DANIEL;

WITH NOTES,

CRITICAL, EXPLANATORY, AND PRACTICAL,

DESIGNED FOR BOTH PASTORS AND PEOPLE.

BY
REV. HENRY COWLES, D. D.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION.

I. The questions of personal history appropriate to an introduction are, for the most part, readily answered from the book itself. Daniel comes first to view, a Jewish youth of the royal family,¹ taken captive to Babylon in the first deportation of captives, in the third year of Jehoiakim, B. C. 606 or 607; and is soon after selected with others for his wisdom, efficiency and agreeable person, to be trained in the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans, for service under the king. This custom of taking young men of the finest parts from a captive or subject race to fill responsible positions about the king, has prevailed in many despotic governments, and is essentially the usage of the Turkish empire to this day. It finds its motives, (1.) In the fact that such monarchs need men about them of the very first abilities; (2.) In the difficulty they would experience in getting young men of such ability from among their own people who might not, by virtue of their social position or connections, become dangerous to the throne. We are then to think of Daniel as educated thoroughly in the language, literature, and general culture of the Chaldeans (this term being used here for the learned, sacerdotal and scientific class, and not for the mass of the people), but yet as adhering with noble firmness to the religious faith of his fathers. In this position, he developed extraordinary capacities in the line of wisdom, fidelity and efficiency, and consequently rose to the rank of prime minister under the Chaldean sovereigns, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, and remarkably, attained and held an equally exalted position in the succeeding dynasty, the Medo-Persian, under Darius the Median and Cyrus.

Daniel must have lived and retained his vigor to a great age. The period during which he appears before us in this book, from the beginning of the captivity to the very end of it, was seventy years, and we may reasonably suppose him from sixteen to twenty years of age at the beginning of this period, and of course almost ninety at its close. Yet his heart appears full of earnest life and power in his memorable prayer for his people, given us in chap. 9, just on the eve of the restoration. Tradition holds that he was the special instrument under God of obtaining from Cyrus the decree for the restoration of his people to their own land—no small achievement for the physical stamina of a patriarch of ninety! Temperate habits through the whole of life, and a soul evermore steadfastly stayed on God, are eminently congenial to length of days and to freshness and vigor of days as well.

II. The reader will recall some points of close analogy between Daniel and Joseph. Both were captives; each rose in a foreign kingdom to the same rank of prime minister, by the same qualities of personal character—sterling integrity, unselfish devotion to their work, great business capacity, and unfaltering faith in God. Each became, under God, a patron and protector to his suffering people. To each was given of God extraordinary prophetic powers which served to raise him to general notice and confidence, and manifestly in the case of Daniel, served to exalt the God of the Hebrew race highly in the convictions of the monarchs under whom he served. Each was able to distance and confound all the pretenders to supernatural knowledge, of whom there were many both in Egypt and in Babylon.

III. Here it may be well to notice carefully the critical objections made in modern times against the entire book by those who deny its genuineness and impugn its historic veracity.——First in time by Porphyry, a prominent infidel of the third century, but most ably by a considerable body of recent German critics, it has been gravely and confidently denied that the book was written by that Daniel whose name it bears, whose history it gives, and who is referred to by Ezekiel (chap. 14; 14, 20, and 28: 3) and also by our Lord himself (Mat. 24: 15, 16). They also impugn the general veracity of its historical accounts, and attempt to sustain their main position by a variety of critical objections. They claim that the book was not written until after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes (B. C. 163); that it was written shortly after that event; and of course that it is a forgery and contains no prophecy whatever, being written after the minute events which its pretended visions of an assumed early date gave forth as prophecy.——Their central point is the denial of its genuineness and date; i. e., they deny that it was written by that Daniel who lived during the captivity, or by any one else at that time.——As collateral, yet altogether minor points, they say that the book contains some Greek and some Persian words, which evince a date later than the captivity; that part of it is written in Chaldee and part in Hebrew; that the tone of the composition is peculiar, unlike that of the other prophets; that its miracles are grotesque; that its doctrines respecting angels, the Messiah, and an ascetic life, indicate a later age; and finally that Daniel speaks too well of himself and was too young to stand so high as he appears in Ezekiel.——These minor points shall receive due attention in their place; the main one should come first in order. To meet their central and main dogma some what fundamentally, I maintain—1. That the Daniel of the age of the captivity was a very prominent man in Jewish history. Even King David was scarcely more so. He was a city set on a hill, known to all intelligent Jews of that age and onward into later times. Far above all other Jews of his time, he was the distinguished man—prime minister in the courts successively of Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, and promoted to the very highest rank by Belshazzar just on the eve of his final fall. Obviously not the doings only of such a man but his writings must be matters of public notoriety. By how much the more prominent the man, and by how much the more highly esteemed among his countrymen, by so much the greater would be the difficulty of putting forth forgeries in his name successfully during his lifetime, or at any period while his name would be worth using in a forged production; and hence by so much the greater would be the certainty that written documents purporting to be from him would be genuine.

2. This book of Daniel, in both its historic and prophetic parts, is closely interwoven with his actual life. It is not easy to conceive how any book could be more so. Both the outer and the inner life of the man stand out in his writings with remarkable distinctness. There is not a word in the whole book that does not fit naturally and closely to the life, to the heart, and to the whole character of this prominent man—Daniel of the captivity. Hence the assumption that this book is a forgery, gotten up three hundred and seventy years after the latest record of his life, is violently improbable—not to say, utterly incredible.

