_INTERNAL EVIDENCE_
I. Other prophets start from the ground of the _present_, and to
exigencies of the present their prophecies were primarily directed.
It is true that their lofty moral teaching, their rapt poetry, their
impassioned feeling, had its inestimable value for all ages. But
these elements scarcely exist in the Book of Daniel. Almost the whole
of its prophecies bear on one short particular period _nearly four
hundred years after_ the supposed epoch of their delivery. What,
then, is the phenomenon they present? Whereas other prophets, by
studying the problems of the present in the light flung upon them
by the past, are enabled, by combining the present with the past,
to gain, with the aid of God's Holy Spirit, a vivid glimpse of the
immediate future, for the instruction of the living generation, the
reputed author of Daniel passes over the _immediate_ future with a
few words, and spends the main part of his revelations on a triad of
years separated by centuries from contemporary history. Occupied as
this description is with the wars and negotiations of empires which
were yet unborn, it can have had little practical significance for
Daniel's fellow-exiles. Nor could these "predictions" have been to
prove the possibility of supernatural foreknowledge,[158] since,
even after their supposed fulfilment, the interpretation of them is
open to the greatest difficulties and the gravest doubts. If to a
Babylonian exile was vouchsafed a gift of prevision so minute and so
marvellous as enabled him to describe the intermarriages of Ptolemies
and Seleucidæ four centuries later, surely the gift must have been
granted for some decisive end. But these predictions are precisely
the ones which seem to have the smallest significance. We must say,
with Semler, that no such benefit seems likely to result from this
predetermination of comparatively unimportant minutiæ as God must
surely intend when He makes use of means of a very extraordinary
character. It might perhaps be said that the Book was written,
four hundred years before the crisis occurred, to console the Jews
under their brief period of persecution by the Seleucidæ. It would
be indeed extraordinary that so curious, distant, and roundabout
a method should have been adopted for an end which, in accordance
with the entire economy of God's dealings with men in revelation,
could have been so much more easily and so much more effectually
accomplished in simpler ways. Further, unless we accept an isolated
allusion to Daniel in the imaginary speech of the dying Mattathias,
there is no trace whatever that the Book had the smallest influence
in inspiring the Jews in that terrible epoch. And the reference of
Mattathias, if it was ever made at all, may be to old tradition, and
does not allude to the prophecies about Antiochus and his fate.
But, as Hengstenberg, the chief supporter of the authenticity of the
Book of Daniel, well observes,[159] "Prophecy can never entirely
separate itself from the ground of the present, _to influence which
is always its more immediate object_, and to which therefore it must
constantly construct a bridge.[160] On this also rests all certainty of
exposition as to the future. _And that the means should be provided for
such a certainty_ is a necessary consequence of the Divine nature of
prophecy. A truly Divine prophecy cannot possibly swim in the air; nor
can the Church be left to mere guesses in the exposition of Scripture
which has been given to her as a light amid the darkness."
II. And as it does not start from the ground of the present, so too
the Book of Daniel reverses the method of prophecy with reference to
the future.
For the genuine predictions of Scripture _advance_ by slow and gradual
degrees from the uncertain and the general to the definite and the
special. Prophecy marches with history, and takes a step forward at
each new period.[161] So far as we know there is not a single instance
in which any prophet alludes to, much less dwells upon, any kingdom
which had not then risen above the political horizon.[162]
In Daniel the case is reversed: the only kingdom which was looming
into sight is dismissed with a few words, and the kingdom most dwelt
upon is the most distant and quite the most insignificant of all, of
the very existence of which neither Daniel nor his contemporaries had
even remotely heard.[163]
III. Then again, although the prophets, with their divinely
illuminated souls, reached far beyond intellectual sagacity and
political foresight, yet their hints about the future never distantly
approach to detailed history like that of Daniel. They do indeed so
far lift the veil of the Unseen as to shadow forth the outline of the
near future, but they do this only on general terms and on general
principles.[164] Their object, as I have repeatedly observed, was
mainly moral, and it was also confessedly conditional, even when no
hint is given of the implied condition.[165] Nothing is more certain
than the wisdom and beneficence of that Divine provision which has
hidden the future from men's eyes, and even taught us to regard all
prying into its minute events as vulgar and sinful.[166] Stargazing
and monthly prognostication were rather the characteristics of false
religion and unhallowed divinations than of faithful and holy souls.
Nitzsch[167] most justly lays it down as an essential condition of
prophecy that it _should not disturb man's relation to history_.
Anything like detailed description of the future would intolerably
perplex and confuse our sense of human free-will. It would drive us to
the inevitable conclusion that men are but puppets moved irresponsibly
by the hand of inevitable fate. Not one such prophecy, unless this be
one, occurs anywhere in the Bible. We do not think that (apart from
Messianic prophecies) a single instance can be given in which any
prophet distinctly and minutely predicts a future series of events of
which the fulfilment was not _near_ at hand. In the few cases when
some event, already imminent, is predicted apparently with some detail,
it is not certain whether some touches--names, for instance--may not
have been added by editors living subsequently to the occurrence of
the event.[168] That there has been at all times a gift of prescience,
whereby the Spirit of God, "entering into holy souls, has made them
sons of God and prophets," is indisputable. It is in virtue of this
high foreknowledge[169] that the voice of the Hebrew Sibyl has
"Rolled sounding onwards through a thousand years
Her deep prophetic bodiments."
