Ill. EXTERNAL RELATIO:S-S OF THE BooK OF DANIEL. 1. External references to the Book of Daniel. Two things are to a certain extent regarded as proved by external references to a book-its date, and the extent of the effect it produced. In regard to both of these, there are various considerations which ought to modify our conclusions. We are not to look upon the earliest indisputable reference to a book as approximately the date at which it came into existence; it really only affords a limit determining the latest date we may ascribe to it, but decides nothing as to how early it may be. Quotation proves that the book quoted must have come into existence before the book in which it is quoted, but does not prove how long before. Of course, a book quoting mWlt be later in date than that it quotes; how much it is impossible to say, save from other grounds. On the other hand, the popularity of a book may be greater or less than the number of quotations might seem to warrant. A striking phrase may be found on every lip taken from a poem but seldom read ; while a book may be extremely potent in the hearts and thoughts of men, and yet be seldom quoted, because it does not lend itself to quotation, Few books have been so much read since it was first written as the• Imitatio Christi,' and yet quotations from it are rare. From the traces of their influence in Scripture, we know that the Books of Enoch were largely ll:li:X INTRODUCTION TO
read In the period immediately preceding the days of our Lord, yet In the voluminoutr 'l'almud there are few traces that these books bad ever been beard of. The character, then, of given writinge he.a to be taken into consideration-the writings which we expect to find quoted, and those we expect to find quoting. Further, quotation !& not the earliest way in which contact with an earlier writing is manifested. Direct word-for-word quotation, with due reference to the authors, ia a result of literary advance and the idea of property in literary products. The ballad-writers freely borrowed from those that preceded them. The Hebrew prophets did so, aa may be seen by the parallel passages in Micah and Isaiah, and in Isaiah and Jeremiah. It is enough if one can trace resemblances of diction. Stronger than these, are references of a sort that, without quotation or even resemblance of diction, yet imply the knowledge of the contents of the book, and take for granted that this knowledge is general The nature of the effect produced on the writings of a period depends greatly on the be.bits of the time, and the character of the literature which has survived. We cannot verify the Vedas by quotations from contemporary literature. The literature of the period most nearly contemporary with the traditional date of Daniel is by no means extensive, and is not of a character to lend itself to the act of quotation. The prophets may be regarded from the literary side of their works as poets. Poets do not make frequent references to contemporary poets. Tennyson and BroITTiing have both left voluminous poetical remains behind them, yet we doubt if the one refers so much as once to the other. Yet Ezekiel mentions on two different occasions Daniel as a famous person, in terms that suit the Daniel of our book, though, as we have shown above, these references are not the origin of it. It bas been objected that our Daniel would have been too young to be so mentioned; I but careful investigation shows this not to be a valid argument. If Daniel were carried away a hostage at the age Joseph was when sold into Egypt, namely, seventeen-and he might be more-at the end of the third year of his education he would be at least twenty. That, we tbink, probably coincided with the telling and interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's first dream, and thereafter he was admitted to the royal councils. Twenty was certainly an early age to attain such eminence, but the miraculous gifts he possessed might easily be supposed to elevate him to any position even at that early age. This had occurred five years before Ezekiel was carried captive to the river Chebar. We cannot tell exactly when the prophecy of Ezek. xiv. was delivered, but it must have been after the time of the prophecy of the eighth chapter, the su:th month of the sixth year-that is to say, later than some ten or eleven years after Daniel had been admitted to the royal oouncil- chamber. Daniel would then be two years older than Joseph was when he was made governor al all Egypt. He wotild be four or five years older still when the prophecy agaimt Tyre was pronounced. Remoteness of station, especially when connected with unity of blood, would tend to surround Daniel with a halo to the captives by the river Chebar, and equal him with the ancient worthies. Ben Sira glorifies his slightly older contemporary Simon, the son of Onias, in terms that put him not only on a par with the great men of old, but even make him the superior of most of them. We then see no reason to doubt that it is to the Daniel of the canonical book that Ezekiel refers, and not any older worthy carried away to Nineveh. • Some resemblances of diction have been seen by some commentators; e.g. Professor Fuller, between Daniel and Haggai and Malachi, but with the exception of Mal. iii. 16 and Dan. xiL 1 (comp. eh. viL 10), these resemblances are not striking. The passage 1 We cannot forbear referring to the arithmetical blunders of Dean Farrar on this 1ubjeot (]!'arzu, 'Daniel,' p. 10); they form a curiouity in literature. 'HIE BOOK OF DANIEL. xxxi