hymn'
with Enoch (xliv. 16), and he closes this chapter (xlix. 14) by
mentioning him once more : starting away again to speak
of Joseph* (xlix. 15), and returning again to Shem, Seth, and
Adam (xlix. 16). This independence and irregularity of
illustration explains the omission of many names. It did
not occur to Sirach, or it did not fall in with his plan,
supposing him to have had a plan, to introduce the name
of Daniel any more than that of Ezra. The omission of
the latter is as remarkable as that of the former. The one
was a priest and learned scribe of great reputation among
1 Op. cit. p. 292. 2 Gesch. n. 95, note (1857).
3 Field (LXX. ed. S. P. C. K., 1859) encloses the disputed words in
brackets. 4 Joseph, if any order had been intended, would have been commemorated
after Jacob (xliv. 23).

48 External Objections.
his fellow-countrymen; the other was a prophet and
equally celebrated for his remarkable virtues. If he omit
ted the one undesignedly, why might he not have done the
same in the case of Daniel ? It is beside the question to
say that Ezra is omitted because the writer, when enume
rating the champions of Israel at the time of the restora
tion of the temple and city, directed his attention to things
and not to persons1- Upon that principle 'Jesus son of
Josedec,' and ' Neemias' ought also to have been omitted.
But this is not the case. Sirach commends both them and
their works. No one, again, would argue from the silence
of Sirach about Ezra that he was unacquainted with his
name. This is at once contradicted by the mention of the
name of Nehemiah. The name of the one and the writings
of the one would naturally recall the name and the writings
of the other. And similarly the argumentum e silentio
with reference to Daniel fails under a like test. Sirach
mentions Ezekiel (xlix. 8), and in that Prophet's writings
there are the well-known allusions to Daniel (chs. xiv.
xxviii.) which have been already mentioned. The name of
the Prophet of Chebar was connected with that of the
Prophet of Babylon : and the writings of the one would
recall the writings of the other. If a reason for the omis
sion of Daniel be wanted, it may be supplied from that
very passage of Ezekiel (xxviii.) 2. The individuality of his
character is there singled out for praise ; it was the indi
viduality of Daniel's writings which placed him among the
Cetubim ; and it was again his individuality which caused
the undesigned omission of his name from the lists of
Sirach. That writer was thinking of and commemorating
those heroes in whom active rather than passive virtues
were pre-eminent. Of the two contemporaries, therefore,
Ezekiel seemed the more fitting illustration of the heroic
type during the captivity; and his name was chronicled,
1 Fritzsche, p. 253. Davidson, I. c. 2 Comp. Ziindel, p. 225.

Silence of Jesus Sirach. 49
while that of Daniel was omitted, without however the
slightest intention of disparagement of the latter, or the
faintest hint of non -acquaintance with his writings. To
deduce this last fact from the silence of Sirach is altogether
unwarranted: — but still more unwarranted is the subse
quent assumption, that the Book of Daniel is therefore
unauthentic.

2. Silence of later Scriptural writers.
It is a matter of grave consideration to Bleek and
Davidson1 that no traces of Daniel's influence are to be
found in the later prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi.
Zechariah especially ought to have exhibited such in
fluence. In the use of symbolism he resembles Daniel,
but in no other point. The Messianic ideas of Jeremiah
have sensibly affected his writings ; how is it then that the
Visions of Daniel have not done so ? and how is it that the
angelology of Zechariah is so much less developed than
that of Daniel ? ought not the very contrary to have been
expected? Now, without pausing over such objections,
many of which are to be explained by pure common- sense
reflections, such as differences of subject and circum
stances, I will simply remark that the only prophet,
Zechariah, who might be expected to exhibit parallel
modes of thought to Daniel, does so in a most remarkable
degree. The resemblance is so strong and the influence
of Daniel so clear, that I have preferred removing the con
sideration of the point to the proofs of the authenticity
of the Book of Daniel. The subject of angelology will
also be found discussed under its proper heading. With
this slight reference to a somewhat captious spirit of criti
cism, I pass on to points of a graver and more solid
character. 1 Bleek, p. 589. Davidson, p. 171.

CHAPTER IV.
0. PHILOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS.

The philological questions connected with the Book of
Daniel are exceedingly interesting and important. Both
sides have appealed with confidence to arguments deduced
from them, and both have claimed the victory. Ber
tholdt, Bleek, Baxmann, Bunsen, Williams1 would have
us believe that Macedonian words, the texture of the
Chaldaic and late forms, remove all philological doubts as
to the modern age of the book (b.c 169). Hengstenberg,
Havernick, Auberlen, Keil, Delitzsch, Ziindel, Westcott,
and Rose2 reply that upon the whole modern philology
has rather tended to remove the objection than to con
firm it. Macedonian words above all, it is maintained,
do not necessarily bring down the date to a later period
than 536 b.c When doctors differ who may presume to
decide ? The subject however is so exceedingly interest
ing that it well deserves all the attention that it has
received. The language of the book, no less than its general
structure, evidently belongs to an age of transition. The
fact is well known that it is composed partly in Chaldee
(Aramaic), partly in Hebrew. The opening chapters
1 Essays and Reviews, p. 76. ! Replies to E. and R. p. 115.

Unity of the Booh. 51
(i— ii. 4 a) are written in Hebrew; but the Casdim1 on
returning their answer to Nebuchadnezzar, do so in Ara
maic (Angl. 'Syriac,' rVttlN) ; and this language is re
tained as far as the middle of the book (ii. 4 b — vii. 28).
The Hebrew is then resumed, and is preserved till the end
(viii — xii). Coupled with this peculiar interchange of the
two dialects, are those other solecisms before mentioned,
Greek technical terms, and Persian words.
These linguistic idiosyncracies have led in the first
place to a denial of the unity of our present book. Ob
jectors have been taught by them to subdivide and
assign to separate authors the work they impugn. Eieh
horn imagined that chapters i — vi. were written by one
scribe, chapters vii — xii. by another. And his view under
went a curious refinement at the hands of Bertholdt2.
This critic supposed that each section was the work of a
distinct author or writer, though he allowed that each was
acquainted with the writing of his predecessor. He rested
this opinion upon supposed historical contradictions be
tween various sections, as e. g. i. 21 with x. 1 ; i. 1, 5 with
ii. 1; ii. 48, 49 with v. 11 — 14; but it was refuted by
Bleek3, who pronounced it, soon after it appeared, partly
false and destitute of foundation, partly resting on the
slightest possible proof. Of the mutual dependence of the
chapters of the book there is now no doubt. De Wette
and Keil3 have convincingly proved it. The first chapter,
for instance, introduces Daniel and his three companions.
The second explains the circumstances which brought
1 In speaking of that particular class called ' Chaldaeans ' in the E. V. (i. 4)
I have preferred to call them ' Casdim' (a reproduction in English letters of the
original word), in order to avoid any confusion with the Chakteans as a nation.
In this I have followed Benisch and Zunz in their respective English and Ger
man translations of the Old Testament.
a Bertholdt's divisions may be seen (to name the latest work) in Ziindel,
p. 40. Michaelis made out eight, Eiehhorn ten, and Bertholdt nine writers.
8 Comp. the EM. p. 585.
4 In their respective Einleitungen, s.n. Daniel.
4—2

52 External Objections.
them prominently forward. The third records the con
duct of the latter when their exalted and firm demeanour
brought them face to face with the alternative, death or
idolatry ; and so on through the chapters. Examples and
references from one section to another are found in
iii. 12 to ii. 49 ; v. 2 to i. 2 ; v. 11 to ii. 48 ; viii. 1 to vii. 1 ;
ix. 21 to viii. 15 ; x. 12 to ix. 23 ; while again the histo
rical and prophetic portions are connected with each
other, and become, in spite of their difference of lan
guage, bound up one with the other by such peculiarities
as are inexplicable on the supposition of plurality of
authorship. Such passages as the following are good
illustrations of this : ii. 28, iv. 2, 7, 10 with vii. 1, 2, 15 ;
v. 6, 9 with vii. 28 (fcO£J> vX) ; iv. 16, v. 6, 10 with vii. 28
OJ^TQ* \JVjn) ; iii. 4, 7, 31, v. 19, vi. 26 with vii. 14
("M \Xt3SS). But while the unity of the book is thus
fully borne out by the diction, the spirit, and the repre
sentations pervading it; while, again, all historical evi
dence supports its canonicity ; it does not follow that the
book as we now have it is to be assigned to the original
authorship of Daniel. In its present form the book pos
sesses peculiarities of an internal character which seem
to suggest a certain extraneous aid perfectly compatible
with the recognition of its unity and authority. The
change of person, for instance, is very remarkable. Daniel
is sometimes spoken of historically (i. 8 — 21; ii. 14 — 49;
iv. 8—27 ; v. 13—29 ; vi. 2—28 ; vii. 1, 2) ; sometimes he
speaks personally (vii. 15 — 28; viii. 1; ix. 22; x. 1 — 19;
xii. 5). Laudatory epithets are applied to him, and so
expressed as to preclude their emanation from Daniel
himself (i. 17, 19; v. 11, 12). A different and a peculiar
title is given to him (ix. 23; x. 11), and there are traces
of a revisionist's unintentional repetition (vi. 24, 25). It
is not of course denied that such changes of person are
without parallel (e. g. Isai. xxxv — xxxix ; vii. 3 ; xx. 2), and
the viith chapter of the book seems to prepare the way for

Unity of the Booh 53
the change. There, in the first and second verses Daniel
is spoken of in the third person ; while the substance of
the chapter is narrated in a personal form (vv. 2, 15, 28).
These laudatory expressions, again, may be explained as
proceeding from others, and as retained as faithful testi
monies of what was said of or to him. They may be
regarded as sometimes designed to glorify God, sometimes
to fill up a description otherwise incomplete; and they
may be said to resemble those which S. Paul applied to
himself (1 Cor. xv. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 5, 6; xii. 2). Or, again,
the change of person may be supposed due to the nature
of the case. As a prophet, Daniel would narrate symbolic
and representative events historically, but when treating
of visions and revelations the personal form implying
attestation seemed preferable. But I agree with Mr West
cott1 in thinking these reasons insufficient and forced,
and Ziindel2 does not seem to present them in a more
persuasive form. It will be remarked that the change of
person and the differences mentioned separate the book, as
Eiehhorn separated it, into two main portions; and the
question which seems to suggest itself, after an impartial
study of the critical phenomena of the text, is this.
Did Daniel himself put what he wrote into its present
form? or, did he hand down to his countrymen records
which they preserved, and united together shortly after
the Return ? This latter opinion is adopted in France by
M. Quatremfcre3, in England by Mr Westcott*. By the
French scholar the book is considered to be composed of
literary fragments of very varied description, historical
pieces, diplomatic acts, &c. These he believes Daniel pre
served, but did not reunite into one collected and consecu
tive whole. The historical notices furnish, in fact, an
illustration of this fragmentary character. No one sup-
1 Art. ' Daniel,' p. 394. 2 P. 39 sq. to give the last writer on that side.
3 Melanges d'Histoire et de PhUoloyie OrientaU, p. 385.
4 Art. cit. pp. 392, 394.

54 External Objections.
poses that the Book of Daniel offers a complete series
of the historical events which took place at Babylon
between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus. And
this view seems supported by the old Jewish tradition
contained in the Talmudic writing called Baba-Bathra1.
It is there affirmed that the 'men of the great assem
bly wrote C2T0) the books' contained in the memorial
letters KaNDaC, i. e. ' Ezekiel, the twelve lesser Prophets,
Daniel, and Esther. Ezra wrote his own book, and Nehe
miah son of Hachalijah brought the remainder. of the
books to a close.' In spite of the comparatively late
date (c. A.D. 500) from which this tradition is derived,
the fact here stated is in every way consonant with the
history of Judaism, and with the internal evidence of the
books themselves. The expression, 'they wrote,' is not of
course to be taken in the sense of composing; it simply
signifies that they reduced to writing, or placed in their
present form, those particular writings. The sense given
to it by Herzfeld2, admitted into the Canon, is tanta
mount to the other, but more strongly expressed. Inter
nal character and traditional evidence seem in this case
to be very happily agreed. It must always be remembered
that the substantial authorship of a book of Scripture
does not involve the subordinate work of arrangement and
revision. It seems moreover difficult to conceive why any
writer should purposely compose one book in two languages;
but it is not difficult to conceive such a man as Daniel
treating in separate records, first, the events of general
history in the vernacular dialect ; and'secondly, the special
fortunes of God's people, in the more sacred language, the
Hebrew3. At the Return these revered fragments were
collected and brought into one whole, acquiring at the
1 V. Westcott, Art. 'Canon,' pp. 251, 253, 254.
2 Gesch. II. 94 (1857). Herzfeld of course disallows the deduction in the
text. He is merely quoted for the sense of the word 3J13.
3 Westcott, Art. 'Daniel,' I. c.

Unity of the Book. 55
hands of Ezra and his contemporaries that unity and yet
particularity which distinguish the present Book of Daniel1.
This view as to the authorship of the book does not,
as will have been seen, affect its unity. That unity is
now conceded on all sides. It is the foundation-stone
upon which opponents and defenders of the authenticity
equally rest. The one, to ascribe it to the age usually
assigned to it ; the other, to refer it to the age of Antio
chus Epiphanes.
The philological grounds for the latter view turn
upon several points which may be conveniently taken in
order.

1. Greek Words.
In chapter iii. there is a description of the various
instruments of music used to celebrate the dedication of
the golden image of Nebuchadnezzar. The names of these
instruments are said to be of Greek origin. Granted, says
Bleek2, that it is difficult to determine whether such names
came to Greeks and Babylonians from some common
source, or even to the Greeks from the. Babylonians; yet
there can be no doubt that the writer of this Book, whether
directly or indirectly, learnt them from Greeks. For in
the first place it is very improbable that the musical in
struments of the Greeks were used at the court of Nebu
chadnezzar under their Greek names : and in the second, it
is not likely that Daniel or a Jew of Palestine of that age
would have been so familiar with these Greek names as to
have set them down unexplained or unaccompanied by
1 A slightly different view to the above is maintained hy Herbst, Sack, and
others. It labours, however, under the serious defect of considering Daniel
the author of the second part of the Book only, chapters i — vi. being added by
a later hand as an Introduction to the Visions. Through this defect, the
opinion laid itself open to Bleek's animadversion (Einl. pp. 584-5).
a Einl. p. 596. Davidson, in. 193 (1863).
*

,.<*«?v

56 External Objections.
some cognate term. The objection is a plausible but not
a very solid one. The list of the Greek words said to be
discovered in the Book of Daniel, has been very much
shorn of its original dimensions. Bertholdt insisted upon a
Greek origin for almost every name ; Bleek rests now only
upon four, though with De Wette1 he is bound to allow
that even these were possibly known to the Babylonians of
that day. These four are as follows : — 1. rViSD'lD (iii- 5> 15),
or, &nblD (id. 10), ffvfujwvia (Syr. UjQfij). 2. pfi}&3,
¦tyaXTrjpiov. 3. DhTVp, Kiffapos. 4. &05P, aa^vKr^. Herz
feld3 reduces this list yet further, giving up the two last as
respectively Syriac and Persian. So that in fact the ob
jection rests upon two words. Yet upon this, modern cri
ticism has built up one stage of its dictum that the writer
was a Jewish scribe of the age of the Ptolemies and
Seleucids, the Hellenistic successors of Alexander4.
The answer to this objection very much depends upon
a due apprehension of the relations between Greece and
Babylonia in those early times. Now it has been convincing
ly pointed out that even long before Greek history began to
be written, there was very close connection between Greece
ancLAssyria5. Peace and war tended equally to sustain it.
Berosus6 records the battle and victory of Sennacherib
ov«f a Greek army in Cilicia in the 18th century B.C.; and
Heeren7, in proving Greek merchants to have penetrated

1 Einl. § 255 b. Baxmann (Stud. u. Krit. p. 464, 1863) is very particular in
pointing out that De Wette, Bleek, &c. only allow the possibility of this, not
its probability. 2 aapp. — Spyava ixomiKa rplywva iv oh roiis Id/ipovs ^5oi< (Suidas). This
word Kenan specifies as having come from the East to the West. Hist. G4n4-
rale d. langues Stmitiques, p. 207, 3rd edit. 1863. So Herzfeld.
3 Gesch. 1. 295 (1847). Mill, Myth. Interpr. of Gospels, p. 131, n. 20 (ed.
Webb). E. Payne Smith, Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 288 (1862).
4 Bleek, EM. 596.
K Brandis, Ueber d. historischen Gewinn aus d. Entzifferwng d. Assyrischen
Inschriften, p. 1 sq., 1856.
6 Fragm. ECistor. Grose, ed. C. Miiller, 11. p. 504.
7 Idem, 1. p. 920 sq.

Greek Words. 57
at a very early period to the steppes of Russia, evidences
that spirit of mercantile enterprise which must certainly
have gained them an early footing in the more civilized
districts of central Asia. Greek soldiers were to be found
in the armies of Asarhaddon (680 — 67 b.c) ; and Antime-
nides is made the subject of a poetical fragment by his
brother Alcseus for the distinguished honours he had gained
under the standard of Nebuchadnezzar1. Very early, such
commercial marts as Tyre and Sidon must have been the
media of intercourse between Babylon and Nineveh in the
East, and the Greek states on the coasts of Asia Minor
towards the West. Babylonians and Assyrians would hear
through Phoenician merchants of the superiority of Greek
architects and musicians; and through the same Phoeni
cian channels, Greek artists and artisans of high reputation
would reach the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris2. Thus,
far earlier than the age of the Captivity, we might expect
to find Greek words in a Babylonian dress, or Babylonian
words naturalised among the Greeks. But with reference
to these two or these four words, it should be noticed that
they represent musical instruments, and that in connection
with a religious festival. The importance of this fact has
hardly been sufficiently considered; for it is, in truth, a
tacit attestation to the authenticity of the Book. It
appears quite certain that Greek music owed its birth to
Eastern sources3. It came to them, with so much that
contributed to the glory of early Greece, from the Phoeni
cians. And these Phoenicians were under the yoke of
Assyria, Chaldsea and Persia in succession. Closely con
nected with the Assyrian by conquest was the Babylonian,
but far more closely was he connected with the Phoenician4.

1 Brandis, I. c. Delitzsch, Art. 'Daniel' (Herzog, R.-E.).
3 Comp. Journal of Sacred Literature, Oct. 1859, p. 153.
3 Forkel, Allgemeine Geschichte d. Musik, Vol. 1. ch. iv. 187 sq. Burney,
Hist, of Music, I. 259-60. British Cyclopaedia (Partington), Art. 'Music'
4 Movers, Die Phoenizier, p. 57.

58 External Objections.
They were bound to each other by the common origin of
one speech— the Semitic. The gods worshipped on the
Mediterranean appear under the same names and with
similar worship on the Euphrates. Baal and Astarte were
worshipped at Babylon, Tyre, and Carthage, with but
slightly different names and with only local differences of
ritual. The Babylonian religion — that mixture of Assyrian
Magism or Chaldaism, and of Syrian nature and image-
worship1 — found its outlet from the East through Phoenicia ;
and from the ports of that narrow strip of land went forth
first one and then another disseminating, amongst other
things, the idolatrous worship of Babylonian and Eastern
divinities, with its accompanying externals of music and
pageant2. These were readily adapted by the Greeks to
their new home; and as they caught up from Semitic
sources the names of plants, animals, gems, dresses, orna
ments, weights, and measures3; — as they drew their music
and their poetry from the same cradle of science and art* ; —
what more probable than this, that the original names of
musical instruments should be preserved among them
Grsecised but almost unaltered ? and what again more
natural, than that those very names should float back
again to their Babylonian and Persian -homes, to find but
little change in their tenor and import, when the religious
ideas of the West recoiled in their turn upon the East5?
It is this which explains the preservation of the same word
in both Aryan and Semitic families. KiOapo? deserves to
be called by Muys6 pure Greek ; but Benfey7 when he calls
it Semitic, and narrates how Thamyris the cithara-player
was called a Semite from the land of his instrument, is
equally correct; and so again is the Syriac scholar von

1 Movers, Die Phoenizier, p. 68.
2 Id. pp. 8-15. Muys, Forschungen auf d. Gebiete d. Alten Volker, p. 217.
3 Muys, Id. p. 245 sq. Renan, p. 249. 4 Id. p. 252.
6 Movers, Die Phoenizier, p. 83. 6 Op. cit. s. v.
7 Griech. Wurzel- Lexicon.

Greek words. 59
Lengerke1 when he calls it Persian. The word ran through
both families ; and its history is an illustration of the dif
fusion of language.
When we find therefore, in the musical festivities of a
religious character instituted by the Babylonian sovereign,
instruments bearing names confessedly Babylonian as well
as Greek ; their presence, far from stigmatising the work
which contains them as a forgery, should be counted if
anything a testimony to its genuineness. Those Greek
names might be and probably were current in the days of
Alexander's successors, but they had existed long before in
Babylonia2, and they could cause no surprise to Daniel or
suggest to him the necessity of explaining them. This last
requirement is simply an after-thought. If the musical
instruments ought to have been explained, much more
ought those mysterious garments which swathed the limbs
of the "three children" when cast into the furnace. The
listening Israelite would feel a much keener interest in
understanding those words than in those relating to the
instruments employed in pagan processions.

2. The alternate use of Hebrew and Chaldee.
This is the main linguistic peculiarity of the Book of
Daniel. At first sight this alternate use of the two lan
guages might almost be called natural, because character
istic of a time when the Jews were familiar with both3.
And it certainly has the effect of externally placing the
Book among the writings of the Captivity; Jeremiah and
Ezra being the only two canonical works connected with
that period, exhibiting a similar union. But this pheno
menon has been otherwise regarded. De Wette4 understood
i Quoted in Herzfeld, I. 295 (1847).
" Vide note at end of chap. IV.
' Ziindel, p. 245. So most of the critics on either side.
4 EM. §. 255, pp. 32 t, 2.

60 External Objections.
it as evidence that after the Return both languages were
familiar to the learned Jews only; and he therefore ob
jected to any argument deduced from this in favour of the
authenticity of the Book. But this limitation of the circle
of its readers to one, and that a very small class, is arbi
trary and unsatisfactory. The instances we have of the
alternate use of these two dialects are contained in works
purporting to be due to that era to which their contents
naturally refer them. And if in the case of Jeremiah1 and
Ezra this peculiarity is not supposed to invalidate the
genuineness of their date, it is difficult to understand why
a similar license should not be accorded to the Book of
Daniel. The nature of the Hebrew and Chaldee respec
tively have undoubtedly proved great sources of contention,
though they suggest instinctively as their author such a
man as the Daniel of Scripture is described to be. The
circumstances of his life and education are more than suffi
cient to account for any peculiarity of style and diction.
It is not to be expected that a Jew trained in the courts of
the Babylonian monarch would write with the purity of a
Jew of Palestine : neither can it be supposed natural, that
his native language would escape commixture with that
which he heard daily around him. Had this been the
case, Daniel would have been a miraculous phenomenon in
himself ; and his book, composed in Hebrew of the golden
age, would have borne upon the face of it evident tokens
of its spuriousness. These Hebrew and Chaldee peculia
rities may best be considered in succession.

1 It is evidently a matter of convenience, not of criticism, to suppose that
the Targum has been here inadvertently substituted for the text. It is un
doubtedly a fragment, but it is an authentic one. The reason for its occurrence
given by Kimchi and Rashi is quite satisfactory (Buxtorf, Bibl. Rabb. on
Jer. x. ii). The word Np*)N for NJ?"IN found in it, and said to be met with
only in the Targums, may be a phonetic error, or an orthographical change by
a later copyist ; but possibly the two were thus early interchanged, especially
as NJTlK is the reading of the word in the 2nd clause of the verse. The word
D/K which concludes it is not Hebrew only, it is also Aramaic, v. Kimchi, I. c.

Nature of the Hebrew. 61

3. Nature of the Hebrew.
Bertholdt1 endeavoured to degrade the Hebrew of Daniel
as low as possible. He considered that the language of
the last five chapters sank in point of style below the
Hebrew of the very latest books in the Old Testament.
In comparison with the Hebrew sections of Haggai, Zecha
riah, and Malachi, those of Daniel were said to be marked
by distinct traits of a still later style : and in comparison
with the books of Nehemiah, Esther, and the Hebrew
portion of Ezra, the diction was affirmed to be of a very
inferior character. Individual peculiarities he maintained,
did not explain all these differences. Every author should
reflect traces of the style of his day; and while such
contemporary traces can easily be discovered in the style
of Nehemiah, Ezra, and Esther, none such can be dis
covered in Daniel. He ought to exhibit similarity with
Ezekiel, the latter part of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the Psalms
written in or shortly after the time of the exile. So far
from this being the case, said the critic, it is impos
sible not to feel that an interval of a couple of hundred
years lies between them. The task of proving this Bert
holdt left to posterity : but so confident was he of his
opinion, that he predicted that, not only would philology
be found to support him, but that it would become a
self-evident ,and indisputable conclusion that chaps, viii. —
xii. were written by an author long posterior to the age
of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. Posterity has heard
his appeal, but as far as the philological argument is con
cerned, only to decide against him. Bleek has wisely
remarked that we have not sufficient literary remains from
the different centuries after the Captivity to enable us to
trace the gradual degeneracy of the Hebrew language.
1 Einl. p. 1536.

62 External Objections.
It is difficult to determine with any certainty to what
period a writer belongs1. Gesenius", again, one of the
greatest masters of philology, and a writer opposed to the
genuineness of the Book of Daniel, can do no more for
Bertholdt's views than ascribe to Ezra, Nehemiah, Zecha
riah, and Malachi a somewhat purer idiom than to Daniel.
This book he places in the same class with Esther,
Ecclesiastes, Chronicles, and Jonah. According to him, of
all the Old Testament writers, Ezekiel, Daniel's contem
porary, is marked by the most flagrant instances of gram
matical irregularities and incorrectness8. And there is a
great deal of probability in a portion of this classification.
Ezra, Nehemiah and the others wrote their books when
they had returned to Judah; and it is known that one
of their strongest efforts was made in the direction of
restoring the corrupted purity of their language4. The
Book of Esther, like Daniel, was in substance affected by
the foreign element which its pages describe. It was
natural that the Hebrew should become tainted by Per
sian or Iranian words. And if again, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Haggai and Zechariah found it difficult to retain purity
of Hebrew in Palestine itself, it should not cause surprise
that Daniel's Hebrew should be still more deteriorated by
his contact with Babylonian and foreign influence. There
is in fact a kind of grade in some of these writings —
Ezekiel in comparison with Jeremiah has a far greater
number of Chaldaisms ; and still more are found in the
Hebrew portion of Daniel than in Ezekiel. This was to
be expected if the book was written by a man such as
Scripture describes Daniel to be. His linguistic impurities
1 Hengstenberg, Genuineness, &c. p. 16.
2 Geschichte d. Hebr. Sprache (Leipz. 1815), p. 26.
3 In Ezek. and Zech. are found such forms as RS for the masculine, OPIK
for the feminine ; DTj^^in for D*Pl3E'in ; and the form Nithpahel which
assumed so much importance in Rabbinical Hebrew. (Comp. Renan, Hist. d.
langues SSmit. p. 143. Gesenius, Lehrgeb. d. Heb. Spr. § 71, 4, Anmerk.)
4 Nehem. xiii. 24.

Nature of the Hebrew. 63
are explained by his position and education. His reten
tion of purity at all could only have been effected by a
diligent and zealous study of those sacred writings carried
to the exile (ix. 2). Of these ' Chaldaisms,' as they are
called, there is also this to be remembered — that many of
them existed and were current in the popular speech of
the Jews long before Daniel wrote. There is a history of
provincialisms — elements of a popular dialect — idioms il
lustrative of ' patois,' written in few but in marked cha
racters in the successive pages of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel
and Ezra. Far more justly shouldthey be called Aramaisms1.
Before the Captivity the tribes who lived in the north of
Judsea and were neighbours to Syria, found the purity of
their speech affected by contact with Aramaic. And though
it is well nigh impossible to draw precise lines of distinc
tion between the royal, pure dialect of Judsea, and the
popular, more tainted speech : — though it is difficult to
determine where the influence of the captivity began upon
both royal and popular forms — yet most certain is it that
many of the corrupt fonns now found in Daniel were not
first created by the Babylonian captivity. They were
already naturalized in the vernacular dialect, and insen
sibly affected the purity of Hebrew writing.
The Hebrew words adduced by Bertholdt and his fol
lowers, in proof of the lateness of the composition of the
Book of Daniel, are such as follow :— Mil, xi. 24, 33, ' prey.'
SHb, i. 4. 17, 'knowledge.' SfD, x. 21, 'the writing,' in
the sense of ' Scripture.' YSHfi, x. 11, 'trembling.' D^rnS,
i. 3, 'nobles.' inSK, xi. 45, 'palace.' t|B*N, i. 20; ii. 2,
' enchanter.' tiJ?% i. 10, 'generation.' D^IT , i. 12. Q^SJIT
(id. 16), 'pulse.' D^Mti, xi.43, treasures.' Yfcnfl, without
rfoy or nPtifc, viii. 11— 13 ; xi.31; xii. 11, 'daily sacrifice.'
Ppnn , xi. 32, ' seduce to apostasy.' *]Jiri3 . ix. 24, ' decreed.'
DBH, x. 21, ' write down' or 'record.' *J£?S, viii. 13, ' such
1 Renan, I. c.

64 External Objections.
an one. D^lp, viii. 24, 'saints,' applied to the Jews. But of
these words it may be remarked that there are none which
it was absolutely necessary for a later writer to use to the
exclusion of all others. Many of them, if absent from the
pages of those writers in whom it is assumed that they
ought to be found, are absent simply from difference of
subject and the non-necessity of introducing them. Bert
holdt, again, has demanded proofs of similarity in expres
sion with Ezekiel, Daniel's alleged contemporary, and such
proofs are easily obtained. Keil and others have adduced
the following int. al. d1X"p, viii. 17, 'Son of Man,' fre
quent in Ezekiel. 1PIT, xii. 3, 'brightness,' Ezek. viii. 2.
yt\, i. 10, 'to cause to forfeit' {air. \ey.), compare the sub
stantive, iin {aw. Xe?.), Ezek. xviii. 7. STD for *1fiD,
'writing' for 'book' (scripture, ix. 2), x. 21 ; so Ezek. xiii. 9.
D'Hl W\±7, x. 5, ' clothed in linen,' so Ezek. ix. 2, 3. ^flS,
i. 5, 'the king's meat;' comp. JQ, Ezek. xxv. 7. ^¥!"l,
' the land of Israel,' ix. 9 ; xi. 16, 41, so Ezek. xx. 6, 15 ; Jer.
iii. 19. 77p, x. 6, 'polished,' Ezek. i. 7. It must not
however be supposed that much weight is attached to in
stances culled here and there from the pages of two writers
to prove their linguistic similarity1 or dissimilarity. Such
instances are valuable in their way; but it would be in
the last degree precarious to rest the authenticity or spuri-
ousness of a book upon them. They may assist in forming
a conclusion, but the true grounds of reaching that conclu
sion must rest upon a freer and wider apprehension of the
changes of language2. In all languages there is a gradual
tendency to softer and more harmonious forms : the
rougher edges are rounded off; harsh consonants are re
placed by more liquid letters, or altogether omitted. This
is a recognized principle in explaining the transition from
Latin to Italian, or from Sanscrit to Pali. And in its
Delitzsch (Herz. R.-E. Art. 'Daniel'), p. 274, points out that Daniel and
Habakkuk have very interesting resemblances both in diction and prophecy.
2 Renan, op. cit. pp. 426,7.

Nature of the Chaldee. 65
degree it is true of the Semitic languages. The Hebrew of
the captivity has softer forms than the ancient Hebrew.
Biblical and later Chaldee present the same language in
successive stages of enfeebled articulation1. The stronger
sibilant letters give place to the softer ; X becomes jj* or T ;
pl"l¥ becomes pn£J* or pCU; M¥ becomes pyt, p>5? be
comes py. And so with the gutturals; the stronger is
replaced by the softer; Jl/bPl becomes J1/!3K, 7yi becomes
7X2, and that in its turn 72, the Babylonian form of
' Baal.' These as the weakest parts of speech are changed
or disappear the quickest2. And these are precisely the
kind of peculiarities- observable in the Book of Daniel and
in the writings of his age. His Hebrew is impure in
comparison with that of the golden or even silver ages
of the language; but it betokens the closest affinity to
those writings nearest the age of the assumed writer3 ; at
the same time that it differs from them by its own pecu
liarities and anomalies. Its Hebrew is the Hebrew of
the captivity, as also its Chaldee is the Chaldee of the
captivity, the point to be discussed next.

4. Nature of the Chaldee.
' Nobody,' says Bunsen4, ' will maintain at the present
day that the Chaldee of the decree of Nebuchadnezzar in
the Book of Daniel is the language of the official decrees
of that king. The two languages differ from one another
much more than ancient and modern Greek.' And with
this opinion6 scholars are generally agreed, especially per
haps as regards the illustration. For both the language of
1 Dietrich, De Sermonis Chaldaici Proprietate (Leipz. 1839), PP- 18-27.
3 Renan, I.e. These are characteristics of the Nabatean (Quatrem. pp.145,
148, vid. note, p. 93), and of the Mendaite dialects (Renan, pp. 248, 255).
3 So Havernick (Kitto's Encyclop. Art. 'Daniel') and Westcott (Art. cit.).
4 Outlines of the Philosophy of Universal History, Vol. 1. pp. 217-19.
5 Oppert, EUments de la Gram. Assyrienne, p, 1 (Par. 1S60. Extracted
from the Journal Asiatique). It is of course a doubtful point in what languages 5

66 External Objections.
the decree as Daniel gives it, and that of the official decrees
of the day were sisters of the same branch of the Semitic
family of languages— the Aramaic — that branch which in
cluded Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia1. The mistake
or confusion that has generally existed upon this point,
has been mainly owing to the ambiguity attaching itself to
the use of the word 'Chaldee.' A few words of explanation
on this point may not therefore be out of place. Aramaic
is known to us chiefly in two dialects, the Syriac and the
Chaldee (or the west and east Aramaic)2, and the latter is
the name given to the language which became current
among the Jews during and after the captivity3. From
the sixth century B.C. the majority of the people of As
syria spoke Aramaic4. This language represented in fact
the range of the Assyrian conquests. It was the language
understood and spoken by the Assyrian nobles sent by
Sennacherib to Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 26, Isai. xxxvi.
11). In the course of little more than a century from that
time ensued the struggle, so often since repeated, between
the Aryan and Semitic races; and the kingdom of the
effeminate Assyrians and Babylonians succumbed beneath
the vigorous inroads of an Iranian people5. The Semitic
these decrees were issued. Possibly in Casdee, but certainly also in Babylo
nian-Aramaic, or otherwise they would have been unintelligible to ninety-nine
hundredths of the people. Daniel reproduces the form in which they were
issued to his own among all the 'nations, tongues, and languages. ' Compare
Quatrem. pp. 169-72.
1 Winer, Gramm. d. Bibl. u. Targ. Chaldaismus, p. 6 (2nd ed. 1842). Max
Muller, Lectt. on the Science of Language, p. 281 (3rd ed. 1862). Bleek,
Einl. p. 45.
2 Bleek (op. cit. 45, 55) would call the West-Aram., 'Christlich-Aram.' and
the East-Aram., ' Jiidisch-Aram.'
3 Winer (op. cit. p. 5) would alter the so-called 'Chaldee' to 'Babylonian;'
Herzfeld (Gesch. 11. 46, 1857) prefers the name ' Hebrew- Aramaic'
4 Renan, Hist. d. langucs SSmitiques, p. 213 seq. In a note Renan observes
that the name Aram was almost unknown to the Greeks and Romans. About
the Seleucidian era, the name gave place to Syria (a shorter form of the name
Assyria), a vague appellation used by the Greeks to express the whole of Asia
Minor. 'Assyria' before the rise of Christianity was the usual designation for
Babylonia (Quatrem. p. 126).
5 Renan, Id. Spiegel, Gramm. d. Huzvdreschsprache, pp. 4, 5,

Nature of the Chaldee. 67
Aramaeans became subject to the rule of the Indo-Germanic
Medes and Persians, but Semitic influence and Semitic
education sensibly affected the new conquerors. Of the
Medes it can only be conjectured that they imitated the
example of the Semite ; but of the Persian it is undoubted.
The peculiar wall-pictures of Persepolis manifestly betoken
an Assyro-Baby Ionian influence; and the inscriptions of
their kings are made after the pattern of the Assyrian1.
The Aramaic language above all preserved its importance.
In the western provinces of the Achsemenian empire the
language of the decrees and of official correspondence
remained Aramaic ; and these were probably accompanied
by a translation for the use of the Persian ' house of the
rolls' (Ezra vi. 1, 7, vii. 12)2. It is singular that all that
is known of the ancient Aramaic idiom has been trans
mitted to us by the Jews and the Christians of Syria, and
of this idiom the most consecutive fragments are the
Chaldee portions of Daniel and Ezra. In this latter we
have specimens of the Aramaic language contemporaneous
with the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius Hystaspes,
Xerxes and Artaxerxes Longimanus (i.e. of end of sixth
and beginning of fifth century B.C.)3. In the former we
have specimens contemporaneous with the age of Nebuchad
nezzar and Belshazzar4. It must always remain a disputed
point whether the Aramaic language — such as the Jews
have transmitted it to us — is to be considered perfectly
identical with the idiom spoken in Aramsea, or as a cor
rupted dialect and full of Hebraisms. It was a principle
enunciated by Movers5 that the Aramaisms of a Hebrew
Book prove it either a very recent or a very ancient com
position. But this principle requires to be used with great
1 Spiegel, I. c.
3 Layard found a chamber in the ruins of the palace Koyunjik containing
a signet and relics of state papers (Nin. I. 158, 159). Compare the patrCKucal
SupSipai of Ctesias, and Esther ii. 23, vi. 1, xii. 4.
3 Max Muller, op. cit. 282. Renan, p. 242. Qualify this by note, p. 93.
4 Keil, EM. p. 114 seq. On the 'Babylonian' Speech.
6 Zeitschrift f. Phil. u. Kaih. Theol. XVI.157 (Bonn), quoted in Renan, p. 105.
5—2

68 External Objections.
precaution. As regards the point in dispute, it is probable
that the truth lies between these extremes. It may very
fairly be conjectured that the Jews in writing Aramaic
would impart to it many orthographical peculiarities, and
introduce forms purely Hebraic which are not found in any
Aramaic dialect. Hence it is that Biblical Chaldee and
Syriac— the branches of the Aramaic which have come
down to us— differ very slightly ; and this fact is of great
importance in proving that Biblical Chaldee represents not
so much the language of Babylonia as that of Syria1. It
is a fact now generally conceded that the language —
' Chaldee ' as it is called — which replaced Hebrew, cannot
be considered the sole work of the captivity. A period of
some fifty to sixty years does not so completely alter the
idiom of a people ; and in the present case it does not ex
plain how it is that the alterations have a character so
allied to Syriac.
As before observed, a cause productive of linguistic
changes in the dialect of Palestine existed in the proximity
of Syriac or Aramaic speaking tribes, and this must have
produced some effects prior to the captivity of Babylon.
It is difficult at this distance of time, and with our scanty
materials next to impossible, to determine the points of
contact and separation between Hebrew and Aramaic.
Languages are transformed by insensible degrees; and
possibly the safest and most critical mode of deciding the
point is to consider these two languages not so much dis
tinct languages as two ages of the same language2.
Starting from this assumption the historical sketch of the
change may be briefly drawn out. In the time of Hezekiah
(2 Kings xviii), 120 years before the captivity, the 'Jews'
language' and the 'Syriac' or Aramaic (JTHirp and ITOIN),
were still perfectly distinct: and the latter was intelligible
1 Fiirst, Lehrgeb. d. Aram. Idiome, p. n seq. Winer, Gramm. p. 3 seq.
Renan, p. 144 seq. This might be expected from the scanty remains of the former.
2 Renan, p. 149. 'C'est comme si l'on demandait en quelle anne"e finit le
Latin et commence le Francais.'

Nature of the Chaldee. 69
only to the educated men of the Jewish court, the 're
corder' and the 'scribe' and the ' head of the king's house
hold' (vv. 18, 26). But gradually the two nations became
more familiarised with each other's language: the one
interpenetrated and modified the other as the Norman
did the Saxon; but, unlike the illustration where the
conquered gained the day over the conqueror— the sudden
transportation to Babylon of the most enlightened portion
of Israel hastened a further transformation of the language.
The previous tendency to Aramaicise Hebrew received an
extraordinary impetus by this captivity. It precipitated a
dialectical result usually attained by slow and perceptible
modes. By the time of the Return the language of Pales
tine was completely corrupted. Both in Palestine and out
of Palestine this corruption is distinctly traceable. To
Nehemiah it was one of the sorest trials possible, to find the
'Jews' language' of his co-religionists in Judea defaced if
not lost by commixture with the 'speech of Ashdod,' and
the 'language' of foreigners (Neh. xiii. 24). In comparison
with the 'patois' they found in Palestine, the language
spoken by Ezra, Nehemiah, and the aristocracy of the Re
turn, might still deserve the name of the ' Jews' language.'
It was still Hebrew, but it was not the Hebrew of the
classical age, it was not even that current at Jerusalem in
the time of Hezekiah. The Thorah by this time required
a gloss (Neh. viii. 7, 9)1. Pure Hebrew was intelligible
probably to many, but it was spoken by none. The
'Chaldee' fragments in Daniel and Ezra are certain proofs
of the importance the Aramaic idiom had acquired among
the Jews from the first moments of Median and Persian
supremacy. In spite of the efforts of purists, the Hebrew
language went on degenerating till its physiognomy became
little else but Aramaic. If we turn back now from this
general consideration of the change, to that scene where
most of this change was worked out ; it is impossible to
1 Renan, p. 148. This at least may be conceded to this disputed passage.

70 External Objections.
avoid the feeling that at Babylon the Jews were brought
into contact with a very peculiar commixture of languages1.
The Book of Daniel (i. 4), implies that there was a distinc
tion between the language of the Casdim and that popular
language of Babylon which was undoubtedly Semitic2.
The study of the former language was considered a privi
lege, and it was conducted under the roof of the king's
palace. Biblical Chaldee was certainly not the language
of these Casdim3. Their language was that of the court;
their king Nebuchadnezzar was a Casdee (Ezra v. 12). It
was not Semitic but Aryan4. The names given to Daniel
and his companions (i. 7), Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abednego, have nothing Semitic in them ; they are as
much Iranian as those of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar5, &c.
Had the two, the court language and the popular language,
been synonymous, Daniel would not have required any
special training in the former : it would have been a lan
guage too closely resembling that whose gradual corrup
tions had already tainted the pure Hebrew of his fore
fathers. But this court language — this D'H&J'D TMr> — so new
to him. What was it? It was a language originally springing
from an Armenian source, suddenly making itself heard in
the councils of the east after fifteen centuries of silence6.
Probably there were found in it many divergences from its
primeval stock ; and could it be recovered it would illustrate
the geographical wanderings of the people which spoke it.
But between the time when the Casd (Gen. xxii. 22) is first
of all found an inhabitant of Assyria, and the time when
1 Quatremere, Mem. GSogr. sur la Bdbylonie, p. 21. In Babylon there were
languages spoken by the inhabitants of one quarter which were unintelligible to
the inhabitants of another. Renan, p. 58. 2 Renan, p. 70.
3 Oppert, Gramm. Assyrienne, p. 1. Renan, p. 221. Bunsen, 193. Raw
linson, Art. ' Chaldseans' (Smith's Bibl. Diet.).
4 Renan, p. 67. This is of course only one view. That of Rawlinson and
others will be considered further on. Gregory Bar-Hebraeus considered Sha
drach, Meshach, and Abednego, Nabatean (Quatrem. p. 141).
* Winer, Gramm. p. 7. Ziindel, p. 24. Keil, p. 1 14, qualifies this in some
slight degree as to the names. 6 Renan, pp. 60, 64 seq.

Nature of the Chaldee. 71
Scripture commemorates his return to his old haunts1,
all is blank. His language would perhaps be as motley in
character as that of the Kurd, his modern representative2.
Of the popular language of Babylonia, that which most of
all affected the Jews of the captivity, there is at present
but very little known. It was unquestionably Semitic,
probably Aramaic, the original language of the great king
doms of Babylon and Nineveh. It was that language
which Abraham spoke when he went forth from ' Ur of the
Chaldees' (Gen. xi. 31). Its traces are discovered in the
name of the stone-heap set up by Laban as a witness be
tween him and Jacob. The Patriarch gave to it its Hebrew
name (1y?$) ; the inhabitant of Haran an Aramaic com
pound (KrVnnfcJ* IV, Gen. xxxi. 47)3: and its relics are
still to be found in the cuneiform inscriptions of Nineveh
and Babylon. No one doubts now the Semitic character
of these inscriptions, and from them, if anywhere, will
eventually be learnt the idioms of that language which
made Babylonian literature so celebrated*.
The term ' Chaldee ' then, as applied to Biblical passages,
must be understood in the sense of Aramaic. The great
scene of its developement was Babylon, and that by con
tact with the popular, not with the court language. We
have perhaps no right to suppose that Biblical Chaldee
was so pure as that spoken by the Semitic Babylonians5;
and till the cuneiform and other writings have been more
copiously analysed, there are no means of drawing out the
lines of demarcation between that spoken by the Jew and
the Babylonian respectively. As Biblical Chaldee at present
stands, its analogy is more closely in accordance with the
1 Isai. xxiii. 13; xii. 1, 5; xlviii. 14, 20. Jerem. xxi. 4; xxii. 25; xxv. 12.
Ezek. xxiii. 23.
2 This is the opinion of most modern philologists. Renan, p. 67. The
historical questions concerning these Chaldeans are considered, p. 116, seq.
3 Spiegel, Gramm. p. 3. Max Muller, Lectt. 283.
4 Max Muller, Id. Spiegel, p. 3. Comp. Gen. x. 8. Keil, p. 114 seq.
5 Winer, Gramm. p. 7. Quatrem. p. 147.

72 External Objections.
Syriac dialect. Probably the comparative process will
graduate the features possessed in common by the Semitic
¦branches1. I append but one remark to this rather lengthy section.
It has been proved correct already as regards the Hebrew,
and the proof of the rest will occupy the next few pages.
But does not an inspection of the Linguistic phenomena of
the book of Daniel furnish even thus far a profound and yet
undesigned support to that opinion which believes the
writer to have been trained as Daniel is described to have
been trained? His school was Babylon. Around him
Avere ' nations, languages, and tongues,' with three of these
at least he was familiar, Hebrew, Aramaic, and the language
of the Casdim ; and by all three is the style of his writing
affected. Pure Hebrew, corrupt Hebrew, pure Persian,
corrupt Persian, pure Aramaic, corrupt Aramaic, jostle
one against the other in sentence after sentence, and yet
without effort. Such naturalness of style combined with
such discordant elements of composition was certainly pos
sible to such a man only as the book of Daniel represents
its alleged writer to have been.
Bunsen, after making the statement before mentioned,
proceeds to state that, ' neither can it be maintained that
the Chaldee of Daniel is as ancient as that found in Ezra2;'
and he rests his assertion upon his belief (founded on
philological grounds) that the Aramaic of Daniel ap
proaches much more closely the style of the Targums than
that of Ezra. He gives instances in support of his opinion
which will be noticed in the course of the argument created
by his assertion. The question here raised turns upon the
1 Bunsen, Outlines, Vol. I. 214 seq., has made one or two steps in the elu
cidation of this point. Oppert's Gramm. Assyr. ;—the articles on 'Assyrian
Verbs' by Dr Hincks (/. S. L. from 1855);— scattered papers by Rawlinson,
Norris, &c. in the Asiatic Journal, by Prench writers in Journ. Asiatique, and
by German in the Zeitschr.fwr Deutseh. Morgeland. Gesellschaftj—the chapter
on language in Rawlinson's Five Great Monarchies, 1. 77 seq., and reff. furnish
further means of extending researches in this particular direction,
2 Outlines, p. 217.

Nature of the Chaldee. 73
nature of BibHcal Aramaic in general, and of Daniel's in
particular. It has been already stated that it must be left
an unsolved problem to determine, how soon after the
return from the captivity Hebrew was superseded by
Aramaic1. But certainly by the time of the Maccabees
the elder language had completely passed away from the
common speech. Hebrew was still written ; its characters
were still to be found on the current coinage2, but it had
ceased to be the vernacular tongue. The rule of the
Seleucids and the influence of an Aramaic-speaking
people silently but effectively brought about this result.
Now this fact is in itself a very strong argument against
those who would date the Book of Daniel from the Mac
cabaean era. The writer himself might understand the
Hebrew sections of his work ; but that language would
be nothing else but an obstacle to those hearers or readers
whose diction was Aramaic. Some of the most important
chapters of the book, those destined to influence and en
courage the men of his day, would be comparatively sealed
to them. But the Aramaic or Chaldee portion of the book
is of itself conclusive against a Maccabaean date. Bunsen's
supposition that it is more modern than that of Ezra is not
only capable of disproof, but also the few peculiarities
which separate the Aramaic of Daniel from the rest of
Biblical Chaldee are entirely insufficient to transfer it to so
modern a date as 169 B.C. The Aramaic of the Maccabaean
age must have been capable of leaving a more marked im
pression of its peculiarities than that exhibited in our
book. Daniel's Aramaic would have been much more
dissimilar than it is to the Aramaic of Ezra and Jeremiah ;
it would have furnished many more points of connection
with the Chaldee of the Targums3 than those adduced by
1 Vid. in addition to authorities cited on pp. 68, 69, Gesenius, Gesch. d. Hebr.
Spr. § 13, p. 44; Herzfeld, Gesch. II. 44, 59 (1857); Winer, R. W. B. 11. 501.
2 Renan, op. cit. 147, as against Fiirst, Lehrgeb. d. Aram, ldiome, pp. 3,
11 seq. a The earliest specimens of the Targums were committed to writing about

74 External Objections.
Bunsen and the critics he has followed. Bleek, for his
part, says nothing about the agreement or disagreement of
Daniel and Ezra. He rests the argument he advances here
upon the larger grounds that, the incorrect Aramaic of
the Book of Daniel could not have been written by one
brought up and educated in Babylon, and living in con
stant intercourse with the learned and noble of the court
of Nebuchadnezzar. I have in part explained this ; and
it may be sufficient to observe here in addition, that any
such opinion as to its incorrectness, grammatical or dia
lectical, must depend upon the standard by which it is
judged ; and as is well known, standards of the same age
as the Biblical Chaldee are either altogether wanting, or
but too fragmentary in character to admit of so decisive a
conclusion. I believe it to be a much fairer criticism at once
to acknowledge that the Aramaic of Daniel is not that of
the Chaldaeans proper, but a corrupt and popular dialect1 ;
and with the acknowledgment to join the opinion that
critically it is not to be expected, morally it is not just to
demand that the idioms of the Babylonian court should
find absolute reproduction in the writings of one who lived
in it and yet was separated from it by every patriotic
feeling. Michaelis though he questioned the authenticity of
these Aramaic chapters, yet affirmed upon purely linguistic
grounds that the book itself was not a late compilation.
The principal points of difference between the Aramaic
or Chaldee of the Bible and that of the Targums, have
been pointed out in more or less detail by Hengstenberg2,
Keil3 and others. Delitzsch4, a great Talmudical authority,
the Christian era ; or as Bunsen expresses it, they were contemporaneous with
Gamaliel and the Apostles. The Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch was
the oldest ; and next to it the Targum of Jonathan on the Prophets. (Winer,
Gramm. d. Chald. pp. i, *. Herzfeld disputes this order, Gesch. ii. 61 seq. (1657),
but the date of the first Targum may be taken approximately as Bunsen as
sumes it).
1 Westcott, Art. cit. Havernick. Kitto's Bibl. Cyclop. Art. 'Daniel.'
2 Genuineness, &c. pp. 246-51.
3 Keil, Einleitung, §133. 4 Herzog, R.-E. Art. 'Daniel.'

Nature of the Chaldee. 75
after reviewing the whole subject with the express inten
tion of estimating the proper position of Daniel, arrives at
the conclusion that the Aramaic of Daniel corresponds radi
cally with that of Jeremiah (x. 11), and that of Ezra (iv. 8 —
vi. 18 ; vii. 12 — 26). He finds in this fact, a circumstantial
proof of their belonging to the same age ; while at the
same time he finds reason to distinguish their Chaldee
from that of the Targums by the presence of Hebraisms
and other linguistic purisms. But this is not the only
mark of distinction. Biblical Chaldee has many peculiari
ties which cannot be called Hebraisms ; they are rather
indicative of a peculiar age, and dialect of the Aramaean.
Biblical Chaldee, is found for instance, to agree with the
Syriac in some of the points in which it differs from the
Chaldee of the Targums. But certain grammatical forms
also occur which are not found either in purer Hebrew or
in Syriac or in Targum, and can only be considered as pecu
liar to the age and circumstances under which Biblical
Chaldee was written1. In these may perhaps be found
indications of the Aramaic dialect used in Babylon, and
therefore reproduced naturally in the pages of Daniel and
Ezra. It will be the object of the following pages to draw out
these points2, and to prove —
1. That Biblical Chaldee had reached during and after
the captivity, that stage of developement in which it is
presented to us in the Books of Daniel and Ezra.
2. That the Chaldee of Daniel, sometimes differing,
sometimes coinciding with that of Ezra in peculiar forms,
agrees with it in regard to those characteristics which
distinguish Biblical Chaldee generally from that of the
Targums. 1 Keil (on Havernick), Einl. p. 114 seq. Quatrem. p. 137 seq.
v- In addition to the works to be cited in this section, I have been greatly
indebted to an article, "The Chaldee of Daniel and Ezra,' in the Journal of
Sacred Literature, Jan. 1861, pp. 374 seq. The two points alluded to in the
text, are substantially those of the anonymous Essayist, p. 376.

76 External Objections.
The proof of the first of these points is closely con
nected with that of the second, and may be treated con
jointly ; while at the same time the indications of the
influence of Babylonian Aramaic may be most con
veniently inserted at that particular stage where they
are seen to explain the peculiarity under consideration.
Philological laws naturally demand that the Chaldee of the
Targums should evince tokens of later developement than
that of the Bible ; and if in the scale that may be formed,
Daniel is found to occupy the highest and most ancient
place ; if philology tends to favour the list, Daniel, Ezra
and the Targums, rather than any other ; then there will
follow a great and very valuable addition to the many
proofs of the Authenticity of the book. The first part of
Bunsen's1 assertion — that the Chaldee of Daniel forms a
' bridge between that of Ezra and that of Onkelos and the
Targums, just as these last form a bridge to the language
of the Talmud,' will have to be resigned, because deduced.
from insufficient premisses.
Bunsen2 himself has broadly defined as twofold, the
difference of the Chaldee of the Bible from that of the
Targums3; first, in possessing a greater frequency of He
brew formations and words : secondly, in retaining Archa
isms which entirely disappear in the Targums. It may be
called lexically the same, but grammatically and orthogra-
phically more ancient4, In drawing out the proof of the
above-named points, the instances adduced may in some
cases appear insufficient and insignificant; but when
taken together I do not think that they can be considered
either unimportant or out of proportion to the few and
scanty materials from which they have to be collected.
1 Outlines, p. 219.
2 Id. p. 217.
3 Instances of the Targum and Talmud-forms may generally be found in
Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. et Chald. et Talm. s. w., and Winer, Gramm. d. Chald.
m. Winer, Gramm. d. Chald. p. 1.

Nature of the Chaldee. 77
One general characteristic of difference between the
Chaldee of the Bible and the Targums is the usual absence
from the former of the ' scriptio plena.' In the Bible the
longer mode of writing is rarely found, in the Targums
almost always. This is especially the case with the letter
'jod,' which occurs in the Aphel forms (without suffixes) of
the Targums much more frequently than in Biblical Chal
dee. Such forms again as p^yT, Ip^D are common in the
Targums; in Dan. iii. 8, 22, and in Ezra iv. 12 — 3, the
' scriptio defectiva' is used. The difference here from the
Syriac is very marked. The form ^lyt or *Vyt becomes
Say (or % into 4). Similarly with nouns and other parts of
speech. rOJFl, Dan. iii. 2, 3, Ezra vi. 16 — 7, is written in
Targums ftS^n, even though followed by 'dagesh forte.'
In BibHcal Chaldee the shorter pronominal forms I A" '\
are more commonly written in the Targums j j '" "l. The
Syriac has no form corresponding to these1, poi stand
ing for both; and Keil is probably right in referring
them to Babylonian origin. They are peculiarly onomato
poetic2, and yet betray their Semitic origin through their
close connection with the purer !"IT. Such words as
n&5n, Dan. v. 11, Ezra vii. 25; jtD^, Dan. vii. 14; jh'pS,
Ezra vii. 19, are written in the Targum with >l after the first
radical letter.
In verbs K"Ji, the N of the infinitive and future Peal is
exchanged in the Targums for * before the preformatives.
In Biblical Chaldee * is never inserted, and N generally
retained: for instance, in the case of the verb *lftK — Inf.
. T&XIbS, Dan. ii. 9 (in Ezra v. 11, the form is lb&S)— Fut.
H2iii, Dan. ii. 36, Is. iii. 29, iv. 32, and Jerem. x. 11,
1 Dietrich, De Serm. Chald. proprietate, p. 38. Hofm. Gram. Syr. p. 161.
2 Keil, p. 116.

78 External Objections.
pBKft In Targum of Gen. xv. 16, Job iv. 8, &c, occurs
the form JW1. TbXft occurs as a noun in Dan. iv. 14,
Ezra vi. 9. In Targum it is written ^JS, Gen. iii. 8. In the
case of such verbs as XnK and NTN (X"S and N"S), the
infinitives are written in Daniel (iii. 2, 19) Nft£ and NJfi
with the X omitted, but the ' usual in the Targums is not
inserted. These forms, again, are not necessarily to be
regarded as Hebraisms ; they are rather original Aramaic
forms, preserved also in this case in the Syriac2. The
' scriptio plena' was gradually dropped or changed. The
Aleph was omitted as not quiescing suitably with the e
sound; and its place was taken by the Jod to help the
long vowel in accordance with the custom of a later age.
In verbs SO a considerable difference is observable be
tween the Biblical forms and those of the Targums3; and
the peculiarity shewn cannot be regarded purely as a Hebra
ism. It is an Aramaism of Babylonian character, closely
coincident with the Syriac form. The forms of the pre
sent and active participles, for example, are so different
from those found in the Hebrew paradigms of fi"7 and
H"7, that they can only be explained satisfactorily as
forms in use at the time that Daniel and Ezra wrote.
Some few of the variations may, of course, be laid to the
copyists, but the aggregate phenomena are best explained
as characteristic of an early stage of the developement of
the Aramaean. The passive participle Peal occurs once in
Ezra (v. 11) p|j)5. IQ Daniel there are three instances ter
minating in H— , two in *-=-, and one in N^v- (v. 25 — 6,
•71
comp. Syr. (L. ). None of these forms correspond to
those of the Hebrew conjugations, and in their difference
from the Targum-forms they shew an independence of

1 Winer, Gramm. p. 57.
2 Dietrich, op. cit. p. 46.
3 Winer, p. 62.

Nature of the Chaldee. 79
character peculiarly their own. In the infinitive construct
state the form xSpft is always used in Biblical Chaldee ;
seven times in Daniel, eight in Ezra. In the Targums
W is the usual termination ; X preceded by -^ being the
sign of the infinitive absolute. The form is Aramsean;
the Syriac terminal letter being also Olaph, though the
terminal vowel is different (U-^o)- A similar difference
from the Targums and agreement with the Syriac is found
in the future Peal. The termination X^- or y— is changed
to '— . In Daniel X— occurs seventeen times, in Ezra three,
but the form *— never. J"!— is found in a few exceptional
instances in Daniel, but not in Ezra. Thus the form
pny* occurs in Dan. vfi. 14, but X^yfl in vi. 9, 13, TTtp in
v. 7, X"1p? in v. 17. The form Plinfi is found five times in
Daniel, only once ending in X— (vii. 23). The variation
tends if anything to assimilate the Chaldee of Daniel to
pure Hebrew. But it is very intelHgibly explained as
an Aramaism from its affinity to the Syriac. Its history
has been traced1 from an original form *— (the Jod being
stfil retained in Arabic), afterwards softened into rw,
the form preserved in Hebrew, and occasionaUy used in
Aramaic at the time Daniel wrote. But a softer form
still was X^; and this, in pursuance of the law of the
harsher aspirate giving way to a softer, was more com
monly used in the early stage of BibHcal Chaldee — that of
Daniel, but universally by the time of Ezra, and in the
Syriac dialect. This the Jews wrote in full fcO— , and
then again rejected the X as in the Targums. Throughout
the other conjugations the coincidence of the forms of
X"7 with Syriac is perfect, and again deviating from the
Targums. BibHcal Chaldee and the Targums agree in
ending the third person singular of the present with Jod,
1 /. S. L. p. 380.

80 External Objections.
but in the future and participle Aleph is used by the
former, Jod by the latter. Examples of the present tense
are hbTSl, Dan. in. 19; ^T\T\, Ezra v. 1 ; Wl, Dan. v.
13; "hyn, Ezra iv. 10. These may very well have been
Aramaic forms current in the time of Daniel and Ezra,
and do not require to be explained as Hebraisms1. In
stances of the future and participle are Xftlft*, Dan. iii. 6 ;
Xn»n^, Ezra vi. 11; XJnfcT, Dan. ii. 9 ; XJETT', Ezra vi. 11 ;
Xntb, Dan.vi. 11; Xlinft, ii. 23; XHft (contracted as in
Syriac), v. 19. There are three exceptional terminations
of the future (iii. 29, ii. 7, v. 12), and one of the par
ticiple (ii. 21) found in Daniel. X is replaced by i"|, as was
seen to be the case in the future Peal. The exception sup
ports the opinion there expressed that Daniel has forms
more nearly approaching pure Hebrew than Ezra ; yet the
frequency of the other form, that terminating in X in his
book, coupled with the fact that it is the only form in
Ezra and in Syriac, points to an Aramaic influence super
seding the Hebrew.
Aleph inserted in the plural of the participle of the
verbs V'y is another peculiarity of Biblical Chaldee, and
one common to Daniel and Ezra. P'lX'l, Dan. ii. 38 ; iii.
31; px*t, Ezra vii. 25; ptfp, Dan. iii. 3. The 'Keri'
reading is in all these cases a double Jod (**) instead of X>
the Jod being doubled to denote its power as a consonant.
In the Targums these forms are written with Jod, Dp. In
Syriac the singular participle is as the Biblical Chaldee, but
in the plural or in declension it changes the Olaph into
Yod, s. ^o\o, pi. ]v>i n, ]iV)i n.
" A very marked peculiarity in BibHcal Chaldee is the
use of H instead of X 2. In the Aphel conjugations there
are found to be no less than ninety-six examples of forms
beginning with i"l, and only three beginning with X. Of
1 Keil, p. 116.
2 Kirms considered this peculiar to Daniel and Ezra. Dietrich, p. 20.
Winer, p. 41. /. S. L. p. 382. ¦

Nature of the Chaldee. 81
this large number, eighty are from Daniel, as also two of
the exceptions (iv. 11, iii. 1), one being in Ezra (v. 15).
In the preformatives of the future and participle the H is
inserted or rejected without uniformity, even with respect
to the same word. It is retained in thirty-five instances,
omitted in twenty-five ; and the fact that in the Hebrew
scriptures there are only six examples renders it evident
that such retention is not to be counted a Hebraism.
It would have been remarkable if Daniel and Ezra, when
writing Aramaic, had employed as a Hebraism a form
which they never employed in writing Hebrew. The
pecuUarity is best explained by its being common in
Aramaic at the time they wrote. The occurrence of pure
Hiphil forms in Dan. vii. 22, v. 20, hardly permits the
conclusion1 that the use of the M in any part of the
causative conjugation was no Hebraism at all; but the
singularity of the phenomenon is not the less marked,
especiaUy as it is different from the current Syriac form.
With very few exceptions the Syriac replaces the strong
aspirant He by the softer Olaph2. Hophal is found only once
in Ezra (iv. 15), but frequently in Daniel (ii. 10, iv. 33,
v. 13, vn. 11, &c). It has been called a Hebraism ; but it ia
found occasionaUy in the Targums3 ; and the absence from
Chaldee generally of the somewhat cognate passive Pual,
makes this explanation questionable ; as also does the
fact that while the conjugations Ith-peal, Ith-paal, and
It-taphal were equaUy foreign to the Jews, the one was
rejected and the others adopted. It is remarkable that
even in Syriac the use of It-taphal is very scarce4; the form
Ith-peal being generally employed to express the passive
of Aphel. Instances of Ith-peal are common in Daniel
and Ezra, and the use of Hophal may have been employed
to express a conjugation which had no precise counter-
1 J. S. L. p. 383. s Dietrich, p. 20. » Id. p. 46.
4 Hoffmann's instances are from ecclesiastical writers of a modern date, and-
the Philoxenian version of S. Mark xiii. 24. Gram. Syr. pp. 182, 3. 6

82 External Objections.
part in Aramaic1. The pecufiarity is one very natural in
the transition-age of a language ; it is a sign of indepen
dence, a slight relic of the protest against the infusion of
foreign elements ; and its frequency in the Book of Daniel is
a means of approximating it to the generally accepted date.
The more usual termination of nouns in the emphatic
state in Biblical Chaldee is X, but in both Daniel and
Ezra there are eleven examples of the termination Pi.
The variations connected with this point are very remark
able. The two terminal letters X and Pi are occasionaUy
found in the same verse; and even the same word, not
only when employed by different writers, but also when
used by the same author, sometimes terminates,jts em
phatic state with one letter, sometimes with the other.
Some of these variations may be due to errors of transcrip
tion or of punctuation, but these causes do not explain
the whole phenomenon ; neither is it explained upon the
theory of Hebraisms, for this theory leaves untouched
the question why X is the more frequent both in Daniel
and Ezra. No clue is thus afforded to that singular
practice noticeable for instance in Ezra (v. 14, vi. 5, vii. 18)
of writing T\1T\1 and XflM in the same verse. The in
terchange is without doubt an orthographical peculiarity2;
but it is natural to regard it as having originated in the
time of Daniel and Ezra. The letter Pi again, as used in
Biblical Chaldee for a feminine termination, is a distin
guishing feature separating it from the Chaldee of the
Targums. In these latter writings PI is only used when
preceded by X. Fifty-eight instances of this use of p| are
found in Daniel, consisting of nouns, participles (fem. part.
always), and adjectives; but only seven in Ezra, four of
which he always writes with Xs. There have been many
explanations of this, but none seem to meet all the exi-
1 Instances of other passive forms which have fallen out of use are riven in
J. S. L. p. 384.
2 Renan, Hist. d. LanguesSSm. p. 220. Winer, p. i. a /. S. L. p. 386,

Nature of the Chaldee. 83
gencies of the case. The most natural is also the most
probable1. The original feminine termination for all verbs,
participles, substantives and adjectives in the Semitic
languages was Pi. In verbs, this letter has been always
retained in Arabic, ^Ethiopic, Syriac and Chaldee, but in
Hebrew it has been softened into Pi, the original Pi being
retained before suffixes. In the case of participles, nouns,
and adjectives, the variation found in Arabic and iEthi-
opic throws the greatest light on that of the BibHcal
Chaldee. In the first of these languages we have in some
cases both Pi (pronounced Pi) and X ; in the latter there
are frequent cases of feminine substantives which have
& annexed to the final consonant, no vowel letter being
used. In Hebrew, as before, Pi is mostly softened into
H, the original form being restored in the construct state
and before suffixes. But in Syriac and Targum-Chaldee
pj has disappeared in the absolute state, with a few ex
ceptions, and the terminations employed are X * ) \ : of
these, X is a substitute ; with the others Pi has been drop
ped. In BibHcal Chaldee X was not always substituted;
on the contrary, the stronger PI was employed when pre
ceded by X, and, at the time that Daniel wrote, always
used in participles and verbal nouns ; generally in adjec
tives and frequently in substantives. This difference be
tween the Chaldee of the Bible and of the Targum is very
interesting; and the difference between Daniel and Ezra,
less marked but stuT observable, points out a nearer ap
proximation to pure Hebrew on the part of the former.
With reference again to these same terminations X and
H; the form PlJ*T is frequent as a pronoun and as an
adverb in Daniel and Ezra. In the Targums the form X3*l
is sometimes used, but more frequent stfil is jH, which
never occurs in Biblical Chaldee.
Daniel and Ezra sometimes use Jod in cases where
it is not found in the corresponding forms of the Targums.
i id. p. 387.
6—2

84 External Objections.
Thus in these last the emphatic plural of nouns in w is
of the form ?KfiTTp; in Biblical Chald. XWp (as in the
Syriac U^r0)- Daniel (ii. 5, iii. 2, 8, vii. 24) and Ezra
(iv. 9, 12—3, v. 1, vi. 7) agree together here in differing
from the Targums. They probably exhibit what was the
regular form at the time. A Babylonian form may per
haps be found in the form ^X (Dan. v. 13) ; the usual
Targum-form being the emphatic X2X. Daniel's form is
similar to the Syriac — »-^l.
In Biblical Chaldee "H is used by Daniel and Ezra as
a sign of the genitive, as a relative and as a conjunction.
This is evidently a more ancient form than the 1 prefixed
to the succeeding word, as in the Targums. As instances
of the genitive case, Dan. ii. 15, Ezra v. 16, may be com
pared with the Targum of 1 Sam. xvii. 14, xxv. 18 ; for
the constructive case, Dan. vfi. 10 with Gen. ii. 7.
The word XHPJ7, allowed by Bunsen1 to be a remnant
of the old genuine Aramaic, occurs eight times in Daniel,
once with Pi final, and six times in Ezra. The plural is
found four times in Daniel and twice in Ezra. The form
is confessedly a difficult one, but the most commonly re
ceived explanation2 considers it not only what Bunsen
allows it to be, but also a pecuHarity revived and belong
ing to the age of Daniel and Ezra. Nothing resembling
it is found in the Targums.
The Hebrew termination for the masc. plur. D*-=" is
found once in the Aramaic portion of Ezra (iv. 13), W&>12,
though the form foStt is found four times in the same
chapter; and Bunsen3 affirmed that no traces were to be
found in Daniel of so pure a Hebraism. But the forms
W'SDii, vfi. 10, and D^feJOX, iv. 14, must have escaped his
notice. In the case of the pronouns, the first person is written
1 Outlines, p. 218.
5 Vid. Beer, quoted at length in Maurer, Comment, in V. T. n. p. 84. Winer,
Gram. p. 67, Anmerk. 2. ' Outlines, p. 219.

Nature of the Chaldee. 85
POX in Daniel frequently and also in Ezra (vii. 21), or
X3X Dan. ii. 8 and Ezra vi. 12. The plural form PI3PI3X
occurs in Ezra iv. 16; in v. 11 and Dan. iii. 16 — 7 the
form is X3PDX. Both methods were probably in use when
Biblical Chaldee was written. Of the second person the
very ancient form PlPOX is found in Daniel iv. 15. Of the
demonstrative pronouns Bunsen1 made the following list to
shew the divergence of Daniel and Ezra, and the approxi
mation of the former to the Targums.