Even Demosthenes, by virtue of a statesman's thoughtful experience, can
describe it as his office and duty "to see events in their beginnings,
to discern their purport and tendencies from the first, and to forewarn
his countrymen accordingly." Yet the power of Demosthenes was as
nothing compared with that of an Isaiah or a Nahum; and we may safely
say that the writings alike of the Greek orator and the Hebrew prophets
would have been comparatively valueless had they merely contained
anticipations of future history, instead of dealing with truths whose
value is equal for all ages--truths and principles which give clearness
to the past, security to the present, and guidance to the future. Had
it been the function of prophecy to remove the veil of obscurity which
God in His wisdom has hung over the destinies of men and kingdoms, it
would never have attained, as it has done, to the love and reverence of
mankind.
IV. Another unique and abnormal feature is found in the close and
accurate _chronological calculations_ in which the Book of Daniel
abounds. We shall see later on that the dates of the Maccabean
reconsecration of the Temple and the ruin of Antiochus Epiphanes are
indicated _almost to the day_. The numbers of prophecy are in all
other cases symbolical and general. They are intentional compounds
of seven--the sum of three and four, which are the numbers that
mystically shadow forth God and the world--a number which even
Cicero calls "_rerum omnium fere modus_"; and of ten, the number
of the world.[170] If we except the prophecy of the seventy years'
captivity--which was a round number, and is in no respect parallel
to the periods of Daniel--there is no other instance in the Bible of
a _chronological_ prophecy. We say no other instance, because one of
the commentators who, in writing upon Daniel, objects to the remark
of Nitzsch that the numbers of prophecy are mystical, yet observes
on the one thousand two hundred and sixty days of Rev. xii. that
the number one thousand two hundred and sixty, or three and a half
years, "has _no_ historical signification whatever, and is only to be
viewed in its relation to the number seven--viz., as symbolising the
apparent victory of the world over the Church."[171]
V. Alike, then, in style, in matter, and in what has been called by
V. Orelli its "exoteric" manner,--alike in its definiteness and its
indefiniteness--in the point from which it starts and the period at
which it terminates--in its minute details and its chronological
indications--in the absence of the moral and the impassioned
element, and in the sense of fatalism which it must have introduced
into history had it been a genuine prophecy,--the Book of Daniel
differs from all the other books which compose that prophetic canon.
From that canon it was rightly and deliberately excluded by the Jews.
Its worth and dignity can only be rationally vindicated or rightly
understood by supposing it to have been the work of an unknown
moralist and patriot of the Maccabean age.
And if anything further were wanting to complete the cogency of the
internal evidence which forces this conclusion upon us, it is amply
found in a study of those books, confessedly apocryphal, which,
although far inferior to the Book before us, are yet of value, and
which we believe to have emanated from the same era.
They resemble this Book in their language, both Hebrew and Aramaic,
as well as in certain recurring expressions and forms to be found
in the Books of Maccabees and the Second Book of Esdras;--in their
style--rhetorical rather than poetical, stately rather than ecstatic,
diffuse rather than pointed, and wholly inferior to the prophets
in depth and power;--in the use of an apocalyptic method, and the
strange combination of dreams and symbols;--in the insertion, by way
of embellishment, of speeches and formal documents which can at the
best be only semi-historical;--finally, in the whole tone of thought,
especially in the quite peculiar doctrine of archangels, of angels
guarding kingdoms, and of opposing evil spirits. In short, the Book
of Daniel may be illustrated by the Apocryphal books in every single
particular. In the adoption of an illustrious name--which is the most
marked characteristic of this period--it resembles the _additions_
to the Book of Daniel, the Books of Esdras, the Letters of Baruch
and Jeremiah, and the Wisdom of Solomon. In the imaginary and
quasi-legendary treatment of history it finds a parallel in Wisdom
xvi.-xix., and parts of the Second Book of Maccabees and the Second
Book of Esdras. As an allusive narrative bearing on contemporaneous
events under the guise of describing the past, it is closely parallel
to the Book of Judith,[172] while the character of Daniel bears the
same relation to that of Joseph, as the representation of Judith
does to that of Jael. As an ethical development of a few scattered
historical data, tending to the marvellous and supernatural, but
rising to the dignity of a very noble and important religious
fiction, it is analogous, though incomparably superior, to Bel and
the Dragon, and to the stories of Tobit and Susanna.[173]
The conclusion is obvious; and it is equally obvious that, when we
suppose the name of Daniel to have been assumed, and the assumption
to have been supported by an antique colouring, we do not for a
moment charge the unknown author--who may very well have been Onias
IV.--with any dishonesty. Indeed, it appears to us that there are
many traces in the Book--φωνᾶντα συνετοῖσιν--which exonerate the
writer from any suspicion of _intentional_ deception. They may have
been meant to remove any tendency to error in understanding the
artistic guise which was adopted for the better and more forcible
inculcation of the lessons to be conveyed. That the stories of Daniel
offered peculiar opportunities for this treatment is shown by the
apocryphal additions to the Book; and that the practice was well
understood even before the closing of the Canon is sufficiently
shown by the Book of Ecclesiastes. The writer of that strange
and fascinating book, with its alternating moods of cynicism and
resignation, merely adopted the name of Solomon, and adopted it
with no dishonourable purpose; for he could not have dreamed that
utterances which in page after page betray to criticism their late
origin would really be identified with the words of the son of
David a thousand years before Christ. This may now be regarded as
an indisputable, and is indeed a no longer disputed, result of all
literary and philological inquiry.
