the idiom of the times. Thus in vi. 8, 12, 15, we have the Medes and Persians; but after Cyrus comes to the throne, the order is invariably Persians and Medes. So in the Book of Esther, the law of the Persians and Medes shows the same change of usus loquendi. Would a Pseudo-Daniel have been likely to note such a small circumstance?

"It is also noted (Dan. v. 31), that when Darius took the kingdom, he was threescore and two years old. From his history, his reign, and his descent from Ahasuerus (ix. 1), this seems altogether probable. But no other author states his age. The fact that it is done in Daniel, betokens a familiarity of the writer with the minutiae of his history. So does the mention, that in the first year of his reign, Daniel took into most serious consideration the prophecy of Jeremiah, respecting the seventy years' exile of the Hebrews.

“Thus far, then, all is well. All seems to be in conformity with true history, so far as we can ascertain it. It is not upon one or two particulars that we would lay stress. We acknowledge that these might have been traditionally known, and accurately reported. It is on the tout ensemble of the historical matters contained in the book, that stress is to be laid. And certainly it would be very singular, if all these circumstances should be true and consistent, and yet the book be written in the Maccabaean period.

"How is it with the best historical books of that period? The first Book of the Maccabees is, in the main, a trustworthy and veracious book. But how easy it is to detect errors in it, both in respect to geography and history! In vii. 7 it is related that the Romans took Antiochus the Great prisoner, alive. But this never happened. They gained a great victory over him, and took away many of his provinces; but he himself escaped their grasp. In vii. 8 it is said, that they took from him the land of India, Media, and Lydia. But neither India nor Media ever belonged to him. The efforts to show that Mysia was originally written instead of Media, are of course but mere guesses; and if true, India still remains. More likely is it that the author himself put Media for Mysia, and if so, then this does not mend the matter. In vii. 9, 10, it is related, that 'the Greeks resolved to send an army to Rome and destroy it; but that the Romans learning this, sent forth an army, who slew many, carried away numerous captives of their women and children, laid hold of their strong places, and took possession of their lands, and reduced the people of Syria to servitude

unto this day.' Now nothing of all this ever happened. There was indeed a fracas between the Aetolians and the Romans at that period; but it was soon made up, without any ravages of war, or any servitude. Further, the author, in vii. 15, represents the Roman Senate as consisting of 320 members, continually administering the government. He goes on to state (v. 16), that they choose a ruler annually, and that all obey this one. Every tyro in Roman history knows how unfounded all this is. And what shall we say of the very first sentence in the book, which tells us, that Alexander, the son of Philip, smote Darius, king of the Persians and Medes, and then reigned in his stead over Greece? In i. 6, he states that the same Alexander, about to die, made a partition of his empire among his chiefs-a thing that took place some considerable time afterwards, partly by mutual agreement, and partly by force. In vi. 1 he makes Elymais a town instead of a province.

"Such are some of the specimens of this writer's errors in geography and history. That he was a grave, enlightened, and veracious writer, in the main, is conceded by all. But if in things so plain, and transactions so recent, he commits so many errors as have been specified, what would he have done, if the scene had been shifted from near countries to the remote places where the Book of Daniel finds its circle of action?

"As to the second Book of the Maccabees, it is so notorious for errors and mistakes, that very little credit has been attached to it, on the part of intelligent critics. It is not once to be named, in comparison with the Book of Daniel. It must have been written, when a knowledge of historical events was confused, and at a very low ebb. The Book of Tobit, which originated in or near the Maccabaean period, exhibits not only a romantic, and, as it were, fairy tale, but contains historical and geographical difficulties incapable of solution; also physical phenomena are brought to view, which are incredible. It is needless to specificate them here. De Wette's Einleit. presents them, § 309.

"We have dwelt hitherto, mainly on things of a historical nature, i. e. events and occurrences. Let us now examine a number of things that are of a miscellaneous nature, which it would be somewhat difficult, if not useless, to classify throughout, but most of which are connected with manners, customs, demeanor, etc.

"(m) Daniel makes no mention in his book, of prostration before the king, in addressing him. O king, live for ever! was

the usual greeting. Arrian (iv.) testifies, that the story in the East was, that Cyrus was the first before whom prostration was practised. It is easy to see how this came about. With the Persians, the king was regarded as the representative of Ormusd, and therefore entitled to adoration. Nebuchadnezzar was high enough in claims to submission and honor; but not a word of exacting adoration from those who addressed him. How could a Pseudo-Daniel know of this nice distinction, when all the Oriental sovereigns of whom he had any knowledge had, at least for four centuries, exacted prostration from all who approached them?

"(n) In mere prose (Dan. i. 2), Babylon is called by the old name, Shinar (Gen. xi. 2, xiv. 1); and as an old name, it is poetically used once by Isaiah (xi. 11), and once by Zechariah (v. 11). Now Shinar was the vernacular name of what foreigners call Babylonia; and it was easy and natural for Daniel to call it so. But how or why came a Pseudo-Daniel to such a use of the word? Babylon he would naturally, and almost with certainty, call it.

"(0) Dan. i. 5 tells us that the Hebrew lads were to be fed from the king's table. Such a custom, even in respect to royal prisoners, Jer. lii. 33, 34, discloses. Among the Persians this was notorious, and extended to the whole corps d'elites of the soldiery. Ctesias tells us, that the king of Persia daily fed 15,000 men. How came the late writer of Daniel to be acquainted with a minute circumstance of the nature of that before us?