Ezra.
Sing. M. ^0.
c. ftfl
Plur. c. ^X PlW

Daniel and Targums.
rt

But there are one or two considerations which very
much diminish, if they do not entirely remove, the real
value of this comparison. It may be true that the forms
attached to the names of Daniel and Ezra are so found
in them, but with respect to the very first there is a differ
ence connected with their usage which seems to have
been forgotten. *p and p are not quite synonymous.
The latter corresponds to ' ille' (Germ, jener), the former
to 'fete' (Germ, dieser). Supposing that the fragments of
two Latin writers had come down to us in the same way
that BibHcal Chaldee has done; if the one used 'iste' and
the other 'ille,' would it therefore foHow that either was
unacquainted with the form he had not used? These
shorter forms, again, *p and p, both point at least to con
temporaneous orthography. The Targums use2 far more
often the full forms of |H (Jer. xxvi. 9), and ^1 (Gen.
xxiv. 65), ^l (Job ix. 24). pi and *]7X Bunsen aUows
to occur in Daniel, but never in the Targums. It is diffi
cult, after this concession, to understand why he tabulates
them together : the brackets would lead one to suppose
x Outlines, p. 219. a Keil, p. 116.

86 External Objections.
an unusual form, not one altogether wanting. PI7X Bun
sen singles out as a pure Hebraism found in Ezra, but not
in Daniel. Winer would seem to consider it not so much
a pure Hebraism as a pecufiarity of BibHcal Chaldee. He
refers for a parallel to the well-known instance of Jer. x.
11. Of the plural forms of the personal pronouns Bunsen1
remarks that
2nd pers. pi. DID? ) found in Ezra are changed J j*D7
3rd  Din1?) in Daniel to 1 \sk
as they are in the Targums; but Dietrich2 shews that whfie
the first-named forms for suffixes are most commonly
found in Ezra, they are not absent from Daniel, and they
are frequently to be met with in the Targum of Jonathan.
In the suffixes of nouns and pronouns the 3rd masc. sing.
P!-=-, is twice written X^- in Daniel (iv. 15 — 6, v. 8); but
how different this is from the Targums may be seen from
their common forms Tf\— and PI'—. Feminine plural
nouns taking suffixes adopt the forms of the singular
suffixes ; Dan. v. 2, Ezra iv. 17, and so the Targums and
Syriac. BibHcal Chaldee seems to stand in this particular
point as a medium of connection between Hebrew and
Syriac3. In words retaining the letter Nun mstead of sup
plying its place by Dagesh Forte there appears to be
considerable variation throughout Chaldee generally4. In
Daniel and Ezra the older and uncontracted forms are the
more common ; and Daniel at any rate does not approach
the contracted forms of the Targums more closely than
Ezra. In the verb yT, the formation of the future is
conducted as in the case of a verb j"3 ; e. g. Dan. n. 9, 30,
iv. 14, 22—3, 29, Ezra iv. 15. In Dan. ii. 21 the noun
XJP12D is found. It is not without paraUel in the Targums ;
and forms of the verb of a simfiar character are found in
Ruth iv. 4 and Ps. ix. 21. But generally in regard to the
use of Nun, Daniel and Ezra employ forms occurring only
1 Outlines, p. 219. * p. 37. » Winer, p. 28.
4 This peculiarity recurs frequently in the Nabatean (Quatrem. p. 148) and
Mendaite (Quatr. p. 149; Renan, p. 256) families.

Nature of the Chaldee. 87
rarely and exceptionally in the Targums. There are a few
other points of agreement between the Chaldee of Daniel
and Ezra : such as, the use of 'patach furtive,' Dan. v. 24,
Ezra vii. 14; dual forms1, Ezra vi. 17, Dan. ii. 34, &c; and
segholate forms for nouns — upon which no great stress can
be laid. The conditions necessary to shew their external
coincidence require the assistance of the points ; and these
were probably not added for a thousand years after the
date of BibHcal Chaldee. It is however quite possible
that oral pronunciation and intonation would make these
characteristics intelligible from the very first.
From these remarks it will be seen that Biblical Chal
dee is marked by many peculiarities which denote an
early stage in the development of the language. Some
of these peculiarities are found more or less repeated in
Syriac, others would seem to have perished with the
gradual corruption of the language ; but as they appear
in the Books of Daniel and Ezra, they are very far
removed from the idiom of the Targums 2. Such Targum-
formations as the preformative Mem of the Infin. Pael,
Ith-peal, and Ith-paal; the use of Nith- for Yith- in the
third person future of passive conjugations3; and the
contracted forms of the numerals are never found in the
Aramaic sections of Daniel or Ezra; if they are absent
from the one, they are equally so from the other. And it
wfil also have been observed that the agreement of the
two great writers in Biblical Chaldee has not been so
complete as to deprive each of his own independence of
style, orthography, and Hnguistic usages. Daniel, for in
stance, writes the form p3"tt (iii. 2, 3), Ezra, *DU (i. 8,
vii. 21), using a more sibilant form4; but both agree
later on in writing POPPT for 3PIT. The form »7|J in Dan.
(ii. 5, Hi. 29) becomes 1713 in Ezra vi. 11. Sometimes the
one is found approximating to Hebrew more closely than
1 Renan, p. 425, note. Winer, p. 3. Dietrich, p. 33.
2 For some special Targum peculiarities, v. Winer, p. -i. 3 Winer, p. 38.
4 On the occasional preference of 1 to T, v. Dietrich, p. 27 ; Winer, p. 4.

88 External Objections.
the other. In Ezra this is an indication of the deter
mined effort he made to purify the corrupted forms of
the vernacular. Hence also the more correct forms
of the pronouns found in his writings. He began his
reforms in the most frequently used phraseology of his
people. In Daniel, the approximations are such as to
point out a man Hving nearer to the pure age of Hebrew.
He used forms current in his day, and these often betray
undesigned evidences of that transitional state marking
the passing of one dialectical form into another. The
similarity and dissimilarity therefore observable here are
very valuable. They prove the independence of the writers,
and also exhibit the influence which one common dialect
had upon both. The Book of Daniel thus becomes philo-
logically, what canonical and historical arguments attest
it to be, a composition of that date assigned to it in Scrip
ture. Philology is opposed to those who make Daniel a
mythical personage, and carry the date of the Pseudo-
Daniel to the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. It is contrary
to aU philological laws, — it is contrary to the evident tes
timony of the Targum, that a book written in the Macca-
bsean era should not betray a more corrupt dialect than
that exhibited in the canonical Book of Daniel. The in
ternal deductions as to its real date derived from philolo
gical criticism are too strong to be set aside to suit an
hypothesis or to favour a foregone conclusion.
5. Persian Words.
In the Book of Daniel there are several words which
are clearly to be explained by reference to Aryan and not
Semitic roots. Their presence is of extreme value as
pointing to a period when Oriental— Babylonian, Median,
and Persian,— -and not Greek, supremacy exercised a spe
cial influence over the language. Delitzsch1, in enume-
1 Herzog, R.-E. Art. 'Daniel,' p. 274. Ziindel, p. 247. Haug, Erkldr-
ung d. Persischer WSrter d. A. T. (in Ewald's Jahrb. d. Bibl. Wmenchaft,
pp. 151 sq. Gott. 1853).

Persian Words. 89
ititing them, points out how they separate the Book of
Daniel from the Maccabaean era, and testify to its compo
sition in the time of the captivity. Of the seven to nine
words found in Daniel, three are also found in Ezra, two
in Esther, and one only in the Targums. It may be of
interest to set down these words, and then deduce from
them the conclusion they seem naturaUy to offer.
Chald. form. Dan. Ezra. Esther.
pl-D (Dan.) \ . ,. iii. 2, 3. i. 8.
L.-s»i m \ r found in .. _.
p^ltt (Ezra) J vn. 21.
'treasurers.' From the Old Persian, gai(e)th (Haug) or gada, ganda
(Defitzsch); (compare the Zend, gaza or ganza, New
Persian, geng); gainth-bara or gainz-bara. Zend, gaza-
bara. 133, 'a treasure,' and bara, 'to carry.' So "j?JJ, 1 Chron.
Xxviii. 11.
Chald. form. Dan. Ezra. Esther.
X- or "DJPlS, found in iii. 16, iv. 14, iv.17, vi.ll, i.20.
' matter.' &c. &c.
Old Persian, pati-gdma. New Pers. paigan. Pehlvi,
pedam. This word is very frequent in Chaldee and Syriac.
Its origin is probably Persian, though Eiehhorn and Mi-
chaefis 1 connect it with (pdeypa.
Chald. form. Dan. Ezra. Esther.
EMMTlEJ, found in i. 3. i. 3, vi. 9.
' princes.'
, Pehlvi, pa/rddm. Zend, fratema. Sansc. prathama, the
superlative of the prep, pra, irpa>To<;, or perhaps irpoTino^.
Chald. form. Dan. Ezra. Esther.
PlPlfi, found in iii. 2, 3, 27. v. 3, 14, vi. 7.
' captains.' Persian, paik\
- l Castell, Lex. Syr. p. 744. Renan, Hist. d. Langues Semit. p. 155. Gese
nius, Thesaurus, s.v.
2 Benfey, Klschr. p. 88. Pott, "fiber altpersische Eigennamen,"Z«fe<$W/i
der Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. Vol. xiii. p. 416. Renan, I. c.
3 Benfey, Monats. p. 195.

90 External Objections.
Of words peculiar to Daniel the following are adduced
by Defitzsch, Haug, and others.
X1TX, ii. 5, 8. This word is also found in the Talmudical
formula TPtiytiD *3l7S X1TX, and is there used as in
Daniel as a verb. In Persian, the corresponding word
azanda, found in the inscriptions of Behistun and Rakschi-
Rustam, has the meaning of 'knowledge,' and is used
substantively. The BibHcal mode of using the root is
therefore slightly independent of the more purely Persian
appHcation. piWVtX, iii. 2, 3, 'judges.' Persian, daregha-gara
(Haug). The Persian word can hardly be said to be quite
determined. The last part of it, g ara, is probably connected
with Sanscrit giras; but darg or adarg is very obscure.
Haug explains it by 'prince of the host' (Heerfiirst).
*OPn, in. 2, 3, ' counsellor.' Old Persian and Zend,
ddta-bara. New Persian, ddtuber = ddwer for dadwer, 'a
judge,' ' a king.'
D1PI, ii. 5, Hi. 29, ' piece.' Old Persian handdma,
-finB, i. 11, 16, E. V. 'Melzar: Haug believes this to be
no proper name, but a Persian equivalent for cup-bearer.
The first part of the word he connects with mel, modern
Persian, and madhu, Old Persian and Sanscrit (jiedv, mel) ;
and the latter part with the gara or Sanscr. giras: so that
the whole word would mean a kind of ' overseer of the
drinking.' Keil1 considers it synonymous with PlpE5>S*1,
taking this last as the Aramaic equivalent of the Persian
form. In meaning therefore Haug and he coincide.
PQD3, ii. 6. This word is stiU unexplained; but
Haug is disposed to find its root in the syUable D, the 3
and Pft being a prefix and an affix respectively. Corre
sponding to n is the Old Persian bag', 'to divide,' and
modern Persian bdj, 'a present.' Compare also the ter
mination /8a£i?9 in such names as Meya/ifa^.
pjD, ii. 48. The origin of this word also is very ob-
1 Einl. p. 114.

Persian Words. 91
scure. The Iranian forms of speech furnish two roots from
which the word might be derived. The old Persian thanh
(to proclaim), used of the king; Zend, gdh, gang; modern
Persian, sdhkten (to order); Sanscr. cans; or, Zend, gaq,
Sanscr. gak (to be strong). Possibly the former is to be
preferred1. It is found in Jeremiah and Ezekiel joined
with PilPlfl, in Isaiah, in Ezra, and Nehemiah; its early
occurrence is a strong evidence against its being consi
dered an insertion of a Maccabaean date.
}vl*)D, Hi. 21, ' hose.' The etymology of this word is
also very obscure. It may refer to the covering of the
head, if the word be taken as equivalent to the Zend,
gdra vdro: gdra = sara, 'the head;' modern Persian ser and
sar, and vr, 'to cover.' But the connection seems hardly
estabfished ; the word is Persian, but its resolution cannot
be firmly fixed2.
*pD, vi. 3, 'president.' Pers. gara, 'head,' with the
diminutive suffix *], ' the little head.' This diminutive end
ing is found in the names Shadrach, Meshach, Nisroch,
Merodach3, &c.
IQPlS. Pers. pati-bhaga. Dan. i. 5, 8, ' meat,' or ' deli
cacies.' These Persian words, both those found in the three
writers, and those in Daniel alone, point to the prevalence
of a supremacy very different to that existing in the reign
of the Greek Antiochus Epiphanes. They are a very strong
indication that they were written at a time far anterior
to it. The only other supposition sufficient to account
for their presence is, that they were inserted or appended
by later scribes and copyists to give an antique appear
ance to the books. To this no one will agree when the
impossibiUties connected with it are remembered. The
1 Different views upon this word may be seen by comparing Fiirst, Concor-
dantice Hebr. etChald., and Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s. w., with Gesenius, Thesaurus,
s. v., and Bunsen, Outlines, p. 217. In a Hebrew form the word also occurs in
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezra and Nehemiah.
2 On this disputed word vid. Pott. p. 381, and reff.
3 Keil, Einl. p. 114. Hoffm. Gramm. Syr. p. 251. Vid. n. 4, p. Jo.

92 External Objections.
Jews were too watchful against surreptitious insertions of
a wholesale character, ever to have permitted such a
fraud. Had these not been the ipsissima verba of their
canonical books, they would have been very soon ejected.
They reminded every reader of the effects of a hateful cap
tivity upon the language of God's chosen people, and no
process would have been more gratifying to the Jew than
the elimination of those silent memorials of their bondage.
The philological pecufiarities of the Book of Daniel do
not then, I venture to assert, support the modern date
affixed to it by some writers. Hebrew, Chaldee, Persian,
and Greek elements, aU combine to refer it to the more
ancient and traditional date. Each in its way so peculiar is
yet natural in the pages of the Daniel of the Captivity.
Long before he knew Hebrew well — sufficiently wen, that
is, to write in it — he was carried away to Babylon. There
from the very first he was taught a language (D^lfeJO pS? ')
differing essentiaHy from that he spoke. Around him
again was the Babylonian speech of the common people,
lexically resembling his own, but impure and sounding to
him a worse patois than what he may have heard spoken
by the more northern tribes of Israel. These two lan
guages could not fafl to affect his own, almost insensibly to
himself. He spoke far more habitually Casdee language,
and Babylonian-Aramaic, than Hebrew. His official position
brought him into contact chiefly with the oppressors of his
countrymen, and not with his countrymen themselves.
That he retained at all that purity of Hebrew he some
times exhibits, was certainly due to his religious habits
so early developed. He had by him the sacred books
(ix. 2) ; he observed as far as possible seasons of prayer
and retirement, and in the solitary moments spent in his
chamber or upon the house-top were treasured up the
words of that holy language whose purity was passing
away for ever. And thus, when he proceeded to write, he
was enabled to give technical and appropriate names to
what he wished to describe. Instruments of music re-

Persian Words. 93
ceived names such as they bore in East as well as West.
The dignitaries of the court were appropriately desig
nated; the ordinary and minor details of dress and pro
visions were correctly described. Contemporary occur
rences and official decrees were given in the current
Aramaic, in the language intelligible in its broad outlines
to both Jew and Babylonian. It was only when he had to
record the revelations of God, and tell his own history in
the fewest possible words, that he returned to the sacred
speech of Israel, and worded in that, however imperfectly,
the facts, thoughts, and visions, of his eventful life.

Note (p. 59). Masoudi, an early Eastern writer, has signalised the excellent
music of the Nabateans of his day ; and M. Quatremere does not hesitate to
trace this talent to their ancestors, the indigenous race at Babylon in the
time of Daniel. (Mkm. sur les NabatSens, pp. 136, 146; Melanges, &c). This
identification of the Nabateans and early Babylonians, first asserted by Oriental
writers, is accepted by many philologists (Quatrem. pp. 105-19, 127 seq.;
Larsow, De dialect, ling. Syr. reliquiis. p. 6 seq. Berl. 1841 ; Chwolsohn, Die
Ssabier u.d. Ssabismus, 1. p. 703 seq. S. Petersb. 1856 ; Renan, p. 243); and
the point is not without interest as possibly indicating explanations of the
philological peculiarities of the Book of Daniel, differing from those adopted in
the text. The Nabatean words preserved by Arabian writers are almost all
Syriac, but among them occur Greek words (Larsow, pp. 12-3, 17). A familiar
instance, and one very apposite here, is 'Gelima.' It is a word corresponding
to D?3 used by Ezekiel (xxvii. 24), Daniel's contemporary, to express the
'clothes,' (marg. 'foldings,' Benisch, 'wrappers,' LXX. ya\ip.£) of the
merchants of Haran, Sheba, and Asshur. Under its Chaldee form (XDvJ),
the word appears in the Targum on Esther viii. 15, and in the Talmud (Buxt.
Lex. Chald. and Gesen. Tliesaur. s. v.). And Larsow, noting its absence from
Syriac lexicons, calls it 'sincerum vocabulum Nabathaeum, ex quo Graeci
XKa/nis formabant.' The occurrence of foreign words in this Aramaic dialect
became more frequent as ecclesiastical Syriac prevailed. 'Nabateans' then
assumed the sense of 'heathen,' and became synonymous with D'UPI and
"EKki]ves, (Quatr. p. 126; Larsow, pp. ic— 1). But this was at a period when
Nabatean had greatly degenerated. And the steps of this linguistic degrada
tion may be faintly traced (Larsow, p. 11 Beq.; Quatr. p. 149 seq.) from the
Babylonian to its last and most corrupt stage, the Mendaite, (Ren. p. 255).
The purer Nabatean dialect (| » OJ | 1 1 »\) was debased into a provincial
form (|jjZ.| ^), a, 'lingua rustica,' and then into a form current among the
mountaineers ( ViS >> ^) (Larsow, pp. 9, 22, 26). One instance of this
gradual degeneracy is noticeable in the confusion of the gutturals (vid. p. 65,
and reff.). It was a Nabatean peculiarity to replace n by PI, J? by N ; but in
the Mendaite dialect is found a still grosser refinement ; all the gutturals are

94 External Objections.
there assimilated to K. Prof. Meier has also pointed out that the Nabatean
Inscriptions approximate more closely to Hebrew than to Aramaic forms in the
casting off the final nun in the endings un, 6n, and a^n, especially in proper
names, a peculiarity rarely found in Aramaic, {Zeitschr. d. D. M. Q. xvii.
p. 603 seq.). Of the stage of its existence in the time of Nebuchadnezzar but
few relics remain, but those are of a very valuable character, (vid. pp. 67, 70-1).
At a certain epoch the name Nabatean was virtually synonymous with Semite.
And as there are many evidences to prove that Babylon was from the most
remote antiquity the centre of civilisation to all the East, it is probable also
that there existed then a vast profane and pagan, but now lost, literature,
written in a language which was no jargon, but capable of elegant and idiomatic
expression. And where, it is asked, may this golden age of the Nabatean
literature be so probably placed as in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the Charle
magne of Chaldfean monarchs? Larsow approves of the opinion that the
Nabateo-Chaldsean dialect did not undergo much change till the time of the
Persian domination (pp. 13, 20); and it is well known that the forms and
inflexions of many of the words, described in the preceding pages as Persian,
are attributed by several philologists to Aramaic and Nabatean sources. Thus,
Meier subdivides the first syllables of the name Nebuchadnezzar into Nabu or
Nebo, the Chaldee god, and kadr a form reproduced in the name Cedor-lnorasv
(Gen. xiv. 1), (comp. on the opposite side Scheuchzer, Z. d. D. M. G. XVI,
482-8). Such names as Arioch (Dan. ii. 14; Gen. xiv. 1, 9), and Nisroch,
(2 Kings xix. 37), are referred to a Nabat. -Chald. origin: the former is derived
from K*1K a lion, called a Nabatean word by Masoudi (Quatr. p. 100); and
the latter is considered a popular form of NIEJ'IJ the eagle, » divinity wor
shipped by the Eastern Semites, both possessing in common with such other
names as Shadrach, Meshach, &c. the termination 8k or »k, which is therefore
not the Persian diminutive ending (vid. p. 91, and for authorities for the
opinion there expressed, Gesen. Thes. 1. p. 3S5, s.v. fUSiT), but an old
Aramaic suffix (Meier, Op. cit. p. 682, u. 1). Upon the critical value of these
explanations it may be at present premature to pass any decided opinion, and
therefore I have not thought it advisable to insert them into the text. But
the fresh light thrown upon the language of ancient Babylon from several new
quarters must eventually confirm or alter much that is still conjectural. The
peculiarities, linguistic and symbolical, of the Nabatean Inscriptions, are
undergoing thorough examination by MM. Levy, Blan, Meier, Nbldeke,
(Z. d. D.M.G.) and others. A study of the bronze tablets found in great
numbers at Babylon and written in Hebrew and Estranghelo characters
(Layard, Discoveries, &c. p. 509, Levy, Z. d. D.M.G. ix. p. 465 seq. Renan,
PP- 73. 254-5);— the acquisition of the ipsissima verba of Prof. Chwolsohn's
still promised edition of the 'Nabatean Agriculture', --and a thorough sifting
of the sparse literature of the Mendaites of Wasith and Bassora,— will probably
educe their philological affinities to that one and the same ancient dialect
which the Samaritan researches of Dr Heidenheim (Deutsche Vierteljahrschrif't
f. Engl.-Theol. Forschung u.s.w. Gotha, 1861 seq.), and those of M. Neubaer
in Hebr. Lexicography (Jowrn. Asiat. 1860 seq.) will assist in referring to its
proper age and position in the scale of the Semite family of dialects. And
from this extended examination, it may be reasonably expected, much light
will be reflected upon the philology of the Book of Daniel.

CHAPTER V.
INTERNAL OBJECTIONS.

As might be expected, the advocates of the Macca
baean date of the Book of Daniel lay great stress upon
arguments derived from its internal features. The objec
tions they urge may be classed, as before suggested,
under three heads. First, those founded upon the his
torical statements. Secondly, those deduced from the
miracles. Thirdly, those based upon the minuteness of
the prophetic history.

A. Historical Inaccuracies.
The historical portion of the book has been variously
described as purely legendary, full of improbabilities, re
plete with dazzling miracles, and loaded with chronological
errors such as are contained in no other book of the Old
Testament. Its contents have been denounced as irra
tional, impossible, breathing throughout a spirit searching
for miracles, and stamped by refigious fanaticism. Such
features, it is concluded, suffice to place it on a level
with the Second Book of Maccabees, and to defer its
origin to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes1. It may be
1 De Wette, Einl. pp. 382, 3, Hitzig and others.

96 Internal Objections.
granted at once that there are difficulties connected with
the historical sections of the book, for which there are
as yet no decided solutions. But the book in such points
cannot be fairly compared with other historical frag
ments of prophetic works. It was written under peculiar
circumstances. Daniel was beset by foreign influences
from his earliest years; his diction and chronology both
evince an unconscious submission to Babylonian ideas.
He wrote naturally, as he was accustomed to speak and
hear others speak; consequently his style and his nomen
clature are not those which would have marked a Jewish
writer surrounded only by Palestinian associations. Daniel,
from his position, had free access to the annals of the
Assyrian and Babylonian archives, and such scholars as
Niebuhr and Rawlinson have not hesitated to refer to
those annals for the explanation of many obscure passages.
Some of these will be brought forward in the following
remarks. If they are not entirely satisfactory, it must be
remembered that the stores of the treasure-house are still
but imperfectly known. Cuneiform literature, the deposi
tory of so many of the secrets of the Assyrian and Persian
age, is still in its infancy. It has done much towards
the elucidation of Biblical history, but it is destined to
do stiU more. Lassen, Brandis, Spiegel, Oppert, and
M&iant1 on the Continent; Rawlinson, Hincks, Layard,
Norris, Bosanquet, Fox Talbot and others in England, have.
proved in a remarkable manner how sound and how real
is the verification of Scripture by these monuments of anti
quity. In the pyramidal sand-heaps of Babylon lie buried
scores of these silent witnesses of the past. And from
them — it is no unreasonable supposition — will eventuaUy
be suppfied the explanation of those historical lacuna?
still confronting the critic in many pages of Scripture:
1 Les Ecritures CunAiformes. Par. i860. In this work, one of the latest
upon the subject, will be found an admirable history of cuneiform discovery
from the days ofMiinter and Grotefend to our own.

Historical Inaccuracies. 97
from them, it may be confidently asserted, will be ob
tained a decisive solution of the difficulties still encom
passing the statements of Daniel. The solution at pre
sent offered is often satisfactory through circumstantial
evidence, but it is confessedly only approximate.
While however the presence of occasional difficulties
is freely acknowledged, on no account can it be admitted
that they are sufficient to denounce the book as the work
of an ignorant forger; on no grounds, critical or other
wise, do they support the assumption of a literary Hcense
or a romantic embellishment. It is not thus that the
statements of the book are to be set aside or ex
plained. Difficulties necessitating such expedients do not
occur in the Book of Daniel. But the fact that such
expedients are offered and seriously pressed, is neither to
be forgotten nor misunderstood. This questionable habit
does not now arise from an imperfect acquaintance with
the spirit and customs of the age and scenes in which
Daniel lived. In the present day such a charge should
not be recklessly brought against any, whether advocates
or opponents of the book. It arises rather from a mis
taken application of a knowledge of facts; and often,
unhappily, from a perverse determination to discover
traces of spuriousness. Dogmatic doubt is too frequently
the parent of historic doubt. This prophecy is too clear
for one; that miracle too impossible for another. The
record containing them is then sifted for a purpose. It is
found to contain a historical fact whose precise meaning or
appfication is ambiguous. Immediately the ambiguity is
seized. In the absence of any decided interpretation,
that is adopted which meets the preconceived view. It is
then very easy to protest against every other. The mind
is made up to accept its own creation, and it will reject
as obsolete that opinion which is backed by the support of
centuries. 'Higher criticism' this is called by its up
holders. And in no sphere of literature is it aUeged to have
7

98 Internal Objections.
triumphed more than in history; and in no history so
much as in that of the Book of Daniel. It is difficult to
meet this mode of argumentation, for the simple reason,
that every premiss offered in the process of refutation is
not only disputed but rejected. In a narrative containing a
prophecy the vexata qimstio is immediately raised, What
is prophecy? In a record embodying a miracle, What is
a miracle? and so on. And unless the answer returned
tally exactly with the ninety and nine views upon those
points, any further argument is not to be noticed. There
is, nevertheless, one debateable ground held and allowed
by both disputants in this war of opinion. Each of these
narratives and records has its purely historical side, and
this can be tested by the accepted laws of historical criti
cism. To this test the Book of Daniel must of course
submit, and the result of its application proves, as I
believe, the historic records, prophecies, and miracles
of the book very far removed from the self-contradictions
of a romancer, or the visionary consolations of a literary
schemer. As a matter of convenience the alleged historical con
tradictions, &c. may be considered in the order in which
the chapters of the Authorised Version present them.

§ 1. Dan. i. 1, and ii. 1.
i. 1. ' In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king
of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jeru
salem, and besieged it.' This is the opening verse of the
Book of Daniel. It has been denounced as containing an
inaccurate statement and chronological errors. In it, says
Bleek, Nebuchadnezzar described as king of Babylon,
takes Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim. But
from Jerem. xxv. 1, and 2 Kings xxiv. 1, it appears that
Nebuchadnezzar first became king in the fourth year of

Historical Inaccuracies. 99
Jehoiakim. Moreover, from Jerem. xxxvi. 9, 29, the Chal
daean host had not come to Jerusalem by the ninth month
of the fifth year of Jehoiakim. And lastly, it is probable,
though not certain, that during the reign of Jehoiakim the
Chaldseans did not capture the city nor remove the sacred
vessels of the Temple ; the earliest instance of such cap
ture being more correctly referred to the time of Jehoia
chin1. It may facUitate the solution of the whole point, if the
history of the events immediately preceding the times in
question be first of aU presented in a connected form2.
In the time of Josiah (father of Jehoiakim) commenced
the Egyptian wars of Nabopolassar (the father of Nebu
chadnezzar). Pharaoh-Necho invaded the Assyrian ter
ritory, and estabfished the Euphrates as the boundary
between his own empire and that of the king of Babylon.
His passage along the sea-coast of Palestine was not un
disputed. Josiah marched against him : whether urged to
do so by sentiments of chivalrous fidelity to the Babylo
nian monarch, or by a desire of checking any invasion of
his northern dominions, must remain uncertain. But in
the battle which ensued at Megiddo Josiah was defeated
and slain3 ; and Pharaoh, on his return from the Euphra
tes, placed Judah under tribute, deposing Jehoahaz, a
younger son of Josiah, whohad been elected to the vacant
throne, and giving the crown to his elder brother Jehoia
kim4. Pharaoh retained his conquests some three or four
years only. Nabopolassar, himself unequal to the task5,
sent his son Nebuchadnezzar at the head of a large army
1 Bleek, Einl. pp. 597, 8. Davidson, Introd. III. 180 — 2.
2 Rawlinson, Herod. Vol. I. Essay viii. p. 509 seq. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs
u. Babels, p. '374 seq. 2 Kings xxiii. 29 seq. and parallels.
3 This was in the 18th year of Nabopolassar, the 140th of the Nabonassarian
era, or B.C. 608. Nieb. Op. cii. pp. 365, 46.
4 The seniority of Jehoiakim is seen from a. comparison of 2 Kings xxiii.
31 and 36.
5 Berosus the heathen historian (quoted by Josephus, Antiq. X. ch. xi. Vol.
I. p. 391, ed. Dindorf) describes Nabopolassar as oi Svvdfievos Sri KaKoiradetv.
7—2

100 Internal Objections.
against the Egyptians. The two nations met at Carche
mish1, and Nebuchadnezzar was completely victorious.
Pharaoh 'fled apace' (Jer. xlvi. 5) ; Nebuchadnezzar ad
vanced to Jerusalem, and drove his Egyptian enemy beyond
' the river of Egypt.' Jehoiakim submitted to the son of
the king of Babylon, and was permitted to retain his
throne as a subject-prince (2 Kings xxiv. 1, 7)2. While
Nebuchadnezzar was still engaged in these wars, tidings
reached him of the death of his father at Babylon in the
21st year of his reign'. He left his army and prisoners to
the care of his generals and returned to Babylon, adopt
ing, for the sake of expedition, a less frequented route4.
He received the crown from the Casdees, and on the
subsequent arrival of his captives— ' Jews, Phoenicians,
Syrians, and Egyptians'— he established them in different
parts of his empire. Their vast numbers gave to him
that 'unbounded command of naked human strength5'
which enabled him to cover his whole territory with works,
whose gigantic remains excite admiration even at the pre
sent day.
The starting-point of the latter portion of this history
is the battle of Carchemish; and the determination of
its date will materially assist the removal of the sup
posed contradictions between Daniel and the other his
torical references. There appears to be no doubt that this
battle was fought shortly before the death of Nabopolassar,
that is, in his 21st year, and in the third year of Jehoia-
1 Bleek, EM. p. 473, and others, confound Carchemish with Circesium.
This seems to be a mistake: v. Rawlinson, s.v. in Smith's Bibl. Diet.
2 Ziindel, pp. 9, 25. Tyrwhitt. Ptolemy's Chronology of Babylonian reigns,
p. 128, Vol. xviii. Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soc, and Hofmann, 70 Jahrwochen des
Jerem. u. Dan. p. 13, place the visit of Nebuchadnezzar to Jerusalem before the
battle of Carchemish. This seems impossible for many reasons : v. Niebuhr
pp. 86, 370. Winer, RWB, <s. vv. Ruetschi, Herzog, R.-E. Vol. x. 252.
3 Berosus, I.e.
4 airbs 6/)/«}<ras SKiyoirros Sia ttjs ip-fuiov vapaylverai els HaflvKuiva' (Be
rosus). Herzfeld, I. 194 (1847).
5 Grote, Hist, of Greece, hi. 40.

Historical Inaccuracies. 101
kim1. According to this the fourth year of Jehoiakim
would be the first of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, as stated
decidedly by Jeremiah (xxv. 1). But how does this agree
with Dan. i. 1, or with Jer. xlvi. 2 ? In the former, Nebu
chadnezzar is called king in the third year of Jehoiakim .
In the latter, as usually read, the battle of Carchemish
occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and not in the
third. Both points may be satisfactorily explained.
(1) In Dan. i. 1, Nebuchadnezzar is called king prolepti-
cally. The language of Berosus2 implies that Nebuchad
nezzar was in a great measure associated with his father
in the management of the enormous kingdom of Babylon.
He was so certainly in military matters ; and it is no im
probable assumption that, where prudence was manifested
in the most important branch of Babylonian politics, an
aged and infirm king would be glad to apply the talents of
its possessor to other affairs; especially when those high
administrative powers were exhibited by his own son, the
heir to his throne. Nebuchadnezzar was king ' de facto,'
though not 'de jure,' during his father's life-time, and
Daniel simply gave to him the name by which he was best
known in East and West. Every one who read or heard
the passage would understand it to be a current or popular
mode of speaking. To many of the Jews the name of
Nabopolassar was probably unknown, that of Nebuchad
nezzar having completely eclipsed it8. (2) The explana
tion of Jer. xlvi. 1, 2, turns upon a question of punctuation.
As the verse is generally understood it would seem that
i Niebuhr, p. 370 — 2, ' Da3 datum der Schlacht von Karchemis und des
Todes des Nabupalussar.'
* In Josephus, I. c.
3 Niebuhr, Op. cit. p. 86. Ziindel, p. 20. Hitzig (Dan. p. 3) himself
allows that no objection can be taken to this use of the title by Daniel. ' Be-
griindet die Bereichnung als Konig keinen selbststandigen Einwurf; denn
der Heerfuhrer Nebucadnezar ist den Hebraern Kbnig, wo er zuerst in ihren
Bereich kommt; von seinem vater scheinen sie garkeine Kenntniss zu haben.'
It is strange that Bleek, and Davidson following him, should insist so strongly
upon this point as a very difficult inaccuracy.

102 Internal Objections.
Nebuchadnezzar conquered Pharaoh-Necho in the 4th
year of Jehoiakim. But this date thus understood appears
wrongly understood. It is far more in accordance with
Jeremiah's style to refer these notes of time not to the
event to be described, but to the date of the prophet's
proclamation. So here, the 'fourth year' does not refer
to the battle of Carchemish— that took place the year
before— but to the date of the warning delivered in that
chapter1. The verse should be read, 'The word of the
Lord which came to Jeremiah the prophet in the fourth
year of Jehoiakim, against... the army of Pharaoh-Necho
which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon smote.' The
first thirteen verses of this chapter are in fact not so
much a prophecy as a song of triumph over the result of
that battle. It resembles in this respect the Song of
Deborah over Sisera' s defeat. Jeremiah saw and rejoiced
at the overthrow of Egypt, for it was to that country that
Jerusalem was perpetually turning for help. Jehoiakim
owed his throne to the Egyptian, and to him he was dis
posed to look for support against other enemies. By
the battle of Carchemish the power of Egypt was crip
pled, and Jeremiah hailed the removal of a most powerful
counter-weight to the dispassionate reception of those
denunciatory prophecies he had yet to deliver. The pas
sages in Daniel and Jer. (xlvi.) cannot therefore be con
sidered opposed to the statement that the fourth year of
Jehoiakim was the first of Nebuchadnezzar's sole reign.
Immediately after the battle of Carchemish (b.c 605) 2
the Babylonian army advanced upon Jerusalem, and Jehoi-
1 Niebuhr, p. 86. Westcott, Art. ' Darnel,' p. 390, note.
2 Bleek dates this B.C. 607. In this be is supported by Hengstenberg, and
Browne, Ord. Swclorum, p. 165 seq. The date in the text, and the consequent
date of B.C. 604 as the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first of Nebuchadnezzar,
is that of the canon of Ptolemy. It is the most usually received date, and
Dr Hincks ('Verification of Sacred and Profane Chronology,' Joum. Sacr.
Lit. 1858, p. 126 seq.) has lately shewn that it is confirmed by the Apis Steles
of Egypt. Tyrwhitt, I. c. assents to this date for the battle, but not to the con
sequence.

Historical Inaccuracies. 103
akim submitted and became tributary (Dan. i. 1, 2 Kings
xxiv. 1). But this, it is argued, was not the case. From
Jer. xxxvi. 9, 29, the Chaldaeans do not appear to have
come to Jerusalem till the 9th month of Jehoiakim's fifth
year. It is Avrong therefore to identify 2 Kings xxiv. 1
with Dan. i. 1. Jehoiakim reigned in all eleven years
(2 Kings xxiii. 36). The last three of this number were
the years of his vassalage ; at their expiration he rebelled,
and in consequence met with his death, — whether by
violence or not it is difficult to decide. This places the
subjection mentioned in the first part of 2 Kings xxiv. 1
in the eighth year of his reign, and identifies the result of
the rebellion mentioned in the second part of the same
verse with 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6. Thus Nebuchadnezzar's
first assault of Jerusalem took place at the latest in the
eighth year of Jehoiakim, and not earlier than the ninth
month of this fifth year (Jer. xxxvi. 9, 29)1. But the grounds
for this view are not of a very convincing character. It
may be readily allowed that the expression of 2 Kings xxiv.
1, "in his (Jehoiakim's) days, Nebuchadnezzar came up,"
is a very general one. It may apply to any time between
the battle of Carchemish and the eighth year of Jehoia
kim. Much stress must not therefore be laid upon this
passage considered by itself. But while it cannot be said
to maintain that Jehoiakim's submission took place imme
diately after the battle of Carchemish, at least the passage
does not contradict that view. And there is a very curi
ous and apparently authentic variation of this text which
strongly corroborates it2. In the Talmudical treatise Seder
Olam Rabba, it is stated that Nebuchadnezzar the year after
he took Nineveh subdued Jehoiakim, who became his ser
vant for three years. And this capture of Nineveh may be
placed with great certainty in the 142nd year of the Na-
bonassarian era, or B.c 606— 5 3. Evidently therefore in the
1 Bleek, p. 475. Davidson and Baxmann follow him. 2 Niebuhr, p. 374.
3 Tyrwhitt, p. 115 seq. adopts the date B.C. 608, but Niebuhr's arguments
appear to be convincing against that date.

104 Internal Objections.
opinion of this traditional writing, the first appearance of
Nebuchadnezzar's army before Jerusalem is not to be de
ferred to the fifth, but to the third year of Jehoiakim at
the latest. This exactly coincides with the statement of
Dan. i. 1.
But it is urged in the next place, that the prophecies
of Jer. xxv. are opposed to this early appearance of the
Babylonian monarch before Jerusalem. They are express
ed in such a manner as almost to preclude the taking
of that city even in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. From
verses 5 and 6 it is maintained that up to that time — the
fourth year of Jehoiakim {v. 1)— God had done his people
no hurt ; and this could not be affirmed if the deportation
of captives described in Dan. i. 1, 2 had already taken
place1. But this objection assumes too much, and mis
takes the application of the verses cited. It requires that
if Jehoiakim's submission had already taken place in his
third year, Jeremiah ought to have mentioned it. But on
the contrary, Jeremiah's silence upon that point is quite
natural. There was no necessity for him to warn the king;
the monarch had capitulated then without any show of
active resistance. By the next year circumstances had
changed. Nebuchadnezzar had been summoned back to
Babylon ; and there was a probabifity of a disputed succes
sion such as often occurs in eastern countries between
the death of a king and the enthronization of his successor.
During his absence Jehoiakim, in the fourth and fifth
years of his reign, began to plot rebellion. And then it
was that Jeremiah spoke out. In this xxvth chapter he
addressed himself to ' aU the people of Judah and to all
the inhabitants of Jerusalem.' He reminded them how
God had warned them by his mouth from the ' thirteenth
year of Josiah unto this day' (the fourth year of Jehoia
kim). He repeated to them the substance of the warnings
conveyed to them by other prophets besides himself.
They had said, in God's behalf, "Turn ye again every
1 Davidson, pp. 181, 2.

Historical Inaccuracies. 105
one from his evil way,... and go not after other gods
...and provoke me not to anger with the works of your
hands; and I wiU do you no hurt" {vv. 5, 6). But all was
in vain. The people neither hearkened to the one, nor to
the other. They and their king thought only of deliver
ance from immediate oppression, and they sought it not
by repentance and obedience, but by secret longings after
Egyptian assistance. Jeremiah therefore now proclaimed
(v. 9) a destruction such as Israel had never yet witness
ed. Nebuchadnezzar should now come not only against
the land of Judah and its inhabitants, but also against
'aU the nations round about.' These should become 'an
astonishment and an hissing and perpetual desolations.'
' The whole land should be a desolation and an astonish
ment; and these nations should serve the king of Baby
lon seventy years' (vv. 9, 10). Can it be said that this
precludes submission to Nebuchadnezzar on the part of
Jehoiakim the year before? Does it not rather tacitly
demand it ? The punishment described in Dan. i. 1, and
2 Kings xxiv. 1, was partial and limited. Here is the
description of an universal vengeance. Jehoiakim was
wilfing and anxious to forget the indignity of the previous
year. He thought only of casting off the hated yoke
of Nebuchadnezzar. And to check him and warn his
people, Jeremiah denounced a 70 years' captivity against
a persistence in the intention of rebeUion.
The vafidity of Daniel's statement (i. 1) is not there
fore by any means impugned by the xxvth chapter of
Jeremiah. How is it affected by ch. xxxvi.? From verse 5
it appears that Jeremiah suffered for his bold and fearless
speaking. He was ' shut up.' His presence was distaste
ful to the king and his fife in peril; and he hid him
self. But not for a moment did he cease his exertions.
What he had spoken he desired Baruch to commit to
writing, and read ' in the ears of all the people' on the
solemn fast-day appointed for the ninth month of Jehoi-

106 Internal Objections.
akim's fifth year (vv. 1, 5, 9, 10). But what was the cause of
this appointed day of humiliation? It cannot be con
founded with the great Jewish fast of the Day of Atone
ment : that took place on the tenth day of the seventh month
(Levit. xxiii. 27). It was undoubtedly a fast of an excep
tional character; what gave occasion to it? According
to those who defer the first visit of Nebuchadnezzar's
army to Jerusalem till the fifth year of Jehoiakim at the
earfiest, it was intended as a religious effort to avert the
hitherto unexperienced invasion. According to those who
abide by the statement of Dan. i. 1, and place the first
visit of the Babylonian monarch in the third year of Jehoi
akim, it was appointed as commemorative of past afflic
tions and deprecatory of further acts of Divine judgment.
With such a king as Jehoiakim upon the throne of Judah
the latter seems the far more natural supposition1. Had
no such partial attack occurred as suggested by Daniel,
Jehoiakim would have regarded the possible approach of
the Chaldaean army either with desperate indifference, or
with a wicked determination to disbelieve the prophecy
which announced it. It would have been his last act to
have permitted a solemn day of humiliation before that
God whom he outraged by every action (Jer. xxii. 17 — 9,
2 Chron. xxxvi. 8). But that he did permit it, proves that
some very strong pressure was brought to bear upon him.
There was a point beyond which he could not venture to
tamper with the feelings of his people. Tyrannical and
lawless, he was above aU a coward; and when priest
courtier and people demanded this solemn fast-day, he
found it wise not to resist the demand. He took how
ever no part in it, but retired to his winter-house (v. 22).
There his better counsellors came to seek him. They had
heard Jeremiah's own denunciations (xxv.) the year be
fore; they heard them now again from Baruch's lips,
1 Baxmann's objections to this (Stud. u. Kritik. 1863, p. 459) are in sub
stance the same as Davidson's, I. c.

Historical Inaccuracies. 107
couched in stronger language. The awfulness of their
nature convinced them. It was no time for hesitation.
Prudence or timidity gave place to a sense of duty ; and
with a warning to Baruch and Jeremiah to hide them
selves from the wrath of the king, they went into his pre
sence. There is something very striking in the conduct of
these 'princes.' They felt the critical situation of their
country, and they ignored all personal danger. They rose
up to a man from the audience they had given to Baruch
in the 'scribe's chamber;' and this was the determination
stamped upon their countenances — 'we will surely tell
the king of all these words.' They did so. Their numbers
and their firmness saved them. Jehoiakim did not dare
to touch them, but he shewed his true feelings by an
impotent display of wrath against Baruch's roll. He
Hstened to but a few of its pages, and then taking it
from Jehudi he cut it to pieces with his knife and cast
it into the brazier at his feet (xxxvi. 23). It was an act
of blind fury fully in accordance with his character. His
temper was soured by his act of submission to Nebuchad
nezzar rather more than a year before ; and from the
moment he thought that there was the chance of his
being free from the Babylonian yoke, he was determined
to turn that chance into a certainty. Every thing that
reminded him of his vassalage — warning, prophecy, and
seasons of humiliation — only tended to irritate him. And
this last and boldest act of his princes and Jeremiah to
gether maddened him. He refused to see in it the hand
of a merciful God; he only looked upon it as an insult
to himself. He gave orders for the seizure of the offend
ing prophet and his scribe, and destroyed the roU whose
words of wisdom he hated.
From bad Jehoiakim went on to worse. The fifth year
passed away, and the sixth came. Three years he had
been subject to Nebuchadnezzar, and then he rebelled
(2 Kings xxiv. 1). What good grounds he had for ima-

108 Internal Objections.
gining that his rebellion would be successful, it is impos
sible to determine. Pharaoh-Necho was a powerful prince,
and by the end of three years after the battle of Carche
mish he may have sufficiently recovered from the effects
of that defeat to lead Jehoiakim to hope that Egypt
would support him. But whatever inducements he had
from without, there was that, stronger than any, suggested
to him by his own bad heart. He threw off the yoke of
Babylon, and within a year "the Lord sent against him
the bands of the Chaldees, Tyrians and Moabites " (2 Kings
xxiv. 2). Thus speedily was Jeremiah's personal predic
tion against Jehoiakim accompHshed, and the honour of
the Almighty vindicated (Jer. xxxvi. 31). Whether Nebu
chadnezzar himself accompanied these 'bands' is doubtful.
It seems most probable that he did not1. The affairs of
his eastern dominions still occupied him, and he must have
known that Egypt's assistance would be of the most im
perfect character. What his generals did they would do
in his name, and if 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 refer to this attack
upon Jerusalem, the acts there ascribed to Nebuchad
nezzar would be simply those done by his authority.
It seems however doubtful to what precise time this
verse (2 Chron. xxxvi. 6) is to be referred. Its indefiniteness
permits its reference to the third year of Jehoiakim (and
so to coincide with Dan. i. 1, and 2 Kings xxiv. 1), or to his
sixth year (2 Kings xxiv. 2), or to his eleventh and last year.
Niebuhr2 prefers to identify it with the sixth. Jehoiakim
is described as bound in fetters ; it being the intention
or the command of the king of Babylon to transfer him to
Babylon (JT&3 to^irt?). This intention was not fulfiUed.
2 Kings xxiv. 6, Jer. xxii. 19, evidently lead one to sup
pose that he died at Jerusalem, though probably not a
1 Niebuhr, p. 375.
3 le. So Ziindel, pp. 22, 3. Niebuhr seems almost to hold that Jehoiakim
was actually taken away to Babylon. The arguments of Bleek (EM. p. 476)
are I think unanswerable against this view.

Historical Inaccuracies. 109
natural death. If the passage be taken as commemorative
of Jehoiakim's submission immediately after the battle of
Carchemish, it seems to corroborate the statement of Daniel
that in that third year Nebuchadnezzar took away with him
' part of the vessels of the house of God.' The verse in the
Chronicles mentions that the Babylonian monarch (or crown
prince) carried ' of the vessels of the house of the Lord to
Babylon, and put them in his temple at Babylon;' in this
latter point also confirming Daniel's report1. There is
evidently a distinction made between these vessels and
those 'goodly vessels' (2 Chron. xxxvi. 10, 2 Kings xxiv. 13)
carried away in the eleventh year of Jehoiakim or the first
of Jehoiachin. It is this distinction which seems to make
least probable of all the identification of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6
with the closing scenes of Jehoiakim's Hfe. And the diffi
culty connected with such identification is not diminished
by the fact that it leaves unmentioned aU the prior causes
in Jehoiakim's career which brought about this final re
sult. The general character of the verse permits of course
1 The parallel is sufficiently interesting to bear reproduction.
2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, 7. Dan. i. 1, 2.
Against Jehoiakim came up Nebu- In the third year of the reign of
chadnezzar king of Babylon, andbound Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebu-
him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon. chadnezzar king of Babylon unto Je-
Nebuchadnezzar also carried of the rusalem, and besieged it. And the
vessels of the house of the Lord to Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah
Babylon, and put them in his temple into his hand, with part of the vessels
at Babylon. of the house of God : which he carried
into the land of Shinar to the house
of his God; and he brought the ves
sels into the treasure-house of his
God.
Niebuhr's objection to this identification is — pace ducis mei — groundless. The
opening expression of 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6 is too indefinite to found upon it an
actual transportation to Babylon. On the other hand, this identification pre
sents an additional explanation for the conduct of Jehoiakim described in Jer.
xxxvi. The indignities he had endured, and the remembrance of his bonds,
would be so many incentives first of all to smothered wrath, and lastly to open
rebellion.

110 Internal Objections.
the application proposed, but it is not so satisfactory as
either of the others. After his re-conquest Jehoiakim re
mained a prisoner tiU shortly before his death. That
event took place in the eleventh year of his reign, and
of the events of the three intervening years bibfical his
tory gives no information. It was probably a time of de
spair and stupefaction in Israel. Their king was a king
only in name, and perhaps till his death Jerusalem was
overawed by the neighbouring presence of the Babylonian
troops. His death was followed by circumstances calcu
lated to convince his feeble son and successor, of the mad
ness of resisting the power of God and of the certainty
of His judgments. How or where it took place is not pre
cisely known. It was certainly not at Babylon, but more
probably outside Jerusalem, possibly in some attack upon
his enemies1. His dead body was grossly maltreated by
his opponents2, or by his own exasperated countrymen3,
but in either case in accordance with the denunciation
of Jeremiah (xxii. 19, xxxvi. 30).
From these remarks it will, I think, be clearly seen
that Dan. i. 1 contains neither contradiction nor chrono
logical error. It is confirmed by testimonies Biblical and
otherwise. It takes its place in the chronological notices of
the time, and from its independent origin, its value is of
the highest kind. It gives to 2 Kings xxiv. 1, and possibly
to 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6, a definiteness which they would not
otherwise possess. Moreover, the historian Berosus sup
ports its statements. He proves, first, that Nebuchadnez
zar had come in the third year of Jehoiakim to Jerusalem,
by shewing that on his leaving his army to return to
Babylon at his father's death, his captives were 'Jews,
Phoenicians, Syrians, and Egyptians.' This took place, as
has been shewn, shortly after the battle of Carchemish.

1 Niebuhr, p. 376. Bleek, p. 476.
2 Josephus, Antiq. X. ch. vi. 3.
3 "Mifihnhr. I. n.

3 Niebuhr, I. c.

Historical Inaccuracies. Ill
And in the next place Berosus confirms Dan. i. 2, by
pointing out that Nebuchadnezzar adorned the temple of
Bel and other edifices with the spoils of those early wars.
There is therefore no necessity for resorting to the suppo
sition of Bertholdt1 and Michaelis, that the eleventh year
of Jehoiakim was expressed by Daniel in the Babylonian
style as the third of his subjection to Nebuchadnezzar.
That sort of Babylonian style did not exist. And there is
no necessity for adopting the explanation of Hengsten
berg, Keil, and Delitzsch2, that Dan. i. 1 expresses only the
commencement of Nebuchadnezzar's march (D/'feJTl"'---^,
i. e. he ' set out' for Jerusalem). However convenient it
may be to argue from it, that Nebuchadnezzar started in
the third year of Jehoiakim, and that the fourth year of
that prince may be called the first year of the Babylonian's
reign over Jerusalem, this usage of the verb is unwar
ranted, and the other hypothesis unnecessary. The verse
records a plain historical fact, and in its plain meaning it
is found true.
It is however quite possible, and even probable, that
what Daniel expresses by the ' third year,' is slightly dif
ferent from the regular Hebrew 'third year.' There was
a difference of about half-a-year between the Hebrew and
Babylonian styles*. The Jewish year began in the autumn,
the Babylonian in the spring. But in either case, whether
Daniel used the Babylonian or Hebrew style, the statement
of i. 1 is not contradicted, as will be seen from the foUow-
ing table.
1 Einl. I. p. 171. This proceeds from the supposition that the 'three years' '
subjection dates from the eighth, not from the third year of Jehoiakim's reign.
3 Herzog, R.-E. Art. ' Daniel.' A parallel is supposed to be found for this
in Jonah i. i: 'A ship going (HSO) to Tarshish.'
8 Stuart Poole, Art. 'Chronology' (Smith's Diet, of Bible), p. 324, note /.
Niebuhr, pp. 365, 371.

112

Internal Objections.

Expedition agst.

Phar. Necho
Battle of Car
chemish.
Pursuit of Necho
as far as J erusalem.

Full Babyl. yr. = full Jew. yr.
(1 Nebuchadn. = 4'hJehoiak.)
. 20 Nabopolass. = 2 Jehoiak.

Car- )
h. I '"

= 3 ..
= id.

B.o. 604 =-—r Nab. era.
144

1" half of 3 Jeh. = 2nd half of 20 Nab.

2ndid.

= 1*.
= id.

.21

Under either system the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is identi
fied with the battle of Carchemish and the 21st year of
Nabopolassar1, and immediately afterwards foUowed the
attack upon Jerusalem mentioned by Daniel.
And there is a passage in the Book of Daniel itself
which confirms the view here taken of i. 1, and sup
ports the opinion that he is using the Babylonian style.
In chapter ii. 1, the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's
reign falls after the completion of those three years of
Daniel's training which commenced with his captivity
(i. 1, 5). This is in itself a clear indication that the expe
dition mentioned in i. 1 was undertaken in the last year of
the reign of Nabopolassar, while as yet Nebuchadnezzar
was not properly king2. The following table3 will explain
this point.

Jehoiakim's 3rd year.

Captivity of Daniel. Dan. i. 1.
21 Nabopolassar

Nebuchad. 1st year. Jer. xxv. 1.
His dreams. Dan. ii. 1.

2nd

1 The table is taken from Niebuhr, p. 372.
' Westcott, Art. 'Daniel,' p. 390, note a.
3 "Vid. 'The three first years of Daniel's captivity.' Journ. Sacr. ZU. 1862,
p. 162—8. Niebuhr, p. 372. Few would be disposed to assent to Herzfeld's
emendation, that for 'second' should be read 'twelfth,' [Vol. I. (1847) P- 44&
Anmk. 45].

Historical Inaccuracies. 113
Thus at the time of the taking of Jerusalem (Dan. i. 1)
Nebuchadnezzar had not yet succeeded his father ; Daniel
simply calls him king by courtesy. The reckoning of his
reign commenced from the date of his father's death,
i. e. from that of his own accession. But Daniel's cap
tivity is naturally reckoned from that particular attack
upon Jerusalem in which he was taken : and three years
onwards from that time would bring him to the second
year of Nebuchadnezzar's sole reign reckoned after the
Babylonian style. Dan. ii. 1 thus supports and estabHshes
the statement of i. 1, instead of contradicting it, as has
been so often affirmed.

§ 2. Dan. n.
This chapter contains the dream of Nebuchadnezzar,
and the circumstances connected with its elucidation by
Daniel. Of the objections made to it I select the following.
It is hardly credible, says Bleek1, 'that Nebuchadnezzar
should have insisted upon the demand here attributed
to him. Not only did he require the interpretation of his
dream, but the dream itself ; he threatened moreover to
punish with death not merely that class of his wise men
whose special province it was to interpret dreams, but
also the whole united body of the sacred college. The
cruelty and injustice of this demand are too glaring to
be credible.' Keil8, in his remarks upon objections of a
similarly negative character, has very justly observed that
they owe their birth to the peculiar minds of their origi
nators. In the 'modern school' there is an unwillingness
to allow any narrative suggestive of miraculous inter
vention; and this subjective feeling is permitted to qualify
the estimate formed of the objective evidence. In the
present instance the spirit and practice of Oriental
1 Einl. p. 598. Davidson, III. p. 183. Baxmann, p. 465.
2 Einl. p. 400.

114 Internal Objections.
kingdoms are diluted to suit modern views, not Nebu
chadnezzar's. To those accustomed to trace the hand of
God in the disposition of aU things, the" demand of the
Babylonian monarch presents no difficulty. Nebuchad
nezzar was, unwittingly, an instrument of the Divine will.
God had determined in His good providence to advance
His servant Daniel, and invest him with high authority
among men. Any means would have been all-sufficient
to the 'King of kings, and Lord of lords,' yet did He
employ those which, in the eyes of the superstitious
Babylonians, immediately invested the Israelite with wis
dom of a pre-eminent and supernatural character. Nebu
chadnezzar under any such difficulty as that described in
Dan. ii., would naturally turn to his 'wise men;' but in
the present case he departed from his usual mode of
doing so. Whether the ancient reason given in the head
ing of the Authorized Version, — that ' he had forgotten
his dream' — be correct or not1, at any rate Nebuchad
nezzar, instead of stating his vision and then expecting
a satisfactory explanation, demanded both dream and
explanation. To the 'wise men' the demand probably
appeared the mere whim of an Oriental despot. They
answered him deferentially but half-ironically. It was not
till they heard the penalty of death pronounced upon
their silence, that they awoke to a sense of the imperious
nature of their master, and to a conviction of their own
fallibility. At such a moment the appearance of any
one claiming the power to satisfy the king would very
naturally be greeted with the heartiest welcome. There
was a chance, as they would call it, of satisfying the
' troubled' Nebuchadnezzar, and of saving their own lives.
What man proposed, God disposed. All things were
working together for good for that servant that feared
the Lord. Daniel, from the moment that he stated his
wulingness both to recall and interpret the mysterious
1 Baxmann denies it.

Historical Inaccuracies. 115
dream, secured their attention. And when he proceeded
to prove his assertion, he at once appeared to his hea
then listeners as a being of supernatural power. It causes
no surprise to read (v. 46) that ' the king worshipped him
and offered his oblation to him' as to a god. Let Daniel
disclaim all natural excellency of his own, Nebuchad
nezzar reverenced in his pagan fashion the God of Daniel.
To the priest-king of Bel, Bel-teshazzar was at that
moment the visible representative on earth of all that was
highest and most powerful in his pantheon. Daniel from
that hour was ' a great man' (v. 47). The wisdom within
him, however imperfectly apprehended by the proud Baby
lonian or his caste, was felt to be far superior to that of
the Casdim, and the Jew was made ' chief over all the wise
men.' As regards the cruelty of Nebuchadnezzar's threatened
punishment, no one in the nineteenth century would dis
pute the fierceness of its character, but was it so esteemed
by the king himself? I think not. The capricious nature
of the Eastern race, and the reckless regard for Hfe,
characteristic of Oriental potentates, make it perfectly
intelligible1. Add to this, first, — the importance always
attached to the interpretation of dreams by the ancient
nations of the East, and the Babylonians especially; and
next, — the boastful claims made by the sacerdotal Casdim
to the power of interpretation; and then Nebuchad
nezzar's act agamst them becomes one of lawless but in
telligible rage. He had power over life and death, and
he exercised it indiscriminately and without hindrance2.
His boastful Casdim could not satisfy him, and therefore
Bel should be propitiated by nothing less than a holo
caust of those false aspirants to familiarity with the secrets
of the gods. The cruelty of Nebuchadnezzar's nature is
1 Martin, Les Civilisations Primitives, Par. i86r, p. 366, cites instances
from Xenophon.
2 Martin, id.
8—2

116 Internal Objections.
attested by Scripture1 and history. His treatment of the
sons of Zedekiah, and of the nobles of Jerusalem, was
what modern usage would justly condemn as barbarous ;
but it was the custom of the age and of the man. He
respected neither friend nor foe, servant nor slave. For
the former he had such punishments as crucifixion and
quartering (v. 5), for the latter, the furnace (iii. 6. 15), or
exposure to animals2.

Another objection urged by Bleek to the narrative of
this chapter is founded upon ver. 48. How is it possible,
he asks, that so zealous a worshipper of the Lord should
have accepted the post of 'chief of the governors over
aU the wise men of Babylon'? This class of men, the
' Chaldees ' (Casdim) were the Priests of the land ; and
owing to his connection with them, Daniel could not have
escaped frequent participation in idolatrous rites3- The
objection if sound would of course convict the writer of
the book of a clumsy mistake. It could not have been
made by an author living when Daniel is supposed to
have lived. But independently of the negative character
of this objection — independently of the confessedly scanty
materials from which he had to form his decision, the
facts as stated by Bleek certainly require modification.
There is no decisive authority for the supposition that
all the Casdim were priests* or associated with priestly
duties. The Babylonian priests were undoubtedly Casdim,
but it does not follow that the Casdim were necessarily
priests4. The priestly dignity was hereditary5, and this
1 Comp. 2 Kings xxv. 7, 18-21; Jerem. xxxix. 5 seq.; Hi. 9-1 1, 24-7.
Vid. Hengstenberg, pp. 24-7. Winer, R.W.B. 1. p. 221.
3 These were Babylonian punishments. Herod. HI. 159. Isai. xlvii. ¦/,
seems to give another of a more torturing but less fatal character. Martin,
p. 369. 3 Bleek, p. 598. Davidson, in. 183.
4 Rawlinson (Smith's Diet.), Art. 'Chaldsea.' B Martin, p. 374.

Historical Inaccuracies. 117
would of itself exclude Daniel from that particular
class of the Casdim which performed priestly functions.
Nebuchadnezzar was a Priest-Casdee probably by descent,
or by virtue of his power and regal office1. The connection
between him and the dominant caste at Babylon appears
to have been of the closest character2 ; and this gave to
that arbitrary potentate the power of setting Daniel at
the head of the whole body, without permitting or in
tending any interference with opinions of a more directly
religious nature. On such a point even Nebuchadnezzar
would not have ventured to innovate. The act would
have imperilled his crown, possibly his Hfe. Daniel's
position at Babylon was in fact the counterpart of
Joseph's in Egypt. Joseph was the highest subject in
the land, higher even than Potipherah the priest of On :
Daniel was the President of the whole governing body
of Babylon, pofitical and sacerdotal. And just as Joseph
acted towards the land of his captivity, bringing it into the
direct possession of Pharaoh, with the one memorable
exception of the priests' land ; — so Daniel acted in Babylon.
He ruled the whole country, but with a careful reserve
as regards that special class, the priest class, so jealous
of any interference. And Daniel's position among the
Casdim becomes clear when the nature of this peculiar
class of the Chaldees is considered. It is only within the
last few years that the subject has been fully investigated ;
and though the question is not yet settled, the knowledge
obtained thus far wiU help very materially to decide upon
1 Nabopolassar appears to have been of Chaldee extraction. The title
' Priest-king ' was the regular designation of the sovereigns of Babylon up to
the time of Nabopolassar. It is found in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon and
Sargon. And there seems to be no doubt that Nebuchadnezzar bore the same
title (v. Hincks, Verification of Sacred and Prof ane Chronology, p. 136. Joum.
of Sacr. Lit. 1858, and id. 1859, p. 296, Babylon and her Priest-kings).
2 Berosus (Josephus, Antiq. x. ch. xi. p. 391, ed. Dind.) speaks of Nebu
chadnezzar as irapa~KafiCi>v to. irpdyfuara Siomovueva U7T0 top 'K.aXSaLav Kal Siarn-
povp.ivr/v ttjv flacrikdav bird tou {SekrliTTov airSiv, k.t.X. This took place imme
diately after tho death of Nabopolassar.

118 Internal Objections.
the necessity or non-necessity of Daniel's participation in
their religious ceremonies.
The Chahheans are represented in Scripture until the
time of the Captivity, as a nation which had Babylon for
its capital and the plain of Shinar for its territory. But
with this the Greek geographers hardly agree. And the
difference appears to be caused by the varying senses in
which the name was used. ' Chaldaean ' it must almost be
concluded was a general expression for the nomadic tribes
and the earliest settlers occupying both the north and
the south of the great central Asiatic continent. This will
be seen from the foUowing facts.
1. The Chaldees of the North. Their home some
2000 years B. c was the mountainous district of Kurdistan,
Pontus and the country of the Calybes1. The Greek histo
rians2 describe them in more modern times as a fierce and
robber-race, notorious throughout the East for their deeds
of lawlessness, and serving in the armies of India and of
Cyrus as mercenaries3. They resembled in fact the modern
Kurds with whom they have been identified. Lassen and
Ritter were the first to demonstrate this identification ;
and it is now accepted by many of the leading philo
logists4. The name Kurd or Kard is recognized as an
intermediate form between Casd (Hebrew) and Chald
1 Winer, R.W.B. I. 217-8, s. v. 'Chaldaer.' Benan, Hist, des Langues
Sem. p. 66. Ewald, Gesch. d. Volk. Isr. I. 378.
2 Cyrop. HI. 1, 34. Anab. IV. 3, 4; VII. 8, 25. Habak. i. 6 seq., and
Job i. 1 7, are usually supposed to refer to this division of the Chaldees ; but
the passages are also claimed by the advocates of the second view. Rawlinson,
Five Great Monarchies, 1. p. 71 seq. (1862), reviews the arguments opposed to
his own, but with all due respect be it said, without allowing them the force
they appear justly to possess.
3 Cyrop. III. 3, 7; vir.. 2, 5. Anab. IV. 3, 4.
" Lassen, Die Altpersisch. Keilinschriften v. Persepolis, p. 81-6. Bonn,
1836. Ritter, Erdkunde, II. 788-96; viii. 90 seq. It is the opinion of
Gesenius (Thesaur. s. v. DHKO), Layard, Discoveries &c. passim, Pott, Chwol-
sohn, Lerch, Ewald, Winer and others (vid. Renan, p. 67, notes 1, 2). Spiegel
(Munch. Gel. Anz. 1856, Sept.), and Ormsby (Journ. Sacr. Lit. 1856, p. 476),
maintain a, Semitic origin for these Chaldseans. Vid. Rawlinson, The Five
Great Monarchies, die. I. p. 56 seq. and reff.

Historical Inaccuracies. 119
(XaXSaw), being connected with the former by the affinity
of s and r, and with the latter by that of I and r, letters
confounded in the Iranian dialects1. And the form re
appears with a remarkable consistency in the names of
the different people inhabiting the mountains of Kur
distan2. Any traces therefore of the ancient language of
these Chaldseans is probably to be sought in the Kurdish'
dialect, and this belongs to the Aryan family of languages3-
But 2. The Chaldees appear in the pages of Ptolemy and
Strabo4 as inhabiting that particular part of Babylonia
which borders on the Persian Gulf and Arabia Deserta.
Who are these? It would appear that they are to be
identified with one of the many Cushite tribes inhabiting
that vast alluvial plain known afterwards as Chaldaea or
Babylonia5. These Cushites are possibly the same as the
DTl"D or Cutheans, the KtWtot of Herodotus, and the
inhabitants of the modern Chuzistan6: but they are cer-
1 Renan, p. 66. Gesenius regards *TO as the older form, afterwards
changed into '1BO. Ewald, Renan, &c. consider ''IBO the older. In the
Zend language the sound I is completely unknown ; it is always represented by
¦i. The knowledge of this has furnished the means of identifying many Vedic
and Zendic names and words (e. g. by Burnouf, Journ. Asiat. p. 3S, 1848. Pott,
Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch. xv. p. 379. Haug, Essays on the Sacred
language, &c. of the Parsees, p. 245, 1862). Similarly the letter I is wanting to
the cuneiform inscriptions representing the Persian pronunciation under the
AchtEmenian dynasty : thus, in the names Babylon and Arbela, I is replaced
by r. The I however appears in the Sassanian inscriptions, where both Ailan
and Airan, AniUin and Aniran occur. (Pott, pp. 380-1. Max Muller, Lectt. on
the Science of Lang. p. 244, n.). Chwolsohn states that in the 'Nabatean
Agriculture' the form Kaldee is never found; usually the form is^Kasdee, but
in one place ELardee oecivrs, though not in all the MSS. (Ueber Tammaz u. d.
Menselien verehrung bei d. alten Babylonien. p. 89, n. 1. S. Petersb. i860).
3 Renan, id. Assem. Bibl. Orient. 11. 113, 111. 2nd part, p. 734.
3 Renan, p. 60, vid. Max Miiiler, Table I. Genealoy. Table of the Aryan
Family of Languages. Appendix, p. 400.
4 Ptol. v. 20, 3. Strabo, XVI. 739. Winer, R.W.B. I. p. 217.
5 Rawlinson, Art. 'Chaldaaa,' Op. cit. Bampton Lectures, p. 438 (1st ed.),
notes on Herod. 1. 181 (Rawlinson's ed. 185S, I. p. 319). Tlie arguments have
been again summed up and amplified in the Five Great Monarchies, I. 5S seq.,
p. 189 seq.
6 Renan, p. 59. Movers, Die Phoznizier, 11. ist part, pp. 269, 276, 284
seq., and 2nd part, pp. 104-5, 388.

120 Internal Objections.
tainly identical with the Cephenians, to whom Greek
tradition attributed the foundation of the first Chaldaean
Empire1. Their progress was from South to North, from
Susiana and Babylonia to Assyria. Babylon, Nineveh, and
other cities, whose colossal ruins are gradually being
brought to lightj were founded by them. It was this race
• which originated the metrical system, — that scientific
development which made Chaldaea famous, — and instituted
the earliest researches into astronomical, mathematical,
and industrial sciences3. These points are proved by the
tablets and cyfinders found among the ruins. The lan
guage of these monumental relics has been compared by
Oppert3 and Fresnel4, with that of Arabia; and the
general conclusion is accepted that the Babylonian in
scriptions contain a Semitic dialect analogous to the dia
lect of Marah, which in its turn is a relic of the ancient
language of Cush or Ethiopia6. The ideographic writing
so characteristic of Turanian nations connects the early
Babylonians with Ethiopia and Egypt8, while evidence of
the mutual interchange of civilised ideas between those
countries points unmistakeably to the same conclusion7.
1 Renan, id. refers to C. Muller, Fragm. Hist. Grcec. I. p. 67, vid. Niebuhr,
Gesch. Assurs u. Babels, pp. 51 1-2. Bollinger, The Gentile and the Jew, 1. 420
(Engl. Transl. 1862).
2 Renan, Rawlinson, DSllinger, It. cc.
3 Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. M'orgenland. Geselkch. XI. p. 137.
* Joum. Asiat. 1853, June and July. This Memoire (AntiquiUs Babylon-
n-iennes) is extremely valuable and interesting. Fresnel meets and examines
some of Sir.H. Rawlinson's views, and in a manner at once courteous and
seholarlike. 6 The modern use of the name Ethiopia is more limited than the ancient.
The Cushites appear to have spread from the higher Nile to the Euphrates and
Tigris, and into Arabia. Vid. Smith's Diet. a. vv. ' Cush ' and ' Ethiopia.'
6 Rawlinson, Herod. 1. pp. 442-3. On the word 'Turanian,' vid. Max Muller,
pp. 294-5. It is that family comprising all languages, with the exception of
Chinese, spoken in Asia and Europe and not included under the Aryan and
Semitic families. The non-Semitic primitive language of Babylonia is variously
called Cushite, or Scythic, or Tataric (Oppert, and Niebuhr).
7 Kenan, p. 59., He refers to Kunik, Melanges Asiat. de VAcad. de St
Petersb. 1. pp. 504 seq., 512 seq. Vid. also Lepsius, Einl. 2, Chronol. d. Mgypter,
p. 122 seq. Dollinger, I. p. 420 seq., 436 seq.

