Page images
PDF
EPUB

disproved. (8 & 9.) The doctrines alleged to prove a later date are in harmony with other scripture, and no doctrine or practice was borrowed from Parsism. There follow six notes, full of Hebrew learning, on peculiar terms and phrases, and other interesting questions of philology.

The opening remarks in the Introduction clear away the mists by which some modern sceptics disguise from others, and perhaps from themselves, the real nature of their own conclusions, and the charge of direct forgery and abominable profaneness which they bring against the sacred writers, to their own condemnation. The nature of the real issue is unfolded

with great force and clearness :

[ocr errors]

"The Book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-field between faith and unbelief. It admits of no half measures. It is either Divine, or an imposture. To write any book under the name of another, and give it out as his, is a forgery, dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthiness. But the case would go far beyond this. The writer, if he were not Daniel, must have lied on a most frightful scale, ascribing to God prophecies never uttered, and miracles which are assumed never to have been wrought. The whole book would be one lie in the name of God. The more God is the centre of the whole, the more directly would the falsehood come into relation to God. . . . The miracles it implies, the prophecies it avers to have been recorded by Daniel, a contemporary. Either we have true miracles and true prophecy, or we should have nothing but untruth. An apology for the supposed forger, such as those put out by some Germans, and lately in England, is utterly untenable and immoral. . . . It is idle to deny a deceptive intention' (Essays, p. 76,) when the writer, had he not been Daniel, would have deceived first his own people, and then the whole Christian world until now. Strange, that some who deny the deceptive intention,' adduce the declarations made to or by Daniel, that the prophecies were true, as a proof that they were false. Yet wherein differs this from our Blessed Lord's own assertion, that His words were true, that He is the Truth? St. John avers his own truth, St. Paul also, and Jeremiah. The assertion in Daniel is not more frequent than in St. Paul... More consistent is Hitzig's undisguised statement. 'The case of the Book of Daniel, if it is assigned to any other, is different. Then it becomes a forged writing, and the intention was to deceive his immediate readers, though for their good!' A deceit which would fall under the sentence of God against those who say, Let us do evil, that good may come whose damnation is just. The moral law in the hearts of the heathen strongly condemned forgery, even when not ungodly. It was reserved for persons within Christianity to apologise for it."

[ocr errors]

The unbelief, anterior to the negative criticism, which forms its starting point and groundwork, is briefly shown by extracts, as before by Hengstenberg in his Introduction to the Petanteuch, from De Wette, Knobel, Baur, the Westminster Review, and the Essays and Reviews. Dr. Pusey then proceeds as follows:

"Such statements, however often they occur in books of unbelieving criticism, have plainly nothing to do with criticism or historical inquiry. They assume the whole question about which criticism can be engaged. If any of us say, on our side, Our Lord, being God, and having Divine knowledge, pronounced Daniel to be a prophet, and quoted words of his as prophetic,-we do thereby mean to close up the question of criticism. On grounds extrinsic to the book we believe critical inquiry to be superseded by Divine authority. We feel satisfied, of course, that there can be no real grounds of criticism contradictory to that authority; but we do not pretend that this antecedent certainty of ours belongs to the province of criticism. As little, plainly, does the opposite denial of the possibility of prophecy... This whole ground, on either side, is antecedent to criticism. Their denial of the possibility of miracles and prophecy denies, in fact, to our Creator powers we possess ourselves, of regulating our own work, or communicating to others our own designs. It has its source in utter ignorance of God, and is to be remedied by a knowledge of Him and of ourselves, our Creator and His creatures.

"But although this belief as to the prophecies of Daniel must be part of my religious being, since it is inseparable from my belief that Jesus is God, this in no way interferes with the examination of the prophecies themselves. I cannot indeed examine them as one who doubts. No one who believes in Christ can or ought to assume that to be doubtful, on which Christ has set His seal. . . . Even in matters of certain human knowledge, men do not ignore their own knowledge, to impart it to others, or to remove objections. Nor can I make-believe, what I do not believe, that these objections to the Book of Daniel have any special plausibility. I select them out of the flood of pseudo-criticism with which we have been inundated, because the school which propagates them has given out its achievements here to be 'one of the greatest triumphs of modern criticism.' (Essay I. p. 302.) Crimine ab uno disce omnes."

The argument begins with a proof of the unity of the book, now commonly owned even by the negative critics.

