In regard to the objection, it may be observed, that it is so vague and indefinite that it scarce needs a reply. The opinions which prevailed in the East on the subject of the gods, is so little known now that it is impossible to demonstrate that such an opinion as this might not have existed in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, and impossible to prove that such views as would have suggested this expression did not prevail before the time of Seleucus Nicator. Indeed, it is not easy to show that such language as is here ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar would have been more likely to have been suggested by the views of mythology that prevailed in Greece, and that were spread abroad in consequence of the difference of Greek opinions in the East, than by the views which prevailed in Babylon in the time of the exile. But it may be more particularly observed in reply to the objection,

(a) That according to Gesenius (Thes. p. 237), this language, as used by Nebuchadnezzar, is such as would properly denote merely one of the gods, or one in the form of the gods; that is, one who resembled the gods-in the same way as the phrase "son of man" denote a man, or one in the form and appearance of a man. Perhaps this was all that was meant by Nebuchadnezzar; at least that is all that can be demonstrated to have been his meaning, or all that is necessarily implied in his words. But,

(6) There were opinions which prevailed in Chaldea on the subject of the gods which would fully justify the use of such language. That they regarded one portion of the gods as descended from another, or as begotten by another; that they looked upon them as constituting families, in a way similar to the Greeks, and particularly that they regarded Bel, their supreme god, always accompanied by the goddess Mylitta, as the father of the gods, has been abundantly demonstrated. On this point,. see Gesenius, Com. zu. Isai. ii. 332, seq. (Beylage § 2, Gottheiten der Chaldäer), and Creuzer, Symbolik, on the word Mylitta, i. 231, ii. 331, 333, 350, 460. The idea of derivation, descent, or birth, among the gods, was one that was quite familiar to the Chaldeans, perhaps as much so as to the Greeks. fact, this has been so common an opinion among all polytheists, that it is rather to be presumed that it would be found everywhere among the heathen than otherwise.

In

The other objection on this point is derived from what is said of the Watchers, ch. iv. 13, 17. The objection is, that there are betrayed here traces of a later Parsish-Jewish representa

tion; that is, that this indicates that the book was composed in later times.

Perhaps the probability that such a term would be used in Babylon is all that is necessary in answering the objection. But, in addition to this, an observation of Diodorus Siculus may be introduced here. We copy it as we find it in Gesenius, Com. zu. Isa. vol. ii. pp. 333, 334. Diodorus is speaking of the sun, moon, and five planets as adored by the Chaldeans, and adds, "To the course of these stars, there are, as they say, thirty others that are subordinate, which are represented as divine counsellors (Soi Borraía consulting gods, as we would say,) of whom one half has the supervision of the regions under the earth; the other half has the supervision of things on the earth, among men, and in heaven. Every ten days is one of them sent as a messenger of the stars from those above to those below, and from those below to those above." This quotation will render it unnecessary to say anything more as to the question, whether it is improbable that such language would be used by one residing in Babylon in the time of the exile. It is to be remembered that this is language which is represented in a dream, as having been addressed to Nebuchadnezzar, and the quotation proves that it is such language as would be likely to occur to the king of Babylon, in the visions of the night. It was such language as he must have been accustomed to, and so far is the use of this language from being an objection to the genuineness of Daniel, that it might rather have been urged as a proof of it, since it is not probable that it would have been used by one who was not familiar with the customary ideas of the Chaldeans.

(2.) The other form of the objection derived from the statements respecting the angels in the Book of Daniel, refers to the opinions held among the Hebrews themselves. The general objection is, that these are representations respecting the ranks, and orders, and names of the angels, which pertain only to later times in the history of Jewish opinions, and which did not exist in the period of the exile. This objection divides itself into several specifications, which it may be proper to notice briefly in their order.

(a) One is, that there is in the book, and particularly in ch. viii. 16, an allusion to the Persian doctrine of the seven Amhaspands, or angels that stand before God, and that this idea is found only in times later than the exile. Bertholdt, p. 528.

To this the answer is obvious: (1.) That there is no manifest allusion to that Persian doctrine in the book, and no statement

which would not as readily have been made if that doctrine had no existence; since it is a mere representation of angels with certain names, and with no particular reference to the number seven; and (2.) if this were so, it is certain that this representation occurs in the Zendavesta, and the Zendavesta was composed in a distant antiquity, probably long before the time of the exile, and certainly before the time of Alexander the Great. See Creuzer, Symbolik, i. 183, seq., and the authorities there referred to. This, then, if it were true that the doctrine of the seven Amhaspands is found in the Book of Daniel, and was derived from the Zendavesta, or the Persian, would remove the objection so far as to show that the book was composed before the time of Alexander the Great, or at least that there is no reason, from this quarter, to suppose that it was written afterwards. But the truth is, that the doctrine respecting angels and intermediate beings, was so prevalent all over the East, that this objection can have no solid foundation.

(b) It is objected, that there are found in this book representations of the angels, in reference to their ranks and orders, which are opinions of the Jews of a later age, and which did not exist in the time of the exile, and that, therefore, the book had a later origin than the captivity. (Bertholdt.)

