Handbook for Bible Students

“D” Entries

Daniel, Book of, Time of Writing of.—In no respect do the actual contents of this book [Daniel] correspond with the relations and circumstances of the times of the Maccabees; but, on the contrary, they point decidedly to the time of the exile. The historical parts show an intimate acquaintance not only with the principal events of the time of the exile, but also with the laws and manners and customs of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian monarchies. The definite description (ch. 1:1) of the first expedition of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem, which is fabricated certainly from no part of the Old Testament, and which is yet proved to be correct, points to a man well acquainted with this event; so, too, the communication regarding King Belshazzar (ch. 5), whose name occurs only in this book, is nowhere else independently found. An intimate familiarity with the historical relations of the Medo-Persian kingdom is seen in the mention made of the law of the Medes and Persians (ch. 6:9, 13), since from the time of Cyrus the Persians are always placed before the Medes, and only in the book of Esther do we read of the Persians and Medes (ch. 1:3, 14, 18), and of the law of the Persians and Medes (ch. 1:19). HBS 148.3

An intimate acquaintance with the state regulations of Babylon is manifest in the statement made in ch. 1:7 (proved by 2 Kings 24:17 to be a Chaldean custom), that Daniel and his companions, on their being appointed for the king’s service, received new names, two of which were names derived from Chaldean idols; in the account of their food being brought from the king’s table (ch. 1:5); in the command to turn into a dunghill (ch. 2:5) the houses of the magicians who were condemned to death; in the death punishments mentioned in ch. 2:5 and 3:6, the being hewn to pieces and cast into a burning fiery furnace, which are shown by Ezekiel 16:10; 23:47; Jeremiah 29:29, and other proofs, to have been in use among the Chaldeans, while among the Medo-Persians the punishment of being cast into the den of lions is mentioned (ch. 6:8, 13 ff.). The statement made about the clothing worn by the companions of Daniel (ch. 3:21) agrees with a passage in Herodotus (i. 195); and the exclusion of women from feasts and banquets is confirmed by Xen., Cyrop., v. 2, and Curtius, v. 1; 38. As to the account given in ch. 2:5, 7, of the priests and wise men of Chaldea, Fr. Münter (“Religion der Babylon,” p. 5) has remarked, “What the early Israelitish prophets record regarding the Babylonish religion agrees well with the notices found in Daniel; and the traditions perserved by Ctesias, Herodotus, Berosus, and Diodorus are in perfect accordance therewith.” Compare with this what P. F. Stuhr (Die heidn. Religion. des alt. Orients, p. 416 ff.) has remarked concerning the Chaldeans as the first class of the wise men of Babylon. A like intimate acquaintance with facts on the part of the author of this book is seen in his statements regarding the government and the state officers of the Chaldean and Medo-Persian kingdom (cf. Hgstb. Beitr. i, p. 346 ff.). HBS 148.4

The prophetical parts of this book also manifestly prove its origin in the time of the Babylonian exile. The foundation of the world kingdom by Nebuchadnezzar forms the historical starting-point for the prophecy of the world kingdoms. “Know, O king,” says Daniel to him in interpreting his dream of the world monarchies, “thou art the head of gold” (ch. 2:38). HBS 149.1

The visions which are vouchsafed to Daniel date from the reign of Belshazzar the Chaldean, Darius the Median, and Cyrus the Persian (ch. 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1). With this stands in harmony the circumstance that of the four world kingdoms only the first three are historically explained, viz., besides the first of the monarchy of Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 2:37), the second of the kingdom of the Medes and Persians, and the third of the kingdom of Javan, out of which, at the death of the first king, four kingdoms shall arise toward the four winds of heaven (ch. 8:20-22). Of the kings of the Medo-Persian kingdom, only Darius the Median and Cyrus the Persian, during whose reign Daniel lived, are named. Moreover the rise of yet four kings of the Persians is announced, and the warlike expedition of the fourth against the kingdom of Javan, as also the breaking up and the division toward the four winds (ch. 11:5-19) of the kingdom of the victorious king of Javan. [pp. 46-48] ... HBS 149.2

The contents of Daniel 9 accord with the age of the Maccabees still less than do the visions of the world kingdoms. Three and a half centuries after the accomplishment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the desolation of Judah, after Jerusalem and the temple had been long ago rebuilt, it could not come into the mind of any Jew to put into the mouth of the exiled prophet Daniel a penitential prayer for the restoration of the Holy City, and to represent Gabriel as having brought to him the prophecy that the seventy years of the desolation of Jerusalem prophesied of by Jeremiah were not yet fulfilled, but should only be fulfilled after the lapse of seventy year-weeks, in contradiction to the testimony of Ezra, or, according to modern critics, of the author of the books of Chronicles and of Ezra, living at the end of the Persian era, that God, in order to fulfil his word spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, had in the first year of Cyrus stirred up the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia to send forth an edict throughout his whole kingdom, which directed the Jews to return to Jerusalem, and commanded them to rebuild the temple. 2 Chronicles 36:22 f.; Ezra 1:1-4. HBS 149.3