Historical Inaccuracies. 121
When the Cushites of central Asia were subdued by
the Semites"1, the victors imparted their language (the
Aramaic) to the vanquished ; and this became the preva
lent language in Assyria and Babylonia. For hundreds of
years the Chaldaeans generally disappear from history.
There is a blank between the records of Gen. x. and
the later historical books which it is now impossible to fill
up, but in the seventh century b. c their name once more
appears in the affairs of the East2. It is then used almost
synonymously with Babylonians, and possibly with the
Assyrians. Ezekiel has described them as they appeared
in his day. They are men of remarkably handsome person
and equipment, 'girded with girdles upon their loins,'
'exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads,' mounted
upon fiery steeds, or riding in their war-chariots : they
are ' aU of them princes to look to,' ' captains and rulers
clothed most gorgeously, all of them desirable young men ?
(xxiii). And the Prophet describes them indiscriminately
as 'Sons of Babylon' or 'Casdim' (f»3 \£, D*"IETD, E.V.
'Chaldaeans'). But who are these Chaldaeans? By some
they are considered the Chaldaeans of the North ; by
others those of Cushite extraction rising once again to
power. According to the former view, the mercenary
habits of those robber tribes caused them to enter the
service of the Assyrian power3, and in one of their forays
Babylon fell into the power of their masters, just as
Bagdad fell, some 1500 years later, under the pressure of
the northern army employed by the Khalif. But their vas
salage did not last long ; they soon cast off the Assyrian
yoke and established that kingdom made familiar to
us by the notices of the Old Testament. Once become
the dominant caste of Babylon, they gave, like the Turks,
their name to the race they had conquered, though that
1 Niebuhr, Gesch. Asswi-s, p. 153, n. -t. Dbllinger, 1. 420. This took place
as early as B.C. 2100. Brandis, De rerum Assyriarum temp, emend, p. 17, &c.
"¦" Niebuhr, I.e. and p. 423. Renan, p. 64 seq.
3 Winer, R. W. B. p. 218. Renan, p. 68.

122 Internal Objections.
race far exceeded them in numbers1. According to the
other view, while the national character of the Babylonian
kingdom was Semitic, the warrior tribe remained Tataric2 ;
just as Bagdad continued Semitic, though the body-guard
of the Khalif was Turkish. As the Chaldaeans increased,
their name gradually prevailed over that of the other tribes,
and from being a conquered race they became in their turn
supreme. With the dynasty of Nabopolassar, if not earlier,
arose a really Chaldaean power, and this greatly helped to
widen the use of the appellation. It had by this time two
senses, both ethnic : in the one it was the special ap
pellative of a particular race to whom it had belonged
from the earliest times ; in the other it designated
the nation at large in which this race was predominant3.
The case resembled that of Britain, where the name of the
Briton was merged for a while in the Saxon and the Angle,
but eventually dispossessed them. Under Nebuchadnezzar
the Chaldaeans attained the height of their power.
Niebuhr4 has sought to combine these two views in
a manner at least ingenious, if not convincing. The Chal
dees of Kurdistan were Aryan in speech, but he thinks
it very possible that they were originally either Semitic
or Tataric tribes, which mixed with the Aryans in the
Armenian mountains, and acquired the Aryan dialect. But
whether this were so or not, it need not be denied that
the Chaldaeans of Babylon would number under that
general appeHation, in the time of Nabopolassar and
earlier, Aryan, Semitic, and Tataric populations. In Baby
lon, says the Armenian Eusebius8, there was a vast multi-
1 Winer and Renan. Gesenius dates the commencement of their subjection
to the Assyrian power from the commencement of the Nabonassarian era (circ.
B.C. 747, Winer, p. 220, Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. p. 47); Hitzig and Rawlinson
(Art. 'Chaldsea'), though differing as to the nature of these Chaldaeans, refer it
rather to the time of Nabopolassar (b.c. 633-25).
'' Niebuhr, p. 153. Tataric is used by this writer as others use the word
Turanian (vid. Max Muller, p. 303).
3 Rawlinson, Art. 'Chaldsea.' 4 Op. cit. pp. 423-4.
5 Renan, p. 58. The value of the Armenian Eusebian Chron. upon these

Historical Inaccuracies. 123
tude of every kind of nation inhabiting Chaldaea ; ^Eschylus \
in his tragedy, has depicted a motley crowd issuing from
its walls; and Scripture well illustrates the characteristic
feature of the modern Babel by recording decrees issued
to ' people, tribes and languages.'
But from this ethnic sense there arose a class sense.
The name of a people became appropriate to a priest caste,
or sect of philosophers2. The Chaldee, to resume the old
distinction, became a Casdee3. The nature of this Casdim-
class has been explained by different writers in accord
ance with their opinion upon the Chaldaeans generally. The
Chaldaean tribes, Avhether of north or south, described in
the Hebrew Scriptures seem to be essentially of a military
stamp; but by the time of Herodotus the designation is
transferred to a particular class, as in Daniel (ii. 2, 5, 10,
iv. 5, v. 7, H). To explain this transference appears difficult.
The Casdim evidently spoke a language distinct from that
of the popular Babylonian speech. It was looked upon
as the peculiar privilege of the aristocratic class, and evi
dently, if the courtier-names given to Daniel and his com
panions be considered Aryan, had nothing Semitic in its
composition4. Heerens believed them to be the Magi who
came from the Kurd-mountains with the Chaldaeans. And
possibly Hke the Medes or the Celts, this tribe possessed,
side by side with its military organization, a sacerdotal class
analogous to the Druids or the Mobeds. Or it may be,
that the scientific pursuits called Chaldaean were the heri
tage of the primitive inhabitants of Babylon, and when
points has been amply proved by the use made of it by Brandis (iiber d. hist.
Gemnn aus d. Entzifferung d. Assyr. Inschriften, Berl. 1856, p. n seq.).
1 Persce, 51.
2 Herod. I. 181, 183. Diod. Sic. II. 24-7.
3 I merely preserve the distinction of p. 5 1, u. 1, as a matter of convenience.
Renan, p. 68, has shewn that the difference often made between the Chaldaeans
as a military class, and the Casdim as a priest-class, is untenable : and Nie-
buhr's view reversing this order (p. 423) is of course liable to similar objections.
4 Renan, p. 65. Keil, Einl p. 113. For the other view vid. p. 94.
5 Ideen, I. 2, 196. Miinter, Relig. d. Babyl. p. 83.

124 Internal Objections.
the name became synonymous with Babylonian, every
thing which had reference to Babylon was classed under
the head of Chaldaean. Under this supposition the Casdim
might even be, not^the priest-class of the Chaldaeans pro
perly so-called, but that of the Babylonians reckoned
under the common appellation1. This latter view would
very much tend to establish a point of amalgamation with
the supporters of the Cushite origin of the Chaldaeans.
The Casdim were, according to these last critics, the ' wise
men' — the dream-interpreters of the Tataric warrior-tribe2;
and this priestly caste was connected with the Egyp
tian priesthood possibly by an interchange of cosmo-
gonic and astronomical ideas3. It was the opinion of
Diodorus that the Cushite Magians had actually immi
grated from- Egypt ; and it is quite possible that when
the primeval Babylonians submitted to the Semitic race,
the old Cushite-Cephenic priesthood was perpetuated in
the conquerors and in the process of time assumed the com
mon denomination. This same opinion] as to the identifi
cation of Babylonian and Chaldaean nomenclature furnishes
also a point of union for the opposite views upon the
court-language taught to Daniel and his companions. If
that language was simply the popular Babylonian speech,
i.e. of Semitic origin and kindred to Aramaic, it seems
difficult to understand why such pains were taken to
instruct the young captives in a language which they
would have no difficulty in acquiring4. It was closely
allied to their own Hebrew and to that patois which had
been gradually deteriorating in purity. But if that spe
cial language (i. 4) was that of the Kurd-Casdim, i. e.
Iranian, or that of the Cushite-Cephenic priesthood, i.e.
Turanian modified and corrupted by the lapse of ages, and
therefore difficult and unusual, then there seems in either
1 Renan, p. 68. 2 Niebuhr, p. 152, note.
3 Dollinger, 1. 420. Martin, Les Civil. Prim. p. 374 seq.
4 Vid. p. 68 seq.

Historical Inaccuracies. 125
case a sufficient reason for their undergoing the three years'
preparation. But however difficult it may be to decide
these points, one thing is certain, that the more enlarged
sense of the whole scientific caste of Babylonia given to
the word Casdim by the Greek and Koman writers1, is
not intended in these passages of Daniel2. Daniel was a
Casdee as Seleucus the Greek was a Casdee, and not in
the narrower and more priestly sense in which Berosus
claimed the name3. He was taught the Casdee learning,
whatever that was, in the Casdee language ; and all who
studied that, whatever their language and whatever their
race, were called Casdim. As ' master of the Casdim '
(v. 11) Daniel was the head of that large and learned
class, who by their acquaintance with the language of
science had become its depositaries. They were priests,
magicians, astronomers4, &c. as they were inclined, and
on such subjects as the interpretation of dreams they
were the king's chief advisers ; but it does not appear to
be at all a necessary conclusion that the whole college
of Casdim must have been priests, or connected with
sacerdotal functions. The most superficial examination
of the character of Daniel, as set forth in the book which
bears his name and in the comments of Ezekiel, alto
gether opposes itself to any coHusion with or unworthy
acquiescence in idolatry on his part. The man who at
different periods of his Hfe refused to be fed with regal,
probably sacrificial, fare (i. 8), and exchanged his posi
tion as ' first of the presidents.' for the fions' den sooner
than commit a ceremonial or moral offence against the

1 e.g. Strabo, xvi. 739, 762. Diod. Sic. 11. 29 seq. Cic. Div. 1. 1, 2.
Ammian. Marcell. xxiii. 6. Clem. Alex. Strom. 1. p. 131.
3 Winer, R.W.B. I. p. 222. Niebuhr, p. 153. Rawlinson, Herod. I. 181
seq., and Art. 'Chaldsea.' Vid. Ideler's Mimoire on the scientific pursuits of
the Chaldseans, Acad. d. Sciences, Berlin, 181 5; or summarized in Hoefer,
V Univers Pittoresque, ix. 388, Par. 1852.
3 Tatian, Or. adv. Gr. 58. Niebuhr, p. ir.
4 Martin, pp. 357, 374. Rawlinson, Art. cit.

126 Internal Objections.
laws of his God, was not fikely to have accepted the post
of chief of the wise men had it been incompatible with
his religious convictions. His pre-eminence was, humanly
speaking, exhibited in branches of scientific learning ;
upon such points his opinion was asked and accepted
(i. 19, 20) ; but with religious matters he had nothing
to do. He was not summoned to Nebuchadnezzar to in
terpret the dream till 'magician, astrologer and Casdee'
had failed ; and when in the royal presence, he distinctly
asserted that none of that body to which he belonged
could satisfy the king ; it was the ' God of heaven alone
who revealed secrets ;' not even to himself was it revealed
' for any wisdom that he had more than any living '
(ii. 24 — 30). His religion and that of his fellow captives,
'the three children,' separated him and them entirely
from the more purely sacerdotal class of the Casdim.
Had it been an objection to Nebuchadnezzar, or to Arioch,
or to Melzar; — had it offended the fastidious taste of
the priest-caste, Daniel would never have been admitted
into the college. It would have been a step which even
the imperious Nebuchadnezzar would not have ventured
to suggest; it would have been an outrage upon the
feelings of the priests which they would most certainly
have resented. And as at the first, so did Daniel remain
unmolested after his appointment as chief over their
whole body. The superstitious nature of the Asiatic might
almost be said to have necessitated this. The devo
tions and allegiance of Daniel, were paid to that God of
whom the Babylonian priests knew nothing except His
superiority to Bel and Nergal. The only exhibition they
had seen of His power, had caused their royal head to
bow before Him as 'the God of gods and Lord of kings;'
and the only words spoken by His priest as coming from
Him, had been such as the ' sun and the stars' had never
imparted to the most ardent member of their astrological
class. It may therefore be very safely assumed that

Historical Inaccuracies. 127
Daniel's position as chief of the wise men — astrologers,
soothsayers, Casdim and others — in no way necessitated
a change in his religious convictions. It would indeed
have been simply a proof of the clumsiness of a forger to
have made him at one moment a devoted Jew, at another
an idolatrous devotee. It is never safe to argue e silentio,
but yet it seems a fair question to ask : Allowing that
it was possible for the priest-class, or even the Casdim
generally, to have charged Daniel with sacrilegious beha
viour ex officio, why was it never done? Under Darius,
the president and satraps, who may of course have num
bered among them members of the more directly sacer
dotal class, had to resort to an expedient both far-fetched
and novel to do this. I certainly think, that the national
contempt of the Jew and the stigma attaching to the
whole Casdee-body by the presence of a foreign president,
would have been strong incentives to decided action against
that president, had it at any time been possible. That
proceedings were never taken, not even at the opportunity
afforded by the dedication of Nebuchadnezzar's image,
appears a strong proof of its impracticability. Argu-
menta e silentio can never be counted of any great
weight, but their testimony should at least be heard on
both sides of a question1. § 3. Dan. iii.
In this chapter is contained the well-known history of
the dedication of Nebuchadnezzar's image, the refusal
of the ' three children' to worship it, and their consequent
punishment. The most strenuous objections offered, inde
pendently of the miracle which closes it, are — first, that
it is very improbable that so huge a golden image should
1 Eor instance, the best answer Dr Davidson could possibly wish to his
arguments in the Introd. in. 183 (1863), are his own views put forth in the
Introduction (Home's ed. 1859), p. 928.

128 Internal Objections.
have been set up; and secondly, that Daniel's absence
from the dedication is inexplicable when his position as
president of the Casdim is considered1.
The Book of Daniel gives clear indications of a strongly
developed religious enthusiasm on the part of Nebuchad
nezzar towards his gods2, and this chapter presents notable
instances of it. A briefer but very significant instance
is recorded in i. 2 (comp. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 7, 10). And the
Babylonian inscriptions illustrate and confirm this in a
remarkable manner. Those silent voices of the past sig
nalise the devotion of Nebuchadnezzar to Bel-Merodach
as one of the most marked features in his character3.
The celebrated standard inscription4 is a case in point.
Merodach is there addressed as ' my lord, the joy of my
heart in Babylon, which is the seat of his sovereignty and
of my empire.' The king attributes to the god his eleva
tion to the throne. ' Merodach, the great lord, has appoint
ed me to the empire of the world, and confided to my
care the far-spread people of the earth. Merodach, the
great lord, the senior of the gods, the most ancient, has
given aH nations and people to my care.' Again, the in
scriptions of Nebuchadnezzar always terminate with a
prayer to Merodach, invoking the favour of the god for
the protection of the throne and empire, and its continu
ance throughout all ages to the end of time. Among the
Babylonians, therefore, and especially under Nebuchad-
1 Bleek, p. 508. Baxmann, Op. cit. p. 466. The answer of this clitic is
directed against some remarks offered by Ziindel ; but the value of the answer
is in equal proportion to the ridicule he employs. Davidson (in. 184) only
alludes to the second of the objections in the text.
2 The Polytheism of Babylon is a well-attested fact. Vid. Rawlinson,
passim, e. g. The Five Monarchies, ch. vii. ; a M&moire of Renan's in Journal
Asiatique of Febr. and May, 1859. Bayard's Nineveh, It. 451 seq. (1849).
3 Rawlinson, Herod. I. pp. 627-9, and notes; n. p. 585. Hincks, 'Baby
lon and her Priest-kings,' Journ. Sacr. Lit. p.. 302 seq. 1859. Fox Talbot,
Journ. Sacr. Lit. p. 414, 1856. The three scholars here quoted may differ
about the translation of particular words, &c, but they agree in that point for
which reference is made to them.
4 Vid. authorities in previous note.

Historical Inaccuracies. 129
riezzar1, Bel-Merodach was regarded as the source of all
power and prosperity. Herodotus2, when describing the
great temple of Belus at Babylon, speaks of its image as a
sitting figure of Jupiter made of gold. The throne and
the base were also of gold, and in front of the image
was a table of gold. The priests of the temple told him
that the gold amounted in weight to about 800 talents.
In the time of Cyrus there was another figure, that of
a man, placed in this temple. It was 12 cubits high,
and made of solid gold.
Now such passages prove that any exaggerated form
of worship to the god, or any excessively large image de
dicated to him, would neither have been impossible to
Nebuchadnezzar nor surprising to his people. The differ
ence between the size of the figure still existing in the
time of Cyrus and that mentioned in Daniel (iii. 1), is un
doubtedly great, but the enormous size, or rather height,
of the latter admits of an easy explanation. Certainly it
should never be urged that the absence of aUusions to it
in other sacred and profane records is condemnatory of
its existence3. The love of the Babylonians generally for
everything grand and colossal is a fact familiar to every
reader of the pages of Layard and Eawlinson. The ceUars
of the British Museum and the galleries of the Louvre
iUustrate the fact in a most satisfactory manner4. As in
architecture, preference was shewn for everything huge,
irregular, and majestic however grotesque, so in the sup
plements and embeUishments to their architecture", there
1 Comp. the name .BeZ-teshazzar given to Daniel; .BeZ-shazzar to Nebu
chadnezzar's successor; Bel-ems to Nabonassar, possibly also to Nabopolassar
and Nebuchadnezzar.
2 I. 183. Vid. Rawlinson's notes in loc. Layard, Nineveh, H. p. 452.
a Bleek, and De Wette.
4 Vid. the illustrations in the works of the writers quoted in note 2, and at
the end of L' Univers Pittoresque : Asia. Tom. ix.
5 It is no small illustration of the capabilities of the Babylonian architects,
that these stupendous edifices created their awe-inspiring effects by the aid of
the simplest material — burnt bricks ; vid. chap. v. 'Architecture,' in Rawlinson, 9

130 Internal Objections.
were giant forms here, and colossal figures there, uncouth
and exaggerated, but always commanding1. It was a part
of their ideas of civiUzation to have it so; and the system
lay deeply imbedded in their religious creed. The poorer
Babylonian, it would seem2, was not content with small
household gods of wood: they must needs be large, 'images
that could not be moved' (Isai. xl. 20). And so it was in
the particular case mentioned by Daniel. Nebuchadnez
zar's image was of the most stupendous character. It
stood 60 cubits high, and when raised aloft in the vast
plain of Dura3, it was easfiy seen by the countless multi
tude ready to obey the behests of their sovereign lord.
The proportions given, 60 x 6, describe the nature of the
image. It was in reafity either like that of the Amyclean
Apollo, a column terminating in a head and feet, or a
simple pedestal, surmounted by the bust of the god. It
is easy, of course, to protest that such an image or
figure or column was impossible, because so monstrous
and ill-proportioned4, but the ideas of the European upon
The Five Monarchies, p. 90 seq. Fergusson, Handbook of Architecture, I. Bk. iv,
ch. 1. Assyrian Architecture, p. 161 seq. (1855).
1 Vid. in addition to works cited, a, very useful summary in Kalisch,
Genesis, App. to ch. x. p. 302 seq. (1858). Gesenius, Allgen,. Encycl. v.
Ersch u. Griiber, Art. 'Babylon.' Rawlinson, Art. 'Babylon,' Smith's Bibl.
Diet. , and Ruetschi, id. Herzog's Real-Encyclop.
3 Miinter, Religion d. Babyl p. 58.
3 Oppert discovered at ' Dnair' (Dura) the pedestal of a colossal statue : vid.
Art. ' Dura,' Smith's Bibl. Diet. This plain or valley situated 733 WTOS is
identified by Layard (Nin. and Bab. p. 469) with ' Dur ' on the left bank of the
Tigris. But Quatremere (M6m. giogr. de la Babylonie, quoted in Migne, Diet.
de la Bible, Vol. n. p. 31, n. 1, s. v. Daniel. Paris, 1845) takes the word "tO
not in the sense of a province but of a town, and fixes the site of Dura within
the western precincts of Babylon itself. Oppert (I c), from his opportunities
of personal inspection, is however more probably correct in placing it not in
the western, but in the south-eastern quarter of the city.
4 The statue of Nebo discovered in Jan. 1854, and figured in Rawlinson
(The Five Monarchies, p. 179), stands about 5ft. 7in. in height, on a pedestal
only three inches in thickness (Journ. Sacr. Lit. p. 477, 1856). This proportion
is as one to twenty, that in the text only one to ten. Facts have proved the
former, and it does not seem * very difficult thing to admit the latter. If the
so-called obelisk of Semiramis mentioned by Dioclorus and Ctesias as one of the

Historical Inaccuracies. 131
such points must always be corrected by those of the
Asiatic. Heeren's protest1 against this summary rejection
is both sound and equitable. He felt and maintained that
European experience was far too local to permit authori
tative decision upon the scale of possibility current in
other lands under different climes, and influenced by cir
cumstances entirely dissimilar. The Pyramids of Egypt,
the wall of China, the rock Temple of Elephanta, and the
very walls of Babylon®, stand up in mockery of that cri
ticism which would dwarf to its own dimensions the capa-
bifities of a mighty nation.
And if the objection to the colossal nature of the image
cannot be maintained, least of all should the epithet of
'golden' be magnified into a stumbling-block. The usus
loquendi of Exod. xxxix. 38 3, and such passages as Isai. xl.
19, xH. 7, xfiv. 13; Jer. x. 3—5, iUustrate the frequent
practice of overlaying images and altars with gold, and
calling them ' golden.' It seems a somewhat captious criti
cism to make an objection of what most readers would
immediately understand to be merely a popular mode of
description. The hoUow brazen image of Moloch may be
taken as a type of many of the colossal statues of the
Assyrian and Babylonian deities. These, when 'golden,'
were not of sofid gold ; the surface only was overlaid, the
interior being hollow, and the whole image formed of some
' seven wonders,' was really, as seems very probable, the work of Nebuchad
nezzar (Fresnel, Journ. Asiatique, July, 1853, pp. 32-5), a pedestal-figure such
as the text of Daniel describes was surely no impossibility. It is an interesting
point of parallelism brought to light by the 'Nabatean Agriculture,' that allu
sion is there made to a golden image of colossal proportions suspended between
heaven and earth in the temple of the Sun at Babylon (Chwolsohn, Ueber Tarn-
muz u. s. w. pp. 41-50, and n. 4, p. 50).
1 Ideen, I. 2, p. 170, quoted by Hengstenberg, Genuineness, die. p. 80.
2 Herod. 1. 177. Vid. notes to Rawlinson 's edition, in loc, and Art.
' Babylon,' Smith's Diet.
3 A wooden altar overlaid with gold and called golden: vid. also Numb. iv.
11. This was made of acacia- wood; that in Solomon's temple (1 Kings vii.
48, 1 Chron. xxviii. 18) was made of cedar overlaid with gold.
9—2

132 Internal Objections.
other metal, or of wood or of clay. So here, Nebuchad
nezzar's image was caned 'golden' from its superficial
coating, but it was hollow, like that other image mentioned
by Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus1. But, in fact, whether
this were the case or not, it may very safely be asserted
that it was quite within the power of Babylon the ' golden'
(Isai. xiv. 14 ; Jer. 1. 37, li. 13) to make the statue of gold,
had such been the will of that monarch who had raised his
capital to the summit of her greatness and power.
Bleek's second objection turns upon an argurnentum e
silentio. Daniel's three friends were present at the dedica
tion of this image, why was not Daniel ? Certainly, nothing
is easier than to raise objections from the silence of a nar
rative. But as a rule such objections are of force in
accordance with the predispositions of those who urge
them. It may therefore be at once asserted that Daniel's
absence has received and requires no explanation. He was
not present, and there ends the matter. As president of
the wise men of Babylon, modern opinion decides that he
ought to have been : the sacred history indirectly tells us
that he was not. Which shall be followed? But to set
one arg. e sil. against another, it may be accepted as cer
tain that if Daniel's absenee had been capable of miscon
struction, then most assuredly his enemies would have
availed themselves of their opportunity of attacking him.
That they did nothing of the kind, cannot be explained
away upon the supposition that the deliverance of Sha
drach, Meshach, and Abednego stopped further proceed
ings. Daniel's absence would have been the subject of
comment long before the actual scene in the presence of
Nebuchadnezzar. And to take refuge behind that suppo
sition involves the somewhat unexpected admission that
the narrative of the miraculous deliverance is true. Daniel,
as far as Oriental customs iUustrate the case, was probably
1 Herzfeld, I. p. 449 (1847), cites a very old Jewish tradition, that the
gold used was that brought in the spoil from Jerusalem.

Historical Inaccuracies. 133
invited ex officio to the dedication, not as head of the
sacerdotal class only, but as governor of the executive
officers of the realm. He was not required to perform any
priestly function; and therefore his absence created no
defect in the refigious ceremonies. He was absent for un
explained reasons. That is quite sufficient answer for most
reasonable men. In any ordinary narrative the silence
blamed in Daniel would certainly never be admitted as
evidence against the veracity of the statements advanced.
Strange that in Scripture alone it should be maintained
sufficient to condemn them altogether.

§ 4. Ch. iii. 31, iv. (Hebrew) ; iv. (E. V.).
The seven years' malady of Nebuchadnezzar has always
proved a very great difficulty to the opponents of the
authenticity of the Book of Daniel. It is assailed as being
both unhistorical and miraculous. Its duration, says Bleek1,
must have caused great confusion and alterations through
out the kingdom of Babylon. The disease of the king
Was very peculiar ; witness its accompanying features. ' He
ate grass as oxen, and made his dwelling with the beasts
of the field' (iv. 32, 33, E. V.). And yet no notice is taken
of this remarkable illness by any of the historians, native
or otherwise. The Chaldee Berosus makes no aUusion to
it ; and however brief his record of the life of the great
est of the Chaldaean monarchs, it is somewhat surprising
that one of the most eventful occurrences of that Hfe
should have been passed over in silence. In fact, with the
exception of the Book of Daniel, no Scriptural-writing
refers to it. And considering the hatred felt by the Jews
towards Nebuchadnezzar, it was surely to be expected that
their writers — the pseudo-Isaiah and Ezekiel for instance —
1 Bleek, Einl. p. 598. Davidson, in. 184-6. Baxmann, p. 466.

134 Internal Objections.
would have mentioned it, if only the bare report had reach
ed them. Josephus merely copies the story from Daniel ;
and Origen and Jerome, so far as they troubled themselves
about the matter, found no traces of it in any historian.
The animus of such objections is evident at once. It
exhibits a searching after difficulties, a desire to magnify
omissions which is neither just nor critical. It appears
to be forgotten that sacred and profane history have
not given to posterity that connected and consecutive
form of narration adopted by the modern historian. There
are blanks in that long roll of the past which no human
being can possibly supply ; points are omitted, or but cur
sorily mentioned, which modern investigation longs, and
longs in vain, to illustrate fuUy. But when these occur in
profane records, no one rejects the whole because indivi
dual features demanded by individual minds are not forth
coming. One historian supplies or incidentally furnishes
the clue to the omissions of another. Why is this jus
tice refused to the Scripture accounts? Distinct authors
bring forward distinct statements, and these supply the
lacunae of native historians. Why is distinctness, praised
to the skies in the profane writer, the signal for the con
demnation of the inspired penman ? The attitude of some
critics almost transforms the suspicion into a certainty,
that if Scripture-history had never presented itself as
such — if it had burst upon modern opinion as suddenly
as the discovery of the sacred roll upon Josiah — then
men would at once have assented to its statements how
ever difficult and strange. But because it exhibits itself to
the nineteenth or any century supported by the highest
intellects of every age, and backed by the suffrages of
intuitive wisdom and religious conviction, therefore its
complements and its omissions are alike tokens of spuri-
ousness. Sometimes it teUs too much, sometimes too little,
and hardly ever in a manner satisfactory to the critical
purist. It is very easy to make a great deal of an omission

Historical Inaccuracies. 135
here and an addition there ; but it argues very little satis
faction with the main objections employed when they have
to be propped up by such vague and negative supports. It
certainly betokens little expectation of obtaining the
hoped-for conclusions from larger and more healthy prin
ciples of criticism.
But as regards this chapter of the Book of Daniel,
there are many facts which tend to modify considerably
the conclusions of Bleek and his school. For instance,
it should not create the slightest surprise that no canoni
cal work refers to the malady of the king, when it is
remembered that not one of them, in its historical sec
tions, embraces the period connected with the events of
the chapter. The concluding years of the reign of Nebu
chadnezzar are not noticed in any sacred writing. The
Books Of Kings and Chronicles extend their accounts of
Nebuchadnezzar's life no farther than the last deporta
tion of captives in the nineteenth year of his reign ; and
that reign lasted 43 years (604 — 561 b.c). Jeremiah and
Ezekiel died in exile, the one in Egypt, and the other in
Babylonia probably before the death of Nebuchadnezzar ;
and there is nothing in the nature of the subjects handled
by the prophets, which either requires that they should
have mentioned the king's malady, or makes it strange
that they have not done so. Ezra and Nehemiah in their
turn treat of a much later period, that of the Persian
supremacy. To argue therefore from the silence of canoni
cal Scripture is both unfair and precipitate. Josephus,
again, may have taken his account from the Book of
Daniel. There is nothing to shew that he did not, but there
is also no just reason for branding him as a mere plagiar
ist. The Jewish historian, however anxious to magnify his
own nation, may certainly be acquitted of any intentional
dishonesty here. From the manner in which he appends to
his own narrative the account of the life and death of Nebu
chadnezzar furnished by Berosus, it would seem that he

136 Internal Objections.
•had no other object in view than simply to illustrate a por
tion of the Chaldee period from every available source.
It must not however be denied that the early historians,
with possibly one exception, do not allude to the malady
described by Daniel. The anxiety to find traces of it in
their pages has unintentionally done much harm. Hengsten
berg and Ziindel1 have laid too much stress upon certain
passages in Berosus and Abydenus, and the point has not
been unnoticed by their opponents. Thus the Chaldee
historian2 (Berosus) describes the death of Nebuchadnezzar
as following close upon his commencement of the wall of
Babylon. 'He fell sick,' are his words, 'and died.' This
sickness has been explained to be one of a lingering cha
racter, but the words do not necessarily bear that inter
pretation. The fragment of Abydenus3 is of a very curious
character, and it is evidently the reproduction of an an
cient tradition ; but more has been extracted from it than
is just. It is this. ' It is said by the Chaldaeans that Ne
buchadnezzar ascended to the roof of his palace, and then,
inspired by some god, spoke as follows : " O Babylonians ;
I Nebuchadnezzar foretell to you an impending calamity,
which neither my progenitor Bel nor queen Beltis4 can
persuade the fates to avert. There shall come a Persian
mule, allied with your own gods, to impose servitude upon
you. A Mede, the boast of the Assyrians, shall be his
associate. Oh ! that some Charybdis or the ocean would
swallow him up. Would that he were forced some other
way through the desert where there are no cities nor
1 Hengst. Genuineness, So. p. 83 sq. Ziindel, pp. 15-27. I have merely
quoted these among many.
2 Quoted in Josephus contr. Apion. I. 20 (Vol. 11. p. 351, ed. Dindorf).
Na/3oux°5°J'i(ro/ios f-ev oSv fieri, rb &p£a<rdai tou irpoeipniiivov relxous i/iireo-iiv tis
appaa-riav yuen;X\<i£aro rbv filov, f3ef}aaikeuK<lis h"q Tetro-apdicovTa rpla.
8 Eusebius, Prop. Evang. XX. 41. The original is given entire by Heng
stenberg and Ziindel; and a portion of it by Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures,.
Lect. v. note 16, p. 436 (ist ed.).
4 For notices of this goddess, vid. authorities quoted in note 3, p. 128, and
Hincks, Journal of Sacred .Literature, p. 405, Jan. 1862.

Historical Inaccuracies. 137
track,... and would that I had found a happier end before
learning so terrible a disaster." When he had thus pro
phesied, he immediately disappeared.' From this 'rare
legend,' as Bertholdt termed it, Hengstenberg endeavours
to deduce a transference of the Scripture account to the
pages of the historian. The narrative of Abydenus, he be-
Heves to be, a false conception of the Chaldaean tradition,
or an intentional distortion of it. Madness and prophecy
often stand in the closest connection, according to the opi
nion of antiquity ; and Nebuchadnezzar's madness, he there
fore thinks, is alluded to here. He finds a support for his
view in the indefinite expression " some god," by which he
understands that Nebuchadnezzar referred his malady to
the power, not of a native, but of some foreign god. And
he discovers further, in the notes of time and place, a
remarkable correspondence with the account of the Book
of Daniel (iv. 29). But some of the deductions here ad
vanced are certainly unwarranted. Verses 34 — 6 of this
chapter distinctly assert the recovery of the king. " His
reason returned to him: his counsellors and his lords
sought him; and he was established in his kingdom."
This at once defers the sickness noticed by Berosus to a
later period than that recorded by Daniel. And it also
opposes itself to Hengstenberg's deduction from the con
cluding words of Abydenus : " he immediately disappeared,"
that is, he died. Too much stress must not be laid upon
these passages. All that can be fairly maintained is that
the latter embodies a tradition greatly resembfing the ac
count given by Daniel1. A peculiar kind of malady befell
Nebuchadnezzar. This the Casdim disguised so as to
establish his claims for deification. His speech they attri
buted to Divme inspiration ; and the concluding words of
Abydenus almost imply that they considered the great
1 The likening of Cyrus to a Persian mule is referred with some probability
to the Pythian oracle in Herod. I. 55. V. Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs, p. 207, n. -t.
Herzfeld, I. p. 102, note (1847).

138 Internal Objections.
King translated1. The Casdim neither wished, nor were
permitted, to place the whole truth in its plain unvar
nished form2. Davidson allows that the same fact, what
ever that was, served as the foundation of both narratives ;
but he almost immediately after disallows the only just
solution explanatory of their similarity. He prefers the
gratuitous assumption, that this peculiar sort of malady
was dressed up as a legend by the two people, in accord
ance with their inclinations and tastes. The Jew desired
to honour the Almighty and His prophet, the Babylonian
his god and his king; and the former did this by repre
senting Nebuchadnezzar as glorifying God on his recovery.
But this hypothesis may be safely left to its own merits.
In addition to the silence of Canonical Scripture, the
silence of contemporaneous literature is also adduced
against this chapter. But when such requisite confirma
tion of the Biblical record is considered more closely, it
becomes almost self-evident that the native historians
would be the last to furnish it*. Nebuchadnezzar was a
Casdee, and in the hands of the more sacerdotal class
of this body were placed the annals of the realm4. Were
they likely to tarnish the glory of their great King by
placing upon record an affliction of so strange and de
basing a character? And even supposing that they had
done so, it was quite within the power and the character of
an Asiatic despot, such as Nebuchadnezzar, either to efface
after his recovery all records of his illness, or to transmit
them to posterity obscured and enigmatical. Davidson's
objection that Nebuchadnezzar was too much humbled
and too penitent to do this, rests upon moral not his
torical grounds; but on moral grounds it is untenable,
1 Niebuhr, p. 207, n. 2. 'In der Volkssage lebte er fort, wie Karl der
Grosse, Barbarossa,' u. s. w.
2 Niebuhr, p. 95. N. uses the ' Eitel-keit d. babylonischen Priesters ' to
explain an omission in the lists of the Chaldaean kings.
3 Rawlinson, B. L, p. 165.
4 Niebuhr, I. c.

Historical Inaccuracies. 139
when the character of the man is considered. The Baby
lonian monarch is to be judged, not by the Christian, but
by the heathen estimate of moral convictions. Pagan con
ceptions of the Divine Power, and pagan actions, even
after the most signal illustrations of that Power, were often
in complete contradiction to what might have been antici
pated. The prototype of Nebuchadnezzar was Pharaoh.
The Egyptian King alternately repented and hardened his
heart, proving his penitence to be commensurate in inten
sity and duration with the first sharp feelings of remorse
and fear. He went on saying one thing and doing another,
tiU he closed a vacillating career by death in the Red Sea.
Nebuchadnezzar acted in a very similar manner. Like the
Egyptian, he had his warnings. One was the proof of the
powerlessness of his wrath against the 'three Children.'
He repented of that act much in the same way that Pha
raoh repented of the misery his obstinacy was bringing
upon his people. " It is the finger of God," cried the ' magi
cians ' to their King; "it is the Son of Man," exclaimed the
haughty Babylonian: but the confession once made, they
went their way and soon forgot that Almighty Power so
superior to Apis or Bel. A second warning came to Ne
buchadnezzar from Daniel (iv. 27). It had a momentary
effect like the former ; but within a year it was forgotten,
and then a punishment, like in proportion to the slaying of
the first-born, fell upon the vain-glorious monarch. He re
covered from his iUness, but beyond that the Sacred Narra
tive does not go. What was the nature of that after-life it
is worse than useless to conjecture. Yet analogy points a
sad finger, first to the prayer of Pharaoh, " Go, serve the
Lord as ye have said,... and bless me also" (Exod. xii. 32),
and then to the noble words of praise spoken by Nebuchad
nezzar (w. 34 — 7, E. V.) ; and the thought arises that since
the one was followed by further disobedience and death,
there may be cause to be thankful that a veil has been cast
over the concluding years of that Hfe which was a perpetual

140 Internal Objections.
illustration of the proverb, " Pride goeth before destruction,
and an haughty spirit before a faU." The moral notions of
Nebuchadnezzar were neither those of the Christian, nor
of the Jew. He was a heathen monarch, sunk in ignorance,
and that an ignorance fostered by pride ; and though, with
God, nothing is impossible, though the King was taught
better things by the stern teacher adversity, yet in the
absence of all evidence, it cannot be assumed that he ever
attained that high standard assigned to him by Davidson.
For some time the famous Standard Inscription1 was
supposed to contain clear allusions to this malady of Nebu
chadnezzar's. But the opinion has been rectified by the
later researches of its translator, and of Dr Hincks. All
that now seems deducible from it is, that in comparison
with what he had been doing at Babylon, no other place
was equally favoured. The buildings, the treasures, the
works of irrigation carried on at Babylon, exceeded any
similar works in the provinces. And nowhere did the king
offer such praises and such sacrifices to Merodach as in his
capital. Whether the preference felt for the royal city ex
plains all the difference here recorded or not, must remain
uncertain. Later discoveries will probably throw further
light upon the passage. But there does seem a not indis
tinct allusion to a period of comparative inactivity; and
RawHnson's conjecture, that this was due to the suspen
sion of his faculties recorded by Daniel, though avowedly
conjectural, may ultimately prove correct2.
The insanity3 of Nebuchadnezzar then, though unno
ticed by contemporaneous and later Biblical writers, and
only obscurely alluded to by profane historians, cannot be
rejected as a 'legend.' It has its difficulty, but such as is

; 1 Rawlinson, Herod. I. p. gi6, note 4.
a Id. B. L. p. 166.
3 Trusen (Sitten Gebrauche u. Erankheiten d. alten Hebratr, 1853) defines
the malady to be 'insania zo-anthropia." Welcker calls it Lycanthropy.
(Delitzsch, Herzog, R.-E. ' Daniel.')

Historical Inaccuracies. 141
insurmountable only by those who refuse assent to all
definitions of historical requirements save their own. And,
to pass for a moment beyond the narrow circle of ideas
to which I have confined my remarks, the whole narrative,
when taken in connection with the times and regarded as
reveafing an act of Almighty power full of encouragement
to the Israefite and of warning to the Babylonian, com
mends itself at once to that mind which finds no stumbling-
block in a miracle, and no trace of spuriousness in an
otherwise unrecorded punishment.

§5. Ch.v.
Belshazzar. — Darius the Mede.
Who knows not by heart the history of this chapter ?
Who has not gazed with a kind of vague and ill-defined
fear upon John Martin's dark and terrible picture? or
who has not realised from mere power of imagination that
scene so peculiarly dramatic ? There is Belshazzar at one
moment springing to his feet, at the next crouching to
the earth before the mysterious symbols limned upon the
' plaistered waU of his palace.' Clinging to him are hun
dreds of shrieking women and effeminate courtiers. Before
him and around him He the dibris of a banquet, surpass
ing in magnificence the most profuse achievement of a
Sardanapalus. Seats are overturned; the sacred vessels
of gold are scattered about in reckless confusion ; instru
ments of music are broken and tossed aside ; while ' gods
of gold, silver, wood, brass, and stone,' the only uncon
cerned spectators of that scene of drunken debauchery,
mad despair, and terrified agony, peer in dumb curiosity
upon the surging crowds. Who has not pictured to him
self the entry of the prophet of God — so calm, so great,
and so holy— and thought how king and courtier, astrolo
ger and eunuch, wife and concubine, fastened their looks

142 Internal Objections.
on that unruffled brow? In a moment the tumult was
hushed. A breathless silence ensued, more awful than the
wail preceding it. And then the sound of that one voice
broke upon the ear of the 'thousand' listeners, and told
to aU the fate of the king. The 'fingers of God' had writ
ten his doom. ' That same night was Belshazzar slain.'
But alas! for the picture: alas! for the simple
majesty of the holy record. It must all be set aside.
Modern criticism has decided against it. Matter-of-fact
comes in and asks with freezing irony; How can you
believe that all these events took place in one night?
Think what a feast this was. The banqueting alone must
have taken an enormous time. And then came the drink
ing. While that was going on the order was issued to
bring in the vessels of Jerusalem's temple. Not till after
that appeared the writing upon the wall. Then all the
astrologers and soothsayers had to be summoned. This
took time; and those men wasted still more in guessing
and proposing solutions before they gave in and con
fessed their inability to explain the mystery. Then came
the queen-mother with her proposal. That had to be
considered, and when accepted, Daniel himself had to be
found. Strange, by the way, that so great a man as the
quondam-president of the realm had not been appealed
to before. And then when found, Daniel had to be got
ready; and when ready to be brought into the royal pre
sence. Strange again, that when there, he gave a solution
of the writing highly unfavourable to his royal master, and
was immediately rewarded, actually before the value of his
interpretation was tested. He was decorated with a gold
chain and a purple robe, and forthwith proclaimed as the
third ruler of the kingdom. That proclamation must have
taken a long time to draw up and send round : and then, —
but that is all. The objector stops at last, only however
to crush you with his dictum. ' It is very difficult to be
lieve this ; it is quite incredible that aU this took place in

Historical Inaccuracies. 143
one night1.' But the pause is only for a moment. He
has at hand objections of a far more solid and critical
character. The former objections were purely tentative;
now comes the tug of war. There is force and meaning in
the next questions and their alleged consequences. Who
was Belshazzar? Who was Darius the Mede? Profane
history knows nothing of either. The last king of Ba
bylon was Nabonnedus; and the king who captured the
city was Cyrus the Persian. How do you reconcile this
with the statement in Daniel? The thing is impossible;
and if so, at least admit this conclusion, that the ' sacred
history is liable to the charge of incorrectness, because
various particulars disagree with profane history and the
monumental inscriptions2.'
This is manifestly a very serious charge, and the
alleged historical contradictions upon which it is found
ed are not urged lightly or inconsiderately. Even when
stripped of afterthoughts such as those mentioned at
the beginning of this section, what remains is sufficiently
important to require grave and serious consideration.
If it is to be met and refuted at all, it must be refuted
upon sound and critical grounds. I would divide then
the subject into the two main heads suggested by the
questions. First of all, who was Belshazzar ? In the Book of
Daniel he is the last of the Chaldaean kings of Babylon
(v. 30). But how is this to be reconciled with the accounts
of Berosus, Megasthenes, Abydenus, and others ? The his
tory of that immediate period as given by Berosus is
briefly this3. Nebuchadnezzar after a reign of forty-three
years was succeeded by his son Evfi-Merodach, who reigned
but two years. His character and habits made him odious
to his people, and he was assassinated by his brother-in-
1 Bleek, p. 599. Davidson, p. 186,
a Davidson, p. 191.
3 Contained in Josephus c. Apion. 1. ix. 20 (11. 351, ed. Dind.).

144 L Internal Objections.
law Neriglissar, the Nergal-shar-ezer of the Babylonian
monuments1. This last-named prince reigned four years,
and dying a natural death left his crown to his son Labo-
rosoarchod, a mere boy2. The traits of a vicious disposi
tion and cruel habits early visible led to the formation of
a conspiracy against the life of the young king. He
was murdered by his own friends, possibly under circum
stances of extreme barbarity"; and the conspirators unani
mously offered the vacant throne to one of their own
number, Nabonnedus, a Babylonian by birth but not con
nected by blood with the royal family. He held it for
seventeen years. This prince, caned Labynetus by He
rodotus, was ultimately conquered by Cyrus in battle, and
then besieged in Babylon. At the capture of this city,
Nabonnedus escaped to Borsippa4 where he capitulated.
His submission was accepted, and as it was thought advi
sable that he should leave Babylonia, he was sent to
Carmania, where he died. Looking at these facts, and
comparing them with the brief record of Daniel and other
Jewish writers, nothing can be at first sight more opposed
than they are the one to the other. Yet Daniel as an eye
witness of what he recounts deserves the fullest confidence
of his readers. And the same must be said, in a great
measure, of Berosus and his brother-historians. They
drew their narratives from the archives of Babylon and

1 Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures, v. note 31, p. 441, gives the different forms
this name assumed at the hands of Polyhistor, Abydenus, and Ptolemy.
2 The true reading and spelling of this name are very doubtful, vid. Raw
linson, I. c.
3 Berosus, 1. c. The expression used is irvfiTavlirBr). Comp. Heb. xi. 35.
2 Mace. vi. 19. 3 Mace. iii. 27.
4 This the Birs-Nimrud of modern discovery (Rawlinson, Art. 'Babel,
Tower of,' Smith's Bibl. Diet.) is termed by Niebuhr ' the Chaldean Benares ;
the city in which they preserved the most revered objects of their religion, and
where they cultivated their science.' (Leclt. on Anc. Hist. I. Lect. XII. p. 108,
ed. Schmitz.) Papers full of interesting information upon this venerable monu
ment of antiquity will be found in Vols, ix, x. Journ. Asialique, 1857, and
above all in Vol. xviii. Journal of R.A.S. i860 (Sir H. Rawlinson).

Historical Inaccuracies. 145
oral sources ; and they must not be condemned as ignorant
of the facts they narrate, nor be branded as impostors. Is
it then possible to reconcile the two ? The answer may be
at once returned in the affirmative ; but the mode in which
that reconciliation has been, and is now conducted, differs
most completely. The resolution of this difficulty has
been attempted upon two directly opposite modes of argu
ment. The first proceeds upon the necessity of identi
fying Belshazzar with one or other of the little number of
kings named in the list of Berosus ; the second upon the
principle of non-identification. Of late years the current
of opinion has been setting steadily towards the latter.
The former is encompassed by many difficulties ; and the
expedients suggested to meet them are so evidently theo
retical, that the opinion finds little favour with many
advocates of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. The
opinion is however still maintained by critics of the highest
reputation, and on the principle of seniority may claim to
be considered the first. I may perhaps be excused follow
ing out every possible identification that has been sug
gested. There are now but two which still require con
sideration from the critical reputation of those gentlemen
who adopt them, and these I will briefly state.

a. Belshazzar identified with Evil-Merodach1.
The latest advocates of this identification are Niebuhr,
Wolff, Westcott, and Ziindel. Evil-Merodach was the ' son'
and immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar : and the first

1 Niebuhr, Gesch. Assurs. p. 91 sq. Wolff, Stud. u. Krit. p. 684, 1858.
Ziindel, p. 26 sq. Westcott, (Smith's Bibl Diet.) Art. 'Darius (the Mede).'
The identification of Evil-Merodach with the Illoarudamus of the Astronomical
canon is not disputed. (Rawl. Herod. 1. Essay viii. p. 517, note 6. Niebuhr,
10

146 Internal Objections.
is the title given to Belshazzar in the Books of Daniel
(v. 2, 11, 18, 22), and Baruch (i. 11, 12). Whatever be the
date of this latter book, whether it be placed at the close of
the Persian period, or considerably later1, the tradition as
preserved in it is curious, and must not be condemned as
the wilful repetition of an historical error. It is also
thought that the description of Evil-Merodach, given by
Berosus, corresponds to that of Belshazzar by Daniel. The
character of both princes was stained by vicious and pro
fane propensities ; and their deaths were aHke sudden and
the result of a conspiracy. By itself the difference of names
presents no obstacle to this or any other identification.
Belshazzar was undoubtedly a title of honour2, perhaps
confined to the royal family3 and royal favourites, just as
Bel-teshazzar was added to that of Daniel. It is quite
possible that Evil-Merodach was the official name attached
to the son of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar that which
he bore as heir-apparent. The latter placed him under
the immediate protection of the tutelary deity of Baby
lon. But yet there are objections to the application of
this name to him by Daniel4. EvH-Merodach was the
name by which the Jews already knew the son of Nebu
chadnezzar (2 Kings xxv. 27 ; Jer. Hi. 31), and there is no

Op. cit. p. 42). The names of the kings of thiB period may be tabulated as
follows.

Ptolemy's Canon.

N.B.

Tears of
reign.

Berosus.

Yeare of
reign.

Scripture.

B.C.

Nabokolassar,

I44

43

Nabuchodonosor,

43

Nebuchadnezzar,

604

Illoarudamus,

187

2

Evil-maru dach,

2

Evil-Merodach,

56i

Nerikasolassar,

189

4

Neriglissor,
(Laborosoarchod),

4
9 m.

(Belshazzar),

559

Nabonadius,

!93

17

Nabonned,

17

(Darius the Mede),

555

Cyrus.

210

9

Cyrus.

9

Cyrus.

538

' Ewald, Gesch. d. Yolk. Isr. IV. 230 sq., adopts the former view. West
cott dates it B.C. 169 (Art. 'Baruch,' Smith's Bibl. Diet.).
a Niebuhr, p. 31.
3 Hincks, Journ. of Sacr. Lit. p. 409, Jan. 1862.
4 Quatremere, (Mel. Hist.). Mimoire sur Darius le MSde et Balthasar,
p. 384.

Historical Inaccuracies. 147
just reason why a work written by a Jew should designate
him by a new and unfamiliar title. This of itself would
not be of much force ; but there are other and stronger
objections behind. From verses 10 — 12 of this chapter, it
seems certain that Belshazzar was not acquainted either
with the person or the fame of Daniel ; and yet he is not
ignorant of the terrible mental alienation of his father, or
of the great events of that reign with which the prophet
had been so closely connected. This combination of igno
rance and familiarity would be impossible in the case
of Evil-Merodach, — the immediate successor of Nebuchad
nezzar. Further, it is difficult to understand how Daniel
could have declared to Evil-Merodach that his kingdom
was about to pass away to the Medes and Persians. That
prince was not slain by a foreigner, but by his own bro
ther-in-law, the Chaldaean Neriglissar.
Niebuhr1 acknowledges that these are difficulties, but
he meets them as follows. He considers that the narrative
of Daniel (vv. 30, 31) does not allude to the celebrated
siege and capture of Babylon by the Persians under Cyrus
(b. c. 538), but to one by the Medes under Darius- Astyages
(b. c. 559) . The verses are generally understood to mean the
former; but for the sake of argument it may be conceded
that their Hteral silence does not compel that sense. Ziin
del2, taking the same view, believes further that the copula
1 (E>VTf), v. 31, E. V., vi. 1, Heb.), usuaUy supposed to
connect immediately Belshazzar's death and the succes
sion of Darius, need not be so understood. He considers
it not a note of time, but a note of fulfilment of pro
phecy. Niebuhr adds to his first assumption a second
arising from it. He inserts a Median interregnum of one
year after the murder of Evil-Merodach (Belshazzar) by
Neriglissar. Darius the Mede, called in to help, took the
kingdom as supreme sovereign, and Neriglissar reigned with
1 p. 9^ sq- z p- 31-
10—2

148 Internal Objections.
him as his vassal-prince: at the end of the year Darius
was expeUed by Cyrus (b.c. 558). Allusions to this are
thought to be found in Daniel's mentioning the first
year of Darius only (ix. 2), and in a supposed incom
pleteness in the poHtical arrangements Darius had pro
posed to make (vi. 3). Cyrus himself we are to believe did
not remain in the neighbourhood. Babylon again became
free, and after a lapse of twenty years Cyrus returned
and retook it when under the sceptre of Nabonnedus (b. C.
538). Niebuhr aUows that the interregnum is opposed to
the unanimous account of the other historians. Though
they mention Neriglissar, they make no allusion to his
superior Darius. But the German critic thinks that this
is to be explained by the fact that Neriglissar did not fall
with Darius, and that therefore his name only was pre
served by the Casdim in their Hsts. The accounts of Bero
sus, it is urged, are very brief, and though the historian does
not mention Darius, silence does not preclude his supre
macy as the then-sovereign of Babylon. That Neriglissar
was merely a vassal-prince, is supposed to be supported
by the fact that soon after the removal of Darius his
own power began to decay. But this explanation is
replete with difficulties; at every stage it may be ques
tioned. Like the assumption of Schulze1, that the name
of Evil-Merodach was given to Belshazzar in commemora
tion of his misfortunes, the whole is dependent upon
ingenious but forced interpretations. Granted that Darius
the Mede did not take the kingdom of the Chaldseans
immediately after the murder of Evil-Merodach by Nerig-
Hssar; — granted that it was quite possible for Neriglissar

1 ' Cyrus der Grosse.' Stud. u. Krit. p. 680, 1853. ' Evil-Merodach diesen
namen ('Thoren des Unglucks') erst ex eventu empfangen habe, und sich
darauB der doppelte name trefnich erklare : Daniel, am Hofe lebend, war an
den eigentlichen namen gewbhnt, Belsazar; andere, fernerstehende Suhrift-
steller aber sind der Redeweise des Volkes gefolgt und nannten ihn Evil-
Merodach.'

Historical Inaccuracies. 149
to seek to cement his power by a defensive alliance with a
Median king, and that thus the name of Darius (a mere
personal name for the Median sovereigns) became con
nected with the events of that date ; yet there is a com
mon-sense appearance about the objections already men
tioned which cannot be set aside by clever theories. Nie-
buhr's view certainly solves the difficulty sometimes felt
about the age of Darius (v. 31) ; but the date, B. c. 559,
which it affixes to the death of Belshazzar, rests so
entirely upon theory that it can only be adopted in the
event of facts refusing to entertain any other.

b. Belshazzar identified with Nabonnedus1.
This is the more general opinion of the two. It is that
adopted by Ewald, Winer, Herzfeld, Browne, Martin, and
others2. At first sight it appears a natural opinion, and
that which may be most conveniently reconciled with the
account of Daniel. It is founded chiefly upon the state
ments of Herodotus and Xenophon8. These historians de
scribe the capture of Babylon as taking place in the midst
of a voluptuous revelry such as Daniel depicts, and Isaiah
and Jeremiah had foretold. But their narratives, though
agreeing with Scripture in some points, differ from it in
1 There are two distinct forms of this name ; that of the classical writers,
and that of the inscriptions. The former write it Nabonidus, Nabonadius,
Nabonnedus, Labynetus (Herod.), Nabannidochus (Abydenus), Naboandelus
(Joseph. Antiq. X. § n, 2). The latter write it Nabu-nit, Nabu nahit (Rawl.),
Nabi' hu-na' hid (Hincks), the Persic and Scythic forms, and Nabu-imduk
(Rawl.), Nabou-imtouk (Hincks) the Accadian or Babylonian form. The
meaning of the name appears to be 'Nebo blesses' or 'makes prosperous'
(Rawl.), or ' Nebo is glorious.' (Vid. Rawl. Works quoted 11. cc. Hincks,
' Arioch and Belshazzar,' pp. 399-404. Journ. Sacr. Lit. Jan. 1862.)
" Ewald, Gesch. d. Yolk. Isr. IV. p. 85, n. Winer, R. W. B. s. v. 'Belsaz-
zar.' Herzfeld, Gescli. 1. 154 (1847). Browne, Ordo Swclorum, 171. Martin,
Les Civil. Prim. p. 363.
3 Herod. I. 191. Xenophon, Cyrop. vn. 5, 15, &c.

150 Internal Objections.
many and important particulars. And it is perfectly im
possible to reconcile them with the statements of Berosus,
Megasthenes, and Abydenus. The objections to this iden
tification are, in fact, too numerous to be lightly set aside.
Independently of the prima facie objection, already made
to the identification of Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach,
that had Nabonnedus been the son of Nebuchadnezzar,
he would not have received from Jewish writers two Baby
lonian names, — there are others which coUectively seem in
superable. The Babylonian historians unanimously exclude
Nabonnedus from any birth-relationship with the royal
family of Nebuchadnezzar. He was simply a native of
Babylon, possibly of noble family1, who had raised himself
to the position he occupied in the household of Nerigfissar.
Again, the characters of Belshazzar and Nabonnedus are
very dissimnar. It seems hardly probable that the man,
selected for the vacant throne by the conspirators against
Laborosoarchod, should have closed a soldier's reign of
seventeen years in the midst of orgies and debauchery
such as Daniel describes. Nabonnedus was a prince who
had at heart the welfare of his country and his city ; wit
ness the massive works and stupendous wall forming the
frontage of Babylon towards the river2. The melancholy
close to a career recorded by Daniel is far more in accord
ance with the character of a reckless dissipated boy, than
with the habits of a warrior grown grey in the battles of
his country. Further, the Chaldaean historians assert the
1 In the inscriptions Nabonnedus only claims for his father the title of Rab-
Mag. This title is given in Jer. xxxix. 3, to a second Nergal-sharezer, to
distinguish him from the prince of the same name. The Biblical form Bab-
Mag is written on the cylinders Rabu-emga, and probably means 'chief -priest.'
Gesenius' opinion (Thesaurus, 11. 766, s.v. 3D) that the title indicated the
'princeps magorum,' would seem to require part-correction. The Babylonian
word representing the Persian Magi in the Behistun inscription bears no resem
blance to the -emga of this title. (Rawl. Herod. 1. p. £18, and notes. Bampt.
Lect. v. 11. 33.)
2 Berosus, (in Josephus I. c). Duncker, Gesch. d. Alterthums, Vol. 11.
p. 503, Berl. 1855.

Historical Inaccuracies. 151
death of Nabonnedus to have been very different from that
of the Belshazzar of Daniel. When Nabonnedus found
resistance in the battle-field useless, he retreated to Baby
lon, and far from perishing at its capture, escaped to Bor-
sippa. After an honourable capitulation, he was sent from
thence to Carmania, where he died. Evidently this bears
no resemblance to the statement of Daniel, that ' that same
night was Belshazzar slain.' The identification seems to
be in fact impossible: it leaves the difficulties connected
with the whole question altogether unsolved.
The truth appears to be that no identification can be
made, and that none is required. Belshazzar is the name
given by Daniel to the last king of Babylon ; Nabonnedus,
that by the historians best entitled to attention. The
difference of name forms, of itself, no barrier to their being
both borne by one and the same king; but there is so
essentiaUy different an account attached by Scripture to
the name of Belshazzar, and by native historians to that
of Nabonnedus, that the identification of the two can only
be admitted on the failure of every other method of ex
planation. Such explanation has been offered, and there
seems no reason for questioning the broad historical out-
fines, facts, and illustrations upon which it rests. Two
modes, ingenious, satisfactory, and supported by names of
the highest distinction, have now been before critics for
some years. The one emanates from M. Quatremere, the
other from Sir H. Rawlinson. The former was published
and defended many years ago1, before cuneatic discovery
had attained its present growth; and though acquainted
with the results of such discovery as far as his own Hfe ex
tended, I do not find that the French scholar withdrew his
published views upon Belshazzar. In many respects he
foUowed out a parallel Hne of thought with Sir H. Rawlin
son, and his point of divergence will be readily recognised
1 In the Annates de Philosophic ChrUienne. 1838. It appeared, in sub
stance, in Migne's Diet, de la Bible, Vol. 11. p. 30, note. (1845).

152 Internal Objections.
as occurring where it might naturally be expected. I
should be disposed to think that had he become acquainted
with the secrets of the Babylonian cylinders subsequently
brought to light by the Engfish savant, he would have en
dorsed the interpretation now generally affixed to them.
At least he would have allowed to them that weight which
his talented mind always accorded to the sofid researches
of others, even when differing from them. In memory of
one who is now no more, I may perhaps be permitted to
assign to his view the place of honour. I can but regret
the impossibility of reproducing in an Engfish dress the
bright and happy diction of one of the first Oriental
scholars of France.
Holy Scripture, says M. Quatremere1, distinctly declares
that Nebuchadnezzar was to be succeeded by his son and
his son's son (Jerem. xxvii. 7). Profane history no less
distinctly asserts that Nabonnedus, the last king of Baby
lon according to its testimony, was not a member of the
royal family. Now Nabonnedus, though ambitious, was
evidently a very skilful acute man : keenly alive to his own
interests, yet perfectly sensible of his perilous position.
He did not fail to see that revolutions, by a few rapid
and merciless strokes, could deprive of life and power
many a prince who fancied his throne secure. He knew
how equivocal was his own title to the throne. He was
an usurper, and exposed at any moment to an usurper's
fate. There seemed to him one, and that a no unusual
means of consolidating his power; and he adopted that
means. He associated with himself a scion of the family
of Nebuchadnezzar. This was Belshazzar, the son of Evil-
Merodach. By this step Nabonnedus secured for the
throne the respect naturally felt by the Babylonians to
ward the blood-royal. Whether he assumed from the
first the title of King, or wished to have it thought that
1 M&m. cit. p. 388 sq.

Historical Inaccuracies. 153
he was contented with the second place, cannot be deter
mined. Supreme kings and vassal-kings, so contrary to
the modern conception of monarchy, was a frequent com
bination among Eastern potentates1. It was quite possi
ble that such was the case here. The act of Nabonnedus
kept at a distance every rival, and left in his hands all
the real power. While the young prince was encouraged
in every licentious and debasing pursuit, the Soldier-
King secured the popular vote by his attention to home
and foreign affairs. He and his brother conspirators
against the life of the son of Neriglissar, found their crime
overlooked by their apparent submission to the grandson
of Nebuchadnezzar ; and till the approach of Cyrus and the
subsequent capture of their city, there seemed to be no
check to their prosperity. On this hypothesis, the pro
phecy of Jeremiah is fulfilled : — and the title of ' Son of
Nebuchadnezzar,' given to Belshazzar by the queen-mother,
contains nothing strange. The child was not born at the
death of his great ancestor ; and the perilous times encom
passing his early years, making it almost treason to speak
of his branch of the family of Nebuchadnezzar, fully ex
plain his non-acquaintance with Daniel. The character
possible to this young prince is exactly that which Daniel
has depicted in Belshazzar, and Nabonnedus would be
content to encourage. Royalty was debased by the pup
pet-King into the handmaid of voluptuous pleasure, and
made the means of facilitating vice. Gladly did Belshaz
zar leave to his martial coUeague every form of public
administration. Hence it was Nabonnedus, not Belshazzar,
who determined to try the fortunes of war with Cyrus,
and went to meet him in open field. It was he who for
1 Nieb. Gesch. Assurs. p. 93. The phantom-sovereign retained the name of
prince, while the usurper, under the name of atabek or regent, retained absolute
power. Thus the first Mameluke Sultan of Egypt, though permitted to assume
the supreme authority, was compelled to associate with himself a young child of
the family of Saladin. (Quatrem. p. 390.)

154 Internal Objections.
eighteen months defended his city against the armies of
the Medes and Persians ; baffling the progress of the
siege by his courage and talent. And it was he who
escaped from that city when a masterly stratagem on the
part of Cyrus convinced the vaUant defender that further
resistance was useless. Belshazzar in the meanwhile had
returned to his usual abandoned habits. The terror at
first imparted to him by the sight of his enemies soon
vanished. Day after day passed over, and the city was
stfll safe. The walls of Babylon were impregnable, and
the stores of his capital inexhaustible. He soon learned
to forget his enemy, and only awoke to his danger when
the ' fingers of God ' proclaimed his doom. In that hour
of careless security and reckless debauchery he met his
death by the swords of those Medes he despised1.
This hypothesis also explains the assertion of Herodotus,
that Labynetus (Nabonnedus) was the son of a prince of the
same name and Nitocris. The historian gleaned his account
of the destruction of the city at some distance from the
scene of the actual events ; and the name of Labynetus be
ing furnished to him as that of the most famous and most
glorious actor in those events, he applied to the warrior
that title of king which properly speaking was confined
to his effeminate colleague. And this simultaneous reign
of Nabonnedus and Belshazzar is further supported by
the undesigned attestation of a few incidental words. Bel
shazzar, when he saw the mysterious words upon the waU,
declared that the man who should read and interpret them
should be clothed with scarlet, be decorated with a chain
of gold, and be made the third ruler in the kingdom.
Evidently the pusillanimous monarch thought no distinc-
1 It is a fact recorded by Arist. Pol. ni. i, 12, that three days after Ba
bylon was taken some of the inhabitants were still unaware of it. This illus
trates both the vast size of Babylon and also the degree of security into which
the inhabitants had fallen. Babylon included, as Arist. tersely expressed it, not
a city but a nation. Comp. Duncker, Op. cit. p. 506.

Historical Inaccuracies. 155
tion could be too great for the man who should relieve
him of his anxiety. He promised him the insignia of a
Grand Vizier, and the highest position possible to a sub
ject. But why was this the third place, and not the
second ? What was there to prevent Daniel receiving the
dignity conferred upon Joseph ? Simply this ; that with
Nabonnedus and Belshazzar as joint-kings, or as supreme
king and vassal-king, the third place was the most exalted
position Daniel could take. To have named him second
would have betrayed a sad want of accuracy. It is in
fact due to Daniel alone that the name of Belshazzar
has been known to the world for so many centuries ; the
prophet, as an eye-witness of the events of that day, knows
more of Belshazzar, less of Nabonnedus, and he recounts
those scenes, by preference, in which the former bore the
prominent part. In this there is an exceedingly strong
proof of the authenticity of the work which bears the pro
phet's name.
By this hypothesis, then, the narratives of Daniel and
the Chaldaean historians are proved not contradictory.
They are complementary the one to the other. The holy
writer mentions that prince whose death was so evident
an instance of Divine punishment ; the others, that prince
whose name alone they counted illustrious and worthy
of a place in the annals of their country. And this silence
on their part wfil possibly explain the confused version
of the history found in the pages of Herodotus. The
annafists communicated to him a portion only of the life
of the last native Chaldsean king of Babylon : they omit
ted aH mention of his ignominious death. Moreover, the
account of Xenophon is now seen to agree with that of
Daniel. While no one claims for the Cyropsedia the
dignity of history, yet it may be fairly conceded that
historical facts form the basis of the narrative. Xeno-
phon's romance, when stripped of its embeUishments, may
be assumed to contain a solid kernel of truth. And in

156 Internal Objections.
the case of the capture of Babylon, the history of an
event of world-wide interest would certainly be trans
mitted to and by him in a form containing the real facts,
however much those facts were distorted and magnified
by extraneous additions. Xenophon, when travelling in
those distant countries, learnt from the lips of the de
scendants of the besiegers, the facts he has introduced
into his pages. When sifted of their chaff, the grain left
behind is pure and true. The historian and the eye
witness are then agreed.
This view of the French Professor was put forth many
years before the discovery of Rawlinson, and it will be seen
to correspond in many points with the facts established
by later cuneiform research. But of itself it is especially
interesting as exhibiting the result attained by a mind
anxious only for the discovery of truth, and bringing pro
found famifiarity with oriental usages and peculiarities to
assist the clear intuition of a devout spirit.
In 1854, Sir H. Rawfinson discovered at Mugheir
(Ur of the Chaldees) cylinders containing memorials of
Nabonnedus1. From these it appears that the eldest son
of Nabonnedus was caUed Bil-shar-uzur, the identity of
which name with Belshazzar is self-evident. He was the
heir-apparent, and admitted to a share in the government,
much in the same manner as Nabopolassar and Nebu
chadnezzar were connected2. This discovery proves what
M. Quatremere had suspected, that no identification of
1 These cylinders were taken from the corner of the Temple of the Moon.
They are printed in fac-simile in Sir H. Rawlinson's Cuneiform Inscriptions of
Western Asia, Vol. I. plate 68, col. I. This particular cylinder is in the
British Museum. Vid. Jowrn. Sacr. Lit. p. 483 sq. 1855.
2 Hincks reads it Binhlu-sar-yuzhur, (Journ. Sacr. Lit. pp. 405-7, Jan.
1862). Bil or Binhlu = Bel (Jupiter); -sar = a king; -uzur, the same termina
tion as in Nergal-shar-ezer (Jer. xxxix. 3), Nebuchadn-ezzar. It can only be
inferred from the cylinders that Belshazzar was heir-apparent to the crown.
Then comes in the later and additional information of Daniel, that the young
prince was actually king, i.e. joint-king with his father. (Hincks, pp. 409, 41 7.)

Historical Inaccuracies. 157
Belshazzar with any of the kings in the historical lists is
at aU necessary. And it decides the relationship, left an
open question by the French savant. As father and son
Nabonnedus and Belshazzar are both real distinct beings,
co-eval with the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. And again,
it tacitly supports the reconciliation of sacred and profane
accounts, proposed by the French scholar, that the one so
dissipated and abandoned perished in the midnight debauch,
while the other escaped to Borsippa. These cuneatic in
scriptions have in fact established three things1. 1. That
Nabonnedus was king of Babylon at the time of the capture
of the city. 2. That his eldest son was named Belshazzar.
3. That some impostors in the time of Darius Hystaspes,
when heading the Babylonian revolts, styled themselves
one after the other Nebuchadnezzar son of Nabonnedus.
And this last fact is very important, for it leads by fair
inference to two deductions : first, that Belshazzar the
eldest son of Nabonnedus died in so open and notorious
a manner, that no impostor could pretend to be he :
secondly, that Nabonnedus, not being himself a member
of the royal family, had married one of Nebuchadnezzar's
daughters, and had caUed his younger son Nebuchadnez
zar2. An usurper, for the reasons given by Quatremere,
would probably seek to strengthen his position by mar
riage into the royal family, whether the wife he took
were the widow of Neriglissar or some other daughter of
Nebuchadnezzar. Such marriages formed part of the state
policy of the time8. And if the narrative of Herodotus
can be trusted here, the name of the mother of Bel
shazzar was Nitocris. But if she was the widow of Nerig
lissar, Belshazzar was only about sixteen years of age
when Babylon was taken. This perhaps renders such
1 Hincks, p. 409.
5 Rawl. Herod. 1. p. 525, n. 8.
3 Rawl. B. L. v. 11. 41. Thus Amasia married a daughter of Psammetik III.
(Wilkinson in Rawl. Herod. 11. 387); Atossa was married to Pseudo-Smerdis
and Darius the son of Hystaspes successively (Herod, in. 68, 88).

