The following are the more important of ^ «if*- ments which evidence the genuineness of tbo b«i (see the works on the AuthenHaty of Daniel, by Boyfe [Lond. 1863] and Waters [ib. eod.]).
(1.) The existence and authority of the book iff most decidedly testified by the New Testament Cbn=< himself refers to it (Matt xxiv, 15), and gives to teB- self (in virtue of the expression in Dan. vii, 1^ tfc* name of Son of Man ; while the apostles repeatedly appeal to it as an authority (1 Cor. vi, 2 ; 2 Thess. S, S). Apart fW)m the general type of apocalyptic «w- position which the apostolic writers derived from Dia- iel (Rev. passim; comp. Matt, xxvi, 64; xxi, ^^\ the New Testament incidentally acknowledges e«* of the characteristic elements of the book, its miracte (Heb. xi, 88, 34), its predictions (Matt, xxiv, 18),aB* its doctrine of angels (Luke i, 19, 26). To the c^ tion that Christ and the writers of the New TestameBi are here no real authority, inasmuch as they aceoo- modate themselves to the Jewish notions and riev^ we reply that the genuineness of the book of DanWi*
DANIEL
669
DANIEL
closely connected with the trnfh of its contents— in her -words, tliat the authaUicUy of the book is so im- ediately connected with its authoritif — that it is im- »ssiblo to doobt its genuinenes$ without suspecting at le same time a wilful cheat in its contents ; so tiiat le aeoammodation in this case to national views would i tantamount to wilfully oonflrming and sanctioning n unpardonable fraud.
(2.) The period of the exile would be altogether in- ^mprehensible without the existence of a man like >iiniel, exercising great influence upon his own peo- le, and effecting their return to Palestine by means f his high station in the state, as well as through be peculiar assistance of God with which he was fk- ored. Without this assumption, it is impossible to xplain the continued state of independence of the peo- »le of God during that period, or to account for the in- erest which Cjrus took in their affairs. The exile ind its termination are indicative of uncommon acts )f God towards highly-gifted and favored men; and ;he appearance of such a man as Daniel is described n that book as having been, is an indispensable req- uisite for the right understanding of this portion of the Jewish history.
(3.) An important hint of the existence of the book in the time of Alexander is found in Josephus {Ant, xi, 8, 4), according to which the prophecies of Daniel had been pomted out to that king on his entrance into Jerusalem. It is true that the fact may have been somewhat embellished in its details by Josephus, yet is it historically undeniable that Alexander did bestow great favors on the Jews, a circumstance which is not easily explained without granting the fact recorded by Josephus to be true in the main. See Alexan- der (the Great).
(4.) The first book of the Maccabees, which is al- most contemporary with the events related in it, not only presupposes the existence of the book of Daniel, but actually betrays acquaintance with the Alexan- drian version of the same (1 Mace, i, 54 ; comp. Dan. ix, 27 ; ii, 59 ; comp. Dan. iil), a proof that the book must have been written long before that period.
(5.) If the book had been written in the Maccabisan period, there would probably have been produced in that period some similar prophetic and apocalyptic productions, composed by Palestinian Jews. Of such, however, not the slightest notice can anywhere be found ; so that our book — ^if of the Maccabsan time— forms an isolated enigmatical phenomenon in the later Jewish literature.
(6.) The reception of the book into the canon is also an evidence of its authenticit3\ In the Maccabean age the canon had long been completed and closed ; but, even doubting that point, it is not likely that, at a time when so much scmpulous adherence was shown towards all that was hallowed by time and old usage, and when scriptural literature was already flourishing — it is not probable, we say, that a pro<luction then re- cent should have been raised to the rank of a canonical book.
(7.) We have an important testimony for the au- thenticity of the book in Ezek. xiv, 14, 20 ; xxviii, 8. Daniel is there represented as an unusual character, as a model of justice and wisdom, to whom had been allotted superior divine insight and revelation. This sketch perfectly agrees with that contained in our book.
(8.) The book betrays such an intimate acquaint- ance with Chaldiean manners, customs, history, and religion as none but a contemporary writer can fair- ly be supposed to possess. Thus, e. g. the description of the Chaldsean magians and their regulations per- fectly agrees with the accounts of the classics respect- ing them. The account of the illness and insani^ of Nebuchadneazar is confirmed by Berosus (in Joseph. c.Apion, i, 20). The edict of Darius the Mede (Dan. V may be satisfiictorily explained from the notions
peculiar to the Medo-Persian religion, and the impor- tance attached in it to the king, who was considered a sort of incarnate deity. The scene and characters of the book are Oriented. The colossal image (B^^, iii, 1, not necessarily a human figure ; the term is ap- plied familiarly to the cross, Buxtorf, Lex. JRabb. s. v.), the fiery furnace, the martyr-like boldness of the three confessors (iii, 16), the decree of Darius (vi, 7), the lions' den (vi, 7, 19, Sh), the demand of Nebu- chadnezzar (ii, 5), his obeisance before Daniel (ii, 46), hb sudden fStdl (iv, 83 ; comp. Eusebius, Prop. Ev. ix, 41 ; Joseph, c. Ap. i, 20), are not only consistent with the nature of Eastern life, but in many instances di- rectly confirmed by other evidence. (See Dabius the Mede for the difficulties of i, 1 ; ii, 1 ; v, 81.)