If now, in conclusion, we take into consideration the religious spirit of this book, we find that the opponents of its genuineness display no special gift of äéÜenéóéo ?í ooiÜôuí [diakrisis pneumatôn, discerning of spirits], when they place the book of Daniel in the same category with the Sybilline Oracles, the fourth book of Ezra (= 2 Esdras), the book of Enoch, the Ascensio Jesaja, and other pseudepigraphical products of apocryphal literature, and represent the narrative of the events of Daniel’s life and his visions as a literary production after the manner of Deuteronomy and the book of Koheleth (Ecclesiastes), which a Maccabean Jew has chosen, in order to gain for the wholesome truths which he wished to represent to his contemporaries the wished-for acceptance (Bleek, p. 593 f.). [pp 49, 50] ... HBS 149.4

Still less can it be conceived that (as Bleek, p. 604, says) the author of this book had “without doubt Antiochus Epiphanes before his eyes” in Nebuchadnezzar (ch. 4), and also in Belshazzar (ch. 5). It is true that Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, according to ch. 4 and 5, sin against the Almighty God of heaven and earth and are punished for it, and Antiochus Epiphanes also at last fell under the judgment of God on account of his wickedness. But this general resemblance, that heathen rulers by their contact with the Jews did dishonor to the Almighty God, and were humbled and punished for it, repeats itself at all times, and forms no special characteristic of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. [p. 52] ... HBS 150.1

The narratives regarding Nebuchadnezzar, his dream, the consecration of the golden statue, and his conduct after his recovery from his madness, as well as those regarding Darius (ch. 6), could not be invented, at least could not be invented by a Maccabean Jew, because in the pre-exilian history there are altogether wanting types corresponding to the psychological delineation of these characters. It is true that a Pharaoh raised Joseph, who interpreted his dream, to be the chief ruler in his kingdom, but it does not come into his mind to give honor to the God who revealed in the dream what would befall his kingdom. Genesis 41. For the other narratives of this book there are wanting in the Old Testament incidents with which they could be connected; and the resemblance between the life-experience of Joseph and that of Daniel extends only to these general matters, that both received from God the gift of interpreting dreams, and by means of this gift brought help and deliverance to their people: in all details, however, Daniel is so different from Joseph that the delineation of his portrait as found in this book cannot be regarded as a copy of the history of Joseph. [pp. 53, 54] ... HBS 150.2

Finally in the Sibyls there is wanting a prophetical object. The prophetical object of Daniel is the world power over against the kingdom of God. This historico-prophetic idea is the determinating, sole, all-penetrating idea in Daniel, and the center of it lies throughout in the end of the world power, in its inner development and its inner powerlessness over against the kingdom of God. The four world-forms do not begin with the history of nations and extend over our present time. On the contrary, the creative prophetic spirit is wanting to the Sibyl; not one historical thought of deliverance is peculiar to it; it is a genuine Alexandrine compilation of prophetic and Graeco-classic thoughts externally conceived. HBS 150.3

The thought peculiarly pervading it, to raise Judaism to the rank of the world religion, is only a human reflection of the divine plan, that in Abraham all the nations shall be blessed, which pervades all the prophets as the great thought in the history of the world; in Daniel it comes out into the greatest clearness, and is realized by Christianity. This prophetic world-thought the Sibyl has destroyed, i. e., has religiously spiritualized and politically materialized it. “Not the living and holy covenant God Jehovah, who dwells on high and with the contrite in heart, but Godhead uncreated and creating all things, without distinction in himself, the invisible God, who sees all things, who is neither male nor female, as he appears at a later period in the teaching of the school of Philo, is he whom the Sibyl in very eloquent language declares to the heathen. But of the God of Israel, who not only created the world, but who also has a divine kingdom on the earth, and will build up this kingdom,-in a word, of the God of the history of redemption, as he is seen in his glory in Daniel, we find no trace whatever.” HBS 150.4

The materialistic historic prophecy of the Sibyllist corresponds with this religious spiritualism. He seeks to imitate the prophecies of Daniel, but he does not know the prophetic fundamental thought of the kingdom of God over against the kingdom of the world, and therefore he copies the empirical world history: “First, Egypt will rule, then Assyria, Persia, Media, Macedonia, Egypt again, and then Rome.” HBS 151.1

