PREFACE TO THE TENTH EDITION
THE COMING PRINCE has been out of print for more than a year; for
it seemed inadvisable to reissue it during the War. But the War has apparently
created an increased interest in the prophecies of Daniel; and as this book is
therefore in demand, it has been decided to publish a new edition without
further delay. Not that these pages contain any sensational "Armageddon"
theories. For "a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon" is situated
neither in France nor in Flanders, but in Palestine; and the future of the land
and people of the covenant will be a main issue in the great battle which is yet
to be fought on that historic plain.
Prophetic students are apt to become adherents of one or other of two rival
schools of interpretation. The teaching of the "futurists" suggests that this
Christian dispensation is altogether a blank in the Divine scheme of prophecy.
And the "historicists" discredit Scripture by frittering away the meaning of
plain words in order to find the fulfillment of them in history. Avoiding the
errors of both these schools, this volume is written in the spirit of Lord
Bacon's dictum, that "Divine prophecies have springing and germinant
accomplishment throughout many ages, though the height or fullness of them may
belong to some one age." And this world war is no doubt within the scope of
prophecy, though it be not the fulfillment of any special Scripture.
Very many years ago my attention was directed to a volume of sermons by a devout
Jewish Rabbi of the London Synagogue, in which he sought to discredit the
Christian interpretation of certain Messianic prophecies. And in dealing with
Daniel 9., he accused Christian expositors of tampering, not only with
chronology, but with Scripture, in their efforts to apply the prophecy of the
Seventy Weeks to the Nazarene. My indignation at such a charge gave place to
distress when the course of study to which it led me brought proof that it was
by no means a baseless libel. My faith in the Book of Daniel, already disturbed
by the German infidel crusade of "the Higher Criticism," was thus further
undermined. And I decided to take up the study of the subject with a fixed
determination to accept without reserve not only the language of Scripture, but
the standard dates of history as settled by our best modern chronologists.
[1]
The following is a brief summary of the results of my inquiry as regards
the great prophecy of the "Seventy Weeks." I began with the assumption, based on
the perusal of many standard works, that the era in question had reference to
the seventy years of the Captivity of Judah, and that it was to end with the
Coming of Messiah. But I soon made the startling discovery that this was quite
erroneous. For the Captivity lasted only sixty-two years; and the seventy weeks
related to the wholly different judgment of the Desolations of Jerusalem. And
further, the period "unto Messiah the Prince," as Daniel 9:25 so plainly states,
was not seventy weeks, but 7+62 weeks.
The failure to distinguish between the several judgments of the Servitude, the
Captivity and the Desolations, is a fruitful source of error in the study of
Daniel and the historical books of Scripture. And it is strange that the
distinction should be ignored not only by the Critics, but by Christians.
Because of national sin, Judah was brought under servitude to Babylon for
seventy years, this was in the third year of King Jehoiakim (B.C. 606). But the
people continued obdurate; and in B.C. 598 the far severer judgment of the
Captivity fell on them. On the former capture of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar left
the city and people undisturbed, his only prisoners being Daniel and other
cadets of the royal house. But on this second occasion he deported the mass of
the inhabitants to Chaldea. The Jews still remained impenitent, however, in
spite of Divine warnings by the mouth of Jeremiah in Jerusalem and Ezekiel among
the exiles; and after the lapse of another nine years, God brought upon them the
terrible judgment of "The Desolations," which was decreed to last for seventy
years. Accordingly in B.C. 589, the Babylonian armies again invaded Judea, and
the city was devastated and burned.
Now both the "Servitude" and the "Captivity," ended with the decree of Cyrus in
B.C. 536, permitting the return of the exiles. But as the language of Daniel 9:2
so plainly states, it was the seventy years of "The Desolations" that were the
basis of the prophecy of the seventy weeks. And the epoch of that seventy years
was the day on which Jerusalem was invested — the tenth Tebeth in the ninth year
of Zedekiah — a day that has ever since been observed as a fast by the Jews in
every land. (2 Kings 25:1.) Daniel and Revelation definitely indicate that the
prophetic year is one of 360 days. Such moreover was the sacred year of the
Jewish calendar; and, as is well known, such was the ancient year of Eastern
nations. Now seventy years of 360 days contains exactly 25, 200 days; and as the
Jewish New Year's day depended on the equinoctial moon, we can assign the 13th
December as "the Julian date" of tenth Tebeth 589. And 25, 200 days measured
from that date ended on the 17th December 520, which was the twenty-fourth day
of the ninth month in the second year of Darius of Persia — -the very day on
which the foundation of the second Temple was laid. (Haggai 2:18, 19.)
Here is something to set both critics and Christians thinking. A decree of a
Persian king was deemed to be divine, and any attempt to thwart it was usually
met by prompt and drastic punishment; and yet the decree directing the
rebuilding of the Temple, issued by King Cyrus in the zenith of his power, was
thwarted for seventeen years by petty local governors. How was this? The
explanation is that until the very last day of the seventy years of "the
Desolations" had expired, God would not permit one stone to be laid upon another
on Mount Moriah.
Dismissing from our minds, therefore, all mere theories on this subject,
we arrive at the following definitely ascertained facts:
And here again we must keep to Scripture. Though God has nowhere recorded the
Bethlehem birth-date of Christ, no date in history, sacred or profane, is fixed
with greater definiteness than that of the year in which the Lord began His
public ministry. I refer of course to Luke 3:1, 2. I say this emphatically,
because Christian expositors have persistently sought to set up a fictitious
date for the reign of Tiberias. The first Passover of the Lord's ministry,
therefore, was in Nisan A.D. 29; and we can fix the date of the Passion with
absolute certainty as Nisan A.D. 32. If Jewish or infidel writers set themselves
to confuse and corrupt the chronology of these periods, we would not be
surprised. But it is to Christian expositors that we owe this evil work.
