The idea of commenting on the books of the Bible is one that sprang up early among Christians. Among those of the Old Testament none has had a larger share of attention, and few were earlier commented on, than the Book of Daniel. One of the earliest of the patristic commentaries is that of Hippolytue. He occupies himself entirely with the visions. It is to be noted that be regards the fourth empire as the Roman-a view earlier maintained in 4 Esdras. The next we may note is Ephrem Syrus, whose com- mentary forms part of the voluminous edition of hie works published in Rome. • He is singular among the Fathers and early Jewish writers in maintaining the fourth empire to be the Greek. It would almost necessarily be the case that before the Romans, under Pompey, conquered Jerusalem, the fourth empire would be looked upon as that of Epiphanes. Later Jewish commentators, smarting under Mohammedan oppression, made the Saracen empire the fourth, and regarded the Roman as a continuance of the Greek. Most important of all ancient commentators is Jerome. Chiefly through his refutation of Porphyry's views have we any knowledge of that early assault on Daniel, and on Christianity through Daniel; the positions of Porphyry have been taken up by writers who would be insulted did any one accuse them of wishing to assail Christianity. It is perfectly true Porphyry might be correct in his premisses, but mistaken in hie conclusions; hence modem commentators may accept the former, while rejecting the latter. Throughout medimval times there were many Christian commentaries on the Book of Daniel, but they are nearly utterly valueless to the modem commentator. Medireval Jewish commentaries are not of much greater value. They were mainly engaged in the prophetic part in covert assaults on Chris- tians and Mobs.mmedans. The most important of these are Sa.adia. the Gaon, Kimchi, Bashi, Aben Ezra, and Jephet-ibn-Ali. At the time of the Reformation there were several commentaries on Daniel issued; of t.hese the most important is that of Calvin. It has much of that writer's keen exegetic insight, but its usefulness is lessened by the fact that it is so largely hortatory, moreover of necessity Calvin knew nothing of the Septuagint Version, and therefore was without one of our main helps to the attainment of a true text of Daniel, After TH1'J BOOK OF DANl~L. Ill
hie day commentaries on Daniel published by Protestants were mainly directed against the Papacy, and the commentators occupied themselves with calculations as to the time of its fall. Some later Romanist comment11.ries equally directed themselves against the Protestant powers; but others, as Cornelius ~ Lapide, maintain the fulfil- ment to be far in the future. Of the former a very favourable example is Sir Isaac Newton's 'Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John;' a little later is Bishop Newton's 'Dissertations.' With the beginning of this century began the critical assault on Daniel. Bertholdt's commentary was the first assailant of a really thorough-going character. He main- tained that there were nine authors. Eichhorn, De Wette, Bleek, and others followed on the same side. These, abandoning the manifoldness of authorship, maintained that our Book of Daniel was the product of a time when the voices of the prophets bad become fainter (matter) and fainter, and at last had altogether ceased; that it was the product of the time of Epiphanes. These views were combated by Hengstenberg, Auberlcn, Hii.vernick, in Germany. The discoveries of Layard and Botta in Nineveh made a vast change on the line of assault and defence. Every new discovery in Nineveh or Babylon was hailed by both parties as supporting its own view. :Meantime the critical school have certainly secured the ear of the public. At the beginning of the more recent period in the history of the interpretation of Daniel, the critical school were denounced, especially in this country, as opponents of Christianity. In reaction against thls unjustifiable assault on their Christianity, the critical school, now that they have got the advantage, will practically not give their opponents a hearing. Characteristic of the first period is Pusey's 'Lectures on Daniel,' very learned, but somewhat confused. The author is always very sure of his ownc correctness, though sometimes he is not to be trusted in his references to his opponents. One thing he seems to have done -demolished the attempt to prove a difference between the Aramaic of Daniel and that of Ezra. Characteristic of the latter period is Dean Farrar's 'Daniel,' in the Expositor's Bible Series, wonderful for its assumption of learning and for its marvellous blunders-for its contempt of all opponents and its self-contradictions. Of the commentaries since the date of Babylonian discoveries on the conservative side, the most considerable have been Rose and Fuller, in the 'Speaker's Commentary;' Keil, in Keil and Delitzsch's 'Bibelwerk;' Zockler, in Lange (especially under the American editor). Lenormant (' La Divination') gives an estimate of Daniel, and the historicity of the opening chapters. Dr. Charles H. H. Wright, in his intro- duction, and in various other writings, maintains the orthodox position with much skill and learning. Kliefoth and Kranichfeld and Caspari also maintain the orthodox standpoint. The most recent work on that side is Anderson's ' Coming Prince.' On the other side are Hitzig, who has a desire to find Persian elements in every name; Ewald, dogmatic but clear-sighted ; Meinhold, who admits that the historic portion must date before the Maccabean period. The most recent contributors to the inter- pretation of Daniel from the critical side are Professor Bevan and Dr. Behrmann. Professor Bevan manifests at times a decided bias, but, apart from this, he is scholarly and fair-minded. Behrmann is very fair, although he maintains the critical position, and at the same time is accurate and scholarly. One of the most noteworthy books on the critical side in regard to this question, as in regard to all questions of Old Test11- ment Introduction, is Canon Driver's 'Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.' To a great extent the two schools never meet, for the real reasons for belief in the authenticity of Daniel and disbelief of it never come into court. On the one side, in many minds the real reason for maintaining the authenticity of Daniel is that they 1lii INTRODUCTION TO