3. The languages in which the book is written determine its age, proving that it must have been written during, or very near, the captivity, and completely disproving the fiction of Porphyry. The facts are that the portion, chaps. 2: 4-7: 28, is in Chaldee; all the rest in Hebrew. Now the period of the captivity is the only one during the whole range of Jewish history in which one of the Jewish sacred books could have been written thus, a part in each tongue. For, all scripture was written for the common people and primarily for the people then living. This was the only period in the entire national history of the Jews in which they understood both these languages.—Again, this was the only period in which the Chaldee portion could have been reasonably written, for the benefit of the Chaldean people. Let any man intelligent in history, think of the Chaldee portion of Daniel as written for the Chaldean people in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes! The idea is simply absurd. Babylon had then almost ceased to be. Its relations to Nebuchadnezzar were all forgotten by its population. In the book of Ezra, chap. 5 throughout, portions of chaps. 4, 6, and 7, are in Chaldee, and a verse or too in Jeremiah; but these prophets were substantially in the same age with Daniel.

4. Some of the salient points in the history found in this book are referred to in subsequent Jewish history, prior to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, in a way which renders it nearly certain that the book itself was then extant. In 1 Mac. 2: 51-60, the venerable Mattathias of Moden, himself then near death, exhorts his sons to "call to remembrance what acts their fathers did in their time;" alludes successively to Abraham, Joseph, Phineas, Joshua, Caleb, David and Elijah; and then adds: "Ananias, Azarias and Misael, by believing, were saved out of the flame. Daniel, for his innocency was saved from the mouth of lions." These words were spoken by Mattathias before the date fixed by these German critics for the writing of the book of Daniel. I maintain that there is the strongest presumption for the existence of this book long before the death of Epiphanes, even as there is of the other histories drawn from in this same speech.——Furthermore, the second book of Macca- bees (chap. 7: 9, 14, 36) speaks of the resurrection in a way not easily accounted for otherwise than as an allusion to Dan. 12: 2, 3. The presumption is certainly very strong that the dying martyrs whose words are there quoted must have had this twelfth chapter in their hands. Compare what Daniel says with what they say. Daniel thus: "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt: and they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever." The martyrs referred to say; "Thou like a fury takest us out of the present life, but the King of the world shall raise up us who have died for his laws, unto everlasting life." "It is good being put to death by men, to look for the hopes that are of God, to be raised up again by him; but for thee there shall be no resurrection unto life." "For now our brethren, after enduring brief pain, have fallen under God's covenant of everlasting life; but thou, under God's judgment, shall receive the just punishment for thy pride." And yet further, there can scarcely be a doubt that these visions of Daniel, especially the last (chaps. 10-12) inspired the faith, zeal, and hope of the heroic Maccabees through their terrific struggle. Their words and deeds evince the power of such inspirations; the truths taught in Daniel were adapted (must we not say designed) of God for such results.

5. Josephus is a valuable Jewish witness. A man of eminent learning, in very high repute among his countrymen, the author of a full and very elaborate history of the Jewish nation from Abraham down to the destruction of their city by the Romans (A. D. 70); born A. D. 37 and publishing his works in the latter part of the first century; his testimony to the current opinions of his nation can not be impeached. He speaks (Ant. XII: 7: 6) of the prophecies of Daniel as being "uttered four hundred and eight years before;" i. e. before the events in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. He also says (Ant. X: 11: 7), "All these things, he (Daniel) left in writing, God exhibiting them to him, so that those who read, observant of the events, must needs look on Daniel with wonder on account of the honor done to him by God."—The fiction of these modern German critics is squarely confronted by this testimony of Josephus. They say Daniel did not write the book which bears his name; Josephus says he did. They deny the fact of any real prophecy in this book; Josephus specially affirms it, and declares it to be of the most extraordinary and unquestionable character.

6. Yet again, we have the testimony of Josephus that this very book of Daniel was shown by the High Priest Jaddua to Alexander the Great in the year B. C. 332. The circumstances strongly confirm this statement, to this extent at least; for Alexander certainly spared the Jews and their city; took them into favor, and exempted them from the tribute which it was his custom to impose on subject nations. This was sixty-six years before the earliest date allowed by these critics for the existence of this book of Daniel.

7. There can be scarcely a doubt that the book of Daniel was translated into the Septuagint one hundred years before the German skeptics admit it to have existed. Some points in respect to the authors of this celebrated version and to its production remain considerably obscure; but there is no ground for doubt that it was made within the reigns of the first two Ptolemies in the Greek Egyptian dynasty, and at the request and with the aid of these two kings. Their reigns fill the period B. C. 323-246. The Pentateuch was brought out first, and about B. C. 285. It might be difficult to show when the whole work was completed, or when the translation of Daniel was made. But the whole was manifestly carried through in the same general movement, for the same common purposes and objects, and hence, in all probability, without unnecessary delay. The book of Daniel was in that version. It must, therefore, with the highest probability, have been translated before A. D. 163. It is not conceivable that one hundred and twenty years could have been occupied in completing this work.