Happily, however, we can appeal to the labors of secular historians and
chronologists for proofs of the divine accuracy of Holy Scripture.
The general attack upon the Book of Daniel, briefly discussed in the "Preface to
the Fifth Edition," is dealt with more fully in the 1902 reissue of Daniel in
the Critics' Den. The reader will there find an answer to the attack of the
Higher Criticism on Daniel based on philology and history; and he will find also
that the Critics are refuted by their own admissions respecting the Canon of the
Old Testament.
Most of the "historical errors" in Daniel, which Professor Driver copied from
Bertholdt's work of a century ago, have been disposed of by the erudition and
research of our own day. But, when writing on the subject, I recognized that the
identity of Darius the Mede was still a difficulty. Since then, however, I have
found a solution of that difficulty in a verse in Ezra, hitherto used only by
Voltaire and others to discredit Scripture. Ezra 5 tells us that in the reign of
Darius Hystaspis the Jews petitioned the throne, appealing to the decree by
which Cyrus had authorized the rebuilding of the Temple. The wording of the
petition clearly indicates that, to the knowledge of the Jewish leaders, that
decree had been filed in the house of the archives in Babylon. But the search
there made for it proved fruitless, and it was ultimately found at Ecbatana (or
Achmetha: Ezra 6:2). How then could such a State paper have been transferred to
the Median capital?
The only reasonable explanation of this extraordinary fact completes the circle
of proof that the vassal king whom Daniel calls Darius the Mede was Gobryas (or
Gubaru), who led the army of Cyrus to Babylon. As various writers have noticed,
the testimony of the inscriptions points to that conclusion. For example, the
Annalistic tablet of Cyrus records that, after the taking of the city, it was
Gobryas who appointed the governors or prefects; which appointments Daniel
states were made by Darius. The fact that he was a prince of the royal house of
Media, and presumably well known to Cyrus, who had resided at the Median Court,
would account for his being held in such high honor. He it was who governed
Media as Viceroy when that country was reduced to the status of a province; and
to any one accustomed to deal with evidence, the inference will seem natural
that, for some reason or other, he was sent back to his provincial throne, and
that, in returning to Ecbatana he carried with him the archives of his brief
reign in Babylon. In the interval between the accession of Cyrus and that of
Darius Hystaspis, the Temple decree may well have been forgotten by all but the
Jews themselves. And although it was a serious matter to thwart the execution of
an order issued by the king of Persia (Ezra 6:11), yet in this instance, as
already noticed, a Divine decree overruled the decree of Cyrus, and vetoed their
taking action upon it.
The elucidation of the vision of the Seventy Weeks, as unfolded in the following
pages, is my personal contribution to the Daniel controversy. And as the
searching criticism to which it has been subjected has failed to detect in it an
error or a flaw, [2]
it may now be accepted without hesitation or reserve. The only
disparaging comment which Professor Driver could offer upon it in his Book of
Daniel was that it is a revival in a slightly modified form" of the scheme
of Julius Africanus, and that it leaves the seventieth week "unexplained." But
surely the fact that my scheme is on the same lines as that of "the father of
Christian Chronologists" creates a very strong presumption in its favor. And so
far from leaving the seventieth week unexplained, I have dealt with it in
accordance with the beliefs of the early Fathers. For they regarded that week as
future, seeing that they looked for the Antichrist of Scripture— "an individual
person, the incarnation and concentration of sin." [3]
— R. A.
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
A DEFENSE OF THE BOOK OF DANIEL AGAINST THE "HIGHER CRITICISM."
This volume has been disparaged in some quarters because, it is alleged,
it ignores the destructive criticism which is supposed to have led "all people
of discernment" to abandon belief in the visions of Daniel.
The charge is not altogether just. Not only are some of the chief objections of
the critics answered in these pages, but in proving the genuineness of the great
central prophecy of the book, the authenticity of the whole is established, And
the absence of a special chapter upon the subject may be explained. The
practice, too common in religious controversy, of giving an ex parte
representation of the views of opponents, instead of accepting their own
statement of them, is never satisfactory, and seldom fair. And no treatise was
available on the critics' side, concise enough to afford the basis of a brief
excursus, and yet sufficiently full and authoritative to warrant its being
accepted as adequate.
This want, however, has since been supplied by Professor Driver's
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament,
[1]
a work which embodies the results of the so-called "Higher Criticism," as
accepted by the sober judgment of the author. While avoiding the malignant
extravagance of the German rationalists and their English imitators, he omits
nothing which erudition can with fairness urge against the authenticity of the
Book of Daniel. And if the hostile arguments he adduces can be shown to be
faulty and inconclusive, the reader may fearlessly accept the result as an "end
of controversy" upon the subject. [2]
Here is the thesis which the author sets himself to establish:
"In face of the facts presented by the Book of Daniel, the opinion that it is
the work of Daniel himself cannot be sustained. Internal evidence shows, with a
cogency that cannot be resisted, that it must have been written not earlier than
c. 300 B.C., and in Palestine; and it is at least probable that it was composed
under the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 168 or 167."
Professor Driver marshals his proofs under three heads:
(1) facts of a historical nature;
(2) the evidence of the language of Daniel; and
(3) the theology of the Book.
