sarily short as this statement must be, it will give a sufficient idea of the sources of objection and of reply, and, as appears to me, of the futility of the former and the justness of the latter. I shall chiefly derive it, in a form much abridged, from the late eminently learned and candid Dr. Jahn's (Einleitung in die Göttlichen Bücher des Alten Bundes) Introduction to the Sacred Books of the Old Testament, Vol. II. Pt. ii. pp. 624— 653. Vienna, 1803.

The ancient enemy of Christianity, Porphyry, maintained that the Book attributed to Daniel was the work of an unknown literary forger, in or soon after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. This he advanced without any historical grounds, and purely because he could not otherwise extricate himself from the evidence which the book furnishes to the reality of supernatural revelation, and the divine origin of Christianity.-Those modern writers ascribe it, to no man of deceptive intentions indeed, but to an upright and pious author, who chose to invest the outline of certain historical facts in the garb of prophecy, and embellished his composition with some traditional anecdotes of the life and wonderful actions of the celebrated sage Daniel.

The notion, upon this hypothesis, of its being the work of an upright inan, is a flagrant inconsistency.—If it be a supposititious book, the writer of it must have been an intentional, deliberate, and very artful deceiver.

There is every internal evidence of integrity in the writer and genuineness in the work. The entire style and manner of the book indicates an author who was not only an eminently wise man, but one of the strictest virtue and piety; well acquainted with the Hebrew and Aramaic tongues, and, in consequence of his education and constant residence among Babylonians, Chaldæans, the sacred caste of the Magians, and many other foreigners, in the metropolis of the great Chaldæan empire, habituated to the use of foreign terms and emblematical ideas;—who lived at Babylon in the period which the book assumes, and was perfectly conversant with the court and government of Babylon ;-himself a statesman and a high officer of the court;-piously and patriotically attached to the divine religion and the interests of his native country, Judæa;—an anxious observer of all public affairs;—hoping and praying for the restoration of the captive Jews;-expressing the divine communications made to him in the manner which was graphically characteristic of the time and circumstances, and which could not be successfully imitated under any different state of things;-having the peculiarity, like his contemporary Ezekiel, of giving exact dates to his visions; - his book possessing throughout a characteristic identity of style,—and composed of several distinct portions, joined together by himself; or by some other person, perhaps after his death.

Had any person written this book after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, he must have lived in Judæa,-and then it is scarcely conceivable that he could have known the names of the Chaldæan government-offices, which were generally in the Zend, the Pahlavi, or the Parsi language, and

the Magian symbolical imagery;-still less could he have ventured to use them :-he would not have called the last Chaldæan king by his true Chaldæan name, Belshazzar,—since, in all other monuments of history, he is known by some other name of a translated or mutilated form ;—he would not have described the wall of the king's banqueting palace as merely plastered, but he would have covered it with rich tapestry;—he would not have introduced out of order a second time (ch. xi. 40) the third expedition of Antiochus Epiphanes,-nor expressed himself in various places in terms so enigmatical,-nor have written in two kinds of language, Hebrew and Chaldee, with various words derived from the old Persian, but he would have carefully avoided every thing that might create difficulty or awaken suspicion in the mind of the reader; he would hardly have so circumstantially noted the year and day of principal events; — he would not have introduced so much about Alexander, and so little of the Maccabees;—we should hardly have found so many various readings, chiefly turning upon grammatical points which a writer of the age supposed would have accurately observed, but which are naturally accounted for, when compared with the date and circumstances which we believe belong to the book.

