« PreviousContinue »
like the first-the Law-as to the number of books in each, ever since the division was made; that the same number of books, and the same arrangement, have been found which existed in the time of Josephus ; and that no causes have ever operated since to produce a change in the arrangement; for if this is not so it would be fatal to the objection. But this can never be shown to be true. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that the contrary is true, and hence the objection is without
not so bile produce phones and have been rame number cach, over
that the But, are strong po
B. There are strong positive arguments to show that the fact that Daniel, in the later divisions of the Hebrew books, is placed in the list of the Hagiography or Kethubim, is no argument against the genuineness and authenticity of the book.
(1.) There is every presumption that in the earliest arrangement of the books of the Old Testament, the book of Daniel, with several that now occupy the same place in the Talmudical arrangement, was ranked with the second class—the Prophets. This presumption is founded, mainly, on what is said of the division of the books of the Old Testament by Josephus. It is true that he has not enumerated' the Books of the Old Testament, but he has mentioned the division of the books in his time, and, of course, in earlier times, in such a way as to make it morally certain that Daniel was not in the third class, but in the second class—the Prophets. His account of this division (Against Apion, b. 1, $ 8) is as follows: “We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arranged against each other, but only two and twenty books, containing the history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine (the old editions of Josephus read merely, which are justly accredited'-deia (divine) comes from Eusebius' translation of Josephus, in Ecc. Hist. iíi. 10]; and of these, five belong to Moses, which contain both the laws, and the history of the generations of men until his death. This period lacks but little of 3000 years. From the death of Moses, moreover, until the reign of Artaxerxes, king of the Persians after Xerxes, the prophets who followed Moses have described the things which were done during the age of each one respectively, in thirteen books. The remaining four contain hymns to God and rules of life for men. From the time of Artaxerxes, moreover, till our present period, all occurrences have been written down; but they are not regarded as entitled to the like credit with those which precede them, because there was no certain succession of prophets. Fact has shown what confidence we place in our own writings. For although so many ages have passed away, no one has dared to add to them, nor to take anything from them, nor to make alterations. In all Jews it is implanted, even from their birth, to regard them as being the instructions of God, and to abide steadfastly by them, and if it be necessary to die gladly for them.” Prof. Stuart's translation, ut supra, pp. 430, 431.
Now, in this extract from Josephus, stating the number and order of the sacred books in his time, it is nceessarily implied that the Book of Daniel was then included in the second part, or among the “Prophets.” For (a) it is clear that it was not in the third division, or the Hagiography. Of that division Josephus says, “The remaining four contain hymns to God, and rules of life for men.” Now we are not able to determine with exact certainty, indeed, what these four books were, for Josephus has not mentioned their names, but we can determine with certainty that Daniel was not of the number, for his book does not come under the description of “hymns to God," or "rules of life for men.” If we cannot, therefore, make out what these books were, the argument would be complete on that point; but although Josephus has not enumerated them, they can be made out with a good degree of probability. That the “hymns to God” would embrace the Psalms there can be no doubt; and there can be as little doubt that in the books containing the “rules of life for men,” the Proverbs would be included. The other books that would more properly come under this designation than any other, are Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon, (see the full evidence of this in Prof. Stuart, ut supra, pp. 256-264); at all events it is clear that Daniel would not be included in that number. (6) There is evidence, then, that Daniel was included at that time in the second division—that of the Prophets. Josephus says that that division comprised “thirteen books," and that Daniel was included among them is evident from the rank which Josephus gives to him as one of the greatest of the prophets. Thus he says of him (Ant. b. x. ch. xi.,) “ He was so happy as to have strange revelations made to him, and those as to one of the greatest of the prophets; insomuch that while he was alive he had the esteem and applause both of kings and of the multitude; and now he is dead he retains a remembrance that will never fail. For the several books that he wrote and left behind him are still read by us till this time, and from them we believe that he conversed with God; for he not only prophesied of future events, as did the other prophets, but he also determined the time of
him (Ant. " made to him, that while be of the
kings and thend on that accouwhile prophet;
their accomplishment. And while prophets used to foretell misfortunes, and on that account were disagreeable both to the kings and the multitude, Daniel was to them a prophet of good things, and this to such a degree, that, by the agreeable nature of his predictions, he procured the good-will of all men; and by the accomplishment of them he procured the belief of their truth, and the opinion of a sort of divinity for himself among the multitude. He also wrote and left behind what evinced the accuracy, and undeniable veracity of his predictions." From this it is clear that Josephus regarded Daniel as worthy to be ranked among the greatest of the prophets, and that he considered his writings as worthy to be classed with those of the other eminent prophets of his country. This is such language as would be used in speaking of any ancient prophet; and, as we have seen that the Book of Daniel could not have been of the number mentioned by him in the third class; “those containing hymns to God and rules of life for men;" it follows that it must have been ranked by Josephus in the second division—that of the prophets. It does not seem easy to suppose that there could be clearer proof than this, short of direct affirmation. The proof that he regarded Daniel as belonging to this division of the books, is as clear as can be made out from his writings in favor of Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Ezekiel.