158 Internal Objections.
identification improbable. That early age was too tender
to permit the supposition that Belshazzar was then actually
king, as described by Daniel. Undoubtedly Oriental usage
does not make such a fact impossible. There is perhaps
nothing unusual in an Asiatic prince being surrounded by
' princes, wives and concubines ' at that early age. But it
does not seem probable : and the supposition is unneces
sary. It is more natural to believe that Nitocris was not
the widow of Neriglissar1. Had she been so, the political
reasons of Nabonnedus for marrying her would not have
overbalanced the natural repugnance which must have
existed between them. The stern laws of a conqueror
might compel such an alfiance ; but, far from supporting
the position of the usurper, I cannot but think that her
presence would have been a continual bar to his progress
with the people. The citizens of Babylon would see in
her, not the wife of the usurper, but the widow of
Neriglissar and the mother of that son to whom Neri
glissar had left his crown and whom Nabonnedus had mur
dered. Many points lead rather to the belief that Nitocris
was a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, married to Nabon
nedus before the death of Neriglissar. At the death of
that prince, his son was left to the guardianship of his
more immediate attendants, and by his friends (virb t&v
(piXwv, Berosus) that son was murdered. What more
probable than that these included some of his relatives,
and amongst them Nabonnedus ? The conspirator, ambi
tious and crafty, had already secured by his marriage the
possible succession to the throne. And with an assump
tion of retributive motives, he expelled the usurping
family of Neriglissar by murdering Laborosoarchod, and
brought in another branch of the royal family by that
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar (Nitocris) whom he had mar
ried. Belshazzar, the issue of this marriage, was therefore
1 Id. p. 488, (2nd ed.) addit. note.

Historical Inaccuracies. 151)
born some time before the accession of his father to the
throne. And when that event took place, Nabonnedus
raised his son to the successive dignities of crown-prince
and joint-king, as proved by the inscriptions and the
indirect testimony of Daniel. His own position, he knew,
would be materially strengthened by joining to himself that
son whose blood was more royal than his own. The ' third
year of Belshazzar' (viii. 1) is thus not limited to the
sixteenth year of his age ; and it does not require that
he should have assumed the royal title at the early age
of thirteen or fourteen. That his name has not yet been
found with that of Nabonnedus upon the tablets as
actually king, is no proof that he was not so ; the single
inscription aUuded to is the only one hitherto discovered
containing the name of Belshazzar, and it may be very
fairly anticipated that future researches will supply fur
ther testimony to the fact.
As will be perceived, the cuneiform cylinder corroborates
the reason so happily suggested by Quatremere for the title
given to Daniel by Belshazzar. Higher than 'third' ruler the
prophet could not be. And the title of ' son of Nebuchad
nezzar' given to Belshazzar by the queen, is also satis
factorily explained. Son he was not in the strictest sense
of the term, but grandson1 he was, and in this way again
the prophecy of Jeremiah was accomplished. By these
means the difficulties connected with the name of Bel-
1 The word ' son ' is used in Scripture in a very wide sense. Laban is
called the 'son of Nahor' (Gen. xxix. 5). In reality he was his grandson
(xxviii. 2 — 5; comp. xxii. 20 — 23). Jehu is the 'son of Nimshi' (1 Kings xix.
16), and 'the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi' (2 Kings ix. 2, 14). In
statements of a genealogical character the following forms might be multiplied
indefinitely. ' Shebuel (a contemporary of David) the son of Gershom, the son
of Moses' (1 Chron. xxvi. 24). 'Jesus Christ the son of David the son of
Abraham' (Matt. i. 1). (Rawl. B. L. n. 40, p. 443.) The 'Merodach-Baladan'
of Scripture (Isai. xxxix. 1), described as ' son of Baladan,' is entitled in the
Inscriptions, ' son of Yagina,' Baladan being the name of an ancestor. And in
the East, the term 'son of continues to denote connection generally either by
descent or succession. (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 1. p. 613.)

160 Internal Objections.
shazzar are altogether removed. The narrative of Daniel
is shewn to be independent and more purely personal
than that of the historians ; and yet it by no means con
tradicts them. The one wrote as an eye-witness, the
others as they were informed. It was natural that the
prophet should preserve facts more directly relating to
that one of the two chief actors with whom he was brought
into contact; it was to be expected that the Chaldee
archives would record the name, not of the voluptuous,
but of the more princely sovereign.
Thus it is that after 2300 years the name of the one,
Belshazzar, known only through the pages of Daniel, is dis
covered upon contemporary monuments, and the name of
the other, Nabonnedus, is equally recovered. Does it seem
extravagant to ask that the justice, so willingly granted to
Berosus, should be accorded to Daniel? The correctness of
the Chaldee historian is illustrated by these discoveries,
and his authority proportionately increased. It surely is
time that the same measure of fairness should be meted
out to Daniel. Had his work not been a book of Holy
Scripture, that justice would have been paid to him long

ago1.

I pass on now to the second point. Who was Darius
the Mede? The scriptural description is brief but very
distinct. He was the son of Ahasuerus, and of the seed
of the Medes. He succeeded Belshazzar at the age of
1 That this is the sore point with some, and those, men who once thought
and knew better things, may be seen from Davidson's method of treating this
whole question, in. 190-1. He classes under seven different heads his objec
tions to the cuneiform deductions of Rawlinson and Hincks. And the parent
to every one of these objections, light and grave, critical and uncritical, is dis
covered in his prefatory remonstrance that B. and H. ' always proceed on the
assumption of Daniel's unquestionable correctness.' Undoubtedly they do, and
always will. The belief of ages and the principles of healthy criticism both
maintain it. Nothing in the latest work of their moat modern opponent dis
proves that correctness.

Historical Inaccuracies. 161
sixty-two years (v. 31; ix. 1; xi. 1). If, as is most natural,
that succession was immediate, a Babylonian was replaced
by a Median dynasty. And this fact is attested by
Josephus (Antiq. x. § 11. 4) and Xenophon (Cyrop. I.
§ 5. 2). According to these historians Cyrus conquered
Babylon for his father-in-law Cyaxares II., the son of
Astyages, and did not come to the throne of Babylon as
an independent prince till after his death. Josephus
mentions that Darius was known to the Greeks by another
name ; and this, it has been concluded, was ' Cyaxares,'
the name given to him by Xenophon. This identification
is apparently supported by the indication in Daniel (v. 31,
vi. 28), that first of all a Median and then a Persian dynasty
succeeded the Babylonian. And it agrees with the age
attributed to Darius by the prophet. From Xenophon
it appears that he was an old man at the time of the
capture of the city, too old to have an heir. When he
gave his daughter in marriage to Cyrus, and with her
Media as a dowry, he observed that he had no son
bom in marriage. But, on the other hand, it is remark
able that Herodotus (i. 130), Ctesias, and Isaiah (xl.)
know nothing of a second Cyaxares between Astyages
and Cyrus1. In the tradition followed by Herodotus,
who adds parenthetically that he was acquainted with
two other versions of the story, the Persian tribes are
represented as subject to the Medes, till Cyrus, a bold
Achsemenian adventurer, threw off the yoke, and deposed
the Median king Astyages, his grandfather on his mother's
side. Astyages died childless, and with him ended
the Median dynasty. Cyrus is, therefore, according "to
Herodotus, the sole and unassisted conqueror of Babylon,
1 The succession of kings as given by Herodotus and the canon is, for the
times in question, Cyaxares reigned 40 years,
Astyages  35 
Cyrus  29  (Nieb. p. 66). 11

162 Internal Objections.
and the first king of the Medo-Persian dynasty. An
appeal in support of this view is generally made to the
opening verse of the Apocryphal writing 'Bel and the
Dragon.' "After the death of King Astyages, the king
dom came to Cyrus the Persian."
These contradictions, real or apparent, have tested the
ingenuity and scholarship of critics as fully as the sister
question concerning Belshazzar. The literature of the
whole subject is so immense that, as before, I may per
haps be permitted to pass over with a mere allusion those
views which are now either entirely surrendered or but
feebly supported. In addition to the identification with
Cyaxares II., Darius the Mede has been supposed the
same as Neriglissar, Darius son of Hystaspes, Nabonnedus1,
Astyages, or some Median prince otherwise almost un
known to history. Of all these identifications, the first
and the last two alone retain any hold upon modern
opinion. a. Darius the Mede identified with Cyaxares II.
This opinion is accepted by some of the first critics of
the past and present day. After being combated and
refuted with more or less success, it has been fully adopted
by Vitringa, Dom Clement, Bertholdt, Gesenius, Winer,
Keil, Hengstenberg, Rosenmiiller, Havernick, and Browne2,
under one form: and by Delitzsch, Schulze, Baihinger,
Auberlen, and Ziindel3 under another. It rests mainly
upon the narratives of Josephus, Xenophon, the Armenian
1 Rawlinson, B. L. p. 171, and notes. Quatremere disposes effectively of
these three identifications, pp. 368-73, 399 sq. In England the latest advocate
of the identification of Darius with Darius Hyst. is Mr Bosanquet. Readers
of the Journal of Sacred Literature will find the arguments drawn out in a
series of papers from Jan. 1856, and onwards.
2 Ordo Swclorum, p. 175.
3 Schulze, Cyrus der Grosse, (Stud. u. Krit. 1853), p. 685 sq. Ziindel,
p. 37. Baihinger, Herzog, R. E. s.v. 'Darius (the Mede).' Delitzsch, id. a. v.
'Daniel.'

Historical Inaccuracies. 163
Eusebius, and a few lines from the Persce of -ZEschylus.
The difference of names is certainly no valid objection to
this opinion: both 'Darius' and 'Cyaxares' are appella
tives and titles of sovereignty. Darius corresponds to
the Greek epfew;?, 'co-ercer:' it was a name probably
assumed by monarchs at the time of their accession to the
throne1- Again, Cyaxares and Ahasuerus are identical.
Scaliger2 first noticed this. From the more simple form
Xerxes arose the forms of Ar-xerxes, Kyar-xerxes, Cyaxa
res. In Hebrew characters the name was written ^"nifc^nN,
Akhasverosh (Ahasuerus), or without the prosthetic K,
Khashverosh, Khshversh. The cuneiform discoveries of
ChampolHon and Grotefend have confirmed this identifica
tion. The forms Khshvershe or Khshersh are found upon
the Inscriptions, and the resemblance to the Greek Hepf is
at once self-evident. The appended letters and diacritical
points lead in the one case to Cyaxares, in the other to
Ahasuerus3. The Armenian chronicle of Eusebius supports the main
fact of Josephus and Xenophon, that a Mede occupied
the throne of Babylon before Cyrus, and appends to their
account the name Darius, in itself an important addition.
Eusebius is quoting a passage from Abydenus, relative to
the capture of Nabonnedus, and his translation to Carma-
nia by Cyrus. And to this statement the Armenian chronicle
adds a clause that Darius the king drove him out of the
same region4. What Darius, it is asked, can this be, but
Darius the Mede, that prince whom the Medes and Per
sians raised to the throne of Babylon with the consent of
Cyrus their commander? And the fact thus vaguely
noticed is said to be accordant with the oracular declara
tion placed in the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar by Abydenus.
1 Baihinger, I. c. adduces the instance of Darius Ochus
2 De Emend. Temporum, vi. 587. Vitringa, Observ. Vol. 1. p. 103.
3 Von Lengerke, p. 232. Nieb. Gesch. Ass. p. 44. Browne, p. 175.
4 The passage is given inBrowne, I. c, and in Ziindel, p. 29. 11—2

164 Internal Objections.
The ally of Cyrus, said the king, shall be a Mede, the
boast of the Assyrians. The tradition recorded by yEschy-
lus within sixty years of this time is alleged to indicate
the same fact. And his lines are in one sense valuable,
because illustrating the current opinion of the well-in
formed Athenians of his age :
MJ7S05 <ydp r\v 6 irpa>TO<; rp/epbwv <7TpaTOv'
a.Xko'i S' eKeivov iral<; toS" epyov r/Were,
Apeves <ydp avTOv dvfiov ouaKOGTpctyovv'
TptVos B' air avrov KOpos, k.t.X.
Perscv, 771—773, ed. Blomf.
In arguing upon these data, the advocates of this iden
tification do not deny that, Cyrus was the principal actor
in that capture of Babylon which first introduces a notice
of Darius into Scripture. And the silence of Herodotus
concerning him is variously explained. If it was the prac
tice of the Greek historian, as Gesenius thought, to men
tion men of mark only, — the shortness of the reign of
Darius, and his old age when it commenced, explain the
omission. Or, if the Chaldee annalists, consulted by He
rodotus, only transmitted to him information concerning
their heroes, the weak pliable character of Darius would
almost of necessity exclude him from the tablets com
memorative of the world-renowned Cyrus.
But there appear to be insuperable objections at least
to that form of this identification which makes Cyaxares
son of Astyages. The table of kings required to suit such
identification must enumerate in chronological succession
Cyaxares I., Astyages, Cyaxares II., and Cyrus. And this
succession depends too entirely upon the narrative of
Xenophon to be trustworthy1. In this particular point the
1 Quatremere, p. 364, Nieb. p. 61. " Wenn man die Kyropadie als Ges-
chichtsquelle benutzen will, so muss man auch aus Tdlemaque Heroengeschichte,
aus Rasselas und Usong Abyssinische und Persisehe Geschichte schreiben, oder
nach Thiers die Geschichte Bonaparte's. Die deutsche Geschichtsforschung
ware der ungluckseligste Sisyphus, wenn ich hier die Beweise fur die historische

Historical Inaccuracies. 165
light and pleasant historian seems to be more romantic
than usual. After every concession made, his history ought
to contain real and sofid facts visible through the romantic
halo with which they are enveloped ; and if the existence of
this Cyaxares II. son of Astyages could be established, the
rhetorical ornamentation and the pleasant reading of the
narrative might at once be placed to the credit of the writer.
But unfortunately Xenophon appears to have taken the
trouble to prove himself wrong1. In two passages of the
Return of the 10,000, he mentions that two cities, situated
on the eastern bank of the Tigris, were completely ruined
when the Persians dispossessed the Medes of the empire of
Asia. This happened but once, when Astyages succumbed
to the victorious arms of Cyrus. Consequently, the Cyro-
pedia, when representing the Empire of the East passing
calmly and peaceably from Astyages to his son Cyaxares,
and from Cyaxares to Cyrus, can only be reproducing a
fictitious and romantic embellishment. Stronger still is
the next objection to this identification. Daniel distinctly
caHs Darius the son of Ahasuerus; consequently he was
not the son of Astyages. The names are too dissimilar2
to be confounded by a contemporary and an eye-witness of
the events narrated.
M. Quatremere founds a further objection to this iden
tification upon grounds deduced from the moral aspect
of those early times. It is a well-known truth as re
gards the past, that while the memory of the cruel and
wicked seems imperishable, the benevolent schemes and
noble actions of the good have stamped their marks upon
a few generations only. The name of the heathen mo
narch who devoted his life to the welfare of his subjects
has too often perished from the page of ancient history.
Werthlosigkeit der Kyropadie erst zusammenstetten miisste. Es ist genug
Cicero's worte (ad Q. fr. I. i, 8) auzufuhren: 'Cyrus ille a Xenophonte non ad
historise fidem scriptus est, sed ad efBgiem justi imperii.'" • Quatr. I c.
3 Id. p. 365. Browne allows that the identity of Astyages and Ahas. is
doubtful, (p. 175).

166 Internal Objections.
This is not the case with that of the despot. The tyrant
who terrified his age by acts of pitiless cruelty and brutal
ferocity is usually known to posterity; and the fame
sought while firing is accorded to him when dead, still
associated with deeds of blood and written in ghastly
characters. This was the case with Astyages. Centuries
have rolled by ; revolutions have overthrown dynasty after
dynasty : hosts of marauders have depopulated and left
their tracks of blood upon the plains of Asia, but through
out every change one name has preserved its hateful repu
tation ; and that name is Astyages. Under its Armenian
form Adjiahak1, or its Arabic form Dah-hak, it is the pro
totype of despotism and savage cruelty. The poets and
historians of the East have reserved for the 'Biting
Snake2' the same niche in the Temple of Blood that the
West has assigned to the Emperor Nero. And in the
oriental portraiture of this prince are to be traced the
traits of that vicious character attributed by Herodo
tus to Astyages. The pages of the Eastern writers,
however coloured by their loves and hates, however
marked by nights of poetic power, however obscured by
an evidently imperfect acquaintance with the history of
the Medes, illustrate the fife of a tyrant such as the
Greek historian has painted. The stern facts stand out
from the midst of their poetry as beacons of history.
Thus the historian of the East points to the mythologi-
1 In the Zend-Avesta this name is read Aji-dahak, the Zohak of the Shah-
Nameh, Ferdusi's great epic poem (Burnouf, Journ. Asiat. p. 496 seq. (1844).
4th Ser. Max Muller, in Bunsen's Outlines of Univ. Hist. I. pp. 123 — 4).
' This is Rawlinson's translation of the name. He considers it a title borne
by all the old Scytbic kings of the country, and adopted from them by the
Median monarchs. The Armenian Moses of Chorene expressly identifies
Astyages with that prince of the mythological traditions of Persia who received
the name of Dah-hak and the Burname of Biourasp (Quatr. p. 367). Compare
Ferdusi's description of Zohak : ' Ce monstre a t6te de serpent. II ne pouvait
enseigner que l'amour du mal, que la devastation, le meurtre et I'incendie ... II
n'avait aucune vertu de roi, aucune loi, aucune foi.' (S. N. ed. and transl. by
Mohl, I. pp. 69—71. Par. 1836).

Historical Inaccuracies. 167
cal Feridoun1; at one moment crushed and submissive
under the iron heel of Dah-hak, at another welcomed in
triumph as the deliverer of his country from a hated yoke.
A cry of joy goes up from the whole land when the tyrant
is banished to the caves of Demavend. And who is this
Feridoun but Cyrus, victorious over Astyages, as Herodotus
has described 'him ? What is this narrative of expulsion,
but the oriantal dress of the subsequent act of Cyrus in
sparing Astyages and removing him to the government of
Hyrcania, as stated by Ctesias2? — If then the poetry and
the testimony of the historians of the East tend to confirm
the narratives of Herodotus and Ctesias, how can that of
Xenophon be admitted ? What becomes of the gentleness
he attributes to Astyages ? What is to be said of his
mythical son ? What of many little romantic addenda of
a similar character ? The conclusion seems evident, that
his statements are more interesting than instructive, his
characters less real than ideal.
With reference also to the passage of iEschylus, it
must be confessed that the words are hardly applicable
to the supposed character of Cyaxares II. The language
of the Greek poet is little applicable to a man of weakly
mind and declining health. Of itself, it is far too indefi
nite to permit any certain application to any particular
1 This — d'Anque'til's rendering of the Phredoun of Neriosengh's Sanscr.
Vers, of the Zend-Av. — is the Aryo- Persian ThraStana, identified by Burnouf
(Op. cit. p. 497) with the Trita of the Yedas. Scheuchzer (' Ethnogr. Hist. d.
Ass. u. Babels,' p. 488, Vol. XVI. Zeiischr. der D. M. G.) finds a form of the
name in the Tartan of Scripture (e.g. Isai. xx. 1). The different traditions
concerning Feridoun and Zohak are collected by Gorres, Das Heldenbuch d.
Iran. I. p. 16 seq. Berl. 1820. Duncker, Gesch. d. Alterth. II. p. 446 seq.; and
with special reference to the Zendic and Vedic accounts, by Roth, Zeitschr. d^
D. M. G. II. p. 216 seq. Ferdusi's version of the history is given in Mohl, 1.
pp. 77 seq., 115 seq. ; and, in a shorter form, in Atkinson's edition of the S. N.
Lond. 1832. (Orient. Transl. Fund.)
s Eor different views upon this, the Pischadian, and the traditional dynas
ties generally of the ancient kings of Persia, see Malcolm, Hist, of Persia,
chaps. I — iv. Lond. 1S15. Creuzer, Religions del' Antiquity, 1. p. 310 seq., and
Guignaut's notes and reff. p. 681 seq.

168 Internal Objections.
hero. So also with the passage in the Armenian chronicle.
The translation given above of the appended words is
perhaps the most favourable that can be advanced in
support of the present opinion ; but the passage from its
brevity is confessedly obscure ; and it cannot be said to
be made less so by the subsequent admission that ' Aby
denus is a confused writer1.' In the opinion of Quatre
mere, the reference there to Darius is not to Darius the
Mede, but to Darius Hystaspes2.
There is another form of this opinion which makes
Cyaxares II. not the son but the brother of Astyages,
a posthumous child of Cyaxares I. ; or, once more, not
the son but the nephew of Astyages3. This possibly indi
cates a solution of the point ; but I would defer alluding
to it tfll the second identification has been examined.
b. Darius the Mede identified with Astyages.
This is the opinion of Niebuhr and Westcott*, and it
may be said to stand or fall with their opinion upon
Belshazzar. As in the former view, Darius is the personal
name of the king ; so that the formula ' Darius the Mede
the son of Ahasuerus,' is read, Astyages the Mede the son
of Cyaxares I. To this there is no objection as regards
the use of the names. The Greeks seem to have lost the
name of Darius altogether. It is found upon the Persian
Monuments in the form Darayawush, and upon the Tataric
as Tariyavaus5; and traces of an earlier Darius than
1 Browne, 176. » Op. cit. p. 382.
9 Vid. note 3, p. 162.
4 Nieb. Gesch. Ass. p. 91 sq. Westcott, Smith's Bibl Diet. Art. 'Darius
(the Mede).'
5 Nieb. p. 45. Vid. Suidas, s.v. Aapeixobs, (ed. Gaisf. Vol. I. p. 867), oik
airb Aapetov tou Uipfru irarpbs, dXV &$' iripov twos iraXaioripou paaikim ibvo-
udo-Bvo-av. The scholiast referred to, is that on Arist. Eccles. 589. This was
also the opinion of Harpocration, Vol. 1. p. 45, Leipz. Wesseling, Observatt.
Vol. n. ch. xxii. p. 177, is opposed to this opinion, but his arguments are not
convincing to himself.

Historical Inaccuracies. 169
Darius Hystaspes, are with justice discovered in a pas
sage of the Scholiast on Aristophanes. If it is not found
in Herodotus, its absence is no disproof of the real ex
istence of princes so called. Certainly also at the time of
Evil-Merodach (Belshazzar) Astyages king of Media was
stiU king. But his reign over Babylon could only have
lasted one year, for chronological facts demand his ex
pulsion by Cyrus a year after tlie death of Evil-Merodach1.
This limited reign is thought to be supported by the mention
in Daniel of the first year only of Darius (ix. 1). Cyrus
when he conquered Astyages deprived him of regal power,
either permitting him to retain the title from his relation
ship to him2, or removing him to Hyrcania (Ctesias). It has
been usually supposed, adds Niebuhr, that Cyrus succeeded
Darius at Babylon immediately, but this is not stated by
Daniel in so many words. And of course to aUow this,
would be fatal to his theory.
There are many objections to this view, defended
though it is by the most marked abifity. For instance :
the stress laid upon the first year of Darius is too
great. By far the more natural impression would be, that
that reign certainly lasted more than one year, but was
not prolonged beyond a second'. Again; the silence
of the historians must be felt to be unexplained. It
was quite possible for the Chaldee annalists to omit all
mention of the weak and short-lived Darius in compa
rison with the vassal-king Neriglissar, but there are other
omissions which oppose themselves strongly to Niebuhr's
theory. The capture of Babylon was no common ex
ploit ; and the character of Astyages was notorious and
warfike. Can it be supposed that this act of one of
the greatest monarchs of Media over the greatest city of
1 These are supplied by Niebuhr himself, p. 92.
8 MandamS the daughter of Astyages married Cambyses, and Cyrus was.
the issue of the marriage. (Herod. I. 107-10.)
3 Quatrem. p. 369.

170 Internal Objections.
the world would altogether escape the inquisitiveness
of Xenophon, or the more sober research of Herodotus ?
Annalists might seek to disguise it, but that capture
involved the presence of a large foreign army in the
neighbouring provinces ; it entailed misery, death, and
destruction upon thousands ; and it can hardly be believed
that the remembrance of the event would have been
eradicated by a capture some twenty years later. The
hypothesis further requires that the first year of Neriglis
sar, given in the Canon and Josephus, should be taken as
the first year of his vassal-kingship, not as that of his sole
reign ; and this seems altogether contrary to precedent in
those lists. Berosus again, though brief, is so careful in
the specification 'of the great events of those times, that
it seems impossible that he should have omitted the
very event which brought Neriglissar into power. He
records that murder which paved the way to the throne,
but omits aU mention not only of the prince who helped
him, but of any extraneous help whatever. He does
not hesitate to record the capture of Babylon by Cyrus
B. c. 538 ; why should he have hesitated to speak of the
previous capture in 559 ? Remembering also the character
of Cyrus, does it seem probable that for some twenty years
he would have absented himself from the richest city
which ever feU into his hands? would he have quietly
looked on while others were fighting over the spoil he
had gained ? Between 559 — 38 there occurred the deaths
of Nerigfissar, the murder of the child Laborosoarchod,
and the usurpation of Nabonnedus : none of which, on the
hypothesis in question, caUed for the interference of Cyrus,
or hurried his return to the rebeUious city. This view
of an early capture, so necessary to Niebuhr's opinion,
must in fact be felt to be fatal to it. It is unrecorded where
omission is inexpficable and contrary to parallel usage;
it was undertaken by a prince whose character is as
dissimilar as possible to that of the Darius of Scripture ;

Historical Inaccuracies. 171
it involves an undue stress upon minor incidents of the
Biblical narrative ; and, what is perhaps of some considera
tion, it finds no support in any of the cuneatic writings
of the period. The opinion of the German critic is inge
nious, but theoretical beyond the licence of theory ; like
his opinion upon Belshazzar, it excites opposition from the
numerous hypotheses it requires.
If then it be said that these explanations fail, the
question naturally arises what explanation can be offered ?
The inscriptions have not yet produced the missing link, as
they have for Belshazzar; how is the problem to be solved?
I believe, ultimately, by the means found successful in the
former case. Cuneiform discovery was anticipated there
in a remarkable manner, by an argument founded upon
the principle of non-identification ; and that principle
again suggests the most satisfactory solution attainable.
Every resemblance as yet noticed requires the adoption of
arbitrary and numerous assumptions. These re-act injuri
ously upon the whole question, and too frequently com
promise historical credibility. The features of the Darius
the Mede of Scripture are barely to be recognised in the
alternately pacific and bellicose characters presented.
There is manliness therefore as well as wisdom in the
opinion of Quatremere and Rawlinson, that Darius the
Mede is an historic character of whose existence no other
record has as yet been found except that contained in
Scripture. It may be thought that of itself this testi
mony is quite enough. And so it is to those who look
upon the Book of Daniel as of higher value than the works
of Berosus, Herodotus, and Xenophon. But there are
many who do not love a blank in Scripture any more than
a contradiction between sacred and profane history. And
they wiH quote that blank as a sign of undoubted spurious-
ness, though of the unfairness of this, there cannot be two
opinions. Probably therefore no solution that can be offered
is likely to be acceptable to some minds, so long as it

172 Internal Objections.
rests mainly upon theory. Yet a theory founded upon the
principle already proved correct ; — a theory insisting upon
no bfind acceptation of its statements, but thoroughly
consistent with probability ; — a theory constructed and
elaborated with an ability derived from long and familiar
acquaintance with oriental habits, — has been offered. Of
itself it induces conviction, and cuneiform discovery will
sooner or later establish it. This theory I would state,
with the assistance of its ablest exponent, M. Quatremere1.
A few years ago M. des Vignoles2 advanced the opinion
that Darius the Mede was a Median prince to whom Cyrus
had given Babylon in reward for his services. But to re
duce Darius to the rank of a satrap was felt to be incon
sistent with the dignity accorded to him by Daniel. There
can be no doubt that Darius was a king in the usual
sense of the term. A satrap would not have possessed the
power of dividing the Empire into 120 provinces (vi. 1);
and the request made to Darius by the Chaldseans (vi. 8),
while fully consonant to custom if Darius were king, is
impossible if he were only an officer of state. Cyrus, so
jealous of any infringement of his authority, would soon
have resented any such act. And the weak and timorous
character of the Darius of Scripture does not lend itself to
the supposition that he would imperil his fife for the sake
of singularity. The primary fact upon which the historical question
turns — the conquest of Astyages by Cyrus — is undis
puted. But the sfightest acquaintance with the political
aspect of the age requires a certain restriction upon the
plenary nature of this conquest. Cyrus was rather a
liberator than a conqueror. He took up arms at the in
vitation of an irritated aristocracy ; and assumed the cha
racter of the champion of Hberty against a tyrannical
despot. This policy divided the Median nation. In addi-
1 Quatrem. p. 372 sq. ! (Euvres, n. p. 510 sq.

Historical Inaccuracies. 173
tion to the mercenaries, who ranged themselves under
his colours, volunteers flocked to him in the hope of re
gaining their freedom. This left to Astyages those only
who were bound to him by personal and interested mo
tives; and thus it was that in two battles the whole
of Media surrendered to Cyrus. He was regarded as a
deliverer, not as an invader ; and the soldiers that would
not fight for him refused to fight against him. But
with the defeat of Astyages commenced the real diffi
culties of his new position. Cyrus had proved himself
a warrior, he had now to achieve a triumph as a diplo
matist. He had to convince the Medes that their honour
as a nation was intact; that though their king was a
prisoner, they were free; that far from being humbled
they would be strengthened by the Persian alliance he
now proposed to them. 'L'Union c'est la force' was the
proclamation of a modern Emperor. The same princi
ple inspired Cyrus when he told the Medes that they
would be more renowned, more invincible than ever, as
Medo-Persians. His actions verified his speech. Cyrus
placed in the hands of the Medes, at least in appearance,
the supreme conduct of national affairs. His Persians
adopted their costume. Diplomatic acts, decrees and or
dinances, were couched in the pecufiar formula, ' the laws
of the Medes and Persians,' the place of honour being
assigned to the former. And by the time of Esther the
names had become inseparable. The formula was regarded
as significant of the dominant power of the East. Greek
and Latin writers adopted the terminology ; and later still
the expression, 'Iranian,' analogous to Medo-Persian, esta-
blished itself in the East in the reign of the Sassanides, and
was adopted by the historians of Armenia1- This priority
of rank was in fact to be expected, when the immense
extent of the Median empire is considered in comparison
1 Quatrem. p. 375. He refers for proof of this to a Memoire read before
1' Academic des Belles-lettres.

174 Internal Objections.
with the little province of Persia, the hereditary kingdom
of Cyrus. In any coalition formed between the two na
tions, the Mede would of necessity occupy the first place,
though the Persian was actually the dominant and direct
ing power. And this the prophets illustrate when allud
ing to that 'spirit of the kings of the Medes' (Jer. li. 11,
Isai. xiii. 17), which should be stirred against Babylon.
The united army, though headed by the Persian hero, was
designated by its larger and more comprehensive title.
With the conquest of Babylon arose a fresh difficulty.
The position of Cyrus became delicate in the extreme. One
false step might imperil his future prospects. Ambition,
victory, and conscious superiority, prompted the demand
for his recognition as king of the captive city; but a second
and more prudent thought insisted upon caution in trying
too far the jealousy of the Mede, flushed and intoxicated
with success. The Persian aspired to the throne of Asia,
but the time was not yet ripe for the accomplishment of
his wish. To press it at that moment would probably have
turned against him the nation by whose aid he had won
his fresh laurels. Median prejudice, national vanity, and
his own insecure position, combined in forcing upon him a
temporizing and cautious policy. And this he adopted.
With an assumption of disinterestedness he turned to the
Medes, and left it to them to select a prince fitted to be
saluted as sovereign of this their mightiest conquest. For
himself he would reserve the rank and title of lieutenant
of the new sovereign. It can easily be conceived that
Cyrus decided the selection of a king ; or, by a slight
manipulation of those reins of government he in reality
grasped, directed the popular vote as he himself wished.
At any rate the suffrages of the electors were given
in favour of a prince of illustrious, probably of royal1,

1 "Rien n'empScherait de croire que Darius fut, en effet, non pas le fils du
roi Astyage, car il est appele' par Daniel fils d'Assue'rus, mais neveu d'Asty-

Historical Inaccuracies. 175
origin, but advanced in years and childless. He was a
Mede by nation ; in character, mild and pacific ; a prince,
in short, who was contented with the title of king, and
willing to resign the virtual authority to the Persian
chieftain who had raised him to the throne. This king
of Babylon was 'Darius the Mede, son of Ahasuerus;' a
prince whose name Daniel has preserved, and whose cha
racter — good, humane, though easily corrupted by super
stitious flattery and still darker insinuations, — was pre
cisely of that malleable description required by the king
maker Cyrus. Darius established himself in Babylon ; and
the warlike Persian again went forth in his career of
victory, keeping himself before the world by a succession
of conquests indicative of his own generalship, and flat
tering to the national vanity. After two years Darius
died childless, and Cyrus became the legitimate inheritor
of the empire of the East. The time seemed now come
for his undisturbed assumption of regal power. The
Medes might stfll look with disfavour upon his Persian
origin1; but the objection must have lost very much of
its force; and moreover to entertain it was impossible.
Cyrus was the idol of his troops, and an object of admira
tion to the East. Everything contributed to point him
out as the proper king; and the Medes accepted what
they could not prevent. Nationality learnt to console it
self with the sop cast down to its vanity. At the death
of Darius, therefore, Cyrus the Persian became king of
Babylon, and counted the years of his reign from the
time of his accession.

age." Quatrem. p. 371. He does not himself adopt this suggestion ; but that,
or the opinion of Delitzsch, &c. quoted on p. 167, may be accepted as the most
unobjectionable identification hitherto advanced. Vid. next note.
1 It was contrary to Median custom that an heir to the throne through
the female line should succeed while a descendant through the male branch
could be found (Spiegel, Erdn. p. 56, Berl. 1863). If Darius the Mede was con
nected with the royal family of Astyages by the male branch, he would neces
sarily be preferred before Cyrus.

176 Internal Objections.
In what has been here advanced there is nothing
to contradict the further assumption that Cyrus bore
the title of king of Persia during the reign of Darius1.
Allusion has been already made to the existence of vassal-
kings ; and it is a fact familiar to every reader of ancient
oriental history that some such arrangement was always
in force. Each province of the great central government
had its petty king. He was endued with absolute power
over his own subjects, yet bound to recognise the suze
rainty of the supreme lord, to contribute to his coffers, and
fight, if required, under his standard. The feudal tenures
of the Middle Ages recur naturally to the memory as a
Western adaptation of the Eastern practice ; and in Persia
such kings as the kings of Atropatene, Bactria and Elymais,
acknowledged without dispute the supremacy of their liege
lord the Suzerain of Asia. That such was actually the case
in the days of Darius and Cyrus is perhaps supported by a
few casual words in Daniel. " Darius took the kingdom,"
says the prophet (v. 31. Wn J?jb ?Sp) ; and the word in
the original 'p, supports the opinion that he received it
from another2- The use of the word in vii. 18 is the best
illustration of it here. There the Saints of the Most High
take the kingdom either through the power of God, or
directly from his hands (12 jl7ip',1) ; it was by no act of their
own. So Darius received his throne from Cyrus, the real
holder of the gift. Again in ix. 1, Darius is described as
"made king (*pft!"I) over the realm of the Chaldseans;"
and the somewhat parallel usage of the causative conjuga
tion in 1 Kings i. 43, would seem to refer the act of king-
making to the agency of another in both cases. Naturally
the great objection to this view of Darius the Mede is
the silence of all the historians, Greek or Latin. But this
1 Quatrem. p. 378.
s Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel, p. 218 (2te Aufl.); Rawl. B. L. n. 46,
p. 445. Bleek's objections to this are not convincing (Jahrb. f. Deutsche
Thcologie, Vol. v. p. 65, n. 1, i860).

Historical Inaccuracies. 177
objection is very much removed by a recollection of East
ern practices1.
It appears certain that Darius was king only in name.
All the real power belonged to Cyrus. The inhabitants of
the East looked up to the Persian as their actual Sove
reign, without much thought of the feeble prince resident
at Babylon. The Persians themselves, jealous of the Medes
and proud of their chief, took care to represent him as the
real monarch; and it required no great exertion to make
his fame ecfipse that of his rival. As regards the histo
rians, it must be remembered that Herodotus in all proba-
bifity never went as far as Babylon, but gathered from the
Persians the facts he relates2. He would not hear from
them the name of Darius. At Tyre, or in some city of Asia,
he learnt from the Chaldseans topographical notices of Ba
bylon and other matters which he embodied in his history.
When he speaks of the information he had obtained from
Persian writers well acquainted with the history of their
nation, he was not obfiged to go to Persia itself for it. At
the time he wrote, Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and Egypt, were
under the successors of Cyrus ; and in the greater towns of
those countries he would meet with Persians sufficiently
acquainted with Greek to give him the information he
sought. And neither Chaldaean nor Persian would hesitate
to exaggerate or suppress facts as they affected their dis
tinctive nationalities. Xenophon most probably did come
into contact with facts of a more authentic character. In
the course of his journey along the Tigris he must have
met with many Medes capable of giving to him historical
1 It is worthy also of notice that the whole Achsemenian period, replete with
its heroes and glorious events, passed so completely out of the thoughts of the
Persian people, that not one name remained to them. The very name of the
great Darius (Hystaspes) came back to the Persians through the Greek
traditions concerning Alexander (Spiegel, Erdn, p. 88). Can it be a matter of
wonder that the short reign of Darius the Mede should have perished in this
general oblivion?
2 This was also the opinion of Des Vignoles. Quatrem. p. 379. 12

178 Internal Objections.
information. But, for some unexplained reason, his acqui
sitions proved worse than useless. Whether his informants
were not trustworthy, or but imperfectly acquainted with
the real facts ;— whether the historian misunderstood them,
or suffered his credulity to overbalance his judgment; or
whether he selected facts which he could embeUish without
regard to accuracy: — certainly he has substituted for Da
rius the Mede a Cyaxares unknown to history; and he has
woven around that king nothing more substantial than the
web of a light and interesting romance.
But is it quite so certain that Darius the Mede is un
known to the ancient writers? The Scholiast to Aristo
phanes clearly contains a notice of no small value1. The
Darics, the current coin of the Persian empire, did not de
rive their name from Darius Hystaspes, but from a prince
of the same name of more ancient date. Who was this but
Darius the Mede? So thought Quatremere2; so think Nie
buhr and Westcott. And it would seem a very probable
supposition that Cyrus had his coinage for his particular
states. The master of the Empire, the lord of aU Asia, was
not Hkely to content himself with that of the states he had
subdued. May it not be presumed that, after his conquest
of Babylon, he employed one of the most speedy means of
familiarising the inhabitants of the East with the new dy
nasty, by an issue of money figured, in deference to Darius,
with the effigy of that prince, and bearing his name and
superscription? In course of time the original identifica
tion of the Daric was forgotten. The name of Darius the
Mede was little known in his own neighbourhood, and still
less in foreign parts, and the Daric was attributed to the
more famous Darius Hystaspes, a prince whose exploits
shed a lustre of glory upon the Persian arms. And if Da
rius the Mede governed the Medes and Persians together,
as Daniel describes him, this circumstance explains his
division of his whole territory into 120 satrapies. It was,
1 Vid. p. t68, n. 5. » p. 381.

Historical Inaccuracies. 179
in fact, a similar division to this which was revived and
expanded by the more sagacious Hystaspes, after falling
into abeyance during the reigns of Cambyses and Smerdis
Magus1. Looking back now upon the whole of the questions con
nected with this chapter, an impartial examination of them
cannot but induce the conviction that the objections
brought against it are in one case met, in the other con
fronted by a theory of the most satisfactory character.
Cuneiform Inscriptions have solved the difficulty about Bel
shazzar. Their confirmation is all that is still required to
transform into fact the view of M. Quatremere upon Darius
the Mede, or one founded upon his principles of interpre
tation. Let it be but remembered that the prophet Daniel
was not writing a chronicle of his times ; — that he passes
from the reign of one king to another without mentioning
intermediate events; — and that of those reigns he selects
only facts here and there ; — and there will no longer be an
outcry against this or that omission. A juster spirit [mQ.
refuse to brand with fraud a writer who makes no claim
to the consecutiveness and precision of a professed his
torian. Had this chapter proceeded from a Maccabsean
forger, he would not have left its concluding verses in their
present terse and condensed form. Posterity would have
received the record with every obscure allusion removed,
every blank filled up, even if the aim of the romancer had
been of an essentially parabofic character.

§ 6. Ch. vi. !
The objections made to this Chapter are numerous, but
not very important. The decree issued by Darius con
demning to the den of lions ' any one asking a petition of
1 Quatrem. p. 413. Rawl. suggests a slightly different explanation of this
division into satrapies. B. L. p. 172.
12—2

180 Internal Objections.
God or man, save of the King, for thirty days,' is denounced
as ' incredible and inhuman.' And how, it is asked, could
the princes and satraps of the Babylonian kingdom have
been absent from their provincial duties for so long a time?
The story of the fions' den is further criticised as some
thing very extraordinary. It was of the shape of a cistern,
says Bleek, narrowing towards the surface, and closed at
the top by a stone : how could man or lion live there with
out fight and air1?
Now it may be assumed that the facts narrated in this
chapter followed closely upon the accession of Darius to
the throne. His reign was very short, at the longest com
putation under two years; and of that reign Daniel has
recorded the opening events only. The history of those
events is briefly this. The ceremonies attendant upon
the coronation, the feasting and entertainment conse
quent upon the accession of a new monarch, were nearly
ended ; — the princes and nobles were preparing to with
draw with their families to their respective satrapies; —
when it was determined to pay one final act of respect to
the Sovereign. His person, more sacred to the Persian
than that of the Czar to the Russian serf, was to be made
the object of the highest human worship. The "presidents,
the governors, the princes, the counsellors, and the captains
consulted together to estabfish a royal statute," and this
was its tenor : that no petition should be offered save to
the King for a space of thirty days. The unsuspecting
Darius, weak and anxious to please, accepted the flattery
and signed the decree. From that moment it was irrevo
cable, according to the laws of the Medes and Persians.
But now appeared the reason for this fulsome adulation.
Under a show of refigious attachment to the royal person,
there had been elaborated a scheme of the deepest malig
nity against the highest officer of the realm. Among the
1 Bleek, p. 600. Davidson, pp. 175, 192. Baxmann, p. 470.

Historical Inaccuracies. 181
pofitical arrangements carried out by the King, there was
one which had caused deep irritation. Three1 presidents
were set over the whole province as the Supreme Court of
Appeal; and of these three Daniel was the highest. The
prophet owed his new position to his late conduct. His
interpretation of the mystic writing had been communi
cated to the Median prince, and mention was doubtless
made of the intended reward. Darius confirmed the ap
pointment, subject to the alterations consequent upon a
change of dynasty. If the conjecture may be hazarded, he
did this at the suggestion of Cyrus. Daniel had been
Hving in retirement since the death of Nebuchadnezzar;
there was nothing to bind him to the remainder of that
court-party which had surrounded Belshazzar and Nabon
nedus ; and the Persian thought of this, when seeking
for a man to whom he could entrust his own interests. He
knew but little of the Jews at that time, and of Daniel's
personal character sthT less. But the prophet seemed the
one man whose influence was capable of being best directed
to further his ultimate intentions. Daniel, at the right
hand of Darius, would secure for the new monarchy the
good-will of the largest and most formidable section of the
captive population of Babylon. He would be above the
arts of conspirators anxious to restore the family of Nebu
chadnezzar. And a feeling of gratitude to his patron would
make him a friend to, and supporter of, his views when
1 The division of the whole Iranian community Into three classes is very
ancient. In the G&th&s (1200 B.C.), the oldest books of the Zend-Avesta, they
are known by peculiar names, the ' lord,' the ' yeoman,' and the ' bondman '
(Haug, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, omd Religion of the Parsees,
p. 145). Spiegel (Avesta, Germ. Transl. II. p. 129, comp. p. 125, n. 7) translates
this passage differently to Haug. But he also gives instances (11. p. v. Ya(na,
XIV. 5. Vendidad, XIV. 26) of that early division into three classes certainly
found in the Yisparad (800 — 700 B.O.), ' priests, warriors, and cultivators' (Haug,
p. 1 74. Spiegel, II. p. 1 1). In the Fravardin Yasht (circ. 450 — 350 B.C.) Zoroaster
centres in himself all the attributes of the classes. He is ' the first priest, the
first warrior, the first cultivator of the soil' (Haug, p. 191). On these dates v.
Haug, pp. 218 — 24. They are more decided than those of Spiegel, 1. p. 13 seq.

182 Internal Objections.
Median jealousy should exert itself to undermine them.
Had Cyrus known the character of the IsraeHte prophet,
he would never have supposed in him anything but the
most faithful adherence to his duties, let his master be
Babylonian, Median, or Persian. But Cyrus naturally
viewed these things from their political side; and for
that reason he suggested to Darius the appointment of
Daniel. This promotion placed the prophet at the head
of every class sacerdotal and civil. And it at once centred
upon him the national jealousy to a foreigner. The Cas
dim saw their hated President restored to power; the
Magi1 regarded their unknown chief with suspicion; and
the courtiers of Darius, if at first well-disposed, were
speedily turned against him by the representations of the
astrologers. The classes united, and gladly seized their
first opportunity. "They could find none occasion nor
fault in him as a man;" they were compeUed to confess
it: but they would use against him "the law of his God."
The history of the conspiracy, its first issue, and its final
results, are familiar to every reader of Scripture, and I
need not repeat them.
I pass on to points of a more general character.
With this chapter are closely connected allusions to
certain Persian customs. And these allusions, it is weU
known, have been very differently accepted. While some
have unhesitatingly affirmed them to be proofs of a late
date of composition, others have quoted them no less con
fidently as authentic marks referring the book to an age
far anterior to the Maccabaean period. Perhaps I shall not
be considered omitting any very essential point if I pass
1 The name Magi was given in later times to the priests of India, Persia,
and Babylonia, indiscriminately. In Herodotus (i. 101) the Magi are a tribe of
the Medes. In the cuneiform inscriptions the form is Magush. And Haug
(p. 1 60) considers 'Magava' (Yac. LI. 15) to be the original form of the name.
If so, it was applied to the earliest followers of Zoroaster. But the interpre
tation of the word is a disputed one. Vid. Spiegel, Av. a. p. 168, u. 1.
Magava he identifies with the Greek Bayilias (1. p. 294, 11. p. vi.).

Historical Inaccuracies. 183
over the unpleasant recriminations often connected with
this question, and limit my remarks to the statement of
the reasons which impel me to assent most heartily to the
latter conclusion. I beUeve that it may be asserted, upon
purely historical grounds, that the Persian customs, and,
in particular, the deification of the King recorded here by
Daniel, are presented at a stage of developement exactly
correspondent to the age in which the Biblical narrative
has placed them.
It is generally allowed that by the time of Darius Hys
taspes (521 — 485 B.C.) the apotheosis of the reigning mon
arch was a recognised act. His deification was the high
est stage in that scale of exaggerated veneration illustrated
to the modern European by the sculptures of Persepolis1.
The representations upon the royal tomb are familiar in
stances of the custom mentioned. But more to the present
purpose are those given by Niebuhr and Sir R. Ker Porter
from coronation scenes. In the illustration furnished by
the former, the King appears as the representative of the
great Zendic deity Ormazd. He bears in his hand the
mystic ring expressive of his command over the circle of
time, and upon his head rests the ball, the symbol of the
supreme God. In the plate figured by Sir R. Ker Porter1',
the King, seated on his horse, receives the circlet from a
second mounted figure. On the shoulders of the horses
are inscriptions expressive of the dignity of the riders.
The recipient of the circle is entitled 'the Servant of Or
mazd, the god Ardashir, King of the Kings of Iran, of the
race of the gods, son of the god Babec, King:' and the
giver of the circle is caned ' the god Jupiter3.' Similar
1 Rawlinson, Herod. Vol. iv. p. 4, pp. 255-6. Hengstenb. Genuineness, &c.
p. 106 seq., gives the valuable opinions of Heeren and Rhode. On Persepolis,
v. Lassen, s. n. in Ersch u. Gruber's Encyclopddie. Spiegel, Erdn, p. 91.
* Travels in Georgia, &c. Plate 28. Vid. Hengst. Appendix, pp. 316-7.
' This is the rendering of De Sacy (Hengst. I. c). Jupiter is here put for
Ormazd. The inscriptions are in Pehlvi and Greek, from the latter of which
the translation is made.

184 Internal Objections.
customs, in less and in equally developed stages, have
been coUected from Scripture and heathen historians by
Brissonius, in his brief but 'golden book1.' The most cur
sory examination of his pages will show the extent to
which king-worship was carried. After the coronation the
monarch seldom appeared in pubHc: and at all times it,
was most difficult to obtain access to him. Even where fa
miliarity and affection might have pleaded a relaxation of
the rule, the barriers to free intercourse were equally nu
merous. It was death to enter the royal presence unbid
den2. The court itself was framed after a celestial model.
If the King gave audience, he sat upon a golden throne
surrounded by his greatest princes, as Ormazd sat in hea
ven supported by the Amshashpands3. Those who entered
the audience chamber prostrated themselves with the
hands behind the back, adoring in the person of the Sove
reign the incarnation of divine power. As the Pharaohs
were the ' children of the Sun,' favourites and vice-regents
of the god Phra; so the Iranian kings were the personi-
ficators of Light, the highest advocates of the cultus of
Ormazd. And as the words of the god were deemed irre
vocable, so the fiat of the King grew to be endowed with a
like power. He but placed his signet on the harshest de
cree, and it became irreversible. It is a well-accredited
story4 that when Alexander saw the immense power this
apotheosis gave to the Persian Sovereign, he demanded of
his Eastern subjects a similar adoration. He felt that
could he but appropriate to himself the mystic advantages
1 De regis Persarum principatu (Aid. ed. Par. 1599). Comp. esp. p. 10
seq. The epithet was given to the book by Scaliger (Epist. IX.). For many
interesting remarks upon the Persian kings, vid. Duncker, Gesch. d. Alterthums.
11. p. 605 seq.; Creuzer, Symbolik, ill. p. 836 (ed. 1840-3); von Hammer,
Wiener. Jahrb. d. Literatur, viii. p. 381 seq. Spiegel, Erdn, 'Persis,'
p. 74 seq.
3 Esther iv. 11. Herod, ni. 118-9.
8 On this name vid. Burnouf, Comm. sur le Yacna, pp. 147-74. Benfey,
Griech. Wurzellex. n. 168. Haug, p. 260.
* The story is told by Curtius and Justin (Brissonius, pp. 19-21).

Historical Inaccuracies. 185
attached to the nimbus surrounding their person, his hold
upon the people would be indissoluble.
But there is every reason to befieve that the ceremonial
and rituaHstic exaggeration connected with the person of
the Sovereign was of gradual growth, if not the eventual
result of a religious reform. Tradition and cuneiform in
scriptions seem happily agreed in describing Darius Hys
taspes not so much as an originator as the restorer of a
worship outraged and overlaid by antagonistic forms1.
Long before the famous Persian wrote the history of his
exploits upon the rock of Behistun, Ormazd was reverenced
in the person of the reigning Prince. Arrian2 speaks in
deed of Cyrus as the first to originate the worship of the
king, but the researches of Spiegel and Haug permit the
conclusion that it was a matter of religious faith among the
Persians proper for many years before. To give but one
instance. The Visparad3, or coHection of prayers (b.c 800
— 700), invokes amongst others, 'Anahita, the Mountain,
the Angels, Behram, Mithra, Ramanqactar, the Ruler of the
Country, and the Zarathastr6tema (or High-Priest).' The
passage proves that at that early date the kings were be-
Ueved to stand in direct communication with Ormazd him
self, and receive from him answers to their questions. And
it is not difficult to trace the growth of this veneration for
the king. When the monuments of the historic period are
studied, it is noticed that the faith of king and people has
assumed a peculiar form of Duafism ; pecufiar in this re
spect, that Duafism has become elaborated and extended
far beyond its original and simpler Hmits. The waUs of
1 For the tradition comp. the mythical history of the Lohrasp and Gustasp
of the Shah-Nameh (Creuzer, Religions de I'AntiquiU, ed. J. D. Guigniaut,
Vol. I. 2nde Partie, p. 687, and note). For the inscriptions, and a detailed
proof of this position, comp. Rawl. Herod. Vol. I. Essay v., Vol. n. Essay n.
Spiegel and Windischmann are the chief dissentients to this view. Vid. refE in
n. 1, p. 193-
3 Brisson, p. 15. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, 11. p. 396 (2nd Ed.).
3 Haug, op. cit. pp. 173-4. SpiegeL Avesta, 11. pp. 6, 10, translates the
words in italics in a less definite manner.

186 Internal Objections.
Murghab are covered with bas-reliefs, whose figures re
present neither sentient beings nor historical personages x ;
and the often-quoted ruins of Persepolis furnish numerous
instances of monstrous forms, half-human, half-bestial,
fighting one with another or with men, in perpetual iUus-
tration of an antagonism between good and evil. And as
men looked away from this mythical contest to frame for
its brighter side some sensuous and tangible form, they
personified in the reigning monarch all that was most
powerful and theoretically most excellent on earth, in op
position to all that was most weakly and most vicious. But
originaUy this developement was unknown. It would have
been out of harmony with the Duafism of the great Zendic
Prophet himself. His Dualism was a principle of specu
lative philosophy, not of theology2. This would seem to be
the only possible deduction from the genuine doctrines of
Zoroaster preserved in the Gathas of the old Yacna3. In
theology Zoroaster was decidedly monotheistic, acting as
the reformer of a polytheism of the most refined and spi
ritual character. His predecessors, the Soshyant6s or fire-
priests, worshipped a plurality of good spirits called Ahu-
ras. This plurality Zoroaster, himself a Soshyanto, reduced
to unity. He made it his mission to absorb in Mazdeism
(or the worship of Ormazd) the old Ahura religion of the
ancient fire-priests4. In pursuance of this one object he also
attempted a solution of that heart-fretting problem, the
co-existence of good and evil. And this he solved by a
1 Guigniaut, p. 718.
8 Haug, p. 255 seq. Dollinger, I. p. 3S7.
3 For the statements in the following paragraphs, v. Haug, I. e. , Dollinger,
I. pp. 385-7, and Franck, Etudes Orientates, p. 223 seq. Paris, 1851. The
Gathaa of the Zend-Avesta are collections of metrical pieces containing prayers,
songs, and hymns. Spiegel, Excurs. 'Zarathustra u. die Lehren d. Avesta'
(n. p. 214), admits that Zarathustra was possibly the author of the older
Yacna, but he considers the point very problematical. It is very much to be
regretted that he and Haug, two of the greatest European authorities in Zend-
Avestic literature, should differ on almost every point.
,* Haug, p. 251, Yacna, xxx. (Haug, pp. 141-2).

Historical Inaccuracies. 187
philosophical Dualism. He supposed two primeval causes,
dissentient though united in one Being, the producers of
the world of spiritual as weU as of material things. These
creative causes were Vohu Man6, or 'good mind,' and
Akem Man6 or ' naught mind.' They were the two moving
causes in the universe united from the beginning and called
'twins1.' In the Zoroastrian system this Dualism possesses
Ormazd himself as weU as men ; but with this difference,
that as united in the god the names Vohu Man6 and
Akem Man6, are not retained. They become respectively
C_pento mainyus or ' white spirit,' and Angrd mainyus or
' dark spirit.' As such they are the two sides of one divine
Being. Rightly understood the Mazdean doctrine ignores
an abstract and absolute Dualism. Ormazd is the creator
of the good and evil. The monotheistic bias of the religion
of the Zend-Avesta, — at times powerful enough to check
the growth of the most purified polytheism, at others
capable only of moderating the physical tendencies of the
antagonistic element, — fashioned for itself this early phase
of Dualism ; but it was a matter of philosophical not theo
logical conception. In the G&tMs, Angro mainyus, or Ah-
riman, is no separate2 Being opposed to Ormazd. He occu
pies a position very far removed from equality. While
omniscience belongs to the Creator, the 'dark spirit' has
only an after-knowledge; he is altogether incapable of
foreseeing the effects of his acts, and his knowledge is
limited to actual results. ' There was a time when he was
not,' says a Parsee manual3, ' The time shall come when he
shall cease to be among the creatures of Ormazd.' Tlie
1 Yac. xxx. 3: yema-yama, 'twin,' Sanscr. Haug, p. 143. Spiegel, I.
p. 119 and n. 2.
3 Yac. XIX. 9. Ormazd here mentions the 'two spirits' inherent in his
nature. There is as yet no separation. ' The white (holy) of my two Spirits
has continually spoken (the sacred word) to produce the works of life,' &c.
This chapter of the Yacna is » commentary on the sacred prayer, Honovar.
(Haug, 168-70).
3 Quoted by Doll. I. p. 387, from Muller, Milnch. Gel. Ant. xx. 54 c

188 Internal Objections.
evil against which Ormazd and aU good men are repre
sented as fighting, is called ' drukhs,' ' destruction,' or the
' He,' a personification borrowed from the devas. And the
same expression for the ' evil' recurs in the Persian cunei
form inscriptions, where it is the 'He' against which Darius
Hystaspes contended. Ahriman appears never to be men
tioned by name1. But in later times the original doctrine
of the Mazdean Prophet became distorted and falsely ap
plied. The Vendidad2 presents the evil spirit in an atti
tude of constant persevering opposition to Ormazd, and as
endowed with equal power. The 'white' or holy 'spirit'
is taken as a name for the Supreme Being ; and Ahriman
for that of his opponent. The DuaHsm of god and devil
once admitted and personified, it was then easy to assign
to them independent and antagonistic sovereignty. And
by a process of deduction emanating from earthly analo
gies, these Genii were encompassed with a court and coun
cil befitting their rank. At the head of the six Amshash-
pands, and often incorporated with them, was Cpento-main-
yus, while Ahriman presided over the evil Devas. How
different this later developement is from the monotheistic
conceptions of the Gath&s, a very slight inspection is suf
ficient to determine. The Amshashpands of the Vendidad
are frequently mentioned by name in the older writings3,
but etymology and context prove them to be — in the G£-
th&s — nothing but abstract nouns and ideas, representing
aU the gifts which Ormazd, the only god, gives to those
1 Rawl. Herod. Vol. I. p. 427, n. 4, explains this absence of Ahriman from
the monuments by the parallel absence of the name of Satan from ' the public
documents of modern countries.' But this analogy must be qualified by the
difference between modern and ancient ideas of the Evil One. Spiegel's reason
is satisfactory, though more general : ' Die Inschriften uberhaupt nur obenhin .
iiber religiose Verhaltnisse sprechen' \Av. 11. p. 215).
* Comp. especially the first Fargard or chapter. Spiegel, Av. 1. p. 6r. For
different opinions on this Fargard, v. Haug, in Bunsen, Egypt's Place m Uhivers.
Hist. Vol. in. or Germ. ed. v. p. 80 seq., and Spiegel, Av. 11. p. cix. Erdn,
' Avesta u. Veda,' pp. 259-65, with reff.
s Yacna, XLVII. I.

Historical Inaccuracies. \qq
who worship him in thought and action. The personifi
cation of these abstractions was a later addition by the
successors of the Prophet1. And so with the council of
Devas. The idea is completely strange to the older pieces,
and cannot even claim the rank of originafity. It was evi
dently a counterfeit of the celestial council, and the num
ber (six) of the infernal assessors is not found in the Zend
texts, but in the Bundehesh only2.
This, then, is the Dualism of the Vendidad and the In
scriptions. It has assumed a more physical appearance
than that originaUy conceived for it. And not only have
abstractions become personifications, but human beings are
deprived of historical personality, and surrounded by a
dogmatic nimbus. The Zoroaster of the G&th&s is in the
Vendidad and Yashts stripped of almost everything pecu-
Har to human nature, and vested with supernatural and
divine power. He stands in close proximity to the Supreme
Being, and claims superiority over the Amshashpands3. It
may be said to be the same with the sovereign. The
monarch of the Visparad is exalted yet higher stiU by
deification, and men learn to acknowledge in him the in
carnation of Ormazd.
But when these interesting relics of Zendic literature
and Achsemenian magnificence are compared with the writ
ings of the Greek historians4, there appears a complete
and unexpected contradiction. To judge from the pages
of Herodotus, Strabo, and others, the Persian religion
should not contain a trace of Dualism. Ormazd is not
once mentioned. The religion described is purely and en-

1 Haug, p. 258.
* Haug, pp. 260-2. The Bundehesh is a work of the restoration-period
commencing with the Sassanian dynasty (a. r. 235). Max Muller in Bunsen,
Outlines of Philosophy of Univers. Hist. 1. p. 119 (1854). Hardwick, 11. p. 374.
Spiegel, Erdn, p. 369.
3 Haug, p. 251.
4 These are presented in a collected form by Haug, pp. 3-1 1.

190 Internal Objections.
tirely elemental1. The 'Persians' of the 'Father of his*
tory' bring sacrifices to the sun, earth, fire, water, and
winds: and these elements were 'originally the only ob
jects of worship.' He notes it, in fact, as an intrusion of
later times that they had learned from strangers ' the wor
ship of Aphrodite. . .whom the Assyrians call Myfitta, the
Arabs Afitta, and the Persians Mitra2.' These primitive
sacrifices, again, were never offered upon altars, but in
some 'pure spot;' it being an essential clause in their
creed that there should be no idol, no temple, no altar.
But in the Inscriptions there appears to be nothing ele
mental3. Estimated by them, the faith of the early Achse-
menian kings was Dualistic, without reference to fire-wor
ship or elemental religion. The point is not without its im
portance as affecting the value of Daniel's statements. But
the contradiction is more apparent than real. Herodotus
and Strabo had neither of them been in Persia Proper, and
they knew nothing of the language4. They witnessed that
religious system only which was practised in countries
more to the West. There, it would seem, the worship of
the elements prevailed in its earlier form, and the more
specific Iranian worship was kept out of sight, or had be
come altogether extinct. The Greeks, in short, speak of
Zoroastric writings which have nothing in common with
the Zend literature6. They transform the Zoroaster, or

1 Herod. I. 131, 132. Comp. Rawlinson's paper, Essay on the Religion of
the Ancient Persians, Vol. I. Essay v. p. 426 seq.
3 Herodotus has here committed a mistake as to a name. The female deity
of the later Persians was Anahita (Zend-Av. and cuneiform inscriptions).
Mitra or Mithra is the Sun-god of the Persians, and a male deity. On Mithra
vid. Windischmann's treatise, Mylhra. Ein Beit/rag zur Mythengesch. d. Orients,
Leipz. 1857.
3 Spiegel, Erdn, ' Persis,' p. 100, considers it too strong an assertion that
elemental worship was unknown to the system figured in the inscriptions. 'Die
Keilinschriften enthalten ebensowenig ein System d. altpersisch. Religion wie
Herodot, und erwahnen religiose Dinge nur zufallig u. nebenbei.'
4 Dollinger, 1. p. 385. Vid. note 2, p. 177.
* Id. pp. 381-2. Spiegel, Av. 11. p. 209.

Historical Inaccuracies. 191
more correctly the Zarathustra, of Eastern Asia into a
Zaratus or Zarades of the West. The prophet is, in their
pages, but the representative of a form of religion, the type
of a worship and priestly caste in connection with it. His
home they place in Western or Central Asia, in one of
those countries originally forming a contingent of the great
Chamite — Cephenic kingdom. And it is not impossible to
determine generally the epoch of fusion of these Eastern
and Western conceptions. As the Persian domination ex
tended westward, so did the Persian creed : and there are
many indications that Media or Bactria was made the
arena of the struggle between two forms of reHgion dif
fering at least in details1. Cushite or Scythic magism,
spreading from the West, came there into contact with
Aryan Duafism spreading from the East. The Aryans, who
overran Asia, were everywhere but a small element in the
population of the countries subdued by them. And al
though they may have succeeded in imposing at first their
own creed, yet it seems a fair conclusion that in many
countries it was only tolerated for a time, and eventually
dispossessed by the national worship. The Aryan branch
which had penetrated to Media made but little resistance,
and the victors learned the opinions of the vanquished2.
And by the time of the Jewish captivity the primitive
faith of the Mede must have exhibited several incongruous
additions, derived successively from the tenets of his
Cushite subjects, Assyrian masters, and Babylonian allies.
When Cyrus became supreme in every province of Iran, he
conciliated his Median subjects by his patronage of their
profession, and placed Magism on a level with the worship
1 Westergaard, Zend-Avesta, Pref. p. 16. Dollinger, Rawlinson.
* Creuzer, Rilig. &c. ed. Guigniaut, I. p. 680 and reff. On the very disputed
1-istory of the Medes, v. Rawl. Herod. ' On the Chronology and History of
the great Median Empire,' Vol. I. Essay III. p. 401 seq. Niebuhr, Gesch. Asswr*
u. Babels, passim; and Spiegel, Erdn, 'Medien,' p. 22 seq.; 'Dejokes u. die
Anfange d. Medischen Herrschaft,' p. 308 seq. These three writers may be
said to exhaust the subject under its different aspects.

192 Internal Objections.
of the great Ormazd1. In this he only foHowed out that
cautious policy already described. While his tenure of the
Median throne was still insecure, he acted in deference to
the feelings of others, without for one instant resigning
the worship of his own national gods. He was a staunch
upholder of the ancestral creed, but without the impetuous
proselytism of the later Cambyses. He sought indeed to
unite under one common profession the great Iranian po
pulation which paid him allegiance, but with the keen
sagacity of a conqueror he left to time the working out of
that problem whose stages and conclusion he made no
attempt to conceal. And in the worship of fire — a fea
ture common to the Zendic and Magian ritual2 — he dis
covered one important stepping-stone to union. The Aryan
Atharva3 found in an attachment to pyrolatry a bond of
junction between himself and the Median Magus, and thus
the simpler, more elemental worship of the Cushite ap
proximated itself with partial facility to the Dualism of
the Persian. It is true that later events proved the union
to have been either simulated or of the most fragile cha
racter. The Magian Gumata4, in the reign of Cambyses,
secured ready adherents to his rebellious standard by the
religious as well as pofitical aspect imparted by him to his
act of usurpation. By a master-stroke of policy he trans
ferred his seat of power into Media, where the people were
prejudiced in his favour ; and he extirpated those religious
forms which he, and those who thought with him, con-
1 Guign. p. 695. Creuzer, Symbolik, 1. 189, n. 1. Xenophon, Cyrop. vm.
1. § 23. Hardwick, II. p. 369.
s Dollinger, I. p. 384. Haug, p. 250.
3 On this name, that of the fire-priest, called by the Parsees, Athome", vide
Burnouf, Journ. Asiat. vii. p. 46, and Observatt. sur la Gramm. Comp. de
Bopp, p. 21. Max Muller, Hist, of Ancient Sanscr. Literature, p. 448. Haug
(p. 251) identifies the Atharvas with the SoshyantSs ( Yacna, XLVI. 3, XLVIII.
12), whom he considers the predecessors of Zoroaster, and of the founders of
the Ahura against the Deva religion. Spiegel, Av. II. 6, considers, it, like
the western Magus, an eastern equivalent for a priest.
4 Dollinger, id. Hardwick, II. p. 370. Spiegel, Erdn, p. 57.

Historical Inaccuracies. 193
sidered subversive of the Magian faith. To avenge this
wrong was the act of Darius Hystaspes. He assumed the
attitude, and celebrates himself on the rocky tablets of
Behistun as a religious reformer1. And the terrible Ma-
gophonia, which formed the crowning catastrophe of the
Magian independence, was elevated to the rank of an anni
versary, commemorative both of the Persian victory and
of the triumph of Ormazd. But in the time of Cyrus these
difficulties were neither urged by the conqueror, nor felt
by the conquered. The Persian soldier-king, impressible
by nature and flexible in disposition2, found himself in
contact with a creed whose simpficity he perceived to be
already overlaid by his own more sensuous worship.
Union, for that reason, did not seem to him so difficult.
Neither Mede nor Persian were idolators under the early
Achsemenian rule. Image-worship was certainly unknown
to the latter tiH Artaxerxes Ochus* introduced statues of
Anahita into Babylon, Susa, Ecbatana, and Damascus. The
Iranians knew nothing of that degrading vice till they
learned it from the Babylonian or those other nations
where idolatry was recognised. The Mede perhaps more
famifiar with Assyrian polytheism than his new ally, and
taught to pray devoutly and habitually for the welfare
of his king*, found no feeling shocked when required to
elevate the monarch to a super-human rank. Any wor-
1 Vid. Rawl. Herod. Vol. n. p. 593. The whole Behistun inscription is given
in this Appendix. Comp. the expressions, ' By the grace of Ormazd I became
king. I bade that what Gumata the Magian honoured should not be honoured.
I have restored the temples and worship of the Patron of the kingdom and of
the Gods, which Gumata had despoiled. By the favour of Ormazd I have
gained what was carried off.' Spiegel maintains his reform to have been
national, not religious. Die Altpersisch. Keilinschriften, p. 82 seq. Id. Erdn,
' Persis,' p. 48, and Die Regierung des Darius nach den Keilinschriften, pp.
324-5. Windischmann, Zoroastrische Studien, p. 126.
1 Herod. 1. 135.
3 Spiegel, Av. l pp. 1,5, 270, quoting Clem. Alex. Admonit. ad Gentes,
p. 43, ed. Sylb. Duncker, Gesch. d. Alterthums, 11. pp. 408-10. Creuzer,
Relig. &c. I. p. 89. Berosus, Fragm. xvi. ed. C. Muller.
* Herod. I. 131. Brissonius, p. 222. Creuzer, p. 82. Duncker, 11. 408.
13

194 Internal Objections.
ship paid in consequence of such elevation, he consi
dered offered to a living being, and not to an idol. He
found no theological difficulty in regarding the sovereign
in the same exalted light as did the Persian; and while
policy suggested assent to the wishes of his Hberator
from the yoke of Astyages, his national pride was flat
tered by the selection of his countryman — Darius the Mede
— as the first object of such unwonted veneration. It is
known that the ceremonial of the Medes grew out of a com
bination of Assyro-Babylonian ideas and ancient Iranian
customs1: and while the latter offered no opposition to
excessive attachment to the person of the sovereign, con
tact with the polytheistic tenets of the former made hero-
worship neither difficult nor unusual. But, from the first,
it may be assumed that the deification of the king had a
political as weU as a refigious aspect. It cannot be doubted
that to surround the private and pubfic fife of the Oriental
monarch with a rituaHstic fence was in reafity to dispossess
him of virtual power. The priest or the courtier could not
bluntly coerce their king to the same degree as his sub
jects, but they gained their end by an exaggerated form of
subserviency. They conceived for him and personified in
him, an ideal despotism paternal and protective in cha
racter. His domain they imagined coextensive with that
of the mythical Djemschid, and his visible glory a typical
reproduction of the invisible magnificence of Ormazd.
Deification thus became a counterpoise to absolute power.
The monarch was at the mercy of a few whose ritual
and ceremonial arrangements exalted him to the celestial
hierarchy, and yet left him a puppet in their hands. I
have already stated the extreme form which this assumed
in the reign of Darius Hystaspes. It began with his coro
nation and ended only with his life. But in the time of
Darius the Mede, the refigious conception of the Persian
1 Duncker, n. p. 605.

