Preface

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.