8. The book of Daniel was brought into the accepted canon of the Old Testament scriptures not later than the close of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus (B. C. 474-424); i. e., not far from three hundred years before the death of Epiphanes. Here Josephus is a competent witness. He says: "We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arrayed against each other, but only twenty-two books; which are justly accredited as divine." Of these, five are the books of Moses: "four contain hymns to God and rules of life for men." [This leaves thirteen which were historical and prophetical. In our modern arrangement as compared with that given by Josephus, several are subdivided. The thirteen included all the Old Testament, not embraced in the two other portions.] Of this body of thirteen, Josephus says; "From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have described the things which were done during the age of each one respectively. From the time of Artaxerxes until our present period, all occurrences have been written down, but they are not regarded as entitled to the like credit with those which preceded them because there was no certain succession of prophets." Hence the canon of books accepted as inspired comes down through the reign of Artaxerxes but no further. The twenty-two books of our accepted Old Testament—Daniel included—were all written, according to Josephus, before that reign closed; i. e., say at least before B. C. 400.

9. It is remarkable that the time assigned by these German critics for the writing of this book of Daniel was one in which the leading Jews knew they had no prophet among them—knew they had not had one for many years past—and could not expect one for many years to come. That is, the existing state of opinion was thoroughly adverse both to the writing and to the reception of such a forgery as they claim this book to be. But it requires a peculiarly facile state of public feeling toward the main purpose and scope of a forgery to admit of its success. Against strong public convictions, it never could succeed.——What was the state of the public mind here?——The author of the first book of Maccabees (writing about B. C. 135), describing the calamities that came upon Judea in consequence of the death of Judas Maccabeus (B. C. 161), says, "that there was great affliction in Israel, such as had not been since the last prophet appeared among them." He manifestly implies that this had been a long time. It was then about two hundred and seventy years since the latest reliable date for the prophet Malichi.——Again, according to 1 Mac. 4: 16, the Jews laid away the polluted stones of the altar set up by Antiochus Epiphanes in their holy temple, "until the coming of some prophet to decide respecting them."——And further according to 1 Mac. 14: 41, "Simon was constituted leader and high priest forever ['eis ton aiona'] until some faithful prophet should arise"—a passage which manifestly looks to the Messiah, and indicates that they expected no prophet till he should come.——These indications of current public sentiment existing among the Jews both at the period shortly after the death of Antiochus (just when these critics would bring out this prophecy of Daniel) and also at the time when the first book of Maccabees was written (full thirty years later), go far to show that their theory paid not the least regard to the existing state of the public mind at the time fixed for its appearance. They did not look to see whether it could have been written then, or whether, if written, it could have been imposed upon and wrought into the confidence of the people. Were ever great critics so uncritical!

The arguments thus far adduced against the great central position of the critics in question have designedly been of that historical and critical sort which those who impugn Daniel usually delight to honor. It seemed well first of all to meet them on their own ground.——It remains to adduce yet one argument which those who recognize the divine mission of Jesus Christ as the great Teacher sent from God, will surely honor. Our divine Lord himself refers (Mat. 24; 15, 16) to Daniel and to this book of his, in these words; "When ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth let him understand); Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains."——Here note distinctly,—(1.) That our Lord recognizes Daniel as "a prophet." (2.) Quotes some of his written prophecies; i. e., from Dan. 9: 27. (3). Hence he witnesses that Daniel wrote his own prophecies—specially this book that bears his name; (4.) And finally that this book of his should be read and accepted as a part of the inspired Jewish sacred scriptures.——In view of such testimony, those who honor Jesus Christ will regard the question of the genuineness and veracity of this book of Daniel as settled.——But it will be asked, What do these skeptical critics say in support of their positions?—l. To support their main, central position, they begin with denying the fact of any inspired prophecy either here or elsewhere, and resolving all predictions of future events into human sagacity or unfounded anticipations. But inasmuch as this book of Daniel records as prophecy a long series of very minute historic events far in the future (e. g., in chaps. 11 and 8), as well as the general succession of great dynasties—too much to be attributed to human sagacity—they insist that the book must have been written after these events took place. This they maintain is the common law of historical criticism. If an ancient book of history should come to light, all critics would settle the question of its date on the assumption that it was written later than the events it records.

I reply, This is very true of what is merely human history; not at all true of divinely-inspired prophecy. The fact of a really divine inspiration constitutes a bold exception. The plausibility of this modern plea against Daniel lies in its tacitly ignoring this distinction.

(2.) All the other points made in the attack upon Daniel are trivial; e. g., as above stated, that the book contains some Greek words and some Persian; that part of it is written in Chaldee and part in Hebrew; that the tone of the composition is peculiar—unlike that of the other prophets; that its miracles are grotesque, and its ideas respecting angels, the Messiah, and an ascetic life, indicate unmistakably a late age; and finally that Daniel speaks too well of himself, and was too young to stand so high as he appears in Ezekiel.