Under (1) he enumerates the following points:
I dismiss (f) and (h) at once, for the author himself, with his usual
fairness, declines to press them. "They should," he admits, "be used with
reserve." The mention of "Darius the Mede" is perhaps the greatest difficulty
which confronts the student of Daniel, and the problem it involves still awaits
solution. The unqualified rejection of the narrative by many eminent writers
only proves the incapacity even of scholars of repute to suspend their judgment
upon questions of the kind. The history of that age is too uncertain and
confused to justify dogmatism, and, as Professor Driver justly remarks, "a
cautious criticism will not build too much on the silence of the inscriptions,
where many certainly remain to be brought to light". In Mr. Sayce's recent work
[3]
this caution is neglected. He accepts, moreover, with a faith which is
unduly simple, all that Cyrus says about himself. It was obviously his interest
to represent the acquisition of Babylonia as a peaceful revolution, and not a
military conquest. But the Book of Daniel does not conflict with either
hypothesis. Mr. Sayce here "reads into it," as is so constantly done, what it in
no way states or even implies. There is not a word about a siege or a capture.
Belshazzar was "slain," and Darius "received" the kingdom; but how these events
came about we must learn from other sources. Professor Driver here admits in
express terms "that 'Darius the Mede' may prove, after all, to have been a
historical character"; [4]
and this is enough for our present purpose.
The remaining points I proceed to discuss seriatim.
(a) This is rightly placed first, as being the most
important. But its apparent importance grows less and less the more closely it
is examined. Our English Bible, following the Vulgate, divides the Old Testament
into thirty-nine books. The Jewish Canon reckoned only twenty-four. These were
classified under three heads — the Torah, the Neveeim, and the
Kethuvim (the Law, the Prophets, and the Other Writings). The first
contained the Pentateuch. The second contained eight books, which were again
classified in two groups. The first four — viz., Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and
Kings — were called the "Former Prophets"; and the second four — viz., Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and "the Twelve" (i.e. the minor prophets reckoned as
one book) — were called the "Latter Prophets." The third division contained
eleven books — viz., Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations,
Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah (reckoned as one), and
Chronicles. Now, an examination of this list makes either of two conclusions
irresistible. Either the Canon was arranged under Divine guidance, or else the
classification of the books between the second and third divisions was an
arbitrary one. If any one adopts the former alternative, the inclusion of Daniel
in the Canon is decisive of the whole question. If, on the other hand, it be
assumed that the arrangement was human and arbitrary, the fact that Daniel is in
the third group proves — not that the book was regarded as of doubtful repute,
for in that case it would have been excluded from the Canon, but that the great
exile of the Captivity was not regarded as a "prophet."
To the superficial this may seem to be giving up the whole case. But using the
word "prophet" in its ordinary acceptation, Daniel has no claim whatever to the
title, and but for Matthew 24:15 it would probably never have been applied to
him. His visions have their New Testament counterpart, but yet no one speaks of
"the prophet John." According to 2 Peter 1:21 the prophets "spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost." This characterized the utterances of Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, and "the Twelve." They were the words of Jehovah by the mouth of the
men who uttered them. The prophets stood apart from the people as witnesses for
God; but Daniel's position and ministry were wholly different. "Neither have we
hearkened unto Thy servants the prophets which spake in Thy name": such was his
humble attitude. Higher criticism may slight the distinction here insisted on;
but the question is how it was regarded by the men who settled the Canon; and in
their judgment its importance was immense. Daniel contains the record, not of
God-breathed words uttered by the seer, but of the words spoken to
him, and of dreams and visions accorded him. And the visions of the latter half
of his book were granted him after more than sixty years spent in statecraft —
years the record of which would fix his fame in the popular mind as statesman
and ruler.
The reader will thus recognize that the position of Daniel in the Canon is
precisely where we should expect to find it. The critic speaks of it as being
"in the miscellaneous collection of writings called the Hagiographa, and
among the latest of these, in proximity to Esther." But, in adopting this from
earlier writers, the author is guilty of what may be described as unintentional
dishonesty. Daniel comes before Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles in a group of
books which includes the Psalms — those Psalms than which no part of their Canon
was prized more highly by the Jews — those Psalms, many of which they rightly
regarded as prophetic in the highest and strictest sense.
[5]
But Daniel, we are told, was placed "in proximity to Esther." What does
the critic mean by this? He cannot wish to suggest that Esther is held in low
repute by the Jews, for he himself declares that it came to be "ranked by them
as superior both to the writings of the prophets and to all other parts of the
Hagiographa." As to Esther coming before Daniel, he cannot have
overlooked that it is bracketed in the Canon with the four books which precede
it — the Megilloth. He cannot mean to imply that the books of the
Kethuvim are arranged chronologically; and he certainly cannot wish to
create an ignorant prejudice. The statement therefore is an enigma, and the
discussion under this head may be dosed by the general remark that
(a) implies that the Jews esteemed the books in the
third division of their Canon as less sacred than "the prophets." But this is
wholly baseless. In common with the rest, they were, as Josephus tells us,
"justly believed to be Divine, so that, rather than speak against them, they
were ready to suffer torture, or even death." [6]
(b) But little need be said in answer to this.
Canon Driver admits that the argument is one "which, standing alone, it would be
hazardous to press," and this is precisely its position if (a) be refuted. If it
were a question of the omission of Daniel's name from a formal list of the
prophets everything above urged would apply here with equal force; but the
reader must not suppose that the son of Sirach gives any list of the kind. The
facts are these. The Apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus, which is here referred
to, ends with a rhapsody in praise of "famous men." This panegyric, it is true,
omits the name of Daniel. But in what connection would his name be included?
Daniel was exiled to Babylon in early youth, and never spent a single day of his
long life among his people, never was openly associated with them in their
struggles or their sorrows. The critic, moreover, fails to notice that the Son
of Sirach ignores also not only such worthies as Abel, and Melchisedec, and Job,
and Gideon, and Samson, but also Ezra, who, unlike Daniel, played a most
prominent part in the national life, and who also gave his name to one of the
books of the Canon. Let the reader decide this matter for himself after reading
the passage in which the names of Daniel and Ezra ought to appear.
[7]
If any one is so mentally constituted that the omission leads him to
decide against the authenticity of these two books, no words of mine would
influence him.