"No one now doubts that it is one whole. That hacking school of criticism, which hewed the books of Holy Scripture into as many fragments as it pleased, survives only in a few expiring representatives. It reigned in Germany with Oriental despotism for a time, but is now deposed even there.... No less is that other theory of Eichhorn now rejected by all, that the Chaldee and Hebrew portions are by different authors."

The internal proof of this unity is then unfolded, much as in "The Bible and Modern Thought," (pp. 192, 193,) but more fully, and with great clearness. We must quote from the part which dwells on the character of Daniel as one concurrent argument for the same truth, and brings it out with much force and beauty.

"The character of Daniel runs one book, majestic in its noble simplicity. heathen court, and as raised to a high

and the same through the As a revealer of God in a dignity in God's providence

for the sake of his brethren, he occupies, in this temporary dissolution of the political existence of his people, a place corresponding to that of Moses at the beginning. Like him, he was educated in the highest wisdom of a people famed for wisdom. Even this likeness has its unlikeness. In Moses God manifested, not His wisdom, but His power. Yet, as the wise of Egypt were put to shame by the power of God wherewith He clothed Moses the shepherd, so He paled the reputation of the wisdom of the Magi by His Spirit which He placed in the captive boy Daniel.'

"The book gives but a slight hint that Daniel was trained amidst suffering and privation, in that in his person the prophecy of Isaiah to Hezekiah was fulfilled. (Is. xxxix. 7.) Thither, with several other Jewish youths, he himself of royal blood was taken while a boy, and placed in the care of the chief of the eunuchs. His name was changed, as that of his three companions; a badge of servitude, designed to obliterate the memory of their early home, and, in the case of these Jewish children, of their God. . . . It was part of that simplicity of boyish faith, which is the herald of future greatness, that he, the soul of his three companions, trusted that God would uphold his strength and health, as well through the pulse as through the forbidden food. He tells us it was so, as a simple fact. . . . In that same strong faith he, with his companions, obtained from God the knowledge of the dream and its meaning, which saved him from death. In the same simple faith, in his advanced age, he continued, like the Psalmist, to pray three hours a day, openly, when the penalty was the den of lions.

"Yet with this uncompromising duty to God, he shows, where he may, a subject's deference. What a respectful tenderness in that explanation of the dream, where his impending insanity was foreshown to the king. He sat astonied for one hour, and his thoughts troubled him. The king had to encourage him to speak, so amazed was he at such a reverse to such greatness. We almost hear the accents of tenderness and pity with which he spake. With what gentle words does he exhort him to those acts of mercy and righteousness, whereby the chastisement might yet be averted!... To the emperor Belshazzar he had to announce imminent judgment; yet then, too, with what longing remembrance does he look back to the days of Nebuchadnezzar, his greatness, glory, honour, humiliation, repentance. Human greatness is, when unabused, a majestic sight; for the powers that be are ordained of God. They are reflections of His supremacy. . . . The memory dwells on the mind of the aged seer, as of a glorious sight which had faded. Even of the weak king, who had let himself be entrapped into a law which constrained the condemnation of Daniel, he dwells on all the good side-his reluctance to execute the decree, his sorrow at it, his ineffectual desire to evade it, his one night's repentance. The few words of his own he has preserved are in the same gentle, respectful tone,- Before thee also, O king, I have done no hurt.' Yet the love of his home, and the country God had chosen for His people, lived through all those years of a lifelong absence and greatness. We see it in the old man of four score and three, streaming back on the life of sixty-nine years of exile. It is told us incidentally; but for the decree of Darius we should not have known it.

(vi. 10.) What a yearning for the dust of the city of his God does there lie in those two words, towards Jerusalem! What a life of longing prayer in those closing words, as he did aforetime! Yet he prayed toward Jerusalem, not simply as his native land, but in memory of the prayer at the dedication of the temple. (1 Kings viii. 47-50.) The same earnest longing we see developed in that full and deep outpouring of his soul, when the seventy years of the captivity were all but accomplished. We hear it in words which now would express the yearnings of the soul longing for the restoration of one's country or of the Church. One who could doubt their truth knows nothing of prayer, or of the voice of the soul. It were a psychological contradiction. . . . Such undeviating integrity, beyond the ordinary life of man, in a worshipper of the One God, in the most dissolute and degraded of the merchant cities of old, first minister in the first of the world's monarchies, was in itself a great fulfilment of the purpose of God, in converting the chastisement of His people into the riches of the Gentiles."