Historical Inaccuracies. 195
was satisfied, and the political object of the enemies of
Daniel gained by a mere temporary apotheosis. For one
month the new sovereign was considered the representa
tive of Ormazd, and no petition was permitted to either
man or god. And before he knew the aim of his flatterers,
Darius found that he had signed the death-warrant of his
chief officer.
The account then of Daniel in this chapter is exactly
that which might be expected from an eye-witness and
participator in the scenes he describes. Had the writer
lived after the days of Darius Hystaspes, such limited dei
fication would have been unknown to him. The delicate
and unobtrusive traits of contemporaneous narrative would
have been impossible to a writer living in the Maccabsean
period. It should not be forgotten that through the Mace
donian conquest Greek civilization extended itself in Per
sia, and proved extremely detrimental to the Iranian re
ligion1. For 500 years, from the Macedonian conquest 335
B.C. to the Sassanian accession to the throne of Iran 235
A.D., the Persian faith with its accompanying externals of
pageant and ceremonial was entirely unrepresented and
unsupported by the kings. And yet it is during that period
of gradual decay that modern opinion would place a writer
capable of such minute exactitude as is exhibited in the
sixth chapter of the Book of Daniel.
But there is further testimony to the correctness of this
Chapter. The decree issued by Darius evidently appfied
to the Babylonians as weU as to the Medes and Persians.
How were they Hkely to receive it? In the opinion of
Bertholdt2, they were certain to resent any such intrusion
upon their pubfic and domestic worship. But indepen
dently of a disarmed and subject population being quite at
1 Westergaard, Z. A. Pref. p. 17. Spiegel, Av. 1. 12, 14-8. De Sacy, Mem.
sur diverses Anliquiles de la Perse, p. 41 seq. Droysen, Gesch. d. Hellenismu
11. p. 789 seq. Haug, p. 124. Hardwick, 11. p. 372.
3 C£ Hengstenb. Genuineness, &c. p. 102 seq.
13—2

196 Internal Objections.
the mercy of their conquerors, aU existing information
respecting the Babylonian refigion supports the opinion
that the decree would meet with tacit, if not with ready
acceptance. The indigenous population of Babylonia per
haps regarded the proposed deification with more curiosity
than devotion, but certainly also without objection. Hero-
worship1 and king-worship were no strange acts to the
most idolatrous of nations, though the nature of the ado
ration now expected of them possessed some novel and
unusual features.
There can be no doubt that Babylonia was largely
influenced by the refigious and philosophical opinions of
Persia and India, just as those countries were affected by
the grosser and more physical conceptions of their idola
trous sister2. Encircled as was Aramsea generally by Indo-
European races, it would have been strange if the Semite
had remained unaffected by the proximity3. And in his
toric times the traces of this influence are matters of
philological and mythological notoriety. Dualism in its
materialistic form, and the personifications of good and
evil spirits were dogmas early admitted into the Chal-
dsean refigion4. On the other hand, the Chaldseo-Baby-
lonian5 instructed the Persian to unravel by the aid of
astrolatry the secrets of the magic and fantastic Power
believed to preside over the course of events and human
destinies. It was through this same channel that the Zar-
van-Akarana passed into the creed of the later Persians6.
1 That hero-worship existed in Assyria may be seen from Rawl. Herod.
Vol. I. p. 589.
2 On the whole subject of the infusion of foreign and especially Semitic
elements into the ancient Persian religion, vid. Spiegel's Essays in the Zeitschr.
der D.M. G. Vols. v. p. 221 seq., VI. p. 78 seq. A summary of the Semitic
influence is given in the Avesta, Vol. 1. p. 269 seq., Vol. n. p. cv seq. Erdn,
Avesta u. die Genesis,' p. 274 seq., 'Persis,' p. 81.
3 Renan, Hist. d. langues SSmit. p. 2 70.
4 Franck, Etud. Orient, p. 239.
5 Dollinger, 1. p. 394. Spiegel, Avesta, I. p. 272, 11. pp. cxix, 216 seq.
, 11. c. Rawlinson, Journ. As. Soc. xv. p. 245, n. 2. Herod. Vol.

Historical Inaccuracies. 197
This great deity is to be distinctly traced to the Ziru-Banit
of the Assyro-Chaldsean inscriptions, and the Bel of the
Babylonian mythology. And therefore, the Babylonian,
when called upon by Darius the Mede to pay to his royal
person the homage due to a god, found no difficulty in
acceding to the demand. Darius came to him as a con
queror, and it was a feeling natural to all nations of an
tiquity to vivify the Deity in the hero1. The Indian Vishnu,
the Persian Djemschid, the Assyrian Bel, the Egyptian
Horus, and the Scandinavian Odin iUustrate, with but slight
ethnographic and climactic modifications, one principle of
apotheosis. In furtherance of that principle, the Babylo
nian added Darius to his Pantheon.
But it appears probable that the habit of excessive
veneration towards heroes and sages was of frequent and
ancient occuiTence in Babylonia. One instance of this, of
no insignificant character, is recorded in the writings of
Ezekiel, the contemporary of Daniel. In chapter viii. the
prophet, seated in his own house on the banks of the Che-
bar, beholds in a vision the abominations intruded into the
worship of the Temple by the apostate Israelites inhabit
ing Jerusalem. The women 'sit at the entrance of the
gate towards the north weeping for the Tammuz' (v. 14):
the men, ' the ancients of the house of Israel,' headed by
Jaazaniah, the son of Shaphan, are prostrated before the
sun towards the East, ' putting the twig to the nose.' The
latter custom is clearly Magian. Strabo2 reports the same
practice of 'holding a bunch of twigs in the left hand,
during the recital of prayers; and under the title of the
Barsom (the Berecma of the Zend) the bunch is still used
by the Parsee priests when repeating the Ya<ma3. Evi-
I. Essay v. p. 430. Dollinger, I. p. 388. Hardwick, II. p. 380. Spiegel reaches
the same result as Rawlinson but by a different process.
1 Guigniaut (Creuzer, Relig. de VAntiq.), pp. 526, 686.
2 Strabo, xv. p. 733. Ges. Thesaur. s. v. HTlOt. Haug, p. 2.
3 Haug, pp. 133, 239. Spiegel, Avesta, II. p. lxviii. Hyde, Hist. Relig.
vel. Persarum, p. 350.

198 Internal Objections.
dently the Jews became acquainted with the practice
through Syrian and Babylonian channels; and the close
proximity here, of Magian features and the worship of
Tammuz, renders it probable that Babylonia was the birth
place of this latter mysterious cultus. Tammuz, it is well
known, is the name of the fourth month of the Jewish year
prevalent in the writings of the post-Babylonian period1 :
and though Benfey2 traced the origin of the name to the
Persian language, later philological researches, and the en
tire dissimilarity between the names of the months on the
Behistun inscription and the Hebrew titles, have caused
the opinion to be abandoned3. The name is Semitic and is
found in t'.ie Syriac calendars*. From them the Rabbin
readily borrowed it, being already familiar with it as the
name of a sage worshipped with divine honours in ancient
Babylonia. To this conclusion modern investigation seems
to point. Out of the midst of much confusion, a skein of truth
emerges, that Tammuz was a prophet who, in some remote
antiquity, sought to introduce astral worship into Babylon,
and fell the proto-martyr of his own creed6. Later ages
deified the Saint, and a temple was erected to his memory
by the Mendaites6, a remnant of the ancient population of
Babylon7. And with the lapse of time, the myth which be
came attached to his name passed under various forms into
foreign countries. The worship paid to Tammuz found its
1 Mishna, 'Taanim,' 4, § 5- The Talmudists asserted that it was introduced
by the Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity (Talm. ' Rosh hasha-
nah,' I. § 1). In Targ. of Jonathan on Gen. viii. 5, it is the name given to the
' tenth month' (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. &c. s. v.).
''• Benfey, Monatsn. p. 167 seq.
" Rawl. Herod. Vol. II. 593-6. The Persian names for the months given
on this inscription are also different from those of the less ancient Persian
Calendar or Sir&zah (Spiegel, Av. I. p. 276, II. pp. xcvii — viii). Winer, R. W.B.
11. p. 602.
4 Cf. Ideler, Chronol. I. 440, for the regular Syrian calendar. Ges. Tliesaur .
B. v. non.
5 Chwolsohn in the Essay, Ueber Tammuz, &c. already quoted.
fi Matt. Norberg. Lib. Adami d. Mendaiten. in. p. 178 seq.
7 Chwolsohn, Ssabier, Vol. 1. Bk. I. Ch. v. p. 100 seq. Renan, p. 248 seq.

Historical Inaccuracies. 199
way into Greece to ornament the festival of Adonis. The
features of the Hellenic feast are generically and ritual-
istically different from the original conception, yet they
are clearly referrible to it as their source1. This identifica
tion of Tammuz was first suggested by Maimonides2. He
derived it from ' one of the ancient idolatrous books,' and
Professor Chwolsohn has lately supported it with that
profusion of illustration and research for which he is so
remarkable. Tammuz, says the legend, appealed to a cer
tain king to serve the seven planets and the twelve signs3.
But the king put him to a violent death. On the night of
his death, there were gathered together all the images from
the ends of the earth to the temple of Babel, to the golden
image, the image of the sun. This image was suspended
between heaven and earth; and it feH to the ground and
aU the images fell with it, when it told to them the fate of
Tammuz the prophet. And the images wept and lamented
all the night, and in the morning they flew away to their
own temples. And they made this perpetual statute ; that
every year at the beginning of the first day of the month
Tammuz, they should lament and weep for Tammuz. This
is the story told by Qut'ami in the famous 'Nabatean Agri
culture,' a work referred by the S. Petersburg savant to
the xivth cent. B.C., by Quatremere to the age of Nebu-
1 The identification of Tammuz with Adonis is at least as old as S. Jerome,
the Vulgate rendering the former by the latter. If the notice of the tradition
preserved in the Syriac translation of Melito's Apology (edit, by Br Cureton in
the Spicilegium Syriaeum) be correctly referred, through the original, to the
2nd century, it would seem that the identification was common in that time ;
the Syriac version of the legend being similar to that of the Greek Adonis
with the single alteration of the name. The ritualistic and other differences
between the Tammuz and Adonis' worship are drawn out by Chwolsohn, op. cit.
p. 37 seq.
2 Maimonides, Moreh Nevochim, in. 29. Chwolsohn, pp. 10-1, 57. The
story is quoted from Maim, in Kimchi's Commentary on Ezek. viii. 14 (Buxtorf,
Bibl. Rabbin.), and in his Thesaurus, s. v. p. 1465 (ed. 154S). The 'ancient
idolatrous book' is the now resuscitated ' Nabatean Agriculture.'
3 How thoroughly Semitic is this Zodiacal or Planet worship may be seen
from Chwolsohn, Ssahier, 11. pp. 366 seq. and 660 seq.

200 Internal Objections.
chadnezzar, and by Renan to the iii — ivth cent. A.D.1 This
legend, according to Qiit'ami, was read in his day in the
temples to an audience weeping over the fate of the pro
phet. The translator of Qut ami, Ibn Wa'hschijah (a.d.
904), when enumerating the names of the Babylonian
months remarks, that Tammuz lived in Babylonia .before
the coming of the Chaldseans, and belonged to an an
cient Mesopotamian tribe called Ganban; and this name
Chwolsohn2 believes to be that of the Cushite aborigines of
Chaldsea, whom the Semitic Nabateans found in possession
when they first came into the country, and from whom
they learned certain forms of worship. The same Ibn
Wa'hschijah-adds that in his own time the Ssabians of the
Harran and Babylonia wept and lamented for Tammuz in
the usual month, but that the origin of the worship had
been completely lost. Such a result would be the more
probable in proportion to the antiquity of the tradition.
Much of this may at once be dismissed as purely legendary,
but the broad facts of the existence and of the prophetic
mission of Tammuz are both natural and credible; And
this substratum of fact is confirmed by later and existing
memorials of the East The Arabic writer En-Nedim
(10th cent.) in his work Fihrist-el'-Ulum quotes from Abu-
S'aid Wahb ben Ibrahim's calendar of Syriac feasts, a de
scription of the Ta-uz3 festival held in the middle of the
month Tammuz. The Ta-uz is there bewailed by women,
as in Ezekiel. He was said to have been slain by his
master, who ground his bones in a mill, and scattered them
to the winds. In consequence of this the women ate,
1 Chwolsohn, p. 40. Quatremere, M4m. sur les NabaUens, p. 159 (Mil.
Hist.). Renan, Age and Antiquity of the Nabat. Agric. (Engl. Transl.), p. 74.
a Id. pp. 54-6. Comp. also the Ueberreste d. Alibabylon. Literatur, p. 19.
3 Chwolsohn, p. 38. Chwolsohn has proved that TS-uz is a corruption of
Tammuz, Ssabier, n. p. 204 seq. and p. 813. In the Kurdic dialect of Sinna
Ta-us is the name given to the month Tammuz; Lerch, in Chwolsohn, Ueber
Tammuz, <&c. p. 39, note. Comp: also Lerch, Forschwngen iiher die Kurden,
2te Abtheil. p. 171, and ite Abth. p. 102, 1. 14.

Historical Inaccuracies. 201
during the feast, nothing that had been thus ground1. In
the xith century Ben Schonah (1063), and in the xiiith Ibn
Athir (1203) speak of the festival as still commemorated
upon the banks of the Tigris2, and there would seem to be
little doubt that it has been perpetuated under a slightly
different form in the Ta-azia of the Indian Mahometans, —
a festival celebrated in honour of the martyred Hussain,
the son of AH and Fatima the daughter of Mahomet3.
Tammuz may then be regarded as one of those ancient
sages whose efforts were directed towards the propagation
of a creed, and who forfeited his life in the ardour of pros-
elytism. By a very inteUigible revulsion of feefing, later
ages paid to the dead the honour denied to the living. It
thus became easy to lose sight of the humanity of the pro
phet and transfigure him into a god ; just as in later and
in more polished ages Rome deified Augustus. Tammuz

bier, n. p. 27. Liebrecht, Zeitschr. d. D.M.G. xvii. 402-3.
a Liebrecht, p. 398, from D'Herbelot.
3 Id. Garcin de Tassy, Journ. Asialique, VIII. 164 seq. Further links in
this mythological chain are perhaps to be found in the Nabatean inscriptions.
Meier, Ueberd. Nabat. Inschriften. Zeitschr. d. D.M.G. XVII. 589 seq. In these
frequent mention is made of a god T£ ; and Prof. Meier has defined him to
be a deity of light, perhaps the Sun, in whose honour every Nabatean
erected an altar on the roof of his house, and daily presented sacrifices of
frankincense and drink-offerings. Tammuz or Tsl-uz is allowed to be Semitic,
and if these inscriptions illustrate the word, the prevalent Aramaic element
of these records points to Semitic and especially Babylonian sources for the
origin of a name and a worship mythologically connected with Magian tenets.
Two inscriptions numbered by Beer, 99 and 100, are as follows :

ITT T3T
nta-jo yob

Remember Zedo
son of Almo-baqquero
for good, from Tah.

For the form comp. Nehem. v. 19. The HO )0 is dependent upon "V31. For
a similar use of ]0 v. Job xxiv. 1, Ps. xxxvii. 23, Eccles. xii. 11. On the
subject of these inscriptions comp. the Essays of Levy (Zeitschr. d. D. M. G.
XIV. p. 363 seq., p. 594 seq. ; XVII. p. 82 seq.), Blau (Id. XVI. 331 seq.) and
Meier. Blau advocates an Arabic dialect for these inscriptions. Noldeke
(Z. d. D. M. G. XVII. p. 703) believes the proper names generally to be Arabic ;
but out of 90 adduced by Blau, 70 are Semitic, according to Meier, and to be
found in the Old Testament (p. 636 seq.).

202 Internal Objections.
took similar but local rank in the traditions of the East
with Brahma, Menou, Crishna, Buddha, and Zoroaster.
Babylonia learnt to reverence in the murdered sage a being
who had claimed the closest familiarity with the presiding
deities of her own creed.
And this deification of a prophet in Babylonia is not
without parallel1. For example: the Babylonian records
mention as an honour paid to the ' wise and learned Jan
buschad,' that a temple was erected to him at Babylon
during his life-time. A more remarkable instance stiU is
that of Devanai, a prophet and lawgiver, whose name is also
commemorated in the ' Book of Adam.' His current titles
were ' Lord of Humanity,' ' Lord of Men,' ' The honoured
Father,' 'The merciful Father,' 'The Philosopher of Phi
losophers.' Janbuschad himself befieved that the gods
had revealed their mysteries to Devanai alone. A temple
was built and dedicated to him; his image was placed in
it, and a festival was instituted commemorative of his vir
tuous and benevolent life.
From these remarks it will be seen that Mede, Persian,
and Babylonian were all, however variously, quite prepared
to accept the decree promulgated by Darius. Monotheist
and polytheist, each interpreted it in accordance with his
elastic creed. The Jew alone was outraged by the demand ;
and sooner than accede to it, he went to the lions' den.
Of the inhumanity of the punishment attached to disobe
dience to the decree, there is no question. Tested by the
modern and Western standard, any strong epithet might
be employed to characterise it. But it did not appear ex
treme or unusual either to the princes who suggested it,
or to the pliable monarch who endorsed it. The remarks
already made upon Nebuchadnezzar's treatment of the
'Three Children' apply equally here, and need not be
repeated. 1 Chwolsohn, Ueber Tammuz, &c. p. 69 seq. On Janbuschad v. also pp. 59,
60, and the Index to the Ueberreste d. Altbabyl Lit. s.v.

Historical Inaccuracies. 203
It remains only to speak of the place to which Daniel
was condemned. The word 53 (vi. 9) or JOJ (vi. 18) trans
lated 'den' by the Authorised Version is said by Bleek to
have been of a cistern-shape, and admitting neither light
nor air to the lions confined in it. The German critic gives
no reason for his adoption of this limited sense, and it is
difficult to understand how he deduces it. The word
means simply a hole or pit without any such restriction.
The usus loquendi of the word in the Targums and Se
mitic dialects contains more than sufficient refutation of
Bleek's opinion. If the word is used by the Targum of
Prov. v. 15 and the Syriac Version of Isai. xxx. 14, in the
sense of a ' wen,' the Targum and Syriac of Gen. xxxvii.
20 x employ it to render the 'pit' into which Joseph was
cast. It is used again by the Targum on Jer. xxxviii. (e.g.
ver. 6) to translate the pit or ' dungeon' into which Jere
miah was let down. Joseph and Jeremiah were both
drawn up from these pits by the aid of cords and rags,
and certainly both light and air penetrated to them. But
it does not at all follow that the pit tenanted by lions,
into which Daniel was cast, was a mere perpendicular
sinking into the earth. The word 'Gubba' expresses with
Bar-Hebrseus 2, a cave or cavern ; and certainly such was
its use in S. Jerome's time. In his life of Paul the hermit,
he speaks of meeting a monk whose abode was an old
cistern or cave 'caned in the popular (Syriac) speech
Gubba,' where he supported fife on a miserable pittance3.
The Arabic and ^Ethiopic dialects both use the word in
the same sense4; a fact not to be forgotten, when the
tendency of Semitic dialects to preserve and perpetuate
original applications, is remembered. And what philology
1 Heb. nhan inSf Targ. Kjag-jD in?. Syr. too-. ,_LO fjla.
2 Chron. p. 317. Karsebii Chrestom. Syr. p. 58, 1. 16, ed. Bernstein.
3 Yita S. Pauli Primi Eremitce. Hieronym. Op. Vol. n. p. 21 (ed. Migne).
Such monks were called iyKXeiarol.
4 Gesen. Thesawr. s. v. Vol. I. p. 256.

204 Internal Objections. '
suggests as the natural application of the word in the
present case, parallel customs and actual discovery esta-
bfish. In the absence of any authentic descriptions of the
Chaldee or Medo-Persian lion-pits, it has been usual, and
justly, to refer to the similar dens of Morocco and Fez1.
A barbarous custom similar to that of the Persians,
casts condemned criminals into these subterranean caves :
but Lieut.-General Chesney2 when searching among the
ruins of 'Babel' for a tunnel described by Herodotus,
' came upon an arched subterraneous passage constructed
of bricks or bitumen, and leading to an apartment or pit.'
This pit passed for ' the den of Hons ; ' and from the strong
odour, it was evidently the retreat of those animals. If
this pit may be taken as a sample of those existing in the
time of Darius, it is easy to see how fight and air were
preserved to the animals and the prophet. Daniel was
probably bound, and cast or placed5 within the cave, and
a stone sealed with the royal signet was rolled to the mouth
to prevent egress. But ' God sent His angel, and shut the
lions' mouths that they hurt him not.1 When, however, it
came to the turn of his accusers, they were hardly placed
within the reach of the animals than 'their bones were
broken in pieces or ever they came at the bottom (or pit)
of the den.' But whether the existing pit represents the
pattern of those of ancient Babylon or not, there is no
just cause for refusing the belief that the subterranean
1 Keil, EM. § 134. Davidson (formerly), Introduction (Home's ed.),
p. 928. a Quoted in Goode, Warburton Lectt. p. 235 (1863). This 'passage' was
explored ' for some distance.'
3 It is a slight indication of the shape and formation of the Babylonian
pits, that the word translating 'cast' is different from that used in the case of
Joseph and Jeremiah. The words HOI or NOT applied to Dan. and his per
secutors expresses a different action to that performed on Joseph and Jerem.
("y?C). The use of 'C is almost always » casting down: that of "1, in Dan.
(vid. iii. 11, 20, &c.) at least, a casting into without the necessary adjunct of
downwards. The use of '"\ in ch. iii. lends probability to the view in the text
that Daniel was bound. The word NOT is used by the Nasoreans in the sense
of putting in chains or bonds (Lorbach, Museum, I. 46).

Historical Inaccuracies. 205
pits there were inhabited by lions as the text of Daniel
describes them1.
This prolonged examination of the historical sections of
the Book of Daniel can leave but one impression, that they
embody facts communicated to posterity by an eye-witness
and participator in the scenes described. There runs
throughout them a naturalness and a vividness impossible
to a writer living some centuries after their supposed oc
currence. The first six chapters, if tested by the accre
dited laws of historical criticism, by an analytical enquiry
into the national customs and reHgious developement ex
hibited in them, and by an inspection of their general
phenomena, certainly warrant the acceptance accorded to
them for centuries. They are fragmentary, and for that
reason, as weU as through the rapid transition of the pro
phet from one subject to another, incomplete: but such
incompleteness, whatever it may leave unsupplied, is no
proof of spuriousness. And it is no slight testimony to the
accuracy of the whole, that it is possible to examine two
of the most disputed portions by the fight of other and
independent facts and memorials. The result proves how
weU the received account of the prophet abides by the
comparison. Archseology, in the person of one of her most eminent
professors2, welcomes the second chapter as a most precious
document with reference to the colossal monuments and
sculptures of Babylonia. Setting aside the religious and
symbofical aspect of the vision of Nebuchadnezzar, this
chapter furnishes the missing finks of an otherwise incom
plete section in the history of Art. The vision of the king
could (physiologicaUy speaking) have happened only among
a people familiar in their waking hours with the objects
which passed before the royal sleeper. Nebuchadnezzar
1 De Wette's archaeological objections are answered by Herzfeld, Gesch. I.
480, n. 105 (1847).
2 Raoul Rochette (Migne, Diet. d. la Bible, Vol. II. p, 30, n. 1).

206 Internal Objections.
must often have gazed upon huge and monstrous forms
wrought out of mixed metals and worked up in repousse*,
similar to that 'great image' which 'troubled his spirit.'
Polychromatic sculpture, advancing to its highest art in the
successive forms of Diana of Ephesus, Juno of Argos, and
the chef d'oeuvre of Phidias — Jupiter Olympius, can there
fore trace an earlier and coarser expression in the colossal
deformities of Babylon.
Again, when Daniel's account of his being placed iii
the lions' den is compared with that of the apocryphal
work 'Bel and the Dragon,' it is impossible not to feel
how differently the inspired writer and some later scribe
have handled the mere externals of the same subject. The
one historical blunder (ver. 4) of making Cyrus a worship
per of the Babylonian Bel, would have been impossible
to the contemporary Prophet Daniel. If there was one
tenet common to the captive Jew and the Persian, it was
Monotheism. However different their apprehensions of
this great doctrine, its assertion produced in both a hatred
of the idolatry which peopled the temples and streets o
Babylon. Cyrus' universal kindness to the Jews has been
mainly and justly attributed to his recognition, in the re
ligion of the exiled Israelites, of that theological tenet
which formed the groundwork of his own.
And even where obscurity may stiU encompass points
of extreme interest and importance, the general solidity of
the base and supporta upon which the whole narrative
is founded, is more than sufficient to induce, if not assent
to other and still unconfirmed portions, at least a sus
pension of the determined verdict that the whole is to be
condemned. It has been very truly written by one who
will not be accused of partiality to the view I am defending
— that 'in writings on these subjects, there is too strong
a tendency not fairly to appreciate, or even to keep out of
sight, the broader features of the main question, in the
eagerness to single out particular safient points for attack;

Historical Inaccuracies. 207
there is too ready a disposition to triumph in lesser details,
rather than steadily grasp more comprehensive principles
and leave minor difficulties to await their solution. This or
that particular argument is regarded as if the entire credit
of the cause were staked upon it1.' Such words require
but Httle alteration to become applicable here. Let these
historical sections of the Book of Daniel be regarded as a
whole. Grasp their broad features, and it will be seen how
consonant they are to the likeness and configuration of
the period they profess to illustrate. Mark also how even
in ' lesser details ' they exhibit the autographic touches of
but one and the same narrator, and 'minor difficulties
may be safely left to await their solution,' as time and
discovery shall educe it.

Note.
In the previous pages frequent use has been made of the his
torian Berosus. One word of defence and explanation may perhaps
be necessary. Berosus was a Chaldsean priest, and a contempo
rary of Alexander the Great. He wrote a work on the Chaldee
history in three books, compiling it, to use his own words, from
many and ancient sources. Syncellus, however, pronounced him
an impostor, and described his Assyrian chronology as a figment
of his own invention. This opinion has been commended as "rest
ing upon solid critical grounds" by that lamented scholar, Sir
G. C. Lewis (Histor. Survey of the Astron. of the Ancients, p. 427,
1862). 'The Assyrian Kings of Berosus,' from Nabonassar, b.c.
747, to Cyrus, B.C. 538, he considered to be 'of an uncertain his
torical character' (id. p. 430). There can be no doubt that great
caution is required in the use of Berosus. Of his works frag
ments only remain. (These are collected by Bichter, Berosi frag-
1 Baden Powell, ' On the Study of the Evidences of Christianity' (Essays
and Reviews), p. 95,

208 Internal Objections.
nienta, Lips. 1825, andMiiller, Fragm. histor. Gfrceo. Vol. n. p. 495.
The portions relative to Babylonian history are extracted by
Niebuhr and placed at the end of his Gesch. Assurs, &c. pp. 472
seq.). And of these fragments it seems doubtful whether the
words are always those of Berosus. Most of the writers who
quote him, Eusebius, Syncellus, Clemens Alex., Theophilus of
Antioch, copy from one another, or from Josephus ; and Josephus
probably took his passages from Polyhistor (Nieb. p. 13). Natu
rally these facts necessitate reserve. But Berosus was not the
less a genuine Babylonian writer. The existing remains em
body facts extracted from the sources to which he had access.
They have therefore a historical value, if not of a primary, at least
of a secondary character ; and when found to confirm, or to be
confirmed by, other testimony, their weight is very great indeed.
And, independently of the contributions to history furnished by
these fragments, they contain passages illustrating the ancient
Chaldee philosophy. Like the writings of Manetho and Sancho-
niathon, the pages of Berosus, in spite of numerous contradictions
certainly enclose priceless relics of an almost extinct literature.
(Renan, Age and Antiquity of the Book of Nabatean Agriculture
p. 3, London, 1862. Hist, des Langues Semitiques, pp. 249-50.)
It may be added here, that the value of the Canon of Ptolemy
Abydenus, and Herodotus, as authorities upon historical questions
is briefly discussed by Niebuhr, Op. cit. pp. 8 — 18.

CHAPTER VI.

B. Miracles1.

Coupled with the purely historical contents of this
Section, are statements of a miraculous and supernatural
character. In one sense, these stand on their own ground.
For critical purposes they must be separated from the
external and supplementary indices of names, times and
places. These may be caUed in again when other condi->
tions altogether independent of such accretions are pre
viously satisfied. But in the first instance miraculous
narratives require examination on other grounds. For
this reason. Were such narratives to rest entirely upon
the historical notices with which any writer has connected
them, the very presence of these indicative notes would
suggest to many minds nothing but fraud and collusion.
Some party-purpose, it would be said, or some fanatical
tenet was intended by the promulgation of the miraculous
story; and the objector would refer to the clear defini
tions of time, place, circumstances, and other points calcu-

1 Since the greater part of this section was written, I have become ac
quainted with some remarks of the Bp. of S. David's (Charge, p. 26 seq. 1863),
and an Article in the Christian Remembrancer for October, 1863, on the sub
ject of Miracles, They are expressly directed against the views likewise
combated in these pages ; and I cannot but regret that I have been unable to
avail myself of more than an occasional thought or expression. By the scholar
as well as by the general reader they have been justly welcomed as the most
valuable monographs hitherto published on the subject, 14

210 Internal Objections-.
lated to overawe individual opinion, as indications of spuri-
ousness. He would rightly estimate it the first effort of
a forger to secure attention by circumstantiality and defi-
niteness. The possibility and even the probability of this,
and the consequent facility with which the wondrous story
would be circulated and accepted, are familiar to all who
have investigated the so-called miracles at the tomb of
the Abbe" Paris, or the still more modern imposture of
La Salette.
And the miracles of Scripture do, in fact, appeal to
posterity with a voice of their own. They demand ac
ceptance for themselves as facts, — and those facts of a
supernatural character1. As simple facts, they are natu
rally amenable to the rigorous scrutiny of historical and
moral criticism. They are then matters of testimony ren
dered credible or not by their fulfilment or non-fulfilment
of those historical and moral canons to which traditional
facts are usually subjected. But as supernatural facts
they are independent of this conventional limitation.
They are still the subjects of intelligent criticism, but that
a criticism founded upon the axiom 'Fides prsecedit in-
tellectum.' To the supernatural aspect of miracles the attention
must first be directed ; not to bias or prejudice the
thoughts towards a ready recognition of miracles as histori
cal because supernatural : — that were to give colour to
the taunt, that a 'belief in miracles is with the many
wholly the result not the antecedent of faith2 : ' — but be
cause the supernaturalness of miracles is the primary
point disputed in modern times. ' It is not the mere fact,
but the cause or explanation of the miracle8' that is

1 Mansel, 'Miracles as Evidences of Christianity,' p. 3 (Aids to Faith,
ed. 1861).
2 Baden Powell, 'Study of the Evidences of Christianity,' p. 113 (Essays
and Reviews, 5th ed. 1861).
3 Id. p. 14 r.

Miracles. 211
debated. Some aHeged miracles, it is allowed, were real
facts ; but then, it is added, they were not supernatural
facts. They appeared so only to those ignorant of the laws
of nature. Others, if they were ever wrought, were truly
works of superhuman power, but then they ceased to be
real facts, — for reasons to be stated presently. A few
general remarks upon this theory is all that can be per
mitted to me as introductory to some brief observations
upon the miracles recorded in the Book of Daniel.
' Miracles,' to use the words of their ablest opponent,
'unfike essential doctrines, the same 'yesterday, to-day
and for ever,' are but 'external accessories constituting
a subject' varying ' of necessity with the successive phases
of opinion and knowledge1.' And connected with, or
rather as the foundation of this severance of the miracle
and doctrine, is the unanimous, however differently-
attained, verdict of Hume and Woolston, Spinoza and
Voltaire, Schleiermacher and Strauss, Baden Powell and
Renan — that a miracle is impossible2. It is opposed to
the 'better intelligence' of the times. It is rebellion
against a 'superior enlightenment' to acknowledge it. By
the moralist it is condemned as an act of confusion, and
so impossible to be predicated of the God of law and order :
any exceptional act would be unworthy of Him. By the
metaphysician it is denounced as an interference with
the human conception of God's infinite wisdom : any ex
ceptional act implies previous deficiency ; and such an
impfication strikes a fatal blow at Primal perfection. And
to these ' successive phases of opinion3,' is now to be
1 Id. p. 94.
2 Comp. Mill, On the Mythical Interpretation of ihe Gospels, pp. 79-80 (ed.
Webb). 'Mankind is the miracle- worker,' said Strauss. ' He is ever subjecting
nature to himself by steam-vessels, railroads, and the like. But as to the
Anima Mundi, the Universal Spirit, it were quite absurd to abscribe t6 this
any will and operation, otherwise than as physical laws work or human wills
interfere with them ' (Mill, p. 84).
3 v. Trench On Miracles, Ch. v. ' The Assaults on the Miracles,' p. 39 seq.
14—2

212 Internal Objections.
added that around which 'modern illumination' has shed
its most glowing and attractive light1. A belief in miracles
is henceforward to be resigned as infringing the ' founda
tion-conception,' the ' primary law' of the ' universal order
and constancy of natural causes,' viz. the ' impossibility of
any modification whatsoever in the existing conditions of
material agents unless through the invariable operation
of a series of eternally impressed consequences following
in some necessary chain of orderly connexion — however
imperfectly known to us.' The miracle, an ' alleged exter
nal attestation of Revelation,' is ' one specially bearing on
purely physical contemplations, and on which no general
moral principles, no common rules of evidence or logical
technicalities, can enable us to form a common judgment.
It is not a question which can be decided by a few trite
and common-place generalities as to the moral government
of the world and the belief in the Divine Omnipotence, —
or as to the validity of human testimony, or the limits of
human experience. It involves and is essentially built
upon those grander conceptions of the order of nature,
those comprehensive primary elements of all physical know
ledge, those ultimate ideas of universal causation, which
can only be familiar to those thoroughly versed in cosmical
philosophy in its widest sense.' 'New modes of specula
tion,' it is fearlessly announced, ' new forms of scepticism
have invaded the domain of that settled belief which a
past age has been accustomed to rest on a Paleyan syllo
gism. The modern turn of reasoning rather adopts the
belief that a revelation is most credible when it appeals
least to violation2 of natural causes. If miracles were in
(6th ed. 1858), for a statement and a refutation of the opinions of the prede
cessors of Baden Powell and Benan,
1 Baden Powell, pp. 108, 127, 133. Renan, Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse,
Preface, and the Essay, ' Les Historiens Critiques de Je'sus.'
2 The injustice of this definition of a miracle has been pointed out over and
over again from the days of S. Augustine to the present. How full of depth
is the following 'sentence.' 'Si ordo rerum consideretur prout dependet a

Miracles. 213
the estimation of a former age among the chief supports
of Christianity, they are at present among the main
difficulties and hindrances to its acceptance.'
This then is the ground upon which miracles are now
opposed : they are impossible on scientific premises; such
as no reasonable man would reject in any other case. And
evidently this opposition is altogether independent of any
questions of historical testimony or probability. It strikes
at the supernaturalness of the miracles, and if the blow
prove fatal, all further discussion may be dismissed as
unnecessary either for offence or defence.
Now the firmest believer in Scripture miracles recog
nises equally with his opponent 'the most rigid prevalence
of law and necessary sequence among purely material phe
nomena1.' As S. Augustine2 long ago expressed it : ' God,
the Founder and Creator of all nature, does nothing con
trary to nature.' But the holy man added to his statement
what is disputed by one, repudiated by another, that ' God
does sometimes what is contrary to what we consider the
wonted course of nature.' Here lies the root of the differ
ence. It is a question of the affirmation or negation of a
supernatural agent. 'The negation of the supernatural,'
prima causa, sic contra rerum ordinem Deus facere non potest. Si enim sic
faceret, faceret contra suam prsescientiam aut voluntatem aut bonitatem. Si
vero consideretur rerum ordo, prout dependet a qualibet secundarum causarum,
sic Deus potest facere prater ordinem rerum ; quia ordini secundarum causarum
ipse non est subjectus; sed talis ordo ei subjicitur, quasi ab eo procedens, non
per necessitatem naturae sed per arbitrium voluntatis ; potuisset enim et alium
ordinem rerum instituere ' (S. Thorn. Aquinas, Summa Theolog. Pars i. qu. 105,
art. 6).
1 Mansel, 'Essay on Miracles as Evidences of Christianity' (Aids to Faith,
1861), p. 19.
a Contra Faust. Manich. Lib. xxvi. cap. 3. 'Deus creator et conditor om
nium naturarum nihil contra naturam facit. Sed contra naturam non incongrue
dicimus aliquid Deum facere, quod fecit contra id quod novimus in natura.
Hanc enim etiam appellamus naturam, cognitum nobis cursum solitumque
naturae, contra quem Deus cum aliquid facit magnalia vel mirabilia nominantur.
Contra illam vero summam naturae legem, a notitiS, remotam, . . . tam Deus nullo
modo facit quam contra se ipsum non facit.' Cf. S. Thom. Aquin. Summa
Theol. I. c.

214 Internal Objections.
says M. Renan1, ' is an essential principle of criticism. And
by supernatural,' he continues in a note, ' I mean, the mi
racle: a particular act, that is, of the Divinity inserting
itself into the series of events visible in the physical and
physiological world, and disturbing the course of facts in
the presence of a special government of humanity.' The
opinion is firmly and decisively advanced, though its as
sertion necessarily entails the denial of God's Personality.
Pushed to its logical sequence it substitutes ' an over-ruling
and all-pervading supreme Intelligence' for a Creator2.
God becomes simply a moral and sesthetic Ideal.
But though the remark, — that Creation is only another
name for our ignorance of the mode of production, — may
be true, however jarring in expression, when applied to
abstractions, yet the statement must be felt strangely in
adequate when appfied to the miracles of Scripture. If
those miracles are to be gauged by the assertion that since
'the boundaries of nature exist only where our present
knowledge places them, the inevitable progress of research
must within a longer or shorter period unravel all that
seems most marvellous' — then is the subject at once re
duced to a purely materialistic level. The stipulation is
not now surprising that 'a belief in Divine interposition'
must be viewed as ' essentiaUy dependent on what we pre-
1 Etudes d'Histoire Religieuse, p. 137 (3me. Ed. Par. 1858). 'L'essence de
la critique est la negation du surnaturel  J'entends ici par le surnaturel le
miracle, c'est-a-dire, un acte particulier de la Divinite", venant s'inserer dans la
se*rie des eVenements du monde physique et physiologique, et derangeant le
cours des faits en vue d'un gouvernement special de l'humanite'.' Cf. Pr4f. p. vii.
' La critique, dont le premier principe est que le miracle n'a point de place dans
la se'rie des faits de la nature.'
2 Bad. Pow. p. 126; Benan, pp. 418-9. ' Dieu c'est lui qui est, et tout le
reste qui parait etre....Dieu, Providence, immortality, tant de bons vieux mots,
un peu lourds peut-6tre, que la philosophie interpre'tera dans des sens de plus
en plus ratline's.... Sous une forme ou sous une autre, Dieu sera tonjours le
resume de nos besoins suprasensibles, la caUgorie de VidAal (c'est-a-dire les
formes sous lesquelles nous concevons l'iddal), comme l'espace et le temps sont
les categories des corps (c'est-a-dire les formes sous lesquelles nous concevons le
corps).'

Miracles. 215
viously admit with respect to the Divine attributes, and
' the credibility of miracles on the precise view taken of
the Divine attributes prior to our admission of revelation ;'
because this 'precise view' thus restricted enables its sup
porter to assert that 'Divine Omnipotence is entirely an
inference from the language of the Bible adopted on the
assumption of a belief in Revelation1.' It must be felt, as
Renan2 himself points out, that discussion on such subjects
is hopeless between the high philosophical school and the
theologian. They have no ground in common. The be
liever necessarily comes to this subject with a foregone
conclusion3. The denial of the reality of the miracles of
the Old and New Testaments is impossible to him, con
sistently with his belief in the Personality of God and His
power as a personal agent. The miracle is to him4 nei
ther a violation of the course of nature, nor an abnormal
action of natural and known causes : it is, as far as defi
nition can reach to it, a special interposition of Divine
power, an occurrence evidencing a supernatural agent.
But this statement of what is from its mysteriousness
incapable of satisfactory and exhaustive definition, is met
by the counter-assertion6 that the miracle is now ' merged
into the doctrines with which it is connected.' It is re
moved to another sphere, and ' associated with the decla
ration of spiritual things, which are, as such, exempt from
those criticisms to which physical statements are neces
sarily amenable.' The advocate of miracles is told that he
has gone 'out of nature and beyond science' for his appre
hension of a physical event. He has carried his concep
tion of a miracle into that ' boundless region of spiritual
things which is the sole dominion of faith.' The position
of the inductionist that 'in nature and from nature, by
1 Baden Powell, p. 113.
2 Preface, p. vii. Comp. pp. ix. 206.
3 Heurtley on ' Miracles,' p. 142 (Replies to Essays and Reviews, 1862).
4 Mansel, p. 16. ? Bad. Pow. pp. 127, 143.

216 Internal Objections.
science and by reason, we neither have nor can possibly
have any evidence of a Deity worhing miracles] is not to
be said to be shaken by arguments unsuited to inductive
reasoning. And here, again, must it not be felt that the
supporter and impugner of miracles have nothing in com
mon? The inductionist builds up two parallel kingdoms,
one of science, the other of faith. He rears them in one
and the same mind, but he will not permit the one to
intrude into the province of the other. Faith must not
intermeddle with the world of nature. The physical phe
nomenon must not be encircled by a supernatural haze.
An alternative is proposed. If an ' aUeged miracle be re
garded abstractedly as a physical event,' it must be referred
to physical causes known, or if at present unknown, ulti
mately to be explained ; but then it ceases to be super
natural, 'though it may stiU be appealed to in support of
religious truth, especially as referring to the state of know
ledge and apprehension of the parties addressed in past
ages.' Or, on the other hand, ' connect the miracle with a
religious doctrine, regard it in a sacred fight, assert it on
the authority of inspiration;' but then let it be admitted
that it ' ceases to be capable of investigation by reason, or
to own its dominion; it is accepted on religious grounds,
and can appeal only to the principle and influence of faith.
It passes beyond the domain of physical causation, and
the possible conceptions of intellect or knowledge! Again :
this severance of reasoning faith and reasoning science as
regards the miracles of Scripture is impossible to one who
considers their union affirnled and verified by the life and
testimony of the Founder of Christianity. The 'alleged
miracle' of Scripture if accepted on religious grounds is so
accepted because a physical event. It is the very physical
character of the miracle which supports the religious truth
of the doctrine it originally assisted to promulgate. ' The
miracle of Scripture1,' is ' not the infraction of a law, but
1 Trench, On Miracles, pp. 16-7.

Miracles. 217
a lower law of nature neutralised, and for the time put out
of working by a higher. This world of ours is then drawn
into and within a higher order of things ; laws are then at
work in the world which are not the laws of its fallen con
dition, for they are laws of mightier range and higher
perfection. In this present world lower laws are seen to
be held in restraint by higher, mechanic by dynamic, che
mical by vital, physical by moral.' It is this submission of
the lesser to the greater which the scientific opponent of
the miracle decUnes to recognise1. The fact is overlooked
that the world contains other elements besides material,
other forces besides physical. There are personal agents,
Divine and human, besides an ideal intelligence however
supreme, or an elaborating nature. 'The phenomena of
matter,' said Sir W. Hamilton2, ' taken by themselves, as
the inductionist insists, do not warrant any inference to
the existence of a God.' ' Nature conceals God,' said an
other philosopher3, 'Man reveals Him.' The class of
phenomena requiring that kind of cause denominated a
Deity is exclusively given to the phenomena of mind. ' It
is4 from the Httle world of human consciousness, with its
many objects marshalled in array under the rule of one
conscious mind, that men are led to the thought of the
great universe beyond. The conception is reafised that
this is a world of order and design by virtue of its relation
to an ordering and presiding mind.' God is Designer,
Creator, Preserver, a real Personal Being, not 'a mere
soul of the world, or an inteUigence manifested in a system
of material phenomena.' The Personafity of God must be
the ' primary and fundamental idea of God in any distinc
tive sense of the word, — an idea without which no religion,
1 Heurtley, p. 148.
5 Lectt. on Metaphysics, 1. p. 26. Quoted in Mansel, p. 25.
3 Jacobi, in Sir W. Hamilton's Lectt. on Metaphysics, p. 40. Cf. Trench;
p. to. 1 Mansel, pp. 26-7.

218 Internal Objections.
no theology, no feeling of a spiritual relation between God
and man, and no conception of a mind superior to nature,
can have any existence.' - And if the world is governed not
only by physical but by moral laws ; if too, in this govern
ment, moral laws are superior to physical, matter subor
dinate to mind, creation to a Creator, then must the
question concerning the possibility of miracles be judged
not merely upon physical, but primarily and principally
upon moral grounds. The phenomena of the material
world give a certain evidence, but it is of a kind inferior
to that furnished by the moral nature of man. That sym
pathetic nature alone is capable of rising to the God to
whom multifarious nature bears witness. The believer in
divinely-attested miracles makes the effort to act upon this
truth. He does not, he cannot, disguise from himself the
difficulties encompassing the subject ; but he finds it more
accordant with the dignity and majesty of the Divine na
ture to elevate the tribunal of appeal from secondary to
primary causes, and to refer to the latter effects which the
former can never adequately solve.
As regards, then, the general question of the possibility
of miracles, Paley's criticism is the true one ; ' once believe
that there is a God, and miracles are not incredible.' And
with this recognition of God as a personal agent, it is not
difficult to see that physical science casts its weight into
the scale in favour of the supernatural character of the
Scripture miracles. Professor Mansel1 has pointed out
that 'in whatever proportion our knowledge of physical
causation is limited, and the number of unknown natural
agents comparatively large, in the same proportion is the
probability that some of these unknown causes acting in
some unknown manner may have given rise to the aUeged
marvels.' But as the unravelling of the marvellous in
other phenomena proceeds, it only serves to leave 'the
mighty works rought by the finger of God, in their soli-
1 pp. 13-4-

Miracles. ' 219
tary grandeur, unapproached and unapproachable by all
the knowledge and aU the power of man.' Wherever per
sonal agency is recorded as concerned, it is a lawful as
sumption that just ' in proportion as the science of the day
surpasses that of former generations, so is the improba
bility that any man could have done in past times, by
natural means, works which no skill of the present age is
able to imitate.' Scientific progress itself gradually elimi
nates all reference of the unexplained Scripture miracles
to unknown natural or secondary causes, and reduces the
question of their actual occurrence to a matter of historical
testimony. Criticism has to deal with no hypothetical
case, but with actual events attested as matters of fact,
and submitted to investigation by those who recount them.
Those events either never occurred at an, or they were
accompanied by marks of a consciously-exercised super
natural power such as the sacred historian has described.
It is a question now not of science but of testimony.
But here arises an objection, which if valid, would be
fatal. 'No testimony, it is said, can reach to the super
natural1.' 'Testimony is but a second-hand assurance, a
blind guide ; it can avail nothing against reason.' ' Alleged
miracles may have been real facts, but then they were not
supernatural ; they were such to those only who were ig
norant of the laws of nature/ The very testimony adduced
in support of these miracles ' can apply only to apparent
and sensible facts. It can only prove an extraordinary
and perhaps inexplicable occurrence or phenomenon. That
it was due to supernatural causes is entirely dependent on
the previous belief and assumption of the parties.' But
this humiliation of the power of testimony, though possibly
true in hypothetical cases selected here and there, is sin
gularly inapplicable to works recorded as due to the
"finger of God2." The testimony supporting those works,
1 Bad. Pow. pp. 107, 141. 2 Mansel, p. 7.

220 Internal Objections.
whether wrought under the Old or New Dispensations is
of a peculiar character. In no case do they rest solely on
the testimony of a mere spectator. In the New Testa
ment, the testimony is that of the performer of the miracle
(S. Matt. xii. 28, Acts iv. 10) ; in the Old, when not that of
the Performer, it is that of one who stood in the closest
possible connection with a Personal God — the God of
Israel; — one therefore conscious of the interposition of a
Divine power at work for some Divine purpose altogether
beyond the apprehension of a spectator.
Of the miracles of the New Testament I can have no
occasion to speak. The likenesses and unlikenesses ex
isting between them and those wrought under the older
dispensation are such as were naturally to be expected1.
They have a necessary Hkeness, extending even to physical
description, since the ' old and new Covenants form part
of one organic whole ; and it is ever God's law that the
lower should contain the germs and prophetic intimations
of the higher.' They have also a necessary unlikeness,
' since the very idea of God's kingdom is that of progress,
of a gradually fuller communication and larger revelation
of Himself to men ; so that He who in times past spake
unto the fathers by the prophets, did at length speak unto
us by His Son.' It was only meet that this Son should
be clothed with mightier powers than they2. The one,
in fact, can only be rightly estimated in connection with
the other : the miracle of the Old Testament represents
but a more remote grade of one and the same revelation.
It seems natural to ascribe most of the miracles of the
older Dispensation to the immediate agency of Almighty
1 Vid. S. Cyril of Alex. (Cram. Cat. im, Luc. v. 12), and Eusebius, Dem.
Evang. III. t, upon this subject; also Pearson, On ihe Creed, Art. II. pp. 161-3
(ed. Chevallier, Camb. 1849). It is worthy of note that the likeness extends
even to description. The Miracles of the Old Testament are called ipya (Heb.
iii. 9 ; Ps. xciv. 9, LXX.) ; the very word most frequently used by S. John to
define our Lord's Miracles (v. 36; x. 25, 32, 38; xiv. 11).
2 Trench, p. 35 seq.

Miracles, 221
God, evoked by particular occasions. Independently of their
ultimate purpose of affording evidence of Divine interpo
sition, they had also an immediate and temporary pur
pose. They were signs of a Personal God, and so of His
Fatherly care and protection. A moral character was thus
attached to the works wrought. Not only did they testify
to the Power and the Glory of the Agent performing them,
but also to His other attributes. Miracles were raised from
a mere Oav/jua fidipoK — a matter of senseless wonder, to a
a-rjfieiov, a sign of the kingdom of Heaven.
The miracles of the Old Testament have been grouped
around the great epochs in the history of the theocratic
kingdom1. They shed a supernatural glory over its founda
tion under Moses and Joshua ; its monarchy under Elijah
and Elisha2; and its captivity, the time of the first great
national depression, under Daniel. These latter had a
retrospective purpose in establishing, energising, and pre
serving the Mosaic covenant, ' itself a supernatural system,
provided with supernatural institutions;' but they had
also a prospective aim in preparing equally with the first
the way for the final consummation of God's supernatural
Providence in the Incarnation of the Only-Begotten. Con
nected with this preparatory element was the particular
sphere in which they were exhibited3. External nature
was their special domain. The waters of seas and rivers
were parted asunder : the earth opened her mouth (Numb.
xvi. 31) ; fire descended from heaven (1 Kings xviii. 38 ;
2 Bangs i. 10 — 2) ; furnaces refused to consume their vic
tims (Dan. iii.) ; wild beasts laid aside their ferocious nature
(1 Kings xiii. 24, 28 ; Dan. vi. 8, 22). But none of these
were abnormal interpositions. They did not violate God's
general purpose of carrying on the world by the ordinary
laws of nature. Consistently also with this peculiarity of
1 Mansel, p. 9.
2 Davison, On Prophecy, p. 17S (7th edition, 1861).
3 Trench, p. 38.

222 Internal Objections.
the earlier miracles is their form. Wrought most frequently
in the presence of the giant powers of heathendom, they
are marked by giant and overawing proportions. It was
a time when the God of Israel curbed and broke the defiant
spirit of the votary of Phra and the worshipper of Bel.
' The miracles of Egypt, and the miracles of Babylon were
eminently miracles of strength.' Humanly speaking it was
needful that it should be so, for ' under the influence of
the nature-worship of those lands, all religion had assumed
a colossal grandeur. Compared with our Lord's works,
wrought in the days of His flesh — those of the Old Testa
ment were as the whirlwind and the fire, His as the still small
voice which followed. In that olden time God was teach
ing not only His own people but also the nations with
whom His people was brought into contact, that He who
had entered into covenant with one among many nations
was not one God among many, the god of the hills or the
god of the plains (1 Kings xx. 23), but the Lord of the
whole earth1.' And these miracles are as much reducible
to law as those of the New Testament. They illustrate no
exception to, but the rule of God's actions. They are the
outposts of that vast system of Divine power which reaches
far beyond the range of physical conception and yet lies
within the experience of every soul. Considering them
especially as facts, as actually introducing to the heathen
world a knowledge of God, their testimony to the super
natural is most striking. They refer their origin to an
Almighty interposition quite as distinctly as did our Lord
and His apostles. To speak only of those mentioned in
the Book of Daniel. The 'three children,' were at the
mercy of the enraged monarch; but before the flames
bathed their bodies they distinctly declared that there was
but ONE who could deliver them. Presently the confession
was heard; 'the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego
hath sent His angel and delivered His servants who trusted
1 Cf. Davison, p. 182.

Miracles. 223
in Him.' Daniel himself, when answering the cry of his
remorseful master, was no less explicit : ' my God hath sent
His angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths that they have
not hurt me.' The revellers assembled at Belshazzar's feast
shrank in terror from the awful apparition of the ' finger
of God.' It was a ' voice from heaven' which fell on the
ears of Nebuchadnezzar while the boast was still upon his
Hps. It was ' the God of his fathers' who revealed to the
prophet the dream of the Babylonian king, and saved His
own servant's life. What are all these but testimonies
reaching to the supernatural ? They are not those of mere
spectators, but of those who were themselves the subjects
of the miraculous interference. Those miracles were not
every-day events. They belonged to no cycle in the re
curring phenomena of nature. And if they are credibly
attested as facts, they cannot be put aside as unmeaning
or isolated anomalies. They form rather 1 ' a fore-ordained
and orderly system of powers, working above the ordinary
course of nature because their end is above nature. The
unresting activity of God, which at other times hides
and conceals itself behind the veil of what are termed na
tural laws, does in the miracle unveil itself : it steps out
from its concealment and the hand which works is laid
bare2.' Higher powers as bearing upon higher ends make
themselves felt besides and beyond the ordinary opera
tions of nature and the simpler manifestations of a Pro
tector's love. There is fittle justice in the argument that
aU such miraculous events are incredible, because wrought
in a manner opposed to the conception of a Divine Being
current in the present day. Modern opinion can never be
the judge of the form or of the conditions of miracles
wrought at a period with which it has so little in common.
Sadly but too truly has it been written3 upon this subject
of miracles, that ' there remains only the choice between a
1 Mansel, pp. io-t. 2 Trench, p. 12.
3 Mansel, p. 15.

224 Internal Objections.
deeper faith and a bolder unbelief; between accepting the
sacred narrative as a true account of miracles actually per
formed, and rejecting it as whoUy fictitious and incredible ;
whether the fiction be attributed to a gradual accretion of
mythical elements, or to the conscious fabrication of a
wilful impostor.' It is a pure question of alternative ; and
modern scepticism has not hesitated to accept in the case
of the Book of Daniel that which reverses the creed of
ages. It is of little purpose to veil the ugliness of the
word — forgery — under the sentimentalism of a parsenetical
object. Those who propound this explanation disclaim
indeed for the forger all intention to deceive, but they
forget the logical consequence of their explanation. It
includes under one indiscriminate charge of conscious sup
port of fraud — Prophet and Saviour (if their words have
a plain meaning), Priest and Rabbi, the Jewish and the
Christian Church, — all, in short who have ever borne tes
timony to the belief that the Book of Daniel contains
facts handed down by the Prophet whose name it bears.
It is allowed by Professor PoweU1 that the marveUous
history of remote times cannot be subjected to precisely
the same critical scrutiny employed to examine the modern
marvel. And though it will always ' remain a duty to ob
tain, if possible, some rational clue to the interpretation of
the alleged wonderful narrative ; though modern instances
are not wanting to prove that under the supernatural
language of a rude age, it is sometimes possible to find
some real natural phenomenon truly described according
to the existing state of knowledge :' yet can it be safely
affirmed that ' in other cases where such marvels may seem
still more to militate against historical probabifity, and
where attempts at explanation seem irrational,' that there
we maybe led to 'prefer the supposition that the narrative
itself was of a designedly fictitious or poetical nature'?
In the case of the Scripture miracles can a ' supposition'
1 Order of Nature, pp. 274-5.

Miracles. 225
hold its ground against a historically-attested fact? or a
physical negative overrule a supernatural affirmative ? Yet
this is the conclusion of that school which acts upon the
principle that parable and myth often include more truth
than history. Happily there are others, who employing the
same means of philosophic investigation, of critical and
philological research, yet attain a different result. There
are men who will examine first upon critical and archseo-
logical grounds the documentary evidence supporting a
miraculous narrative, and that satisfactorily decided, do
not find it difficult to allow that whatever in that narra
tive is beyond the range of human knowledge and above
the course of nature familiar to them — is also beyond the
range of philosophical speculation. The bold paradox of
Tertullian1 comes back to memory to illustrate the rationale
of the miracle Certum est quia impossibile.
Iii all such matters reason itself must rest upon authority 2.
The original data of reason do not rest upon reason, but
are necessarily accepted by reason on the authority of what
is beyond itself. These data are therefore in rigid pro
priety beliefs or trusts. It is in truth a necessary philoso
phical admission that befief is the primary condition of
reason, and not reason the ultimate ground of belief. The
proud heart of man has to learn to surrender the ' intellige
ut credas' of Abelard, and content itself with the humble
' crede ut intelligas' of S. Anselm.
1 ' It is an exaggerated mode of stating, that a Christian readily admits on
the authority of revelation, that which men who rely solely on the conclu
sions of their own reason, pronounce impossible.' Kaye, On Tertullian, p. xxx.
(3rd edition, 1845).
2 Sir W. Hamilton. Reid's Works, note A, sect. 5.

15

CHAPTER VII.

C. The Prophecies.
Closely connected with the Miracles of the Book of
Daniel, are its Prophecies. They constitute the second of
the two1 external sensible proofs by which this servant of
God convinced the world of his divine commission. ' Mira
cles,' says one of the greatest of living Divines2, 'by virtue
of the Creative and Revealing Presence apparent in them,
offer to all conscientious minds the clearest of proofs.
Prophecy, from its embracing at once events of which
living men might judge, and the history of the far distant
future, performs the function of a witness to every age.'
They are separately and together energetic displays of the
' demonstration of the spirit and of power3,' and therefore
only different modes of operation of one and the same
Cause. The position allotted to Miracle in the department
of action, is accorded to Prophecy in the department of
knowledge. Consequently the contemporaries of Daniel
welcomed their captive brother as a 'teacher come from
God,' and the befief of our Lord and His Apostles has sancti
fied the opinion. He was one of the Prophets ' by whom
God at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times
past.' (Heb. i. 1.)
1 Lee, The Inspiration of Holy Scripture, p. 227 (2nd edition, 1857).
'J Id. 3 d7n,5e(£ews Trvei/iaros Kal $wdp.eus, 1 Cor. ii. 4.

The Prophecies. 227
Now whatever differences of opinion may be lawfully
permitted in the discussion of any question, it is the essence
of all profitable discussion that it should be temperately
and dispassionately conducted. The very reverse would
seem to be the practice when the Prophecies of Daniel are
in question. The usually accepted or ' traditional' view
has been supported as well as combated with a bitterness
and hostility thoroughly incompatible with either Chris
tian feeling or intelligent criticism. It is well known that
these prophecies have furnished the battle-field of the
most antagonistic opinions. That was not to be prevented,
nor perhaps to be regretted, had the vanquished known
how and when it is honourable to confess a defeat. But
this is seldom the case. The exposure of the falseness of
this or that tenet is casuistically wrested to its honour. It
is defended with a pertinacity wilfully ignorant of defer
ence to age, learning, and authority. To read the modern
critical and exegetical literature of the Prophecies of
Daniel is to peruse writings tainted by a bitterness and
personality as fierce as that which envenomed the con
troversy between a Jerome and a Ruffmus. There is much
of the hard language of a Bossuet, little of the Christian
courtesy of a Bellarmin. Yet surely the primary source of
difference — that of interpretation and reference— should
be the last even to suggest hostility. To an impartial spec
tator of this war of opinion, where every one ' hath a doc
trine  a revelation, an interpretation,' there is something
peculiarly painful in the vehemence with which individual
views are dictatorially affirmed. It would seem that the
sciolists of all parties have altogether forgotten the chari
table maxim of tlie saint of Hippo : ' in necessariis unitas,
in dubiis Hbertas, in omnibus caritas.'
The symbolical and external features of the Prophecies
have necessarily suffered from this treatment. By one
section of writers little consideration is permitted to the
fact that purely critical phenomena are independent of
15—2

228 Internal Objections.
exegetical preconceptions. The former are made sub
servient to the latter, often with a most illegal disregard
of the laws of philology and the ' usus verborum.' By ano
ther, a disposition is manifested to deny all but the most
narrow and one-sided conception of Prophecy. Modern
opinion sits in judgment upon the views handed down by
the Saviour and His Apostles, and has no hesitation in
deciding that they were conformable to the spirit and
information of that age alone. They are not to be con
sidered binding upon the more enlightened, more philoso
phical conceptions of to-day. I do not pretend to follow
each section through the very questionable processes by
which they attain their respective conclusions; but cer
tainly it were much to be wished that a little of the critical
acumen of the one might be transferred to the other, and
a measure of the reverence of the ' traditionalist' delegated
to the 'modern.' Neither school would then have such
angry strokes for that third and increasing class of critics,
which claims to hold the authenticity of the Book of
Daniel, and yet apply to its Prophecies the tests of lin
guistic and historical canons.
These Prophecies may be conveniently divided into two
sections : the first that of the ' four world-powers or king
doms ;' the second that of the ' seventy weeks.' In accord
ance with the limits and scope of the present Essay I can
only endeavour to give a very brief outline of the systems
of interpretation applied to these sections. The authen
ticity of the book does not depend upon that, though
it may be necessary to allude to its most prominent features
before proceeding to discuss the form under which the
Prophecies are presented, that outer shell . in which they
are encased.

The Prophecies. '229
§ 1. The Four Kingdoms.
Chs. ii. vii.
It is generally, and rightly, admitted that the same
four powers or kingdoms are described in the 2nd and
7th Chapters1. The fourfold partition of the respective
symbols, the various minutise of analogy and agreement
indicate a coincidence which is transformed into certainty
by the literal interpretation annexed to and completing
the revelation of those visions2. Of itself the duplication is
not unimportant ; it adds to the steadiness and confidence
of the prediction. Existing differences of imagery have
been rightly attributed to a difference of character in the
revelation '". In Ch. n. the powers are taken from the sphere
of the inanimate, and represent the purely external and
unconscious side of the subject. In Ch. vii. they are chosen
from the sphere of the animate, and illustrate typically
the firing conscious element of the prophecy. Nebuchad
nezzar saw things only from without. The wbrld's-power
to him was in its fullest glory but a splendid human form,
a colossal figure bearing the outward appearance of a
man ; the power of God's kingdom, in its highest splen
dour but humble as a ' stone cut without hands.' Daniel
penetrated deeper into the vision. He saw that the king
doms of the world were, notwithstanding their defiant at
titude, of a nature animal, plastic, and lower than human.
Pagan minds were exhibited to him dulled and ignorant
of God, as the image, however costly, is ignorant of its
maker. Only in the kingdom of God, that humble corner
stone ' coming not with observation,' was embosomed all
1 S. Hippolytus, p. 177 (ed. Lagarde); and so by the majority of critics
English and German.
2 Davison, On Prophecy, p. 355.
3 Auberlen, p. 45.

230 Internal Objections.
that was powerful and eternal. Accordingly to the prophet
the kingdom of God is from the very outset, superior to
the kingdoms of the world. Gold, silver, brass, iron— the
puppet-work of man's hands, is ground to powder by the
stone, the work cut without hands.
But with the recognition of identity of subject, ceases
all unanimity of opinion. The critical and theological
world has ever been at issue upon the identification of
these four kingdoms. There have been two1 main views
upon this point, called by a not very just distinction, the
' traditional' and the ' modern.'
The 'traditional' opinion is traced back by its sup
porters to the 4th Book of Ezra2 (2 Esdras), the writings
of S. Barnabas3 and S. Hippolytus4. It has been handed
down to modern times under the high sanction of the
majority of the early Fathers6. It is adopted by the
Jonathan-Targum6, Josephus7, the Talmud8, R. Albo9, and
others ; and it is advocated by a very large proportion of
English and German commentators. The four kingdoms
are according to this system; the Babylonian, the Medo-
Persian, the Macedo-Grecian, and the Roman.
This interpretation is perfectly satisfactory when tested
by the mere imagery of the two chapters. None are so
ready to grant this as those who yet oppose the interpreta
tion. But there exists a certain connection between the
1 For others, e.g. those of Bertholdt and Herzfeld, Eedepenning and Hit
zig, vid. the usual commentaries.
2 On this identification, opposed by Hilgenfeld and Volkmar, v. Westcott,
'Esdras, Second Book of (Smith's Diet, of Bible), Vol. i. pp. 578-9.
3 Ch. iv. p. 5, PP. App. Op., ed. Dressel. Leipz. 1857.
4 pp. 151 seq., 171-2, ed. Lagarde.
5 These are collected int. al. by Hofmann, Weissagung u. Erfiillung,
Part 1. pp. 276-96.
6 On Hab. iii. 17 (Buxt. Bibl. Rabb. in loco).
7 Ant. X. 11 ; 4, 7. This is denied by Hooper.
8 Bereshit-Rabba, ch. xliv. ; Tanchuma, 31 c. [Herzfeld, Gesch. d. Yolk.
Isr. Vol. I. p. 422 (1855)] ; Maor. fol. 42. 2 (Ziindel, p. 82).
' Sepher Ikkarim, ch. xlii. (Hebr. Rev. m. p. 380).

The Prophecies. 231
facts of these chapters, and those narrated in subsequent
portions of the Book, which to the 'modern' mind renders
the interpretation improbable if not impossible. The his
tory of the growth of this traditional view has been thus
explained1. The Church in the Apostolic age believed,
and was permitted in the Providence of God to believe
that the end of the world, the ' finishing of the mystery of
God' was at hand, even at the doors. The long interval
of conflict which has followed the first Advent formed no
place in the anticipations of the first Christians. They
could not but believe that their own age was that of the
fourth empire — the Roman empire — the last in the series
of earthly kingdoms'. And if at that time they were not
concerned to test their belief by tracing criticaUy the
realization of the prophetic symbols through the page of
history, in succeeding ages the generally received opinion
was devoutly retained. The Fathers continued to look for
one who should revive the policy of Augustus : the empire,
they believed, was but to pass into other hands, not to be
changed nor dissolved3. Consequently the Roman period
was prolonged to meet the requirements of the theory.
And yet, it has been urged4, the text itself of prophecy
should have suggested caution in pressing this application.
The fourth empire was to exist tiU the coming of the
Ancient of days (vii. 22, 26-27). That time has not even
yet arrived, while the Roman empire, ' the empire founded
by Romulus and ruled over by Augustus and Constantine,
has passed through its regular decline and faU to absolute
extinction. Those who are hard pressed by the exigency
of system may attempt to make a show of nominal empire ;
and by long habit, readers and writers of commentaries

1 Browne, Ordo Sozclorum, p. 678. It is well stated by Westcott.
2 S. Hippolytus calls it, tj pa<ri\eta % Kparouira vuv (p. 1 79).
3 Id. Quoted by Browne, p. 679, n. 1.
4 Maitland. Quoted by Browne, p. 676.

232 Internal Objections.
on the prophecies have come to give and receive very mar
vellous interpretations with great gravity.' But this is to
avoid not to meet the dilemma suggested by the very letter
of the text. Christians are now ' beginning to learn slowly
and very reluctantly' that the Roman empire cannot be
that intended by the prophet.
From this it is evident that, in the opinion of the ' mo
dern ' school, — not the study of the integral text by the
aid of a deeper philology;— not the elucidation of histo
rical allusions by the light of the most pertinent events,
but an attachment to a theory has mainly contributed to
preserve and perpetuate the existence of the 'Traditionalist'
interpretation. A stated line of opinion was early marked
out. It suited well the belief and the conditions of a pa
tristic age. But as time proved the misapplication of one
point, and the necessity of rectifying a second, the struggle
began which has reached down to the present century.
There were some who thought it no unwise act to confess
previous views incomplete. There were others who by an
excess of prudence rather than of critical discernment pre
ferred the established opinion, and ventured to pronounce
dissent an act of exceeding presumption. And so it has
happened, says the 'modern' objector, that changes of
subject are freely asserted where they are contextually in
defensible ; the integrity of a typical section is marred and
robbed of its real significance by arbitrary dismemberment.
Historical anachronisms are endured and defended ; allu
sions explained; numbers squared ;• — and all to suit a
theory contradicted by the simple letter of the text.
A second interpretation grew up soon after the first. It
allotted the 'four kingdoms' to Babylonia, Media, Persia,
and Greece. The 'fathers' of this, the 'modern' view
were Ephraem Syrus (300-50 A.D.), Cosmas Indicopleustes
(c. a.d. 535) and others1. In more recent times the cele-
1 Bleek, p. 65, Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. i860.

The Prophecies. 233
brated Aben Ezra1 and R. Hyam Gallieppo * adopted it ;
and in addition to many critics, past and present, the men
tion of whose names is generally sufficient to ensure re
jection to the view they adopt, — it has been commended
and supported by such staunch defenders of the faith as
Maitland, Delitzsch, Westcott, Browne, and Hooper3.
I cannot permit myself to enter here into a full con
sideration of these respective views; but perhaps the ac
companying table4 of the two series of prophecies will
remove the necessity of approximating all the likenesses
and unfikenesses observable, and at the same time furnish
an easy reference for the examination of some of the points
which have induced the various disputants to yield their
assent to this or that opinion. From that table may be
deduced the foUowing position5. There is a clear and un
ambiguous statement of the rise of four kingdoms; the
four not to be contemporaneous, but successive ; not origi
nating from the same power, but diverse one from another ;
not confined to the sway of a domestic sceptre, but king
doms of conquest and power, bearing rule over the subject-
nations. An extension of dominion is predicated of the
third, an exceeding strength of the fourth. In a word,
there is here a conspicuous and connected prophecy of the
most comprehensive changes and revolutions wrought on
the face of the ancient world.
1 Browne, p. 675.
2 Quoted by R. Albo, Sepher Ikkarim, ch. xlii. ; Herzfeld, op. cit. p. 422,
gives Rabbinical references of the fourth kingdom to the Persians and Arabians.
3 Tlie Prophecies of Daniel collated and expounded, p. 4 seq. (1861). The
opinions of these critics, and of those who agree with them, will be found
in the works already cited. Mr Birks, Tlie Four Prophetic Empires, &c. p. 12
(1844), gives others. He himself adopts the ' traditional ' view.
4 Compiled from that by Bunsen, Gott in d. Geschichte, Vol. 1. p. 302 seq.
6 Davison, p. 356.