The candid and intelligent reader will readily see that these points are trivial. For there are not more Greek or Persian words here than ought to be expected in an author living and writing in the great commercial and political center of the known world. ''For this known world at that time practically embraced both Greece and Persia.——There were the best of reasons for writing some portions in Chaldee; viz., the special benefit of the Chaldean people. If the book had been written wholly in Hebrew, a much stronger objection could be raised against it, as scarcely credible in view of the author's relations to the Chaldean people, government, and language. On the other hand there were some good reasons for writing some of it in Hebrew.——Further, the cast of the book is unobjectionable. True, it is part history and part prophecy; but it is all the more useful for this; was all needed at the time, and needed from this author.——True, he uses symbols; but so did Ezekiel and Zechariah—prophets nearest his age and of most similar surroundings: and (what is not less worthy of note) his symbols are remarkably Chaldean, as recent discoveries most abundantly attest.——Yet further, its miracles, so far from being "grotesque," are morally grand and solemnly impressive. Note how the salvation of those three men in the furnace and of Daniel in the den of lions affected in each case the king on his throne.——As to its doctrines respecting angels and the Messiah; why should there not be some advance in ideas on these points, as compared with those of previous prophets? And who can say that the advance manifest in Daniel is too great for the period of the captivity and for the extraordinary piety and prominence of the man?——The charge of being prematurely ascetic looks toward Daniel's refusing the dainties of the king's table—for which, however, ample reasons may be supposed, entirely apart from asceticism. Or, perhaps, toward a special case in which he "ate no pleasant bread, flesh or wine, for three weeks" (chap. 10: 2, 3)—a form and degree of abstinence due to his extraordinary state of mind at a time when God came ineffably near to reveal to him "what should befall his people in the latter days." As to Daniel's speaking of his own wisdom and being too young to have attained such a reputation as Ezekiel's references to him imply, let it be noted that in the main passage in question (chap. 1: 17, 19, 20) Daniel speaks not of himself alone but of all the four Jewish youth, saying only what was doubtless true; and that he specifies of himself in particular only that he had "understanding in all visions and dreams." This is one of the most prominent facts of the history, and for this reason deserved mention. In the detailed record, Daniel bears himself with extraordinary modesty and Christian humility.——Daniel may have been young when God by Ezekiel spake in high terms of his wisdom. If the history in the book is true, Daniel rose to distinction, not slowly, but by one bound, in the second year of the king and of his own captivity. He was therefore very great while very young. Why should not God speak of men according to truth? Such great capacity so early in life is not altogether without precedent. Though rare, it is possible, and therefore not incredible. William Pitt became prime minister of England at the age of twenty-four. Charles XII and Napoleon evinced their transcendent military genius at a yet earlier age.

That Daniel was so young yet so exalted in position and in reputation at the court, served to make his name the more notable among both Jews and Chaldeans.——It will be found that the more thoroughly all these critical objections against the book of Daniel are examined, the more they serve to bring out and brighten the evidence of its being written at the time, and by the veritable Daniel of that age.

Having indicated thus very briefly the special points of these critical objections, and alluded in few words to their uncritical nature and to their entire lack of force, I proceed to strengthen the whole argument for the genuineness of this book and for its historic credibility by adducing collateral evidence that the historical notices found here are strictly correct; that they evince a most accurate acquaintance with Chaldean life, and are verified most abundantly by all that is known of those times through profane sources ancient or recent; and therefore can not have been written (as is claimed) four hundred years after the age of the captivity.——This argument from collateral history, coming up from entirely independent sources, embraces a considerable number of distinct points.

(a.) The captivity and deportation of the Jews to Babylon underlies the entire history of this book. Now, this great fact in the history of that people is not only confirmed by the prophecies of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many of the minor prophets; by the histories of the books of Kings and Chronicles; of Ezra and of Nehemiah; but also by ample heathen testimonies. Indeed it was a permanent feature in the policy of the Assyrian, Chaldean, and Persian governments for the subjugation of conquered countries, especially the restive and refractory, to remove them from their own to other and remote lands, and thus uproot the love of home and country, and sever the social bonds that might else make them dangerous to the great central power. In addition to the ample evidence to this general feature of their policy, there is the special testimony of Berosus, the great Chaldean historian, who wrote in the age of Alexander the Great. In a passage which describes the expedition of Nebuchadnezzar, then crown prince and general of the army, against the Egyptians, Syrians and Phenicians in revolt, in which he fought and won the great battle of Carchemish, he says; "Not long after, Nebuchadnezzar, having heard of the death of his father (the king) when he had settled the affairs of Egypt and the adjacent regions, and had arranged with certain of his friends to bring to Babylon the captives of the Jews...came himself with great haste and with a small company through the wilderness to Babylon. There, assuming the administration of affairs...he succeeded to all his father's dominions; and when the captives arrived, he appointed colonies for them in the most suitable parts of Babylonia."

(b.) The personal history, character and achievements of Nebuchadnezzar stand out prominently in this book of Daniel. He is here a monarch of great energy, of indomitable will, ruling a vast empire, and especially building, or more strictly, rebuilding and greatly enlarging, Babylon. His insanity for seven years; his removal from the management of public affairs during this period, and his restoration again first to reason and then to power, constitute very peculiar features of his history as it appears in this book. That he was an idolater and that he worshiped some one god in particular is also manifest. See for the latter point chap. 1: 2; "to the house of his god;" "into the treasure-house of his god;" and chap. 4: 8, "according to the name of my god." Moreover, we read much of images of gold.——The length of his reign is not definitely given in Daniel, but the general cast of the history implies that it was long. The books of Kings, Chronicles, and Jeremiah give the desired data. Jehoiakim reigned about eleven years; in his fourth year, the first large deportation of captives took place. Daniel was among them. Nebuchadnezzar was then just ascending his throne. Johoiachin, the son, succeeded; reigned three months, was then carried captive to Babylon, kept there in prison at least thirty-six full years, and in his thirty-seventh was taken out of prison by Evil-Merodach, the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar, and in the first year of his reign. Hence, Nebuchadnezzar's reign is measured thus; about seven years contemporary with Jehoiakim, one-fourth of a year with Jehoiachin reigning; thirty-six with Jehoiachin a prisoner, equal to forty-three.

