student of Josephus cannot fail to see that his history is partly derived from sources other than the Book of Daniel. And besides all this, he would have had the Book of Ezra, which records how Darius the Persian issued an edict to give effect to the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the Temple, and also the prophecies of Haggai and Zechariah, which bring this fact into still greater prominence. It may safely be averred, therefore, that no intelligent schoolboy, no devout peasant, in all Judah could have been guilty of a blunder so gross and stupid as that which is attributed to this "holy and gifted Jew," the author of the most famous and successful literary fraud the world has ever seen! The "sheer blunder" theory may be rejected as sheer nonsense.

Accepting, then, for the sake of argument, the pseud-epigraph theory of Daniel, the book gives proof of a definite and wellestablished historical tradition that when

Cyrus conquered Babylon, "Darius the Mede received the kingdom." How, then, is that tradition to be accounted for? The question demands an answer, but the critics have none to offer.

44

CHAPTER IV.

"THE philological peculiarities of the book" constitute the next ground of the critic's attack on Daniel. "The Hebrew" (he declares) "is pronounced by the majority of experts to be of a later character than the time assumed

for it." The Aramaic also is marked by idioms of a later period, familiar to the Palestinian Jews.1 And not only are Persian words employed in the book, but it contains certain Greek words, which, it is said, could not have been in use in Babylon during the exile.

1 The opening passage of Daniel, from c. i. I to c. ii. 3, is written in the sacred Hebrew, and this is resumed at c. viii. I and continued to the end. The intervening portion, from c. ii. 4 to the end of c. vii., is written in Chaldee or Aramaic.

Here is Professor Driver's summary of the argument under this head :—

"The verdict of the language of Daniel is thus clear. The Persian words presuppose a period after the Persian Empire had been well established: the Greek words demand, the Hebrew supports, and the Aramaic permits, a date after the conquest of Palestine by Alexander the Great (B.C. 332). With our present knowledge, this is as much as the language authorises us definitely to affirm."1

Now, the strength of this case depends on the point last stated. Any number of argumentative presumptions may be rebutted by opposing evidence; but here, it is alleged, we have proof which admits of no answer : the Greek words in Daniel demand a date which destroys the authenticity of the book. Will the reader believe it, that the only foundation for this is the presence of two words which are alleged to be Greek! Dr Farrar insists on three, but one of these (kitharos) is practically given up.

The story was lately told that at a church 1 The Introduction, p. 476.

bazaar in Lincoln, held under Episcopal patronage, the alarm was given that a thief was at work, and two of the visitors had lost their purses. In the excitement which followed, the stolen purses, emptied of course of their contents, were found in the bishop's pocket. The higher criticism would have handed him over to the police! Do the critics understand the very rudiments of the science of weighing evidence? The presence of the stolen purses did not "demand" the conviction of the bishop. Neither should the presence of the Greek words decide the fate of Daniel. There was no doubt, moreover, as to the identity of the purses, while Dr Pusey and others dispute the derivation of the words. But in the one case as in the other the question would remain, How did they come to be where they were found?

The Talmud declares that, in common with some other parts of the canon, Daniel was edited by the men of the Great Synagogue-a college which is supposed to have