THE FOUE KINGDOMS.

CHAPTER II. CHAPTER VII.
THE VISION OP THE IMAGE. THE VISION OF THE BEASTS.

The Golden Kingdom.
v. 32. Head of gold= Nebu
chadnezzar, v. 38.

The First Kingdom.
v, 4. Lion with eagle's wings,
and a man's heart,

CHAPTER VIII.
THE VISION OF THE BAM
AND THE HE-GOAT.

CHAPTERS XI. XII.
THE VISION OF KINGS OF
PEBSIA AND OF GKEECE.

The Silver Kingdom.
v. 32. Arms and breast of sil
ver = ' another kingdom inferior
to thee' (Neb.) v. 39.

The Second Kingdom.
v. 5. The Bear with three
ribs between its teeth devouring
much flesh.

The Kingdom of Brass.
v. 32. Belly and thighs of
brass = ' a kingdom which shall
bear rule over all the earth' v. 39.

The Third Kingdom.
v. 6. The Leopard with 'four
wings of a fowl and four heads,'
' dominion given unto it.'

The Ram with Two Horns.
v. 3. The greater horn came
up last. It pushed towards W.,
N. and S. (v. 4) = 'Kings of Me
dia and Persia' (v. 20).

The Kingdom op Iron.
v. 33. The legs of iron: the
feet partly iron, partly clay='a
kingdom strong as iron' (v. 40).
' Breaking in pieces and braising.'
It shall be divided as ' iron mix
ed with miry clay,' because 'there
shall be in it of the strength of
iron' (v. 41), the kingdom shall be

The Fourth Kingdom.
v. 7. A Beast diverse from all
Beasts=a kingdom 'diverse from
all kingdoms' (v. 23). With iron
teeth, 'dreadful, terrible, and
strong exceedingly :' ' devouring,
breaking in pieces, and stamping
the residue with the feet.' It had
ten horns = ten kings (v. 24).

v. 5. The he-goat from the
W. = King of Grecia (v. 21). He
'touched not the ground' (v. 5),
and had a ' notable horn between
his eyes' = first king (v. 21).
v. 7. The goat smote the ram
and broke his two horns. The
' notable horn ' broken (v. 8), and

The Kings op Persia.
xi. 2, 3. After 'Darius the
Mede' — the first Cyrus, the fourth
' richer than them all.' Through
his riches he rebels against King
of ' Grsecia.'

The Kingdom op Grsecia (xi. 3.)
xi. 3, 4. A hero stands up but
his kingdom falls as soon as erect
ed : it does not descend to his
posterity, but strangers divide it.
v. 5. The King of the South
shall be strong, against him shall
be also another mighty one. After
some years they become friends,

partly strong, partly broken' (v.
42), iron mixed with clay repre
senting the mingling with the
seed of men.

v. 44. ' In the days of these
kings shall the God of heaven set
up a kingdom which shall never
be destroyed. It shall break in
pieces these other kingdoms and
shall stand for ever.'
v. 45. It shall be as 'a stone
cut out of the mountain without
hands.' 'The dream is certain
and the interpretation sure.'

v. 8. From among these arose
a ' little horn :' before which three
of the ten were plucked up.
' Eyes like the eyes of a man,' and
a 'mouth speaking great things,
making war with the saints and
prevailing till the judgment' (vv.
21, 22) = a king diverse from the
rest, who shall subdue three
kings, speak great words against
the Most High, and think to
change times and laws. The
saints shall be given into his
power for ' a time and times and
the dividing of time' (vv. 24, 25).

vv. 9—14. 'The thrones were
cast down, and the Ancient of
days did sit  thousands, and
tens of thousands before Him.
The judgment was set and the
books opened.' ' Because of the
voice of the great words' spoken
by the ' horn,' the beast was slain,
and his body given to the flame.
From the rest of the beasts do
minion was taken away, and their
lives prolonged for a season. And,
behold, ' one like the Son of Man'
came to the Ancient of days, and
to him was given 'everlasting
dominion.'

for it came up 'four notable ones
towards the four winds of heaven'
=four kingdoms but not in his
power (v. 22). Out of one of them
came a 'little horn' which waxed
towards S. and E. and 'pleasant
land'—' even to the host of hea
ven,' it ' took away daily sacrifice
and cast down the sanctuary' (vv.
9 — 11). The sanctuary was to
be trodden down 2300 half days
(1150 days) = 3 years 55 days (vv.
12— 14) = 'a king of fierce coun
tenance and understanding dark
sentences:' 'mighty but not by
his own power ;' ' destroying the
holypeople,' prospering by crafty
policy (vv. 23—25).

v. 25. 'He shall be broken
without hand by the Prince of
Princes.'

but again make war  He will
go_ again against the South, but
ships from Chittim shall compel
him to return. Then shall he
have indignation against the holy
covenant (v. 31). The true a-
mong the people shall strengthen
themselves and many shall perish
(v. 33). At the end the King of
the South shall push against
him. But he shall overflow the
pleasant land and Egypt. He
shall go out towards the North,
and pitch his tent between two
seas, in the holy hill (vv. 6 — 15)
[From the time of the ' abomina
tion of desolation' (xi. 31) to the
full end are ' a time, times and a
half (xii. 7), 1290 days (xii. 11)=
3 J years. 'Blessed is he that
cometh to the 1335 days' =3f
years].

xii. 1 — 3. Michael, the great
prince, shall stand up. A ' time
of trouble' ensues ' such as never
was since there was a nation even
to that same time,' and ' at that
time God's people should be deli
vered every one that shall be
found written in the Book.' 'They
that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake' some to 'life'
and some to ' shame.'

236 Interned Objections.
The difference, it will be noticed, begins with the
second image and beast. The ' traditional' view, proceed
ing upon the supposition that there was no separate Me
dian monarchy, regards these types as representing the
Medo-Persian kingdom combined. The 'bear with three
ribs between its teeth' is Cyrus and his three dependencies,
Media,. Assyria, and Babylonia (S. Hippolytus), or Egypt,
Lydia, and Babylonia (Zundel), or Media, Persia, and Lydia
(alii). The maintenance of this interpretation very much
depends upon the view taken of Cyrus' position as regards
Darius the Mede. if Cyrus be regarded, at the time of the
fall of Babylon, as the conqueror of Media, and the Me
dians as subject to the Persians, then a Median sole
supremacy over Babylon was impossible. But according to
the view adopted in these pages1, Cyrus was very far from
claiming such a title, and he carefully preferred the Median
prince to the post of honour. Daniel (ii. 39) himself dis
tinctly describes the second kingdom as inferior to the
first, and this while exactly the case with the Median dy
nasty alone, cannot be asserted of the Medo-Persian com
bined. 'Modern' opinion has therefore preferred to inter
pret the 'bear with its three ribs' of Darius the Mede and
his three Presidents ; founding the interpretation upon the
fact, that the short-lived Median dynasty was far 'inferior'
to that of Nebuchadnezzar. Upon one point, 'modern'
opinion may certainly be said to be right; namely, in re
jecting as arbitrary the reference of such inferiority to
internal worth or value (Auberlen). The severance between
the Mede and the Persian asserted by the 'modern,' is
said to be further supported by chapter viii. 3. The ' ram
with the two horns,' is that one kingdom successively go
verned by the kings of Media and Persia ; the second horn
or kingdom being higher than the first, and the higher
coming up the last. This was the case with the kingdom

The Prophecies. 237
of Persia. It was not till the sole reign of Cyrus, that the
distinct empires of the Medes and Persians became tho
roughly united; and then the Persian element gradually
superseded the Median in the governing body. In the
Book of Daniel the Median empire is represented as in
dependent, placed between the Babylonian and Persian
empires. Though of comparatively slight importance in
itself, it had a momentous and independent character in
relation to the history of Israel, and therefore also in the
view of the prophet (Delitzsch).
The identification of the second kingdom with the
Medo-Persian naturally leads the 'traditionalist' to ex
plain the third of the Grseco-Macedonian : the 'modern'
affirming it to be the Persian. According to the first the
'four heads' of the 'leopard' (Alexander) are Seleucus,
Demetrius, Ptolemy, and Philip1. According to the second
the 'leopard' is Cyrus: the 'four heads' are his successors
Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes, and Xerxes : the
'four wings' being either Persia, Media, Babylonia, and
Egypt, or with the 'traditionalist' the four points of the
compass. In either case the whole opinion stands or falls
with the validity of the position assumed with respect to
the second and fourth kingdoms.
What then is typified by the fourth kingdom ? This is
unquestionably the most knotty point of the subject. Con-
textually it appears to be the last world-power before the
Advent of Messianic Salvation. What was that power? and
who is meant by the 'little horn,' that most impious of
the enemies of God's people and His sanctuary? The 'tra
ditionalist' answers: the kingdom is the Roman; the 'little
horn,' that Antichrist who has not yet appeared, but on all
accounts to be carefully distinguished from the great per
secutor of the Jews — Antiochus Epiphanes2. The ' modern'
1 S. Hippolytus, p. 178.
2 Id. pp. 179, 181. ' We must wait till the 10 horns arise when the time of
the Beast shall be fulfilled, and the "little horn," which is Antichrist, shall

238 Internal Objections.
replies : the kingdom is the Grseco-Macedonian ; the ' little
horn' primarily, at least, Antiochus Epiphanes. There are
a few indications which perhaps facilitate a decision. The
description of this fourth kingdom has been affirmed ca
pable of application to the Macedonian and Roman alike.
If so, the case resolves itself into a balance of probabilities.
The feet of the image seen by Nebuchadnezzar are ' part
of iron, part of clay' (ii. 33), 'partly strong, partly broken'
(ver. 42): the commixture denoting the; 'mingling them
selves with the seed of men ; ' the fracture the ' not cleav
ing one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay'
(vv. 42 — 3). Auberlen's school1 affixes to this an interpre
tation which, though seriously offered, cannot but be de
signated purely artificial. In the strong metal is discovered
an allusion to the 'iron' nature of the Roman world-power
penetrating and influencing its Germanic and Slavonic off
shoots, while the still existing cleavage is hailed as a pre
dicted result of opposite nationalities and peculiarities. On
the other hand, the ' modern' school prefers to assimilate
the type to the marriage alliances (v. 43) of the Ptolemies
and Seleucids2; unions which promised so much and so
speedily came to nothing. For awhile the junction was
as that of iron to a tenacious clay, but presently cleavage
ensued through the inherent discordance of the materials
employed. This fourth kingdom is symbolised in chapter vii. by a
beast with ten horns, from among which arose a 'little
horn' before whom three of the ten were plucked up by
the roots. Now this definite number may or may not be a

appear.... We must not anticipate the will of God, but have patience and fear
lest our lot fall in such times; neither let us disbelieve that they will
happen,' &c.
1 p. 220 seq. (Engl. Tr.).
2 Thus Ptol. Philad. married his daughter to Ptol. Theos (B.C. 252): Ptol.
Epiph. married the daughter of Antiochus the Great (197 B.C.). Bleek, Jahrb.
p. 60, n. 1.

The Prophecies. 239
strict postulate of prophecy, but a multifarious division
unquestionably is denoted1. That division finds its illustra
tion, according to the 'traditionalist' opinion, in the cluster
of the petty contemporary kingdoms which replaced the
Roman empire upon its dissolution ; according to the ' mo
dern,' in the successors or generals of Alexander. The
balance of probabilities perhaps favours the latter2. Au-
berlen and Bleek8 are agreed in considering the ten kings
as co-ordinate in dignity and time. The 'little horn'
rises not after but among the horns (jirVJ^). The
chief objection made to the 'modern' view, is based upon
the supposed contradiction of chapter viii. 8. There four
monarchies, not ten, arise out of Alexander's empire, and
from one of these four springs the 'little horn.' This
would seem to refer the 'little horn' of chapters vii. and
viii. to different persons. But as regards the first point, it
is answered, that the difficulty is more imaginary than real.
The lesser kingdoms into which the great monarchy of
Alexander was partitioned were sometimes reckoned as
four ruled by Seleucus Nicator, Lysimachus, Ptolemy
Lagi, and Cassander, or as ten under the generals who,
after the death of their chief, divided his provinces amongst
themselves. All these kingdoms existed contemporaneous
ly, and therefore satisfy the literal requirements of the
1 Davison, p. 361. Beck's remarks on the numbers of prophecy are worth
quoting. 'Die prophetischen Zahlen dagegen sind zusammeugesetzt theils aus
den innersten TJrbestimmunzen der aussenweltlichen Maassverhaltnisse, heilige
Urzahlen, die elemeutare Welt-Organisation bemessend, zuderenEntrathselung
nur die biblischen Aufschliisse iiber Schb'pfung und Urzeit dienen ; theils aus
den Grundbestimmungen der theocratischen Chronologie und Arithmetik
(namentlich Pestrechnnng), heilige Ziffern, geschSpft aus der Zeit-und-Maass-
Ordnungder Theocratie.' (Propad. Entwickel, p. 201. Quoted by Lee, On In
spiration, p. 215, n. 1.)
2 The names of the ' Successors ' may be seen in Delitzsch or Davidson
(Home's Intr. p. 909); the 'generals' in Bleek, Jahrb. p. 61, or Davidson
(Introd. Vol. in. p. 211). The names given by Hitzig and Hilgenfeld differ in
some respects from the above (vid. Zeitschr. fill: Wiss. Theol. p. 311, i860, and
Jiidische Apokalyptil: p. 71).
3 Auberlen, p. 224; Bleek, p. 61.

240 Internal Objections.
text. And for the second it is urged that the 'little horn'
of the two chapters must refer to one and the same cha
racter. The critics of both schools are almost unanimous
in referring the ' little horn' of chap. viii. to Antiochus Epi
phanes. He was a Syrian, and naturally took his rise from
the Grseco-Macedonian dynasty. On no supposition could
he be said to have sprung from the Roman empire. And if
his portrait be accurately drawn in chap, viii, it is equally
so in chap. vii. To apply one description to one prince,
and another to a second, is met by the prima, facie objec
tion that it destroys the unity of the Book, and is contra
dicted by an evident similarity of details. A comparison of
the passages vii. 8, 11, 20, 21, 24— 26, and viii. 9 — 12, 22 — 5,
will leave no other impression on the mind of an unpre
judiced person than this; — that they pourtray but one
character under differences due to a gradual and successive
revelation, and permissible through probable intervals of
composition. And chap. xi. 21 sq. is further adduced to
confirm this impression. There the progress and expe
ditions of a 'vile person' are depicted in the most minute
and historical manner, yet with notes of description and
definition most naturally explained of the 'king diverse
from the rest' (vii. 24), the 'king of fierce countenance'
(viii. 23). One and the same character is but looked at
under various points of view, and so represented variously.
The portrait is substantially the same, and the time of his
domination the same. The ' time and times and dividing
of time ' (vii. 25) finds a closer definition in the 2300 half-
days (viii. 14), once more to be typified in the 'time times
and a half (xii. 7)1.
It is urged2, moreover, as a fatal objection to the ' tra
ditional' view of the fourth, and so of all the kingdoms,
that it destroys the great idea of the cyclic developement
1 Vid. the table.
2 Westcott, Art. cit. from which is taken the substance of the following
paragraph.

The Prophecies. 241
of history lying at the base of all prophecy. Great periods
(alcoves) appear to be marked out in the fortunes of
mankind which answer one to another; the divine utter
ance which receives its first fulfilment in one period, re
ceives a further and more complete fulfilment in the cor
responding part of some later period. Why, it is asked, is
this developement allowed to other prophecies, but refused
to the revelations of Daniel? In the predictions of Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and others, the first coming of Christ forms the
close of the first age : His second coming shall terminate
the present. It is the same with the prophecies of Daniel :
the first Advent is a distinct fulfilment of his visions, with
out necessarily exhausting their scope. The revelations of
Daniel gain their full significance only when they are seen
to conceal an outline of all history in the portraiture of
the nations which ruled the world before Christ's coming.
The four world-powers preceded the coming of the Mes
siah, and passed away before that Advent. A But their
spirit survives (cf. vii. 12), and the forms of national exist
ence which were developed on the plains of Mesopotamia
again reproduce themselves in later history.' The 'modern'
view, which allots the last of the kingdoms of Daniel to
the Greeks, helps to preserve this cyclic developement.
'The empires of Daniel,' it is argued, 'can be no other
than those of the Babylonians, Medes, Persians, and Greeks,
who all placed the centre of their power at Babylon, and
appear to have exhibited on one stage the great types of
national life. The Roman power was at its height when
Christ came, but the Egyptian kingdom, the last relic of
the empire of Alexander, had just been destroyed.' ' The
stone cut without hands struck the feet of the image,' and
Christianity destroyed for ever the real supremacy of
heathen dominion. Let then — it is pleaded — 'the true
interpretation of Daniel' ' be sought in the] recognition of
this principle' of cyclic developement. ' The book, while it
16

242 Internal Objections.
remains a "prophecy," will also be a "revelation," and
its most special predictions will acquire an abiding sig
nificance.' Before leaving this section of the prophecies, let it in
justice be stated and remembered that their Messianic
character is entirely unimpaired by the 'modern' inter
pretation. To discern the fulfilment of a promised deliverer
in the coming of an 'Anointed one' at the time of the
great persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes, is not to
obliterate the higher application, the more purely Mes
sianic reference of the title to the person of the Re
deemer of mankind. Chapters viii., ix. and xii., so closely
connected with and illustrating the chapters just con
sidered, point to a primary fulfilment in the deliverance
of Israel from the hand of the Syrian tyrant; they re
ceived a second and a greater in the deliverance of sinful
flesh by sinless Man : they are to receive a third and the
greatest in that final day of victory when the ' man of sin'
shall be revealed and the ' last enemy' destroyed. To Daniel
the salvation brought to Judeea at the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes formed a primary conclusion to his prophecy,
as did the return from the exile to the other Prophets.
That there was and is more beyond, was left and is still left
to time to evolve. Daniel's own character is heightened,
certainly not diminished by this primary reference of his
prophecy. None but an inspired prophet could have ac-
curately depicted such facts as — the oppression of a tyrant
springing from a dynasty which in the first year of Cyrus
had not begun to exist ; — the circumstances of the op
pressed people ; — or the title and attributes of the Deliverer.
It is not by maintaining the 'modern' interpretation of
the prophecy, but by denying its true inspiration, and by
relegating the accuracy of description to a Maccabaean
writer, that the objector to the Book of Daniel wrests its
existing phenomena to suit his conception. But it has been

The Prophecies. 243
well said by one1 whose words are ever words of wisdom
to the English critic, that to ' try and refer' such illustrious
prophecies ' to any ingenuity of human reason' is to be
confronted by the fact that ' they have too much extent
and system for the substituted solution. In that attempt
of solution, we are cramped by improbabilities on every
side. One adequate origin of them there is, and that alone
can render them intelligible in their manifest character, —
to consent to read them as oracles of God, communicated
by Him to His prophets, and by them to others ; first, for
the manifestation of His foreknowledge and overruling
Providence in the kingdoms of the earth, and next for the
confirmation of the whole truth of revealed religion. In
that light they fall into order. In that same light too,
their origin and their use explain each the other.'

§ 2. The Seventy Weeks.
Ch. ix. 24-7.
'I know,' said S. Jerome2, 'that this passage has been much
disputed among the most learned men. Each has spoken
the opinion suggested by his own mind. And therefore,
because I consider it dangerous to pass judgment on the
views of the doctors of the Church, and invidious to prefer
one to another, I will state what each one has thought,
1 Davison, p. 362. He is defending the ' traditional ' view ; but the spirit
of his words is fairly applicable here, though slightly anticipating some remarks
presently to be offered.
2 ' Scio de hac qusestione ab eruditissimis viris varie disputatum ; et unum-
quemque pro captu ingenii sui dixisse quod senserat. Quia igitur periculosum
est de magistrorum Ecclesise judicare sententiis, et alteram praeferre alteri,
dicam quid unusquisque senserit, lectoris arbitrio derelinquens, cujus exposi-
tionem sequi debeat.' Comment, in Dan. Vol. ill. pp. 1 109-10, ed. Bened.
It should be added that he only gives a choice of ' traditional ' opinions ; e. g.
Africanus, Eusebius, Hippolytus, Apollinarius, Clemens Alex., Origen, and
Tertullian.
1.6—2

244 Internal Objections.
and leave it to the option of the reader whose interpreta
tion he shall follow.' I may perhaps be permitted to imitate
S. Jerome's example, in my remarks upon this, — the second
great prophetic section of the book.
The text itself of the prophecy subdivides the seventy
weeks into seven, threescore and two (ver. 25), and one
(v. 27) week : and these are almost 1 universally understood
as weeks of years; the total being therefore 490 years.
The 'terminus a quo,' however, and the 'terminus ad
quem' are points strongly disputed : the two main views
ranging themselves as before under 'traditional' and 'mo
dern ' standards. With Hengstenberg and Havernick, who
follow the majority of the Fathers, the 'term, a quo' is the
20th year of Artaxerxes2, the 'term, ad quem' the public
appearance of Christ at the end of the 69 weeks. With
Auberlen the 'term, a quo' is the return of Cyrus to Jeru
salem (b.c. 457), the 'term, ad quem' the martyrdom of S.
Stephen (a.d. 33). With the 'modern' the 'term, ad quem'
is the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the ' term, a quo '
is consequently traced back from that event. The respec
tive authors of these views adduce in confirmation their
interpretation of particular points. Each verse in suc
cession is made to do battle for each opinion maintained,
however varied and contradictory.
In ver. 24 the extent and duration of the period in
cluded in the prophetic vision is clearly defined. At the
end of the ' seventy weeks' are brought in
E. V. Bleek3.
' Everlasting righteousness, ' Everlasting righteousness,
the sealing up the vision and the sealing up the vision and
prophecy (marg. prophet), and prophet, and the anointing a
the anointing the most Holy.' most holy place.'
1 Mr Hooper is an exception : op. cit. p. 9.
2 So marg. note, E. V.
3 I give the renderings of the English version and Bleek, as representatives
of the 'traditional' and 'modern' school. Bleek's will be found critically
explained and defended in the Jahrb. pp. 72 seq.

Tlie Propliecies. 245
The main difference here is the interpretation of the
concluding words D^fcHp EHp T\Wth . Hengstenberg,
Havernick, Ebrard and others, follow the patristic inter
pretation, and understand the 'Dp of the person of the
Messiah : Auberlen includes in it — the Messiah and the
faithful since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. 'The
'p'p can be no one but the Son of God,' says S. Hippo
lytus1: 'Christ,' remarks Hengstenberg2, 'may very ap
propriately be ^designated a Holy of Holies.' In one sense
He may; but — interposes the ' Modern' — critically speaking
the interpretation is indefensible, and the designation con
trary to the descriptive and philological usage of the Old
Testament3. It is, in truth, not without significance, that
though the expression occurs frequently in the Old Testa
ment, it is never applied to a person, but always to things.
It is in that sense alone that Ezekiel, Daniel's contemporary,
employs it. And if the rule be observed, that Scripture is
the best exponent of Scripture, then the best illustration
of Daniel's phrase is to be found in a very pertinent pas
sage in Exodus (xl. 10).
 rhm pqt& nx nn&rtoi

t wvno bhp nnran rvrn-

The altar when anointed becomes 'ft'ft . It is the tech
nical phrase; and therefore if philological analogy may pro
nounce upon the question, it will be in the same technical
sense that Daniel uses it here. It is urged moreover4, not
without reason, that in no passage in the Old Testament
is the person of the Messiah treated as a thing, and to
attempt to do so here is to 'lessen His dignity in the
1 p. 158 (ed. Lagarde).
2 Christology, III. pp. 123-4 (E. Tr.).
3 Cf. a very valuable passage, Numb, xviii. 9. The expression is found in
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Ezekiel, and 1 Chronicles.
4 e. g. by Davidson, in. p. 215.

246 Internal Objections.
eyes of the writers.' For these reasons Bleek and his
school refer the words to the rededication of the temple and
the altar of Mount Zion after its profanation by Antiochus
Epiphanes. And while the usus verborum favours some
such application, the analogy of the other visions of the
Book is asserted to prove it. These find their fulfilment
in the times and events of the life of that Prince, rather
than in the episodes which preceded and signalised the
final destruction of Jerusalem under Titus.
Support for these opposite views is deduced from the
succeeding verses.
The interpretation of the whole passage, says Bleek1,
is confessedly very disputed. And it is not merely a ques
tion between the orthodox and modern application, or
between the supporters of the authenticity of the vision
and those who ascribe it to a Maccabaean writer, but the
dispute is equally active within the ranks of professed par
tisans of this or that opinion. However this chief dif
ference remains. Do the words of the angel refer to the
historical appearance of Jesus Christ, or to the age of
Antiochus Epiphanes?
E. V. ver. 25. Bleek.
' Know therefore and under- ' Know therefore and under
stand, that from the going forth stand, that from the going forth
of the commandment to restore of the word to build again Jeru-
and to build (marg. build again) salem till an anointed one, a
Jerusalem unto the Messiah the prince, shall be seven weeks :
Prince shall be seven weeks, and and for threescore and two
threescore and two weeks : the weeks, shall it be rebuilt with
street shall be built again, and streets and ditches, yet in trou-
the wall (marg. breach or ditch) blous times.'
even in troublous times.'
The first -difference is one of punctuation. The ' mo
dern' school adopts the Masoretic: the 'traditionalist'
1 Jahrb. pp. 76-7.

The Prophecies. 247
follows Theodotion, the Vulgate, and Luther. According to
the division of the verse by the latter, the restoration and
the rebuilding of Jerusalem are not to be referred to the
seven weeks alone but to the seven and the sixty-two
together, — an idea necessarily repudiated even in the ' tra
ditional' system. According to the first, though the Maso
retic is not of very great authority in itself, yet it appears
to be justified by the position of the copula 1 before
D^MB? : a reference to the original text shews that for
the other punctuation it should have been before ^"It^H1.
The interval between the issue of the ' commandment' or
'word,' and the coming of 'Messiah the Prince' or 'an
anointed one' is thus defined to be seven weeks: at the
end of the three-score and two weeks which follow ' Messiah
is cut off' (ver. 26). If the seven and sixty-two were con
nected together as in the E.V., then the time of ver. 26
ought to be sixty-nine not sixty-two.
The next and the more important difference is one of
interpretation. What is the meaning and apphcation of
the I'n (Theod. \6<yo<s : Vulg. sermo: Luther, befehl.)1?
What is the date of its issue? Who is the Person of
whom the Prophet speaks ?
Is "1 to be translated ' decree'? And if so, is it to be re
ferred to that issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus in his 20th
year, permitting Nehemiah to go to Jerusalem (Neh. ii. —
Hengst. Hav., i.e. b.c. 445, according to Heng.'s reckoning) :
or to that issued in his 7th year giving a like permission
to Ezra (b.c. 475, Auberlen) : whether that decree be
considered divinely dictated (Hengst. and Hav.), or not
(Auberl.)? Or is the translation to be rejected, and the
expression referred to the ' word of the Lord spoken to
Jeremiah the prophet' (ver. 2), relating to the 70 years
of which Daniel was seeking an explanation ? And if so,
is it to be dated from the beginning of the destruction of
1 Keichel, Stud. u. Krit. p. 741, 1858.

248 Internal Objections.
Jerusalem (Bleek, Davidson) or from the 4th year of Je
hoiakim (Ewald)1? The former section of interpreters pro
ceed upon the supposition that there must be sixty-nine
weeks of years 'from the going forth of the Word' to the
concluding scenes of the life of Christ. It is an opinion
said to be strengthened by the fact that up to the time of
the decrees the more modern city of Jerusalem was but
thinly inhabited : and it transposes the first reference of
the vision to the age of Artaxerxes rather than to that of
Cyrus. It is objected to this that too strong an interpre
tation is placed upon the decrees issued to Nehemiah and
Ezra. The deductions drawn from them are unwarrant
able. And to pass over all reference to the earlier prince,
Cyrus, so distinctly named as the builder of Jerusalem
(Isai. xiv. 13) ; to omit all mention of the previous return
of the Israelites to their own land under their earliest
leaders, is felt to be 'improbable and unnatural2.'
The point is a very difficult one. The ' modern' school
is quite as undecided with its dates as its opponents. Von
Lengerke, Wieseler, Hofmann, Hitzig, and Hilgenfeld3
sacrifice the distinctness of the position of the seven weeks.
Hitzig places them in the middle of the sixty-two, including
them within them, and extending their range from b.o. 606
to Antiochus Epiphanes. Wieseler4 places them at the end:
in his system the sixty-two weeks begin with 606-5 B.o. and
reach to 172 B.C.; the 'one week' reduces this to 165-4
B.C., after which follow the ' seven weeks.' Hofmann and
Delitzsch15 assert both positively and negatively the same
position for the ' seven weeks.' They reach this result by a
1 Mr Tyrwhitt seems to me to have proved that the Ptolemsean canon and
the Hebrew accounts agree in referring the extent of the 70 years to the
interval between the 4th year of Jeh. (ist year of Neb.) to the ist year of
Cyrua; i. e. B.o. 606-536. Journ. of Royal Asiat. Soc. Vol. xviii. pp. 119, 121.
2 Bleek, Jahrb. p. 81. Cf. Hooper, p. 9, col. 2.
3 Die Jiidische Apokalyptik, 'Das Buch Daniel, ' p. 30, and note.
4 Gott. Gel. Anz. pp. 126, 131, 1846.
5 Hofmann, Schriftbeweis, II. p. 584; Delitzsch, in Herzog's Encycl. III. p. 283.

Tlie Prophecies. 249
comparison of vv. 24 and 27, affirming that the ends of the
sixty-three and seventy weeks do not coincide. The ' seven
weeks' are left as an object of research (epevvav) to the
faithful, and by this means they meet the difficulty that
those 'seven weeks' do not carry the dates down to the
birth of Christ. The great objection to these systems is
the separation of the seven from its place. It is named
first in the prophecy, and there is no good reason for dis
turbing the natural order of the text. To place it after
the sixty-three is a violation of the laws of natural exegesis,
as Auberlen has shewn. Another section therefore of the
'modern' school takes the seven weeks in the order in which
the text presents them. The permission granted by Cyrus
to the Jews to return home marks their close ; and con
sequently the starting point of the whole term of years is
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldseans.
The apphcation of the sixty-two weeks follows as a
corollary to the position of the seven. Havernick and others
starting from B.C. 455 bring the seven weeks to B.c 406, and
the sixty- two to the three and a-half years of the Saviour's
ministry. Bleek and Ewald appropriate the period to the
interval between Cyrus and Antiochus, though it is nine
weeks too short. Ebrard and Fries1 abide by peculiar and
unsupported calculations.
And, again, in accordance with these chronological defi
nitions TM rW/b is with Hengstenberg, Auberlen, Ebrard,
Wieseler, and Oehler2, — Christ at His first coming, the an
ointed, the Prince ; with Delitzsch, Hofmann, and Fries, —
Christ at His second coming; with Bleek, Hitzig, and
Reichel3, an anointed one— Cyrus.
1 Jahrb. f. Deutsche Theol. p. 254 seq., 1859.
3 Herzog, Encycl. IX. 422.
3 Stud. u. Krit. p. 363, 1858.

250 Internal Objections.
E. V. ver. 26. Bleek.
' And after threescore and ' And after the threescore and
two weeks shall Messiah be cut two weeks shall an anointed one
off, but not for himself, (marg. be cut off, and have no succes-
and shall have nothing. S. John sor : and the people of a prince
xiv. 30) : and the people of the that shall come shall destroy
prince that shall come [marg. the city and the sanctuary, and
or, and (the Jews) they shall be his end shall be (sudden) as a
no more his people ; or, and the flood; and still to the end (there
prince's (Messiah's, ver. 25) is) war, the close of desolations.'
future people] shall destroy 'the (Beschluss der Yerheerrungen,
city and the sanctuary ; and the reading rto&B' : others, retain-
end thereof shall be with a flood, ing the Masoret. punctuation,
and unto the end of the war de- < desolations decreed.')
solations are determined (marg.
it shall be cut off by desolations).'
The great difference here is that of interpretation. The
' traditionalist' refers the verse to the death of Christ, and
to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. In accordance with
this interpretation It^D is the Messiah, tlie Christ. The
absence of the article is explained to be intentional, and
in perfect accordance with the character of the whole pro
phecy: an attentive and unprejudiced reader ought to be
able to gather from the context that an anointed one here
is the same as the anointed one of ver. 25. Hengstenberg
objects, however, to the translation given by the English
Version of 17 | W) (' but not for himself) : that would re
quire such an expression as 1? NT), the words j^N and tib
not being interchangeable. And he prefers to render
them, 'and there is no inheritance to him ;' though this dis
pleases Auberlen who paraphrases them thus, 'no one
hangs on Him (the crucified), all forsook Him and fled.'
The 'prince that shall come' is consequently with Heng
stenberg and Ebrard, — the Christ, the Redeemer ; and with
Auberlen — Titus: while the 'end' is variously applied to
the sanctuary alone (Auberlen), to the temple and sanc
tuary together (Havern.), to the 'people of the prince'

The Prophecies. 251
(Ebrard), or to the whole series of events, ' the end of the
matter shall he desolation' (Hengstenberg).
The 'modern' school adopts an entirely different inter
pretation, but without preserving much unanimity of opi
nion. The result gained from referring the sixty-two
weeks to the time immediately preceding the tyranny of
Antiochus is, that the anointed one must be a person who
met with a violent death about that date. Accordingly,
with Bleek, von Lengerke, Maurer, Ewald, Davidson, and
Baxmann !TE>Jb is Seleucus IV. Philopator, son and suc
cessor of Antiochus the Great, who was cut off after twelve
years' reign by Heliodorus1. Eiehhorn, Wieseler, Hitzig,
Hilgenfeld, and Reichel, arguing upon the absence from
the word Pl^ib of any such expression as TJD (as in ver.
25) give to it a priestly sense. In their system the anointed
one is Onias III. the High Priest murdered by Androni-
cus2. Oehler seems to vacillate between the views of Bleek
and Reichel; while Fries understands it of Israel as a
people 'cut off" by the dispersion, and having no pos
session (1? pNI). In accordance, also, with their respective
views, the words 17 } W are explained by Bleek and Ewald,
'he has no successor to his throne;' by Hitzig and Wiese
ler, 'he is no more;' by Steudel and Hofmann, 'the people
have no anointed one.'
The last clause of this verse is not so diversely inter
preted. The majority of the 'modern' school are agreed
in referring the 'prince that shall come' to Antiochus Epi
phanes. 1 Appian, Syr. 45.
3 B.C. 171. Cf. 2 Mace. iv. 34; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. j.

252 Internal Objections.
E. V. -ver. 27. Bleek1.
'And he shall confirm the 'And he shall confirm the
covenant (marg. a covenant) covenant with many for one
with many for one week: and week; and the latter half of the
in the midst of the week he shall week he shall cause the sacrifice
cause the sacrifice and the obla- and the oblation to cease; and
tion to cease, and for the over- upon the wing of abominations
spreading of abominations he (al. the altar of the Temple)
shall make it desolate (marg. and comes the desolator (al. the abo-
upon the battlements shall be mination of desolation) even un-
the idols of the desolator), even til the consummation : then shall
until the consummation, and the destruction determined be
that determined shall be poured poured out on the waster' (al. the
upon the desolate' (marg. deso- abomination shall continue till
lator). punishment and destruction be
poured out on the waster).
Auberlen refers the first half of this verse to the new
covenant brought in by Christ, and to the removal of
the altar-sacrifice by His death. His opponents apply its
allusions to Antiochus Epiphanes. Corresponding deduc
tions follow. With Ebrard, the ' one week' is closed by the
act of Titus in setting aside the Temple worship subse
quent to the gathering together of 'many' (D^l Isai. liii.
12) by Christ from the Gentiles. With Auberlen, the
'many' are the 'elect;' the interval, that which occurred
between the commencement of Christ's ministry and the
stoning of S. Stephen. With Bleek and others, the ' many '
are the Hellenizing Jews, with whom Antiochus Epiphanes
connected himself (b.c. 169, 1 Mace. i. 11 — 5); and the
'week' is placed at the close of the seventy weeks. This
difference naturally affects the details of the verse. The
'traditionalist' renders JTOBTl *Xn 'the midst of the week;'
1 Bleek's translation is more properly the rather unintelligible phrase :
'E,nd the half of the week will put a stop to the sacrifice and oblation.' I have
however availed myself of his concession that that adopted in the text is ' wohl
zulassig.' It is that preferred by Hitzig and Reichel, as well as by Theodotion,
Auberlen, &c.

The Prophecies. 253
the death of Christ upon the Cross rendering superfluous,
'making to cease' the oblation and sacrifice. But though
the rendering is clearly defensible (cf. 2 Sam. x. 4), the
more usual sense of the expression is 'the half of the
week,' — defined in this particular case as that latter half
during which the sacrifice and oblation were to cease.
And it may be remarked that according to the ' traditional'
interpretation itself, Messiah is cut off after the sixty-nine
weeks or at the beginning of the seventieth, not in the
middle of it.
But the second half of the verse is perhaps the most
disputed passage in the whole prophecy. The general
sense may be clear, but the words and construction are
exceedingly obscure1. What for instance is the D'Tflpfc? WD
Dfilfc^ib? The translators of the English Version give two
renderings. Theodotion and the LXX. render it eirl to
iepbv ftStXir/fia toZv tprjfioiaecov; the Vulgate 'in templo
abominatio desolationis ; ' Luther ' bei den Flugeln werden
stehen Greuel der Verwiistung.' Ewald and Auberlen
prefer ' the fearful or desolating climax of abominations,'
but the word "2 is rather applicable to extension than to
height. Hengstenberg follows the ancient Versions in re
ferring the expression to the Temple, ' over the abomina
tion pinnacle (v. Lengerke and Maurer — the abomination
battlement, i. e. the battlement or pinnacle desecrated by
abomination) comes the desolator.' Reichel appeals to the
analogous phrase fill *S35 7J7 (Ps. xviii. 11 ; civ. 3), and
translates, ' a desolator comes upon the wings of abomina
tion : ' he suggests this with reserve, owing to the difference
of number, a difference of some importance where idiom is
concerned. Wieseler, understanding the words to refer to
the eagle, the symbol of the Olympian Jove, to whom An
tiochus Epiphanes dedicated the temple at Jerusalem,
1 Bleek, Jahrb. p. 93, honestly remarks, 'Sehr schwierig ist das Zweite
Hemistich des Verses, wovon ich bekenne, sine recht befriedigende Erkliirung
weder irgendwo gefunden zu haben, noch selbst eine geben zu konnen.'

254 Internal Objections.
renders ' a desolator will raise himself against the bird of
abomination.' Bleek alters the text. He would read
^lp&? the first letter (12) of D£1£?D being supposed carried
back by mistake to "W , and the error perpetuated by suc
cessive copyists. And this would seem to have been the
reading of the Greek and Latin Versions. They probably
read W3 h$) (sub. 7DTQ), and hence the sense attached
to the words. Between this and Reichel's rendering the
choice will probably rest.
The exegetical conclusions upon this verse are such as
might be anticipated. The 'consummation determined' is
accomplished in the acts of Titus (Auberlen et al.), or in
those of Antiochus Epiphanes (Bleek et al.). Both opinions
are encompassed with difficulties through the obscurity at
taching to the whole subject; but if the many analogies of
Chapters xi. and xii. be allowed to indicate a selection,
then may the latter or 'modern' view claim preference be
fore the 'traditional.' Critical reasons, based on historical
and philological premises induce acceptance for the for
mer ; and it is argued that exegetical considerations, when
fairly weighed, indicate a like conclusion.
Both schools,, however much the 'traditionalist' objects
to the juxtaposition, attach a Messianic character to these
visions. Not only is this element accorded to Chapters ii.
and vii. but also to Chapters viii. ix. and xii. If Ch. vii.
alone announces the promise of the Person of the Messiah,
the other chapters distinctly assert the advent of Messianic
salvation to the people of God at the end of the terrible
visitation. On no account can the proclamation of this sal
vation be charged with monotonous repetition (Auberlen).
The varied aspect of the prophecies, the ever-changing
modes of revelation inculcating their one great lesson, suf
ficiently refute the charge. It is in fact quite possible to
admit, that while the historical horizon of these chapters
appears to be terminated by the Grecian kingdom ; while
moreover the cessation of the persecution by Antiochus

The Prophecies. 255
Epiphanes is connected with the advent of an Anointed
One and the commencement of the Messianic kingdom ;
yet such historical restrictions do not exclude or supersede
the belief, that prophecy prefigured under a historic garb
the repetition of many of these acts in later and Christian
times, and their yet final fulfilment at the second advent 1.
If prophecy possesses any relics of that complex nature
once accorded to it, it is its privilege to regard as united
or combined what history separates and evolves : it is fur
ther its apotelesmatic property to place in close proximity
that which is immediate though still future and that which
is reserved to the end. The manner in which Jesus Christ
Himself referred to this section of Daniel's prophecies,
may be quoted in proof of this. S. Matt. xxiv. 14 contains
a distinct apphcation of the prophet's words to the coming
desolation under the Roman arms, but it by no means
affirms that the prophecy should then receive its perfect
fulfilment. The very contrary has certainly been the gene
rally-received opinion. The words of the Saviour in the con
text, and S. Paul's prophecy upon the Antichrist (2 Thess.
ii. 4) have led and still lead the Christian to believe that
Daniel's words have yet to receive their most marked and
final accomplishment.
This brief and imperfect sketch of some of the disputed
1 This was an opinion entertained in the days of Augustine ; at a time, it
would seem, when men began to doubt whether the ' fourth ' empire was really
the Roman. In his correspondence with a certain bishop, named Hesychius,
he states the case thus; Hesychius referring the prophecy of the 70 weeks
not to the first Advent of Christ but to His second : ' Tota quaestio est utrum
Danielis hebdomadse primo adventu Domini impletse sint, an finem sseculi pro-
phetaverint, an ad utrumque pertineant.' After mentioning the currency of
the latter view, he adds his own opinion: 'Equidem video quia si primus eas
non complevit adventus, necesse est ut secundus eas compleat : quoniam pro-
phetia ilia non potest esse falsa : quae si tempore primi adventus impleta est,
non cogit intelligi quod etiam de fine saeculi implebitur. Ac per hoc incertum
est, etiamsi verum eBt : neque negandum quidem sed neque prsesumendum est
id futurum.' Epist. cxoix. ad Hesych. 'De fine sseculi' (Vol. II. p. 912, § 21,
ed. Migne). The spirit in which this question is discussed is worthy of the
Saint and of his celebrated maxim.

256 Internal Objections.
points of interpretation will serve to shew how difficult,
if not impossible, is unanimity of opinion in exegetical
conclusions. I turn now to some points briefly indicated
in the last few paragraphs, and falhng more properly within
the domain of criticism proper.
It is a frequently-repeated objection1 to the Prophecies
of Daniel, that they present a particularity and precision
altogether contrary to the analogy of the other Old Testa
ment predictions. It is laid down as a rule that ' Hebrew
prophecy does not deal in minute and accurate predictions.
It rather foreshadows the distant future in vague and ge
neral outline without speciahty or detail.' The case is
altogether different with the Book of Daniel. ' There the
future is indicated in minuter lines than elsewhere, re
mote events appear in individual traits to a degree un
exampled in Hebrew prophecy'.2 Thus, the individual con
tests of the south (the Lagidse) and of the north (the
Seleucidse) are drawn out in the form of detailed history
(Ch. xi.), though ' at the time of Daniel these kingdoms had
no existence,' any more than that kingdom of Alexandria,
upon which they were founded. Moreover 'the detailed
prediction is continued to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes,
but nothing specific is added after that date. The Mes
sianic kingdom is alluded to, and the resurrection of the
dead appended in an indefinite manner analogous to other
Messianic predictions.' All this is felt to be difficult. Why,
it is asked, does the narrative read like history up to the
time of Antiochus Epiphanes, but no further ? Why has
the Book of Daniel that definite historical particularity
wanting to other sacred writings? And the answer has
been returned; — it cannot be explained, except on the
supposition of ' vaticinia post eventum.' It is argued, fur
ther, from the analogy of prophecy, that a ' seer living in
i1 e.g. by Davidson, in. p. 172 seq. He derives his arguments from Bleek,
Ewald, De Wette, Herzfeld, and others.
3 Hilgenfeld, p. 34.

The Prophecies. 257
the Babylonian captivity, and writing upon the future of his
country would first glance at the deliverance from oppres
sion soon to be realised, to which a greater deliverance
in the Messianic age might be appended.' Why is this
not done by Daniel ? ' The Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel' do so. They start from the relations and necessi
ties of their present, and thence ' glance at the immediate
future, and soar into the ideal reign of Messiah.' But
Daniel simply ' projects his vision as far as the deliverance
from Antiochus Epiphanes, and supposes it immediately
succeeded by the Messianic salvation. Deliverance from
Babylon is not predicted. That event which might be con
sidered of the greatest importance in the eye of a Hebrew
seer living in Babylon is unnoticed. It is the salvation
from the tyranny of Antiochus in which his predictions
culminate.' Now this objection, whose statement as enunciated in
the above paragraphs is certainly open to part-qualifica
tion part-rejection, demands the reader's assent to two
propositions : first, that History is determined by Prophecy ;
secondly, that Prophecy is always to be restricted within
certain unvarying limits, and defined by certain unvarying
rules. To neither is the Christian theologian likely or able
to assent. With him it is one essential principle that His
tory should interpret Prophecy, not be determined by it;
it is a second that prophecies cannot be treated as merely
human productions1. To apply the rules of criticism not
only to the language of a document, where they are truly
applicable, but also to the supposed mind of the writer,
where they are as truly inapplicable : to denounce every
application as false and gratuitous when it lies beyond the
primary or immediate occasion ; — is' resented by those who
attach any weight to well-attested credentials of inspira
tion. However much theologians differ, first in admitting
1 Mill, Myth. Interpr. of the Gosp. pp. 186, n. 17, 330. 17

258 Internal Objections.
and then in applying the doctrine of inspiration, no one
who believes that the men of old were moved by the Holy
Ghost, will permit himself to be biassed by his individual
fancy when interpreting their writings ; least of all will he
suppose that he has fathomed the whole when he has de
cided upon one single reference. The prophecy which tells
immediately on an earher event, is certainly applicable in
the larger mind of the Spirit to a later one. There are
numerous instances where the prophets themselves are
witnesses to as well as channels for the transmission of this
truth. The recognition of a mind superior to the knowledge
of man, and the belief in the 'double sense' of prophecy,
are, I know, but fittle likely to meet with acceptance from
those who disavow or nullify these great characteristics of
the oracles of God ; but statement is best met by statement,
and the most fitting answer to the series of objections just
made will perhaps be, not a step-by-step and clause-by-
clause refutation, but the declaration of the mind of Chris
tian theology on these points.
Any difficulty connected with the relation of Prophecy
to History, the anticipation of the one by the other, and
similar questions, leads to no other than the old debate
upon the reconciliation of the free-will of the creature with
the foreknowledge of the Creator. Dr Arnold1 once pointed
out that 'it is a very misleading notion of prophecy to
regard it as an anticipation of history. History, in our
common sense of the term, is busy with particular nations,
times, places, actions, and even persons. If, in this sense,
prophecy were a history written beforehand, it would alter
the very condition of humanity, by removing from us our
uncertainty as to the future ; it would make us acquainted
with those times and seasons which the Father hath put
in His own power. It is anticipated history, not in our
1 Sermons ore the Interpretation of Prophecy, Vol. I. p. 375.

The Prophecies. 259
common sense of the word, but in another and far higher
sense.' Time and the relations of time are often matters
quite subordinate in the descriptions of a prophet. His
words are in the first instance invested with obscurity. It
is not till after their fulfilment that future events are seen
to have been distinctly and minutely foretold by him. God
having been pleased to disclose the future in prophetic
vision, and to open to the eye of man the vista of events
yet to come, the human understanding, fettered by its na
tural laws, could no more discriminate events separated
by time, when thus presented simultaneously, than the
eye could form any judgment, before experience, upon the
distance or relative position of objects separated by space.
In both cases the mind necessarily regarded the objects
presented to it as projected the one upon the other. Thus
it was that in his visions 'the prophet beheld future events
unconnected by the relations of time1.'
Further: it has been established as the accepted law
according to which the different portions of God's revela
tion have been communicated, that ' each prediction, with
scarcely an exception, proceeds from and attaches itself to
some definite fact in the historical present2: or, in other,
words, when the future is to be foreshadowed, certain
events of the time, historical or incidental, are selected as
occasions on which may be founded the several disclosures
of the Divine will3.' For instance : it was the sin of
Manasseh which furnished the starting-point of the pre
diction of the exile (2 Kings xxiv. 3 ; Jerem. xv. 4) ; it
was the promise of the termination of that exile which
furnished a fundamental and generating fact for the pro-
1 Lee, pp. 192-3.
2 Thus S. August, speaking of Nathan's prediction to David concerning
Solomon, says, ' TJnde quaedam de illo (Solomone) ita scripta sunt, quasi de
ipso (Christo Domino nostro) ista praedicta sunt, dum Scriplura Sancta etiam
rebus geslis prophetans, quodam modo in eo figuram delineat futurorum.' De
Cirit. Dei, Lib. XVII. c. viii. § 2 (quoted by Lee, p. 153, u. 1).
3 Lee, p. 152.
17—2

260 Internal Objections.
phecy of Daniel (ix.). The particular point is brought for
ward as a pledge of that which lies far beyond, without re
presenting it as the true or highest end. It is very easy
to check any abuse of this characteristic principle of
prophecy — the ' double sense' — by refusing to accept any
interpretation of Scripture which the words of Scripture
do not justify1. 'This,' says Olshausen", 'is to be laid
down as the first rule of every system of exposition, that
Scripture has no meaning in addition to the simple mean
ing of its own words : yet under this again it has the
same, only lying somewhat deeper. A firm necessary con
nection must always be maintained between the literal
sense of the words and the more profound import of this
verbal sense.'
Moreover, in all predictions of the future there will be
noticed certain phenomena marking the manner in which
prophets described events to come3. The titles ' seer ' and
' watchman,' so often applied to those men of God, suggest
what that manner was. The state of the prophet's mind
was one of elevation. Exalted to a higher sphere of
thought, admitted to a deeper survey of the world invisible,
he was for the time made a recipient of supernatural
communications. These were presented to him by the
Lord Himself, and these he apprehended by an organ of
the soul corresponding to his outer vision, and equally con
vincing him of the truth and subjectivity of what he saw4.
From his height he watched and gazed into the far-off
distance, to read there and record what was hidden from
the sight of his contemporaries. And these same pheno
mena, marked as regards their spirit, by inalienable lines
of reference to Him who is without 'variableness or
1 Lee, p. 157.
a Quoted by Lee, I.e. n. 1. Cf. Hardwick's remarks, Christ and other
Masters, Vol. 1. p. 129.
3 Lee, p. 186 seq.
* Cf. Hardwick, I. p. 137.

The Prophecies. 261
shadow of turning,' but varying on their human side,
with the position, the circumstances, the education, the
mind, of the being to whom they were communicated
— indicate that portions only of the Divine counsels
were unveiled before the view of the individual prophet.
Of each it may be said that he but knew in part and
prophesied in part. Their several predictions are but frag
ments of one vast whole; the single fines, as it were,
which each prophet has contributed to the great sketch of
the future. It was left to the progress of revelation and
the events of history, to work into one and chronicle the
completion of the outlines delineated by those who spake
in divers manners in those ancient times.
The admission of developement in prophetic revelation
is now uncontested. It is a fact easily proved that a
steadier light was gradually thrown upon the soul-stirring
beliefs of the Jewish people. ' The revelations of the Old
Testament,' said Archdeacon Hardwick1, 'and therefore
more particularly of the earlier portions of it, were not
absolute and ultimate. As centuries went on, many large
accessions may be clearly dated in the measure of man's
sacred knowledge.' Especially did the truths pertaining
to the spiritual world gain a greater prominence and
clearness of expression. The most cursory comparison of
the sacred writings one with another, and of these with
the monuments of tradition, place the developement beyond
question. The Books of Moses compared with those of
the Prophets ; the Books of the Prophets and of the
Hagiographa compared with the maxims of the Scribes
and Rabbins ; these last, again, with the Greek version
of the LXX. and the Chaldee paraphrase of Onkelos —
illustrate the various and progressive steps of ascension
and declension in the religious creed of the Hebrew. It
was developed, modified and adapted during the lapse
1 Op. cit. ii. p. 414.

262 Internal Objections.
of ages. It followed the course of events, submitting to
the influence of contact with foreign civilization, till
presently discussion and study took the place of faith
and inspiration, leading to marked divergence in doctrine
and ethics1. In this developement genuine prophecy stood
from first to last in vital union with monotheism. The
law of advance and progress is to be traced not only in
the idea of type and prophecy, but in the very order and
sequence of the prophecies themselves. Prophecy grew
with the growth and expansion of man's faculties, and
aided in the gradual training of the sacred commonwealth.
In form and structure it was invariably adapted to the
peculiar exigences of the period out of which it grew2.
Completely bound up with the fortunes of the seed of
Abraham it supplied them with continual answers in times
of perplexity. It cheered them in the darkest hours of
their history, transforming their sorrows into fresh occa
sions for quickening them with Messianic hopes. ' Prophecy
was as the living voice of God which went along continually
with the developement of the Hebrew nation ; when it
spoke, the parched and joyless desert seemed to blossom
like the rose, and minister fresh streams of comfort and
of blessing ; men " drank of the spiritual Rock which
followed them, and that Rock was Christ3." ' Nothing can
be more marked than the fitness of the various seasons
at which this living voice was heard. Nothing more
1 Franck, Etudes Orientates, Essay on 'Le Droit chez les Juifs,' p. 108,
sums up this principle thus: 'Si Ton veut connaiitre ve"ritablement dans les
dogmes et dans sa morale 1'antique religion des He'breux, il faut la suiyre a
travers toutes ses vicissitudes, il faut l'observer ai toutes les pe'riodes de son
histoire sans confondre ni les temps ni les hommes ' (cf. p. 284).
2 Hardwick, I. p. 140, quotes S. Augustine: 'Ab initio generis humani, alios
occultius, alios evidentius, sicut congruere temporibus divmitus visum est,' &c.
(Epist. CII. § 15, Opp. Vol. 11. p. 211, ed. Bened.), and Trench [Hulsean Lectt.
p. 86 (1845)], whose words I have incorporated in the text, in proof of this
peculiarity. 3 Id. p. 142. His remarks on this point are well worth studying, and
I have freely availed myself of the language in which he has expressed them.

The Prophecies. 263
self-evident than its peculiar adaptation to the wants, the
faculties, and prospects of the Hebrews. How noticeable,
for instance, is this in the person and age of Daniel I To
the old Prophets, it has been said1, Daniel stands in some
sense as a commentator (ix. 2 — 19) ; to succeeding genera
tions as the herald of immediate deliverance. The people
of God had entered upon a new period in their existence.
Fresh instruction was necessary, suitable to their altered
fortunes, preparatory to yet further changes. Conse
quently the ancient 'form, and style, and point of sight
of prophecy, is relinquished.' This is done neither ab
ruptly nor absolutely, but the change is at once distinctly
felt. Daniel takes his stand far more in the future than
in the present, though his prophecy emanates from the
circumstances by which he was surrounded. His work
was not so much to delineate the struggle between prin
ciples, good and evil, truth and falsehood, God and His
enemy, as that destined to arise and stamp the future. He
had not to track the contest between states of opinion
down to their final issue, but that henceforth to be waged
between the powers of the world and the kingdom of God.
In his visions he saw mighty wrestlings between the kings of
the North and the kings of the South, and the blind rage
of the conqueror of a day against the Prince of eternity ;
but he did not seek to spiritualise their meaning. They
had a literal significance destined to receive a literal ful
filment, predictive in its turn of that shock ultimately ' to
shake not the earth only but also heaven.5 His work, in
short, was not that of a prophet : he retained the spirit of
a prophet, but his status was that of the seer. The dis
tinction is not without its value. The seer looked forward
from the present to the great age to come : the prophet
looked backward from the ' last days ' to the trials in which
he was still placed. And as in the mind of the prophet what
1 Westcott, p. 391. Hilgenfeld, p. 34, goes so far as to consider the first-
named peculiarity a token of post- prophetic origin.

264 Internal Objections.
was human and divine was separate and yet connected ; so
in revelation each element stood apart in its own vigorous
and colossal dimensions. These are the features which
distinguish Daniel from the other great prophet of the
captivity, as well as from those who preceded and followed
that event. The Babylonian exile supplied both to him
self and his brother captives an outward training and an
inward tuition for a developed form of divine teaching.
But it affected differently the prophet-prisoner upon
the banks of Chebar, and the president-exile at the courts
of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius. The accredited type of
prophecy remained the common possession of both : but to
the one larger accretionary matter was revealed than to the
other. The developement begun in the pages of Jeremiah,
is seen to have increased when traced through the pro
phetic visions of Ezekiel into the symbolism of Daniel.
It presently wrought out that combination of early and
late prophetic structure which distinguishes the work of
Zechariah. But this leads to the second great objection made to
the prophecies of Daniel — their symbolic and apocalyptic
character1. An apocalyptic taste is defined to be ' a mark of decay ;'
originating at a time when the ' freshness of the prophetic
form' had passed away from Israel2. Daniel, it is said,
exhibits this in a notable degree. He differs from Eze
kiel and Zechariah both in the character and abundance of
his visions. ' The outlines and shades ' of those prophets
'are mostly the offspring of fancy3.' 'But in Daniel the
visions are usually made up of features having their counter
part in real history.' ' In Ezekiel and Zechariah the main
element is imaginative, illustrating one or two leading
facts :' in Daniel it is ' history in the form of vision.' And
1 Davidson, HI. p. 175; Hilgenfeld, Jud. Apok. p. 34 seq.
2 Hilg. p. 10.
3 Davids. I. c. deserves all the credit of this discovery.

The Prophecies. 265
this difference is described as 'precisely such as would
arise out of the respective times at which they were writ
ten.' ' The apocalyptic taste begun in Ezekiel and Zechariah
increased. When genuine prophecy died out, the apoca
lyptic character became more marked and abundant.' It
was found necessary to clothe certain truths in the form of
visions and put them into the mouth of one celebrated for
wisdom1. Long before, the Deuteronomist and Coheleth
had set the example by publishing truths under the garb
of Moses and Solomon. But their intention being to im
part truths of an ethical and didactic character, it was
unnecessary that they should communicate their ideas in
the prophetic method. The writer of the Book of Daniel
had a different object. He wished to sustain and animate
a suffering people with the hope of a bright future. Con
sequently he appears as a prophet, and employs visions in
abundance. That they are not real visions, it is added,
is shown by the mould in which they are cast— an arti
ficial, historical mould, wanting that true inspiration of
antiquity whose pulsation they merely imitate. With such
views the conclusion is easy : The Book of Daniel exhi
bits apocalyptic developement at a stage possible only to
a work written in the age of ' decay.' Henceforth it must
be consigned to the same class and to the same age as
the Fourth Book of Esdras, the Sibylline Oracles, the Book
of Enoch, the 'Ascensio Isaise,' and the Testament of the
xii. Patriarchs.
Let me add here, by anticipation, that strange doc
trinal and ethical ideas, Christology, Messianic positions
generally, angelological conceptions, 'exaggerated notions
of the value of prayer and almsgiving ' — are deduced from
these same sections, and drawn in to support the same
conclusion. They are asserted to differ from the notions
entertained at the time of the exile and immediately after,
1 Bleek, Jahrb. p. 97; Einl. p. 594; Davids, p. 176.

266 Internal Objections.
and to agree with a stage of doctrine and practice cur
rent in the Maccabaean era, and acquired from extraneous
sources. These objections may be stated briefly enough, but the
answer to them to be simply sufficient without pretension
to completeness, provokes discussion upon the positions
which alone can warrant them rather than upon the ob
jections themselves. The discovery of a difference between
the religious developement of the Book of Daniel and that
of the age of the Captivity, and the consequent delegation
of that work to the post- Bab ylonian period, necessitate
some remarks upon the changes undergone by the Jew,
partly through internal causes, partly through contact with
foreign nations, during the course of those most eventful
years. It is only thus that the right or wrong of this ques
tion can be decided. For example ; the indication of Per
sian influence so freely pointed out in the pages of Daniel,
suggests, before assent, an enquiry into the question; —
What was the relation between Mazdeism and Judaism?
and how and when was it exercised? The assertion of pa
rallelisms with the Sibylline productions of Alexandria so
unhesitatingly made, involves a solution of the query ; — If
this be so, which was the original? and how far must any
such assertion be affected, first, by the sparse relationship
acknowledged to have existed between the Egyptian and
Palestinian Jew, and next, by the marked distinctions sepa
rating the theological systems of Jerusalem and Alexan
dria ? These are important subjects which I cannot permit
myself to treat exhaustively. I can but indicate the rea
sons, and quote the sources, which have led me to adopt an
opinion diametrically opposed to that of the impugners of
the Book of Daniel. Let it be remembered that the period
in question, though one of the deepest interest, is also one
of the most obscure in the Biblical annals. It is next to
impossible to remove altogether the veil overhanging the
last few hundred years before the Christian era. There

The Prophecies. 267
were going on then changes and developements, to deci
pher which the materials preserved to posterity are of the
scantiest and most imperfect description. Setting aside
historical works whose canouicity has not been disputed,
the train of thought in Palestine has to be gleaned mostly
from translations and Targums. Alexandria records, in a
few allegorical and speculative compositions, the changes
penetrating into the vitals of Hellenistic Hebraism. To
these have to be added apocryphal works loaded with ana
chronisms and Sibylline leaves with a puny imitation of
oracular dignity. And from this heterogeneous mass has
to be framed a political and theological delineation of the
era which witnessed the change from Hebraism to Judaism.
The fact of itself suggests caution in reasoning too closely,
and deducing too much, from what can furnish at best but
generalizations. In arguing upon the Book of Daniel it should always
be conceded that it is in the last degree important to re
cognise its apocalyptic element. What was said by Liicke1
of the Apocalypse of S. John may be affirmed true of the
Book of Daniel ; it is the hidden cradle of the philosophy
of history. Daniel's work is distinct from the other pro
phetic writings in the same manner as the Apocalypse of
S. John is distinct from the Apostolic Epistles. Shall this
distinction be exaggerated into a difference sufficient to
constitute it unauthentic? Was the composition of the
work really impossible to such a man as Daniel at the ter
mination of the Babylonian exile? Must the stage of
developement exhibited in its pages be indicative of a
tone of thought not attained till some centuries after the
Return? Appeal is made in the first place to criticism,
apart from questions of inspiration. The defender of the
authenticity of the Book agrees with his opponent that
Daniel's work is carried out in a style of which the Old
1 Versuch. einer vollst. Einl. d. Ojfenb. Joh. Vol. I. pp. 38-9; Nicolas, Des
Doctrines religieuses des Juifs, p. 272.

268 Internal Objections.
Testament offers no precisely similar example, but he finds
the cause — humanly speaking — for this developement in
the circumstances of the man and of the age in which it
professes to have been written. The iinpugner of its authen
ticity declines to recognize, not perhaps the existence, but
the influence of those causes at that period. He defers
them to the Maccabaean era. Beyond the range of criticism,
the one naturally adduces the evidences of an inspiration
counted satisfactory by those who lived nearest to that
age, and those whom Christianity has loved to honour
as masters in the realms of faith and intellect : the other
rests upon a view of inspiration — must it not be said ? —
peculiar to his school ; stripping prophecy of divine au
thority he treats it as a mere outbreak of ardent patriotism,
or of feverish zeal, or of exuberant imagination, reject
ing most of all that opinion of antiquity which happens to
differ from his own1.
The precise distinction2 between apocalypse and pro
phetic literature has been much debated. Some discover
it — generally, in the eschatological, and particularly, in the
universalistic element of a writing. Others expand dis
tinction into transformation, and describe apocalypse as
imitative in character, Alexandrian in spirit, and dependent
for its distorted conceptions upon the purer originations of
Hebrew prophecy. Dissimilarity of tone or manner of
exposition, being purely accessory circumstances, do not
advance much the solution of the question at issue. There
remain, it is said, other indications quite sufficient to
characterise broadly and not obscurely the differences
between apocalypse and prophecy. Such are, in the opi
nion of M. Nicolas3, the determining by mystical numbers
1 Cf. Hardwick, I. p. 139.
11 The views of Liicke and Nitsch are given by Nicolas, p. 281 sq. Comp.
also, Hilgenfeld, p. 5 sq.
3 Op. cit. p. 283. I quote him by preference as the representative of the
opinions of his school, though not of their tone. M. Nicolas's language is
never tainted by peisonalit.es or invective.

The Prophecies. 269
the date of the principal events preparatory to the Advent
of the Messiah ; the fixing the duration of His reign ; the
personification of the chief of His enemies in the Prince
of evil spirits ; the partial resurrection of the dead at the
commencement of the fifth monarchy ; and the publication
of a new law, or at least the perfecting of the old. These
differences are not indeed sufficient to destroy all analogy
between the apocalyptic belief of the later Jews, and the
Messianic expectations of their fathers. In fact, whatever
has been asserted by the ancient prophet is preserved, at
the same time that it is expanded, by his successor. They
proclaim the same message— the announcement of a Sa
viour ; the triumph of Monotheism ; and the description
of that era of happiness and virtue He is to found upon
earth. But this message, it is affirmed, is carried by the
Jew farther than the Hebrew had conceived it. The former
marks his distinction from the latter by his evident wish
to determine precisely what the ancient prophet had left
indeterminate. The picture of Messianic expectation is
accordingly enlarged in apocalyptic literature ; the fea
tures are retouched with a bolder pencil; former blanks
are filled up, and numerous personages crowded upon
the canvas ; the original prophetic conception permeates
the whole only as the original design may be said to
underlie the finished embroidery1. In a word, the apoca
lyptic belief of the Jew is considered the result of the
developement of the Messianic expectations of the Hebrew,
and that at a time when real Prophecy had ceased to be
heard. Can the truth of this be ascertained by an appeal
to history ? Can the religious condition of the Israelite at

1 The illustration belongs to M. Nicolas. ' Le tableau des espeYances
messianiques a et^ aggrandi dans les apocalypses ; les traits en sont plus afrStes,
mieux marque's, les vides remplis, les personnages multiplies; mais on peut
reconnaltre dans les espe'rances messianiques le fond, 1'esquisse des idees apoca-
lyptiques, comme sous une broderie on apercoit encore le dessin primitif.'
pp. 284-5.

270 Internal Objections.
the end of the Captivity be so determined as to authenti
cate or nullify this conclusion ? How difficult, if not impos
sible, is the attainment of unanimity on this point is
evidenced by the fact of the numerous views entertained
upon it. Is it to be concluded, with some, that the He
brews returned to Judsea under Zorobbabel thoroughly
imbued with the doctrinal and ethical conceptions certainly
current among their later descendants? or is it to be
affirmed, with others, that such developement did not exist,
because its traces are not to be distinguished, till some
centuries after the return ? Both opinions appear to me to
err from the extreme position they assume. But to consent
to the latter is also to believe that when the Jews returned
to their land their theological opinions had undergone
change upon one point only1 — the nature of their Mes
sianic hopes ; and that not through any influence of an
external character, but through an inward necessity urging
on and requiring modification and developement. What
ever external influence was ultimately brought to bear
upon the Jew and his religious opinions, did not, it is
asserted2, exhibit their effects till 'long after the restora
tion of the Jewish worship at Jerusalem.' A long and
intimate connection with the Persians, among whom
eschatological conceptions were rife, must, it is said, be
presupposed to account for analogous apocalyptic ideas
a nong the Jews. How does history help to elucidate this
point ?
When the children of Israel were restored to Jerusa
lem, they found themselves in a position very different to
that which they had previously occupied. Ancient inde
pendence had given place to vassalage; and however
lenient the yoke of the Persian, the Hebrew was a freed-
man only in name. Satraps dictated to him from Susa
and Ecbatana the political programme of his nation, and
his own special duties as a citizen and vassal. He was
1 Nicolas, pp. 288, 296, 304. a Id. pp. 51, 296.

The Prophecies. 271
entrusted with the conduct of moral and ceremonial ad
ministration only; and presently when subjected to the
insults and vexatious interruptions of Samaritan and
Apharsachite, energetic opposition was impossible to him
till permission had been obtained from the council-cham
ber of the great king. The geographical position, the
very intricacies of the country, once so favourable to the
preservation of independence, became a stumblingblock
to a nation that had lost political importance. The val
leys and fastnesses of Palestine were only valuable now as
those of an outlying province preserving the realms of
Persia from the encroachment of the Egyptian : at a later
date they were claimed as at once the battle-field and the
limits of those petty kingdoms founded upon the sub
divided conquests of Alexander of Macedon.
The Jew was thus led to consider his country's destiny
as dependent on the successes or reversals of the monarchs
who ruled him in turn. He learned to connect his
expectations of ultimate deliverance with revolutions in
successive dynasties, and to attach the advent of his Mes
siah to the fall of empires. He could not remain unaf
fected by the mighty convulsions shaking and rending the
dominions of the East. Throne after throne tottered and
fell under the shocks of the political earthquake; and
the fettered Israelite watched and waited with something
more than the mere curiosity of a spectator, or the apathy
of a slave handed over to a fresh taskmaster. In the long
period from the Restoration to the middle of the last
century before the birth of Christianity, — a period marked
by but a few bright days of success and prosperity in the
midst of a long night of gloom and misfortune, — the
Messianic creed was the pole-star of the Hebrew's
existence. In each of his many moments of sore distress
he turned to the prophetic announcements of a coming
Liberator, and drew from thence fresh waters of hope and
life.

272 Internal Objections.
It need not be disputed that there was in this a most
prolific cause for the developement of Messianic doctrine.
The developement may be traced through its various
stages in the literary works of the day. The conditions of
the new political existence of the Jew fostered, till it
became a necessity, the internal wish to extend the early
Messianic expectations beyond the limited circle of know
ledge attained by his fathers. But he did not venture
upon this without warrant of the highest order. Of the
prophets of Israel no one exercised, in those periods of
distress, a more lasting, more encouraging influence than
Daniel. His thoughts, his symbolism, furnished vitality and
expression to the language both of the inspired Zechariah
and of the mantic Sibyl. It was a proof, had proof been
wanting, that from the first he had made himself a living
home in the hearts of his fellow-countrymen. It is impos
sible to avoid some such conclusion as this. And surely, if
it can be conceded that many of the apocalyptic ideas of
the later Jews owed their birth to a home study and ap
plication of the ancient prophecies ; if, above all, it can be
granted that an Apocalypse would have created itself
among them quite independently of any foreign or ex
ternal associations1, — then does not the question create
itself ; why should the very being and existence of those
ideas be deferred — critically speaking— to an era so far
removed from that in which canonical Scripture, speaking
by the mouth of Daniel, has placed it ? If it be true, as
will presently be shewn, that the Book of Daniel was the
model and original of the Judaistic Apocalypse of the
Maccabaean age with which a certain school has classed it,
what is there in the internal and external framework of its
prophetic conceptions condemnatory of its Babylonian
date ? I do not hesitate to assert the hypothesis of its late
composition to be palpably at fault when the internal
1 Nicolas, pp. 307-8.

