Chapter X

ORE than a quarter of a century ago, when I first came definitely under the influence of the Higher Criticism, doubts began to undermine my faith in Holy Scripture. I then knew but little either of the history or the aims of the movement; and a taste for critical inquiries, combined with impatience of mere “orthodoxy,” created in my mind a prejudice in its favour. At the same time I had a sufficient acquaintance with the general scheme of revelation, and especially with the typology and prophecy of Scripture, to prevent my being misled by the teaching of the critics about the Pentateuch, or by their theories that the “Priestly Code,” as they call it, was later than the Prophets. This being so, it was not till I reached the Book of Daniel that I felt any serious alarm. The New Testament is so identified with that book (as the critics themselves allow) that if ste) 529

Daniel be discredited, the authority of the Gospels and Epistles is impaired, and the Apocalypse must be entirely given up. And yet the case against the book seemed overwhelming. Not only was its authenticity destroyed by glaring historical errors, but its claim to genuineness was vetoed by the very language in which it was written: its Hebrew, I learned, belonged to a later period than the Captivity, and the Greek words contained in it absolutely precluded an earlier origin than the date of Alexander’s conquest.

Now, unlike the critics, my tenure of the public position I held was not conditioned upon any pledge that I believed the Scriptures. Had I come to accept the conclusions of the critics, I might have continued to draw the emoluments of my office without any twinges of conscience or any reflection upon my honour. When, therefore, I set myself to investigate the case against Daniel, I did so in the same spirit in which I have not infrequently prosecuted criminai charges against persons whom, though I greatly wished to save, I was determined to bring to justice if guilty. I say this because it is the fashion to assume that to attack the Bible gives proof not only of “culture,” but of mental vigour and freedom, and that

Cu. X.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL 131

its defenders are always narrow-minded and prejudiced. I first took up the special question upon which I was dependent upon the experts, namely, the philological features of the book. And here I kept to the writings of the critics. My first shock was the discovery that, according to the evidence of some of the most advanced and fearless of its assailants, the Hebrew of the book decides nothing as to its date! The bold statements to the contrary, therefore, are proof only of recklessness on the part of those who make them. And my amazement and indignation reached a climax when I discovered that the supposed Greek words in DanzeZhad, one after another, been given up by the critics, until only ¢wo or three remained; and that it is upon ¢hese words, which are the names of musical instruments, that the critics veto the acceptance of the book.? If the instruments * See, e.g., Professor Cheyne’s article “Daniel” in Encyc. Brit. 2 Professor Driver of Oxford declares that ‘ the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great” (Book of Daniel, p. lxiii.). In the Introduction to Danielin “The Temple Bible,” Dr. Sinker writes: “Yet about this time a brother of the Greek poet Alczeus held office at the Court of Babylon. Still earlier, Sargon mentions the Greeks (Favanu) of Cyprus; and much earlier, we find a Greek in the Tel-el-Amarna tablets.

‘Clearly then there is no reason why in the time of Daniel Greek musical instruments and their names should not have been known

-in Babylon.”

themselves came from Greece, it might be assumed that they would carry with them to Babylon the names by which they were known in the land of their origin. In no other sphere would men listen to what passes for proof when Scripture is assailed. In no other sphere would such trifling as this be tolerated. If only these men could be “got into court,” and subjected to. cross-examination, they would lose not only their case but their reputation!

The argument from the danguage of the Book of Daniel having thus utterly broken down — in truth it is an insult to our intelligence — we dismiss the Philologists from the inquiry altogether. The remaining question is one of evidence of a wholly different kind; and no university professor, however eminent, is as fit to deal with it as the trained lawyer or the experienced juryman. I press this. These pages will be read by many who are as competent to decide the fate of Daniel as any of the critics whose dictum about the book is blindly accepted by the public. And those who study the controversy will recognise the truth of Hengstenberg’s statement, that the attack upon the book originated in a prejudged determination to eliminate the supernatural element from the Bible. Devout men like Eichhorn and

Ca. X.] THE ATTACK ON DANIEL 133

his pupil Ewald sought to win the poral back to religion by joining in their attack upon the only true basis of religion.

