But they will be sought for in vain, while on the contrary the ancients unanimously testify that Daniel is the author of the book. JOSEPHUS says, Ant XI. viii. 5., that the book of Daniel was shown to Alexander. The author of the first book of Maccabees, c. ii. 59, refers to the history of Hananiah, Azaria and Mishael and in i. 54, takes a phrase from Dan. xi. 31, and even from the Alexandrine version; which proves that at that period the book must have been some time translated into Greek. That the version is much more ancient than that period is further evident from the circumstance, that the Greek translator, sufficiently bold in other respects, has not only sought no information from history in obscure places, but has even misunderstood some which history illustrates. The book of Daniel is also much older than the time in which the Greek version of the Pentateuch was made; for the translator who is generally accurate would not have translated in Deut. xxxii. 8, that God had divided the nations xara agidμor ayysλwv Sex, unless he had been preceded by Daniel, who mentions spirits, as guardians of nations and kingdoms. See x13, 20, 21. xii. 1.

[a) This is abundantly proved by DE WETTE, Einleit. 256. who gives very numerous references which show the complete and necessary connexion of all the parts of the book with each other. Tr.]

§ 151. Objections to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel.

It is objected to the whole book of Daniel, that the Jews have inserted it among the Hagiographa; and hence it has been inferred, that the work first sprang into notice in a recent age, since it would have merited a place among the prophets, if it had been known in more ancient periods. To this it is added that as the son of Sirach does not reckon Daniel among the prophets, whom he celebrates in c. xlix, the book could not have existed in his time.- -But the placing of Daniel among the Hagiographa is the work of a more modern age, when the Jews, in imitation of the conduct of the Greeks towards their philosophers. refused the honours of a prophet to those who had been conversant with courts, where Daniel constantly resided; and for this trifling reason, which however was then considered as very important, and is therefore made a ground of reproach by Porphyry,

as Jerome testifies in his comment on Dan iii., they have rejected Daniel from the order of prophets and place him among the writers of the Hagiographa. But the more ancient Jews reckoned Daniel among the prophets. Comp. above, Part I. § 28.-With respect

to the son of Sirach, in xlix. 6-10 he confines himself to lauding those prophets who had predicted the Babylonian captivity, and therefore he passes by Isaiah not mentioning him except in connexion with Hezekiah, whom he introduces in xlviii. 20. 22. The sealing and shutting up, mentioned in Dan. viii. 26. and xii. 4. which some have considered as a direction to keep the book concealed until a definite time, is not, as they have supposed, an excuse for its late appearance. It is evident from viii. 26, 27. xii. 9, 10, that the prophet is ordered to declare that these predictions cannot be understood until the period of their completion, and thus they are shut up as it were with a seal and hidden from the understanding; for the prophets merely announce the future existence of what they are ordered to do. Comp. Isa. vi. 10. Jer. i. 10.- -Neither is there any weight in the remark of some writers, that a book so very agreeable to the Maccabees could readily have been introduced into the canon, because after the burning of the sacred books by the command of Antiochus Epiphanes, it would be impossible to know what they were; for it was only the Pentateuch which was sought for; and neither of this nor of the other books could all the copies be destroyed, because they were very numerous in western countries not subject to Antiochus, as in Egypt, Cyrene, and Asia Minor. No doubt also many copies even in Palestine were rescued from the flames, for such treasures are always preserved with the greater care in proportion to the anxiety to destroy them. The Maccabees, who were exceedingly tenacious of the traditions of their ancestors, were intimately acquainted with the sacred books, which they had read while children, and now valued in the highest degree; and they were not so simple as to ascribe to Daniel and reckon among those books, a work which in their own day first sprang from obscurity.

§ 152. Arguments against the first part of Daniel.

'T'he 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 k.now, 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 an . 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 Modes 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 danger. 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

y and Dyi in vii. 25. xii. 7. mean years

.T.

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 preserved so little relating to Nebuchadnezzar that it would not be surprising 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