The Prophecies. 273
agencies productive of its developement are properly re
ferred to inspiration, and critically wrong, when Mazdeism
and Judaism are consulted in their true position with
reference to the phenomena of this book. This latter
point I would first endeavour to prove.
At the time of the termination of the Exile, the He
brews were under the protection of a people who exercised
both an immediate and a permanent influence over them1.
That people was the mixed nations of the Chaldaeo-Persian
united into one single polity by the arms of Cyrus. The
actual influence however of the Chaldaean proper could
never have been very great. Independently of the fact
that he was conquered morally and materially by the
Persian before the Return, the Chaldaean could impart
nothing to the Jew likely to develope his higher — for ex
ample — his Messianic expectations. On the contrary the
Babylonian religion contained much that would repel the
exile. The creed of the astrologer contained nothing ana
logous to the Hebrew expectation of a Liberator and the
era of peace and happiness consequent upon his advent.
Polytheism was from the very conditions of its existence,
incapable of helping the Israelite to understand the
Monotheism from which he had seceded. But the Persian
had far greater success theologically and politically2. From
the moment that Cyrus conquered Babylonia the exiles of
Judah saluted the Persian as their deliverer. They at once
ranged themselves on his side against the Chaldaean, —
their determined enemy for so many centuries, the de
stroyer of their temple and holy city. The captive people
exhibited secretly their good will by refraining from oppo
sition, — a no unimportant indication of feeling towards an
army invading a foreign country. Their chief did not
hesitate, when summoned, to take office under the libe
rating dynasty. Why was this? Is it sufficiently ex-
1 Franck, La Kabbah, p. 353.
* NicolaB, p. 52 seq. 18

274 Internal Objections.
plained as a sign of passive indifference, or a mere token
of thankfulness for exchange of masters ? Neither supposi
tion can be admitted for a moment. The Hebrew recog
nised in the Persian a friend to his own Monotheistic
religion. For many years the protest of Zoroaster against
Polytheism had been current among his own followers,
and proclaimed to the external world. 'Every one,' the
sage had cried1, ' both men and women ought to choose his
creed (i.e. between the Deva and Ahura religion)... To the
liars (or worshippers of the Devas) existence will become
bad whilst the believer in the true God enjoys prosperity...
You cannot belong to both of them (you cannot be wor
shippers of the one true God, and of many gods at the
same time)... Therefore perform the commandments which
pronounced by the wise (God) himself, have been given to
mankind : they are a nuisance and perdition to liars, but
prosperity to the believer in the truth ; they are the
foundation of happiness.' The Israelite heard this unex
pected protest. He was led on to compare the religion
of the Mazdean with the monstrous worship of the Chal
daean ; and distant as was even the former from the purer
conception of the Mosaic code, he recognised as its funda
mental tenet a hatred of idolatry, a scorn of all visible
representation of the Deity, as fierce as his own. On
examination he found the legislative enactments framed
to meet the wants of his own fathers not obscurely echoed
in those of his new friends : both were aimed at one
result — the formation of an agricultural people2. In both
there was drawn out a precise system of legal require
ments : there were distinctions between animals clean and
unclean : there were regulations to be observed on the
occurrence of certain diseases, especially the leprosy : the
marriage-tie and family relationships were elevated to the
highest rank in the scale of social duties. And both based
1 Gatha Ahunavaiti, Yaf. 30; Haug, pp. 142-3. Cf. also, pp. 146, 256.
a Vendidad, Farg. III.; Spiegel, Avesta, 1, p. 78 seq.; Haug, pp. 200, 206.

The Prophecies. 275
their principles upon religious grounds, and fenced them
in by religious restrictions. These are minor features of
approximation, it is true, but they would be of vast im
portance in breaking up the ground for farther and deeper
comparisons between two schemes of oriental theosophy.
On his side, the Persian soon learnt to regard with high
esteem the Mosaic religion. His readiness to accept foreign
ideas is a matter of history1. Monuments of historic date
exhibit Hebrew conceptions sometimes entirely appro
priated, at others curiously worked up with genuine Per
sian ideas, but at the time of the introduction of the Per
sian to the Jew — the assimilating tendency to polytheistic
corruptions had not begun. Mazdeism and Judaism pre
sented then their parallel points to the inspection of the
curious among the priests of Jehovah and Ormazd, and
with what effect it is not altogether impossible to deter
mine. In the elaboration of this parallelism, it is of course
necessary to check any tendency to speculative or whole
sale deduction. The temptation to discover approxima
tions is naturally great where the restriction is slight. The
requisite restraint will however be supplied if it be remem
bered, and acted upon as a principle, that ideas do not
pass over bodily and in a fully developed state from one
nation to another, however great the affinity between their
religious institutions. A foreign conception introduced to
the notice of the Hebrew people would remain for some
time a study for the learned; it would not be popularly
adopted till after assimilation to the national tone; and
this would be a work of appropriation involving a lapse
of time more or less considerable. The truth of this is
easily verified by the reference to the moral and religious
state of the Jews of Palestine at the respective periods of
one and three centuries after the return. The ample traces
1 Herod. I. 135, £eipi/cct Si v6/j.aia Mipaai TpoaUvrai avSpwv ixakiera. Vid.
reff. to Spiegel, n. 2, p. 195, and add, Avesta, III. iii. — vii.
18—2

276 Internal Objections.
of Persian doctrine recognised in the pages of the Pales
tinian apocrypha require in explanation the intervening
aid of the Jews who remained in Babylonia. The main
tenance however of both principle and fact will not render
it impossible that a learned Hebrew living at Babylon
and Susa, during and after the time of the return (i. 21 ;
x. 2) should have been incapable of such religious develope
ment as is exhibited by the author of the book of Daniel.
Judging the question upon historical and critical grounds,
there are reasons which make it certain that such a man
as Daniel professes to be, would be quite conversant with
the Mazdean dogma and ceremonial of his day. Had he
lived in the Maccabaean period his work would have been
tainted with the additions and puerilities disfiguring true
apocryphal literature.
It can hardly be supposed probable that the learned
Jews of the exile remained strangers to the stirring revolu
tions of mind as well as of monarchy convulsing the land
of their captivity ; least of all would they remain indifferent
to the religion of those whom they welcomed as deliverers1.
Undisputed historical scripture has sketched in a few
strokes the character and position of some of these men2.
They were pupils, and presently masters, of the circle of
sciences ; versed in the peculiar tenets of their conquerors,
and elevated to the highest dignities of the realm. Such
were Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah ; and such was
Daniel. Bring to bear upon a powerful noble, supposed
to have lived as Daniel lived, the external influences
of contact with the Mazdean priests ; permit to a devout
Hebrew of the captivity that study of Scripture attri
buted to the Prophet (ix. 2), and there is nothing in the
history of the period, nothing in the history of the man,
to make his existence, or the conceptions accredited to
him, impossible. But this while affirmed of the compara-
1 Eranck, p. 357.
2 Cf. int. al. Ezra i. 2; ii. i, and Josephus, Antiq. xi. ch. 4, 5.

The Prophecies. 277
tively small and learned class, cannot be maintained of
the captive people generally ; and for the following reasons.
The generation that had come with Nebuchadnezzar from
Judaea had mostly passed away. That which grew up
within Chaldaean domains was deprived of all the external
accessories of their religion. Ezekiel by his instructions,
Daniel by his example, and the true priests of Israel by
their active efforts, sought to counteract the dreaded
effects of this compulsory omission. They restored and
endeavoured to quicken into a living flame the true Mono
theistic spirit ; but they could not altogether dispel the
clouds of ignorance, forgetfulness, and apathy, which
weighed upon the mass of exiles scattered throughout
Babylonia. It was task enough to fix the mind of a half-
despairing, half-disbelieving, people upon the thought and
promise of deliverance, without attempting to familiarize
them with elaborate parallels between Mosaism and foreign
creeds. And, therefore, when the proclamation of the
Persian went forth: 'Who is among you of the people
of God? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jeru
salem ' (Ezra i. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23), that huge mass of
Jerusalem-loving Israel went on their way with more love
than learning; content to be taught afresh under the
ruins of Zion all that had been forgotten within the pre
cincts of Babylon. Notable proofs of their ignorance are
fairly deduced from the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. The
Jews who returned to Palestine were mostly of the poorer
classes and correspondingly ignorant1. Their heads were
taken, it is true, from the chief of the fathers of Judah and
Benjamin, from priests and Levites; but the majority of
the richer families preferred to remain behind under the
mild paternal sway of the Persian. How they trafficked,
i Comp. Ezrai. 4, 6. Otho, Lex.Rabb. s.v. Esras, p. 174, ed. 1675. Nico
las, p. 10. It has been inferred that the whole number of exiles who chose to
remain behind was about six times the number of those who returned. Vid.
Art. 'Captivities of the Jews,' Smith, Diet, of the Bible.VoL I. p. 277, b.

278 Internal Objections.
how they grew rich, and how they laid -the foundation of
the schools of Pumbeditha and Sora, so powerful in the
developement of later Judaism, are matters of history. But
the leaders of the first Palestinian colony had to begin
from the very beginning the religious education of a gene
ration born in the murky atmosphere of polytheism. Little
else could be attempted but instruction in the simplest
rules of the Mosaic system. The political and other mis
takes which injured so much the existence of the young
colony, reacted fatally upon this germinant religious
training ; and it was not till Ezra and Nehemiah, the
fathers of Judaism, took up the national cause, that the
band of patriots in Jerusalem felt their position secure.
By that time the conceptions of the Babylonian Jew had
become insensibly affected by the Mazdean influences
around him, and he brought with him to Jerusalem the
germs, if not something more, of those characteristics
which were afterwards developed and never removed from
Israel. The Hebrews then, as a people1, would not know much
of the Persian system at the period of the return. The
time for familiarising them with it — some two or three
years only — was far too short, and their ignorance too
great, to permit it. But can the same be asserted of those
whose learning and reputation fitted them — in the eyes of
Chaldaean despots and Persian kings — for the highest po
sitions in the realm? If remarkable proficiency, integrity
of character, and courtier-education prompted — at a later
period — the recall of Nehemiah to the scenes of the Cap
tivity (xiii. 6) ; why may they not have suggested the hon
ourable retention of that Daniel who possessed such vir
tues in a most remarkable degree? It is, or rather it
should be, an obvious mistake to confuse the maximum of
1 I allude more particularly to the Jews of Babylon itself. The Jews of
the outlying provinces conquered by Cyrus, would probably be the first to hear
and see, but certainly the last to examine that system.

The Prophecies. 279
knowledge granted to the 'president' of Darius with the
minimum of learning exhibited by his poorest fellow-
countrymen. From what is now known of the age and
dissemination of Mazdean dogmas, a learned Jew of the
Captivity may certainly have been familiar with them. It
would have been solely through his own fault or bigotry,
had he preferred to be and to remain ignorant. Daniel's
work appears — on its human side — thoroughly consonant
to the state of information available in the age at which he
lived. That he remained unaffected by the imperfections
which rose to the surface of the Persian conceptions, re
quires no explanation to those who attach any meaning or
value to inspiration.
For1 many years it was usual to follow the lead of
Anquetil Du Perron, and refer Zoroaster and his doctrines
to the age of Hystaspes, the father of the great Darius.
But the critical studies of Burnouf and Westergaard, as
siduously pursued by worthy successors, have proved that
at the most moderate computation, the prophet and the
leading tenets of the Zend Avesta are of an age far antece
dent to the dynasty of the Achaemenidae. For many cen
turies previous to that era his opinions had been matters
of oral tradition; a mode of transmission productive per
haps of variations on the score of accretion, yet sufficiently
conducive to the preservation of fundamental truths2.
Continued research has proved the necessity of carrying
back the age of Zoroaster himself and the circulation of
1 Eor these points v. Spiegel, Avesta, I. p. 41 sq. ; 11. pp. 2, 133 sq. ; in.
p. lxx sq. Eran. p. 271 sq. Westerg. Pref. to Z. A. pp. 16, 22. Hardwick, 11.
p. 366. 2 Haug, p. 131. 'To the European reader it maybe somewhat astonishing
to hear that such large books as the Vedas could be faithfully and accurately
retained in the memory for centuries ; but considering that up to the present
day thousands of Brahmans are living who are able to recite parrot-like with
the greatest accuracy, even as to accents, without any mistake the whole of one
of the Vedas, we are driven to admit that the same might have been the case
at those early times to which we must trace the origin of the Zoroastrian reli
gion.'

280 Internal Objections.
his opinions into prehistoric times. Lassen1 at one time
declared it utterly impossible to fix the period at which
he lived ; but Haug, conceding that exact determination is
perhaps unattainable, has now concluded from the internal
evidence of the Zendic literature, that the sacred teaching
of the Persian began about 1200 B.C. and was closed about
400 B.C.2. In the opinion of the Poonah Professor3 Zoro
aster was a contemporary of Moses : a moderate estimate
of his age, when compared with that of Pliny4, who placed
him 5000 years before the Trojan war, or that of Berosus
who considered him King of the Babylonians and founder
of a dynasty dominant over Babylon, between 2200 and
2000 B.c.
But under either date, ante-Achsemenian, or pre-his-
toric, it will be seen that Daniel had at least the oppor
tunity of becoming acquainted with the Mazdean creed.
And when his character is considered, it would have been
altogether contrary to the known activity of his mind, and
to the prestige of his early promise, as well as to his po
sition as President5, — had he refused to examine the tenets
of the Persian as he had examined the creed of the astro
loger (ii. 27-8). The study once commenced, there was
much to induce him to continue it. He would recognise
there points of doctrine which for centuries had been stir
ring the depths of the Hebrew mind, but had never been
so boldly, so coarsely, expressed. He would find in Maz-
deism a theory upon the origin of evil, expectations of a
deliverer, a belief in the doctrines of the Resurrection of
the body and the Immortality of the soul. There he could
trace angelological and demonological conceptions at once
consonant with and yet divergent from his own. There he
1 Ind. Alt. I. 754.
2 So Spiegel, Av. III. p. Ixxviii.
3 Haug, op. cit. pp. 224, 255.
4 Hist. Natur. xxx. 1-3.
6 Possibly of the religious class. Cf. p. 181, u. 1.

The Prophecies. 281
might trace ethical and ceremonial directions correspond
ent in outline to the regulations inculcated by Moses. It
is no infringement upon the Divine revelation accorded
to Daniel, to affirm that these parallelisms would have
their attractions to him as a man. If Babylonian symbo
lism was the permitted vehicle of supernatural illustration,
Mazdean Eschatology furnished also a lesson and a caution,
where the caution exceeded the lesson : — a lesson imparting
to the Prophet the existence of parallel lines of religious
thought; a caution reminding him of the far higher, be
cause revealed, source of the doctrines correspondent to
them in the Hebrew faith. The recognition of this, far
from diminishing, adds force to the deep belief that the
God of heaven chose that time to teach His servant
'things to come' in a more plain developed form. The
time had arrived when the purity of Mosaism was to be
contrasted with the comparatively refined creed of Maz-
deism. The opponent of Paganism and the Puritan of
Paganism were brought face to face. Each found in the
system of each, points of union indicative of the one ab
original source from which they proceeded. But the pro
phet of the Hebrews inspired by God, drew from Revela
tion purer conceptions of Divine truths than had ever
been granted to the pagan Monotheist. A correcting in
fluence — and that alone — preserved the 'greatly beloved'
from sinking into speculations congenial to the writers of
the Yashts, the Bundehesh or the Minokhired.
But while maintaining that it was thus in the power of
an exile living at the end of the Captivity, to study and
analyse the Mazdean dogmas; while asserting of Daniel
that it was open to him to appreciate forms and concep
tions of the Persian system, by means of the fuller fight
shed upon parallel features of his own belief, — I yet would
most emphatically affirm that the points of divergence be
tween these creeds are far too marked to permit the idea
of derivation or of identification. It is an artifice very

282 Internal Objections.
unworthy of modern criticism to point out features com
mon to the Book of Daniel and the Zend Avesta, and
boldly assert the statements of the former inspired by a
study of the latter. Mere resemblance can never consti
tute identity. The point is worth pursuing in one or
two instances. The whole train of the Messianic thought
of the Book of Daniel — with its there revealed accompani
ments of resurrection and immortality — has been pro
nounced of Mazdean derivation. Can the statement be
substantiated? How is the subject treated in the pages
of Daniel and the Zend Avesta respectively? I have not
to trace here the early growth of Messianic ideas1. I
would take them up at the stage presented in the Book of
Daniel. All that originally formed the foundation of Mes
sianic belief is to be found in his pages, but with certain
developements2. A new and brighter light is shed upon
things to come. The veil over the future is raised higher;
details are added for the most part absent from the writ
ings of the older Prophets. Daniel's visions include no
thing less than the history of the great nations destined
to figure on the stage of the world before the advent of
the Messiah. Daniel announces that the Messiah shall
not appear among men, till four mighty monarchies shall
have successively asserted their claim to universal do
minion. The grand features in the history of these king
doms, the tragic events connected with the rise and fall
of each are symbolically depicted. It is quite a matter of
indifference whether these four kingdoms be explained in
accordance with the traditional or modern view. Either
application illustrates the one fact that the advent of the
Messiah is attached to successive revolutions of nations.
To the Prophet those revolutions are necessary antecedents
to the establishment of the kingdom of God upon earth —
1 Eor a brief but admirable delineation of this growth, vid. Dollinger, n.
p. 391, and Hardwick, I. p. 121 sq.
2 Nicolas, p. 270.

Tlie Prophecies. 283
that kingdom which is to be the greatest and the last.
Numerous calamities precede and announce this advent.
At 'the time of the end' — the hour preceding God's indig
nation — the 'abomination of desolation' is to last a cer
tain definite time, and then ensues the punishment of the
transgressors. 'Many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to
shame and everlasting contempt.' The Kingdom of the
Most High is founded by the Messiah. He decrees its
extension over all people, and its duration eternal.
Now if the Mazdean conception of the Sosiosh1 or
Liberator, is compared with this, how true will appear
the remark2 : ' while the presentiments that arose in other
countries were but dim and floating visions of the night,
with nothing in the past or present to which they could
attach themselves, and therefore destitute of moral power
and practical results ; the Messianic doctrine of the Hebrews
was real, living, and coherent.' Like the Children of Is
rael the worshippers of Ormazd expected their Deliverer.
In the fragment of an old Epic Song preserved in the Ven
didad3, Zoroaster speaks to Angro-mainyus. 'Evil-doing
A. M. I will slay the creation produced by the devils. I
will slay the death, I will slay the Pairika Khnathaiti4 for
whose destruction Sosiosh will be born out of the water
Kacoya from the eastern country.' It is but a solitary
passage, deficient in itself of all that would suggest resem
blance, but it has been made to do good service. The
necessary features of a full-length portrait have been freely

1 The Soskyans (Haug) or Caoschyaric (Spiegel) of the Zend. Spiegel
translates it ' der Niitzliche.' Sometimes several, sometimes only one Sosiosh
is mentioned. Haug, p. 268. Spiegel, Av. I. p. 244, n. 1.
* Hardwick, I. p. 141.
3 Farg. XIX. Haug gives the ballad in its metrical form, pp. 213-5. I
have adopted his translation. Spiegel's will be found in the Zeitschr. d.
D.M. G. Vol. 1. p. 262, or Av. 1. p. 244; it is translated by Hardwick, n.
p. 429. 4 ' Probably an idol worshipped in Kandahar or thereabouts' (Haug).

284 Internal Objections.
supplied from the pages of the Bundehesh and other
works of the Sassanian period ; and a sketch thus finished
is presented as the parallel to the Messiah of Israel, and
the source of inspiration to the writer of the Book of
Daniel. A very slight examination shews that the Persian
full-blown conception is totally unlike the Hebrew1. The
Sosiosh of the later Mazdean scheme appears, by order of
Ormazd, at a time when wickedness and injustice have
become terribly prevalent among men, — at the end, adds
M. Nicolas, of the fourth Persian dynasty. The fall of
this dynasty will be stamped by terrible calamities. Na
tions shall unite and engage in a long and fierce struggle
against the worshippers of Ormazd. The shedding of
blood shall be so great, that it shall turn mill-wheels with
the force of a torrent. The wicked shall triumph over the
good, and the lovers of darkness over the true devotees of
light. Two prophets, Oschedar-bami and Oschedar-Mah2,
precede the Sosiosh, and during their several reigns of
1000 years prepare the way for his coming. They are
men who 'perpetuate the life,' men of the same stamp
as the ancient prophets and fire priests, and bearing the
same name of Soshyanto. Sosiosh himself at length ap
pears. He is believed to be a son of Zarathustra Spitama
(Zoroaster) begotten in a supernatural way. He, and he
alone, brings with him a hitherto unknown Nosk of the
Zend Avesta, and reveals it to mankind3. He is the con-
1 Cf. for the following paragraphs the works of Haug, Spiegel and Hard
wick in places quoted. Franck, Etudes Orient, pp. 98-9, 238-9. Dollinger
II. 411 sq. Nicolas, p. 300. The last writer has framed his sketch by an inge
nious interlacing of Vendidad, Bundehesh, Minokhired, Huzvaresh gloss upon
the Yacna, TJlem-i-Islam, and the 'ziemlich spate' Jamaep-name; but it
should not be forgotten that the critical gap between the last named work and
the Bundehesh, is perhaps as great as that between the Bundehesh and the
Vendidad. 2 This is Spiegel's spelling, Av. I. p. 32. Haug gives them Hukh-shathra
MSo and H. Balmya.
3 This is the older view: according to the Minokhired each of the precursors
of Sosiosh is to add a Nosk to the ancient Books.

The Prophecies. 285
queror of death, the judge of the world, and recalls the
dead to life. All are raised by him, and made immortal
by drinking of the Sacred Homa. The joys of recognition
follow. These ended, there ensues a separation of the just
and unjust. Husband is severed from wife, sister from
brother, friend from friend, by the sentence of Sosiosh en
throned as a Judge. Those who can endure the ordeal of
that day pass to Gorotman or the dwelling of Ormazd,
but the Darvands or impure are hurled into Duzakh or
hell. Ultimately' a great fire of purification breaks out.
The comet Guryscher, hitherto restrained by the moon,
precipitates itself upon the earth. The pure and impure
pass alike through the refiner's furnace. Ahriman vanishes
in the flames2, and Duzakh with its godless tenants is reno
vated by the scorching fire. From that hour evil is anni
hilated and the regenerated world reflects the image of
heaven only. Men unite in singing the glory of Ormazd
and of the Amshashpands.
What, then, is a fair deduction from this comparison ?
Can it be that proposed by M. Nicolas3: "Change the
names in this great Mazdean drama, and you will fancy
yourself reading a Jewish Apocalypse. There are resem
blances affecting the most minor points of detail. The
fifth monarchy of Daniel corresponds to the fifth dynasty
founded by the liberator Sosiosh. The prince of the evil
spirits, who places himself at the head of the idolatrous
people to fight against the chosen people of God, resem
bles greatly the prince of darkness leading the Devas and
the impure" nations against the prince of light and His
worshippers. The Messianic reign of 1000 years recalls
the ' hazare,' or similar period, of the two precursors of the
modern liberator. And in the Jewish Apocalypse, as in
the Mazdean Eschatology, a resurrection of the dead is
1 After three days' separation, according to some. v. Franck, I. c.
2 Or offers sacrifice. Id.
3 Op. cit. p. 303.

286 Internal Objections.
placed at the commencement of the reign of the deliverer
and of the proclamation of a new law." What does this
parallel teach, asks the same writer, but that ' the Doctors
of the synagogue, without absolutely intending it, without
perhaps being altogether conscious of their act, recalled
Persian opinions to aid them in their explanation of the
Messianic expectation of their fathers ' ?
With the views entertained by this writer as to the late1
amalgamation of ideas between Jew and Persian, this de
duction is natural. But when drawn from a parallel framed
indiscriminately from traditions ancient and modern, gen
uine and spurious, is it either critical or legitimate ? The
poetical feeling inventive of this ' change ' may be thanked
for so graceful a conception, but it cannot atone for the
entire absence of all critical basis. If2 it was an innate
cause, and not the Apocalyse of the worshippers of Ormazd
which determined the formation of what is truly Jewish
Apocalypse ; if there are divergences between them alto
gether subversive of the idea of identity ; and if criticism
can satisfy itself that the Book of Daniel supplied the
groundwork of later Jewish Apocalyptic literature ; — then
the gap between the thoughts of the Prophet and of
the Mazdean is wide indeed. Traces of parallelism
dwindle down to the most microscopic proportions ; of
imitation there is none. It is a mistake to represent either
the one or the other as existing in the sense intended.
A spirit of deeper reflection, as regards these points,
has grown up of late years. It is felt to be impossible to
explain the Messianic eschatological ideas of either Hebrew
or Persian system, if imitation, reproduction, or adaptation,
be assumed as the fundamental cause of their presence in
either creed. M. Nicolas' own words above may be taken
as a protest against the supposition. The opinion requires
no proof as regards the doctrine of a Messiah. Of resem-
1 i. e. not till long after the captivity.
2 These are M. Nicolas' own concessions, pp. 305, 307.

The Prophecies. 287
blance between Daniel and the real Zend literature there
is none ; or it is of so trifling a description as to repudiate
all idea of derivation of the one from the other. It may
well be questioned whether direct derivation can even have
alloyed the thoughts and writings of the Maccabaean era to
the degree asserted. At that age the Persian power was
virtually extinct, and a Mazdean conception would be very
much out of fashion with the chance moralist or romancer
of the day. Further, the idea connected, as it always was
by the Jew, with the doctrine of the resurrection of the
dead, was certainly unfamiliar to the Greek conqueror. It
had not penetrated to Athens by the time of St Paul (Acts
xvii. 22).
The same claim for independence may be asserted for
that other great doctrine just mentioned. Can it be sup
posed, with M. Nicolas1, that the developement of the belief
in the resurrection did not take place till the time of Anti
ochus Epiphanes, and then only through the school of the
Pharisees ? The same critic himself allows that this doc
trine ' did not come suddenly into existence ; its roots
penetrate deeply into the past' But if so, what then are
the grounds for asserting that ' previous to the Antiochian
era, it had never been to the doctors of the law anything
more than an object of speculation'? If there is a past
into which the roots of this doctrine penetrate, why is the
creed of that past upon this subject to be degraded into a
mere tissue of speculative fancies ? If as a popular belief
it finds no surviving record till the Maccabaean era, — though
this I altogether deny, — what is the value of the argumen-
tum e silentio ? Can it amount to a refutation of the belief
of centuries that it existed long before the time of the
captivity ? Can it at all render it impossible that it should
have been revealed to such a man as Daniel ? Revelation
rises superior to impossibilities. A belief that God has at
1 p. 33°-3 [-

288 Internal Objections.
any time spoken by the mouth of His holy Prophets, in
volves also a belief that He can reveal what He will to
whom He will, and when He will. But, in truth, the
authority for this opinion is sought in external considera
tions alone, without reference to the conditions of revela
tion. It is argued first, that such ideas were unknown till
the post-Babylonian period ; and, secondly, that they could
not have been moulded into the shape presented by the
Book of Daniel till after long contest with Mazdean Escha
tology. There are facts which, I venture to affirm, amount
to a critical refutation of such positions.
Of the numerous and various opinions upon the origi
nation of this doctrine, one, in former times highly-esteemed,
has now well-nigh ceased to be entertained. It can no
longer be pretended that the doctrine was the product of
the speculative spirit of the later Jewish schools of Pales
tine. The workings of the mind of a great nation will, no
doubt, of themselves fructify beliefs, where loans from
foreign sources would be powerless ; but there is a limit
beyond which speculation and philosophy cannot pass ; and
that limit is soon attained in discussing the subject of the
resurrection of the dead. M. Nicolas x has therefore chosen
his ground, in one sense, most wisely when he pretends to
' see in this belief, — and in those which logically support or
attach themselves to it, — a product' not of speculation
simply, nor of Mazdeism only, but 'of the political and
religious movement called into being by the persecution of
Antiochus Epiphanes.' It is in that period that he dis
covers the circumstances to which it owed its importance.
It is probable, explains this writer2, that at one of those
moments which formed an epoch in the history of the
Hebrew people the Jewish doctors, struck by the Mazdean
tenet of a resurrection of the body, were led to compare it
with their own belief in Sheol. They found the conception
1 P- 357- 2 P- 348 aq.

The Prophecies. 289
of the Persian superior to and more satisfactory than their
own ; and they conceived the idea of completing their own
peculiar opinions, and satisfying their spiritual wants by
assimilating such foreign opinions as would admit of modi
fication and accommodation. In this process of assimilation
they were careful to appropriate such points alone as
attached themselves readily to their own traditions, ante
cedents, and sacred compositions. In this maimer the fresh
elements introduced would appear to be but new modes of
expressing old truths, or as naturally resulting from them.
To effect this was the self-imposed task undertaken by
the Rabbin. Already possessed by the mania for subtleties
characteristic of his mode of exegesis, he now discovered
in every page of Holy Scripture ideas which for centuries
he had seen nowhere. Moses, the historic books, and the
Prophets, were made to furnish a kind of Scriptural de
monstration of the doctrine of the Resurrection ; a demon
stration arbitrary enough, but capable of adaptation to
Jewish intelligence such as it was then and such as it
remained for many years later. But in his formation and
developement of this doctrine he was careful to regard it
strictly as a postulate of his Messianic expectations 1. The
two beliefs were to him inseparable. And it was by their
united help that he kindled into a flame the patriotism of
those who took up arms to protect their worship and their
independence against the persecution of a Greek madman2.
This line of argument will be felt to be ingenious rather
than true. Judged by the standard of orthodox theology,
it is, of course, deficient ; critically, I venture to assert its
base unnecessary.
Assuming 3, as in a previous instance, that the Hebrew
1 Of the belief in the Messiah and the belief in the Resurrection he tersely
remarks: 'La premiere appelle la seconde, qui la complete.' p. 356.
2 A well-accredited play upon the name transformed Epiphanes into Epi-
manes. 3 With Archd. Hardwick, II. p. 427. 19

290 Internal Objections.
Prophets would have felt no difficulty in borrowing, if
required, novel tenets from the creed of their enslavers, it
is at the same time undeniable that the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body existed to some extent among the
' chosen people ' long before the Captivity of Babylon.
Debateable texts, if incapable of proving that that doctrine
was fully and definitely held, do yet bear witness to the
currency of the opinion. They prove, at least, that the
idea of a resurrection was not repugnant to the feehngs of
the ancient Hebrew, but rather coincided with expec
tations fostered by his belief in God's redemptive mercy.
For example, the words which Daniel is supposed to have
written under the inspiration of the Zoroastrian creed, are
in perfect unison with the declarations of Isaiah two cen
turies earlier. If the Prophet of the Captivity points onward
to the eventful hour when ' many of them that sleep in
the dust of the earth shall awake' (xii. 2), the prophet of
the reign of Ahaz had already declared that 'the Lord
shall swallow up death in victory' (Isai. xxv. 8); language
reft of ambiguity by the further explanation, 'Thy dead men
shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise:
awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust. . .for the earth shall
cast out her dead.' Few can read such words, or the
well-known passage of Daniel's contemporary, Ezekiel
(xxxvii. 1 — 14), without feeling the utter inadequacy of
such an explanation as the following : ' These passages
express in reality but the promise of deliverance to the
children of Israel. Such an event seemed, in the natural
course of things, for ever impossible; and to mark its
impossibility, it is compared to the resurrection of the
bodies of the dead1.' The Christian does well to believe
that it was Christ and not Moses who brought 'life and
immortality to light;' but he also believes that there must
have been a meaning attaching itself from the very first
1 Nicolas, pp. 313, 314.

Tlie Prophecies. 291
to the phrase ' I am the God of Abraham and the God of
Isaac and the God of Jacob.' He who spake as never man
spake commented upon it: 'God is not the God of the
dead, but of the living ' (St Luke xx. 37).
But the opinion of M. Nicolas' school is critically
deficient. It is wrong to assert that for critical reasons
it could not have been written at the time of the Cap
tivity. Such an opinion is based upon the incorrect suppo
sition that the writer of the book of Daniel was a Pales
tinian Jew who borrowed from Mazdeism; and that such
Mazdeism was not possible to the Jews of Palestine till the
Maccabaean era1.
The proof of this supposition rests on the following
grounds. It is asserted that none of the ancient writings
of the Zendic literature contain the doctrine2. The pas
sages of the Vendidad which Anquetil Du Perron rendered
'till the resurrection,' required and have received correc
tion; Burnouf 3 has proved them incapable of such a trans
lation. This has thrown discredit upon the antiquity of
the belief among the Persians, and consequently, it is
added, among the Jews. But the still later researches of
M. Haug have proved that this doctrine is found in the
Zend Avesta4. In the Zamyad Yasht, a composition to be
referred to about the fifth century b.c, there is celebrated
the praise of ' a mighty brightness peculiar to the Kavis,'
(or the chiefs of the Iranian community in ancient times) ;
— a brightness considered essential for causing the dead to
rise at the end of the world. The Yasht contains two pas
sages on the subject of the doctrine. The translation of
the second is as follows : ' This splendour attaches itself to

i Nicolas, p. 345. 2 Id- P- 34'-
3 Journ. Asiat. Vol. x. p. 7 sq. Spiegel, Zeitschr. d. D. M. G. Vol. 1.
pp. 260-61. Avesta, I. pp. 15, 248, n. 1. Hardwick, II. p. 425.
4 Haug,, Die Gdthas d. Zarathustra, Erst. Abth. p. 112. Leips. 1858.
Essays, &c. pp. 195-6, 224. 'Windischmann, and Spiegel in the new volume of
his Z. A. (1863), adopt the same opinion. Av. in. p. lxxv.
19—2

292 Internal Objections.
the hero who is to rise out of the number of prophets, and
to his companions, in order to make the life everlasting, un-
decaying, imputrescible, incorruptible, for ever existing, for
ever vigorous, full of power, at the time when the dead will
rise again, and imperishableness of life shall exist, making
the life lasting by itself. All the world will remain for
eternity in the state of purity ; the devil will disappear from
all those places whence he used to attack the religious men
in order to kill them; and all his brood and creatures
will be doomed to destruction.' The doctrine as here
enunciated presupposes a prior existence in a less-developed
state ; and its origin may therefore well be placed, without
exaggeration, far before the age of the Captivity. But the
passage has suggested the question whether Zoroaster
himself entertained this doctrine or not? Now though
in the Gathas the belief in the resurrection is not stated
in so many words, yet a phrase is there used which was
afterwards always applied to signify the time of the resur
rection and the restoration to life of all that had once lived.
' Let us be such as help the life of the future,' is the prayer.
of Zoroaster in the Gatha Ahunavaiti1; the reason being
added, 'the wise-living spirits are the greatest supporters
of it.' Out of the phrase with which this passage opens, a
substantive expressing 'perpetuation of life' has been
framed, by which in all the later Zend books, the
whole period of resurrection and palingenesis is under
stood2. It is in this sense that the Cpenta Armaiti is
invoked in the Vendidad3 to restore 'at the happy time of
perpetuation of life the seeds lost, and make of them a

1 Yafna, xxx. 9. Die Gdthas, u.s.w. pp. 9, 109-12, where the translation
is in Latin. Essays, &c. pp. 143, 266.
2 ' frashfi-kereti,' from the phrase ' frashem keranao ahum : ' the word
'frashem' has been derived from two roots: *nach der ersten heisst das Wort
Frage, Befragung ; nach der zweiten fortdauernde Herrschaft order Fortdauer
uberhaupt.' Neriosengh's Sanscrit translation agrees with the latter. (Die
Gdthas, p. 109.)
3 Fargard, xvni. 51.

The Prophecies. 293
pious Zoroastrian who knows the Gathas, the Yacna, and the
divine conversations.' 'From these direct proofs,' con
cludes Professor Haug, ' there can be no doubt that this
important doctrine is a genuine Zoroastrian dogma, which
developed itself from Zarathustra Spitama's sayings. It
agrees wholly with the spirit and tendency of the Parsee
religion. All life of the good creation, chiefly that of man,
the bodily as well as the spiritual, is a sacred pawn en
trusted by God to man, who must keep clean the body from
impurity and the soul from sin. If death destroys the body
(in its natural course) it is not the fault of man, who falls
to an inexorable fate ; but it is considered as the duty of
God, who is the preserver of all life, to restore all life that
has fallen to the prey of death, to destroy this arch-fiend of
human life, and make the life then, everlasting. This is to
be done at the time of the grand act of resurrection :' a
process described in detail in the Bundehesh1. If then this
doctrine dates among the Persians as far back as Zoro
aster's own age, it was, as a mere matter of historic possi
bility, quite within the power of a learned exile of the
Captivity to become acquainted with the tenet of his libe
rator2. Nothing, on that ground, is opposed to Daniel's
presumed knowledge of it. It is equally indefensible to
say that what he knew he borrowed. No one now
maintains this of even the later Jewish doctors. M. Nico
las3 can discover indications only that Mazdeism exercised
a certain influence upon Judaism in the formation of this
1 Ch. XXXI. Westergaard, pp. 70-7.
2 Eranck, Etudes, &c. p. 288. ' Quand on songe que livre de Daniel a 6t6
ecrit au plust&t a la fin de l'exile de Babylone, c'est-a-dire dans le temps ou
Zoroastre accomplissait sa mission, on ne saurait douter qu'il ne se soit inspire
de la religion des Perses, qui compte au nombre de ses dogmes fondamentaux
...la resurrection universelle.' In his other work, this author guards himself
from misconstruction by affirming strongly that the ' source of the fundamental
doctrines' common to these creeds 'must be carried much higher' than the age
of the Captivity. La Kabb. p. 359 sq. M. Franck's opinion upon Zoroaster's
date is that of the day in which his work was published.
* P- 346-

294 Internal Objections.
doctrine. The main element at work was undoubtedly not
external but internal agency. In fact, all charge of bor
rowing, whether of Jew from Persian or of Persian from
Jew is unworthy of real criticism. ' In both these religions,'
says M. Haug1, 'identical doctrines sprang up inde
pendently.' The modern critic does not dispute this, if
the authenticity of a Persian dogma is in question; why
should he refuse the same justice to the Hebrew? His
torically speaking it can no longer be counted an im
possibility that the period of the Captivity should have
been selected as the fittest season for inculcating Divine
lessons distinguished from, though not opposed to, those
communicated in earlier times. The law of progress and
expansion acknowledged ' in the beginning,' should not be
denied existence and action at a time when moral and
political conditions united in depicting it as the most
appropriate for the investiture of dim apprehensions with
their fullest glory and yet most spiritual expression.
It is impossible2, as it would be dishonest, to deny that
striking parallelisms do exist between doctrines preserved
in the extant sacred literature of the Hebrew, the Chris
tian, and the Persian ; but when a truly ancient relation
ship does so present itself, it is not to be explained on the
hypothesis of the derivation of the one from the other, but
by the truer and deeper cause of original unity. Points of
doctrine held in common, and according to the Hebrew
Scriptures affirmed to have been current in the Jewish
Church for centuries before the Babylonian Captivity, must
not be treated as if the originals were buried beneath some
foreign system, and the Jew alone possessed by an imitative
spirit. The theory of original unity is now regarded by
many writers of our own and other countries as that which
furnishes the key to genuine affinities ; these are products
of the original truth which Hebrew and Persian alike

:, &c. p. 2. 2 Hardw. n. p. 408.

The Prophecies. 295
inherited from the fathers of the human family. ' If a truth,
said a great Cambridge professor1, 'less developed in the
Mosaic system, be found without derivation from the Is
raelites among the adherents of Zoroaster, it is not there
fore to be concluded that the authority of the ancient
revelation is in jeopardy. The most reverent regard to
the inviolable sacredness of that truth, with which the
father of the promised seed and his descendants were pe
culiarly entrusted, consists well with the belief in the pre
servation of much original truth elsewhere. And if such is
found in nations most infected with polytheistic error,
much more may it be well conceived to have existed in
one by which the grosser forms of idolatry were ever held
in peculiar abhorrence ; a nation whose greatest prince is
signally honoured by Divine prophecy in being named as
the future restorer of God's people to their ancient seat,
and whose sages were summoned from afar, before the
great and wise of Israel, to adore the infant Redeemer.'
The best Christians see neither scandal nor contradiction
in admitting 'strong historical resemblance2;' they protest
only against counting such resemblance inexplicable save
on the supposition of conscious fraud on the part of the
Jew; a fraud, be it remembered, always aggravated in
insolence by the affixing to it a supposititious title of some
chosen servant of God.

I pass on to the criticism which ranks the Book of
Daniel with the apocryphal literature of the last two cen
turies before Christianity3. One word, however, of preface
upon this literature generally.
1 Mill, On ihe Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, pp. 128-9.
2 It is Schlegel's phrase. Philosophy of History, pp. 173-4, quoted by
Hardw. n. p. 403, n. 2.
3 v. p. 265.

296 Internal Objections.
The precepts of Moses, when studied in the Prophetic
Books, are found to have acquired— especially in their
moral applications — a developed form. In their turn, the
conceptions of the Prophets yielded to a similar law of
expansion. They were defined and expounded by the
doctors of the great Synagogue and by the fathers of the
Mishna and Midrashim, successively, with a fulness, a par
ticularity, and too often, a puerility, indicative of an era
of transformation. This period of mingled transition and
decay is illustrated by surviving apocryphal fragments
which prove, unwittingly, that the age of the Prophets
had ended, and that of the Scribes begun. In their pages
are drawn out, with more or less distinctness, the altera
tions in the Jewish mind and character, and the different
phases of Judaism in Palestine and Alexandria ; — sketch
like indications of effects resulting from contact with the
creeds and new world of Egypt, or issuing out of the fierce
struggle waged in the Holy Land against foreign infusion.
The most cursory perusal satisfies the reader that the aicpi-
/3r)? Bia&oxfj of Prophets had ceased1. Inspiration, poetical
power, are absent ; the true prophetic element is extinct.
There is an evident assumption of historical foundation in
order to secure weight to the paraenetical object of the
composer of the legend. An absence of honesty, and a
debased spirit of imitation, disfigure the train of thought
and action. The simplicity and accuracy characteristic of
the Old Testament history are replaced by patent errors
and anachronisms; and names illustrious from antiquity
are not unfrequently appended to give weight to the com
positions of the hour2. In a word, this literature exhibits
a religious and ethical developement which marks broadly
but decisively the lapse from Hebraism into Judaism.
This peculiar class of writing, moulding its outer frame-
1 Josephus, c. Ap. I. 8. (Vol. II. p. 341, ed. Dind.)
3 The Books of Esdras, the additions to Daniel, the Wisdom of Solomon,
the letters of Baruch and Jeremiah, are instances in point.

The Prophecies. 297
work upon the model of prophetic apocalypse, and its
ideas of past and future upon the signs of the times, was
called into existence during the struggle of Judaism against
the political might and proselytising theology of Hellenism1.
It would be easy to graduate roughly the existing series
of apocryphal or pseudo-Canonical works, but I have only
to consider them here as they affect the question under
discussion. Is the Book of Daniel to be numbered in the
list? Does it exhibit the features common to the class?
A no inconsiderable school affects to give it honour by
entitling it the first, or the source, or the model of apo
cryphal books, — a parentage confessedly demanding the
surrender of canonical reputation. With some it is contem
poraneous with the third book of the Sibylline Oracles, but
of independent origin ; with others, it preceded that work
by some thirty years, and suggested its ideas : the dissen
tients salving their difference by agreeing to accredit both
compositions to the same Antiochian era. To the mind of
an unprejudiced reader, this very questionable 'honour,'
and this 'little' difference provoke a query against the
soundness of the one base of agreement. Certainly, the
doubt is not diminished, when the difference between the
tone, thought, and habits of a Palestinian writer and an
Egyptian Sibyl is permitted its weight in the solution of
the question.
It can hardly require proof that the relations between
the Jews of Palestine and of Alexandria were of a very
slight2 description at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
From the day that Ptolemy led his captive Israelites from
the gates of Jerusalem, in the year 312 B.C., agencies
were at work engendering and producing separation.
1 Nicolas, p. 3.
" Frankel, 'Das Verhaltniss d. Alexandrin. u. Palast. Judenthums,'
Zeitschr. d. D. M. G. Vol. iv. p. 102 sq. appears to me to press the connection
too closely. I have adopted, by preference, the views of Franck, La Kabb.
p. 271 sq., and Nicolas, p. 109 sq. Cf. also Herzfeld, Gesch. Vol. n. (1857),
pp. 464, 499-5°!-

298 Internal Objections.
In maintaining this there is no intention of isolating com
pletely and from the first Alexandrian and Palestinian
conceptions. The Holy Land will always claim, and re
ceive, recognition as the native soil and seed-plot of the
creed common to the African and Asiatic Jew. The ex
istence of the LXX. Version proves convincingly the at
tachment of the Jews of Alexandria to the faith of their
ancestors ; and many difficult passages in that version may
be explained by the exegesis and religious code derived
from Palestine. Wherever the numbers of the exiles per
mitted it the Synagogue rose from the ground to illus
trate and perpetuate the same feeling. Frequently too the
Alexandrian succeeded in converting the pagan to Mono
theism, but no instance is known of his own secession ; not
one Jew is recorded as having offered sacrilegious incense
upon heathen altars. Alexandrian Judaism undoubtedly
received its original impetus from Judaea, and Monotheism
incurred no danger among the Hellenistic Jews. But as
time rolled on it was seen that their religious habits, their
theological views, indicated a bent different to that ruling
the Palestinian mind. It would have been strange had
this not been the case. At a distance from the conserva
tive agencies of home and the influences of the father
land ; — dwelling among nations entertaining different ideas,
living in populous towns where creed, language, and morals,
were different from their own,— the Hellenistic Jews were
exposed, as it were, to a strange current of air sweep
ing away the weighty vapours of local prejudices and local
considerations. They yielded, as was natural, to the spell
of ideas new, generous, and cosmopolitan, but altogether
foreign and repulsive to their brethren in Palestine. At
Jerusalem the introduction of any foreign element was
resented as the act of an enemy. The precursors of later
Pharisaism were already taking steps to convert their fel
low-countrymen into sectaries or machines. An attachment
to routine, a stringent enforcement of minute often to the

The Prophecies. 299
omission of weightier points, and a slavish subservience to
the will of some rabbin counting himself oracular through
the absence of opposition, were fast transforming the reli
gious of Jerusalem into formalists, and merging their spiri
tual worship into ceremonies which constituted but its
external expression. The Jews dispersed among the Greeks
were not exposed to this. They ceased to attach to the
ceremonies celebrated in the Holy City the same import
ance as their co-religionists of Judaea. Placed in the
centre of a civilisation different from that enjoyed or pre
supposed by the upholders of Mosaism, it was impossible
for them to observe many of the Pharisaic requirements.
Mosaism among the Alexandrians disengaged itself from
the formalism encumbering it in Palestine : it entered upon
the path opened up to it by the Prophets, and assumed
the features of a spiritualized religion. It is matter of his
tory1 that the Alexandrian was entirely ignorant of the
Rabbinic institutions rooted in Palestine two centuries be
fore Christ. The writings of Wisdom, Philo, the 4th Book
of Maccabees — all compositions of an Alexandrian pen —
never contain a single allusion to the names of those who
ranked highest as authorities among the Jews of Palestine,
such as Simon the High Priest, or the Tanaim who suc
ceeded him. Not one reference is found to the disputes
agitating the schools of a Hillel and a Shammai, or the cus
toms of every kind collected in the Mishna, and presently
raised to the dignity of law. A corresponding ignorance
pervades the Holy Land. The Jews of Palestine know as
little of their countrymen in Egypt. They are acquainted
with the Version of the LXX. by report only, and reverence
it in humble deference to the extravagant fable of Aristeas.
Throughout the Mishna and the two Gemaras there is not
a token indicative of the influence of Aristobulus, Philo, or
other writers of Alexandrian apocrypha. In fact the fusion
1 Franck, Etudes, p. 272.

300 Internal Objections.
between Jewish theology and Greek philosophy commenced
by Aristobulus and perfected by Philo separates as by an
abyss the Judaism of Alexandria from that of Palestine.
If the formalism of Jerusalem is replaced at Alexandria by
an exaggerated idealism, the change is accompanied by a
surrender of the Rabbinic attachment to the ' letter,' and
an adoption of the Hellenistic preference for the ' spirit' of
the sacred law. If Alexandria knows nothing of the moral
regulations or the thousand Pharisaic precepts framed to
elevate the soul to God ; or if Palestine is ignorant of the
mystic principles, asceticism, and ecstasy, supposed to
make their possessor independent of the conventionalities
of a system ; — a correspondent divergence is remarked in
their assertion of the inner truths of which these are the
external indices. Alexandria1 troubles herself but little
with the Messianic expectations which promised the empire
of the world to the children of Israel. Jerusalem does not
know, and would not understand, the confidence of Philo
in abstract ideas upon the moral amelioration of the human
race and the definite triumph of Monotheism.
How broad a hne of demarcation does this almost ne
cessitate between the literature of these respective schools.
How clear and well-defined must be their distinctive teach
ing. How little capable of amalgamation. What was ori
ginal to each would exhibit the characteristic stamp of the
land of its birth ; what was common, would be derived in
part from the fundamental ideas of a creed held in common
centuries before the day of separation; all beyond would
be the result of imitation.
How then does this affect the status of Daniel when
compared with apocryphal works generally, and particu
larly with that with which it has been so freely associated,
the composition of the Alexandrian Sibyl ? The third Book
of the Sibylline Oracles — the composition in question —
1 Nicolas, p. 138.

The Prophecies. 301
was, according to Bleek, Liicke, Gfrorer, Alexandre and
Friedheb1, a work of the first half of the second century
before Christ, i.e. about 170—60. In the view of the same
school this is also the date of the Book of Daniel. Any
idea, therefore, of imitation of the one by the other, is
precluded by the chronological coincidence. And this, it
is well known, is the opinion entertained by Bleek2. He
rejects all idea of imitation, and considers the Sibyllist and
Daniel to have derived their ideas from one common
source; — a view shared with him by Liicke3, but rejected
by Hilgenfeld4 as convenient rather than critical. A deeper
study must tend to discredit these views. The chronolo
gical coincidence can be maintained no longer. For many
critical reasons the Sibylline Book cannot be dated so
early. Hilgenfeld refers its composition to the interval
between the years 142—37 B.C.; Reuss to 132; and Ewald5
to later still, 124 B.c. This clears the way for the belief
in the imitation of Daniel's Book on the part of the Sibyl;
and of the soundness of this belief there can be no doubt.
The mere perusal of the lines6
'Pi^ai* 'lav <ye StSou?, fjv Kal Ko^reo fipoTokoiyoi
'E/e BeKa Br) Kepdreov Trapa Br) cpvrov aXXo (pvrevaei
 Kal Tore Br) Trapacfivofievov Kepas ap£ei
recalls the parent- vision of Daniel vii. 7, 8, 11, 20. An
opinion which claims the suffrages not only of the critics
1 Bleek, ' Ueber d. Slbyllinen,' in Schleiermacher's Zeitschr. Heft i.
p. 120 sq. ; II. p. 172 sq. (1819-20). Liicke, EM. in d. Offenb. Joh. p. 116 (iste
Aufl.). Gfrorer, Philo. Theil 11. p. 121 sq. Alexandre, Oracula Sibyllina.
Introd. (Par. 1862). Friedlieb (J. H), Die Sibyllinisch. Weissagungen.
EM. p. xxxviii. sq. (Leips. 1852).
2 In Schleiermacher's Zeitschr. Heft III. § 25, and in Jahrb. f. Deutsch.
Theol. p. 62 (i860).
3 Einl p. 72 (2te Aufl.).
4 Die Jild. Apok. p. 69, Anm.
5 Hilg. pp. 54 sq., 81 sq. Eeuss, 'Sibyllen.' Herzog, Real-Encycl Vol. XIV.
pp. 321-2. Ewald, Abhandl. iiber Enstehung d. Sibyllisch. Biieher, p. 10
(Gott. 1858).
6 ver. 396 (ed. Friedlieb).

302 Internal Objections.
just mentioned, but also of such opposite theologians as
Havernick and Volkmar, Nicolas and Ziindel1 is not to be
lightly set aside. Hilgenfeld, the most uncompromising
opponent of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel, has
not hesitated to affirm upon inductive grounds that the
Sibyl is himself a testimony to the early prevalence of the
opinion which regarded the Book of Daniel as a genuine
prophetic writing2.
The questions then arise: how and when was this
imitation produced? On the hypothesis of the Book of
Daniel being a Palestinian work of the Antiochian era,
how came it to have suggested ideas to an Alexandrian?
Would an Egyptian Jew have been familiar with the views
of a work written at Jerusalem some thirty years pre
viously; and if familiar with them, would he have en
dorsed them? The difficulty has been met by the fol
lowing theory. To M. Nicolas3, the Sibylline Book, the
2 Maccabees, the Book of Enoch, and the 4th of Esdras,
indicate the existence of a Palestinian party in the midst
of the Jews of Egypt. The members of this party, at no
time numerous, he believes to have been the descendants
of the priestly families attracted to Alexandria by Onias
about the middle of the second century b.c. The last
three books mentioned are apocalyptic in character : and
this feature joins them to the literature and conceptions
of Palestine, while it severs them from those of Alexandria.
They embody ideas foreign to the theosophy of the Alex
andrian Jews. Though founded upon the Book of Daniel
as their model, they — and especially the 4th of Esdras —
exhibit a spiritualism absent from true Palestinian apo-

1 Zundel, p. 134 sq. Nicolas, pp. 141, 292. I do not consider it neces
sary to prove that the Book of Daniel has suggested much to other Apo
cryphal works; but the point has been fully argued as regards the 4th of
Esdras, for instance, by Volkmar and Ewald in their treatises on that book.
Cf. for a few condensed remarks on this subject, Zundel, p. 137.
2 p. 82. Cf. also, p. 13. 3 p. 141.

The Prophecies. 303
calypse : a difference evidencing the fact that the Pharisaic
spirit was unable to maintain an integral existence when
brought into contact with Hellenistic philosophy.
But this theory, however ingenious, is quite insufficient
to account for all the phenomena deduced from close com
parison between Daniel and the Sibyl: and it is totally
unsupported. Imitation on the part of the Sibyllist there
undoubtedly is, but it is not that of a servile copyist; it
is rather that of an artist who has drawn his inspiration
from some venerable model, and worked up his subject
after his own fashion, and in accordance with his own no
tions as to its treatment. Over against the imitation must
always be set differences between the two books both in
form and in contents; differences, graphically and power
fully marked, which necessitate an interval between the
Book of Daniel and the Sibyl greater by far than 30
or even 300 years. The imitation discernible might have
happened to either an Alexandrian or Palestinian writer,
who copied some model of antiquity ; but the manifest
differences could only have been possible to authors suc
ceeding one another after a lapse of many centuries, and
separated one from the other by the vital distinctions of
ancient Hebraism and modern Alexandrianism.
First, as to form1. The Sibyllist assumes and appro
priates a heathen dress. The revelation claimed is not
communicated externally through dreams and supernatural
appearances, as with Daniel ; it appears rather to spring
from some internal constraint supposed prophetic. The
Sibyllist claims to be the bearer of the divine infallible
spirit. Common to both is a pictorial elucidation of things ;
but where Daniel employs symbolism, the Sibyl prefers
enigma. In Daniel, the seer is conscious of his vision.
Not so the Sibyl ; his state is ecstatic in accordance with
conventional tradition. Daniel is a devout Israelite, whose
1 Hilgenf. p. 81 sq. Ziindel, p. 165 sq.

304 Internal Objections.
name Ezekiel has certified to have been generally known
in the Chaldaean exile, and whose history, inseparably in
terwoven with his prophecies, had been handed down for
the edification of posterity. The Sibyl is one whose ex
istence defies historic control. He dates himself in the
most venerable antiquity, not only of Israel but of all peo
ple, — the period of the Flood. He veils his person in
apocryphal darkness, and disavows any confidence either
in himself or his calling1.
Next, as to contents: Daniel's prophecy starts, as do
all the earlier prophets, from a definite historical situa
tion, — the rise of the first great world-power in Chaldaea.
It embraces the period of heathen supremacy over Israel —
the period of 70 weeks. The four world-powers pass be
fore him, taking their origin in historic ground, — the times
of Nebuchadnezzar ; and of these the last engages in war
against the God of Heaven and His Holy Ones. The fu
ture of the prophecy extends to the entry of an eternal
and heavenly kingdom brought in by the Messiah, descend
ing in the clouds of heaven, at a time of dire oppression.
On the other hand, the Seleucid-Jewish Sibyl has neither
prophetic situation nor similar Eschatology. His past ranges
over the entire field of the history of the world. In his
present, Hellenism appears as the head and loftiest blossom
of heathendom : the Romans are singled out as that Gen
tile power whose destruction is to precede the advent of
the Messiah. In his future, Judaism triumphs over hea
thendom, the Gentile turns to the true God, and Mono
theism becomes the religion of the world.
The principal object of the Sibyl is, undoubtedly, to
solve the vital question of later Judaism2; how and when
the long dominion of the Gentile over the people of God
should cease; but the circle of his conceptions is ex-
1 ver. 804-5. K<>1 KahiovGi (SpaTol p.e...aval5ea, ¦pevardpav paivouhnv.
* What Hilgenfeld calls the ' Lebensfrage der spatern Judenthums,' p. 82.

The Prophecies. 305
ternally and internally far more comprehensive than those
of Daniel. While to the canonical prophet, Israel de
livered from the Nabonassarian dynasty and himself from
the tyranny of Nebuchadnezzar, are real proofs that as a
matter of fact salvation will eventually appear, and the
recognised opposition between the pagan and the chosen
people of God terminate in the triumph of the latter ; the
Sibyl goes back to the mythical wars of the Titans and
the sons of Kronos, and to the severance of nations at the
building of Babel, there to find opposition parallel to that
between Judaism and Gentilism. While, again, the how
and the when of that future triumph are, according to
Daniel, reserved in the power of God, to the Sibyl they
are but a mere question of dogma; he solves them by
converting the heathen into Jews.
This difference is not merely one of degree1, but, as
Ziindel2 has admirably pointed out, one of principle. Nei
ther of Rome nor of Greece, as such, was Daniel thinking.
Those kingdoms were to him representatives only of a
natural and God-defying principle — the world-power. This,
the subject alike of his sacred history and prophecy, is
the unique, distinctive, penetrating idea in Daniel. He
never permits it to lose integrity or distinctness through
decomposition into political conceptions. His work is not
a pictorial history of the world. Its gravitating point lies
in the description of the end of the world-power— the time
of internal developement, yet of internal weakness against
the kingdom of God. Hence his four representations do
not correspond in their inner reality to the external em
pirical histories of the world. They do not take their rise
with the history of nations, while they extend far beyond
the present. They form a compact numeral of four, not
copied from the history of the world, but exhibiting na
tural and indissoluble connection. To this day researches
into history still leave them undetermined; as full of the
1 Hilgenfeld, pp. 55 sq., 61. ! pp. 168 sq. 20

306 Internal Objections.
secrets of the higher supernatural truth as a hieroglyphic.
The Sibyl has no such creative prophetic spirit; nothing
original or peculiar. His work is a thoroughly Alexandrian
compilation, consisting of thoughts drawn indiscriminately
from external sources, sacred prophecy, and the heathen
classics. His scarcely-concealed object of raising Judaism
to the position of the world's religion is after all but an
evolution of the Divine plan of salvation, that ' in Abraham
all nations of the earth should be blessed.' It is a thought
running like a golden thread through the whole tissue of
prophecy, brought out in highest historical relief in the
pages of Daniel, and realized in Christianity. By the Sibyl
the promise is spiritualized as a religious doctrine, and
materialized as a political tenet; and between these two
as poles he oscillates perpetually1. Once more: the Sibyl
proclaims to the heathen a conception of the Deity spiri
tualized and akin to that of the writings of Philo2: of the
God of sacred history such as Daniel describes Him but
few traces are to be found. The difference is important
for many reasons. The terminology expressive of God
forms one of the most striking features of the books of
the Old Testament. In them He is One who is from ever
lasting, an 'Ancient of days;' Omnipotent, Omniscient,
Creator, and Protector of all. His power knows no restric
tion : His wisdom no limit. A moral and personal character
is allotted to Him: His metaphysical attributes being
passed over in devotional silence. Anthropomorphic images
and expressions permeate the sacred history of the Jewish
people, and repeat themselves in the visions of the pro
phets from Moses to Zechariah. The conception of a God
surrounded by His celestial council, dimly shadowed and
understood, rather than expressed, in the earliest records
(Gen. iii. 22 ; xi. 5—7), finds a clear recognition at the hands
of Micaiah (1 Kings xxii. 19), as more than a century later
1 Ziindel, p. 169.
2 Franck, Etudes, p. 109. Nicolas, p. 145.

The Prophecies. 307
it blessed the vision of Isaiah (vi. 1). Later still it received
the particular yet reverential description vouchsafed to
the Prophets of the Captivity (Ezek. i. 26—8 ; Dan. vii.
9, 13, 22). The reason for this cannot be mistaken. An
thropomorphism spoke a language intelligible to diso
bedient and unlettered men — the language of sense and
imagination. Human representations, human expressions,
were permitted to typify and depict Divine Majesty ; and
by their aid the soul was elevated to supernal heights,
and addressed in words eloquent with Divine power. It
would be difficult to conceive a mode more sublime in
itself, or better calculated by its construction, to acquaint
the world with the existence of a Creator.
It was the act of a revolutionary or transition-period
to suspend this system. When reflection took the place of
inspiration, and didactic teaching usurped the prerogative
of prophecy, the use of figurative expressions ceased. The
death-knell of anthropomorphism was sounded alike from
Palestine and Alexandria, though the execution of the
sentence was more rapid, more thorough, in the liberal
metropolis of Hellenism than in the conservative schools
of Jerusalem. Elimination of theophany and anthropomor
phic conceptions generally, has been called the especial
task of the writers of the LXX.1 Whatever appeared de
rogatory to the Divine nature, whatever trenched too fa
miliarly, too definitely, upon the secrecy, the ineffableness,
of an Infinite Being was explained as an element of vision
or symbol. One, for instance, who is called the Word,
the Eternal Reason, acts in the place and with the attri
butes of the God of Gods both in the history of creation
and the history of the creature. This revolution in ideas
can cause no surprise in the case of a people brought into
contact with Greek philosophy2. Plato, the Stoic, and the
leaders of the different schools of Greece had long set the
1 Franck, Etudes, pp. 290-1. ' Nicolas, pp. 150, 161.
20—2

308 Internal Objections.
example of explaining divine things allegorically, and en
couraged the practice of giving to them a philosophical
sense. Aristobulus and Philo followed in the wake of
these guides ; and certainly the influence of their teaching
affected the writers of the LXX. negatively, if it did not
lead them to the same positive and systematic results.
To the Alexandrian Jew the new system of exegesis was
the result of a spiritualism brought to bear upon the na
ture of God. Tlie Jew of Palestine did not, it would seem,
find the same difficulty as his Egyptian co-religionist in
admitting anthropomorphism or anthropopathy1. Theo-
phany alone seemed to interfere with his view of the doc
trine of the invisibility and spirituality of God. To deny
it was to reject the authority of the Sacred Books; and
yet to affirm it as it stood in the original texts was alto
gether fatal to the current system of Rabbinic expo
sition. He compromised his difficulty. It was not God
Himself, he said, who had appeared to Moses and the
Patriarchs, but a Divine virtue, a substantial manifestation
of the Almighty. Sometimes it was His glory (XliT),
sometimes His Word (XT^D), sometimes His Shechinah
(W2wy.
The Sibyl does not fail to exhibit traces of the spiri
tualising leaven at work around him3. His conception of
God deviates from that of Daniel and approximates to
that of the LXX, without reaching the developement of
Philo. The God of the Alexandrian philosopher is a
Being without quality, incapable of human representation.
To apply to the Immortal qualifications usually descriptive
of mortality is resented as degradation. It is best to say

1 Nicolas, pp. 152-3. Traces of this are frequent in Ecclesiasticus. Baruch
furnishes some examples in ii. 16-7, iii. 5 ; and this is not without its interest
when the imitation of Daniel by Baruch is remembered.
2 For instances of this v. Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s. w.; Nicolas, pp. 156-7,
notes; Franck, La Kabb. pp. 67-9.
3 Nicolas, pp. 160 sq.

The Prophecies. 309
of Him that He exists, without defining what He is.
Better than Good, anterior to and purer than Unity, God
is seen and contemplated only by Himself. 'I am that I
am,' He saith of Himself: ' it is,' adds Philo, ' as if He had
said, My essence is to exist and not to be described.' He
is the Being who hath no name ; His nature evades defi
nition. To the Sibyllist and the Greek translator of Le
viticus, xxv. 15, 16, His name is equally veiled in the pro
foundest mystery; to divulge it would be criminal1.
Accompanying this spiritualizing tendency, is the dis
position to materialize historic prophecy on the part of the
Sibyl2. He knows nothing of the secret of Daniel's de
lineation of the world, his prophetic fundamental thought,
the antagonism of the kingdom of God to the world-
power. He simply copies the empiric history of the world,
extending the number of powers from four to eight3.
Egypt, Persia, Media, Ethiopia, Babylonia, Egypt again
and Rome pass in turn across the field of vision, suggestive
of the model from which they are imitated, yet separated
from it by self-evident differences of treatment.
Equally distinct and peculiar are the Sibyl's eschato-
logical conceptions4. In the Book of Daniel the gradual
developement of the world-power finally concentrates itself,
in spite of its ten-fold extension, upon one kingdom and
one head antagonistic to God. This falls and perishes
through the stone cut without hands. The Prophet knows
nothing of a victory for the Jewish religion as such; to
him the victory is that of the kingdom of God over the
world-power. He is not concerned about a ' religion,' but
with the personal appearance of the Son of Man and the
Advent of His kingdom s. In the Sibylline Book the mat
ter is treated with reference to the political and physical
destruction of the lands of Europe and Asia enumerated
1 Nicolas, p. 166, n. 2. 2 Zundel, p. 170.
3 Ewald, p. 10, n. 2. 4 Ziindel, p. 170.
5 Id. p. 151.

310 Internal Objections.
geographically and ethnographically. To the pseudo-man-
tic mind, heathen idolatry, immorality, and sacrilege in
the destruction of the Temple, are the causes productive
of punishment ; not as with Daniel, the positive God-hating
disposition1. The treasured promise of the return of all
people of the Gentiles to the hill of Zion (Isai. ii. Micah iv.) ;
the expectation of Daniel that the Ancient of Days shall
give to the Son of Man power, honour, and kingdom ; the
Prophet's belief that all nations and tongues should serve
Him (vii. 14) ; — these are diluted by the Sibyl into a con
version of the Greeks to the Jewish temple-worship. And
thus to represent Jewish monotheism as the religion of
the world, betokens nothing less than the deepest fall
from the sacred, objective, and universal knowledge of
true prophecy into Alexandrian subjectivity.
The subject of the Messianic conceptions is marked by
similar contrasts both of difference and imitation. The
Alexandrian writer had to impress these expectations
upon his Hellenistic fellow-countrymen too readily dis
posed to let them fall into oblivion2. At the same time
he sought to interest and propitiate by their help the
Greek masters of the chosen people. He secured the at
tention of the foreigner by the assumption of the Sibylline
character, and enlisted the sympathies of his co-religionists
by a series of representations altogether remodelled and
spiritualised in comparison with the portraiture of the
Book of Daniel or the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Re
taining the fundamental belief that the wickedness of man
is to endure till the dawn of Messianic deliverance, the
Sibyl described the Messiah as a King sent by God from
the sun. He comes to put an end to war, and to judge
with blood and burning fire3. This is not done in defer
ence to His own judgment, but in obedience to the com-
1 Ziindel, p. 157. » Ewald, pp. 23-4.
s V. reff. in Ewald, p. 32. n. Zundel, p. 163. The 'blood' according to
Zechar. ix. 1 3-5 : the ' fire' according to Isai. i. 31, iv. 4.

Tlie Prophecies. 311
mands of the Great God. Some He kills: some He ap
proves: the chosen people especially are loaded with
riches, gold, silver, and purple clothing. It is impossible
to deny either the imitation, or the difference between
this and the seventh chapter of the Book of Daniel1.
Such are some of the contrasts observable in these
writers. They lead to this certain result; — the impossi
bility of supposing Daniel and the Sibyl contemporaneous.
But united to other facts, they may be said to do more.
It is the device of some to reckon the Canonical work a
' primus inter pares,' an uninspired model of Apocalyptic
literature undoubtedly apocryphal. The priority of the
Book of Daniel is thus admitted. The laws of criticism
require it. But the concession is in reality nullified by the
determination not to carry back that priority later than
the Seleucidan era. There is one very simple answer to this
which will have weight with some minds more than with
others. Were Daniel's work avowedly and notoriously spu
rious, it would never have been quoted as authentic Scrip
ture by the Founder of Christianity ; it would never have
influenced, so largely as it has done, the thoughts and
diction of the writers of the New Testament2. It would
have shared the fate of the other Apocrypha and sunk into
oblivion, or flashed momentarily across the page of later
records, like the Book of Enoch in the Epistle of S. Jude.
That it did not so perish, that its light has endured long
after that of the others has paled, is a proof of its value
and inspiration in the sight of those best qualified to de
cide. But there are other reasons against this supposition.
One of the most noteworthy features in the pages of
this Sibyl, is the frequent use and imitation of prophetic
writings. There are numerous citations and recollections
1 Bleek (Schleierm. Theol Zeitschr. Heft I. p. 232 sq.and Jahrb. p. 58) pre
fers to consider both the Sibylline passage and the description of Daniel imitated
from Isai. xiv. 1. Hilgenf. (p. 64) finds the source in Ezek. xxxiv. 23.
2 Zundel, p. 135. I shall return to this presently.

