the Indo-European languages. The primary form," says he, "is batt, patt whence later Lat. battere; French, battre; Dutch, bot; Swed. batsch," &c. The Greek word has undoubtedly had the same origin, and it cannot be maintained that the Chaldee word is derived from the Greek.

(10.) The remaining word which is alleged to be of Greek origin is, ♫a, nebirbah (ch. ii. 6, v. 17), rendered in both cases in the text, rewards, and in the margin, fee. It does not elsewhere occur in the Old Testament. It is maintained by Bertholdt and others, that this is the same word as the Greek vópiopa-money. But there is no evidence that the word is of Greek origin. Gesenius says (Lex.), that the word may have a Chaldee origin, though he prefers to assign to it a Persian origin, and he says that the idea of money (implied in the Greek word) is foreign to the context here. Bohlen, Winer, and Hengstenberg, agree in assigning the word to a Persian origin. See Hengs. Authen. p. 12.

The result, then, to which we have come in regard to the objection that words of Greek origin, and indicating an age later than the time of the exile, are found in Daniel, is, that the number alleged to be of such an origin is very few at best, and that of those which have been referred to, there are not more than four (marked 5, 6, 7, and 8, in the enumeration above,) to which the objection can be supposed to apply with any degree of probability. These are the words actually selected by De Wette, (p. 386,) as those on which he relies.

In regard to these four words, then, we may make the following gene

ral observations:

(a) They are all names of musical instruments said to have been used in Babylon.

(b) The general remark of Strabo above referred to may be called to recollection here, that the names of musical instruments among the Greeks were mostly of foreign origin. In itself considered, therefore, there is no improbability in the supposition that the same words should be applied to musical instruments in Greece and in Chaldea.

(c) The languages in which these words are found belong to the same great family of languages-the Indo-European; that is, the Persian, the Greek, the Latin, &c. They had a common origin, and it is not strange if we find the same words spread extensively through these languages.

(d) There was sufficient intercourse between Persia, Chaldea, Asia Minor, and Greece, before and at the time of the Hebrew captivity, to make it not improbable that the names of musical instruments, and the instruments themselves, should be borne from one to the other. There is, therefore, no improbability in supposing that such instruments may have been carried to Babylon from Greece, and may have retained their Greek names in Babylon. Curtius (b. iv. c. 12) says, that in the Persian host that came out to meet Alexander the Great, there were many persons found of Greek origin who had become subject to the authority of Media. For farther historical proofs on this subject, see Hengs. Authen. pp. 16, 17. Indeed, little proof is needed. It is known that the Greeks were in the habit of visiting foreign lands, and particularly of travelling into the region of the East, for the purpose of obtaining knowledge; and nothing is, in itself, more probable than that in this way the names of a few musical instruments, in common use among themselves, should have been made known to the people among whom they travelled, and that

those names should have been incorporated into the languages spoken

there.

V. A fifth objection, or class of objections, is derived from the alleged reference to usages, opinions, and customs, later than the time of the exile. This objection, which embraces several subordinate points, is thus summed up by De Wette: "The remarkable later representations on the subject of angels (der Angelologie, iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 21; of Christology, vii. 13, f. xii. 1-3; of dogmatics [or doctrines, Dogmatik,] xii. 2, f.; of morals [Sittenlehre] or customs, iv. 24, Comp. Tobit, iv. 11. xii. 9; and of asceticism [Askese], i. 8-16, Comp. Esther iv. 17, 2 Mac. v. 27, vi. 11, furnish at least an additional argument [einen Hülfsbeweis] against the genuineness of the book." 255, c. (5).

This objection, it will be observed, divides itself into several parts or portions, though coming under the same general description. The general statement is, that there is an allusion to customs and opinions which were found among the Jews only at a later period than the captivity, and that, therefore, the book could not have been composed at the time alleged. The specifications relate to angelology, or the representations respecting angels; to christology, or the views of the Messiah; to the doctrines stated, particularly to those respecting the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment; to the customs that prevailed, and to the ascetic views expressed, particularly on the effect of abstinence from rich kinds of diet. It will be convenient to notice them in their order, so far as to furnish a general answer. Most of them will be noticed more particularly in the Notes on the passages as they occur; and for a full and complete answer the reader may be referred, in general, to Hengstenberg, Authentie des Daniel, pp. 137-173.

