Page images

favour, was the means of his being raised to more exalted honour, ch. vi.

In this situation at court, and with these advantages for promoting the interests of his people, he employed himself in seriously and diligently securing the return of the exiles to their own country, though it does not appear that he himself returned, or that he contemplated a return. It is probable that he supposed that at his time of life it would not be wise to attempt such a journey; or that he supposed he could be of more use to his countrymen in Babylon in favouring their return than he could by accompanying them to their own land. His position at the court of the Medo-Persian government gave him an opportunity of rendering material aid to his people, and it is not improbable that it was through his instrumentality that the decree was obtained from Cyrus which allowed them to return. One of the designs of Providence in raising him up, was, doubtless, that he might exert that influence at court, and that he might thus be the means of restoring the exiles. He had at last the happiness to see his most ardent wishes accomplished in this respect.

In the third year of Cyrus, he had a vision, or a series of visions, (chs. x. xi. xii.) containing minute details respecting the history and sufferings of his nation to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, concluding with a more general represention (ch. xii.) of what would occur in the last days of the world's history.

Beyond this, nothing certain is known of Daniel. The accounts respecting him are vague, confused, and strange. How long he lived, and when and where he died, are points on which no certain information can now be obtained. Josephus gives no account of his latter days, or of his death, though he says respecting him, “he was so happy as to have strange revelations made to him, and these as to one of the greatest of the prophets, insomuch that while he was alive he had the esteem and applause both of kings and of the multitude; and now he is dead he retains a remembrance that will never fail.” Ant. b. x. ch. xi. It is commonly believed that he died in Chaldea, having been detained there by his employments in the Persian empire. Epiphanius says that he died in Babylon, and this has been the commonly received opinion of historians. This opinion, however, has not been universai. Some suppose that he died at Shusan or Susa. Josephus (Ant. b. x. ch. xi.) says that, on account of the opinion which men had that he was beloved of God, he built a tower at Ecbatana in Media, which was a most elegant building, and wonderfully made," and that it was still remaining in his day. Benjamin of Tudela says that his monument was shown at Chuzestan, which is the ancient Susa. As Benjamin of Tudela professes to record what he saw and heard, and as his 'Itinerary' is a book which has been more frequently transcribed and translated than almost any other book, except the Travels of Maundeville, it may be of some interest to copy what he has said of the tomb of Daniel. It is a record of the traditions of the East-the country where Daniel lived and died, and it is not improbably founded in essential truth. At any rate, it will show what has been the current tradition in the East respecting Daniel, and is all that can now be known respecting the place of his death and burial. Benjamin of Tudela was a Jewish Rabbi of Spain, who travelled through Europe, Asia, and Africa, from Spain to China, between A. D. 1160 and 1173. His Itinerary was first printed in 1543. It was a work in wide circulation in the 13th, 14th, and 15th centuries, and has been translated from the original Hebrew, into Latin, English, French, Dutch, and Jewish German, and, in these languages has passed through not less than twentytwo editions. I quote from the London and Berlin edition of 1840. “Four miles from hence begins Khuzestan, Elam of Scripture, a large province which, however, is but partially inhabited, a portion of it lying in ruins. Among the latter are the remains of Shushan the Metropolis and palace of king Achashverosh, which still contains very large and handsome buildings of ancient date. Its seven thousand Jewish inhabi tants possess fourteen synagogues; in front of one of which is the tomb of Daniel, who rests in peace. The river Ulai divides the parts of the city which are connected with a bridge; that portion of it which is inhabited by the Jews, contains the markets; to it all trade is contined, and there dwell all the rich; on the other side of the river they are poor, because they are deprived of the abovenamed advantages, and have even no gardens nor orchards. These circumstances gave rise to jealousy, which was fostered by the belief that all honor and riches originated from the possession of the remains of the prophet Daniel, who rests in peace, and who was buried on their side. A request was made by the poor for permission to remove the sepulchre to the other side, but it was rejected; upon which a war arose and was carried on between the two parties for a length of time; this strife lasted until their souls became loath' (Num. xxi. 4. 5; Judg. xvi. 16.), and they came to a mutual agreement, by which it was stipulated that the coffin, which contained Daniel's bones, should be deposited alternately every year on either side. Both parties faithfully adhered to this arrangement, which was, however, interrupted by the interference of Sanjar Shah Ben Shah, who governs all Persia, and holds supreme power over forty-five of its kings.

