網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

stance admitted both by Eichhorn and de Wette. These reasons are, we think, sufficient, without appealing, as Pareau does, to the Jewish tradition, that the sacred books were secured by Jeremiah before the burning of the temple, and entrusted to the care of Daniel.

VII. The lavish expenditure of signs and wonders, without any apparent object, has been carped at as unworthy of the Deity.

It is worthy of remark, that one of those who urge this difficulty, has supplied an answer. This is Griesinger, who innocently observes, that no better reason seems assignable for all these miracles, than a disposition to exalt Jehovah above other gods! Can a better be desired? It is true, the adversaries still object, cui bono? We need only condense. our author's three replies into as many sentences. the faith and hope of the exiles might be maintained. 2. That a way might be opened for their restoration. 3. That the heathen might be awed into forbearance and respect towards God's peculiar people.

1. That

VIII. It is alleged, that the book contains historical inaccuracies. The grossest of these is said to be the statement in the first two verses in the eighth chapter. Bertholdt's objections are that Elam is mentioned as a province of the Babylonish empire, in which Daniel acted as a royal officer, (v. 27) whereas it was a province of the Median empire, as appears from Isaiah, xxi. 2, and Jeremiah, xxv. 5. 2. That a palace is spoken of at Shushan, whereas the palace there was built by Darius Hystaspis, as appears from Pliny.† 3. That the name Shushan itself, (which signifies a lily) was not given until long after Darius, and was intended to express the beauty of the edifices which that prince erected.

To these objections, Dr. H. replies: 1. That the subjection of Elam by the Chaldees is predicted by Jeremiah (xlix. 34,) and the fulfilment of the prophecy recorded by Ezekiel, (xxxii. 24.) The prediction quoted by Bertholdt, (Jer. xxv. 5.) represents Elam, not as a province of Media, but as an independent monarchy, and intimates its overthrow. prophecy was uttered in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, that of Daniel in the third of Belshazzar's. But even admitting the assertion of the adversary, there is no departure

* Die zwecklose Verschwendung von Wundern. Bertholdt. + Hist. Nat. vi. 26.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

from the truth of history. Daniel was at Shushan only "in a vision," as appears from a strict translation of the passage. The scene of his vision, so to speak, was there, because Shushan was to be the capital of the empire whose fortunes he foresaw. 2. Pliny's statement as to the building of the palace, and indeed the whole city, by Darius Hystaspis, is contradicted by all Greek and Oriental writers, who represent it as extremely ancient. 3. Athenæus and others state that the city was called Shushan, from the multitude of lilies growing in that region, a fact reconcilable with any date whatever.

Another passage which has been objected to, is what de Wette calls the laughable description (in ch. vi.) of a lion's den like a cistern, with a stone to close the orifice. We know nothing about the lion's dens in that part of the world; but we know, that in Fez and Morocco, they are subterraneous, and that criminals are often thrown into them.* Who knows how large the stone was in the case before us?

A third objection of the same kind is, that Belshazzar is represented (Dan. v. 11, 13, 18, 22,) as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas, according to profane historians, he was his fourth successor. No fact is more familiar, than that father denotes an ancestor, son a descendant.

The other historical objections which our author notices, are, that Cyaxares II. is by Daniel called Darius-and that in the first verse of the first chapter, Jerusalem is said to have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar, in the third year of Jehoiakim, while it appears from Jer. xlvi. 1, that the battle of Carchemish, which must have preceded that event, occurred in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and from Jer. xxv. 1, that this same fourth year was the first of Nebuchadnezzar. Our author's solution of these difficulties carries him so far into minutiæ that we can neither follow copy nor abridge his argument. Suffice it to say, that it is wholly satisfactory, and exhibits in a strong light his critical sagacity, his learning, and his judgment.

IX. The inconsistencies and contradictions charged upon the book of Daniel by Bertholdt, as shown by our author, and indeed admitted by most later writers, to be merely apparent, it would, in truth, be passing strange, that so

* See the accounts quoted by Jahn (Archaol II. 2. p. 355) and Rosenmüller, (Arc. N. Morsenland, iv. 10845

ingenious an impostor should have been betrayed into gross self-contradictions. The last verse of the first chapter has been represented as at variance with the first verse of the tenth, as though the former intimated that he lived no longer! A similar objection has been founded on Belshazzar's not knowing Daniel (v. 14,) who had been exalted to such honour by Nebuchadnezzar (ii. 48, 49,) a circumstance explained by the very characters of the prophet and the king, which were too opposite to admit of intimacy. Daniel would naturally stand aloof from so debauched a court.

Again, the indefatigable adversary asks, how could Nebuchadnezzar be ignorant (iii. 14) whether the Hebrews served his God, when he had himself (ii. 47) acknowledged their's to be a God of Gods and Lord of Lords? This inconsistency, as Dr. H. observes, is chargeable not upon the sacred writer, but upon the heathen king. His former acknowledgment resulted not from a change of heart, but from astonishment and terror a distinction which the psychology of rationalists knows nothing of. The same may be said of the objection started to the diverse exhibitions of this same king's character in the first three chapters and the fourth.