(c) The historical statement with which the Book of
Daniel opens is declared to be improbable on two grounds: first, because "the
Book of Kings is silent" on the subject; and, secondly, because Jeremiah 25
appears inconsistent with it. The first point is made apparently in error, for 2
Kings 24:1 states explicitly that in Jehoiakim's days Nebuchadnezzar came up
against Jerusalem, and that the Jewish king became his vassal.
[8]
And the second point is overstated. Jeremiah 25 is silent on the subject,
and that is all that can be said. Now the weight to be given to the silence of a
particular witness or document on any matter is a familiar problem in dealing
with evidence. It entirely depends on circumstances whether it counts for much,
or little, or nothing. Kings being a historical record, its silence here would
count for something. But why should a warning and a prophecy like Jeremiah 25
contain the recital of an event of a few months before, an event which no one in
Jerusalem could ever possibly forget? [9]
But further discussion on these lines is needless, for the accuracy of Daniel's
statement can be established on grounds which the critic ignores altogether. I
refer to the chronology of the eras of the "servitude" and the "desolations."
Both are commonly confounded with the "captivity," which was only in part
concurrent with them. These several eras represented three successive judgments
upon Judah. The chronology of these is fully explained in the sequel, and a
reference to the excursus (within this work), or indeed a glance at the tables
which follow, will supply proof absolute and complete that the servitude began
in the third year of Jehoiakim, precisely as the Book of Daniel avers.
(d) I will refer under the second head of the inquiry to
the philological question here involved. It is not in any sense a historical
difficulty.
(e) The reader will find this point dealt with. Canon Driver remarks: "It
may be admitted as probable that Belsharuzur held command for his father in
Babylon; …but it is difficult to think that this could entitle him to be spoken
of by a contemporary as king." If Belshazzar was regent, as the narrative
indicates, it is difficult to think that a courtier would speak of him otherwise
than as king. To have done so might have cost him his head! Daniel 5:7, 16, 29
affords corroboration here in a manner all the more striking because it is
wholly undesigned. Nebuchadnezzar had made Daniel second ruler in the kingdom:
why does Belshazzar make him third ruler? Presumably because he himself
held but the second place. To avoid this the critics, trading upon a possible
alternative rendering of the Aramaic {as given in the margin of the Revised
Version}, conjecture a "Board of three." But assuming that the words used may
mean a triumvirate in the sense of chap. 6:2, the question whether this is
their actual meaning must be settled by an appeal to history. And history
affords not the slightest hint that such a system of government prevailed in the
Babylonian Empire. A true exegesis, therefore, must decide in favor of the
alternative and more natural view, that Daniel was to rule as third, the absent
king being first, and the king-regent second.
But Belshazzar is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar. The reader will find
this objection fully answered by Dr. Pusey (Daniel, pp. 406-408). He
justly remarks that "intermarriage with the family of a conquered monarch, or
with a displaced line, is so obviously a way of strengthening the newly acquired
throne, that it is a priori probable that Nabunahit would so fortify his
claim," and Professor Driver himself allows (p. 468) that possibly the
King may have married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, "in which case the latter
might be spoken of as Belshazzar's father (= grandfather, by Hebrew usage)." I
will only add two remarks: first, the critics forget that even on their own view
of Daniel the existence of a tradition is prima facie proof of its truth;
and, secondly, if the usurper chose to be called the son of Nebuchadnezzar,
though with no sort of claim to the title, no one in Babylon would dare to
thwart him.
(g) Here are the words of Daniel 9:2 (R.V.): "I
Daniel understood by the books the number of the years, whereof the word of the
Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, for the accomplishing of the desolations of
Jerusalem, even seventy years." The prophecy here referred to is admittedly
Jeremiah 25:11, 12. Now the word sepher, rendered "book" in Daniel 9:2,
means simply a scroll. It may denote a book, as it often does in
Scripture, or merely a letter. See ex. gr. Jeremiah 29:1 (the
letter which Jeremiah wrote to the exiles in Babylon), or Isaiah 37:14
(Sennacherib's letter to King Hezekiah). Then, again, Jeremiah 36:1, 2
records that in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the very year in which the
prophecy of Jeremiah 25: was given, all the prophecies delivered up to that time
were recorded in "a book." And in Jeremiah 51:60, 61 we find that some ten years
later a further "book" was written and sent to Babylon. Where, then, is the
difficulty? Professor Driver, moreover, himself supplies a complete answer in
his own criticism by adopting "the supposition that in some cases Jeremiah's
writings were in circulation for a while as single prophecies, or small groups
of prophecies" These may have been the scrolls or "books" of Daniel 9.
But suppose, for the sake of argument, we admit that "the books" must mean the
sacred writings up to that period, what warrant is there for affirming that no
such "collection" existed in 536 B.C.? A more arbitrary assertion was never
made, even in the range of controversy. Is it not absolutely incredible that the
scrolls of the Law were not kept together? And considering Daniel's intense
piety, and the extraordinary resources and means he must have had at his
disposal under Nebuchadnezzar, may it not "safely be affirmed" that there was
not another man upon earth so likely as himself to have had copies of all the
holy writings? [10]
I now turn to the critic's second argument, which is based on the language
of the Book of Daniel. He appeals, first, to the number of Persian
words it contains; secondly, to the presence of Greek words; thirdly, to
the character of the Aramaic in which part of the book is written; and,
lastly, to the character of the Hebrew.
Underlying the argument founded on the presence of foreign words is the
unexpressed assumption that the Jews were an uncultured tribe who had lived till
then in boorish isolation. And yet four centuries before Daniel's time the
wisdom and wealth of Solomon were spoken of throughout the then known world. He
was a naturalist, a botanist, a philosopher, and a poet. And why not a linguist
also? Were all his communications with his many foreign wives carried on through
interpreters? He traded with near and distant nations, and every one knows how
language is influenced by commerce. And can we doubt that the fame of
Nebuchadnezzar attracted foreigners to Babylon? What his relations were with
foreign courts we know not. Why may not Daniel have been a Persian scholar? The
position assigned to him under the Persian rule renders this extremely probable.