It is to Porphyry, a Neoplatonist of the third century (born at Tyre,
A.D. 233; died in Rome, A.D. 303), that we owe our ability to write a
continuous historical commentary on the symbols of Daniel. That writer
devoted the twelfth book of his Λόγοι κατὰ Χριστιανῶν to a proof that
Daniel was not written till _after_ the epoch which it so minutely
described.[174] In order to do this he collected with great learning
and industry a history of the obscure Antiochian epoch from authors
most of whom have perished. Of these authors Jerome--the most valuable
part of whose commentary is derived from Porphyry--gives a formidable
list, mentioning among others Callinicus, Diodorus, Polybius,
Posidonius, Claudius, Theo, and Andronicus. It is a strange fact that
the exposition of a canonical book should have been mainly rendered
possible by an avowed opponent of Christianity. It was the object of
Porphyry to prove that the apocalyptic portion of the Book was not a
prophecy at all.[175] It used to be a constant taunt against those who
adopt his critical conclusions that their weapons are borrowed from
the armoury of an infidel. The objection hardly seems worth answering.
"_Fas est et ab hoste doceri._" If the enemies of our religion have
sometimes helped us the better to understand our sacred books, or to
judge more correctly respecting them, we should be grateful that their
assaults have been overruled to our instruction. The reproach is wholly
beside the question. We may apply to it the manly words of Grotius:
"_Neque me pudeat consentire Porphyrio, quando is in veram sententiam
incidit._" Moreover, St. Jerome himself could not have written his
commentary, as he himself admits, without availing himself of the aid
of the erudition of the heathen philosopher, whom no less a person than
St. Augustine called "_doctissimus philosophorum_," though unhappily he
was "_acerrimus christianorum inimicus_."
FOOTNOTES:
[158] Any apparently requisite modification of these words will be
considered hereafter.
[159] _On Revelations_, vol. i., p. 408 (E. Tr.).
[160] "Dient bei ihnen die Zukunft der Gegenwart, und ist selbst
fortgesetzte _Gegenwart_" (Behrmann, _Dan._, p. xi).
[161] See M. de Pressensé, _Hist. des Trois Prem. Siècles_, p. 283.
[162] See some admirable remarks on this subject in Ewald, _Die
Proph. d. Alt. Bund._, i. 23, 24; Winer, _Realwörterb._, _s.v._
"Propheten" Stähelin, _Einleit._, § 197.
[163] Comp. Enoch i. 2.
[164] Ewald, _Die Proph._, i. 27; Michel Nicolas, _Études sur la
Bible_, pp. 336 ff.
[165] Comp. Mic. iii. 12; Jer. xxvi. 1-19; Ezek. i. 21. Comp. xxix.
18, 19.
[166] Deut. xviii. 10.
[167] _System der christlichen Lehre_, p. 66.
[168] _E.g._, in the case of Josiah (1 Kings xiii. 2).
[169] _De Coronâ_, 73: ἰδεῖν τὰ πράγματα ἀρχόμενα καὶ προαισθέσθαι
καὶ προειπεῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις.
[170] The symbolism of numbers is carefully and learnedly worked out
in Bähr's _Symbolik_: cf. Auberlen, p. 133. The _several_ fulfilments
of the prophesied seventy years' captivity illustrate this.
[171] Hengstenberg, _On Revelations_, p. 609.
[172] All these particulars may be found, without any allusion to the
Book of Daniel, in the admirable article on the Apocrypha by Dean
Plumptre in Dr. Smith's _Dict. of the Bible_.
[173] Ewald, _Gesch. Isr._, iv. 541.
[174] "Et non tam Danielem _ventura dixisse_ quam illum _narrasse
præterita_" (Jer.).
[175] "Ad intelligendas autem extremas Danielis partes multiplex
Græcorum historia necessaria est" (Jer., _Proæm. Explan. in Dan.
Proph. ad f._). Among these Greek historians he mentions _eight_ whom
Porphyry had consulted, and adds, "Et si quando cogimur litterarum
sæcularium recordari ... non nostræ est voluntatis, sed ut dicam,
_gravissimæ necessitatis_." We know Porphyry's arguments mainly
through the commentary of Jerome, who, indeed, derived from Porphyry
the historic data without which the eleventh chapter, among others,
would have been wholly unintelligible.