chiefly concerns us in our present investigation; but a general introduction to those which are less familiarly known will not be devoid of interest. As some of the apocalyptic works have confessedly proceeded from Christian authors, it may be as well to observe that only those which appear to be of purely Jewish origin will come. under review. Although in regard to the date of a few of the more important of these a serious difference of opinion exists, it will be seen that we may safely use them as representing one phase of Jewish opinion at the opening of the Christian era; but perhaps it is not always easy to decide how far the sentiments expressed in them. belong to the nation, to a school, or only to the individual author.

We may now proceed to notice the several works a little more in detail.1

SECTION II. The Book of Daniel.

Delitzsch 2 describes the Book of Daniel as 'a book whose genuineness had for nearly two thousand years no other opponent than the heathen scoffer, Porphyry, in his Λόγοι κατὰ χριστιανῶν, but whose spuriousness has, since Semler and Eichhorn, become step by step a constantly less dubious fact to the biblical criticism in Germany which proceeds from rationalistic suppositions.' A wide and difficult discussion is suggested by this quotation; but as good summaries of the arguments on each side are readily accessible, we may here confine ourselves to a

1 On the subject of the above section, see especially Lücke's Versuch einer vollständigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, &c., 2te Aufl. 1852, i. S. 9 sq., and Hilgenfeld's Die jüdische Apokalyptik in ihrer geschi htlichen Entwickelung, &c. (Jena, 1857), Einleitung, S. 1 sq.

2 In his article on the subject in Herzog's Encyklopädie.

3 It may be sufficient to refer here to the article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, by Dr. Westcott, where the literature of the subject is given,

broad outline of the considerations by which the date of the work must be determined.

The supposed acquiescence of two thousand years cannot be accepted as evidence of a questionable fact, but it may readily explain the existence of prepossessions other than rationalistic. Yet this is practically the main evidence on which the Danielic authorship is made to rest. As in so many inquiries, it is unconsciously assumed that a large body of conclusive evidence is ready for use, and that, if only objections can be repelled and difficulties solved, the case is complete. But those who are not under its spell cannot take for granted that the Church is always right except when it can be proved to be wrong; nor can they quietly remove every literary difficulty by the admission of the most stupendous miracles, simply because a work is found within the canon. Now, if we apply to Daniel the same kind of criticism which we should deem conclusive in the case of any extra-canonical book, and by which we actually determine the dates of other apocalyptic works, I think we must accept the judg

to the Introduction to the Book of Daniel, by Mr. Rose and Mr. Fuller, in the Speaker's Commentary, and to the article in Herzog's Encyk., which support the conservative side; and to Dr. Davidson's Introduction to the Old Testament, 1863, and Graf's article in Schenkel's Bibel-Lexikon, which advocate the later date. Some of the more important points affecting the interpretation, and bearing indirectly on the date of the work, will be fully discussed in our second book. For a general view of the book, its merits and its influence, the reader may be referred, anong more recent works, to Kuenen's Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State: translated from the Dutch by Alfred Heath May, 1875, vol. iii. pp. 106–114.

Those who wish to see a full and elaborate defence of the traditional view should read Daniel the Prophet: Nine Lectures, delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With copious notes. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D., &c. 1864. My references will be to the third edition, 1869. This work, written to defend what the author holds as an article of faith, destroys by its fundamental assumption our confidence in its critical impartiality, and repels by its scornful and insulting tone those whom it is meant to convince.

ment of those who believe that it was written in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, about the year 165 or 164 B.C. Dr. Westcott asserts that by this view the whole book is rejected as the work of an impostor.' 1 This is hardly a correct description of the case. If the author deliberately intended to pass off his own production as a genuine composition of an ancient prophet, he no doubt lies open to a charge of imposture; but if, without any such intention, he simply adopted the history and visions of Daniel as a literary vehicle in which to convey his own thoughts, he is not obnoxious to so serious an accusation. If in the present day anyone, with some political purpose, were to write a book entitled The visions of William the Conqueror,' in which the fortunes of the English people were symbolically portrayed, it would be ridiculous to brand him as an impostor. So the authors of the various apocalyptic works, although an uncritical age was sometimes misled by their effusions, are not justly open to a suspicion of wilful deceit. Our modern taste accords little welcome to this kind of literary inventiveness, and our modern strictness may regard it as not altogether permissible; but I can see no reason why it may not have been practised by high-minded and honourable men.

How, then, stand the facts in regard to the Book of Daniel? The work itself, taken as a whole, does not pretend to be written by Daniel. Throughout the first six chapters Daniel is spoken of, like all the other persons who figure in the narrative, in the third person; and the conclusion especially of this section-So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian-has all the appearance of an historical statement made by some later writer. If the book ended here, it would be more reasonably ascribed to

Article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, i. 393.

Nebuchadnezzar than to Daniel, for in iv. 34-37 the story of that monarch is related, without any sign of quotation, in the first person. The second part of the work, containing Daniel's dreams and visions, also begins by referring to the prophet in the third person, and the same style recurs in x. 1. Nearly the whole of this section, however, professes to quote the words of Daniel; for in vii. 1 it is stated that he wrote his dream, and then it is added, Daniel spake and said, "I saw in my vision."" But it is not alleged that what follows is a genuine quotation from an ancient writing, nor is there anything to indicate that it is not the composition of the author of the whole book. We must further observe that it is intimated with sufficient distinctness in the last chapter that the writing had never been heard of before the stirring events which seemed to mark the final crisis in Jewish affairs; for Daniel is desired to 'shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end.'1 This might, however, appear like an endeavour to pass off the portion of the book containing Daniel's visions as a genuine copy of an ancient document which had not hitherto been published. But as it is not asserted that this document was anywhere discovered, or that it had been in anyone's keeping, the statement hardly goes beyond what is allowable to give verisimilitude to the narrative. The work, therefore, even if it belongs to the time of the Maccabees, cannot justly be regarded as a forgery. It unmistakeably suggests the supposition that some later author makes Daniel the spokesman of his own ideas; and we are accordingly at liberty to ascertain his date by reference to the events with which he deals.

Now Daniel's four visions, with the accompanying interpretations, lead invariably to Antiochus Epiphanes,

1 See xii. 4 and 9.

by whom the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of his sanctuary was cast down.' Up to this point the historical details are clearly traced; but beyond it lies only the obscure though glorious future. The dream of Nebuchadnezzar readily yields the same result; and the seventy weeks, though not without difficulties, bring us sufficiently near to the same date, when they are understood as weeks of years. In the case of any other book, if all its correct historical accounts terminated in one point, while everything assigned to a later date was the nebulous creation of religious hope, we should have no hesitation in concluding that this point fixed the precise date of its composition; and till very cogent reasons are shown for departing from this rule, we must accept it as valid in the instance before us. And surely it is not all loss if the work, from being the plaything of pseudoprophets and quasi-interpreters, has found its true place in literature has rewarded the critic's search with the key to its mysterious imagery, and been made to shed a valuable light upon the feelings, convictions, and hopes which animated the patriotic party in one of the most momentous struggles of the Jewish people.

SECTION III. The Sibylline Oracles.

The Sibylline Oracles, as we at present possess them, consist of twelve books of Greek hexameters, besides a few fragments. The contents of these books are very various, but consist for the most part of a description of historical events dressed in the guise of prophecy. There are also predictions of the fate of peoples, cities, and temples, and of an ideal future; and moral precepts and

3 ix. 24 sq. The interpretation of this passage will be fully discussed further on, Book ii. ch. vii.