« PreviousContinue »
facts which have never been disputed, especially the extraordinary favour which was certainly exhibited by Alexander to the Jews. We shall only add, that the minutiæ of the story are in perfect keeping with the Macedonian's character, and harmonize completely with incidental statements of historians which have no direct reference to this event. Here, as elsewhere, Dr. Hengstenberg goes into a learned and minute investigation of the subject.
Another argument is founded on 1 Maccab. ii. 59, 60. where facts recorded by this Prophet are alluded to. One or two other arguments are built upon certain minute criticisms of the Septuagint and the first book of Maccabees, of which we can only say, that, such as they are, they lead directly to the same conclusion as those already stated, viz: that before the time of the Maccabees, our book of Daniel was in circulation.
5. Besides the external evidence already glanced at, there is internal evidence no less conclusive.
As such we may mention the peculiarities of the language. Every biblical student is aware, that the book of Daniel is composed partly in Hebrew, and partly in Chaldee. On this fact Bertholdt built his foolish theory of a plurality of writers, a theory disproved by the simple circumstance that the change of dialect takes place in the midst of indivisible passages. It is evident, indeed, to every scholar who examines the original, that some one must have written it, to whom the two languages were equally familiar. Now this agrees exactly with the history of Daniel, whose native tongue was Hebrew, but who was compelled, by his early captivity, and his official situation, to become familiar with the other dialect. This happy coincidence might seem sufficient, but our author carries out the proof still further, by a nice examination of the Prophet's Chaldee diction. He states it as the result of his personal researches, not only that the Chaldee of this book is so full of Hebraisms, that it could not have been written, as has been asserted, at a time when Hebrew had been wholly superseded, in the usage of the Jews, by the language of their conquerors—but also, that it approaches vastly nearer to the Chaldee used by Ezra, than to that in which the Targums are composed. This is the substance of the argument. The minor disquisitions into which it leads the author, though by no means without interest and value, we of course must let alone..
6. The next item of internal evidence is the extraordinary accuracy which this book exhibits in its historical statements and allusions. We shall merely hint at some of the specifications given by our author in detail.
The first chapters represent Daniel as having attained, while yet a young man, an extensive reputation for extraordinary wisdom and devotion to his God. How satisfactorily does this explain the language of Ezekiel, his contemporary and an older man. “Son of man, when the land sinneth against me, &c. though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, said the Lord God.” (Ezek. xiv. 13, 14.) “Son of man, say unto the Prince of Tyrus, thus saith the Lord God, because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said I am a God, &c. thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee." (xxviii. 2, 3.) Can this praise be accounted for in any other way, than by supposing just such facts as are recorded in the Book of Daniel?
The truth with which the characters of certain kings are drawn, deserves attention. The last king of Babylon is represented by Xenophon as an effeminate, but cruel and impious voluptuary, who put a man to death, because he missed his aim in hunting, and was guilty of innumerable other cruelties; who despised the deity, and spent his time in riotous debauchery, but was at heart a coward. Is not this Belshazzar? The same historian represents Cyaxares as weak and pliable, but of a cruel temper, easily managed for the most part, but ferocious in his anger. Is not this Darius* --the same Darius who allowed his nobles to make laws for him, and then repented-suffered Daniel to be cast into the lion's den, and then spent a night in lamentation, and at last, in strict conformity with Xenophon's description, condemned to death, not only his false counsellors, but all their wives and children?
It is also observable, that, in this book, certain events are mentioned as a contemporary would be apt to mention them; that is, concisely, and without minute detail, as being perfectly familiar to his immediate readers. Thus we are told that Daniel survived the first year of Cyrus, a notable year ia Jewish history, the year of the return from exile. Now a later writer, one for instance, in the days of the Maccabees, would
* The difference of name is explained at length by Dr. Hengstenberg, p. 48. VOL. IV. No. I.-I
have been very likely to explain why this was mentioned as a sort of epoch.
Dr. H. adduces other cases, some of them still more striking, which we cannot notice. He also brings together, in one striking view, many coincidences as to matter of fact, between the book of Daniel, and Berosus, Abydenus, Herodotus, and others, which must likewise be passed over.
There are three of his remarks, however, under this same head, which we cheerfully make room for. The first is, that in those cases where the Greek and Babylonian authorities are variant, the book of Daniel sometimes sides with one and sometimes with the other. The next is, that the force of the argument from these historic niceties depends upon the aggregate, not the detail, and cannot be destroyed by merely showing how some one or two particulars might have come to the knowledge of a later writer. The last is, that the first book of Maccabees is literally full of palpable errors in geography and history, as he distinctly shows by actual citations.
