THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
phyry (see Neoplatonism). In book xii. of his extensive work against Christianity Porphyry discussed the Book of Daniel, and placed its author in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. To prove his position, Porphyry gave abundant extracts from Greek authors; these were used liberally by the Fathers (so Jerome on Dan. xi.), I mt otherwise his work had no influence. The patristic view dominated the Middle Ages. Only a few Jewish exegetes had a different conception; thus iSaadia and Ibn Ezra saw the Mohammedan empire in the fourth world-power. But all, Christians and Jews, Catholic and Protestant, agreed that the book was written during the Exile. That Uriel Aeosta, in the seventeenth century, agreed with Porphyry in caUing it a forgery made little impression. Semler made the statement anew; but only through the investigations of Corrodi (1783), Bertholdt (1806- ISOS), and especially of Gesenius and Bleek did
criticism come to its own. In a short 3. Return time the recognition that the historical to Earlier vision of the book does not go beyond View. Antiochus and that its author lived
during his reign became universally accepted among liberal-minded scholars. Among orthodox theologians this revival of Porphyry's view met with strong opposition, especially in the apologies of Hengstenberg and Havernick. For a while Franz Delitzsch took a middle position, but finally recognized the book as a product of the times of the Seleucidaj.
Thus far mention has been made only of those who held to the unity of the book; but it is necessary to notice the endeavors made to separate it into parts. Some orthodox theologians used this
method to save at least part of the 4. Decision book as exilic. The oldest exponent Affected of this theory of a composite Daniel is by Views Spinoza, who saw in Dan. viii.-xii. a on Unity, genuine work and suggested from
linguistic data that Dan. i.-vii. were taken from chronological works of the Chaldeans. B. Newton pointed out that Dan. vii.-xii. were written in the first person, consequently they alone had claims to genuineness. This view found a champion later in August K(jhler. Essentially different is Orelli's treatment; he contends that originally the four kingdoms were Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Mace< Ionia, and Rome, and that a Jew living in the troublous times of Antiochus thought he had discovered under Antiochus Epiphanes the fulfilment of the old prophecies of Daniel, and extended the book to make the reference evident to his contemporaries. Zockler found one interpolation of Maccabean date (Dan. xi. 6-45); J. P Lange found two (Dan. x. 1-11, 44, xii. 5-13); Meinhold held the part written in Aramaic to be exilic, that written in Hebrew Maccabean; Lagardo held that chap. yii. was written in Roman times (G9 a.d.).
III. The Unity: The totally different results at which the opponents of tlie book's uuily arriv(! create but little faith in their method. That the book is partly Hebrew, partly Aramaic, would prove something only if the parts differed also in contents. But tins is by no means the case. Dan. ii. 4, where the Aramaic begins, is part of a coherent
narrative; vii. belongs with viii. and not with ii.vi. The question why two languages are used can not be conclusively answered; 1. The Two altogether unsatisfactory is the ex- Languag-es planation that the author used the and Use of Aramaic because he thought it the First language employed by the speakers, Person, f^j. ^Yien he forgot himself until he came to viii. 1! The simplest explanation is that a lacuna in the original Hebrew was filled in at a later time from an Aramaic translation. The use of the first person in vii.-xii. has little weight as ground for partition for the reason that it is hedged in by the use of the third person. Therefore internal grounds alone can help in deciding whether exilic documents are incorporated or whether a (late) author designedly used as a part of his art the pretext of possession of genuine prophecies. Similarly the affirmation of a " tendency " is not to be used as ground for partition, for this appears in both parts alike. Thus the main question remains, whether or not the book everywhere in its description of the future has the same horizon.
The investigation must begin with viii. and xi. In viii. the book itself gives a clear interpretation. The ram with the two horns refers to the kings of Media and Persia, the goat is Greece (viii. 20, 21). The great horn of the goat is the first Greek king (Alexander the Great). After his death the kingdom is divided, and the Ptolemies and 2. The Seleucidaj enter. Chapter xi. gives Author's a detailed outline of the political Key. relations between the kings of the north and of the south, that is, between the Seleucidffi and the Ptolemies; xi. 21sqq. refers to Antiochus, xi. 25 sqq. describes his first campaign against Egypt (179 b.c. ), xi. 29 sqq. relates his second campaign (168 b.c); and the " ships of Chittim " refers to the arrival of Popilius Laenas to aid Egypt . In anger on account of the failure of his Egyptian campaign, Antiochus revenged himself against the Jews by eliminating their daily worship and setting up a heathen altar in the temple (cf. Dan. xi. 39 sqq. with I Mace. i. 47 sqq., 57, 62). That from Dan. xi. 36 to the end of the chapter another king is meant is impossible. The final destruction of the king and the expression " at that time " denote the end of the history and the beginning of Messianic times. If we examine now chap. ii. it appears undeniable that the fourth kingdom, first of iron, later of iron and clay, with its many futile attempts at union through matrimony, can refer only to Greece. It is olijected that history knows only one world-power between the Babylonian and the Macedonian; however, the question is not one of history, but of the author's view, and he has two kingdoms, the Median and the Persian (vi. 1, ix. 1, x. 1). Since the boundaries of the two nations join, they appear in chap, viii. as a relat ive unit in the ram with the two horns. As thus chaps, ii., and xi. have the same
horizon, the stipposition is that this is true also of chap. vii. Here the ten horns of the fourth animal create some difficulty. Lagarde has seen here ten C:psars, but as ho ha<l to count in Antoninus and to connect Vespasian with the little horn (to whom