L. Author and date.—II. Analysis of his prophecy.-III. Ob- credit with the Babylonian monarchs; and his uncommon

Bishop Lloyds and
Dr. Hales.4

Burgundians, 407.

The Herules, Rugians, and Thuringians, 476.

The Longobardi in Hungary, 536; who were seated in the northern parts of Germany about 483.

ix. 1, 2.), was humbling himself in fasting and prayer for | of the Jewish Targums and Talmuds, which frequently quote the sins of his people, and earnestly imploring the restora- and appeal to his authority; of JESUS CHRIST himself, who tion of Jerusalem (3—19.), the angel Gabriel is sent to has cited his words, and has styled him, 66 Daniel the Prohim. (20-23.) He announces to the prophet, that the phet" (compare Dan. ix. 26, 27. with Matt. xxiv. 15. and holy city should be rebuilt and peopled, even in troublous Mark xiii. 14.); and likewise of the apostle Paul, who has times (compare Neh. iv. 7., &c. vi. 15.), and should subsist frequently quoted or alluded to him (compare Dan. iii. 23— for seventy weeks, that is, weeks of years, or four hundred 25. and vii. 22. with Heb. xi. 33, 34. and Dan. xi. 36. with and ninety years; at the expiration of which it should be 2 Thess. ii. 4.), as also of St. John, whose Revelation de utterly destroyed for putting the Messiah to death. (25-rives great light from being compared with the predictions 27.) It was in consequence of this prophecy that the ad- of Daniel. To these testimonies we may add that of Ezevent of Messiah, towards the end of the period, was gene-kiel, a contemporary writer, who greatly extols his exemplary rally expected among the nations of the East. The latter part character (Ezek. xiv. 14. 20. xxviii. 3.), and also the testiof the prediction (27.) relates to the subversion of the Jew. mony of ancient profane historians, who relate many of the ish temple and polity, and the second coming of the Messiah. same transactions. SECT. 4. contains Daniel's fourth and last prophetic vision, in the third year of the reign of Cyrus, in which he is informed of various particulars concerning the Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires, and the kingdom of the Messiah. (x.—xii.) An introductory narrative states the occasion of the vision, viz. Daniel's fasting and supplication (probably on account of the obstruction of the building of the temple), and describes the glorious person who appeared to the prophet. Dan. x. 1-21. xi. 1.) The prediction then describes the fate of the Persian empire (xi. 2.), which was invaded and destroyed by Alexander (3.); the partition of his vast dominions into four kingdoms (4.); and the wars between the kingdoms of Egypt (which lay to the south-west of Judea) and of Syria (which lay to the north-east of the Holy Land) are then foretold, together with the conquest of Macedon by the Romans. (5-36.) The prophecy then [1] The first chapters represent Daniel as having attained, declares the tyranny of the papal Antichrist, which was to while yet a young man, an extensive reputation for extraorspring up under the Roman empire (36--39.), and the in- dinary wisdom and devotion to his God. How satisfactorily vasion of the Saracens and of the Turks in the time of the does this explain the language of Ezekiel, his contemporary end, or latter days of the Roman monarchy. (40-45.) and an older man! "Son of man, when the land sinneth This prophetic vision concludes with foretelling the general against me, &c. though these three men, Noah, Daniel and resurrection (xii. 1—4.), and with announcing the time Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by when all these great events were to have their final con- their righteousness, said the Lord God." (Ezek. xiv. 13, 14.) summation, when the Jews were to be restored, Antichrist" Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the destroyed, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in, and the Lord God, Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast millennium, or reign of saints, was to begin. (5-13.) But said, I am a God, &c. thou art wiser than Daniel; there is the exact period, until PROVIDENCE shall open more of the no secret that they can hide from thee." (xxviii. 2, 3.) Can seals, cannot be fully ascertained. this praise be accounted for in any other way than by supposing just such facts as are recorded in the book of Daniel?