-

Further it is inconceivable that a book of pretended prophecies, which made its first appearance after B. C. 163, could have been accepted by the Jews as a genuine and inspired work of Daniel.—At that time, learning and the Grecian philosophy were much cultivated by the Jews; and their attention was particularly directed to the study of their own sacred books.-The collection of those books had been, long before, completed and fixed with the strictest exclusiveness; so that the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, though written in Hebrew, and a book containing so much useful matter, was never admitted by them. The more religious part of the Jewish nation, in that period, possessed great influence; and they were so averse from any innovations, and so devotedly attached to their sacred books, as to incur every hazard, surrender all their possessions, and become martyrs, rather than consent to any corruption of their religion and the holy records in which it was contained. It would have been regarded as the greatest crime, to attempt intruding into the longfixed and closed collection of the sacred books, a composition of which nobody had ever before heard, as an ancient prophetic work. It would have been impossible to have imposed it upon the numerous bodies of Jews scattered in many countries far from Judæa. Had such an attempt been made, and even had it, contrary to all reasonable supposition, been successful, it could not have been without much objection, inquiry, and discussion: but there is not the least intimation of any such a controversy having ever existed, in the Maccabees, Josephus, Philo, or the New Testament: on the contrary, there are decisive testimonies of the UNCONTESTED genuineness of the book, in Josephus (Jewish Antiq. XI. viii. 5), in 1 Macc. ii. 59, 60, and i. 54; above all, in the express recognition of our LORD himself, Matt. xxiv. 15. There is internal evidence that the

Alexandrian Greek Version was made before the time of the Maccabees, even before the commencement of the third century before the Christian

era.

Obj. 1. The Jews do not put this book among the Prophets, but include it in the Chetubim or Hagiographa; which authorizes the suspicion that it was not in existence when the collection of the Prophets was made.

Ans. (1.) The Psalms and other books of indubitable genuineness and inspiration, are among the Hagiographa.

(2.) This position of the book of Daniel was not universal among the ancient Jews; as appears from Josephus against Apion, I. 8; Melito of Sardis, and Origen, in Eusebius's Eccl. Hist. IV. xxvi., ́VI. xxv.; and Epiphanius, Vol. I. p. 18.

(3.) The motive of the Talmudical Jews, for putting this book out of the Prophetical collection, is assigned by themselves. It was not that they disputed the genuineness of the book, or the reality of the predictions, or the divine inspiration of Daniel; but on account of a superstitious notion which they invented, that, for the rightful application of the term Prophet, it was necessary, not only that the person should be inspired to utter real predictions from God, but that he should live in a peculiar manner, wearing a rough cloak, an under-garment of camel's hair, and a plain leathern girdle, and subsisting upon wild figs, locusts, and wild honey. Now, since Daniel was very far removed from this style of living, and spent his life in courts and among heathen princes, these later Jews thought themselves justified in altering the arrangement of their ancestors, and separating Daniel from the other prophets.

Obj. 2. Jesus the son of Sirach omits Daniel in his enumeration of the celebrated prophets, ch. xlix., which he would not have done had the book been extant in his time, B. C. 180 or 190.

Ans. His design was not to enumerate all the prophets, but only those who spoke of the captivity; and, even on that ground, he is not exact; for he puts together the twelve minor prophets, and omits Isaiah.

Obj. 3. In the persecution by Antiochus Epiphanes, the Syrians and Greeks destroyed all the copies which they could seize of the Jewish Scriptures: and when afterwards a new collection was made, it would be easy to intrude a new book.

Ans. Was it possible that the persecutors should get into their hands all the copies, or even the larger part, of the Jews in Judæa? The demand and search in order to burn them, would make the possessors of such a treasure employ all methods of concealment. Resistance was very soon made by Mattathias and his sons. What numbers of copies must have existed in the hands of the thousands of Jews in Mesopotamia, Persia, Arabia, Egypt, and the Grecian states? If the heroic Maccabæan leaders, or any of the priests suborned by them, had been dishonest enough (but the supposition contradicts all historical credibility) to interpolate the sacred books with a spurious book of Daniel, because a

brief allusion to them occurs in a single passage; why did they not do the same with the first book of the History of the Maccabees, whose contents confer upon them so much more honour? Or, if a forgery was resolved upon, why did not its author make thorough work of it; and make a book of Daniel that should amply gratify their ambitious desire?

Obj. 4. The command to close and seal up the book (ch. xii. 4, 9) looks like an artful precaution, to furnish a plausible reason for assuming its long previous existence when it was obtruded upon the Jews.

Ans. This objection arises from ignorance of the meaning of the passage. It is a declaration that the prophecy would not be understood, till explained by its fulfilment. It is also the statement of a divine command to the prophet, bearing an affinity to Isaiah vi. 10, and Jer. i. 9, 10. There appears to have been a usage of a solemn sealing up of prophecies, and their being deposited in a place of public custody, till a certain period should be accomplished: plainly described in Is. viii. 1, 2, 16, and xxx. 8; and alluded to by implication in Habak. ii 2.