X. The next class of objections comprehend those founded on alleged improbabilities and incongruities, more or less minute. Our author, instead of contenting himself with a general refutation or reply to these attacks, very wisely enters into the details, follows the adversary step by step, through each successive chapter, and exposes the futility and falsehood of his arguments. This part of the work, comprising sixty pages of minute discussion, important as it is, we of course must leave untouched. The student who is able to make use of the original, will find himself rewarded for the pains he may bestow upon it; and the English reader will in time, we trust, be furnished with the substance and results, (if not the form) of Dr. Hengstenberg's vindiciæ.

XI. It has also been objected to this book, that opinions and usages are mentioned in it, which are clearly modern, that is of later date than that claimed for the book itself. One instance which has been adduced is Dan. vi. 11: "Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house, and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks to his God as he did aforetime."

Here, says the objector, are allusions to three modern customs-that of praying towards Jerusalem-that of praying thrice a day-and that of having a chamber appropriated to prayer. Our author meets the objections with a negative. That the first was an ancient practice, he thinks, is susceptible of proof from Scripture. The law of Moses required all sacrifices to be offered at the place which the Lord should choose "to put his name there." (Deut. xii. 5, 6.) Prayer would of course accompany oblation. "Their burnt offerings," says the Lord by the mouth of Isaiah, "and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon my altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people." (Isa. lvi. 7.) "In thy fear," says David, "will I worship toward thy holy temple." (Ps. v. 7. cxxxviii. 2.) "I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle." (xxviii. 2.) Now, if in the temple prayer was offered toward the oracle or sanctuary, and in the city toward the temple, surely those who were out of the city, whether far or near, would be likely to offer theirs. toward Jerusalem itself. "If thy people;" says Solomon in his dedicatory prayer, "go out to battle against their enemy, whithersoever thou shalt send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built for thy name, then hear thou in heaven," &c. (1 Kings, viii. 44.) Nor would the practice cease, because the temple was destroyed. Its very site was regarded by the Jews as holy. "Remember this mount Sion, wherein thou hast dwelt. They have set thy sanctuary on fire," &c. (Ps. lxxiv. 2, 7.)

As to the custom of praying thrice a day, it is so natural, that we find it among those with whom the Jews could have had no intercourse, the Brahmins for example. And what says David? "Evening and morning and at noon, will I pray and cry aloud." (Ps. Iv. 17.)

As to the third particular, it rests upon mere assumption. There is nothing said about a chamber used exclusively for devotional purposes; and if there was, there can be no ground for the assertion, that this was an invention of the later Jewish formalists. Our Lord commands his disciples to go into their closets, and not to pray in public, like the Pharisees. (Matth. vi.) On the other hand, David "went up to the chamber over the gate," if not to pray, at least to vent his grief, (2 Sam. xviii. 33,) and Elijah went "into a loft" and "cried VOL. IV. No. I.-H

unto the Lord." (1 Kings xvii. 20.) Was this a modern pharisaical invention, as affirmed by Bertholdt?

The advice of Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, (iv. 27,) is represented by Bertholdt as ascribing an efficacy to alms-giving, which was never dreamed of in the days of old. He translates the verse-"Buy off (compensate or atone for) thy sins by gifts, and thy guilt by doing good to the poor. Dr. Hengstenberg shows clearly that the true sense is that which our own translation gives-"Break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor." The adversary has the credit, therefore, not of the objection only, but of the fault objected to!

A similar objection has been raised by Gramberg, in relation to the doctrine of meritorious fasting, as implied in ch. ix. That religious fasting was a most ancient usage of the Jews, any compend of biblical antiquities will show. That the popish notion of merit should be found in a passage where such words as these occur-"we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great mercies"-argues something rather worse than inadvertence in the caviller who finds it there.

Our limits will not suffer us to enter into an examination of the other alleged anachronisms, which our author mentions. They relate to allusions which the prophet makes to the dispersion of the Jews, the reign of Messiah, and the ministry of angels. This portion of the work is very interesting, as it furnishes the author with an opportunity of showing how impossible it is to understand or explain the Scriptures on the principles of rationalism, and at the same time how clear a light is shed upon the Old Testament, by a simple reception of the doctrine that it all has reference to a promised Saviour.

XII. No ground of objection has been more insisted on, than the extraordinary precision of the prophecies of Daniel as to time, place, and circumstances-a peculiarity which, it is said, distinguishes it wholly from all other prophecies.

The substance of our author's very copious refutation is, that circumstancial accuracy is not confined exclusively to Daniel's prophecies; in proof of which, he cites many cases from the other prophets that we find condensed and accumulated here, the same sort of predictions which we find de

Dan. ix. 18.

« 上一頁繼續 »