Thus the Sibylline Apocalyptic is fundamentally different from the prophecies of Daniel. Whoever has a mind so little disciplined that he cannot perceive this difference, cannot be expected to know how to distinguish between the prophecies of Daniel and the philosophical reflections of the book of Koheleth. If Koheleth brings forward his thoughts regarding the vanity of all things in the name of the wise king Solomon, then is this literary production, which, moreover, is so very transparent that every reader of the book can see through it, altogether comprehensible. If, on the other hand, a Maccabean Jew clothe his own self-conceived ideas regarding the development of the war of the heathen world powers against the people of God in revelations from God, which the prophet living in the Babylonian exile might have received, then this undertaking is not merely literary deception, but at the same time an abuse of prophecy, which, as a prophesying out of one’s own heart, is a sin to which God in his law has annexed the punishment of death. HBS 151.2

If the book of Daniel were thus a production of a Maccabean Jew, who would bring “certain wholesome truths” which he thought he possessed before his contemporaries as prophecies of a divinely enlightened seer of the time of the exile, then it contains neither prophecy given by God nor in general wholesome divine truth, but mere human invention, which, because it was clothed with falsehood, could not have its origin in the truth. Such a production Christ, the eternal personal Truth, never could have regarded as the prophecy of Daniel the prophet, and commended to the observation of his disciples, as he has done. Matthew 24:15; cf. Mark 13:14. HBS 151.3

This testimony of our Lord fixes on the external and internal evidences which prove the genuineness of the book of Daniel the seal of divine confirmation. [pp. 55-57]-“The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” C. F. Keil, translated from the German by Rev. M. G. Easton, A. M., Introduction, pp. 46-57. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1872. HBS 151.4

Daniel, Book of, Date of.—There is one other theory to consider; it is, that Daniel is indeed a divine book, rightly used as an authority in the New Testament; but that it was given forth, not to a prophet in Babylon, but to an inspired prophet in the days of the Maccabees. [p. 268] ... HBS 151.5

Every point already proved, which shows that Daniel was used and known in and before Maccabean times, meets this theory as fully as that of the rejecters of Daniel altogether. The question, whether it was worthy of God to do any particular thing, calls for another inquiry; namely, whether he has so seen fit or not to do it. Thus, on grounds already stated, we may say that God did not see fit to give forth this portion of Scripture in Maccabean times. HBS 151.6

But we have further proof in refutation of this theory. If we admit the book to possess any authority at all, then the writer was a prophet; as a prophet the Jews have ever owned him, and by the name of prophet does our Lord designate him. On this theory, then (which professes to admit the authority of Scripture), a prophet he certainly was. But in the Maccabean days there was no prophet at all. When Judas Maccabeus purged the temple from the pollutions of Antiochus (b. c. 165), and removed the idol which had been erected on the altar, “they took counsel concerning the altar of burnt offering which had been polluted, what they should do with it. And they determined, with good counsel, to pull it down, lest it should be a reproach unto them, because the Gentiles had defiled it: and they pulled down the altar, and laid up the stones in the mountain of the house, in a fitting place, until there should be a prophet to answer the question concerning them.” 1 Mac. 4: 44-46. Twenty-two years later (b. c. 143), when Simon, the last survivor of the sons of Mattathias, was the chief of the Jewish people, “it pleased the Jews, and the priests, that Simon should be leader and high priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet.” 1 Mac. 14: 41. Thus certain it is that the Maccabean age knew of no prophet. Nor had there been one for a long time: “There was great tribulation in Israel, such as was not from the time that no prophet appeared amongst them.” 1 Mac. 9: 27.—“Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel,” S. P. Tregelles, LL. D., pp. 268-270. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1883. HBS 151.7

It is certain that at the Christian era the book of Daniel was commonly received by the Jews as the prophecy of a servant of God in Babylon, written about five centuries and a half before. Of this the New Testament and Josephus are sufficient proofs. How fully the rulers of the Jews received it, is shown by their charge of blasphemy against our Lord for applying its terms to himself. Had this book been one of doubtful authority or obscure origin, they could not have thus regarded the use which he made of its contents.—Id., p. 224. HBS 152.1

Daniel, Book of, Date of.—It is now conceded that there are neither Greek words nor Gracisms, beyond the names of two or three musical instruments. In the ignorance of general philology at the close of the last century, words whose Semitic origin was not obvious, or which belonged to the Indo-European family, nay, some whose Aramaic origin is obvious, were assumed to be Greek.... Of these nine or ten alleged Greek words (two are from the same root), improved philology swept away at once all which are not names of musical instruments; three roots belonging to the Aryan family, two probably being genuine Chaldee.... Now, whether there remain two or three musical instruments, this would be nothing more remarkable than the corresponding fact that Greeks imported Syriac or Hebrew names of instruments, together with the instruments themselves, as [Greek words transliterated as follows] [kinura, nabla]. We know that the Babylonians loved foreign music also, and that they saddened their Hebrew captives by bidding them sing to their harps some “of the songs of Zion.” Isaiah, foretelling the destruction of Babylon, says, “Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, the noise of thy viols” (nebaleica). Babylon was “a city of merchants;” she “exulted in her ships.” Her manufactures found their way to Palestine in the days of Joshua. The Euphrates connected Babylon downward with India, and above even with Armenia and the line of Tyrian commerce, and, through Tyre, with Greece. [pp. 24, 25] ... HBS 152.2