(2.) If Daniel had this rank in the time of Josephus, then it would follow that in the division of the books of the Old Testament, as referred to by the Saviour, (Luke xxiv. 44,) he must have had this rank also. There can be no doubt that Josephus expresses not his own private judgment in the matter, but the prevailing opinion of his countrymen on the subject. Josephus was born, A. D., 37, and consequently he must have uttered what was the general sentiment in the time of the Saviour and the apostles; for it cannot be supposed that any change had occurred in that short time among the Jews, by which Daniel had been transferred from the third division to the second. If any change had occurred in the arrangements of the books, it would have been, for reasons which are obvious, just the reverse ; since the predictions of Daniel were at this time much relied on by Christians, in their arguments against the Jews, to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. We may regard it as morally certain, therefore, that in the time of the Saviour, Daniel was ranked among the prophets. It may be added here, also, that if Daniel had this rank in the estimation of Josephus, it may be presumed that he had the same rank when the division of the sacred books is referred to in the only other two instances among the Jews, previous to the composition of the Talmud. In both these cases there is mention of the triplex division; in neither are the names of the books recorded. One occurs in the “Prologue of the Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach,” in the Apocrypha. This prologue was probably written about 130 B. C.; the book itself probably about 180 B. C. In this Prologue the writer mentions the divisions of the sacred books three times in this manner : “ Since so many and important things have been imparted to us by the Law, the Prophets, and other [works of the like kind which have followed, for which one must needs praise Israel on account of learning and wisdom; and inasmuch as not only those who read ought to be well-informed, but those who are devoted to learning, should be able to profit, both in the way of speaking and writing, such as are foreigners, my grandfather, Jesus, having devoted himself very much to the reading of the Law, the Prophets, and the other books of his country, and having acquired a great degree of experience in these things, was himself led on to compose something pertaining to instruction and wisdom, so that those desirous of learning, being in possession of these things, might grow much more by a life conformed to the law. Ye are invited, therefore, with good will, and strict attention, to make the perusal, and to take notice whenever we may seem to lack ability, in respect to any of the words which we have labored to translate. Not only so, but the Law itself, and the Prophets, and the remaining books, exhibit no small diversity among themselves as to the modes of expression.”
The other reference of the same kind occurs in Philo Judæus. He flourished about A. D. 40, and in praising a contemplative life, and in giving examples of it, he comes at last to the Therapeutæ, or Essenes, and in speaking of their devotional practices, he uses this language: “In every house is a sanctuary, which is called sacred place or monastery in which, being alone, they perform the mysteries of a holy life; introducing nothing into it, neither drink, nor bread-corn, nor any of the other things which are necessary for the wants of the body, but the Laws and oracles predicted by the prophets, and Hymns and other writings, by which knowledge and piety are increased and perfected.” There can be no reasonable doubt that precisely the same division of the books of the Old Testament is referred to in each of these cases, which is mentioned by Josephus. If so, then Daniel was at that time reckoned among the Prophets. (3.) He certainly had this rank among the early Christians, alike in their estimation of him, and in the order of the sacred books. It happens, that although Josephus, the son of Sirach, and Philo have given no list of the names and order of the sacred books, yet the early Christians have, and from these lists it is easy to ascertain the rank which they assigned to Daniel. “Melito places Daniel among the Prophets, and before Ezekiel. The same does Origen. The Council of Laodicea places Daniel next after Ezekiel, and, of course, among the Prophets. The same do the Canones Apostol., Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturæ in Athan. The Council of Hippo, like Melito and Origen, place it before Ezekiel, as also does Hilary; and Rufinus places it next after Ezekiel. Jerome alone, in giving an account of the Rabbinical usage in his day, puts Daniel among the Hagiography; and after it he puts Chronicles, Ezra, (with Nehemiah) and Esther.” Prof. Stuart, ut supra, p. 284.* The Talmud thus stands alone, with the exception of Jerome, in placing Daniel among the books constituting the Hagiography; and Jerome, in doing this, merely gives an account of what was customary in his time among the Jewish Rabbins, without expressing any opinion of his own on the subject. These testimonies are sufficient to show that Daniel was never placed in the division composing the Hagiography, so far as can be proved by the Son of Sirach, by Philo, by Josephus, by the Jews in the time of the Saviour, or by the Christian writers of the first four centuries; and, of course, until it can be demonstrated that he was thus classified, this objection must fall to the ground. But,
(4.) The fact that Daniel occupied this place in the divisions made of the books by the later Jews, can be accounted for in a way perfectly consistent with the supposition that he wrote at the time when the book is commonly believed to have been composed. For,
(a) The reason which they themselves give for this arrangement is, not that his writings were of later date, but some fanciful view which they had about the degrees of inspiration of the prophets. They say that the Books of Moses take the precedence above all others, because God spake with him mouth to mouth; that the prophets who came after him, whether sleeping or waking when they received revelations,
• The lists of the books, as given by these writers and councils, may be seen at length in Prof. Stuart, ut supra, Appendix, pp. 431-452.