2. The INTERNAL EVIDENCE is not less convincing; for (1.) The language, style, and manner of writing, are all perfectly agreeable to that age, and prove that it was written book, viz. from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the about the time of the Babylonish captivity. Part of the end of the seventh chapter, is written in the Chaldee landegree as to prove that none but a Hebrew could have writguage (which, however, abounds with Hebraisms to such a ten it), because that portion treats of the Chaldæan or Babylonish affairs: the rest of the book is pure Hebrew, with the exception of four words which have been supposed to be Greek, the occurrence of which, however, is satisfactorily accounted for.

Upon the whole, we may observe with Bishop Newton, from whom the preceding analysis is chiefly abridged, "what an amazing prophecy is this, comprehending so many various events, and extending through so many successive ages, from the first establishment of the Persian empire, upwards of 530 years before Christ, to the general resurrection! What a proof of a Divine Providence, and of a Divine Revelation! for who could thus declare the things that shall be, with their times and seasons, but He only who hath them in his power: whose dominion is over all, and whose kingdom endureth from generation to generation!"

(2.) The extraordinary accuracy, which this book exhibits in its historical statements and allusions, is another important internal evidence of its authenticity. To adduce one or two examples:

[2.] 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 Is not this Belshazdebauchery, but was at heart a coward. zar? 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, den, and then spent a night in lamentation, and at last, in and then repented-suffered Daniel to be cast into the lion's strict conformity with Xenophon's description, condemned to death, not only his false counsellors, but all their wives and

children?

III. Of all the old prophets Daniel is the most distinct in the order of time, and the easiest to be understood; and on this account, Sir Isaac Newton observes, in those events which concern the last times, he must be the interpreter of the rest. All his predictions relate to each other, as if they were several parts of one general prophecy. The first is the easiest to be understood, and every succeeding prophecy adds [3.] It is also observable, that in this book, certain events something to the former. Though his style is not so lofty are mentioned as a contemporary would be apt to mention and figurative as that of the other prophets, it is more suita-them; that is, concisely, and without minute detail, as being ble to his subject, being clear and concise: his narratives perfectly familiar to his immediate readers. and descriptions are simple and natural; and, in short, he told that Daniel survived the first year of Cyrus, a notable writes more like an historian than a prophet.

Of the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel we have every possible evidence, both external and internal. 1. With regard to the EXTERNAL EVIDENCE, we have not only the general testimony of the whole Jewish church and nation, which have constantly received this book as canonieal; but we have the particular testimony of Josephus, who (we have seen) commends Daniel as the greatest of prophets;

Of this illustrious prophecy, which Sir Isaac Newton has justly pronounced to be the foundation of the Christian religion, Dr. Hales has given some chronological computations, slightly differing from the above. See his Analysis, vol. ii. p. 559. et seq.

2 See Ezra iv. 4, 5.

The reader who is desirous of studying what has been written on this subject is referred to the writings of Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Mr. Faber and Dr. Hales, who have collected a great variety of important information on .ae fulfilment of Daniel's prophecies.

• Dissertat.ons on Prophecy, vol. i. pp. 413, 411. On Dantel, 15.

Thus we are

referred to in the preceding column.

The most important of these testimonies are collected by the writers

The occurrence of Greek words (some German critics have objected) indicates a period not earlier at the furthest than the middle of the reign of Darius Hystaspes, when (they assert) Daniel could not have been living. traced by later critics to the old Persian, and Gesenius himself maintains that the Chaldees and Assyrians were of Medo-Persian origin. Another Syriac. The remaining four are the names of musical instruments ocof these ten words is admitted by the same distinguished scholar to be curring in the fifth verse of the third chapter. The similarity of these to certain Greek words may be accounted for in either of these ways:-1. From the ancient intercourse between the Greeks and Babylonians, mentioned by Strabo, Quintus Curtius, and Berosus;-2. On the supposition, that the Shemitish and Greek languages bore a conion relation to an older tongue;-3. On the supposition, that the names of musical instruinents were in the first instance onomapoetic, and therefore might be analagons in languages totally distinet. Nothing more need be added than a statement of the fact, that the latest writer on the wrong side of the question (Kirms) has yielded this whole ground of opposition as untenable. (Philadelphia Biblical Repertory, vol. iv. p. 51.)

