is rather an argument for the genuineness of the work than against it. It is well known that from the fourth verse of the second chapter to the end of the seventh chapter, the work is written in the Chaldee language, while the remainder is pure Hebrew. The only way in which this fact could be regarded as an objection to the genuineness of the book, would be that it is an indication that it is the production of two different authors. But this would be an objection only on the supposition that the author could write and speak only one language, or that, supposing he was acquainted with two, there were no circumstances which could account for the use of both. But neither of these suppositions apply here. There is every reason to believe that Daniel was acquainted with both the Hebrew and the Chaldee; and there is no improbability in the supposition that he wrote in both with equal ease. And, on the other hand, it may be remarked, that the very circumstance here referred to, is a confirmation of the genuineness of the book; for (1.) it accords with all that is known of Daniel. He was a youth when he left his native country, and there is every probability that he was familiar with the Hebrew in early life, and that he would never forget it, though it might be true that he would ordinarily use the language of Chaldea. He was still familiar with the Hebrew books, and it is to be presumed that the language used by the Hebrews in exile was their native tongue. In all his intercourse with his own countrymen, therefore, it is every way probable that he would use his native language, and would thus through life retain his knowledge of it. (2.) It is equally clear that he was familiar with the Chaldee language. He was early, in connection with three other Hebrew youth, (ch. i. 3, 4,) placed under the best instruction in Babylon, for the express purpose of acquiring, with other branches of learning, a knowledge of the " tongue of the Chaldeans;" and he speedily made such acquisitions as to pass with honour the examination appointed before he was admitted to public employment, ch. i. 18-20. He was, moreover, employed at court during a considerable part of his long life, and no one, therefore, can doubt that he was entirely familiar with the language used in Babylon, and that he could compose in it with ease. (3.) It is evident that the work must, if it is the production of one author, have been composed by some person who was, in this respect, in the circumstances of Daniel; that is, by one who was familiar with both the languages: and the circumstances bear on their face evidence that the work was written by one in the condition in which Daniel was known to be; that is, one who had been early trained in the Hebrew, and who had lived in Chaldea. No native-born Hebrew, who had not lived in Chaldea, would be likely to be so well acquainted with the two languages that he could use either with equal facility; and it may be presumed that no nativeborn Chaldean could evince so intimate an acquaintance with the Hebrew. The direct evidence that it is the production of one author will be adduced in another part of this Introduction. (4.) It is by no means probable that one who lived so late as the time of Antiochus Epiphanes could have written the book as it is written; that is, that he would have been so familiar with the two languages, Hebrew and Chaldee, that he could use them with equal ease. It is an uncommon thing for a man to write in two different languages in the same work, and he never does it without some special design-a design for which there would not be likely

to be occasion if one were writing in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes It was perfectly natural that Daniel should write in this manner, and perfectly unnatural that any one should do it in a later age, and in different circumstances. If the book had been forged by a Hebrew in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, there is every reason to believe that he would have been careful to write it in as pure Hebrew as possible, for that was the language in which the canonical books were written, and if he had endeavoured to gain credit for the book as one of divine authority, he would not have intermingled so much of a foreign language. If he were a Chaldean, and could write Hebrew at all, as it is certain that the author of this book could, then, for the reason just given, he would have been careful to write the whole book in as pure Hebrew as possible, and would not have jeoparded its credit by so large an infusion of a foreign tongue. (5.) This reasoning is conclusive, unless it be supposed that the author meant to represent it as a composition of some Hebrew in the time of the exile, and that in order to give it the greater verisimilitude he adopted this device-to make it appear as if written by one who was a native Hebrew, but who had become familiar with a foreign language. But this device would be too refined to be likely to occur, and, for the reasons given above, would be difficult of execution if it should occur. Even in such a case, the writer would be much more likely to represent its author as writing in the sacred language of the prophets, in order to procure for himself the credit of employing the language used in all the divine communications to men. The language in which the book is written, therefore, is just such as it would be on the supposition that it is genuine, and just such as it would not be on the supposition that it is a forgery of a later age.

(b) As to the statement that the language is corrupt Hebrew and Chaldee-in der Verderbten sowohl hebräischen als Chaldäishen Sprache (De Wette), it may be remarked that this position has never been satisfactorily made out, nor has it been shown that it is not such as might be employed, or would be employed, by one who resided in Babylon in the time of the exile. That the language would not be the purest kind of Hebrew, or the purest Chaldee, might be possible, in the circumstances of the case; but it could be shown that it was not such as might be employed there, unless there are words and forms of speech which did not come into use until a later period of the world. This has not been shown. It is true that there are Persian words; but this is not unnatural in the circumstances of the case-bordering as Chaldea did on Persia, and during a part of the time referred to in the book, being actually subject to Persia. It is true that there are Greek words; but under the next specification I shall endeavour to show that this does not militate against the supposition that the book may have been written in Babylon in the time of the exile. It is true that there are words and forms of speech which were not in use in the earlier periods of Hebrew literature, but which became common in the later periods of their literature; but this does not prove that they may not have been in use as early as the exile. A specimen of the words referred to-indeed all on which the argument is foundedmay be seen in De Wette, p. 385, Note (e.) They are few in number, and in respect to none of these can it be proved that they were not in existance in the time of Daniel. They are of Persian, of Syriac, or of Chaldee

