began to prophefy in the fifth year of king fthoiachin's captivity, the fon and fucceffor of Jehoiakim, (Ezek. I. 2.) that is eleven years after. When Daniel was first carried into captivity, he might be a youth (4) about eighteen: but when Ezekiel magnified his piety and wifdom, (Chap. XIV. and XXVIII.) he was between thirty and forty: and several years before that he had interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream, and was advanced (Dan. II. 48.) to be ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wife men of Babylon; and was therefore very fit and worthy to be celebrated by his fellow-captive Ezekiel.

2. His fecond objection is, that Daniel is reprefented in the book of Daniel as living chiefly at the courts of the kings of Babylon and Perfia; and yet the names of the feveral kings of his time are all mistaken in the book of Daniel. It is alfo more fuited to a fabulous writer than to a contemporary hiftorian, to talk of Nebuchadnezzar's dwelling with the beasts of the field, and eating grafs like oxen &c, and then returning again to the government of his kingdom. Here are two objections confounded in one. As to

Vindication, p. 3-60.
(4) Prideaux's Connection.

Part 1. Book 1.

the

B 3

(5) Kai

the mistake of the kings names, there are only four kings mentioned in the book of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Darius the Mede, and Cyrus. Of the first and the last there was never any doubt; and the other two may be rightly named, tho' they are named differently by the Greek hiftorians, who yet differ as much one from another as from Daniel. It is well known that the eastern monarchs had several names; and one might be made ufe of by one writer, another by another. It is plainly begging the question, to prefume without farther proof, that Daniel was not the oldest of these writers, and had not better opportunities of knowing the names than any of them. As to the cafe of Nebuchadnezzar, it is related indeed in the prophetic figurative stile. It is the interpretation of a dream, and stript of its figures the plain meaning is, that Nebuchadnezzar fhould be punished with madness, fhould fancy himself a beast and live like a beaft, fhould be made to eat grafs as oxen, be obliged to live upon á vegetable diet, but after fome time should recover his reason, and resume the government. And what is there fabulous or abfurd in this? The dream was not of Daniel's inditing, but was told by Nebuchadnezzar himself. The dream is in a poetic ftrain, and fo likewise is

the

the interpretation, the better to show how the one corresponded with the other, and how the prophecy and event agreed together,

3. He objects that the book of Daniel could not be written by that Daniel who was carried captive in the Babylonish captivity, because it abounds with derivations from the Greek, which language was unknown to the Jews till long after the captivity. The affertion is false that the book of Daniel abounds with derivations from the Greek. There is an affinity only between fome few words in the Greek and the Chaldee language: and why must they be derived the one from the other? or if derived, why should not the Greeks derive them from the Chaldee, rather than the Chaldees from the Greek? If the words in queftion could be shown to be of Greek extraction, yet there was fome communication between the eastern kingdoms and the colonies of the Greeks fettled in Afia Minor before Nebuchadnezzar's time; and fo fome particular terms might pafs from the Greek into the oriental languages. But on the contrary the words in question are shown to be not of Greek but of eastern derivation; and confequently paffed from the east to the Greeks, rather than from the Greeks to the Most of the words are names of mufical

eaft.

inftruments; and the Greeks (5) acknowlege that they received their mufic from the eastern nations, from whence they themselves originally defcended.

4. It doth not appear, fays the objector, that the book of Daniel was tranflated into Greek, when the other books of the Old Testament were, which are attributed to the Seventy; the prefent Greek verfion, inferted in the Septuagint, being taken from Theodotion's translation of the Old Teftament made in the fecond century of Christ. But it doth appear, that there was an ancient Greek verfion of Daniel, which is attributed to the Seventy, as well as the version of the other books of the Old Teftament. It is cited by Clemens Romanus, Juftin Martyr, and many of the ancient fathers. It was inferted in Origen, and filled a column of his Hexapla. It is quoted feveral times by Jerome; and he faith (6) exprefly, that the verfion of the Seventy was repudiated by the doctors of the church, and that of Theodotion fubftituted in the room of it, because it came nearer to the Hebrew verity.

5. It Strabo, Lib. 10. p. 471. Edit. Paris. 1620. P: 722. Edit. Amftel. 1707. Vide etiam Athenæi Lib. 14. p. 625, &c.

(5) Kai Tw Allow Tv Aria ὅλην καθιερώσαντες μεχρι της Ινδιuns, exeider nai to mog μεταφέρεσι. Et cum Baccho totam Afiam ad Indiam ufque confecraverint,magnamquoque (6) Danielem prophetam muficæ parteminde transferunt. juxta Septuaginta interpretes

5. It is objected that divers matters of fact are fpoken of with the clearness of history, to the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, who is very particularly dwelt upon, and that with great and seeming fresh refentment for his barbarous ufage of the Jews: And this clearnefs determined Porphyry, and would determin any one to think, that the book was written about the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, the author appearing to be well acquainted with things down to the death of Antiochus but not farther. But what an argument is this against the book of Daniel? His prophecies are clear, and therefore are no prophecies: as if an all-knowing God could not foretel things clearly; or as if there were not many predictions in other prophets, as clear as any in Daniel. If his prophecies extend not lower than the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, his commiffion might be limited there, and he would not go beyond his commiffion. But it hath been shown, and will be shown, that there are feveral prophecies in Daniel relating to times long after the death of Antiochus, and these

:

Domini Salvatoris ecclefiæ non legunt, utentes Theodotionis editione quod multum a veritate difcordet, et recto judicio repudiatus fit. Hieron. Præf. in Dan. Vol. 1. p. 987. Judicio ma ftrorum ecclefiæ editio eo

prophecies

rum [LXX] repudiata eft, et Theodotionis vulgo legitur, quæ et Hebræo, et cæteris tranffatoribus congruit. &c. Comment. in Dan. IV. Col. 1088. Vol. 3. Edit. Benedict.

(7) Josephi