§ 152. Arguments against the first part of Daniel.

The arguments which are alleged against the first six chapters of Daniel, rest in a great measure on the many extraordinary and wonderful things therein related. But since the author's purpose, except in the first chapter, is to relate those things only which God did in an extraordinary way, that the Hebrew exiles might persevere in the religion of their ancestors, and the heathen be warned of the existence of the true God, all other matters which were merely in accordance with the natural course of things, are not to be expected.

They who urge or assume the impossibility of miracles, should know, that a philosophical question can have no bearing on a point of criticism.

The Chaldee dialect in ii. 4-vii. 28. extends to the second part of the book, and it does not present any difficulty; for whatever may be the cause of two dialects being employed in so small a book, the use of them may rather be expected from Daniel than from any other, for a more modern author would have avoided this diversity, which might offend his readers, as the prophets exhibit no similar example. It has been already remarked, that certain words which are said to be of Greek extraction, are oriental, and therefore they cannot be employed as an argument for a more modern age. On the contrary, Zendic, Pehlvic, and Parsic terms, belong to a more ancient period than that of Antiochus Epiphanes; for it is not to be supposed that little or no intercourse subsisted between the Babylonians and Medes and the Elamites or Persians, before the time of Cyrus For although it admits of some doubt, whether Zoroaster taught at Babylon, yet that there were many Magians in that city, and that their system prevailed before his time, is plain from this fact, that Nebuchadnezzar was accompanied in his expeditions by the superintendent of the Magian priests, called in . Jer. xxxix. 3. Comp. Germ. Archæol. II. P. II. Th. § 179. S. 282-285. The horses and chariots of the Sun, which the predecessors of Josiah had placed at Jerusalem, II Kings xxiii. 11. prove beyond a doubt that these superstitions were not only much more ancient than Zoroaster, but had been widely spread. Nor must it be omitted, that Belesis, governor of Babylonia, in conjunction with Arbaces king of the Medes, had long before overturned the

more ancient kingdom of the Assyrians, as afterwards Nabopolassar, a Chaldean, associated with the king of the Medes, conquered the second Assyrian empire. This same intercourse of Babylonians with Medes and Persians, is shown also by the wedge-like character of writing, which is observable both in the ruins of Persepolis and on the Babylonian bricks. Comp. Asiatiches Magazin, 1802, 6tes Stück. These arguments are abundantly sufficient to prove, that the Babylonians and other oriental nations, Medes and Persians for instance, lived in habits of mutual intercourse. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that some things should occur in the book of Daniel, which was written in Babylon, that belonged originally to the dialects of those nations.

Nebuchadnezzar does indeed adore or prostrate himself before Daniel, ii. 46. But after Daniel had announced the dream which the king had not made known, and the interpretation of it, such humiliation is not, according to the superstition of that age, so excessive as to be a proper object of suspicion. It is not necessary to suppose, that the golden statue sixty cubits high and six wide, c. iii. was made of solid gold, which in the valley of Dura could hardly be preserved from robbers. It was overlaid with gold. The proportion of the height to the breadth, varying from that of the human form, was either believed to be more dignified, or it was retained from a rude antiquity. It is idle to ask why Daniel's three friends only were subjected to such extreme danger; Daniel himself was perhaps sick at the time, or he may have been absent from Babylon, and therefore not required to join in the adoration of the statue. The silence of the history with respect to Daniel rather proves that the book was written at a time when it was known to every reader in what way he avoided the dan ger. Those persons, who ask how the other Jews withdrew, forget that the command to be present at the dedication of the image was limited to the rulers of the state, iii. 2, 3.

In the account of Nebuchadnezzar's insanity, c. iv, the difficulty lies in the seven years during which it is said to have lasted. But if y in v. 15, which properly signifies any time, even a moment, be

understood of months, or of parts of a year, six of which are numbered by the orientals, making Nebuchadnezzar's insanity to have continued through seven of these parts or fourteen months, the diffi

culties will vanish. If any and in in vii. 25. xii. 7. mean years in the prophetic sense, the same cannot be the meaning of iv. 13. because it appears from the narrative that this insanity of Nebuchadnezzar happened after all his military expeditions, and after he had enlarged and adorned Babylon, and therefore in the fortieth or fortyfirst year of his reign, after which time he lived only two or three years, so that his insanity could hardly have been extended beyond fourteen months. It is needless then to inquire how the kingdom was preserved for an insane man; for his courtiers, ignorant of what would be their condition under a successor, used all their exertions to preserve the kingdom for him.There is no reason for supposing that the insane monarch would have perished by living on herbs, or that he would have been devoured by beasts; for Nebuchadnezzar, labouring under the fixed idea that he had been transformed into a beast and driven from his kingdom, might have prepared for flight; and upon being guarded and confined, at length perhaps escaped, sought intercourse with beasts, few or none of which were to be found in the vicinity of the royal city and ate herbs which may have had a salutary influence on his disease. At length being found by his courtiers he recovered his senses. -Profane history has pre

served so little relating to Nebuchadnezzar that it would not be sur prising if not a vestige respecting this insanity could be found; yet some traces of it occur in Megasthenes and Berosus in JOSEPHUS cont. Apion. I. 20. and Ant. X. xi. 1., and in EUSEBIUS, Praep. Evang. IX. 41. There can be no question, why Nebuchadnezzar announced these matters in public documents, for it is very evident that he wished to give his people notice that he had resumed the reins of government.It is worthy of observation that the whole of this narrative is so accurate and natural that it is hardly possible that it should be a forgery.