Criticism then, as it became more accurate, retreated, point by point, from all which, in its rashness, it had asserted. First, it gave up the so-called Gracisms; then, that there were any Greek words in Daniel except three of the musical instruments; then, that there was anything incredible in some Greek musical instruments being used at Nebuchadnezzar’s solemn religious festival; lastly, this crotchet, that two of the musical instruments were Macedonian words, must give way likewise. Yet at each stage these pseudo-criticisms did their work. Those who disbelieved Daniel believed the authority of the critics.—“Daniel the Prophet,” Rev. E. B. Pusey. D. D., pp. 23-25, 30. London: James Parker & Co., 1868. HBS 152.3

Daniel, Book of, Date of, Proved by Its Aramaic.—The modern opponents of the book of Daniel have been constrained to admit that the Chaldee of Daniel is nearly identical with that of Ezra, and is as distinct as his from that of the earliest Targums. The Aramaic of Ezra consists chiefly of documents from 536 b. c., the first year of Cyrus, to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, b. c. 458. The documents are, a decree of Cyrus embodied in one of Darius Hystaspes; two letters of Persian officials to the kings; rescripts of pseudo-Smerdis, Darius Hystaspes, and Artaxerxes.... This Aramaic then is anyhow the Aramaic of the first half of the fifth century before our Lord; most of it probably is original Aramaic of persons not Jews. Some of Daniel’s Aramaic is stated in his book to have been written “in the first year of Belshazzar,” about 542 b. c., six years before the earliest of the documents in Ezra, and some sixty-four years before the latest. The great similarity between the Aramaic of these writings is such as one should expect from their nearness; at the same time there is variation enough utterly to exclude any theory that the Chaldee of Daniel could have been copied from that of Ezra.—Id., pp. 40, 41. HBS 153.1

Daniel, Book of, Date of, Proved by Its Hebrew.—In fine, then, the Hebrew of Daniel is exactly that which you would expect in a writer of his age and under his circumstances. It has not one single idiom unsuited to that time. The few Aryan or Syriac words remarkably belong to it. The Chaldee marks itself out as such, as could not have been written at the time when, if it had not been a divine and prophetic book, it must have been written. HBS 153.2

No opponent has ever ventured to look steadily at the facts of the correspondence of the language of Daniel and Ezra, and their difference from the language of the earliest Targums. HBS 153.3

It is plainly cumulative evidence, when both portions so written are united in one book. Over and above, the fact that the book is written in both languages, suits the times of Daniel, and is inexplicable by those who would have it written in the time of the Maccabees. No other book, or portion of a book, of the canon approximates to that date. The last book, Nehemiah, was finished two and one-half centuries before, viz., about b. c. 410. HBS 153.4

The theory of Maccabee Psalms lived too long, but is now numbered with the dead. Only one or two, here and there, who believe little besides, believe in this phantom of a past century. But, even if such Hebrew, and (which is utterly inconceivable) such Aramaic, could have been written in the times of the Maccabees, it would still have been inexplicable that both should be written. HBS 153.5

If the object of the writer be supposed to have been to write as should be most readily understood, this would account for the Aramaic; but then one who wrote with that object would not have written in Hebrew what was of most interest to the people, what was most especially written for those times. If his object had been (as was that of Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) to write in the language of the ancient prophets, then he would not have written in Aramaic at all. The prophecies in the Chaldee portion of Daniel are even more comprehensive for the most part than those of the Hebrew. Had such been the object, one should have rather expected that, with the exception of the prophecy of the seventy weeks, the languages should have been reversed. For the Aramaic portions confessedly speak most of the kingdom of the Messiah. HBS 153.6

The use then of the two languages, and the mode in which the prophet writes in both, correspond perfectly with his real date; they are, severally and together, utterly inexplicable according to the theory which would make the book a product of Maccabee times. The language then is one mark of genuineness, set by God on the book. Rationalism must rebel, as it has rebelled; but it dare not now, with any moderate honesty, abuse philology to cover its rebellion.—“Daniel the Prophet,” Rev. E. B. Pusey, D. D., pp. 57-59. London: James Parker & Co., 1868. HBS 154.1

Daniel, Book of, Reliability of.—None of the historic statements of Daniel can be invalidated. Alleged errors are as follows: HBS 154.2

1. No secular historian names Belshazzar, therefore Belshazzar never existed. But in 1854 Belshazzar was found in the monuments. HBS 154.3

2. Daniel calls Nebuchadrezzar king before Nabopolassar died. But so does Jeremiah 27:6; Nebuchadrezzar was admitted to cosovereignty. HBS 154.4

3. Daniel terms a gild of wise men “Chaldeans,” a use unknown till four centuries after the exile. But Herodotus (i. 181, 185) in the same century with Daniel uses the same term. HBS 154.5

