Chapter IV

“The philological peculiarities of the book” constitute the next ground of the critic’s attack on Daniel. “The Hebrew” (he declares) “is pronounced by the majority of experts to be of a later character than the time assumed for it.” The Aramaic also is marked by idioms of a later period, familiar to the Palestinian Jews. And not only are Persian words employed in the book, but it contains certain Greek words, which, it is said, could not have been in use in Babylon during the exile.

1 The opening passage of Daniel, from c. i. i to c. ii. 3, is written in the sacred Hebrew, and this is resumed at c. viii. 1 and continued to the end. The intervening portion, from c. ii. 4 to the end of c. vii., is written in Chaldee or Aramaic.

Here is Professor Driver’s summary of the argument under this head: —

“The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian Empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332). With our present knowledge, this is as much as the language authorises us definitely to affirm.”1

Now, the strength of this case depends on the point last stated. Any number of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted by opposing evidence; but here, it is alleged, we have proof which admits of no answer: the Greek words in Daniel demand a date which destroys the authenticity of the book. Will the reader believe it, that the only foundation for this is the presence of tzvo words which are alleged to be Greek! Dr Farrar insists on three, but one of these (kitharos) is practically given up.

The story was lately told that at a church

1 The Introduction, p. 476.

bazaar in Lincoln, held under Episcopal patronage, the alarm was given that a thief was at work, and two of the visitors 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! Do the critics understand the very rudiments of the science of weighing evidence? The presence of the stolen purses did not “demand” the conviction of the bishop. Neither should the presence of the Greek words decide the fate of Daniel. There was no doubt, moreover, as to the identity of the purses, while Dr Pusey and others dispute the derivation of the words. But in the one case as in the other the question would remain, How did they come to be where they were found? The Talmud declares that, in common with some other parts of the canon, Daniel was edited by the men of the Great Synagogue — a college which is supposed to have been founded by Nehemiah, and which continued until it gave place to the Great Sanhedrim. May not this be the explanation of all these philological difficulties? This is not to have recourse to a baseless conjecture in order to evade well-founded objections: it is merely to give due weight to an authoritative tradition, the very existence of which is prima facie proof of its truth. The attempt to explain in this way difficulties of another kind is to force the hypothesis unduly. But assuming — what there is no reason whatever to doubt — that such a revision took place, surely we should expect to find that familiar idioms would be substituted for others that were deemed archaic, that familiar words would be substituted for terms which then seemed strange or uncouth to the Jews of Palestine, and that names like Nebuchadrezzar 1 would be altered to suit the then

1 As regards this name, it is hard to repress a feeling of indignation against the dishonesty of the critics. They plainly imply that the “spelling “Nebuchadnezzar” is peculiar to Daniel. The fact is that the name occurs in nine of received orthography. And the “immense anachronism,” if such it were, of using the word “Chaldeans” as synonymous with the caste of wise men is thus simply and fully explained.

It may be added that in view of recent discoveries no competent scholar would now reproduce without reserve the argument based on the presence of foreign words in the book. The fact is, the evolution theory has thrown its shadow across this controversy. The extraordinary conceit which marks our much -vaunted age has hitherto led us to assume that, in what has been regarded as a prehistoric period, men were slowly emerging from barbarism, that written records were wanting, and that there was no interchange among nations in the

the books of the Old Testament, and in all of them, with the single exception of Ezekiel, it appears in this form. In Jeremiah it is spelt in both ways, proving clearly that the now received orthography was in use when the Book of Daniel was written, or else that the spelling of the name throughout the sacred books is entirely a matter of editing.

sphere either of scholarship or of trade. It is now known, however, that at even a far earlier period the nations bordering upon the Mediterranean possessed a literature and enjoyed a civilisation of no mean excellence. Merchants and philosophers travelled freely from land to land,1 carrying with them their wares and their learning; and to appeal to the Greek words in Daniel as proof that the book was written after the date of Alexander’s conquests, no longer savours of scholarship. According to Professor Sayce, “there were Greek colonies on the coast of Palestine in the time of Hezekiah “— a century before Daniel was born; “and they

1 May not all that is truest and best in Buddhism be thus traced to the great prophet-prince of the exile? Gautama was a contemporary of Daniel. And when he set out upon his long pilgrimage in search of truth and light, may he not have found his way to Babylon, then the most famous centre both of civilisation and of religion? And visiting the broad-walled city, he could not fail to come under the influence of Daniel. Daniel was born about B.C. 624; and, according to Sir E. Arnold {Light of Asia, Preface), Gautama was born about B.C. 620.

D already enjoyed so much power there that a Greek usurper was made King- of Ashdod. The Tel el-Amarna tablets have enabled us to carry back a contract between Greece and Canaan to a still earlier period.“1 Indeed he goes on to indicate the possibility “that there was intercourse and contact between the Canaanites or Hebrews in Palestine and the Greeks of the Aegean as far back as the 3.Q-Q of Moses.”