312 Internal Objections.
of Joel, Isaiah, Zechariah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel1. It is
evident that the spirit of ancient prophecy was wooed by
him with the most faithful assiduity. The real song of in
spiration had ceased ; but the Sibyl perused the pages and
listened to the echoes of the past, adapting and setting to
his own measure snatches of their divine and exquisite
melody. One prophet suggested another. Jeremiah, Eze
kiel; and Ezekiel, Daniel: and in these last especially, in
their symbolism, and visions, he recognised thoughts con
genial to his own, and befitting the character he had as
sumed2. It is therefore a most valuable fact that to one of
the most ancient of Apocalyptic writers the Book of Daniel
stands in the light of a truly prophetic work. It claims
and receives from him dignity and authenticity co-equal
with that accorded to the writings of the other prophets.
Certainly, an Alexandrian Sibyl would never have taken,
by choice, a Palestinian apocryphal work of his own age,
and palmed it off upon himself or others as a work of
antiquity. Nationality, and theological differences, were
sufficiently strong to render this improbable, if not im
possible. Were a verdict then to be pronounced upon the facts
elucidated in the preceding paragraphs, it would be, I hum
bly venture to think, that the Book of Daniel passes from
the judgment bar of criticism with pedigree unsullied and
unimpaired. Mazdeism and Judaism, the witnesses brought
against it, point to the same conclusion ; but it is not the
conclusion apprehended. They unite in referring the work of
the prophet, not to the Maccabasan, but to the Babylonian
period. Not for one moment does this result repudiate the
peculiar character of the prophetic sections : it declines only
1 Hilgenf. p. 82. n. 1 ; Zundel, p. 138.
* Comp. for the special use of Ezekiel, Hilg. pp. 64, n. 3, 65, n. 2, 76, nn.
1, 3 ; Friedlieb. Einl. -p. xxxiii.: of Daniel, comp. int. al. the Sibyll. adaptation of
Daniel's prophecy of the 10 horns ; Hilg. pp. 68-9. Nicolas, pp. 273-4 ; Ziindel,
141 sq.; Ewald, p. 14.

The Prophecies. 313
to recognise the modern explanation of that peculiarity.
Once again, let it be affirmed that the symbolism, and the
apocalyptic element of the Book of Daniel, are thoroughly
peculiar. The work exhibits features which it is impos
sible to ignore, and dishonest to deny. I assert only that
neither in degree nor in delineation are these features so
distinct from those of the Canonical Prophets, or so tinged
by extraneous colouring, as to constitute either unauthen
tic or modern the work containing them.
The old question then returns : Whence were these fea
tures derived? What adequate solution can be offered for
them? External agencies alone are manifestly insufficient
for the developement observed; what else is at hand to
explain it? I answer, Inspiration. The solution propound
ed by human reason has been tried in the balance and
found — not wanting, but indicating what it was not ex
pected to indicate, the true ring and weight of the work
impugned. Necessarily this result points beyond itself.
It leaves the mind free to ascend higher for the source of
so much that is mysterious. And there an answer is ob
tained; the only answer satisfactory to the mind of the
Church, because the only answer uncontradicted by reason
and criticism: — the main developement of the Book of
Daniel was due to the agency of God's Holy Spirit. In a
few words I would endeavour to establish this truth.
The revelations communicated by God to His Prophets
have been reduced to two classes1. They were either com
munications made when the action of the external senses
was suspended, and there was no consciousness of passing
events ; or they were communications made in the natural

1 In the construction of these paragraphs I willingly plead guilty to a whole
sale reproduction of Dr Lee's thoughts and language. It was the perusal of
his pages, and the study of his references, which endued for me with life the
dry bones of a very abstruse subject. The whole question is worked up by him
with a logical precision, adorned by a simplicity of narration, which I could not
hope to attain by any independent effort.

314 Internal Objections.
waking state, when the Prophet was conscious of all that
took place around him. The Prophet Daniel is a remark
able illustration of the former class. In his pages the
action of the outward senses is seen to be suspended ; and
the human soul, like a pure mirror undimmed by any fault
or stain, receives and reflects the beams of Divine truth
presented to it1. Of the revelations vouchsafed to him,
some were conveyed in dreams, others in ecstatic visions.
In the dream2, the action of the senses was suspended by
purely natural Causes, and the Divine communication trans
mitted by the aid of one of the most ordinary of natural
facts. In the state of ecstasy the suspension of the facul
ties was produced by the sublime and overpowering cha
racter of the conceptions infused into the mind, or by the
direct operation of the Divine energy, or by both com
bined. Daniel's personal state in the ecstatic condition is
fully depicted. He was in a ' deep sleep (Tl&TlJ, viii. 18,
x. 9), the face toward the ground,' when the Angel spoke
and the voice was heard 'like to the voice of a multitude.'
The Angel touched him, raised him, and strengthened
him; and then ensued the communication (viii. 19 — 26, x.
11 — 21). The revelation ended, a reaction followed. 'He
fainted and was sick certain days3' (viii. 27, cf. vii. 28, x.
16). These characteristics of the ecstatic state are un
questionably peculiar, but they are not for that reason
less real. 'Ignorance of the manner according to which
1 S. Basil, Comm. in Esai. Procem. § 3. Vol. I. p. 379, quoted by Lee, On
Inspiration, p. 173. n. 1.
2 S. Thorn. Aquin. attaches a caution to this class of communication which
should not be forgotten. ' Si cui fiat divinitus reprsesentatio aliquarum rerum
per similitudines imaginarias, ut Pharaoni et Nebuchodonosor, aut etiam per
similitudines corporales, ut Balthassar, non est talis censendus Propheta, nisi
illuminetur ejus mens ad judicandum.' Summ. Theol. 2d* Pars, Qujest. clxxiii.
art. 3. (Lee, id. n. 2).
3 S. Greg, the Great makes the following beautiful remark: 'Daniel subli-
nem visionem videns per plurimos dies elanguit et segrotavit, quia hi qui in vir-
tutibus fortes sunt, quum altiora Dei conspiciunt, in sua sibimet sestimatione, in-
firmi atque imbecilles fiunt.' (Homil viii. in Ezek. 1. 25, p. 861 b, ed. Migne.)

Tlie Prophecies. 315
God acted directly upon the mind of the Prophet will no
doubt always continue, but this no more affects the reality
of such operations than our ignorance of the modus ope
randi in the world of nature affects the reality of the
operations of God in it1.' The fact stands out well sup
ported and attested, that certain immediate suggestions
were conveyed to the soul of the Prophet while in a state
of trance or ecstasy. It were a deeper wisdom to seek to
discover the mode in which they were received and appro
priated, than to question the Divine possibility of the fact.
'Ecstasis mentis excessus est,' said S. Augustine2; or,
as a greater than S. Augustine expressed it, ' whether in
the body or out of the body' at such a moment he ' could
not tell3.' The wonted succession of ideas and the ordi
nary current of thought were evidently suspended by the
infusion of spiritual influence. In Dreams and Ecstasy
imagination alone was active. The activity of the outward
senses passed into repose, the entire vital energy was
concentrated on the world within ; and the forms or sym
bols created by imagination were presented to the spiritual
vision of the Prophet according to the laws of nature.
The vision was thus the result of ecstasy4. New ideas
and conceptions were created to convey to the soul the
mysteries of God and the revelations of things unseen, so
far as God was pleased to reveal them. These assumed
certain forms or were embodied in certain shapes, that
they might be apprehended by the limited powers of man.
Symbolic actions and symbolic visions aided in the further
ance of the Divine act of condescension. When the ideas,
divinely infused into the Prophet's mind, related to things
1 Lee, p. 175. He justly protests against the following strange logic of
FJiobel and his school. Prophetic visions cannot have taken place as described
'because most of them are described so circumstantially and diffusely, and withal
so clearly, accurately, and perfectly, that they cannot possibly have been so
¦seen.' Der Prophetism. d. Hebraer. Part 1. p. T70.
2 Evarr. in Ps. xxxiv. 3 2 Cor. xii. 2. * Lee, p. 176 sq.

316 Internal Objections.
surpassing the bounds of human experience, ordinary
language failed to convey to others what was thus revealed.
Representations or symbols conformable to those ideas
were consequently moulded, as it were, for the occasion:
the imagination became productive. The symbolism of
Ezekiel is an instance in point. But there were occasions
on which the ideas supplied to the Prophet's mind were
in some measure related to the world of sense : and here
the symbol corresponded to the forms which such ideas
actually represented. In this case the imagination was
regarded as reproductive1. The ' stone cut without hands,'
the tree and its stump, the one-horned goat, are instances
of this in the Book of Daniel. The power of the ' Prince
of princes ' was to be mighty as the unquarried marble ;
the impotence of the imperial tyrant fragile like the
broken stump of a once proud monarch of the forest;
the force of the 'King of Grecia' dependent for its dura
tion on the unity and concentration of its parts. The
means employed for rendering the imagination active were
thus strictly natural, though the conceptions themselves
were not spontaneous, but due to Divine revelation. The
Holy Spirit guided the imagination while it clothed them
with appropriate symbols. The source and the phenomena
of symbolism are evidences of this.
It requires no great penetration to discover the human
side of the Prophetic symbolism in the scenes and circum
stances surrounding the Prophets. The objects and rela
tions with which they and their people were familiar
would naturally be those best adapted for the transmission
of unfamiliar truths. This is notably the case with the
Prophets of the captivity. Their symbolism, their imagery,
differ from those of the Prophets preceding them, though
evoked, like theirs, from the objects encompassing them.
1 Knobel, p. 158. Lee, p. 178.

Tlie Prophecies. 317
'The forms chosen by Ezekiel,' says a modern traveller1,
'the man, the lion, the bull, and the eagle, are precisely
those which are constantly found on Assyrian monuments
as religious types. As the Prophet had beheld the Assy
rian palaces, with their mysterious images and gorgeous
decorations, it is highly probable that when seeking to
typify certain divine attributes, and to describe the divine
glory, he chose forms that were not only familiar to him
but to the people whom he addressed.' The same may
be said of Daniel. The gorgeous colossal symbolism of
Chaldaea is reflected at every page. It was Eichhorn's2
own admission that the Book of Daniel opens up an entirely
new world, the reflection not of Palestine but of scenes
altogether different : and the share of Chaldaean art in
colouring the predictions of Daniel is at once apparent
when his own visions are compared with the form assumed
by the dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (ii. iv.). The opinion
of M. Raoul Rochette, already quoted3, but asserts for the
Book of Daniel a similar conclusion to that claimed for
the Book of Ezekiel.
The phenomena of symbolism thus replete with evi
dences of natural means divinely guided4, necessarily
discover themselves in one direction more frequently than
in another. For example, the character and diction of
the historical chapters of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Daniel,
differ from the prophetic sections depicting their visions.
The reason is this. In the case of visions the imaginative
faculty is especially exercised ; and consequently in writings
descriptive of these visions poetic language and poetic
imagery predominate. ' The treasures of the unseen are
poured forth in all the riches of the visible. The jewels
1 Layard, Nineveh, Vol. II. p. 464 (1849); and so Eavenshaw, Journ. of
Roy. Asiat. Soc. Vol. xvi. p. 93 sq. (1S53).
2 Quoted by Lee, p. 183, n. 1, from Hiivernick, Comm. iib. d. B. Daniel.
Einl. p. xxxiv.
3 p. 205. i Lee, p. 180..

318 Internal Objections.
of earth, the stars of heaven, seas, fountains, rivers, moun
tains, and hills — every object of creation, visible and
invisible — all are blended in the sublime poetry of the
Prophets. In it is interwoven all that can stir the imagi
nation of man ; armies and their array, the battle and the
siege: — all that is terrible and imposing in nature; the
dragon and the beast, the lion and the eagle : — all that is
brightest and fairest of the objects we behold; the rain
bow and the morning star.' Prophetic language embodies
a quickening and yet changeful power like to ' the rapidity
of the eagle's wing over earth, heaven, and sea, with
plumage catching the varied light without end1.'
Undoubtedly the individual genius, character, and
education, of the Prophets affected the language and style
of each, but that was not all. Much is to be attributed
to the manner in which they received the Divine revela
tion2. ' In Hosea imagination seems inexhaustible, and
picture follows picture without pause or stay. Habakkuk
rejects ordinary rules, and is hurried away into varied
and lofty imagery; observing withal purity of taste and
unity of design. The shepherd Amos still wanders in his
pastures ; his imagination lingers with his flock and dwells
on the culture of his fields ; he takes his similitudes from
the mildew that blights the vineyard, or the lion that
invades the fold. If the Prophet has been of sacerdotal
race, the different features of the Theocracy — the Temple
and the Altar, the Ark and the Cherubim — float before his
view as in the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel.' And
so with the courtier Daniel. Familiar with the kingdoms
of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Cyrus, their pride
and their perishableness, their colossal proportions and
their" intrinsic weakness, their gilded exterior and their
inward corruption; — accustomed to gaze upon the wall-
pictures of Babylon and Susa, frescoes reproducing figures
1 Lee, and Isaac Williams, The Apocalypse, Pref. p. vii.
2 Lee, p. 181.

The Prophecies. 319
half-human, half-bestial, hideous yet emblematic, grotesque
yet commemorative of deeds and attributes of power; —
he recalls in his dreams and visions the scenes and objects
of which his waking hours were cognisant. And whence
shall this idiosyncrasy be derived ? Shall it all be of earth,
earthy? Not if the noble words of S. Gregory1 have at
all touched the true reply. 'Ecce apertis eisdem oculis
fidei David, Amos, Danielem, Petrum, Paulum, Matthaeum
intueor, et Sanctus iste Spiritus qualis sit artifex consi-
derare volo, sed in ipsa mea consideratione deficio. Implet
namque citharoedum puerum, et Psalmistam facit (1 Sam.
xvi. 18 sq.). Implet pastorem armentarium sycomoros
velficantem, et Prophetam facit (Amos vii. 14). Implet
abstiuentem puerum et judicem senum facit (Dan. xiii.
46 sq.)2. Implet piscatorem et Praedicatorem facit (S.Matt.
iv. 19). Implet persecutorem et doctorem Gentium facit
(Acts ix. 1 sq.). Implet publicanum et Evangelistam facit
(S. Luke v. 27 — 8). 0 qualis est artifex iste Spiritus !
Nulla ad discendum mora agitur in omne quod voluerit.
Mox ut tetigerit mentem, docet; solumque tetigisse do-
cuisse est. Nam humanum animum subito ut illustrat,
immutat ; abnegat hunc repente quod erat, exhibet repente
quod non erat.'

One or two objections, already cursorily mentioned,
still remain to be noticed. They are those raised against
the angelology, and the ethical positions of the Book3

rS

1 S. Greg. Mag. Horn. xxx. in Johann. xrv. 23-31. (Op. Vol. n. p. 1225,
ed. Migne). Lee traces this passage to a similar expression of opinion by
S. Greg. Nazianz. p. 181, u. 3 (end). At the risk of the charge of affectation,
I prefer to reproduce in its original form a passage too perfect to permit either
mutilation or dilution by the process of translation.
2 The reference is to the Apocryph. addition, but i. 10, ii. 27-8 are in
stances fully to the point.
3 Hilgenfeld, p. 44. Davidson, in. p. 178.

320 Internal Objections.
The angelology, it is said, points to a time when Ju
daism had replaced Hebraism, and to sources decidedly
Persian. Peculiar names are given to the angels ; separate
countries are put under their protection ; and these ' defi
nite distinctions did not appear among the Israelites before
the Persian period, when they came in contact with the
adherents of Magianism.' The ' peculiarity ' of the angel
ology may be confessed, but I venture to assert the de
duction as to its late origin altogether unwarranted and
unnecessary. The antiquity of the belief in angels is not now
disputed1. The foundation of the doctrine is recognised
as laid in times far anterior to the captivity of Babylon.
The Hebrews had, from the earliest ages, been taught and
accustomed themselves to believe in beings of a nature
superior to man, messengers of the Most High, executants
of His orders. Moses, it is true, gave no precise idea of
their nature, nor of the rank they occupied in creation.
He did not stop to describe and draw out the distinctions
between good and bad angels. It is not till later that
a definiteness and precision are attained, unrecorded — •
though not perhaps unrecognised — by the legislator of
Israel. In this developement the Prophet Daniel stands
conspicuous. In his pages may be discerned the rudi
ments of the angelological conceptions so extensively
permeating the writings of later Judaism. To him may
be traced a more distinct, more physical expression of the
attributes of the heavenly messengers. They are no longer
agents of the Deity generally, but are classed categorically.
Each has his special department, each his special functions.
The chiefs, those whose part is the most active, are
designated by proper names. The Books of Tobit and the
4th of Esdras carried these conceptions further. They
developed angelology into a system, and the heavenly
host became in their hands an organised militia.
1 Cf. int. al. Franck, Etudes, &c. p. 288. Nicolas, pp. 216, 228.

The Prophecies. 321
What then, it is asked, was the external cause of this
developement? When was it first exhibited? Not, it is
answered, till some two centuries before the Christian era,
and then through contact with the Persian doctrine of the
pure beings who surround the throne of Ormazd. The
answer is insufficient. It only partly explains the fea
tures of even later Judaistic Apocrypha, and certainly fails
to account for all the phenomena of the Book of Daniel.
Babylonia, as well as Persia, had a share in framing
the outer casing for the truths the Prophet was com
missioned to inculcate : and as regards the date, Mazde-
istic contagion was — if necessary for the origination of
Daniel's angelology — quite possible long before an age
so comparatively modern as the Maccabeean.
A few words will sum up the angelological teaching
of the Book of Daniel1. Personal appellations are there
first assigned to the ' ministering spirits ' of the Hebrew
Church. Two, named by him Gabriel and Michael, are
represented as among the chiefs of the celestial hierarchy
(D'O&JWin Dn&2T! x. 13), and agents of God in behalf of
man. This kind of nomenclature speedily became con
tagious. The Book of Tobit presently added a third,
Raphael, and the 4th of Esdras three more, Uriel, Seal-
thiel and Jeremiel2. Again ; in Daniel the angels appear
as guardians of nations. They espouse the cause of the
people entrusted to them and fight their battles. 'The
prince of the kingdom of Persia,' said the Holy Being
who appeared to the Prophet on the banks of the Hid-
dekel, ' withstood me one and twenty days ; but lo !
Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me...

1 Cf. Hardwick, n. p. 419.
2 In the Kabbala, these three are Zaphkiel, Zadkiel, and Gamaliel; in other
Rabbinical writings, Sealthiel, Jehudiel, and Barachiel; and in a MS. of the
Sibylline oracles Jeremiel, Saniel, and Azael. These differences show that the
theory upon the princes or chiefs of the angels was for a long time floating and
uncertain. (Nic. p. 222). 21

322 Internal Objections.
Now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia'
(x. 13, 20). Daniel sees also in his visions 'the watchers
and holy one come down from heaven:' the judgment
passed upon Nebuchadnezzar is a ' matter by the decree
of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy
ones' (iv. 13, 17, 20). In this can Daniel be, as regards
the doctrine of the ' watchers,' a mere borrower from the
Amshashpands of the Zend Avesta1? and as regards the
doctrine of guardian angels, only the echo of a popular
opinion2? It is possible, but not probable. The loan
was so far possible that contemporaneous thought was
capable of supplying it, but improbable for many reasons.
And the 'echo' was possible, if believed to have rever
berated from the ante-Babylonian writings, but not pro
bable if any meaning or power be attached to inspiration.
But both echo and loan are maintained upon insufficient
if not faulty grounds.
It is stipulated by criticism that the external features
of Daniel's angelology must have been due to the time
and scenes in which the writer actually lived, or pretended
to have lived. Now there is ample proof that the Chal
daean mythology and the Mazdeism of the age of the
Captivity could have supplied every distinctive feature
of Daniel's framework. Fusion with foreign systems upon
this subject must at all times have been easy. The angel
ology of the Hebrew, affirming only the existence of beings
superior to man without discussing in precise terms their
nature and qualities, offered no resistance to closer defini
tion. It was stipulated only that such definition should
emanate from religious principles analogous to those of the
ancient faith, or amenable to the moulding touch of Hebra
ism. The learned Jew of the Exile met with novel phases
of the belief in the creed of the sensuous Babylonian and
1 Davidson, in. p. 178. It is the old statement of De Wette and Strauss
vid. Mill, On ihe Mythical Interpretation, die. p. 127.
2 Nicolas, p. 224.

Tlie Propliecies. 323
the Persian purist successively. The angelology of Baby
lonia presented, it is true, but little that was worthy of
imitation, and still less that was likely to be imitated;
yet it existed as a tenet common to the Semitic race, and
fructifying readily, however diversely, in Semitic minds.
The whole train of good and bad angels was a dogma
consecrated by the dualistic spirit of Chaldaea, and pic
tured on the walls of her temples. The ' watchers ' and
' holy ones ' which peopled the vision of Nebuchadnezzar
were recognised with awe but without astonishment.
They were celestial visitors, excelling by their purified
beauty the gross forms with which his waking life was
familiar. The Mazdean doctrine of pure spirits was far
more attractive. It had that religious and moral charac
ter which would induce the Jew to consider it a de
velopement of his own angelological belief, and a com
plete portrait of that of which he had as yet sketched
the outline only. It has been said, indeed, that an ac
quaintance with the Amshashpands, the Fervers, &c. of
the Mazdean system could not have been possible so early.
The opinion will admit of rectification. Centuries before
the times in question, names were current1 which ulti
mately became the designations of the Persian archangels.
These 'best beings,' these 'wise living spirits,' were Vohu
mauo (the good mind), Asha Vahista (the best truth),
Khshathra Vairya (wealth), Cpenta Armaiti (white or
holy devotion), Haurvatat (wholesomeness), and Ameretat
(immortality2). The etymology and the context prove them
to have been, in that remote antiquity, nothing but ab
stract nouns and ideas representing the gifts which Ahura-
mazda, as the only Lord, granted to those who worshipped

1 In the Gdtha Ahunavaiti. Ya$. xlvii. i. Haug, pp. 143, 260. Spiegel,
Avesta, in. p. viii sq.
2 They are preserved in modern Parsee compositions under the forms of
Bahman, Ardibehesht, Shahravar, Isfandarmat, Khord&d and Amerd&t. Spiegel
(Av. in. p. Iii sq.) gives quotations from some of these works.
21—2

324 Internal Objections.
him sincerely1. The Yacna Haptanhaiti, a work composed
by one of the earliest successors of Zoroaster, and occu
pying a place between the older Gathas and the younger
Ya9na2, presents this and other features of the Zoroastrian
religion in a somewhat developed state. 'The high phi
losophical ideas laid down in Zarathustra's own songs
were partially abandoned, partially personified: the theo
logical, moral and philosophical doctrines gave way to the
custom which has remained up to this time, of addressing
prayers to all beings of the good nature, irrespective of
their being mere abstract nouns.' The name 'Amesha
Spenta ' (Amshashpand), the general term for the highest
angels, is first met with and henceforth retained. The
process of developement thus begun was carried a stage
farther in the pages of the Vendidad3. In that work
it is a corollary to the Dualism which sought to su
persede Monotheism. Cpento-mainyus and Angro-main-
yus, or God and Devil, are now encircled with court and
council like terrestrial rulers. The number of councillors
was fixed at six, each ruling over the separate provinces
of the universe, and subject to the celestial or infernal
President. It was easy to foresee that the Amshashpands of the
Persian system would be quoted as the nearest paral
lels to the archangels of Holy Scripture4. And it may
perhaps be granted that the 'princes' of the angels of
later Judaism were in some measure a reflection of the
princes of light surrounding Ormazd5. But it is difficult

1 Spiegel, Op. Cit. p. viii. considers this a peculiarity attached to them, and
running through the whole of the Avesta.
2 i. e. between 1200 and 800 B. 0.; cf. Haug. pp. 162, 224.
3 Fargard. 1. Haug, p. 260. Spieg. p. vii.
4 Hardw. II. p. 422.
5 Bohmer (Herzog. R.-Encycl. Vol. IV. p. 18 sq. s. v. Engel) finds the
earthly prototype of the celestial principality in those who ' ever stood before
the King' Solomon (1 Kings x. 8). Seven of these were selected (Jer. Iii. 25) to be
taken to Babylon, because this was the number of the Babylonian councillors,

The Prophecies. 325
to understand how the parallelism can delegate the Book
of Daniel to the same modern era. The preceding para
graphs will have shown that as a mere question of date,
it was quite within the circle of sciences open to a Hebrew
writer of the Babylonian period to ascertain and reproduce
in his pages Persian conceptions upon Amshashpands and
Fravashis. And if it be insisted that such traces of
reproduction are certainly found in the Book of Daniel, it
will require no further explanation than that furnished
by Daniel's practice of sifting, examining, and perhaps
insensibly appropriating all that was good in the foreign
systems which came before him. But — if I may be per
mitted the expression of an opinion formed solely upon
the actual phenomena of comparison — the alleged repro
ductions are in themselves so slight, so insignificant, as
altogether to repudiate the affiliation claimed for them.
The conceptions of Daniel, decidedly less elaborate than
those of his apocryphal imitators, sever his work from
theirs by an interval of centuries. Differences equally
remarkable interpose a similarly insuperable barrier to any
idea of plagiarism on his part from Mazdean sources.
There are indications throughout of independence of origin
and treatment, proving, when regarded collectively, the
marked distinction recognised by the writer himself be
tween the creed of the Hebrew and the Persian. If there
is analogy between them, analogy is not identity ; if there
is identity, it is not to be explained on the hypothesis that
the Jew borrowed from the Persian, or the Persian from
the Jew. 'It is far more rational to explain this and similar
identities on the hypothesis of a common parentage
anterior to the primitive migrations, than to argue, first,
that the Hebrews only were left without traditions upon
these subjects till comparatively modern times; and se-
and served to represent the perfect annihilation of the highest caste. The Sep
tenary division seems to have been common to both Aryan and Semite (Nic.
p. 229, n. 2).

326 Internal Objections.
condly, that the age in which they finally contracted their
belief in such points, was the age when, strangely enough,
they are known to have imbibed far stricter tenets on the
unity and monarchy of God1.'
There are many facts supporting and commending this
opinion of independence of origin. It is a negative fact of
some value that the distinguishing angelological features
of the Book of Daniel are found less developed, perhaps,
but clearly delineated in the Old Testament writings pre
ceding it. It is a fact which casts additional discredit on
the favourite attempt to refer the conceptions of the Pro
phet to loans from foreign sources. There is nothing in the
subordination or gradation of the spirit world recorded by
Daniel which is not substantially contained in the Books
of Moses and the Prophets2. There is no inconsistency, no
contradiction between the notions of the angelic hierarchy
of the Babylonian Prophet, and those contained in the
works current before the time of the captivity. Isaiah's
splendid vision (vi.) depicts, nearly two centuries before the
Exile, the Almighty surrounded by the six-winged sera
phim. These constituted the 'chief princes' of his day, and
one of them by issuing forth with a message to Isaiah
offers a proof of independent personality. Earlier still, the
Prophet Micaiah represents 'the Lord sitting on His
throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him on His
right and on His left' (1 Kings xxii. 19—22). Gradation
and personality can only be surrendered here with the au
thenticity of the passage. And further back still, one who
is called the ' Captain ' or 'Prince (*\&) of the host of the
Lord,' reveals himself to Joshua as holding a rank of arch-
angelic pre-eminence over the celestial army. What do
these instances prove but the affinity between the concep
tion of the ancient Books and that of Daniel; just as this

1 Hardw. II. p. 417 sq.
2 Mill. pp. 123-4. Hardw. n. p. 420.

The Prophecies. 327
last exhibits doctrine identical with that of Zechariah
(i. 10—1, iii. 1, vi. 5, &c.) ?
A fact of a more positive character is the philological
nature of the names given by Daniel to the angels. It is
impossible to approximate them in the slightest degree to
the titles of the Persian gods and genii1. They are not
only Semitic, but of that Semitic form which is distinctively
and peculiarly Hebrew as distinguished from Aramaic.
They have no relation in thought or grammar with them.
The religion of Chaldaea, with its perpetual illustration of
dualistic principles, the angelology of Babylonia, with its
gross and sensuous expressions2, furnished nothing, not
even a name. It is the same with the Persian creed of the
Achaemenian period. To attempt to identify the 'watcher'
with the Amshashpand is as etymologically incorrect as it
is doctrinally and chronologically unnecessary.
The position which lends foundation to such identifica
tion is itself improperly assumed. It must be no longer re
garded either as a superfluity or a merely negative action
in revelation, if, of the truths originally possessed by all,
some should be found kept back or less prominently stated
in the peculiar economy of Judaism3. In this particular
point of angelology, true criticism as well as true wisdom
will admit that that which for centuries had existed in the
Hebrew creed under a personal form, assumed a yet more
perfect distinctness when confronting systems present
ing points of similarity, few or many. There is no loss of
honour, no detraction, in recognising an assimilation of
alien expressions in order to give point to vital truths. On
the contrary, such adaptation would exhibit more clearly
and more popularly the feeling against idolatrous worship

1 Vid. p. 323 and note 2.
2 That angelology existed in Babylonia is inferred by Prof. Chwolsohn
from the Eabb. tradition that the names of the angels were brought from there.
Ueber Tammuz, So. p. 50, n. 1.
3 Cf. Mill. p. 129.

328 Internal Objections.
generally, and specially against that capital falsehood of
Oriental theosophy — the assertion of antagonistic Prin
ciples with their cortege of good and bad angels. But the
admission by no means imperils the character of the work
enunciating and systematizing such distinctness.

The objections to the ethical statements of the Book
require in their turn a few remarks.
' The habit of Daniel to pray three times a day, points,'
it is said, 'to a time at which religious ideas had penetrated
out of India into the neighbouring countries to the West.'
' Exaggerated and excessive notions of the value of prayer '
are discovered in the Book, and these, it is alleged, ' betray
a later Judaism,' such as ' may have been developed under
the influence of Parseeism, a generation or two after the
return from Babylon1.' It causes some surprise to read that
the instances of exaggeration are as follows. ' Daniel prays
and makes supplication with windows open towards Jeru
salem, though he knew that a royal decree was signed
condemning any one that did so to be cast into the den of
lions. He mourned and fasted three full weeks (x. 2, 3).
A secret was revealed to him in answer to prayer (ii. 18).
He also abstained from the king's meat and Avine as pro
fane, and lived on pulse.' The critic must indeed be hard
pushed for supports to his opinion if he has to devise such
expedients as these. Any one acquainted with the ample
exhortations in the Old Testament to prayer and fasting,
will see nothing here-but what is strictly in accordance with
Hebrew conceptions. The objection might well be dis
missed with Davidson's own remark ; ' these particularities
are not valid arguments in favour of a very recent date.'
] Davidson, III. p. 179.

The Prophecies. 329
But it may be worth while to shew how thoroughly dis
tinct are Daniel's views from the Mazdean notions alleged
to have suggested them. The ancient Persians divided the
twenty-four hours into five parts. Corresponding to these
were five prayers or gahs said to the angels presiding over
each division1. As a mere fact therefore the habit of pray
ing three times a day did not come to the Jew from Par-
seeism. It was perhaps his acquaintance with this differ
ence, which led Hilgenfeld2 to refer the Jewish division
of the hours to Ezra and the Great Synagogue. But this
opinion is too conjectural to be altogether trustworthy3.
It rests on grounds as uncertain as those of the tradition
which refers the morning prayer to Abraham, the mid- day
prayer to Isaac, and the evening prayer to Jacob4. Of
itself moreover it is unnecessary. Scripture has recorded
the practice and the particular number as commonly used
for sometime previous to the captivity (Ps. Iv. 17). To a
devout Jew of the exile, anxious to continue practices sug
gested by the temple-services, the ninth hour or the hour
of evening sacrifice, the third hour or the hour of morning
sacrifice, and the sixth hour or noon-day, would readily
suggest themselves as hours consecrated by long usage to a
forgetfulness of self in the thought of God.
The abstinence recorded in Daniel is also entirely fo
reign to Persian notions. In the Mazdean creed fasting is
strictly forbidden5. In his struggle through life with evil,
1 G£tha TJstavaiti, Yac. xliv. 8. Haug, p. 151 and note, 199. Spiegel,
Av. II. p. xlix. sq. III. pp. xl. 21 sq.
2 Jild. Apok. p. 45.
3 Comp. Vitringa De Synag. Yet. Vol. I. Lib. 1. Part 2, ch. xii. p. 413 sq.
" Id. ch. i. p. 278.
5 Franck, Etudes, p. 105. Spiegel, Av. II. p. Iviii ; in a, note he quotes the
following from the Sadder, p. xxv. ' Cavendum est tibi a jejunio, nam a mane
ad vesperum nihil comedere, non est bonum in religione nostra:' and remarks
in the text ; ' es begreift sich dieser Widerwille gegen die Selbstpeinungen sehr
einfach aus der ganzen Weltanschauung der Parsen, nach der es ebenso wenig
verdienstlich sein konnte, sich zu qualen als sonst irgend ein Wesen des guten
Schopfung.'

330 Internal Objections.
the Zoroastrian was reminded that he required bodily
strength as well as mental activity and intelligence, and to
weaken the body by self-mortification was not only resented
as an outrage against physical perfection, but condemned
as a sin. In this, as Spiegel has remarked, the Persian
stood in marked contrast to his neighbours, — Indians, Men
daites, Hauranians, and others. The act itself as attributed
to Daniel admits of a very natural explanation. Indepen
dently of the fact that much that would be offered to him
would be already forbidden by the Mosaic Law, he was
determined to avoid anything that might wittingly or un
wittingly defile ' him (i. 8). He was one of those high-minded
Israelites who dreaded the consequences of assimilation
to the habits of the Chaldaean conquerors1. And he there
fore proposed for himself and his fellow-captives a pow
erful antidote to any such possible danger by refusing
to share the food and wine of idolaters2.
It is made an objection to the Book of Daniel that an
atoning efficacy is attributed to alms3. ' Let my counsel,'
says the Prophet to Nebuchadnezzar, 'be acceptable unto
thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine
iniquities by shewing mercy to the poor' (iv. 24). The
word rendered 'righteousness' (PlplX) is taken to mean
'alms,' in accordance with the translation of the Greek and
Latin Versions. If this translation be correct, it is in that
sense an air. Xey.*, and it would be highly dangerous to
argue too stringently upon it. That the translation did
not satisfy Luther is seen by his adopting a rendering
('Gerechtigkeit') similar to that of the English translators.
But were the translation admitted, Herzfeld5 has yet very
justly remarked that no deduction can be formed from it
1 Comp. Ezek. xxxiii. 25 ; xliv. 23.
2 Comp. the Shulckan Aruch, TWtnn Wl*l. 4ter Theil. pp. 132-3, Ed.
M. Creizenach (Frank. 1840).
3 Davidson and Hilgenfeld, 11. cc. * Fiirst, Concord. 6. v.
5 Gesch. Vol. 1. p. 295 (1847).

The Prophecies. 331
as to lateness of date. The cardinal virtue here attributed
to alms may well have originated during the exile. The
number of the necessitous poor then was very great ; and
the absence of all external sacrifice would suggest of itself
some condoning equivalent. The argument that the idea
does not occur in the Books of the Exile or after the Exile
would not be of much value were it correct. Silence on
that point cannot be urged on either side. But if post
exilic writings include such works as the Books of Tobit
and Judith, then the statement is incorrect. It is impos
sible, for example, to read the eulogy pronounced upon
almsgiving by the former1 of these Books, and not be
struck with the great difference between the tone of those
passages and that of Daniel.
1 Written prob. circ. 350 B.o. Vid. Ewald, Gesch. Vol. IV. pp. 233-8.
Comp. ch. xii. 9, xiv. 11, and Judith iv. 12. Almsgiving has there assumed
the mechanism of an ' opus operatum.' Winer, R. W. B. s. v. Gebet, Vol. 1.
p. 398-

CHAPTER VIII.
TESTIMONIES IN FAVOUR OF THE AUTHENTICITY
OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL.

The course of the preceding chapters has brought the
discussion down to that Maccabaean era in which the op
ponents of the Book prefer to place its composition. This
same age may in its turn be used as a convenient starting
point for recalling briefly1 some additional arguments usu
ally adduced in defence of the Book. There are facts of a
different character to those hitherto noticed, which furnish
cumulative testimony of the most valuable character : with
out biassing, they assist in accelerating the inevitable de
cision, — that the work is authentic.
Looking, for instance, to the literature of the Macca
baean period, it can be shewn that the historical monu
ments of that age exhibit a decided acquaintance with
Daniel's Prophecy. Other compositions, unquestionably
anterior to that age, equally suppose its prior existence.
Others, lastly, carry back its date to the canonical birth-
hour, — the time of the exile. Looking forward from the
Maccabaean age, numerous Jewish and Christian testimo
nies lend their single and united authority to the same
1 More than briefly is not required. These arguments will be found elabo
rately worked up in the usual orthodox commentaries ; and perhaps, though
selection is difficult, by none so lucidly or so compendiously as by the latest
English writers on the Book, — Messrs Boyle and Walter.

Testimonies in favour of the authenticity, c&c. 333
opinion. They affirm distinctly the almost unvarying con
sent of,' antiquity to the conclusion attained independently
by modern criticism.

a. Daniel and 1 Maccabees.
It has been"already remarked1 that the Sibyl recog
nised in the Book of Daniel a genuine and authentic
work : the 1st Book of Maccabees supports negatively the
same opinion. It cannot be, and it is not, disputed that
Daniel's personal history, and the Book which bears his
name, exercised a most powerful influence upon the tone
and thought of the writer of 1 Maccabees2. The allusions
to Daniel in this Book are too numerous to be ignored.
The prophetic description of Antiochus Epiphanes (xi. 29
sq.) illustrates the description of the Maccabaean author.
The miraculous deliverances of Ananias Azarias and Misael
from the furnace, and of Daniel from the lions' den (ii. 59,
60), are singled out by the dying Mattathias as suggestive
of encouragement and praise : he appeals to them as illus
trious examples of resistance to the idolater, and hails the
deliverance of those patriots as an earnest of support to
others. The difficulty to the modern critic created by
these references is no slight one ; and it can hardly be said
to be obviated by the employment of an expedient con
venient rather than critical. The speech of the Hasmo-
nean chieftain, it is urged3 , is not to be taken too strictly ;
or, as Grimm expresses it, 'in diplomatic truthfulness.'
It is merely the free composition of a writer who placed
his own thoughts in the mouth of Mattathias. No proof
is advanced to support this conjecture; and as a conjecture

2 Grimm, Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. zu d. Apok. d. A. T. 3te Liefer. 'Das
erste Buch d. Maccabiier.' EM. p. xxii. Baihinger s. u. in Herzog's R. E.
Zundel, p. 172. Westcott, ». u. in Smith's Bibl. Diet. Vol. II. pp. 169-71.
3 Grimm, p. 49. Bleek, p. 587. Davidson, in. p. 163.

334 Testimonies in favour of the
it is very unsatisfactory. Only advanced by those who re
ject at all hazards the belief that the Book of Daniel was
extant in Mattathias' time, it is virtually refuted by its
incompatibihty with the universal reputation of the his
torical work. The style of portions of the 1 Maccabees may
be poetical, — and this speech of Mattathias is marked
throughout by bursts of poetic fervour, — yet the Book
never loses the character of history, never ceases to be
true in spirit. The general reception accorded to it is a
proof of its trustworthiness and veracity : and though the
references in its pages to Daniel prove only that that work
was extant at the time of its own composition (circ. B.C.
100), it is very difficult to suppose that a writer reputed
trustworthy would have introduced the names and deeds
of fictitious heroes into a work intended to animate and
encourage his countrymen1. Still less would he have ven
tured to place in the lips of one of Israel's most valiant
champions references to those earlier patriots who after
all were but creations of the brain.

b. Daniel and the LXX. Version.
The impossibility of attributing the composition of the
Book of Daniel to the Seleucidan era, is also shown by the
relation of the original text to the Greek translation. This
version was evidently in the hands of the writer of the
1 Maccabees and the Sibyl2 : and this being the case, it is
next to impossible to suppose that the writer of the ori
ginal and the Alexandrian translator could have been se
parated by an interval of some thirty years only. The
interpolations, additions, and alterations found in the Greek
version, and requiring in explanation the existence of a
1 Cf. Josephus, Antiq. XII. ch. vi, § 3.
2 Instances in each are given by Grimm, EM. pp. xv, xvi, and Ziindel,
p. 175, respectively.

autlienticity of the Booh of Daniel. 335
translator who wrought together current traditions and
appended them to his main work1, necessitate of them
selves the assumption of a long interval, during which
Daniel was subjected to numerous and various interpre
tations2 till the text assumed the artificial and late form
depicted in the Alexandrian rendering.
The Apocryphal additions, reputed the offspring of
that period of literary activity which animated Alexandria
during the last two centuries before Christ3, tend to prove
the same point. The legendary narrative of Bel and the
Dragon, the story of Susanna, the canticle of the ' three
children,' and the ' Prayer of Manasseh,' furnish, by their
intrinsic differences from the Canonical Book, a most
valuable testimony to the historic and prophetic character
of the original4. Whether or no these additions were
originally written in Aramaic is very problematic. But the
question is immaterial as regards the point under discus
sion. One thing at least is clear, that these additions
differing, as they do in style and thought, not only from
the original but also from one another, were never com
posed at the same time. And if the Book of Daniel was
written, according to modern opinion, about the year
160 b.c, how could a translation, marked by such dis
cordant additions, have been extant in the short space of
some thirty years later? Allow to the growth of tradition
as rapid a progress as possible, yet the difference between
the oldest of these traditions — the history of Susanna —
and the original work, presupposes and requires a longer
lapse of time than one generation5.
1 Fritzsche, Kurgef. Exeget. Handb. zu d. Apok. d. A. T. iste Liefer.
'Zusatzezu d. B. Dan.' p. 114. Westcott, 'Apocryphal Additions to Daniel'
(Smith, Bibl. Diet.) Vol. 1. p. 396.
2 Vid. instt. in Zundel, pp. 177-S2. i Fritzsche, 1. c.
4 S. Jerome (Prolog, in Dan.) mentions that in his opinion and that of
Origen, Apollinarius, and Eusebius of Csesarea, Scripture gains no authority by
being trammelled with such productions.
5 Zundel, p. 187.

336 Testimonies in favour of the

c. Daniel and Baruch.
But it may be said that proofs of anti-Seleucid com
position do not necessarily involve the other date — that of
the Exile. Of themselves they do not. But criticism has
voluntarily excluded fresh complication of the question, and
rendered superfluous any examination of problematic and
intermediate epochs of composition, by consenting to find
satisfaction for its demands in one of two periods. Either
the Book was a true prophecy composed by Daniel in the
Babylonian period, or a spurious work published in the
days of Antiochus Epiphanes. If the positive and nega
tive results attained and enunciated in the previous pages
render it impossible to admit the latter opinion, positive
facts are not wanting which approximate it to, and thus
identify it with the former, by exhibiting its influence at
an era far closer to the Babylonian than to the Greek
period. For example : the Book of Baruch, the only apocryphal
work framed upon the model of the Prophets, has been
described as 'a cento of Jeremiah, Daniel, Isaiah, Nehe
miah, and Deuteronomy1.' The imitations from Daniel
are in fact so numerous and evident that De Wette2
sought to explain them by asserting that Baruch was
itself a work of late origin. The opinion of the German
scholar may be correct as regards the present form of
the Book — a form probably fixed about B. c. 160; but
that form is evidently not the original. The Book is easily
divided into two main sections, each marked by its own
peculiarities of style and language. The first part betrays
itself as the work of a translator and not of a Hebraizing
1 Fritzsche, Handb. u. s. w. iste Lief. 'Das B. Baruch,' p. 170. Griine-
berg, Exercitatt. de libro Baruchi Apochrypho, p. 39 sq. (Gott. 1797). West
cott, Smith's Bibl. Diet. s. v. 'Baruch,' Vol. 1. p. 169.
2 Einleit. § 323.

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 337
Greek : the second part, on the contrary, closely approaches
the Alexandrian type. This difference led Ewald1 to assign
the Hebrew portion to the close of the Persian period,
or, as Dillmann2 expresses it, to the 4th century b.c.
Now it is in the first and older part that the imitations
of Daniel and Jeremiah are so frequent. In the second
section the resemblances are chiefly to the tone and
imagery of Isaiah and the Psalms. To find therefore in
that earlier section a prayer (ii. iii.) modelled upon the
inspired petition of Daniel; to meet with a historical
allusion (i. 11, 12) to that Belshazzar whose name has
been preserved by Daniel alone ; and to trace throughout
reproductions of the thoughts and language of the Baby
lonian prophet : these are facts which conduct logically
to but one conclusion, the existence of the Book of Daniel
in the Persian period ; prior, that is, to the close of the
4th century B.C.

d. Daniel and Zechariah.
There remains one proof more, and that of the most
important nature. The prophecies and visions of the first
and undisputed section of the Book of Zechariah (i.— viii.)
refer unquestionably to Daniel's revelations upon the four
world-powers. Hofmann and Stahelin, friend and oppo
nent, unite in acknowledging this3.
It was a Jewish saying that the spirit of Jeremiah
dwelt in Zechariah; so deeply is this prophet imbued
with the tone and spirit of his great predecessor. But in
the peculiarities of his prophecy Zechariah resembles far
more closely Ezekiel and Daniel. Like them he is favoured
i Geschichte, u. s. w. Vol. iv. p. 233.
2 In Dorner's Jahrb. p. 480 (1858), quoted by Zundel, p. 191.
3 Zundel, p. 249. Perowne. Smith's Diet. s. v. Zechariah, Vol. HI. p.
1822. 22

338 Testimonies in favour of the
with visions ; like them he prefers symbols and allegories
to the poetical figures and beautiful metaphors of the
earlier prophets ; like them he beholds angels ministering
before the Lord, and ready to execute His will upon
earth. Some of his peculiarities were probably due to
his Chaldaean education and contact with Persian theo-
sophy1; others, as certainly, to his study of the ancient
writings of his nation. His early life was spent amidst
the scenes and associations which encompassed Ezekiel
and Daniel ; but as a writer of matured years he was
removed from their influence by his priestly training and
by residence in Palestine. It is this which explains both
the resemblance and the difference between himself and
those Prophets.
The series of visions distinguishing the first section of
Zechariah's Book is that which exhibits the greatest re
semblance to Daniel. The visions vouchsafed to Zechariah
are, like those to Daniel, obscure and requiring explana
tion. This explanation is not given as (usually) with the
older Prophets by the Loud Himself, but as with Daniel,
by His angel (i. 9, 11, 12; iii. 1 — 6). In their selection of
subjects and mode of treatment they present many points
of parallelism2. The fourfold division of the world-powers
first revealed to Daniel is continued to Zechariah in his
second (ii. 1 — 17, E.V. i. 18 — ii. 13) and last visions (vi.).
Under the figure of the ' four horns ' are depicted the four
powers which 'have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusa
lem.' Presently the Prophet sees ' four chariots come out
from between two mountains.' The horses attached to
them are 'red, black, white, grisled, and bay3,' as in the
1 Miinter, Die Religion d. Babylonia; p. 89 (Copenhag. 1827). Eiehhorn,
Einl. Vol. III. p. 359. De Wette, Einl § 248. Havernick, EM. Vol. n. p.
406. Herzfeld, Geschichte, Vol. 11. ' p. 21 (1857). Neumann, Kommentar su
Sacharja, p. 330 (Stuttg. 1861). Kohler, however, denies it. Die Nachexil
Propheten. 'Der Weissag. Sacharjas,' erste Halfte, ch. i.— viii. (Erl. 1861).
2 Zundel, p. 251 sq.
3 Or, gijsled and strong. D»XDN1 CHIS.

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 339
first vision (i. 8). They are the four spirits (or winds,
marg.) which 'go forth from standing before the Lord' to
execute His will (Ps. civ. 4) ; some to the north, some to
the south, some to walk to and fro. It is added of the
black and white horses that go to the north that they
'have quieted God's Spirit there.' Stahelin and Hofmann
agree in referring the north to Babylon and the south to
Egypt, and if by these spirits are intended the world-
powers considered as agents in the performance of God's
purpose,— the history of the period illustrates the pro
phetic vision. The Babylonian (black) became subject to
the arms of Cyrus, and the Persian kingdom in its turn
to that of Alexander ; the successors of Alexander push
ing in the direction of the south. Zechariah dwelt on the
last to the exclusion of the first. The Babylonian king
dom was already overthrown by that Persian dynasty
under which he lived.
These resemblances find, on their human side, a natural
explanation in the influence of Daniel's writings upon the
mind of an independent thinker. Zechariah's inspiration
is not questioned; and this, with the further recognition
in him of a mental independence acquired by his position
and training, serves to explain those passages where he
deviates from Daniel and draws more closely to Jeremiah.
Flourishing at a period when there was a tendency to
deteriorate both in thought and language, Zechariah strove
to imitate as closely as possible the purity of the earlier
models. He sought that purity among those recognised as
the official prophets of his race. Consequently Jeremiah's
conceptions and predictions upon the Messiah influenced
him far more than the more developed views of Daniel.
The latter was not a prophet in the Hebrew signification of
the term: and when Zechariah sought for a model, he
turned to one like himself, of priestly descent, rather than
to the courtier of Babylon. The same cause was at work,
but in a less degree, in directing his views upon angelology. 22—2

340 Testimonies in favour of the
Early emancipated from the scenes which suggested and
perhaps dictated so much to Daniel, living within the
shadow of the Holy City itself, the conception of the Baby
lonian or Mazdean ceased to arrest his waking thoughts.
Even the tendency to frame names personifying the angelic
visitants passed from him. He recognised grades in the
celestial host, but his nomenclature for the messengers of
heaven was the simple description consecrated to him by
the usage of the Patriarchs : he called them ' the angels of
the Loud.' He borrowed from the Chaldaean system that
of the adversary only, — the Satan, the resister (iii. 1) ;
a name permitted to his conservative spirit by the prior
example of the writer of the Book of Job.
Step by step the authenticity of Daniel's work is thus
brought from the Maccabaean to the Babylonian period.
Philological conclusions, historical facts, are supplemented
by clear indications of influence upon the postexilic
writers. These form a triple cord of testimony which
cannot be broken.

e. Daniel and Josephus.
Starting again from the same Maccabesan period, but
now looking onward, one of the most valuable and interest
ing testimonies to the reputation of the Book of Daniel is
that furnished by Josephus. The historian describes in
his Antiquities1, the entry of Alexander the Great into
Jerusalem ; and relates how the priests of Israel saluted
the conqueror as a long-expected prince. They claimed
to see in him the fulfilment of Daniel's prediction that the
Greek should be victorious over the Persian. Alexander,
he continues, accepted the allusion, and flattered by his
reception promised and granted to his Jewish entertainers
1 Antiq. Jud. xi. ch. viii. § 5 (Vol. 1. p. 431, ed. Dind.).

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 341
the petitions they preferred. The courtier-historian, it is
well known, is not always trustworthy — particularly in his
Antiquities1. He appears, in that work, too professedly
the panegyrist of his nation, to be altogether immaculate.
It is not to be denied that he frequently incorporates
popular traditions into his history, and indulges in inde
fensible deviations from the text of Canonical Scripture.
This story of Alexander is among those condemned by
critics as a popular tradition2. ' Not one,' it is asserted,
' of the numerous historians of the Macedonian conqueror
has preserved it; while Josephus himself in a passage3
where his apologetic object led him to enumerate all the
princes and foreign generals who had ever visited the
temple, beginning the series with Antiochus II. (Theos);
observes a complete silence on Alexander.' He did so,
it is added, 'either because he no longer believed the
story, or because he did not dare to quote it in a work
destined to be critically discussed.' But this criticism is
itself open to criticism. The passage named hardly war
rants so strong a statement. It would, on the contrary,
have been very surprising had allusions to Alexander
occurred in a paragraph which — far from enumerating
' all the princes and foreign generals ' — mentions no prince
who lived till a hundred years after his date. It was not
Josephus's object to draw attention to all the generals, &c.
who had ever visited the Temple at Jerusalem, but simply
those whose dates ranged between the times of the Antio
chian family and Titus. The silence of the historians is
of greater, but even then for various reasons, of no great
1 Creuzer, 'Josephus u. seine Griesch. u. Hellenist. Eiihrer.' Stud. u.
Krit. p. 49 (1853). Reuss, ' Flavius Josephus. ' Nouvelle Revue de Thiologk,
Vol. iv. p. 293 (1859).
2 Reuss, p. 297. Creuzer, pp. 50-1, and note a. Ewald, Geschichte, Vol.
rv. p. 240 sq. Bleek, Einl. p. 587. Davidson, Vol. in. p. 163. The quota
tion in the text is from Reuss' admirable article.
3 c. Apion. Book II. ch. 7, (Vol. n. p. 273, ed. Dind.), a passage, by the
way, only preserved in the Latin Version.

342 Testimonies in favour of the
importance. It proves probably an incorrectness in details,
but not necessarily the falsity of the main fact.1 The
bearing and behaviour of Alexander to the Jews, so
different from that usual with him towards conquered
nations; his enlistment of Jews into his army; his allotting
to them an important quarter in his new city Alexandria;
his restoring to them privileges of which they had long
been deprived ;— these facts, coupled with his well-known
conviction that he was chosen by destiny for the part he
was playing in the world, render no uncertain testimony
to the substantial truth of Josephus's account. But even
if it were impossible to determine the exact circumstances
of the meeting of Alexander and the Jewish envoys, the
silence of historians, so notorious for their disregard and
misrepresentation of the Jewish nation2, cannot be held
to be conclusive against the occurrence of an event which
must have appeared to them trivial and unintelligible.
It was the opinion of Scaliger3, no mean authority, that
comparatively speaking, ' it is better to refer to Josephus
than to all the Greek or Latin historians, not only for the
history of the Jews, but also for that of the nations with
whom he had personally no dealings.'
But Josephus's testimony to the Book of Daniel is not
confined to this one story of Alexander. The manner in
which he invariably speaks of the prophetic work is itself
an index to his own opinion upon its merits. 'Let,' he
says4, 'those who read Daniel's prophecies... marvel at one
so highly honoured.' He is ' one of the greatest of the
1 Vid. Westpott, s.v. "Alexander III.' Smith's Bibl. Diet. Vol. I. p. 43.
2 Comp. Tacitus, Hist. v. 8, and authorities in Westcott, p. 44.
3 Quoted by Paret, 'Ueber d. Pharisaismus d. Josephus,' Stud. u. Krit. p.
837 (1856). No contemporary author of the campaigns of Alexander survives.
The best account of them is that of Arrian, who lived A.D. 200, and* drew up
his history from the accounts of Ptolemy son of Lagus, and Aristobulus of
Cassandria. 4 Antiq. Jud. xi. ch. xi. § 7. Paret, I. c. Gerlach, Die Weissag. d. A. T. in
d. Sehriften d. Ft. Josephus, p. 42 (Berl. 1853).

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 343
Prophets. Kings and nations combined to pay him honour
while living; and though dead, his memory shall never
perish.' In an interesting autobiographic passage1, re
presenting the historian as the expositor of the wishes of
the Caesar, Josephus appeals to Joannes and his fellow-
countrymen not to resist that Roman power which was
helped by God. He urged that all that was happening to
them was an accomplishment of Divine prediction. ' Which
of you,' he asked, 'is ignorant of the writings of the
ancient Prophets? And if not, why do you forget the
oracle meeting with its fulfilment now in this wretched
city?' He spoke unquestionably of Daniel's prediction.
Had his reference been to a spurious author he would
not have been heard with patience. Both the renegade
who exhorted, and the patriot who listened, knew well
the full credit of the work quoted.
Further, the fact that Josephus was not acquainted
with the apocryphal additions to the Books of Jeremiah
and Daniel2; and, Avhen speaking of the miracles of the
Book of Daniel, the absence of that hesitation3 which
marks his usual treatment of the supernatural events of
the Bible ; — these are waifs and strays of no slight critical
value. They assist in proving that if ever a man believed
in the authenticity of a Book, Josephus believed in the
authenticity of the Book of Daniel.

f. Daniel and the Neiv Testament.
Of higher, truer value than that of Josephus is the
testimony of the New Testament. The Apocalypse of
S. John proves how powerful an influence the Book of
Daniel exercised over the mind of the 'beloved disciple4.'
1 Bell. Jud. vi. ch. ii, § I. Gerlach, p. 43, n. 1.
2 Reuss, pp. 2S6, 292. 3 Id- P- 291.
* Vid. especially Aubcrlen's work, pp. 79-93, 266 sq.

344 Testimonies in favour of the
S. Paul's description of the Antichrist (2 Thess. ii. 4) ; his
delegating the judgment of the world to God's saints
(2 Cor. vi. 2) ; — have a distinct reference, verbal and doc
trinal, to the teaching of the prophetic Book. The allu
sions to the safety of God's Prophet when cast into the
den of lions, and to the deliverance of the ' three children'
(Heb. xi. 33, 34), can be understood of none others than
those whose perils are described in the canonical work.
The title, ' Son of Man,' which broke from the lips of the
dying S. Stephen, was the same as that claimed by the
Holy One, itself reflected to Him from the pages of the
Prophet1. It has been, and is still, said that these passages prove
nothing more than that the Book of Daniel furnished a
figure, a trope, an expression, a thought, to the writers
and saints of the early Church. The Book was accepted
by the Jews generally as prophetic, and the value or
interpretation assigned by them to its contents acquired
a hold upon the people till the power of criticism was
virtually superseded. Its use therefore by the New Testa
ment writers was due either to the opinion of the age or
to sheer ignorance of its critical worth. But this reason
ing will satisfy no one. Not only, because ignoring the
possibility of a higher power than that of man guiding
and directing the thoughts of the Apostles; but also,
because inherently improbable. The great and learned
pupil of Gamaliel, for example, would never have been
contented any more than his master, to take the vox
populi for the vox Dei. The scholar trained in the schools
of Tarsus and Jerusalem would have resented as an insult
the compulsory recognition — as Divine — of a work which
was fit to be quoted only as he quoted the 'Oracles' of
Epimenides (Titus i. 12) or the ' Phaenomena ' of Aratus
(Acts xvii. 28). f
1 Comp. S. Matt. xvi. 13, -27 ; xxvi. 64, with Dan. vii. 10.

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 345
But in truth the blow aimed here at the inspiration
of the Apostolic writers may be neglected in comparison
with that which it levels at the testimony and divinity oi
Christ Himself. The Apostles were instructed by Him.
They accepted what He accepted. They believed what He
believed. They read the Law and the Prophets through
His eyes; and in His light they saw light. With Him
therefore they stand or fall. The validity or the falseness
of their teaching is merged in His. To attack and repu
diate Apostolic teaching is on this point to question the
doctrine of the Teacher Himself.
The Saviour's discourses upon His second coming rest,
it is acknowledged, upon the Book of Daniel. His allu
sions are too distinct to be mistaken '. But He does not
confine Himself to allusions. In one memorable passage
He refutes by anticipation every cavil against Daniel. He
sat upon the Mount of Olives, the Holy City at His feet,
His disciples around Him. In a few momentous words
He foretold the destruction of that temple which rose
before Him in all its peerless beauty. As He spake of it
He gave them the token which should be the signal of
their own dispersion. " When ye shall see the abomination
of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in
the holy place,... then let them which be in Judaea flee2,"
&c. The words have but one plain meaning and one
plain reference. As spoken by Christ they invest with
authenticity, dignity, and inspiration, the author He is
quoting. And yet modern opinion has not hesitated to
decide that He who was the Truth spoke then but ' after
the manner of His contemporaries in Palestine3.' 'He
neither was, nor from the nature of the case, could He
wish to be a critical authority4.' 'He termed Daniel
a Prophet, and referred to his writings as prophecies,
1 S. Matth. xix. 28; xxiv. 30; xxv. 1; xxvi. 64.
2 S. Matth. xxiv. 15. 3 Davidson, Vol. in. p. 168.
« De Wette, EM. p. 388.

346 Testimonies in favour of the
because such was the current view. He did not assume
to be a critical authority, because certain errors were
doctrinally harmless (!), having no proper connection with
His religious teaching.' Stuart1 once pointed out the
dilemma to which this opinion logically reduces itself:
'To suppose that the Saviour made such an appeal to
a book that was the comparatively recent work of an
impostor, or at least of a forger of romance, is to suppose
Christ Himself to have been either ignorant of the state
of facts, or else willing to foster the false regard paid to
the book by the Jews.' Davidson thinks proper to cha
racterize this ' idle declamation.' ' Critical questions like
the present did not,' in his opinion, ' need Christ's judg
ment upon them. His argumentation was sufficiently valid
without it. As a Jew, He spoke to the Jews after their
own manner and about their own Scriptures without
pronouncing upon points foreign to the nature of His
mission. To say that the question of the • genuineness
and authenticity of Daniel cannot be separated from that
of the fallibility or infallibility of the Saviour is to assert
what is false. The two things can and ought to be sepa
rated. Their connection is not necessary! The Church
Catholic has ever believed their connection absolutely
necessary, and their separation impossible; and for the
following common-sense reason. The real character of
the Old Testament is stamped with the seal of Him who
was the source of all revelation, — the Christ of God2.
He would have altogether vitiated that character and
counteracted His own purpose, had He ascribed to the
ancient Scriptures an authority to which they could lay
no claim. There are two alternatives. Either, first, He
was deceived as to- the authority of Moses and the Pro
phets ; and if so, it was quite possible, if not probable,
that He was deceived in His doctrinal and ethical teach-
1 Comm. on Dan. p. 404.
2 Cf. Lee, On Inspiration, p. 70.

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 317
ing. Or, secondly, if not deceived Himself, He yielded,
He accommodated His own teaching to the deception of
the day : that is, remembering the circumstances, He
selected as the spot on which to inculcate this deception
the Mount from which He was gazing upon the future
scene of His crucifixion. From such a spot, or on such
a subject, could a dying man — and He perfect man as
well as perfect God — have misguided or deceived His
Apostles ? There were subjects on which Christ ever kept
silence ; there were ' things to come ' concerning which
He Himself confessed that the ' Son of man knew neither
the day nor the hour' of their fulfilment. But it was
one thing to repudiate all power to teach on points inex
pedient to be communicated to man; another to put
forward erroneous teaching, or support by fictitious titles
what it concerned His hearers to understand. It was of
the highest moment that the Apostles should know the
certainty of the truths wherein they were instructed, and
the genuineness of the writings which enclosed them.
They were themselves to believe, and teach others to
believe, all that the Lawgiver and the Prophets had fore
told of their Messiah and His rebellious city. How could
this be, if He who instructed them did but appeal to
spurious authorities ? Surely, to teach them and us things
of which He knew nothing; to make statements, and
attach names to writings of whose veracity He knew no
more than the poor fishermen He was instructing, was to
assert pretensions, and to veil an ignorance which for ever
destroy His Divinity. On the other hand, to be convicted
of accommodation, or, in plain words, to be proved to have
adopted for true what He knew to be erroneous, is fatal to
His sinlessness. Conviction on such a point would raise
Christianity in arms agamst its Christ.
But 'let God be true, and every man a liar.' The
belief in the general authenticity of the Old Testament,
the belief in the particular authenticity of the Book of

348 Testimonies in favour of the
Daniel, rest upon the positive testimony of the Holy
Jesus. This can be maintained without for a moment ex
cluding the legitimate use of intelligent and scientific
criticism. Christ has said nothing which shall bind a man
to believe that Daniel reduced the Book to its present
form, but He has said that which forbids him to conjecture
its author a Maccabaean scribe or an Egyptian enthusiast.
It was a caution impressed by Theodoret1 on the Jews of
his day who rejected the Book of Daniel: 'Remember that
in warring against the Prophet you are warring through
the Prophet against the Lord of the Prophet.' I cannot
think the caution superfluous or unnecessary now. The
Lord of that Prophet hath borne testimony to the words
of His Prophet by the mouth of His Holy Son. Shall
conjectural criticism dare to defy every moral and Divine
consideration by branding that Holy One the author of
deliberate falsehood? Better far to probe and accept the
master-belief of S. Thomas Aquinas :
Credo quicquid dixit Dei Filius,
Nil hoc Verbo veritatis verius.

g. Daniel and the Church.
The opinion advanced by the Holy One of God, and
followed by His Apostles, is in full accordance with the
mind and teaching of the early Jewish and Christian
Churches. The opinion of Josephus has been already quoted.
He was himself but the echo of the belief of his day.
The fathers of Judaism, the doctors of the great Syna
gogue, considered Daniel's work canonical, and enrolled
it in their authenticated lists of Scripture. If in later
years the Book was excluded by one extreme class from
1 Opera, Vol. n. p. 1264 (ed. Migne).

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 349
the Nebi-im, and by a second rejected altogether1 ; the
act of the former was due to the sharpness of a critical
definition that Daniel was not a 'Nabi' properly speak
ing — not, that is, one sent by God in the same way as
Isaiah and others ; the act of the latter was due either to
the supposition that he had committed an error in his
computation of the 70 weeks, the result not tallying with
their expectations ; or, as in Theodoret's day, to the
hatred entertained against the Christians for their use
of his Book. Jewish tergiversation in this respect laid
them open to Theodoret's sarcasm, that a people so tho
roughly the slaves of tradition had reversed the opinion of
the fathers of tradition2.
The early Christian Church is not less explicit in its
belief in the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. It is,
unhappily, a practice with some to decry such testimony
as, in plain language, a superstitious, or deferential, or
ignorant perpetuation of an erroneous opinion wittingly or
ignorantly projected. But the well-attested creed of ages
cannot be thus summarily obliterated, or even superseded.
The early writers were, it is true, theologians rather than
critics. But to those who believe that a superintending
Providence was pleased to rest the faith of the first
Christians on the direct teaching of the Incarnate Christ,
and compensate to their immediate successors the defi
ciencies of an uncritical age by a deeper spiritual intui
tion ; — to such the testimony of antiquity will ever speak
with a voice of its own. It will ever remain a testimony
adduced not for its controversial authority — of that it
has little or none — but for its moral worth ; a worth com
manding respect from its intrinsic beauty when reflected

1 Shulchan Aruch, p. 133 (4ter Theil ed. Creizenach). R. Abarbanel was
one of the former class alluded to (id. p. 1 35). One of the best Jewish Com
mentaries on the Book of Daniel is that by R. Saadja Faijumi (c. 1130 A.D.)
published in the Venice and Basil Hebrew Bibles.
2 P- '554 (ed. cit.)

350 Testimonies in favour of the
to modern times from the pages of the literary giants of
the fourth century— S. Augustine and S. Chrysostom.
The refutation of Porphyry's work, penned by Eusebius
of Caesarea, was for the age and current learning as com
plete as could be furnished. S. Jerome1 — no insignificant
authority and no mean scholar — evidently thought it so.
He distinctly declined to enter into controverted points,
considering them already met by the work of Eusebius.
He dealt with them only as they met him in the course
of his Exposition, but he declined to go out of his way
to discuss what in his opinion was past discussion. He
certainly was not the man to evade or explain away diffi
culties. The same spirit animated the majority of the
, fathers of the Church. If in their love and attachment
to the writings of the Prophet they allowed themselves
expressions and titles of affection which betray the lan
guage of the heart rather than that of stern criticism, it
is not that they had neglected to examine into the authen
ticity of his Avork as far as lay in their power ; it is not
that they were ignorant of the peculiarities and difficulties
confined to his writing. If, for example, Theodoret2
resents it as a personal injury that one whom he loves
to call 6 6eioTaTo<; should be denied the prophetic title,
and expelled from the ' Chorus of the Prophets ;' if
S. Chrysostom3 dwells with affectionate fondness upon
the virtues and the victories of one who is to him the
' friend of God,' the ' holy Daniel ;' if S. Jerome* insists
upon the one fact so commanding, so unapproachable,
that ' no one of the Prophets has ever spoken with equal
clearness about Christ;' yet, in no case, is the eulogy
the result of a blind unthinking faith, or a concession
to a popular dictum which it would have been perilous
1 Prolog, in Dan. Vol. v. p. 491 (ed. Migne).
2 Prcef. in Dan. p. 1255.
3 irepl aKara\rfn-Tov, Lib. III. § 4, Vol. I. p. 722 (ed. Migne).
4 Prolog, in Dan.

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 351
to oppose. Theodoret1 gives his reason, when he ranks
Daniel among the tov Oeiov irvevp.aTo<; opyava. The sacred
writings, he insisted2, themselves prove him to be a pro
phet; the issue had confirmed his claim to prescience.
S. Chrysostom3 points to the prophecies, and in his
'golden' language protests against mistaken views. 'Da
niel wrote them all, God revealing them to him, that those
whojead and have seen their fulfilment might marvel
at the honour accorded to him.' S. Jerome4 believed, it
may almost be said, against belief. ' Who can understand,'
he once asked, 'or explain Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and
Daniel ? The first has woven the web, not of a Prophecy
but of a Gospel.... The third has enveloped his work from
beginning to end in such obscurity that the Hebrews will
not suffer it to be read till the pupil ' has reached the
mature age of thirty years. But the fourth and the last
of the four Prophets, a man not only familiar with times
but also the (piXotaraip of the whole world, discourses
clearly upon (that mysterious subject) the stone cut out
of the mountain without hands and overthrowing every
kingdom.' To peruse the writings of Ephraem Syrus5, or of Poly-
chronius the Deacon" the brother of Theodore of Mopsues-
tia, is to discover everywhere the same estimate of the
Prophet and his book. Exegesis, if more prevalent than
philological and historical criticisms, is not advanced reck
lessly or in defiance of purely external discussion. The
same result awaits the student who lingers over the loving
words upon Daniel of Ammonius Presbyter, Apollinarius,
S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Cyril, Eudoxius, Eusebius of
Caesarea, Hesychius, Origen, S. Hippolytus, Titus, and Vic-
i Loc. cit. ' P- la54-
3 Kara r. 'louSatovs, Lib. v. § 9, p. S97, ed. cit.
4 Epist. Lni. Ad Paulinum, De studio Scripturarum, Vol. I. p. 547.
5 Vol. n. p. 480 sq. (ed. Caillau).
6 Script. Yet. nova C'ollectio, Vol. I. p. 105 sq. ed. Mai. (Rom. 1825).

352 Testimonies in favour of the
tor, treasured in the noble collection of Cardinal Mai1; or
traces the influence of the Prophet's mind in the Homi
lies and Sermons of S. Augustine. To this body of divi
nity the Fathers of the Reformation ever turned for assist
ance in forming their own decision. Luther, Calvin,
Melancthon, 03colampadius, Bullinger, appeal to no other
tribunal than to what they considered the highest,— the
consentient unanimity of all former teachers. The Church
of Christ has yet to learn that her Divine Founder would
have permitted so long not only the existence of error on
this subject, but also its propagation by those who were in
•every generation the noblest proofs of His perpetual pre
sence among men.

To conclude ; I cannot but think the hypothesis of the
late composition of the Book of Daniel refuted by the posi
tive and negative evidences brought against it. There are
undoubted difficulties, historical and exegetical, encom
passing the Book, but the hypothesis neither meets nor
accounts for them. These difficulties the Church recog
nizes, but it is with a mind unshaken by the admission.
Daniel comes to her commended by her Lord. He is a
messenger of heaven speaking ' sealed words ' (xii. 9) ; in
their full significance exceeding that which he could fully
comprehend. But in his utterance of that message the
man appears. The Babylonian, the Jew, the courtier, the
patriot, glimmer with steady light through his forms of
expression, his style, his fire. At once he stamps his ori
ginality and his date, and pleads through these human
elements for the recognition of what is divine. And no
one in a devout frame of mind can ever take up this
1 Op. cit. p. 161 sq.

authenticity of the Booh of Daniel. 353
inspired Book, and compare it with the choicest pro
duction of the Antiochian era, without feeling the cogency
of the appeal. He will find in it the true marks of
authenticity — historical accuracy and spiritual profit, in
stead of the puerility of fiction, or merely intellectual
stimulant.

THE END.

CAMBRIDGE' rtWiii.il Al TUB UNIVERSITY PKESf.

5444