The rest of this first Lecture, pp. 23-57, and forty pages in the appendix, are occupied with a full and exhaustive discussion of the argument from style and language. Nothing can well be more complete and crushing than the refutation of the sceptical theories. We must content ourselves with two extracts-on the musical instruments, and on the general style.

"Criticism, then, as it became more accurate, retreated point by point from all which, in its rashness, it had assailed. First, it gave up the so-called Græcisms; then that there were any Greek words in Daniel except three musical instruments; then that there was anything incredible in some Greek instruments being used at Nebuchadnezzar's festival; lastly, this crotchet, that two of the musical instruments were Macedonian words, must give way likewise. Yet at each stage those pseudo-criticisms did their work. Those who disbelieved Daniel believed the authority of the critics.

"I have treated this question of Greek instruments on what I believe to be the only philosophical ground-the fact of an old and extensive commerce between Babylon and the West. The name travelled with the thing, is an acknowledged principle of philology. It needed not that a single Greek should have been at Babylon. Tyrian merchants took with them the names of the wares they sold, just as our English merchants transmitted the names of our Indian imports into Germany, or the Spaniards brought us back the American names of the products of the New World. At this day, I am told, some of our Manchester goods are known by the name of their manufacturer in Tartary, where the face of an Englishman has scarcely been seen. Yet the actual intercourse of the Greeks with the East is now known to have been far greater than was formerly imagined. . . . The name of Javan, or Greece, occurs in the inscriptions of Sargon, among those from whom he received tribute. Articles of luxury formed part of the tribute to Assyria. His statue found at Idalium commemorates his expedition against Cyprus. It was no great matter for monarchs who transported a monolith obelisk from Armenia, and moved those

colossal bulls, and brought cedars from Lebanon, to import a few musical instruments. Either way, as spoils of war or articles of commerce, they might easily have found their way to Babylon."...

"In fine, the Hebrew of Daniel is exactly what you would expect in a writer of his age, and under his circumstances. It has not one single idiom unsuited to that time. The few Aryan or Syriac words remarkably belong to it. The Chaldee marks itself out as such as could not have been written at the time when, if not Divine and prophetic, it must have been written. No opponent has ventured to look steadily at the facts of the correspondence of the language of Daniel and Ezra, and their difference from the language of the Targums. It is plainly cumulative evidence, when both portions so written are united in one book. The fact also, that the book is written in both languages, suits the times of Daniel, and is inexplicable by those who place it in the time of the Maccabees. No other book, or portion of a book, approximates to that date. The last book, Nehemiah, was finished two and a-half centuries before, or about B.C. 410. The theory of Maccabee Psalms lived too long, but is now numbered with the dead. Only one or two here or there, who believe little beside, believe in this phantom of a past century. But even if such Hebrew, and what is utterly inconceivable, such Aramaic, could have been written in the time of the Maccabees, it would still be inexplicable that both should be written.

"If the object of the writer be supposed to have been to write as would be most readily understood, this would account for the Aramaic ; but one who wrote with that object would not have written in Hebrew what was of most interest to the people, and especially written for those times. If his object had been, like Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, to write in the language of the ancient prophets, he would not have written in Aramaic at all. The prophecies in the Chaldee portion are even more comprehensive, for the most part, than those of the Hebrew. Had such been the object, one would rather expect (except the 70 weeks) the languages should have been reversed; for the Aramaic portions speak most of the kingdom of the Messiah.

"The use, then, of the two languages, and the mode in which the prophet writes in both, correspond perfectly with his real date; they are, severally and together, inexplicable according to the theory which would make the book a product of Maccabean times. The language, then, is one mark of genuineness, set by God on the book. Rationalism must rebel, as it has rebelled, but it dares not now, with any moderate honesty, abuse philology to cover its rebellion."

The second and third Lectures deal with the subject of the Four Empires; the first positively, to confirm and unfold their application to Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome; and the second negatively, to show the contradiction and inconsistency of the various rival theories, and that exclusion of the Roman Empire, which the sceptical hypothesis requires. Both of these Lectures are clear, forcible, and decisive, so far as they maintain this catholic interpretation of the Empires. On the contrary, they exhibit vagueness, and even contradiction, so

« PreviousContinue »