When this great emperor Sanjar, king of Persia, came to Shushan, and saw that the coffin of Daniel was removed from side to side, he crossed the bridge with a very numerous retinue, and accompanied by Jews and Mahometans, inquired into the nature of these proceedings. Upon being told what we have related above, he declared that it was derogatory to the honor of Daniel, and recommended that the distance between the two banks should be exactly measured, that Daniel's coffin should be deposited in another coffin, made of glass, and that it should be suspended from the very middle of the bridge, fastened by chains of iron. A place of public worship was erected on the very spot, open to every one who desired to say his prayers, whether he be Jew or Gentile, and the coffin of Daniel is suspended from the bridge unto this very day.” Vol. i. pp. 117–120.

This story, trifling as it is in some of its details, may be admitted as evidence of a tradition in the East that Daniel died and was buried at Shushan. This tradition, moreover, is very ancient. In a Note on this passage (vol. ii. p. 152.) A. Asher, the publisher of the Itinerary of Benjamin says, Aasim of Cufah, a venerable historian, who preceded Ibn Hankel by two hundred years, (for he died 735) mentions the discovery of Daniel's coffin at Sus. Ibn Hankel, who travelled in the tenth century, speaks of it, and ascribes to the possession of the bones of Daniel the virtue of dispelling all sorts of distress, particularly that of famine from want of


rain.” It has been a matter of much controversy whether the place now known as Chouck, Chouz, or Sous is the ancient Shushan, (Lat. 31° 55', Long. 83° 40'), or the place now called Shuster (Lat. 31° 30%, Long. 84o 30). The former opinion is maintained by Rennel, Ouseley, Barbié du Bocage, Kinneir, and Hoek; the latter by d'Herbelot d'Anville, Vincent, Mannert, and Hammer. Major Rawlinson, who has furnished the most recent account of this place, maintains that 'Shushan the palace' is the present Susan on the Kulan or_Eulaeus, the Ulai of Scripture. See vol. ix. of the Journal of the Royal Geographical Society


Consideration of Objections. Until a comparatively recent period, with some slight exceptions, the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel have been regarded as settled, and its canonical authority was as little doubted as that of any other portion of the Bible. The ancient Hebrews never called its genuineness or authenticity in question (Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, Königsberg, 1835, p. 6; Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniel, Berlin, 1831, p. 1). It is true that in the Talmud (Tract. Baba Bathra, Fol. 15. Ed. Venet.) it is said that “the men of the Great Synogogue wrote-1379 the u9 K. D. N. G.—that is, portions (xi. chs.) of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet Daniel, and the Book of Esther;" but this, as Lengerke has remarked, (p. v.) does not mean that they had introduced this book into the canon, as Bertholdt supposes, but that, partly by tradition, and partly by inspiration, they revised it anew. But whatever may be the truth in regard to this, it does not prove that the ancient Jews did not consider it canonical. It is true that much has been said about the fact that the Jews did not class this book among the prophets, but placed it in the Hagiography, or Kethubim, dipin?. It has been inferred from this, that they believed that it was composed a considerable time after the other prophetic books, and that they did not deem it worthy of a place among their prophetic books in general. But, even if this were so, it would not prove that they did not regard it as a genuine production of Daniel ; and the fact that it was not placed among the prophetic books may be accounted for without the supposition that they did not regard it as genuine. The usual statement on that subject is, that they placed the book there because they say that Daniel lived the life of a courtier in Babylon, rather than the life of a prophet; and the Jews further assert that, though he received divine communications, they were only by dreams and visions of the night, which they regard as the most imperfect kind of revelations. Horne, Intro. iv. 188. The place which Daniel should occupy in the sacred writings probably became a matter of discussion among the Hebrews only after the coming of the Saviour, when Christians urged so zealously his plain prophecies (ch. ix. 24—27) in proof of the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus.

The first open and avowed adversary to the genuineness and authenticity of the Book of Daniel, was Porphyry, a learned adversary of the Christian faith in the third century. He wrote fifteen books against Christianity, all of which are lost, except some fragments preserved by