The number of Persian words in the book, according to Professor Driver, is
"probably at least fifteen"; and here is his comment upon them:
But it was precisely in these circumstances that the Book of Daniel was
written. The vision of chap. 10 was given five years after the Persian rule had
been established, and these visions were the basis of the book. Notes and
records the writer doubtless had of the earlier and historical portions of it;
but it is a reasonable assumption that the whole was written after the visions
were accorded him.
As regards the Aramaic and the Hebrew of Daniel, I can of course express no
opinion of my own. But my position will be in no way prejudiced by my
incompetency in this respect. In the first place, there is nothing new here. The
critic merely gives in a condensed form what the Germans have urged; and the
whole ground has been covered by Dr. Pusey and others, who, having examined it
with equal erudition and care, have arrived at wholly different conclusions.
But, in the second place, it is unnecessary; for the signal fairness with which
Professor Driver states the results of his argument enables me to concede all he
says in this regard and to dismiss the discussion of it to the sequel. Here axe
his words:
May I restate this in other words? The Persian terms raise a presumption that
Daniel was written after a certain date. The Hebrew strengthens this
presumption, the Aramaic is consistent with it, and the Greek words used
establish the truth of it. Problems precisely similar to this claim decision
every day in our courts of justice. The whole strength of the case depends on
the last point stated. Any number of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted;
but here, it is alleged, we have proof which. admits of no answer: the Greek
words demand a date which destroys the authenticity of Daniel.
Will the reader believe it that the only foundation on which this superstructure
rests is the allegation that two Greek words are found in the list of
musical, instruments given in the third chapter? At a, bazaar held some time ago
in one of our cathedral, towns, under the patronage of the bishop of the:
diocese, the alarm was given that a thief was at work: among the company, and
two ladies present had lost their purses. In the excitement which followed, the
stolen purses, emptied of course of their contents, were found in the bishop's
pocket! The "Higher Criticism" would have handed him over to the police! Perhaps
an apology is due for this digression; but, in sober earnestness, surely the
inquiry is opportune whether these critics understand the very rudiments of the
science of weighing evidence. The presence of the two stolen purses did not
"demand" the conviction of the bishop. Neither should the presence of two Greek
words decide the fate of Daniel. [11]
The question would still remain, How did they come to be there? According
to Professor Sayce, himself a hostile authority, the evidence of the monuments
has entirely refuted this argument of the critics [12]
It now appears that there were Greek colonies in Palestine as early as
the days of Hezekiah, and that there was intercourse between Greece and Canaan
at a still earlier period.
But let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the words are really Greek, and
that no such words were known in Babylon in the days of the exile. Is the
inference based on their presence in the book a legitimate one? While some
apologists of Daniel have pressed unduly the hypothesis of a revision, such a
hypothesis affords a most reasonable explanation of difficulties of this
particular kind. Why should we doubt the truth of the Jewish tradition that "the
men of the great synagogue wrote" (that is, edited) the Book of Daniel?
And if true, these Greek words may be easily accounted for. If in the list of
musical instruments, and in the title of the "wise men," the editors found terms
which were foreign and strange to them, how natural for them to substitute words
which would be familiar to the Jews of Palestine. [13]
How natural, too, to spell such names as Nebuchadnezzar and Abednego in
the manner then become usual. These are precisely the sort of changes which they
would adopt; changes of no vital moment, but fitted to make the book more
suitable for those on whose behalf they were revising it.
The critic's last ground of attack is the theology of the Book of Daniel. This,
he declares, "points to a later age than that of the exile." No charge of
error is suggested, for Professor Driver is careful at the outset to
repudiate what he calls the" exaggerations" of the German rationalists and their
English imitators. But his alliance with such men warps his judgment, and
betrays him into adopting statements begotten of their mingled ignorance and
malice. Let one instance suffice. "It is remarkable also," he says, "that Daniel
— so unlike the prophets generally — should display no interest in the welfare
or prospects of his contemporaries." Not even in theological controversy could
another statement be found more flagrantly baseless and false. In the entire
history of the prophets, in the whole range of Scripture, the ninth chapter of
Daniel has no parallel for touching, earnest, passionate "interest in the
welfare and prospects" of contemporaries.
Now the question here is, not whether the doctrine of the Book be true, for that
is not disputed, but whether truth of such an advanced and definite character
could have been revealed at so early a period in the scheme of revelation. It is
not easy to fix the principles on which such a question should be discussed. And
the discussion may be avoided by raising another question, the answer to which
will decide the whole matter in dispute. We know the "orthodox view" of the Book
of Daniel. What alternative does the critic propose for our acceptance? Here he
shall speak for himself, and the two quotations following will suffice:
The first of these quotations refers to Daniel himself, the second to the
supposed author of the Book which bears his name. In the first we pass for a
moment out of the mist and cloud of mere theory and argument into the plain,
clear light of fact. "It cannot be doubted," or, in other words it is absolutely
certain, that Daniel was not only "a historical person," but "a seer"— that is
to say, a prophet. But plunging back again at once into the gloom, we go
on to conjecture the existence of another prophet in the days of Antiochus — a
real prophet, for "he utters genuine predictions" for the encouragement
of "the godly Jews in the season of their trial."
Now the position of the skeptic is in a sense unassailable. He is like
the obstinate juror who puts his back against the wall and refuses to believe
the evidence. But mark what this suggested compromise involves. As already
noticed, Daniel had no pretensions to the prophet's mantle in the sense in which
Jeremiah and Ezekiel wore it. He himself laid no claim to it (see chap. 9:10).