4. Belshazzar was not king, nor was he the son or grandson of Nebuchadrezzar. But somebody was left in command at Babylon when Nabonidus led out the army to Sippar. Who but his oldest and favorite son? Exercising royal authority, Belshazzar was king as much as was Nebuchadrezzar in similar circumstances. The queen mother (Daniel 5:11) said Nebuchadrezzar was Belshazzar’s father (or grandfather). Probabilities sustain her truthfulness, thus: Evil-Merodach, Nebuchadrezzar’s son, succeeded his father, and was succeeded by Neriglissar because he had married a daughter of the great king, the legitimate successor being Neriglissar’s son. The son of Neriglissar dying, how came Nabonidus to occupy the throne in turbulent Babylon, unchallenged for seventeen years? If he had married another daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, then his son Belshazzar was grandson of Nebuchadrezzar, and legitimate heir, and the prophecy of Jeremiah 27:6, 7, “Nebuchadrezzar, his son, and son’s son,” was fulfilled. HBS 154.6

5. Daniel 1:1, “third year,” is inconsistent with Jeremiah 36:9; 46:2, “fourth or fifth year.” This, if true, would eliminate the conjectured Maccabean fabricator, for a fabricator with Jeremiah before him (Daniel 9:2) would not contradict Jeremiah in the first sentence of his romance. But there is no inconsistency. HBS 154.7

6. The annalistic tablet of Cyrus intimates that Babylon was taken easily. This agrees with Daniel 5:30, 31, but there must have been some struggle, for the tablet says “the king’s son died,” and Daniel says “that night Belshazzar was slain.” The tablet says further that the city yielded to Gobryas,-Cyrus not appearing for several weeks,-and that Gobryas was made governor and appointed other governors; all of which corresponds to Darius the Mede, who “received” the kingdom and appointed satraps, etc. Daniel 5:30; 6:1. Cyrus had other conquests to make, and left a subordinate king in Babylon, wisely appointing a Mede.... HBS 154.8

7. There are three Greek words in Daniel 3:5. They are the names of musical instruments, and these carry their native names with them. HBS 155.1

8. Part of the book of Daniel is in Aramaic (2:4 to 7:28). But so is Ezra 4:8 to 6:18. Ezra too, was brought up in Babylon. His Aramaic is “all but identical” (Driver) with Daniel’s. Aramaic was the vernacular. Each writer drops into it upon slight suggestion, Ezra upon quoting an Aramaic letter; Daniel upon quoting the frightened Chaldeans. The tablets from Nippur in course of decipherment by Professor Clay are in point; the business contracts are written in Babylonian cuneiform, the labels or dockets on the back are in Aramaic, for quick reference by the clerks in the office. HBS 155.2

As to the other “historic inaccuracies,” as Daniel’s being too young for Ezekiel to have known-he was forty, possibly fifty, years old when Ezekiel wrote of him; as to his not knowing how to spell the name Nebuchadrezzar-he spells it as Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra do, and as Jeremiah does half the time. On the other hand, there was a Daniel, eminent, wise, and godly enough to be linked with Noah and Job. Ezekiel 14:14, 20. There is no Daniel but the man whose book is under consideration and whom Jesus called a prophet. Matthew 24:15. The incident narrated by Josephus (Ant., XI. viii. 5), that Alexander saw Daniel’s mention of himself, is confirmed by the fact that, while Alexander destroyed every city in Syria friendly to Persia, he spared and greatly favored Jerusalem.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. III, art. “Daniel, Book of,” p. 350. HBS 155.3

Daniel, Book of, Reliability of Dates in.—Daniel 1:1 reads: “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem and besieged it.” The German rationalists denounce this statement as a blunder. Their humble disciples, the English skeptics, accept their conclusion and blindly reproduce their arguments. Dr. Driver (more suo) takes a middle course and brands it as “doubtful” (“Daniel,” pp. xlviii and 2). I propose to show that the statement is historically accurate, and that its accuracy is established by the strict test of chronology. HBS 155.4

A reference to Rawlinson’s “Five Great Monarchies” (Vol. III, 488-494), and to Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” will show how thoroughly consistent the sacred history of this period appears to the mind of a historian or a chronologer, and how completely it harmonizes with the history of Berosus. Jerusalem was first taken by the Chaldeans in the third year of Jehoiakim. His fourth year was current with the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1). This accords with the statement of Berosus that Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition took place before his actual accession (Josephus, Apion, i. 19).... What Berosus says is that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of his father’s death, “he set the affairs of Egypt and the other countries in order, and committed the captives he had taken from the Jews, and the Phonicians, and Syrians, and of the nations belonging to Egypt, to some of his friends ... while he went in haste over the desert to Babylon.” Will the critics tell us how he could have had Jewish captives if he had not invaded Judea; how he could have reached Egypt without marching through Palestine; how he could have returned to Babylon over the desert if he had set out from Carchemish on the. Euphrates! ... HBS 155.5

