EXPOSITORY SCRIPTURE READINGS.

The Book of Daniel.

INTRODUCTION.

I THINK it of great importance to lay before the reader the following most conclusive vindication of the date, birthplace, and historical accuracy of this precious book. It disposes at once of the puerile and yet pretentious objections which we find urged against it in quarters where its solemn and sublime contents are not welcome. It is from Professor Stuart's Commentary on Daniel.

"The accurate knowledge which the writer of the book of Daniel displays, of ancient history, manners and customs, and Oriental Babylonish peculiarities, shows that he must have lived at or near the time and

place when and where the book leads us to suppose that he lived.

"A great variety of particulars might be adduced to illustrate and confirm this proposition; but I aim only to introduce the leading and more striking ones.

"In drawing the character of Nebuchadnezzar, and giving some brighter spots to it, Daniel agrees with hints of the like nature in Jer. xlii. 12; xxxix. 11. If

B

a writer in the Maccabean age had undertaken, as is asserted, to symbolize Antiochus Epiphanes by drawing the character of Nebuchadnezzar, it would be difficult to conceive how he would have been persuaded to throw into the picture these mellower tints.

"In drawing the portrait of Belshazzar, the last king of Babylon, Daniel agrees very strikingly with Xenophon. In this latter writer, he appears as a debauched, pleasure-loving, cruel, and impious monarch. Cyrop. (iv. v.) represents him as killing the son of Gobryas, one of his nobles, because he had anticipated him, while hunting, in striking down the game. When the father remonstrated, he replied, that he was sorry only that he had not killed him also. In lib. v. 2, he is styled haughty and abusive. One of his concubines spoke in praise of Gadates, a courtier, as a handsome man. The king invited him to a banquet, and there caused him to be seized and unmanned. It is all in keeping with this, when he appears in Dan. v. In his intoxication and pride, he orders the sacred vessels of the Jerusalem temple to be profaned; and Daniel is so disgusted with his behaviour, that he does not, as in the case of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. iv.), disclose any strong sympathy for him, but denounces unqualified destruction. Xenophon calls this king avóotos.

'Cyaxares (Darius the Mede in Dan.) is drawn by Xenophon as devoted to wine and women (Cyrop. iv.) In Dan. vi. 18, it is mentioned of Darius, as an extraordinary thing, that after he saw the supposed ruin of Daniel, he neither approached his table nor his harem. Xenophon speaks of him as indolent, averse to business, of small understanding, vain, without self-restraint, and easily thrown into tears; and then, moreover, as sub

ject to violent outbursts of passion (iv. v.) In Daniel he appears as wholly governed by his courtiers; they flatter his vanity, and obtain the decree intended to destroy Daniel. Daniel's supposed impending fate throws him into lamentation, and he betakes himself to fasting and vigils; and when he learns the safety of his Hebrew servant, he sentences his accusers, with all their wives and children, to be thrown into the lions' den (vi. 18-24).

"Now as there was no history of these times and kings among the Hebrews, and none among the Greeks that gave any minute particulars, in what way did a late writer of the book of Daniel obtain his knowledge?

"When in Dan. i. 21, it is stated that Daniel continued until the first year of Cyrus, without any specification when this was, the writer seems plainly to suppose his readers to be familiar with this period. It is true, that from the book of Ezra a knowledge of that time, the period of Jewish liberation, might be gained; but the familiar manner of the reference to it indicates that the writer feels himself to be addressing those who were cognizant of matters pertaining to the period.

"In ch. i. and ii. we are told that king Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem, took it, and sent Daniel and his companions to Babylon. There they were taken under the care and instruction of learned men among the Chaldees, and trained up for the personal service of the king. The period of training was three years. At the close of this, they were examined and approved by the king; and soon after this occurred Nebuchadnezzar's first dream, which Daniel was summoned to interpret. This dream is said to be in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. Here, then,

is an apparent parachronism. How could Daniel have been taken and sent into exile by king Nebuchadnezzar, educated three years, and then be called to interpret a dream in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign? The solution of this difficulty I have already exhibited in an Exc. at the end of the commentary on ch. i. I need not repeat the process here. It amounts simply to this, viz., that Nebuchadnezzar is called king in Dan. i. 1, by way of anticipation; a usage followed by Kings, Chron., and Jeremiah. Before he quitted Judea he became actual king by the death of his father; and the Jews, in speaking of him as commanding the invading army, always called him king. But in Dan. ii. 1, Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of in the Chaldee mode of reference to his actual reign. This leaves some four years for Daniel's discipline and service. But to those who were not familiar with the Jewish mode of speaking in respect to Nebuchadnezzar, it would naturally and inevitably appear like a parachronism, or even a downright contradiction of dates. Yet the writer has not a word of explanation to make. He evidently feels as if all were plain to his readers (as doubtless it was). But a writer of the Maccabean age would plainly have seen and avoided the difficulty.

"In Dan. v. 30, it is stated that Belshazzar was slain; but not a word is said descriptive of the manner in which this was brought about, nor even that the city of Babylon was taken. The next verse simply mentions that Darius the Mede took the kingdom. All this brevity seems to imply, that the writer supposed those whom he was addressing to be cognizant of the whole matter. Had he lived in the Maccabean