The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 6

clroumstancee such a mode of composition. The character of apocalypse, as a mode of writing, mite the date assigned to it by tradition. When the species of prophetic composition to which Daniel belongs is determined, the further question of its unity emerges. Are we to regard it as one book, CODlpol!ecl as such by its author; or is it a number of separate parts united by an editr,r? While the fttct that it has formed from an early date one book, and from tbe fact that the same lending character appear& in each successive part of it, the reader assumes at first, without doubt, that D;iniel is one book. Yet the question may be put-Is its unity so beyond doubt? To any one who begins rending the Book of Daniel in the original, the fact is eoon patent that the reader hae to do with two languages. Tho fourth verse of the second chapter introduces the reader to Aramaic- a language that differs as much from Hebrew as Italian does from French. Further reading reveals the additional fact that the use of Aramaic ceasos without warning at the end of the seventh chapter. When, into a book written mainly in one tongue, a large section in anothor tongue is intruded, the reason frequently is obvious; as in the case where in histories the original documents on which the narrative is funnded are quoted; or semi-concealment may be intended, as in the case of the Latin section in Darwin's • The Doctrine of Selection in Relation to Ser;' or the interlocutors intro- duced in a drama speak their own tongue, as in Shakespeare's 'Henry V.' For none of these rrnsons, nor for any reason obvious on the surface, are these two lnnguages used here. The further consideration of the two languages in which Daniel is wriiten we must reserve, but the fact that there are two distinct portions, marked off from each other by difference in language, renders unwise any dogmatic assertion that the unity is certain. But, further, there are other tokens of want of unity. JiJ?, already observed, after the prologue, the Book of Daniel divides itself into two nearly equal portions, the first containing incidents,_the second visions, each arranged in a chronological series. Did this division coincide with the linguistic division, a plea might be made for asserting that there were two distinct works, each, however, a whole in itself. Ilut the fact that the divisions do not coincide disposes of this, even if the independence of the relation in which each part-incident or vision-stands to the rest, did not. 'l.'he natural explanation of the above phenomena would seem to be that our Book of Daniel originally floated about in separate little tractates, some relating incidents, others visions; some in Aramaic, some in Hebrew; and that in a somewhat later age an editor collected them together and added a prologue. Confirmatory of this are the phenomena presented by the Septuagint translation. In some of the sections the Septuagint Version seems more concise than the Massoretic text, while in regard to other sections there have been interpolations, expansions, and paraphrase. Meinhold thinks that there are indications of difference in the Aramaic. It seems, then, exceed- ingly unwise to maintain the necessary unity of Daniel, and still more so to build any further argument on this. Again, there is the pos,ibility of interpolation-a thing to which apocalyptic books were specially liable, and from which Daniel also suffered. What it certainly suffered in the days of the later Seleucids it may have suffered earlier. For ourselves we admit the strongest suspicion as to the genuineness of the eleventh chapter. This possibility is an additional reason for caution. The unity of Daniel is argued from its alleged unity of purpose. It is not a disproof of a unity of purpose to show, as we have done, that it bas been compiled from several distinct documents. An editor may collect several separate tracts all bearing on one subject and exhibiting it in different lights. Separate tractates would not, however, be the natural mode in which one would compose a work of imagination. We do not recall any case where two series of disconnected fragments were composed by a writer viii INTRODUOTION TO I of e work of imagination, mechanically stuck together without any link of connecUon, and wbo~e issue as one book became a powerful literary factor in the development of B people. One would have difficulty in deciding which would be the more unlikely- the mode of composition or the result, It has, however, been maintained, end is persistently maintained still, thnt the purpose of this book is to sustain the spirits of the Jews under tho persecution they endured under Antiochus. That view, taken alone, may quito well be held by the most orthodox of traditionalists, but along with this it is maintained that it wns written in the very storm and stress of this persecution, and henco was an historicnl novel. Almost necessarily connected with t.bis is tho assertion that Nebuchadnezzar stands for Antiochus. It is somewhat awkward that this assertion has to be supple- mented by the further statement that Belshazzar and Darius also represent A.ntiocbus. No reason bas been assigned why the novelist, anxious that his readers should recog- nize the portrait, should make their task thus more difficult by perpetually changing the name of the puppet whose raison <£etre was to be the portrait of A.ntiochus. If, however, we do not press this, but look rather at Nebuchadnezzar as represented to us in the Book of Daniel, are the deeds and character ascribed to him like the deeds of which Epiphanes wns guilty, or the character wo know ho possessed? We must answer this in the negative. We shall take the incidents scriatim, for it is in the series of incidents that this portraiture is alleged to be presented to us. Nebuchad- nezzar takes hostages from Jerusalem along with part of the treasures of the temple. Vi" e learn nothing of A.ntiochus taking hostages to bring them up in his court. That fact is the central portion of NebJcbadnezzar's share in the incident recorded in the first chapter; the removal of the treasures from the temples of captured cities was as little peculiar to Nebnchadnezza.r as to Antiochus. A point of contrast, indeed, may be noted. Antiochus did not leave any portion of the treasures behind him when he robbed temples, and Nebuchadnezzar, in the first instance in regard to Jerusalem, did. The dream of tbe second chapter has no parallel event in the history of Antiochus. Certainly .A.ntiochus erected idols as Nebuchadnezzar is related in Dan. iii. to have done, but the peculiar heinousness of the action of Epiphanes was tha.t he erected the statue in the courts of Jeho.a.h's temple and over his altar. Nothing of the kind is ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar. The peculiarities again of the idol of Nebuchadnezzar -its height, its position, its gilding-the statue of .A.ntiochus did not possess. There is nothing in the history of Antioch us like the fiery furnace; the only point of resemblance is that A.ntiochus and Nebuchadnezzar alike (as did all heathen monarchs) demanded all officials to worship their gods. Antiochus further wished to compel a nation to abandon its religion; Nebuchadnezzar never had any such mad project in his mind. If the incident in the third chapter of Daniel is intended to be a representation of the setting up of "the abomination which maketh desolate" in the temple, it can scarcely be called a successful effort, Neither the dreams of Dan. iv. nor the madness of Nebuchadnezzar a.re paralleled by anything which is recorded of Antiochus. We are told, indeed, that Antioch us was ea.lied Epimanes" the Mad,'' instead of Epiphanes "the Illustrious," a.nd tha.t the madness ascribed to Nebuchad- nezzar referred to this. Bad we any evidence that this title was given to Antiochus by the mob, say of Antioch, there might be a bare possibility that this nickname might have reached Palestine. But the only occasion on which it was given him was by Polybius the historian, a.nd our evidence for this is a passage in Athenmus, bk. v., in which it is said, "Polybius, in the six and twentieth (book) of the histories, calls him (.A.ntiochus) Epimanes, and not Epiphanes, on account of his deeds." This is a totally different matter from his subjects giving him the title, The  THE ROOK OF DANIEL. l::t