10 Many shaU be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked ahall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand ; but the wise shall understand.
11 And ttom the time tiat the dally terifiet shall lie taken away, and the abonunation that maketh deeo- late aet m, tkert tIkaU &« a thousand two hundred and ninety daya.
19 Bleassd it he that wdteth, and Cometh to the thou- aand three hundred and five and thirty days.
DANIEL
668
DANIEX
bnt a corrupt Temacular dialect, a mixtare of Hebrew and Aramaic, formed during the period of the exile. It resembles mostly the Chaldee pieces in Ezra, but differs greatly from the dialect of the later Targams (see Hilgenfeld, Etra u, Dan, und ihre neuetten Bear' beitungen, Halle, 1863). See Chaldee Language.
The style is, even in the prophetic parts, more pro- saic than poetical, as Lowth has already observed. The historical descriptions are usually very broad and prolix in details ; but the prophecies have a more rhe- torical character, and their deliveiy is frequently somewhat abrupt; their s^le is descriptive, painting with the most lively colors the still fresh impression which the vision has made on the mental eye.
8. The uniti/ of the book has been disputed by sev- eral critics, and more especially by Eichhom and Ber- tholdt, who conceived it to have been written by more than one author, on account of some contradictions which they thought they had discovered in it, such as in i, 21, compared with x, 1 ; and in i, 5-18, compared with ii, 1. With regard to the first supposed contra- diction, we consider the meaning of i, 21, to be that Daniel bad lived to see the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as a particularly memorable, and, for the ex- iled people, a very important year. This does by no means exclude the possibility of his having lived still longer than up to that period.
Kespecting the second presumed contradiction, the matter in ch. i, 5-18, belongs properly to the co-re- gency of Nebuchadnezzar, which term is there added to his period of government, while in ch. ii, 1, his reign is counted only from the year of his actual ac- cession to the throne. These attempts to disturb the harmony of the work are also discountenanced by the connecting thread which evidently runs through the whole of the book, setting the smgle parts continually in mutual relation to each other. Indeed, most crit- ics have now given up that hj'pothesis, and look at the book as a closely connected and complete work in itself.
4. Much greater is the difference of opinion respect- ing the authenticity of the book. The oldest known opponent of it is the heathen philosopher Porphyry, in the third century of the Christian era. The greater the authority in which the book of Daniel was held at that time by both Jews and Christians in their various controversies, the more was he anxious to dispute that authority, and he did not disdain to devote one whole book (the twelfth) — out of the fifteen which he had comp<»ed against the Christians — to that subject alone. He there maintains that the author of the book of Daniel was a Palestinian Jew of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, that he wrote it in Greek, and fraudulently gave to pcist events the form of prophecies. Porphyry was answered by Eusebius of CsBsarea, Methodius of Tyre, and Apollinaris of Laodicea. But their works, as well as that of Porphyry himself, are lost; and we know the latter only from the numerous quotations and refutations in the Commentary of Jerome.
Porphyry found no successor in his views until the time of ^e English deists, when Collins attempted to attack the authenticity of Daniel, as was done by Sem- ler in Germany. After this a few critic^ such as J. D. Michaelis and Eichhom, disputed the authenticity of the first six chapters. The learned Swiss, Corrodi (Freimuth. Verstu^ etc., Berlin, 1783), went still fur- ther, and, reviving the views of Porphyry, questioned the genuineness of the whole book. The question of the authenticity of the book is discussed in most of the later commentaries, and specially by Hengstenberg (Die AutherUie der Dan. erioiesen, 1831, translated by Ryland, Edinb. 1|47, 8vo), Hftvemick (Neue hit. Un- teriuch, Hamb. 1888, 8vo), Delitzsch (in Herzog's En- cyklopddie^ s. v. 1854), Keil (Lehrb. der Einl. in der A, T. Frank. 1858, 8vo), Davidson (Introduction to the 0. T. ii, Lond. 1846, 8vo\ who maintain the afilrmn-
-• ^ ; and by Bleek (Berl. theolog. Zeiisckr. lii, 1822),
Bertholdt (EinkU. tlrlang. 1814), LQcke (Vermd volUtdnd. EinL'^L ed. Bonn. 185*2), and De Wette (£» leiL 7th ed. Berl. 1852), who deny its antheotkitj. as Ewald (Die Propk. d, AU. Bund, il, 559 eq.).
The real grounds on which most moden a& rely in r^ecting the book are the '* fabidoiuimi cTa narratives" and **the minuteness of its prophets li- tory.** **The contents of the book," it is saA.'-st irrational and impossible'* (Hitzig, § 6). It is obns that it is impossible to answer such a stitwiifnt t& ont entering into general views of the pmridesx government of the world. It is admitted that tk <a> tents of the book are exceptional and sorpriaieg; Is revelation is itself a miracle, however it be givet, vs. essentially as inconceivable as any mixade. Tier are times, perhaps, when it is required that exbw§> nary signs should arrest the attentioa of men, vAh their minds upon that Divine Presence which ir en: working around them. Prodigies may become t ^ to nature. Special circumstances may, and, acccri^ to the Bible, usually do determine, the pecoliir te which the miraculous working of God will asm a particular time ; so that the question n, wlketk there is any discernible relation between the octYzH wonders and the moral condition of an epodi. Kcr£ it impossible to apply this remark to the case of Ds§- iel. The position which he occopied was as exKp- tional as the book which bears his name. He nrrind the exile and the disappointment which attended tk first hopes of the Jews. The glories which bid lea connected with the return in the foreshortened naa of earlier prophets were now felt to be f ar ofi^ asd i more special revelation may have been neceessij ss a preparation for a period of silence and conflict. TV v&ry character of the Babylonian exile seems to htn called for some signal exhibition of divine power. Ai the first exodus was distinguished by great marrds,^ might appear natural that the second should be sk (comp. Mic. vii, 15 ; Delitzsch, p. 272, etc.). Kstioai! miracles, so to speak, formed the beginning of & theocracy; personal miracles, the beginning of tk Church. To speak of an ** aimless and lavish die^ of wonders" is to disregard the repreeentatiTe s^ cance of the different acts, and the relation whicfa tbfr bore to the future fortunes of the people. A ner en was inaugurated by fresh signs. The Jews, dov tbt they were left among the nations of the world, looked for some sure token that God was able to deliver tbea and work out his own purposes. The persecotkai </ .Antiochus completed the teaching of Danid; i£^ the people no longer sought without what it leogtk they had found within. They had withstood ti» as- sault of one typical enemy, and now they were p«* pared to meet all. The close of special predictfcw coincided with the consolidation of the national (^ See Antiochus Epiphanes.