The Persian words are of still less account. That the Persian language was unknown among the cultured classes in Babylon is incredible. That it was widely known is suggested by the ease with which the Persian rule was accepted. The position which Daniel attained under that rule renders it probable in the extreme that he himself was a Persian scholar. Land the date of his closing’ vision makes it certain that his book was compiled after that rule was established.

But, it will be answered, the philological

1 The Higher Criticism atid the Monuments, pp. 494, 495.

argument does not rest upon points like these; its strength lies in the general character of the language in which the book is written. The question here raised, as Dr Farrar justly says, “involves delicate problems on which an independent and a valuable opinion can only be offered” by scholars of a certain class and very few in number.

But the student will find that their decision is by no means unanimous or clear. And of course their dicta must be considered in connection with evidence of other kinds which it is beyond their province to deal with. Dr Pusey’s magnificent work, in which the whole subject is handled with the greatest erudition and care, is not dismissed by others with the contempt which Dr Farrar evinces for a man who is fired by the enthusiasm of faith in the Bible. In his judgment

1 Dr Farrar’s words are, “by the merest handful of living scholars “(p. 17). How many scholars make a “handful” he does not tell us, and of the two he proceeds to appeal to, one is not living but dead!

the Hebrew of Daniel is “just what one should expect at the age at which he lived.” 1 And one of the highest living authorities, who has been quoted in this controversy as favouring a late date for the Book of Daniel, writes in reply to an inquiry I have addressed to him: “I am now of opinion that it is a very difficult task to settle the age of any portion of that book from its language. I do not think, therefore, that my name should be quoted any more in the contest.” It is Professor Cheyne’s opinion, also, that “from the Hebrew of the Book of Daniel no important inference as to its date can be safely drawn.” 2 And, lastly, appeal may be made to Dr Farrar himself, who remarks with signal fairness, but with strange inconsistency, that “Perhaps nothing certain can be inferred from the philological examination either of the Hebrew or of the Chaldee portions of the book.”3 And again, still more definitely

1 Pusey, p. 578. 2 Ency. Brit., art. “Daniel,” p. 804.

he declares: “The character of the laneuaee proves nothing.” 1 This testimony, carrying as it does the exceptional weight which attaches to the admissions of a prejudiced and hostile witness, might be accepted as decisive of the whole question. And the fact being what is here stated, the stress laid on grounds thus admitted to be faulty and inconclusive is proof only of a determination by fair means or foul to discredit the Book of Daniel.

It may be well, however, to appeal to evidence of a more general character upon this subject. The witness shall be one whose competency Dr Farrar acknowledges, and none will question. And his words have an interest and value far beyond the present controversy, and deserve most careful consideration by all who have been stumbled or misled by the arrogant dogmatism of the so-called Higher Critics. The following quotation is from An Essay on the 1 P. 8q.

place of Ecclesiasticus in Semitic Literature, by Professor Margoliouth of Oxford :x —

“My lamented colleague, Dr Edersheim, and I, misled by the very late date assigned by eminent scholars to the books of the Bible, had worked under the tacit assumption that the language of Ben - Sira was the language of the Prophets; whereas in reality he wrote the language of the Rabbis” (p. 6).

It should be explained that the Proverbs of Jesus the son of Sirach have come down to us only in a Greek translation, but the character of that translation is such that the reconstruction of the original Hebrew text is a task within the capacity of competent scholarship, and a preface to that translation fixes the date of the book as not later than about B.C. 200. But to resume: —

“If by 200 B.C. the whole Rabbinic farrago, with its terms and phrases and idioms and particles, was developed,... then between Ben-Sira and the books of the Old Testament there must lie centuries, nay, there must lie, in most cases, the

1 Clareiido?i Press, 1890.

deep waters of the captivity, the grave of the old-Hebrew and the old-Israel, and the womb of the new-Hebrew and the new-Israel. If Hebrew, like any other language, has a history, then Isaiah (first or second) must be separated from Ecclesiastes by a gulf; but a yet greater gulf must yawn between Ecclesiastes and Ecclesiasticus, for in the interval a whole dictionary has been invented of philosophical terms such as we traced above, of logical phrases,... legal expressions,... nor have the structure and grammar of the language experienced less serious alteration. ... It may be, if ever Ben-Sira is properly restored,... that while some students are engaged in bringing down the date of every chapter in the Bible so late as to leave no room for prophecy and revelation, others will endeavour to find out how early the professedly post-exilian books can be put back, so as to account for the divergence between their awkward middle- Hebrew and the rich and eloquent new-Hebrew of Ben-Sira. However this may be, hypotheses which place any portion of the classical or old-Hebrew Scriptures between the middle-Hebrew of Nehemiah and the new-Hebrew of Ben-Sira will surely require some reconsideration, or at least have to be harmonised in some way with the history of the language, before they can be unconditionally accepted” (p. 21, 22).