He, moreover, passed his life in the splendid isolation of the Court of Babylon,
while they were central figures among their people — one in the midst of the
troubles in Jerusalem, the other among the exiles. It would not be strange
therefore if Daniel's name and fame had no such place as theirs in the popular
memory. But here we are asked to believe that another prophet, raised up within
historic times, whose "message of encouragement" must have been on every man's
lips throughout the noble Maccabean struggle, passed clean out of the memory of
the nation. The historian of this struggle cannot have been removed from him by
more than a single generation, yet he ignores his existence, though he refers in
the plainest terms to the Daniel of the Captivity. [14]
The prophet's voice had been silent for centuries; with what wild and
passionate enthusiasm the nation would have hailed the rise of a new seer at
such a time! And when the issue of that fierce struggle set the seal of truth
upon his words, his fame would have eclipsed that of the old prophets of earlier
days. But in fact not a vestige of his fame or name survived. No writer, sacred
or secular, seems to have heard of him. No tradition of him remained. Was there
ever a figment more untenable than this?
No such compromise between faith and unbelief is; possible. From either of two
alternatives there is no escape. Either the Book of Daniel is what it claims. to
be, or else it is wholly worthless. "All must be true or all imposture." It is
idle to talk of it as; being the work of some prophet of a later epoch. It dates
from Babylon in the days of the Exile, or else it is a literary fraud, concocted
after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. But how then could it come to be quoted
in the Maccabees — quoted, not incidentally, but in one of the most solemn and
striking passages in the entire book, the dying words of old Mattathias? And how
could it come to be included in the Canon? The critics make much of its
position in the Canon: how do they account for its having a place in it at
all?
It is reasonably certain that the first two divisions of the Canon were settled
by the Great Synagogue long before the days of the Maccabees, and that its
completion was the work of the Great Sanhedrin, not later than the second
century B.C. And we are asked to suppose that this great College, composed of
the most learned men of the nation, would have accepted a literary fraud of
modern date, or could have been duped by it. This is one of the wildest and most
reckless hypotheses imaginable. Nor would this argument be sensibly weakened if
the critics should insist that the Canon may still have been open for a hundred
years after the death of Antiochus. [15]
If it was thus kept open, the fact would be a further pledge and proof
that the most jealous and vigilant care must have been unceasingly exercised.
The presence of the Book of Daniel in the Jewish Canon is a fact more weighty
than all the criticisms of the critics.
Thousands there are who cling to the Book of Daniel, and yet dread to face this
destructive criticism lest faith should give way under the influence. And yet
this is all it has to urge, as formulated by one of its best exponents. Of all
these hostile arguments there is not so much as one which may not be refuted at
any moment by the discovery of further inscriptions. In presence of some newly
found cylinder from the as yet unexplored ruins of Babylon,
[16]
all this theorizing about improbabilities and peddling over words might
be silenced in a day. And this being so, it is obvious to any one in whom the
judicial faculty is not wanting that the critics exaggerate the importance of
their criticisms. Even if all they urge were true and weighty, it should lead us
only to suspend our judgment. But the critics are specialists, and it is
proverbial that specialists are bad judges. And here it is possible for one who
cannot pose as a theologian or a scholar to meet them on more than equal terms.
With them it is enough that evidence of a certain kind points in one direction.
But they in whom the judicial faculty is developed will pause and ask, "What is
to be said upon the other side?" and "Will the proposed decision harmonize with
all the facts?" Questions of this kind, however, have no existence for the
critics. If they ever presented themselves to Professor Driver's mind, it is to
be regretted that he failed to take account of them when stating the general
results of his inquiry. And if ignored by an author so willing to reach the
truth, they need not be looked for in the writings of the skeptics and
apostates.
I have hitherto been dealing with presumptions and inferences and arguments. To
deny that these have weight would be both dishonest and futile. It may be
conceded that if the Book of Daniel had been brought to light within the
Christian era, they would suffice to bar its admission to the Canon. But to the
Christian the Book is accredited by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and in
presence of this one fact the force of these criticisms is dispelled like mist
before the sun. The very prediction which the rationalists most cavil at, He has
adopted in that discourse which is the key to all unfulfilled prophecy (Matthew
24); and if Daniel be proved a fraud, He whom we own as Lord is discredited
thereby.
Such an argument as this the rationalists of the German school despise. And with
them the mention of Daniel in the Book of Ezekiel counts for nothing, though
according to their own canons it ought to outweigh much of the negative evidence
they adduce. Daniel is not mentioned by other prophets; therefore, they argue,
Daniel is a myth. Three times the prophecies of Ezekiel speak of him; therefore,
they infer, some other Daniel is intended. Their argument is based on the
silence of the sacred and other books of the Jews. A man so eminent as the
Daniel of the exile would not, they urge, have been thus ignored. And yet they
conjecture the career of another Daniel of equal, or even greater eminence,
whose very existence has been forgotten! It is not easy to deal with such
casuists. But there is one argument, at least, which they cannot rob us of.
They have got rid of the second chapter and the seventh, and the closing vision
of the Book, but the great central prophecy of the Seventy Weeks remains; and
this affords proof of the Divine authority of Daniel, which cannot be destroyed.
Let them fix the date of the Book where they will, they fail to account for
this. From one definitely recorded historical event — the edict to rebuild
Jerusalem, to another definitely recorded historical event — the public
manifestation of the Messiah, the length of the intervening period was
predicted; and with accuracy absolute and to the very day the prediction has
been fulfilled.