Profane history does not indeed mention any Chaldean king of the name of Belshazzar, but this is no proof that no king of this name ever lived, for the orientals, and especially their kings, are often designated by several names. On the other hand, a modern writer, as was before remarked, would have carefully avoided a name unknown to history. Belshazzar is the last of the Chaldean kings, who is called

elsewhere Nabonnedus, Nabonnadus, Nabannidochus, Naboandelus, Labynetus. These names are more corrupt and agree less with other properly Chaldaic words than Belshazzar. Megasthenes in EUSEBIUS, ubi sup. does not deny that Nabannidochus was of the family of Nebuchadnezzar, but only says that he was not like his predecessor Labassoarascus in cruelty. The context shows that this is the meaning of gooпxova o dεv. Although in v. 17. ss. Daniel adπροσηκοντα οι εδεν. dresses Belshazzar almost as a prophet would have addressed a Jewish king under the theocracy, it should be considered that Daniel was at that time a venerable old man of almost eighty-five years, much celebrated for piety, wisdom, and divine revelations and that he was speaking a short time before the city was taken to a king terrified by the writing which had suddenly appeared on the wall.But why such a miracle as this in the last moments of the Chaldean monarchy ? In order that an occasion might be afforded Daniel of again demonstrating his divine mission, and that thus he might acquire the favour of the victorious Medes and Persians and particularly of Cyrus, from whom he was to obtain the release of the Hebrews.

§ 153. Arguments against the second part of Daniel.

To the prophecies of Daniel which are contained in the last six chapters, it is objected that the events predicted are remote, and that as they are announced with so much accuracy and do not extend beyond the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, they appear to be prophecies written in the time of that king respecting events which had already taken place. But the accuracy of these prophecies is scarcely greater than of certain others which predict remote events, as Jer l. li. Ezek. xxvii. xxviii. Zech. ix. 1—8. ix. 11—x. 12; and if Daniel's representations of future events are somewhat more accurate, this is to be accounted for from his character as a man accustomed to political affairs, who would therefore take a more particular view of what was disclosed to him. The Jews of the age of Epiphanes were well acquainted with the form of prophecies, and if the book of Daniel had first made its appearance in that age and widely differing from that form, they would have rejected it, or at least they would not have unanimously received it every where without any opposition as

a genuine production. But indeed if the perspicuity were as great as is pretended, interpretations so exceedingly diverse would never have arisen. That the predictions do not extend beyond the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, is not correct, comp. vii. 13. ss. ix. 25. ss; and if predictions of this latter kind are attended with greater obscurity than the rest it is from a reason already often mentioned, namely, that the more remote events may be, the more obscurely they are predicted. *If the a gels introduced in the book of Daniel are just such as those described by the Rabbins, these writers, who draw from the Bible, which however they do not always correctly explain, may be considered as having taken their representations from Daniel. The same remark affords a reply to the objection, that the book is in this respect like the modern apocryphal book of Ezra. But these spirits in Daniel, borrowed from the doctrine of the Magians, are symbols similar to those which occur in writings of a more ancient period. as the angel of the pestilence, II Sam. xxiv. 16. I Chron. xxi. 14—18., the spirit of lying, I Kings xxii. 19-22, and the Seraphim, Isa. vi. 1-10.-If the Messiah of Daniel is similar to the Messiah of the Rabbins; these have derived their ideas from the prophet.-If c. xii. 2, 3, 13. speaks of the general resurrection of the dead, both virtuous and vicious, it is well known that this was a doctrine held by the Magians. The figure in Ezek. xxxvi. is borrowed from it, and the truth of the doctrine may have been confirmed to the Jews in consequence of its being thus announced by Daniel, from whom it was obtained by the Rabbins. If, in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes, a book just published had exhibited this as a new doctrine, it would on this account alone have been rejected Lastly, the book is not silent, as has been said respecting the return from captivity; for this subject is introduced in c. ix, and in the twenty-fourth verse the consecration of a new temple is promised. A more modern writer would have said more on this subject.

Bertholdt contends that the book contains things which are more modern than the age of Daniel. But any one who will examine them with impartiality, will find that this is not the case. The expression, son of God, in iii. 25. is used of angels in Job xxxviii. 7. i. 6. ii. 1., and it is known that the sons of kings have been styled

[See 80, 81, of this part. Tr.]