A criminal prosecution sometimes originates in some virulent prejudice which clouds the judgment even of fair and upright men. The Dreyfus case in France is the most famous example of this in modern times. No generous mind would tolerate the belief that men like the French Ministers of State were the guilty accessories to an infamous plot against an innocent man. They deprecated the methods of the prosecution, but they accepted the result. And so here, men like Professor Driver accept the verdict of the Higher Criticism against the Book of Daniel, while deprecating the ‘exaggerations of the rationalists.” But whence these exaggerations? The Public Prosecutor does not “exaggerate” a case to the court. On the contrary he is careful to state it with perfect fairness, and to notice every point in favour of the accused as

in presenting

well as against him. Not so, however, a private prosecutor. The “exaggerations” of the German critics are the clearest proof that the crusade against Daniel was the outcome of prejudice or malice.

In my published defence of the book I have not sought to score a single point by trading on these ‘‘exaggerations.” The popularity of the Dean of Canterbury precluded my ignoring him, but I have taken Professor Driver as the accredited exponent of the case of the English critics. And in meeting his indictment of Daniel, I have accepted his own statement of the evidence. Any competent tribunal would, I believe, decide that the Septuagint translation of the book is older than the date to which the critics assign the Hebrew original, and that the canon of the Old Testament was closed anterior to that date. But meeting them on their own ground, I have shown that no part of their case against the book will stand the test of cross-examination. And further, it has been demonstrated that its great central prophecy has been fulfilled in Messianic times with absolute definiteness and precision. And this demonstration Professor Driver himself has cited,’ only to leave it and pass on; though if it remains unchallenged it should end the controversy.

If there are those whose faith in Scripture depends on the fate of Daniel, a brief summary of the defence of the book may serve only to

* Book of Daniel, p. 149.

Cu. X.] DANIEL: HISTORICAL ERRORS - 135

prejudice the issue. And yet the briefest summary is all that can be given within the limits of this chapter.’

The critics’ attack upon the book rests on three grounds : — philological peculiarities, historical errors, and its position in the canon. The first I have already dealt with. As regards the second, the only vital “error” is the opening statement of the book, that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judea in the third year of Jehoiakim. But this is a fact in history established by writers sacred and profane.

The critics here rely on the history of Berosus, quoted by Josephus. That historian tells that during the expedition Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father’s death, and at once handed over his Jewish captives to others, and “himself Zastened home across the desert.’ The German rationalists, mixing up Berosus with Scripture,? and understanding neither, infer that it was from Carchemish, where a decisive battle was fought in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, that Nebuchadnezzar started homewards. But Carchemish is on the

t Dean Farrar’s philippic is a portly volume; and in Professor Driver’s Book of Daniel the “Introduction” alone occupies a hundred closely printed pages. My reply to both occupies only a hundred and eighty pages of large and leaded type (Daniel in the Critics’ Den, 1902). Greater condensation is impossible.

2 Jer. xlvi. 2.

Upper Euphrates, and the road thence to Babylon is clear of the desert altogether. If, as Berosus tells us, Nebuchadnezzar had Jewish captives, he must have invaded Judea; and if the desert lay between him and his capital, it must have been from Judea that he set out on his homeward journey.

This “historical error” is a blunder so glaring that a schoolboy might well be ashamed of it. And yet it is gravely adopted and reproduced by English ecclesiastics and Professors for the enlightenment of a much deluded public.t It is a specimen of the “historical errors” of the Higher Critics. Ex uno disce omnes.

Another “‘ historical error” deserves a passing notice. When the sceptics first framed their indictment of Daniel, Belshazzar appeared to be amyth. For history testifies that the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus; that he was absent

* See Professor Driver’s Book of Daniel, p.2. Dean Farrar’s words are: “Nor did Nebuchadnezzar advance against the Holy City even after the battle of Carchemish, but dashed home across the desert.” One does not expect to be amused bya book on such a subject, but this is really amusing. The fact is these English scholars copy from the German rationalists without inquiry or independent thought. The refutation of this silly blunder does not depend merely on the point above mentioned, but upon the history as a whole. See Daniel in the Critics’ Den, App. I.

Cu.X.] BELSHAZZAR AND DARIUS 137

from the capital when Cyrus entered it, and that he lived many years after the Persian conquest. The contradiction between history and Scripture was complete. But the since deciphered inscriptions have disclosed that Belshazzar was eldest son and heir to Nabonidus, that he was regent in Babylon during his father’s absence, and that he was killed the night the Persian army entered the inner city.!