Let us now turn to confirmations from profane history. And first on this last mentioned point; profane history makes his reign precisely forty three years. This is the language of Berosus: "Now Nebuchadnezzar, just as he began to build the aforesaid wall, fell sick and died, after having reigned forty-three years." The celebrated canon of Ptolemy (an official register of the kings of Assyria and Babylon) assigns him forty-three years; viz., from B. C. 604 to B. C. 561. A clay tablet, discovered recently, almost proves the same thing. These tablets are mostly orders on the imperial treasury, dated in the current year of the reigning monarch. The one referred to dates in his forty-second year. Of course his reign can not have been less than this; may have been more.——That all profane history makes him a great king, great in war, but greater in peace, is well known. That he was the great rebuilder of Babylon is affirmed by Berosus thus; "Nebuchadnezzar repaired the city which had existed from the first, and added another to it; and in order that besiegers might not again be able, by turning aside the course of the river, to get possession of the city, he built three courses of walls around the inner city and as many around the outer.' But the most remarkably confirming fact is of recent development, viz., that nine-tenths of the inscribed bricks from the site of ancient Babylon are stamped with the name of Nebuchadnezzar!——Concerning the extraordinary fact of his temporary insanity and removal from his throne, we might naturally be inquisitive to see what the public records of the realm would say and what version of it would pass into current and future history. Bearing in mind that the strong moral impression which extorted such an acknowledgment of the one true God as we find in chap. 4: 34-37, was obviously not abiding; at least was not, in the Christian sense, converting; and considering also that he lived to modify the public records at his own pleasure, we can not expect a very frank confession of the whole case.——Now as to the facts: Berosus makes no decisive allusion to this event. But on what is known as "the Standard Inscription of Nebuchadnezzar," the following passage occurs. The first clause is defective, some words being illegible; but the statements as a whole are remarkably negative, and silent as to the causes.——"Four years...the seat of my kingdom in the city...which...did not rejoice my heart. In all my dominions, I did not build a high place of power; the precious treasures of my kingdom I did not lay up. In Babylon, buildings for myself and for the honor of my kingdom, I did not lay out. In the worship of Merodach, my lord, the joy of my heart, in Babylon, the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my empire, I did not sing his praises and I did not furnish his altars [with victims], nor did I clear out the canals."——So much could not well be ignored on the public records. What was more than this, human pride prevailed against unwelcome truth to suppress.——Mr. Rawlinson remarks that "the whole range of cuneiform literature presents no similar instance of a king putting on record his own inaction." It is in human nature that kings should chronicle and send down to future ages what they have done, not what they have left undone.

Yet further; according to the Scriptures Nebuchadnezzar only of all the heathen monarchs there referred to, had revelations of the future in visions. Correspondingly, this remarkable record comes down to us from the ancient historian Abydenus, as quoted by Eusebius; somewhat inaccurate as to the facts and apparently ascribing to Nebuchadnezzar in part what pertains to Belshazzar.——"Afterward, as is said by the Chaldeans, he went up into his palace, when he was seized by some divine influence, and uttered these words;—'O Babylonians, I, Nebuchadnezzar, announce to you this future calamity. There shall come a Persian mule, using our divinities as allies: he shall bring us into bondage: leagued with him shall be the Mede, the boast of Assyria.' Having uttered these predictions, he immediately disappeared."—His devotion to his own god Merodach, (akin to the planet Jupiter) may be noticed in the extract above given from his standard inscription. It appears every-where in the monumental records of Nebuchadnezzar. Rawlinson states that "the inscriptions (of this king) always terminate with a prayer to Merodach, invoking the favor of the god for the protection of the king's throne and empire, and for its continuance through all ages to the end of time." Remarkably, Nebuchadnezzar, though living in an age of polytheism, seems to have concentrated his reverence, worship, and trust, mainly upon this one god. His language on his inscriptions runs thus; "Merodach, the great lord, has appointed me to the empire of the world, and has confided to my care the far-spread people of the earth;" "Merodach, the great lord, the senior of the gods, the most ancient, has given all nations and people to my care:" "Merodach, the great lord, has established me in strength."——This, it will be seen harmonizes with the repeated references in Daniel, to "his own god."——It should be noted that the full name of this god is Bel-Merodach; that it was originally Bel; and hence probably Merodach was first appended, and then came to be used often alone. Of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar remarks (chap. 4: 18), "whose name was Belteshazear, according to the name of my god"—said with reference to the leading syllable, "Bel."——Again, Daniel represents "gods of gold" as common in Babylon. See chap. 3: 1, and 5: 4. The historic facts are that Nebuchadnezzar made some extensive conquests immediately before he ascended the throne and others shortly afterward; that plunder of all most valuable things, or enormous tribute, was the law of conquest in that age; and that gold was especially devoted to the service of the gods and wrought into their images. Rawlinson considers it proven that "the statue of Jupiter Belus, described by Herodotus, is the same as the great idol of Merodach, which was made of silver by an earlier king, but was overlaid with plates of gold by Nebuchadnezzar."—These points of correspondence between sacred history and profane, out of the life of Nebuchadnezzar, must suffice.