According to the Canon of Ptolemy, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar dates from b. c. 604; i. e., his accession was in the year beginning the 1st Thoth (which fell in January), b. c. 604. But the captivity began in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year (cf. Ezekiel 1:2 and 2 Kings 24:12); and in the thirty-seventh year of the captivity Nebuchadnezzar’s successor was on the throne (2 Kings 25:27). This, however, gives Nebuchadnezzar a reign of at least forty-four years, whereas according to the canon (and Berosus confirms it) he reigned only forty-three years. It follows, therefore, that Scripture antedates his reign and computes it from b. c. 605. (Clinton, F. H., Vol. I, p. 367.) This might be explained by the fact that the Jews acknowledged him as suzerain from that date. But it has been overlooked that it is accounted for by the Mishna rule of computing regnal years from Nisan to Nisan. In b. c. 604, the first Nisan fell on the 1st April, and according to the Mishna rule the king’s second year would begin on that day, no matter how recently he had ascended the throne. Therefore the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah 25:1) was the year beginning Nisan b. c. 605; and the third year of Jehoiakim, in which Jerusalem was taken and the servitude began, was the year beginning Nisan b. c. 606. HBS 155.6

This result is confirmed by Clinton, who fixes the summer of b. c. 606 as the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s first expedition. And it is strikingly confirmed also by a statement in Daniel which is the basis of one of the quibbles of the critics: Daniel was kept three years in training before he was admitted to the king’s presence, and yet he interpreted the king’s dream in his second year. Daniel 1:5, 18; 2:1. The explanation is simple. While the Jews in Palestine computed Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in their own way, Daniel, a citizen of Babylon and a courtier, of course accepted the reckoning in use around him. But as the prophet was exiled in b. c. 606, his three years’ probation ended in b. c. 603, whereas the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, reckoned from his actual accession, extended to the early months of b. c. 602. HBS 156.1

Again: the accession of Evil-Merodach was in b. c. 561, and the thirty-seventh year of the captivity was then current. 2 Kings 25:27. Therefore the captivity dated from the year Nisan 598 to Nisan 597. But this was (according to Jewish reckoning) the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings 24:12). His reign, therefore, dated from the year Nisan 605 to Nisan 604. And the first siege of Jerusalem and the beginning of the servitude was in the preceding year, 606-605.—“Daniel in the Critics’ Den,” Sir Robert Anderson, K. C. B., LL. D., pp. 153-157. London: James Nisbet & Co., 1902. HBS 156.2

Daniel, Book of, Unity and Genuineness of.—The question really is, whether there is evidence for the unity of the book of Daniel, and whether there is evidence for the book being genuine. There is no reason to suppose that chapter 11 is not an integral portion of the book, and there is abundant evidence to show that the book is genuine. This being so, therefore, the character of chapter 11 must determine our notions of Biblical prophecy, and not our notions of Biblical prophecy decide, in the face of the evidence, that Daniel 11 is not genuine. There may, however, be much more moral and spiritual interest even in these dry details than we at first suppose, if they really are an indication and evidence of God’s tender and presiding care for his people. HBS 156.3

“On the side of the earlier date (i. e., b. c. 570-536), the external arguments are as follows: HBS 156.4

“(a) The assertion of Josephus (Ant., xi, 8) that Jaddua showed to Alexander the predictions of his conquests in the book of Daniel. But the doubt which rests over the story generally, and the acknowledged incorrectness of some of its details (see Dr. Westcott in Dictionary of the Bible-’Alexander,’ and Lecture xlvii) deprive this allusion of serious weight; and it is difficult not to suspect something of an apologetic tone in Josephus (Ant., x, 11, 7). ‘Methinks the historian doth protest too much.’” HBS 156.5

It is remarkable that in the article of Westcott here referred to, he says, “But admitting the incorrectness of the details of the tradition as given by Josephus, here are several points which confirm the truth of the main fact.... Above all, the privileges which Alexander is said to have conferred upon the Jews, including the remission of tribute every sabbatical year, existed in later times, and imply some such relation between the Jews and the great conqueror as Josephus describes. Internal evidence is decidedly in favor of the story, even in its picturesque fulness.” HBS 157.1

It must not be forgotten, moreover, that Josephus was in no way concerned to maintain the genuineness of Daniel, seeing that Porphyry had not yet denied it. He is therefore, so far, a purely independent witness; does not “protest” at all, but only testifies without design, to the undoubted esteem in which the book was held by his own nation and in his own time. In this respect there cannot well be higher testimony of that age; and it is inconceivable that a book which first started into existence b. c. 165 should have acquired the renown which led Josephus to say of it, “We believe that Daniel conversed with God; for he did not only prophesy of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of their accomplishment; and while the prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to kings and to the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree that, by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the good will of all men; and by the accomplishment of them he procured the belief of their truth, and the opinion of a sort of divinity for himself among the multitude.” Is it likely that the whole nation could have been so deceived by an unknown writer who palmed off upon them his previously unknown production under the name of a man otherwise almost unknown in b. c. 165? ... HBS 157.2