To elucidate that prophecy this volume has been written, and as the result
constitutes my personal contribution to the controversy, I may be pardoned for
explaining the steps by which it has been reached. The vision refers to 70
sevens of years, but I deal here only with the 69 "weeks" of the twenty-fifth
verse. Here are the words:
Now it is an undisputed fact that Jerusalem was rebuilt by Nehemiah, under an
edict issued by Arta-xerxes (Longimanus), in the twentieth year of his reign.
Therefore, notwithstanding the doubts which controversy throws upon everything,
the conclusion is obvious and irresistible that this was the epoch of the
prophetic period. But the month date was Nisan, and the sacred year of the Jews
began with the phases of the Paschal moon. I appealed, therefore, to the
Astronomer Royal, the late Sir George Airy, to calculate for me the moon's place
for March in the year in question, and I thus ascertained the date required—
March 14th, B.C. 445.
This being settled, one question only remained, Of what kind of year does the
era consist? And the answer to this is definite and clear. That it is the
ancient year of 360 days is plainly proved in two ways. First, because,
according to Daniel and the Apocalypse, 31/2 prophetic years are equal to 1, 260
days; and, secondly, because it can be proved that the 70 years of the
"Desolations" were of this character; and the connection between the period of
the "Desolations" and the era of the "weeks" is one of the few universally
admitted facts in this controversy. The "Desolations" began on the 10th Tebeth,
B.C. 589 (a day which for four-and-twenty centuries has been commemorated by the
Jews as a fast), and ended on the 24th Chisleu, B.C. 520.
Having thus settled the terminus a quo of the "weeks," and the form of
year of which they are composed, nothing remains but to calculate the duration
of the era. Its terminus ad quem can thus with certainty be ascertained.
Now 483 years (69 x 7) of 360 days contain 173, 880 days. And a period of 173,
880 days, beginning March 14th, B.C. 445, ended upon that Sunday in the week of
the crucifixion, when, for the first and only time in His ministry, the Lord
Jesus Christ, in fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy, made a public entry into
Jerusalem, and caused His Messiahship to be openly proclaimed by "the whole
multitude of the disciples." (Luke 19)
I need not discuss the matter further here. In the following chapters every
incidental question involved is fully dealt with, and every objection answered.
[18]
Suffice it to repeat that in presence of the facts and figures thus
detailed no mere negation of belief is possible. These must be accounted for in
some way. "There is a point beyond which unbelief is impossible, and the mind,
in refusing truth, must take refuge in a misbelief which is sheer credulity."
---------------------------------------------------------------
It was not till after the preceding pages were in print that Archdeacon Farrar's
Daniel reached my hands. Some apology is due, perhaps, to Professor
Driver for bracketing such a work with his, but The Expositor's Bible
will be read by many to whom The Introduction is an unknown book. Both
writers agree in impugning the authenticity of the Book of Daniel; but their
relative positions are widely different, and no less so are their arguments and
methods. The Christian scholar writes for scholars, desirous only to elucidate
the truth. The popular theologian retails the extravagances of German skepticism
for the enlightenment of an easily deluded public. As we turn from the one book
to the other, we are reminded of the difference between a criminal trial when in
charge of a responsible law officer of the Crown, and when promoted by a
vindictive private prosecutor. In the one case the lawyer's aim is solely to
assist the Court in arriving at a just verdict, In the other, we may be prepared
for statements which are reckless, if not unscrupulous.
And here we must distinguish between the Higher Criticism as legitimately used
by Christian scholars in the interests of truth, and the rationalistic movement
which bears that name. If that movement leads to unbelief, it is in obedience to
the law that like begets like. It is itself the offspring of skepticism. Its
reputed founder set out with the deliberate design of eliminating God from the
Bible. From the skeptic's point of view Eichhorn's theories were inadequate, and
De Wette and others have improved upon them. But their aim and object are the
same. The Bible must be accounted for, and Christianity explained, on natural
principles. The miracles therefore had to be got rid of, and prophecy is the
greatest miracle of all. In the case of most of the Messianic Scriptures the
skepticism which had settled like a night mist upon Germany made the task an
easy one; but Daniel was a difficulty. Such passages as the fifty-third chapter
of Isaiah could be jauntily disposed of, but the infidel could make nothing of
these visions of Daniel. The Book stands out as a witness for God, and by fair
means or foul it must be silenced. And one method only of accomplishing this is
possible. The conspirators set themselves to prove that it was written after the
events it purports to predict. The evidence they have scraped together is of a
kind which would not avail to convict a known thief of petty larceny — much of
it indeed has already been discarded; but any sort of evidence will suffice with
a prejudiced tribunal, and from the very first the Book of Daniel was doomed.
Dr. Farrar's book reproduces every shred of this evidence in its baldest and
crudest form. His original contributions to the controversy are limited to the
rhetoric which conceals the weakness of fallacious arguments, and the dogmatism
with which he sometimes disposes of results accredited by the judgment of
authorities of the highest eminence. Two typical instances will suffice. The
first relates to a question of pure scholarship. Referring to the fifth chapter
of Daniel he writes:
"Entirely untenable!" In view of the decision of the Old Testament Company of
the Revisers on this point, the statement denotes extraordinary carelessness or
intolerable arrogance. And I have authority for stating that the Revisers gave
the question full consideration, and that it was only at the last revision that
the alternative rendering, "rule as one of three," was admitted into the margin.
On no occasion was it contemplated to accept it in the text.
[19]
The right rendering of ch. 5:29 is admittedly "the third ruler" in the
kingdom; but the authorities differ as to verses 7 and 16. Professor Driver
tells me that, in his opinion, the absolutely literal rendering there is "rule
as a third part in the kingdom," or, slightly paraphrasing the words, "rule as
one of three" (as in R.V. margin). Professor Kirkpatrick, of Cambridge,
has been good enough to refer me to Kautzsch's Die Heilige schrift des alten
Testaments, as representing the latest and best German scholarship, and his
rendering of verse 7 is "third ruler in the kingdom," with the note, "i.e.,
either as one of three over the whole kingdom (compare 6:3), or as third by the
side of the king and the king's mother." And the Chief Rabbi (whose courtesy to
me here I wish to acknowledge) writes:
It is perfectly clear, therefore, that Dr. Farrar's statement is utterly
unjustifiable. Is it to be attributed to want of scholarship, or to want of
candor?