(c.) The history of Belshazzar affords another point of striking confirmation.——Until recently, critics have been greatly perplexed with the question—Who was the Belshazzar of Daniel? The canon of Ptolemy fails to give his name among the kings in the line between Nebuchadnezzar and the subversion of the empire by Cyrus. Of the three who fill this chasm in the canon of Ptolemy—usually known by the names of Evil-Merodach, Nergal-sharezer, and Nabonned, alias Labynetus, each one in his turn has been supposed to be the Belshazzar of Daniel. But no satisfactory explanation could be given of the diversity in name. Besides, Berosus had said that the last king of Babylon, instead of being slain in the capture of the city, had previously retired to Borsippa, was besieged, there, surrendered, was treated with clemency, and had estates assigned him by Cyrus in Carmania, where he lived till his natural death.——These apparent discrepancies between the sacred records and the profane were (as usual) put to their utmost account by skeptical critics. A slight circumstance has relieved all these difficulties. In the year 1854, Sir Henry Rawlinson deciphered the inscriptions found on some ancient cylinders among the ruins of Um Queer, (the ancient "Ur of the Chaldees") where he found it stated that Nabonned admitted his son Belsharezer (Belshazzar) to share the government with him, with the title of king. This son, the prince royal, was obviously left in charge of the city while his father took the field. The son was slain.

(d.) The subversion of the dynasty and kingdom by a Medo-Persian army is another boldly outstanding point in the history of this book. It is not less prominent in profane history. Greek historians have long since wrought the leading facts of this subversion into the warp of universal history.

(e.) I close this series of coincidences with the duration of the captivity and the date of the restoration.——Daniel 9: 1, 2, shows that he estimated the seventy years of Jeremiah's prophecy (chap. 25: 11, 19) to be near their close in the first year of Darius the Mede. Of course he would count from the first great deportation of captives among whom he himself came, which mostly fell within the year before Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne. Then at least three ancient historians (Berosus, Polyhistor and Ptolemy) make the reign of Nebuchadnezzar forty-three years. His four Chaldean successors reigned respectively 2; 3½; ¾; and 17 years. Then counting one for Darius, we have about sixty-eight—which brings us near to the determined number in Jeremiah's prophecy.²—The thoughtful reader will appreciate the importance of these points of historic criticism, and hence will not account this investigation excessively minute or protracted. For, evidently, if this book is not reliably accurate as history, there is a somewhat strong presumption in favor of its being written at a later date. If it be a forgery of later date, written by some unknown hand and after the fulfillment of its apparent prophecies, its religious value to us becomes nothing, and painful doubts are thrown upon the reliability of other canonical scriptures.——But if this book is historically true, then it was no doubt written by the Daniel of the captivity. If written by him, it contains most wonderful prophecy and becomes its own witness to its divine inspiration. Thus the general truth of its history confirms its genuineness and authenticity, rescues it from the ruthless hands of mistaken critics, and gives it back to the church and to mankind, its proofs brightened and its reliability confirmed by the ordeal of this fiery furnace of hypercriticism.——When this book of Daniel becomes fully and justly known, it will appear that in respect to both its history and its prophecy it interlaces itself so perfectly, not only with the scriptures of the Old Testament and the New, but with all contemporary and subsequent history at least down to the Christian era, that no violence can wrench it away. Its position is such among the pillars of the great temple of truth that none can pluck it down without laying the temple itself in ruins. If there be any reliable history of the ages, then is this book reliable. Its prophecies have mostly become history: itself came forth from the Spirit of God.—I must advance now to other points appropriate to an introduction.

IV. Let us note with care the peculiar position of Daniel as a prophet of the Lord with reference both to the covenant people and to the heathen kings and courts with whom he lived.

(1.) The providence of God raised him to a station of great responsibility and influence. The jealousy manifested toward him in the Medo-Persian court testifies to his high standing and influence.——(2.) He used his influence most wisely and devotedly for God and righteousness. Of this the record gives us several noble examples.——(3.) As he testified for God fearlessly, even at the risk of the greatest personal peril, so God testified for him in forms of surpassing grandeur and in a way that illustrates God's loving care of his people, and that must have made strong impressions upon the heathen minds about him.——(4.) He was therefore in a situation to act as the Patron and Guardian of his people. A measure of the esteem accorded to him would naturally pass over to his countrymen, and serve to ameliorate their condition as captives. It can scarcely be questioned that he obtained for them some favors from Nebuchadnezzar. Tradition affirms that shortly after the accession of Cyrus to the throne, Daniel obtained from him the decree for the restoration of his people, and that for this purpose he brought to his notice the prophecies of Isaiah (chap. 44: 23-28, and 45: 1-4) in which Cyrus is mentioned by name. The decree itself which comes down to us in Ezra 1: 1-4, and 2 Chron. 36: 22, 23, is such as at least to favor the credibility of this tradition.——(5.) It is pleasant to note that his influence was great, not only in the courts of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus, but in the court of Heaven. His prayers to God for mercy to his people and for their restoration to their own land, as they stand recorded in chap. 9, are among the most signal examples on record of prevailing intercession.——(6.) His religious influence with his people, the Jews, must have been very great, especially in the line of withstanding firmly all temptations to idolatry and heathen superstitions, and also of waiting on God in assured hope for the day of national deliverance. Nor was his influence small toward the requisite antecedent repentance, confession, humiliation and prayer. (7.) These points bring us to one conclusion of prime importance in the interpretation of Daniel's prophecies, viz., that they may safely be presumed to bear very directly upon the religious condition of his countrymen in the age then present and in the nearer future. In behalf of these generations Daniel felt most intensely; for these he lived, prayed, planned and labored; upon these generations therefore his prophecies must be presumed especially to bear. This is the common law of prophetic life and labor. The prophets devoted their lives, delivering their messages orally, or in writing as the Lord might lead them, but always with reference more or less to the moral and religious welfare of the generation then living. The higher their responsibilities for their own people, the more direct and exclusive, other things being equal, would be the reference of their messages to the case of those people. Daniel bore preëminent responsibilities for the Jewish nation: they lay heavily both on his hands and on his heart; and hence with the greater force is it inferred that his prophecies will respect the present and the nearer future of the Jews. And here it should be distinctly noted as greatly confirming this opinion, that Daniel accounts the Jews to be his own people; that God repeatedly recognizes them as such; and in the last prophecy (chapters 10-12) he explicitly declares, "I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days" (chap. 10: 14). That they are Daniel's own people, may be seen also in his prayer for them (chap. 9: 20): "I was confessing the sin of my people Israel;" and in the answer of the Lord; "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people:" and in chap. 12: 1; "for the children of thy people;" "at that time thy people shall be delivered," etc.——Thus manifest is it, both from the tenor of the book and from the known position of Daniel, that he was the father and patron of the captive Jews during captivity, ministering to their faith in God, and sustaining their hope and spirit, despite of their subjection to a foreign yoke. It was no small part of his mission to assure them that the Lord could easily break this yoke; that the scepters and thrones of all earthly kings were in his hand; and that he had fully purposed to control the course of empire, casting down one, and setting up another in its stead, and making all these revolutions subserve the present good of his people, and hasten the coming reign of their own Messiah. This great idea is central in the prophecies of Daniel and gives the clew to their interpretation. No greater violence was ever done to the genius of prophecy than has been inflicted upon Daniel by the assumption that he occupied himself with the minute details of European or Asiatic history durign the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries of the Christian era!