origin, and are such words as would be likely to come into use in the cir cumstances of the case. In regard to this objection it may be added, that it has been abandoned by some of the objectors to the genuineness of the Book of Daniel themselves. Bleek is candid enough to give it up entirely. He says, "We have, in general, too few remains of the different centuries after the exile, to draw any conclusions as to the gradual depreciation of the language, and to determine with any certainty to what particular period any writer belongs." Zeitschr. p. 213. Daniel," says Prof. Stuart," in the judgment of Gesenius (Geschich. Heb. Sprach. p. 35), has decidedly a purer diction than Ezekiel; in which opinion," says he, as far as I am able to judge, after much time spent upon the book, and examining minutely every word and phrase in it many times over, should entirely coincide." Com. p. 465.

66

66

(c) A more material objection is derived from the use of Greek words in the composition of the book. That there are such words is undenia ble; though they are by no means numerous. Bertholdt (pp. 24, 25,) has enumerated ten such words; De Wette has referred to four, p. 386. The words enumerated by Bertholdt, are, ore, motifor; and, Jeypa;

ψαλτήριον; ΝΔ, πέτασος ; 12:23, νομισμα.

In regard to this objection, it may be remarked, in general, that it does not assert that the structure of the Book of Daniel is fashioned after the Greek manner, or that the Greek style pervades it; it asserts only that a few Greek words have been incorporated into the book. The question then is, whether even all these words are of Greek origin; and whether, if they are, or if only a part of them are, their use in the book can be accounted for on the supposition that it was written in the time of the captivity, or rather, whether their occurrence in the book is a proof that the book could not have been written at that time.

The first point is the question, whether these words are of undoubted Greek origin; and this question will require us to examine them in detail.

(1.) The first word specified is op partemim-rendered princes-(ch. i. 3,) which it is alleged is the same as the Greek poriμo-protimoi. The word used by Daniel occurs only in two other places in the Old Testament (Esther i. 3, vi. 9), where it is rendered nobles, and most noble; and it is obvious to remark, that the fact that it is found in Esther might be urged in proof that the book of Daniel was written at the time in which it is commonly believed to have been, since the antiquity and genuineness of the book of Esther is not called in question. But apart from this, there is no evidence that the word is of Greek origin. Gesenius, who may be considered as impartial authority on the subject, says, "It is of Persian origin, 1-9. Pehlvi pardom the first, see Auquetil du Perron Zendavesta, ii. p. 468. Comp. Sanser. prathama the first. In the Zend dialect the form is peoerim. Comp. Sanser. pura, prius, antea, purâna, autiquus. From the former comes the Greek pres, and from the latter the Latin primus." Lex. The same account of the origin of the word is given by Jahn, De Wette, Bleek, and Kirms. This word, then, may be set aside. It is indeed objected by Bertholdt, that, though the word had a Persian origin, yet there is no evidence that it would be used in Babylon in the time of the exile. But this objection can have no force. Babylon and

Persia were neighbouring kingdoms, and there is no presumption that Persian words might not find their way to Babylon, and as a matter of fact such words occur in Jeremiah, and probably in Isaiah and in Nahum. See Hengstenberg, pp. 11, 12. The truth was, that the Assyrians and the Medo-Persians were originally all of the same stem or stock, and there is no presumption against the supposition that the same words might be found in each of the languages spoken by them.

(2.) The next word referred to is 7, pithgham, (Dan. iii. 16, iv. 17,— rendered matter), which it is alleged is the same as the Greek deɣpa -pthegma. The word occurs, besides these places in Daniel, in Ezra iv. 17, v. 11, rendered answer; v. 7, rendered letter; and vi. 11, rendered word. In Hebrew it occurs in Esth. i. 20, rendered decree, and in Ecc. viii. 11, rendered sentence. In respect to this word, also, Gesenius says, "The origin of the word is to be sought in the Persian, in which pedam is word, edict, mandate." Lex. The fact, also, it may be added, that it is found in Esther, in Ezra, and the book of Ecclesiastes, is sufficient to destroy the objection that its use proves that the Book of Daniel was written later than the time of the exile. It was brought, probably, into the Greek language from the common origin of the Persian and the Greek.

