1227

CHAPTER II.

"THE historical errors" of the Book of Daniel are the first ground of the critic's attack upon its authenticity. Of these he enumerates the following:

(1.) "There was no deportation in the third year of Jehoiakim."

(2.) "There was no King Belshazzar." (3.) "There was no Darius the Mede."

(4.) It is not true that there were only two Babylonian kings-there were five."

(5.) "Nor were there only four Persian kings-there were twelve."

(6.) Xerxes seems to be confounded with the last king of Persia.

(7.) And "All correct accounts of the

reign of Antiochus Epiphanes seem to end about B.C. 164."

Such is the indictment under this head. Two other points are included, but these have nothing to do with history; first, that the decrees of Nebuchadnezzar are extraordinary—which may at once be conceded

and secondly, that "the notion that a faithful Jew could become president of the Chaldean magi is impossible"—a statement which only exemplifies the thoughtless dogmatism of the writer, for, according to his own scheme, it was a "holy and gifted Jew," brought up under the severe ritual of post-exilic days, who assigned this position to Daniel. A like remark applies to his criticism upon Dan. ii. 46—with this addition, that that criticism betokens either carelessness or malice on the part of the critics, for the passage in no way justifies the assertion that the prophet accepted either the worship or the sacrifice offered him.

So far as the other points are concerned, we may at once dismiss (4), (5), and (6), for the errors here ascribed to Daniel will be sought for in vain. They are "read into" the book by the perverseness or ignorance of the rationalists.1 And as for (7), where was the account of the reign of Antiochus to end, if not in the year of his death?

1 As regards (5) and (6), the way "kisses and kicks" alternate in Dr Farrar's treatment of his mythical "Chasid” is amusing. At one moment he is praised for his genius and erudition; the next he is denounced as an ignoramus or a fool! Considering how inseparably the history of Judah had been connected with the history of Persia, the suggestion that a cultured Jew of Maccabean days could have made the gross blunder here attributed to him is quite unworthy of notice.

And may I explain for the enlightenment of the critic that Dan. xi. 2 is a prophecy relating to the prophecy which precedes it? It is a consecutive prediction of events within the period of the seventy weeks. There were to be "yet" (ie., after the rebuilding of Jerusalem) "three kings in Persia." These were Darius Nothus, Artaxerxes Mnemon, and Ochus; the brief and merely nominal reigns of Xerxes II., Sogdianus, and Arogus being ignored-two of them, indeed, being omitted from the canon of Ptolemy. "The fourth" (and last) king was Darius Codomanus, whose fabulous wealth attracted the cupidity of the Greeks.

The statement is one of numerous instances of slipshod carelessness in this extraordinary addition to our theological literature.

The Bible states that there was a deportation in the reign of Jehoiakim: the critic asserts there was none; and the Christian must decide between them. Nothing can be clearer than the language of Chronicles,1 and, even regarding the book as a purely secular record, it is simply preposterous to reject without a shadow of reason the Chronicler's statement on a matter of such immense interest and importance in the national history. But, it is objected, Kings and Jeremiah are silent upon the subject. If this were true, which it is not, it

would be an additional reason for turning to Chronicles to supply the omission. But Kings gives clear corroboration of Chronicles. Speaking of Jehoiakim, it says: "In his days Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, came up, and Jehoiakim became his servant

1 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6.

three years; then he turned and rebelled against him." 1 Daniel 2 tells us this was in his third year, and that Jerusalem. was besieged upon the occasion. This difficulty again springs from the habit of "reading into" Scripture more than it says. There is not a word about a taking by storm. The king was a mere puppet, and presumably he made his submission as soon as the city was invested. Nebuchadnezzar took him prisoner, but afterwards relented, and left him in Jerusalem as his vassal, a position he had till then held under the King of Egypt.

But Dr Farrar's statements here are worthy of fuller notice, so thoroughly typical are they of his style and methods. For three years Jehoiakim was Nebuchadnezzar's vassal. This is admitted, and Scripture accounts for it by recording a Babylonian invasion in his third year. But says the critic

"It was not till the following year, when Ne

1 2 Kings xxiv. I.

2 C. i. I.