V. It is well here to note the points of difference between Daniel and other Jewish prophets in regard to his general course of thought and manner of presenting it.——(1.) In his prophetic portions he makes but few allusions to Jerusalem; none to the great national sin of the Jews, idolatry. He never employs that peculiar Jewish costume under which Isaiah, Zechariah, and others represent all the Gentile nations as coming up to Jerusalem to build in her temple, etc. This is as we should naturally expect in one who flourished during the captivity, who lived remote from Judea, and came but very little in contact with the elements out of which those Jewish conceptions were formed. His education and training were never thoroughly Jewish.——(2.) On the other hand, he deals almost exclusively with the rise and fall of the great kingdoms of the earth within a given period. The grand succession of supreme dominion from hand to hand, and the bearing of these changes upon the planting, growth, and triumph of Messiah's kingdom, are his great themes.——It is easy to see that this grows out of his surroundings. These were precisely the things with which his whole public life was most familiar. No other Jewish prophet is like him in this respect. The course of divine providence schooled him in courts and cabinets, and kept before his mind the rise and fall of dynasties. Both his education and his long and active life were full of this theme.——This correspondence between the cast of his life and the cast of his prophetic themes, symbols, and phraseology; constitutes a strong point of internal evidence of genuineness. The man who should do what modern German skeptics claim for the pseudo-Daniel in the Maccabean age must have been specially inspired, to have thought of this and then to have carried it out so perfectly!——(3.) In this line of thought let it be noted that the New Testament phrases, "kingdom of God," and "kingdom of heaven," are specially taken from Daniel. In his first prophetic vision, the series of world-wide kingdoms closes thus: "In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (chap. 2: 44). Being set up by the God of heaven, it is called interchangeably, "The kingdom of God," and "The kingdom of heaven." The second vision (chap. 7: 13, 14, 27) gives the inauguration of its king, and also the extent and duration of his reign. This, for Daniel, is a perfectly natural conception of the cause and interest, of the work and sway of the Messiah upon this earth. He, more exclusively than any other Jewish prophet, would think of the Messiah as a king, and more still, as supplanting and succeeding those universal world-monarchs with whom he was so intimately conversant.——David, being himself a king, sees in the Messiah his successor in royalty and dominion, and even grasps the idea of his supreme dominion: "I have set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." "I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Ps. 2: 6, 8.——But the Messiah's succession in the series of universal empires stands out much more distinctly in Daniel than in David.——The same idea of Christ as king may be found in yet other prophets, but less prominently and by no means so exclusively. Remarkably the prophetic spirit falls in with the cast of each prophet's mind, and uses those illustrations with which each was most familiar. To Ezekiel, a priest, though like Daniel a captive in Chaldea, the future of the Messiah's work on earth is presented in a costume that is intensely Mosaic and Levitical. The land of Judea is repeopled; the temple rebuilt and refurnished; all and more than all its old rituals are reestablished. The whole presentation is wonderfully full, minute, and graphic, culminating in this one thought; "The name of the city from that day shall be, The Lord is there!" We should look in vain to find such a passage as Ezek. (chaps. 40-48) in any prophet not himself a priest. So, to the mind of Amos, called out from the herdmen of Tekoa and at home among plowmen, reapers, and vineyards, the glories of the Messianic age stand out in yet other symbols. "The plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the trader of grapes him that soweth seed; the mountains shall drop new wine," etc. (chap. 9: 13). But Daniel sees the Messiah succeeding and gloriously eclipsing those great, overshadowing monarchies in the midst of which his life-experiences were cast. This fact is one of no trivial importance in the interpretation of his prophecies.——(4.) In the point of symbolic vision, Daniel resembles the other prophets of his age—i. e., during and after the captivity, especially Ezekiel and Zechariah; but he is very unlike all the rest. This is traceable to his Chaldean education. During the last half century, the ruins of Nineveh have disclosed the same general modes of thought and forms of imaginative pictorial representation. Indeed they are shown to belong specially to that age and people. It is safe to assume that in points of this sort Nineveh well represents the Babylon of Daniel's time. Indeed, Babylon was only a new edition of Nineveh.——(5.) Daniel is remarkable for the repetition of his leading themes—his four great prophecies being manifestly, in the main, parallel in their general scope and purpose. This point will be examined more fully in its proper place.