It is only too obvious that men disparage the genuineness of Daniel because of the startling and stupendous narratives it contains. If the book can be reasonably supposed to be of doubtful authority, then it is a simple matter dealing with the marvels recorded, because then they become doubtful too. Miracle and prophecy are alike relegated to the haze of the impalpable obscure, and we are left in the suspense of indecision and the uncertainty of pious sentiment. Whereas, if Daniel is genuine and authentic, then the whole question of the supernatural in prophecy and miracle is determined once for all in a startling and conclusive manner-a consummation by no means to be desired, or, if probable, to be endured [by the higher critics].... HBS 157.3

It cannot be denied that externally there is no evidence whatever of a positive kind against the genuineness of Daniel. What indications there are-for they cannot be called evidence-are of a negative and wholly subjective kind. For instance, the omission of the name of Daniel in Ecclesiasticus, though strange, can be otherwise accounted for than by supposing the book not then known; and if 17: 17 implies a knowledge of Daniel, as it certainly may do, it of course effectually disposes of the argument from, and counterbalances this omission. The book of Baruch, which is probably as old as, if no older than, the late date assigned to Daniel, bears evidence of acquaintance with that book. (See Pusey, p. 361. ¹²) On the other hand, the positive evidence of Josephus being of a purely spontaneous character, as it clearly is,-for he could have had no motive in saying what he said, since he held no brief for Daniel more than any other book of Scripture,-is very strong as evidence of what was and had been the current opinion of the nation. How could he or any one have supposed that the conquests of Alexander the Great had been predicted in Daniel if the book was of the time of the Maccabees? and even if his story about Jaddua is fabricated, what would it have had to rest on if not this general belief?-he could not have fabricated that. HBS 157.4

It will be seen, therefore, that the “arguments” above spoken of, when examined, are virtually insubstantial; and this being so, their “collective weight” cannot be of any consideration in itself, and still less can it lend additional weight to “each argument singly.” We can only conclude that the evidence against the Maccabean origin of Daniel is of an objective character, while the presumptions for it are wholly subjective. HBS 158.1

With regard to the other point, that no parallel instance of detailed prophecy can be adduced from Scripture, this must depend wholly upon our previous verdict on the date of Scripture. If we adopt revolutionary notions about the books, we shall then be careful to make facts bend accordingly; but it must be allowed without now going into these questions, that, taking them as they appear, prima facie, we find the time of sojourn in Egypt was foretold to Abraham, and that this fact was known and remembered at the time of the exodus, and was appealed to, notwithstanding the patent discrepancy on the surface of the narrative; that the destruction of the builder of Jericho was foretold, and likewise the desolation of Jeroboam’s altar, with the name of the king who should accomplish the overthrow of his unauthorized worship; that the name of Cyrus as the king who was to lay the foundation of the temple was twice foretold by Isaiah; and that many of the latter prophecies of Zechariah are hardly less definite than those of Daniel. At all events, in these instances we have examples of the kind of prophecy that astonishes us in Daniel, although there can be no doubt that in him it reaches its climax. To me it seems absolutely certain that there are specimens of prophecy in its predictive aspect in Daniel that no special pleading can set aside or explain; and this being so, it is merely a matter of degree whether we acknowledge more or less. HBS 158.2

It is clear, however, when we take into consideration the several instances named above, we must either admit the force of the cumulative evidence for prophecy, or must suppose that the several books in which these predictions occur were so arranged and modified for the express purpose of presenting that appearance of prophecy which as a matter of fact they do present. Is this consistent, we may ask, not with some particular theory of inspiration, but with the acknowledgment of any such authentication of the Scripture record as would show it to be the medium of a veritable revelation given and not invented? As Dr. Westcott says, “‘Revelation,’ however communicated, is itself a miracle, and essentially as inconceivable as any miracle.” Is there any evidence that such a revelation has been given and preserved, or is the idea essentially erroneous, and as such to be discarded? To me it seems that the Bible as a fact is the permanent obstacle to so discarding it. “The general style of Biblical prophecy” is, per se, as little to be accounted for, if it means what it says, as any actual prediction would be. Before we can implicitly trust any single declaration of Scripture as an authorized, and therefore reliable, assertion,-such, for example, as God is love,-we must admit the possibility of such knowledge being so communicated as to be thereby authorized; but no sooner is this done than it becomes logically conceivable that the method of communication selected for conveying revelation might embrace the agencies of miracle and prophecy; and whether or not this has been the case must be determined by evidence; but if we do not shut our eyes to the evidence for the genuineness of Daniel, which is not fairly to be set aside, we must admit the operation of prophecy in its predictive aspect there.—“Old Testament Prophecy,” Rev. Stanley Leathes, D. D., pp. 268-274. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1880. HBS 158.3