"(p) Daniel and his companions receive Chaldee names, some of which are compounded of the names of their false gods. In 2 Kings xxiv. 17, Nebuchadnezzar is reported to have changed the name of king Mattaniah into Zedekiah. How did the late forger of the book come by the notion of assigning to his Hebrew heroes the names of idol-gods? The rigorous attachment to all that was Jewish, and the hearty hatred of heathenism by all the pious in the time of the Maccabees, makes it difficult to account for his course.

"(q) In Dan. ii. 1, the Babylonish mode of reckoning time is introduced, viz., the second year of Nebuchadnezzar. Where else, unless in Ezek. i. 1, is this employed? How came the late interpolator of the sacred books to betake himself to this mode of reckoning; and especially since it apparently contradicts i. 1, v. 18? See the solution of the difficulty, in Exc. I. p. 19, seq.

"(r) In Dan. ii. 5, iii. 29, one part of the threatened punishment is, that the houses of the transgressors should be turned into a dung-hill, or rather a morass-heap. Here an intimate acquaintance with the Babylonish mode of building is developed. The houses were mostly constructed of sun-baked bricks, or with those slightly burned; and when once demolished, the rain and dew would soon dissolve the whole mass, and make them sink down, in that wet land near the river, into a miry place of clay, whenever the weather was wet.

"(8) In Dan. iii. 1, the plain of Dura is mentioned; a name found nowhere else, yet mentioned here as a place familiar to the original readers of the book, inasmuch as no explanation is added. Whence did the Pseudo-Daniel derive this name?

"(t) In Dan. ii. 5, and iii. 6, we find the punishment of hewing to pieces and burning in ovens mentioned. Testimony to such modes of punishment may be found in Ezek. xvi. 40, xxiii. 25, and Jer. xxix. 22. But such a mode of punishment could not exist among the Persians, who were fire-worshippers; and accordingly in chap. vi. we find casting into a den of lions as substituted for it.

"(u) In Dan. iii. we find not only a huge idol (in keeping with the Babylonish taste), but also a great variety of musical instruments employed at the dedication of it. Quintus Curtius has told us, that when Alexander the Great entered Babylon, 'there were in the procession singing Magi... and artists playing on stringed instruments of a peculiar kind, accustomed to chant the praises of the king.' (v. 3.)

"(v) According to Herod. I. 195, the Babylonish costume consisted of three parts, first, the wide and long pantaloons for the lower part of the person; secondly, a woollen shirt; and thirdly, a large mantle with a girdle around it. On the cylinder rolls found at Babylon, Münter (Relig. d. Bab. s. 96) discovered the same costume. In Dan. iii. 21, the same three leading and principal articles of dress are particularized. Other parts of clothing are merely referred to, but not specificated; but these garments being large and loose, and made of delicate material, are mentioned in order to show how powerless the furnace was, since they were not even singed. How did a Pseudo-Daniel obtain such particulars as these?

"(w) Dan. vi. 16 shows, that the regal token of honor bestowed, was a collet or golden chain put around the neck. Brissonius, in his work on the Persian dominion, has shown the

same custom among the Persian kings, who, not improbably, borrowed it from the Babylonians.

(x) In Dan. vi. 8, the laws of the Medes which change not' are mentioned. In Esth. i. 19, and viii. 8, we have repeated mention of this same peculiar custom. The reason of this probably was, that the king was regarded as the impersonation of Ormusd, and therefore as infallible.

(y) In Dan. vii. 9, we have a description of the divine throne as placed upon moveable wheels. The same we find in Ezekiel i. and x.; which renders it quite probable, that the Babylonian throne was constructed in this way, so that the monarch might move in processions, with all the insignia of royalty about him.

"(z) It deserves special remark, that Daniel has given individual classifications of priests and civilians, such as are nowhere else given in Scripture, and the knowledge of which must have been acquired from intimate acquaintance with the state of things in Babylon. In Dan. ii. 2, 10, 27, the various classes of diviners and literati are named. In Dan. iii. 2, 3, the different classes of magistrates, civilians, and rulers, are specifically named. On this whole subject, I must refer the reader to Exc. III. on the Chaldees, p. 34, seq. above. Whence a Maccabaean writer could have derived such knowledge, it would be difficult to say. It is one of those circumstances which could not well be feigned. Several of the names occur nowhere else in the Heb. Bible, and some of them are evidently derivates of the Parsi or Median language; e. g. vg in vi. 3, a name unknown in the Semitic. On the other hand, several of them are exclusively Chaldean; e. g. Dan. iii. 3,

of which no profane writer has given the least hint. How came the Pseudo-Daniel to a knowledge of such officers?"

The evidence that the book is a genuine production of the Daniel of the captivity, may be summed up now in few words. There is (1), on the face of the book, the testimony of the writer himself to his own authorship-good evidence in itself, unless there is some reason for calling it in question or setting it aside. There is (2) the fact that it was early received into the canon as a part of the inspired Scriptures, and that it has always been, both by Jews and Christians, regarded as entitled to a place there. There is (3) the express testimony of the Saviour that Daniel was a prophet, and a clear reference to a part of the prophecy by him, as we have it now in the Book of Daniel. There is (4) the testimony of writers who lived before