of the third year of the training of the Hebrew youths. (4) Chaldee.ne, as a class of magicians, "is an immense anachronism." But the reader may see under the verses where the words are alleged to occur, grave reason for doubting whether the word actually belongs to the text. It seems to a C('rtain extent probable that it ie an intrusion from the margin. (5) The fifth objection, "Arioch," ie not reaJJy an objection, even in Dean Farrar's eyes. The dean eees great difficulty in the fact that Arioch introduces Daniel to the king as if he had discovered him ; while in the end of the previous chapter the king had found Daniel "ten times better than all the magicians," etc. The dean forgets that this want of unity is against the idea of a novel-which he advocates. It does not occur to him that the difficulty may be removed by regarding the incident related in the second chapter as the occasion when Nebuchadnezzar discovered the ability of Daniel and his companions. (6, 7) The worship given to Daniel and accepted by him forms a greater difficulty to those who will have us believe Daniel is the ideal of a Jew in a heathen court, formed by "a pious Chasid" of the time of the Maccabees. Everything that makes his conduct inexplicable on the highest moral grounds is an argument agaimt the book being a novel of such an origin, and /or it being a true history. A contemporary historian often omits explanations which after-times desiderate, simply because the explanation is obvious to him. (8) Dean Farrar is quite sure that the Babylonian priests formed a caste. We do not think there is evidence of this. But to be over "the wise men" was not to be head of the priests. Further, even to be "over the priests" did not necessarily imply being a priest, In France and Russia, the head of the government department that is over the priesthood ie not himself a priest. (9) The omission of Daniel from those who refused worship to the golden image is just one of the difficulties which it is incumbent on Dean Farrar to explain on the hypothesis that Daniel is a religious novel. The alleged Greek names of musical instruments are discussed more fully elsewhere, and shown either not to be Greek or not to have been in the original text. (10) We shall notice here the alleged monotheistic decrees which Dean Farrar has taken up under different headings. All these form difficulties only to those who have not·stndied the phenomena of heathenism, or at all events have not apprehended its bearing on such proclamations as those before us. '£he heathen of one nation never had much difficulty in acknowledging that the god or gods of another nation were really divine beings, with power to hurt, and with the right to be worshipped. The policy pursued by Nabunahid, but reversed by Cyrus, of bringing the gods of all the subject cities into Babylon, proceeded on this idea. Punishment is decreed against any one who should speak disrespectfully of the God of the Jews. No order is issued for sacrifice and worship to be given to Jehovah alone. (11) Dean Farrar says incorrectly that Belshazzar is somewhat emphatically called the son of Nebuchadnezzar, anJ quotes eh. v. 11, in which verse the word "son" does not at all occur. Certainly Nebuchadnezzar is called" his father." The emphasis xli• INTRODUOTION TO
is wholly in Dean Farnn'e imagination, He knows that Jehn i11 called "the son of Omri '' in the in~cription or Shalmaneeer II., when he was simply hie euccesaor, Dr. Hugo Winckler (' Untersuchungen ,mr Alt.orientalieoheu G1ischlohte,' p. 63, note) tells us that "' eon,' aft.er the name of Ohaldean prinooa, is only to be taken In the eenao of belonging to the dynasty of --." (12) " In that night was Belsha,;zar King of the Ohaldoans slain.'' This veree le not in the Septuagint. The siege of Babylon and its capture by assault, imagined by Dr. Sayoe and Dean Farrar to be related in Daniel, is neither narrated nor implied, The whole difficulty is due to the inveterate inaccuracy of the dean and to the hastiness of the doctor. Dean Farrar objecte that Belshazzar wae not king; but if he was not "king," he performed all the functions of king, and had prayers put up for him as if he were joint king with his father, although certainly the dates of the contraot tables are reckoned by hie father's reign, as they are even in some oases after Cyrus is on the throne. (13) lo the case of Darius the Mede we admit there are diffioulties. We have elsewhere submitted the evidence which has led us to suppose that Gobryas is intended. Dean Farrar is quite sure" Gobryae" was a Persian. His son Mardonius is called a Mede by Nepos. The newly discovered history of Cyrus renders it very doubtful wb&t constituted a Persian. Par- seems to have been little more than a canton, like Anlan., belonging sometimes to Elam, sometimes to Media. .All these cantons had "kings," and these kings retained their titles in after-life, although their kingship was merely honorary. (14) He is called "the son of .Ahasuerus." We do not know who the father of Gobrya.s was; he might have been called Ahasnerus. Surely Dean Farrar does not need to be told of the oarelessneBB of the Jews in regard to proper names, Thus In Joseph ben Gorion "Epipbanes" appears as 0Ul)0N, a mode of writing" Vespasianus." (15) This last historical objection is the aBBumption that as the writer only mentions " four kings of Persia," he only knew of "four.'' If we suppose that to the prophet only "four" kings were made known, that is nothing against the authenticity of that portion of the book. We know .Alexander the Great defended hio invasion of Persia on the ground that it was a reprisal for the invasion of Greece by Xerxes. In that case it was quite natural, in a sketch of history, to leap from Xerxes to Alexander. We have followed the catalogue of difficulties presented to us by Dean Farrar, because it is the most recent, and also because from the reputation of the author it is likely to be very popular, not that we would do the critical school the injustice of regarding him as in any sense their representative. The brevity of our answers to these objections is to be explained and excused by the fact that each and all are con- sidered again in the commentary which follows. There are other alleged historical difficulties besides those mentioned above; bul these also we consider in connection with passages involved, The only one of these we would notice here is the alleged reference to a formed canon in eh. Ix, 2, "I Daniel u11derstood by books.'' Critics forget to tell us that hass'phareem is rarely used for the books of the canon; it is generally hakh'thoobeem. They also forget to inform us that 1,aa6'pl,areem might mean simply "the letter," and refer to the letter of Jeremiah the prophet, to which references are made elsewhere in the chapter, THE DOOK OF DANIEL. :llv