(3, 4.) The next words referred to, are ?, kahroz (a herald), ch. iii. 4, and 1? —kárăz, to cry out, to make proclamation, which it is alleged are the same as the Greek Kapvğ―kerux, and npvoot-kerussein. Of these words, also, Gesenius remarks, "The root is widely diffused in the IndoEuropean languages, e. q. Sanse. krus, to cry out; Zenda. khresio, crying out, a herald; Pers. to cry out; Gr. npcow; also, *píśw, kpašw; Germ. kreischen, kreissen; Eng. to cry." Lex. Among the Christian Arabs, Gesenius remarks, it means to preach. Jahn and Dereser say that the word is related to the Zendish word khresio, which means to tread behind, and to scream out, to screech-kreischen. Hengstenberg (p. 13,) remarks of this word, that its use is spread abroad not only in Chaldee, but in Syriac, and that this circumstance makes it probable that it had a Semitish origin. The probability is, that this word and the Greek had a common origin, but its use is so far spread in the world that it cannot be argued that the fact that it is found in the Book of Daniel demonstrates that the book had a later origin than the period of the exile. (5.) The next word mentioned as of Greek origin is op kitharos, (ch. iii. 5, 7, 10, 15,) cithara, harp, lyre, (rendered in each place, harp,) which it is said is the same as the Greek kapis, citharis. In regard to this word, which is the name of a musical instrument, it is to be admitted that it is the same as the Greek word. It occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament, and its origin is unknown. As a Greek word, it will be considered, in connection with the three others of the same class, in the sequel. It cannot be affirmed, indeed, that it has a Greek origin, but its origin cannot be found in the Chaldee, Persian, or Sanscrit languages. But, although it is admitted that it is a Greek word, and denotes an instrument that was well known in Greece, this does not demonstrate that it is of Greek origin. It is admitted on all hands that the names of Greek instruments of music were mostly of foreign derivation; and there is nothing to lead to the supposition that this was of Greek origin, unless it be that the word κi Sápa or kidapos, means, in the Doric dialect, the breast, and that this instrument might have received its name either because it was

played by being placed against the breast, like the violin with us, or be cause its form resembled the human breast. This is the opinion of Isidorus, Origg. i. 2, 21. But there is great uncertainty in regard to this.

(6.) The next word specified is 727, sabbeka (ch. iii. 5), and the similar word, spa (ch. iii. 7, 10, 15), in each case rendered sackbut. Of this word it is alleged that it is the same as the Greek caußbxn,-sambuca, a stringed instrument well known in Greece. But in regard to this word, also, the remark of Gesenius may be quoted:-" Strabo affirms," says he, "that the Greek word, caμßòêŋ (sambuca), is of barbarian, i. e. of oriental origin, and if so, the name might have allusion to the interweaving of the strings-from the root "-to interweave, to entwine, to plait. Gesenius, however, remarks, that in this place it is joined with a word (symphony) which is manifestly of Greek origin; and he seems to infer that this word, also, may have had a Greek origin. The direct affirmation of Strabo is (Lib. x.), that the names of the Greek instruments of music were of foreign origin, and in reference to this particular instrument, Athenæus (i. iv.) affirms, that it was of Syrian origin. So Clemens Alex. expressly declares that the sambuca had a foreign origin. Strom. L. i. p. 307. Even Bleek admits this in regard to this particular instrument. See Hengstenberg, p. 15.

(7.) The next word for which a Greek origin is claimed is NDID symphony, Greek ovvia, ch. iii. 5, 10, 15, rendered in the text, in each place, dulcimer, and in the margin symphony, or singing. Gesenius remarks, in regard to this word, that "it is the Greek word adopted into the Chaldee tongue, just as at the present day the same instrument is called in Italy, zampogna, and in Asia Minor, zambouja." It cannot be denied that the word is the same as the Greek word; though it is to be remarked that among the Greeks it was not used to denote the name of an instrument of music. Yet, as it is compounded of two Greek wordscur and porn-its Greek origin cannot well be doubted. With the Greeks, the word meant properly harmony, or concert of sounds (Passow); and it was then readily given to an instrument that was fitted to produce harmony, or that was distinguished for its sweet sounds. The word is found in Syriac, as applied to a musical instrument, but the evidence seems to be strong that the word had a Greek origin, though there is no evidence that the Greeks ever applied it to a musical instrument.

(8.) The next word for which a Greek origin is claimed is, and

66

-pesanterin, (ch. iii. 7, 5, 10, 15, rendered psaltery in each place,) which, it is said, is the same as the Greek arýpiov-psaltery. "This word," says Gesenius, (Lex.) was adopted from the Greek into Chaldee, and, being interchanged." The origin of the word is, however, wholly uncertain. That it is found in Greek is undoubtedly true; but, as has been before remarked, as it is admitted that the names of the Greek instruments of music had mostly a foreign origin, it is impossible to demonstrate that this may not have been true in regard to this word. Baxtorf (Lex. Chald.) says that it is a word "corrupted from the Greek."

(9.) The next word is vŋ, pattish, (ch. iii. 21, rendered hosen,) which it is said is the same as the Greek «eráσos—petasos. But there is no reason to believe that this word had an original Greek origin. It is found in Syriac, and the root, ve-patash, Gesenius remarks, "is widely found in