Eusebius, Jerome, and others. IIis objections against Daniel were made in his twelfth book, and all that we have of these objections has been preserved by Jerome in his commentary on the Book of Daniel. A ful] account of Porphyry, and of his objections against the Christians and the sacred books of the Old and New Testament, so far as can now be known, may be seen in Lardner, Jewish and Ileathen Testimonies, vol. vii. pp. 390_470, of his works, Ed. London, 1829. In regard to the Book of Daniel, he maintained, according to Jerome (Pr. and Explan. in Daniel), “ that the book was not written by him whose name it bears, but by another who lived in Judea in the time of Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes; and that the Book of Daniel does not foretell things to come, but relates what had already happened. In a word, whatever it contains to the time of Antiochus is true history; if there is anything relating to aftertimes it is falsehood; forasmuch as the writer could not see things future, but at the most only could make some conjectures about them. To him several of our authors have given answers of great labour and diligence, in particular Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, in three volumes, the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th. Apollinarius, also, in one large book, that is the 26th, and before them, in part, Methodius. As it is not my design,” says Jerome,“ to confute the objections of the adversary, which would require a long discourse, but only to explain the prophet to our own people, that is, Christians, I shall just observe that none of the prophets have spoken so clearly of Christ as Daniel, for he not only foretels his coming, as do others likewise, but he also teaches the time when he will come, and mentions in order the princes of the intermediate space, and the number of the years, and the signs of his appearance. And because Porphyry saw all these things to have been fulfilled, and could not deny that they had actually come to pass, he was compelled to say as he did; and because of some similitude of circumstances, he asserted that the things foretold as to be fulfilled in Antichrist at the end of the world, happened in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. Which kind of opposition is a testimony of truth; for such is the plain interpretation of the words, that to incredulous men the prophet seems not to foretell things to come, but to relate things already past. And though, as before said, it is not my intention to confute all his objections, I shall, as occasion offers, take notice of some of his weak arguments. And it may be proper for us, among other things, to observe now, that Porphyry argued that the Book of Daniel was not genuine, because it was written in Greek, and, therefore, was not the work of any Jew, but the forgery of some Greck writer. This he argued from some Greek words which are in the fable of Susanna, to which both Eusebius and Apollinarius returned the same answer, that the fabulous stories of Susanna, and Bel, and the Dragon, are not in the Hebrew, but are said to have been composed by a person of the tribe of Levi ; whereas the sacred Scriptures assure us that Daniel and the three children, his companions, were of the tribe of Judah. And they said they were not accountable for what was not received by the Jews, nor was a part of the sacred Scriptures.” A few of the objections which Porphyry makes to the credibility of certain parts of Daniel, Jerome has quoted in his commentary on the particular passages referred to. These have been collected by Dr. Lardner, and may be seen in his works, vol. vii. pp. 402—415. It is not necessary to transcribe them here, as they will come up for consideration in the Notes on the particular chapters.

Dr. Lardner (vol. vii. p. 401], remarks respecting Porphyry, “ that Porphyry's work against the Christians was much laboured, and that in this argument he displayed all his learning, which was very considerable. Hence, we can perceive the difficulty of undertaking an answer to him, for which very few were fully qualified ; in which none of the apologists for Christianity seem to have answered expectations." We cannot now form a correct opinion of the argument of Porphyry, for we have only the few fragments of his work, which Jerome and others have seen proper to preserve. We are in danger, therefore, of doing injustice to what may have been the real force of his argument, for it may have been stronger than would be indicated by those fragments that remain. It is impossible to recover his main objections; and all that can now be said is, that, as far as is known, he did not make any converts to his opinions, and that his objections produced no change in the faith of the Christian world.

No further attack on the genuineness and authenticity of Daniel seems to have been made, and no further doubt entertained, until the time of Spinoza. Spinoza was by birth a Jew; was born at Amsterdam in 1632 ; became professedly converted to Christianity in consequence of supposing that his life was in danger among the Jews, but was probably indifferent to all religions. He gave himself up to philosophical inquiries, and is commonly understood to have been a pantheist. Ile maintained (Tractat. Theol. Politicus, c. 10, T. i p. 308 Ed. Paulus) that the last five chapters of Daniel were written by Daniel himself, but that the seven previous chapters were collected about the time of the Maccabees, from the chronological writings of the Chaldeans, and that the whole was arranged by some unknown hand. Edward Wells, who lived in the first part of the eighteenth century, maintained that the work was composed by some one soon after the death of Daniel. Antony Collins, one of the British Deists, maintained also that it was not written by Daniel. In more recent times, the genuineness of the book has been doubted or denied, in whole or in part, by Corrodi, Gesenius, Lüderwald, Dereser, Scholl

, Lengerke, Eichhorn, De Wette, Griesenger, Bertholdt, Bleek, Ewald, Hitzig, and Kirms; it has been defended by the English writers generally, and among the Germans, by Staudlin, Beckhaus, Jabn, Hävernick, Hengstenberg, and others. The general ground taken by those who have denied its genuineness and authenticity is, that the book was written at or about the time of the Maccabees, by some Jew, who, in order to give greater authority and importance to his work, wrote under the assumed name of Daniel, and laid the scene in Babylon in the time of the captivity.

The various arguments urged against the genuineness of the book, may be seen in Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Lengerke, Kirms (Commentatio Historico Critica, Jenac, 1828), and De Wette. The best defence of its authenticity, probably, is the work of Ilengstenberg, (Die Authentie des Daniel, Berlin, 1831). The examination of the objections alleged against the particular chapters, and particular portions of chapters, it will be most convenient to examine in the introductions to the respective chapters. I propose, in this general Introduction, merely to examine the ob

« PreviousContinue »