Daniel in the Critics' Den

The Daniel controversy has hitherto been regarded as the special preserve of the philologist. Who but he is qualified to decide to what epoch any portion of the Hebrew Scriptures should be assigned? The claim, however, is based upon a fallacy. The whole question turns upon a simple issue of fact — “Was the book in existence before the days of Antiochus?” If this be decided in the affirmative, its prophetic character is unquestionable; and this, again, practically involves the admission that it is the work of the Daniel of the Exile.

And an issue of this kind demands an inquiry essentially judicial. An experienced judge with an intelligent jury, accustomed to sift and weigh conflicting testimony, would here be a fitter tribunal than any board of specialists, however eminent. The philologist can supply but a part, and that by no means the most important part, of the necessary evidence. And if a single well-ascertained fact be inconsistent with the theory he advocates, the fact must prevail. But this the specialist is proverbially slow to recognise. Whatever the subject-matter of the inquiry, he is apt to exaggerate the importance of his own testimony, and to betray impatience when evidence of another kind is allowed its legitimate weight. Nowhere, moreover, is this tendency more marked than among the critics.

Here, then, is the author’s apology for

PREFACE. vii

this volume. Accustomed to deal with evidence in inquiries quite as difficult and intricate, he has set himself to investigate the question of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. And he ventures to think no competent judge would arrive at any other conclusion than that here recorded — that the indictment which the Higher Criticism has framed against this portion of the Scripture cannot be sustained. So striking is the apparent completeness of the hostile evidence adduced in support of that indictment, that persons unused to judicial inquiries are ready at once to accept an adverse verdict. But — to pursue the figure — that evidence fails under cross-examination; and when we come to hear the other side, which Higher Criticism ignores, the weight of proof in its favour seems overwhelming.

A word as to the tone and manner of

Vlll PREFACE.

the reply here offered to the Dean of Canterbury’s recent work. The character of the attack has naturally influenced the spirit of the defence. A treatise of another kind — such, for example, as Professor Driver’s or Professor Cheyne’s, both so conspicuously moderate and fair — would invite discussion in a tone of philosophic calmness. But to maintain such an attitude of mind in dealing with the book here under review would betray deficiency of moral sense.

In respect of some of the defects which mark the present volume, the author can only appeal to the indulgence of the reader. In a life of peculiarly engrossing and anxious work, hours which might fitly be devoted to recreation or rest are scarcely the most

1 77/6’ Expositor3 s Bible: The Book of Daniel. By F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S. (Hodder & Stoughton, 1S95.)

suitable for such a task. But the result may perhaps be accepted for the moment, until some worthier pen supplies a want which Dr Farrar’s book has brought into prominence.

It only remains to add that these pages are based upon the writer’s article in Black- ■wood’s Magazine for April 1895.

39 Linden Gardens, W.,
14//* October 1895.

By “all people of discernment” the “Higher Criticism” is now held in the greatest repute. And discernment is a quality for which the dullest of men are keen to claim credit. It may safely be assumed that not one person in a score of those who eagerly disclaim belief in the visions of Daniel has ever seriously considered the question. The literature upon the subject is but dull reading at best, and the inquiry demands a combination of qualities which is comparatively rare. A newspaper review of some ponderous treat-A ise, or a frothy discourse by some popular preacher, will satisfy most men. The German literature upon the controversy they know nothing of, and the writings of scholars like Professor Driver of Oxford are by no means to their taste, and probably beyond their capacity. Dean Farrar’s Book of Daniel will therefore supply a much - felt want. Ignored by scholars it certainly will be, and the majority of serious theologians will deplore it; but it will supply “the man in the street” with a reason for the unfaith that is in him. The narrowness with which it emphasises everything that either erudition or ignorance can urge upon one side of a great controversy, to the exclusion of the rest, will relieve him from the irksome task of thinking out the problem for himself; and its pedantry is veiled by rhetoric of a type which will admirably suit him. He cannot fail to be deeply impressed by “the acervation of endless conjectures,” and “the unconsciously disingenuous resourcefulness of traditional harmonies.” His acquaintance with the unseen world will be enlarged by discovering that Gabriel, who appeared to the prophet, is “the archangel,”1 and by learning that “it is only after the Exile that we find angels and demons playing a more prominent part than before, divided into classes, and even marked out by special names.”2 It is not easy to decide whether this statement is the more astonishing when examined as a specimen of English, or when regarded as a dictum to guide us in the study of Scripture. But all this relates only to the form of the book. When we come to consider its substance, the spirit which pervades it, and the results to which it leads, a sense of distress and shame will commingle with our amazement.

What the dissecting-room is to the physician the Higher Criticism is to the theologian. In its proper sphere its value is immense, and it has made large additions to our knowledge

1 p. 275. 2 P. 191.

of the Bible. But it demands not only skill and care, but reverence; and if these be wanting, it cannot fail to be mischievous. A man of the baser sort may become so degraded by the use of the surgeon’s knife that he loses all respect for the body of his patient, and the sick-room is to him but the antechamber to the mortuary. And can we with impunity forget the reverence that is due to “the living and eternally abiding Word of God”?

It behoves us to distinguish between the Higher Criticism as a means to clear away from that Word corruptions and excrescences, and to gain a more intelligent appreciation of its mysteries, and the Higher Criticism as a rationalistic and anti-christian crusade, whose end and aim is to eliminate God from the Bible. Regarded in this aspect, it was the impure growth of the scepticism which well-nigh swamped the religious life of Germany in the eighteenth century.

Eichhorn set himself to account for the miracles of Scripture. The poetic warmth of oriental thought and language sufficed, in his judgment, to explain them. The writers wrote as they were accustomed to think, leaving out of view all second causes, and attributing results immediately to God. This theory had its day. It obtained enthusiastic acceptance for a time. But rival hypotheses were put forward to dispute its sway, and at last it was discarded in favour of the system with which the name of De Wette is prominently associated. The sacred writers were honest and true, but their teaching was based, not upon personal knowledge, still less upon divine inspiration, but upon ancient authorities by which they were misled. Their errors were due to the excessive literalness with which they accepted as facts the legends of earlier days. De Wette, like Eichhorn, honestly desired to rescue the Bible from the reproach which had fallen upon it. Upon them at least the halo of departed truth still rested. But others were restrained by no such influence. “With the ignorance of Pagans and the animus of apostates” they perverted the Scriptures and tore them to pieces.

Keep reading