A. The first specification is derived from the statements which occur respecting angels, ch. iv. 14, ix. 21, x. 13, 21. These, it is affirmed, indicate a state of opinion which prevailed among the Hebrews only at a later age than the time of the exile, and consequently the book could not have been written at that time. This objection, as urged by Bertholdt and others, refers to two points; first, that the statements respecting the opinions of the Chaldeans on the subject, are not in accordance with the opinions in the time when the book is said to have been written; and second, that the statements respecting angels, considered as Hebrew opinions, are those which belong to a later age. It will be proper to notice these in their order.

I. The first is, that the statements which occur as representing the opinions of the Chaldeans, express sentiments which did not prevail among them. The objections on this point relate to two statements in the book; one, that the Son of God, or a Son of God, is spoken of by Nebuchadnezzar; the other, to what is said (ch. iv. 14,) of the "decree of the Watchers."

The former objection is thus stated by Bertholdt: In ch. iii. 25, "Nebuchadnezzar speaks of a Son of God [and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God'], and although the Chaldeans, and most of the dwellers in Upper Asia, were polytheists, yet there is no evidence that anything was known at the time of the views which prevailed among the Greeks on this subject, but that such views became known in the time of

Seleucus Nicator." p. 29. It is hence inferred that the book could not have been written before the time of Seleucus.

In regard to the objection, it may be observed, in addition to what is said in the Notes on the passage, (ch. iii. 25,) where the expression occurs, that the objection is so vague and indefinite that it scarce needs a reply. The opinions which prevailed in the East on the subject of the gods, is so little known now that it is impossible to demonstrate that such an opinion as this might not have existed in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and impossible to prove that such views as would have suggested this expression did not prevail before the time of Seleucus Nicator. Indeed, it is not easy to show that such language as is here ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar would have been more likely to have been suggested by the views of mythology that prevailed in Greece, and that were spread abroad in consequence of the difference of Greek opinions in the East, than by the views which prevailed in Babylon in the time of the exile. But it may be more particularly observed in reply to the objection, (a) That according to Gesenius (Thes. p. 237), this language, as used by Nebuchadnezzar, is such as would properly denote merely one of the gods, or one in the form of the gods; that is, one who resembled the godsin the same way as the phrase "son of man" denotes a man, or one in the form and appearance of a man. Perhaps this was all that was meant by Nebuchadnezzar; at least that is all that can be demonstrated to have been his meaning, or all that is necessarily implied in his words. See Notes on the passage. But,

(b) There were opinions which prevailed in Chaldea on the subject of the gods which would fully justify the use of such language. That they regarded one portion of the gods as descended from another, or as begotten by another; that they looked upon them as constituting families, in a way similar to the Greeks, and particularly that they regarded Bel, their supreme god, always accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, as the father of the gods, has been abundantly demonstrated. On this point, see Gesenius, Com. zu. Isai. ii. 332, seq. (Beylage 2, Gottheiten der Chaldäer), and Creuzer, Symbolik, on the word Mylitta, i. 231, ii. 331, 333, 350, 460. The idea of derivation, descent, or birth, among the gods, was one that was quite familiar to the Chaldeans, perhaps as much so as to the Greeks. In fact, this has been so common an opinion among all polytheists, that it is rather to be presumed that it would be found everywhere among the heathen than otherwise.

The other objection on this point is derived from what is said of the Watchers, ch. iv. 13, 17. The objection is, that there are betrayed here traces of a later Parsish-Jewish representation; that is, that this indicates that the book was composed in later times.

In regard to the meaning of this language, see notes on ch. iv. 13. Perhaps a reference to this Note, where the probability that such a term would be used in Babylon is shown, is all that is necessary in answering the objection. But, in addition to this, an observation of Diodorus Siculus may be introduced here. I copy it as I find it in Gesenius, Com. zu. Isa. vol. ii. pp. 333, 334. Diodorus is speaking of the sun, moon, and five planets as adored by the Chaldeans, and adds, "To the course of these stars, there are, as they say, thirty others that are subordinate, which are represented as divine counsellors (Scoì Bovλaío-consulting gods, as we

would say,) of whom one half has the supervision of the regions under the earth; the other half has the supervision of things on the earth, among men, and in heaven. Every ten days is one of them sent as a messenger of the stars from those above to those below, and from those below to those above." This quotation will render it unnecessary to say anything more as to the question, whether it is improbable that such language would be used by one residing in Babylon in the time of the exile. It is to be remembered that this is language which is represented in a dream as having been addressed to Nebuchadnezzar, and the quotation proves that it is such language as would be likely to occur to the king of Babylon in the visions of the night. It was such language as he must have been accustomed to, and so far is the use of this language from being an objection to the genuineness of Daniel, that it might rather have been urged as a proof of it, since it is not probable that it would have been used by one who was not familiar with the customary ideas of the Chaldeans.