Obj. 5. The visions and miraculous interpositions of the Deity are incredible.

Ans. Not to a rational believer in divine revelation. The occasions were worthy of the miracles. It was a wise and holy object to confirm the exiled and captive Jews in their religion, to fortify them against the seductions of idolatry and superstition, and to impress the minds of the heathen princes and people with demonstrations that the God of the Hebrews was the only true God.

Obj. 6. The king's paying homage to Daniel: ch. ii. 46.

Ans. This is perfectly in accordance with the awful impression made on Nebuchadnezzar's mind, and the established practice from the highest ranks towards the Magian philosophers.

Obj. 7. The golden statue, ch. iii. 1;-its monstrous disproportion as a human figure;-and the incredibility that so prodigious a quantity of gold could have been possessed by the king or the priests.

Ans. We have a perfect right to suppose that the height assigned includes a column upon which the idol stood; and that the column and statue were not of solid gold, but gilt or plated over. The term golden is applied, both in ancient and in modern speech, to figures which appear golden to the eye, though they be not of the solid metal.

Obj 8. Why is not Daniel mentioned, as well as the other three young Jews, as refusing to be guilty of the act of idolatry to the golden image?

Ans. The absence of any mention of Daniel is a circumstance highly favourable to the credibility of the narrative: for, had it been a fiction, it is morally impossible that the author of it, drawing his materials from natural probability and imagination, would have omitted to assign to Daniel a distinguished part in the action. Various circumstances may very reasonably be supposed to account for Daniel's having no share in

the transaction: he might have been ill,— -or absent from Babylon upon the affairs, very possibly, of his office in the state;-or, on account of his favour with the king, he might have been indulged with a special exemption.

Obj. 8. The relation of the insanity of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. iv.) contains much that is to the last degree improbable, and even impossible. That a man, who had been brought up in the enjoyments of royalty, should feed upon grass, and live unsheltered, like the beasts of the field, for seven years!-Insane as he was, such diet would soon have brought him to death; or, in the country near Babylon which abounded with the most dangerous animals, he would infallibly have been devoured.-Would a deranged monarch have been so treated by his family, ministers, or courtiers? Or, if we suppose them to have exercised this extreme inhumanity towards the pitiable object, can we think it possible that they would have shewn such delicacy of forbearance with regard to his political rights? Would they have preserved the throne vacant for him? Or could they possibly have so preserved it? We know with what eagerness, especially in the oriental despotisms, any opportunity was seized, by an aspiring satrap or warrior, to grasp at a crown. If Nebuchadnezzar's adherents had been so inflexibly faithful to his interests as to have attempted the safe guarding of his rights; it would have been utterly impossible for them to have succeeded. If, contrary to all probability, no bold aspirant had aimed at seizing the government; still it would have been impracticable to carry on public affairs for so long a time, and yet to save the claims of the helpless monarch so inviolate, that on his recovery he should, immediately and without difficulty, resume his authority.

Ans. (1.) The Chaldee word rendered time (ver. 16, 23, 25, 32), is not definitely a year, unless it should be so interpreted by the original authority, as it is in ch. xii. It denotes time or a season, indefinitely; and in the Arabic and the Syriac languages, it is applied to denote a day set apart for a solemnity, and the period of a month. That the author could never have intended seven years, is evident from the circumstances. The narrative of the insanity shews that it must have occurred after Nebuchadnezzar had achieved all his conquests, and had employed the spoils and contributions of the conquered nations in enlarging, fortifying, and beautifying his capital and his palaces: see ver. 30. So that the event could not have been earlier than the 40th or 41st year of his reign; and he died in the 43rd. The duration of the malady might then have been seven months: but Jahn thinks fourteen months more probable, as the Orientals were in the habit of dividing the year into six equal parts, and therefore seven of those established sixths seem to be most in accordance with the usage of speech.

(2.) The brief and picturesque description of the king's hallucinations should be understood according to the nature of such cases. It is perfectly credible that he imagined himself the victim of a conspiracy and his enemies seeking to assassinate him. This idea would be strength