The Pulpit Commentary — Daniel — Section 38

VI. CoNOL08ION, Ae our renders will hnve eeen, the Introduction to Daniel is in the main a discussion of the question of its authenticity. Let ue, ln conclUBion, sum up the results we have reached. '£here nre two clearly mnrked parties-the traditional and the critical. The one, the trnditional pnrty, maintain that the Book of Daniel ie a record of facts, in the main vouched for by Daniel himself, who, according to the traditional view, is an actual historic character. The other, the critical party, declare the Book of Daniel to be a religious novel, written in the days of the Maccabees. Its purpose is to encourage the Jews in their conflict against Epiphanes. For this object the wriLer exhibits Epipbanee under the names of Nebuchadnezzar, BeLihazzar, and Darius the Mede, and in the person of Dnniel presents us with the picture of the ideal Jew in the court of a heathen prince. Daniel is chosen because his name indicates the character, or because the characteristics assigned to Daniel in !,he prophecy of Ezekiel suit the position the author wishes to represent his ideal Jew occupying. Further, the history of Daniel is modelled on that of Joseph. It is clear that the critical school have recognized that it is not enough merely to assail the traditional position; that it is necessary to supply some explanation of the origin of the book assailed. It is a supposable case that the negative part of the critical contention might be proved, while the positive remained doubtful. But a close inspection of the argument and position of the critical school at once shows us that the two sides of their case are intimately connected. Were " Daniel" not written in the Maccabean period, then that period was prophesied of, and one of the main reasons for critics taking up their present position in regard to the Book of Daniel would be gone. On the other hand, tradition has always eome value. The critical school some- times seem to assume that if a book is said by tradition to have been written by one person at one time, that is a reason for saying that it was written at another time and by a totally different person. A rigid application of this tacit principle would deprive us of all our classics, Greek and Roman. We, then, can claim that the critical school have failed if they do not establish both parts of their case, even though the traditional school be not able to advance any stroag positive arguments on their own behalf. They have merely to maintain the defence, With the facts before us which we have just presented to our readers, it seems impossible to resist the conclusion that the case against the authenticity of Daniel has broken down. If we take the first portion of the critical contention, that the Book of Daniel is a religious novel, we find that it presents none of the characteristics that are present in successful productions of this class. The fact that one portion of it is written in one language, while another portion is written in another, is strongly against this view. Further, the incidents narrated do not suit the alleged purpose of the book, viz. to encourage the Jews in their armed opposition to Epiphanes; they would prompt to passive, not active, resistance. It cannot be maintained that Nebuchadnezzar is a portrait of Epiphanes. The character ascribed to N ebuchadaezzar is utterly unlike that ascribed to Epiphanes in the book itself. The feelings caused by the character and conduct of Nebuchadnezzar are utterly unlike those occasioned by the deeds of Antiochus. The assertion that the madness ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar is due to the alleged nickname given to Epiphanes is disproved, as it is shown that there is no evidence that this nickname ever was given to Antiochus Epiphanes. As little are Delshazze.r or Darius the Mede portraits of Antiochus. It cannot be intended to represent the ideal of a pious Jew in a heathen court, as many of the incidents do not xlvi INTRODUCTION TO