VI. The deep interest that has been felt in Daniel's prophecies, especially at particular periods; the great abuse to which they have been subjected; the strange, wild, visionary interpretations often put upon them—render it proper for me here to state briefly the principles of interpretation that will guide me in my exposition of his prophecies, and especially of his four great parallel visions, viz., chap. 2: 31-45; chap. 7; chap. 8, and chapters 10-12.

(1.) God's own interpretation of the symbols must be accepted as of supreme authority. So far as it applies directly, every candid mind must and will admit this principle. Its indirect application has also important uses.

(2.) The fact of parallelism in these four visions above named having been substantiated, an interpretation given on divine authority in any one of them must be admitted to have great influence over the interpretation of analogous points in either of the others.

(3.) The same general principles and methods of interpretation should be carried through the same vision. There should be a close analogy between the portions that are explained by the Lord himself, and other portions not so explained. It may be safely assumed that the same general cast of thought and representation will obtain through the latter as through the former portions of the same vision. If the former part be explained and not the latter, the Lord would certainly expect us to learn from the part explained how to explain the rest.

(4.) Important use may be made of the limits—the termini—within which the events predicted must fall;—i. e., the point of time where they begin and the point where they must close. Wherever these points can be ascertained on substantial authority, they must have an influence upon the interpretation, always great and indeed decisive.

(5.) Regard should be had to Daniel's known circumstances and relations to his people. From these relations it may safely be inferred that his prophecies had at the time, a present moral bearing upon their religious life; their hopes and fears, their faith and piety. Apart from any direct statement to this effect, it should be presumed that his prophecies would have special relation to the future history of that people. How much more must this be assumed now, since we have this explicit affirmation in respect to the last of the four great parallel visions—one which certainly comes down as far into the period then future as any one of the four;—"I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days" (chap. 10: 14). Moreover, Daniel's personal relations to the great monarchies of Chaldea and Medo-Persia would naturally insure some predictions of the rise and growth of Messiah's kingdom as the only real world-monarchy. We might expect him to show his people that their own Messiah would surely supplant and then immeasurably surpass in glory all human kingdoms. What could minister more effectively than this to their faith and courage?——On the other hand it must be very unreasonable to look here for minute prophecies respecting the political events of our own times which it could scarcely be of the least imaginable consequence for the Jews of that age to understand. Is it probable that the Lord would press on Daniel's attention the history of the Papal power in the nineteenth century of the Christian era when Daniel might so pertineatly reply: "Lord, I have a whole nation on my heart already. My soul is burdened with their case and with their destinies. Why should I turn my mind from these things and try to understand those remote events which are so foreign from my responsibilities, from my heart, and from the case of my people?"

(6.) Fulfillment, after it has taken place, may be legitimatly used to verify the interpretation given, provided always that it be done judiciously, with good common sense. But it has been the besetting sin of interpreters of Daniel to make this the chief and almost the only criterion for determining his meaning. Consequently, there has been no limit to the fancies and vagaries that have been put forth as commentary and interpretation of this book. Disregarding the great principles of interpretation above suggested, and throwing a loose rein upon their imagination, and moreover straining the facts of history often rudely, commentators would seem to have exhausted the possibilities of human fancy, not to say of absurdity, in their speculations upon the prophecies of Daniel.

(7.) It is of the utmost consequence that interpreters of this book should relieve their minds of all prejudice, in the sense of preconceived opinions, and especially of that most fruitful source of mischief—the passion for finding here the great events of one's own time. During the last hundred years there have been numerous efforts to find European history anticipated in Daniel—to trace out in his prophecies the latest moves on the chess-board of European politics—the career of Napoleon the Great, or of Napoleon the less; of the Turk or Pasha; or of the Emperor of all the Russias. No author was ever stretched or cut to a Procrustean bed with more recklessness than this same sensible and excellent Daniel. The sad record of his experiences at the hands of expositors of prophecy should admonish us to approach his writings with a docile spirit, to ask him what he meant to say, and not to bring to him a set of ideas, and then torture him and his words till they can be made to indorse them. And finally, in view of the solemn responsibility of interpreting these immortal words of Daniel in harmony with the mind of the inditing Spirit, let us reverently bow at his feet, and implore his guiding hand to lead our thought and to shape our judgment evermore in all our inquiries after the great and blessed truths borne to us in this book of Daniel the prophet.

¹ Josephus says that Daniel was of the seed of Zedekiah. Ant. Jud. X: 10. The text says only "of the king's seed and of the princes." Chap 1:3.

² For most of these points of more recent investigation, I am indebted to the "Historical Evidences" of George Rawlinson; to his Herodotus: and to various articles in Smith's Bible Dictionary, all which evince learning, research and sound judgment on the archeology of Assyria and Chaldea.