7. A distinct but analogous body of internal evidence is furnished by the accurate acquaintance which the writer of this book evinces, with the manners, usages, and institutions of the age and country in which it is alleged to have been written. The particular instances are many and minute; we shall indicate a few. Daniel never speaks of adoration being rendered to the kings of Babylon, according to the ancient, oriental usage. Why? Arrian informs us, that Cyrus was the first who received such homage, which arose from a notion that the Persian kings were incarnations of the deity. For the same reason, their decrees were esteemed irrevocable, while no such doctrine seems to have prevailed under the Chaldee monarchs. Daniel accordingly asserts no such thing of any but Darius.
The land of Shinar was the name used by the natives, as we learn from good authority. It occurs' no where in the historical parts of Scripture, after the book of Genesis, until we meet with it in Daniel. (i. 2.) A resident in Palestine would not have thought of using it.
Nebuchadnezzar commands (i. 5.) that the young men chosen for his service should be led from his table. That this was the oriental custom, we are informed by Ctesias and others.
Daniel and his companions, when selected for the royal service, received new names, (i. 7.) In 2 Kings xxiv. 17,
we read, that "the king of Babylon made Mattaniah king, and changed his name to Zedekiah.” Two of these names, moreover, are apparently derived from those of Babylonish idols.
In Dan. ii. 5, iii. 6, there are tokens of an accurate acquaintance with the forms of capital punishment in use among the Chaldees; while in the sixth chapter, a new sort is described as usual with the Medes and Persians.
The description of the image, in the third chapter, corresponds remarkably with what is known from other sources of the Chaldee taste in sculpture; and the use of music at the worship of it, completely tallies with their well-known fondness for that art.
We find in ch. v. 2, that women were present at the royal banquet. So far was this from being usual in later times, that the Septuagint translators have expunged it from the text. And yet we know from Xenophon, that before the Persian conquest, such was indeed the practice of the Babylonian court.
On no point, however, is this minute knowledge more remarkably displayed, than in relation to the ecclesiastical and civil polity adopted by the two great dynasties which had their seat in Babylon during the life of Daniel. The distinction of ranks, the official functions, and the very titles of the ministry and priesthood, are either stated or alluded to, with a precision, which has forced even Bertholdt to confess, that some parts of the book must needs have been written on the very spot.
Upon this part of the subject Dr. Hengstenberg bestows great pains. A large space is occupied with minute etymological discussion, which we pass by to concur in his concluding interrogatory. How can knowledge so accurate, extensive, and minute, be ascribed without absurdity to any writer, at a period so late as that of the Maccabees, and in a country so remote as Palestine?
8. There are some things peculiar to the prophecies of this book, which clearly indicate that he who was the organ of them, was a bona fide resident in Babylon. In the earlier predictions of this book, as in Zechariah and Ezekiel, we find less poetry and more of symbolik, than in the pure Hebrew prophets. Every thing is designated by material emblems. Beasts are the representatives of kings and kingdoms. The imagery likewise appears cast in a gigantic mould. All this
is in accordance with the Babylonish taste, with which the Prophet was familiar, and to which the Holy Spirit condescended to accommodate his teachings. A striking confirmation of this exegesis is, that this mode of exhibition ceases suddenly and wholly with the Chaldee dynasty. The last four chapters which were written under the Medo-Persian domination, are without a trace of it.
Again, Daniel's visions, like those of Ezekiel, have the banks of rivers for their scene. Does not this imply, that the author had resided in a land of lordly streams? This minute local propriety would scarcely have been looked for in a Canaanitish forger, though writing in full view of the very “ swellings of Jordan.”
Again, Daniel, still like his fellow in captivity and the prophetic office, displays a chronological precision quite unknown to earlier seers, but perfectly in keeping with the character of one who had been naturalized among the great astronomers and chronologers of the old world.
9. Our author closes the whole argument with one or two minuter proofs of genuineness, which we need not copy. The weightiest of them may, for substance, be expressed in these two propositions—that the book abounds with things which would be wholly out of character, as coming from a Jew of later times—and that between the historical and prophetic parts of the book, there exists a unity, a sameness, a consistency of character, especially in relation to the writer himself, which stamps the whole as ONE, GENUINE, and AuTHENTIC.
We have read this work of Dr. Hengstenberg with unfeigned satisfaction, and we close it with a high opinion of the author's erudition, ingenuity, and love of truth. The perusal has suggested two reflections, which we are the more disposed to put on paper, for this reason, that they never could arise from a simple reading of the very meagre abstract which we have presented. There are two things, then, which have struck us very forcibly, since we began this volume. The first is the astonishing diversity of arts to which the devil has resorted for the subversion of men's souls, and the exquisite skill with which they are adapted to successive ages and conditions of society. A Nero or Domitian would, perhaps. have been amazed at the idea of suppressing Christianity by subtle
* Dan. viii. 2-X. 4. Ezek. i. 1, 3.