Again, referring to the prophet's third vision, Archdeacon Farrar writes:
It is not easy to deal with such a statement with even conventional respect.
No honest man will deny that, whether the ninth chapter of Daniel be a prophecy
or a fraud, the blessings specified in the twenty-fourth verse are Messianic.
Here all Christian expositors are agreed. And though the views of some of them
are marked by startling eccentricities even the wildest of them will contrast
favorably with Kuenen's exegesis, which, in all its crude absurdity, Archdeacon
Farrar adopts. [20]
Professor Driver's opinions are entitled to the greatest weight within
the sphere in which he is so high an authority. [21]
But I have ventured to suggest that his eminence as a scholar lends undue
weight to his dicta on the general topics involved, and that he shares in
the proverbial disability of experts in dealing with a mass of apparently
conflicting evidence. The tone and manner in which his inquiry is conducted
shows a readiness to reconsider his position in the light of any new discoveries
hereafter. In contrast with this there are no reserves in Dr. Farrar's
denunciations. For him retreat is impossible, no matter what the future may
disclose. But to review his book is not my purpose. The only serious counts in
the indictment of Daniel have been already noticed. His treatise, however,
raises a general question of transcendent importance, and to this I desire in
conclusion to refer.
With him the Book of Daniel is the merest fiction, differing from other fiction
of the same kind by reason of the multiplicity of its inaccuracies and errors.
Its history is but idle legend. Its miracles are but baseless fables. It is, in
every part of it, a work of the imagination. "Avowed fiction" (p. 43), he
calls it, for it is so obviously a romance that the charge of fraud is due
solely to the stupidity of the Christian Church in mistaking the aim and purpose
of "the holy and gifted Jew" (p. 119) who wrote it.
Such are the results of his criticisms. What action shall we take upon them?
Shall we not sadly, but with deliberate purpose, tear the Book of Daniel from
its place in the Sacred Canon? By no means.
"These results," Dr. Farrar exclaims, "are in no way derogatory to the
preciousness of this Old Testament Apocalypse. No words of mine can exaggerate
the value which I attach to this part of our Canonical Scriptures.. .. Its right
to a place in the Canon is undisputed and indisputable, and there is scarcely a
single book of the Old Testament which can be made more richly profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that
the man of God may be complete, completely furnished unto every good work" (p.
4).
This is not an isolated statement such as charity might attribute to
thoughtlessness. Like words are used again and again in praise of the book
[22]
Daniel is nothing more than a religious novel, and yet "there is
scarcely a single book of the Old Testament" of greater worth!
The question here is not the authenticity of Daniel but the character and value
of the Holy Scriptures. Christian scholars whose researches lead them to reject
any portion of the Canon are wont to urge that, in doing so, they increase the
authority, and enhance the value, of the rest. But the Archdeacon of
Westminster, in impugning the Book of Daniel, takes occasion to degrade and
throw contempt upon the Bible as a whole.
Bishop Westcott declares that no writing in the Old Testament had so great a
share in the development of Christianity as the Book of Daniel.
[23]
Or, to quote a hostile witness, Professor Bevan writes:
Just as mist and storm may hide the solid rock from sight, so this truth may
be obscured by casuistry and rhetoric; but when these have spent themselves it
stands out plain and clear. In all this controversy one result of the rejection
of the Book of Daniel is entirely overlooked or studiously concealed. If "the
Apocalypse of the Old Testament" be banished from the Canon, the Apocalypse of
the New Testament must share in its exclusion. The visions of St. John are so
inseparably interwoven with the visions of the great prophet of the exile, that
they stand or fall together. This result the critic is entitled to
disregard. But the homilist may by no means ignore it. And it brings into
prominence the fact so habitually forgotten, that the Higher Criticism claims a
position which can by no means be accorded to it. Its true place is not on the
judgment seat, but in the witness chair. The Christian theologian must take
account of much which criticism cannot notice without entirely abandoning its
legitimate sphere and function.
No one falls back upon this position more freely when it suits his purpose, than
Archdeacon Farrar. He evades the testimony of the twenty-fourth chapter of St.
Matthew by refusing to believe that our Lord ever spoke the words attributed to
Him. But this undermines Christianity; for, I repeat, Christianity rests upon
the Incarnation, and if the Gospels be not inspired, the Incarnation is a myth.
What is his answer to this? I quote his words:
This deserves the closest attention, not merely because of its bearing on the question at issue, but as a fair specimen of the writer's reasoning in this extraordinary contribution to our theological literature. Here is the Christian argument:
On what then do we base our belief of the great central fact of the Christian system? Here the dilemma is inexorable: to disparage the Gospels, as this writer does, is to admit that the foundation of our faith is but a Galilaean legend. By no means, Dr. Farrar tells us; we have not only "personal verification, and the Inward Witness of the Spirit, but we have also myriads of external and independent witnesses." No Christian will ignore the Witness of the Spirit. But the question here, remember, is one of fact. The whole Christian system depends upon the truth of the last verse of the first chapter of St. Matthew — I will not quote it. How then can the Holy Spirit impart to me the knowledge of the fact there stated, save by the written Word? I believe the fact because I accept the record as God-breathed Scripture, an authoritative revelation from heaven. But to talk of personal verification, or to appeal to some transcendental instinct, or to tens of thousands of external witnesses, is to divorce words from thoughts, and to pass out of the sphere of intelligent statement and common sense. [26]