(2.) The other form of the objection derived from the statements respecting the angels in the Book of Daniel, refers to the opinions held among the Hebrews themselves. The general objection is, that these are representations respecting the ranks, and orders, and names of the angels which pertain only to later times in the history of Jewish opinions, and which did not exist in the period of the exile. This objection divides itself into several specifications, which it may be proper to notice briefly in their order.

(a) One is, that there is in the book, and particularly in ch. viii. 16, an allusion to the Persian doctrine of the seven Amhaspands, or angels that stand before God, and that this idea is found only in times later than the exile. Bertholdt, p. 528.

To this the answer is obvious: (1.) That there is no manifest allusion to that Persian doctrine in the book, and no statement which would not as readily have been made if that doctrine had no existence-since it is a mere representation of angels with certain names, and with no particular reference to the number seven; and (2.) if this were so, it is certain that this representation occurs in the Zendavesta, and the Zendavesta was composed in a distant antiquity, probably long before the time of the exile, and certainly before the time of Alexander the Great. See Creuzer, Symbolik, i. 183, seq., and the authorities there referred to. This, then, if it were true that the doctrine of the seven Amhaspands is found in the book of Daniel, and was derived from the Zendavesta, or the Persian, would remove the objection so far as to show that the book was composed before the time of Alexander the Great, or at least that there is no reason, from this quarter, to suppose that it was written afterwards. But the truth is, that the doctrine respecting angels and intermediate beings was so prevalent a doctrine all over the East, that this objection can have no solid foundation.

(b) It is objected, that there are found in this book representations of the angels, in reference to their ranks and orders, which are opinions of the Jews of a later age, and which did not exist in the time of the exile, and that, therefore, the book had a later origin than the captivity. Bertholdt.

To this it is sufficient to reply, (1.) that such a representation of ranks

and orders of angels is implied in Isa. vi. 1, seq., in the account of the Seraphim, a representation which supposes that there are angels of exalted rank and names; (2.) That there are traces of such an opinion in much earlier ages, as in Psa. cxxiii. 20; lxviii. 17; (3.) That this repre sentation of differences in the ranks of angels is one that prevails in the Old Testament; and (4.) That, for anything that appears, all that is implied in Daniel may have been a matter of common belief in his time. There is nothing in the book which would indicate any very definite arrangement of the angels into orders, though it is evidently implied that there are different degrees in the ranks of the angelic hosts, (ch. x. 5, 13, xii. 1,) but this was a common opinion in the East, and indeed has been a common sentiment where a belief in the existence of angels has prevailed at all.

(c) It is objected that names are given to the angels-the name of Gabriel and Michael, and that this is indicative of a later age. To this, also, it may be replied, (1.) That long before this we find the name Satan given to the leader of evil angels, Job i. 6, and there is no presumption against the belief that names may have been given to good angels also; (2.) That even if the practice had not prevailed before, no reason can be assigned why the angels who appeared to Daniel may not have assumed names, or been mentioned under appropriate titles to designate them, as well as those who appeared in after times; and (3.) That, for anything that appears, the fact that names were given to the angels among the Jews of later times may have had its origin in the time of Daniel, or may have occurred from the fact that he actually mentioned them under specific names.

(d) A similar objection is, that the statement in ch. vii. 10, that "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him,” is also a statement that had its origin in the representation of a Persian court-in the numbers that stood round the throne of a Persian monarch, and that this indicates a later age, or a Persian origin. To this objection it is sufficient to refer to Isaiah, vi., and to the Notes on this passage. But we have other representations of the same kind abounding in the Scriptures, in which God is described as a magnificent monarch, attended and surrounded by hosts of angels, and the same objection would lie against them which is urged against the account in Daniel. See particularly Job i. 2; 1 Kings, xxii. 19—22; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. lxviii. 18.

(e) Another objection from the representations of the angels, is derived from what is said of their interposition in human affairs, and their appearing particularly as the guardians and protectors of nations, in ch. x. 12, 20; xii. 1, which it is said indicates opinions of a later age. In reply to this, all that is necessary is to refer to the copious Notes on these passages, where the foundation of that opinion is examined, and to add that no one can demonstrate that that opinion may not have had an existance as early as the time of the exile. Indeed, it was a common opinion in ancient times-an opinion whose origin no one now can determinean opinion whose correctness no one can disprove. That this was a prevailing opinion in ancient times, is admitted by Bertholdt himself, pp. 32, 33, 705-707.

In general, therefore, it may be remarked respecting the objections