Of these words Bertholdt reckons ten. But four of them have been

The difference of name is explained at length by Dr. Hengstenberg.

year in Jewish history, the year of the return from exile. Now a later writer, one, for instance, in the days of the Maccabees, would have been very likely to explain why this was mentioned as a sort of epoch.

3. 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.

(1.) 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.

exact accomplishment of Daniel's prophecies, as well those which have been already fulfilled as those which are now fulfilling in the world. So clear and explicit, indeed, are his predictions concerning the advent of the Messiah, and other important events, of times far remote from these in which he lived, that Porphyry, a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century,-finding that Daniel's predictions concerning the several empires were so universally acknowledged to be fulfilled, that he could not disprove the fact of their accomplishment,-alleged against them that they must have been written after the events to which they refer had actually occurred. To him they appeared to be a narration of events that had already taken place, rather than a prediction of things future; such was the striking conedence between the facts when accomplished, and the prophecies which foretold them. And he further affirmed that they were not composed by Daniel, whose name they bore, but by some person who lived in Judaa about the time of Antiochs Epiphanes; because all the prophecies to that time contained true history, but all beyond that period were manifestly false. But this method of opposing the prophecies, as Jerome has rightly observed, affords the strongest testimony to their truth; for they were fulfilled with such exactness, that, to infidels, the prophet seemed not to have foretold things fo ture, but to have related things past. With respect to the particular prophecy (Dan. xi.) relating to the kings of Syria and Egypt, which Porphyry affirmed was written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, we may remark that the book of Daniel was translated into the Greek language one hundred years before he lived; and that very translation was in the hands of the Egyptians, who did not cherish any great kindness towards the Jews and their religion and those prophecies which foretold the successes of Alexander (Dan. viii. 5. xi. 3.) were shown to him by the Jews, in conse quence of which he conferred upon them several privileges. Conclusive as the preceding external and internal evidences are, for the genuineness of Daniel's predictions, the destruction of their credit has in all ages been a favourite object with (6.) The description of the image, in the third chapter, the enemies of divine revelation, whether open or disguised, corresponds remarkably with what is known from other-pagans, deists, or neologians. All the various objections Sources of the Chaldee taste in sculpture; and the use of of these writers (many of which are sufficiently absurd, as music at the worship of it, completely tallies with their well-well as weak) have been collected and refuted in detail by known fondness for that art.

(2.) The land of Shinar was the name used by the natives, as we learn from good authority. It occurs nowhere 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.

(3.) Nebuchadnezzar commands (i. 5.) that the young men chosen for his service should be fed from his table. That this was the oriental custom, we are informed by Ctesias

and others.

(4.) 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.

(5.) 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.

(7.) 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.

4. There are some things peculiar to the prophecies of this book, which clearly indicate that he who was the organ of them, was a bonâ fide resident in Babylon. Thus,

Professor Hengstenberg, in his Treatise on "The Authenticity of Daniel and the Integrity of Zechariah."5 From this leared writer's masterly treatise the following observations, comprising his refutations of the most material neologian objections, have been selected:"

OBJECTION 1.-Daniel is not mentioned by the son of Sirach when eulogizing the worthies of his nation in Ecclus, xlvii. 50, ANSWER. If this proves any thing, it proves too much. It proves that no such man as Daniel ever lived,-nor Ezra,—not Mordecai, nor any of the minor prophets,--not one of whom is mentioned.

stands near the end of the Hagiographa, and not among the

OBJECTION 2.-The book of Daniel, in the Hebrew Bibles,

(1.) In the earlier predictions of this book, as in Zechariah and Ezekiel, we find less poetry, and more of symbolical language, than in the pure Hebrew prophets. Every thing is designated by material emblems. Beasts are the representatives of kings and kingdoms. prophets. 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 with

out a trace of it.

(2.) Again, Daniel's visions, like those of Ezekiel, have the banks of rivers for their scene. (Dan. viii. 2.-x. 4. Ezek. i. 1. 3.) 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."

(3.) Lastly, 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."

5. But the most satisfactory internal evidence for the genuineness and authenticity of this book is to be found in the For the above proofs of the genuineness and authenticity of the book of Daniel we are indebted to Professor Hengstenberg of Berlin, whose Vindication of this Prophet is analyzed at considerable length in the fourth volume of the Biblical Repertory, printed at Philadelphia in 1832. (pp. 65-68.)