The only difficulty still unsolved in the Daniel story is the identity of Darius the Mede. But here again the inscriptions tell us that, in the conquest of Babylon, Cyrus had united with him a Median of such power and fame that it was he who appointed the new officials; and that when an amnesty was proclaimed, it was issued in their joint names. The absence of Darius’s name from the commercial tablets is amply explained by the fact that, as Daniel indicates, he, like Belshazzar, was only a viceroy or vassal king.

Not one single new point agaznst Daniel has been brought to light for a century. Every decade brings to light some new proofs of its genuineness and authenticity.

t Professor Sayce’s statements on this are but a false inference from a false reading of the tablet. See Daniel in the Critics’ Den, App. II.

Daniel’s place in the Canon is too large a question for incidental treatment. But the mere fact of its inclusion would satisfy any fair tribunal of the genuineness of the book, and it renders it absolutely certain that the Sanhedrim regarded it as genuine.t. In the Septuagint version, moreover, it is placed among the prophets, as in our English Bible; which seems to indicate that such was its original position. And if so its transfer to the third division of the Canon was effected, no doubt, after the beginning of the Christian era. The Hebrew Bible now brackets it with the Psalms of David and other books held by the Jews in the very highest esteem.

Then, again, the critics cannot tear from its pages the great prophecy of the ‘ Seventy Weeks.” And that prophecy, so far as its fulfilment belongs to the past, was fulfilled with such definiteness and precision as to make an “end of controversy” upon the whole question. Taking history from the historian and chronology from the chronologist, it will be found that the interval from the issue of the decree to build Jerusalem to the public proclamation of the Messiah, was

* See Daniel in the Critics’ Den, pp. 99-111.

Cu. X.] DANIEL ACCREDITED BY CHRIST 139

exactly and to the very day the period foretold by Daniel. j

Could the prediction have been a mere guess. by some learned and pious Jew? If we refer this question to a mathematician he will tell us that in such a forecast the chance of accuracy would be so small, and the probability of error so great, that neither the one nor the other could be expressed arithmetically in figures. The calculation, in fact, would become lost in infinity. The attempt, therefore, to dismiss the fulfilment of the prophecy as a mere coincidence ‘“‘is not intelligent scepticism, but a crass misbelief which is sheer credulity.”

And lastly the fact claims notice — and this alone should satisfy the Christian — that the Book of Daniel bears the express zmprimatur of our Divine Lord. Witness His words: ‘“When ye, therefore, shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy

= According to Dan. ix. 25, sixty-nine sevens of prophetic years were to elapse between the issuing of the edict to rebuild the city, and “Messiah the Prince”; and the period from 1st Nisan in the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh, ii.) to “Palm Sunday” when our Lord made His public entry into Jerusalem (Luke xix. 36-38) was exactly 173,880 days (=69 x 7 X 360). This is dealt with in detail in The Coming Prince, and also in Daniel in the Critics’ Den

(1902).

place.” The attempt to evade this by the plea that the words here given in italics are a gloss, is so unwarranted that no English writers would have suggested it were it not that they follow the German sceptics like sheep. The words occur in the great prophecy of Matthew xxiv.; and the reference to Daniel is so unmistakable that the omission of the name could not even obscure it.

Bishop Westcott declares that ‘no other book of the Old Testament had so great a share in the development of Christianity.” It is Hengstenberg’s testimony that ‘there are few books whose Divine authority is so fully established by the testimony of the New Testament, and in particular by the Lord Himself.” And even Professor Bevan of Cambridge — one of the narrowest of the critics — admits that “the influence of the book is apparent almost everywhere.”

But the Christian accepts the Book, not because its rejection would be, as Sir Isaac Newton urged, ‘to undermine the Christian religion”; but because its claims to acceptance are complete and convincing, and the case for its rejection

Cu. X.] THE BOOK OF DANIEL ve

owes its seeming cogency only to ignoring some of the most salient facts, and misrepresenting others.!

* In reading this chapter in the proof I am increasingly impressed with its inadequacy as a defence of Daniel; especially as I have so very recently (Easter, 1902) published my full answer to the indictment as formulated by Professor Driver and Dean Farrar. In Daniel in the Critics’ Den (1902) not a single point urged by the assailants is overlooked, and the critics are put upon their defence. I have only now had the benefit of reading the “Introduction” and Notes to Daniel in The Temple Bible.