[90] Thus Dr. Pusey says: "The Book of Daniel is especially fitted to be a battle-field _between faith and unbelief_. It admits of no half-measures. It is either Divine or an imposture. To write any book under the name of another, and to give it out to be his, is, in any case, a forgery dishonest in itself, and destructive of all trustworthiness. But the case of the Book of Daniel, if it were not his, would go far beyond even this. The writer, were _he_ not Daniel, _must_ have _lied_ on a frightful scale. In a word, the whole Book would be one lie in the Name of God." Few would venture to use such language in _these_ days. It is always a perilous style to adopt, but now it has become suicidal. It is founded on an immense and inexcusable anachronism. It avails itself of an utterly false misuse of the words "faith" and "unbelief," by which "faith" becomes a mere synonym for "that which I esteem orthodox," or that which has been the current opinion in ages of ignorance. Much truer faith may be shown by accepting arguments founded on unbiassed evidence than by rejecting them. And what can be more foolish than to base the great truths of the Christian religion on special pleadings which have now come to wear the aspect of ingenious sophistries, such as would not be allowed to have the smallest validity in any ordinary question of literary or historic evidence? Hengstenberg, like Pusey, says in his violent ecclesiastical tone of autocratic infallibility that the interpretation of the Book by most eminent modern critics "will remain false so long as the word of Christ is true--that is, for ever." This is to make "the word of Christ" the equivalent of a mere theological blindness and prejudice! Assertions which are utterly baseless can only be met by assertions based on science and the love of truth. Thus when Rupprecht says that "the modern criticism of the Book of Daniel is unchristian, immoral, and unscientific," we can only reply with disdain, _Novimus istas_ ληκύθους. In the present day they are mere bluster of impotent _odium theologicum_.
[91] Gen. xli.
[92] See Lenormant, _La Divination_, p. 219.
[93] Jer. xxix. 22. The tenth verse of _this very chapter_ is referred to in Dan. ix. 2. The custom continued in the East centuries afterwards. "And if it was known to a Roman writer (Quintus Curtius, v. 1) in the days of Vespasian, why" (Mr. Bevan pertinently asks) "should it not have been known to a Palestinian writer who lived centuries earlier?" (A. A. Bevan, _Short Commentary_, p. 22).
[94] _Avodah-Zarah_, f. 3, 1; _Sanhedrin_, f. 93, 1; _Pesachim_, f. 118, 1; _Eiruvin_, f. 53, 1.
[95] Jer. lii. 28-30. These were in the reign of Jehoiachin.
[96] Jer. xlvi. 2: comp. Jer. xxv. The passage of Berossus, quoted in Jos., _Antt._ X. xi. 1, is not trustworthy, and does not remove the difficulty.
[97] The attempts of Keil and Pusey to get over the difficulty, if they were valid, would reduce Scripture to a hopeless riddle. The reader will see all the latest efforts in this direction in the _Speaker's Commentary_ and the work of Fabre d'Envieu. Even such "orthodox" writers as Dorner, Delitzsch, and Gess, not to mention hosts of other great critics, have long seen the desperate impossibility of these arguments.
[98] _Balatsu-utsur_, "protect his life." The root _balâtu_, "life," is common in Assyrian names. The mistake comes from the wrong vocalisation adopted by the Massorets (Meinhold, _Beiträge_, p. 27).
[99] Schrader dubiously connects it with _matstsara_, "guardian."
[100] Lenormant, p. 182, regards it as a corruption of Ashbenazar, "the goddess has pruned the seed" (??); but assumed corruptions of the text are an uncertain expedient.
[101] On these see Rob. Smith, _Cambr. Journ. of Philol._, No. 27, p. 125.
[102] Juv., _Sat._, x. 96: "Cum grege Chaldæo"; Val. Max., iii. 1; Cic., _De Div._, i. 1, etc.