ANSWER. This circumstance Bertholdt explains by saying. that this third division of the Old Testament was not formed until after the other two were closed. The compilers, or authors of the canon, he supposes, intended to make two great classes, the law and the prophets. The books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, were included in the second, merely because there was no third. A third was eventually formed to receive those writings which afterwards laid claim to inspiration. To this explanation, Dr. Hengstenberg objects, that it rests on mere assumptions, and is flatly contradicted by all Jewish authorities. His own solution may be briefly stated thus:-The distinction between the prophets and the Hagiographa is not of a chronolo gical kind at all, but is founded on the peculiar character and

2 Porphyry seems to have been the first who impugned the genuineness and authority of Daniel's writings, in the twelfth of his fifteen books

against the Christians. Dr. Lardner has collected such of his objections as are extant, together with Jerome's answers to them. Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, chap. xxxvii. (Works, vol. viii. pp. 185–204. 8vo.; or vol. iv. pp. 211-225. 4to.) Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, also wrote answers to Porphyry, which have long since perished.

Præf. ad Danielem, et Promm. ad Comment. in Daniel.

4 Michaelis has demonstrated that the Hebrew and Chaldee text of

Daniel was the original, and more ancient than the genuine Septuagint
version of this book, in the fourth volume of his (German) Bibliotheca
Orientalis. See an English version of this demonstration in Dr. Apthorp's
Discourses on Prophecy, vol. i. pp. 244-250.

Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integrität des Sacharjah, erwieser von Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Berlin, 1821. 8vo.

These refutations of neologian objections are abridged from the Bibl cal Repertory printed at Philadelphia, vol. iv. N. S. pp. 51-58.

office of the writers. The prophetic gift must be discriminated | tradicted by all Greek and Oriental writers, who represent it as from the prophetic office. The one was common to all who were inspired; the latter to the regular, official prophets, who communicated the divine will to the Jewish nation. The books written by these prophets, as such, formed the second great division. The third, Dr. H. thinks, contains the inofficial prophecies. Why else should Jeremiah's Lamentations be disjoined from his prophecies! As to the relative position of the book among the Hagiographa, it evidently proves neither one thing nor another; as the book of Ezra is placed after it, and a slight inspection shows that no regard was had to date in the arrangement of the parts. OBJECTION 3.-The authors of the Talmud and the modern Jews regard the book of Daniel with contempt.

ANSWER. It is worthy of remark, that one of those who urge this difficulty has supplied an answer. This is Griesinger, who innocently observes, that no better reason seems assignable for all these miracles than a disposition to exalt Jehovah above other Gods! Can a better be desired? It is true, the adversaries still object, cui bono? We need only condense Dr. Hengstenberg's three replies into as many sentences. 1. That the faith and hope of the exiles might be maintained. 2. That a way might be opened for their restoration. 3. That the heathen might be awed into forbearance and respect towards God's peculiar people. OBJECTION 8.-Opinions and usages are mentioned in this OBJECTION 6.-The book of Daniel contains historical inac-book, which are clearly modern, that is, of later date than that claimed for the book itself.

(1.) The grossest of these is said to be the statement in the (1.) Dan. vi. 11. "Now when Daniel knew that the writing first two verses in the eighth chapter. Bertholdt's objections are was signed, he went into his house; and, his windows being -that Elam is mentioned as a province of the Babylonish em- open in his chamber towards Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his pire, in which Daniel acted as a royal officer (v. 27.), whereas knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks to his God it was a province of the Median empire, as appears from Isaiah as he did aforetime." Here it is objected that these are allusions xxi. 2. and Jeremiah xxv. 5. 2. That a palace is spoken of at to three modern customs,-that of praying thrice towards JeruShushan, whereas the palace there was built by Darius Hys-salem-that of praying thrice a day-and that of having a chamtaspes, as appears from Pliny. 3. That the name Shushan itself ber appropriated to prayer. (which signifies a lily) was not given until long after Darius, and was intended to express the beauty of the edifices which that prince erected.