To this it is sufficient to reply, (1.) that such a representation of ranks and orders of angels is implied in Isa. vi. 1, seq., in the account of the Seraphim, a representation which supposes that there are angels of exalted rank and names; (2.) That there are traces of such an opinion in much earlier ages, as in Psa. cxxiii. 20; lxviii. 17; (3.) That this representation of differences in the ranks of angels is one that prevails in the Old Testament; and (4.) That, for anything that appears, all that is implied in Daniel may have been a matter of common belief in his time. There is nothing in the book which would indicate any very definite arrangement of the angels into orders, though it is evidently implied that there are different degrees in the ranks of the angelic hosts, (ch. x. 5, 13, xii. 1,) but this was a common opinion in the East, and indeed has been a common sentiment where a belief in the existence of angels has prevailed at all.

(c) It is objected that names are given to the angels-the name of Gabriel and Michael, and that this is indicative of a later age. To this, also, it may be replied, (1.) That long before this we find the name Satan given to the leader of evil angels, Job i. 6, and there is no presumption against the belief

that names may have been given to good angels also; (2.) That even if the practice had not prevailed before, no reason can be assigned why the angels who appeared to Daniel may not have assumed names, or been mentioned under appropriate titles to designate them, as well as those who appeared in after times; and (3.) for anything that appears, the fact that names were given to the angels among the Jews of later times may have had its origin in the time of Daniel, or may have occurred from the fact that he actually mentioned them under specific names. (d) A similar objection is, that the statement in ch. vii. 10, that "thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him," is also a statement that had its origin in the representation of a Persian court-in the numbers that stood round the throne of a Persian monarch, and that this indicates a later age, or a Persian origin. To this objection it is sufficient to refer to Isaiah, vi., and to the other representations of the same kind abounding in the Scriptures, in which God is described as a magnificent monarch attended and surrounded by hosts of angels. The same objection would lie against them which is urged against the account in Daniel. See particularly Job i. 2; 1 Kings, xxii. 19-22; Deut. xxxiii. 2; Ps. lxviii. 18.

(e) Another objection from the representations of the angels, is derived from what is said of their interposition in human affairs, and their appearing particularly as the guardians and protectors of nations, in ch. x. 12, 20; xii. 1, which it is said indicates opinions of a later age. In reply to this, we remark that no one can demonstrate that that idea may not have had an existence as early as the time of the exile. Indeed, it was a common opinion in ancient times-an opinion whose origin no one now can determine-an opinion whose correctness no one can disprove. That this was a prevailing idea in ancient times, is admitted by Bertholdt himself, pp. 32, 33, 705-707.

In general, therefore, it may be remarked respecting the objections derived from the angelology of the Book of Daniel, (a) that there may be things occurring in the book which were suggested by opinions prevailing in Babylon and the East; (b) that the statements in Daniel-the revelations made to him as an eminent prophet-may have been the germ of the opinions which prevailed among the Jews in later times, developments of which we have in the books of the Apocrypha, and in the later

Rabbinical writings. If so, the objection derived from the angelology of the book is entirely unfounded.

B. The second objection derived from the alleged reference to later customs and opinions, is founded on the Christology of the book, or the doctrine relating to the Messiah. The objection is, that the ideas which are found in the book belong to a later age; or that in the time of the exile none such exist in the genuine writings of the prophets, and that consequently the book must have been composed when those later views had come to prevail. The views referred to as the ground of the objection, are found in ch. vii. 13, 14, and xii. 1-3. This objection, thus stated by De Wette, has been expanded by Bertholdt and others, and properly embraces, as stated by them, four specifications, which it will be convenient to notice in their order.

(1.) The first is, that in the time of the exile, the doctrine of the Messiah had not become so developed that it was expected that he would appear in glory and majesty, and set up a kingdom upon the earth, as is implied in ch. vii. 13, 14. See Bertholdt, p. 31.

In reply to this, all that is necessary to be said is, to refer to the prophecies in the other portions of the Old Testament, whose antiquity and genuineness are undoubted. In the prophecies of Isaiah, there are predictions of the Messiah as clear, as definite, as distinct, as any that occur in Daniel; and no one can compare the prophecies found in other parts of the Old Testament with those found in Daniel, and determine by any internal evidence that one class must have been written before, and another after, the time of the exile. Besides, why may not the predictions, under the spirit of inspiration, have been more clearly communicated to one prophet than to another-to Daniel than to Isaiah? And why may not some circumstances respecting the Messiah and his reign have been made to one, rather than to another? If it be admitted that all that occurs in the first part of Isaiah (chs. i.—xxxix.) was actually revealed to him, and recorded by him, previous to the exile, there can be no difficulty in admitting that what is found in Daniel may have been communicated and recorded at the time of the exile. In proof of what is here said, it is only necessary to refer to Hengstensberg's Christology, vol. 1. The Messianic prophecies there collected and illustrated, Gen. iii. 14, 15, ix. 26, 27, xlix. 10, Num. xxiv. 17, Deut. xviii. 15-18, Ps. ii. xlv. cx. xvi. xxii. Isa. ii.—iv. vii. xi. xii., furnish statements as clear, in many