Decretal Letters, Origin of.—Another practice commenced by Syricius, the immediate successor of Damasus, contributed greatly to augment the influence of the Roman See. This was the writing of letters purporting to be expositions of church law. The first of these documents, known as the Decretal Epistles, was promulgated by Syricius in the very beginning of his episcopate. A letter had reached Rome from Himerius, a Spanish bishop, soliciting instruction on various points of ecclesiastical discipline. Damasus, to whom it was addressed, was now dead; but his successor submitted the communication to a meeting of his colleagues assembled, probably, on the occasion of his ordination; and, in a long reply, dictated with an air of authority, Syricius gave specific directions in reference to the several questions suggested by this Spanish correspondent. One of the inquiries of Himerius related to the propriety of clerical celibacy; and it is somewhat remarkable that the earliest decretal letter contains an injunction “forbidding to marry.”-“The Old Catholic Church,” W. D. Killen, D. D., p. 342. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1871. HBS 159.1

Diets, Origin of.—The origin of the diet, or deliberative assembly of the Holy Roman Empire must be sought in the placitum of the Frankish Empire.... The imperial diet (Reichstag) of the Middle Ages might sometimes contain representatives of Italy, the regnum Italicum; but it was practically always confined to the magnates of Germany, the regnum Teutonicum. Upon occasion a summons to the diet might be sent even to the knights, but the regular members were the princes (Fürsten), both lay and ecclesiastical.... The powers of the medieval diet extended to matters like legislation, the decision upon expeditions (especially the expeditio Romana), taxation, and changes in the constitution of the principalities or the empire. The election of the king, which was originally regarded as one of the powers of the diet, had passed to the electors by the middle of the thirteenth century.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VIII, art. “Diet,” pp. 211, 212, 11th edition. HBS 159.2

Diets, Nature of.—Great political affairs were settled at the diets. These constituted the center of legislation and general administration. Here was the imperial tribunal, and here the ban of the empire was pronounced, which latter was the political counterpart of ecclesiastical excommunication. Thus the imperial constitution was, to quote from Ranke, “a mixture of monarchy and confederation, the latter element, however, manifestly predominating.” One evidence that such was the fact is furnished by the great importance of the imperial cities: these, like the princes, sent their envoys to the diets, and, conjointly with the former, opposed a compact corporation to the power of the emperor.—“History of the Reformation,” Dr. K. R. Hagenbach, Vol. I, p. 31. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1878. HBS 159.3

Diets of Worms.—Worms, Diets of, were meetings of the representatives of the old German Empire which met at Worms. In 1495 the emperor asked for the aid of the empire for an expedition to Italy, and agreed to allow the proclamation of a perpetual public peace in consideration of the establishment of a tax, called the common penny, upon all property, and of a poll tax. The diet also recognized the Imperial Cameral Court, which was to have supreme jurisdiction in cases between the states of the empire, and power to pronounce the ban of the empire. HBS 159.4

In 1521 a still more famous diet met here. It had to consider: (1) Measures to stop private war; (2) the appointment of a government during the emperor’s (Charles V) absence in Spain; (3) the attitude to be adopted toward Luther; (4) the French war; (5) the succession to the hereditary dominions of the Hapsburg house in Germany. The Edict of Worms was issued by the diet which met in 1521. The Pope had issued a bull against Luther, who came to Worms under a safe-conduct, but refused to recant. On April 19, 1521, Charles V declared him a heretic, and in May the diet condemned him and his party.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. XII, art. “Worms,” pp. 641, 642. HBS 160.1

Donatists, Schism of.—The Donatists were the first Christians who separated from the church on the ground of discipline. The church had hitherto been rent and torn by heresies, such as Gnosticism and Manichaism, which had affected doctrines; but the schism of the Donatists was due to objections to the discipline of the church, and became the parent and pattern of all schisms due to a similar cause. It is important to remember that Donatism was not heresy, as the word is ordinarily understood. All heretics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all schismatics are not heretics; and the Donatists themselves protested, with justice, against being considered heretics.—“A Dictionary of Christian Biography,” Smith and Wace, Vol. I, art. “Donatism,” p. 881. London: John Murray, 1877. HBS 160.2

Donatists, Origin of Name.—The Donatists were a puritan party, very like the Novatianists some fifty years before, who held extreme doctrines with reference to those who had lapsed in persecution. They took their name first from Donatus of Casa Nigra, who impugned the elevation of Caecilian to the bishopric of Carthage in 311, and secondarily from a greater Donatus who succeeded Majorinus as schismatic bishop.—Id., art. “Constantine the Great and His Sons,” p. 639. HBS 160.3