The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 27

other hand, the negative evidence is equally valueless. The evidence against the early • xis:ence of Daniel, as derived from Ecclesiasticus, is that Daniel is not mentioned in • •the Hymn of the Fathera." But the argurMntum e Bilentio, at nll times an unsafe one, is strikingly eo in regard to Ben Sira. ,ve have three versions of this book, to l'Ome extent independent of each other-the Greek, made by a grandson of the author; the Latin; and the Syriac. In each there are verses that are in neither of the other two. Moreover, we have several quotations from the Book of Ben Sira in the 'falmud and other rabbinic sources which we do not find in any of the versions. ,vben we think of the number of verses that are left out by each authority, It seems by no means improbable that more sentences have been left out than those omitted from the versions and yet quoted by the Talmud. One or more of them may have referred to Daniel. Further, "the Hymn of the Fathers" is such an irregular production, meandering tbrough the ages without any rega.rd to chronological succession, that not only might verses drop out without observation, but subjects might be omitted without the writer, not to speak of copyists, being necessarily cognizant of any omission. The actual omissions besides that of Daniel are too numerous to give the omission of D,1,niel any probative force. If the omission of Job may be explained on the ground that Job ,rai; not an Israelite, that will not explain the omission of Ezra and Jehoshaphat. No deduction thus can be made from the silence of Siracides. Outside the deutero-canonical books of the Apocrypha the earliest reference to Daniel, acknowledged practically by all to be indubitable, is to be found in thtl 'Oracula Sibyllina,' iii 896-400- « Having given forth one sucker, which the destroyer of men shall cut o~ From ten home, he ehall plant another sucker beside, He shall cut off the warrior, father of the purple race. • And himself by sons whom [he shall receive into equal rule] 1 be slain, and then shalJ the hom planted by, rule." The reference here to Daniel and to Epiphanes is practically universally acknowledged; the 01.1ly difficulty is to fix the date at which it was written. It is very difficult to fa;: the date of any part of the' Oracula Sibyllina.' They a.re divided into books, but these books have not only no connection with each other, but even ea.eh book is in DO sense a whole, but is really a cento made up of fragments of the most diverse ages .1.nd origins. The third book ii,, of the books which are at all lengthy, most nearly a unity, and the fragments of which it is comp:,sed most nearly synchronize with each other. W c can fix the date of this book by the fa.et that the Jewish Messiah is expected during the reign of "the seventh king of Grecian race;" therefore, reckoning in .Altunder, in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor. He is also called fJa.ulA•us 11los-a term that would apply to him, but in no sense to his successor Physcon. Against any later date is the fact that, while there is thus a reference to Epiphanes, there is no reference to the victorious struggles of the Macca.bees against him-a thing that would certainly be joyously chrouicled by one who was not only a Jew, but also ao. Akundrian, and therefore had a debt of hatred to pay to Epiphanes on both these grounda. It seems almost necessary to fix the date of this part of the Sibylline Oracles as not later than 11.c. 170. Granting this to be the tt"ue date, we cao.o.ot fix the date of Daniel to that; it must have had a wide popularity many years before !bat, in ord,r to have been carried down to Egypt, and there to be received into geueral reading among the Jewish community. Even though one should date the t-;;i,ylLue Oracles as late as do Schurer and Hilgenfeld, and say it originated n.o. HO, 1 E.tading, with Alexandre, 5,fna., OfJXf/11 instead of uru,011 6.pfl'ris,  THE BOOK OJ!' DANIEL. :u:xlil